Why This Republican Loves Democrats

It’s a wise Republican with enough good sense and enlightened self-interest to love an occasional Democrat. I recall that for years we had Republican governors in Michigan. I voted for each of them each time he ran. Would probably do it again.
But right alongside those governors we had a Democratic Attorney General—Frank Kelly. I voted for him every time, too. I knew that as long as he was in office, there was somebody in Lansing willing to protect my rights as a consumer and an individual citizen.
He had no ideological blinders to convince him that everything business, utilities and banks did was GOOD, and that they should in no way be impeded or forced to consider some other factor than pure profit. Every now and then he would step in and say, “No”.
I benefitted from that—as did every other citizen of Michigan. So I remained perfectly happy to have a Republican governor, Republicans in control of both houses of the legislature, a Republican Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, et cetera, et cetera. I just wanted Frank Kelly there to protect me from what might be called “too much Republican zeal.”
I’m by no means happy to see both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the hands of the Democrats in Washington right now. But every now and then those Democrats do something that makes me truly appreciate them.
There’s a bill that looks like it’s moving toward passage right now that no Republican would have authored, and few may vote for it. But, oh boy, do I love it. The bill would change the rules on how loud television commercial may be.
Instead of being permitted to bring their commercials in at the LOUDEST decibel point the program has, advertisers would be forced to hold their commercials down to the AVERAGE decibel level of the program. What a difference!
Which of us hasn’t had his eardrums assaulted by a commercial that came in at the same level as a burst of machine gun fire, a scream or an automobile crash on the program before? Instead of a quick “crash” or “bang”, the commercials go on and on at that level.
Madly you reach for the remote and look feverishly for that oh so tiny “mute” button. When we sit down to watch TV, someone in the room is always designated as the remote holder. He or she is expected to hit the mute button the instant the show goes off. If he or she is busy on his or her computer and forgets, there is a lot of annoyed bellowing.
(There can be more bellowing when he or she forgets to turn the sound back on as the program continues.) Won’t it be wonderful when the “mute” button won’t be so necessary? I’m looking forward to the glorious day when that happy piece of Democratic legislation goes through!
I first noticed the problem back in 1960 when I lived in an efficiency in New York City. My neighbor had a TV. It never bothered me during regular programming—but then, suddenly, I could hear every word of the commercials.
This seemed, and still seems, stupid to me. Why do they think I am more likely to buy their product if they blast my ear drums and annoy me to tears? If a clerk in a store was that irritating, the same people would see him or her quickly fired. And, today, do they imagine my family is the only one to mute the commercials that they spend so much on?
Anyway, as I said, there are times when this Republican positively loves the folk who sit across the aisle.
My sometimes ambivalence about Republicans and Democrats is by no means unique to me. (It took more than my vote to keep Kelly in office!) For years I have listened to commentators and historians express surprise at why the American people so often put a man of one party in the White House and left Congress in control of the other during the last half of the Twentieth Century.
(Ike with six years of Democratic control; Nixon/Ford with eight years; Reagan with eight years of a Democratic House and six years of a Democratic Senate. George H.W. Bush with four years of Democratic control; Clinton, with six years of Republican control … .)
To me this seemed so obvious! In most cases the American voter is far too pragmatic (and greedy) to be bound tightly by ideology. He was perfectly aware—at least in his subconscious—that one party (the Democrats) would never take away his goodies and entitlements: Pell Grants, Social Security, Medicare and so forth.
The other party (Republicans) would never force him to PAY for those goodies and entitlements by raising taxes. It sometimes played havoc with the deficit, but it has been a wonderful free lunch as long as it has lasted.
Democrats coined the mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid”. It would have been more accurate to say, “It’s the free goodies, stupid.”
Now that free lunch seems to be coming to an unhappy end. It may be necessary either to eliminate a few courses in the American free lunch or to begin charging for them (raising taxes). Now, and in the next few elections, we can ask ourselves, “Which Party Do We Want?”
The Republicans are more likely to take away a few courses. The Democrats are more likely to start charging for them by raising taxes. I myself cannot really answer that question yet. Which will they cut—whose ox will be gored? How much will they charge (I remember days when the highest income tax bracket was 90%).
That will really be crunch time. For the moment, when it comes to little things like tuning down the noise of the commercials, I’m happy to have some Democrats around.