I drank the "We'll show them!" kool aid in 1992
By gensec Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm one of those Republicans who threw away my vote in 1992, because I believed Bush 41 was betraying the Reagan Revolution.
In the current election, we see some comments on this site about voting third party or staying home, to express dissatisfaction with the Republicans' obviously less than stellar performance. Yesterday skymuse posted a blog on the damage done by this kind of attitude resulting in Clinton's 1992 election. I look at a different angle, arguing that even if you believe letting Clinton win in 1992 was appropriate given G.H.W. Bush's capitulations to the Democrats, that kind of reasoning can't justify letting the Democrats win in this election.
Read on ...
There are some morally deluded "protest voters" who think that who wins the election is less important than making a "statement" with their vote. Even in a close election where they believe a victory for the Democratic candidate would be worse for America's well being than electing the substandard Republican, their narcissistic indulgence in getting back at the Republican "traitors" is more important than what's best for our country. That kind of protest voter is too infantile to bother trying to reason with.
A more plausible case can be made for letting the Democrats win, even if you think Republicans would govern somewhat better, if you believe a Republican defeat now will improve our prospects in future elections and/or influence the Republicans to do a better job of governing in the future. In this scenario, you think electing the Democrats now is better for the country in the long run, even if worse in the short run. However if you honestly believe that a Democratic victory now is what's best for the country, your patriotic duty is to vote for a Democrat (if the election is close); throwing away your vote is still an infantile tantrum.
That second protest scenario was my position in 1992. I believed a Bush victory (with Democratic control of Congress as a given) would continue the dismantling of the Reagan Revolution within the Republican party. Along with other complaints, my biggest objections were his capitulation on taxes, and signing the disparate impact "civil rights" bill that created a strong incentive for racial quotas in hiring (along with a legal requirement to call them something other than quotas). I also knew that sooner or later a Democrat would be President, and with all his flaws Clinton was better than anyone else they'd likely nominate - better Clinton in 1992 than a worse lunatic a few years later. (On that count I was right. Would you prefer a President Gore or President Kerry to President Clinton?)
I would have voted for Clinton if the election looked close; since it wasn't close in my state, I indulged in a statement, voting for some Libertarian who's name I don't even remember. I did the same in 1996, because I thought electing the Senator from Archer-Daniels-Midland would entrench the corporate breaks "managed economy" dominance in the Republican party, against the free market advocates. During that period (and since) I voted Republican in almost all other races, federal and local.
Since then I've doubted my choice. On the plus side, Clinton's 1992 victory led to the Republicans taking both houses of Congress in 1994. Maybe the Republicans would have taken Congress eventually, but not in 1992 if there had been a Republican President to blame for whatever was going wrong in the country. Against that we have to weigh the damage done by Clinton where Bush 41 would have made better decisions, as ably described by skymuse.
Even if you think I was right to help Clinton win in 1992, that kind of case can't be made now. Here are some key differences:
We weren't in the middle of a war in 1992 (or at least didn't realize it). A 2006 Democratic victory in one or both houses drastically increases the odds Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists, and will strengthen them around the world. Even if you think a defeat will be good for the Republican party, winning the war first is a more urgent priority than improving the GOP. Even with a Republican majority, every seat that strengthens the Democratic minority makes the war harder and slower to win, costing more American lives (and Iraqi lives and others).
The 1992 Clinton victory improved Republican prospects in the 1994 election, but a Democratic victory in 2006 will improve Democratic prospects in the 2008 election. When Bush 41 was President with Democrats running the Congress, the congressional Democrats ran wild without regard to the damage they did to the country, because they correctly believed swing voters would generally blame the President for whatever went wrong. After Clinton got elected, Democrats had complete control, so in 1994 there was no doubt who to blame for the mess. If however Democrats win in 2006, we would again have the situation Bush 41 faced - Democrats again run wild in Congress, and the mess they create will largely be blamed on the current President Bush. Swing voters will be even more dissatisfied with Republicans, making it easier for Democrats to win both the Congressional and Presidential elections in 2008.
So the bottom line if you live in a district/state where the election is close, you owe it to your country to help elect whichever candidate you think will be best for the country. If you really think a Democratic victory would be good for America, why would you sell out your country for the personal gratification of voting for some third party asterisk, instead of voting Democratic to help America? If on the other (more likely) hand your Republican candidate doesn't measure up to your standards, but you still think America would be better off with him/her in office than the even worse Democrat, voting third-party or staying home would be narcissistic self-indulgence at the expense of our country.
I love the "just get off the fence then and vote dem if that's what you want" approach!
Thanks for the props and links -- I'm glad my post was able to inspire you.
It's good to hear your inner monologue circa 1992, and even better to hear how you've grown past it.
For the record, I was a Libertarian voter myself in 88, 92, and 96. Being in Kansas at the time, it didn't matter but boy howdy my principles were in motion! :-)
I started to reply along these lines in your blog last night, but saw it was getting a little too long for that. By then, the discussion had turned to a few guys baiting mobys, so I joined in the fun and put off this topic until today.
Libertarianism is an interesting moral and philosophical topic to think about, and to some degree its basic principles are a central part of the American way of life (along with endless argument about to what degree). But the Libertarian party just isn't credible either electorally or as a group I'd trust to run the government. So I'm stuck with the Republicans, even if I occasionally rant about what's wrong with the party.
I love the "just get off the fence then and vote dem if that's what you want" approach!
Yeah, that's what the choice boils down to. America would be a lot better off if the Democrats weren't such morons, so it would be safe to occasionally exercise protest strategy 2, slapping some sense into the Republican party by giving the Democrats a victory.
I have to add that purposefully ignoring an election because of some nits you're picking with Republicans is betraying Reagan's revolution.
The GOP is a conservative party, but we need a bigger tent to achieve a governing majority. Without that majority, conservatism is an issue for a discussion group. It must insead be a political reality.
The democrats have nothing like that as they continue to move left, and many are predicting that they will take over both houses of Congress. Perhaps a Big Tent can get too big? An argument can be made that this is exactly why the Republicans are in trouble.
...after the midterms, Bob. Suggesting that the Tent's too big before them - well, let's just say that statements like that can come back to haunt a man.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...had they done anything that anyone in the tent wanted.
I'm with Moe. Our problem right now is not one amenable to pushing folks out of the tent, ok?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I would like to know what message the republicans would take away from a defeat?
Would the take away be that they are too ridgid and need to compromise more with Democrats? Especially since most of the close races are in districts where the Dem candidate is being prtrayed as MODERATE on all issues..taxs, immigration, GWOT, spending , deficits, etc.
One can never know if the MESSAGE that is taken away from a loss is the correct one. Once the elections are concluded MUCH analysis will be provided. I have my doubts that the take away from a loss would be that..oh,we republicans have lost our way as applied to govenment growth, spending, etc.
Why in GOD'S name would R's want the DEMOCRATS to set the agenda in the house for 2 years? Do people know what that means? They propose some measure that may or may not pass..BUT IT GETS INTO THE DICUSSION for the country to think about. PLEASE think about health care. Do people think that most AMERICANS don't want some kind of national health care program? I don't know the REAL answer to that. But LETS LET the DEMS talk about it for 2 years and THEN see how many Americans think its a good idea.
There are SO many issues that the dems will put into play...they are issues involving MORE REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH via taxes. Many Americans (probably most) will think ..ok..that sounds pretty good ot me.. I could go along with that.
WAKE UP ..if we lose this election WE will NOT have an easy time winning back the house(incumbancy and all that). This country is trending D right now. All the new immigrants voting every year. YES LEGAL IMMIGRANTS 1 million more per year ready to vote. They usually start out voting D.
WAKE UP!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOME >>>CUT and RUN Republicans
And incidentally, I was with you on 1992. I think throwing 41 under the bus WAS the right move. I think throwing anybody under the bus in 2006 would be the wrong move, for the reasons you mention.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I'd have a terribly hard time voting for a tax hiking Republican, I could never vote for a Democrat no matter how much he 'feels my pain' and promises to cut taxes, and obviously a vote for crackpot economics is out of the question.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You could've always voted for door #3, the insane guy.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
That's who I was referring to with 'crackpot economics,' heh.
Ah, the Great Sucking Sound. If not for those Dow 30,000 guys, it'd have been the worst economic forecast of the decade.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Don't know how I missed that last part.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
So we should thank you for Clinton, and all the damage he did to this country and the Presidency?
No way was that the right move. No way.
No way we would've seen a majority with 41 still at the wheel. And we would've had a guaranteed loss coming off of 8 years of 41. Was 41 better on anything than Clinton? On judicial appointments, sure. But even on those we have him to thank for Souter. He was lousy on domestic policy. Lousy on foreign policy. What was he good at, again?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sure it could have happened. Gingrich wasn't going anywhere, the end of the north/south Republican/Democrat sectional alignment was still nigh, and there was STILL going to be discontent over tax hikes and corruption in the Congress.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Would be enough to drive even more people away from the Republicans... not a reason to send more of them to Congress. It would've created a whole lot more "there's no difference between the parties, anyway" folks who would stay at home.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
was Andre Marrou, who served in the Alaska state house. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Marrou) As for '96, I'm sure you remember who Harry Browne was.
I have no qualms with either vote, though I might have gone Dole.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
I remember Harry Browne now that you mention the name, but Andre Marrou?? That's who I voted for (along with 0.28% of the electorate)?
It makes me think of some generic movie scene where the guy wakes up with a hangover, is horrified when he looks on the other side of the bed wondering "Was I really drunk enough to do that?"
Don't do it! You'll regret it in the morning!
I voted Bush in '92 because I was clear on how destructive Bill Clinton would be, and I voted Dole in 1996 for the same reason.
The world is now far too dangerous a place to throw away a vote or sit this one out. The chips Ronald Reagan built up were all cashed by Clinton.
I heard a particularly passionate person today say those that sit out may have blood on their hands should a Democrat house and senate treat terrorists the way Bill Clinton did.
I still havent't decided if I disagree with that.
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
Hi my name is Dave, and I didn't vote for President Bush in '92 either. I could not hold my nose and vote for the individual who eventually won...but I did throw away my vote by voting third-party!
If the election of '92 taught us nothing else, it should be abundently clear that we CANNOT throw our vote away ever ever again!
In 92 in knew Clinton was a liar and I got suckered away from GHWB by charts. That was stupid of me. Realistically, there are two choices. And the country is closely divided. The power is ultimately in the Party. Now I realize, on the national level, the individual is important in the primary, after that I've got to choose the Party which achieve, on balance, more of what I want.
Anyway, i appreciate your post!
John E.
I went for Perot in 1992 (although I did consider the Libertarian). I don't regret it for a moment. I actually attended the GOP convention in 1988 and was there when Bush said 'no new taxes'. It wasn't just for that reason that I gave up on him (and he wasn't my first choice in '88 either - that would have been Piere S. 'Pete' DuPont). Apart from his tax thing, the guy was a total Arabist.
Perot might have been nutty, but the fact that he got 19% of the vote despite that showed just how much people cared about the deficit and something did get done. I think voting for Perot was the right choice at the time.
I am voting GOP all the way this year (as usual) with the exception of Katheen Harris - she has totally put me off and I just can't vote for her.
I sit here and look around.....The only thing I can do is think about myself and the circumstances I may find myself in after the election of 2006.
I'm a *minority (*meaning a person of color in this case), I crossed party lines offically in 2002...before that point I was a registared independent (in CA. that's decline to state).
I have always faced pressure from family and well meaning friends to go to the Democrate side, I remember this "I'm a conservative first." Lately the pressure has becoming greater to with-draw from the GOP and leave my conservative ideas behind at this time....but then "I remember what liberal Democrats did to Sen. Liberman."
Despite facing death threats and being told *"I've sold out my soul and shamed my race"(*that's considered the nice comments)...I plan to stand firm even if it means losing my life. This not the time to give up...the good fight is not done.
Us conservatives have to do things little by little not in one day...*liberalism took 40 years to ruin my community. My community is now depeneded on every kind government hand-out, jealous everyone else who works hard for everything they have, the number of my people in prison, ect.!
*Please remember me on election day...Please vote by honoring people like myself who considered are seen as outcast in their own communities. You make me proud if you vote. Our mission is not done...Thanink about the future.
Thank you for cutting to the chase of this whole discussion. It isn't an option to "teach them a lesson" and vote Republicans out of office.
It is necessary that we continue to work within the system, and although they have acted more like democrats than we would like, we need to put the Republican in office, and then communicate vociferously with them as to what our Conservative guts (whether fiscal and/or social conservatives) tells us is the right way for them to act in our behalf.
If we wish to win more to our side, it is not going to be done by compromising our principles; it can only be done by educating others as to what our principles truly are. The Democrats have attempted to mislead by misidentifying our conservative principles, and associating us with the religious zealots who do not necessarily agree with our most basic principles of personal responsibility, although more of them do than don’t, or fiscal constraint of government.
Yes, each election is super important. We must not miss sight of that point.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion.
I voted for Perot. It got me eight years of Clinton.
I hope people who are thinking of sitting out will take notice.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.