How badly do you want your candidate to win? Are you willing to bet your future on it? RJ Eskow’s excellent huffpo post got me thinking about a rational approach to deciding whom to vote for. To keep himself honest, and to guard against getting drawn into a popularity contest, he uses an objective five-point test to score the candidates. His admirably thoughtful approach inspired me to call attention to a thought-provoking video that some might find useful in choosing a candidate or (as in my case) in testing the soundness of a choice that's already been made. Go look at it right now. I'll wait. Then kindly follow me below the fold.
In it, a man claims to have the means to settle the question that is at the heart of the disagreement between climate change believers and skeptics: whether governments and individuals should act (e.g. by committing resources) to combat global warming. It’s a very clever little argument. He posits that the central question is not whether climate change exits, but whether we should act regardless of our uncertainty. In other words, what’s the worst that could happen? Whether climate change exists or not, whether or not we, as a nation, do anything to combat it, you have four possible scenarios to consider:
- There is no climate change but we take measures to combat it
The worst that could happen is we spend money or effort with no return. The worst that could happen is needless economic cost and needless hassle.
- There is no climate change and we take no measures to combat it.
If we do nothing to combat climate change and it turns out to be a bust, we’ve got the best of all possible worlds. We spent nothing, made no sacrifices, did nothing to change our consumption, but suffered no consequences. The worst that happens is nothing. This is the best possible outcome.
- There is climate change, and we take measures to combat it
The worst that could happen is that we overspend or make too many sacrifices in our effort to combat a real threat. There is economic cost, but it’s worth it.
- There is climate change, but we take no measures to combat it
The polar icecap melts, causing massive inundation of coastal areas. Residents will have to migrate away from the coasts, leading to social and economic displacement and overcrowding. Temperature extremes will make some areas uninhabitable and necessitate further migration. Food may be scarce because of low crop yields due to droughts. Katrina-like storms will become the norm, bankrupting states, disrupting commerce and destabilizing the world economy.
Assuming an honest and thorough assessment of the worst possible consequences of each scenario, the answer of the question of whether, in our uncertainty about the existence of climate change, we should act, seems obvious. If we act and there is no climate change, the worst-case scenario has us suffering economic consequences. On the other hand, if we fail to act, and climate change is real, the worst-case scenario is, simply stated, the end of the world as we know it. How elegant. And irrefutable.
A Challenge to Fellow Dems
One of the few things all kossacks can agree on is that another Republican presidency would be a disaster. This country is in a catastrophic state. Our civil liberties are under attack, our elections are neither fair nor transparent, big money rules our politics and our airwaves, we are an international pariah, and the Supreme Court is stacked with young, unprincipled extremists who stand ready to side with the intrusive government and greed-driven corporations and against ordinary citizens, at every opportunity. The U.S. is an international pariah, we’re stuck in a disastrous and breathtakingly expensive occupation, and our economy is overdue for its Wile E. Coyote moment. It’s critically important that the Democrats win this election. Where kossacks disagree is on how to make that happen.
What has this got to do with global warming? I believe that we owe it to each other, as Democrats, to engage in a rational decisionmaking process when selecting a nominee. Like R.J. Eskow’s method, the global warming worst-case analysis could be used as a way of rationally and honestly assessing the consequences of selecting an untested, potentially polarizing nominee at this critical juncture.
I believe that John Edwards is the best candidate for a number of reasons – his stance on economic justice issues; his correct diagnosis of the problems of our government (it’s the lobbyists, stupid!), his plan to quickly get out of Iraq, his willingness to speak the truth, even when it puts him at a disadvantage as far as fundraising is concerned, just to name a few – but reason, for me, is paramount. He can win a general election by a hefty fraud-proof margin.
I also believe that Hillary Clinton, for some reason I’ll probably never understand, and certainly not because of anything she has said or done, inspires savage, intractable hatred in a segment of our electorate.
I believe that America is still a racist country. I am African American. Racism is not just an issue for me. It always has been, and yes, still is, a frustrating fact of daily life. It saddens me that a white man, any white man is still the safest way to go in a general election. I believe that the Bradley Effect is real, and that the anomalous results from New Hampshire might be an ominous portent of things to come in non-caucus states.
In a nutshell, I believe that:
Hillary Clinton cannot win in a general election because she will have a reverse coattail effect, bringing all of the deranged haters out of the woodwork to vote against her
Hillary Clinton cannot win in a general election because progressives won't turn out for her
Barack Obama cannot win in a general election because many Americans, once in the privacy of the voting booth, will find themselves unwilling to pull the lever for an African American candidate
Notice that none of the preceding statements bears on either candidate’s character or their stances on the issues. You believe that the above statements are false. Just as global warming believers and skeptics disagree, you and I may never come to consensus about the electability issue. But I beg of you to please analyze these propositions in light of the worst and best-case scenarios that would ensue from acting on these beliefs.
Here. I’ll do one for you:
- Hillary can win and we nominate her
Worst that could happen is that other candidates lose. Such is life. Yeah Hillary!
- Hillary can’t win but we nominate Edwards
Worst case scenario, Edwards goes down swinging as a proud progressive. On the upside, Edwards who polls very well in head-to-head matchups against all Republicans even in the absence of a huge money machine, or adoring, or even attentive press. As a bonus, having run in 2004, he has had everything thrown at him that Republicans can muster and he’s still standing tall.
- Hillary can win and we nominate Edwards
Again, the worst case is that Republicans win, but Edwards always polls better than Hillary in head-to-head matchups against Republicans, <does not> bring with him the baggage of a reverse turnout effect, and has an excellent shot at winning. Hillary lives to run another day.
- Hillary can’t win but we nominate her
Doomsday.
That’s my take on the Hillary issue. I invite you to add your own worst-case consequences for each scenario and to make a thorough assessment.
I’ll start you off on another:
- Obama can win by a Bradley-proof and fraud-proof margin and we nominate him
Yeah!!! Do note though, that the lives of ordinary African Americans will change not one whit if this happens. Nor will most racists come around and see the light. Is it fair that he has to win by Bradley-proof and fraud-proof margins? No. But new voters, like the ones he’s bringing in, are the ones most likely to be victimized by Voting Rights Act violations and other efforts at voter suppression.
- Obama can win by a Bradley-proof and fraud-proof margin but we nominate Edwards
Edwards runs strongly against McCain, the scariest Republican, without benefit of – you’ve got to admit it folks – adoring and uncritical press coverage or a $100 million dollar war chest. The idea is to picture Obama after months of Republican smears, and after the mainstream press decides, as it always does with Dems, to turn on him. Edwards has been there/done that and is still unscathed.
- Obama can’t win by a Bradley-proof and fraud-proof margin and we nominate Edwards
See above
- Obama can’t win by a Bradley-proof and fraud-proof margin but we nominate him
Supreme Court appointments alone dictate that we not let this happen.
Again, I beg you, please weigh the odds and quantify the consequences. And tell me what you think. As if I could stop you. How lucky do you feel?