Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

I have always had a hard time with the concept of “political parties.” (It’s much more fun to have a political party, than to join one.) At the end of the day, I’m admittedly left-leaning in my positions:  I don’t like guns, I have no problem with gay marriage, I have always opposed the current war, and so forth.  (I remain forever “undecided” on the issue of abortion, however.) But what really interests me is the degree to which people will pledge allegiance to a “party,” even if that party contradicts some of the things the individual believes. 

As a “liberal,” is it bad to support a Republican on one issue if the Republican has the right idea on that issue?  Recently, County Commissioner Pat DeWine had a great idea for bringing transparency to County government with the GASP program. Should I be prohibited from saying that is a good idea because of DeWine’s party affiliation?

For the past year, Cincinnati Democrats have taken positions the opposite of the local branch of our country’s oldest civil rights organization—the NAACP.  The local Democratic Party supported both the jail proposal and the Democrats on City Council have endorsed the red-light camera concept.  Both of these have been not only opposed by the NAACP, but that group has led petition drives to place the issues on the ballot.

As a “liberal,” and a card-carrying member of the NAACP, what does it mean when the Republicans join the effort while Democrats take the wrong side?  Does it mean anything when other liberal groups, like the Green Party and Cincinnati Progressive Action, also side with coalitions involving Republicans?

In a recent story in the Business Courier about Christopher Smitherman and Christopher Finney, the two talk about what it’s been like to collaborate across party lines.  COAST reportedly lost financial support due to its affiliation with Smitherman.  It’s funny, when conservatives freak out that people are fraternizing with liberals—and then liberals do the same thing from the other side of the spectrum. 

Democrats become particularly perturbed when the issue of independent presidential candidates comes up, like Ralph Nader.  The stakes are too high, they will argue, to cast what they call a vote about idealism.  But this seems to happen each election.  Every four years, there is some kind of “emergency,” that makes us think we can’t “waste” a vote on an independent candidate.  This is exactly the thinking a corporate duopoly requires to maintain hegemony.  So how else can the cycle be broken?

At the local level, isn’t it easier to take things on an issue by issue basis?  Local Democrats have supported a new jail, supported cuts to human services, supported red-light cameras not for making us safer but for making money for the budget.  They sold out to corporate interests like 3CDC, too.

I’m definitely not a Republican:  I do not like their social views, their views on welfare issues, on the death penalty, and so forth.  But I think the reason I get so frustrated with Democrats is because I feel like they are the Party to which I should belong—but I can’t, because they so frequently are doing something foolish.

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.