Thursday, March 15, 2012

Indecision 2012: Why the Calamity?

The 2012 Presidential election season is shaping up in a quite interesting manner. On the Republican side, we have been treated to several proclaimed “front-runners”, only to see them pass one by one into the sunset. Of the remaining candidates, none seems able to capture momentum, with each primary and caucus yielding a different winner.

Furthermore, none of the Republican candidates – those remaining and those departed – seem to offer a serious challenge to Barack Obama. Certainly, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul seem to perform well well against Obama in hypothetical matchups in the polls; however given the abysmal state of the economy these marginal “victories” seem quite shallow, with little margin of error.

The Republicans have not been able to field a strong candidate in an election year that offers the presidency for the taking. As mentioned, the state of the economy is poor, unemployment is high. These are normally a death knell for an incumbent. Further, Obama likely faces less-than-enthusiastic support from his own base given his poor track record on the wars and on civil liberties. With such factors in place, it is remarkable that the Republicans seem to be in such disarray.

So far, I believe there is little to dispute in what I have suggested.

Those who believe elections in the United States are run in an open and straightforward manner, with the eligible voters able to choose the ultimate winner through a well-regulated and transparent process, should probably stop reading now as the rest of what I write will probably not make much sense.

OK, now that they are gone….

What follows will make more sense (I believe) to those who believe that elections are strongly influenced, if not decided, by powers greater than the electorate.

It seems to me that there are a few possible reasons as to why the Republicans are in the condition described above, given the otherwise quite favorable circumstances surrounding the incumbent and the economy. I will explore a few of these.

Those in power desire Obama to win re-election.

This seems to me the most straightforward and plausible explanation for the mess that is the Republican Party primary. None of the candidates is very strong. None is gaining momentum. Few, if any, can win nationally in the general election: as previously mentioned, only Paul and Romney (barely) poll favorably against Obama. It is not fathomable that Santorum or Gingrich (to say nothing of the others who have previously fallen by the wayside) could win the general election. They appeal to a subset of the Republican base, but there is NO constituency outside of the base that will provide support. As poor as Obama has been on the wars and civil liberties, his disenchanted base would easily support Obama over any Republican candidate (with the notable exception of Ron Paul, as he is better on these issues than Obama for those who care about these issues).

It is (rightly) said that it matters little who sits in the Oval Office. No matter the President, state power grows, civil liberties shrink, and the general direction is toward more centralization and control. This is all quite correct. So why should it matter to those in power whether Obama wins as opposed to (take your pick from) Romney / Gingrich / Santorum (I must set aside Paul, for obvious reasons)?

I believe it matters because elite power is not exercised only through direct command and control. Elite power is best exercised by finding vessels (vassals?) that are pre-disposed to behave in manners that are desired. For example, knowing the calamity to come in financial markets, it was best for the elite to find someone like Bernanke to put in charge of the Fed. Yes, all central bankers inflate, this is all they know. But for some, overwhelming action comes more naturally. We all know the infamous “helicopter” speech given by Bernanke in 2002.No one else gave that speech. If you were sitting at the top of the pyramid – knowing that drastic action was necessary to save the system - wouldn’t you prefer someone already predisposed in such a way as opposed to someone who believed the ability of the central bank to effect results was even modestly limited?

I believe a similar dynamic was in play four years ago during the last presidential election cycle. It seemed clear we were to be offered the choice of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. From the position of the elite, there seems nothing wrong with either choice. And in the big picture, either would have sufficed. So why did Obama come out of the blue? Clinton had it all sown up, and given the history of Bush going against the Republicans, was a shoe-in for the general election. What did Obama have that Clinton didn’t, to say nothing of McCain?

As only Nixon could go to China, it seems to me only Obama could do what was desired: Only Obama had the track record (or lack thereof) to defy the democratic base and continue the wars. Only Obama could extend the Patriot Act and sign NDAA into law. Yes, Clinton too is a democrat, but had nowhere near the anti-war / pro-civil liberty credibility that Obama had. Clinton had too much baggage – even with the democratic base – to carry into office. Clinton was a known entity, and already came with very strong negatives. She was not trusted by many, including some on her own side. As a not-unimportant aside, she had already failed at a previous attempt to fully nationalize health care. Obama had not.

All of this is my roundabout way to get to the idea that the elite desire Obama to win re-election. While it is true that any candidate other than Paul would suffice, there are times when some suffice more than others – just as Obama did four years ago, and may very do so again now.

I leave it to you to speculate as to why it is viewed as important for Obama to win.

Some subset of those in power see the need to alter course, thus providing support for Ron Paul.

I will grant this is a long shot, but I do not believe it to be inconceivable (plus I need to spell this out in order to get to my third possibility, which I find more likely).

Why do I find this at least possible and bordering on plausible? The fear by some subset of the elite of chaos. Yes, it is true that chaos brings the possibility for further control. However, even more true is that beyond chaos - especially in this internet age with open communication - comes the unknown.

Consider that those in power have it pretty good. They have control tools in place, unknown wealth, control via central banks and governments throughout the world. Ron Paul, while he might make significant dents around the edges, cannot undo all that has been done. As much as I admire and support him, even as President Ron Paul will not be able to eliminate the control that the elite have established. So in the big picture, saving the system - even if this requires taking a pause for air - would seem worthwhile.

Paul can enact programs that might allow the current structures to survive. Think of austerity, spending cuts, etc. These are needed if economic and therefore social chaos is to be avoided. Ron Paul can provide the pause or the step-back that is needed if chaos is to be delayed or potentially avoided. And if not avoided, who better to blame than the free-market guy?

Now there is a problem: Ron Paul is not winning any primaries or caucuses. He certainly has a strong and dedicated base of supporters and according to some reports is building a strong base of delegates, which could come in handy if the Republicans get to a brokered convention.

It is the brokered convention scenario that seems to offer the best chance for Ron Paul at this point, and to the extent any of the elite are holding out hope for his candidacy, this seems to be the only path remaining.

Which gets to my third possibility and one that is not mutually exclusive to the possibility that the elite desire Obama’s re-election.

Those in power want to bring an end to the Electoral College system and move toward presidential elections based on the popular vote across the country.

Imagine the scenario of a brokered Republican convention. No clear winner, backroom deals, new names being thrown about (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, etc.). Worse, what if Ron Paul, through “loopholes” in the delegate system, comes out on top despite not having won any primaries, or at least none of great significance? A complete sham is made out of all of the efforts to date through the primary season. What is the use of voting if it doesn’t count - if my vote doesn’t matter anyway? There will be an uproar for a change in the system – or an uproar will be generated by the media….

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the foundation for a “solution” was already in place: The National Popular Vote Bill.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

From the site:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

The states will award their delegates based upon whichever candidate wins the popular vote across the country. Whichever candidate wins the most popular votes in the country wins the national election. I didn’t think there were any nails left to put into the coffins of the states, but here is one – and one that the states are apparently voluntarily lining up for. The bill seems to be technically Constitutional (states are free to award delegates as they see fit – but who knew they would voluntarily award delegates based on how the entire country votes as opposed to how their own residents vote?), so there is no roadblock here - not that the Constitution has ever been a roadblock to much of anything.

Why would the elite want to move to a completely popular election for national office? In a country where opinion is swayed quite easily by the mainstream tools already in place, to ask the question is to answer it. Direct democracy by an easily manipulated electorate seems to offer one of the worst forms of government, which is therefore one of the best forms for the elite. With direct popular election of the President, the electorate feels even more empowered (especially after the disaster of a stolen “brokered” convention for the Republicans), thereby even more easily offering support for the system.

In any case, these are my thoughts to try to make sense out of a Republican primary that otherwise makes no sense – especially in the context of a general election that is theirs for the taking. As always, only time will tell.

7 comments:

  1. Not to mention the fact that with today's easily hackable voting machines, you have the best of all possible worlds. Everyone has the illusion they have a part in the "decision", not realizing that the results were in before the first "votes" were even counted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are and have been too many complaints about the lack of transparency in the mechanics of the voting process from those on all sides of the political spectrum for this to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their partys presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes– enough ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    National Popular Vote has nothing to do with direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your second scenario, that they want RP to win, might be summarized as:

    Socialist FDR was selected to "Save Capitalism"
    Libertarian Ron Paul would be selected to "Save Socialism"

    God, you are cynical!!1 :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. As mentioned in the article, I believe the bill to be technically Constitutional, so we have no debate here.

    However, the bill falls flat, I believe, in terms of being consistent with the intent of those who framed the Constitution. Instead of each individual state taking into account the desires of that states' own voters in the presidential election, the state will instead take into account the desires of the voters of all 50 states. Of what purpose is there in a state to exist, I wonder?

    The founders (for lack of a better term) only agreed to the Constitution because of the supremacy they felt the states would maintain. The most important "check and balance" was not the commonly taught executive / legislative / judicial check, but the check of each state vs. the central government - a "check" for the most part put to bed in 1865.

    This bill destroys one more check. That the states are voluntarily agreeing to this makes it no less a trampling of the benefit of state government as a check on federal power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.


    With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their partys presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    ReplyDelete
  7. toto, you are being quite repetitive.

    ReplyDelete