I'm referring to the event that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the presidential race. I was deeply involved in campaign efforts here in Utah for the only candidate who supports single-payer, universal national health insurance and who co-authored the legislation to make it happen. His support was underestimated and now we'll receive no true account. His support was deliberately undermined by large private media organizations that barred his participation in the national debates. While ABC enjoyed sponsorship from private insurance companies and drug companies, NBC is owned by GE which has military contracts. These interests clearly conflict with Kucinich's urgent peace and diplomacy agenda as well as his national health insurance plan. ABC's own follow-up polls after the first debate showed him as the winner by a landslide. He also won by a wide-margin the Democracy for America poll, the Progressive Democrats of America poll, the Washington and Virginia primary straw polls, the post-debate polls in debates sponsored by unions and LGBT organizations. He won overwhelmingly the "voter-match" blind polls. Previous voting states were not good indicators of his popularity (which I will later explain) so dropping out before super tuesday means we will never see an accurate measure of his impact.
Many of my fellow DK supporters were despondent when Kucinich dropped out. Exclamations such as "For the love of God, beg that man to get back in the race before I lose my will to live!" were not unheard of. How many other candidates can report such passion among their faithful? DK is practically a cult figure among his supporters. He can actually be said to have "fans." Rare among any politicians. Jokes about his statuesque, gorgeous, brilliant, and accomplished wife can be firmly chalked up to jealousy. Elizabeth Kucinich has an advanced degree in international studies from Oxford. They were a force to be reckoned with.
Between media censorship and a slew of fire-breathing republicans vying for his congressional seat, his attention understandably had to turn to saving his seat so that he can continue to do the will of the people.
Just as I was beginning to recover sufficiently from the disappointment to consider my options, another candidate dropped out of the field, John Edwards.
The field had already narrowed significantly after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary after which Biden, Dodd, and Richardson dropped out of the race. I can remember no previous election in which the field has been so severely narrowed before "super tuesday."
The press is happy to anoint our president. From all that can be inferred, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney should just drop out now-- And we should all just have an up or down vote on John McCain and Barack Obama. Okay, now let's just skip the final election and call it for Obama and get it over with.
They already assume it is of no consequence whether Mike Huckabee and Mike Gravel stay or drop.
Our current system has had a devastating effect on candidate diversity. The Iowa/New Hampshire juggernaut and states that tried to challenge them both contributed to the wreckage. Let me count the ways.
For one thing, to campaign in a state, the parties and the secretaries of state keep voter rolls with party registration information and varying levels of further detail. In a "super tuesday," low delegate state like Utah, it costs roughly $1,200 to acquire these rolls for the entire state. The rolls are used for calling, canvassing, volunteer recruitment and other "get out the vote" activities. In Iowa, the cost for this roll is on the order of $100,000. Yes. $100,000- just for the voter rolls. Imagine you have a lower budget than other candidates, you are trying to campaign in all fifty states so you have to save some money to ensure you make it to the end of the primaries AND you have to shell out THAT much for one state.
Add to that the Iowa "caucus" system which differs significantly from a primary. In a caucus, people have to show up all at one time (unlike primaries where you have all day to vote and can come in any time.) 15% of persons present must support your candidate to continue to round two. There's no way to know how many will show up so you can't know in advance what your numbers should be. Once you are there, you don't dare leave to try to pull in more participants-that would lower your showing further.
Those who have less than 15% are urged to join another group. At this point, deals can and are usually made, such as "we will join your group, but one of us must be a delegate and the rest alternates" or, "your candidate MUST embrace issue X or they can forget our support." This kind of politicking is not for amateur citizens whose only previous experience has been to show up to a poll and vote. It favors insiders, party administrators, and the wealthy who can if they want HIRE a team of professional negotiators. It's not one-person-one-vote, it's Bambi vs. Godzilla.
It gets worse. At round two, there is show of hands for a candidate. This is not so scientific and among hordes of people and with long counts, there is nothing to stop people from running back and forth and voting for more than one candidate. Not to mention, it's not a secret ballot. Suppose you work for an insurance company, but you support HR 676 for universal health care. Your boss showed up to the caucus. Who are you going to vote for now?
Rotten? Sure. That's why states who have massive problems as a result of crappy national policy have been desperate to change the stakes in Iowa and New Hampshire. Michigan, that beleagured rust belt state, was understandably sick of being ignored by Washington-but changing the date of their primary violated party rules --so their punishment? No delegates. Their primary votes were strictly "symbolic" and half the candidates didn't appear on the ballot. An entire state was effectively disenfranchized because they had the chutzpah to challenge party rules.
New Hampshire is a small and heavily libertarian state. Note Ron Paul got 10% there. It's hardly "representative" of U.S. political views and provides a poor test of how candidates will do elsewhere.
Florida. A complete mess in 2000 during Bush v. Gore. -- like Michigan, they got official disenfranchisement with a delegate-free "symbolic primary" in 2008. Don't like how your votes were counted? How about this? --NONE of your votes count. "See ya."
Nevada. a caucus state in which the majority of locals are shift workers. Which are you going to miss--paycheck or sleep? Plenty of rumors about unions bullying voters too. Ordinarily, I support unions, but I don't agree with political bullying--with no secret ballot--will your union be there for you when you strike if you don't vote for their officially endorsed candidate?
South Carolina. Okay, John Edwards, so you lost your home state, but so did Al Gore when he went on to win the popular vote. Since when has this been a reason to drop out?
Did the strategy of an early and long campaign disadvantage candidates with less money since they had a shorter rope for continuing? I haven't seen a better case yet for PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS.
I am now an undecided voter. I'm a realist on at least one account. I won't vote for someone who isn't running. I know a lot of people will vote for Dennis anyway, but I have standards. I don't think this kind of protest vote is helpful. I worry it reinforces the stereotype that Kucinich supporters are out of touch with reality. I have contributed to his congressional campaign and continue to the fight for the issues he champions so ably.
What are the options? Among the Democrats it's Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mike Gravel. I don't actually know whether Gravel is on the ballot in Utah. Even so, his economic policies are too distant from my preferences. However, I admire his critical voice and think he too should have been included in the debates.
Some Democrats I've met told me they re-registered and will be voting in the Republican primary in order to select the least-worst opponent. I'm registered as a Democrat and it is too late to re-register for super-tuesday so it's too late for that strategy, but if it were not, I might consider Mitt Romney. Romney is responsible, has integrity, demands integrity from his organization and thinks that government ought to carried out in a responsible, practical manner that is not wasteful and that reflects well the society it governs. He is competent. He actually understands the problems of the sub-prime mortgage crisis and would impose regulations to prevent the egregious fraud that occurred on so many levels. He can't stand cheating. He believes in fairness. It only goes so far though, and he would not go far enough in ending regressive tax measures and other goodies to the wealthy.
Ron Paul- his supporters incessantly urge Kucinich supporters to join them. Now, more than ever. In his favor, Ron Paul is anti-war. He criticizes the patriot act. He supports impeachment of Cheney --and there the similarity ends. As a libertarian/republican, he would try to end the progressive tax structures, meagre as they are, that are among the few mitigations we have against corporate totalitarianism. Libertarians impress me with their fear of government tyranny, but somehow they miss the fact that the policies they support enable corporations to handily capture the state and use it for tyranny.X
Mike Huckabee - despite his image as a populist, he would end income tax and impose high sales taxes. This is the most regressive tax measure I've ever heard proposed. And I thought the food tax was bad... X
John McCain- he's a hawk and won't breathe a word against the president, not even on the issue of torture. Come on, what happened to that independent, headstrong legislator that took on his own party when they acted despicably? Nowhere in sight. Sad. X
Hillary Clinton-The strongest pros and the strongest cons. I hate her stance on the war and her devil's bargain with the insurance companies that she is trying to pass off as universal care. Suppose she tries this. She will get flack from both republicans and democrats. It's a terrible idea to go to congress with a fait accompli that neither party likes. It might set back health care another twelve years. She has a good grasp of educational issues and I think she would do more to improve our schools than any other candidate. Her experience in the white house would put her in touch with the best people to put in cabinet positions and in our crumbling agencies. Competence and expertise would rule instead of cronyism and undermining the purpose of regulation. She would be the first woman president. When she was first lady, I thought she would make a good president if she learned the ropes in congress. I was glad when she made it in New York, then... there were the bad decisions on predatory lending, bankrupcy, the war, over and over again bad decisions on crucial issues that diminished my confidence. She has had the good sense to renounce NAFTA. If she won, Bill would be a good diplomat flying around the world, but he should be appointed a babysitter.
Obama. Hope, hope, hope. I hope he's good, but since he says so little about who he is, how he has voted, what he will do, how he thinks...hope is about all we've got. Hope is good, but we need information. He doesn't have any health plan other than an expansion of S-Chip. While this is not good, we can hope that in this case, no plan at all has an advantage over a bad plan. The advantage is that we can make our best case and put the pressure on to form a good or at least acceptable plan. Edwards' plan was my second choice. Obama seems less hawkish. His temperment is cool, calm, and collected. How it will translate, I don't know, but a little rationality could be a good thing. He is probably too moderate for my aims and I know I will meet with disagreements. I don't know how good his appointments will be or how he will handle our economic issues. A little dignity in the office would go a long way at this point and he has that. I hope as a first African-American president, he would make the significant progress needed for African-Americans, progress they would be proud of without reservation and defend also the rights, freedoms, and security of the most vulnerable among us. We can only hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment