The 17% Conundrum: Issues vs. Partisan Politics

In politics, nobody likes to be in the minority. It suggests the majority is correct. In politics, as with most things in life, the majority frequently prevails. The conundrum is when an equal number exist on opposite sides, then the remainder decides the outcome. This group often views their votes not as allegiance to a party as much as to an ideal.In Congress equality can create checks and balances that tend to limit corruption and benefit the populace. In election years, this minority decides which candidate will be selected. In business governance this is known as the swing vote and a premium is paid to influence their votes.

In Congress these deciders may expect some earmarks (pork) to influence their vote. When it benefits us they’re a good politician. When it benefits another state – well, you get the idea. In both cases, it’s still our tax dollars being spent. Interestingly, in the Rhode Island U.S. Senate race this undecided minority may represent the same 17% that did not support the winning Democratic primary candidate primary.

The underlying Democratic message bears examination, “We want to oust the GOP from Congress because they are taking us in the wrong direction.” I couldn’t agree more and believe our economic and security issues remain unaddressed. If you’re a good person holding a Congressional seat, as many feel Senator Chafee has been, then it becomes more complicated. His job is to use politics to remain in office, as well as benefit his constituents. Hopefully there is less of the prior and more of the latter. It gets cloudy when the party with which one is affiliated is set on rewarding its benefactors (contributors) and less so with improving the lives of the voters. This cuts both ways with both parties.

In Rhode Island, this presents some stumbling blocks. On few occasions have I heard said our Democrat controlled General Assembly has no room for improvement. Look at their approval rating. The special interests have so lopsided the playing field that the majority (voters) are seldom in the game. They say Democrat Lt. Governor Charlie Fogarty, who I believe is a good man, is the change needed in Rhode Island. This flies against conventional wisdom, as we’d witness the same situation we now have in Congress with no checks and balances. By extension, it infers Governor Carcieri is not a good man or a good governor, but as a Republican he ought to be voted out. Current polls suggest the argument is not persuasive; yet corruption needs to be rooted out.

If state level partisan reasoning was solid, then it bodes well for Senator Chafee to remain in office. Conversely, if it’s flawed and there are no checks and balances in Congress, then a Democrat ought to be elected. This suggests Sheldon Whitehouse, by virtue of being a Democrat, is a better candidate than Lincoln Chafee. Speaking for myself and not for the other 17%, why have both candidates remained silent on real campaign finance reform that would place voters’ interests ahead of special interests? Evident information shows the reasoning used for the war in Iraq was built on lies. Why will neither candidate state what measure of executive accountability should to be applied? When the candidates’ political lifeline prevails over moral courage to act on principle, this is politics at its worse. It’s a detriment to the issues impacting not just the 17%, but the faithful and/or unquestioning 83%.