The Middle Majority

The ironic dilemma in the governance of America today is that the majority of Americans who reside in the political center and are deciding elections have only extremist options to select from and remain largely unrepresented. 

Last fall in Wisconsin we elected Republican Scott Walker as our Governor.  I voted for him.  Walker was elected with a 52% majority.  Had 61,576 people out of nearly 2.2 million voters changed their votes, Walker would have lost to his Democratic opponent, Tom Barrett. 

Many of those 61,576 people, including me, voted for Walker’s predecessor in 2006, Democrat Jim Doyle.  It’s these 61,578 people, and thousands of others like us who are deciding elections.  We represent The Middle Majority – those persuaded not by rigid and narrow political ideals at the far left and right of the political spectrum, but by a combination from each with votes cast on the basis of what we believe, the critical needs of the day, and by what we perceive to be the character and goals of the individual candidate.  Those voters who support the ideals of the conservative and liberal poles vote the party line, and do so virtually every time.  The dramatic swing by the electorate between 2008 and 2010 makes it obvious that, more than ever before, it is The Middle Majority deciding elections. 

Isn’t it ironic then that the political alternatives we are presented with come only from the extremes leaving The Middle Majority effectively unrepresented?   Winners elected by The Middle Majority who represented the balance of our viewpoints then declare they have a mandate associated with their extremist views.  They effectively alienate those of us who really decided their election (not the extremists they side with who have that illusion).  In that alienation they insult The Middle Majority who then swing their votes the other way the next time around.  And in the current state of 24 hour news channels and social media it occurs quickly.  It happened to President Obama and the Democrats after 2008 and is in the process with Governor Walker and the Republicans – and other Republican ’10 victors across the country.  Arrogance and governance is not an attractive combination.  People can smell it, and they react to it.  We want our public officials to be smart, humble, pragmatic and willing to compromise in order to allow progress to occur.  But in the political warfare between the polar extremists we get arrogance, rigid idealism, and competitive rancor but precious little progress. 

Anarchy is, by definition,  “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.”  If that doesn’t perfectly describe the State of Wisconsin this past month I don’t know what does.  Revolutionary ultimatums issued with unreasonable deadlines.  Elected Senators flee the state to avoid voting (what we elect them to do).  A State Capitol turned into what closely resembles a trashy campground.  Members of the State Assembly in orange tee shirts employing delay tactics for 61 straight hours to avoid an inevitable result. Arcane and seldom-used parliamentary maneuvers that force a vote without adequate notice.  They call this democracy?  I want my government to be as dignified as it is effective and this is neither.  This is nothing more that anarchy delivered by elected officials.   As my Mother used to say, they are all brats and ought to be spanked.

Popular view has it that the lobbyists for corporate, union and industrial interests pumping the money driving elections is the root of the evil we have created.  Not entirely untrue, but more directly it is the party machines that are driven by that money at the heart of the problem.  I used to favor more rigid campaign finance reform that limited the corporate, industrial and union impact in order to enhance that of the individual.  I no longer hold that view.  What I now believe is that it is the party machine serving as the engine and it is it that which needs to be disrupted.  Special interest money should be forced to flow directly to the individual candidates whose views support those interests and party idealist should not be empowered to select winners and losers through the allocation of funds to favored candidates.  In reality, it is primarily the obligation to party that corrupts our elected officials. 

It is not enough to declare ourselves Independents.  In the current mechanism “Independents,” even though they may actually represent majority thinking, are effectively neutered from political influence.  It’s time to capture the combined power of the millions of us who hold views independent of either controlling party and mobilize it into an organized force – The Middle Majority.