Op-Eds

No, It’s Not Just You. Politics Really Does Drive People Nuts.

Leave a comment

Crazy TV Face from rgbstock.com

Before Charles Krauthammer became a political columnist capable of simultaneously endearing and enraging all comers, left and right, he studied medicine at Harvard,  practiced psychiatry at Massachusetts General, and directed psychiatric research planning in the Carter administration. For that reason I hesitate to assume that he was joking, when, in a late 2003 column,  he coined the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome”: “[T]he acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”

Memory turns tricky as one ages, but I don’t think there’s anything especially new or novel about the phenomenon Krauthammer describes.

LBJ probably had JFK killed, right? And Nixon, we all know about HIM. Carter was a little too bland and hapless to arouse Derangement Syndrome, but he seems like an exception, not the rule.

I was only 16 when Ronald Reagan began his second term, but as I recall Iran-Contra and such set quite a few people  melting …  or maybe it was  trickling … down.

Mutterings about Bush the Elder were somewhat more muted, but I had little trouble suspending disbelief while reading Larry Beinhart’s excellent novel American Hero — upon which the hit film Wag The Dog was (to my mind too loosely) based, and which treated the first Gulf War as Lee Atwater’s masterpiece combo of  feature film and re-election commercial.

And the Clintons. Oh, the Clintons. Everything either of them ever did was crooked, everyone they ever met who later died  (which was almost everyone) was killed by them or for them, and they ran (together!) the most corrupt, dishonest, left-wing administration in history (until Barack Obama’s).

To my mind 1993-2001 is the period during which [insert name here] Derangement Syndrome metastasized from a persistent but flu-like malady into the (unfortunately not mercifully fatal) equivalent of Ebola — acute at the time, chronic ever since. Poor George W. Bush. Poor Barack Obama.

And there’s no end in sight. Even having (thankfully) set aside such questions as “is Ted Cruz the Zodiac Killer, and was his dad Lee Harvey Oswald’s sidekick?” I don’t see any future in which the next president of the United States doesn’t call forth the same emotional reactions and the same wild theories as the last three.

Is the problem them, or is it us? Well, of course it’s both, but how much of which? On reflection, I have to come down on the side of it being mostly us.

We expect too much from, give too much credit to, and place too much blame on, presidents and other politicians.

Yes, they encourage it. Politics is pretty much one part each circus, tent revival service and multi-level marketing pitch.

But we’re the ones who buy the ticket. We’re the ones who take the ride. We’re the ones who won’t change the channel. We’re addicted to the drama.

America will become a saner place when we figure out how to let politics and politicians be less important to us than their nearest relative, professional wrestling.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

America: Mourn … er, Born … on the 4th of July

Leave a comment
English: "The Declaration of Independence...
E”The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,” oil on canvas, by the American artist John Trumbull (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m sure every generation agonizingly reappraises what we mean by the word “America,” whether or not our present is worthy of our history,  how well or poorly we’ve maintained the society our founding fathers envisioned. The 4th of July — “Independence Day” to commemorate the date on the 13 colonies’ Declaration of Independence — seems like an appropriate occasion for such reflection.

By way of not being a Debbie Downer, let’s look at some areas in which we’ve actually improved on 1776: These days a woman can own property and vote, an American of African descent is no longer someone ELSE’s property (or 3/5th of a person for purposes of stuffing Congress with “representation” for his or her owners), and we’re much less likely on average to be killed by bears, smallpox or angry Native Americans. All to the good, I’d say.

But looking over the list of colonial grievances levied against King George III in the Declaration, I think it’s fair to say that we suffer most of them today — on steroids — courtesy of Washington, DC.

“[E]rected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance” is my favorite complaint (in terms of creative phrasing) against Britain in the Declaration. These days, it sounds like the federal government’s job description.

“Taxation without representation” (not so concisely worded in the Declaration) was a major colonial complaint. How’s the US doing versus the mother country these days?

Well, the US boasts 537 elected federal officeholders (435 US Representatives, 100 US Senators, a president and a vice-president) to “represent” a population of about 320 million citizens, or about one “representative” per 600,000 citizens.

The United Kingdom’s House of Commons alone, on the other hand, consists of 650 members of parliament “representing” only 65 million citizens, or one representative per 100,000. Looks like they’ve got us beat “representation”-wise.

Adding insult to injury, American “representatives” spend their work days finding new and creative ways to tax the rest of us to death while simultaneously depriving us of the rights we allegedly rebelled to secure way back when.

America, it seems to me, has fallen far short of what she could have been had we actually secured our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and jealously guarded them to this day. Between the fireworks and grilling out, take a moment to shed a tear with me for what might have been and isn’t.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Yes, a GOP Delegate Revolt is Possible

3 Comments
English: Photo taken at the 1912 Republican Na...
English: Photo taken at the 1912 Republican National Convention held at the Chicago Coliseum, Chicago, Illinois, June 18-22. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee,  is heading toward July’s national party convention with a majority of delegates (as “bound” by state primaries and caucuses) in hand. But ever since it became clear that he would garner that majority, both he and the GOP leadership have spent a good deal of time trying to snuff out talk of a floor revolt by those delegates against his nomination and in favor of some other candidate’s.

“The Republican National Committee put out a statement ‘you can’t do it, it’s not legal, you can’t do it, you’re not allowed to do it,'” says Trump.

Is Trump right? Is it “illegal” for the delegates to do what they want instead of what Trump and the RNC claim the rules demand?

In a word, no.

Keep in mind that at a national convention, the delegates run the national committee, not the other way around. They make the rules. They can change the rules. They can suspend the rules. And even the rules as written leave room for a revolt.

In order to receive the nomination, Republican National Convention rule 40(d) requires a candidate to receive a majority of “the votes entitled to be cast.” In other words, the votes of a majority of the total number of registered delegates, not just of a majority of the delegates who happen to actually vote.

Rule 16, section 2, forbids the convention’s secretary to recognize the vote of a delegate bound to a particular candidate by a primary or caucus outcome if that vote is cast for another candidate … but no rule requires a delegate to vote at all.

If enough Trump-bound delegates with “votes entitled to be cast” decline to vote on the first ballot, Trump won’t get a majority on that ballot. And on subsequent ballots, delegates are no longer bound to candidates — they can vote for their nominee of choice.

100% possible, 100% legal … but how likely? Well, that depends on the party’s leadership.

Party officials enjoy quite a bit of power at conventions. At the recent Libertarian National Convention, there were times when a “quorum call” (a head count to ensure enough delegates are present to legally do business) would have resulted in adjournment. There were calls from the floor to make that happen … but the chair apparently just didn’t hear them (I’m sure you get my meaning). Supporters of Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential campaigns still complain about the party establishment’s dirty parliamentary tricks at caucuses and conventions.

The likelihood of a delegate revolt in Cleveland is really mostly a matter of whether or not Reince Priebus and Company WANT a delegate revolt in Cleveland. On that question, your guess is as good as mine.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY