The “Wellstone!” bumper sticker is still a common site in
the Twin Cities. Once upon a time, they were
advertisements for Paul Wellstone’s political campaigns, for Senate in 1990,
1996, and 2002, and for President in 2000.
But a decade after his death they have become … something else. To drivers of other cars on the road, this
green and white emblem on a vehicle has come to mean: Warning, lousy driver at the wheel. Slow, oblivious, imperious, annoying.
For those driving the cars with Wellstone branded bumpers,
it means much, much more. They have no
practical purpose any longer, so I’m left to conclude that it is entirely conspicuous
partisanship. They supported the most progressive,
controversial, and divisive politician of his generation (Wellstone never
exceeded 50% of the vote in Minnesota), and they’re going to tell that to every
single person they encounter, every day, to the maximum geographical extent
possible. ‘Attention world, I know you
are just trying to get to work on time, but you’re going to have to remove
yourself from your own thoughts for a minute because YOU are going to deal with
my controversial political preferences!’
During an active campaign, I’ll give a pass to the use of
political bumper stickers. It’s
legitimate advertising for a cause or candidate. But outside of an active campaign, let alone
10 years after that candidate has died, still sporting said bumper sticker is pugnacious. You’re looking for a fight. In other words, it’s a jerk move. If you’re doing it, you’re a jerk, and you’re
advertising that fact to everyone. We
might have guessed it from your driving behavior alone (slow, oblivious,
imperious, annoying), but now we know for sure.
You don’t see as many Wellstone bumper stickers as you used
to. For that, I credit not a lessening
of the jerk-like ardor of conspicuous partisans. I blame the practical, tactile difficulties
of trying to preserve paper and glue adhered to fiberglass and metal in an
outdoor environment. While it may be feasible
to preserve Vladimir Lenin’s body for a century, that type of ingenuity and
resource allocation isn’t possible for old Wellstone stickers. Year by year, day by day, hour by hour,
they’re flaking off and blowing in the wind.
Unfortunately, this has not meant a respite in roadway
political hectoring. Conspicuous
partisans have to hector, it’s what they do. So, Wellstone stickers are incrementally being
replaced by fellow travelling candidates.
Over the years, we’ve had our Al Frankens and Barack Obamas and Ford
Bells (all conveniently displayed on this Subaru straight from central
casting). But nothing has really
galvanized the community organizing community like Wellstone! did.
That is, until now.
In November of 2012, Minnesota voters were presented with
Referendum 1, the Marriage Amendment to the state constitution, which would
have enshrined in our foundational document the definition of matrimony as
between a man and a woman. From the
opposition arose the ‘Vote No’ sticker, which flocked to the bumpers of Twin Cities’ liberals like so many swallows to Capistrano.
The Marriage Amendment was defeated. In Wellstonian fashion, it virtually equally
divided the electorate, with 53% opposing and 47% approving. Then the newly minted Democrat majority in
the state legislature took the next step last year by legalizing gay marriage,
on virtually a straight party line vote. And there we have it, a highly controversial
issue settled by the barest majorities, with the losers still smarting over the
imposition of the brave, new world. And
how did the winners react? By piling on. It seems like there are even more “Vote No”
stickers out there now than there were during the election of 2012. They are everywhere on the roadways of the
Twin Cities, a badge of honor for all goodthinking Minnesotans.
Once again, it’s a jerk move of conspicuous partisans. Minnesota is full of them and we must
reconcile to the fact that they will always be with us.
However, I wonder if this time their antics will come back
to bite them? They have wedded their need
for adverse attention not to a candidate or specific cause, but to a commonly
used word: no. That political sentiment, unhinged from its
historical context, and combined with the average citizen’s short attention
span, could come to embody anything. In
a political sense, “No” is more conservative than liberal. To conserve is to maintain the status quo. The default conservative answer to any new
policy prescription would be therefore be, no.
In fact, it’s my theory that the Marriage Amendment failed due to losing
a portion of its natural constituency who assumed that voting “no” is the
proper response to any request on a ballot.
Could it be that future ballot requests for progressive hope
and change will be rejected, in part, based on the advertising providing by the
conspicuous partisans still doing a touchdown dance for defeating the Marriage
Amendment? That answer depends on the
theory that most ballot requests are liberal in orientation. Let’s go to the tape.
The Minnesota Legislative Reference Library keeps a database
of Constitutional Amendments included on the statewide ballot for voter
consideration. From 1858 through 2012,
there were a total of 215 Amendments considered, of which data on results is
available for 213. (The other
Amendments, both from 1881 and dealing with removing time limitations from
sessions of the legislature and regulating compensation of the legislature,
have their results listed as “not available”.
I pray these aren’t still embroiled in a dispute over some hanging chads
and felons voting from Koochiching County.)
Of these 213 Amendments, a staggering 86% have been approved
by the voters, and only 14% were rejected.
Based on total votes for approve vs. reject across all Amendments, the
margin is a somewhat tighter landslide, at 65% approve vs. 35% reject.
From this we can conclude that the legislators putting these
amendments on the ballot have generally been in sync with the people. But that doesn’t necessarily tell us if the
orientation of these amendments were more liberal than conservative, since we
cannot assume that the electorate over the past 160 years has been as been consistently
oriented toward liberalism as it is today.
So how can we determine that?
I could laboriously study each of the 213 Amendments,
understand the details and the unique political context of each over the past 150
years, and through the use of some advanced analytics develop an index from
which I can establish the liberal-conservative orientation of each. Or I could just breeze through each one and
based on the one sentence description provided by the Minnesota Legislative
Reference Library and make a snap decision on whether I (as the model
conservative) would vote to approve or reject each.
I adopted one of the above strategies for the following conclusion:
Of all 213 Amendments presented to Minnesota voters, 27% were
sufficiently conservative and 73% were too liberal in orientation.
Minnesota Liberals, you’ve been warned. You sport the “Vote No” sticker at your
future peril. It’s time to take them off
before it’s too late.
*For the record, if I did use the snap decision method of analysis,
the “when in doubt, reject” strategy would have been in effect. It sure would make deliberations on the
political orientation of Amendments described as, for example, “to authorize levy of water-mains assessments on a frontage basis”
a lot easier. And it may have been
remarkably enjoyable to casually dismiss scores of half understood government
schemes and plans with a casual, “nah”.
If only reality were so simple.
