The first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2006, a day that by all accounts dawned bright and clear across much of the United States, may eventually be known as the moment that spelled the beginning of the end of American-style democracy.
What do I mean when I portend such doom? To clarify, I'm not referring to the Democrats' victory. Even though the Left salivated and the Right shuddered at the election results, many observers, myself included, do not foresee the status quo changing all that much over the next two years. President George W. Bush can still veto any bill that crosses his desk, and if the Democrats' tactical ineptitude of the last few weeks sustains itself into the 110th Congress, I don't think the president has much to worry about. Furthermore, the 2008 presidential campaign effectively started Nov. 8, and senators who are running for president (and there are many, from both sides of the aisle) generally don't make very effective legislators.
No, what I'm referring to is this recent election's inordinate emphasis on political party mentality over nearly every other variable - including the candidates themselves.
For example, Republican Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee '75 lost his re-election bid despite having a 63-percent job-approval rating and a reputation as an independent and principled senator. Rhode Islanders decided that the senator's party was more important than his politics and voted him out. The national story was no different; the Democrats were able to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with Bush and the GOP; the party successfully put their campaign money in the right places at the right time and took control of both house of Congress.
On one level, this is exactly as it should have been: voter preferences were manifested in electoral outcomes. But on another, this new emphasis on party - at the expense of individual officeholders - is a disturbing development.
The United States is structured as a federal system, in which the interests of states and districts are represented in Congress through senators and representatives. This ensures that local issues and concerns are heard in the national sphere. But government institutions based on party, as are many in Europe, generally have no such local provisions, and parliaments consider only issues that impact the whole nation. Local issues, if discussed, are made into law without the direct input (through representatives) of the regions they purport to help. As an example, Denmark, whose legislature is based almost exclusively on people elected solely on party, not region, could pass a law on urban housing party, and the urban areas themselves would never have any formal representatives to express an opinion. I fear the United States is becoming more like the latter, as regional and local issues are gradually phased out of consideration in favor of a collective national consciousness.
I don't mean to suggest that political parties are a bad thing - quite the opposite. Without some form of organized leadership, as is found in a party, nothing would happen in Congress. Parties do a decent job of bringing together people with reasonably similar ideological perspectives. But a party-centric approach forgets that so much of politics is simply not based on big, sexy partisan issues. Stem cell research, abortion and the war in Iraq are important, to be sure, but much of a congressperson's time and energy isn't spent on such issues. Rather, these officials spend their time on mundane constituent services, such as helping a resident find a passport, or winning money to build a road or a post office. Some might call this ''pork,'' some ''representation,'' but almost all will agree it is an important part of the political process. Focusing solely on party ignores this dynamic.
Even when legislators spend their time legislating, most of their efforts are on non-controversial, non-partisan issues, such as procurement for federal agencies, or how to address a complaint about the postal service. Clash exists, to be sure, but more often than not it is between politicians of different geographic regions, or between the House and the Senate - not necessarily between the different parties.
Our system of government, as it is currently structured, depends on political parties for some things, but it is not defined by them. Instead, our system demands leaders who can represent a complicated set of local, regional, institutional and (sometimes) partisan interests - and from them form coherent policy. But focusing on party alone when choosing those legislators, as happened last election, and not on the character, local connection or leadership ability of those candidates is irresponsible, and ignores of the basic realities of our political system.
That's not a step this country should take.
Joey Borson '07 spends way too much time on institutional procedures.
