Tuesday is Election Day! Many of my readers know that I’m leaning Democratic this election year, on account of my disillusionment with Republicans and a number of conservatives. I’m not saying that the Democrats are perfect, but I want to make my own personal protest against the right-wing rhetoric that has been pushing my buttons over the past couple of years. Here’s a sample of things I have written to illustrate where I am right now:
Free Market and Fiscal Responsibility My…
Why’s Christine O’Donnell Get to Me So Much?
Is the Tea Party Movement Good for America?
But I am struggling with three different races here in Ohio. On two of them, I’m leaning Democratic. On one of them, I’m not sure how I will vote. Here they are:
1. In my district, former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot is trying to get his seat back from Democratic Congressman Steve Driehaus. I voted for Driehaus in this year’s Democratic primary, in which he was running against a pro-choice Democratic challenger. Driehaus is a Catholic and calls himself a pro-life Democrat, and he was one of the Democrats President Obama was trying to appease with his executive order banning taxpayer funding of abortion. (Whether that order will work or not has been debated.) In that primary, I sought to make a statement that I wanted there to be more pro-life Democrats. In my fantasy, the Democratic Party would stand for the rights of all vulnerable people, including the unborn. I’m tired of having to choose between Republicans (not all, but many), who speak about the poor with contempt and support a smaller safety net, and Democrats, who side with the vulnerable yet cater to abortionists in the name of “reproductive freedom.”
It turns out, though, that Driehaus only has a 33 per cent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, whereas Chabot has a much higher rating. I don’t think this is because the National Right to Life Committee is biased towards the Republicans, for liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich has gotten very high ratings from that organization. And, sure enough, Congressman Driehaus voted against an amendment that would have cut off particular funds from Planned Parenthood, and he supported the Office for Global Women’s Issues, which could pay for overseas abortions. Driehaus has talked as if he’s had to choose the lesser of two evils: he wants poor women to have health care, but, sometimes, that entails supporting organizations that perform abortions, among other things.
I wish Steve Driehaus were more pro-life, but I’m hesitant to support Steve Chabot. In the debate that I watched on ABC, Chabot spoke derogatorily about Section 8 housing for low-income people. Although Chabot talked about ways to reform the program, he referred in his statement to the possibility of eliminating it. I realize that Section 8 can draw a lot of sordid characters into a neighborhood, such as drug dealers. But I also know people with Asperger’s who need the affordable housing that Section 8 provides, since they don’t make an adequate income. What I liked about Driehaus in the debate was that he talked about reforms that he had helped to bring about in Section 8. I trust Steve Driehaus to be both compassionate and fiscally responsible. Moreover, Steve Chabot is too tied to corporate special interests for my comfort. So, in this race, I’m leaning towards Driehaus.
2. For Senate, Republican Rob Portman is running against Democrat Lee Fisher. Here is Portman’s page, and here is Fisher’s. I like Portman because of something that the wikipedia article says about him:
“Portman also co-authored legislation to protect tropical rainforests worldwide (The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998); to eliminate capital gains taxes on the sale of most homes; three bills to promote drug prevention and education; and a bill that was very recently enacted to help prisoners safely reenter society (The Second Chance Act of 2008).”
Portman is open to protecting the environment, and he is compassionate towards drug-users and convicts who want to re-enter society. He wants to help people who have made bad choices, not leave them to rot. Portman also talks about funding for infrastructure, so he doesn’t appear to be against the concept of stimulus: he just doesn’t like how President Obama has gone about it.
Fisher, by contrast, talks on his page about fighting the war on drugs, without discussing ways to help drug users to heal. What I like about Fisher’s page, though, is that he draws from his own personal experiences when he talks about health care:
“Nearly 40 years ago, my younger brother Richard and I were in a terrible car accident while on a camping trip in Idaho. The accident was so serious that it was initially unclear whether I would live or ever walk again. I was fortunate enough to have health care coverage and after three months in recovery, my doctors and my parents, who had temporarily moved to Idaho to be at my bedside, deemed me healthy enough to return home to Ohio. Just over 20 years ago, my mother was suddenly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a disease that would take her life at the far-too-young age of 58. I cannot bear to imagine how much worse her illness would have been if she had not had health insurance. Though my family had the best care available to us at the time, these moments of crisis stiffened my resolve never to give up the struggle to ensure every American has access to quality and affordable health care.”
Portman also laments that health care in America is too expensive, but Fisher communicates that he understands the experiences of many Americans. Although I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008, I liked how Obama referred to his sick mother’s suffering at the hands of insurance companies, for that communicated to me that Obama had a personal stake in addressing America’s flawed health care system: for Obama, health care reform wasn’t just talk, for America’s system deeply touched people he loved.
Fisher also supports anti-discrimination laws, including for gays and lesbians, so, on this issue at least, he’s willing to side with the marginalized.
There are still more things that I like about Portman, though. Portman’s conservative political philosophy was shaped by hearing small business people complain about taxes and regulations. I hope that he supports tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses, not just the big boys. (In my experience, middle-class people complained about regulations even when the Republicans were in power! That makes me think that many Republicans support deregulation for the wealthy, but they don’t go out of their way to accomplish it for the middle-class. I could be wrong on this, but that’s just my impression.) But I have problems with Portman’s pro-Israel policy, which strikes me as uncritical and one-sided.
As far as the usual mudslinging goes, I really don’t care. Democrats point out that Portman served in the Bush Administration, and so they think that must mean he’s responsible for the current economic crisis. In my opinion, both parties are at fault for the current crisis. It was Bill Clinton and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who removed the wall separating different kinds of banks. A supporter of this disastrous idea, Lawrence Summers, served in the Obama Administration. And the Bush Administration wasn’t overly rigorous when it came to monitoring and regulating the careless maneuvers on Wall Street. So there’s plenty of blame to go around. The question is: Where do we go from here?
In this race, I don’t know how I’ll vote.
3. The third race is for Governor of Ohio, and it is between Republican John Kasich and Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland. I like something that I read in the documented wikipedia article about Kasich:
“Kasich is considered a fiscal conservative, taking aim at programs supported by Republicans and Democrats, teaming up with Rep. Ron Dellums to cut spending on the B-2 Bomber and Ralph Nader in seeking to reduce corporate tax loopholes.”
Kasich is willing to work with liberals, and he’s not just for “fiscal restraint” in the areas where many Republicans want to see it. Many Republicans blab on about “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to programs for the poor, even as they support a bloated defense budget and corporate welfare. At least John Kasich is consistent when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
But detractors have argued that Kasich wants to cut programs for the poor. And, while Kasich is right to suggest that Ohio needs a lower tax burden to attract businesses, I wonder what that will do to Ohio’s looming deficit. Meanwhile, I think that Governor Strickland has tried to maintain a healthy balance among fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and compassion for society’s vulnerable. He attempted to cut funding for our public libraries, for Pete’s sake! (Good thing we voted to pay more property taxes to maintain them—or, at least, I voted that others pay more property taxes to support our libraries!) That tells me that Governor Strickland is committed to making tough choices, without going overboard.
Republican critics like to talk about the jobs that have been lost under Governor Strickland. But jobs are being lost throughout America. We’re in a recession. That’s not Strickland’s fault. But jobs have also been created on his watch. I wonder if a Republican could handle our recession any better.
And so, in this race, I’m leaning towards Governor Strickland.
We’ll see how things turn out on election night, though. Even if the Republicans take both houses, I won’t despair, for divided government can mean that both parties will block each other’s spending proposals, and that may be what our economy needs. Milton Friedman attributed the economic boom of the 1990′s to that! But I will be taking my own personal stand this coming Tuesday.