In the blow-by-blow account of the Democratic race for President, many pundits are ignoring the importance of superdelegates in the nominating process. Superdelegates are unelected and unaffected by primaries and caucuses and will comprise a voting bloc of almost one-third of the total at the Democratic Convention. They are primarily members of the Party establishment including Congresspeople, officials and other entrenched interests. These superdelegates favor Hillary overwhelmingly over the upstart campaign of Barack Obama.
How did this "undemocratic" situation develop? Well, initially, in rebellion to the process of picking a Presidential candidate in a "smoke-filled" back room, the Democratic Party moved almost exclusively to state primaries. The only problem: the Democratic base sometimes got a little carried away. For example, in 1972, they chose the liberal icon, George McGovern, who went down to a resounding defeat in the general election. After that debacle, the Party decided to place a check on public opinion by creating superdelegates.
Though some decry this situation, it's actually a good thing. Our Founding Fathers were always concerned about the "tyranny of the majority," the possibility of a demagogue coming to power. That's one reason why they formed the Senate and gave Senators six-year terms to avoid any mass-induced hysteria from Representatives in the House. Let's remember that sometimes direct elections, in and of themselves, fail to produce the best result. For example, the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections.
And sometimes you do need wiser, more experienced voices to exert some influence. So, while Barack Obama is dazzling us with his oratory, the Party elders, the superdelegates, may choose a more experienced candidate. This is beneficial for the Democratic Party and the country.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Nevada and Rolling the Dice
It's somehow fitting to see the role Nevada is playing in the Democratic primaries. Former President Bill Clinton said we would be rolling the dice if we elected Barack Obama. Despite the controversy generated by the statement, the argument is valid for a number of reasons.
1) Power changes people. Different people react to power, especially immense power, in different ways. For example, Dick Cheney, though admittedly an arch conservative, was viewed with a degree of respect before he became Vice President. Since then, his efforts to aggrandize himself and the executive branch, combined with his blatant warmongering, and his disregard for fundamental elements of the Constitution, have transformed him into a different person. His character now is repugnant to most Americans.
Barack Obama's youth makes him especially vulnerable to the effects of immense power.
2) Politics is a game of images, and the things people say to get elected may be vastly different from their inner agenda. Presidential candidate George W. Bush said he wanted to be a uniter not a divider. We all know how quickly that promise was discarded.
3) The best barometer in evaluating political candidates, given the two points above, is their prior record. There seems to be an element of calculation, compared to inner beliefs, in Barack Obama's record. For example, he voted "present" instead of yea or nay on many votes while he was a state legislator. You can't vote "present" when you're President. You have to take a stand. That stand is harder to discern than for someone with a record like Hillary Clinton.
So, yes, there is an element of rolling the dice with Barack Obama. I'm not saying he couldn't be a good or even great President, only that it's difficult to render a verdict at this stage.
1) Power changes people. Different people react to power, especially immense power, in different ways. For example, Dick Cheney, though admittedly an arch conservative, was viewed with a degree of respect before he became Vice President. Since then, his efforts to aggrandize himself and the executive branch, combined with his blatant warmongering, and his disregard for fundamental elements of the Constitution, have transformed him into a different person. His character now is repugnant to most Americans.
Barack Obama's youth makes him especially vulnerable to the effects of immense power.
2) Politics is a game of images, and the things people say to get elected may be vastly different from their inner agenda. Presidential candidate George W. Bush said he wanted to be a uniter not a divider. We all know how quickly that promise was discarded.
3) The best barometer in evaluating political candidates, given the two points above, is their prior record. There seems to be an element of calculation, compared to inner beliefs, in Barack Obama's record. For example, he voted "present" instead of yea or nay on many votes while he was a state legislator. You can't vote "present" when you're President. You have to take a stand. That stand is harder to discern than for someone with a record like Hillary Clinton.
So, yes, there is an element of rolling the dice with Barack Obama. I'm not saying he couldn't be a good or even great President, only that it's difficult to render a verdict at this stage.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Barack Obama: Let the Buyer Beware
There is indeed something going in the Barack Obama campaign, but it requires a closer look. The first time I heard him speak since his keynote address at the Democratic Convention, Mr. Obama was giving his victory address after the Iowa caucus. Despite being a committed supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, I must admit I was taken in by his soaring oratory and plea for unity.
As the campaign progressed, and I heard more of his speeches, I came to realize he wasn't saying very much. Yes, the words and sentiments were eloquent, but it was like the old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" Slowly, it dawned on me that everyone brought their own hopes and aspirations to these rallies, and transposed them onto what Obama was saying. Thus, the speeches served as a template for our individual needs.
With all due respect to Mr. Obama and the historic campaign he is waging, this is a dangerous thing. Even if the messenger is well meaning, the fact that masses of people are flocking to his campaign suggests we, as a people, may be vulnerable to a demagogue. Not that Barack is one, just that Americans are often a little naive. Mr. Obama is exploiting that fact like any good politician who tries to avoid unnecessarily alienating groups of voters by being too specific.
Now, I don't really know Mr. Obama very well, and I prefer Hillary because I know where she stands and her true concern for all Americans. But it is difficult for her to compete against someone who stirs the longing and desparation we all feel at times.
So, here's just a note of caution: Caveat Emptor... Let the buyer beware.
As the campaign progressed, and I heard more of his speeches, I came to realize he wasn't saying very much. Yes, the words and sentiments were eloquent, but it was like the old Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" Slowly, it dawned on me that everyone brought their own hopes and aspirations to these rallies, and transposed them onto what Obama was saying. Thus, the speeches served as a template for our individual needs.
With all due respect to Mr. Obama and the historic campaign he is waging, this is a dangerous thing. Even if the messenger is well meaning, the fact that masses of people are flocking to his campaign suggests we, as a people, may be vulnerable to a demagogue. Not that Barack is one, just that Americans are often a little naive. Mr. Obama is exploiting that fact like any good politician who tries to avoid unnecessarily alienating groups of voters by being too specific.
Now, I don't really know Mr. Obama very well, and I prefer Hillary because I know where she stands and her true concern for all Americans. But it is difficult for her to compete against someone who stirs the longing and desparation we all feel at times.
So, here's just a note of caution: Caveat Emptor... Let the buyer beware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
