By Tim Baldwin
Ryan Zinke (R), John Lewis (D) and Mike Fellows (L) are competing for Montana’s only U.S. House seat. All three have seemingly good ideas. But (1) how many voters are really influenced by their proposed plans; and (2) what kind of change can they really effect if elected?
(1) Third parties have little chance of getting elected, not because people do not want them but because the two major parties possess a duopoly of money and media. Most Americans feel they are the only choice, and our laws perpetuate this duopoly. Therefore, Fellows’ main effect is to syphon votes away from Zinke or Lewis. Every other voter typically votes on party label alone. Thus, Zinke and Lewis’ “platforms” are designed to stay within accepted party norms.
(2) On the issues, Zinke has a Republican answer and Lewis has a Democrat answer. They are ideals proposed to get elected. Experience shows us, however, that the more controlling bodies in Washington D.C. are unelected bureaucracies that regulate us without congressional control – not to mention foreign and international corporate interests whose expenditures and influence overshadow anything individuals can fathom or compete against.
Vote for Zinke, Lewis or Fellows? You decide this November. Meanwhile, bigger policies must be addressed for us to have more meaningful representation in D.C. in the future.
By Joe Carbonari
The Lewis/Zinke race is encouraging. Both men have talent and decency. Both know a bit about power, and how to use it.
We have to guess, however, how they will act if elected. How close they will hold to the “party line” on critical issues, on what they might dissent. In their caucus, will they be leaders or followers, and if leaders, will others follow? Will either, if elected, actually be likely to make much of an impact on how things go?
With Lewis, the hope is that his grounded nature and common sense would help guide his colleagues to a more effective job of designing and implementing their policy proposals. He knows which levers to pull. Lewis feels like he’s one of us. He may disappoint us at worst, but he seems unlikely to ever sell us out or risk our lives rashly.
Zinke presents a different problem – and opportunity. The hope with Zinke is that he would help speed the return of his party to a more productive place. We need both party’s insights and concerns. Stronger, more effective, leadership is required. If elected, the hope is that Zinke would help it emerge.
The downside risk is that Zinke might succumb to the pressures and enticements of an insufficiently “sensitive” military or energy sector. Mistakes could be very messy, in terms of both lives and land.
Who will you trust? How far?