Some things in American politics are remarkably consistent. Every presidential year the American people divide themselves into two segments, each comprising roughly half the population, and proceed to invest their personal emotions, their aspirations and the future of their families and the well being of the country in one or the other of the handful of Americans who are arrogant enough to offer themselves as candidates for the formerly most prestigious post in the world, the presidency of The United States of America. In the silly season of presidential politics most Americans, regardless of political party, are satisfied that their neighbor, their work mate and sometimes their life mate, are devoid of merit, morality, patriotism and reason, and conscious agents of the hordes of the deranged (take your pick) left or right.

And sadly, on the day after the election, roughly half of Americans wake up to find out that they were flat out wrong in their aspirations, that they had backed a loser and that for the next four years they will be the subject of cruel jokes and pranks at the hands of those in front of whom they’d publicly proclaimed the mental and moral superiority of their man (or woman). The founders guarded against this very thing by providing for the secret vote, but Americans are not secret about politics. Your boss, your neighbor, your friend … do they know how you vote? Of course they do, and if you vote the wrong way, you’ll get your chain yanked for the next four years. Now this is not an unknown fact. In modern times, most presidential elections have been close and everybody knows it. Certainly no one in their right mind would wager money on a proposition that guarantees you’ll lose half the time.  But presidential politics is not the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and risking money at the blackjack table, or if you’re particularly naive, at the roulette wheel. Leaving Vegas, you might have to pawn your Rolex for a flight home, but it’s only money. In politics, especially public politics, it’s your dignity that’s at risk, something held more dearly by most folks (especially men) than most anything else. The funniest jokes are always those in which the protagonist slips on a banana peel, busts his butt and loses his dignity. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton got rich losing their dignity on film and both have their counterparts in modern movies. Real life’s different. In real life you enter the world naked and leave it naked. In the interval between most folks try to preserve their dignity at all costs. Given the risk to personal dignity, the practice of presidential prognostication is an endeavor that’s inherently arrogant. And it takes an arrogant man indeed to bet his dignity on a fifty/fifty proposition.

But we all do it. I’m a one-eyed old man with a wooden leg, a pacemaker and practically no dignity left at all (said loss all my personal fault) …  but I’ll bet what little dignity I have left on the turn of the next election. And so will most readers.
If you’re thinking of going out on the limb in the office or workplace on behalf of one or the other of the different presidential pretenders, willingly accepting that you are apt to be the subject of widespread office derision if you’re wrong, it helps to have a good set of standards against which to judge the risks to your dignity. For that reason, I long ago devised the kindly old doctor’s nine rules of political prognostication, which I resurrect (with appropriate updates) for the use of Patriot readers during the campaign that’s already droned on for way too long.

Rule 1: Remember that Webster, in his definition of politics, did not draw distinctions between democratic politics and republican politics. Politics is politics, period. The rule applies to politicians, as well. “One thing we’ve been consistent about regarding politicians, is that they are more alike than not. They are, in fact, so much alike that almost anything you can say of one, can accurately be said of almost any other. Politicians are more alike than Baptists, Catholics, Jews, or any other religious aggregation. So it should be no surprise both parties scramble for the constitutional high ground and both parties kiss the collective posteriors of the religious right.” From “Impeaching The Constitution,” in October, ’98’s Gridlock & Load (now on hiatus).

Rule 2: The Wise Old Doctor’s Short Course In Politics” — PERSPECTIVE IS EVERYTHING.  “Though it’s sometimes difficult to understand, different folks can and do look at the same set of facts and arrive at completely different conclusions. That’s the essence of politics. The art of politics is knowing how to adjust and refine your position on any given issue to appeal to the widest possible audience. The hell of politics, for most of us, is that we don’t understand or practice the art of politics, leaving us at the mercy of those who do.” From “The Essence, The Art and The Hell of Politics,” in February, ’98’s issue.

Rule 3: “Don’t Ignore The People,” which will go down in history as The Republican’s Great Mistake of ‘98: “For politicians, the hell of politics lies in its essence. Whereas the scientist knows that certain elements, when mixed in certain ratios with other elements, will always result in a predictable reaction, the politician can never be entirely sure how any one voter, or group of voters, will react to any given issue, or comment. For that reason, politicians are very reluctant to introduce a new issue and are very careful about what they say and don’t say regarding current issues.” From “The Essence, The Art and The Hell of Politics.”

Rule 4: “Don’t Fool Yourself.” That’s the politician’s job, and all of them are trying their level best to do it. Logic should tell even the most dim-witted among us that if you don’t trust all your family, friends and neighbors, that it’s the height of folly to trust some stranger in Washington you’re never met, especially a stranger who’s trying to sell you a bill of goods, regardless of party. Read and listen with discrimination. Find the facts.

Rule 5: Be cool and dispassionate. Politics is a pragmatic business. If you have an overwhelming passion for one side of a political question, factor that into your analysis. The more you believe, the heavier you should weigh the other side. Remember that political graveyards are full of politicians and pundits who met their demise absolutely convinced that the public would back them. The trick to politics is not so much in leading the public, as republicans seem to believe, but rather in reflecting the public.

Rule 6: If you want to know what the majority think, don’t hang out with the minority. If you’re traveling in circles where everyone says, “Amen,” don’t be taken in by the enthusiasm. You’re probably just preaching to the choir.

Rule 7: Frank Zappa’s General Rule of All Purpose Perspective: “Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.” So it is with politics.

Rule 8: When everyone you know says you’ve misunderstood the problem, pay attention. You could be getting something wrong!

Rule 9: “Mankind are very odd creatures: One half censure what they practice, the other half practice what they censure; the rest always say and do as they ought.” Poor Richard

In one of the paragraphs above, I believe I promised another of my amazingly prescient presidential political prognostications. Here’s a prediction and a couple of bets:

I predict that the next President of The United States will not be a republican. I’ll give two to one odds that he or she will not be a democrat. And I’ll likewise give two to one odds that the next president will be someone who is not currently in the contest.

Before the end of March, the current bunch will have shredded one another into mere shadows of their former selves and new candidates will emerge, sane men who realized that it was madness to squander millions of dollars so far in advance of the decision point.

One such man is Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City. Much has been made of his potential candidacy, with an extensive spread in Newsweek (11 pages),  a long article on ABC and the formation of a “draft Bloomberg” web site. Bloomberg possesses a number of attributes that would be valuable in the office of chief executive of the United States. He’s a very rich man, with a fortune some say approaches or exceeds fifteen billion dollars, all of which he apparently made honestly (if it is otherwise, we will hear of it within moments of his announcement, if it comes). His political experience includes stints as a democrat, a republican and an independent. Some would say that smacks of “flip flopping,” but I’d point out it’s also evidence of a strong streak of pragmatism, another good quality for a president. Will he run? I believe that he will, for just the reasons mentioned in the Newsweek article. He sees himself not as a knight in shining armor on a quest to slay the dragon of corrupt politics, but rather as the modern day personification of his childhood hero, Johnny Tremain, intent on saving the nation. And just day before yesterday, it was reported that he visited Texan Clay Mulford, the political guru who managed the campaigns of Ross Perot, the last billionaire to run for the nation’s highest office.

Will there be someone else? Surely there will be. Every republican left standing stated plainly in the first GOP debates that they reject the theory of evolution, an idea that most Americans, including a large percentage of Christian voters, consider nothing short of  scientific apostasy. Of the three leading GOP contenders, Huckabee, a natural for the evangelical vote, faces criticism from the conservative side of the GOP aisle for his past dabbling in old fashioned social liberalism as governor of Arkansas. John McCain, whose heroism was first savaged by the far right in the 2000 elections, has embraced the albatross of the Iraq war and is once again under attack by those who consider his actions in a North Vietnamese prison to have somehow been dishonorable. Caught between the pincers of Iraq and attacks on his Vietnam service, it seems hard to believe that he will survive the final cut.  Rudy Guliani carries too much baggage from New York, his abortion politics and his personal domestic life to carry the votes he needs. Mitt Romney, another flip flopper cum pragmatist, despite his money and determination to spend it, is a Mormon, a subject upon which he cannot flip flop and about which pragmatism says that Americans simply are not going to elect a Latter Day Saint. That leaves Ron Paul, a nominal republican who is a libertarian at heart. He’s a personal favorite of mine because he comes closest to the kind of candidate the founders might have preferred. But despite his grass roots support, he has virtually no chance. He’s been ganged at every GOP debate, both by the other candidates and the moderators and especially by party insiders. With that kind of field, opportunity knocks. Someplace out there is a rich republican, a life long evangelical who’s been married to the same woman, who doesn’t drink, smoke or swear and otherwise epitomizes the perfect being that one must apparently be to win in the GOP. I expect that person will be announced by Dr. Dobson or one of his proxies and that it will happen very soon.

And what about the democrats? If ever there’s been an election in which a yellow dog could actually win, it’s this one. I won’t tell you what the polls say. You already know that. Americans in their majority are not satisfied with Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy and a variety of other things which they lay at the feet of the GOP. There should be no way that democrats can lose. Maybe that’s what they had in mind when they winnowed their candidates down to three (Kucinich was “winnowed” by MSNBC). Of those, one is not only a woman, but perhaps the most hated woman in America, at least from the GOP side of the house. The other is a very bright, well educated black man who is further handicapped by his name, Barrack Obama. And the third is John Edwards, John Kerry’s running mate in the last election, a man handicapped by both his looks and his agenda, which sometimes sounds like Kucinich light. Kucinich is also betrayed by his looks (despite his stunning wife). A small man with a big mouth and big ideas, Kucinich proposes things which are unattainable in this political age. Unfortunately, like Dr. Paul, Kucinich is philosophically too far to the extreme end of his party and has no chance. So if not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, then who? That’s a big question, and some of those available have already declared support for one or the other of the present bunch of democrats.

Of course there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong. How do I handle that, and how should you handle it should your rash predictions fail to materialize? Well, I have experience at being wrong and my usual tactic is to deny that I ever said it, since I know that most folks won’t look it up. For those who do look it up, I usually say that I must have been out of my mind at the moment. Maybe you should try that one first. I’ve never had anyone disagree

Please feel free to add your comments.