Excellent article, Gabe. In addition to the need for crank politicians, we also need crank PARTIES! Our nation's iron-grip hold on the two major parties fosters blind party loyalty, prevents serious discussion of issues, and disenfranchises voters who don't like their limited choice. All should feel encouraged to vote "Crank" without fear they are "wasting" their vote.
Single member elections discourage the kind of single-issue voting that makes cranks electable. They also tend to push the major parties toward the extremes—which is one way to interpret Bernie Sanders’s ever-growing stock among the Democratic party, even though he only caucuses with them. With single member elections to the legislature, minority positions in every district get no representation whatsoever, for the entire duration of every term. The majority incurs no penalty or restraint against taking extreme positions. There can be no competition for appeal to the center if elected representatives aren’t held responsible to voters who wouldn’t support them in a primary.
This can be corrected by first eliminating political gerrymandering at the National, State and local level. With the Institution of Politically Independent Redistricting Commissions like Michigan instituted into our State Constitution. We now have not only such a balance of electoral power between the two parties Statewide, but now with a split State Legislature, but the balance of power leaning Democratic by policies instituted on the grounds that benefit all constitutes, Republicans in the Michigan House voted to continue SNAP Benefits during the Government Shutdown that Trump and MAGA used as leverage to Pass the Big Beautiful Ugly Bill! The Republicans in Michigan are still die hard MAGA to the core, but bucked Trump's wrath rather than evenly split District Voters. It worked to curb the worst instincts of MAGA on the State Level anyway.
I've worked in public education and non-profits my entire career. I've learned so many things along the way, but the thing that has consistently made me better at my job is listening to the cranks, the haters, the dissidents, the challengers, the critics.
When we listen and talk to the cranks we have an opportunity to make things better. The chinks in the armor of a system can be repaired and improved if we're willing to be curious, not take things personally, and do the work to make positive change for the betterment of the institution.
I credit you, Gabe, with helping me become a better listener to the cranks, and I've come to realize they aren't cranks at all, but some folks who ask some really damn good questions!
Tom DeLay started the Republican leadership habit of using primary challenges to punish those who didn't obey the leadership. Democrats don't use it nearly as much because, as Nancy Pelosi has often said, it's a waste of time and resources as well as inflaming any existing tensions.
Trump is now using it to force Republicans to nominate people who are less likely than the Republican incumbents to win in the general election. Tens of millions have been spent by Trump’s allies to make it easier for Republicans to lose in November.
Really loved this article Gabe. Articulates my thoughts over Massie’s leaving. I do not have the same principles as him on many things, but I have respected that at least he is consistent with his principles, even if it clashes with his party. There seems to be very little of that in Congress (certainly with Trump it drives me crazy) and it is to their and our detriment.
Great article. Another "crank" I would add to this list would be National Macon.
From his Wikipedia page:
He was for 37 years the most prominent nay-sayer in Congress—a "negative radical". It was said of him that during the entire term of his service no other members cast so many negative votes. "Negation was his word and arm."
A beautiful tribute to the contrarian nature of politicians who may make a difference, and to Massie of the the 4th district in Kentucky. He well deserves it.
Whatever happened to the Golden Fleece Award? I always looked forward to Senator Proxmire's announcements of the winners and I hope some Crank resurects this great tradition!
This was a fun read. I disagree with the idea that the cranks are routinely “vindicated” by history, though. That seems just a little too pat. I think it’s more of a broken clock right twice a day sort of thing. Being a crank doesn’t give you any particular wisdom or insight, it just means you might occasionally wind up on the same side as non-cranks through sheer statistical likelihood.
I'm not convinced simply being a contrarian has that much value. it sounds like a lot of the cranks mentioned in your essay actually worked with others pretty well and got things done.
To me Cassidy would be described more as a moderate but not a crank. I think he'll be missed. Massie seems to relish being contrarian for its own sake and I don't see much value there.
If you keep writing impartial reasonable articles, given the current state of journalism ethics, you will be considered a crank. Good work.
Best comment! Made me laugh in agreement!
Excellent article, Gabe. In addition to the need for crank politicians, we also need crank PARTIES! Our nation's iron-grip hold on the two major parties fosters blind party loyalty, prevents serious discussion of issues, and disenfranchises voters who don't like their limited choice. All should feel encouraged to vote "Crank" without fear they are "wasting" their vote.
Single member elections discourage the kind of single-issue voting that makes cranks electable. They also tend to push the major parties toward the extremes—which is one way to interpret Bernie Sanders’s ever-growing stock among the Democratic party, even though he only caucuses with them. With single member elections to the legislature, minority positions in every district get no representation whatsoever, for the entire duration of every term. The majority incurs no penalty or restraint against taking extreme positions. There can be no competition for appeal to the center if elected representatives aren’t held responsible to voters who wouldn’t support them in a primary.
This can be corrected by first eliminating political gerrymandering at the National, State and local level. With the Institution of Politically Independent Redistricting Commissions like Michigan instituted into our State Constitution. We now have not only such a balance of electoral power between the two parties Statewide, but now with a split State Legislature, but the balance of power leaning Democratic by policies instituted on the grounds that benefit all constitutes, Republicans in the Michigan House voted to continue SNAP Benefits during the Government Shutdown that Trump and MAGA used as leverage to Pass the Big Beautiful Ugly Bill! The Republicans in Michigan are still die hard MAGA to the core, but bucked Trump's wrath rather than evenly split District Voters. It worked to curb the worst instincts of MAGA on the State Level anyway.
I've worked in public education and non-profits my entire career. I've learned so many things along the way, but the thing that has consistently made me better at my job is listening to the cranks, the haters, the dissidents, the challengers, the critics.
When we listen and talk to the cranks we have an opportunity to make things better. The chinks in the armor of a system can be repaired and improved if we're willing to be curious, not take things personally, and do the work to make positive change for the betterment of the institution.
I credit you, Gabe, with helping me become a better listener to the cranks, and I've come to realize they aren't cranks at all, but some folks who ask some really damn good questions!
I like this article a lot but am sad that there have apparently been no significant crank women! Have there? If not seems like we need to get on that.
Jeannette Rankin! The first female member of Congress, and a true trailblazer.
Rankin is still remembered (for good and for ill, but mostly good) in Montana to this day
Cynthia McKinney
Tom DeLay started the Republican leadership habit of using primary challenges to punish those who didn't obey the leadership. Democrats don't use it nearly as much because, as Nancy Pelosi has often said, it's a waste of time and resources as well as inflaming any existing tensions.
Trump is now using it to force Republicans to nominate people who are less likely than the Republican incumbents to win in the general election. Tens of millions have been spent by Trump’s allies to make it easier for Republicans to lose in November.
Libertarians liked Massie. Tragedy to lose a voice of reason.
Really loved this article Gabe. Articulates my thoughts over Massie’s leaving. I do not have the same principles as him on many things, but I have respected that at least he is consistent with his principles, even if it clashes with his party. There seems to be very little of that in Congress (certainly with Trump it drives me crazy) and it is to their and our detriment.
Very Good. Husband's comment, "You realize Gabe is a crank, too. That's why we like him."
Great article. Another "crank" I would add to this list would be National Macon.
From his Wikipedia page:
He was for 37 years the most prominent nay-sayer in Congress—a "negative radical". It was said of him that during the entire term of his service no other members cast so many negative votes. "Negation was his word and arm."
Underneath Teddy Roosevelt may have been the biggest crank of all. Lodge kept him reigned in, at least most of the time
Great article! But one correction: Dr. Ron Paul is a Texan who never represented Kentucky in the US House.
A beautiful tribute to the contrarian nature of politicians who may make a difference, and to Massie of the the 4th district in Kentucky. He well deserves it.
Thanks for your good analysis!
Whatever happened to the Golden Fleece Award? I always looked forward to Senator Proxmire's announcements of the winners and I hope some Crank resurects this great tradition!
This was a fun read. I disagree with the idea that the cranks are routinely “vindicated” by history, though. That seems just a little too pat. I think it’s more of a broken clock right twice a day sort of thing. Being a crank doesn’t give you any particular wisdom or insight, it just means you might occasionally wind up on the same side as non-cranks through sheer statistical likelihood.
I'm not convinced simply being a contrarian has that much value. it sounds like a lot of the cranks mentioned in your essay actually worked with others pretty well and got things done.
To me Cassidy would be described more as a moderate but not a crank. I think he'll be missed. Massie seems to relish being contrarian for its own sake and I don't see much value there.