|
I'd say Democratic politicians exhibit two really annoying qualities that help them lose votes: First and foremost, some of them vote as if they believe they are corporate lobbyists (see Ben Nelson as a good example). The other less-talked-about quality of some Democrats is their public equivocation on issues in which equivocation isn't appropriate for professional politicians whose whole job entails taking positions on issues.
In Colorado, we have two of the latter in Gov. Bill Ritter and his appointed senator, Michael Bennet.
After dealing with the death penalty as a longtime District Attorney and then gubernatorial candidate, Ritter is nonetheless saying that he hasn't decided whether he will veto a bill repealing Colorado's death penalty if it is approved by the state legislature. Considering Ritter's experience and the prevalence of death penalty debates in politics, it's simply inappropriate for him to say he hasn't made up his mind on the issue.
Likewise, Bennet, who dealt with union-employer issues as a businessman and public school superintendent, is refusing to take a public position on the Employee Free Choice Act. Again, considering his experience and the prevalence of the EFCA issue in Colorado politics during and after the 2008 senate race, it's inappropriate for Bennet to say he hasn't made up his mind.
Indeed, when I use the term "inappropriate" what I mean to suggest is that these two people actually do have positions on these issues because they are such prominent issues, but they inappropriately refuse to disclose those positions to the public. That's really unacceptable in a democracy that relies on the public's representatives disclosing their positions to the public. And politically, it telegraphs fear and weakness.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, Americans are far more prone to electorally reward politicians who take clear positions, rather than politicians who try to avoid taking clear positions out of fear. This is true even on issues that voters may not agree with the politician on. Why? Because we like to elect people who we believe have their own belief system and principles, not people who we believe take given positions only to get reelected. That is, we like to elect people who we see as principled leaders who are seeking public office out of a sense of mission for their principles, rather than people whose only goal is to be in public office, and have no principles. And rightly so.
I think many Democratic politicians from Barack Obama on down have learned this lesson - and I think that is, in part, why Democrats were able to take back the Congress and win the White House. But I also think there remain some Democrats who think the public just loves weak equivocators - even on issues that are so big and central, that it makes no sense for a professional politician to say they have no position on or are still deliberating on.
These Democrats may win a few elections because their Republican opponents have gotten into the habit of taking wildly extreme positions, but when the GOP eventually does regroup and rebrand itself, it is precisely these Democrats who will get mowed down at the polls.
|
STATE BLOGS
