Getting it wrong

Published : 9 Nov 2011, 03:56 PM
Updated : 9 Nov 2011, 03:56 PM

Over the past weekend, I attended a fascinating conference. A friend of mine was presenting a paper and I had not been involved in the world of academia for many years, so I went. The conference dealt primarily with Freudian psychoanalysis as it applied to a variety of disciplines. The presentations ranged from a history of US clandestine operations and the search for a truth drug, the application of psychoanalysis and the critique of films and literature.

I didn't know much about psychoanalysis, but I immediately saw how some of the concepts presented could be applied to politics. The theory that every person has a need to feel the love or approval of some other helped me understand why most people run for office. Most politicians are hungry for the approval of the electorate, and to them every vote signifies an expression of affection, even love. The politician then becomes addicted to that level of attention and approval.

I applied this newfound notion to the current political situation in both the United States and in Bangladesh. But since some portion of psychoanalysis has to deal with a politician's sexuality, I soon found myself either uninterested or grossed out. I'm not a voyeur, so I don't want to go there.

Anyway, the main point is that politicians want to hold power because either they want to feel loved, or because they feel threatened. It's a real house of cards. The more politicians do things (sometimes bad things) to stay in power, thus winning the anonymous "love" of their people, the more the relinquishing of power might have potentially disastrous consequences for them- if the next party in power were to discover, or imitate their transgressions.

In America, it means that if the Republicans gain control in 2012, we will see polarization and the fast-tracking of the Republican agenda on a national scale, like we saw when the Democrats and Obama came to power in 2009. I'm guessing that in Bangladesh, despite protestations to the contrary, it means that the BNP, if it were elected, would use the same tactics that the AL uses.

In both nations, we do have Statesmen, idealists who advocate beliefs, rather than their own personalities.  The Constitution of the United States, for instance is the eternal mirror of the Founding Fathers. Statesmen, unlike politicians, aren't striving for universal love. They are striving for immortality, and as such they embrace and promote ideas that can be codified, replicated and protected, even when such ideas do not make the candidate popular. Perpetual candidate Ralph Nader and Republican hopeful Al Gore are both American examples of Statesmen/ideologues. Who are some Bangladeshi Statesmen?  I'd love to hear your comments.

Unfortunately, candidates who are not seeking the love of the voter tend to be less charismatic than their counterparts, and rarely, if ever, get elected.  Ideologues tend to be candidates that can be annoying but incorruptible.

I'm not saying this is the only reason people seek office. Some run to keep themselves rich and out of prison, and surrounded by women. Burlesconi in Italy is such a case, and I imagine Qaddafi was another. I mean, what guy wouldn't want to be surrounded with hot Ukrainian bodyguards in high heels? Beats hiding in a sewer pipe.

* * *

One week ago, I would have predicted that Herman Cain would eventually win the Republican nomination and challenge Obama. He has the right combination of charisma and an idea that can be summed up in one sentence and is easily understandable to the American Public- a flat income tax of nine percent, a new national sales tax of nine percent, and a nine percent corporate tax. Cain's 9-9-9 plan was the only plan that the American electorate could really understand, and that any candidate (besides Paul) was willing to talk about. But what a difference a week makes. Cain was reported to have been involved in a case pf sexual harassment ten years ago.

When the accusations came to light, Cain handled the press badly, and his responses showed poor judgment.

I am sure Obama's people are heaving a large sigh of relief. Former Massachusetts governor, and Mormon, Mitt Romney, is now the candidate apparent. Romney is deemed unlikeable, even among his own people. If Romney is nominated, the election is Mr. Obama's to lose. The question that decides the election will never be how many people love Mitt, but how many hate Barack.

Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for president on September 3, 2012 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Security will be tight. If Romney is nominated at the Florida convention on August 27, the Republicans will have to rely on the strength of an anti-Obama backlash. If that is the case, the rhetoric will get very mean-spirited, and very partisan, and the Republicans will use apocalyptic language to describe what could happen in a second Obama term. This, in turn, could inspire to some deranged individual to attempt to harm the President. I pray I'm wrong, but events could inspire a madman simply because the Republicans couldn't come up with a likeable candidate.

Fortunately, the greatest defense a president has in his arsenal is a Vice President no one takes seriously. Joe Biden may not be a Ukranian chick with a machine gun, but he's Obama's greatest bodyguard- the fact that he would be the one to succeed the President is enough to keep even the most deranged lunatic from taking a shot. I mean, seriously— Joe Biden is so dumb, that once, on the campaign trail, he asked a wheelchair-bound Senator to stand up and take a bow!

On the other hand, if Romney is not nominated, this election season could be a wild ride. As of this writing, the polls indicate that Herman Cain is still the frontrunner.

Whomever Obama faces,  (my brain says it'll be Romney, my gut says the Republicans will realize he's unelectable and it'll be Cain), on November 6, 2012, the American people will go to the polls to elect a President but also at stake is control of the Senate, where thirty-three of the hundred seats are up for grabs.

* * *

How the US President actually gets elected:

In a presidential election, the people vote for electors pledged to support either Obama or the Republican candidate. The number of electors (currently 538) are decided by the population of a given state. The candidate who gets 270 electoral votes is declared the winner. If no candidate gets 270 votes, then Congress must choose the next President. Each state delegation casts one vote regardless of population. The Senate, the other House of the bicameral American system, then chooses the Vice President. In the history of our two-party system, only once has a candidate failed to gain a majority of the electoral votes (John Adams, the second US President).

While electors are expected to vote for the candidate endorsed by the people of their state, they are not legally obligated to do so. In fact, in my lifetime, only Ronald Reagan's elections in 1980 and 1984 had no "faithless electors", who refused to vote the will of the people. Otherwise, most electoral races are "winner take all", which means that if a candidate wins by only a handful of votes in a state like Florida, all 29 of the electors will vote for that one candidate, even if the candidate wins the election in that state by a slim margin.

For instance, in 2000, Al Gore carried the US popular vote by 500,000 but lost to George Bush because out of a total of close to six million votes cast in Florida, he lost by 540 votes, 2,912,790 to 2,912,253. That meant all twenty-three of Florida's electoral votes went to Bush, who got 271 electoral votes, enough to secure the election.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska allow proportional electoral voting. This year, with Republicans in control in Pennsylvania, a pivot state for Obama, the Pennsylvania legislature may try to change their rules to allow proportional electoral voting, thus allowing the Republican candidate to pick up a few electoral votes in this large state.

Now you know twice as much about American politics as this American knows about Cricket. So if you decide to watch our election returns via the Internet, "be there" as the news projects the winners in each state, you can keep a tally. It's great entertainment. Throw a party and invite your friends. Bet on the outcome. Armed with my article, you can amaze your peers by talking about "Red States"(Republican) and "Blue States" (Democrat). You can even keep track using several websites that allow you to count totals and color the states yourself, such as 270towin.com.

If my analysis is off, and if I'm wrong about the whole election process, then, Dear Reader, I apologise in advance. But what can one expect? In the sagacious words of Vice President Joe Biden:

"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."

—————————-
Frank Domenico Cipriani writes a weekly column in the Riverside Signal called "You Think What You Think And I'll Think What I Know." He is also the founder and CEO of The Gatherer Institute — a not-for-profit public charity dedicated to promoting respect for the promoting respect for the environment and empowering individuals to become self-taught and self-sufficient. His most recent book, "Learning Little Hawk's Way of Storytelling", teaches the native art of oral tradition storytelling.