Some voters seem obsessed with the terms nonpartisan and moderate when they defend a candidate. As if the terms speak to great leadership or better judgment; they do not. In fact, they may even open one up to the criticism of being a political player or self-preserver. I gather this trend started with candidates themselves, trying to capitalize on the vague premise of being a nonpartisan or moderate even though they are endorsed by a political party, beholden to a political platform and tied to an ideology defined by special interest supporters.
In fact, look at the financial donations made to each candidate and then study their voting records; not just yesterday’s vote, but their portfolio. How many amendments do they support by colleagues on the other side? How many bills do they coauthor or cosponsor with other parties? What percentage of votes does a candidate need to “sacrifice” to political opponents in order to earn the title nonpartisan? If one is a moderate, nonpartisan Democrat should that person vote 50% of the time with Republicans and vice versa? The concept is silly is when put in practical terms, concrete terms.
These trained politicians know how to play people. So, who is being sold the wrong goods? Is it the party which endorses them or the voters who misunderstand the nonpartisan or moderate line? Either way, the only person who wins this game is the candidate. And most likely, the political party that funds their campaign benefits, not the individual voter who thought the candidate was a kind person of varied opinions.
An interesting historical perspective and use of the term nonpartisan is offered by Wikipedia: “In U.S. history, the Nonpartisan League was an influential socialist political movement, especially in the Upper Midwest, particularly during the 1910s and 1920s. It also contributed much to the ideology of the former Progressive Party of Canada. It went into decline and merged with the Democratic Party of North Dakota to form the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party in 1956.” So, being nonpartisan is historically being a Democrat, maybe even a Socialist if you look at the root of such a word in its political, cultural context. Then there is the dictionary term of nonpartisan, “one who is not influenced by, affiliated with nor support the interests or policies of no single political party.” If one studies the voting record of legislators, one knows that none of them come close to this definition. If you visit the Capitol and watch the consistent votes against amendments, one sees the party line towed for most votes. But are a few crossover votes worthy of calling someone a moderate?
So, why do voters place such trust in these terms? They fight common sense in doing so. And, if candidates use these labels to promote them, then why don’t they run on a third ticket as an independent? No, these candidates are a convenient façade for their political parties who use them to collect votes, stay in power and grab special interest money. In their arrogance, they figure the voter doesn’t really know what a moderate is but it’s comfortable. And sadly, the voter never really learns who the candidate is as a policy maker, because she’s positioned herself void of any tangible views; it’s a convenient way to avoid judgment and scrutiny.
Voters should reject these labels in order to focus on the process, the law and the issues. Don’t be trapped by the partisan language of the day: the image maker’s dream of a nonpartisan or moderate figure. Hidden agendas are there. The votes are there, even though the “moderate” knows you won’t investigate. She’s banking on you connecting with her last message –not looking at the big picture, not looking at her body of work.
I urge us to be issue centered, to demand strong debate, good law and purposeful conviction from our candidates. Moderates are followers and they waste our time with staged listening sessions. You see, if they only listen, they don’t need to explain or answer; it’s another brilliant ploy to avoid accountability. We cannot expect listening sessions and Town Hall meetings to replace meaningful dialogue on issues. Such political chat allows moderate politicians to push mediocrity in thought and policy.
Worse yet, the nonpartisan position is a hiding place for politicians who don’t have the courage to fight for a belief system, or lack a belief system that can stand the challenge of counter arguments. We need legislators who clearly state their purpose in government and defend their position through insight and skillful debate. That is what leaders, decision makers and intellectuals do. They set the pace of discourse and manage the myriad of views while educating and convincing folks to do what’s right, even in the face of negative public perception. People who hold strong convictions are seeking truth. They are constantly on the quest for knowledge. Moderates ask for a free pass, always looking for the convenient vote; they cheat their constituents by avoiding tough decisions and deep debate, habitually leaning on shallow talking points and simple narratives just for show. This behavior eventually garners no respect from colleagues or constituents in the long-term.
Moderate politicians also lack clear perspective and refuse to bring rigor to discussion because that’s not politically safe. No matter what office a candidate is running for, make sure to get past the handshakes and smiles, the vague semantics and appeasing language. Make sure to ask them about their voting record, and if respect and fairness will precede them in every debate. That’s something worthy of campaigning on-recognizing what needs debate and what doesn’t. This isn’t happening with the moderates in office now and the public is left with bad policy.
So, since both parties claim nonpartisan members, let’s start demanding each candidate clearly display their personal integrity, values, and position on issues. Don’t let either party claim to have “free thinking” nonpartisan moderates, when we know it’s just a façade for a hidden ideology.
