Political Pragmatism
10/10/2003
Volume II - Pragmatism Renewed
Welcome to the second volume of Political Pragmatism. It has been roughly 5 months since my last edition of Volume I, which lasted from April to May of 2003. This will be my Fall volume, to be succeeded by Volume III, which will come in the Spring of 2004. So let's get back to defining the politics of pragmatism, folks.
Edition One: A Pragmatic Peace
Over the past couple decades, there have been a variety of theories regarding the important issue of peace. These have covered such topics as the conditions in which peace exists, the reasons why certain trends occur in peaceful countries and the reason why there are certain trends related to peace and political structure. One of the most important of these is the theory put forward by Emmanuel Kant appropriately named the "Democratic Peace Thesis".
The Democratic Peace Thesis states that liberal republics do not wage war upon one another and that once all nations are liberal republics, there will be enacted a "perpetual peace". In other words, once democritization is complete, we will finally have achieved world peace. There are several persuasive supports for this theory, mostly lying in the fact that defined in a certain way, no two democracies have ever warred one another. This type of comparison does not extend to tyrannies, which frequently war, or socialist states, which historically apply ideology forcefully behind strength of military. The same goes for oligarchies and basically every other form of government known in modern history. Now, naturally, this does not preclude democracies from warring other government types, which is obviously self evident, but it does imply that democracies war justly and push forward towards the eventual 'perpetual peace'.
Now, before we move on to my own case, it is prudent to note the key discrepancies. One of the attacks against the DPT is in the United States' own history. In 1812, we entered in a war with England, while at the time, both governments could theoretically be named as liberal republics. While it is true that there has always been a monarch in the English system, there was also the parliament, which was active much earlier than 1812 and quite considerable in its power. One of the popular refutations of this attack, however, is that the parliament was dominated by the nobility, hence it qualified as an oligarchy, rather than a liberal republic. I do not intend to argue whether or not this violation actually constitutes a violation or not, but it is important to note the other side of the argument.
On a modern scale, there are situations transpiring in the world that may lead to the marked violation of the DPT. Certain democracies, such as Nigeria and other African republics contain possible war in their future with other defined liberal republics. These conflicts would not be caused by ideological dissent, but rather tribal warfare, as colonial boundaries were not constructed with regards to certain nations of people. For example, the boundaries separate the Hausa-Fulani nation in the north of Nigeria and the south of Niger (along with other countries I will not discuss). Both states are liberal republics by definition, but if a certain tribal domination came over either government, ethnic war could possibly break out between the nations. Naturally, this is an extreme scenario, and hopefully will not come to fruition, but it stands to reason that there is a potential for it. The war would be caused by ethnic hatred and distrust among the various tribes of African countries.
This is important to note, because it is altogether likely that the DPT will fail because of ethnic, racial or cultural hatred and extremism. With the period of colonialism ending, neo-colonialism beginning and Global South countries becoming poorer and poorer, war is only a stepping stone away. It is sadly true that 8 wars are constantly raging every day on the African continent, with 3 alone being waged in the Democratic Republic of Congo/Zaire. It appears that Fukuyama's "End of History" will not occur, because democracies may lower themselves to war one another. And there is always the possibility of national interest provoking an unexpected war between any two states of the world.
This is a dim outlook on a previously widely-accepted theory, but it is nonetheless something worth exploring. That is why I care to add my own corrolary to the DPT. In the revised version of this theory, it will be stated that no two countries will go to war with one another, so long as each has a pragmatic government. That is to say, so long as the governments of the world are patient, rational actors, capable of compromising over their differences, peace will reign supreme.
Without an extreme faction dominating the political scene, two centrist states will always be able to work out their differences. The threat of war and its effects will weigh too heavily on their minds and they will dispense with it as being too costly and wholly unnecessary. Even if they possess divergent political beliefs, religious beliefs or social beliefs, they will duly recognize and respect these differences and default on diplomatic bargaining and negotiation to settle state differences.
Now, the major difference between this and the DPT is rather remarkable. Not all liberal republics are without extremism. With the rise of the National Front (a racist political group) in France and their electoral strength and the appeal of more authoritarian democracies in the Mediterranean countries and Russia, it is unclear how benign these regimes will be. Furthermore, the fascist tendencies of the Seoul government in South Korea, as a response to the threat of North Korea, threaten the entire fundamental concept of democracy itself.
And truth be told, there are some non-democratic countries that are less likely to war than some of the extreme democracies. Central Asian republics, some being socialist, have no extra-border ambitions. There are some Islamic republics, that while being oppressive and undemocratic, are also quite pacifistic in their region of the world. These countries, though offensive in principle to Western political tradition, are not likely to pursue militarism because it does not suit their needs. They have pragmatically focused on domestic issues, such as economy and infrastrucure in lieu of hegemony and expansionism.
And the issue of hegemony cannot be ignored in our deliberations. Democracies such as the US and Russia seek hegemonic power in both the world and their region. While these actions are not war-like, they are also not friendly and breed discontent in surrounding nations, most of which are also liberal republics. For example, even though Chechnia is not a sovereign nation in the strictest sense of the word, it had exercised considerable autonomy at the allowance of Yeltsin prior to the 1994 conflict, and it exercised this autonomy democratically. This did not preclude Russia's semi-autocratic republic from waging war on them in the name of territorial integrity. These are not the only examples of such issues, but they are the most clear and contrary to the DPT.
The Pragmatic Peace thesis would not include Russia as a pragmatic country, and in some instances, the US itself. Rather, it would look towards the political conditions that give rise to centrism and diplomacy as the central tenets of an eventual 'perpetual peace' thesis. Looking at recent history, one can determine that all major, and semi-major conflicts were initiated due to a series of nonpragmatic choices or a conflict between extreme and divergent factions. Nazi Germany initiated the greatest war in history, the Cold War was kept alive by the extreme separation of Soviet communism and US democracy. The Korean war was spurred by extreme expansionist tendencies and the Vietnam war was fought between communist and democratic forces also (although, Vietnam is harder to argue, based on the colonially-created nature of the conflict). The 20th and 21st century phenomena of intrastate war (civil war, in other words) has always been caused by ideologically, racially or ethnically irreconcilable circumstances. The same can obviously be stated for terrorism.
What I propose is that if a domestic government is executed patiently and with a pragmatic longterm goal of improvement, then it will carry over to a foreign policy of pragmatic policies. Extremism at home yields extremism abroad, as globalization changes the way the world works. In the same vein of logic, centrism and reason at home would invariably caused pragmatic internationalism or inoffensive isolationism abroad. Either way, the world stage is much cleaner and more prosperous than it was before. Massive military expenditures, the main cause of the failed state phenomena, would give way to greater allocations to infrastructre, political and social stability and economic growth.
Hence, it is under these conditions that I will declare the Pragmatic Peace thesis as being the only way we can reach the proverbial 'End of History' and attain perpetual peace, instead of engaging in a woeful 'Clash of Civilizations' (The brain child of Samual Huntington). With that, I will bring to a close Edition One of Volume II of Political Pragmatism.
-Nick Laverty
5/21/2003
A Slight Deviation:
There are several reasons to admire and appreciate moderate Senate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich. More often than not, they are open to compromise in most Senatorial affairs, but they also know when to take a stand based on their centrist beliefs. This causes a quirk of the problem for both the ideological right and the ideological left, because it is so difficult to predict the conscience-based actions of these individuals. The right dislikes these moderates because they don't espouse the party line fervently, and the left dislikes them because they are never entirely sure if they'll have their vote or not on a progressive matter, such as tax reform.
A little while back, those three Republicans took it upon themselves to oppose George W. Bush's irresponsible and harmful 700 billion dollar tax cut, going so far as to pass a proposal that stated their intent to oppose such a measure. This was a high point for Senate politics in the past year, as finally someone had the mettle to challenge the ideological status quo, most significantly in the face of this massive cut. Both insiders of the administration and economists have predicted that such a tax cut at such a time will only result in further deficit spending, with little benefit for the economy. Nevertheless, GWB plodded onward, in a blind faith method towards this dogmatic piece of wisdom: tax cuts=good.
Well, it just so turns out that tax cuts only work in certain economic situations, and we have none of the criteria to support such a program at the present time. Those three Senators, along with others, must be commended for going with their conscience and opposing such a large piece of legislation.
It's a pity that one of them, Voinovich, forgot his conscience when it came time for the most important part of the process - voting. After having said that he would not support any cut greater than 350 billion dollars - the best compromise that could have been had - Voinovich has essentially signed on for a package that will easily come to a greater cost than 700 billion. How does our illustrious turncoat defend himself in this matter?
Essentially, he doesn't. He's issued a couple statements that attempt to mitigate his new stance, but it all comes down to the same result: George Voinovich is the worst kind of Senator there is, the kind that pretends to take a certain stance and hopes the public won't notice when he flip-flops.
Well, we noticed, Senator. From political pragmatism, I'd like to send you a big 'screw off' for forgetting your moderate roots.
5/12/2003
Notice: For the next week, Political Pragmatism will be suspended in limbo, as I trod through the ordeal of college finals and moving back home. My next update should be sometime this weekend.
5/05/2003
I. Human Nature and Politics
There are several reasons why people choose to align themselves with the political party that they do. Some of the time, it may be due to socioeconomic upbringing, something as simple as echoing the prevalent political thought of people like your parents (sometimes without even knowing it). Sometimes it is due to education, to asking the important questions at the right times and coming to some sort of personal understanding regarding what politics means to you. Other reasons are more mercurial, such as choosing a party based on the prominent personalities of that party, being pressured into certain political standpoints due to where you live and interact after you have reached maturity or even choosing based on a historical representation of a certain party, and identifying that party by certain qualities that you find important. Hell, you could even be like half of the voting age populace and be utterly indifferent to politics and its artifices.
However, there is something that arguably trumps all of those various elements, though it may incorporate some aspect of them all in its own right. That something is the idea of self-interest. Ultimately, people will choose the party or political orientation that best suits their beliefs and needs, and is best able to fulfill them. That is not to say that it is a selfish decision, for we must remember that teachings of Aristotle in our consideration. Aristotle stated that there is such a thing as enlightened self interest, that is, we all act in a manner that suits our own needs first and foremost. This type of self interest extends to every type of act, from the most base and degenerate to the most humble and altruistic. He argued that the good man will act in a good way, because it satisfies him to live in such a way. Just the same, the bad man acts in a bad way because it most suits his manner of life.
So, through these definitions, and the concept of human nature, we can essentially conclude that there will always be some enlightened self-interest acting when a person chooses the political party they wish to align with. This can lead us to several related conclusions about the nature of internalized politics, and the role that political affiliation plays in our lives.
Along with the enlightened self-interest that Aristotle spoke of, we humans have this nasty habit of always assuming that since something attunes to our own grand conception of reality, then it is ultimately the right thing to do. Depending on our level of tact and intellect, we will either apply this perception to our everyday lives bluntly or subtly. This kind of thing can take several different forms, revolving around what we choose to say things about, how we phrase our statements, and how we react to other people's statements. When two people with highly different viewpoints on the way life should be lived come into contact with one another and begin to interact verbally, several different things may happen. Depending on personality, they may humor the other person just to avoid conflict, but more often than not some sort of argument will develop, and depending on the intellectual status of the participants, it may devolve further into physical conflict. It is not a pleasant thing to think or believe, but sadly, it is usually the case. These days, we just have firearms and explosives where we used to have fists and simple weapons.
Now, in a personal retrospect, this has not been the case for a great deal of my life. I am not one that outwardly seeks conflict, so I preempt many possible fractious occasions by that preference alone. However, I have ended up violently arguing with people on several occasions, and I have always noticed a trend, that I will always seem to argue with the same people. At college, there are 2-3 people that I will argue consistently with, while I have no such interactions with other people. The reason for this, I have concluded, is due to the fact that my views and these 2-3 other persons' views are so incompatible, there is no hope for simple concession or agreement.
That is the function of human nature in politics, and the root cause of political disagreement. As a species, we incorporate self-interest and self-righteousness into our views, and whenever we come into abject disagreement in the form of the other person, we either argue or fight. My friends and I debate mildly, because we see eye-to-eye on some issues, but not all. Other acquaintances and I argue violently, with no hope of compromise. Other people and I don't even argue based simply on the innate compatibility of our belief structures or our general indifference to outward disagreement.
So, this is something we much come to accept in politics, and by no means do I expect political disagreement to cease by virtue of a pragmatic argument. Pragmatism for me, just as much as for anyone else, is an internalized belief structure that I find great validity in. What I will try to do, from this fundamental premise of disagreement, is show that while this disagreement is natural and necessary, there are certain political theories that advocate too much of the violent arguing and polarization as compared to consensus-politics. I will attempt to show, through reasoning, that these polarizing politics are counterproductive to system stability and the overall political structure, while centrist thought guarantees the greatest peace and prosperity.
Next Time: A Closer Look at the Nature of Politics and Political History.
5/02/2003
Welcome to the Machine.
I wasn't expecting such a prime example of how the party machine operates in the scant amount of time between articles, but it seems as if our friends in the Senate have provided an excellent opportunity for such an example.
As many of you know, Senator Rick Santorum (R- PA) issued comments to an Associated Press reporter concerning his stances on homosexuality. I will not get into those comments specifically too much, as I feel the topic has been adequately discussed by our media anyway, so I'll simply suffice to say that they were vicious, bigoted remarks, essentially comparing homosexuals to bestiality. Needless to say, about 95% of the Senate recoiled from these inflammatory remarks, adding fuel to hardline liberals arsenal while moderates on both sides of the table cringed. This is a sad situation, especially considering the strides that moderate Republicans have taken in recent years to distance themselves from the stigma that had been attached to their party as a result of oldschool influence such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Also needless to say, I was disappointed when House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay (R- TX) came out and commended Santorum for 'standing on principle', among other statements related to this debacle.
There is always one reason this should come as a surprise (DeLay has always been a little off, especially in his service as Majority Whip), and that is because there has been widespread calling for Santorum's resignation and still a party associate backed very shady comments. But that is where the surprise should end, because there is much more to this type of event than meets the eye, and by breaking it down, we can understand party politics a little better.
Initially, when Santorum made the comment, Senate Republicans seemed comfortable with avoiding talking of it altogether and waiting until the press firestorm died down. This is a common tactic, with some odd blacklashes, and is comparable to the situation regarding Trent Lott's racial comments that eventually led to his fall from Senate leadership. However, when certain facts came into light, that is when certain characters in Congress decided to break the silence and back their bigoted buddy.
Altogether, there were three routes that Congress Republicans could have taken in response to this event, all three of them feasible considering the highly moderate nature of most Congress Republicans. The first was to condemn their associate's comments and stand upon integrity. Doubtless, this would have been the response we as citizens would have appreciated, but there are problems associated with it. Such a response would alienate the conservative voting base of the outspoken individuals and could have paved the way for very conservative Republicans to replace them in the following election cycle. Thus, it was harmful to their political lives, so they declined. The second method, the one initially taken, was to ignore the situation to see if things improved. This is a more subtle method with its own pitfalls, namely disgusting the moderate electorate by silently ignoring such commentary and pissing off the conservative base for not supporting it. In the end, Congress Republicans decided this way was too dangerous, so they chose to consolidate their conservative base and come out and vaguely support Santorum's comments, in the person of Tom DeLay and a couple others. They alienate the moderates, which is damn dangerous, and I believe, the worst bet of the three, but it was the political decision that was made. Hence, it is not necessarily the opinion that Santorum was right in his comments, only a function of American politics to manipulate the electoral system. So it goes.
In fact, there is considerable evidence to support the concept that Santorum only said those things initially to stir up his conservative base to get ready for the next election cycle. His district is fairly conservative, so there was political capital to be gained. It's a repulsive thing to do, but sadly such is the nature of modern American politics.
Events like this should serve to open the American people's eyes to the truths of partisan politics, as created by the two party system we currently have in effect. More often than not, the things we hear our Congressmen and Congresswomen say are not actually what they think, but actually a cheap method to manipulate our hearts and minds for their ultimate gain. Hence, when they are running for a seat as a challenger, they will make a great deal of moderate statements and personality propaganda to win into the position of power, regardless of their actual beliefs. Likewise, when they are running for reelection, they will count on their incumbent advantage and take the opportunity to consolidate their most active voting segment of the population, once again, not truly indicative of their real beliefs. It is ironic, within 2 or 6 years, depending on which house, they will go from complete centrism to outright ideological spouting to yield the best results. Naturally, there are exceptions to the rule, but as they say, the exceptions are what actually validate the rule. That is why people like John McCain, Russel Feingold, John Edwards and Bill Frist seem so clean in the overall scheme of things, they can go beyond the petty partisan machinations we are used to seeing.
And just for the sake of clarification, these actions are just as prevalent in the Democratic party as they are in the Republican party, they simply aren't as visceral.
This, in effect, explains my belief that true centrism and pragmatism is not achieved in the visual political process, that we only see the ideological heartstrings pulled at every turn. The only real way to determine a Congressperson's true orientation is to examine their voting record, and even that is sketchy, as the party machines exert immense influence on the way people vote. Voting by conscience is almost a myth these days, once again with those few, diamond-in-the-rough exceptions.
This is why we need a viable third party, the two major parties have become stagnant, ideological bodies bent on the manipulation of the people they purportedly represent. Sure, one can easily cite that European democracies vote along party lines almost automatically, but few of those parties are truly extreme in nature, and the proportional, multi-party nature of their systems makes it so the people can easily kick out the party that goes against their values and interests. Sure, on the outside, it may look like our representatives vote more independently of the party, but when the party ultimately controls politics for the big issues, it doesn't matter much. We've been cajoled and persauded against our true will for so long, we really don't know which side is truly serving our needs without voluminous research into their records. A third party, no doubt, would shake up the ideological structure just enough to make those two monsters show their real faces.
Until then, we can simply pray that we don't accidentally elect another Representative for the People turned automaton or demagogue. Nick out.
Next Time: The Centrism Theory.
Note on the next couple weeks of Pragmatism: Hello readers, however many of you there happen to be, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have begun to read my regular articles and have furthered the pragmatic cause by telling others. In the next couple weeks, you may have to indulge me a little, as I will be taking an abrupt departure from my single-issue focuses for a little while. In the stead of my regular brand of pragmatic analysis, I will be laying out my Centrism Theory, that will hopefully either illuminate your own political thought, or better explain where I am coming from. I will discuss, among other things, the background of centrist theory and the application to our modern world. I would say more, but it would spoil the fun. Anyhow, I urge you to continue to read in the coming weeks, and hopefully I can reward you with a fresh new viewpoint regarding the nature of politics. -Nick Laverty.
4/28/2003
To Our Health.
Once again, an excellent example of how Washington's partisan politics have screwed us, the people, out of something good. I'll give the outsider's perspective rundown.
Historically, Democrats have been angling towards some form of socialized health care, most recently because of pressures to get up to date with the times. Britain, Canada and France already have some of the most efficient health care packages found in industrialized countries. It has only really saddled down Canada, and that is mainly due to the comprehensive state control of the health care field. The Canadian system, which is commonly called "single-payer", is what the left has been hunting as a so-called holy grail for the past decade. On several occasions, most recently at the initiative of the Clinton administration, they have tried to pass this system or a variant thereof. It has pretty much uniformly failed, though since 1940, a creeping socialization of medical care has allowed a modicum of benefits for the average person.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Republicans have sought to curtail health care reform, to allow a greater scope of private practice in the industry. Ideally, they would like the industry to be completely privatized, but have sufficed to see the funding for the social programs cut. Generally, just as the Democracts, they have failed in passing a comprehensive set of their requirements and have thus contributed to the standstill we see nowadays in terms of health care reform. The argument behind this approach is that it espouses conservative ideals and will stimulate growth and better practices countrywide, eventually bringing down the overall cost of health care per recipient.
Upon further inspection, both sides are making the situation worse and worse by their ideological warfare.
When you get down to it, none of this politicking changes the fact that 60 million Americans are without health care currently, and that is truly a horrendous figure. Especially when one considers that a little compromise would go a long way. We can generally assume that neither side wants the current system, but we can similarly assume that neither side is willing to cross their party line. Naturally, I am speaking of the parties as a whole, because eventually, you need to incorporate the entire party to pass something through a partisan Congress.
So, we can work from the basis of three assumptions to come to a pragmatic solution:
1. Single-payer is an unpassable form of health care.
2. Complete privation is an unpassable form of health care.
3. The current system is undesirable.
There are several difficulties with the first two propositions, while the third is rather self-evident.
Single-payer is unrealistic for a variety of reasons. The first of which being the effect it is likely to have on a national economy. Canada, the trailblazer of this method, most notably, has been flagging economically and has thus been compromising many of their national policies to maintain the burdensome single-payer system. The reason for this difficulty lies in the nature of single-payer. Essentially, single-payer systems are characterized by state-ownership of health care, offering free health care to citizens and being run off of government subsidy. There are a few side effects to this system beyond economic matters, most notably in the realm of human initiative. The state-run, uniform facilities and salaries make Canadian health care undesirable for experts in the health care realm. As a result, these pros export their abilities to countries that have more developed private sectors and deprive the single-payer country of their ability. Furthermore, citizens eventually start looking outside their country for professional health care, once they realize the state-run facilities are marginal at best. This is what we have seen happen to Canada, and it is highly likely that they will reform their system so that it becomes more private in nature, thus offering human incentives once again. Several European countries have avoided this through their very reasonable administration of health care programs, especially Britain.
Wholly private health care is easier to explain. All of the firms are privately-owned and run, and the government control of such firms is limited to safety regulations. People working in that field have better wages and opportunities, but they are not available generally to the lowest 10% of society, in terms of cost. Theoretically, if the industry were allowed to grow as a private body, the prices would drop accordingly, but without price controls, it is hard to say that the final result would be desirable overall. Clearly, privation is not the way to go.
However, to produce a balance in the system, one must include elements of both realms to create the best, most enduring results. Therefore, the moderate, pragmatic solution would be the best way to go.
What I offer as an alternative is a concept called 'community-rating'. This would change the status quo in several very important ways. Currently, HMOs and other private firms have a policy of offering plans to the healthiest individuals, because they present the least risk in terms of profit versus payback. Clearly, from the get-go, this method is skewed based on the idea that the healthy are covered, but not those who actually need it. Similarly, for truly good health care, one needs to possess a good job, or be fairly wealthy in the first place. Once again, this makes it an odd situation, as the most well-off are given the benefits, as if they could not pay on their own accord. Community-rating would change things in the following ways.
1. The industry would remain a private industry, to ensure the best health care professionals remain in their field within this nation, rather, than exporting themselves for better opportunity. This doesn't really change much, but reaffirms the necessity of a measure of privation.
2. Health plans would no longer be given to people based on their medical history. Much like double-blind science experiments, health care companies would be required to grant care equally to every person.
3. Rather than allowing companies to dictate their employee's health care plans, the government would oversee a new system that would make sure that health care was given to those who needed it, rather than those who could already afford it. Essentially, health care within companies would be dropped, but each employee would be given a tax credit back on their income with the express purpose of being used on health care. This would require labor unions to compromise some of their mainstay policies, so it might make it undesirable to Dems, but it would guarantee that companies could no longer restrict medical plans on a whim to cut expenses. It would put the decision firmly in the worker's hands. And naturally, there would be a myriad of choice of health care firms to buy into, being further aided by the blind-need policy.
This is a very skeletal assessment of community rating, but as an important move, it makes it so everyone within a large body of people will have a fair shake at adequate health insurance, without the bureaucratic necessities of single-payer. It may not be the last solution to the problem, but it would be a true step up from what we are currently experiencing in terms of health care in these United States.
And we need pragmatic policymakers to do it.
Next Issue: Party Politics in the US.
4/25/2003
Motley Crew
Hey, how about this? Two articles in two days, I'm on a roll.
The Democratic Party is divided. If you listen really closely, you can hear the gasp of the one person who hadn't realized it yet. It has almost always been true, as factions of Dems fight within their own party lines for mutually-exclusive aims. It's almost sad, it could be such a powerful party, too.
If one hadn't realized the divisive nature of Democrat politics, one simply had to look at the historical facts of the case:
Fact: An easy majority of the country is registered as Democrat.
Fact: There have been several occasions, outside of 2004, where the ticket was split excessively (Dixiecrats, anyone?).
Fact: In the twentieth century, more often than not, a Republican has won the Presidency in spite of the Dem populace majority.
Fact: Dems such as Clinton, despite professed Liberalism, have acted while in office as Republican proxies (Once again, another issue, another time).
Fact: It ain't gonna change anytime soon.
The persistent problem that has plagued Dems since the dawning of the new parties, is that they have never succeeded in mobilizing the majority of the populace to turn out for them on election day. Fickle politics, issue-waffling and ineffective personalities (excepting Clinton) have made it difficult for them to do so. It's something we all might as well admit to ourselves now, Republicans have always been better-organized, clearer in objective and able to succeed when it counts -- Election Day. As a result, Dems have taken to a mix of politics to bring back the proverbial sheep to the fold. Some of them start acting like Republicans, and attempt to seem more cohesive on the outside. Some of them toe hard line issues and attempt to inspire excitement through controversy. And others yet completely ignore policy stances, in a substantive manner, and run on the basis of personality in their advertising (Carter, Clinton). In fact, let's look at the one time where Dems firmly routed Republicans in the past fifty years -- in '92 and '96. The presence of a third party candidate on the conservative side (Perot), drew votes away from GHWB and Bob Dole, thus making Clinton a shoe-in. The trend returned to normal in 2000 when the Dems squandered their majority again with the presence of Nader drawing votes away from Gore, without any conservative 'thirdies' to do the same to Bush.
Guess what, folks? It's the same case again this year. Let's run down our superstars for the Democratic Nomination 2004!
John Kerry: He's the big name, he's the big gun in Senate and when it gets down to it, he probably won't tell you the real deal. Kerry was by far and away considered the frontrunner for 2004 -- until he squandered that lead by waffling on a variety of key issues, including the war, while mavericks like Howard Dean went in a-blazin' and moderates like John Edwards sidestepped the issue quietly. Thus, in this race, Kerry has become the guy that says one thing and does another. At times, he has harshly opposed the war measures, conservative agendas and economic maneuvers. The thing he hasn't told you? He's voted for almost each and every one! The public hasn't really noticed too much, as of yet, but the news sources have, and have been vigorously lambasting him for his two-faced ways. I can understand that, it's dangerous to elect a man who says one thing and does another (Our current President is a case in point), because he'll look good while screwing you over vigorously (Clinton). I think the public is ready for a real leader, not another seasoned politician.
John Edwards: My boy in the North Carolinian blue, the honorable Senator John Edwards, is another story. This guy is clearly a seasoned politician, but he has this nice trend of not speaking extremely and following through with a very moderate and reasonable agenda. His rolecall votes in Senate show that, by themselves. He is by far the youngest of those running, already being termed 'the pretty boy' of the bunch, and he's the one that the White House is gearing up against in preparation. They've gone so far as to contact Richard Burr to run for Edwards' senate seat in 2004, making it very difficult for Johnny Boy to hedge his bets like he'd like to. However, I think that eventually he'll resolve upon the WH (Hell, he already outfundraised Kerry and everyone else, which was a huge surprise) and make the most unified and serious run of any of these jokers (Lightly used, you understand). And with a Clintonesque easy southern drawl, it should be easy for him to distance himself from politik and become the candidate of the people.
Howard Dean: If Edwards didn't get the ticket, I would want to see this fellow get it. One of the few non-Senators in this race, Dean has the old adage, 'good governors make good Presidents' on his side. His administration in Vermont was nothing short of brilliant, he's a bright and engaging man with an infectious personality, and he knows a little about politics. I would support him more than Edwards due to his excellent fiscal record alone, but I have my reservations. You see, Dean has become infected with ideological fever, a malady that usually inflicts itself upon a normally-coherent person during an election cycle and renders them into a mass of axiom-shouting extremism. It makes even less sense for it to infect Dean, as he had a very moderate, and one might even say, quasi-conservative, record at Vermont. His fiscal policies smacked of true conservatism and his social policies were the ideal devices of liberals -- a perfect mix. I think that he is hindering himself by stumping as vigorously as he has been, and in the end, the resolved state of the war will undo him. Add in the limited financial situation (I hate this aspect of politics, money should have no place in deciding our leaders), and I don't think that Howard Dean can survive in the postwar political field.
Richard Gephardt: I would be afraid if Richard Gephardt were President. His substanceless proposals for national health care and other sprawling reforms are without adequate thought and could do more damage than good. He should take a page out of Dean's list and actually put more effort into such reforms. Being the Speaker of the House does not qualify you to run the country, and the citizens of this great nation have asserted that again and again by electing governors and the occasional senator. He has no chance, if only due to deficient funding and popularity, and grealty guaranteed by his blind collection of policy stances.
Joe Lieberman: Joe Lieberman is like John Kerry without the public stupidity. He is a moderate and sometimes conservative Dem, in the Senate, but comes from a very progressive state (Connecticut). He has the foundation for money, a plan leftover from the Gore campaign in 2000 (hopefully rectifying the many flaws) and has name recognition. Sadly, he just doesn't have the ability to be as popular as the telegenic Kerry and Edwards or the fiery Dean. Plus, as much as I hate to say it, his being Jewish will probably affect his chances more than people would like to think. To put it the way that Jon Stewart did, on the Daily Show, "Let's have Lieberman and Sharpton run on the same ticket, the No Chance in Hell ticket."
Al Sharpton: If he got the nomination, I would move to Canada or Europe. This man would not have the slightest idea how to administer a country at home or abroad.
Bob Graham: Another Senator, but with a major difference from the rest. He lacks the personality, money, skills, name recognition and interest group connections to even be considered without laughing.
Carol Moseley Braun: Who? No, seriously, while I think it would be great for this ex-Ambassador to New Zealand to have a chance, I think we can all agree that Kiwis do not equate to political capital in the US. (I have some friends from NZ who would get a kick out of this, actually.)
Dennis Kucinich: I honestly know nothing about this man beyond the fact that he's a House Rep. And I think researching someone who raised only 100k in the first quarter would be a waste of my limited journalistic skills.
So, in closing, let's hope that one of the good Democrats is able to win the nomination and unify the party enough to dethrone Bush. I'm putting my money on Edwards, personally, though I wouldn't mind seeing a more pragmatic Dean at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Until next time.
Next Issue: Health Care Reform.
