I'm really not sure what to make of this.
"In a remarkable editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times endorsed Diane Farrell for Congress from a district in Connecticut. Who is Diane Farrell? I have no idea, and the Times
seemed to have not a lot. After eight years as first selectman of
Westport, the paper noted somewhat desperately, "she has a better
understanding than most legislators of the impact of federal mandates
and tax policy on local government." By contrast, her opponent,
Christopher Shays, has held the seat for almost 20 years and been
endorsed by the Times "in every race in which he has faced a serious opponent"—until now.
Shays
is a Republican, but not excessively so. He's moderate in policy and in
temperament. In fact, he's just the kind of Republican that the Times
ordinarily likes to dig up and endorse, in order to prove that it's not
blindly Democratic. And they still like him: "[W]e have admired his
independence and respected his leadership."
Yet the Times
decided to "strongly endorse" Shays' opponent, entirely because she's a
Democrat. Or rather, because she is not a Republican. "Mr. Shays has
been a good congressman, but not good enough to overcome the fact that
his re-election would help empower a party that is long overdue for a
shakeup."
One of the axioms of small-d democratic piety in this country is
that you vote for the person and not for the party. People just love to
say, "I evaluate each candidate on his or her own merits"—even when
it's not true. A related form of democratic piety is to refrain from
voting at all if you know little or nothing about the candidates.
But this year does seem to be different. You hear people say—though rarely as forthrightly as the Times—that they are voting for the party and not the person. Well, more accurately, they say they are voting against
the party and not the person. The Republican candidate for the Senate
or House may be saintlike in general, no worse than muddled on the war
in Iraq, and good on stem-cell research. She may never even have met
Jack Abramoff. Meanwhile, the Democrat may be a grotesque hack just
inches from indictment, whose views on Iraq are equally muddled with
less excuse (since loyalty to the president is not a factor).
Nevertheless, these New Yellow Dogs are voting for the Democrat, simply
out of anger at, or frustration with, the Republican Party."