Texas plays key role in Primary Election as the "Stoker"

(As first published in Examiner.com;  by S. Devereaux, Houston Political Buzz Examiner)

Have you ever ridden a tandem bike? If so, you know that the most powerful teammate, the Stoker, sits in the rear position. While the Captain, in forward position is responsible for steering , warning of hazards ahead and balance, the Stoker, in the rear position is the engine—the power of the team. Most of the forward thrust is dependent upon the stoker because the total weight of the team and their bike requires the most strength to propel the entire tour fastest and with the most endurance by this team member.

This physics principle can be applied to the American Primary election process. It was a mystery why the National GOP threatened heavy hitting states like Texas and Florida with the loss of half their delegates if they moved their primary elections forward in order to have an early say in who should be the Republican nominee. Why would the GOP bully its own members with such a penalty? It seemed a massive control issue; But it becomes clear why once we run the numbers and envision what would happen if a state the size of Texas, (carrying four of the largest cities in the nation within its boundaries—Houston, fourth in the nation, and not too far behind are Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin) were to have an early primary. It is nothing more than applying the principle behind successful tandem biking.

Let’s visualize the numbers and how they would play out with a large state like Texas (or Florida) at the front of the primary elections. Then we’ll look at those numbers from the opposite spectrum with a late Primary.

There were about eight Republican candidates for the first primary election in Ohio. If that Primary were held in Texas, at least three scenarios present themselves as possible outcomes. For one: Because of the diversity of voters in Texas, it is possible that the election could be rendered moot, with no distinct winners or losers. That would mean that a Primary in Texas actually provided no significant contribution in narrowing the field and bringing forth a front runner or two, or forcing one or two to the back of the pack enough to compel them to drop out. The candidates would simply move on to the next primary as if it was their first.

The next scenario could be to produce a significant pack of followers that came out to vote for their candidate en masse. If that were possible in a state the size of Texas, the result could—and most likely would, based upon the few incidences in the past—net an extreme candidate in either direction, liberal or conservative, depending on the tenacity of an organized group to vote as a pack. In my observation, this is historically what happens with this kind of “block vote”. But this is no small task. The Tea Party groups in Texas are as diverse as the state is large. In Houston alone, the number of Tea Party groups is well into double digits and they are equally diverse from each other. One might support one candidate, and down the road another will support someone at the other end of the Republican spectrum. Historically, a group like this that has success voting as a pack tends to be a specific candidate’s own followers. Historically speaking, these groups tend to be extremely loyal and driven, which creates the base force behind organizing with enough community strength to dominate a primary election. Assuming the rare historical pattern existed this time, it would net a candidate with the most extreme views in one direction or the other as a front runner, which stands a good chance of sabotaging the general election with a candidate lacking the ability to connect and draw a broad and diverse coalition of voters to win the General election. The purpose of the primary would be frustrated.

The third scenario shows the nefarious side of Primary politics, and probably is an indication of what the concerns the National GOP have with massive states like Texas. Texas is not only diverse but has open primaries allowing any voter to participate in the Republican Primary, even if they are actually affiliated elsewhere, like the Democratic Party. Open primaries create perfect prey for opposing party members to vote en masse for someone who they see as easy competition their own candidate can defeat. In Houston, some districts are solidly Republican while others are just as determinedly Democrat. Remember, the purpose of a Primary election is to prepare your party with a candidate that can win in the General election. That means bringing forth the candidate that can best beat all opposing parties’ candidates. Texas is not so red that it is impossible for Democrats to overwhelm an open Republican Party election with sabotage, helping choose a candidate they are certain their own best candidate, not just could, but would defeat. Houston serves as an example of the party diversity. So this scenario is the most dangerous of proposals for a state like Texas—and especially in a city with wide diversity of party politics like Houston.

Understanding these scenarios, now, let’s run the numbers in the other direction. First, we need to understand that the traditional states that lead off the Primary elections are also traditionally pretty liberal states—Ohio and New Hampshire come to mind. This means Republicans in these states are more likely—but not guaranteed—to be more liberal. But South Carolina is far more conservative, having a record in the past eleven elections of only voting for one Democratic Presidential Candidate (1976). These states are also small in population. They are numerically and culturally more likely to vote similarly—in a tight pack—than a much larger state. Their closer affinity assists in honing in on specific candidates above others, thus acting as a housekeeper to clear the field more rapidly than a larger state could. Additionally the two more liberal states are more likely to choose a candidate closer to the middle on the philosophical line who can draw the other side toward their party’s candidate once in the General election. South Carolina acts as a stop-gap election—a cork, if you will—preventing a too liberal candidate from emerging as the front runner over a moderate one, thus keeping a tender balance as the candidate selection moves forward.

This strategy results in a candidate that may not be the ultimate candidate of choice in a state that is very conservative, or one such as Texas whose electoral strength would reasonably demand a “right” to determine the candidate for the entire country—if they could pick just one. But what it does is allow the big gun states—like Texas—to make the final determination. These states become the Stokers that propel one before all the others in what’s left of the pack. While it may seem an insignificant task to choose from the remainder of the narrowed field that others determined , once the election rolls around to them, these states are indeed the muscle in the back seat, that have the strength and endurance to propel the very best finalist to the front to win the race.

Allen West Speaks on NDAA: Wanna Buy Some Swamp Land?

Allen West might want to consider apologizing for his lack of due diligence to his constituency and every audience, including the world wide one that views YouTube to whom he spoke about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  A recent YouTube video clip of Mr. West speaking at a Tea Party event in Florida proves two things: One, Mr. Allen West doesn’t appear competent to be a legislator of any kind; secondly, he is a living example of why we have a problem with bad and even unconstitutional legislation in America.  He might as well have been conducting a seminar on the keen art of buying and selling swamp land in Florida.

In a clip, Allen West finally sets record straight about National Defense Authorization Act.wmv; West reads the summary of the National Defense Authorization Act which states that the bill is specific to Al Qaeda and other terrorists and not to Americans. West also emphasizes no new powers are given to the Federal government. He then goes to page 657 and reads verbatim the paragraph that exempts Americans from Military Custody. (West says he is reading page 657, but he is not.) In fact, he is actually reading on page 430, Section 1032b (1) of S1867 or page 266 Section 1022 of HR 1540, which he read as follows:

…(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require

11ment to detain a person in military custody under

12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

13 States….

West challenges the audience to tell him where in the bill there is anything suggesting something different than this exemption. I wish I had been there:  I read the bill. One has to wonder what West would have done had someone in the audience known anything about the bill. Perhaps they didn’t bother to read it because they were expecting West to be the expert to guide them.--So much for the value of expert guidance.  So, to his challenge is the following, from S1867 and HR1540, Sections 1032 and 1022 a (4), respectively, the paragraph just preceding--and specific to--the one he read, (cited above), reads:

          (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
          2 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the
          3 Secretary of State and the Director of National In
          4 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if
          5 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in
          6 writing that such a waiver is in the national security
          7 interests of the United States.

It is not difficult to understand that the waiver in the paragraph he didn’t read is specifically referring to the one he did considering the use of Paragraph b “(1)” which includes the language about “the requirement”.

Mr. West introduced himself as a qualified expert on the bill, as one who sits on the Armed Forces Committee.  Hmm. Did Mr. West know what was in the bill but simply defrauded the audience? Or did he do what notoriously happens on the Capitol: he didn’t really read the bill?

This public incident should be an embarrassment to Mr. West.  To be amply fair to him, we should err on the side of charity and conclude that he isn’t nefarious but, rather, careless and/or naïve. Sadly, either way, he has done a great disservice to his constituency, the audience, and those of YouTube. All legislators make mistakes and holding someone’s entire political career in the balance for one bad blunder is probably a little harsh.  But when a legislator qualifies himself as a credentialed expert because—as in this case for example, he serves on the Armed Services Committee—and then publically renders a verdict on the bill, spreads that through the general public, a higher standard and expectation must be adhered to.

Beyond West’s exclusion of the facts in the bill--as bad as that is, this incident illustrates a larger issue.  It shows two significant paradigms that must change as part of a strategy to mend our political and societal problems in America.

First, Americans need to lose their naiveté and start reading bills themselves. The Constitutional debates include specific discussion that legislation should be short and clearly understandable to the average citizen. (Tongue in cheek: this bill is short—shy of 700 pages and obviously understandable given all the debate. Of course it helps to read the entire bill.) Moreover, Americans seem to believe that somehow those who represent us are more intelligent than we are. This example with West is not an exception, but more the rule.  It would behoove Americans to expect that if they can’t read a bill, (excluding summaries as “the bill”), it’s likely their representative can’t either. Americans should make it clear that if they cannot get through a bill, it doesn’t get passed. Period.

Secondly, any legislator or any person who reads the summary under the assumption that it equates to reading the bill is both naïve about the bias of summaries and lazy. This cherry picking of the bill to emphasis what the summary says is precisely why we have bills that are improper, inaccurate to their intent and/or in denial of the Constitution outright. 

Sadly, this is precisely the kind of misguidance that is leaving the American public in a dizzying state of confusion and disenchantment with their own politics. Allen West has some explaining to do and it better not equate to selling proverbial swamp land in Florida.  More importantly Americans have simply got to stop buying swamp land.

Mirror Mirror on the Wall: A Constitution Designed to Reflect American's Paradigms

Displays a need for a truly New Year's Resolution.
[as originally published on www.USDailyReview.com by S. Devereaux]

The issue at hand is our collection of paradigms and what those are doing to curtail the restoration back to the government as it was intended because we fail to recognize—or believe—that  the images in government that we disdain are painful reflections of ourselves.  Modifying paradigms is a bit more difficult than losing a few pounds as a New Year’s resolution.

For instance, Americans claim they don’t want the “good ‘ol boy” in office. They want the “regular Joe”.  Yet, when seeking those who are qualified for state or federal offices, they look at those already in elected office.  What part of refreshing founding principles is that?  The Founders knew that Senators needed to be the more educated of the two houses of Congress.  But they also perceived the Representatives as coming specifically from among the people.—both, actually, but Representatives especially. That House was specifically intended to have neighbors representing neighbors.  Their close affinity to their own was reason for election every two years—taking turns.  

Senators, who were supposed to represent the States needed more higher education, not because they were superior to their fellow Congressional electors, hardly; but because it was hoped that their additional professional and educational experience would provide the analytical skills needed to decipher the complex needs of a state government.  Neither house, however, was specifically intended to be filled by those whose qualifications demanded elected office experience. That is an invention of modern day nationalistic philosophy.

Another ready instance: The lion’s share of Americans want government to rein in spending—in particular, debt. Yet, the people have the highest foreclosure rates in history, and a consistently high rate of personal indebtedness.  Irrespective of government interference in the mortgage industry that produced the “mortgage bubble” and encouraged bad mortgages with over-valued property, people should know what they can and cannot afford. Common sense is expected. Enticements or none, we cannot point an accusing finger demanding a different paradigm from those that represent us when we, from whence they come, do not follow the same prescription.

Still another example:  I recently worked on a grassroots project where multiple committees had specific roles.  After a time, I found that a couple of individuals took it upon themselves to hijack the responsibilities of others in order to orchestrate what they wanted in certain areas over that of others who had been assigned those tasks.  When I questioned why they were not respecting the assignments as given, one of the two answered that they just wanted to make sure the project was successful and ‘things’ got done—“for our country”.  I wonder: Exactly what part of this paradigm, built on circumventing others’ duties is different from Obama circumventing the powers and responsibilities assigned to Congress that he usurps through Executive Orders, and implementing specific Departments of the Government do this bidding--and what’s worse, putting into place programs that pilfer each person’s opportunity to do for themselves?   In both scenarios the paradigm claims to “Save the Country” by robbing opportunities of others through control. 

If we Americans truly want the federal government to make the improvements (I cringe to use the word, “change”) needed in bringing us in square with the intention of the Constitution, we need to be taking a serious look at our own thinking and subsequent behavior.We won't be finding anyone soon in the highest office with a paradigm any different than our own.

To that end, then, what can be done to get us back to those original paradigms?  We don’t have the luxury of as many years to restore them as it took to distort them or our Constitution.  But for starters, we can look first at ourselves for behaviors we see in government, then change it, rather than justify it.

The most profound actions we can take are not in the realm of the government at all—though they are part of American politics:  American paradigms mean looking out for the needs of neighbors and family, so the government has no input there. Americans should study their Constitution, “for our country,” then pass it along, so the government cannot fool us about its role.  Fellow citizens should be looking for ways and means to help another build their abilities, not take their opportunities from them.  Indeed, the most powerful paradigm shift is in accepting that American government means living in a way that is mutually beneficial, and then finally taking turns representing each other.

I suppose this whole issue of paradigm change could best be summed up in the late Michael Jackson’s tune, “Man in the Mirror” and Disney’s wicked queen and her magical mirror in Snow White: Both illustrate the very paradigm lacking in most of us to truly improve our government:  In America, government is a mirror image of and truth teller about oneself, whether we like it or not. Changing the paradigm is truly a New Year’s challenge worth undertaking.