'Wasting your vote'?
BONUS: An epidemic of politics plagues the border
We all know this fall’s presidential election could go either way. Polls consistently show both major-party candidates have dismal sub-50% approval ratings, courtesy of the so-called “double haters” that I referenced in last week’s column. In other words, most of America doesn’t want this match-up and would rather see different party nominees — or perhaps the entrance of a viable third candidate.
It’s the latter option that has major-party apparatchiks in a lather, especially Democrats who assume any third-party candidacy will benefit Republicans by taking away votes that rightfully belong to Democrats. Actually, in the case of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., it’s not clear whether he would peel more votes away from Biden than Trump.
I’ve been paying attention to politics since I was a Texas pre-teen in the late 1960s when my late father, by then a died-in-the wool Democrat, preached the virtues of Sen. Eugene McCarthy’s promise to get us out of Vietnam. Dad later volunteered for the 1972 campaign of Sen. George McGovern.
I never bothered to register in either party for reasons I’ve already made clear on this site. This bothers some people who like our system of having mostly binary choices in our state and national elections. In frustration, Democrats and Republicans often ask me if I have any principles at all — to which I reply that the question presumes that the two major parties actually have principles themselves. The notion that they do is easily disproved by looking at their stated desire not to interfere with our lives (except when it suits the two parties’ own policy goals).
At least as far back as the independent presidential bids of billionaire Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, partisans have either told us we will be “wasting” our votes or “Now is not the time for a serious independent bid. The stakes are too high.” We are hearing that battle cry now from the likes of Democrats and former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, who told CNN’s Michael Smerconish last week, “Donald Trump tried to overthrow the federal government ... Don’t risk putting Trump back in the White House.”
Okay, here’s an honest question, albeit a rhetorical one: will there ever come a time when two-party stalwarts like Gephardt throw up their hands and say, “Okay, the stakes really aren’t that high right now. Go ahead and run a credible independent with high name recognition. The country will survive it.”
The sad reality is most Americans agree that the political duopoly that dominates the U.S. electoral landscape should be preserved. They talk a good game about wanting an alternative to Republicans and Democrats, but in the end they stick with the familiar. In the modern era, the only third-party presidential candidate who was awarded any electoral votes was George Wallace, who won five states and 46 electoral votes in 1968.
This year it doesn’t help that the alternatives that have thus far surfaced (e.g. RFK2, Cornell West) are underwhelming at best. No Labels still hasn’t said whether it will put forward a serious contender, though the Wall Street Journal has reported (free link) the name of former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a conservative Republican critical of Trump, is under serious consideration. A former lieutenant governor? No Labels will need to do better.
Oh, and did I mention that RFK2’s short list for VP includes NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers (a vaccine skeptic and Sandy Hook truther) and retired professional wrestler and former independent Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (a former conspiracy theory TV host)? So much for a balanced ticket featuring a sane running mate who compensates for the shortcomings of the presidential candidate himself (e.g. Trump-Pence).
Yuk: politics plagues border policy reform
Count me among those who thought 81-year-old President Joe Biden turned in a strong performance last week in the annual state of the union address to Congress. He did what he needed to do, which was assure most Americans that he is up to the job. In case you missed it, you can view it below. Some Republicans and Trump supporters panned the speech as “angry” and “partisan.” They oughta know. Their guy fits that description virtually every time he opens his mouth.
In impromptu comments during the address, Biden called an undocumented immigrant who charged with kidnapping and murdering Georgia college student Laken Riley last month an “illegal.” Under pressure from progressives who say the term “dehumanizes” those who cross the border illegally, the president later expressed regret.
Maybe the term does dehumanize those who come into the country uninvited. But this just makes immigration advocates look either unserious or oblivious to the suffering of the victim and her family. After all, it was the now-dead Riley who was literally robbed of her “humanity.”
The episode highlights a weakness Democrats face as Biden runs for reelection and Democrats try to maintain control of the Senate and achieve a majority the House this fall. Democrats have largely been in denial over the last three years as cities near the border are overwhelmed by migrants who take advantage of our current immigration law.
The core problem seems to be that Biden and his Homeland Secretary Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended the so-called “remain in Mexico” policy, which forced non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their U.S. court dates regarding their asylum claims. Republicans have been harsh critics of the reversal in policy.
The cancelation of Trump-era policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), is surely a major factor contributing to the surge in migrant traffic overwhelming U.S. border towns. After the cancelation of MPP, migrants are typically admitted to the U.S. and told to return for an asylum hearing later. Most are not heard from again.
Now Biden and some lawmakers wants to tighten border policies and provide $20 billion in emergency spending. The authors of a bipartisan bill in the Senate included Republican James Langford, one of the most conservative members of the Senate. The bill was also endorsed by the labor union representing the border patrol. That union, which would receive $7 billion in new funding, has endorsed Donald Trump, who has since told Republicans in Congress he is against the bill because it would give Biden a boost in an election year.
Both sides are playing politics here. Democrats are taking this crisis more seriously for two reasons: 1) Some southern-state governors began sending migrants to blue states so that progressives up north would share the burden and feel the pain. 2) It’s an election year and Biden and his supporters wanted to render the border crisis a non-issue heading into the fall.
Republicans are not serious about the border crisis because they currently have an opportunity to do something about it, but are balking at action because they would lose a key issue with which to attack Biden and other Democrats in an election year.
The result, evidently, is that nothing will get done to address an urgent issue. Welcome to Washington.
As to “Wasting Your Vote,” I have always been a member of a political party,simply because of Connecticut’s rules for political primaries, that is,in order to participate in a primary the voter has to be an enrolled member of the party.
As to Biden vs Trump, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
And lastly, as to the border,it seems clear to me that the border will not be fixed until the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress (and God knows when that might be). Clearly the Republicans do not really wish to govern, if they did they could have supported the bipartisan border bill.