Political CommenTerry

A Knowledge Test to Vote

I am thoroughly convinced that no one should be allowed to vote unless he or she can answer at least six of the ten questions below. People wishing to become naturalized citizens are required to know much more than these most basic pieces of information about the U.S. government in order to pass their tests.

I don’t want my vote canceled out by someone who is almost completely ignorant of how our government works – either because of a severe lack of intelligence or just plain apathy. In addition, these “low information” voters tend to be extremely credulous and likely to believe even the most absurd of charges leveled by one candidate against the other. This encourages candidates to continue using these low-road tactics.

Now, here are the questions:

1. Who is the current President of the United States?

2. How many U.S. Senators represent each state?

3. Name one member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. What city is the capital of the United States?

5. Who was the first President of the United States?

6. How many U.S. states are there at the present time?

7. How often does the U.S conduct a presidential election?

8. U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated by whom?

   a. The President
   b. Members of the House of Representatives
   c. Other Supreme Court justices

 9. Which of the following is not a body of the U.S. Congress?

   a. The Senate
   b. The House of Lords
   c. The House of Representatives

10. Name one current member of U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

GOP Must Purge the Kooky and the Credulous

In spite of John McCain’s and the Republican National Committee’s best efforts, Election Day will likely result in their party losing the White House and sinking deeper into a minority status in Congress. I believe political extremism will ultimately be cited as one of the major culprits. Therefore, it’s high time the GOP made a return to common sense conservatism in order to have any chance of making a comeback in 2010 and beyond. Of course, this means it must purge from its ranks all the kooky and credulous people who have become attached to it over the years.

The neoconservative hijacking of the party has allowed these people in the front door and kicked real conservatives to curb. Let’s hope this trend soon begins to reverse itself. Of course, this kind of house cleaning won’t be pretty but it must be done before the GOP can return to the kind of conservatism of Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and George Will that first drew me to the Republican Party. It will allow the GOP to rescue its brand before it’s too late.

Venom-spewing blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter will need to be given their walking papers. Those who believe the Republican Party will somehow usher in the Kingdom of God on earth will also have to go. This also goes for the right-wing bloggers who regularly post those reader articles with breathless, multi-sentence titles on RealClearPolitics.com.  In addition, it should show the door to anyone who has habitually made alarmist and outrageous claims, used scare tactics, exaggerated the truth, or flat out lied in the name of the party.

Then we have those credulous people – pitiful really – who honestly believe absurd notions like Barack Obama is a Muslim, he’s a terrorist, he’s dangerous, or that he’s going to paint the White House black and change the national anthem if he’s elected president. It’s hard for me to imagine how someone could be so gullible. The Republican Party should aspire to a membership whose average IQ is above 80. These people are pulling it down and need to promptly hit the road.

Sympathy for a Politician

Politicians are people Americans love to hate. Much of their negative public perception is well-deserved. However, I do feel sorry for them in a way because, sometimes, they just can’t win.

When they change their mind, they are called flip-floppers. But if they refuse to do so, they are called closed-minded, rigid, and dogmatic, and are perceived as unwilling to compromise or reach across the political aisle.

If they run attack ads, they are called bullies and mudslingers and are said to be going negative. But if they stay positive all the time, they are seen as wimpy, unwilling to fight back, or perhaps unable to defend their positions.

If they openly talk about their religious beliefs, they are said to be mixing religion with politics and forcing their religion down the throat of the voting public. But if they keep silent about religion, they are viewed as too secular and out of touch with a nation whose majority claims to be religious.

If they voice their support for certain wars, they are called warmongers. But if they oppose those wars, people say they would make weak leaders and accuse them of not supporting our troops.

If they attract large crowds, they are compared to empty-headed celebrities and accused of thinking they are God-like. But if they don’t, they are criticized for lacking charisma and not being able to excite their base. 

If they are specific about what they want to do when they are elected, they are called policy wonks. But if they are not, they are accused of being evasive or “lacking a plan.”

If their campaign is about change, they are said to be too risky of a choice. But if it is not, they are criticized for being just more of the same.

If they travel abroad, they are accused of spending too much too time out of the country and not taking care of domestic affairs. But if they don’t, they are criticized for their “lack of curiosity” about the outside world.

If they believe in free trade, they are accused of running up the trade deficit and sending American jobs offshore. But if they don’t, they are called isolationists.

If they are willing to sit down and negotiate with our enemies, they are called capitulators and are said to be caving in. But if they are not, they are accused of taking too hard a line in the world.

If they are pro-choice on the abortion issue, they are accused of acquiescing to the murder of innocent children. But if they take a pro-life stance, they are criticized for wanting to limit a woman’s right to choose.

If they want to raise taxes, they are called socialists and are criticized for adding to the burden of the American taxpayer. But if they want to lower them, they are accused of being friends of the rich and are said to be in the pockets of corporate America.
 
And so on and so on.

Of course, in retrospect, I guess we shouldn’t feel too much sympathy for politicians. They chose that line of work -- no one forced it on them. They knew the constant criticism came with the territory and are apparently willing to pay that price. More power to them.

Sincere Debaters vs. Talking Point Carriers

There are basically two types of media pundits and commentators who exist on the various sides of the political spectrum – sincere debaters and talking point carriers. These are the people who are often seen on TV, heard on the radio, and read in print, offering their opinions of current affairs. But there’s marked difference between the two sorts that can easily be identified.

Sincere debaters attempt to appeal to one’s sense of reason. They have a point of view – often clearly conservative or liberal -- but they are not ideologues. Truth matters to them and they will weigh all the pertinent facts, both pro and con. They implicitly acknowledge the fact that one who is not for them is not necessarily against them. They are open to opposing arguments and will sometimes change their minds after having reviewed all the available information about a given situation. They add to the civility of public discourse.

Talking point carriers, on the other hand, have a fixed opinion. They will use whatever verbal gymnastics that are necessary to forge ahead with their agenda. They have pre-programmed themselves to move in a given direction -- logic and common sense are never obstacles in their path. They seek out only the facts that reinforce their preconceived notions, conveniently ignoring or explaining away those that do not. They will continue to argue their point even after being proved wrong. They add to the growing coarseness of our culture.

The Odds Are Against the Next President

No matter who becomes the 44th President of the United States, the odds will be against his surviving a full term in office. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are current members of the U.S. Senate. The winner will become only the third person in U.S. history to move straight from the Senate to the White House. The two previous men to do that were Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy. Both died in office (Harding by natural causes; Kennedy by assassination).

There was one other person who made the trek directly from Congress to the White House. That man was James Garfield, who was elected president while a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, still the only one ever to accomplish this feat. But guess what? He died in office as well (by assassination).

Here’s something else to consider. It’s been nearly 45 years since a U.S. President (Kennedy) did not survive his term in office. Since William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office (by natural causes, 1841), we hadn’t gone more than 22 years without this happening until the most recent streak. We’ve now doubled that. And we’ve never gone more than 52 years (the period between the first president and William Henry Harrison) all-time. Some might say we are long overdue for the next one.

Recollections of Three Presidential Elections

The current presidential election season brings back memories of those from the past, especially the three that occurred during my school years. I’ve been following presidential elections in some form or another since the second grade.

That’s right -- my first memories of a presidential election are from 1968, when I was seven. I clearly remember my second grade class conducting a mock election among the three candidates: Republican Richard Nixon, Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and independent George Wallace. Wallace won our election, even though he finished a distant third in the real one. Nixon, the second-place finisher in our election, won the real election to become the 37th President of United States.

I recall my father being an ardent supporter of Wallace that year. He campaigned like crazy for him in our hometown and had nearly a whole closet full of campaign paraphernalia that you don’t see much of anymore – stuff like buttons, stickers, and those Styrofoam hats. I don’t recall my mother saying much about the election that year, but I think she was for Nixon. I know she had an autographed (by rubber stamp) picture of him and his family standing around a piano. She kept it in a drawer in their bedroom. Never mind how I knew.

Dad was very disappointed when Wallace lost. He actually thought Wallace could win. As a second-grader, I didn’t know any better, so I thought so too. It wasn’t until the fifth grade that I learned that history was not on Wallace’s side. No non-major-party candidate had been elected President in more than 100 years. By winning the electoral votes of a block of southern states, Wallace had actually turned in the best performance by any independent candidate since – a mark that still holds today.

As a fifth-grader in early 1972, I remember hearing news about the New Hampshire Primary. That was the first I had ever heard of it, or any other primary for that matter. I recall a Saturday morning news program on CBS called In the News, hosted by the late Christopher Glenn, running a segment that attempted to explain the primary in a way that kids could understand. I watched intently and it got me interested in the presidential primary process, at least temporarily.

I remember all the news reporters predicting that Edmund Muskie, Humphrey’s running mate in 1968, was going to win the Democratic presidential nomination and challenge President Nixon in the fall. After Muskie won in New Hampshire, I just assumed that those guys were going to be right. With my short attention span for political matters back then, I ignored the remainder of the primary season. 

Boy was I surprised while watching one of those Sunday talk shows that summer! There was some senator from South Dakota on there named George McGovern, a person that I had never heard of before, claiming that he was going to win the Democratic presidential nomination on the first ballot. But what happened to Muskie? He was supposed to be the nominee. Where did this McGovern guy come from and how was it that he had the nerve to be claiming the nomination? I was confused. I had obviously missed an important part of the primary season.

It wasn’t until later that I discovered that Muskie had begun to falter even before his win in New Hampshire. In the days leading up to that primary, an incident in which he was perceived as crying had done him in. From then on, the Democratic electorate viewed him as too weak to take on Nixon. McGovern defeated him and the other candidates in enough of the subsequent primaries, including a big winner-take-all contest in California, to build a commanding lead in the delegate count.

I watched my first political conventions later that summer. The Democratic convention in Miami Beach was the more entertaining of the two. I remember some hippies rioting on the outside, some emotional floor fights over various issues, and an attempt to nullify the primary results and take the nomination away from McGovern (that failed). I remember McGovern initially selecting Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate.

Then I recall the aftermath of that convention when it was discovered that Eagleton had been treated for some psychological issues in the past. This prompted McGovern and the Democrats to drop him and give their vice presidential nomination to Sargent Shriver, formerly a U.S. ambassador to France and Director of the Peace Corps. The only thing I remember about the Republican convention is everyone praising Nixon and scolding the Democrats for what they had done to Eagleton. I don’t even recall where it was that year. Of course, I could look it up on the Internet, but that would defeat the whole point of this article, wouldn’t it?

I was about two months into the sixth grade when the 1972 general election was held. Dad wasn’t as enthusiastic about this election as he was about the one four years earlier. While he wasn’t really crazy about Nixon, he definitely didn’t want McGovern to win. Instead of being so fervently for someone as he was in 1968, this time he was intensely against someone. He thought McGovern was too weak and was especially upset about his supposed remark about being willing to crawl on his hand and knees to negotiate peace with the Soviet Union. To this day, I still don’t know whether McGovern actually ever made such a statement. But, to my father, it was a reality. My mom didn’t argue with him, since she always liked Nixon anyway.

Election Day wasn’t much fun that year. It was a landslide. I remember all the networks calling it for Nixon at about 8:30 pm Eastern time -- before the results from all the Midwestern states had come in. That just made the Watergate break-in, which I don’t recall hearing anything about until the seventh grade, seem all the more unnecessary.

Watergate set the stage for the third and final presidential election to take place during my school years. Gerald Ford had become President when Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974. And Ford, a former minority leader in the House, had only become Vice President a year before that, when Spiro Agnew resigned over a scandal of his own. I remember people being upset with Ford for pardoning Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate. I thought it was funny that Ford was running for re-election that year to an office that he had never been elected to. Even many Republicans did not want Ford. I guess that’s why Ronald Reagan saw an opening to challenge him in the GOP primaries that year.

However, I don’t recall paying any attention to the Republicans during the primary season. That’s probably because everyone seemed to be sure that a Democrat would be the next president. When the primaries began in 1976, I was focused on the field of Democrats, who were mostly unknown to me at the time. I had heard of Jimmy Carter and Henry “Scoop” Jackson from the Democratic convention four years earlier. I remembered Carter, as the sitting governor of Georgia, giving the keynote address at the 1972 convention and people talking about him as a possible future presidential candidate. To most people, Carter came out of nowhere in 1976. But that was not the case for me, even as a nine-grader.

Carter built a big lead over his Democratic opponents early on during the primaries. He seemed to be way out in front before anyone, including myself, knew what has happening. I become so mesmerized by the nominating process that year that I created my own presidential nomination board game that mimicked the real Democratic primaries and caucuses. Carter won the race that I conducted over several weeks with my board game, edging out Jackson, Frank Church, Mo Udall, and Jerry Brown. Carter won the real nomination as well, managing to hold on to his early lead even after Brown had declared that he was going to bring Carter’s bandwagon to a screeching halt.

Carter had wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination long before that summer’s convention, so it went off very much like today’s four-day political infomercials. The only suspense was Carter’s announcement of a running mate, which turned out to be obscure Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale. However, the Republican convention was a different story. Reagan had won enough delegates in the primaries to leave the outcome somewhat in doubt as the convention began. He even selected liberal Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as a “running mate” in an effort to convince some undecided moderate delegates to throw their support behind him. The ploy didn’t work and Ford was ultimately nominated and subsequently selected a then-unheard-of Kansas Senator, Bob Dole, as his running mate.

As I entered the 10th grade that fall, Carter held a commanding lead over Ford in the national polls and it looked as if we were in for a second straight landslide in a presidential race. However, as Election Day drew closer, the polls began to tighten. My parents didn’t like Carter. First of all, they thought he was a phony who would not be able to make good on his campaign promise to give every American $50 out of the federal treasury (they turned out to be right). They were also upset when a preacher told them about Carter’s admission of “committing adultery in his heart.” They weren’t big fans of Ford, but they saw Carter as completely unacceptable. It didn’t matter that he was a Southern Baptist like we were.

Election Night was very exciting that year. Ford had almost completely wiped out Carter’s once big lead by the time everyone went to the polls to cast their votes. I remember my parents letting us kids stay up until the wee hours of the next morning, waiting for a winner to be decided. What difference four years made! Carter was declared the victor only after the votes from Hawaii had come in. It had been a wild ride, with the lead in the electoral votes changing hands several times. My parents were disappointed, but I had been secretly pulling for Carter. As a youngster, I wanted the final presidential election of my childhood to produce change. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Will the Next President Carry the Popular Vote?

It’s looking more and more like the 2008 presidential election could turn out to be like the one of eight years ago, in which the man the receiving the highest total of popular votes was not elected. Yes, I believe it can happen again after such a short time, even though it had not happened in over 100 years until the George W. Bush-Al Gore match-up of 2000. This time, the Democratic candidate – Barack Obama – is the one most likely to get an Electoral College majority without the benefit of a popular vote plurality.

Here’s why I believe this is the case. Republican John McCain is leading in more states, with a larger average margin per state. In some western and southern states, McCain is leading by margins of as much as 25 or 30 percent. Obama, other the hand, holds single-digit leads in most of the states where is he is currently favored. However, the electoral votes in the states where Obama leads add up to more than those in the states where McCain is the leader. Unless there is a shift in several key states between now and November – and there could very well be – it is quite possible that Obama will be elected despite McCain winning the popular vote.