Déjà vu!

"Smoke Filled Rooms, Strong Words, Where Fealty Realy Mean't Something!"


Maybe half or more of today’s voters never heard of “smoke filled” rooms and crowded or embattled conventions where deals were made on the floor and decisions were cobbled together in the last minutes of a vote…

This is not the end of the world; in fact, in the past, that’s how it was done….

And somehow democracy survived.

Under the old system, where the party pretty much decided the candidates, one wonders whether we would have had an African-American and a woman sitting as close as you can get to the pinnacle of power.

It is doubtful!

To get the nod from the party leaders, you had to pay your dues.

And that started very early in the game.

In the princincts and wards of tough minded cities where the pols ran everything.
In those days, you had to be white, usually well off and someone with sterling credentials earned in the crucible of Congress or some other equally relevant seat of government and, most importantly, you had to work your way up the ladder and it didn’t hurt if you smoked and drank…..

Under the old scheme, the pols would have probably opted for Richardson, Biden, or Dodd—all men of fine reputation and good credentials.

They are sober, reflective, experienced men who would represent their party wisely and the respect that distinguished most candidates of that time would be due them for their loyalty over the years.

We admire and respect that we seldom made a mistake with the old system that depended on tradition and the smoke filled room.

But was it the best way to nominate our leaders?

Well, for one, it was not so bad and it kept the corporations out of the equation.

But things were to change with the technology.

Carter was the first to turn the tide and lead the modern revolution by seeing that John Kennedy, a relative newcomer to politics, could beat someone like Nixon by buying advertising on the new medium of TV..

Therefore, such a candidate would not be beholding to either the party or the people, just those who reached down deep to pay the media advertising bills.

This exacerbated the influence of the lobbyists to the extent that today they are not only effective in winning the support of Congress on major issues but they are literally writing their own legislation.

This is a development that beggars the imagination; that has little to do with the way Congress was supposed to work and this needs to be remediated before the people lose any sway at all in the halls of Congress, if in fact, they have any left.

Bills supporting health care and the cost of pharmaceuticals were pushed through this way—through the sheer power of the lobbyists and the leverage they could bring to bear..

The losers of course were the people of this great country.

All of this legislation needs to be revisited not with the aim of pleasing industry but serving the people, the original intent of government when our guiding documents were drafted.

Even today, under pressure most politicians would rather give up anything but the support of the lobbyists---they are that powerful!...

But a politician cannot have two masters.


Our elected officials have sworn an oath to the people; not the businesses that are propelled by self-interest.

And virtually all politicians, those from both sides of the aisle, have found that the lobbyists pockets run deep to support the politicians in their attempt to curry favor and win elections: It is a Faustian deal!.....

On the other hand, if the traditional ways were used to select a nominee would an African-American or a woman have risen to the top of their party?

Hardly! At least, not with the hatreds and bigotries that as a people we cannot seem to put behind us.

So, which way is better?

There is probably no one better way.

Nontheless, our current has demonstrated that if we are to seek out the best person for the job, the current way has to change.

Our candidates cannot spend all of their time trying to raise money and curry favor with influentials who may have an ox to gore.

One solution may be the Internet where small donors giving small amounts can fuel the kind of campaign needed to win votes in America today.

Either that, or public funding must take the power and influence out of running for president.

Whatever way we choose, we have to recognize that the coming together of government and business can only lead to an unholy alliance that cannot be good for the country or the people.

Thankfully, Obama has made that a key point of his campaign and it is a step in the right direction.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon