Blast from the [electoral] past

In November 2012, my sister invited me to write a guest column for her (now defunct) social work blog. As we approach another presidential election, I present - unedited and in its entirety - my postmortem analysis of the last one:

            Although my undergraduate education doesn’t always prove useful in my everyday life, it has afforded me an invitation to write this guest column about our recent election.
            The most unfortunate result of my political science studies is an acute frustration with the general public’s regard for our political process. Americans of all stripes get entirely hot and bothered every four years when we need to elect a president. This isn’t surprising considering the president is our country’s head of state and most visible citizen. Nonetheless, so much more is involved in federal governance.
            With regard to the office of the presidency itself, the man (or, someday, woman) who we elect to hold the title isn’t the whole story. The President employs dozens of advisers, assistants, and aides (I trust that someone out there has seen The West Wing considering it was on for 7 years) who help carry out day-to-day activities and incubate policy ideas.  Those ideas can be passed along for execution by various cabinet departments – Education, State, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, etc. Alternatively, the President and his/her staff might take one of these policy ideas and draft a new law, which it then sends along to Congress.
            Ah, Congress. During his debates with Gov. Romney, there was a lot of talk about President Obama’s failure to work cooperatively with our federal legislators. As the election neared there was also some media coverage of the Democratic and Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively. Nonetheless, I don’t think these other elections received enough attention considering how much of the action takes place in these legislative bodies. Each presidential candidate espoused his views on a variety of policy matters, but I question how much any of that really maters with respect to legislative outcomes.  Sure, the President has some influence over similarly-idealed Congressmembers, but it’s not like he can just wave his hand and make them raise taxes the way he wants or legalize gay marriage or declare his birthday to be a national holiday.
            Instead, elected lawmakers must work amongst themselves to pass the legislation that governs our lives, and ultimately they answer to their constituents. Then again, if most Americans are only obsessed with the Presidential election, their jobs become a little easier and remain in obscurity.  (I interned for a U.S. Senator, and could do a whole separate post explaining the inner workings of Congress and how difficult it is for our legislators to pass meaningful laws. At a minimum, I’ll encourage everyone to look up who represents them, investigate these individuals’ views, and pay attention to news reports of their activities in DC. That way, in 2 years, you can vote to either re-elect or replace your House member, and maybe a Senator as well.)
            State and local politics also mustn’t go overlooked. A lot of federal programs – Medicaid and some of the recent economic recovery efforts – distribute money to states, the governments of which then use the funds as they see fit. And the President has basically no influence on whether your municipality votes to increase its sales tax rate or impose new regulations on building construction. Of course, the news was wrought with mentions of controversial state ballot measures, such as Minnesota’s proposed amendment restricting marriage to straight couples and the marijuana legalization referenda in Colorado and Washington, but I’m sure there were others that merited consideration despite not making it to the headlines.
            Instead, most news outlets and therefore most citizens were chiefly concerned with who should reside in the White House for the next four years. The whole ordeal had the tenor of a sporting event, with the pre-game predictions and analysis stretching out for a seemingly interminable year. These activities reached their culmination on the evening of Election Day, during which the media coverage exacerbated the analogy by breaking down every possible statistic and reporting from polling places in battleground states every five minutes. This is the first Presidential Election I experienced via Twitter and Tumblr, which both had an odd play-by-play sort of feel as the projections started to come in. I cringed when people started freaking out early in the night when President Obama was losing the electoral vote 33-3. (I realize I’ve gotten this far without discussing the electoral college. Sound off in the comments if this is good or bad.)
            Witnessing the aftermath of the election via social media was perhaps the most disheartening. (My husband fell asleep on the couch as soon as CNN called the race for President Obama, so I really had no one else to interact with.) Posts by Obama supporters ranged from general notions evincing the joy of victory to outright personal insults directed towards Romney. I found the extent of this gloating a little ridiculous since reelection marks the mere beginning of the uphill battle towards full economic recovery and advancement of social justice issues. The President’s victory speech had a solemn and controlled overtone which conveyed this seriousness, as well as a determination to continue his administration’s efforts at making this country a better place.
            Meanwhile, on Facebook, other folks (presumably Romney backers) bemoaned the state of affairs in this country and threatened to move to Canada. To these people, I can offer the reminder that the reelection of an incumbent President does not necessarily mandate persistence of the status quo, and the defeat of your candidate should not be the end of the story until 2016. Join groups that support the issues you believe in. Write to political officeholders urging them to pursue policies that are important to you. The best part about the U.S. is that everyone can have a say in the political process. Regardless of the party with which you identify, and the issues you support, I hope the readers of this blog choose to educate themselves a little more and make their voices heard – and not just every 4 years.

How 'bout that, hmm? It's always educational to reflect on the past.

The only part I'll re-emphasize is that if you don't like the way things are, get involved. Thousands of men and women have fought for our right to vote; please don't take this opportunity responsibility for granted. 

Voting Primar(il)y for Progress

Ah, presidential primary season. As a student of the political process, I have many thoughts to share. That said, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to gloss over most substantive policy talk. (Please feel free to comment or email to hash things out in more detail.) Instead, I want to address the purpose - and pitfalls - of primary elections.

Under the veil of this (semi-)anonymous blog, I hope I've accurately represented myself as a progressively minded young lawyer-mom. Hence, even readers who don't know me personally shouldn't have trouble assuming that such a person tends to vote for Democrats.

Last week, I was speaking with another progressively minded 25-to-34-year-old woman about the Democratic primary candidates. If Donald Trump is the inappropriate drunk uncle at a wedding, we determined that Bernie Sanders is the wacky hippie cousin who shows up to the reception on a Vespa without having RSVPed, wearing Birkenstocks even though it's snowing outside. We concluded that while Hillary Clinton may be a little too ensconced in the establishment to accurately represent our views, Sanders's ideas are too radical to 1) win him the Electoral College and 2) implement if he is elected president. While it would be nice to live in a world where Bernie is a viable candidate, we agreed that Hillary is the safer bet.

The other day, however, I remembered that I have an undergraduate degree in political science, and I completely changed my mind.

Don't get me wrong. If Hillary is the party's nominee, I will gladly cast my vote in her favor. Sanders himself has said as much. But choosing a nominee isn't necessarily the most important part of primary elections.

Stay with me here. Yes, the end result of the primaries are huge nominating conventions, at which each party designates its nominee for President based on which candidate has the most delegate support. In the meantime, the primaries provide an opportunity for different factions of each party to have their views heard. By supporting candidates and ideas that are less popular, voters force mainstream candidates and institutions to more carefully consider their positions. Throw out whatever cliché you'd like: Rome wasn't built in a day, slow and steady wins the race, etc. Sanders - and Ben Carson, John Kasich, et al. on the GOP side - might not gain enough support to secure the nomination. Nonetheless, the political process is not served by their supporters simply throwing in the towel at the start of the primary season. The farther a fringe candidate lasts in the primaries, the more voice his or her ideas are given.

For Democrats who feel that Bernie is too liberal and Hillary isn't progressive enough, it's easy for this primary to seem like a lose-lose. Instead, I've chosen to view it as a win-win. If I support Sanders now, and he wins the nomination, great. If he doesn't, I've still done my part by advancing his policies and keeping the conversation focused on issues I feel are important.

Like I said, this is not intended to be a substantive discussion or soapbox lecture. Feel free to despise the person who I've chosen to vote for. If your values align with Hillary's position, vote for her. If you're voting in the Republican primary, and you believe that Jeb Bush is the best candidate, please vote for him even if your fellow party members say he doesn't stand a chance. Progress will not be achieved if voters want to use their primary ballots safely, instead of meaningfully.

This situation reminds me of an episode of The West Wing. It's the Democratic National Convention, with no clear favorite having yet emerged amongst the party's presidential candidates. This means that a balloting procedure takes place, with 2,162 delegate votes needed to secure the nomination. Congressman Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, is asked to withdraw from the race and support one of the other candidates. The party backroom feels that he's probably not going to win anyway, and he might as well move things along by dropping out. Instead, he says the following when addressing the arena full of delegates:

"It's been suggested to me that party unity is more important than your democratic rights as delegates. It's not. And you have a decision to make. Don't vote for us because you think we're perfect. Don't vote for us because of what you think we might be able to do for you only. Vote for the person who shares your ideals, your hopes, your dreams. Vote for the person who most embodies what you believe we need to keep our nation strong and free."

Sounds pretty good to me. What do you think?