As I write this, I'm at a layover in the Birmingham Greyhound station, traveling from New Orleans to Pittsburgh. I'm making this 29 hour trip for one reason: to get back to Pennsylvania and vote. Every time a major election comes around, there is the standard request from all ends of the political spectrum to head out and vote. And yes, I do think that if you are capable to vote in this election you should. That said, I will commit the cardinal political sin and ask you to vote for the Democrats this year.
I'm not going to deny that I'm partisan. I support certain policies and the Democrats tend to line up far better than the Republicans do with respect to what I would like this country to become. But I'm not asking you to vote for the Democrats because we may have similar views; there is certainly room for a range of political ideologies and standings. On the contrary, I'm asking this to preserve the notion of civil discourse in politics.
We've all seen the rallies and town halls. We've heard the anger and disappointment. And it is justified. The way things are now, the only way you wouldn't be angry or disappointed is if you're somehow responsible for the mess we're in now. You should be angry. But we cannot let our anger blind our judgment; it does not justify the election of extremists.
By extremism, I don't mean opinions on policy that our generally considered outside of the norm, though they also constitute a justified rationale for voting against a particular candidate (such as a US Senate candidate asking for your vote while previously stating that they oppose the election of Senators by the people [the repeal of the 17th Amendment]). I am actually more concerned with the rhetoric that these candidates have been using.
The truth is that there is a difference between the two major political parties. There has been the popular inclination that both parties are fundamentally identical going back at least since the 90s with Ross Perot and then again with Ralph Nader. It is ideologically convenient to throw one's hands up in the air simply because neither option is the ideal. An unfortunate reality of the American political system is that we have only two parties that eat all of the discussion on any issue. One is for, the other against. Although this could lead to a centrist coalition, in reality we tend to vote one way simply because the other candidate is the greater evil. We vote against candidates in most cases. I wish it were not so, as Americans have a far more nuanced political spectrum than our two parties indicate.
But again, that's not why I am asking for you to vote for a Democratic candidate. You may support the defunding of the Department of Education and view that as a way to fix our lacking system. Although that may be considered outside of the norm, there's no reason that we can't discuss that in a civil manner to see if we can illuminate a more tenable solution to all parties involved.
But it is unacceptable to detain a reporter, even if they may pester you with questions, as Joe Miller, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alaska did.
It is unacceptable to intimidate a radio station because they recorded an interview, as Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware did.
It is unacceptable to discuss the possibility of "second amendment solutions" in the event that the election does not turn out a certain way, as Sharon Angle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada did.
Republicans this year are running on the idea that if they do not win, this country will all but fall apart. Things are bad, everyone knows it, but that doesn't justify floating the possibility of secession or the end of the Republic over one midterm election.
We've seen this before. There were murmurs of such conversation in the 2004 election and its aftermath. But such conversation was marginalized. It was recognized to be unacceptable and most people actively downplayed it. Similarly, there was a much more vibrant discussion from the Democrats in the late 60s. The days of the Weather Underground and similar groups became common topics. But let's not forget - these people were never viable candidates for as many major offices as their Republican counterparts are this year.
The only problem that I had with the Rally for Sanity is that they attempted to play that there was a perfect dichotomy. There were people carrying assault rifles on the right and Code Pink on the left. Code Pink? When did we last hear of them? That's just it - there is no equivalent rhetorical extremism on the left this year. It is certainly possible, but this year it just does not exist.
If these candidates win, it justifies the use of this rhetoric. If they win, it gives tacit approval to using fear of outright revolution and apocalyptic visions in the political landscape. If they win, I worry that this will become the norm. It shouldn't. Not here.
I understand that this sounds hypocritical, my asking you to vote against the Republicans because they use fear and veiled violence in their rhetoric. Or likewise, it must sound hypocritical to vote tactically after decrying it. But as things are now, tactical voting is a reality; we must vote for the lesser evil.
I do not think that Republicans taking control of one or both houses of Congress will be the end of this country. They must govern as the Democrats must when they are in control. No, instead it is civil debate that is at risk if we legitimize this kind of rhetoric. In America, if we disagree, we should respectfully disagree. Even when angry, there should be no issue that leads to anyone making hinted threats at revolution.
We are all Americans. We have gotten as far as we have and been the best country we can BECAUSE we allow for civil discourse. It is one of our most valued beliefs. We must cherish it. We should vote out of interest, not fear. I would be willing to have a Congress controlled by those who advocate extreme positions, so long as we use informed debate and not emotional hunches to lead us forward.
If you disagree with what I have said, good. I am no patron saint of political science. Tell me what I have wrong. Persuade me. Words matter - that's exactly why I want you to vote.
The world will not end November 3rd, no matter who is in control of the US Congress. I want a better union, a better economy, AND a better atmosphere of political debate. It's what we should expect. It's what we should demand.