Picking the Lt. Governor

One of the people on this list will become the second highest elected official of the State of Wisconsin: Lieutenant Governor (LG):
Spencer Coggs, Tom Nelson, Harry Sanders, James Schneider,Brett Davis, Rebecca Kleefisch, Robert Lorge, Dave Ross, Terry Virgil and Nick Voegeli. The first four are seeking the Democratic nomination, the next four are running as Republicans, Virgil is a Libertarian and Voegli is an independent. The field is crowded this year since incumbent Barbara Lawton (like Governor Doyle) has declined to seek re-election.

The Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor if the Governor is disabled or out of the State (except while commanding the Wisconsin National Guard), and becomes Governor if the incumbent dies or otherwise leaves office . (1) Martin Schreiber and Scott McCallum both became Governor this way, but neither one could win the next election to keep the office.

Until 1979 the LG presided over the State Senate, but no longer. While waiting for the Governor to "buy the farm" or otherwise leave office, the LG has no powers or duties of office. In practice, recent Governors have assigned their LG's honorific roles such as leading task forces, making speeches, and so on. But the Governor is under no legal obligation to give the LG any work at all, and if he does assign the LG a project, the LG is under no legal obligation to do it. For this reason, it is essential that the Governor and LG work as a team; otherwise, the office is totally useless. (2)

Under current Wisconsin election law, the nominee of each party for LG is selected at the September Primary, then the nominees for Governor and LG run as a team in the November General Election. This method is a recipe for political disaster, since the nominees might be political foes. (3) A ticket like that would probably lose, but if it were elected, the LG could spend the next four years doing nothing but undercutting the Governor and working for his ouster. Even if the nominees are friends, they might come from the same county, so the ticket would be geographically unbalanced. (4) Of course, the winner of the LG primary might also be a total idiot, which would also drag down the ticket. (OK, this could happen for any office, but the difference is that the LG nominee also drags down another, perhaps far better, candidate as well as himself. This is only true for Lieutenant Governor, and no other office.)

I propose that Wisconsin abolish the primaries for LG. Instead, each nominee for Governor should file a Certificate of Nomination for Lieutenant Governor within 10 days after winning the primary, and that the LG nominee should be required to sign an acceptance of the nomination at the same time. Here are the advantages of this plan, which resembles that used to select nominees for Vice President of the United States:

Party Unity: After a hotly-contested gubernatorial primary, the winner might offer the runner-up the LG nomination, thus unifying major sectors of a fractured party. Even if the two candidates had been bitter rivals, the offer of the second spot on the ticket could go a long way toward healing the rift. If this plan were in effect now, the Republicans could field a Walker-Neumann ticket (or the reverse). None of the four contenders for the GOP nomination (listed above) brings any political strength to the ticket.

Better Candidates: The nominees for Governor will have a strong incentive to choose a credible candidate for LG, since they will be on the ballot together.

A More Useful LG: Since the LG will owe his office to the Governor, he or she will be a more loyal and useful member of the administration. Should the Governor leave office, the transition will be smoother.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wisconsin Constitution, Article V, Section 7.

(2) Significantly, if the office of LG becomes vacant, it stays vacant for rest of the term. The Secretary of State is next line for Governor if there is no LG.

(3) This happened in Illinois, which has the same procedure as Wisconsin. When a supporter of fascist Lyndon LaRouche won the Democratic primary for LG, the gubernatorial nominee (Adlai Stevenson III) resigned from the ticket, which then lost the General Election.

(4) If State Senator Coggs wins the Democratic LG nominee, and Tom Barrett is nominated for Governor, both candidates on the ticket will be from the City of Milwaukee, a weakness that could sink the ticket.

Deal or No Deal?

Consider the following Game Theory problem:

Mr A and Mr B have a dispute, and decide to negotiate directly to settle it. Mr A is extremely anxious to make a settlement, but Mr B is not. Mr A proposes a compromise under which both sides get about half of what they want; B declares that he will not settle unless virtually all his demands are met. Either B wins the negotiation, or there is no settlement at all.

Now Mr C, who can influence, but cannot control, either party, enters the picture. C has no particular stake in the terms of a settlement of the dispute, except that he considers it urgent for his own interests that some settlement be made, on whatever terms. C offers to be an "honest broker" between A and B, relaying their proposals to each other, and sometimes offering suggestions of his own. But all the while, C is urging the parties to settle their dispute already.

Even if C is scrupulously "even-handed" between A and B, it is easy to see that C's efforts actually serve the interests of B, because no settlement can be made except upon B's terms. Thus C's urgency in finding a settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, works in favor of the more demanding party.

Readers will recognize that this abstract problem is a paradigm of the efforts to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between A (Israel) and B (the Palestinians) by C (the United States). But today there is a new player : J, which stands for "J Street", the mostly-Jewish lobby that pushes for stronger US efforts to create a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Arab dispute. A recent publication by the group entitled "Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution" dated July 9, 2010, illustrates how the efforts of J Street objectively serve the Arab cause, despite the group's claim to be "pro-Israel."

The document includes 9 talking points, but let us zero-in on point 7: Jerusalem. J Street writes, "Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner and it will be a good thing for Israel......the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled.....This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem ...to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem....to be recognized as the capital of Palestine. This is the only way forward....."

On this point J Street has bought the Palestine Authority (PA) position hook, line and sinker, so "J" is actually sitting on B's side of the negotiating table while prodding C to push for a settlement. But why is a " two-state solution only possible" if Israel cedes part of Jerusalem to Arab rule? Because the Palestinians (B) won't settle otherwise! Actually a Palestinian state is possible without Jerusalem; the capital could be Nablus or Ramallah or Jenin. But the Palestinians are not so anxious for a deal that they would accept a state without at least part of Jerusalem, so the alternative capitals are out of the question.

By the same token, the Palestinians will not accept a state with Jewish settlements, so no solution is possible unless the settlements are "dismantled" and residents evicted. Those who buy this perspective consider every settlement, including every Jewish-occupied apartment in East Jerusalem, an "obstacle to peace." They are obstacles only because the Arabs say they are obstacles, and that is that. But no one says that Arab homes in Israel are obstacles to peace. (1)

If peace between Israel and the Arabs is possible only if Israel gives away East Jerusalem, the settlements, and whatever more, then there should be no peace in the Middle East today, since Israel has these assets. But ----mirable dictu (2)--- Israel does have peace today (July 11, 2010 at 3:21 CDT, k'eineh horah) without making the concessions demanded. No thanks to self-restraint on the part of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.), but thanks to the the Security Fence, which has actually worked well to keep terrorists out of the country. (Remember the claims that no fence could protect Israel from terrorism, but a peace treaty could?)

Israel continues to face threats to its security today and tomorrow---from Iran and its surrogates on the country's borders, but neither Iran nor the surrogates support a negotiated two-state solution. Thus the Palestine Authority lacks both the power to make war and the power to deliver a real peace. So why the urgency in negotiating a peace agreement with the PA, especially when their terms are so unreasonable?

In any negotiation, the party that feels free to walk away wins and the party that must have a deal at any price loses. If agreement is only possible on Arab terms, Israel should feel free to walk away. No deal is better than a bad deal, especially to the party that doesn't really need one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rabbi Meir Kahane claimed that the Arab population of Israel was a demographic threat to the Jewish nature of the State, but he was excluded from the Knesset for that position, and was subsequently assassinated in New York. No Israeli party today takes that stance.

(2) Latin for "miraculous to speak of", a favorite phrase of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin.