Skip to main content

Why don't they care about politics?

Downstate nobody really knows who Jack Markell is. This came as a shock to me when I read the voter recognition numbers in a poll the other week, because I thought everybody (like him or not) knew who he was.

Downstate everybody may know Carney's name as Lieutenant Governor, but nobody knows a thing about him. And they don't care.

As I wander around the state, nobody except political insiders knows or cares who Levin is, or remembers that Protack keeps running and losing.

When I hear people talk about political apathy in this state I take it with a grain of salt.

When political apathy rules and Democrats hold a substantial majority in registrations, then co-equal apathy means victory at the polls and a lack of accountability in office.

When political apathy rules and the Republican Party is disintegrating on both the state and national levels, then it means the possibility of a prolonged period of one-party rule (and for how much good that does, look at the history of Mexico under PRI).

When political apathy rules, the disenchanted seek individuals and not parties--Ron Paul, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Venture, or Ross Perot--which jolts everyone, but can be outlasted. Political movements don't turn into long-term political parties through campaigns. Political parties hold their bases with what they do between campaigns.

And when political apathy rules, we get midget candidates on both sides of the aisle, so much so that a class act like Matt Denn (and I'm not a Democrat by any means) can disappear into the bland sameness of mediocrity, because everyone assumes that nobody of quality would stand for office any more.

Why don't they care about politics?

You gotta ask?

Comments

Anonymous said…
The beach areas pay more attention to politics, mostly due to a general dissatisfaction with the growth in the area, just pick up any edition of the Cape Gazette and that'll be apparent. Western Sussex county... apathetic. If it's not on WBOC, it's not worth talking about.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...