"Mandate" — it is a word that has been tossed around frequently as of late by everyone from pundits to politicians to news anchors and analysts. Every public opinion poll result, election or protest seems to somehow be a political mandate for one party or the other, justifying that party's actions and ideologies. While it is true that votes are one of the clearest ways to quantify support, one would be remiss to draw the conclusion that because people vote for a particular candidate or support certain aspects of an ideology, their views line up entirely with those of one political party.
In a time of increasing homogeneity among American political parties — a phenomenon largely brought on by the increased influence of special interest groups — the concept of the mandate seems to be indicative of a greater problem: that operating on an inflexible set of party ideals alienates the many diverse people and opinions that make up our country.
In the wake of President Obama's victory last year, there was a general frenzy to declare a political imperative. Political pundits interpreted the vote as a mandate for everything he and the Democratic Party stood for — from universal health care to ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yet here we stand, over a year later, in a world that, for better or worse, is not quite what those talking heads envisioned. Indeed, news of Obama's political mandate did not seem to reach the ears of the Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom chose to vote against the health care bill in the House of Representatives. It seems as though the so−called "mandate" never existed.
With the recent triumphs of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia in the 2009 gubernatorial elections, there was another explosion. Politicians and media organizations claimed that their elections were mandates for a conservative agenda, again ignoring any individual merits or viewpoints Christie and McDonnell may have represented that deviate from the Republican agenda. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have almost completely discarded any acknowledgement of these variations in their constituencies.
While it is undoubtedly true that many people vote along party lines, there are also a great many people who vote candidate by candidate, election by election. The idea that a vote for a candidate of a certain party is a vote for the ideals of the whole party ignores the importance of a particular politician's individual strengths, views and qualifications — often the most important factors to many voters.
The Republican Party in particular has consolidated its strength around a fiercely conservative base, forcing all candidates and constituents to conform to a strict party line lest they lose the financial backing of the GOP organization and the powerful lobbies that fund it. This tendency has made it even more difficult for politicians like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R−Maine) and Rep. Joseph Cao (R−La.) to break with party ranks and vote according to the desires of the people they represent and what they believe to be best for the country as a whole.
A politician's sole purpose is not to vote in line with the people that elected her to office. But it is a politician's job to make informed decisions and work to move the country forward. It is difficult to make independent and informed choices when there is immense pressure and expectation to vote along the party lines that lobbies and inside−the−Beltway advisors have outlined.
For example, 176 of 177 Republicans in the House supported the infamous Stupak−Pitts amendment to the body's health care bill — an amendment that would limit payments to abortions. This was despite the fact that nearly half of all Americans consider themselves pro−choice, according to a recent Gallup poll. Perhaps the disparity comes in part because, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, these politicians have raised a combined $1.2 million since 1989 from ideological groups and donors that oppose abortion rights −− and (more importantly) it might have something to do with all of the money that pro−life groups give to the Republican Party to make sure its representatives remain strongly against abortion rights. In recent years especially, being a national Republican politician has become virtually synonymous with being pro−life. This has a lot to do with money — and not too much to do with democracy.
All parties should reconsider the emphasis they place on conformity. Diversity of values is one of our nation's greatest strengths, and letting our politicians embrace it would help to reinvigorate America's two−party system.
