Speculations
on the Political SceneSpeculations
on the Political Sceneby Yves Barbero
It is true that ideology often serves as a substitute for morals, that is, a belief that history is on your side and whatever you do is justified (even murder), or that your nation or race is beleaguered and must be defended by any means (even murder). But by and large, morality is the base for politics in present-day America. Even those advocating an absolute "free" market claim the moral base that such a scheme allows for greater freedom for all (others view the moral base as government protection for the weak through regulation).
The problem, of course, is that there are differing views of what constitutes morals.
In the recent attempt to remove the president, the mistake made by the Republicans was that politics was the base with morality being the tool. They got it backwards.
He gave many examples. But the one that stuck was the case of a teen-aged girl accusing her father of raping her. His investigators came to the conclusion that the charge was to get revenge because the father had refused to buy her a red dress.
A feminist in the class, obviously mindful of the growing evidence (in the late Sixties, early Seventies) that rapes and sexual assaults were often ignored by the police, objected. "If a woman makes a charge, you should prosecute! Don't you think?"
He told her that his people had a lot of experience and discretion was a key role in his job. "We're prosecutors, not persecutors!"
It sometimes seems as if common sense retired when this man did.
It was, his critics noted, a distraction. His friends said it was a necessary action.
It apparently has not occurred to anyone that it might be both or more. Here's my take.
The bottom line is, "Would the president have made the same decision under the circumstances if there had been no sex scandal?" Yes. From a policy point of view, that's all that matters. The actual wisdom of this retaliation may certainly be questioned. Maybe there was a better way. I personally suspect that the message was loud and clear because of point one, and it may slow up some terrorists.
The President, whoever he may be, will always use a foreign policy call to his best advantage. I'd expect no less, and frankly I don't want him to wear a hair shirt due to his personal failings. I'd be wary of a president who gave too much to his political enemies.
The extreme fantasy is that black helicopters, flown by the the United Nations, are dropping troops off in our National Parks in preparation for the handing over of the country by corrupt politicians to foreign hands.
None of these fantasies approach the truth, but of three, the last is the most realistic.
A curiosity I've been hearing for years is the reference to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," mostly by Republicans.
My understanding is that the official name is the "Democratic Party." Am I wrong, or is this a way for conservatives to rename their opposition, and thus to diminish their importance?
Way back when, there was a controversy over the name of Mohammed Ali. Some sports writers insisted on referring to him as Cassius Clay. Eventually, Ali prevailed. (As I recall, even the conservative "NY Daily News" insisted that sports writer Dick Young accept the change.)
It may seem a small issue in this time of high-tech terrorism, but I cringe every time I hear "Democrat Party" by people who clearly are implying that it is something foreign and unamerican. In this Age of Communications, it seems particularly sinister.
Should we start referring to the GOP as the "Republic Party?"
I go to the polls, and almost always find myself voting "against" certain candidates by voting for their opposition. In a couple of cases, I was holding my nose. I would have liked to vote against these candidates without necessarily endorsing their opposition.
One suggestion floating around, and implemented in at least one state, is to have a "none of the above" line for each office. While this gives some satisfaction, at least at the gut level, it leaves conscientious people in a dilemma. Their vote does not nullify positive votes for a candidate they find unacceptable. In any case, voters are doing this now by either staying away from the polls, or not voting for an office.
A better solution would be to have a "Yes" and "No" option for each candidate, as many states do for ballot measures. The voter could then vote either for a candidate, if he or she preferred that individual, or against a candidate if he or she found the individual's politics particularly obnoxious. The option would only allow one vote. To vote "no" for one candidate would mean a voter couldn't vote "yes" for another candidate. It would also mean that a "no" vote would nullify someone else's "yes" vote.
Thus, if a candidate had 100,000 "yes" votes and 75,000 "no" votes, he or she would have a net 25,000 positive votes. A candidate with 30,000 positive votes would then win. This would benefit lesser known candidates, third-party candidates, or candidates with less divisive agendas.
I suspect that this solution would make it less tempting for politicians to divide us by our prejudices. It would also encourage more people to vote, since they could better express their genuine opinions. Negative advertisements would undoubtedly diminish for fear of offending a minority opinion likely to vote "no" if they are troubled by a candidate's attitude. Their block voting could influence the outcome of an election.
It would certainly help candidates building agendas based on consensus. For instance, there is a general consensus among voters of all political leanings that there is a need for election reform, but there is little motivation for politicians to actually work at it, whatever they claim about supporting it, since they got in on the existing system. In addition, the lack of consensus in modern political life is one of the reasons voters are alienated. A minority with an extreme view (left or right) can tilt an election leaving the vast majority of the electorate unhappy. Even in a case where 51% agree, is it wise to completely frustrate 49% of the electorate?
The founding fathers felt it necessary to enshrine the rights of citizens holding minority views in the constitutional system. They feared the effect of momentary passion. It makes sense to go a bit further and favor consensus builders over sound-bite extremists (which is what too many of our politicians have become). My proposed reform wouldn't do it all, naturally, but it would go a long way in changing the system, and returning power to the voters.
Modern computing technology makes such a reform practical. It would not slow vote counting down significantly. The polling done prior to elections would cut the guessing as to people's likely behavior at the polls. Since no politician could count on getting votes merely because people were disenchanted with his or her opposition, the candidate might actually have to formulate a program, rather than just attack the other candidate. Ultimately, this reform would make for a more civilized democracy.
Of course, implementing such a program can only come from the grass roots. Few in power favor letting citizens have a serious influence on the selection of their leaders, since it might actually improve government at their expense.
© Copyright 1996, 1998 by Yves Barbero
(415) 285-4358
To contact by e-mail, click here
Permission to reprint these political notes is granted. Please attribute the quotes to Yves Barbero. A link back to these pages would also be appreciated.
