Kerry may decline the nomination, before he accepts it

How liberals and conservatives view fairness

Published on May 24, 2004 By Madine In Politics

It has been reported that the Kerry campaign is considering a plan to delay the official acceptance of the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. The motivation for this is that Kerry will be able to raise and spend more money if he delays accepting the nomination. This has caused controversy because it could undermine the importance of the convention, and some feel it is exploiting a loophole in the new campaign finance law.

This issue was debated on Fox News Channel's show Hannity and Colmes. The liberals argued that it wasn't fair that the Republicans had their convention 5 weeks later than the Democrats. By delaying the nomination, they contended, Kerry would be leveling the playing field.

This provides insight into how different ideologies perceive fairness. I would argue that even though the Republicans may have an advantage, the situation is still fair because both parties have to follow the same rules. Even if one party picks a better convention date, that doesn't mean the process is unfair.

Another viewpoint suggests what is important is not whether everyone follows the same rules, but whether everyone ends up with the same outcome.

The perception of fairness affects how we view problems. Instead of saying, "We made a mistake, we should have chosen a better convention date", Democrats blame the system.

These ideas aren't just about political parties, they also deal with how people should be treated. The problem with results-based fairness is that it cuts personal responsibility out of the equation, ignoring decisions made that may have led to an "unfair" result. Update: John Kerry has announced that he will accept the nomination at the Democratic Convention in Boston.

Comments (Page 1)

pseudosoldier

on May 24, 2004

This is interesting to me because both "equality of opportunity" and "equality of results" are outlined in the first chapter of my Government text book, and the two ideas seem to polarize people to Conservative/Liberal and therefore Republican/Democrat lines.
I'm not *entirely* sure what the controversy caused by this situation is. It undermines the importance of the convention... basically, in all but legal fact, Kerry is going to be the official candidate, right? So, how is his delaying his acceptance substantially different than just delaying the convention (besides that it would cost a bit of money to reschedule)? How is delaying the acceptance more exploiting a loophole than just having a later convention?
I agree that the situation is still fair even though one side has an advantage. I don't see that it would be "unfair" to delay accepting the nomination. In effect (but perhaps not out loud), the Dems are saying, "We made a mistake, we should have picked a better convention date. *Let's fix our mistake.*"
I don't see how they wouldn't be "following the rules," unless perhaps the campaign finance law mentions *specifically* that this sort of behavior is shenanigans.
The entirety of you last paragraph rings true to me, however. I look forward to reading more from you.

russellmz2

on May 24, 2004

-shrug-

to paraphrase someone who was in the news recently, it's not a question of personal responsibility & outcome equality, it's a question of politics.

postponing the nomination seems is legal and it takes away an advantage the republicans had which was either due to coincidence or a political move on their part. i think the previous latest convention date record was held by the democrats. you'd have to be an idiot to take multimillion dollar hits on the chin if it can be avoided. and pissing off the republicans is always good fun and might even help energize the base by for once showing the democrats coming out firing instead of eating it like they usually do.

finally, a politicaly savvy move by the dems.

Marvin Cooley

on May 25, 2004

KERRY WILL NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE HIM SEEM MORE WIERD THAN HE ALREADY SEEMS.

kingbee

on May 25, 2004

although it truly seems to me your conclusions are based on biased generalizations, perhaps you can explain something thats puzzled me for nearly four years.

the current supreme court includes several justices who portray themselves as being strict constructionists and claim their decisions are based solely on a dedicated,consistent application of those principles. in that regard, they historically voted against intervening in favor of federal regulations that conflict with state law or state court rulings.
the only instance in which they unanimously voted to do the exact opposite occured on 12/12/2000 when deciding whether to overturn a florida state supreme court ruling to conduct a ballot recount that would have given florida's electoral votes to the winner of the states popular vote majority.

how fair does that seem? would it be fair to conclude the justices in question violated their principles--if not their oath of office?

RationalCop

on May 25, 2004

the only instance in which they unanimously voted to do the exact opposite occured on 12/12/2000 when deciding whether to overturn a florida state supreme court ruling to conduct a ballot recount that would have given florida's electoral votes to the winner of the states popular vote majority.

A review of the facts may help you with your confusion. For one, it was NOT a unanimous vote, it was a 5/4 vote. Here's the summary, majority opinion, and four dissenting opinions.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2000/resources/uscdecision1212.pdf

Next, the burden of your accusation requires that you identify which judges claimed to have one set of principles, and then acted against them. You also have to demonstrate that there was no legitmate constitutional issue that would interfere with them voting as the "normally" do. The "several" justices you refer to may be the dissenting judges.

What's fair is that each party was given due process, not that each party was happy with the result.

VES

kingbee

on May 25, 2004

it was a 5/4 vote

it was NOT a unanimous vote.

youre correct, of course. i should have more carefully restricted unanimous as pertaining to the justices in question..and specified they were not the dissenters even tho i wasnt intending to rehash the issue (if for no other reason than it would quickly become a comment with an article attached) but to respond to generalizations in kind. .

greywar

on May 25, 2004

basically, in all but legal fact, Kerry is going to be the official candidate, right?

Part of the delay seems to be due also to the spilt between the Kerry/Kennedy and Clinton camps. Without healing this divide the Dems wont have as good a push towards election as they might otherwise.

vincible

on May 25, 2004

They *are* following the same rules since Kerry's actions are legal, so I don't see how equality of opportunity versus equality of results enters into this.

What this really shows is that the campaign finance system needs an overhaul.

Madine

on May 25, 2004

What Kerry is considering is certainly legal. It is also true that holding a later convention date gives the same sorts of advantages. My point wasn't so much to debate the merits of the proposal as it was to point out that the liberal commentators failed to acknowledge that the "unfairness" of the situation stemmed largely from their own party's decisions.

Policy issues where the perception of fairness comes into play include:

College admissions standards based on race
Welfare policy
Socialized versus privatized healthcare
Social security privatization

kingbee

on May 25, 2004

to which liberal comentators are you referring?

Madine

on May 25, 2004

Alan Colmes was one. I didn't catch the other's name. It might be on foxnews' website somewhere.

jeblackstar

on May 25, 2004

Just as a point of order. A canidate has a certain deadline to accept a nomination before the general election. Everything else is just fluff. Though as an interesting point. If Kerry does reject the nomination at first, even temporarily, the delegates could choose someone else. That's just as likely as the Electoral College voting for someone else, but it could happen.

Cheers

Saint Ying

on May 25, 2004

...and also the republican decision to hold their convention in early September. Rather squirrelly if you ask me, but not 'against the rules'. Nor is what Kerry is considering doing against the rules. Of course, your broader conception of freedom vs. fairness contains an element of truth, but it collapses when you try to apply it to political scenarios. Does the 'bending' of conventions during the Medicare vote to delay closure 4 hours until the decisive affirmative vote can be casted suggest that senate republicans play by the rules more than democrats? Just because the republicans are already in power doesn't make their cheating any less despicable. Like Fox News, you have a very republican-biased way of framing your issues.

Policy issues where the perception of fairness comes into play include:

College admissions standards based on race
Welfare policy
Socialized versus privatized healthcare
Social security privatization

The classic parable is this:

A poor and hungry man comes to you and asks for a bite to eat. You realize that if you provide him with food, namely a serving of fish, he will only be satisfied for one day. The next day he will surely return to your door for more, and if you continue to provide him, he will become your dependent. You also realize that if you turn him away he will either go hungry, become a criminal or degenerate, or become someone else's dependent. Neither option is desirable, but the second is less costly to you.

If, however, you are a gracious, moral, and imaginative person, you will provide him with food for one night, then loan him your fishing rod and teach him how to fish. You will have paid a little more in the short term, but a lot less in the long term, and of course you will have helped a fellow man learn a valuable skill for life and survival. You will have invoked the principle of fairness, demonstrated a great deal of personal compassion (like Jesus), and affirmed the value of individual responsibility. I think you can apply the same logic to affirmative action and obviously health care (you can't thrive if you aren't healthy). Some other welfare programs are more dubious, but that doesn't mean we should immediately cut them off. That would harm society more than it would help it. Rather, we should go the extra mile in the short term to create more access to opportunity. This doesn't necessarily mean spending more money, but it does mean expending some more imagination (for liberals) and compassion (for conservatives), commodities that are in short supply in the ranks of the engorged and parasitic political establishment of Washington.

kingbee

on May 25, 2004

dayyum bro...that hit it dead on target and rocked as well

insightful as hell

Ignorance is Blix

on May 26, 2004

Kerry has the legal right to not accept the nomination. He knew this loop hole when he voted for the campain finance reforms that are now in effect. People make use of loop holes everyday. The democratic party crys foul about it everyday too. Continually shunning the "rich" for doing so with regard to tax laws, even though most democrats in congress use the same loop holes. 8 of the richest 10 congressmen are democrats.

So Kerry is not breaking every law, he's just showing his moral character. It's one we've all seen before. Clinton showed his moral character with many finacial dealings leading up to his 8 years in office. The he had an intern go down on him in the oval office. IF Kerry is elected president, at least we know what to expect.

SInce we are going back 4 years, are we forgeting that the same campaign finciace laws were FIRST in effect during the previous presidential election? The Democrats had their convention WELL after the republicans and Bush did not use the loop hole.

If you are a democrat, you have to be wondering WHY you are really even having a convention this year? The whole point of the convention is to build up the week with bigger and bigger guns for the party, ending in a climactic role call by the states, as each one declares their "votes" through the nomination process. After the vote is settled, the newly nominated presidential canditate gets a national television forum to map out there ideas to all the world.

Instead, this year it looks like the democrats will hear Clinton tell the world how his "legacy" is so much greater than even the greatest of world leaders ever. Then the states will roll call the vote and the climax? Nothing. No speech by Kerry, other than an "I'll consider the nomination, thank you."

It makes you wonder if Kerry's wife told him, "I'll think about it." when he proposed.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!