You've probably noticed I've been writing a lot about the Republican primary. Why is that? I'm a solid Democrat, and there's no chance I'll vote for a Republican presidential candidate in 2016, so why focus so much on the other side?
Escaping the Echo Chamber
Researchers generally agree that the Internet, combined with a profusion of TV stations tailored to specific political outlooks, has led to increased polarization in our country. When people choose what to read and watch, they tend to choose things they already agree with. Said another way, the Internet allows you to choose your own facts. I worried, especially this early in the race, about retreating into my own partisan hole. The Echo Chamber is the enemy of true clarity. The first few months of the primary season seemed a good time to immerse myself in the Right.
 |
| Judging by my pageviews, I think this blog lives in the middle of this chart. </ennui> |
I figured that by reading about Republicans, and about the differing views among their constituents, that I'd better appreciate views different from my own.
I was heartened by the moderate opinions of candidates like John Kasich. I was interested in Jeb Bush's break with party orthodoxy on immigration. I was appreciative of the party's broad embrace of nuclear power, which I feel is an important tool in our fight against climate change.
Ultimately, though, I was disappointed.
My journey into Republican politics coincided with the rise of Donald Trump. My initial plan was to ignore him, or to write about him only for comic relief. The Republican base, though, has made this very difficult. Not only has Trump's support remained steadfast, his success has caused other candidates to fall off of their positions. Bush fumbled immigration. Lindsey Graham wants to monitor mosques. Scott Walker is going to put up a wall along the Canadian border.
 |
| This is what a border wall with Canada would look like. Probably. |
A future post will explore why I believe Trump's (and Ben Carson's) supporters to be "lunatics", and not just "people with whom I disagree". Regardless, this group's dominance over the Republican political dialog, evidenced by Trump's rise and the reluctance of other candidates to oppose him, has reminded me why I'm a Democrat. My journey out of the echo chamber really did expose me to different ideas, but those ideas were repellent.
Unfortunately, this brings me to the next reason why I haven't been writing about Democrats.
Out of the Frying Pan and Into the 'Meh'
There's another reason why I haven't been writing about Democrats: I'm pretty disappointed with the options. While I've never been a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, I was willing to write it off as a branding problem. Clinton is the most experienced candidate around, and she's generally done a good job on policy. She's just
such.
a terrible.
campaigner.
Benghazi was a fake scandal - a misappropriation of tragedy to score political points. The email thing is more legitimately troubling, though by itself shouldn't be a huge deal. My problem is that Clinton has mishandled the whole thing. Rather than killing the issue early on, she's allowed the scandal to linger and build. Whether she's telling truth or not, she seems like she's lying. That's a big problem, and may continue to be a problem in the General Election.
Who else is there?
Bernie Sanders has been on the rise for months, and he obviously engenders enthusiasm from his constituency. I, too, agree with many of his policy positions, but I disagree with him on things like trade and energy policy. Protectionism never seems to work; I'm unconvinced that we can keep "good jobs" in America by restricting free trade. I've never been too sympathetic to unions, though I understand why they were important in the Prohibition era. Sanders is against nuclear power, even though it is the most available, scalable, technology to combat climate change. I can't pretend to understand the problem the Black Lives Matter people have with Sanders, but that's still been going poorly.
Sanders doesn't come off as Presidential, and that does matter. Worse, Sanders is unelectable. I certainly don't care that he's a Socialist, but I bet that many American voters will. The Republican party once succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word that Democrats ran away from. Imagine the field day they'll have with Socialist.
Martin O'Malley does look like a President, but his rationale for running has never been clear. He wanted to run to Clinton's left, but Sanders ruined that. He had a good record as Governor of Maryland, but a series of setbacks have reduced his momentum (his Lieutenant Governor losing the election, unrest in Baltimore, increased scrutiny on his policing policy). O'Malley doesn't seem like the next great hope of the Democratic party.
Joe Biden is considering a run too. I like Joe Biden. He used to ride a train to work every day. Biden isn't meaningfully different from Clinton, though. He lacks some of her baggage, but he's got substantially the same policies. Seems like a good emergency option, but I just don't see him adding anything to the race.
Al Gore is someone I'd be extremely excited about. The environment is among my highest priorities, and there's no candidate I'd trust more than Gore to move us in the right direction on that. There was a brief rumor he was considering a run, but it seemed to die quickly.
 |
| Al Gore will protect us from all threats |
I'll get more into the Democratic policy picture in my next post. Ultimately, I'm sure I'll support the nominee, regardless of who that is, since I broadly agree with the whole group on the major planks of their platforms. I worry about my enthusiasm being low, though. If I am not enthusiastic about these people, then who could be?
