Is it un-American to vote a straight party ticket?

Voters all across Michigan face a lengthy ballot today. Many will simplify their choices by checking that first box – a vote for a straight party ticket.

Even if the voter knows little about some of the partisan candidates further down the ballot, including the one guy who is an outright embarrassment to your party, the deciding factor is: If they’re part of my “team,” they must be good.

 

Why is it that so many Americans are proud of their inflexible ways, of marching in formation while an ideologue calls the tune? Goose-stepping and saluting while proudly wearing the party label – whether Republican or Democrat -- is not what comes to mind when I ponder the strengths of American democracy.

If a political party has convinced you that they are always right and the other side is always wrong, that kind of hyper-partisan rigidity, which spawns a reflexive urge to shout the other guy down, does not seem rooted in the American tradition of free speech and vigorous debate.

Those who split their ticket are far more suspicious of ideological preachers who claim they have all the answers. The ticket-splitter judges the qualities of each candidate, often seeking balance – a healthy tension – in government deliberations.

As columnist John Avlon of The Daily Beast put it, a centrist (by definition, a ticket-splitter) has a “deeper philosophic consistency beyond party labels -- a commitment to generational responsibility and individual liberty…”

The ticket-splitter takes a pragmatic approach and, not surprisingly, typically votes for pragmatic candidates who, as Avlon puts it, have a “common commitment to working together across party lines to solve problems rather than holding out for ideologically pure solutions.”

In other words, what’s best for the country?

The purists who put party over country have been fooled into thinking that there is a perfect solution – a party solution – for every problem. If that unyielding solution cannot be attained now, the party loyalists believe, the proper approach is to wait for the next election fight (and the next) until the party has overwhelming control of the government.

Which, of course, is what the majority of mainstream voters do not want. Most Americans do not consider comprise an unmanly betrayal.

David Brooks, the resident moderate at The New York Times, recently wrote a column in which he pointed out that much of the appeal of George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008 is that both presidential hopefuls promised to change the culture of Washington and its dysfunctional ways.

Brooks wrote that only a pragmatic craftsman could break through the logjam and swallow enough pride to achieve meaningful compromise.

Here’s a portion of what he wrote:

“… The craftsman has to avoid the trap of thinking that right makes right. He has to avoid saying to himself: My position is objectively the correct one. Therefore, all I have to do is get the facts out there, win the debate and then I’ll get everything I want.

“The craftsman has to accept the hard reality that the other side also believes these things. It is extremely unlikely that one side will convince the other, or the country. The craftsman can hope for some final ideological victory, but he can’t realistically expect one.

“…The craftsman has to be able to read a calendar. It is psychically painful to move away from your heartfelt position. It is easier to say to yourself: I can’t get what I want now, but, if I just wait, I’ll win the next election and get everything after that. Participants in the Middle East peace process do this: They postpone their dreams while maximizing their demands.

“The craftsman has to understand that these distant fantasies almost never come true. It is usually better to make a small step next month than do nothing in hopes of a total victory next generation.”

Is that what straight-ticket voters want -- a generation-long partisan fight that tosses bipartisan opportunities aside and tears the country apart?
Because if that is the bottom line, if that is the ultimate “as necessary” approach, then I have to conclude that that’s un-American.