Lynn Swanbom: Nothing is certain but snow, politics
What do snowplows and superdelegates have in common?
According to recent letters to the editor, they both disfranchise citizens. That word, usually used in its more cumbersome form (disenfranchise), is one of this word nerd’s favorites for describing a sense of individual powerlessness amid prevailing cultural (and in this case meteorological) currents.
Beyond literally losing power during the storms, in the last month our readers expressed both a loss of mobility from snowplowing (or lack thereof) and a loss of political empowerment because their party leaders pledged support to certain presidential candidates before the largely symbolic primary election and even before the Feb. 9 Washington party caucuses.
Most of these letters express a sense of surprise. We didn’t know our street department was so lean; we didn’t know these high and mighty superdelegates could vote for whomever they pleased; we didn’t know it all had to be so very complicated with such unsatisfactory results. We wondered, “How did this happen?”
While I am ill-qualified to assign blame (and believe it to be a waste of time anyway), I think J.R. Sloan hit upon a key point writing about the snow problem: “Emergency planning isn’t glamorous, so it captures scant public attention. … Emergency systems fail because of earlier – usually much earlier – neglect.”
As the snow piled on throughout that dismal week in January, street department employees put in long, grueling hours to close the gap between their department capacity and the overwhelming need. They could have told us before the very first snowflake (if we had asked) that with the allotted resources it would take them a week or more to clean up a mess like that. But after that first snowflake, it’s a little late to buy more equipment and hire another operator.
The same is true of Washington’s presidential nomination process. Superdelegates have been around since 1984, but Washingtonians haven’t bothered their heads much about them over the last dozen years or so. A quick search for “superdelegates” in the S-R digital archives, which currently go back to 1994, pulls up 17 articles. One is from February 2004 and one is from March 2000. Fifteen are from February 2008.
The difference this year is that their votes might actually make a difference in who becomes the U.S. president, and it’s a little late to change the rules if you don’t like it.
True, we don’t see snowstorms like that or primary races this close very often. But if you’ve watched “Deal or No Deal” (I’m a bit ashamed to admit I have), you know that sometimes even very slight statistical chances have a heavy bearing on the outcome. A contestant’s case has a much greater chance of containing less than $50 than it does $500,000, but she still sells it for $200,000. In Game Show World, it’s better for the “banker” occasionally to pay more than the case is worth than to be occasionally hit by a huge liability.
Maybe Game Show World is more like the real world than we thought. The insurance industry is profitable because we’d rather have our unlikely bases covered than rely strictly on the odds of a good outcome.
After our first featured handful of letters complaining about local snow removal authorities, a counter-wave of “quit your whining” letters lashed back at the complainers. But as the snow melted, so did complaints and counter-complaints. Relief from snow difficulties resulted in relief from the requisite sniping. Unfortunately, as the towering berms fade from our streets and memories, we’ll be less and less likely to make any changes in order to handle the next major storm satisfactorily.
Like I said, I’m not into blame assignment. But it seems pretty clear to me that vigilance always pays. Let’s talk now, even as signs of spring thaw our fingertips, about whether it’s worth the cost savings and lower taxes to have half the city shut down for a week every 10 years.
In the Democratic Party, an evaluation of the reason for having superdelegates is in order. If it’s still as good an idea as when it was instituted, announce the fact with pride and accept the results. If it’s not a good idea, change it now even if the next time it matters turns out to be 20 years from now.
How about it, Democrats? How about it, Spokane? Deal or no deal?