Skip to main content

I’d Rather Not Be So Partisan

Since moving to my modest suburb outside Detroit, my interest in local politics has been marginal.

I personally don’t have much skin in the game — no school-age children, no business interests to advocate for, no history in the community. I’m generally content to pay my taxes and enjoy the benefits of living in a relatively well-run town.

Even so, as a citizen I feel responsible for knowing something about the people who run things. So while I don’t follow the workings of the city council, I do pay attention when its members are running for office, which happens in off-year elections every two years. 

So this is the year, and, as expected, the front yards are abloom with lawn signs.

I get to vote for three of the six candidates. The unspoken rule is that the election process is kept strictly non-partisan, so these candidates do not publicly divulge their party affiliations.

Which almost makes sense. After all, the upkeep of our roads, sewers, power lines and other infrastructure — not to mention our schools, parks, and public areas — is in everyone’s interest, and it’s probably good to keep partisan rancor out of the process.

On the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for partisan rancor. Especially now. I, for one, am feeling rancor aplenty, and I very much want to know the party affiliations of those running for office.

Because I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a Republican. No matter how competent. No matter how experienced. No matter how well-meaning.

The fraught state of our nation has brought me to the point where I have to question both the judgment and the morality of anyone still associated with that party.

I don’t care if they’re foaming-at-the-mouth Trumpies or those nice quiet folks across the street. They have — whether through ignorance or complicity or both — become a dire threat to my country, and possibly to me personally. I’m damned if I’ll vote for them to run my town.

I’ve asked around, but party ties are difficult to discern — Google isn’t much help. So I’ve taken to biking around town looking at lawn signs, trolling for hints.

I start with the houses of known Democrats, to see what names are on their lawns. Those names go in the plus column.

I then check out names that share a lawn with a Black Lives Matter sign, or an environmental action sign, or with another candidate I’ve already approved. These too get plusses.

The minus column is for lawns with a prominent American flag — a sad association to make, but not inaccurate. Likewise, if I see one of those creepy “Thin Blue Line” flags, or an NRA sticker on the pickup, their candidate moves down the list. As it happens, there’s a known rightwing buffoon on the ballot, and his signs are a big help in confirming negative impressions.

Yes, this is a lame and shallow basis for casting a ballot. But from these impressions I have gleaned a reasonable — if superficial — picture of the political leanings of the candidates. I now, with two weeks left, have a baseline from which I can gather further evidence. Plus, I’ve assured myself that I’ve put more work into this than ninety percent of the electorate — and one hundred percent of FOX viewers. 

Even now, I'm confident I will have three progressive-leaning candidates to vote for.  If my choices were only wingnut Republicans, as they are in many parts of Michigan, I would not refuse to vote — there's still a city to run. But I would be trying to figure out the lesser of six evils.

I’d rather not be so relentlessly partisan. I don’t like it. But I feel I have no choice. Choosing to be a Republican right now says a lot of hard-to-fathom things about a person:

It says they’re either not paying attention or they endorse the sharp anti-democratic tilt of their party. Neither is acceptable.

It says they’re either on board with transparent lies and overt sedition, or they don’t recognize them for what they are, which is just as bad.

It says that they’re fine with subverting the entire electoral system, until the only votes that count are white. That they’re okay with threatening election officials and their families. That they think minority rule is a great idea, even with no clue what that might mean to their own well-being.

It says that the ticking bomb of environmental deterioration doesn’t penetrate their consciousness. That they don’t mind blithely passing on this growing planetary calamity to their children and grandchildren. That as long as it’s not their homes that burn, flood, or blow away, there’s nothing to worry about.

It says they’re okay with prolonging the pandemic long past its sell-by date. That they can somehow conflate vaccines with tyranny. That they’re happy to listen to all the wrong sources and draw all the most dangerous — and self-destructive — conclusions. That they don’t mind seeing their local hospitals overwhelmed and their own neighbors dead. That they willfully put themselves and the people around them in harm’s way. All for the silliest of non-reasons.

It says they have no respect for the rights of women, or the rights of anyone who isn’t male, white, straight, and Christian.

It says they have no idea — or even worse, don’t care — how much damage has been done to our democracy, our institutions, our judiciary, our stature in the world, and our ability to defend ourselves from both enemies and disease. And how hard that damage will be to repair.

We need to recognize what the media will not. That the Republican party has become a clear and present danger to our way of life. And that continuing to identify as Republican means one is either stupid or complicit.

Would you want someone like that on your city council?

 

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Can the Abortion Issue Slip Any Further Under the Radar?

  One of the many chilling ironies of the war on abortion is that the states most insistent on women having babies, no matter what, are also the ones with the least to offer those babies once they’ve had the bad luck to be born there. And it’s important to understand that these states are getting increasingly insistent on women having babies, no matter what. Goaded and guided by abortion abolitionists in legislatures, law firms, and courtrooms, Republican governments are, one way or another, actively blocking off any avenue that doesn’t lead to a woman of any age getting pregnant, giving birth, then getting pregnant again. Rinse and repeat. If the woman dies in the process, she’s easily replaced. The idea seems to be that women are a sort of production line, whose purpose is to generate usable babies. The way they get pregnant is irrelevant to the discussion. If they were impregnated by, say, an uncle, or a rapist, or a clergyman, the laws of these states ca...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...