Liberal Democrat Relishes Central Role in Race (nytimes.com)
I don’t pay as much attention to British politics as I used to about ten years ago. Part of this is because the anglophilia of my teenage years gave way to Japanophilia in the nineties, and even with a British brother-in-law I still don’t have that much interest in things across the pond any longer. Mostly, I admit, I stopped watching when Betty Boothroyd gave up being Speaker, as she alone turned Question Time — the one part of British politics we Americans get on a regular basis thanks to C-SPAN — into very enjoyable television. Still, an election is an election, and this one is turning into quite a horse race. My gut tells me that the Conservatives will win a minority government, but at this point I wouldn’t be surprised at any result. British elections also have the benefit, as The Daily Showpointed out last week, of really cool computer graphics that actually explain what’s going on. This has been the case for quite some time; I still remember the BBC showing the Labour bowling ball literally knocking down Conservative MPs when John Major got shellacked in 1997. The graphics don’t just look cool, either; they will help you understand what’s going on and why people (and the country as a whole) voted how they voted. It’s certainly a lot more informative than some silly CNN hologram.
Still, I couldn’t help feeling disappointed when I read that article. As much as I like to see a tight election, above all else I want to see people vote for the issues and candidates that they believe are most representative of their own beliefs. It sounds like a lot of the boost the Liberal Democrats are getting is from a feeling that neither Labour nor the Tories have served Britain well, and the LibDems are going to be getting many more MPs simply because of a desire to see “new ideas” in Parliament. The desire for “new ideas” is certainly understandable, but I don’t think it should be the primary motivator in deciding who to vote for. If a party or candidate has new ideas that’s good, but if those ideas run against your own beliefs, then I don’t think you should be voting for them.
We need only look back ten years ago, to the 2000 Presidential Election here in the US, to see what that kind of thinking does, and I say that will full knowledge that a great number of the votes Ralph Nader got that year were out of dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats. Still, one of the key factors behind Al Gore’s loss was moderates shifting to George W. Bush simply because Bush wasn’t the establishment candidate and came in with the “new idea” of “compassionate conservatism,” which many people embraced. Were it not for “Clinton fatigue,” there’s no doubt in my mind that Gore would have flipped enough votes to win the presidency that year. It didn’t take long after Bush’s presidency started — remember John Ashcroft clothing Lady Liberty because he wanted to be the biggest, most visible boob in Washington — for many people to realize that they didn’t agree with Bush, and voting for him simply because he was the one with “new ideas” wasn’t a wise move. We’re even seeing that today with people who voted for Obama in 2008, and the dissatisfaction is coming from liberals and moderates as well as conservatives.
I have made a lot out of the fact that yesterday I was finally able to register, in the State of Ohio’s eyes, as a member of the Green Party. I’ve been on the Green Party’s own membership rolls since 2003, and perhaps my vote yesterday was more symbolic than anything, but it was still a very big deal for me. Still, as strong of a supporter as I am of the Green Party, I do not always adhere to what I consider to be orthodox Green Party thinking; on some social issues I fall more in line with the Libertarian Party. In 2008 I voted for Ralph Nader, even though the Green Party nominated Cynthia McKinney, because I believed Nader represented my beliefs and values better than McKinney did. (Then Nader made that “Uncle Tom” comment about Obama after the election and I wished I’d voted for McKinney instead.) I have voted, and will continue to vote, for the candidates that best express my views, regardless of party affiliation.
The deleterious effect of the Republican/Democratic duopoly in American politics should go without saying (and while I an no expert on British politics, I can believe people who say the Labour/Tory duopoly has had a similar effect there), and I will continue to be a strong advocate for third parties of all stripes, simply because having more choices at the ballot means more people voting and a more representative government. However, on a person-by-person basis, if the Republican or Democratic candidates represent your own beliefs better than any third-party candidates, then you should vote for them without question. Voting in people or parties simply for the sake of change doesn’t make sense because change for change’s sake is nothing more than a crapshoot. The only change it makes sense to vote for is the change you want to see.