President Barack Obama says stick with him, print some more money to help pay for expanding government and government will make things better. Republican challenger Mitt Romney says cut taxes, shrink government and the private sector will make things even better than that.
About half the people believe one of them and about half believe the other. The latest polls show the presidential race a dead heat (in the popular vote) with about 7 percent of voters truly undecided. That’s an outrageously low number of undecided voters at this point in a race, especially in a race that is as close as the polls make it appear. But it’s not much of a surprise.
I’m not sure I know anyone whose mind isn’t already made up. That could be a sign of the increased polarization of the country, which fellow pundits write about all the time, or it could be the natural effects of a partisan, two-party system.
For me it’s the latter. In any given presidential election, I might like the qualifications, personality, backgrounds or positions of one party’s candidate or another’s, but I just can’t bring myself to vote for a Democrat for president.
(Editor’s note: We’ll take a brief recess here to allow half the readers out there, the ones who are pretty sure that the entire Morning News staff, myself included, vote the straight Communist ticket to regain consciousness. … OK, we’re back now.)
In the 10 elections in which I’ve voted, I’ve occasionally voted for Democrats for local offices. A couple of times I’ve given Democratic presidential candidates some consideration, most often when I didn’t like the GOP candidate. I thought “Dubya” Bush, was a potential loose cannon, and, in his second term, a certain loose cannon, but I couldn’t pull the Kerry or Gore trigger because both were annoyingly pretentious.
And because of 11,738 other good reasons.
If that seems like an overly precise number for this kind of discussion, it is. But it does stand for something. That’s the number – compiled by several sources – of political appointees, such as judges, U.S. attorneys, assistant super secret department heads and others, that any president can expect to appoint to government. It goes without saying that no president will have enough time to study all those posts and applicants thoroughly, so the party machinery quickly becomes the de facto employment/recruiting office. Even if they had the time, presidents would still need a steady flow of names. Who knows 11,000 people or has 11,000 Facebook “friends?”
So, if a Democrat is elected, all those posts will be filled by Democrats. Some could be highly qualified, but some would also be party hacks. In either case, they are unlikely, en masse, to run their little corner of government the way the president – any president -- wants it run. A really tough, strong-willed president might rein some of this in, but the system works against such an outcome.
This de facto spoils system usually gives me more pause than the relative merits of the two candidates. It is a counterbalance to their moderation that’s required to win a general election and, later, to govern. It’s in the world of appointments that presidents return favors to the various wings – and wing nuts – that make up their party. Most Democratic nominees for the presidency have been centrists, not liberal loons. But they need the loons to get elected, so a few make it into the administration when all is said and done. Republican presidents and nominees have mostly been centrists, or “right centrists,” but they tote their far right baggage into office with them, too. Voters get the president they elect, but they get all his (or her) little “friends,” too.
The presidency is a powerful institution, but the ability of the bureaucracy, which is not directly accountable to the people, rivals it. The department of this and the bureau of that, and especially all those judges and prosecutors, can change a lot of lives.
Generally speaking, those with a Republican philosophy will change them in a way that is more palatable to me than a bunch of Democrats will. The skill, personality or intangibles of a Democratic presidential nominee might overwhelm that some day, but I doubt it.
As my grandma (an FDR Democrat) always said, you can really tell something about people by who their friends are.
Especially when they wind up appointing them to office.
Tucker Mitchell is Regional Editor of the Morning News. Contact him at 843-317-7250 or be email at [email protected].
About half the people believe one of them and about half believe the other. The latest polls show the presidential race a dead heat (in the popular vote) with about 7 percent of voters truly undecided. That’s an outrageously low number of undecided voters at this point in a race, especially in a race that is as close as the polls make it appear. But it’s not much of a surprise.
I’m not sure I know anyone whose mind isn’t already made up. That could be a sign of the increased polarization of the country, which fellow pundits write about all the time, or it could be the natural effects of a partisan, two-party system.
For me it’s the latter. In any given presidential election, I might like the qualifications, personality, backgrounds or positions of one party’s candidate or another’s, but I just can’t bring myself to vote for a Democrat for president.
(Editor’s note: We’ll take a brief recess here to allow half the readers out there, the ones who are pretty sure that the entire Morning News staff, myself included, vote the straight Communist ticket to regain consciousness. … OK, we’re back now.)
In the 10 elections in which I’ve voted, I’ve occasionally voted for Democrats for local offices. A couple of times I’ve given Democratic presidential candidates some consideration, most often when I didn’t like the GOP candidate. I thought “Dubya” Bush, was a potential loose cannon, and, in his second term, a certain loose cannon, but I couldn’t pull the Kerry or Gore trigger because both were annoyingly pretentious.
And because of 11,738 other good reasons.
If that seems like an overly precise number for this kind of discussion, it is. But it does stand for something. That’s the number – compiled by several sources – of political appointees, such as judges, U.S. attorneys, assistant super secret department heads and others, that any president can expect to appoint to government. It goes without saying that no president will have enough time to study all those posts and applicants thoroughly, so the party machinery quickly becomes the de facto employment/recruiting office. Even if they had the time, presidents would still need a steady flow of names. Who knows 11,000 people or has 11,000 Facebook “friends?”
So, if a Democrat is elected, all those posts will be filled by Democrats. Some could be highly qualified, but some would also be party hacks. In either case, they are unlikely, en masse, to run their little corner of government the way the president – any president -- wants it run. A really tough, strong-willed president might rein some of this in, but the system works against such an outcome.
This de facto spoils system usually gives me more pause than the relative merits of the two candidates. It is a counterbalance to their moderation that’s required to win a general election and, later, to govern. It’s in the world of appointments that presidents return favors to the various wings – and wing nuts – that make up their party. Most Democratic nominees for the presidency have been centrists, not liberal loons. But they need the loons to get elected, so a few make it into the administration when all is said and done. Republican presidents and nominees have mostly been centrists, or “right centrists,” but they tote their far right baggage into office with them, too. Voters get the president they elect, but they get all his (or her) little “friends,” too.
The presidency is a powerful institution, but the ability of the bureaucracy, which is not directly accountable to the people, rivals it. The department of this and the bureau of that, and especially all those judges and prosecutors, can change a lot of lives.
Generally speaking, those with a Republican philosophy will change them in a way that is more palatable to me than a bunch of Democrats will. The skill, personality or intangibles of a Democratic presidential nominee might overwhelm that some day, but I doubt it.
As my grandma (an FDR Democrat) always said, you can really tell something about people by who their friends are.
Especially when they wind up appointing them to office.
Tucker Mitchell is Regional Editor of the Morning News. Contact him at 843-317-7250 or be email at [email protected].