Of Risks and Consequences
Perhaps somebody read my last blog. When I called for party elders to put a stop to the carnage occurring in the Democratic primaries by appealing to Al Gore to consider having his name placed on the ballot, it was because the “should have been president of the United States” seemed to represent the most logical resolution to the jeopardy posed by the Democratic bloodletting. Yet, how realistic is it to appeal to rational thought in an unusual election governed by the raw emotions of race and gender? The mindless egotism of identity politics is reflected in the reports that 28-30% of Obama and Clinton supporters say that they would vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate was not chosen. In the current climate, rational thought has clearly taken a sabbatical. Even if a small percentage of those who backed the primary loser decide to stay home on election day out of spite, the result could tip the scales in McCain’s favor if the race is close.
The media picked up on Mr. Gore last week, but it was only to inquire if he would throw his weight behind one of the Democratic contenders in order to get the intra-party battles over with. Interviewed on 60 Minutes, the Nobel Prize winning former VP just smiled and refused to take on the role of king (or queen) maker. No one pressed Gore on the unlikely contingency: a groundswell of grassroots support rises amidst Democrats finally fed-up with the Obama/Clinton slugfest, carrying the Veep into a brokered convention and a last minute nomination over the two candidates whose mutual attacks left them seriously damaged as national contenders.
Admittedly there is something truly dramatic, indeed, mythic, in the Gore-for-president scenario that could appeal to the American political stage: the prince whose throne was unjustly usurped, embarks on a journey to fight the carbon demon that threatens the world then returns in triumph to reclaim what is rightfully his.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking that the judicial atrocity that robbed Al Gore of the presidency and gave the world the disastrous Bush regime can ever be rectified. History doesn't often grant second chances. Make no mistake about it, however; the country is in clear and present danger of having John McCain as the next president and this time we will have no one to blame but ourselves if we allow it to happen.
Yes, these are the risks one takes in a democracy, but, with the choice of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party has proven that it is completely incapable of assessing risk and incorporating it into the election scenario. It has chosen to run two brilliant, but flawed, high-risk candidates at a time when the consequences of defeat could mean a severe political and economic regression that the country and the world can ill-afford.
What is the value of a risk assessment in politics? It enables one to plan for contingencies by asking the simple question: "what if?" It is clear that one of the challenges for the McCain campaign will be to choose a running mate that will help solidify the candidate’s conservative base. What if McCain chooses a Duncan Hunter or even a Mike Huckabee as his running mate to prove his conservative cohones? What if he selects Mitt Romney to strengthen the perception of competence in his stewardship of the economy? A McCain victory in November would then likely place an individual that is far more objectionable to Democrats and Progressives only one aging heartbeat away from the presidency. At age 71, Mr. McCain is clearly a high-risk candidate for the Republicans, and that could mean an even greater risk for the country.
It is clear that Mr, Obama and Mrs, Clinton are much more than their racial or gender identities. Perhaps when the history of the period is written, it will be said that the Democrats blew the most important election since the end of WWII because they suffered from an excess of talent. It may be true that Mr. Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate as Bill Richardson said, and that he represents the kind of country that many would like America to be. But we need not look any farther than the election of George W. Bush to recall that Americans have proven that they will easily reject a candidate who is articulate, intelligent, and has a mastery of the issues, in favor of a phony in a flight suit who seems to make them feel good.
Perhaps somebody read my last blog. When I called for party elders to put a stop to the carnage occurring in the Democratic primaries by appealing to Al Gore to consider having his name placed on the ballot, it was because the “should have been president of the United States” seemed to represent the most logical resolution to the jeopardy posed by the Democratic bloodletting. Yet, how realistic is it to appeal to rational thought in an unusual election governed by the raw emotions of race and gender? The mindless egotism of identity politics is reflected in the reports that 28-30% of Obama and Clinton supporters say that they would vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate was not chosen. In the current climate, rational thought has clearly taken a sabbatical. Even if a small percentage of those who backed the primary loser decide to stay home on election day out of spite, the result could tip the scales in McCain’s favor if the race is close.
The media picked up on Mr. Gore last week, but it was only to inquire if he would throw his weight behind one of the Democratic contenders in order to get the intra-party battles over with. Interviewed on 60 Minutes, the Nobel Prize winning former VP just smiled and refused to take on the role of king (or queen) maker. No one pressed Gore on the unlikely contingency: a groundswell of grassroots support rises amidst Democrats finally fed-up with the Obama/Clinton slugfest, carrying the Veep into a brokered convention and a last minute nomination over the two candidates whose mutual attacks left them seriously damaged as national contenders.
Admittedly there is something truly dramatic, indeed, mythic, in the Gore-for-president scenario that could appeal to the American political stage: the prince whose throne was unjustly usurped, embarks on a journey to fight the carbon demon that threatens the world then returns in triumph to reclaim what is rightfully his.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking that the judicial atrocity that robbed Al Gore of the presidency and gave the world the disastrous Bush regime can ever be rectified. History doesn't often grant second chances. Make no mistake about it, however; the country is in clear and present danger of having John McCain as the next president and this time we will have no one to blame but ourselves if we allow it to happen.
Yes, these are the risks one takes in a democracy, but, with the choice of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party has proven that it is completely incapable of assessing risk and incorporating it into the election scenario. It has chosen to run two brilliant, but flawed, high-risk candidates at a time when the consequences of defeat could mean a severe political and economic regression that the country and the world can ill-afford.
What is the value of a risk assessment in politics? It enables one to plan for contingencies by asking the simple question: "what if?" It is clear that one of the challenges for the McCain campaign will be to choose a running mate that will help solidify the candidate’s conservative base. What if McCain chooses a Duncan Hunter or even a Mike Huckabee as his running mate to prove his conservative cohones? What if he selects Mitt Romney to strengthen the perception of competence in his stewardship of the economy? A McCain victory in November would then likely place an individual that is far more objectionable to Democrats and Progressives only one aging heartbeat away from the presidency. At age 71, Mr. McCain is clearly a high-risk candidate for the Republicans, and that could mean an even greater risk for the country.
It is clear that Mr, Obama and Mrs, Clinton are much more than their racial or gender identities. Perhaps when the history of the period is written, it will be said that the Democrats blew the most important election since the end of WWII because they suffered from an excess of talent. It may be true that Mr. Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate as Bill Richardson said, and that he represents the kind of country that many would like America to be. But we need not look any farther than the election of George W. Bush to recall that Americans have proven that they will easily reject a candidate who is articulate, intelligent, and has a mastery of the issues, in favor of a phony in a flight suit who seems to make them feel good.
Comments