Driving around the wilds of Talbot County (Tall-butt, knaves) on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, all manner of signage alerts the civic-minded to upcoming primary elections. On the ballot are, for example, the Governor, State Senators and perhaps Delegates (but I cannot really tell), US House of Representatives, various county and local offices and something known as judges of the “Orphans Court”, which is apparently Maryland’s version of probate.
As an “unaffiliated” voter in the People’s State of Maryland, I am not permitted to vote in primary elections, and that is just fine with me. They are by definition, party processes.
A few years ago (before the days of MAGA or DARK MAGA), my beloved sidled up to me one day with the sample ballot to talk about who I was voting for (this was a general election). Our chat went something like:
“Straight ticket Republican, dear girl”, was my answer.
“You can’t do that—we KNOW XXXXXX; she goes to our church. She a wonderful person.”
“That may very well be, but she is running as a Democrat. And since I know little or nothing about her or her opponent, not to mention the office they are running for, my move is to vote for the Republican. Running as a Republican sends a signal to me that this person is pretty much in favor of all or most of the following: the rule of law, limited government, federalism, individual liberty, market economies, a strong military, and an active, leadership role in world events. All things considered, her choice to run as a Democrat is a signal to me that she is favorable to activist government, an increased welfare state, and the “living Constitution” (that term just makes me shudder).”
Her response…which is ringing in my ears as I write this, was “As part of a community you have an obligation to inform yourself about the offices and the candidates.”
Damn.
She was/is right, of course. As an itinerant naval officer with little or no connection to anything local, my approach made sense, even for local races. But I’ve lived here now for 15 years.
I felt confident in my position then because at the time, it was true, as it had been for the 33 years in which I voted before the GOP decided to cease being a political party and become a cult of personality. The markers cited above pointing to a Democrat remain broadly the same, and as much as I loathe the current instantiation of the Republican Party, there is simply nothing for me ideologically in the Democratic Party.
But as I run down the list of GOP markers as they existed then, it is clear that one can no longer apply them with confidence. Rule of Law? If I squint real hard, I can imagine not supporting the first impeachment—but the second? Additionally, if you for even one second veered into the “we have to let the process play out” as the President of the United States slowly whipped up an insurrection to the background music of five dozen court rulings against him….you aren’t a Rule of Law person, you’re a shameless hack.
Limited government? We are definitely in the midst of a serious crisis with the supply of baby-formula (one largely of our own making), but supporting the imposition of the Defense Production Act to help solve the problem? Really? What then is beyond the DPA?
Federalism? Don’t tell me you are all for Federalism if —in response to the leaked abortion decision, your go-to move is to advocate for a federal law outlawing it.
For many in the modern GOP, individual liberty is great, just as long as that liberty doesn’t impinge upon whatever your individual view of “common good conservatism” is at the moment.
Is there anywhere that the noise is louder than among the NatPops (national populists—not NatCons—there is nothing conservative about them) with respect to “taming” the market? If I hear another Republican warn me of the evils “unfettered” capitalism as a means for delivering fan service for whatever social justice cause they are pushing, I may join a monastery.
Ah—but Conservative Wahoo--a strong military is something the GOP still represents, right? Well….the last GOP President surely TALKED about it, but I’m not familiar with any great strides made with respect to achieving it.
And active leadership in the world? This used to be something the GOP stood for almost uniformly (to be fair, so did the adults in the Democratic Party), with a few cranks here and there that no one listened to. Now those cranks have a voice, and a following. Worse, their story is merging with the most extreme cranks on the left, as the right now has its own version of anti-Americanism and “we should be spending money on baby formula and Fentanyl addiction and lowering gas prices” to animate it.
Bottom line from the Miles River this Sunday morning, is come November, ain’t no straight ticket voting happening here.
About That World Leadership Stuff
Some signs of life in the moribund GOP with respect to remembering what it was like to be a party that believed in America and a world led by it. Last week, the Congress passed $40B of additional aid to Ukraine by very comfortable margins, with 57 GOP House Members (out of 210) and 11 GOP Senators (out of 50) voting against. Superb leadership on the point was exhibited by Leader McConnell, who has been strong on Ukraine from the get-go. Two pieces this weekend are must reading on this front, one at the NYT and one at Politico.
Some excellent pull-quotes follow:
“My argument to [Biden] was, I want to reinforce with the Europeans after some loose talk during the Trump years about whether NATO is important, that at least at the moment, the most important Republican we currently have in Congress has a different point of view,” McConnell said in an interview in his office Thursday just off the Senate floor, a few hours after the chamber had sent the aid package to Biden’s desk. McConnell told the president he wanted to “push back … against the isolationist sentiment in my own party. And [Biden] agreed that that makes sense.
Loose talk is one way to put it, but to be honest, he is dealing with far more than just isolationism—a streak of which has long existed in the GOP. He is dealing with a group of people (and I extend this to the 57 House members) who are in thrall to their voters, voters who don’t give a rip about isolationism but who DO admire—publicly and privately—authoritarians.
I encourage readers to listen to the 20 May Commentary Podcast for a fuller examination of these issues. One of the most insightful moments is when John Podhoretz rightly calls out these voters as people who do not like America—at least the one we’re living in. Whether they are stuck in 1984 or 1954 or 1924 is immaterial; they look at modern life and they long for some kind of imposed order, some variant of authoritarianism that will presumably bring their tastes and preferences to the fore.
Representing this group of voters is Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who voted against the Ukraine measure and who had this to say afterward:
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), one of Trump’s closest allies in the upper chamber, said that while he was in the minority on the Ukraine vote this week, his position better reflects the GOP voter base than McConnell’s does. And Hawley could soon have others joining him in that camp, like J.D. Vance, the GOP nominee in Ohio.
“I’m kind of an outlier,” Hawley acknowledged. “But hopefully we’ll have some more folks join me after November.”
This suggestion that that his position reflects the GOP voter base has a ring of truth to it, but any hope for the GOP to be a successful governing party again will require it to be more broadly appealing, and Putin-worship and Orban-Slobbering (the misnamed “Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) held a gathering in Budapest over the weekend, complete with a drop-in from lead mouth-breather Tucker Carlson) is not going to get it there.
What is most encouraging about adults in the GOP embracing America’s role even as the Administration plows ahead with continuing aid to Ukraine is the prospect for a renewal of some kind of inter-party consensus about that role. There are plenty of modern observers who pooh-pooh the decades-long consensus that existed during much of the Cold War. Some say it is overstated, some say it didn’t exist. I believe it did, and I believe it provided the necessary consistency over time for this nation to outcompete the Soviet Union—leveraging our natural strengths as a free, industrious people. We see its emergence on support to Ukraine, we see its emergence on bi-partisan criticism of the Administration’s two defense budgets, and we even see it in the degree to which the bungled pull-out from Afghanistan made people across the country uncomfortable and angry. There is something worth building on here, something that could help renew our commitment to the new great power cold war we are entering.
I'm mostly a D voter, however will read and research all candidates to figure out which one will do the best job without bringing in the crazy. I appreciate your honesty and introspection on the process.
I've never been a straight-ticket voter on the Dem side, but I share similar sentiments as you, McG, about being repelled by my more-favored party. Hard for moderates/centrists to find a comfortable home, especially these days.