Non-partisan articles of faith
by David Atkins
Readers may recall my post about High Broderist independent Linda Parks running for Congress in California’s 26th district.
Well, the League of Women Voters just held a CA26 candidate forum, which you can view here. Republican Tony Strickland was a no show, leaving the field to Linda Parks and three Democrats, including the superb and progressive Julia Brownley.
Video streaming by Ustream
Notice how Ms. Parks speaks incessantly of a lack of bipartisanship and problem-solving–and yet refuses to answer any questions about how she would actually solve problems. This is a hallmark of the High Broderist ethic: refuse to mention specific policy answers, but give a lot of lip service to centrist “solutions”–which are usually unpopular and highly damaging to the middle class. The only “problems” she was able to mention were 1) the deficit; and 2) Social Security supposedly “going bankrupt.”
The Ventura County Star has an article about the forum which gives a gist of it:
This audience, it seems, really wanted Linda Parks to answer the question: Who would she vote for to be speaker of the House?
Parks, who is running as an independent in the 26th Congressional District U.S. House race, would have none of it.
She repeated what she’s been saying since dropping her GOP affiliation last month and re-registered as having no party preference: She rejects the emphasis on party domination; partisanship is keeping the country from dealing with real issues; it’s what’s wrong with the country.
David Maron, a League of Women Voters of Ventura County member who moderated a forum Friday afternoon for candidates for the House seat, tried again. Seven question cards had been submitted by audience members with some variation of the question, he told her.
“I am going without the baggage of a party label,” Parks said, and began to elaborate again.
Maron interrupted her midsentence, saying he needed to move on.
“I just wanted to give you one more chance,” he said.
The forum for candidates in the closely watched race drew an attentive crowd of about 125 to the Camarillo City Hall. It was the first such event, since the field was set earlier this month, that all candidates were invited to.
Note again the maddening lack of specifics and contempt for the questions from the audience. As I commented in the article:
It’s not just about whom Parks would vote for as Speaker, though that’s a very big deal. What matters is whether Linda Parks has any principles beyond getting herself elected. She has steadfastly refused to answer any direct questions about what sort of policies she would advocate, choosing instead to answer only in platitudes.
She talks a lot about bipartisanship and compromise. But those are *tactics*, not principles.
For instance, Parks says that Social Security is going bankrupt. That’s not true–it’s funded for decades. But even if it were true, how would she fix it? Raising the age limit, reducing benefits, raising the payroll tax cap? What would she do?
Parks says her priority is closing the deficit. Well, what does she think Democrats should have done more to compromise on? The deficit is directly caused by the recession, the Bush tax cuts and foreign wars. Bring back Clinton-era tax rates and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deficit almost disappears. How would Linda Parks close the deficit? Would she raise taxes on the wealthy? Cut services to the needy? What would she cut?
Parks claims to be an environmentalist. What would she do about climate change, which really is an impending disaster unlike the deficit which is much more easily managed? Would she support the Keystone Pipeline? What about a carbon tax?
She says we should be “stronger allies of Israel.” Would she support massive spending on a hot war with Iran, even while cutting social services to “tackle the deficit?”
Parks steadfastly refuses to answer any of these questions, spouting platitudes about compromise and bipartisanship instead.
She doesn’t have to answer to any political party. But she does owe the voters of the district to inform them what her principles are, and how she would be likely to vote on the major issues of the day.
And as I continued when challenged by a “moderate” on the immediate need to tackle Social Security, of all things:
Of all the problems in this country, a fund that might run out in 25 years isn’t at the top of the list–to say nothing of the fact that if the country can find money for three wars, it can find it for social security. I didn’t notice Republicans demanding that the Iraq War pay for itself.
But beyond that, neither you nor Linda Parks have given any details for how you would solve the social security “problem.” Cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or raise the payroll tax cap? Raise the cap to $200,000, and the “problem” is instantly solved.
My problem with Linda Parks isn’t that she’s not a Democrat. It’s that I have no idea how she would vote on the issues. And that in turn means that she wouldn’t be a representative of the people.
By contrast, I know exactly how Julia Brownley on most of the major issues of the day, and I know that she shares my values.
And that, by the way, is the value of the political parties. When all else fails, they’re a fairly good guide to a candidate’s moral values and budget priorities, especially when paired the endorsements of individuals paying close attention to the races.
Linda Parks doesn’t have to answer to a political party. But that makes it *all the more important* that voters know exactly how she would vote on the issues. She has steadfastly refused to any of these questions with any specificity.
As the Republicans continue to make actual governance impossible, the voters will become increasingly open to arguments like Parks’. The only antidote is to force candidates like Parks to move away from platitudes and toward real answers on the issues. Because if they’re forced to do so, it will become very obvious just how unpopular are the positions that fall “in the middle” between the two parties.
Blind fealty to bipartisanship is an article of faith, not of fact. It’s more damaging, in fact, than blind allegiance to a political party, because at least political parties have a minimum set of the principles that they allegedly stand for.
.
