Superdelegates, Unite!

Editorial

If the Democrats are to win the White House in 2008, they need to start acting less like movement conservatives in the way that they stubbornly hold fast to ideological principles despite all the evidence that suggests their sacred ideas are bad ones.

And as a good liberal, I’m worried. I’m worried that the Democrats’ inability to treat their nomination as a practical matter, and not as a sanctified exercise of democracy, will ultimately lead to another Republican administration.

While watching HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” recently, I was discouraged when Mr. Maher acted as if there were no potential consequences of a long nominating process. The votes of all Americans must be counted! That’s what’s most important, right? Not even close.

Democrats, superdelegates especially, need to be reminded that there are real things at stake here, things that supercede philosophical debates about party rules. In all likelihood, the next president will nominate two supreme court justices, inherit a recession, and have the opportunity to reshape our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a full platter.

I’m horrified by recent polls that suggest Obama and Clinton supporters won’t vote for the other candidate if their first choice does not win. I can understand the disappointment of not having your greatest hopes realized, but now is not the time for pouting on the sidelines.

Instead, unhappy Democrats should just do what my brother advises and “hold your nose.” After all, that seems to be the Republican strategy.

Before Mr. McCain won his party’s nomination, there was widespread speculation that conservatives would not get behind him.

But, eureka! Miraculously, he seems to be enjoying ample support from his base. Perhaps movement conservatives have perfected what liberals should start practicing: considering the alternative.

Republicans have an agenda that they are committed to advancing, and their internal squabbles are quickly forgotten when the big picture comes back into view. Those that fall en route are quickly trampled over as the rest of the group marches toward the One End.

Democrats, on the other hand, squirm endlessly over relative minutia and worry constantly about who might be left behind. In this case, that means agonizing over whether delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated. Or whether every state will get a chance to cast votes. Or whether pledged delegates or the popular vote is more important. Or whether big states or small states or traditionally blue states or the overall number of states is the most important.

Fueling these pointless hypotheticals is the ideological opposition Democrats have to disenfranchisement — the “will of the people” must be protected at all costs. A noble aspiration, indeed, but no way to win an election. Here, again, Democrats should take a cue from Republicans: worry about ideology after you get elected.

At this point in the Democratic race, it has become obvious that Mrs. Clinton can not overtake Mr. Obama in either the pledged delegate count or in the popular vote. She is sustained only by her own ruthless ambition, which has recently led her to claim that pledged delegates are a “misnomer,” and by superdelegate fence-sitting.

There is no reason for this to continue. It’s time to make a choice before we’re all forced to go down with the ship. If superdelegates are worried about the party’s selection process appearing undemocratic, then they can take heart in the fact that most of them are currently serving a term in Congress, and they got there because people in their state or district elected them to make choices on their behalf.

And if, as a constituent, you don’t like who the persons you voted for are propping up for national office, then there’s an easy, built-in democratic solution: elect someone else to represent you. Or, form your own party, make your own rules, and run yourself. Joe Lieberman did.

Stimulus: Thanks but no thanks

Editor's Note: This essay originally appeared as an editorial in the Feb. 15 edition of The Town Meeting.

By Brian Keilen

There’s a particular feeling in the air for most governmental bodies: It’s budget time. The trillions more dollars, much larger land area, and confusing speeches infused with “don’t mess with Texas” pizzazz aside, I find the differences between our national budget and our village budget striking.

“Fiscal responsibility” and “justifying to the taxpayers” are two phrases you aren’t likely to hear outside of campaign punch lines in Washington. Unless someone can explain to me the reason we just passed a “stimulus package” amid rising national debt and a proposed budget in the trillions. Thanks for the cash, Uncle Sam, but I think you’ve got some financial problems of your own.

I guess that I didn’t realize when JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” he meant going out and buying stuff. If that’s the case, then the Elk Rapids Village Council should have no problem deciding whether or not to buy a new police SUV and new trucks for the DPW and waste water plant: The answer is an obvious yes. It’s their American duty.

Forget the fact that the money for those vehicles comes from Michigan taxpayers who felt the effects of the current recession long before the rest of the country. Yet, somehow, phrases such as “justifying to the taxpayers” were mentioned at the Feb. 4 Village Council meeting. What brashness they displayed by questioning if they should buy things when Congress, and even the President himself, is telling them it is their patriotic duty to spend, spend, spend. The Village doesn’t even have a war (that eats up a good chunk of those trillions in the budget) to fight.

I’m sure that the people won’t be so ungrateful and will go out right away and spend their check (although a recent poll indicates only 19 percent said they would). Michigan residents definitely won’t use it to pay their catastrophically high heating bills and other bills they have been struggling to pay during this (key word) recession (although, in the same poll, 45 percent said they would).

Basically, Washington is giving us some of our money back and making us feel guilty by not spending it, then turning around and spending more of our money that they don’t have. That’s like the village giving a tax rebate and then saying, “Hmmm, the police department wants a new SUV, how about three!” Doesn’t make much sense to me.

It seems as though they could have done a little more than put the weight of reviving the economy on our shoulders with $600 to $1,200 checks. Maybe a reduction in war spending or perhaps investment in interests in this country would help. Heck, even though it would aide in increasing our out of control national debt, even lowering taxes would provide a more long term solution.

I hope lawmakers don’t think they’re going to hand us this money and we’re going to go on our merry way and I hope we don’t let them. Simply handing out money should not be an excuse for doing the job of balancing the budget, controlling the national debt and fixing the economy.

So, when it comes to the so-called “stimulus,” I say nice gesture, but you can do better.

Brian Keilen is the editor of The Town Meeting, a weekly newspaper in Elk Rapids, Michigan.

Elections 2008: Time for a change

Editor's Note: This essay originally appeared as an editorial in the Jan. 10 edition of The Town Meeting.

By Brian Keilen

Ah, 2008 is finally upon us. But from all the talk surrounding this year’s presidential election, it feels as though it’s 2009 and George Bush’s successor is already comfortably situated in the Oval Office.

It certainly is shaping up to be an exciting year, if you can stand all the political commercials for the next 11 months. Come November, we could see our first female or our first black president. Not that Michigan has much say in whether Hillary or Barack even have a shot of replacing the big W.

No, no, we, in extremely uncouth fashion, had to go ahead and “break party rules” and move our primary to Jan. 15. Boo-hoo.

So now I don’t have the chance to vote to give some guy I’ve never met a free trip to Denver so he, in turn, can vote that we can vote for another guy (or gal) in November. I’m sure my extreme disappointment exudes off the page.

But never fear, my fellow Michiganders, we will have the opportunity in November to go to the polls and vote for some more guys to go to Lansing on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (whenever that is) and vote for who the 44th President of the United States will be. And we’re worried about elections in Pakistan and Iraq.

I, for one, have not missed and will not miss the mudslinging that would have inevitably been taking place at this very moment had we not “broken party rules.”

Speaking of that, since when can “breaking party rules” disenfranchise an entire state? Not that our votes really meant that much to begin with, but still.

It’s funny how every election year the talking heads are always lamenting the low voter turnout in the United States and describing how every other country has such better turnout and then our political parties tell us our votes mean nothing anyway.

I received an e-mail today (Jan. 7) from the Michigan Democratic Party encouraging “fellow” Democrats to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. Will wonders never cease? Democrats encouraging people to vote for Republicans? I’m bound to see cats and dogs playing together on my way home. At least now I have a choice other than “uncommitted.”

The last time I checked, the right to vote was in the Constitution. I can’t find anything in there about Republicans and Democrats (or Whigs or Federalists or any other political parties, for that matter). So how come political parties have such great control over how we vote? When did it become a good idea for the people in the election to determine the rules?

No, my fellow Americans, our system is not perfect, not matter how much Washington wants us to think it is. In a country that touts itself as the bastion of freedom and integrity in the world, it takes no less than four votes to determine our chief executive. This year, a change in who lives in the White House is inevitable. A change in how the next person gets there is needed.

At least Ron Paul’s not complaining.

Brian Keilen is the editor of The Town Meeting, a weekly newspaper in Elk Rapids, Michigan.

Essays

To find out how to submit an essay to Chippens, click here.