This is a fact that many voters seem very resistant to, but it is quite true, and it becomes even more true the larger the governing body a candidate is running for, and the larger the population that governing body is making policy for.
Political scientist Hans Noel explains:
From the MOF point of view, I want to say, no Michael, don’t give in. You want a Republican administration, so vote for the Republican. The person is not even close to as important as the party. Not even close.
Why? Whoever is at the top of the ticket matters a lot, sure, but you can be sure that the rest of the administration will be filled with people from the same party. A party is a coalition. Just as finding the “real Romney” is a fool’s errand, so is insisting that the personality at the top of the ticket be the most importand thing you care about. You have a choice in November between two broad coalitions. One is left-leaning and will pay some attention to progressives but will also bring in moderates of various stripes. The other is right-leaning and will be responsive to the Tea Party and to moderate Republicans. That’s your choice in November. It’s so true that if some wizard blinked and Obama was the Republican candidate and Romney the Democratic candidate, I would switch my vote to stay with my party.
Now, Charney and others may respond, reasonably, that they think the orientation of the parties around their current ideologies is too messed up, and so fighting that orientation is job number one. Charney likes the term “consiberal,” which I think is a muddy concept, but I guess what he’s getting at is that he doesn’t want a Republican Party that is orientated around “conservatism” as an ideology, but something else. Which is simply to say that he (and many others) want a Republican Party that is a coalition with slightly different members, or with a different balance of power among those members.
If you’re basing your vote on whether you think an individual House candidate seems more likeable, rather than which party you want to control the House, you’re doing it wrong. In an ideal political system, the names of House candidates wouldn’t even appear on the ballot, just the party name.
Then what encouragement would you give an aspiring public servant?
I would say pick the party you think is mostly right on most of the issues, and then work to bring the party around to your vision on the issues where you don’t see eye to eye. You see this all the time. Adrian Fenty is a Democrat, but he’s for school choice and value added teacher evaluation, and he used his time in office to persuade more Democrats that these are good ideas, even though the party has traditionally been hostile to them.
You might not find this particular example very inspiring, but the point is that you can be a policy entrepreneur, and use your power to push the party in a direction you like. If you have an idea you think is good, you can use your position to try it out, and then if it works, other people might adopt it.
For activists, the way to change parties is to get involved in them, and try to hand off policy ideas to politicians. American political parties are highly permeable, meaning that it’s really easy for people to get active within the parties, and use volunteering effort as a way to get the ear of politicians on the issues they care about. Politicians are highly responsive to the people who help them get elected.
I disagree. As a female Democrat, I am tired of so-called “Democrats” going around advertising they are Pro-Life and Pro-Gun and saying other things against the platform of my party, thinking it will somehow magically bring them votes.
I tired of the HDCC and other good old boy networks installing these white male business men types into races and kicking good female candidates in the teeth in our primaries and/or the general. Look at the HDCC’s featured candidates this year, barely 20% are female and a good many of those females that are “featured” are incumbents. A lot of good Democratic women are on the ballot but not “featured” by the HDCC, and a lot of other Democratic women either never made it through the primary (good old boys being favored and pushed) or they were challenged off the ballot before they ever got to run at all.
Susan B. Anthony said, “no self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex.”
I agree and will cast my vote for each office accordingly. I will write in a the name of a woman in any race where a good old boy, anti woman candidate is running.
Great points about the good old boy attitude in the Democratic Party. I think that’s a very good case for getting active in primaries, to shape the direction of the party. General elections are about party vs party though, and the Republican Party is clearly worse on gender equality, and women’s health and privacy issues. The point of this post isn’t “shut up and support the party”. It’s that primaries are where you fight the intra-party battles, and then you vote for the better party in the general election.