The astute politician is keenly aware of whose votes he needs to compete for. Some are in his column from day one. Others will never be. He focuses his energy on “swing” voters, those elusive, independent, and rather indecisive individuals who decide the fate of election after election. Naturally, in order to win the swing voters he plays by their rules. He panders to their interests, spends time with them, and holds rallies where they live. But, incidentally, swing voters only comprise a small percent of the population. What happens to the needs and wishes of the Americans firmly in the red or blue column? Unfortunately, they are often ignored. Recent controversies in both Ohio and North Carolina are symptomatic of this problem, and show us exactly how detached government has become.
The controversies in Ohio and North Carolina are, on the surface, considerably different. In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich was widely criticized due to a lack of minorities in his cabinet. Initially, there were none. Now, likely due to all the negative media attention this has drawn, Kasich has attempted to rectify the situation. In North Carolina, on the other hand, the issue involves President Obama and the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ choice of Charlotte for their 2012 Convention, designed, most likely, to try and keep the state blue, drew the ire of a key Democratic constituency – the unions. As Molly Ball of Politico.com has noted, North Carolina, the state with the smallest percentage of unionized workers, is not too keen on organized labor. Unions, which were fervent supporters of the President’s 2008 campaign, were not thrilled by the Democrats’ Charlotte pick.
What is similar about both these situations is officials’ willful ignorance of voters’ voices. Just as John Kasich probably knows most minorities will never give him their vote, the President knows he is the best the unions can get – their minor disagreements are nothing compared to the chasm between unions and the GOP. As proof, we can go to CNN exit polls from 2010 (for Kasich) and 2008 (for the President). We know that Kasich won only 8% of the African American vote (other minorities were not large enough to have a vote breakdown), and 60% of union members backed President Obama. And thus we see a disheartening reality arise. It is not that Gov. Kasich and President Obama are deliberately shunning certain voters – it is that, knowing where their allegiances lie, keeping them particularly happy is on not at the top of either’s agenda.
Governor Kasich ignored the importance of Ohio’s racial diversity – essentially sending the message that he was not interested in what minorities might have to offer to his administration. It was likely not on purpose but rather, it seems that the issue was never even one of consideration. As Kasich emphasized, he was uninterested in quotas, and wanted qualifications – but it is not quotas we are looking at, but large groups of the population with unjustifiably disproportionate representation. And that is where the problem lies. In a state where about one in five voters in 2010 were minorities, it is hard to believe there would be so few of them qualified to serve in Kasich’s administration. But will it hurt him if he runs again? Probably not – as the data from CNN shows, most Ohioan African Americans voted solidly Democratic in 2010. The same goes for the President with the unions. No matter how much noise union leaders make about Charlotte, the President knows which ticket they’ll pick in 2012. The Democratic Party is fully aware of this – they know they have the union votes and financial support; they just want to win North Carolina again. It was, incidentally, the same issue with President Obama’s male-driven Cabinet, which includes very few women. Though liberal women were upset at the lack of recognition, they were cognizant of conservative views on choice and equal pay. Solidly Democratic, they stomached the blow.
What we see in both Ohio and North Carolina is a story of promises – both promises not kept, and promises never made. Until and unless an individual can prove to a candidate that they are an elusive “swing” voter, little effort is made for their vote – and once the candidate wins, the issues that matter to them are relegated to the back burner. This is not about having a balancing act in which everyone is satiated through the use of quotas and blatant acts of pandering. This is about reminding politicians – as many claim they are aware – that they work for everyone, regardless of whether they earned their vote. Perhaps unions, minorities, and women should not be so open about their preference for Democrats. Instead, they can play their cards right and raise important issues in any administration. No vote should be taken for granted. As “base” voters, they need to push hard to prove how much their needs matter – and perhaps take a page from the Tea Party’s book in learning how to do so. Just as the Tea Party showed the GOP that they were serious when it came to hearing their concerns – and ousted a large number of establishment Republicans by doing so – maybe today’s Democrats might want to consider reminding politicians why they were voted into office. However, I strongly disagree with increased polarization – Governors, Senators, and Presidents should be equally willing to hear constituents from both sides of the aisle. It may be difficult to balance all the different viewpoints, but politicians should learn from Lisa Murkowski. Almost pushed out of her own party, a write-in candidate with no party base, she became a voice for all Alaskans – and truly earned a place in the United States Senate. This way, the Tea Party worked – it forced politicians to find that elusive equilibrium of voter interests.
Photo credit: Ricky W. (Riction), via Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charlotte_Skyline_2011_-_Ricky_W.jpg
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.