Everyone knows of a person who has a stronger determination, a healthier “Knowing” attitude about the details of life. Often these folks will do great things for themselves, their families and ultimately their communities. They are seemingly gifted with the confidence of will, and are not to be detracted from their “mission.” These are folks who will “win” every argument, right or wrong, often because they wear down the defenses, and tire those with which they disagree.
The strength of the secret ballot is that it allows the more insecure among us to have their voice heard. In an equal fashion to all others with the same opportunity, the disagreement with policy, with motivation and substantive belief that one has can be espoused without direct threat to the person offering their “opinion.” In a process which protects the identity of the individual voter, it is much easier to have the true will of the total voting group be seen, rather than have each voice squashed by the larger voice of any one special interest.
This happens daily. The shrill voice of the left, using “for the children,” “for our jobs,” “people are dying,” or “the earth is burning!,” serves as a machine of “shame” to herd our mentality in the direction they wish to proceed. And while we wouldn’t want our legislators to privately vote on issues of import, we can see the effect of shame lobbying. Poor decisions are made, but conscience is salved, and the legislators “feel” they have done the right thing… or at least they feel they can present that they have done the right thing.
Rent seekers often abuse the following to persuade legislators who wish to appear accountable to their words:
Safety: “We simply cannot allow unlicensed contractors to install your security camera. It is unsafe, and puts the unwary at risk!”
The Reality: “We simply cannot allow our competition to grow, innovate and thrive, and we will put you out as against public safety if you disagree.”
Wages: “Our workers need to make a decent living, and MUST have a minimum wage to guarantee it.”
The Reality: “We could give a rats ass about the folks who will make this minimum anyhow. All we want is to create a larger base wage with which to punish the manufacturers who have contracts based on the minimums.” and “Oh yeah.. call us out, and we say you don’t want families to eat.”
Health Care: “Everyone is entitled to decent health care! We need to mandate coverage so that all the little children and seniors aren’t at risk!”
The Reality: “We have a constituency who believes that we have the answer, and wont allow them to suffer needlessly. Never you mind that our plan will eventually result in a decrease of health care professionals. That will work to our ends anyhow, as long as there is crisis…”
Education: “The state of Education is in shambles! We need to throw more money at it. How can we educate our children if you aren’t on board with proper funding?!”
The Reality: “Kids.. wonderfully blank new impressionable minds where we can imprint our doctrines. We need to have special funding for ‘diversity training’ and “acceptance lessons.’ How marvelous!! Of course if you stop us here, you run the risk of being tagged as an anti education office holder.”
Tactics vary.. the message is the same; that the decision makers cannot possibly have a heart or soul if denying that which would seem to improve, or enhance life to those who cannot directly provide for themselves. These examples are used easily because the office holder must on occasion look into the camera and explain his or her position. Sadly, they work more often because it is easier to simply say “I Care” than to present a reasoned analysis behind hard, but necessary decision making.
But individual citizens have a different opportunity. We can go behind the screen and not have to explain ourselves. And if we haven’t had too many years of indoctrination by movies with talking animals, we support candidates who support hunters. If we haven’t had it been beaten over the head enough times that by simply driving to the store, we are killing the planet, we will likely pull the lever for someone who has a reasonable approach to environmentalism. WE CAN make the judgment.
But what happens when we do not have the liberty of self analysis? What can we do when faced with a stronger personality than our own, and feel we have to put our mark on something we do not necessarily support?
That is the fundamental problem with a caucus. A grouping of people where you can “sort out” your feelings on issues, and come together in a consensus on who to place on a ballot.
I wonder often if there had not been caucus voting, but rather straight voting, would we be talking about Hillary’s Picks for Sec of State, or commerce Sec..? The Democrat Caucus state results are as follows with voting percentages, then followed by the private balloting primaries:
|Caucus State %||Obama||Hillary|
|Primary States Private Ballot|
|District of Columbia||75||24|
*Caucuses February 5th start 2 weeks STRONG Obama advantage
**Nevada intimidation factor rejected by Bill and NV DP..
***Texas only 1/3 of votes were caucus.
One can readily see that the Caucus states were far heavier in favor of Obama. Does the question why even need to be asked? Is it possible the fear of seeming racist, or even worse, intimidation tactics used by over zealous Obama supporters with “stronger personalities” swayed what might have been more natural and realistic a representation of the primary voter’s wishes?
We now face the very real possibility that with a “card check” law, which essentially will result in the open yea or nay of union organizing, which subjects unwilling participants to new harassment by the professionals of intimidation… the Union Bosses.