Short Attention-Span Theater

Two events dominating this week's news demonstrate together how we've managed to build a society incapable of taking the long view -- of anything.

The mess that the two parties have made -- the Democrats with their rules, the Republicans with their legislative mischief in Florida -- of the Michigan and Florida primaries is a splendid demonstration of the public sector's unwillingness to look beyond the next news cycle. The Democrats decided months ago to "punish" Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries early into the process -- a sop, basically, to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, the only approved early states. The Republicans who control the Florida lege had moved up the primary in the same bill that mandated paper trails for voting machines, apparently knowing the national Dems opposed the date but also knowing Florida Dems couldn't vote against the paper-trail bill. There it sat, a non-issue until it became painfully apparent that this was, against the intended design, to be a long primary season, and Florida's (and Michigan's) delegate votes might well be crucial.

Now, it's a crisis. Yet all the players had months to work out a reasonable solution. But that would have meant looking ahead.

Similarly, the economic mess the banks and Wall Street have sponsored was a classic in short-term thinking. The exotic economic "products" that were peddled, as supposed AAA-rated securities, to banks all over the world, that were just bundles of sub-prime mortgages, were premised on one simple assumption: that housing prices would continue to rise in the short term. In the long term, of course, housing prices both rise and fall, and a sane financial strategy takes that fact into account. But there was so much money to be made -- by peddling the crappy mortgages, by peddling the bundles of crappy mortgages -- and the chief executives of the financial services and banking companies that ended up holding the bag kept one salient fact in mind: they could get out with their $50 million golden handshakes intact, before the bubble burst, and somebody else would have to clean up the mess.

The public sector decision makers can't think past the next election. The private sector decision makers can't think past the next quarter. And it's the public that's got a short attention span?

Comments

[pmag88]

American states have a dark history of voting rights violations that have often required federal intervention. Despite this history, the federal government - including the higher courts- refuse to mandate any substantive solutions. They choose to hide behind states rights even though the right to vote is mandated in the constitution.

Here"s a simple solution. Assign all the states primaries via a lottery. Assign all the states the same exact voting machines and methods of counting votes. Make violations of election law uniform for each and every citizen and official. Get rid of the Electoral College and use the popular vote.

[Anastasia]

Why didn't Hillary take her name off of the Michigan Primary ballot? Could it be that it's pretty much a cinch to win an "election", when your only notable opponent, is Dennis Kucinich?

According to Wikipedia -

On October 9, 2007, following Michigan's breach of DNC rules, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. Dennis Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to remove his name from the ballot.[7] Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot.

Although Clinton said she would honor a pledge that she and the other Democratic candidates had earlier made to not campaign in Michigan, Clinton and Dodd drew sharp criticism from Biden, who stated that the two candidates had "chosen to hedge their bets"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary%2C_2008

[EndTheHumanWar]

Hillary could be pretty notable. Rules and primary candidates made Clinton sharp. The chosen opponent withdrew. Dennis from Michigan drew two bets. That much "election" is a breach to the other campaign. Candidates' rules remain stated.

[karrezza]

Obama is for the war! People don't forget!! He too voted for every budget to fund the war. He is just as "guilty" as all you who attack Clinton!! So odds are he too would have voted for the war had he been in the Senate at the time. So, lets stop blaming it all on Hillary. The war is still going DIRECTLY DUE TO THE VOTE OF OBAMA!!!!

If he was so against it, his message would have "stayed the course" and his votes would have said NO to all war funding bills!!
Why are we not demanding an apology for all his war funding votes??? DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!

[stepintothelight]

You would prefer he leave the troops without the proper resources? Sounds like the current administration.

[AlisonChaynz]

With all due respect, the American people get what they deserve. Ask the average American about the Federal Reserve.... go ahead, I dare you. It happens to be the cause of our inevitable economic collapse, and most Americans don't have a clue what it is or what it does.

Thomas Jefferson said: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

The American people support politicians who make promises of government goodies rather than politicians who actually want to protect them from government actions (like the creation of the Fed). If corporatism is the weed that has taken over the American garden, then the Federal Reserve is the root feeding the weed. We must pull up the root. Smarten up, America... END THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

[Lemeritus]

"The public sector decision makers can't think past the next election. The private sector decision makers can't think past the next quarter. And it's the public that's got a short attention span?"

Amen, Harry!

[kingfishstew]

What's most unfair about this process is that the manipulations of FL and MI are going to give them a large say in the outcome. The propaganda war, anyways, as the delegate math is pretty much set in stone. It is politically unwise and perhpas impossible not to find some fair way of resolving this issue. However, I know after this is all over, I'll be advocating for my state to give a big middle finger to the DNC and set its primary whenever it wants. It's fast becoming a matter of fact the DNC can't really dare to strip a state of its delegates, and we - and all the other states - obviously shouldn't care what the DNC has to say about the matter and set our primary dates for whenever we feel it would be advantagous to ourselves. Hell, we might get a chance to vote twice, like MI and FL.

[nellie]

I don't think it's unfair—I think it's ironic. If they had just maintained their original schedules instead of moving up the primaries, they would have had the same influence they will have now. In Florida's case, it really wasn't the state party's fault, because a Republican legislature manipulated a ballot measure so that the primary would move up and violate the rules. Pretty scummy, but there it is.

Both states need to re-vote. That's a simple solution. Costly, but straightforward. And it's the right thing to do.

[RogerHWerner]

There is a fair way to resolve this issue. Split the delegates equally between Obama and Clinton and forget a re-vote. The delegates count but they play no roll in whose the ultimate candidate. The issue now isn't about Florida and Michigan; should these two states be given an over-emphasized roll in the selection of a candidate? My sense is that voters Democratic voters should take out their frustrations on the state officials who perpetrated this mess and the rest of us should just move on.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

I don't an see how that is fair at all. If you are going to split the delegates 50/50, you might as well be saying to the FL voters that their opinion doesn't matter. All you are doing is telling them they can come to the convention, wear their silly hats, but don't tell us what you think.

Everyone seems to forget that the existing rules of the dem party have always allowed for these two states to hold another primary that meets the party criteria. Another vote doesn't break any rule, it doesn't change any rule.

The only rule was that delegates chosen by an invalid primary (too ealry) would not be seated. Holding another primary within the correct dates has always been valid.

[Lemeritus]

Interesting suggestion.

I've also enjoyed the idea of seating the delegates of both states as they are, but stripping both FL and MI of their superdelegates (unworkable, ultimately ineffective, but it does give me a great sense of satisfaction),

Then there's the hybrid notion of allowing Michigan to conduct its caucus (which would favor Obama) and allowing the Florida delegates to be seated "asis" (since all the candidates names were in fact on the Florida ballot).

[Lemeritus]

"I'll be advocating for my state to give a big middle finger to the DNC and set its primary whenever it wants."

That's one approach. Personally, I'll be advocating a National Primary Day -- no more playing games with primary dates to trump Iowa and New Hampshire, no more momentum de jour, no more allowing the media to "dis"invite candidates to "their" debates.

I'll also be advocating for you to choose the one version of your comments you like the best and post just that -- I think the version above was nicely edited and made all your points just fine.

[kingfishstew]

What I think is going to be most unfair about this process, and I don't mean to either of the candidates, is that the machinations of Florida and Michigan are going to give them a large say in the outcome - well, propaganda war anywyas, we know the delegate math is pretty much set in stone. It's probably politically unwise and impossible not to let them have some way of forming acceptable delegation.
However, I know I can't be the only one who feels like if these states are able to get away with what it looks like they'll be able to get away with, and there is no better situation devised by 2012, it's be practically a dereliction of civic duty for all of us not to urge our own state parties to move up primaries and play shenegans for our own benefits.
Personally, I think my state should establish the first 'floating primary', i.e., I think we should just call a primary whenever we think it will give our state the most influence in the outcome, care what the DNC says. What the hell are they going to do about it? We Marylanders can cuss and fuss as much as folks from MI or FL, if we need to.
This is not a screed about how the situation should be handled, but honestly, as we are probably entering the twilight of the New Hampshire / Iowa lock on the process, and maybe towards regional primaries (which wouldn't be so bad, regions tend to share certain characteristic that differ from one area to another, and it'd be good to acknowledge the fact that part of what we're seeing is difference between regions and not necessarily one candidate gaining or loosing momentum.) I say folks from other states, stand up for your rights!
If the DNC has proven its powerless to enforce its primary rules. Don't let the other states grab all the glory because they're the only ones willing to smack the DNC around. If the MI and FL delegations are seated, don't hate on the people from MI and FL. But DO demands that your state give a big middle finger to the DNC and its rules next time around and do what you think is best for your state.
Hell, you might even get to vote twice. Or three times!

[kingfishstew]

What I think is going to be most unfair about this process, and I don't mean to either of the candidates, is that the machinations of Florida and Michigan are going to give them a large say in the outcome - well, propaganda war anywyas, we know the delegate math is pretty much set in stone.

It's probably politically unwise and impossible not to let them have some way of forming acceptable delegation.

However, I know I can't be the only one who feels like if these states are able to get away with what it looks like they'll be able to get away with, and there is no better situation devised by 2012, it's be practically a dereliction of civic duty for all of us not to urge our own state parties to move up primaries and play shenegans for our own benefits.

Personally, I think my state should establish the first 'floating primary', i.e., I think we should just call a primary whenever we think it will give our state the most influence in the outcome, care what the DNC says. What the hell are they going to do about it? We Marylanders can cuss and fuss as much as folks from MI or FL, if we need to.

This is not a screed about how the situation should be handled, but honestly, as we are probably entering the twilight of the New Hampshire / Iowa lock on the process, and maybe towards regional primaries (which wouldn't be so bad, regions tend to share certain characteristic that differ from one area to another, and it'd be good to acknowledge the fact that part of what we're seeing is difference between regions and not necessarily one candidate gaining or loosing momentum.) I say folks from other states, stand up for your rights!

If the DNC has proven its powerless to enforce its primary rules. Don't let the other states grab all the glory because they're the only ones willing to smack the DNC around. If the MI and FL delegations are seated, don't hate on the people from MI and FL. But DO demands that your state give a big middle finger to the DNC and its rules next time around and do what you think is best for your state.

Hell, you might even get to vote twice. Or three times!

[JerryJef]

Harry, the thing about it is the DNC and RNC were doing long term thinking. When they set the schedules in late summer 2006 they were certain a nominee would be decided on Feb 5. Every year since 1984 one has been chosen by the time half the states vote.

In May 2007 when Florida passed its change law the thinking was that it would all be over by Feb 5 and both the GOP and Dem delegations would throw themselves upon the mercy of the nominee designate and he, in his majesty, would grant them seats at the convention. Carl Levin and Michigan were just pissed at New Hampshire and didn't care. They were out to foul up the gears as much as they could.

I am not sure it is a lack of forward thinking as it is a failure to heed the signs.

In the early 70's New Hampshire's New England neighbors tried to force a regional primary, but it collapsed. In 1975, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law that its primary would be set on the Tuesday before any other New England state. This was the first time a legislature infringed upon the authority of the national parties and other state party to schedule a primary. In 1977, New Hampshire broadened the law to provide that its primary would come on the Tuesday before the primary of any other state in the nation. In 1966, they set the limit at 7 days before the primary of any other state.

In the past 33 years and with 3 pieces of legislation the hand writing has clearing been on the wall. The parties do not control the process any more. Florida and Michigan just proved it. For three decades this problem could have been addressed, but was not. At least, not effectively. The only solution now is Federal legislation setting some kind of national primary procedure. The states will never be able to work one out.

[RogerHWerner]

You make a very good case for regional or a single national primary. No, states won't be able to set aside their silly rivalries and deal with this situation rationally.

[FreedomLoverX]

I disagree. First, in Florida, I think those neocoms know exactly what they are doing and thinking long term. If the voters there could think long term, they would give the GOP the boot. Next, those bank guys were thinking long term too. They made decision that will make them filthy rich in the long term. Do I smell a bailout?

[kimk3]

A big part of the sub-prime mess and now the huge credit crisis, etc., is in large part from Bill Clinton de-regulating the banking system. I am so over the Clintons. I want them to go away.

[RogerHWerner]

Well, I don;t disagree with what you say. It's just that Bill Clinton was acting entirely within character when he pushed his economic agenda. Clinton (and his wife) believe in free markets and globalization. Make no mistake: Bill Clinton is an incredibly bright fellow, which is more than I can say for the present dim bulb in the Oval Office. I have to wonder though if Clinton has simply permitted his cherished views to cloud his judgment. Perhaps I can't see the long game but if I may be permitted to look at what's happen short term: Globalization has done little to enrich the lives of people but a great deal to richen the pockets of multinational corporations and the politicians who support globalization and it's hardly an academic question for people to ask if a globalized economy is ever going to enrichen their lives. I for one remain very skeptical and sense that the promise is akin to the trickle down economics of Reagan. If history is any basis for drawing a rational judgment about this then people have a very long wait to share in anything but the crumbs of the globalization and most won;t ever see any benefits. This matter is worth considering today in light of what the present crop of candidates have to say about free markets and globalization. Each is committed to the notion of liberal democracy and its economic correlate free market capitalism but of the two Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton is most directly linked with these ideas and she is the darling of the DLC. Of course, if free markets actually existed in the world having a debate on the validity of this concept might be valid but since there are no free markets not even in the US belief in free markets as a solution to anything is bogus. With all his brilliance, I'd love to hear Bill Clinton or anyone sit down long enough to discuss this sensibly. I'm not opposed to capitalism only to the belief that it can solve all of the world's ills. Shearer says one thing with which I fully agree: Corporations tend not to look beyond the end of their quarterly profit and loss statements. Therefore they shouldn't be permitted to influence the long term welfare of society; government should be entrusted with long-term thinking but as long as it is influenced by the entities they are supposed to regulate that can't happen.

[brenner21]

The Web: the cure for short attention spans

[campaignman]

CNN 11:12 p.m.

TOTAL DELEGATES
Delegate Definitions
Obama
Barack Obama
Pledged: 1328
Superdelegates: 199
Total: 1,527

Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1190
Superdelegates: 238
Total: 1,428

[KRANKY]

Harry, i always enjoy your concise thoughts.
As usual, most comment on some detail without grasping your BIG picture. It is as if so many have short term memory loss and can only repeat the last fifteen minutes. ( My dad had a stroke, so I have considerable experience here. ) There is no long term thought, either. It is immediate gratification, feeding into primal, emotional response process. This is a gambler's dynamic.
Obviously, there are a number of capitalists ready to exploit those conditioned into this mindset.

We, as a society have been taught and told that we are better through technology...that machines will ease the burden of work, raise productivity, and that those that apply themselves hardest will all get rich ultimately.
Instead, we work ourselves to death; through stress, anxiety, and the fear that we will be
less than a "good citizen" if we don't put in 40 hours or more a week for 50, and then frantically rush to our vacation.

I am not a Luddite that would smash the printing presses, but think we have to look at modern invention with a big picture/longterm outlook. Technology are mere tools, not saviors. In the limited thinking department, somany have bought into the concept of more is better, bigger is better, and that that is desirable, without looking at other consequences. It is how an evil monolith like Wal-Mart is possible.

[DavidK08]

Who gets to decide what the Hight ground is here? It is convinient for Hillzilla to want the vote to stand as is. It is convinient for Obama to say that rules are rules.

IMHO, a redo is the only option that counts the votes. Letting them count as is wont be fair. Some of the voters in FL might have done things differently had the rules been laid out before the vote.

Rules are Rules...the people that voted for this should resign if a redo happens. Someone has to take responsibility for this. Yet another FL voting fiasco.

When did Hillzilla first start this process? Curious as to the timing, huh?