Racing In The Street

The state of New York has some serious problems. The New York State Legislature has been described as the least democratic in the nation, failing to produce an on-time budget in 20 years. Schools across the state face severe budget deficits and possible layoffs of teachers. Upstate cities continue to shed manufacturing jobs, replacing them with low-paying service sector jobs. While these problems linger, at least the statue of the Continental soldier that has stood over Auburn Prison since 1848 will no longer sport an obscene bulge in his pants.

Maybe the same pin-headed bureaucrat in Albany that ordered Copper John's castration can look after the public morals of some other statues in New York. They could start with that saucy tart standing in New York Harbor. "Give me your tired, your poor, your wretched refuse yearning to breathe free." Now there's a girl who just can't say no.

For political junkies, there is a fascinating piece by Louis Menand in the current New Yorker on those voters who are undecided and apolitical. How do these people make up their minds? Unlike policy wonks everywhere, the apolitical do not read position papers, sift through speeches or make any reference to policies that would have an effect on their lives.

The article is unlike the usual "Americans don't know anything" stuff written today. Menand does detail some of the depressing details of American ignorance of their own government and inability to think critically about policy. The story goes further than that. Menand points out that "it's not that people don't know anything, it's just that politics isn't what they know." So how are electoral decisions made by what many political scientists believe is the vast majority of American voters--those with no coherent political philosophy? Menand culls the studies and books written on this issue for the past 40 years and discusses the three most likely theories.

1) It's all a crapshoot. People make their choices based on a wide variety of dimly held ideas that they half-remember from some TV show, civics class or discussion at the checkout counter. It's all random. Bush Sr. doesn't like broccoli? Neither do I. He's my man.

2) The dumb kids copy off the smart kids' test paper. The U.S. is really an oligarchy where the real contest is among the 10% with the brains. The rest take their cues from what they can decipher from the real campaign--images, not policies.

3) The Hamburger Helper theory. Apolitical voters are too busy and disinterested to formulate a closely reasoned position on the election. They use shortcuts. Expert opinions, party affiliations and hunches on the character of the candidate and the condition of the country inform their decisions.

The last theory is popular, because it is the most sympathetic to the disengaged populace. The most optimistic believe that the shortcuts allow enough apolitical voters to make the same decisions that a well-informed voter in their position would make. The truly conservative voters who accidently vote liberal are offset by the liberals voting conservative.

I wish more people were in touch with their inner wonk. However, this would make for a very static electorate. Few well-informed voters would change their minds on voting--particularly in such a polarized election such as Bush v. Kerry. It's a more interesting horserace--but is it a better governed country? Are we truly a democracy if 90% of voters make decisions based on fluff, even voting for those politicians that are diametrically opposed to their own interests?

I recently saw an interview with Michael Moore on Nightline. Ted Koppell was pressuring him to admit that anti-war voters were snuggling up to John Kerry more because they hated Bush, rather than for any belief that Kerry would end the war. While Mike babbled something about Kerry listening to the will of the people and eventually getting out of Iraq, he did admit that "there are a lot of people out there that would vote for their right sock rather than George W. Bush."

I'm one of them. I proudly admit that I am a right-sock Democrat. I am a registered Democrat and have been since I registered for the first time in 1978. However, I am as likely to vote for a third party candidate for President as I am for the Democrat. I voted for Barry Commoner of the here today, gone tommorrow Citizen's Party in 1980 and Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 1996 and 2000. I stayed home and voted for Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88 and Clinton in'92.

When centrist, lily-livered pseudo-Democrats piss me off, I go looking for some lefty champion. But I always run back to the fold when I absolutely, positively have to knock off a real Republican mofo. This is just such a time. Bush must go. Pre-emptive wars, looting the Social Security trust fund, the Orwellian new-speak "Patriot" Act, corporate crony capitalism, trashing the environment etc. I want Bush to be as much of a going concern as Enron.

The Democratic Party doesn't really represent my views. The party is currently beholden to the business-types that fund the campaigns. Real innovative programs to help working folks and lift poor folks out of poverty happen at the grassroots and at lower levels of government. The Democrats are afraid to offend anyone--so they inspire no one. Martin Luther King, Jr. never used a focus group.

I will vote for John Kerry--even while believing everything Ralph Nader says. Because if you don't, you could find yourself or a loved one on the road to Basra (or Damascus, Teheran, Pyongyang etc.)