LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
Party Platforms, Not Labels |
by Peter Rosenstein |
The time has come for us to get rid of the words left and right in politics. They have outlived their usefulness even though it appears the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate just can't let them go. In today's world, the politics of individual members of the House and Senate are usually neither totally left nor right, but represent a combination of views on what people feel is the correct way to move forward on issues of vital importance to Americans.
Rather than these arbitrary labels, it is the party platforms fought over at each political convention every four years that are a much more clear indicator of what issues will be claiming the hearts and minds of the party leadership if they win control of the Congress and/or the Presidency. The terms left and rightor for that matter liberal and conservativeno longer accurately describe any one person's politics. You can be opposed to large federal tax cuts formerly considered a liberal position, but be pro-life. You can be for equal rights for gays and lesbians, but also for massive federal tax cuts formerly considered a conservative position. You can be for free trade, formerly a conservative issue, but fight for federal union workers' rights. What do these combinations make you, right or left, liberal or conservative? We have seen in the last two elections that Americans are evenly split on where they see the country headed and on who should lead us. I believe this is because candidates no longer present themselves on issues as black or white. The grays have emerged in politics. But the press still finds those hard to deal with and easier to label politicians with one-word descriptions. In old parlance, I would be a left leaning liberal democrat. I don't find that particularly insulting, but it really doesn't describe what I think. I worked for Bella Abzug, but disagreed with many of her positions. I am for a strong CIA, believe that surveillance cameras have a place in public spaces, believe that people should be trained and required to work for their public assistance checks, am for reducing the paperwork required of small businesses, and believe that government should be as small as possible and still perform the services we require of it. On the other hand, I am pro-choice, in favor of guaranteeing equal rights for gays and lesbians, for fair bargaining provisions for unions, for guaranteeing a fair and adequate minimum wage, and for guaranteeing adequate health care for all of our citizens. Is this schizophrenic or just maybe the way most Americans look at the world and decide for themselves which issues are important to them? I think most voters find their views of the world, and issues, cross the wide spectrum from left to right and they then decide who to vote for on the few issues that matter most to them. I think that what we need to do on the national level, rather than assign meaningless one-word identifiers to candidates, is spend a little more time looking at the platforms of the parties people choose to associate themselves with. Because the people who control the writing of those platforms every four years are the individuals that will end up being the leaders of their party in the House and Senate, and will win the nomination of that party for President. These platforms are a representation not of everyone in a particular party, but of the people that will lead and control that party. As the Republican Party takes control of both the House and Senate, along with the White House, platform issues suddenly reappear just as they did when Democrats had that control. The party likes to pretend that the platform, after vicious fights, is never looked at again. History shows us that is not true. The winners of the platform fights at the Republican Convention regarding choice, GLBT rights, and other crucial issues, are now the ones that will lead the House, Senate, and White House. Republican candidates across the nation (who ran away or tried not to discuss these issues in the recent campaign in an effort to show that they represented a broad scope of views, as did Democratic candidates) will now face these issues on which their leadership will demand their votes. The election is over and those winning candidates will come back to Washington and vote for the leadership that represented and fought for those issues in the Republican Party platform. A prime example of a candidate who has done this for years is Connie Morella. She lost this time, but won eight terms in the House as a Republican from Maryland who spoke out against the mainstays of the Republican platform each time she was up for election, but then went and cast her first vote each session for the leadership that supported and wrote the platform. Was Morella a liberal or conservative, was she left or right, who knows? It is much more complicated than that. I think the press needs to highlight these platforms more and label individuals less. The public, if given the information it needs, will be able to choose which way they want our country to head and make a more informed decision as they cast their vote for those that will represent them. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 12, No. 15, November 27, 2002. |