St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
  • For their own good
    Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Email editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message

Vote for the party, not the candidate

By Washington Post
Published October 31, 2006


In a remarkable editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times endorsed Diane Farrell for Congress from a district in Connecticut.

Who is Diane Farrell? I have no idea, and the Times seemed to have not a lot. After eight years as first selectman of Westport, the paper noted somewhat desperately, "she has a better understanding than most legislators of the impact of federal mandates and tax policy on local government." By contrast her opponent, Christopher Shays, has held the seat for almost 20 years and been endorsed by the paper "in every race in which he has faced a serious opponent" - until now.

Shays is a Republican, but not excessively so. He's moderate in policy and in temperament. In fact, he's just the kind of Republican the New York Times ordinarily likes to endorse to prove that it's not blindly Democratic.

Yet the paper decided to "strongly endorse" Shays' opponent, entirely because she's a Democrat. Or rather, because she is not a Republican: "Mr. Shays has been a good congressman, but not good enough to overcome the fact that his re-election would help empower a party that is long overdue for a shakeup."

One of the axioms of small-d democratic piety in this country is that you vote for the person and not the party. People just love to say, "I evaluate each candidate on his or her own merits" - even when it's not true.

But this year does seem to be different. You hear people say - though rarely as forthrightly as the New York Times - that they are voting for the party and not the person. The Republican candidate may be saintlike in general, no worse than muddled on the war in Iraq and good on stem cell research. She may never even have met Jack Abramoff.

Meanwhile, the Democrat may be a grotesque hack just inches from indictment, whose views on Iraq are equally muddled. Nevertheless, these New Yellow Dogs are voting for the Democrat, simply out of anger at or frustration with the Republican Party.

The term "yellow dog Democrat" used to mean someone who would vote for any Democrat over any Republican, even if the Democrat were a yellow dog. In recent decades there has been no such person, but this year the dog might have a shot.

And for those who might feel sheepish (to introduce another animal) about voting the party line, my advice is: Relax. There is nothing wrong with voting for the party rather than the person. In fact, there is even nothing wrong with blindly voting for the Democrat (or, I suppose, the Republican) even if you know nothing else about him or her.

In other democracies, such as Britain, this person-not-the-party piety is not just unknown; it would be hard to comprehend. Whatever Burke may have said, a member of Parliament is your representative. He or she runs on a party platform promising various things, and if that party wins a majority of seats it "forms a government." You would be silly to vote for the person and not the party. The party's views are what counts. The person's views are almost irrelevant.

Even under the American arrangement, there is nothing ignoble about voting the party line. It is an efficient way to minimize your information costs. A candidate's party affiliation doesn't tell you everything you would like to know, but it tells you something. Indeed, it tells you a lot - enough so that it makes sense to vote your party preference even when you know nothing else about a candidate. Or even vote for a candidate you actively dislike.

True, people might question your sanity if you were to declare that you were voting for the Democratic Party agenda. The what? If there's anything worse than ignoring that famous elephant in the room, it's imagining a donkey that's not in the room. Even so, a vote for the Democrat is a vote against the Republican. And voting "no" to a record of failure is more important for the functioning of democracy than voting "yes" to any number of promises about the future.

It was not Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that caused the great Republican sweep of 1994: It was disgust, skillfully nurtured by Republicans, with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Disgust for Congress is higher than ever. But this time around, at least until recently, the disgust has seemed to be less partisan. The Democrats were not as ruthless or as skilled about associating the sins of Congress with the party that controls it.

So what do you need? Permission? You've got it. I give you permission to vote for - or against - the party and not the person. And don't forget to vote.

Michael Kinsley is a former editor of Slate. He wrote this for the Washington Post.

[Last modified October 31, 2006, 01:45:06]

Share your thoughts on this story

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters