|
|
| |
WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT BROKE THE TIE
|
|
On November 4, in HATE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN NEW YORK SENATE ELECTION, I talked about some Democratic ads. They said that, if Lazio was elected over Hillary Clinton, he would vote for Evil Southerners to be in leadership positions. By contrast, the ads conclude, "Hillary Clinton would represent New York."
The party in the majority in the Senate elects all the committee chairmen and other critical positions. What the ad says is that Lazio would vote for the Jesse Helmses and Trent Lotts from the hated South, whereas Clinton would vote for unspecified people outside the South. This apparently means she represents New York, which is for anything but Southerners.
In the national election, Florida's recounts made the national news, but I think we all noticed that poor little Oregon also just sat there undecided. The Northwest seems to have had a bad year because Washington
State had a similar problem. The incumbent Republican Senator up there was also in a race that was too close to call.
And, as in the presidential race, it was the undecided one that made all the difference. If they lost that race, Republicans would split the Senate 50-50 with Democrats. Commentators were saying that, in that case, whoever is elected Vice President would break the tie and determine the majority.
This has actually happened once before in my lifetime. In 1952, liberal Republican Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon got upset with the Republican platform and became an independent. But when the new Senate convened in 1953, he still voted with the Republicans, splitting the Senators down the middle, 48-48. The newly installed vice president, Richard Nixon, broke the tie and gave the majority to the GOP.
But in 1955, exactly the same thing happened AGAIN! There were 48 Democrats, Wayne Morse the independent, and 47 Republicans. This time, Lyndon Johnson persuaded Morse to go to the Democrats and Johnson became Majority Leader, 49-47.
Another vote that decided the majority at the last minute was in 1931, in the House of Representatives. The Republicans won a razor-thin majority, but just enough of them died before Congress convened to give the Democrats a one-vote majority!
|
REPUBLICANS AND THE BLACK VOTE -- "FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH"
|
|
I read an interesting Tribune Media Services column editorial by a young black woman (Deborah Mathis, November 12). It was entitled, "GOP must really change to attract blacks." She was amused by Bush's minority-dominated show at the 2000 Republican convention. She concludes by giving the conditions under which she and other blacks would actually vote for the Republican Party:
"It will be because the GOP did more than sling open a door. It will be because it tore out the room, threw out the old fixtures and carpeting and wallpaper and built a new place....."
If you do all that, where does that leave today's Republicans?
Of course, the moderates will tell us that we must do what the black woman said. They would say "We Republicans must make SERIOUS concessions to minorities." But it's the same thing she said, and she put it much more honestly.
Tearing up old principles would be fine with moderates. It would also not hurt the huge bureaucracy that makes its living running the Republican Party. As long as it has that name, it gets paid.
And there are a lot of other people who would vote Republican if Old Nick himself were on the ticket. After World War II, Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans, whose beliefs were almost identical, refused to unite because of party names.
Conservatives were split between militant Democrats and militant Republicans. Liberals and moderates decided every presidential election.
You have to think about it to fully realize how purely evil this obsession was. It ruined America.
So the old words will no longer be accepted without question. When you say, "We Republicans," do you mean those whose only interest is in the Republican name? Or do you mean decent people who call themselves Republicans because that institution happens, at this moment, to be useful to their principles?
|
|
|
DO YOU KNOW WHO DECIDES ELECTIONS IN THE LAST RESORT?
|
|
National polls have been showing that if Gore was declared winner in the presidential race, about 85% of the population would accept him as legitimate. If Bush were the winner, only 74% would accept him.
Conservatives tend to be blindly loyal, but liberals have a hard and ruthless core.
When I was in graduate school, the very, very close Kennedy-Nixon race was recent history, so close elections were discussed a good deal. In seminar, we described more and more situations which were more and more difficult to decide. Finally, we got to one in which even the professor could not imagine how a clear choice could be made.
"So," asked a student, "Who would decide the election?"
The professor answered, "The Air Force."
Democratic politics is a substitute for settling things by violence, as is done in a police state. So if a solution within the republican framework cannot be reached, the whole question goes back to the original decision: who controls the means of violence?
In 1960, the officer corps in all services was overwhelmingly conservative. So, if it just came down to their preferences, a conservative would have been put in power by the military, as described in the 1960s movie "Seven Days in May."
But to show how divided this country is, there is no such certainty today. Army officers might be conservative, but their command is largely minority, and would probably go the other way. Officers in our day of affirmative action -- and after the experience of fragging in Vietnam -- could not force their troops to obey orders.
Besides, in our get-along-by-going along military, where you don't get promoted if you have strong convictions, there are no more MacArthurs or Pattons around.
The Army is largely minority, the Air Force is much more white, especially the pilots who control the weapons. Would we have the situation we have seen in many Latin American countries, where the Army is on one side and the Navy and/or the Air Force is on the other?
Anybody who thinks that the United States is one country these days has got to be on drugs.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|