Politics as an Art

Politics as an Art, Not a Science—————————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Many university degrees in political science are awarded annually but that doesn’t make politics a science. It’s rather more of an art. Science comes from study and research. Art is much more subtle. It comes from practice and experience. In my view, there is no substitute for the latter.

Politicians and government bureaucracies are out of fashion of late but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still needed. If government is, in fact, broken, it’s probably going to take some skilled politicians to fix it, not an amateur who will spend years tilting at windmills only to end up beaten down by “the system”. The United States government, the largest on earth, is immensely complicated. You have to know a lot about it before you can begin to figure out how to change it. There is a very steep learning curve. You also need to be exceptionally skilled in working with people because, while you may bring in hordes of your own people who think like you do, you will still have to work with members of the other party and with entrenched civil servants. You may think you can just clean house and start fresh but you will find out that change comes slowly and often painfully. People in organizations like government resist change because it usually involves more work in learning the new ways. It’s human nature to resist change at first and change agents need to know how to deal with that resistance.

So it’s easy to talk about change but hard to implement it. Politicians are very good at proposing changes, but once elected, not so good about the process and details of implementing transformational change that actually works, probably because they usually just leave it to subordinates and fail to adequately monitor the implementation process while they turn to the other pressing issues of governing. The bumbling implementation of Obamacare is a case in point. President Barack Obama achieved many of his changes through executive decrees that may have been unconstitutional and, in any event, can be easily overturned by subsequent administrations.

Transformational change is hard to achieve. Transformational leaders like, say, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are rare. To change a complex system and culture you have to first understand that system and culture. You learn these things best from the experience of having actually been involved in that system and culture, not from university professors who lack such experience and whose focus is narrowed by their own political biases.

Donald Trump thus far leads the GOP pack because Republicans are angry that so little has been accomplished by a Republican Congress. But anger will not win the White House and without winning the White House little will change. On the Democratic side, the Socialist Bernie Sanders is unexpectedly giving establishment favorite Hillary Clinton a battle. Why? Because he is also supported by people who are angry with the establishment, especially naïve university students, most of whom have never worked or voted, and who chant slogans like “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the oligarchy has got to go” and “Free tuition for everyone!” Either would be a disaster for the country. Both want to radically change the direction of the country but their resumes provide little evidence that they know how to do that or have what it takes to govern.

Voters need to get over the anger and stop demonizing the political class. The best indicator of future success is a solid record of past success and experience. The debates are finally over. Now let’s get done to the business of selecting someone who knows how work within the system, get things done and accomplish the changes we need, not just talk about them.

January 29, 2016

Politics Not As Usual

Politics Not As Usual——————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

At this point in the presidential campaign, it’s pretty clear that just about everyone gets it. People are fed up with politics as usual, political doublespeak and dysfunctional government. They want to punish the political establishments of both parties by showing disdain for their candidates in the polls. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, initially thought to be the GOP establishment favorite, can’t quite seem to gather momentum. Neither can the other governors or former governors still in the running, all of whom can claim executive experience and success in governing.

It’s still early, of course, but if none of them survive the primary hurdles, that would leave Florida’s freshman senator, Marco Rubio, as the probable GOP establishment choice to battle for the nomination with hard right firebrand Ted Cruz of Texas, also a first-term senator, and political novice, real estate tycoon and TV entertainer, Donald Trump. Both Cruz and Trump have vowed to dramatically change the way things are done in Washington.

On the Democratic side, persistent concerns over her e-mail security lapses while Secretary of State, her role in the Benghazi debacle and fundraising issues continue to raise questions about her honesty, judgment and trustworthiness and weaken her campaign. While she remains the party establishment’s choice, she soon may not represent its best hope to win in November. Meanwhile, Vermont’s socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, continues to rise in the polls, drawing large and enthusiastic crowds. He campaigns with vigor and conviction. Mrs. Clinton, by comparison seems tired and repetitious.

The top two GOP poll leaders, Cruz and Trump, are, like Sanders, outsiders. Election of any of them would profoundly change direction in Washington, most likely not for the better. The world is a dangerous place and security has become the top concern of most Americans.  Entrusting the job of commander-in-chief to an amateur is not a good idea, in my opinion. The demographics and experience factor clearly would favor Clinton over either Trump or Cruz if the election were held today. She would, I believe, come across as the voice of reason and the more seasoned candidate, in spite of her considerable baggage.

But what if she is indicted as a result of the ongoing FBI investigation? What if it comes down to Trump or Cruz vs. Sanders? Can you imagine it? Their supporters can. I’ve asked myself how I’d vote. My first thought was that I wouldn’t. I’m certainly not going to vote for a socialist or for Donald Trump who speaks in sound bites and can’t seem to put three sentences together to form a coherent response to a question without getting off track. I might be able to hold my nose and vote for Cruz, knowing that he’s too intelligent to believe he will do everything he says he will, like bombing the Middle East until the sands glow.

As I was musing thusly, reality set in. Neither party establishment would possibly let this happen. Surely a more experienced, viable candidate, maybe two, would come to the rescue and run as an independent. Vice-president Joe Biden might be drafted by the liberals or perhaps even Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. Conservatives could prevail upon House Speaker Paul Ryan to run, perhaps. Maybe former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will run. This, of course, would take us to uncharted territory and a new chapter in our political history. It could even be the end of the two-party system since that system has become so hopelessly polarized.

Republicans should have an excellent chance to win the White House in November. Their candidate, whoever that turns out to be, will face either a deeply-flawed former Secretary of State, the subject of an FBI investigation, who is a lackluster campaigner or a socialist from a rural state with a population smaller than most major U.S. citiesnot be the Donald, who classifies people as winners or losers and makes crazy promises or the maverick from Texas who can’t seem to get along with anyone in a system that requires cooperation.

Please get serious soon, Republicans. Don’t blow it.

January 24, 2016

Saga of a Stadium Search—————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Those of us fortunate enough to live on the seaward side of San Diego Bay can look with some detachment on the recurring political dramas that take place in the city that calls itself America’s finest. We are, nevertheless, very much influenced by what happens in America’s eighth largest city, even though we don’t get to vote on it. Among other things, we partake of the many cultural and recreational assets a big city has to offer. These include a symphony orchestra, opera, theatre, universities, libraries, museums and, yes, major sports franchises. We are part of greater San Diego and most of us take pride in its institutions. Our NFL football team is one of them.

We’ve come close to losing some of them before. Recall the Padres were on the verge of leaving when Ray Kroc became a hero by rescuing them and keeping them in San Diego. San Diegans later supported building a state-of-the-art ballpark which added great value to the downtown area. In 1997, the city, without a public vote, expanded and upgraded Jack Murphy Stadium and sold the naming rights to Qualcomm, securing a Super Bowl in San Diego and satisfying the Chargers ownership, for a while at least. At about the same time, The San Diego Symphony ran into financial trouble. San Diegans again came forward to help and the world-class orchestra is today financially successful and even owns its own venue. The opera was next to experience financial woes and once again generous donors from the community stepped forward to rescue and reorganize it.

After years of often acrimonious negotiations with the city over a new stadium, Chargers owner Dean Spanos finally requested NFL permission to move to Carson in the rich Los Angeles market area in a joint stadium venture with the Oakland Raiders, formerly the LA Raiders. To Chargers fans, who, to put it mildly, are not fond of the Raiders or their fans, this was a stab in the back after over fifty years of loyal support for a team that often disappointed and got blown away in its only Super Bowl appearance.

But NFL owners roundly rebuffed the bid by Spanos and Raiders’ owner Mark Davis to move to Carson and instead approved the request by St. Louis Rams owner, Stan Kroenke to move back to the LA area and build an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood. This didn’t please Mr. Spanos who was given the option of moving into Ingleside with the Rams, more or less as Mr. Kroenke’s tenant, or renegotiating a deal to stay in San Diego. Spanos is rich but not as rich as Kroenke who doesn’t need Spanos’ money to build a stadium nor market competition from the Chargers. Spanos might, therefore, be well-advised to resume negotiations with San Diego. The team has a solid fan base here. The Rams will own the LA market, having played there before moving to St. Louis. Stadium SearchSurveys show that both the Rams and the Raiders would be far more popular than the Chargers among LA area fans. They have a history there.

If Mr. Spanos chooses to attempt to renegotiate to remain in San Diego, he will probably push for his preferred downtown location. This is a terrible idea. One downtown stadium is sufficient. On baseball nights, there is enough traffic congestion and parking hassle. Image what it would be like with a stadium with twice the seating capacity as Petco Park. The current site in Mission Valley is ideal. Indeed, located in a flood plain, it isn’t good for much else, least of all, a university campus or park which would generate no taxes. A stadium and adjacent businesses would. It is centrally located, more accessible to fans in North and East county, is served by three major highways and a trolley line and has ample parking. A new stadium could be built adjacent to the current one whch could be used right up to opening date of the new stadium.

This was essentially the team’s own proposal during the 2002-2006 timeframe. It was contingent upon the city providing 60 acres of the Mission Valley site to the Chargers for commercial development. Financing would come from the team and a development partner. Aside from the land, it would have cost the taxpayers nothing. Unfortunately, these negotiations fell apart, largely because of the inability of the then-City Attorney Mike Aguirre and the Chargers’ counsel Mark Fabiani to get along.

City officials have not displayed much competence in dealing with the team owners over the years. The infamous ticket guarantee by which the city guaranteed the sale of 60,000 general admission tickets comes to mind. This may be the last chance to figure out a way to keep the team here but it will require serious good-faith bargaining on each side and public support. Not everyone is a football fan. Not everyone is a baseball, symphony or opera fan, either, but to many these institutions are part of what characterizes a great city. NFL football provides entertainment and emotional release for millions of hard-working Americans who look forward to the games. Televised games advertise the region and attract business and tourism. If anyone doubts the popularity of football, consider the enormous press coverage and advertising revenue each game generates.

Greater San Diego, only the nation’s 17^th largest market, is no match for Los Angeles, the nation’s 2^nd largest. But sometimes it’s better to be the only team in a smaller market where you are appreciated rather than the least-favorite team in a huge market area. In the end, it will most likely be all about the money but Mr. Spanos could, if he wishes, become another hero to San Diegans and keep the team here where it’s been for over half a century. He’d still be rich and, if good will counts, perhaps even richer.

January 17, 2016

Getting Serious AboutWinning in November

Getting Serious About Winning———————-
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The Christmas decorations have been put away and the New Year resolutions probably already broken. Time now to get down to business about the most important election in our lifetimes. Republicans need to give serious thought about who they will nominate to face Hillary Clinton in November. If Mrs. Clinton wins, and the demographics clearly favor her, it will be at least four more years of expanding government, liberal tax and spend economic policies, income redistribution and growing federal debt. As debt soars beyond $20 trillion and the interest on it crowds out discretionary spending on things we really need like modernizing the military and our infrastructure, economic growth will struggle along at its current anemic rate or worse. The nation can’t take much more of this.

Since Mrs. Clinton’s coattails probably wouldn’t be enough to wrest control of Congress from the Republicans, divided government would probably continue and little would get done in Washington, generating further displeasure with government. Republicans can cry out all they want about the need for change, but not much of anything will change unless they win the White House. The longer they spend time sniping at each other, the less their chances of achieving that goal.

People are upset with government and politicians which explains, of course, the popularity of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and mavericks like Ted Cruz. Mr. Trump, is a rich entertainer, real estate tycoon and self-described deal-maker who thinks he can make America great again but is somewhat short on specifics. Dr. Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who aspires to manage the world’s largest and most complex organization which, apparently, he feels is a piece of cake compared to brain surgery. Ms. Fiorina is a former CEO who was fired and who got blown away by Barbara Boxer in a Senate race. Clinton would make hash out of Carson or Fiorina.

Trump, still on top in the GOP polls, is the Democrats’ greatest gift. Indeed, he was a Democrat and major donor to Democrat causes for most of his adult life. He plays loose with the truth, is bombastic, impetuous, egotistical and sometimes crude. Those who feel that they would be comfortable with a Trump presidency are probably also comfortable with chaos which is what a Trump presidency would likely bring. If he were truly motivated by what’s best for the country instead of his immense ego, he would have run for the Democratic nomination to damage Mrs. Clinton’s chances of becoming president. If he wins the GOP nomination and runs against Clinton, it will reduce the election to a choice between two weevils (with apologies to Patrick O’Brien). If Trump fails to win, he may run as a third party candidate, previous promises notwithstanding. And if he wins the nominations, establishment Republicans, in despair, may balk and back an establishment candidate as an independent. Either action would assure victory for Mrs. Clinton.

Sen. Ted Cruz, poised to win in Iowa, is the far right’s answer to Trump. He hopes to gain Trump supporters should Trump drop out or say something so outrageous that even he can’t recover from it. That would make Cruz hard to beat for the nomination. He is highly intelligent (honor graduate from Princeton, high honors from Harvard Law), debates well and is tough. He is also an ultra conservative, Tea Party ideologue and so far to the right of most Americans, that he would probably lose to Clinton. Sen. Marco Rubio, whose poll numbers suggest he is, so far, the leading establishment candidate, is a freshman senator like Cruz. So was Barack Obama and we know how that turned out. The legislative branch does not provide the best preparation for becoming the world’s top executive. Experience as a successful governor does. A governor must deal with budgets, legislatures and the day-to-day business of running a large government entity.

Four successful governors or former governors are still in the race: Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kaisich of Ohio, Jeb Bush of Florida and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Bush and Huckabee have not been able to gather momentum. Kaisich has experience both in the Congress and as a governor of a large swing state which the Republicans must carry. Christie enjoys moderate success, in spite of the bridge closure fiasco, in a large, heavily Democratic state which is difficult to govern. He is also a former prosecutor. Both can claim solid records of actual accomplishments and executive experience that neither Cruz nor Rubio have. Republicans ought to get solidly behind one or the other soon if they hope to win in November. Christie is the more decisive of the two and has the fire in the belly and toughness needed to change things in Washington and keep us safe from external threats. He would be my choice at this point.

January 10, 2016

Police Lives Matter, Too————————————
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

It goes without saying that the media influence public opinion, sometimes just by the choice of words used in reporting an event. For instance, in reporting on a Cleveland Grand Jury finding in not indicting a white police officer who fatally shot a twelve-year-old black male who was brandishing a pellet gun designed to replicate a semi-automatic handgun in a Cleveland public park, one leading newspaper said in its lead paragraph that the grand jury decided not to indict the officer. Another paper reported that the jury declined to charge the officer “which added to the national outrage over white officers killing African-Americans”.

Let’s parse this language. To say the grand jury decided not to indict or declined to indict suggests a somewhat arbitrary decision process. It suggests a failure of the grand jury process. Actually, the members of a grand jury, selected from the community, are charged with finding out whether enough evidence exists to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and whether or not a person should be charged with committing it. Crime, incidentally, is defined by the laws and penal codes, not by demonstrators, protestors, activists, mobs media or public opinion. The grand juries have subpoena power and access to investigative resources and legal advice. Their deliberations are secret in order to facilitate witnesses coming forward without fear of retribution. The jurors take an oath to discharge their duties honestly, without bias and without being influenced by outside pressure, news media or public opinion.

The grand jury process is not primarily about justice for the victim of a crime as demonstrators often appear to believe. It is, rather, more about justice for the person who might be falsely accused of a crime which has happened much too often in our history as African-Americans can certainly attest.

Grand juries don’t just decide things arbitrarily. They determine to the best of their ability whether or not a crime has been committed and whether or not the person whom the prosecutor seeks to be indicted should be tried for it. In other words, did he or she break any laws. The process may not be perfect or infallible but it exists to prevent innocent people from being falsely accused, tried, convicted incarcerated and possibly executed for an offense they are not guilty of. Grand juries have access to information that is not available to the public or the media. Neither the public nor the media get to determine whether or not a person should be indicted, however they may wish it.

Public anger over the fact that a white policeman shot and killed a black teenager playing with a pellet gun is not evidence that a crime has been committed. Consider the circumstances. A pellet gun is not a toy. This one replicated a lethal firearm and the marking that was designed to indicate that it was not a firearm had been removed. The teenager was large for his age. A number of witnesses said that he appeared to be in his 20s and 911 callers said that he was pointing a gun at people. When police responded, he pulled the gun from his waistband according to surveillance video and the officers. What would you do if you were one of those officers? Wait to see if the gun was toy?

With respect to public outrage over white policemen shooting black males, consider the statistics. Young black males commit a substantially greater percentage of crimes than their percentage of the population. While poverty and unemployment may be factors, the statistics are what they are. By the same token, a majority of policemen are white males. If there is “national outrage” every time that a white policemen shoots a black male, then the math suggests that we are probably in for a lot more national outrage, especially given the intense coverage of these incidents by the media.

Every fatal police shooting is a tragedy for the victim, the family and the policeman involved, white, black or any other color. Shooting someone, especially fatally, is a traumatic experience which can change one’s life unless one is a psychopath. Anyone who thinks that a police officer, sworn to protect the public, takes any satisfaction in shooting another human being is an ignorant fool. Police put their lives on the line every days to protect all of us of every color. They should be respected and obeyed by all of us of every color. Their lives matter, too, and they should to all of us.

(Kelly, a resident of Coronado, was foreman of the 1996-1997 San Diego County Grand Jury.)

January 6, 2016