Choices and Consequences
When my kids were in karate, the sensei used the STAR program from the Jefferson Center for Character Education, which stood for ‘Stop, Think, Act, and Review’. The program focused on take control over your destiny by taking responsibility for your actions. At this point my kids remember more about that program than they remember the karate moves they learned! We have integrated the same philosophy in our parenting, so they certainly understand that there are definite consequences to the actions they take. So based on the news of the past week, I bet you can already guess what story I am talking about. But you’d be wrong.
It is easy to grab on to the whole Gov Spitzer story (easier still now that I’m a New York state resident), but what else is there to say?
No – this is about the attempts to ‘re-vote’ Florida and Michigan. In case you haven’t heard the basic story, in late 2006 the Democratic Party came up with rules for the 2008 Primary Elections and all of the state party officials had to agree to them and to abide by them. There was loads of stuff there, but the pertinent info is this: with the exception of four states that were ‘grandfathered in’ and allowed January primaries by historical precedent, all states had to have their primary elections between February 4th and June 4th or they would not be allowed to seat delegates at the Democratic National Convention to select the party nominee for president.
Seems pretty simple, eh? It is – in fact, it is simple enough that 48 other states were able to follow those rules without issue. But two states couldn’t stick by the rules – you’ll never guess which two – and decided to have their primaries in January despite being told what the consequences would be for that action. So they had the primaries, were told that the results wouldn’t count towards delegate totals.
Choices and consequences.
Have you ever had a serious rule that you set down for your kids and that you told them the consequences for breaking? Something like bringing their GBA on the school bus or lying or stealing or whatever? What do you do when they break it? A couple of years ago my older son brought his GBA on the bus to trade Pokemon with a friend, despite that being against school rules and against our rules. Of course, he got caught, and the consequences for that action – losing his GBA for a month – were enacted. He wasn’t thrilled – especially since a couple of hot games launched during that month. His brother got to play the game he wanted, but he didn’t get to play or buy his choice. He wanted us to make an exception, to bend the rules, to free him from the consequences of his actions. But that wasn’t going to happen – indeed, the fact that it got him so bothered simply strengthened our resolve.
Choices and consequences.
I have long said that I believe that one of the biggest issues in our country is the crumbling of personal integrity and accountability. There was a joke that said that ‘so long as the ATM gives money and your credit card gets approved you don’t have any financial problems’. That is the way that many folks live their entire lives – and our government and companies everywhere foster and encourage this sort of lifestyle. Take the current ‘sub-prime’ crisis: some would blame the banks for handing out loans like candy to preschoolers; others blame the people accepting loans they couldn’t repay on houses they couldn’t afford. But it is simply yet another moment in a country that constantly seeks to blame others for our own mistakes. Spill coffee on yourself? Sue the store. Get drunk and crash up your car? Sue the bar, and possibly the liquor company. In other words – make all the bad choices you want, then look for others to blame. Everyone could use a bit of time with the sensei – STOP. THINK. Only *then* take ACTION, and then REVIEW to see how what you have done lines up with your personal moral compass.
Choices and consequences.
So now that it appears that neither Barack Obama (Barack HUSSEIN Obama for talk radio listeners) or Hilary Clinton will get enough votes to win the nomination decidedly, Florida and Michigan want to get their GBA back, to get their debt erased, to ease their conscience at having been the drunk driver who caused so much damage.
They don’t want to have to deal with the CONSEQUENCES of their CHOICES.
And they are doing whatever it takes to get their own way – much like a toddler throwing a tantrum, saying ‘I don’t love you’ and ‘it is so unfair’ to exact leverage through guilt, these states are tossing around the word ‘disenfranchisement’ in hopes that it will evoke sympathy based on past offenses in elections. But it is completely backwards – they are claiming that someone else did this to them, but it was they who willingly and knowingly disenfranchised their own voters by having the primary outside of the rules.
To me, the path is clear – they must be held accountable for their actions; their delegates must not count. For if they do count, then it will be the biggest travesty in recent election history – far worse than any perceived wrong-doing in the last two presidential elections. For if this is allowed to be re-done, then the message is clear – any state may do what it wants and fully expect to get the chance for a re-vote if things don’t turn out the way they like.
In a time of so much uncertainty and of such sad lack of responsibility on the part of our leaders in government and throughout all other sectors of the world, we could really use a message to be delivered: that rules matter, that choices matter, and that if you fail to accept responsibility for your actions, you will still be held accountable for those choices. Our kids deserve no less.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Well… I disagree.
If it comes to a tie between the Dems, I think we should absolutely redo those primaries. No other solution is anywhere near acceptable to me. I don’t see why the choices a party makes, and the choices a state makes should equal consequences for the candidates – and most of all, the voters. I know in that we aren’t guaranteed the right to vote in primaries, but consequences are only truly fair if they only impact those responsible.
Again, only if its a tie. I could write a similar rant to the above about the concept of Superdelegates… but I’d rather just have some pie. Mmmmmm pie!
March 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
But, similar to the 2000 election, a re-vote in a portion of an electorate with the hindsight of the impact of their vote gives them an unfair weight and control over the process. If it is a tie, and we allow a re-vote in two states, then it is essentially disenfranchising the other 48 states by changing the rules and allowing a second vote based on the knowledge of impact. Florida and Michigan would go from having knowingly broken the rules and tried to impart influence early in direct violation of party policy to being given undue influence by being given the vote with full knowledge that their vote matters more than anyone else’s and that they alone decide the nominee.
But now if the Democratic Party had to fund, set up and run re-vote primaries in all 50 states … then perhaps that would actually be fair. And have the democratic party leaders for those two states barred for life or something.
But I do agree that it is not fair to the people of the states that their state party officials screwed them over. But how is that different than when our elected officials make choices that strip money from our states and schools and other interests? Should every wronged situation get a do-over? We select the officials and have to live with their choices … that is what representative democracy is all about.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Not to get all political, but as far as your larger point…hear hear. The biggest thing I want to try and teach my son at 2 (and the biggest challenge to teaching his older stepbrother at 13) is that choices have consequences. If you can get kids to learn this lesson while they’re young, and hopefully the consequences are relatively small like a week of boredom while they’re grounded or not getting to have a sippy cup for a car ride because they threw it one time too many — much better than learning when the consequences are getting a DUI after driving drunk or losing a job when they don’t show up on time.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Considering there is no way for Clinton to beat Obama unless she gets 70 percent of the vote why can’t we just end the primary season?
March 16th, 2008 at 6:02 am
I also disagree, but in the interest of full disclosure, I am from Michigan. I think the primary system is unfair (yes I know that life isn’t supposed to be fair) and states like Iowa and New Hampshire get a disproportiante amount of influence in the process. Many people often don’t have a chance to vote for ‘their candidate’ because they may have dropped out by the time their state’s primary is done.
That being said, the national parties can certainly set their own rules. MI took a risk in moving theirs. For the Republicans, it wasn’t as bad. They were penalized half of their delegates. If it comes down to being very close, then I would prefer some kind of re-vote as opposed to fighting it out at the convention. I think Howard Dean tends to agree with this.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:05 am
“We select the officials and have to live with their choices … that is what representative democracy is all about.”
I just wanted to point out that we don’t select party officials, at least I don’t. The MI Democratic Party chooses who will be party chair. I am sure the process involves input from more than a few people, but their is no vote, even among registered Democrats.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
OK, then to the disagree-ers I pose this question:
– How do you resolve this in a way that enforces my key theme of ‘choices and consequences’ such that we could show kids ‘here is what happens when you follow the rules, and here is what happens when you don’t, so you can see why you should follow the rules’.
– And also a solution that won’t end up with the other 48 states having their impact altered *at all* (IMO, getting to vote twice vs. once *is* an impact)? Because I am not of the opinion that ‘revote with hindsight for some’ = fair for all.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
This just proves my point: we need more *good parents* to run as politicians. Your analysis of the banking “crisis” was mine exactly — a “bail-out” teaches exactly the same lesson as saying “well, you broke the rules, but you said you’re sorry and won’t do it again, so no punishment — and hey, have a cookie!” My 2-year-old can’t get away with that, and neither should Wells Fargo (or anybody else).
March 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Good questions. I don’t know if the realm of politics is great example of choices and consequences. It is more of the realm of blind partisanship, strange bedfellows, and pragmatism. I am trying to teach my kid that things aren’t always fair. There will always be people that get away with things, whether it is because of ‘connections’, or just plain luck. This doesn’t mean you should ignore rules or try to circumvent them, but that in our society rules are not always consistently enforced.
A do over is the best solution only because it is close at this point. A drawn out, bitter battle at the Democratic Convention hurts the Democratic Party. As much as they don’t want to reward two states for breaking the rules, they also would prefer a solid candidate prior to the Convention so that they can concentrate on McCain rather than fighting amongst themselves. McCain has been able to sit back and take the high road while Hillary attacks Obama. I think the Democrats would prefer this to end sooner than later.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Some interesting stuff as I have looked into this a bit more:
– In both states, the dates for the primaries were set *after* both parties set their rules, and were voted on and approved by both houses of the state legislature and approved by the governors.
– Michigan knew as early as August that they would be facing this problem.
– Florida also knew, and even threw up a lawsuit that failed … they still had time to change things, but didn’t.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I fully understand that MI and FL are very very naughty and did what they did with full knowledge of the possible consequences. It is up to the Democratic Party to decide on what should happen. As I said, I doubt they want a long, dragged out fight leading up to the Convention. They would rather be able to rally around a candidate and start campaigning against McCain.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
But aside from a revote, then what? A 50-50 no vote split? How does that actually benefit the voters?
One thing I take from this – Fla & Mich were banned from candidate campaigning as part of the sanctions. Yet Clinton somehow managed to have fundraisers in FLA in the week before by coincidence (of course, suggesting it was otherwise would be ‘a myth and a mugging’ to quote Bill) … and while everyone else got out of Michigan due to the issue, Clinton remained on the ballot. Not surprisingly she took majorities in each state. I think she is a total slimebag and played her cards hoping for enough people to feel like you do … we have to do *something* … and that she would ultimately benefit.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Damn right!!! I know that those two states got cheated because of their elected officials but hats doesn’t mean they get a do over. The Dems need to hurry up and decide who is going to b the candidate NOW before their party is damaged beyond repair.
Truth be told I am an independent and feel that political parties cause more harm than help. So I would love to see the Dems destroyed but not if it gives the GOP an advantage. Now if they both were near destruction I would be happy.