I am reliably informed that Deliberately Considered is not the first website that Republican operatives turn to, and I have little interest in stalking these worthies, at least without a Newt Gingrich-level consulting contract. However, I do follow the Republican nomination demolition derby with skeptical amusement, awaiting the Santorum boomlet and wondering if, by some Mormon miracle, Jon Huntsman might be the last man standing. More likely is that Republicans will find themselves with a set of fatally-damaged goods.

What has been most notable about the current Republican contenders is who has chosen not to run. These are politicians who have avoided the injurious process that constitutes what we term the American democratic process. Significant figures such as Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Thune, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush (!) – and, for comic relief, Sarah and The Donald – have all determined that they should watch this unreality show from afar. While one – even a Republican one – might not embrace all of these possibilities, several compare favorably to the current field.

Some commentators, such as Howard Megdal of Salon.com, speculate that Republicans can save themselves from themselves if none of the announced candidate were to win, and for Republicans to retreat to the once common outcome of a brokered convention in which through negotiation wise men anointed a candidate. Will we see a convention of the sort that through a night of cigar smoke gave birth to Warren Gamaliel Harding on the tenth ballot? Or the one that selected Woodrow Wilson on the 46^th ballot? With the Republican commitment to proportional awarding of delegates, if the current candidates remain in the race, it is likely that no candidate will gain a majority of delegates, and the decision will be made at their late August convention in Tampa, Florida with delegates eventually released from their commitments. The gift that Republicans can hope for late summer is a collection of losers.

The question is not who would have the greatest chance to triumph over the bruised and battered incumbent, but rather whether the idea of a brokered convention – three ballots or 103 – will benefit democracy. I speak for the affirmative. American democracy – in both parties – is now turned on its head by a promiscuous effusion of popular involvement. The voters have their say – and should properly have their say – in the general election, but the voters are not the party. Or they shouldn’t be. Democracy should depend upon several levels of expertise. Political choices need not always be made by a jangly and discordant vox populi. It was not so very long ago – a half century – in which primary elections were symbolic and rare, and democratic theorists saw this as right and proper. The primaries in 1960, notably the West Virginia primary between Kennedy and Humphrey, mattered so much because they sent a signal to elites in the Democratic Party about Kennedy’s appeal to Protestant Middle America. We sometimes mistake the demands of democracy as requiring that “the people” participate at all moments of the democratic process. But why should this be? The public is very proficient at choosing among candidates who have been vetted, but they are less knowledgeable about the trustworthiness and competence of candidates as judged by colleagues. Voters are easily swayed by advertising or journalistic accounts without awareness of background information to which insiders have access.

While I prefer strong parties that select their candidates through the wisdom of local knowledge, this is not possible as nomination contests have been organized. During most elections the public winnows the candidates so that by spring only one remains. The convention has become a ritual afterthought, a glorious coronation filled with balloons and bombast.

But this need not be so, and perhaps it will not be the case in 2012. Consider a scenario in which Newt and Mitt split 50% of the delegates, Ron Paul gathers 15%, Michele Bachmann gains 10%, Rick Perry nabs the same, and Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman, bless his rock’n’roll heart, split 5%. Another ten percent are uncommitted elected officials. What might happen under these circumstances?

Perhaps the outcome – fifty ballots – might be highly entertaining for political junkies, but the results might also be instructive and bracing, as candidates – those who have run and those who have not – are deliberately considered by leaders with influence and stature. Perhaps the GOP will select a candidate that a large swath of the Republican electorate can support, a candidate that hasn’t had to eat rubber chicken and sleep in fading motels. Perhaps we will discover that experts can make serious choices. Just maybe, should that happen, Barack Obama will confront more sleepless nights than if he were to face a possible President Paul or, gulp, Candidate Gingrich. But the rest of us might sleep easier.

On November 11^th at 11 Am and 11 seconds of 2011, I was meeting with a group of 6^th graders as part of a Veterans Day event at an excellent middle school in a small town frequently characterized as affluent, but much more economically diverse than this term suggests.

I was impressed by the program. It was organized and run by the students at the town’s middle school with the help of school personnel. I gave some brief remarks about the Vietnam War, shared some remembrances of my service with them, and answered as many of their questions as I could.

At the beginning of my portion of the program, I was presented a thoughtful certificate of appreciation by one of the students who escorted me to the library where I met with other students.  I think that a couple of dozen other veterans participated in the program. Each had his own story to tell.

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs explains that Veterans Day is observed on November 11^th regardless of what day of the week on which it falls.

“The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day: A celebration to honor America’s veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.”

The origins of Veterans Day (previously known as Armistice Day, and in some parts of the world as Remembrance Day) is traceable back towards the end of World War I when on November 11, 1918 at 11 AM a temporary cessation of hostilities between the Allied Nations and Germany went into effect. The “Great War,” actually ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. It was the hopeful thinking at the time to think that World War I would be “the war to end all wars.”

President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the commemoration as Armistice Day. As originally conceived, the commemoration was to be observed through a variety means, including public gatherings, parades and a suspension of business at 11 AM on November 11^th. Wilson positioned it as follows:

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of nations …”

A series of legislative actions established Armistice Day and then changed it to Veterans Day, ultimately returning its observance to November 11^th. The official focal point of it nationally is a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Ceremony at 11 AM on November 11^th conducted by a color guard which represents all of the United States military services. A “present arms” ceremony is conducted, typically a presidential wreath is laid at the tomb, and “taps” (an emotionally charged musical expression) is played by a bugler. President Obama participated at the ceremony this year, and made brief remarks. Other elements of the ceremony take place in the amphitheater near the tomb.

Throughout America, other ceremonial gatherings and commemorations occurred. These are occasions and places for remembrance and means of bringing communities together. While I was at the middle school, a town level commemoration was held in a small area in town, its symbolic center. A newspaper article reported that a keynote speaker, a veteran, discussed the contributions of community members during major conflicts from the Revolutionary War to the present. It was a relatively small gathering, with a bit more than 100 people.

I was impressed by the event at the middle school. It showed me how within an institutional framework, people can be brought together, young and old, to share experiences as a community. There was a coming together of school personnel, students, and veterans. Through discussions and remembrances age gaps were breached and great and small issues were discussed in an organized and thoughtful manner. From the moment I arrived to the moment I left, I felt warmly welcomed.

Students listened politely to my brief remarks, but they were eager to ask their own questions about small issues and large. I welcomed them all and tried to answer respectfully and thoughtfully.

Preparing to meet with the students led me to re-remember some of my own experiences. Many were just snippets of what I experienced ranging from the bigger philosophical, moral and ethical issues to elemental phenomenological occurrences. I recalled odd bits of thoughts such as an old, Asian and African folk saying, “When elephants dance, the grass gets trampled.”

While there is a timeless quality to this expression, during the Vietnam War, its meaning was quite specific: when troops fight, noncombatants are hurt (wounded and killed, with property destroyed). The numbers bear that out. Between November 1, 1955 and May 15, 1975, approximately 58,272 U. S. personnel were either killed or subsequently died as a result of the war; and 303,644 were wounded of which 153,303 required hospital care. Estimates of casualties for the Vietnamese and Cambodians are much larger: between 216, 000 and 316,000 South Vietnamese military forces were killed; and according to one estimate provided by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, more than 1,011,000 North Vietnamese and Vietcong were killed, and about 4,000,000 civilians were casualties, split equally between the North and South. In post war political violence, casualty estimates range from a low of 400,000 to approximately 2,500,000. Between 1975 and 1979 in the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot, 1,700,000 civilians died.

After the French were ousted from Vietnam in 1954, at least two separate but related wars were waged, a civil war between nationalist interests; and a proxy war, which aligned North Vietnam with the Soviet Bloc, and South Vietnam, which was aligned with the United States and its allies. It was a hot spot in the Cold War, with much grass trampled.