1775, HERE WE COME

For years I have argued that North America--and thus the world--would have been better off if we had skipped 1492. The Native Americans had a much better idea of "society" and "civilisation" than Europeans did. Or anybody else.

Now I find that the Democratic party in the United States is making a similar argument, though not quite so long as mine, historically: indeed, there is no historical evidence to support their argument. The history of Nartive American government involved the smoking of peace-pipes, but not our old smoke-filled rooms.

The House of Lords in Great Britain was (still is) an unelected body of supposed aristocratic toads who supported the king. On this side of the Atlantic Ocean we didn't like the idea of aristocratic privilege, or kings, so in 1776 we revolted. When we drew up our Constitution we populated both of our legislative chambers with elected members, and provided for an elected president.

But the Democratic Party has decided--like me with the Native Americans in 1491--that things were better back in 1775, and have restored the House of Lords to their proper place in the party. They are now called Super-Delegates.

Why don't the rest of us just ignore them? Recalculate what it takes to win without their participation, and let the delegate count be decided on the basis of elected delegates'votes.

I'm sure I'm right about 1491, and how much better the world would be if 1492 had been skipped. But since we can't do away with 1492, at least we can keep 1776.