Geoausch

In addition to being Texas Independence Day, Tuesday was also Election Day in the great state of Texas. While you can go to any website and get an in depth analysis into what Rick Perry’s victory may mean in the world of American politics, I thought I would share my unique perspective on some numbers that jumped out at me from Tuesday’s election.

• 10 – Number of years since I voted in the Republican Primary. I last voted in the Republican Primary during the 2000 Presidential Election. No, I did not vote for George W. Bush.

• 362 – Number of people who voted in the Republican Primary in my precinct. Living in a heavily Republican neighborhood, I imagine the numbers in the Democratic primary were much lower. It really is disappointing that so many people refuse to exercise their right to vote, especially on a day with such significance as Texas Independence Day.

• 50 – There’s a 50% chance that I’ll cross the aisle in the general election and vote for Bill White, the Democratic nominee for governor.

• 62 – The number of races on my precincts ballot, one of the most expansive ballots in my memory.

• 7 – Number of contested races on the ballot.

• .74% – Margin separating Geraldine “Tincy” Miller and George M. Clayton for the District 12 Representative on the State Board of Education, one of several pivotal races for the State Board of Education.  Clayton represents a change from the Taliban like forces that have made a mockery of our education system.

• 5 – Proposition 5 on the Republican Primary ballot asked whether the Republican Party should adopt a position favoring legislation requiring a doctor to show a patient a sonogram prior to performing a “medically unnecessary abortion.” I’ve remained consistent in my opinion that there is too much government in health care. I have been a vocal opponent of health care reform and have attacked all efforts to inject government in areas best served and controlled by private enterprise. I’m amazed at the hypocrisy of members the Republican Party–the party of limited government–who attacked Democratic attempts at  health care reform as an example of an overreaching government, yet feel we need legislation forcing doctors to perform a sonogram on a woman seeking an abortion. This proposition violates the two principles I hold dear–free enterprise & privacy.

The candidates involved in the Republican primary for the Texas governor’s race met last night for their second debate. Nationally, this race has garnered attention for the showdown between incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Locally, the libertarian-minded Debra Medina has captured headlines for her ability to campaign with the two behemoths with a fraction of their budget and media exposure. As an independent voter, I’m still not convinced that I will vote in the Republican primary, but I decided to watch the debate nonetheless.

Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.

Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident.  Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.

Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately.  The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.

Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.

I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.

All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.

Faulty logic abounds in the world of politics.  Almost every political campaign features candidates attacking each other with countless ad hominem attacks and campaign speeches filled with straw man arguments. Unfortunately, the faulty logic does not end there and often extends into the formation of a politician or a political party’s agenda, as evidenced by the Democrat Party’s response to Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts.

Even though Brown ran his campaign as a referendum on the pending health care legislation and won, Democratic leaders insist they will continue to push for reconciliation of the House and Senate bills, claiming it’s the “will of the people”. Normally, when a politician uses a generic qualifier like “will of the people,” he or she implies they have a mandate to fulfill.

But how does a politician determine a mandate?

Most pundits agree that a third of this country leans to the right, a third to the left and the other third somewhere down the middle. Regardless of the candidates, you know that the right leaning group will vote for the Republican candidates and the left leaning group will vote for the Democratic candidates, which means whichever candidate can win over the largest chunk of the final third of the voting block will win the election. This group of voters have been labeled “moderates,” “independents,” and perhaps most eloquently, the “silent majority.” In most elections, candidates attempt to identify an issue where their position will appeal to a much broader segment of this voting demographic and political pundits will label their obligation to follow through on this campaign promise as their “mandate.”

There is no empirical evidence that a majority of this key voting population referred to in the statement, “the will of the people”, supports the Democratic plan for health care reform. I have friends in every range of the political spectrum–from the Right of Rush Limbaugh to the Left of Vermont’s self-described “socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders, and everywhere in between. Of these people, the only ones I know who support the Democratic plan are people who would have voted for Barack Obama, or other Democratic candidates, regardless of their opponents, based solely on the (D) behind their names. In fact, all the empirical evidence (i.e. polling data, town hall meetings, etc.) I have seen shows a majority of the independent voting population strongly disagrees with the Democratic health care agenda

The Democratic Party’s decision to stubbornly push an obviously unpopular health care bill, in spite of mounting political casualties, hinges on the logically flawed argument that this legislation is the “will of the people.” In the absence of clear empirical evidence, this argument assumes that more of the independent voters voted for Barack Obama, and Democrats in Congressional races in both 2006 & 2008, based on their positions on health care reform. The argument does not account for the number of independent voters who voted Democratic in the races simply out disappointment with Republican majority rule, the number of Obama voters simply caught up in the cult of personality surrounding the figure or any independent voter who cast a Democratic vote in 2006 or 2008, without once considering the candidates position on health care.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the real concerns of this silent majority, they have gradually raised their voices in opposition, but their screams appear to have landed on deaf ears. Perhaps the Democratic Party should try a more honest approach and describe their attempt at health care reform as the “will of the Democratic Party.” At least then they would begin to acknowledge that it is a majority of their Party, and not a majority of the American population, that desires to see their attempt to nationalize health care in the United States succeed.