06 Oct Still Stuck in the Middle
With childlike innocence, I had hoped – actually prayed – that the political center, fundamental American principles, and the concepts of reasonableness, rationality, and responsibility would prevail in this election cycle. Not so much.
My prayer now is that sometime before my above-pictured grandson is old enough to vote, the United States will be past the Trump versus No Trump, Far Right Looking to Destroy the Far Left, “Progressives Saving Democracy” era of American politics. The little fella can cast his first ballot in 2040. Can’t we all agree to move toward the middle before then?
Is there even a middle anymore? Yes, there is, I am convinced. First, it is all of us pinched between big spenders and big government promoters on both sides. Also vexed are good government fans stuck with “promise now, govern later” politicians and “commit now, never compromise later” approaches. Middle folks also include long-time moderates trapped between Progressives and crazy obstructionists, and all dignified citizens dodging the crossfire of flamethrowing and name-calling from left and right.
Both presidential candidates apparently recognize that a middle remains, because they sometimes give lip service to moderation. Nevertheless, I continue to feel Stuck in the Middle with You (Nov. 30, 2021). As Stealers Wheel sang in 1972, “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am . . .”
My reasoning follows.
Harris and Walz are Unambiguously Liberal
If she truly is not an ultra-liberal partisan, Kamala Harris has had ample opportunity to propose policies by which she would govern from the center, in a conciliatory way. (That’s the moderate image her predecessor, Joe Biden tried to create in order to win his election in 2020, although he quickly reneged.) But Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, apparently feel no need even to feign a serious, substative move to the middle on policy.
They are simply assuming that the center left and true centrists – as well as Progressives – will not vote for Trump no matter how far to the left Harris and Walz remain. This is short sighted and a sign of unnecessary fear – fear of displeasing the far left. But there are more votes to lose in the middle than there are leftists who would even dream of voting Republican. I think those extreme voters are not as vulnerable (even to staying at home on Election Day) as the middle is winnable. In my eyes, Harris is making a strategic mistake.
More importantly, she also is doing a disservice to the country as a whole. Most Americans truly want a sensible federal government. A functional, transparent government. A limited government. A smart and stable government.
Why don’t Vice President Harris and Governor Walz campaign on such a platform?
Trump and Vance Are, Ahem, Trumpy
The fact that people have tried to shoot Donald Trump is not a reason for me – or anyone else stuck in the middle – to be compelled to vote for him. The fact that grand juries and trial jurors have found against Trump on felony charges brought by aggressive prosecutors also is no reason to vote for him.
Nor is this Trump-Vance approach attractive: A vote for us is your best way to give the finger to the “Libs,” the “globalists,” the “illegals,” men “who want to play women’s sports,” everything “woke,” the “vermin”’ who are “taking your jobs,” the “cheating, stealing Dems,” and anybody else you despise.
What us middle people would find refreshing, instead, is a traditional Republican platform of reduced federal spending, less federal regulation, and the accompanying lower taxes and greater freedom. This would entail fiscal responsibility, limited government, sound economics, and “can do Americanism.” Unfortunately, somewhat analogous to the Democratic campaign, Messrs. Trump and Vance (with the exception of the vice-presidential debate last week) seem to want the applause of their fringe voters more than the admiration of the center. This is politically foolish in more ways than one.
The divisive approach of Mr. Trump also is a disservice to the country, which actually wants and needs vision, hope, unity, and help from its federal government. We want a fair government. A compassionate government for all. A sane, respected, and noble government.
Do It for the Kid
This should be the last time I bemoan the conundrum that is Harris’s haziness and hard-leftism, combined with Trump’s truthfulness trouble, ideological inconsistencies, delusional diatribes, and venomous victimhood.
For now, I am comfortable knowing that most of you at least half-agree with me, and that many of you are aligned with both aspects of my analysis.
I will stop beating a dead horse and simply ask you all to join me in committing to a better political situation before my grandson can vote in 2040. He is a very good boy.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his posts each week, as this blog will explore and promote the idea of principle in politics, both as to individual elected leaders and our federal government as an institution.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Gary Hammer
Posted at 12:19h, 08 OctoberI haven’t voted for a Libertarian for years, but I voted for Chase Oliver, since VP Harris and President Trump didn’t earn my vote. President Trump exaggerates and VP Harris doesn’t do interviews or explain what her policies will be. Let’s hope we can get back to a less devisive nation BEFORE 2040. I know, friends tell me my vote is wasted—I don’t believe that, because both parties will need to look at the number of independent votes and ask why. Both parties need to develop better future candidates. It’s about our country, not the parties.
Gary Russell
Posted at 14:30h, 08 OctoberVery well said, Gary. I also hear the “wasted vote” argument and applaud your courage to look past it.
Darren Knight
Posted at 18:41h, 08 OctoberI hope your grandson has the freedom to post opinions on a blog, like his grandpa, in 2040. Giant statist/government control, creeping restrictions on free speech, and a corrupt media are more of a problem than ever before. Beware of institutionalism–and collectivism. The old republican, traditionalist approach isn’t going to work. The leftist, giant government approach is even worse. However, we are still an optimistic people, so I’ll restrain my grumpy thoughts and hope the world is sunny and free for all of our kids and grandchildren–in 2024–and 2040.
Gary Hammer
Posted at 01:08h, 09 OctoberThanks, Gary. I appreciate your comment.
B.J. Miller
Posted at 20:08h, 09 OctoberThe choice is easy if you agree with Quentin’s two principles:
In his Harris/Walz section: “Most Americans truly want a sensible federal government. A functional, transparent government. A limited government. A smart and stable government. Why don’t Vice President Harris and Governor Walz campaign on such a platform?”
The answer to Quentin’s question is easy: Because that is not what they want. They want the opposite of all of those things and will govern accordingly. For proof, look at Walz’s record in Minnesota when he had the triumvirate the past two years.
In the Trump/Vance section: “What us middle people would find refreshing, instead, is a traditional Republican platform of reduced federal spending, less federal regulation, and the accompanying lower taxes and greater freedom. This would entail fiscal responsibility, limited government, sound economics, and “can do Americanism.” ”
Those ideas reflect President Trump’s governing successes during his first term. He cut taxes for almost everyone and wants to make those cuts permanent (they expire in 2025 and Harris has vowed to not renew), he reduced regulations, he gave people more freedom. He could have done better to lower federal spending but the Swamp is deep and it takes time to uproot it. From listening to him, he has learned from his first term and will be much more aggressive in undoing the administrative state and bureaucratic overreach in the next four years. He will also promote free speech rather than censorship of “disinformation.”
I understand his bluster and derogatory comments about others can be a turn off for people. Voting against him for that reason is “personality based politics.” If you, like I, believe in the principles that Quentin listed, a vote for Trump is the only vote you should consider. It seems that a protest vote for a no-chance third party candidate is one vote that makes it harder to push Trump over-the-top and Trump is the only candidate with a chance to win who can deliver on the principles that most of us want for the United States.