Remember to update your links! mncampaignreport.com is coming.
But today is a good day for a substantive piece, on a subject that really concerns me: ideological purity in politics. How often have we heard "I'd rather vote Republican than vote for a Democrat who supports (fill in the issue du jour)? How many times has the Sierra Club endorsed Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who is environment-friendly in his own work, but votes in lockstep with the Republican majority in their efforts to install federal judges who routinely hand down bitch-slaps to the environmental protection community?
More locally, we've seen this in relation to two issues - sports stadia for Democrats and abortion for Republicans. "I'd rather vote Republican than vote for a Democrat who supports stadiums"...."I'd rather stay home on election day than vote for a Republican who won't fight against those baby-killers".... sound familiar? Single issue candidates lose, folks. Single issue groups do not win elections, and single issue parties do not survive long in politics. Compare stadiums to education, to health care, to metro transit - vehement stadium opponents on the left would rather have a Republican in charge of those? Compare abortion to taxes, to national security, and yes, to education (Republicans care about it too!) - is turning an incumbent out on his or her ear over that one issue worth risking the middle of the political spectrum voting --gasp-- Democrat?
Unfortunately, I think the blogosphere does little to mitigate this problem; if anything, we tend to worsen it. In a medium that was intended to bring people together, finding our individual voices too often allows us to demand that political leaders convey each of our personal positions, damned be he who disobeys. I'm not saying we should all give up our pet issues - we should push them as hard as we're willing and able to achieve a better future. But to say you'd rather see a member of the opposite party in office solely on the basis of one issue - that's just silly, folks.
But today is a good day for a substantive piece, on a subject that really concerns me: ideological purity in politics. How often have we heard "I'd rather vote Republican than vote for a Democrat who supports (fill in the issue du jour)? How many times has the Sierra Club endorsed Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who is environment-friendly in his own work, but votes in lockstep with the Republican majority in their efforts to install federal judges who routinely hand down bitch-slaps to the environmental protection community?
More locally, we've seen this in relation to two issues - sports stadia for Democrats and abortion for Republicans. "I'd rather vote Republican than vote for a Democrat who supports stadiums"...."I'd rather stay home on election day than vote for a Republican who won't fight against those baby-killers".... sound familiar? Single issue candidates lose, folks. Single issue groups do not win elections, and single issue parties do not survive long in politics. Compare stadiums to education, to health care, to metro transit - vehement stadium opponents on the left would rather have a Republican in charge of those? Compare abortion to taxes, to national security, and yes, to education (Republicans care about it too!) - is turning an incumbent out on his or her ear over that one issue worth risking the middle of the political spectrum voting --gasp-- Democrat?
Unfortunately, I think the blogosphere does little to mitigate this problem; if anything, we tend to worsen it. In a medium that was intended to bring people together, finding our individual voices too often allows us to demand that political leaders convey each of our personal positions, damned be he who disobeys. I'm not saying we should all give up our pet issues - we should push them as hard as we're willing and able to achieve a better future. But to say you'd rather see a member of the opposite party in office solely on the basis of one issue - that's just silly, folks.
