Slanted Viewpoint

It’s the day before the midterm elections and all polls point to a significant gain by Democrats. Control of the House is almost conceded as a certainty. Control of the Senate remains a real possibility.

Still, some doubt lingers. Some of this doubt is due to the fact that the Democrats have seemed on the verge of victory twice before, in 2000 and 2004, only to see it evaporate at the last minute. Of course, many contend that the Democratic presidential candidates did not really lose these elections. Rather, the election was “stolen” by miscounts or outright fraud in key states such as Florida (in 2000) and Ohio (in 2004). WIth the rise of electronic voting machines, that are easily tampered and leave no paper trail, many are worried whether another election may get stolen tomorrow.

Even if the election is 100% legitimate, however, there are still problems for the Democrats to overcome. In particular, there is the gerrymandering of district lines as wel as the various forms of voter intimidation, as nicely summarized in an editorial and a column in today’s New York Times.

This led me to wonder: “What’s going on here? Is all of this vote manipulation really a larger and more serious problem than ever before?”

My answer is: “Yes.” Sure, many of this problems have existed for decades. Indeed, the origin of the term “gerrymander” dates back to the year 1812, as described here. But two things have changed in recent years:

• Technology. Years ago, politicians may have wanted to create the perfect shaped district for ensuring the re-election of the incumbent, but it was hard to figure out exactly what the district should look like. Now, with computers to generate hypothetical results and easily try out different scenarios, it’s as easy as pressing a few keys. Similarly, with email and the Internet, it is much easier to target very large numbers of voters to receive your message than it was years ago.

• Republicans. In the past, there was a line that (at least most) politicians would not cross when deciding how far they could go in carrying out these tactics. To some extent, I imagine the line was determined by a sense of ethics. At least I would like to think so. More realistically, it was also affected by the specter of revenge. That is, whatever you did to your opponent today, your opponent would do to you tomorrow, if and when the tables got turned, as they inevitably would be.

Today’s Republicans seem unfazed by either of these constraints. And this is something new. First, there seems no line they are unwilling to cross. There is no campaign tactic or Congressional action or whatever, that is deemed so extreme as to be avoided. If they believe they can get away with it (and these days, they often can), they do it. Second, the fear of revenge appears tempered by a belief that, if they are really as good at their tactics as they expect to be, the opportunity for retribution will never come — because they will never lose power again.

If this latter expectation were really to come to pass, it would mean the end of democracy as we know it. Without the possibility of meaningful opposition from another party, without the power of voters to remove those currently in office, without Congress acting as a branch of government independent of the executive, we have a dictatorship in fact, even if not in name.

More than any other reason, this is why I hope that the Democrats get back control of Congress tomorrow. If they do, I hope that the Democrats forgo their opportunity at retribution. It’s time to try to break this cycle of each side screwing the other whenever they get the chance. Instead, I hope the Democrats show the country there is a better way to conduct the nation’s business. It may happen. Or it may not. But one thing is certain: It won’t happen if the Republicans win.

Near the end of the film “Primary Colors,” there is a memorable exchange of dialog where a campaign aide expresses his disillusionment with the presidential candidate — because of a morally questionable, although quite legal, act that the candidate makes. The candidate’s response is (I am paraphrasing): “There are all these wonderful things we want to accomplish. Things you support and want to see as much as I do. But we can’t do any of it if we don’t win the election.”

On one level, it sounds like a classic case of the ends justifying the means. And I suppose it is. The question is how far are you willing to stretch the means to get to your end. In the film, it was really a small stretch. So it was easy to support the candidate’s assertion. But what if it had been a bigger one? What if it had been illegal? When does the rationale fall apart?

I think about this a lot as I watch the events surrounding the upcoming election. The Democrats appear poised to take over at least one house of Congress, if they don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (as they have so often done in the past) and if the Republicans are sufficiently stymied in their continuing efforts to manipulate election results to their advantage (i.e., steal the election).

But what then? What will the Democrats in Congress have to do to stay in power? Do they have to keep moving to the right (as the New York Times describes as continuing to occur in the South)? Or can they finally take a position that may be attacked as “liberal” without fearing an automatic loss of their seat?

When your views appear to differ from the majority of your constituents, it seems to me that you have only two legitimate choices: (1) Shift your position to be closer to those of your constituents, as much as you can without abandoning your principles, or (2) Convince your constituents to shift their position closer to yours (or convince them that your positions are in fact closer than they might think).

For too long, Democrats have focused on the first option. And it has gotten them next to nothing. The Republicans still manage to slice-and-dice them at each election. Partly, this is because Republicans often go for yet a third alternative: Denigrate your opponent so vigorously and raise the fear level so high that, at worst, voters see you as the lesser of two evils. They also are extreme advocates of the ‘end justifies the means” approach. It’s not what I recommend Democrats do, though it would be tempting to beat Republicans at their own game.

So I vote for choice #2. With the Republicans in disarray, there has never been a better time in the last 20 years for Democrats to stand up for what they believe, with the conviction that they can convince voters of their views. It isn’t enough to just state your position. You have to be able to sell it! If they can’t do that, perhaps they should lose.

I’m not suggesting a move to the extreme left. Any extreme position is, by definition, extreme and therefore not mainstream. And it won’t win. But I do mean to stop drifting to the right. I want to see Democrats win elections. Badly. I have had more than enough of the results of a Republican Congress and Administration. And, like the candidate in Primary Colors, I am willing to support some stretching in the name of winning. But not much. More importantly, a good candidate should be a leader. He should inspire voters to follow him, rather than just follow the lead of the voters. Part of the Democrats problem have had in recent years is an almost complete failure to have such candidates. If there was ever a time for them, it’s now.

As noted in this CNN.com article, President Bush is quoted as saying: “If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we’re attacked again.”

This is just more of the same fear-mongering, logic-defying, overly divisive language that the Bush administration has been pushing for years. The only sad surprise would be if it is still effective in winning votes.

Here’s why Bush’s quote is so worthy of ridicule:

What Bush is saying is no different than if he said: “The best way for police to protect us from criminals is to arrest them and put them in jail, without a trial and without any means of protesting their incarceration — even before they commit a crime. Democrats want us to wait until they actually do commit a crime. But by then it’s too late!”

Is there any reasonable person who would agree with this idea? I mean other than most of the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration. I certainly hope not. Doing so would violate just about every civil right and due process we have in place in this country. Not to mention, that there is no guarantee that we would not mistakenly imprison innocent people. Heck, we have routinely executed innocent people, even after they get a trial — as DNA testing has now proven. We certainly can’t assume we would never make a mistake about merely putting someone in jail.

Finally, just because the police don’t arrest people whose only crime is that they may be thinking about committing a crime (which, by the way, was the subject of the movie Minority Report, where the idea didn’t work out so well!), doesn’t mean the police sit on their butts and do nothing until a crime is reported. Ideally, they are working night and day to prevent crimes.

In the same way, the Democrats are not suggesting that we do nothing to prevent future attacks — just because they don’t agree with the excesses put forward by the Bush administration. Not even close. Democrats are just suggesting that there needs to be some limit as to how far we can go in this regard. Otherwise, who knows, we may someday start a war based on a completely false assumption, such as the presumed existence of weapons of mass destruction. Let’s all hope that day never comes.