I’m not a sports fan, but I was born into a family of them
and then married into one. One of the things I learned early on is that
whenever it’s a game where a time limit is involved, clock management near the
end of the contest is critical. This is especially true in a close football game.
The team that’s slightly ahead does everything it can to slow the game down and
keep possession of the ball until the clock runs out and they win. If the
losing team gets possession, the coach may have to decide in the short time
remaining whether to call for the field-goal kicker or take the risk of going
for a touchdown. Both teams use their limited number of time-outs, not to rest
the players, but to rattle the other team, interrupting the opponent’s momentum.
The legendary coach Bill Walsh was said to be especially good at clock
management.
Right now, activist Democrats in the House are calling for
opening an impeachment inquiry into the President, but party leaders,
including
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aren’t ready to go there. She fears that impeachment
proceedings would consume energy and allow the President to play the victim.
And the Republican-dominated Senate wouldn’t vote right now for his removal anyway.
In Pelosi’s view, House Democrats must first make the case against the
President in order to flip Republicans, and most importantly, persuade the
electorate that impeachment is necessary.
It seems, of course, that there is not enough time before next year’s election
for impeachment to be concluded. But do the Democrats look toothless if they
don’t impeach? If they do, and the
proceedings drag on into next year, will the voters get tired of it all?
To me, it’s clear that the Democrats have the ball, and it looks
like the best strategy is running out the clock. They certainly wouldn’t want a
vote in the Senate too soon, handing the President the ball at the last minute.
But an open impeachment inquiry would at least settle the go-or-no-go question
and put a point on the spear. The drip-drip-drip of negative information arising
from the investigation might persuade those who currently support the President
or those still on the fence to carefully consider their votes in 2020, when it
will finally be “game over,” and the fans of one team or the other can finally tear
down the goal posts. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait.
“Everyone does it,” said our President, when confronted about
taking pre-election dirt from the Russians on his opponent. We know that every
candidate does NOT welcome or solicit such material from foreign sources,
especially those considered adversaries. But opposition, or “oppo” research, as
the President noted, is standard now in major campaigns. Negative advertising
about a political opponent will never go away, because, well, it works.
We have to admire those who run for political office
nowadays, because they are exposing themselves, and in many cases, their
families, to invasive scrutiny that could change their careers – and lives -- forever.
That said, information is information. During campaigns, it comes
to journalists in a variety of ways, often through tips or leaks. Usually, reporters
don’t waste time trying to figure out the motives of tipsters. When I was in
that field, there were only two questions: ““Is it true?” and “Is it a news
story?”
As a news manager myself, I once got a call on the evening before Election Day about a candidate for a
local office, a respected individual, who had been born in another country and
came to this one as an adult and acquired US citizenship. The caller said this
candidate had been something of a bad actor in the original country, but it
didn’t sound all that serious to me, and there was no time to corroborate it
before the election. The whisperer, in my case, had just waited too long.
What is a voter
supposed to do, though, in evaluating a candidate about whom a negative story surfaces?
A major factor for me has always been how the candidate responds. Does the
answer come right away? If the story is true, can the candidate explain it or
say, “I’m sorry”? In that case, is the apology sincere and sufficient? If it’s
untrue, can the candidate refute the allegation calmly, and with facts?
For most of us, this is not our first rodeo, as they say,
and we already have experience with political mud-slinging among candidates. In
spite of pledges of civility, the gloves inevitably come off, maybe sooner than
we’d like. It will not be pretty. For our part, we can watch how the candidates
perform under this pressure.
As voters, when it comes to negative material, we must
always consider the source, and recognize when someone is playing our violin.
It’s a tough subject on the campaign trail right now: Are African-Americans
owed compensation for the injustices of slavery? And what form should it take? The
first concept that comes to mind, of course, is money. Should checks be sent out?
And to whom, exactly?
The root of the word “reparations” is “repair.” Anyone who
has dealt with auto mechanics knows that throwing money at a problem doesn’t
necessarily mean fixing it. If it were just about money, payment made to
African-Americans in that form might allow us white people to feel that the
debt has been settled somehow. The truth, of course, is that it’s a debt that can
never be fully paid in such a fashion.
Then there is the issue of whether current generations of
whites are responsible for atrocities committed by their ancestors in past
centuries. The original sin, so to speak, has left a stain that has bled
through layers of time and persistent attempts to revise history. The
white-dominated federal government did make a good-faith effort at reparations
after the Civil War called Reconstruction. It just didn’t stick.
We do have an ongoing responsibility to compensate
descendants for the economy that was built upon slavery and the vestiges that
remain today. The precedent has already been set, both here and abroad. Not
long ago, we compensated Japanese-Americans who were forced into internment camps
during World War II. Germany and other European countries saw funds set up to
compensate Holocaust survivors. Whether these attempts were adequate or not is
a question, but they were at least gestures.
It would be nice if we could come up with quickie list of
who gets paid, how, and when, but the answers are not simple. It may be up to a
proposed commission to explore the questions of eligibility, the claims process,
and what compensation should consist of. Cash payments may be one form, but
might it also be about assistance with home loans, the payment of college
tuition, or other things? The commission route would be a contentious and messy
one, but it’s important that there is buy-in from a wide variety of quarters before
any reparation program is launched.
Then of course, there is the issue of fairness, as members
of other historically oppressed groups start asking when it’s their turn to get
paid. But being fair is no excuse for doing nothing, especially when it’s about
the “peculiar institution” that is part of this country’s definition, whether
we like it or not.
Some years ago, an event coordinator I knew was surprised
when the number of those planning to attend her function increased dramatically
as the date approached, forcing her to scramble at the last minute to
accommodate them. “A nice problem to have,” she said, a little breathlessly.
So it is with the two dozen Democratic candidates for
President. Why do so many want to run? First, of course, there is the desire to
keep the current occupant from serving another four years. But what might some
other motives be? Personal publicity? Partly, but I think there’s more to it.
I’m sure at least some of these folks realize full well that the sun will rise
in the west before they actually win the nomination. But if nothing else, candidacy
is a chance to ensure that their key issues become part of the agenda.
Democratic voters do have a nice problem. The problem part
is that the choice is not an easy one; they will have to sit through many more
town halls and debates before next year’s primaries, when they make that
choice. The nice part, though, is that every one of these candidates seems
qualified to serve as President, at least so far.
The second dose of nice is that whoever wins the nomination
will have some great options, not only for a running mate, but for potential
Cabinet members in the event of a November 2020 victory. I ask you to let me do
some “what iffing” here. To start with, if she doesn’t win the nomination or
get chosen for No. 2, who would make a better attorney general than Kamala
Harris? Or Elizabeth Warren for Secretary of the Treasury? Beto O’Rourke could
do a nice job at Homeland Security or Health and Human Services. Pete Buttigieg
could do well at Commerce or Veterans Affairs. Jay Insley, outspoken on climate
change, could be perfect for the Department of Energy. And Joe Biden would make
a fine Secretary of State, not only because of his foreign policy experience,
but because those in other countries don’t share the American penchant for
dismissing older people. Whether any of these individuals would accept Cabinet
positions if offered is another question. But none would be bent on destroying
or minimizing the department he or she is heading.
I have left some important names out here, of course, and
likely you will be doing some what-iffing of your own. But continuing with the
niceties of this” problem,” there are no
losers among that crowded field. And it could all be a win-win for the country,
too.
