Slapinions

When I was a kid my Mom bought a copy of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon Days. I never read past the introduction, but something Keillor wrote made an impression on me. He once lost a briefcase full of stories and ideas, never to be seen again, and no matter how he tried he could never reproduce them.

The idea horrified me - after all, I still have some of my own kindergarten worksheets. But sometime in the last five years I suffered the same disaster. Many of my columns on the 2000 election and the events of 9/11 are gone, goodness knows where, lost in one of our moves.

Maybe they were junk better left unread, but I think there’s one post 9/11 piece in particular that deserved to see the light of day.

The point of all this is that I once had a column that explained exactly what I’m going to try to say again today. Maybe I did it better five years ago, maybe not. But hopefully it explains one of my wife’s mythical “Four Statements that Would Cause my Friends to Hate You”.

This one came when she asked who I liked for the election in November.

“Doesn’t matter,” I said. “I’ll vote for whoever has a (R) next to their name. I always vote a straight ticket.”

Yes, Virginia, it’s true. Whenever possible, and without the slightest hesitation, I vote a straight Republican ticket.

Exceptions? Sure. Milwaukee’s a Democratic stronghold and sometimes, unless I want to sit home, I have to choose between Democrat A and Democrat B. There’s also plenty of unchallenged, one candidate races. I can’t leave it blank, so booyah, there’s my vote.

And yes, if a legitimate kook - not as defined by the liberals or mainstream media but a God’s honest sociopath – was in the running, I’d vote the other way. Ditto for a few personalities; I’d have passed on Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

You see, it’s not about some blind allegiance or absolute faith in a platform, it’s about the practical application of political power and the defense of your rights. I learned this lesson from watching the Florida debacle of ’00.

Put aside your personal view of who won/lost Florida, who you yourself voted for, or any emotions about the chaos at the tail end of ’00. What’s relevant to this discussion is the fact that at every turn, at each and every pivotal moment of that month-long argument, it wasmembers of the party, in most cases very minor figures, who safeguarded your rights.

The idea worked for both parties: certainly low-level Democrats were instrumental in announcing the existence of what they believed to be vote count errors, they pushed ahead with numerous recounts (above and beyond what I viewed as reasonable or legal) and taking the long view each and every Florida Supreme Court judge, instrumental in the case, had been appointed by a Democrat. Because those mechanisms were in place defeat was forestalled by more than a month.

[From my personal point-of view these were attacks not only on the validity of the 2000 election, but a dangerous attempt to pre-empt the democratic process. I remember seeing it as a slippery slope that, regardless of the outcome, would lead to years of dissension, mistrust, and bitter and irrational hatred of the winning administration.

Thank heavens that prediction didn’t come to pass, eh?]

On the other side of the coin it was low level Republicans who fought tooth and nail to thwart what they saw as an attack on the electoral college, the voting public, and George W Bush.

It was these folks who provided much needed speed-bumps in the midst of a media storm fascinated with recounts. It was a minor figure in a normally blasé position, Katherine Harris, that stood fast in obeying the letter of the law, calls for her head be damned.

(You don’t think a State Secretary of State is a minor position? Go ahead – name the one in your state. Thought so.)

It was a former Republican Cabinet member who led the legal fight, and a Supreme Court largely appointed by Republican’s who ended the madness.

Without those minor players in Florida the Democrats would have steamrolled recount after recount until the outcome matched what they wanted because with emotions running high, their belief in their Gore’s victory absolute and no one to raise a red flag and stop them, why wouldn’t they?

To me, saying ‘X’ or “Y’ office is a throwaway, something that isn’t worth fighting for or defending, is madness. It’s akin to walking into court without a lawyer, taking a road trip without your mobile phone, or willingly dismissing your constitutional rights.

At the risk of sounding like someone who watched Red Dawn once too often, at some point in the future everything will once again depend on having allies in place. When that moment comes, you better hope they’re there waiting.

Concerned that a straight ticket leaves no wiggle room, no means of checks and balances against producing stagnant or poor leadership? Then get involved in the party. Make sure it understands your views and what’s important to you, and keep it centered -but fluid and willing to change.

Don’t like a candidate? Then fight tooth and nail against him in the primary – that’s what the process is for isn’t it?

Squeamish at the idea of a one-party monopoly? You should be - but it will never come to pass. Lean too far to one party and the country reflexively moves the other way. There will always be members of the other party in office, and that’s good – competition is healthy.

So most of the time I vote for the person with an (R) next to their name. Maybe my wife’s right and that will cost us some friends.

Then again, I have a buddy who would rather vote for the corpse of Lenin than any Republican, the Socialist pig, and neither of our stances has hurt our friendship.

Next up - my choices for the 2008 primaries.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this