Archive for November 4th, 2008

I brought my son to vote with me this morning. At first glance, this seemed somewhat reckless, as he’s at that age where waiting for anything doesn’t work. He tries to squirm out of the stroller, and if you take him out of the stroller he just runs away and gets in to things. But it wound up being a good move, because I was ushered over to the wheelchair entrance and put in a much shorter line. I took him into the booth with me, where I cast a vote that, let’s just say, will put me in the minority in my precinct.

Will I be in the minority in the country, overall? It’s hard to say. Several of the mainstream polls show Obama winning by double digits, which seems a little strange. Ronald Reagan did not beat Jimmy Carter by double digits. Bill Clinton did not beat George H.W. Bush by double digits, nor did he beat Bob Dole by double digits. The last double-digit margin of victory was Reagan over Mondale in 1984 (incidentally, the first election I remember, when my mom took me to vote with her), but a popular president winning re-election is a very different matter than a wide-open election in a country that has voted roughly 50-50 for the past two. The biggest unknown in this particular election is the African-American vote. In theory, extremely high turn-out could tip red states and toss-up states, but this analysis from Sean Malstrom notes that neither Obama nor McCain has been spending that much time in states like Georgia that pollsters have been claiming are in play.

Anyway, as I wrote in a 2002 piece for USA Today called “Hurrah for the right to vote (or not),” I am not convinced that life as we know it will change that much under a President Obama or McCain — at least I hope not. If someone was talking about instituting a flat tax, I’d be excited, but as it is, the two are debating over small percentages in something that’s already way too high. I worry a high-majority Democratic Congress would destroy free trade and pass more onerous regulations.  But in general, unless you choose to enlist in the military, I guess, daily life has been and will be the same if you choose to ignore politics. (And even then — Obama can’t pull us out of Iraq immediately. He said in the debates that stopping genocide was a reason to use US troops, and it is entirely possible that Iraq would experience genocide in our absence).

That said, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon as a lonely conservative in Manhattan. There’s an underlying assumption of liberalism that pervades social gatherings to the point where people consider it perfectly respectable to start a conversation — even if they don’t know you! — with “oh, that horrible George W. Bush” or “aren’t you glad to be done with eight years of this nightmare?” There is the assumption that everything Republicans do is disingenuous, that the only reason McCain picked Palin was because he thought he needed a substitute Hillary. Um, no. Palin is no substitute Hillary. Like Clinton, she took her husband’s name, but she’s the one who made it famous. The commentariat just doesn’t get it. I don’t know how it is elsewhere, but I assume that there are some small southern towns or Midwestern evangelical congregations that are equally tipped the other way, where Democrats are so rare that no one knows any…except the shrill dingbats you see on TV. Pretty soon we’re all going to need anthropologists to understand each other.

Perhaps that’s what happens in a country with 500 channels, zillions of Internet outlets, and iPods which mean you no longer have to listen to what comes over the airwaves to the car radio. But politics doesn’t work in that environment, when you need governing majorities that acknowledge the humanity and good will of people who think differently than you do. Obama talks a good game that way — but when it comes down to it, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words.