Like it or not, no matter which political party you favor, about half the voting population of the United States disagrees with you. Hence the pendulum swings back and forth every couple of years, boosting one party and then the other.
However, one of the many problems with our political system is that, while most of us don’t fit neatly into a red or blue box, we’re forced to choose from candidates who do. Or at least they say they do, because that’s the behavior we reward with our votes.
You’ve seen those graphics in which a map of the US looks like a sea of red with blue patches, or a sea of blue with red patches, depending on what variable is being illustrated. But what if those graphics are totally misleading?
What if our nation is a sea of purple, with some areas shading into a reddish purple and others more bluish purple? It matters because I believe our values and beliefs are more similar than different, yet the candidates we have to choose from are forced to emphasize the differences.
Even if a staunch Republican becomes very unhappy with the direction the party is taking, the idea of voting for a Democrat may seem totally out of the question. Whether this voter grits their teeth and votes for the Republican anyway, or decides to stay home, the results are not representative of what that voter really wanted.
For example, my last column, describing the advantages of a single-payer healthcare system, helped me understand how realistic such a system could be and what broad benefits would be delivered to all citizens regardless of party.
Prior to writing it, when I heard the phrase “Medicare for all,” I honestly thought it was just a wacky progressive idea that was way too radical (socialism!). Now that I’ve learned more, I wonder, why can’t a Republican candidate present a case for single-payer healthcare reform? Does being Republican mean you have to support the profits of huge insurance companies at the expense of your constituents? Must voters reject a plan they believe would help their families merely because it came from the “wrong” party? Should the health of all our citizens be a partisan issue?
Two major Texas races, for Governor and US Senator, are good examples of this dilemma that many voters will face in November. This week I’ll discuss the gubernatorial race, in which Democrat Gina Hinojosa is challenging incumbent Greg Abbott, who is seeking a record fourth term.
I’m embarrassed to admit that when I first heard of her candidacy, I assumed it was a hopeless cause, because of both her relatively low profile and Abbott’s seeming lock on the office. It turns out, however, that her qualifications are impressive and her policy proposals are relevant to voters across the political spectrum.
Hinojosa is a civil-rights and labor lawyer, a former Austin school board president and a five-term member of the Texas House. Her policy proposals include replacing the STAAR test, ending the private-school voucher program, raising teacher pay, strengthening rural hospitals, preventing private-equity firms from buying up Texas homes and requiring large data centers to pay the costs they impose on our electric grid and water supply.
I don’t think those are proposals that appeal only to Democratic voters. The voucher program was strongly opposed by rural Republican legislators for years until Abbott targeted the holdouts in Republican primaries and helped defeat many of them. Stronger data center regulations, including more local control for counties, also are widely popular. After years of courting the industry with tax breaks, Abbott’s recent data center reversal is a sign that his business-friendly approach was no longer working to his advantage.
Hinojosa’s proposals have broad cross-party potential; they are issues that voters care about because they affect their daily lives. My sense, on the other hand, is that Abbott is offering sound bites meant to convince voters that he is on their side, even though much of his governing record has favored wealthy donors and powerful corporate interests. His strong-arm tactics, supported by deep-pocketed donors, are beginning to wear thin with voters who feel increasingly ignored.
For those who worry that Democratic victories will sweep us all into extreme policies and radical upheaval of our normal lives, there are two important points worth considering. First, we’re talking purple here, not blue. Every bill would still have to pass the House and the Senate. Voting for a Democratic governor would not be a vote for unchecked Democratic power; it would be a vote to make our state government negotiate over a different set of priorities.
Second, and possibly most important, when you think about how things are going for you and your family right now, do you feel that one-party government has served you well? Might a bluer shade of purple be worth a try, instead of continuing the status quo simply because it’s been there for so long? Our votes are what makes ordinary citizens as powerful as the big shots.
We can let them know that from now on, it’s not red or blue - it’s purple.
Susan Hull is a retired clinical psychologist, a horse trainer, and an independent voter. She urges you to check your registration – or begin the process of registering – at VoteTexas.gov. The deadline is October 5.
.png)
