When is a politician too “radioactive” to be elected again?

Recently, news came out that former Democratic U.S. Congresswomen from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney, has returned to the metro Atlanta suburban county of DeKalb.  It is believed that she has come back to attempt to reclaim her old congressional district from the current incumbent, Hank Johnson, who apparently has been making his share of gaffe over the last 6 years (“Capsized Guam” is an example).  But compared to McKinney, Johnson is a stately politician in many eyes.  At least Johnson never slapped a Capitol Hill Police Officer, or challenged an Israeli navy blockade as part of the free Gaza movement, or claimed President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, or had a daddy that was just as crazy, if not crazier than you.  McKinney, a six-term congresswomen, quit the Democratic party in 2007 after being defeated in a primary for the second time in three tries in one of the rare blue districts in a deep red state, defecting to the Green Party to run as their candidate for President in 2008.  She now returns to Georgia to run as a Green Party candidate.

While public opinion right now is almost universally against her, counting her out of any race is unwise.  She has shown a resiliency to come back from defeat before.  No matter how outrageous her behavior has been, she still believes she can win an election.

Maybe she has a point.  Some of the most controversial political figures currently in the US have managed to get re-elected time and time again.  Marion Berry went to jail in a drug and hooker scandal and he hasn’t paid taxes in years, yet he has not lost an election for mayor or city council of DC since he was released from prison.  Charlie Rangel has been nothing short of a crook, skirting around the law for years, yet he keeps getting returned to Washington every 2 years.  Ted Kennedy survived in the US Senate 40 years after the Chappaquiddick incident literally until the day he died.  And some toxic political figures manage to resurrect themselves.  Richard Nixon was politically dead after losing the 1960 Presidential election and the 1962 California governor’s race.  But he came back to be elected President 6 years later.  And how many races did Mitt Romney lose before he finally won a major race in Massachusetts?

Then again, some political figure never get a chance at redemption.  Dan Quayle never ran for political office after he and George HW Bush were defeated in the 1992 Presidential/Vice Presidential race, even though he was still young.  He was too toxic in many people’s eyes.  So is Sarah Palin.  Let’s be honest, she is so polarizing that she will never run for office again.  And former senator Carol Mosley Braun was so controversial in her 6 years in office, she got badly whooped when she tried to run for Mayor of Chicago last year.  Safe to say Mosley Braun will never get a chance at winning a major office again.

So when is a politician too toxic to get a second chance (or in McKinney’s case, a third chance) to return to office?  Why do people continue to give extra chances to controversial figures instead of electing people who will do their job as the people’s representative instead of grandstanding in front of a camera?

One thing for sure:  Cynthia McKinney’s attempt to re-claim her seat will be anything but boring.  I just hope the people of the 4th Congressional District do the best possible thing—and send a message to Cynthia that she needs to give up her political ambitions for at least a while.

Thoughts on a dying anti-US leader and fear for his country’s future…

By now, it’s coming increasingly clear that a new leader will likely be in charge of Venezuela by this time next year.  Either a new President will be elected or Hugo Chavez will be dead from cancer and his subordinates will be battling for control of the South American country—a scenario that could lead to civil war.   Either way, Chavez will not be in direct control of the future of his country—and it scares him.  On Maundy Thursday services, Chavez pleaded with God not to take him yet, because he still believes he has work to do to make his revolution succeed.

Hugo Chavez’s actual condition is a closely guarded secret.  But what we do know is this:  Last June, Chavez went to Cuba to have a large malignant tumor removed from his pelvic area, although the Venezuelan leader did not let anyone know where the tumor was found.  Then in February, the Cuban doctors removed a lesion from Chavez and commenced radiation treatment.  Up to five rounds of the treatment are expected in an attempt to try and prevent a recurrence of the cancer. 

But it may be too late.  Rumors are rampant that the initial tumor have spread and possible incorrect treatment by Cuban doctors may have cost Chavez whatever slim chances of surviving the cancer.  There are even rumors the initial tumor was pancreatic cancer, which if true, is one of the toughest of all cancers to beat.  Chavez’s recent acknowledgements to God to spare his life are even a clue that Hugo may be running out of time.

This is quite a different side of Chavez who once called President GW Bush “the devil” and who has spent the last 13 years as President, but who has consolidated so much power to himself that he is more of a dictator.  Everything runs through Hugo in Venezuela, and his charisma has allowed him to be loved by his country’s poor, in spite of being despised by the middle class and elites.  Hugo has supported and embraced similar ideological leaders in Ecuador and Bolivia, while showing a deep friendship with the Castro brothers in Cuba.  He has developed relationships with China, Iran, and other rogue states.  He loves to bash the United States, poking a stick at the US whenever he gets a chance.  He effectively owns every major company in the country, and whatever he doesn’t own, he uses his power to try and take it.  Several once prosperous companies are now being run into the ground by Chavez allies, all in the name of allegedly helping the poor and spreading the revolution, but in reality, it is keeping those allies from turning on him.  In short, he is Venezuela.

But what happens when you remove a leader like Chavez from the equation?  To answer that, you don’t have to look very far into the past at a country once known as Yugoslavia.  Josef Broz (better known as Tito) was the undisputed leader of Yugoslavia from 1948 until his death in 1980.  He ruled with a iron fist, but his charisma managed to keep conflicting factions from wiping each other out by integration and intimidation.  But upon his death, no one was able to match his leadership abilities, and within 10 years, the country began to split apart, factions began committing genocide, and once beautiful countries were reduced to ruin that have taken years to rebuild.

Another developing examples are countries that have experienced changes in leadership due to the Arab Spring of last year.  Mubarak and Gadahfi ruled each country as supreme leaders, and although they ruled differently (Mubarak as an ally to the US and Gadhafi as an occasional antagonist), they were able to keep rival factions in check.  With Mubarak’s departure, it is clear that Egypt will not have the same relations with Israel that were enjoyed with Mubarak, and many Coptic Christians fear they will ultimately be forced to leave their homeland.  Libya appears to be stable now, but Gadhafi’s allies are not making things easy.  There is a fear al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood may have penetrated into the leadership of both countries, even though both countries are becoming more democratic.  Syria could be another example if Assad can not eliminate opposition forces scattered throughout his country.

When a leader who consolidates all the power and resources to himself or herself over a period of time, their departure means their subordinates or others will fight over control of that power.  Rarely does a successor have the iron will or charisma to keep the power to themselves, though the obvious counterexample is the former Soviet Union, where Josef Stalin was an even more larger than life figure than Lenin.  It is unlikely, based on what we know about the situation in Venezuela, that there is a successor who can even match, much less be bigger than Hugo Chavez.  That means trouble for Venezuela once Chavez has left the scene.  And it’s not just Venezuela.  What happens in Cuba, once old age finally claims the Castro brothers and their brothers in arms from the 1950s revolution?

Regardless of what you think of Chavez, the country is Venezuela is now tied to him.  His imprint will long affect that country, even after he is gone.  His untimely departure is not a scenario I look forward to, regardless of my opinion of Hugo.