US Politics: The Redemption Of Regret

I'm not sure how much attention this will grab, but it's astonishing:

President Bush Regrets His Legacy As Man Who Wanted War

Here's a snippet from the article, which is based on an interview with Dubya:

"President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. 'I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.' "

Think about this a moment. And let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the war in Iraq was probably the worst idea ever since someone said: "Humpty Dumpty, take a big jumpy." After all, with hunderds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children dead, millions displaced and the country's very foundations broken to smithereens, one or two nagging doubts might be order. Especially if the reasons for all this destruction were false to start with.

So, what do you do when your big claim to fame raises a few eyebrows? Why, it's easy. You say: "You're right! I admit it! I should have presented it a bit differently."

And then we can all say: "Well, that's a relief! For a moment there, we really thought something horrible had happened!"

To which you answer: "Haha! Glad we got that sorted. Now let me present a few things with regard to Iran..."

Astonishing, too, is that this tactic hasn't been used more often. On the other hand, perhaps it has been, and the fact that we don't really know about it is because it's just so bloody brilliant.

Who knows, maybe the London police managed to find Jack the Ripper after all. And here's what happened:

Police: "Ho, ho! Wots all this then, eh?"

Jack: "Oh, just a bit o' crumpet I killed, officer! Been doing that now for a while, you know! Great fun!"

Police: "Now that ain't cricket, me young bloody friend! It's the bucket and pail for you!"

Jack: "No, no, no! You don't understand! Look at the writing on the wall! I wrote that before inserting this huge and spiky object up between her filthy little legs and tearing up everything inside!"

Police: "Oh! Well now. Let's have a look at that there writing, then." (Moving to the wall and scratching his beard:) "Err, now - that says: 'I, Jack, do solemnly proclaim my deep' - Wot's that there? - 'my deep regret that any of my actions may be seen as, as' - Wot's that word?"

Jack: "Reprehensible. Good, ain't it? Reprehensible! I looked it up!"

Police (thoughtfully): " '... as reprehensible.' That's nice, that is. Very posh. And then it says: 'I will make everything look nicer next time round.' "

Jack: "And I will! My presentation wasn't good, but I'll do better! I promise!"

Police: "Well! That seems to clear things up nicely, I must say! For a moment there I thought Dasterdly Deeds were afoot! I do apologise, good sir! And I wish you a very good night!"

Jack: "And the same to you, Officer! The same to you!"

The US Elections: Nelson's Notions

Some time ago, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat from Florida, proposed some wide-sweeping changes to the way US presidents are elected.

On June 6th, he filed his proposals with Congress, where they are certain to die a slow and unnoticed death.

One of the problems with the bill is that it's just too ambitious. Nelson wants, for example, to scrap the Electoral College. Now there may well be quite sound arguments for doing just that, but the fact of the matter is, it just ain't going to happen. The College is part of the US Constitution and it's been chugging along gamely for over 200 years. It's doing quite well, thank you very much. There's just no way Congress will set it out to pasture, let alone that the required 75% of all states would give their ratification. After all, the Electoral College system works to the benefit of small states, which are in the majority.

One wonders, though, what would happen if Nelson had been a bit more humble and had limited his reform package to the primary election process. On that score, surely, his ideas make some sense.

Those ideas amount to the introduction of a regional primary season, running from March through June (the exact months aren't important, but the total duration is). The US would be divided into 6 regions, and each of these regions would get their turn to vote (with, I'm assuming, all the states of a given region voting on the same day). Next time round, the same thing applies, but the sequence of the voting revolves. That way, in the larger scheme of things, no region would have preference over the others.

I must admit I like this idea. Its advantages are obvious:

• the duration of the primary season is shortened to three months or so, diminishing the chance that voters start changing their minds during the process and the candidate that ends up being the voters' choice loses because of a bad start;
• the unseemly jostling of states to set their primary dates as early as possible is eliminated. This is important, because the state's interests in early voting are by no means congruent with a party's interests in adhering to a fair and balanced election process;
• the system allows for focused campaigning by candidates, but widens the scope of the issues which they will have to focus on. It will simply become less feasible to atempt to pander to the voters of one state, only to turn around and attempt to pander to the voters in the next with a potentially different message.

This system would render the repeat of the 2008 Florida and Michgan debacle impossible, which in itself is a huge advantage. However, it does nothing to address the concerns that the Democratic primary seasons have revealed when it come to other shortcomings of the election process. More specifically, it does not address the problems concerning the significance (or lack thereof) of the popular vote or the doubts surrounding the role of the so-called superdelegates.

Because of this, I would imagine a few further changes might be in order:

• Abolish the caucuses; mandate a primary-only system. I happen to like the idea of caucuses, but I don't really think you can have both caucuses and primaries and not get into a very real muddle when it comes to determining if the winner actually deserved to win. In 2008, Clinton's claim to having won the popular vote was probably false and should, strictly speaking, have been irrelevant, but it's clear that's not the way things work in the real world. So I think future bickering about such things really needs to be avoided;
• Make pledged delegates stick to their pledges. That is: make it mandatory for pledged delegates to vote according to the outcome of their respective primaries. The current "good conscious" rule - which, in theory at least, allows for a pledged delegate to ignore the voters' wishes and vote for a different candidate during a party's convention - is frankly ridiculous;
• Abolish the category of "add-on" superdelegates and limit the supers to representatives, senators, governors, and (former) presidents and House Speakers;
• Limit the power of the supers to a block vote, and allow them to weigh in only if a candidate does not get a majority of the pledged delegate votes. Mandate that, in such an event, all the super-votes will be cast for a single candidate, to be determined on the basis of simple majority of supers.

These changes obviously strengthen the power of the voters in determining the candidate and should greatly diminish the rather murky political manoeuvering that goes on amongst the party insiders. After all, who on earth are all these supers? The so-called unpledged PLEO's - the Party Leaders and Elected Officials - well, we know a bit about them, by and large. But the others, the so-called add-ons? They're selected by the state parties, but on what grounds?

As for the block-vote rule: I would hope that this reflects the reason for having the supers in the first place. I believe they should only be of consequence if the electorate can't decide and I feel it's fair to force them to reach a consensus amongst themselves in the interests of their party.

Now, what would have happenen if this system had been in place during this year's primary? The answer is: who knows? The effects of the regional primary notion is anyone's guess. At most, one might assume that the system slightly favours the candidate who's the strongest as the race commences, since he or she might be expected to do well in the first region to vote, making it harder for opponents to catch up. However, that's just a guess; it would, of course, also depend on which region gets the first say.

Abolishing the caucuses would seem to have been in Cinton's favour, but again, that's speculation. Obama could still well have won the caucus states if they'd had held primaries, even though his victories may not have been as convincing.

One thing I am fairly sure about, though, is that the whole process would have been quite a bit more orderly and less confusing than it was now. I also feel that the potential for divisiveness - so surprisingly but resoundingly realised during this particular Democratic nomination - would probably not have existed.

So, while I don't think we're about to see an overhaul of the nomination process on anything like the scale described above, I do really hope some people give the matter the thought it surely deserves.

The US Elections: A Brilliant Little Coup

Most people will be aware that the Little Coup marked the beginning of the downfall of the Union.

Well, alright, perhaps not most people. In fact, perhaps not anyone at all. I certainly didn't. Not until I read this, that is.

I do know a bit about another little coup, though, since I've just watched it unfold last night.

Enough will be said - now and in the years to come - about Obama's successful bid for the Democratic nomination for the president of the United States.

What I wanted to point out, though, is a minor but interesting point. It's this: Obama realised his win yesterday by means of a coup - a little one, to be sure - which was brilliantly timed and superbly executed.

For a few months now (ever since the close of February), just about anyone who can count knew that the nomination would, in all likelihood, go to Obama. The question wasn't really if, it was how and when.

But things weren't looking up for him as the weeks passed, and the worst possible demons of American politics - demagogy, egomania, hypocrisy - were dragged on and off the stage in the guises of Wright, F&M, the popular vote, and the like. And although, as time passed, it still wasn't really if, it was rapidly getting to yes, but what if.

Obama's real problem during this time wasn't that he was losing states he ought to be winning, since he wasn't (although, to be fair, Clinton performed better than many expected in some primaries). His problem was Clinton was managing to slowly dissolve the entire premise of the campaign; she was making such a mess of the whole process that the one rule of determining a winner -who gets the most delegates? - was slowly sinking into a deliberately created quagmire.

Yesterday, only two small states remained. Together, they had 31 pledged delgates on offer - too few to push Obama over the finish, even if Obama scored heavily in both primaries. And it got worse for Obama, since South Dakota was sliding towards Clinton.

There was, in other words, a very real risk that yesterday would have have been the end of nothing, and the beginning of mayhem. That it would leave the road wide open for Clinton to pursue the course she had taken after February. Pledged delegates? Ha! That was then, this is now. Rules? What rules? They didn't get us anywhere, did they? It's all up for grabs, folks, and I'm just getting started...

Clinton seemed poised, in other words, for total war. And a war on the ground of her choosing.

But all that was abruptly halted yesterday. Not by the primary results: they weren't good for Obama by any means. He won Montana, but lost South Dakota. The results should and would have helped Clinton.

It was halted by what happened before all the results were in. It was halted by a sequence of events that effectively rendered the state results inconsequential. It was halted by the little coup, which played out as follows.

In the hours before the results came in, in a carefully choreographed action which, no doubt, was in part scripted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the superdelegates started to move. They started to crawl out of their holes; they stated committing themselves to Obama.

They'd said they wouldn't, not till the primaries were done and dusted. Time and again, they said that Wouldn't Be Right. That they should Wait And See. But yesterday, one by one, they crawled out nevertheless.

One by one they came, and by the time the potentially troublesome South Dakota results started coming in, there was such a clump of them - shivering, perhaps, in the harsh light of day, but all of them mouthing "Obama" gamely - that that state's results didn't matter at all. And when Montana proclaimed itself for Obama, a possible disaster was suddenly transformed into a triumph. By God! Obama hadn't just won, he'd won convincingly.

Suddenly, Florida and Michigan were moot. Suddenly, the popular vote argument was moot. And out went the big states/small states issue. And the caucus/primary thingy? It was tossed into the garbage can by a disgruntled Clinton afficiando who had packed his things and was heading off home.

The nomination was decided then and there, and each and every possible route to scurry around that outcome was abruptly cut off.

It was bloody brilliant, and it was brilliant because of one simple thing: because the supers came out before the results. Because they came out hours before the results, and there was nothing Clinton could do to halt either them or the inevitable consequence of their sudden emergence. And it was superbly executed because they came out in just the right numbers: not quite enough to tip the scales all by their lonesome, but sufficient to have the voters do that without even realising they were pushed over the winning line by the superwind in their backs.

It was a brilliant strategy, and the people who devised - and realised - it deserve huge acclaim.

Hats off to you, Messrs. Axelrod et al. You've done a great job.

__________

The US Elections: Tuesday Morning

It's Tuesday morning.

We got there, in the end. The final day of the primary season; the final two contests.

Later today - quite a bit later, in fact - the results from South Dakota and Montana will come in. Two small, Republican states, whose Democratic primaries wouldn't, in the general scheme of things, amount to diddly-squat.

Except this year - this election - they do. If only because of the fact that, due to the vagaries of the primary calender, these are the last outposts on a road so long many of us stopped travelling it some time ago. We returned to our daily lives, watching from an ever increasing distance as the two candidates moved on, dwindling into the distance.

But we can still see them, out there in the vastness of the Badlands. Look: there's Clinton, waving her arms and mouthing - well, it's difficult to hear. Papa la vole, papa la vole... Could that be it?

And that's Obama, over there. It's looks like he's trying to turn around, to get back to us. But Clinton won't let him, and each time he tries, she grabs him tight and they're off again, into the distance.

But there's a line drawn across the emptiness between those two outposts, and today they'll cross it. And what will happen then?

Perhaps they'll vanish there in a puff of dust, only to re-appear right in front of us. Re-invigorated, somehow, by their ordeal, with Obama somehow larger, and Clinton smiling at him.

Or perhaps they'll just keep going once the line is crossed, tumbling across the landscape like a dustball, certain only of mutual defeat.

Who can tell, so early in the morning?

__________________