It's the Voting, Stupid

It's the Voting, Stupid

                                

by Michele

In a democracy, we believe in free speech and the marketplace of ideas.  In consequence, we are blessed with a wide variety of opinions and lots of healthy disagreement.  But there are still things we can agree on, and chief among them is the idea that voting is good.  If anything, there should be more voting, not less. (I wish somebody had called a special election on the question whether or not to redesign the Tropicana orange juice carton, for example.  (Click here to see the horrific new carton!)  If they had, I would still be getting a dose of sunshine and pep with my morning beverage instead of contemplating what looks like a depressing generic store brand.)

As urgent as the Tropicana carton issue is, it pales in comparison to some other voting we're not getting to do.  U.S. Senate seats, three of them!  Three rather prominent people are going into the new administration and leaving behind U.S. Senate seats with years left to go on the terms. This is akin to vacating a prime parking space with an hour left on the meter, except more so.  You'd think with something so valuable, our democratic system would require an election to let the people's voices be heard.  But no.

It's true that we didn't always vote for our U.S. Senators.  The framers originally provided for members of the Senate to be elected by the legislatures of their home states.  (Here's a little constitutional history if you're interested.)  But even getting elected by the legislature is more democratic than what's happening here -- new Senators getting appointed by one person and one person only, the governor of their home states. 

Where that governor is a buffoon and a criminal

    the pitfalls are obvious.  But even with a governor as grounded and honorable as David Paterson, appointing senators creates big problems.

Chief among these is the appearance of favoritism.  Correction -- ACTUAL favoritism.  Caroline Kennedy makes a phone call and gets a Senate seat?  Will David Paterson make her do a better job than this of explainnig why she wants it?  I bet the voters would.

We have enough trouble in this country with elective office being reserved for the wealthy, the famous and the children of the previously elected.  Just take a look at the New York Senate seat.  David Paterson, son of Basil, will choose from a pool where the two most prominent candidates are Caroline Kennedy, daughter of John, and Andrew Cuomo, son of Mario.  In Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner filled Joe Biden's seat with his right-hand man Ted Kaufman, who's there to keep it warm until Joe's son Beau Biden comes back from Iraq and runs in 2010.

Not that voters wouldn't make these same choices if allowed to vote. People voted for George Bush, son of George, and they may yet decide to vote for Jeb, other son of George.  All sorts of Kennedys have been elected to all sorts of offices because of their last name.  (There's one legacy that deserves to be reexamined.  What did JFK ever do except look fantastic in sportswear and speak well?  Oh right, he got us into Vietnam and repeatedly authorized wiretaps on Martin Luther King's phones.  Not to mention swimming naked with the White House steno girls.)  Who's to say Evan Bayh or John Sununu or Nancy Pelosi (whose father was a U.S. Congressman) didn't deserve to be elected?  In a democracy, we can choose to be anti-democratic, and that's okay. (Actually it's not, but whaddaya gonna do?)  At least it's our choice. 

Comments

[Kathy Sweeney]

Welcome back, Michele!

I couldn't agree more - I understand that holding special elections is an expensive proposition. But I'll bet that, when the debacle in Illinois is finally settled, it would have been cheaper to do so.

Although, given what's going on in Minnesota, who the hell knows?

Maybe we should have a rule akin to the Designated Hitter. Each state picks someone who is available for the on-deck circle in case the batter opts out for whatever reason. Talk about pay to play...

SNL's cold open was a clever bit with Rachel Maddow hosting Gov Blog and Roland "You can call me Senator" Burress. If only it were just a joke.

[nancy martin]

Since my state isn't involved---yet (how are you feeling, Senator Specter?) I haven't been too interested in these senatorial seatings. Except in a celebrity-watching kind of way. Have we reached an era when the successful candidate must be a celebrity to win? (I thought of Al Franken, Arnold, Jesse Ventura--long before I thought of Jeb Bush.) Does a person have to be famous for something other than good deeds to get elected now? If so, I bet that's not what Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin were thinking at the time. Oh, wait---weren't they celebrities in their day?

[nancy martin]

ps. Great to have you back, Michele!

[Elaine Viets]

I'm from Missouri, Michele, and my home state once elected a dead man governor instead of John Ashcroft. Which seemed like a wise decision at the time, except then he was unleashed on the world. The current rules for succession seem to help the already advantaged. Maybe it's time for an amendment to change the laws -- yes, we can.

[William Simon]

Welcome back, Michele! Great to have you here...:)

I can't really address this. Texas Politics is a who other animal, inconceivable to most outside the State. Some of the things mentioned above, "Wayl, that's jest the way it works down here, boy"....

[michele]

The biggest joke about Blago is that he was actually elected. What were you thinking, O people of Illinois?

The advantage you get by being a celebrity is staggering. That's what bugs me so much about Caroline Kennedy's "candidacy." She'd probably win because of her last name anyway, but it makes it so much more blatant when all she does (after a life of not really working at anything) is make a few phone calls, and automatically she's the leading contender. At least Andrew Cuomo showed up and ran for office.

Funny story about Ashcroft, Elaine! I didn't remember that. My view of him changed for the better after Jim Comey told that horrific story about Ashcroft being on his deathbed yet resisting Gonzalez's pressure on the national security wiretapping. That should be a made-for-tv movie.

[nancy martin]

Who would we cast as Ashcroft, Michele?

That's a politics-as-celebrity joke, honest. Sort of. Well, maybe. Or not.

Steve Buscemi? Or Brad Pitt? Jack Nicholson?

Nevermind. Back to work.

[michele]

Pitt as Ashcroft -- there's a stretch! But why not? His heart obviously isn't in the heartthrob game any more.

[Maryann Mercer]

Well, Michele, what the people of Illinois were thinking at the time Ron was first elected was that no one could do worse than George Ryan (it's called knee-jerk reaction). He would not have been elected a second time had the opposition chosen someone who unfortunately had ties to the Ryan Administration (also called a knee-jerk reaction even though she had the credentials and might have done a good job)). Illinois politics is muddier than the Mississippi at flood stage. Has been for years. I voted Green Party last time out, if for no other reason than to give the independents a chance to debate in 2010.
As for Roland Burris, in my own humble opinion, the man should have said to Ronnie "Are you goofy?" and waited until the dust settled before accepting the seat, had it been offered to him. As for special elections in the Land of Lincoln...well, there's really not anyone truly qualified to run...on either side. And who in their right mind would want to?

[Maryann Mercer]

ooops- that should have read "had the opposition NOT chosen someone..." it's my fingers. They're faster than my brain.

[Karen in Ohio]

Michele! It's so good to see you posting again. Does your long hiatus mean there's another book coming?

You make a good point, but the appointments sometimes also work in favor of one particular demographic, women. In some cases, a woman would never win, except in an appointment. I'm in favor of more women in public office, and until we achieve parity (women in more than half the political offices), it's not such a bad thing. In fact, for the last 20 years I've voted for every woman on the ticket, with one or two exceptions, in my own, personal grassroots campaign to boost women into higher office.

I'd have more trouble with Kennedy if she wasn't clearly an intelligent, thoughtful person, but she has proven herself to be. Too bad she's not more articulate, though.

By the way, my brother-in-law is a historian and one of his books says we got into Vietnam in the late 50's, as allies to the French. I can't find the book right now, but I did find this online, which confirms what he says:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm

In 1961, in the first year of Kennedy's term in office, we did sign a military and economic aid treaty with South Vietnam, and "some" more troops went there, but it wasn't until after Kennedy's death that Johnson began increasing the ante. He and Nixon are the ones to blame for the bulk of American deaths and loss of US money.

Most Americans, including me, didn't realize how long we had actually been involved in that mess, but the link above talks about "America's longest war".

That's not to say that Kennedy's popularity wasn't undeserved; he was highly overrated, mostly because of his exceptional gifts at public speaking. But he abused the privilege of his office with women (as did a LOT of other Presidents, by the way, not just Bill Clinton), and he got us into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. However, he was not actually the reason we were in Vietnam.

[Harley]

I live in a state that elects movie stars (The Governator, e.g.) and come from Nebraska, where one senator was quoted as saying, "Mediocre people deserve mediocre representation." He was apparently unclear on the meaning of mediocrity.

Glad to have you back, Michele!

[michele]

Maryann, thank you for that insight into Illinois politics! It's quite a swamp, isn't it? I guess that explains the lack of good candidates. People with integrity steer clear of that mess. It's amazing to me that Obama managed to navigate it as well as he did, without getting sucked into anything worse that the Rezko deal, which didn't cross the line into illegality and doesn't seem to have damaged him at all.

Karen, I couldn't agree with you more about the appointment power being a great tool for advancing women's presence in politics. But then why not turn to someone like Kirsten Gillibrand, who's a real up-and-comer, charismatic, made her own way in life, and is an up-stater in a state that's dying to get out from under down-state dominance? Gillibrand has two problems I guess. The biggest is the lack of name recignition/money. But also,Nancy Pelosi thinks she's too big for her britches and has put the kibosh on her candidacy. Too bad she's not getting a fair shake because she'd be great.

The history I learned was that Eisenhower supported the Diem regime after the French left Vietnam but not beyond a handful of advisors. It was Kennedy who escalated American troop presence to the point where we committed to being involved in a war in Indochina. And then of course, under Johnson it escalated much further. But Johnson always struck me as being a reluctant warrior, somebody who was really pained by war and much more interested in spending money on righting the wrongs of social and economic injustice.

If I had to name the greatest president of the second half of the 20th century, I'd say Johnson. I know many would say Reagan, but that's just my politics.

[michele]

When you look at somebody like Scwarzenegger (sp?), at least he's self-made. The guy came here with nothing and succeeded beyond all belief, and he works hard. I have less of a problem with that than I do with the children of the rich and famous waltzing into appointed public office.

[Alan P.]

Actually, we elected a dead man Senator, not Governor. The main reason was, from the grave, he was still a better person for the job than big John.

Michele, the "advisors" we sent to Viet Nam where paratroopers and we sent several hundred. My Uncle was one of them. They "advised" on the ground fighting the Viet Mihn (Cong) and North Vietnamese Army. There was a whole lot of shooting and very little advising.

[Karen in Ohio]

Johnson was less reluctant than you might think, Michele. He made a lot of missteps that still haunt us. But the Civil Rights Act was his shining star.

There are a lot of things wrong with the way we do things in the US, but I'm still hoping we do more right things. And I'm especially hoping that this next few years will turn our country around, and get us back to the proud leader we once were.

[Karen in Ohio]

I had to look this one up. When Kennedy was shot, there were 16,000 Americans in Vietnam. In 1968 that number had risen to more than 550,000, thanks to Johnson.

I'm not so sure he was our "greatest president" of the 20th, or any other century. (And Reagan definitely wasn't, as he oversaw one of the worst declines in our economy until GW Bush.)

[michele]

You're right, Vietnam was a huge blot on Johnson's record, but at least he understood that. As opposed to our current president who continues to maintain that everything he did was right. The Civil Rights Act was -- to me anyway -- one of the bravest and best things any president has ever done. We certainly wouldn't have a President Obama without it, and I doubt I'd be where I am either.

The people who'd put Reagan in the "greatest" category are the ones who credit him with winning the Cold War. Of course he did that by starting an arms race that spent the Soviet Union into the ground.

[michele]

Good point, Alan! "Military advisor" is always a euphemism, isn't it?

[nancy martin]

I love this blog.

Michele, I'm surprised about your Johnson choice. But then, I live in a city where scads of "projects--those enormous "low income housing" apartments were built under Johnson's social programs, and they immediately became jungles of crime and social disintegration. Not to mention ruining otherwise thriving neighborhoods by destroying homes (okay, not lovely ones on green lawns with 2-car garages, but homes that people paid mortgages on and handed down in families nevertheless) to make way for those giant buildings. Johnson must take the blame for those.

Although I love Ladybird.

C'mon, let's hear your reasoning.

It's deelightful having you back.

[michele]

My view of Johnson was formed by reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography, which I admit was way, way sympathetic. She had a thing for him, obviously.

You're so right about the housing projects, Nancy. The Great Society created the welfare state, and by the time Bill Clinton dismantled it, everybody agreed it had been misguided, even a failure. But it remains the only serious attempt in American history to eradicate poverty, and I guess that's why I put Johnson in the "great" category. Nobody else has even tried.

[Becky Hutchison]

Welcome back, Michele. I don't know that much about Caroline Kennedy, but from what I've read over the years, she's prefered to stay out of the limelight. Maybe she's not comfortable in the public eye like the rest of her immediate family was and realizes she's not the great speaker her dad was. I don't like the fact that she can just call up Paterson and say "Okay, I'll take the job," and she gets her silver platter. But I agree with Karen about her intelligence.

At least she knows something about the Bill of Rights:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Defense-C-Kennedy/dp/0380717204/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231782592&sr=8-3

and our right to privacy:

http://www.amazon.com/Right-Privacy-Ellen-Alderman/dp/0679744347/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231782674&sr=8-4

which were ignored by the Bush Administration. She has the name recognition and most probably has the connections to get things done in the Senate. And whether or not I agree with the way in which she may get the seat, I feel she could benefit New York and the country.

[michele]

And it's great to be back!

Nancy, that is such a good question, because it reveals not only the source of my views but also the impact historians have in shaping history. My view of Johnson is completely formed by one book --Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. She was hardly an objective biographer, and I read the book years ago. But she created a dedicated and enduring Johnson fan in me.

You're right about the projects, and yet here's how I see it. Johnson is the only president even to have made a serious effort to eradicate poverty. Yes, the Great Society resulted in the welfare state, which turned out to be misguided, even a failure. But at least he tried.

[michele]

Sorry to post that twice. It disappeared from my screen, I rewrote it. Then I looked ansd it was there!

[Pam aka SisterZip]

Yes, we elected the late Gov. Mel Carnahan for the Senate (and it was picked up and used as a minor story line in The West Wing). Then Gov. Holden appointed Mrs. Carnahan to his seat until a special election could be held. That is when we got Jim Talent. I think I would have rather had Ashcroft as Senator. We have another open seat coming up in 2010. Kit Bond has decided not to run again and it will be interesting to see who gets that seat. Our other Senator knows how to suck up & is high on the "Thank You" list of President-elect Obama.

[Becky Hutchison]

I also think Johnson was a good President. It's my understanding that he didn't want to be in the war, but inherited something he couldn't just stop. And though he wasn't a charismatic speaker like Kennedy, he implemented ideas that Kenndy just talked about. Kennedy laid the groundwork for equal rights, but Johnson actually carried the legislation through. He was a womanizer and could be your worst enemy, but his contribution to life in America today can't be denied.

[michele]

Becky, you're right that Caroline Kennedy has a brain. And I'll even agree it's possible she could end up doing a fine job. It's just the process that bugs me, I guess.

[Karen in Ohio]

Michele, I can see why you feel that way. It's how I feel about Carter--he tried to do something, more than anyone else has, about the energy situation. He was roundly criticized for it, but if he had been able to have a second term, I don't think we'd be enmeshed in the mess we're in now, worrying so much about the Middle East that provides so much of our oil. He was all for finding alternative energy sources, way back in the 70's, and pushed for energy credits for adding solar and other alternate methods of creating energy to our homes. Too bad he was not allowed to prevail.

[Maryann Mercer]

Michele, I grew up in the 'burbs and didn't realize until I went to college in central Illinois that most of the state regarded Chicago as den of vipers...and definitely the recipient of most state funds regardless of who governed (my favorite governer was Stratton,but then I was only in sixth grade). It's still that way today, which is why it took Obama to get the state to start thinking past their prejudices (and I'm not sure everyone did, just enough to make it count)and vote for the good of the country. Name recognition has always bothered me in a way too, but I figure that even those who have that connection have to do a good job or the 'name' doesn't mean a thing. And it is good to have you back :o)

[Becky Hutchison]

Michele, I totally agree with you on the process, particularly in Illinois. Roland Burress seems like an intelligent, responsible person to replace Obama, but I can't understand why he agreed to be appointed. IMO Blago's a nutjob, and personally I wouldn't want to be associated with his administration in any way, shape or form.

And I've never understood why a wife would be appointed to take the place of her dead husband...a la Lindy Boggs. How does living with a politician prepare you for public office? Osmosis? Lindy must have been somewhat qualified, because she was subsequently elected to office, but what made her the first choice of LA gov?

[michele]

Karen, so true. Carter looks visionary today on energy issues, and still isn't recognized for it. It was sad watching him at that ex-Prez lunch kind of standing off to the side. What is it about him? Too preachy maybe? Too far left on foreign policy issues? It wasn't a perfect presidency by any means but he's still such an outcast after all these years.

Maryann, people I know who are from the Chicago area love the place to death despite this problem. Guess there's a lot else to like!

[Karen in Ohio]

In Burris' case, I suspect he's just thrilled to bits to have a chance to take that office. He's 71 years old, remember, and comes from an era that did not see a lot of black Senators. He looks like he can't wait to get to work and roll up his sleeves. It's endearing, and no matter what propelled him there, I think he'll do a great job.

[Karen in Ohio]

About Carter: Bush and his fans keep saying that "history will vindicate him", but I suspect that's just wishful thinking. Carter is one former president that will eventually get credit for his term in office. It's too bad that hasn't happened yet, though.

His post-presidency life has been so amazingly exemplary; if he were Catholic he would almost be eligible for sainthood, he's such a good man.

[michele]

NEWSFLASH -- Catch TLC's own Lisa Daily on E! Daily 10 Show tonight at 7:30 EST. Go, Lisa! We'll all be watching.

[Pam aka SisterZip]

I think Carter was "too good" to be president. He was so ineffectual as President because for whatever reason (some hinted at anti-Semitism) he couldn't get a consensus. He did great things for the State of Georgia while in office, but was looked down upon as President because he was Southern. Just my opinion.

[michele]

Pam, that is such an interesting take. You really think it was about Carter being Southern? What about Clinton, though? I never felt he was looked down upon, did you? Bush is looked down upon, but not because he's from Texas!!

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Carter ran against Washington, brought in his Georgia mafia, and never gave the time of day to the establishment? People say that made him ineffective. Obama is being very smart that way by bringing in experienced people -- though of course alienating a lot of progressives in the process.

[Becky Hutchison]

I think Carter was looked down upon because he didn't have the charisma or the big personality that Clinton does or the family/government connections that Bush has. I think you've touched on something important too, Michele. Carter (who I really admire BTW) didn't play by the DC rules and had a hard time winning over the DC players. Thankfully Obama understands the DC process a little better and realizes that he needs these players to get his agenda through congress.

Michele, this is a really great blog today! I'm learning lots of new things. Thanks!

[Pam aka SisterZip]

Maybe 'Southern' wasn't the best way to put it. His laid back, "I can tell you to go to hell and like it" Southern attitude didn't set well with the DC elite. I think Clinton has/had more "Southern" charm & knew how to use it. Carter didn't think it was necessary and was a bit standoffish. He wanted true change (even back in '76) but thought he could just do it. Its a shame he couldn't because I think we definately wouldn't have some of the mess we do now.

And I really don't get how they can consider Reagan a hero...the greatest President ever. I really loved the guy as a person. He seemed truly a kind, gentle, caring person. And in theory, supply-side economics can work. But the greediness of the humans implementing it, set us up for what we have right now.

[michele]

You guys have turned this into a really interesting conversation. Thank you so much for the great comments and warm welcome back.

I feel like we're coming to a good conclusion here. Clinton used his southern ways to charm, and remains a thousand times more popular than Carter. Reagan was the Great Communicator. Kennedy is still beloved while Johnson is disliked or forgotten. Maybe the point is, the presidency really is the bully pulpit and you have to be good at that part of it to be considered a success.

I read somewhere today that one of the unnamed ex-Prezes said to Obama, "Hey, Barack," (this is how Obama told the story!) "the reason you're doing so well now is, you're not talking down to the American people." Who do you think said that? My guess is Clinton.

[Karen in Ohio]

What I like about Obama is that he seems to be using the mistakes of the past in order to avoid messing up the way some of his predecessors have done. His cabinet will be one of the most balanced in history, not just in gender, but also in race and in political leanings. He has the gamut between conservatives and liberals, and every shade in between, without using the extremes.

Bush's cabinet was more gender-balanced than Clinton's was, and Clinton's was the best in history up to that point. But Bush made the mistake of surrounding himself only with ideologies that were considerably right of center, which was especially a mistake because he ran as a centrist.

Obama has also made most of his appointments already; in fact, he made them before Christmas, which is almost unheard of, but necessary in this time of dire economic urgency. I have to say that this impressed the hell out of me. I hope he continues as he's begun. If he does we will be in much better shape by the time the next President takes office.

Only eight more days.

[Pam aka SisterZip]

I just hope that he can inhibit the pork that some are trying hard to attach to any of the legislation he wants to do to help fix this problem. I have this unfortunate feeling that he won't get much of a honeymoon from his own party.

My guess is George Sr.

[Becky Hutchison]

Staying on the subject of politics (but a little off the main topic)...did anyone see this Yahoo report on Condi Rice's alleged embarassment (by Bush) at the UN?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/pl_afp/mideastconflictgazaolmertusrice_newsmlmmd

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says that Rice was principal in drafting a UN resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and troop withdrawal by Israel. The PM then claims that at the last minute, Bush made Rice abstain from voting (the only person in 15 to do so). The White House states this was the plan all along.

Hmmm, I wonder. Your Sec of State is key in drawing up a UN resolution for a peace-fire and troop withdrawal in a politically sensitive area and her abstaining vote was planned the whole time?

[Becky Hutchison]

And Pam, George Sr was my first thought too. He seems to have changed (for the better) since he left office. I can see him telling that to Obama. But now that I think about it, I can see all three ex-prezs saying it.

[Pam aka SisterZip]

George, Sr. & Bill seem to really hit it off while working on the charity stuff. I liked George, Sr & would have voted for him had he not waffled so obviously back in 1980 when he took Reagan's offer to be VP.

It's all a crap shoot anyway. I think this whole situation is our 'comeupance' for years of bullying the world. There is nothing worse than a smug government and that is what we have had for 8 years.

[Laraine]

I'm late to the party here, so my comments may fall into the 'too late' box . . . but:
Good topic, Michelle, and really interesting discussion. Here's one reason Condi couldn't vote for the UN resolution: Israel is one of our largest trade partners--a few years ago, I met the economic representative of the Israeli consulate, who was openly proud, smirkily so, of the vast fiscal interconnection between the U.S. and Israel. Wish I had paid more attention to his bragging (sorry, I just didn't like him, and it has nothing to do with his nationality or ethnicity and everything to do with his arrogance), but I THINK he said the U.S. has more contracts with Israel in high tech than with any other country.

[Thurston]

Hey. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
I am from Haiti and too poorly know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Perform states of new noses for short blues."

Thank you very much :-(. Thurston.