Big Tent???

It's been a while. Sorry about that. I've done a lot of news watching, research, classroom activities, and kept an eye on the constant barrage of political ads. It's nasty; and it's almost over. I have continually picked out one new phrase: "we're a big tent party." The phrase of the week has changed from time to time, but this is one that has stuck pretty well. And it's an interesting one to me because you hear representatives of both parties use it. Believe me, I understand the goal: convince moderates, independents, people in the middle, and weak party members (those that only lean Democrat or Republican), that they are welcome in the party, even if there are some minor differences between the two. I appreciate the approach; quite frankly, it appeals to someone like me.

This cycle, my biggest problem is with the Republicans. I think it's very disingenuous of them to use the phrase in a year where they've offered ideological purity tests to their candidates, and run sitting incumbents out of office because they aren't "conservative enough." Quite frankly, I hope Lisa Murkowski wins in Alaska. She's good for her state, and it'll slap the Tea Party right in the face. That's just me though. Does this mean that voters who don't completely, 100% align with the Republican Party platform won't vote for Republican candidates? No. They'll bite their collective tongue and push the button (eehhemm...Nathan Deal). But in the long term, if the Republican Party keeps pushing candidates farther and farther right, the voters will not follow. If the only Republican candidates they see are professional screamers and complainers, those voters will switch back. Maybe they don't like everything Democrats do, but they sure appreciate more than just whining. This self-proclaimed "big tent party" is pushing out all Hispanics, gays and lesbians, people who like the U.S. Department of Education, those who don't want to privatize Social Security, everyone working minimum wage jobs, and any politician who dares to think a tax increase might be needed sometimes. Ever. Their answer is never. And that doesn't always work. In the short term, when people are pissed off and fired up, that will work. We're probably going to see it work in a couple of races in 6 days or so. But in the long term, it completely eliminates your chance of being seen as a big tent party. There are some Republicans that I could vote for; there are some Republicans that I did vote for (I've early voted already and you should too). But the farther and farther right the party goes, the less likely I am to find those moderate candidates.

Don't let me fool you. Democrats are certainly not innocent angels. It's one big problem I have with the party. Would I make the argument that Democrats' tent is a bigger tent? Yes. But consider this. When was the last time a pro-life Democrat was on the national Presidential ticket? Can't think of one...don't blame you. Let's try this another way. Do these names ring a bell: Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore...these were men who were all pro-life...until they ran for office as Democrats. They obviously took politically expedient ways to office. I'm not saying that none of them had a genuine change of heart, but I'm just illustrating a point. If I'm not mistaken, Hubert Humphrey and Sargent Shriver were both pro-life, but they aren't listed as President/Vice-President in the back of mediocre high school U.S. History book, now are they? A good number of Democrats would scoff at the notion of running pro-life candidates because women are such a large voting bloc in the party, but pro-life Democrats are out there. I can speak as one of them. I have actually moderated on this issue over the last few years. I used to be a very radically pro-choice voter, but I have since moved to the right on this issue. Enough to call myself pro-life. But I am also consistent about it. "From womb to tomb" as the old adage says. I am pro-life on the abortion issue, but I am also pro-life in the court system, which translates to me being opposed to the death penalty (this is one issue where a lot of Republicans are hypocrites). Big whigs in my party might laugh at the thought of me running for national office. And that's just my point about the label of "big tent"...where does anyone fit? How can anyone possibly fit? We all bite our tongues to some degree, because there are rarely candidates that we agree with 100%. I'm pro-life, pro-tax cuts for small businesses, pro-school vouchers and pro-2nd Amendment rights, generally Republican positions. But I'm also pro-universal healthcare, pro-tax increases for wealthy individuals, pro-affirmative action and pro-gay rights, generally Democratic positions. In each election, the big tents always appear to make a spot for you under them. People have to make the best, most informed decision that they can sleep with at night. That's just the simple fact. Which is why I hate it when people around here ask me if I regret voting for President Obama. No, I do not. Given the same circumstance as 2008, I'd cast that vote a million times over and over again. Now, you give me a plethora of candidates along the ideological spectrum, representing those actual big tents that I could possibly vote for, we'll talk about 2012.

My question is, in the future, will there even be two big tents to choose from?