VIEW FROM THE TREMBITA LOUNGE: Party and personality (09/24/06)

VIEW FROM THE TREMBITA LOUNGE

by Taras Szmagala Jr.

Party and personality

"What in the heck are you doing with THAT?" asked my friend Matt as he sat down next to me at the bar. I had just received the odd little object in the mail, and my attempt to hide it before Matt saw it was unsuccessful.

"It's a bumper sticker I ordered," I said, a bit defensively. "So what?" "So what?" Matt was incredulous - "it's a bumper sticker for Ted Strickland! Don't tell me that you're supporting a Democrat for governor of Ohio ... are you? You? Voting for a Democrat?" I looked Matt straight in the eye with a steely cold gaze and replied with the courage of my convictions: "Maybe ... yeah, maybe I will."

Matt is a principled and dedicated Republican. And like many of my friends, both Republican and Democrat, Matt's political views were well thought out and intelligently reasoned. Debates with Matt never degenerated into labeling or name-calling - he always took the high road, resisting stereotypes and relying instead on ideas and logic.

"Traitor," Matt uttered dismissively. I was taken aback. "Look," he continued, "I know you don't like the Republican candidate this year, but that's not the point. Isn't it you who tells me that the party is more important than the individual? Just because you don't like an individual candidate doesn't mean you turn your back on the party."

Matt was right - in most cases, the party is more important than the individual. After all, an elected official (especially for statewide or national offices) is a product of his or her party first. Presidents and governors don't govern as much as they manage. And who are the managers? Folks they know from their own parties. Decisions are made not by the person we elect, but by the people they surround themselves with. And, like it or not, Republicans surround themselves with Republicans, and Democrats with Democrats.

What's more, in mature political systems like ours, parties make the candidates, not vice-versa. Generally, unless you're a Bush or a Kennedy, politicians are required to pay their dues as a loyal party member at a local level - state representative, mayor, councilman. Only if you perform admirably at that level will a party support your efforts for higher office. It only stands to reason that these candidates, if elected, will owe allegiance to the parties of which they are members.

In my view, it's better that way. Parties are a type of "quality control" - a method by which you know what you're getting. And while the notion of party loyalty may strike one as naïve, or even cynical, consider the alternative - a system in which elections are run more on personalities than on platforms. It doesn't take us long to find such a system - we need only look to Ukraine.

While I'm no expert on Ukrainian politics, it seems to me that voters there are much more personality-driven than party driven. (And given Ukraine's history, one can understand why the concept of "party" - for so long synonymous with totalitarian communism - might not hold much allure.) Sure, Viktor Yushchenko heads a party, as does Viktor Yanukovych. And heck, Yulia Tymoshenko's party is even named after her, lest we be confused as to its platform. But what do those parties really stand for, other than to support the leaders who created them?

We don't know. More importantly, the Ukrainian electorate doesn't know, either. Admittedly, prominent national candidates such as Yushchenko and Yanukovych can be expected to support general positions on important issues. And technically, Ukrainian political parties have policy platforms. But because parties are so weak in Ukraine in comparison to the personalities who run them, those platforms are more aspirational than real. When push comes to shove, I'd wager that most Ukrainian politicians subordinate principle to personality.

"You're following the Ukrainian voter model, Taras," Matt interjected, apparently reading my mind as I wandered off in thought, "and it's not a good one to follow. You really should be loyal to your party." "Loyal to my party?" I replied. "Perhaps my party is not being loyal to me. Quite frankly, it strikes me that the GOP is moving in a direction I don't agree with, and that concerns me." Silence from Matt.

"So," Matt eventually asked, "are you a Democrat now?" "No, I still agree more with the Republican platform than with the Democratic platform," was my honest reply, "but perhaps I am becoming more independent." "Independent?" retorted my friend, "What the heck does that mean?" "It means that while I will generally vote Republican, I will make exceptions." Yeah, it was a weak response, but it was all I had for him. Matt just shook his head.

"Taras, I agree with you that the GOP candidate in Ohio this year is lousy. No doubt about it. But think about the ramifications of your position. Ohio was the swing state in each of the last two presidential elections. If the Democrats take the statehouse this year, that will give the Democratic presidential nominee the upper hand in Ohio in 2008. Oh, and on a local level, just imagine the activist judges that Strickland would nominate to fill Ohio judicial vacancies. The list could go on and on..." Matt was just getting started.

"More importantly, Taras, think about the importance of having a powerful party system. For years now, parties in the U.S. have been losing influence with the electorate. While we think that makes us more 'independent,' what it really does is make us more dependent on the opinions of others. We may say we're going to vote for the best person, but we still rely on outside sources to form our impressions for us." Matt had me confused.

"What do you mean? What outside sources?" I inquired. "Television, of course," said Matt. "Elections are won on advertising now. And that takes money, which we all know is a corrupting influence on our system. When we step into the voting booth and need to make our decision, we've replaced party affiliation with television spots made by slick ad agencies. Is that the way you want our system to work?" Now it was my turn to be silent.

Even as we encourage stronger political parties in Ukraine through numerous U.S. government grants and programs of the United States Agency for International Development the influence of our political parties continues to deteriorate. We're worse off for it. But it shouldn't mean that we always need to check our independence at the voting hall entrance. As Matt paid his check and got up to leave, I found myself staring at that silly bumper sticker, wondering whether my dislike for my party's candidate would trump my belief in the importance of the party system. And I'm still wondering.

Taras Szmagala Jr. may be reached at Szmagala@yahoo.com.

| Home Page |