After last year’s contentious midterm elections and with the presidential race for 2008 really beginning to ramp up, it seems as if the political atmosphere of this country has grown increasingly partisan. The nature of American politics has become so polarized that we often do not vote for candidates anymore, we vote for party. In fact, I am reminded of something my Catholic high school history teacher told our class one day when speaking about his role as a Republican: “If the presidential election came down to Jesus Christ, Democrat, against Genghis Kahn, Republican, I would contemplate for a moment, and then vote foe Genghis Khan. Though clearly hyperbolic, as I know the man to be religious, this statement reveals something about our country that I will not categorize as necessarily good or bad, but is an undeniable reality. Therefore, as Democrats, we have been trained to despise Republicans as the enemy, to characterize them as evil, and work as hard as we can to keep them from attaining positions of power. However, if we can place down our blinders for a moment, there are instances, though few and often far between, where we can see that Republicans, as well as Democrats, labor for the cause of progressivism in their own right.
In early 2005, my parents, and many members of my small community in Smithfield Township, Pennsylvania, organized an effort, known as The Shawnee Preservation Society, to slow the reckless and environmentally unfriendly over-development of our area and try to create pressure for local politicians to abide by the laws that were created to ensure responsible development. Very quickly, my father, Vincent Della Fera and another Smithfield resident, Brian Barrett ran for the two supervisor positions open in Smithfield. (Within Pennsylvania townships, there are three supervisors who assume both executive and legislative responsibilities within the local government. During this particular year, due to one seat being up for election at its scheduled time and another being put up for special election due the resignation of the previous supervisor, two of the three seats were up for election.)
Mr. Barrett and my father, both Republicans, went on to run on a campaign that emphasized responsible development and environmental conservation. They hoped to remove from power the corrupt businessmen who were not only cutting corners on development laws and building oftentimes sub-standard housing, but also themselves in the elected positions to decide whether or not their own developments were lawful. After a difficult campaign, which included the local Republican leadership rescinding my father’s position as candidate and nominating a pro-development candidate of their own, Mr. Barrett and my father, now as a third party candidate and registered independent, both won their elections and took their places on the Smithfield Board of Supervisors. And, during their time as supervisors, they have enacted laws which protects local wetlands and waterways, strictly enforced already-standing laws regarding property development, strove to enact new laws which will create even more responsible development in the future.
Now, almost exactly two years later, the third seat on the board is up for re-election and the local conservationists and progressives are supporting a Democratic candidate, Christine Griffin, for the third seat. And, although winning the seat may prove more difficult for her than Mr. Barrett and my father, if elected the Smithfield board of supervisors will consist of three first-term supervisors, one Republican, one Democrat, and one Independent, all working towards goals which progressives can value. Smithfield Township, I hope, can then serve as an example that Republicans, Democrats, and others can work together on some if not many issues, in the goal of allowing government and politics to be a place where people can get past their differences and strive to make a notable difference in our society.
I noted while watching the debate last night that Joe Biden seemed to be doing a lot of Hillary Clinton's dirty work for her. He was incredibly outspoken in his criticism of both Edwards and Obama, allowing Clinton to stay mostly above the fray and then twice agreed with answers she provided. Towards the end of the debate, Clinton returned the favor, and agreed with a comment of Biden's, then moments later, he made a semi-awkward, semi-conspicuous plug when he referred to the next President as a "he or she".
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post's political blog The Fix, saw an even bigger trend emerge, and he writes in a blog post today that "The Democratic field split into two factions Tuesday night at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago, with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) on one side and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) on the other."
Cillizza's argument is well-developed and deserves a read!
(And btw, that picture is not even from last night. It just seemed too good to pass up!)
Newflash: A new study from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research "shows young people [are] profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008." The polling also notes that "Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day."
This isn't exactly a shock-- young voters aged 18-29 were the only age segment to favor John Kerry over George Bush in 2004-- but the survey proves what most of us already know: That the mistaken and short-sighted policies of this administration are screwing the next generation, and we're not going to take it in 2008.
Never underestimating the talent of Republicans for seeing only what they want to see, National Review contributor (and former Bush speechwriter) David Frum manages to find the silver lining in the study, noting that "White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points" and somehow blaming the whole thing on... immigration?
Republicans truly have their own reality. You'll have to read it for yourself to believe.
A few ramblings about Monday's YouTube debate:
1) CNN tried hard to play up the "revolutionary" angle, but there really wasn't anything super exciting about the debate. Sure, the moderator was young, hip, sexy (ask any girl I know...) Anderson Cooper, but the debate was basically a town hall format transposed to the 21st century. Questions were, after all, screened by CNN, so nothing revolutionary was going to get through.
2) Instead of revolutionary questions, CNN focused on unorthodox delivery. I'm a huge fan of YouTube humor, and rednecks are funny, but is having people dressed as rednecks really informative in any way, shape, or form? And I'm not going to lie: I cried inside when they had a snowman ask the question on global warming. Here's a surefire way NOT to get one of the most serious issues facing America taken seriously: animatronic snowmen. I can just see Inhofe playing that clip on the Senate floor.
3) As always, the biggest problem was the format. Seven and a half people, standing side-by-side on a stage, delivering their own little 90-second soliloquies with the occasional Anderson-moderated response. Wouldn't it be infinitely more exciting and revolutionary to just let the candidates go at it?
All told, the debate was a huge improvement over the last few, but still left me disappointed-- not in our field, which is by all accounts terrific, but in the media that mangles politics time and time again. Until they get it right, I'm going to go watch Gordon Brown fisticuff his parliament on Question Time.
Cheers!
