Political question: Minnesota edition.

Ok, here it is.

Is taking four children ages 2 to 11, all by myself, tomorrow evening at 7 pm, to the GOP caucus (yes, that is "caucus," not "primary" -- no quiet voting booths here), in a parks building in our urban neighborhood, and doing my part to help take down the most horrible candidates, 

(a) a valuable educational experience for the older children, and a way to model participation in the political process

(b) admirably responsible, since otherwise no one from our family will be able to make our voice heard in the caucus/primary stage, which appears every year to increase in importance over casting a vote in the general election

(c) courageously positive, as I make a stand for inclusiveness of people with small children to care for even at 7 pm in the evening

(d) unnecessary, because everyone knows who is going to win the nomination by now anyway

(e) certifiably insane

(f) pictures or it didn't happen

For the record, if I remember right, in 2008 my neighborhood caucus actually went for Ron Paul.  I had my husband with me when we went, and we took the kids (three of them, then) because we didn't really have another choice that night if we wanted to go.  It was the first presidential caucus I'd ever been to.

The building in 2008 was absolutely crammed full, which fairly shocked me, because Republicans and conservatives are downright invisible in our urban neighborhood.  You never, for example, see any lawn signs.  The GOP usually doesn't even bother fielding any candidates to any significant local positions, although occasionally people running for school board will get an endorsement.  But that year there were a very large number of what appeared to be young libertarians, some of the hipsterish variety and some of the dreadlocks-under-my-oversized-toque variety, and many of them waving signs.  The oldsters who had brought cookies and punch -- not that there was any left -- were standing around at the edge of the room, blinking and wondering what had hit them.  I got the impression it hadn't been like this in 2000.

Comments

[Christy P.]

I vote for A-D.

That counts for more than I will count in the upcoming election.

I doubt that we agree on the "correct" candidate or president, but I suspect that we do agree on the need "to help take down the most horrible candidate" and even possibly who is most horrible.

Speak out for everyone left voiceless, by the virtue of living in the wrong state.

If I were around I would watch your kids for you, but I also like the idea of stopping and getting coffee for everyone on the way! Let the fun begin!

[Kate]

I want pictures. :-)

[MelanieB]

Can I vote for all of the above? I suppose some of the options are meant to be mutually exclusive; but somehow they all seem valid to me nevertheless.

[bearing]

In my dream, the hipster libertarians would have supplanted the punch-and-cookie contingent, and they would have Surly Furious on tap, plus 1918 [edit: I mean 1919, darn it] draft rootbeer for the social conservatives and Romney fans. Alas, I suspect it is not to be.

[mandamum]

I'm with Melanie--al(most al)l of the above :) Probably not certifiable, but still possibly insane. But I was planning to drive over the mountains and far away (~4.5 hrs?) to Olympia to let my voice be heard (or at least my sign-in be seen) in support of traditional marriage, with 4 kids (age 10mo-9) in tow...until the snows came and my poor dh started waking in the night worried we'd drive off the road. So I am with you--work for more inclusion of the caregiving contingent!! Teach civics first-hand! And help your voice be heard :)

Maybe just be aware you may need to be "flexible" (like arrive early enough to stake out enough space to breath in, close to a quick exit, and realize you may not make it all the way through?)

Here in WA, we no longer have a Presidential primary--maybe a casualty of the top-two primary system that the parties hate? I hear tell there are caucuses going on...somewhere...at some point...a secret location? Boo!

[Kathy]

1918 draft rootbeer....I'm all for this vision!

[Michael]

1) Could you get a baby-sitter for the youngest kids and bring the older kids who might understand what's going on?

2) It's not always a virtue to vote. Lots of uninformed people vote based on the propaganda they hear or the party they were born into, and that helps us get bad leaders. Of course you are relatively informed. If you're trying to teach the kids that it's good to cast informed votes, go for it! If the message is that it's good to vote (without strong qualifications about being informed), then you don't really need to put yourself out tomorrow.

Finally, OK here it is:

3) Last time around--and I remember this because I was so tempted to send you an angry email--you helped give us that milquetoast nominee who lost the general election, and then you wrote that it was good that the Republican party was becoming more "moderate". Funny word, "moderate". Is it always good to be in the center of the political spectrum of the day? The abolitionists were considered a fringe group in the 1850s. And somehow we never hear of moderate Democrats; only Republicans are told to be less extreme with their silly ideas about human life and economic freedom. Anyway, I would urge you to reject "moderate" as the meaningless feel-good label it is and rather try to pick the candidate who is most likely to advance the most important issues. (I'm personally voting for Santorum; there's a slight chance it'll still matter when MD has its primary.)

[Amy F]

The only time I went to a caucus, it was for the Democrats in 1996 and I hadn't quite turned 18 (but would before the election).

I wish Dan or I could go tomorrow but it's Peter's first confession and that wins.

[Rebekka]

I say a-d plus f, and I'm not qualified to have an opinion on e as I don't live there.

Can I ask an unrelated question - feel free to post about it :) - I think you mentioned somewhere at some point that you wear your babies, how do you do that when it's so cold?

[bearing]

@ Michael: "Lots of uninformed people vote based on the propaganda they hear or the party they were born into, and that helps us get bad leaders."

I don't think I've ever met anyone who was "born into" a political party! Regardless, the caucus or primary season is the time to try to influence where one particular party is going. Party affiliation, in an open-primary state like Minnesota, doesn't matter all that much at this level. I'm not a "registered Republican," for instance.

I think there are a lot of different reasons why an informed voter might want to attend the local caucus. I found it interesting and actually kind of energizing to meet people who were my neighbors and have some conversations about the local and national political scenes. It was there, too, that we picked delegates to the state convention to deal with more local issues.

I also think there are a lot of different philosophies you can take to the primary. Some people's view, at least in some times, is that getting their party to win in the immediate general election results is the most important outcome to influence; in that case you're looking for appeal to the swing voters, it's as simple as that. Other people's view is to get the "right" kind of people into position in one party, which may or may not help in the general election. I think there's room for both approaches. Certainly there is an argument to be made that the very low approval that President Obama is enjoying right now is an opportunity to get a more-conservative-than-usual Republican into office, since the swing voters are already holding their noses.

But the problem you'd probably have with me is that I'm simply not uniformly conservative.

I perceive Rick Santorum to be a man of enormous personal integrity, which is probably related to my perception that he is not a man who is going to be skilled at the art of compromise that I think is necessary in the executive branch. (By which I mean being uncompromising on essentials, and ready to compromise in inessentials). I think his strengths are really Senate material, not executive material. It kind of sucks that these two perceptions (integrity and compromise) are so opposed to each other, because logically the two should be able to co-exist in one candidate; so I'm not sure whether it's rare that they do, or whether it's just very difficult to see it.