Where’s the choice?

Richard Fulton

It’s an upside down world in American politics today. It use to be that a party label meant something. Oh, you couldn’t assume specific positions on particular issues from a candidate simply because of his party affiliation, but you could have some confidence in the fact that his party label placed him generally in his party’s political camp.

Not so long ago party identification denoted basic political tendencies. And broadly one could project support for a party and its candidates by certain characteristics.

The Democrat coalition consisted of labor union members, minorities, lower socio-economic communities, more highly educated middle class members.

Republicans attracted a coalition of higher income voters, social issue voters, support from rural communities, and business persons.

Broadly, Democrats attracted the more liberal voters, Republicans the more conservative voters. Sometimes states and communities would have a tradition of voting for one party or the other even though their demographics might not fit the above criteria.

Still, if you were evaluating a presidential election you could assume certain policy and political positions depending upon the party label of the candidate. The same would be true in statewide elections.

Donald Trump has turned all this upside down with his eccentric views on many issues. Many Republicans say he is not really conservative, but he surely is not liberal either. He’s an “outsider” he says, a popular dismissing of party.

Since people know their local people more personally, party labels may not be as important or indicative. Local issues and personalities prevail. Though voting traditions may still lean heavily towards one party in each locality.

These are broad criteria. Still, without political party labels and the broad assumptions of where their candidates come from on the direction of political policies, on what basis would legislatures and executives govern?

Each issue would find a different coalition, there would be no basis for organizing legislatures and administrations. How would you find majorities if there were no overall organization around a party coalition of members with some basis for agreement on issues?

In short, political parties help to organize the business of government and thus of the election processes. There are four presidential candidates (two primary ones) on the coming November ballot. Each of the parties have candidates for five statewide offices plus candidates for the U.S. Senate and House, the Missouri House, and at least eight local offices.

Will you know who each candidate is and what they stand for when you go to vote? Party identification helps, but many of you say you vote the person not the party. How then do you choose if you don’t know all 30 or so on the ballot or their views on pertinent issues?

Mostly, party affiliation can help. But increasingly candidates don’t even indicate on their campaign materials which party they adhere to. Why? Are they ashamed of their party?

Or maybe the party labels have been so muddied that they often don’t mean what they use to.

Issue in point. The Democrat candidate for Missouri governor Chris Koster use to be a Republican member of the Senate. Not to be outdone, the Republican candidate for governor Eric Greitens use to identify with and support Democrats.

Traditional active Republican special interests have come out for the Democratic candidate—e.g. the NRA and the American Farm Bureau. Vice versa for the Republican candidate who tries to out NRA the NRA.. Both campaign as ardent conservatives.

So where is the choice if party hopping results in political perspectives are virtually the same?