What I Want From Republicans

At Thanksgiving, my aunt asked me if I still consider myself politically independent.  Seeing as how I've dedicated most of this blog space over the last three months to mocking Republican Presidential candidates and calling them stupid, it was a pretty fair question.

On the drive home, I thought about it a little and tried to be honest with myself.  Could I really ever see myself voting for a Republican?  I certainly won't vote for Scott Brown in Massachusetts next year.  He's running against Elizabeth Warren, who, if elected, would immediately become the best Senator in the Senate. 

But would I vote for any Republican, under any circumstances?  Yes, yes I would.  Here's what I'm looking for in future Republicans.  One quick but important note.  My support for these hypothetical future Republicans assumes that future Democrats will remain mostly cowardly, disorganized and incompetent. 

First of all, shut up about jesus.  Listen, I'm not so delusional that I think I'll actually get to vote for a Presidential candidate in my lifetime who doesn't believe in the magic invisible spacegod.  I can live with that.  But, can I just have someone who doesn't feel the need to end every speech with a laundry list of things he'd like his invisible friend to bless?  Someone who doesn't think it's more important to pray for homosexuals than it is to just let them have equal rights? Someone whose brain is capable of accepting scientific realities, even when they conflict with our culture's mythology? 

Even my man Ron Paul rambles on about god from time to time.  It breaks my heart.  I'm not saying I expect Presidential candidates to give up their faith when they run.  I just want someone who talks about reality at work and saves the mythology for home.  Is that really too much to ask?

Next, I'd like a candidate who offers economic policies that aren't just tax cuts.  Perpetually lower taxes isn't a viable policy position.  Rick Santorum, king of the idiots, has been proposing a 0% tax rate for manufacturing.  Zero!  As if we can tax cut our way back to 1953.  If Congress cut all tax rates to 1% today, Republicans would spend the next election telling us how those tax-and-spendocrats in Washington think they're entitled to a whole percent of your money.  I'm not wrong about this.

The Republican response to the wall street occupiers has really tipped their hand on the economy.  Instead of the rational response ("These people obviously have a point about wealth disparity, corruption and the incredibly blurry line between the financial sector and our government...but what do bongo drums have to do with any of that"), Republicans totally flipped out ("Get a job! And take a shower!"). 

This knee-jerk animosity toward anyone who threatens to give the game away tells you all you need to know about Republican economic policy.  Is a candidate who thinks the economy works best when it works for everyone too much to ask for?  Really?

Also, grow up a little on foreign policy.  The Republican party (other than Ron Paul, of course) still lives in this fantasy world where America is the only country that matters and everyone just needs to do what we say.  It isn't like that anymore.  I'm not saying I want a candidate who doesn't want us to lead sometimes, but can I get a candidate who doesn't think calling something "European" is an insult?  How hard is that?

I'm not asking for much, just someone who doesn't criticize the current President for not being an arrogant dick whenever he goes abroad.  And maybe even someone who isn't super eager to wade into every internal conflict in some other country by sending our troops there for an indefinite period of time, because once they get there, they can't ever leave or we're letting the terrorists win. 

If I could get even two out of these three things from a Republican candidate, I would seriously considering voting for him or her.  I don't like having to go vote for Democrats.  It's no fun.  Democrats aren't really any different from Republicans.  Here's a good example.

Republicans have become deficit hawks.  Being a deficit hawk while you're trying to dig your way out of a recession is pretty stupid.  Are the Democrats saying that and arguing for a totally different and better way.  No!  They're deficit hawks too, they're just worse at it.  So they propose awful half measures that are big enough to add to the deficit but not big enough to actually help.  Well done.

You might be tempted to point out that I seem to disagree with almost the entire Republican platform.  And you'd be right, that's the problem.  The Republican platform is made up almost entirely of nonsense.  It shouldn't be, and it doesn't have to be.  And if it wasn't, I'd be willing to vote for some Republicans.  I swear.

The New Center

I have a theory. Now, I watch Glenn Beck at least a couple of times a week. Glenn has a lot of theories, I think the last one involved Woodrow Wilson secretly traveling back in time to start the slave trade. My theory isn't a Beck-style, category five crazy theory. I'm a bit more of a moderate, and that's sort of my point, this is a theory about moderation.

I've been trying my best to get engaged with the 2010 midterm elections, my efforts are meeting with limited success. The Democrats are undisciplined, somewhat cowardly and really failing to zero in on a message. Ya know, they're acting like Democrats. I can't imagine a way a party could more thoroughly squander a huge majority, but I'm sure the Democrats can.

Meanwhile, the Republican party seems to have been taken over by crazy people. Their nominee in Nevada, Sharron Angle, can generously be described as totally insane. Of course, she still has a decent chance of winning because she's running against Harry Reid's politically dynamic combination of unspeakably boring and unimaginably ineffective. Should be a real barn burner out there.

The Republicans in my current (but, thankfully, soon to be former) state have nominated Linda McMahon. Seriously, the wrestling lady. I swear I'm not joking. But she also still has a decent chance because she's got about a trillion dollars and she's running against a Democrat who kept telling people he served in Vietnam even though he didn't.

I've also noticed the Florida Senate race. Florida has the rare three-way race going. Independent and former Republican Charlie Crist vs. tea party Republican and former hair model Marco Rubio vs. a couple of Democrats who can't even poll at 20% in a pretty 50/50 state. Crist leads the real clear politics average of polls no matter which Democrat you plug in. This brings us to my theory. I think Crist is the leading edge of a big wave of successful independent candidates.

Look at where we are right now. People are rightfully fed up with both parties. The imagineers at Fox News keep telling me the Republican party will win back a majority in the house and maybe the Senate in November. How many times do you think people will go back and forth like this before they realize nothing ever changes? I think Crist wins by double digits in November, partially because he won't be weighed down by the stupidity of either party. That's why I think he should change his campaign slogan to "I'm Charlie Crist, and I don't like either of these guys". I also like that slogan because it's a little punchier than Marco Rubio's "I'm Marco Rubio, and I'll say whatever Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tell me to say".

In the past, independents struggled because they couldn't raise any real money and they didn't have enough name recognition. Next time you go vote, take a look at the candidates on your ballot after the two major parties. It's a veritable who's who of who the f*ck are these guys. People generally aren't fans of voting for people they've never heard of, or giving them money.

But Sean, you protest, Ross Perot had money and everyone knew who he was, and he still only got just under 19% in the 1992 election. I can't argue with you there. Sure, part of what Perot was known for was his trademark bat-shit insanity, but still, he was well known. So what's different now?

As usual, part of the problem is the internets. An independent candidate doesn't need the party establishment to raise big money anymore. Even major party candidates do a decent amount of fundraising on the internet. I'm not saying an independent can get even with the big parties on money, but I think they can get close enough, if people know who they are. That brings us to culprit number two.

Cable news. People are more well informed about politics now than ever before. Well, maybe I wouldn't say we're well informed, but we're certainly more informed. I live in Connecticut and know who Marco Rubio and Sharron Angle are. Do you think I would have known who they were in 1992? Probably not.

So, here are the factors:
1) People are genuinely fed up with both parties
2) Fundraising is way easier now than it was even 10 years ago
3) Name recognition in politics is almost universal at this point
4) I say an independent is about to destroy both big party candidates in a pretty visible Senate race in Florida

Over the next five/ten years, I think we'll see a wave of moderate, reasonable politicians running for office as independents, and winning. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 Senate looked something like 43 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 16 independents. Of course, this means Congress will do even less than it does now. Impossible, you say? That sounds like a challenge.

Further down the road, maybe this even gets us a new third party, which will inevitably become just as corrupt and ineffective as the current two parties. I said I had a theory, I didn't say it was a good thing.