The Obama administration is through. It had one chance to get it right. What we will have now is stalemate because of the opposed aims of the president and the new Congress. Even if he is able to win another term, gridlock may continue and be followed by a rightist regime after '16.
Everything President Obama has done has been reasonable, pragmatic, moderate, well-intentioned. He is a decidedly superior person: cool-headed, intelligent, humane, honorable. What the rightists say about him is, typically, the opposite of the truth. But he has failed to communicate the rationale for his measures or even to convince us of who he truly is, a fact punctuated by the wild tales about him. (This is a new kind of liability. Nobody questioned the fundamental identities of Clinton and Carter. It is racial in part, but only in part.)
I like Barack Obama. And whenever I see him speak I'm impressed anew by his crisp presence and his charisma. In another time he might have been the right kind of leader for us.
I used to be impatient with the more liberal Democrats' impatience with him. I was for giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting things develop. But increasingly, especially after the disastrous election, their critique appears cogent to me.
Florida's fire-breathing Congressman Alan Grayson, defeated for a second term, accuses the administration of "appeasement." Along the same lines, New York City's veteran Congressman Jerrold Nadler charges the president with "political malpractice" -- arguing that he took halfway measures on the economy -- and jibes that he sounds like Herbert Hoover, crowing that recovery is here when it isn't.
The left's complaints include these:
>The administration has been defensive and semi-articulate instead of pressing for a mandate.
>The stimulus wasn't bold enough to revive our economic fortunes, though it may have prevented a fall-through into a full depression.
>Tim Geithner and the Wall Street bailout were wrong numbers.
>We continue to bleed industries and jobs.
>The wars haven't been ended and should be. We are not going to win in Afghanistan.
>Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be abolished, not fought for.
>Money from international corporations is now, thanks to the rightist Supreme Court, positioned to take over our political life. There must be a plan to avert that.
Meeting all of these issues requires a new style of leadership and therefore a new leader: one who is not detached and cerebral but visceral and spirited. Mr. Obama would be an excellent chief justice but is not the kind of person to be chief executive in this time of national crisis.
Polls continue to show that most voters prefer the Democrats to the Republicans. But, given our two-party arrangement, voting the Repubs in was their way of expressing no-confidence over the stalled economy, the mounting debt, and the sense that the administration is out of touch with the people. It was a bad answer but probably an inevitable one under the circumstances.
Polls always showed that most voters did not agree with Ronald Reagan's ultra-conservatism. But they supported him anyway. Why? Partly, no doubt, it was that they liked him personally and that he pushed our patriotic/triumphalist/can-do buttons. But, crucially, he projected conviction, purpose, and strength. The people saw him as in charge and on top of things. They thus gave him the benefit of the doubt as to everything else.
Obama is not a flailing outsider like Carter. Nor is he a clever and self-protective trimmer like Clinton. He is better than either of them and has accomplished far more, and history will say so. But better is not enough!
An administration cannot save us if it is positioned halfway between international corporations that appeal to hysteria over Marxism and Sharia law on the one hand, and a clear public-interest stance on the other. We must choose, not triangulate. With the Blue Dogs pretty much wiped out, the Congressional Dems will move to the left. They should, and we all should.
A challenger from Obama's left will probably step forward. There was talk of Howard Dean, but he has ruled himself out. Russ Feingold, beaten in Wisconsin, is mentioned but won't do it. These figures, while independent, are too conventional to undertake this task.
If you wanted to talk about Al Franken, you might be getting warmer or even hot. We would hear "Can't win the election," but those who wouldn't vote for a liberal Jew also didn't vote for a charming African-American.
A proponent of thoroughgoing democratic reform could not only inspire the 29 million Obama voters who stayed home this year but could pull away the better tea partiers, those who are anxious and confused but not reactionary and hateful.
We will be told that a party cannot repudiate its own record and survive. I should say, rather, that it cannot survive by persisting in a course that the people have already repudiated. The Democrats renominated Carter when they knew he couldn't win. The Labourites in England stayed with Gordon Brown even when they saw that he would sink them. The only question is whether the Dems want to be a party of lemmings or whether they would like another chance.
There should be a contest for the nomination. The differences within the party should be aired, not glossed over. Then the Dem electorate can go with either Obama or his rival, optimally choosing whichever is the more electable. What it must not settle for is being hapless and fatalistic.
The degree of personal forcefulness and internal fortitude projected by the alternative candidate will determine the outcome. This is a good time to pray -- and to rear up and organize.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
DOWN TO BASICS
The election results are in. I am particularly sorry about the defeat of Joe Sestak, whom I considered the best candidate in the country this year. I hope he'll run for governor in four years or otherwise find another way to serve.
But there are bigger considerations before us. Bob Herbert's New York Times column of today discusses a new book, Winner Take All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, on a topic that has been much on my mind for some time.
The authors say, as quoted by Herbert, "Over the last generation, more and more of the rewards of growth have gone to the rich and superrich. The rest of America, from the poor through the upper middle class, has fallen further and further behind." And labor unions, which gave us a middle class and preserved it for us, have dwindled greatly.
Political choices in this country, the authors argue, have made these things happen. That went on in Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
This is why mommy and daddy both have to work today, maybe several jobs each, in order to get by. Until a few decades ago, it wasn't so.
If mommy wants to work, fine. But if she doesn't, yet has to, why are we listening to rightists who say that liberals are costing us our traditional freedoms? It is the liberals who would like to do something about these conditions, though too often they lack the understanding or the spine to tackle them.
There is also the wee matter of free trade and globalization, which the authors think less relevant to the outcomes they write of. Free trade is sending our jobs to countries with low wages and lowering our standard of living. Globalization is marginalizing a billion humans into abject and hopeless poverty, while their resources are stolen from under them to enrich the West -- but, increasingly, to enrich the few in the West.
The Obama administration has worked competently and has accomplished a good bit, though it has communicated its aims poorly. But we have seen in this year's vote that the electorate doesn't understand what is being done to it. Make any move that could inconvenience international corporations or raise the taxes of the rich or give everybody healthcare, and you will be inundated in vomit from voters terrified of "socialism" and gay matrimony and Sharia law in our cities. Reasonable, moderate, piecemeal measures cannot succeed against politicians and corporate interests that have huge money to psych us out and promote hysteria.
We can learn two major things from the "tea party movement": that you have to speak to the people's emotions -- and that when they are sufficiently aroused, nothing can withstand their will. So far we have been played by the monied interests. But what they have used against the rest of us can also be used against them. We might start by asking people whether they like working three jobs to make billions for somebody else? And why shouldn't that be an issue?
There must be a populist-militant-patriotic-egalitarian alternative to what we have, not socialist but pro-small business and wielding some nationalist demagoguery against the superrich and their worldwide activities at our expense. It must oppose oligarchy at home and around the planet, because oligarchy is the death of liberal capitalism and of democracy. The better people among the tea partiers -- the ones who are afraid but not hateful -- will join it.
And it must have a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, not just another Woodrow Wilson but someone who is enough of a Huey Long to shake things up.
There is a market today for a politics beyond corporate-owned "practical" and "moderate" liberalism. Our government cannot serve all tendencies. It must serve either everyday people or the oligarchs. The rich get richer and richer because it takes money to make money. The way we are going, we may end up in a world of 800 trillionaires and 10 billion wage slaves.
Putting it in these terms may be too extreme for a campaign slogan, but we must eat the rich or starve.
We cannot leave it to Washington, because Washington is owned by Wall Street and will compromise away anything that is really "change." We cannot leave it to Wall Street because Wall Street is owned by big money that has no loyalty to America's well-being and will connive with keen skill against anything that can reduce its discretion or threaten its largesse.
Avoiding old-style proletarian leftism, we must make a down-home case for restoring a free and democratic middle class country in an ever freer and more democratic world, because we are all interconnected and what happens anywhere has ramifications everywhere.
But there are bigger considerations before us. Bob Herbert's New York Times column of today discusses a new book, Winner Take All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, on a topic that has been much on my mind for some time.
The authors say, as quoted by Herbert, "Over the last generation, more and more of the rewards of growth have gone to the rich and superrich. The rest of America, from the poor through the upper middle class, has fallen further and further behind." And labor unions, which gave us a middle class and preserved it for us, have dwindled greatly.
Political choices in this country, the authors argue, have made these things happen. That went on in Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
This is why mommy and daddy both have to work today, maybe several jobs each, in order to get by. Until a few decades ago, it wasn't so.
If mommy wants to work, fine. But if she doesn't, yet has to, why are we listening to rightists who say that liberals are costing us our traditional freedoms? It is the liberals who would like to do something about these conditions, though too often they lack the understanding or the spine to tackle them.
There is also the wee matter of free trade and globalization, which the authors think less relevant to the outcomes they write of. Free trade is sending our jobs to countries with low wages and lowering our standard of living. Globalization is marginalizing a billion humans into abject and hopeless poverty, while their resources are stolen from under them to enrich the West -- but, increasingly, to enrich the few in the West.
The Obama administration has worked competently and has accomplished a good bit, though it has communicated its aims poorly. But we have seen in this year's vote that the electorate doesn't understand what is being done to it. Make any move that could inconvenience international corporations or raise the taxes of the rich or give everybody healthcare, and you will be inundated in vomit from voters terrified of "socialism" and gay matrimony and Sharia law in our cities. Reasonable, moderate, piecemeal measures cannot succeed against politicians and corporate interests that have huge money to psych us out and promote hysteria.
We can learn two major things from the "tea party movement": that you have to speak to the people's emotions -- and that when they are sufficiently aroused, nothing can withstand their will. So far we have been played by the monied interests. But what they have used against the rest of us can also be used against them. We might start by asking people whether they like working three jobs to make billions for somebody else? And why shouldn't that be an issue?
There must be a populist-militant-patriotic-egalitarian alternative to what we have, not socialist but pro-small business and wielding some nationalist demagoguery against the superrich and their worldwide activities at our expense. It must oppose oligarchy at home and around the planet, because oligarchy is the death of liberal capitalism and of democracy. The better people among the tea partiers -- the ones who are afraid but not hateful -- will join it.
And it must have a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, not just another Woodrow Wilson but someone who is enough of a Huey Long to shake things up.
There is a market today for a politics beyond corporate-owned "practical" and "moderate" liberalism. Our government cannot serve all tendencies. It must serve either everyday people or the oligarchs. The rich get richer and richer because it takes money to make money. The way we are going, we may end up in a world of 800 trillionaires and 10 billion wage slaves.
Putting it in these terms may be too extreme for a campaign slogan, but we must eat the rich or starve.
We cannot leave it to Washington, because Washington is owned by Wall Street and will compromise away anything that is really "change." We cannot leave it to Wall Street because Wall Street is owned by big money that has no loyalty to America's well-being and will connive with keen skill against anything that can reduce its discretion or threaten its largesse.
Avoiding old-style proletarian leftism, we must make a down-home case for restoring a free and democratic middle class country in an ever freer and more democratic world, because we are all interconnected and what happens anywhere has ramifications everywhere.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
ADMIRAL JOE
Yesterday I attended a small outdoor rally at Penn State for the Democrats' U.S. Senate candidate, Congressman Joseph A. Sestak of Delaware County.
The mayor of State College told us that the Congressman had phoned her personally and asked her to speak. He is someone who does things like that. A local small businessman said that his fellow Navy veterans who had worked with Rear Admiral Sestak all said three things about him: that he is a tremendously hard worker, that he is an excellent listener, and that he is a straight-shooter who states just what he thinks and puts it out there for you to take or leave. I had a look at Sestak as listener when he was shaking hands after the event, and whoever said anything to him had his complete and seemingly patient attention though he had to move on soon to Philadelphia.
While the speeches were going on, Sestak approached by himself. He is maybe 5'10", broad-shouldered, athletic, intense. He is a good-looking man with a deeply lined but youthfully shaped face under very thick dark gray hair. Up close he looks his age, which is 59. He was wearing a gray windbreaker over a light blue shirt and dark gray trousers. The style was military, a probably calculated visual reminder of his 31 years in the Navy and his much-decorated work as a top admiral in charge of our anti-terrorism policy. Neither he nor the other speakers let us forget for half a minute that that is his background. It works for him across party lines, while his opponent stupidly runs ads that appeal only to the Republican base in a state with a huge Democratic registration advantage.
Sestak ended by saying that he had achieved everything for himself that he wanted to by 1985 and that now he wants only to serve; he asked for "one more mission." It is an effective line.
When he speaks, the main thing that comes across is earnestness. Maybe he tries a little too hard to connect. And his speech, full of anecdotes and good points, went on for 20 minutes, 5 minutes longer than it needed to. Nothing about him is cool or detached. His persona suggests a handsome suburban dad, but there is something pleasant and something less pleasant to him; it can be hard to sort out. I suspect that his intensity and earnestness may be less agreeable up close than at a slight remove; early in his brief Congressional career he notoriously went through staffers fast.
He highly praised young Americans for mastering so much while also noting the low graduation rates in urban areas, emphasizing that we need everybody. He left no doubt that there is much to be done and that he is eager to tackle it. Healthcare has been a priority for him, and he spoke of the great healthcare his family had while he was in the military and how it saved his cancer-stricken young daughter's life. He also has been primarily responsible for the legislation to help our returning veterans.
Had I been undecided in this race, I might have been influenced mainly by his discussion of our loss of jobs to China (and China's illegal support for its industries), his criticism of his Republican rival, Wall Street insider and former Congressman Pat Toomey, for wanting an end to all taxes on corporations, and his quoting Toomey as saying that buying American is "an unfortunate tendency."
From being a top admiral, Joe Sestak went after a Congressional seat in a Philadelphia suburb in 2006 and won it against a scandal-hobbled incumbent. He made the seat safe for himself but gave it up to take on Arlen Specter for the Senate nomination. And while Sestak may seem a Washington insider, he had to operate as an outsider in doing that, as President Obama, Governor Rendell, Senator Casey, and just about everybody who mattered was actively for Specter and desirous of retaining the benefits of his long seniority.
According to Sestak, the senator was not a reliable progressive. For month after month the polls showed Specter miles ahead, with no movement, and the Congressman was widely written off. Then, in the final weeks, everything came together. Against Toomey also, Sestak was way down for many months, but suddenly it's a real contest. Sestak keeps plugging and outworks an opponent, gradually undermining his natural advantage (incumbency, a Republican year) until it all turns around and everyone wonders what happened.
I have always thought Sestak will win this election. He is more likeable, more impressive, and more dynamic and determined than Toomey. And I suspect that the U.S. Senate is not the final stop on his planned itinerary.
I think it has always been Joe gambling on Joe, while everybody else has tended to bet wrong.
The mayor of State College told us that the Congressman had phoned her personally and asked her to speak. He is someone who does things like that. A local small businessman said that his fellow Navy veterans who had worked with Rear Admiral Sestak all said three things about him: that he is a tremendously hard worker, that he is an excellent listener, and that he is a straight-shooter who states just what he thinks and puts it out there for you to take or leave. I had a look at Sestak as listener when he was shaking hands after the event, and whoever said anything to him had his complete and seemingly patient attention though he had to move on soon to Philadelphia.
While the speeches were going on, Sestak approached by himself. He is maybe 5'10", broad-shouldered, athletic, intense. He is a good-looking man with a deeply lined but youthfully shaped face under very thick dark gray hair. Up close he looks his age, which is 59. He was wearing a gray windbreaker over a light blue shirt and dark gray trousers. The style was military, a probably calculated visual reminder of his 31 years in the Navy and his much-decorated work as a top admiral in charge of our anti-terrorism policy. Neither he nor the other speakers let us forget for half a minute that that is his background. It works for him across party lines, while his opponent stupidly runs ads that appeal only to the Republican base in a state with a huge Democratic registration advantage.
Sestak ended by saying that he had achieved everything for himself that he wanted to by 1985 and that now he wants only to serve; he asked for "one more mission." It is an effective line.
When he speaks, the main thing that comes across is earnestness. Maybe he tries a little too hard to connect. And his speech, full of anecdotes and good points, went on for 20 minutes, 5 minutes longer than it needed to. Nothing about him is cool or detached. His persona suggests a handsome suburban dad, but there is something pleasant and something less pleasant to him; it can be hard to sort out. I suspect that his intensity and earnestness may be less agreeable up close than at a slight remove; early in his brief Congressional career he notoriously went through staffers fast.
He highly praised young Americans for mastering so much while also noting the low graduation rates in urban areas, emphasizing that we need everybody. He left no doubt that there is much to be done and that he is eager to tackle it. Healthcare has been a priority for him, and he spoke of the great healthcare his family had while he was in the military and how it saved his cancer-stricken young daughter's life. He also has been primarily responsible for the legislation to help our returning veterans.
Had I been undecided in this race, I might have been influenced mainly by his discussion of our loss of jobs to China (and China's illegal support for its industries), his criticism of his Republican rival, Wall Street insider and former Congressman Pat Toomey, for wanting an end to all taxes on corporations, and his quoting Toomey as saying that buying American is "an unfortunate tendency."
From being a top admiral, Joe Sestak went after a Congressional seat in a Philadelphia suburb in 2006 and won it against a scandal-hobbled incumbent. He made the seat safe for himself but gave it up to take on Arlen Specter for the Senate nomination. And while Sestak may seem a Washington insider, he had to operate as an outsider in doing that, as President Obama, Governor Rendell, Senator Casey, and just about everybody who mattered was actively for Specter and desirous of retaining the benefits of his long seniority.
According to Sestak, the senator was not a reliable progressive. For month after month the polls showed Specter miles ahead, with no movement, and the Congressman was widely written off. Then, in the final weeks, everything came together. Against Toomey also, Sestak was way down for many months, but suddenly it's a real contest. Sestak keeps plugging and outworks an opponent, gradually undermining his natural advantage (incumbency, a Republican year) until it all turns around and everyone wonders what happened.
I have always thought Sestak will win this election. He is more likeable, more impressive, and more dynamic and determined than Toomey. And I suspect that the U.S. Senate is not the final stop on his planned itinerary.
I think it has always been Joe gambling on Joe, while everybody else has tended to bet wrong.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
PASTE 'EM ONE
Teabag-backed outsider and multimillionaire Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino has won the GOP nomination for governor of New York, upsetting the favorite. He galvanized the frustrated with outrageous rhetoric, and he isn't through with that. Addressing himself to Dem nominee Andrew Cuomo, son of former governor Mario, Paladino accused him of having a sense of entitlement and challenged him to debate, saying, "Andrew, for the first time in your life be a man."
Cuomo was reportedly furious and has been taking counsel on how to respond to this treatment.
For rightists to call into question the manhood of their opponents is nothing new, but it hasn't often been done this blatantly. The previous method was the old "soft on Communism" and "soft on crime" tags. And "Crazy Carl" has a kind of crude vitality that many may find refreshing because conventional politicians, including Andrew Cuomo, tend to be mealy-mouthed and careful not to offend anyone.
Cuomo doesn't want a free-for-all. But by hanging back he let Paladino choose what kind of campaign this will be, and that's what he opted for.
Paladino showed what he's about earlier, when he emailed racist and pornographic humor to friends, including a cartoon that showed the president of the United States as a comical black African "native." So you might figure that someone like like him would have no chance in as diverse and traditionally progressive a state as New York.
Think again. A new poll has Cuomo at 49% and Paladino at 43%, and the margin of error is 3%.
What should Cuomo do? I'd have him throw it back in Paladino's teeth. Stand up and call him a thug. Call him a social Darwinist who thinks that society should belong to the "successful" and that the rest of us can be written off. Say that he thinks only the weak care about everyone. Charge that he doesn't believe in our basic equality and that he thinks fairness is for losers. Say that he's indifferent to why some things have to be the way they are. Say that he'd paralyze the state and fight with everyone. Say that he thinks minorities are funny and inferior. None of that is untrue. All of it ought to matter.
Here's the thing: If you don't fight and fight hard for yourself, the people won't believe that you'll fight for them when it counts.
Nationally, too, the Dems should quit explaining and get moving. I have hopes for President Obama's instincts and I think he may do what it takes. As of the end of this month I would have him quit informing, quit arguing, quit appealing to reasonableness, and go wholly on the offensive. I would have him refute and ridicule the things the teabaggers say and go after their movement by name. I would have him directly address the birther nonsense, the claim that he is a Muslim, and the claim that he is a Marxist. I would have him cite these as proof of the irresponsibility of this fantasy movement. I would have him drive up the Republicans' negatives and give the Dems a shot of adrenalin so they stop running away from him and get a gleam in their eye.
The baggers have gotten this big because nobody slapped them down; nobody wanted to call them on their ignorance, their illusions, their frequent racism, and the lies they propagate. Politicians are reluctant to be critical of them because they see them as a portion of the electorate. They are a portion of the electorate that the Democrats cannot win over and that they may as well attack when they have reason to. Again, if you don't fight, the people will think that you're effete and that your position must be an indefensible outcome of gutless or corrupt operating.
A back-alley brawl isn't edifying. But it can be bracing. And it has to come!
Cuomo was reportedly furious and has been taking counsel on how to respond to this treatment.
For rightists to call into question the manhood of their opponents is nothing new, but it hasn't often been done this blatantly. The previous method was the old "soft on Communism" and "soft on crime" tags. And "Crazy Carl" has a kind of crude vitality that many may find refreshing because conventional politicians, including Andrew Cuomo, tend to be mealy-mouthed and careful not to offend anyone.
Cuomo doesn't want a free-for-all. But by hanging back he let Paladino choose what kind of campaign this will be, and that's what he opted for.
Paladino showed what he's about earlier, when he emailed racist and pornographic humor to friends, including a cartoon that showed the president of the United States as a comical black African "native." So you might figure that someone like like him would have no chance in as diverse and traditionally progressive a state as New York.
Think again. A new poll has Cuomo at 49% and Paladino at 43%, and the margin of error is 3%.
What should Cuomo do? I'd have him throw it back in Paladino's teeth. Stand up and call him a thug. Call him a social Darwinist who thinks that society should belong to the "successful" and that the rest of us can be written off. Say that he thinks only the weak care about everyone. Charge that he doesn't believe in our basic equality and that he thinks fairness is for losers. Say that he's indifferent to why some things have to be the way they are. Say that he'd paralyze the state and fight with everyone. Say that he thinks minorities are funny and inferior. None of that is untrue. All of it ought to matter.
Here's the thing: If you don't fight and fight hard for yourself, the people won't believe that you'll fight for them when it counts.
Nationally, too, the Dems should quit explaining and get moving. I have hopes for President Obama's instincts and I think he may do what it takes. As of the end of this month I would have him quit informing, quit arguing, quit appealing to reasonableness, and go wholly on the offensive. I would have him refute and ridicule the things the teabaggers say and go after their movement by name. I would have him directly address the birther nonsense, the claim that he is a Muslim, and the claim that he is a Marxist. I would have him cite these as proof of the irresponsibility of this fantasy movement. I would have him drive up the Republicans' negatives and give the Dems a shot of adrenalin so they stop running away from him and get a gleam in their eye.
The baggers have gotten this big because nobody slapped them down; nobody wanted to call them on their ignorance, their illusions, their frequent racism, and the lies they propagate. Politicians are reluctant to be critical of them because they see them as a portion of the electorate. They are a portion of the electorate that the Democrats cannot win over and that they may as well attack when they have reason to. Again, if you don't fight, the people will think that you're effete and that your position must be an indefensible outcome of gutless or corrupt operating.
A back-alley brawl isn't edifying. But it can be bracing. And it has to come!
Sunday, September 5, 2010
TOUGH BACK THEN, TOO
I see it has been exactly two months since I posted anything. Here are some thoughts for now.
I recall that when psychics were weighing in on the upcoming 1960 presidential race, one of them predicted that New York's new liberal governor Nelson Rockefeller would be the Republican nominee and strangely added that his runningmate would be a Democrat, Michigan Governor G. Mennen Williams. Well, both were political royalty and exciting. But the GOP would not have put Williams -- or even Rockefeller, as it turned out -- on their ticket.
Williams was 49 in 1960 and had been elected to six two-year terms as gov, a most successful vote-getter in then-Republican Michigan. Just as the New York governor was "Rocky," Williams was "Soapy," an old nickname derived from his being an heir to the Mennen skin-care fortune. (If curious about him, check out the Thomas J. Noer biography, Soapy.)
These two men were handsome and dynamic. They had the glamor conferred by old money. Theirs was first-rate personal charisma. They were tireless, dauntless campaigners and relentless optimists. Both wanted to be president because of what they could do with the job. Had movie star pizzazz been what it took, they would have been.
Williams was a big man, slender but broad-shouldered, with a shock of dark hair. Alongside the average-sized Rockefeller, he would have made him look short. He had a distinctive face with large, clear eyes and a big mouth that spread his sharp nose and formed an easy and infectious grin.
For Williams civil rights was the overriding issue, central not only to our society's rightful destiny but to our ability to keep the Third World from going Communist. He was hard on fellow Dems such as JFK and Adlai Stevenson, who took a cautious or nuanced approached to it. He could be inflexible and self-righteous.
Soapy was more consistently and boldly liberal than just about anybody. And it was entirely genuine. He was a deeply religious Episcopalian who attended mass every morning and thought in terms of the Social Gospel, bringing the kingdom of God to earth. His earnestness and his aristocratic background existed in tension with a somewhat cornball persona: he always wore a green polkadot bowtie and loved to call square dances. Colorful though he was, as a speaker he was boring.
Always out in front of the pack, Williams advocated a worldwide New Deal. When he was through as governor, he was appointed our ambassador-at-large to Africa, where he denounced imperialism and demanded "Africa for the Africans," angering many here and in Europe but helping America's image and influence there.
The Michigan legislature was long Gerrymandered so that rural Repubs had very disproportionate power. They used it to block the administration's agenda. As time passed and he won re-election by wider margins, they had to give way somewhat. But they were unprepared to acknowledge that the state required action and new taxes to meet its expanding needs.
After his '58 re-election, the governor, having borrowed considerable money to get things done,
asked for a graduated income tax as the lone fair recourse. The legislature held out for a hike in the regressive sales tax. Williams dug in, calling their bluff. And Michigan went bankrupt.
That ended the talk of him for president. The Republicans, national as well as state, were eager to do to Soapy Williams what they are now so eager to do to Barack Obama. Obama is not nearly as liberal as Williams was, but no matter. The opposition will gladly hurt all of us if it will defeat him.
While Gerhard Mennen Williams never made it to the White House, he did move things along: in Michigan, in Africa, and in the Democratic party. In the end that, and not personal ambition, is what matters. And he knew it.
I recall that when psychics were weighing in on the upcoming 1960 presidential race, one of them predicted that New York's new liberal governor Nelson Rockefeller would be the Republican nominee and strangely added that his runningmate would be a Democrat, Michigan Governor G. Mennen Williams. Well, both were political royalty and exciting. But the GOP would not have put Williams -- or even Rockefeller, as it turned out -- on their ticket.
Williams was 49 in 1960 and had been elected to six two-year terms as gov, a most successful vote-getter in then-Republican Michigan. Just as the New York governor was "Rocky," Williams was "Soapy," an old nickname derived from his being an heir to the Mennen skin-care fortune. (If curious about him, check out the Thomas J. Noer biography, Soapy.)
These two men were handsome and dynamic. They had the glamor conferred by old money. Theirs was first-rate personal charisma. They were tireless, dauntless campaigners and relentless optimists. Both wanted to be president because of what they could do with the job. Had movie star pizzazz been what it took, they would have been.
Williams was a big man, slender but broad-shouldered, with a shock of dark hair. Alongside the average-sized Rockefeller, he would have made him look short. He had a distinctive face with large, clear eyes and a big mouth that spread his sharp nose and formed an easy and infectious grin.
For Williams civil rights was the overriding issue, central not only to our society's rightful destiny but to our ability to keep the Third World from going Communist. He was hard on fellow Dems such as JFK and Adlai Stevenson, who took a cautious or nuanced approached to it. He could be inflexible and self-righteous.
Soapy was more consistently and boldly liberal than just about anybody. And it was entirely genuine. He was a deeply religious Episcopalian who attended mass every morning and thought in terms of the Social Gospel, bringing the kingdom of God to earth. His earnestness and his aristocratic background existed in tension with a somewhat cornball persona: he always wore a green polkadot bowtie and loved to call square dances. Colorful though he was, as a speaker he was boring.
Always out in front of the pack, Williams advocated a worldwide New Deal. When he was through as governor, he was appointed our ambassador-at-large to Africa, where he denounced imperialism and demanded "Africa for the Africans," angering many here and in Europe but helping America's image and influence there.
The Michigan legislature was long Gerrymandered so that rural Repubs had very disproportionate power. They used it to block the administration's agenda. As time passed and he won re-election by wider margins, they had to give way somewhat. But they were unprepared to acknowledge that the state required action and new taxes to meet its expanding needs.
After his '58 re-election, the governor, having borrowed considerable money to get things done,
asked for a graduated income tax as the lone fair recourse. The legislature held out for a hike in the regressive sales tax. Williams dug in, calling their bluff. And Michigan went bankrupt.
That ended the talk of him for president. The Republicans, national as well as state, were eager to do to Soapy Williams what they are now so eager to do to Barack Obama. Obama is not nearly as liberal as Williams was, but no matter. The opposition will gladly hurt all of us if it will defeat him.
While Gerhard Mennen Williams never made it to the White House, he did move things along: in Michigan, in Africa, and in the Democratic party. In the end that, and not personal ambition, is what matters. And he knew it.
Monday, July 5, 2010
TIME FOR A BREAK
By now I have said everything I could ever have expected to say in this arena. I could go on commenting on current events, but when I made a larger point it would likely be redundant.
Therefore, and because my perfectionism causes me to spend more time and effort on this than I wish to, I am suspending the blog. Conceivably I'll take it up again sporadically or even on a regular basis, but I doubt it. There are things I'd rather devote myself to.
The discipline of getting a posting out every two days has been valuable. So has the clarification in my own mind of what I think about political matters and why.
In signing off, I would make a few key points:
>Liberalism is pragmatic and humane, not ideological. It is the recourse of sane people.
>We have a good president. He is one of the best persons ever to hold the office, and we should be supporting him and should not succumb to the atmosphere of discouragement and pessimism that is being fostered by cowardly and foolish citizens. America has a great future if we claim it.
>Conservatism is a disease of the character, not a legitimate position. Victimization is its essence. Wherever it is in play, someone has to lose so someone else can win. Ultimately it is anti-freedom, too, despite all protestations to the contrary.
>Today's Republican party, the Republicult, is far too neurotic and dangerous to be entrusted with national power. It has gotten worse and worse. There has to be an alternative to it lest the moderate conservative majority within it continue to be passive before its extreme rightist minority. The saner conservatives must be attracted elsewhere and a new center-right party must come into being to state their views and follow their propensities.
>Ross Perot showed that something like that can be achieved. His candidacy was deliberately destroyed by the news media, but that was done apparently for reasons specific to his own person. Another billionaire could inspire and fund a similar effort that might take hold. Someone should give it a try. We cannot afford to remain in a position where the eventual fading of the Dems, which is inevitable, will lead to another Repub administration.
Well, I'm outta here. If you've read me, thank you. I hope I have contributed something to your own cogitations.
And now - whether for the short haul or for keeps - so long.
Therefore, and because my perfectionism causes me to spend more time and effort on this than I wish to, I am suspending the blog. Conceivably I'll take it up again sporadically or even on a regular basis, but I doubt it. There are things I'd rather devote myself to.
The discipline of getting a posting out every two days has been valuable. So has the clarification in my own mind of what I think about political matters and why.
In signing off, I would make a few key points:
>Liberalism is pragmatic and humane, not ideological. It is the recourse of sane people.
>We have a good president. He is one of the best persons ever to hold the office, and we should be supporting him and should not succumb to the atmosphere of discouragement and pessimism that is being fostered by cowardly and foolish citizens. America has a great future if we claim it.
>Conservatism is a disease of the character, not a legitimate position. Victimization is its essence. Wherever it is in play, someone has to lose so someone else can win. Ultimately it is anti-freedom, too, despite all protestations to the contrary.
>Today's Republican party, the Republicult, is far too neurotic and dangerous to be entrusted with national power. It has gotten worse and worse. There has to be an alternative to it lest the moderate conservative majority within it continue to be passive before its extreme rightist minority. The saner conservatives must be attracted elsewhere and a new center-right party must come into being to state their views and follow their propensities.
>Ross Perot showed that something like that can be achieved. His candidacy was deliberately destroyed by the news media, but that was done apparently for reasons specific to his own person. Another billionaire could inspire and fund a similar effort that might take hold. Someone should give it a try. We cannot afford to remain in a position where the eventual fading of the Dems, which is inevitable, will lead to another Repub administration.
Well, I'm outta here. If you've read me, thank you. I hope I have contributed something to your own cogitations.
And now - whether for the short haul or for keeps - so long.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
OBAMA'S REAL RECORD
A few weeks ago I noticed a letter to the editor when I was looking at a periodical in the local library. It listed President Obama's accomplishments in office, and it made it evident that they have been substantial and impressive. I decided later that I might want to write about that, so the following week I tried, without success, to discover which periodical the letter was in.
More recently others have been making the point made by that letter. Rachel Maddow did so on the air. Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast did so. And when the Dems want issues to run on, they will have plenty.
We have witnessed healthcare, financial regulatory reform, the stimulus package with its bolstering of our infrastructure and our transportation system and its incentives for clean and renewable energy. Under Obama we have expanded state health insurance coverage to an additional four million children. He has signed an amendment to the 1964 civil rights act that provides for equal pay for equal work. He has enabled the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. He has signed a hate crimes act. He has overhauled the student loan system. He ended a weapons system that was irrelevant to our current defense. He has taken significant steps to pave the way to a world free of nuclear weapons, including the signing of an arms agreement with Russia that will cut both nations' nuclear arsenals by one third and the creation of a nonproliferation initiative to prevent the acquiring of nuclear weapons by terrorists. He has made two Supreme Court appointments. He has gotten China to revalue its currency, which has been an objective of our government for years. He has persuaded China and Russia to support UN sanctions against Iran. He has greatly improved our relations with Russia, thus far preventing the emergence of a Sino-Russian anti-Western bloc. And energy reform is coming.
Beinart wrote, "(E)ven if Obama never manages another legislative victory, he'll already have pulled off one of the most impressive opening acts in American political history." Taegan Goddard of the liberal blog Politicalwire wrote, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform this country."
And where have our news media been while all this has happened? Beinart says they regard as important only those developments that have political consequences. If so, that's foolish. And I am afraid the story is worse than that. I think our media are mentally lazy and cynical. They have bought into the right-wing worldview, according to which government can do nothing right and we should all be sour and defeatist and selfish and furious. I think reporters and journalists today too often see those attitudes see as cool.
While Obama has been making major headway for us, the media have been saying that he is another Carter, that he wasted his first year in office, that he is less popular now than previously, that he may be a one-term president, that the Republicans are going to take control of the Congress in the midterms; they have doubted him and second-guessed him at every instant. They have reported the teabaggers' rebellion - a bunch of Republicans acting out - as though it were a righteous citizenry standing up to tyranny. They have treated Sarah Palin as though she were a hero rather than a self-interested professional malcontent and rabble-rouser. They have treated Fox as a legitimate news source and a model for themselves. They have grossly failed us, and they have failed at the business of recognizing and reporting actual news.
All of this will continue. But keep watching. There are still people out there who will tell you the truth, even if they have to shout through the lies and the sounds of mindless panic. Despite the disgusting media and the mendacious righties, this bitter time sooner or later will end and sanity will return to America.
More recently others have been making the point made by that letter. Rachel Maddow did so on the air. Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast did so. And when the Dems want issues to run on, they will have plenty.
We have witnessed healthcare, financial regulatory reform, the stimulus package with its bolstering of our infrastructure and our transportation system and its incentives for clean and renewable energy. Under Obama we have expanded state health insurance coverage to an additional four million children. He has signed an amendment to the 1964 civil rights act that provides for equal pay for equal work. He has enabled the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. He has signed a hate crimes act. He has overhauled the student loan system. He ended a weapons system that was irrelevant to our current defense. He has taken significant steps to pave the way to a world free of nuclear weapons, including the signing of an arms agreement with Russia that will cut both nations' nuclear arsenals by one third and the creation of a nonproliferation initiative to prevent the acquiring of nuclear weapons by terrorists. He has made two Supreme Court appointments. He has gotten China to revalue its currency, which has been an objective of our government for years. He has persuaded China and Russia to support UN sanctions against Iran. He has greatly improved our relations with Russia, thus far preventing the emergence of a Sino-Russian anti-Western bloc. And energy reform is coming.
Beinart wrote, "(E)ven if Obama never manages another legislative victory, he'll already have pulled off one of the most impressive opening acts in American political history." Taegan Goddard of the liberal blog Politicalwire wrote, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform this country."
And where have our news media been while all this has happened? Beinart says they regard as important only those developments that have political consequences. If so, that's foolish. And I am afraid the story is worse than that. I think our media are mentally lazy and cynical. They have bought into the right-wing worldview, according to which government can do nothing right and we should all be sour and defeatist and selfish and furious. I think reporters and journalists today too often see those attitudes see as cool.
While Obama has been making major headway for us, the media have been saying that he is another Carter, that he wasted his first year in office, that he is less popular now than previously, that he may be a one-term president, that the Republicans are going to take control of the Congress in the midterms; they have doubted him and second-guessed him at every instant. They have reported the teabaggers' rebellion - a bunch of Republicans acting out - as though it were a righteous citizenry standing up to tyranny. They have treated Sarah Palin as though she were a hero rather than a self-interested professional malcontent and rabble-rouser. They have treated Fox as a legitimate news source and a model for themselves. They have grossly failed us, and they have failed at the business of recognizing and reporting actual news.
All of this will continue. But keep watching. There are still people out there who will tell you the truth, even if they have to shout through the lies and the sounds of mindless panic. Despite the disgusting media and the mendacious righties, this bitter time sooner or later will end and sanity will return to America.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
THE FOUNDERS AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Both the teabaggers and the Religious Rightists (the RR) want to talk about the Founding Fathers continually. While the baggers make them out to have been anarchists, which they were not, the RRs make them into narrow, intolerant Christians like themselves, which they also were not.
This is hypocrisy. From the RR's standpoint, those of the Founders who were Christians (which was most of them) were pretty bad ones. Their advocacy of religious freedom is sufficient to establish that, because the RRs constantly attack other religions, using reasoning and invective; a free and unassailed choice in matters of religion is an ideal that is alien to their mentality.
Whenever Christians as such have wielded power, they have carried out religious persecution. The Founders believed more in the benefits of religion in general than they did in emphasizing the differentiating characteristics of the Christian religion.
Whom do we mean by the Founding Fathers? I think primarily Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.
Jefferson was expressly not a Christian but a Deist. Madison, who made a major deal of the separation of church and state, was presumably a Christian but refused to discuss his religious beliefs; this is not exactly Witnessing for Christ. Washington was a Christian, but he made a practice of walking out of church before communion was served; evidently he was one of those who saw such things as superstition. Freemasonry was also a major component of his thinking, which does not correspond to the RR view of the world. Franklin was not a Christian; he was, at least in his later years, an independent theist rather than a Deist, as he believed God to be active in the world. Adams was a Christian but was very impatient with some facets of Christianity; his religious thinking fairly bristled with independent-mindedness.
These leaders were the liberals of their day, and they were religious liberals. The attempt to represent them as Christian supremacists is a direct attack on their beliefs and their work and our legacy from them. Every one of us should know that and not one of us should be fooled by the RR's self-serving claims, because it has nothing in common with them even when it can point to identical words and affiliations.
This is hypocrisy. From the RR's standpoint, those of the Founders who were Christians (which was most of them) were pretty bad ones. Their advocacy of religious freedom is sufficient to establish that, because the RRs constantly attack other religions, using reasoning and invective; a free and unassailed choice in matters of religion is an ideal that is alien to their mentality.
Whenever Christians as such have wielded power, they have carried out religious persecution. The Founders believed more in the benefits of religion in general than they did in emphasizing the differentiating characteristics of the Christian religion.
Whom do we mean by the Founding Fathers? I think primarily Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.
Jefferson was expressly not a Christian but a Deist. Madison, who made a major deal of the separation of church and state, was presumably a Christian but refused to discuss his religious beliefs; this is not exactly Witnessing for Christ. Washington was a Christian, but he made a practice of walking out of church before communion was served; evidently he was one of those who saw such things as superstition. Freemasonry was also a major component of his thinking, which does not correspond to the RR view of the world. Franklin was not a Christian; he was, at least in his later years, an independent theist rather than a Deist, as he believed God to be active in the world. Adams was a Christian but was very impatient with some facets of Christianity; his religious thinking fairly bristled with independent-mindedness.
These leaders were the liberals of their day, and they were religious liberals. The attempt to represent them as Christian supremacists is a direct attack on their beliefs and their work and our legacy from them. Every one of us should know that and not one of us should be fooled by the RR's self-serving claims, because it has nothing in common with them even when it can point to identical words and affiliations.
ANOTHER BAD, DUMB, SORRY IDEA
Term limits has been an issue in recent years. It shouldn't be. Currently the teabaggers, who put such energy into representing everything that is or can become wrong with our society, are pressing for it.
Their demand is that someone who has held an office for a while should be automatically barred from running again for the same office. They say with some justice that people get used to the perks of a position and cease identifying with the people who put them in it.
But why shouldn't the people be allowed to decide for themselves whom to elect every time? And why shouldn't a candidate who has served for some time be free to offer him- or herself again?
Term limitation is an idea we have heard before at the national level. It was part of the Gingrich "Contract With America" - a part that the Repub members of Congress somehow never got around to enacting. Ross Perot's party came out for it also, though Perot himself was not for it initially.
Term limits is a mechanistic and undemocratic answer. Like "zero tolerance" policies, it eliminates thinking and permits no intelligent making of exceptions. Someone who has served outstandingly can be booted out even if that person's superior knowledge and exceptional skills would be particularly useful at the time - and even if the voters would readily re-elect him or her if given the chance.
Term limiting is offered as a democracy substitute. Why would anyone want an alternative to democracy? There is just no substitute at all for the people evaluating a situation for themselves and making the right call. If someone has been in office for too long and has "gone native," that person should be ousted. It might be hard to do so when the person is bringing in Federal money or has a massive edge in campaign donations. But it should be your call as a citizen, not a call made for you in advance.
Yes, crummy officials get in office and stay, bolstered by the large campaign contributions that incumbents attract and the favors they do for voters. But the solution to that is not to make them ineligible to run; it's to get campaign finance and campaigning rules under control and to create a more even-handed system. And the responsibility rests with the citizenry.
If you want lazy-minded, undemocratic answers like term limits, elect who the teabaggers say you should. Then at least there will be something to be said for restricting how long they can serve.
Their demand is that someone who has held an office for a while should be automatically barred from running again for the same office. They say with some justice that people get used to the perks of a position and cease identifying with the people who put them in it.
But why shouldn't the people be allowed to decide for themselves whom to elect every time? And why shouldn't a candidate who has served for some time be free to offer him- or herself again?
Term limitation is an idea we have heard before at the national level. It was part of the Gingrich "Contract With America" - a part that the Repub members of Congress somehow never got around to enacting. Ross Perot's party came out for it also, though Perot himself was not for it initially.
Term limits is a mechanistic and undemocratic answer. Like "zero tolerance" policies, it eliminates thinking and permits no intelligent making of exceptions. Someone who has served outstandingly can be booted out even if that person's superior knowledge and exceptional skills would be particularly useful at the time - and even if the voters would readily re-elect him or her if given the chance.
Term limiting is offered as a democracy substitute. Why would anyone want an alternative to democracy? There is just no substitute at all for the people evaluating a situation for themselves and making the right call. If someone has been in office for too long and has "gone native," that person should be ousted. It might be hard to do so when the person is bringing in Federal money or has a massive edge in campaign donations. But it should be your call as a citizen, not a call made for you in advance.
Yes, crummy officials get in office and stay, bolstered by the large campaign contributions that incumbents attract and the favors they do for voters. But the solution to that is not to make them ineligible to run; it's to get campaign finance and campaigning rules under control and to create a more even-handed system. And the responsibility rests with the citizenry.
If you want lazy-minded, undemocratic answers like term limits, elect who the teabaggers say you should. Then at least there will be something to be said for restricting how long they can serve.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
TEA: THE PEROT PREQUEL
Before there were teabaggers we had Ross Perot and the movement he summoned into being by declaring on the Larry King Show his willingness to run for president if the people would get him on the ballot in all 50 states. That was his first, 1992, run for it.
Perot, a billionaire businessman with a military background and the rescuer of his own company's hostages in Iran, offered a disaffected public an alternative to the two major parties and the usual politics. He brought to the fore big themes: populism, direct democracy, electronic democracy, dynamic centrism. He was a political scientist's dream, and he altered the political landscape fast.
This colorful, persuasive little Texan was often depicted as a conservative; but if you look at what he proposed, including the rebuilding of our cities, you can see that he was not. He was pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, highly critical of the Gulf War and the neocons and our habit of building up "bad boys" like Noriega and Saddam and then having to take them down. He wanted to reform how things were done, not implement reaction. I had heard him a number of times on Larry King's radio shows, and I knew from what he said there that he was more a Ted Kennedy than a Dick Nixon in outlook.
I liked him. And I remember at one point talking with a conservative Republican of around my age, who was also very much for him. You found that widely: left and right together. Perot did what nobody else has done: got people of different viewpoints behind a candidate and an agenda. And that agenda was progressive.
At first it appeared that he could win a 3-way election with a plurality, though there were questions about the Electoral College. But then the news media started in on him. And I have never seen anything to compare with that.
Why did the news industry hate him so much, especially when he was such a great source of news? It seemed they thought he was an autocrat (somewhat true) and a potential tyrant. But our system is made to contain the overly ambitious; our greater problem is with those who want and attempt too little.
It is perfectly true that Perot had over the years lied, exaggerated, and told tall tales. That was foolish and it indicated a character flaw. And how he got rich can be discussed and evaluated and argued about. But we have had presidential candidates the media went easy on and should not have, because their wrongs really mattered. I am thinking especially of Nixon's tactics and Reagan's worldview.
The media assault on Perot was relentless. On page 23 of the New York Times you'd find a small article about a major, novel proposal that he was making, one that should have been discussed seriously. On page 1 of the same edition would be an unsubstantiated allegation about his business practices. Thus the reform movement was controversialized and trivialized.
It was clear that Perot's reputation would be destroyed if he proceeded, not because of what was disclosed but because of the insistent reinteration and the editorializing in the news columns. He suspended his campaign while quietly continuing to fund the organizing. Then eventually he got back in. Now the media were indifferent, because now it was clear that he couldn't win.
He used television broadcasts and a succession of pie charts to make his case, including a warning that "free trade" would produce a "giant sucking sound" as our jobs went elsewhere. Few who saw him on TV will forget it soon. He got 19% of the vote, better than any third party contender since TR. And if he had been treated fairly, he would probably have made it.
The media were and frequently are conservative in the sense of protecting the status quo. In this case they did so viciously. And the accumulating frustrations in the electorate were permitted no alleviation, though the popular market in ideas had dutifully produced one with the Perot movement.
So today we have a much, much worse popular movement in our midst. And toward that the media are neutral. Instead of a constructive populism that is about unity and results, we have one that is dividing us as bitterly as possible.
The media, by the way, also deliberately destroyed the promising candidacies of Republican George Romney in 1968 and Democrat Gary Hart in 1984. That's one Repub, one Dem, one independent.
So if you enjoy today's American political scene, thank a reporter.
Perot, a billionaire businessman with a military background and the rescuer of his own company's hostages in Iran, offered a disaffected public an alternative to the two major parties and the usual politics. He brought to the fore big themes: populism, direct democracy, electronic democracy, dynamic centrism. He was a political scientist's dream, and he altered the political landscape fast.
This colorful, persuasive little Texan was often depicted as a conservative; but if you look at what he proposed, including the rebuilding of our cities, you can see that he was not. He was pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, highly critical of the Gulf War and the neocons and our habit of building up "bad boys" like Noriega and Saddam and then having to take them down. He wanted to reform how things were done, not implement reaction. I had heard him a number of times on Larry King's radio shows, and I knew from what he said there that he was more a Ted Kennedy than a Dick Nixon in outlook.
I liked him. And I remember at one point talking with a conservative Republican of around my age, who was also very much for him. You found that widely: left and right together. Perot did what nobody else has done: got people of different viewpoints behind a candidate and an agenda. And that agenda was progressive.
At first it appeared that he could win a 3-way election with a plurality, though there were questions about the Electoral College. But then the news media started in on him. And I have never seen anything to compare with that.
Why did the news industry hate him so much, especially when he was such a great source of news? It seemed they thought he was an autocrat (somewhat true) and a potential tyrant. But our system is made to contain the overly ambitious; our greater problem is with those who want and attempt too little.
It is perfectly true that Perot had over the years lied, exaggerated, and told tall tales. That was foolish and it indicated a character flaw. And how he got rich can be discussed and evaluated and argued about. But we have had presidential candidates the media went easy on and should not have, because their wrongs really mattered. I am thinking especially of Nixon's tactics and Reagan's worldview.
The media assault on Perot was relentless. On page 23 of the New York Times you'd find a small article about a major, novel proposal that he was making, one that should have been discussed seriously. On page 1 of the same edition would be an unsubstantiated allegation about his business practices. Thus the reform movement was controversialized and trivialized.
It was clear that Perot's reputation would be destroyed if he proceeded, not because of what was disclosed but because of the insistent reinteration and the editorializing in the news columns. He suspended his campaign while quietly continuing to fund the organizing. Then eventually he got back in. Now the media were indifferent, because now it was clear that he couldn't win.
He used television broadcasts and a succession of pie charts to make his case, including a warning that "free trade" would produce a "giant sucking sound" as our jobs went elsewhere. Few who saw him on TV will forget it soon. He got 19% of the vote, better than any third party contender since TR. And if he had been treated fairly, he would probably have made it.
The media were and frequently are conservative in the sense of protecting the status quo. In this case they did so viciously. And the accumulating frustrations in the electorate were permitted no alleviation, though the popular market in ideas had dutifully produced one with the Perot movement.
So today we have a much, much worse popular movement in our midst. And toward that the media are neutral. Instead of a constructive populism that is about unity and results, we have one that is dividing us as bitterly as possible.
The media, by the way, also deliberately destroyed the promising candidacies of Republican George Romney in 1968 and Democrat Gary Hart in 1984. That's one Repub, one Dem, one independent.
So if you enjoy today's American political scene, thank a reporter.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
SUCH CLEVER PEOPLE (SIGH)
We are getting a lot of news nowadays about politicians trying to make end runs around fair and equitable campaign practices:
>Cedric Richmond, a black Democrat who is running against Republican Congressman Joseph Cao of New Orleans, charges that Republicans are getting black candidates to run as independents so as to split the Dem vote. The district is black. Cao, of Vietnamese extraction, won in a fluke and is considered the most endangered Congressional incumbent in the nation.
>Repub governor Rick Perry's former chief of staff and other staffers attempted to put a Green party of Texas candidate on the ballot, using corporate money, to sap the vote of Dem gubernatorial nominee Bill White. This effort failed and has backfired.
>In Nevada a Tea party has formed and is running candidates. Teabaggers insist they do not know these people. The Repubs allege that the Dems are behind this. Are they? Could be.
>A Florida Tea party (FTP) also has come to be and has its own candidates. The Repubs charge that the Dems engineered this, and many FTP contenders are young with no political histories while others are former Dems. But known teabag activists say the FTP is a Repub plot to co-opt the teabaggers. The truth? At this point, who can say?
>The shock nomination of indicted Dem nonentity Alvin Greene for the U.S. Senate from South Carolina over the plausible and more active Vic Rawl, who was expected to win easily, has left many Dems angry and wary. Could this have been sabotage? It is hard to see how it could have been carried out, but that possibility should be looked into closely. Certainly Repub ultra-teabag incumbent Jim DeMint is the lone beneficiary of the Dems having an unelectable nominee.
>Cedric Richmond, a black Democrat who is running against Republican Congressman Joseph Cao of New Orleans, charges that Republicans are getting black candidates to run as independents so as to split the Dem vote. The district is black. Cao, of Vietnamese extraction, won in a fluke and is considered the most endangered Congressional incumbent in the nation.
>Repub governor Rick Perry's former chief of staff and other staffers attempted to put a Green party of Texas candidate on the ballot, using corporate money, to sap the vote of Dem gubernatorial nominee Bill White. This effort failed and has backfired.
>In Nevada a Tea party has formed and is running candidates. Teabaggers insist they do not know these people. The Repubs allege that the Dems are behind this. Are they? Could be.
>A Florida Tea party (FTP) also has come to be and has its own candidates. The Repubs charge that the Dems engineered this, and many FTP contenders are young with no political histories while others are former Dems. But known teabag activists say the FTP is a Repub plot to co-opt the teabaggers. The truth? At this point, who can say?
>The shock nomination of indicted Dem nonentity Alvin Greene for the U.S. Senate from South Carolina over the plausible and more active Vic Rawl, who was expected to win easily, has left many Dems angry and wary. Could this have been sabotage? It is hard to see how it could have been carried out, but that possibility should be looked into closely. Certainly Repub ultra-teabag incumbent Jim DeMint is the lone beneficiary of the Dems having an unelectable nominee.
Tales of more such ploys will doubtless be along. Dividing the other party's base or finagling its nomination of a substandard contender are old and widely used political tricks.
Needless to add, they are not admirable. Conservatives, who preach so piously about the sanctity of the Constitution, are often the ones being accused of these democracy-negating antics. Liberals, who believe in rule by the people and not by elites, should not be engaging in them, either.
There are all sorts of connivers out there who count on having a passive and deceived public in order to get their way, either in business or in politics. For those who dislike that, there is always something new and populist that can be done to bring light to the concealing darkness. And the challenge of exposing who is doing what is particularly appealing today, when secretive ways are more and more vulnerable and information is power.
Plots are news, and news is money. That is how the disruption of plots can be made into a growth industry. It should be.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
THE MOST PERFECT IMPERFECTION
When you get far from the political center, to the left or the right, you find perfectionism. What it comes down to is rigid adherence to an unrealistic paradigm.
Leftist perfectionism wants perfect social equality. Rightist perfectionism wants those who are naturally "superior" in some respect to be lords over the rest of us.
There is the true human perfection, by contrast. You see it in sages and saints. They have no illusions about anything that is as merely human and fraught with wishful thinking as ideology is. Their judgments are penetratingly realistic, their decisions altogether pragmatic. They appeal to the best in us, regardless of where we start from, and they work to evolve us.
What should we who are not sages or saints want from our society?
We can and should acknowledge that all of us have the same rights. We should all have the chance to help ourselves economically, both as individuals and collaboratively. We should all have the chance to be heard when we have something to say, both at work and in society. We should all have the chance to participate in civic life, including office-seeking. We should all have community or government help in getting by when we cannot do so on our own. We should have a government that intervenes pragmatically on behalf of our collective well-being when the latter is not supported otherwise. Less or more than the above can be dangerous.
On the left, an attempt to negate the effects of varying degrees of judgment and talent and leadership ability could only straitjacket us. We have not seen true socialism in any mass society; the women who swept the Moscow streets in the old USSR days were in no sense equal to Politburo members or even to factory workers, and nobody admitted that that was a scandal for Communism.
So on the left, insistence on perfection results in either a Procrustean bed or hypocrisy. On the right, it results in self-designated Nietzschean supermen kicking us around for their own aggrandizement or amusement.
Not insisting on perfection but continuing to improve things keeps freedom and democracy going and the fanatics and "zero tolerance" freaks at bay, where their imperfection should keep them lest it succeed in making us still less perfect.
Leftist perfectionism wants perfect social equality. Rightist perfectionism wants those who are naturally "superior" in some respect to be lords over the rest of us.
There is the true human perfection, by contrast. You see it in sages and saints. They have no illusions about anything that is as merely human and fraught with wishful thinking as ideology is. Their judgments are penetratingly realistic, their decisions altogether pragmatic. They appeal to the best in us, regardless of where we start from, and they work to evolve us.
What should we who are not sages or saints want from our society?
We can and should acknowledge that all of us have the same rights. We should all have the chance to help ourselves economically, both as individuals and collaboratively. We should all have the chance to be heard when we have something to say, both at work and in society. We should all have the chance to participate in civic life, including office-seeking. We should all have community or government help in getting by when we cannot do so on our own. We should have a government that intervenes pragmatically on behalf of our collective well-being when the latter is not supported otherwise. Less or more than the above can be dangerous.
On the left, an attempt to negate the effects of varying degrees of judgment and talent and leadership ability could only straitjacket us. We have not seen true socialism in any mass society; the women who swept the Moscow streets in the old USSR days were in no sense equal to Politburo members or even to factory workers, and nobody admitted that that was a scandal for Communism.
So on the left, insistence on perfection results in either a Procrustean bed or hypocrisy. On the right, it results in self-designated Nietzschean supermen kicking us around for their own aggrandizement or amusement.
Not insisting on perfection but continuing to improve things keeps freedom and democracy going and the fanatics and "zero tolerance" freaks at bay, where their imperfection should keep them lest it succeed in making us still less perfect.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
WHO IS EUROPEAN?
It is a happy thing for all of us that, the worse our rightists get, the more incapable they are of building bridges or looking ahead. Their chosen victims of the moment, Muslims and Latinos, are very plentiful here now; and they will be more so, as they tend to have large families. And, especially if you keep kicking them as rightists do, they will come out and vote.
Nativism is a rightist staple, however it is rationalized. And as you may have noticed, the righties have taken to describing liberalism as not only "socialist" but "European", which is more nativism and is also inaccurate.
There is nothing very socialist about Europe today. And it is not a case of our liberals being European in outlook; our greatest ideals - equality, freedom, and democracy - have resounded among Europeans because those ideals have universal appeal and because of our national influence. Previously that sometimes took the form of socialism there, but today they are pretty much off of that. And our liberals have always believed that individuals should be permitted to rise above the wealth and status of most, with the proviso that they may not impoverish or oppress others.
Europeans have become increasingly American in outlook and ways, rather than the reverse. Why must the righties get everything wrong?
As you may have seen, Mark Williams, the chairman of the Tea Party Express, is stepping down; he says it is because he is busy, and maybe it is. But even a shameless group can be embarrassed. This man is bent on marginalizing Muslims. He is crusading against the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. He says our president is "an Indonesian Muslim."
What is unAmerican and is European in the very worst sense is hatred and persecution of those who are different. Making some Americans into second- or third-class citizens is much nearer the vision of Hitler, which grew out of old resentments and snobberies, than that of the Founding Fathers, which grew out of high and universalist hopes. And the use of malicious lies for advantage is the very essence of Goebbels-type propaganda - as in "socialist," "European," "Indonesian Muslim" and all that.
Mark Williams is not an American, no matter where he was born.
Today's Americans can live and work well with the new Europeans. Our ideas and institutions can cross-pollinate with theirs, to the benefit of everyone.
We and Europeans have rejected traditionalist elitism and rightist populism. While it is true that some people everywhere are just no damn good, those people are defined not by race or culture or religion but by how they think and what they want and what they do to others. If people like that don't like it here, it isn't because we're European; it's because they are, and in a way that the overwhelming majority of Europeans would repudiate.
Nativism is a rightist staple, however it is rationalized. And as you may have noticed, the righties have taken to describing liberalism as not only "socialist" but "European", which is more nativism and is also inaccurate.
There is nothing very socialist about Europe today. And it is not a case of our liberals being European in outlook; our greatest ideals - equality, freedom, and democracy - have resounded among Europeans because those ideals have universal appeal and because of our national influence. Previously that sometimes took the form of socialism there, but today they are pretty much off of that. And our liberals have always believed that individuals should be permitted to rise above the wealth and status of most, with the proviso that they may not impoverish or oppress others.
Europeans have become increasingly American in outlook and ways, rather than the reverse. Why must the righties get everything wrong?
As you may have seen, Mark Williams, the chairman of the Tea Party Express, is stepping down; he says it is because he is busy, and maybe it is. But even a shameless group can be embarrassed. This man is bent on marginalizing Muslims. He is crusading against the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. He says our president is "an Indonesian Muslim."
What is unAmerican and is European in the very worst sense is hatred and persecution of those who are different. Making some Americans into second- or third-class citizens is much nearer the vision of Hitler, which grew out of old resentments and snobberies, than that of the Founding Fathers, which grew out of high and universalist hopes. And the use of malicious lies for advantage is the very essence of Goebbels-type propaganda - as in "socialist," "European," "Indonesian Muslim" and all that.
Mark Williams is not an American, no matter where he was born.
Today's Americans can live and work well with the new Europeans. Our ideas and institutions can cross-pollinate with theirs, to the benefit of everyone.
We and Europeans have rejected traditionalist elitism and rightist populism. While it is true that some people everywhere are just no damn good, those people are defined not by race or culture or religion but by how they think and what they want and what they do to others. If people like that don't like it here, it isn't because we're European; it's because they are, and in a way that the overwhelming majority of Europeans would repudiate.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
WOMEN AND MEN TODAY
I was watching Neil Sedaka in a 1961 rendition of "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen" - a great source of happy energy, by the way - and I noticed that a young woman (she posted her picture) commented after it that the song was "hilariously creepy." That startled me and I began thinking, How can that be her take on it?
The key is probably in the song's words "But since you've grown up / Your future is sewn up / From now on you're gonna be mine." That seems so proprietary by today's standards! Today a woman is her own person, is autonomous, whether in a relationship or not. And a man who says "You're gonna be mine" seems a caveman, maybe a stalker, someone seeking to deny her rightful and cherished independence. That Sedaka's young audience was enthusiastic, clapping and swaying as we see on the video, must have appeared creepy indeed to this woman.
But let's look at the song. It talks about when the girl was 6, when she was 10, when she was thirteen: that's what precedes the infamous lines. So it establishes that he has had a relationship with her for years, an evolving and intensifying one that is mutual. I think we can assume that she wants to be "his" and to have him be "hers."
In the social world of 1961, what the guy is doing is not appropriating her against her will but (1) making clear that he is not ambivalent about the relationship: that he wants it; (2) expressing confidence that he can make his end of it work; and (3) showing his confidence that she will make her end of it work, too. This is not sexist, not creepy. But ironically, the very assertiveness that made the "girl" of 1961 feel secure would make the "woman" of half a century later feel insecure.
Women's rights and feminism necessarily came to the fore when the economy began requiring both partners in a marriage to work if they were to survive. I'm sorry that women who don't want to leave the home and go into the workforce have no choice but to do so. But I'm glad that women can go out and have careers, and I note that rightists - the same people whose corporations and anti-union activities brought about these constrictive economic conditions! - have denigrated women for doing that, saying that they're putting their ambitions ahead of their families. You can't win on the right wingers' terms. If the woman stays home, the couple can't get by; if she gets a job, she's disloyal as a wife and a mommy.
Rightists frequently want to punish those who divorce, also; they talk about "saving the family" by making divorces harder to obtain. So a marriage can be made into a cage or a torture chamber, another "freedom-loving" rightist contribution to our lives.
It is the political left that has promoted women's rights, but part of what has resulted is more individualism with its accompanying alienation. That is the kind of thinking that can make "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen" seem "creepy" to women now. And it contributes greatly to our high divorce rate.
Sexism must go, but so must excessive individualism, and both of these are right-wing attitudes. Marriage will come back only when a family is seen as bigger than the individual selves of the people in it: as something both voluntary and - you should excuse the expression - collective.
Marriage is not an alliance of convenience but a life partnership in which each partner becomes more than (s)he could have been through accomodating, and being accomodated by, the other, and through working together for the kind of future that they want. That's something we can learn from an old song.
Neil Sedaka, for his part, has been married only once: since 1962. Maybe he knows something about these things?
The key is probably in the song's words "But since you've grown up / Your future is sewn up / From now on you're gonna be mine." That seems so proprietary by today's standards! Today a woman is her own person, is autonomous, whether in a relationship or not. And a man who says "You're gonna be mine" seems a caveman, maybe a stalker, someone seeking to deny her rightful and cherished independence. That Sedaka's young audience was enthusiastic, clapping and swaying as we see on the video, must have appeared creepy indeed to this woman.
But let's look at the song. It talks about when the girl was 6, when she was 10, when she was thirteen: that's what precedes the infamous lines. So it establishes that he has had a relationship with her for years, an evolving and intensifying one that is mutual. I think we can assume that she wants to be "his" and to have him be "hers."
In the social world of 1961, what the guy is doing is not appropriating her against her will but (1) making clear that he is not ambivalent about the relationship: that he wants it; (2) expressing confidence that he can make his end of it work; and (3) showing his confidence that she will make her end of it work, too. This is not sexist, not creepy. But ironically, the very assertiveness that made the "girl" of 1961 feel secure would make the "woman" of half a century later feel insecure.
Women's rights and feminism necessarily came to the fore when the economy began requiring both partners in a marriage to work if they were to survive. I'm sorry that women who don't want to leave the home and go into the workforce have no choice but to do so. But I'm glad that women can go out and have careers, and I note that rightists - the same people whose corporations and anti-union activities brought about these constrictive economic conditions! - have denigrated women for doing that, saying that they're putting their ambitions ahead of their families. You can't win on the right wingers' terms. If the woman stays home, the couple can't get by; if she gets a job, she's disloyal as a wife and a mommy.
Rightists frequently want to punish those who divorce, also; they talk about "saving the family" by making divorces harder to obtain. So a marriage can be made into a cage or a torture chamber, another "freedom-loving" rightist contribution to our lives.
It is the political left that has promoted women's rights, but part of what has resulted is more individualism with its accompanying alienation. That is the kind of thinking that can make "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen" seem "creepy" to women now. And it contributes greatly to our high divorce rate.
Sexism must go, but so must excessive individualism, and both of these are right-wing attitudes. Marriage will come back only when a family is seen as bigger than the individual selves of the people in it: as something both voluntary and - you should excuse the expression - collective.
Marriage is not an alliance of convenience but a life partnership in which each partner becomes more than (s)he could have been through accomodating, and being accomodated by, the other, and through working together for the kind of future that they want. That's something we can learn from an old song.
Neil Sedaka, for his part, has been married only once: since 1962. Maybe he knows something about these things?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
THE OPEN PRIMARY JITTERS
The recent tendency of our elected officials to be blindly and excessively partisan is leading people to favor open primaries on the ground that this will cause the nomination of centrist, consensus-minded candidates who can appeal across party lines.
In Utah they already have open primaries, as they do in some other states. And there, Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, whose views are moderate to conservative, is being primaried by a retired teacher named Claudia Wright, who is a strong liberal and a lesbian.
This situation has attracted the attention of the teabaggers. According to a New York Times story of 6/16/'10, one of their honchos, a state legislator named Carl D. Wimmer, at first proposed that Repubs vote for Wright in the Dem primary because a victory for her would assure a Repub victory in November. But then he rejected the idea, and a spokesperson for the Utah "Tea Party Movement" named David Kirkham said that such a strategy would go against his movement's principles.
Principles? Who knew? What principles does it take to break up democratic gatherings and spread vicious lies about the president of the United States? Can this really be about principles?
I suspect that Messrs Wimmer and Kirkham have realized that sabotaging the opposition in a primary would work better for the Dems in most cases than for the Repubs. Dem primaries are typically between believable candidates with no great differences in their views; but there are always tea-tending screwballs running in GOP primaries nowadays, and Dem voters could get behind them and deliver the difference for them, rendering the Republicult still more extreme and less electorally viable.
Usually fooling with the other party's primary hasn't worked. Most voters don't want to be part of such a scheme. But when somebody controls a bloc of votes, as the teabaggers may, it could succeed. In New Jersey in 1929 the Democratic party boss of Jersey City, Frank Hague, provided 20,000 votes in the Republican gubernatorial primary to State Senator Morgan F. Larson, who he thought would be the weakest nominee. Larson was nominated. But he also got elected and proceeded to make Hague's life as unpleasant as he could for the next four years.
Unintended consequences are the peril that attends unscrupulous cleverness. So perhaps we can look forward to open primaries that serve the solidarity of our national community and not the ambitions of calculating extremists.
In Utah they already have open primaries, as they do in some other states. And there, Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, whose views are moderate to conservative, is being primaried by a retired teacher named Claudia Wright, who is a strong liberal and a lesbian.
This situation has attracted the attention of the teabaggers. According to a New York Times story of 6/16/'10, one of their honchos, a state legislator named Carl D. Wimmer, at first proposed that Repubs vote for Wright in the Dem primary because a victory for her would assure a Repub victory in November. But then he rejected the idea, and a spokesperson for the Utah "Tea Party Movement" named David Kirkham said that such a strategy would go against his movement's principles.
Principles? Who knew? What principles does it take to break up democratic gatherings and spread vicious lies about the president of the United States? Can this really be about principles?
I suspect that Messrs Wimmer and Kirkham have realized that sabotaging the opposition in a primary would work better for the Dems in most cases than for the Repubs. Dem primaries are typically between believable candidates with no great differences in their views; but there are always tea-tending screwballs running in GOP primaries nowadays, and Dem voters could get behind them and deliver the difference for them, rendering the Republicult still more extreme and less electorally viable.
Usually fooling with the other party's primary hasn't worked. Most voters don't want to be part of such a scheme. But when somebody controls a bloc of votes, as the teabaggers may, it could succeed. In New Jersey in 1929 the Democratic party boss of Jersey City, Frank Hague, provided 20,000 votes in the Republican gubernatorial primary to State Senator Morgan F. Larson, who he thought would be the weakest nominee. Larson was nominated. But he also got elected and proceeded to make Hague's life as unpleasant as he could for the next four years.
Unintended consequences are the peril that attends unscrupulous cleverness. So perhaps we can look forward to open primaries that serve the solidarity of our national community and not the ambitions of calculating extremists.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
LOST INNOCENCE
Recently I've been watching videos online of songs from my college years, which were 1959-63. Then, everything was pitched to teenagers, and "puppy love" was the thing. Cute guys like Bobby Vee and Jimmy Clanton appealed to girls, but they also gave us some really good songs. Neil Sedaka, not cute but gifted, wrote and sang a string of peppy, lyrical hits. There was happiness in the air and we believed in our future.
Don McLean in "American Pie" traced our national angst to the death of Buddy Holly (February, '59). But the darkening of our culture didn't begin till after the assassination of John F. Kennedy (November, '63). It has in fact become a belief of Americans that the end of "Camelot" began a national loss of innocence.
Vietnam came along. Lyndon Johnson lied to us.The sweetness of the Counterculture collapsed into the Drug Culture. Many blue collar Democrats, offended by McGovernism, defected. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were struck down. We became divided politically in a more drastic and unbridgeable way than we had been, and cynical rightists gained the ascendancy and have held it.
There has been much wondering and speculating about what would have happened had JFK lived. Could this handsome and cool-headed young war hero who balanced realism and idealism and championed excellence, surrounding himself with brilliant people, have steered us clear of pitfalls and kept the country together? Would the popular culture have remained wholesome and optimistic? Could our growing nihilism and fanaticism have been averted?
It is hard to conceive that one person, however outstanding, could have achieved all that. And Kennedy had lost popularity by the time of his death; I recall that on the day he died a headline reported that the young were no longer enchanted with him. It seems more as though his murder was one symptom of a national trend that would have come in any event.
Today we have a president who is more like JFK at his best than any president has been. Here
is a figure of rationality, integrity, and hope: the kind of leader we should want.
How do we respond to Barack Obama? He is attacked from the left, the center, and the right; second-guessed by the media; doubted by the public; defied by the politicians; defamed by the talk radio haters. Everything about him is dissected and dismissed as not enough or too much. When people can't find something to criticize, they make up nonsense about him being born abroad or wanting to impose socialism on us. It appears sometimes that the entire country is bent on hobbling him and keeping him from doing anything for it.
So our dark age has reached its nadir at the same moment that we have elected a person of light and uprightness to lead us.
Now we must discover - and decide - whether we will choose settled darkness or illumination.
Don McLean in "American Pie" traced our national angst to the death of Buddy Holly (February, '59). But the darkening of our culture didn't begin till after the assassination of John F. Kennedy (November, '63). It has in fact become a belief of Americans that the end of "Camelot" began a national loss of innocence.
Vietnam came along. Lyndon Johnson lied to us.The sweetness of the Counterculture collapsed into the Drug Culture. Many blue collar Democrats, offended by McGovernism, defected. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were struck down. We became divided politically in a more drastic and unbridgeable way than we had been, and cynical rightists gained the ascendancy and have held it.
There has been much wondering and speculating about what would have happened had JFK lived. Could this handsome and cool-headed young war hero who balanced realism and idealism and championed excellence, surrounding himself with brilliant people, have steered us clear of pitfalls and kept the country together? Would the popular culture have remained wholesome and optimistic? Could our growing nihilism and fanaticism have been averted?
It is hard to conceive that one person, however outstanding, could have achieved all that. And Kennedy had lost popularity by the time of his death; I recall that on the day he died a headline reported that the young were no longer enchanted with him. It seems more as though his murder was one symptom of a national trend that would have come in any event.
Today we have a president who is more like JFK at his best than any president has been. Here
is a figure of rationality, integrity, and hope: the kind of leader we should want.
How do we respond to Barack Obama? He is attacked from the left, the center, and the right; second-guessed by the media; doubted by the public; defied by the politicians; defamed by the talk radio haters. Everything about him is dissected and dismissed as not enough or too much. When people can't find something to criticize, they make up nonsense about him being born abroad or wanting to impose socialism on us. It appears sometimes that the entire country is bent on hobbling him and keeping him from doing anything for it.
So our dark age has reached its nadir at the same moment that we have elected a person of light and uprightness to lead us.
Now we must discover - and decide - whether we will choose settled darkness or illumination.
Monday, June 14, 2010
POLITICAL DEATH WATCH: BOB INGLIS
If the nation should go wholly nuts, expect South Carolina to lead the way. At least it is trying to. If you have followed the political news from there, you know what I mean.
I mentioned SC Congressman Bob Inglis once before. This Repub has called himself a member of the Religious Right and has been critical of what he calls the Far Right. The Far Right is pretty much the teabaggers.
Inglis has the pinched, thin-lipped face of a puritan. Sometimes you know a Republican when you see one, and he is a case in point. And he is no RINO: He has voted with the Republicult 95% of the time.
But he is in a run-off for renomination that will take place a week from now. He came in well behind in the first round, and he appears to be doomed. Why? Because despite his conservatism there are streaks of independence and pragmatism in his record - he voted for cap & trade and TARP, for example - and he has been critical of some on the right.
It was he who reported that a teabagger told him of wanting the uninsured to die on the hospital steps. He advised one furious audience not to listen to Glen Beck because he preys on fear. He thinks that in the Congress, working across the aisle is a good thing in principle.
What a "real" conservative is has changed over the years. Today you have to be in absolute ideological lock-step with the teabaggers and the social issues reactionaries to qualify as one. And if you aren't one, it's goodbye.
So take a moment to pity Bob Inglis, a man who tried to cling to a shred of rationality in a blizzard of madness. He is by no means what a Congressman ought to be. But there are worse possibilities out there. And South Carolina - described by a Civil War era politician as too small for a republic and too big for an insane asylum - is about to send one to Washington in his place.
I mentioned SC Congressman Bob Inglis once before. This Repub has called himself a member of the Religious Right and has been critical of what he calls the Far Right. The Far Right is pretty much the teabaggers.
Inglis has the pinched, thin-lipped face of a puritan. Sometimes you know a Republican when you see one, and he is a case in point. And he is no RINO: He has voted with the Republicult 95% of the time.
But he is in a run-off for renomination that will take place a week from now. He came in well behind in the first round, and he appears to be doomed. Why? Because despite his conservatism there are streaks of independence and pragmatism in his record - he voted for cap & trade and TARP, for example - and he has been critical of some on the right.
It was he who reported that a teabagger told him of wanting the uninsured to die on the hospital steps. He advised one furious audience not to listen to Glen Beck because he preys on fear. He thinks that in the Congress, working across the aisle is a good thing in principle.
What a "real" conservative is has changed over the years. Today you have to be in absolute ideological lock-step with the teabaggers and the social issues reactionaries to qualify as one. And if you aren't one, it's goodbye.
So take a moment to pity Bob Inglis, a man who tried to cling to a shred of rationality in a blizzard of madness. He is by no means what a Congressman ought to be. But there are worse possibilities out there. And South Carolina - described by a Civil War era politician as too small for a republic and too big for an insane asylum - is about to send one to Washington in his place.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
FEEDBACK REQUEST
Till now I've used this blog to tell you things. Who I am to tell you anything is a good question, but we're all tellers in the age of the blog.
This time I'm asking you to tell me something. I'd like you to let me know if you're reading this thing. I know that Wes Richards reads it, but I have no idea whether, by now, anyone else does.
Someone informed me at one point that she tried to post a comment and wasn't able to. Possibly the same thing has happened to others. So let me give you my email address. You needn't say more than "Hello." But if you have a comment or a question, that's fine, too. I won't reply unless you ask me to, and I won't retain your address without your volunteered permission.
I'm at jwg16801@yahoo.com
Hope to hear from you.
This time I'm asking you to tell me something. I'd like you to let me know if you're reading this thing. I know that Wes Richards reads it, but I have no idea whether, by now, anyone else does.
Someone informed me at one point that she tried to post a comment and wasn't able to. Possibly the same thing has happened to others. So let me give you my email address. You needn't say more than "Hello." But if you have a comment or a question, that's fine, too. I won't reply unless you ask me to, and I won't retain your address without your volunteered permission.
I'm at jwg16801@yahoo.com
Hope to hear from you.
Friday, June 11, 2010
RIGHTIES IN ACADEME
Conservatives are displeased with our colleges and universities because they hire so many more liberals than conservatives in teaching positions. They try to make out that liberal profs are brainwashing their students or punishing them for having right-wing views. (This is unlikely, but all such allegations should be looked into conscientiously.)
And that's not all. They want more conservatives hired for balance. Can you imagine the nerve? Having opposed affirmative action for those who were wrongfully discriminated against, they now demand it for themselves!
Sorry, folks. An educational institution is precisely the kind of meritocracy you say you believe in. If you aren't competitive for professorships, the economy that your kind wrecked will enable you to compete for jobs at Wal-Mart.
But there are conservatives who do get places, even to the top, in our big schools. There was the president of a university at which I once worked as a peon. Him I will not forget.
This man served on commissions, etc. in a couple of Repub national administrations while making his mark in academic life. That was one indicator of his views. But there were others.
I was a (very small) part of the unsuccessful unionization drive among the university's white collar employees; the blue collar workers had succeeded in their drive and were affiliated with the UAW. The white collar types apparently considered themselves above something so plebeian, however much they were getting screwed over by the school. There were downright unsafe working conditions in some places on campus, but that didn't matter to the outcome.
The university president, meanwhile, was professing neutrality on the unionization issue until shortly before the balloting. Then he suddenly denounced unions as unsuited to academic venues and told us we should not second-guess his administration, which had our best interests at heart. (Someone commented that his upper-class British accent was an unfortunate accompaniment to this paternalistic message.)
In the meantime his administration had long since hired a union-busting law firm to frighten workers with propaganda and innuendo. So much for appealing to educated, rational decision-making by employees.
Education, as I understand it, is about enhancing our capacity for taking responsibility - for ourselves individually and in all that we are involved with. So when the head of a university tells me that I need not stand up for myself or join with others to insist on fairness and accountability because he will take care of us, I bristle; all the more so when he isn't taking care of us.
It is not unions but people like him that don't belong in higher education.
What he exhibited was what is typical of conservatism: the view that some of us count and the rest of us don't. The white collar workers did themselves dirt by identifying with this elitist notion instead of with one another and the blue collar workers. That was attitude over actuality.
It was the custom at that university to have its president alone be the speaker at its graduation exercises. So he would discourse on moral responsibility and good citizenship and the democratic humanitarian mission of our institutions, etc. And the students and faculty who knew what this man was and what hypocrisy he was capable of could have the privilege of listening to him, and not to someone outstanding from the greater world.
A little more liberalism wouldn't have hurt that school one bit.
And that's not all. They want more conservatives hired for balance. Can you imagine the nerve? Having opposed affirmative action for those who were wrongfully discriminated against, they now demand it for themselves!
Sorry, folks. An educational institution is precisely the kind of meritocracy you say you believe in. If you aren't competitive for professorships, the economy that your kind wrecked will enable you to compete for jobs at Wal-Mart.
But there are conservatives who do get places, even to the top, in our big schools. There was the president of a university at which I once worked as a peon. Him I will not forget.
This man served on commissions, etc. in a couple of Repub national administrations while making his mark in academic life. That was one indicator of his views. But there were others.
I was a (very small) part of the unsuccessful unionization drive among the university's white collar employees; the blue collar workers had succeeded in their drive and were affiliated with the UAW. The white collar types apparently considered themselves above something so plebeian, however much they were getting screwed over by the school. There were downright unsafe working conditions in some places on campus, but that didn't matter to the outcome.
The university president, meanwhile, was professing neutrality on the unionization issue until shortly before the balloting. Then he suddenly denounced unions as unsuited to academic venues and told us we should not second-guess his administration, which had our best interests at heart. (Someone commented that his upper-class British accent was an unfortunate accompaniment to this paternalistic message.)
In the meantime his administration had long since hired a union-busting law firm to frighten workers with propaganda and innuendo. So much for appealing to educated, rational decision-making by employees.
Education, as I understand it, is about enhancing our capacity for taking responsibility - for ourselves individually and in all that we are involved with. So when the head of a university tells me that I need not stand up for myself or join with others to insist on fairness and accountability because he will take care of us, I bristle; all the more so when he isn't taking care of us.
It is not unions but people like him that don't belong in higher education.
What he exhibited was what is typical of conservatism: the view that some of us count and the rest of us don't. The white collar workers did themselves dirt by identifying with this elitist notion instead of with one another and the blue collar workers. That was attitude over actuality.
It was the custom at that university to have its president alone be the speaker at its graduation exercises. So he would discourse on moral responsibility and good citizenship and the democratic humanitarian mission of our institutions, etc. And the students and faculty who knew what this man was and what hypocrisy he was capable of could have the privilege of listening to him, and not to someone outstanding from the greater world.
A little more liberalism wouldn't have hurt that school one bit.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
HELEN AND BIBI
Veteran, almost-90 newswoman Helen Thomas had to quit her forever job after saying in an interview that Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany, Poland, the U.S., etc. Her status as a beloved fixture in the White House press core couldn't save her after that.
It is a time of intemperate and ill-considered remarks, but most have no consequences. Hers did.
Nearly all Americans think Israel has a right to exist. And virtually our entire right wing is rabidly pro-Israel and would be critical of that country's government only if it took risks to get peace with the Palestinians, as the Obama administration would have it do.
Obama might be inclined to want to reprieve Thomas, putting in a good word for her with her bosses; but under the circumstances he can't. If she had attacked Mom or apple pie, her chances would have been better.
I don't think Thomas is an anti-Semite, and her remark was not anti-Semitic. I suppose it to have been an expression of her frustration with the lack of progress and the ongoing violence against civilians on both sides in the the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. In resigning, she repudiated her idea that Israel should dissolve itself and emphasized her belief in the necessity of making peace there.
Benyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is only Israel's latest right-wing prime minister. All of the previous ones, like Bibi products of the Likud party, have been the same in their harsh and unreasonable attitude.
Palestinian land gets gobbled up in more Israeli settlements. The Palestinians live in a state of siege that keeps them pinned down and blights their economic future. And this is represented as Israeli self-protection. It is a curious kind of self-protection that can only lead to more hate, fury, and conflict.
It has seemed to me for many years that the Israeli right really believes that it can wait out and wear out the Palestinians. If it just goes on being intractable - so I suspect it thinks - the Palestinians will give up and accept whatever deal they're offered. That's as hard-nosed as it is unrealistic, as we should all see by now.
An earlier Likud prime minister, Menachem Begin, a onetime terrorist, was compelled by President Carter to drop the intransigence and come to terms with Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat. Sadat was the rarest of Mideast birds, a person of peace. This general, politician, and Muslim mystic had the U.S. and the world with him, and Begin had to go along.
Later a Mapai (Labor) prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, a former general and veteran of high office who had always been cautious and tough, decided to take a run at peace and was assassinated by a rightist fanatic during an election campaign. Then terrorism increased and Likud won again in spite of expectations.
Israel's Likudniks and Palestine's Hamasniks bolster each other, just as the American and Soviet hard-liners did. Anybody who is "soft" is discredited in favor of warlike words and acts.
It appears to me that Bibi is taking advantage of the American right's adulation for his regime and Obama's political weakness. He thinks he can get away with just about anything now and maybe bring down his critic Obama in the process; this is a reversal of how things have been.
Obama must get him on the defensive and bring into play everyone's hopes for a settlement and the world's distaste for the Likud mentality.
Israel is at heart too good and fair a country to want to remain the oppressor of Palestine. But for now, Helen Thomas is only the latest and most conspicuous victim of Bibi's trust in cynicism, injustice, and realpolitik.
Whether you vote rightist here or in Israel, you should have no illusions about what it is that you are voting for.
It is a time of intemperate and ill-considered remarks, but most have no consequences. Hers did.
Nearly all Americans think Israel has a right to exist. And virtually our entire right wing is rabidly pro-Israel and would be critical of that country's government only if it took risks to get peace with the Palestinians, as the Obama administration would have it do.
Obama might be inclined to want to reprieve Thomas, putting in a good word for her with her bosses; but under the circumstances he can't. If she had attacked Mom or apple pie, her chances would have been better.
I don't think Thomas is an anti-Semite, and her remark was not anti-Semitic. I suppose it to have been an expression of her frustration with the lack of progress and the ongoing violence against civilians on both sides in the the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. In resigning, she repudiated her idea that Israel should dissolve itself and emphasized her belief in the necessity of making peace there.
Benyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is only Israel's latest right-wing prime minister. All of the previous ones, like Bibi products of the Likud party, have been the same in their harsh and unreasonable attitude.
Palestinian land gets gobbled up in more Israeli settlements. The Palestinians live in a state of siege that keeps them pinned down and blights their economic future. And this is represented as Israeli self-protection. It is a curious kind of self-protection that can only lead to more hate, fury, and conflict.
It has seemed to me for many years that the Israeli right really believes that it can wait out and wear out the Palestinians. If it just goes on being intractable - so I suspect it thinks - the Palestinians will give up and accept whatever deal they're offered. That's as hard-nosed as it is unrealistic, as we should all see by now.
An earlier Likud prime minister, Menachem Begin, a onetime terrorist, was compelled by President Carter to drop the intransigence and come to terms with Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat. Sadat was the rarest of Mideast birds, a person of peace. This general, politician, and Muslim mystic had the U.S. and the world with him, and Begin had to go along.
Later a Mapai (Labor) prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, a former general and veteran of high office who had always been cautious and tough, decided to take a run at peace and was assassinated by a rightist fanatic during an election campaign. Then terrorism increased and Likud won again in spite of expectations.
Israel's Likudniks and Palestine's Hamasniks bolster each other, just as the American and Soviet hard-liners did. Anybody who is "soft" is discredited in favor of warlike words and acts.
It appears to me that Bibi is taking advantage of the American right's adulation for his regime and Obama's political weakness. He thinks he can get away with just about anything now and maybe bring down his critic Obama in the process; this is a reversal of how things have been.
Obama must get him on the defensive and bring into play everyone's hopes for a settlement and the world's distaste for the Likud mentality.
Israel is at heart too good and fair a country to want to remain the oppressor of Palestine. But for now, Helen Thomas is only the latest and most conspicuous victim of Bibi's trust in cynicism, injustice, and realpolitik.
Whether you vote rightist here or in Israel, you should have no illusions about what it is that you are voting for.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
THE SPREEBAGGERS
In recent decades we have seen a number of spree killings. Most recently a taxi driver in England, Derrick Bird, 52, shot his twin brother and his family lawyer and then drove to three towns and killed people he encountered and himself; in all, 12 are dead and quite a few wounded.
Well-known spree killers in the U.S. have included the two kids who shot up Columbine High and the student who perpetrated the Virginia Tech massacre but also older males.
What gets into people who do these things? Hard to say. But they have decided that life isn't worth living, and they want to get back at strangers they could have no real grievance with. The shootings end with their suicides or with them being gunned down by someone else.
In 1984 a middle-aged survivalist named James Huberty shot 41 people in a McDonald's in San Diego, of whom 22 died, including himself. He believed, among other things, that government regulation and meddling were destroying our economic future.
Huberty had told his wife, "Society had its chance." Think about that phrase. He thought it was up to him to judge and punish society, not the reverse. How is that for self-centered and anti-social? And does it put you in mind of anyone?
Yes, I mean the teabaggers. The teabaggers are a collective spree phenomenon, and they resemble spree killers in several notable respects:
>They behave in highly intrusive ways.
>They have their own version of reality, which is at odds with how everyone else thinks.
>They have no use for reasonable people or reasonable measures or reasonable attitudes.
>They are destructive, wanting only to tear down.
>They think everything has gone to hell.
>They hate the government and have no respect for authority or office-holders.
>They opportunistically bend the truth to suit their own desire for drama, as in the birther movement.
>They take the rules to apply to everyone else and not to themselves, as when they break up town hall meetings.
>They think others should be blamed for their discontents and failings.
>They are full of unaccountable rage.
Just as spree killers predictably die at the end of their bloody deeds, look for the "tea party movement" to wreck itself, after continuing its negativity spree for a while.
Well-known spree killers in the U.S. have included the two kids who shot up Columbine High and the student who perpetrated the Virginia Tech massacre but also older males.
What gets into people who do these things? Hard to say. But they have decided that life isn't worth living, and they want to get back at strangers they could have no real grievance with. The shootings end with their suicides or with them being gunned down by someone else.
In 1984 a middle-aged survivalist named James Huberty shot 41 people in a McDonald's in San Diego, of whom 22 died, including himself. He believed, among other things, that government regulation and meddling were destroying our economic future.
Huberty had told his wife, "Society had its chance." Think about that phrase. He thought it was up to him to judge and punish society, not the reverse. How is that for self-centered and anti-social? And does it put you in mind of anyone?
Yes, I mean the teabaggers. The teabaggers are a collective spree phenomenon, and they resemble spree killers in several notable respects:
>They behave in highly intrusive ways.
>They have their own version of reality, which is at odds with how everyone else thinks.
>They have no use for reasonable people or reasonable measures or reasonable attitudes.
>They are destructive, wanting only to tear down.
>They think everything has gone to hell.
>They hate the government and have no respect for authority or office-holders.
>They opportunistically bend the truth to suit their own desire for drama, as in the birther movement.
>They take the rules to apply to everyone else and not to themselves, as when they break up town hall meetings.
>They think others should be blamed for their discontents and failings.
>They are full of unaccountable rage.
Just as spree killers predictably die at the end of their bloody deeds, look for the "tea party movement" to wreck itself, after continuing its negativity spree for a while.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
'12: THE GOP FIELD
I've said something about Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, and Romney as Repub presidential possibilities. There are more, and this is a summing up of the whole bunch as things look to me presently. Additional ones may emerge from the woodwork, naturally.
>Haley Barbour: Mississippi gov, onetime political operative and GOP national chair, former lobbyist; good-ol'-boy, smooth, shrewd, not right for right now and probably lacks the necessary fire in his expanding belly; I doubt he'll go after it.
>Scott Brown: Newbie Massachusetts senator, GOP miracle candidate and hunk; moderate enough for MA means too moderate for the national Republicult; won't run.
>Jeb Bush: Son and brother of two presidents, former Florida gov, praised for ability, viewed with skepticism because of Dubya's unpopularity; people think it's too soon for another Bush. But it's a volatile situation. I think he'll end up running for it, unless he decides it's hopeless and opts to wait for '16. My guess is he has as good a shot as anybody.
>Dick Cheney: Former veep, bad heart, bad attitude, loved by the far right and feared by everyone else. Despite his excellent ogre credentials, I don't think he wants it; his health would preclude a run anyway.
>Bob Corker: Tennessee first-term senator, gray-haired and modest-looking; nothing remarkable; could come across as moderate despite some mean rhetoric. Maybe for vice president as balance if the top candidate is a rightist fire-breather.
>Mitch Daniels: Onetime federal budget director; more recently capable but skinflint two-term Indiana gov; intelligent, colorless, no particular appeal to most but is the favorite of the rightie intelligentsia. Maybe treasury secretary if the GOP were to win.
Newt Gingrich: Scandal-scarred and too out of synch with the teabaggers, but proud owner of a great reactionary record. Among those in this field, a heavyweight, though erratic. Might take it if he can re-invent himself in some respects.
>Mike Huckabee: His cheerfulness and shortage of malice could make him popular among the electorate at large, but he comes across as a lightweight and seems disinclined to run again. So, no.
>Bobby Jindal: Young, of Indian ancestry; Louisiana gov and former Congressman; threw over Hinduism for Catholicism when younger; intellectual with doubtful instincts. For pres, no; possible for vice pres but probably not because whiter, more decisive, and dumber people are available.
>Sarah Palin: Too ignorant and mentally lazy to be competitive and with a closet likely to contain skeletons. No go.
>Rand Paul: I saw him as a real possibility, but he had better find some beliefs that most Americans agree with and learn to keep his mouth shut in the meantime. He has started to seem less interesting than just featherweight and oddball.
>Tim Pawlenty: Too ordinary and, in a way, maybe too normal: no cutting edge of fanatical anger. More plausible as veep nominee.
>Mike Pence: Indiana Congressman, wrathfully bland and outspokenly rightist; could be vice presidential prospect at most, unless he finds a theme that sets him apart and that works.
>Mitt Romney: No ability to project himself as angry outsider, and his Mormonism is poison to the Religious Right. I don't think so.
>Rick Santorum: Former boy Congressman from the Pittsburgh area and two-term U.S. senator; got annihilated going for a third term; was always overrated and had lucked out because of the decadence and ineffectuality of the Western Pennsylvania Dems. Is saying the same stuff he has always said, which means he doesn't read the moment perceptively. Maybe secretary of health or something were the Repubs to win.
>John Thune: Somewhat handsome one-term South Dakota senator, beat Tom Daschle; unopposed for re-election this year. No great shakes but just the kind of unifyingly meaningless conservative nonentity who might win if better-known figures implode.
So, then, who do I think will get it? Jeb or Newt or maybe Rand or some very rich and charismatic teabagger not yet in view. Chances for any of them in the general election: slight.
(Save this posting and you can come back some day and remind me how wrong I got it.)
>Haley Barbour: Mississippi gov, onetime political operative and GOP national chair, former lobbyist; good-ol'-boy, smooth, shrewd, not right for right now and probably lacks the necessary fire in his expanding belly; I doubt he'll go after it.
>Scott Brown: Newbie Massachusetts senator, GOP miracle candidate and hunk; moderate enough for MA means too moderate for the national Republicult; won't run.
>Jeb Bush: Son and brother of two presidents, former Florida gov, praised for ability, viewed with skepticism because of Dubya's unpopularity; people think it's too soon for another Bush. But it's a volatile situation. I think he'll end up running for it, unless he decides it's hopeless and opts to wait for '16. My guess is he has as good a shot as anybody.
>Dick Cheney: Former veep, bad heart, bad attitude, loved by the far right and feared by everyone else. Despite his excellent ogre credentials, I don't think he wants it; his health would preclude a run anyway.
>Bob Corker: Tennessee first-term senator, gray-haired and modest-looking; nothing remarkable; could come across as moderate despite some mean rhetoric. Maybe for vice president as balance if the top candidate is a rightist fire-breather.
>Mitch Daniels: Onetime federal budget director; more recently capable but skinflint two-term Indiana gov; intelligent, colorless, no particular appeal to most but is the favorite of the rightie intelligentsia. Maybe treasury secretary if the GOP were to win.
Newt Gingrich: Scandal-scarred and too out of synch with the teabaggers, but proud owner of a great reactionary record. Among those in this field, a heavyweight, though erratic. Might take it if he can re-invent himself in some respects.
>Mike Huckabee: His cheerfulness and shortage of malice could make him popular among the electorate at large, but he comes across as a lightweight and seems disinclined to run again. So, no.
>Bobby Jindal: Young, of Indian ancestry; Louisiana gov and former Congressman; threw over Hinduism for Catholicism when younger; intellectual with doubtful instincts. For pres, no; possible for vice pres but probably not because whiter, more decisive, and dumber people are available.
>Sarah Palin: Too ignorant and mentally lazy to be competitive and with a closet likely to contain skeletons. No go.
>Rand Paul: I saw him as a real possibility, but he had better find some beliefs that most Americans agree with and learn to keep his mouth shut in the meantime. He has started to seem less interesting than just featherweight and oddball.
>Tim Pawlenty: Too ordinary and, in a way, maybe too normal: no cutting edge of fanatical anger. More plausible as veep nominee.
>Mike Pence: Indiana Congressman, wrathfully bland and outspokenly rightist; could be vice presidential prospect at most, unless he finds a theme that sets him apart and that works.
>Mitt Romney: No ability to project himself as angry outsider, and his Mormonism is poison to the Religious Right. I don't think so.
>Rick Santorum: Former boy Congressman from the Pittsburgh area and two-term U.S. senator; got annihilated going for a third term; was always overrated and had lucked out because of the decadence and ineffectuality of the Western Pennsylvania Dems. Is saying the same stuff he has always said, which means he doesn't read the moment perceptively. Maybe secretary of health or something were the Repubs to win.
>John Thune: Somewhat handsome one-term South Dakota senator, beat Tom Daschle; unopposed for re-election this year. No great shakes but just the kind of unifyingly meaningless conservative nonentity who might win if better-known figures implode.
So, then, who do I think will get it? Jeb or Newt or maybe Rand or some very rich and charismatic teabagger not yet in view. Chances for any of them in the general election: slight.
(Save this posting and you can come back some day and remind me how wrong I got it.)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
ALABAMA REVISITED
I thought I would talk a little about the Great State of Alabama and some of what went on there in the June 1, 2010 primaries.
In a previous posting I mentioned Bradley Byrne, a contender for the Republicult nomination for governor, who was accused by dastardly opponents of believing in evolution. He vehemently denied this and said every word in the Bible is literally true. Evidently he convinced the folks he meant it, because he has made it into a runoff with either of two other jokers.
The contest for gov on the Dem side was different and instructive. You had a smooth young Harvard-educated black Congressman, Artur Davis, giving up his House seat to have a go at it.
It is a good sign when an African-American has a real shot at becoming governor in George Wallace country, and Davis was favored to win his primary. His strategy was to count on getting black support while ignoring it, and to try to build a coalition of whites and blacks on centrist ground.
His primary opponent was the state's elected agriculture commissioner, a middle-aged white man named Ron Sparks. While Davis emphasized that he was a moderate, Sparks ran as, in effect, a national Democrat, endorsing the new national healthcare bill while Artur Davis voted against it. Sparks has a kind of folksy populist edge that the people of Alabama have sometimes gone for. As examples, think of Wallace as a rightist populist and"Kissin' Jim" Folsom as a leftist one. If the liberal and anti-segregation Folsom could get elected governor of Alabama in the 1940s, you can see that reaction may be the likelihood there but is not the certainty.
The four strong black political/civil rights organizations in the state looked over their options and found it easy to decide. They endorsed Ron Sparks.
And in the primary, Sparks beat Davis, 62% to 38%.
These were two very different strategies for getting votes.
I saw Artur Davis speak one time; and while he is bright and articulate, I found him to also be bland and cautious. I saw Ron Sparks speak in a video at his website a few days ago, and I thought he was sharp: direct, intense, apparently voicing conviction. At that time, going by media reports and opinion polls, I had been expecting Davis to win the thing. But after seeing Sparks, I wondered if he could?
Now we know. Alabama, where much of the Dem party is black, went for a "real" Dem regardless of race. And in November? I don't know, but I suspect that someone who really stands for something and isn't afraid to say so boldly may have a better chance than someone who is calculating and overly careful would.
Also in Alabama, Congressman Parker Griffith had a bad day. He is the fellow who recently switched parties and in the process became unacceptable to both. A teabagger beat him easily in the GOP primary. Griffith's path has been from reactionary first-term Dem Congressman to reactionary first-term Repub Congressman to reactionary in private life. He has finally found his niche!
In a previous posting I mentioned Bradley Byrne, a contender for the Republicult nomination for governor, who was accused by dastardly opponents of believing in evolution. He vehemently denied this and said every word in the Bible is literally true. Evidently he convinced the folks he meant it, because he has made it into a runoff with either of two other jokers.
The contest for gov on the Dem side was different and instructive. You had a smooth young Harvard-educated black Congressman, Artur Davis, giving up his House seat to have a go at it.
It is a good sign when an African-American has a real shot at becoming governor in George Wallace country, and Davis was favored to win his primary. His strategy was to count on getting black support while ignoring it, and to try to build a coalition of whites and blacks on centrist ground.
His primary opponent was the state's elected agriculture commissioner, a middle-aged white man named Ron Sparks. While Davis emphasized that he was a moderate, Sparks ran as, in effect, a national Democrat, endorsing the new national healthcare bill while Artur Davis voted against it. Sparks has a kind of folksy populist edge that the people of Alabama have sometimes gone for. As examples, think of Wallace as a rightist populist and"Kissin' Jim" Folsom as a leftist one. If the liberal and anti-segregation Folsom could get elected governor of Alabama in the 1940s, you can see that reaction may be the likelihood there but is not the certainty.
The four strong black political/civil rights organizations in the state looked over their options and found it easy to decide. They endorsed Ron Sparks.
And in the primary, Sparks beat Davis, 62% to 38%.
These were two very different strategies for getting votes.
I saw Artur Davis speak one time; and while he is bright and articulate, I found him to also be bland and cautious. I saw Ron Sparks speak in a video at his website a few days ago, and I thought he was sharp: direct, intense, apparently voicing conviction. At that time, going by media reports and opinion polls, I had been expecting Davis to win the thing. But after seeing Sparks, I wondered if he could?
Now we know. Alabama, where much of the Dem party is black, went for a "real" Dem regardless of race. And in November? I don't know, but I suspect that someone who really stands for something and isn't afraid to say so boldly may have a better chance than someone who is calculating and overly careful would.
Also in Alabama, Congressman Parker Griffith had a bad day. He is the fellow who recently switched parties and in the process became unacceptable to both. A teabagger beat him easily in the GOP primary. Griffith's path has been from reactionary first-term Dem Congressman to reactionary first-term Repub Congressman to reactionary in private life. He has finally found his niche!
Monday, May 31, 2010
ARLEN SPECTER
He was named for screen star Richard Arlen and he grew up in Kansas. Tall and solidly built, with dark curly hair, Arlen Specter had a deep voice with a pleasing Western accent that has gotten less crisp over the decades. His attractiveness is not from charm, of which he has little, but from his vitality, intelligence, and high energy.
When young, Specter was assistant counsel to the Warren Commission and gave us the single bullet theory. A Democrat, he was offered the GOP nomination for district attorney of Philadelphia. He accepted it, campaigned hard, got elected. That was in '65. In '67 he ran for mayor and nearly ousted a mediocre incumbent as a Repub in a Dem city.
In office he was aggressive and efficient. But he showed an excessive inclination to expediency that we were to see again when he cozied up to a later mayor, Frank Rizzo, a nominal Democrat who reform city councilman David Cohen aptly summed up as "a corrupt, bloody Tarzan."
Specter was popular. After a bit he got into the Repub race for governor, losing but running very well. Two years after that he won a contested nomination for the Senate and took an open seat. He would serve five terms.
He was a moderate, probably as progressive as he thought he could afford to be and stay in good with his party; his voting record was about 23% liberal according to one measure. It was always surmised that he was a Dem at heart.
Specter was not an exceptional senator and had no great achievements, but he worked hard, looked out for his constituents' interests, and could beat anyone in a race to a camera.
When young, Specter was assistant counsel to the Warren Commission and gave us the single bullet theory. A Democrat, he was offered the GOP nomination for district attorney of Philadelphia. He accepted it, campaigned hard, got elected. That was in '65. In '67 he ran for mayor and nearly ousted a mediocre incumbent as a Repub in a Dem city.
In office he was aggressive and efficient. But he showed an excessive inclination to expediency that we were to see again when he cozied up to a later mayor, Frank Rizzo, a nominal Democrat who reform city councilman David Cohen aptly summed up as "a corrupt, bloody Tarzan."
Specter was popular. After a bit he got into the Repub race for governor, losing but running very well. Two years after that he won a contested nomination for the Senate and took an open seat. He would serve five terms.
He was a moderate, probably as progressive as he thought he could afford to be and stay in good with his party; his voting record was about 23% liberal according to one measure. It was always surmised that he was a Dem at heart.
Specter was not an exceptional senator and had no great achievements, but he worked hard, looked out for his constituents' interests, and could beat anyone in a race to a camera.
In 1991 President Bush 41 put up a black reactionary named Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. There was a story around that Thomas had sexually harassed a black lawyer named Anita Hill. Hill reluctantly confirmed that before the Senate judiciary committee and was grilled and defamed by the Republicans, including Snarlin' Arlen. There was no evident reason for her to lie. I think I am a fair judge of character and I found her entirely credible, while Thomas seemed to me a bad actor in both senses of the term.
During the hearings Specter took the lead in doing the overzealous prosecutor bit and tried his worst to discredit Hill. He was smart enough to know better, even if some of the other Repubs weren't. This was a performance some have never forgiven him for.
His savaging of the young but calm and dignified Anita Hill was hard to stomach. Worse, if he knowingly helped give the title of Justice to a perjuror, he did this country a great disservice.
Why did he do it? I think it was plainly because he felt he would be vulnerable in the '92 primary if challenged, as was expected, by a very conservative state legislator named Stephen Freind. He was protecting his right flank. Freind backed off, but then Specter faced a tough re-election race against Democrat Lynn Yeakel, who made his treatment of Hill an issue. It was "The Year of The Woman" in national politics, but not quite in Pennsylvania.
Staving off the righties became harder and harder. Last time out, Specter was almost overturned by way-way-right Congressman Patrick Toomey. He tried to cover himself again more recently, voting against confirmation of Elena Kagan for solicitor general. But his time was up, and a party switch encouraged by Governor Rendell and President Obama couldn't save him.
I had some amount of admiration for Specter because he never caved so far as to go all the way right; he was mostly reasonable and pragmatic, the kind of Republican that Pennsylvania has usually sent to the Senate. The Anita Hill villainy, however, remains on his record. It will be a blot on it for as long as anyone remembers him.
What is the lesson of this career? Maybe just that if you belong to an evil party you do evil or get forced out - or both.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
LOOKING TO '12: NEWTIE
One of the GOP's 2012 aspirants is former House speaker Newt Gingrich, originally of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and thereafter of Georgia.
He is the Lenin of the Repubs' revolution of 1994, the year they proposed their Contract With America, took over the Congress, and Newt-ered the Clinton administration.
His real first name is Newton. His Pennsylvania Dutch surname he got by adoption; his birth parents were named McPherson. He taught political science and at one time favored Nelson Rockefeller for president. But he has long since been reliably reactionary.
He is astute and able. Yet, probably because of emotional factors, he seems clueless about the present Republican moment. Privately he must be contemptuous of the inflamed amateurs who are upsetting everything and everyone; to him they are the froth and not the beer. But today there is no beer. And their upheaval can't be managed from the top down.
His instinct has been to keep moderates in the party. The "big tent" ideal is right for someone who wants to save the GOP from itself (a suicide mission), wrong for someone who wants to be the presidential choice.
And Newt wants to be president. This is his only chance because of his age and his waning relevance.
What he'd have to do is egg on the blood purge and then, once nominated, dazzle the voting public with big new, imaginative (though right-wing) ideas to make them forget how offensive and mean the party has become and how dark and twisted some of his own complicated persona is.
Newtie-toot-toot could do it. He could do it better than anyone. He is a big-concept thinker.
But something is always seething in him, and sometimes it comes to the surface in wrathful ultra-partisanship. He has that demonic, Nixonian element.
There are things that enrage him. He hates the hippies, for example, who anyone would think were just exercising the freedom he says he believes in. But to him any male who doesn't wear a necktie during the day and worship money is at best a parasite and probably a commie.
Newt has had some bad publicity. Scandal cost him his speakership, and he has a history of cheating on wives and sexual opportunism. Again, he would have to distract people from all that.
His best move would be an expedient religious conversion to appease the Religious Right. He could join some far-right mega-church with a crypto-gay pastor; then he can boast of having seen the error of his ways and being a new man, while continuing to serve Mammon.
And it's come-to-Jesus time with the teabaggers, as well. To woo them, he had better lose his insider vibe. In the fall campaign he can offer his years and his experience as evidence of gravitas.
And he had better quit glowering and take off some weight so as to lose those jowls.
My instinct says this is someone to fear in power, not because he is Macchiavellian, which he is, and not because he is a rightist true-believer, which he also is, but because he is unstable and has all that irrational anger in him.
These days, within the Republicult, that last attribute could golden, if he can use it and not be used by it.
He is the Lenin of the Repubs' revolution of 1994, the year they proposed their Contract With America, took over the Congress, and Newt-ered the Clinton administration.
His real first name is Newton. His Pennsylvania Dutch surname he got by adoption; his birth parents were named McPherson. He taught political science and at one time favored Nelson Rockefeller for president. But he has long since been reliably reactionary.
He is astute and able. Yet, probably because of emotional factors, he seems clueless about the present Republican moment. Privately he must be contemptuous of the inflamed amateurs who are upsetting everything and everyone; to him they are the froth and not the beer. But today there is no beer. And their upheaval can't be managed from the top down.
His instinct has been to keep moderates in the party. The "big tent" ideal is right for someone who wants to save the GOP from itself (a suicide mission), wrong for someone who wants to be the presidential choice.
And Newt wants to be president. This is his only chance because of his age and his waning relevance.
What he'd have to do is egg on the blood purge and then, once nominated, dazzle the voting public with big new, imaginative (though right-wing) ideas to make them forget how offensive and mean the party has become and how dark and twisted some of his own complicated persona is.
Newtie-toot-toot could do it. He could do it better than anyone. He is a big-concept thinker.
But something is always seething in him, and sometimes it comes to the surface in wrathful ultra-partisanship. He has that demonic, Nixonian element.
There are things that enrage him. He hates the hippies, for example, who anyone would think were just exercising the freedom he says he believes in. But to him any male who doesn't wear a necktie during the day and worship money is at best a parasite and probably a commie.
Newt has had some bad publicity. Scandal cost him his speakership, and he has a history of cheating on wives and sexual opportunism. Again, he would have to distract people from all that.
His best move would be an expedient religious conversion to appease the Religious Right. He could join some far-right mega-church with a crypto-gay pastor; then he can boast of having seen the error of his ways and being a new man, while continuing to serve Mammon.
And it's come-to-Jesus time with the teabaggers, as well. To woo them, he had better lose his insider vibe. In the fall campaign he can offer his years and his experience as evidence of gravitas.
And he had better quit glowering and take off some weight so as to lose those jowls.
My instinct says this is someone to fear in power, not because he is Macchiavellian, which he is, and not because he is a rightist true-believer, which he also is, but because he is unstable and has all that irrational anger in him.
These days, within the Republicult, that last attribute could golden, if he can use it and not be used by it.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
THE LEINENKUGEL BLUES
A businessman named Dick Leinenkugel not long ago declared his candidacy for the Repub nomination for U.S. Senator from Wisconsin. The seat is that of Dem hero Russ Feingold. There were other candidates for the nomination, but Leinenkugel was regarded as the most viable of the lot.
He is quite conservative and you might figure he is just what the Repubs want. But he isn't. And he is no longer running.
So what happened? Did he dig his political grave with his mouth, Rand Paul style? Was he found with, as the saying goes, a dead girl or a live boy? Was he caught with his hand in the till? is he unwell? No to all of the above.
Despite his conservatism, Leinenkugel was done in by rightist radio talkers and bloggers. They labeled him - horror of horrors! - a moderate. What did he do to provoke this calumny? He briefly worked as state commerce secretary under Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat.
Leinenkugel explained that he thought this non-ideological job was a practical transition from business to public affairs. But no. He fraternized with the enemy. There can be no compromise.
Leinenkugel said something worth noting when he withdrew from the race. He said that the wave of intolerance we are witnessing on the right does not come from anger (as we keep being told by the teabaggers and the rightist-influenced media) but from hate.
Anger, he said, can be healthy. It can precipitate righteous resolve. It can motivate citizens to take reform measures. Hate, however, accomplishes nothing constructive.
So we begin to see that even between very conservative citizens there is a gulf.
On one side of it are those whose orientation is practical, like Dick Leinenkugel. They are reasonable. They understand that compromise is essential to our kind of society and government. They are good citizens and will do things like take on a job for a liberal governor, to promote not liberalism but a prosperity that is in the interest of everyone.
On the other side of the gulf are the teabag crowd, who are politically active only to vent and attack and demean and wreck things. Theirs is the politics of the tantrum.
The Republican party gave way to the Republicult when it decided that only ultra-conservatives could seek office under its banner. But now even many ultra-conservatives are to be cast into outer darkness because they want to serve in government rather than dismantle it.
When Barack Obama offered a new politics of hope, the Republicult countered with a new politics of hate. When and how will this folly end? We can only wait and see.
He is quite conservative and you might figure he is just what the Repubs want. But he isn't. And he is no longer running.
So what happened? Did he dig his political grave with his mouth, Rand Paul style? Was he found with, as the saying goes, a dead girl or a live boy? Was he caught with his hand in the till? is he unwell? No to all of the above.
Despite his conservatism, Leinenkugel was done in by rightist radio talkers and bloggers. They labeled him - horror of horrors! - a moderate. What did he do to provoke this calumny? He briefly worked as state commerce secretary under Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat.
Leinenkugel explained that he thought this non-ideological job was a practical transition from business to public affairs. But no. He fraternized with the enemy. There can be no compromise.
Leinenkugel said something worth noting when he withdrew from the race. He said that the wave of intolerance we are witnessing on the right does not come from anger (as we keep being told by the teabaggers and the rightist-influenced media) but from hate.
Anger, he said, can be healthy. It can precipitate righteous resolve. It can motivate citizens to take reform measures. Hate, however, accomplishes nothing constructive.
So we begin to see that even between very conservative citizens there is a gulf.
On one side of it are those whose orientation is practical, like Dick Leinenkugel. They are reasonable. They understand that compromise is essential to our kind of society and government. They are good citizens and will do things like take on a job for a liberal governor, to promote not liberalism but a prosperity that is in the interest of everyone.
On the other side of the gulf are the teabag crowd, who are politically active only to vent and attack and demean and wreck things. Theirs is the politics of the tantrum.
The Republican party gave way to the Republicult when it decided that only ultra-conservatives could seek office under its banner. But now even many ultra-conservatives are to be cast into outer darkness because they want to serve in government rather than dismantle it.
When Barack Obama offered a new politics of hope, the Republicult countered with a new politics of hate. When and how will this folly end? We can only wait and see.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
RAND PAUL: THE MAKEOVER
On TV you see makeovers of people and houses. One guy who could use a political makeover is Rand Paul.
Paul has said too much to the national media. He can probably win the Senate seat anyway. But how does he get from the Senate to the White House? He must start modifying his performance now.
He is so intoxicated with his libertarian vision that he hasn't realized what it would do in practice. He wants weak government for the sake of freedom, but he doesn't see that it takes a strong government to keep people free from health-destroying environmental degradation, discrimination in employment, monopoly, oligarchy, etc. He isn't for racism, but he hasn't recognized that freedom to practice racism is incompatible with freedom from racism. He and his aides must work out a new overview and rehearse it.
He thinks too abstractly. He oversimplifies. He lacks a sense of nuance. But he can adapt.
He doesn't seem mad at anyone, which is a plus. Despite his zeal, he comes across as good-natured. While he hasn't much charm, he can be engaging. And he has a slightly elfin quality.
What about that makeover, then?
Okay, Rand, babes, here's the deal:
>Your task is to complicate your worldview and your persona. You can say, "I'm a liberty boy, yeah, but I get that there has to be regulation. Businesses should be free to do right, not wrong." Make yourself harder to categorize. Stress practicality and the limits of theory.
>The fury of the teabaggers, with whom you are so identified, alarms the independents and conservative Dems you want to attract. So take pains not to be unfair. Don't call your opponent names. Play down the "liberal" and "socialist" language, as that doesn't persuade anymore. Tell your audiences that this is still one country, not two, and that what works best will be evident to everyone in the long run. That fits with your native optimism.
>You are thought even by some who know you to take yourself too seriously. Put some humor into your act. Above all, poke fun at yourself. That's disarming. Seem like a good guy who can take a joke.
>Try to be thoughtful and imaginative rather than rigid and predictable. A good proposal for you to make might be an end to the Constitutional prohibition against foreign-born persons serving as president. When there are so many legal immigrants among us, that prohibition has to seem bigoted and unrealistic to contemporary people. Your party has alienated Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority. You can appeal to them with this proposal, offering them a chance to be first-class citizens all the way. That is not inconsistent with what you believe. And what is your Dem opponent going to say? "No, I'm for keeping them inelligible"? Hardly. He will have to go along with you. Whatever common ground you have with him will make you look less extreme.
That's what I'd suggest Paul do. Now we'll see what he actually does.
Paul has said too much to the national media. He can probably win the Senate seat anyway. But how does he get from the Senate to the White House? He must start modifying his performance now.
He is so intoxicated with his libertarian vision that he hasn't realized what it would do in practice. He wants weak government for the sake of freedom, but he doesn't see that it takes a strong government to keep people free from health-destroying environmental degradation, discrimination in employment, monopoly, oligarchy, etc. He isn't for racism, but he hasn't recognized that freedom to practice racism is incompatible with freedom from racism. He and his aides must work out a new overview and rehearse it.
He thinks too abstractly. He oversimplifies. He lacks a sense of nuance. But he can adapt.
He doesn't seem mad at anyone, which is a plus. Despite his zeal, he comes across as good-natured. While he hasn't much charm, he can be engaging. And he has a slightly elfin quality.
What about that makeover, then?
Okay, Rand, babes, here's the deal:
>Your task is to complicate your worldview and your persona. You can say, "I'm a liberty boy, yeah, but I get that there has to be regulation. Businesses should be free to do right, not wrong." Make yourself harder to categorize. Stress practicality and the limits of theory.
>The fury of the teabaggers, with whom you are so identified, alarms the independents and conservative Dems you want to attract. So take pains not to be unfair. Don't call your opponent names. Play down the "liberal" and "socialist" language, as that doesn't persuade anymore. Tell your audiences that this is still one country, not two, and that what works best will be evident to everyone in the long run. That fits with your native optimism.
>You are thought even by some who know you to take yourself too seriously. Put some humor into your act. Above all, poke fun at yourself. That's disarming. Seem like a good guy who can take a joke.
>Try to be thoughtful and imaginative rather than rigid and predictable. A good proposal for you to make might be an end to the Constitutional prohibition against foreign-born persons serving as president. When there are so many legal immigrants among us, that prohibition has to seem bigoted and unrealistic to contemporary people. Your party has alienated Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority. You can appeal to them with this proposal, offering them a chance to be first-class citizens all the way. That is not inconsistent with what you believe. And what is your Dem opponent going to say? "No, I'm for keeping them inelligible"? Hardly. He will have to go along with you. Whatever common ground you have with him will make you look less extreme.
That's what I'd suggest Paul do. Now we'll see what he actually does.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
LOOKING TO '12: TINY TIM
One of those aspiring to the GOP presidential nod in 2012 is Minnesota's governor Tim Pawlenty.
Most people don't know much about Pawlenty. Did you know that his dad was a fervent Stalinist who read to the family every evening from Das Kapital and made his kids memorize the Communist Manifesto?
Did you know that Tim ran away from home at age 11, that he took with him only an American flag that he had bought with his skimpy allowance, and that he used the flag as a blanket while sleeping out in the wild till he was able to join a circus and make some money?
Did you know that he became a daring circus acrobat and used what he earned to pay his way through Harvard where he got straight "A"s?
Did you know that as governor he wiped out the state debt, greatly reduced the bureaucracy yet improved its productivity, cut taxes in half, aggressively tackled environmental pollution, doubled benefits to the disabled, and introduced a new era of cooperation and good feeling in Minnesota civic life?
You didn't know all that? Where have you been?
Of course you didn't know it. All of it is bull. I present it for contrast with the real story.
What is this fella really like? Well, he's 49. He's fairly pleasant-looking. He dresses well. (Yawn) Excuse me!
Timbo's background? Played ice hockey in high school, labor lawyer, vice prez of a software company, city councilman, state legislator, ran for gov promising not to raise taxes and won narrowly, raised fees, got re-elected by 1% of the vote. (Zzzzzzzzzz)
In '05 a disagreement with legislators, along party lines, led to a temporary shutdown of the state government. Lately another crisis has arisen, with Pawlenty insisting on closing a three billion dollar deficit without further taxation and rejecting compromise. Obviously a great leader and a unifier.
Wikipedia's article on him reports, "State and local taxes increased for 90% of state residents, but tax rates decreased for those earning more than $130,000." Why is this not surprising?
He seems intent on showing himself an unmitigated right-winger worthy of the Republicult, regardless of what that does to his state and its citizens.
Who needs this?
He's right-wing enough for what he aspires to, and he might be on the nominee's short list for veep. But for the top spot? Somebody so obscure and so bland could get a presidential nomination only if he were a compromise choice.
Ooops. Forgot. No compromises on the right!
Most people don't know much about Pawlenty. Did you know that his dad was a fervent Stalinist who read to the family every evening from Das Kapital and made his kids memorize the Communist Manifesto?
Did you know that Tim ran away from home at age 11, that he took with him only an American flag that he had bought with his skimpy allowance, and that he used the flag as a blanket while sleeping out in the wild till he was able to join a circus and make some money?
Did you know that he became a daring circus acrobat and used what he earned to pay his way through Harvard where he got straight "A"s?
Did you know that as governor he wiped out the state debt, greatly reduced the bureaucracy yet improved its productivity, cut taxes in half, aggressively tackled environmental pollution, doubled benefits to the disabled, and introduced a new era of cooperation and good feeling in Minnesota civic life?
You didn't know all that? Where have you been?
Of course you didn't know it. All of it is bull. I present it for contrast with the real story.
What is this fella really like? Well, he's 49. He's fairly pleasant-looking. He dresses well. (Yawn) Excuse me!
Timbo's background? Played ice hockey in high school, labor lawyer, vice prez of a software company, city councilman, state legislator, ran for gov promising not to raise taxes and won narrowly, raised fees, got re-elected by 1% of the vote. (Zzzzzzzzzz)
In '05 a disagreement with legislators, along party lines, led to a temporary shutdown of the state government. Lately another crisis has arisen, with Pawlenty insisting on closing a three billion dollar deficit without further taxation and rejecting compromise. Obviously a great leader and a unifier.
Wikipedia's article on him reports, "State and local taxes increased for 90% of state residents, but tax rates decreased for those earning more than $130,000." Why is this not surprising?
He seems intent on showing himself an unmitigated right-winger worthy of the Republicult, regardless of what that does to his state and its citizens.
Who needs this?
He's right-wing enough for what he aspires to, and he might be on the nominee's short list for veep. But for the top spot? Somebody so obscure and so bland could get a presidential nomination only if he were a compromise choice.
Ooops. Forgot. No compromises on the right!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
RAND PAUL: DESTINY'S CHILD?
The GOP wants the teabaggers' passion and fears their wrath. I have been on the lookout for the Big Bagger, the person who commands their loyalty and would be viable as the party's presidential choice. It may be that he is in view.
I am referring to the Repub nominee for U.S. senator from Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul. Forty-seven years old, he is an eye surgeon and a son of several-time presidential candidate Ron Paul. Rand has promoted low taxes but had not run for office till now.
The teabaggers are wild for this lad, and he has pledged his fealty to them. I doubt he needed their help to win, and he has given them a victory after a string of primary election defeats.
Already White House talk has begun.
Rand Paul is different. He is different to the ear and even to the eye. Youthful-looking and curly-haired, he is glib and has been accused of sounding messianic. Most of these right-wing pols come across as frowningly cautious and dour, but Paul speaks with conviction and enthusiasm.
He has his own point of view and isn't just going along with a party trend. So in that sense he is refreshing. His forthrightness and openness contrast nicely with Mitt Romney's phoniness and opportunistic positioning.
It has been noted elsewhere that old Ron Paul has an air of humility that makes him likeable while he is being a know-it-all, while Rand is cocky and arrogant. You can get away with arrogance in politics if it translates as self-assurance and leadership ability. But you must let people see that you recognize your limits.
Like his father, Rand is against an interventionist foreign policy and was opposed to the Iraq invasion. There are many in the GOP, perhaps Dubya and Cheney above all, who do not want to see a Republican with that viewpoint get somewhere. They will not be his fans.
The Repubs have notoriously nominated for president the person whose "turn" it was perceived to be. In '12 that might be Newt Gingrich. But if Rand Paul wins this Senate seat, the new populist uprising in the otherwise lifeless party might bear him on its shoulders to the nomination. One senses that that would be fine with him.
A Rand Paul-Scott Brown ticket? Could happen.
First, though, there is this year's election. Polls have had Paul far ahead. But, like other political novices, he is in danger of getting in trouble by being incautious. Lately skilled interviewers have been drawing him out and revealing how Martian some of his thinking is.
Though he emphasizes that he abhors racism, he expressed displeasure that the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from being racist in employment; what he dislikes is the loss of local discretion. Only a conservative would think that a businessman's "right" to be a bigot outweighs the right of his employees to be treated fairly.
This disclosure at once put him on the defensive, though I'm sure not for long.
Then he blew it twice more: defending the oil company BP against President Obama in the oily wake of that terrible spill, and grousing about the cost to business of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Paul is untested, still a kid politically. He is going to have to catch on fast about what he can and cannot say. Being seen as sticking up for segregation and oil pollution and discrimination against disabled workers is uncool. Democratic candidate Jack Conway has been jumping all over him, and rightly so.
Paul has clammed up. Look for him to stay "on message" hereafter.
It's a shame that he can't continue being candid. Authenticity is good for a human being. And it is good for the voting public to know what a candidate really thinks. Unfortunately, Paul's authentic self is a little creepy, putting bigger profits for international corporations ahead of the well-being of Americans and the success of American ideals.
Kentucky is Dem in registration - by half a million votes - but is also a conservative state that often votes Republican. The president is unpopular there. My suspicion is that if Rand Paul handles things well from now on, he will be elected by a wide margin. If anything defeats him, it is likely to be his assumption that history is calling and that nothing can.
I am referring to the Repub nominee for U.S. senator from Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul. Forty-seven years old, he is an eye surgeon and a son of several-time presidential candidate Ron Paul. Rand has promoted low taxes but had not run for office till now.
The teabaggers are wild for this lad, and he has pledged his fealty to them. I doubt he needed their help to win, and he has given them a victory after a string of primary election defeats.
Already White House talk has begun.
Rand Paul is different. He is different to the ear and even to the eye. Youthful-looking and curly-haired, he is glib and has been accused of sounding messianic. Most of these right-wing pols come across as frowningly cautious and dour, but Paul speaks with conviction and enthusiasm.
He has his own point of view and isn't just going along with a party trend. So in that sense he is refreshing. His forthrightness and openness contrast nicely with Mitt Romney's phoniness and opportunistic positioning.
It has been noted elsewhere that old Ron Paul has an air of humility that makes him likeable while he is being a know-it-all, while Rand is cocky and arrogant. You can get away with arrogance in politics if it translates as self-assurance and leadership ability. But you must let people see that you recognize your limits.
Like his father, Rand is against an interventionist foreign policy and was opposed to the Iraq invasion. There are many in the GOP, perhaps Dubya and Cheney above all, who do not want to see a Republican with that viewpoint get somewhere. They will not be his fans.
The Repubs have notoriously nominated for president the person whose "turn" it was perceived to be. In '12 that might be Newt Gingrich. But if Rand Paul wins this Senate seat, the new populist uprising in the otherwise lifeless party might bear him on its shoulders to the nomination. One senses that that would be fine with him.
A Rand Paul-Scott Brown ticket? Could happen.
First, though, there is this year's election. Polls have had Paul far ahead. But, like other political novices, he is in danger of getting in trouble by being incautious. Lately skilled interviewers have been drawing him out and revealing how Martian some of his thinking is.
Though he emphasizes that he abhors racism, he expressed displeasure that the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from being racist in employment; what he dislikes is the loss of local discretion. Only a conservative would think that a businessman's "right" to be a bigot outweighs the right of his employees to be treated fairly.
This disclosure at once put him on the defensive, though I'm sure not for long.
Then he blew it twice more: defending the oil company BP against President Obama in the oily wake of that terrible spill, and grousing about the cost to business of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Paul is untested, still a kid politically. He is going to have to catch on fast about what he can and cannot say. Being seen as sticking up for segregation and oil pollution and discrimination against disabled workers is uncool. Democratic candidate Jack Conway has been jumping all over him, and rightly so.
Paul has clammed up. Look for him to stay "on message" hereafter.
It's a shame that he can't continue being candid. Authenticity is good for a human being. And it is good for the voting public to know what a candidate really thinks. Unfortunately, Paul's authentic self is a little creepy, putting bigger profits for international corporations ahead of the well-being of Americans and the success of American ideals.
Kentucky is Dem in registration - by half a million votes - but is also a conservative state that often votes Republican. The president is unpopular there. My suspicion is that if Rand Paul handles things well from now on, he will be elected by a wide margin. If anything defeats him, it is likely to be his assumption that history is calling and that nothing can.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
WHAT RECENT PRIMARIES TELL US
The Dem electorate has been showing a strong survival instinct by nominating candidates who look like winners, even repeatedly defying the party's national and state leaders in order to do so. Cases in point:
>West Virginia's Dem Congressman Alan Mollohan has been in the House forever, and his old man was there forever before him. Mollohan is a porkbarrel type and has been under fire for ethically questionable behavior involving his office and a business; this gave the GOP hopes of knocking him off in November. But Mollohan lost his primary to young, less liberal, reform-minded State Senator Mike Oliverio, whose distinguishing traits are just what it will take to keep that seat blue.
>For the Dem nod for U.S. senator from Kentucky, Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo, a wealthy and somewhat conservative physician with a propensity for being unpleasant and needlessly controversial, had organizational support and led in the polls during most of the race. But by the end the young and clean-cut and more liberal state Attorney General Jack Conway edged past him. Conway is by far the more delectable and more electable of the two.
>Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter had the president and the governor and all of the party machinery behind him for the Dems' Senate nomination. Congressman Joe Sestak gave up a safe seat to challenge him, despite polls that showed Specter with what appeared an insurmountable lead. But Sestak, who is a retired 3-star admiral, a Harvard Ph.D, and an all-around attractive guy who has been in public office for only 4 years, won by 8 points. Specter is 80 and has been a senator for 30 years. He had too much baggage and too much a patina of opportunism to come out on top in the fall, in my estimation. Sestak, who is 58 and a new face to most Pennsylvanians, should do fine.
Mollohan, Mongiardo, and Specter had the connections and the endorsements and the ward leaders on their side. The voters didn't listen to the party honchos and made the right choices.
Along with the primaries, there was one Congressional race. The Republicult thought it was going to pick up the late Jack Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania's Johnstown district. Instead, Murtha's aide Mark Critz bested rich Repub businessman Tim Burns 54%-44%, a landslide. This is a blue collar district, full of what used to be called Reagan Democrats. If the Repubs can't carry such places, they will not make gains.
Since Obama took office there have been special Congressional elections in NY-20, IL-5, CA-32, CA-10, NY-23, FL-19, and now PA-12. How many of them did the GOP win? NONE!
The rightist-influenced media are telling you that this is inevitably a Repub year, that the Dems are sure to get wiped out. If you look at the evidence you won't buy the lie.
>West Virginia's Dem Congressman Alan Mollohan has been in the House forever, and his old man was there forever before him. Mollohan is a porkbarrel type and has been under fire for ethically questionable behavior involving his office and a business; this gave the GOP hopes of knocking him off in November. But Mollohan lost his primary to young, less liberal, reform-minded State Senator Mike Oliverio, whose distinguishing traits are just what it will take to keep that seat blue.
>For the Dem nod for U.S. senator from Kentucky, Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo, a wealthy and somewhat conservative physician with a propensity for being unpleasant and needlessly controversial, had organizational support and led in the polls during most of the race. But by the end the young and clean-cut and more liberal state Attorney General Jack Conway edged past him. Conway is by far the more delectable and more electable of the two.
>Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter had the president and the governor and all of the party machinery behind him for the Dems' Senate nomination. Congressman Joe Sestak gave up a safe seat to challenge him, despite polls that showed Specter with what appeared an insurmountable lead. But Sestak, who is a retired 3-star admiral, a Harvard Ph.D, and an all-around attractive guy who has been in public office for only 4 years, won by 8 points. Specter is 80 and has been a senator for 30 years. He had too much baggage and too much a patina of opportunism to come out on top in the fall, in my estimation. Sestak, who is 58 and a new face to most Pennsylvanians, should do fine.
Mollohan, Mongiardo, and Specter had the connections and the endorsements and the ward leaders on their side. The voters didn't listen to the party honchos and made the right choices.
Along with the primaries, there was one Congressional race. The Republicult thought it was going to pick up the late Jack Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania's Johnstown district. Instead, Murtha's aide Mark Critz bested rich Repub businessman Tim Burns 54%-44%, a landslide. This is a blue collar district, full of what used to be called Reagan Democrats. If the Repubs can't carry such places, they will not make gains.
Since Obama took office there have been special Congressional elections in NY-20, IL-5, CA-32, CA-10, NY-23, FL-19, and now PA-12. How many of them did the GOP win? NONE!
The rightist-influenced media are telling you that this is inevitably a Repub year, that the Dems are sure to get wiped out. If you look at the evidence you won't buy the lie.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
WHERE IMBECILITY ABOUNDS
Some dude named Bradley Byrne has been the frontrunner for the Republicult's nomination for governor of Alabama. Now? Hard to say. Poor Brad just got hit with a vicious attack ad that accuses him of holding that parts of the Bible are not factual and that evolution exists. (This is from foxnews.com, 5/13/'10.)
Ol' Brad knows better than to let those charges stand! He at once replied that he does too believe that every word of the Bible is literally true and that evolution is wrong. He wants to make sure everyone in Alabama knows he's as big on fact-denying and reality-defying as any of 'em.
He says the ad was a joint plot by his primary opponents and the Dems. Seems they're ganging up on him to try to make him seem intelligent, which would render him unelectable.
This is what politics is like in Alabama. Sometimes I find myself wishing that the Souf had gotten safely out of the Union and stayed out. But I don't really feel that way, because I think in the longest term things will change. Still, the aggravation is there, along with that mind-bending legacy of slavery, segregation, and opposition to every notion that's honest or humane.
And don't think I'm criticizing religion, by the way. I am satisfied from much evidence that a spiritual realm exists, that we survive our deaths, and that miracles occur in this world. But literal-mindedness, exclusivism, and triumphalism are not legitimate features of any religion; they are hateful attempts to marginalize and one-up other people.
And when religious beliefs are taken to be factual claims and are used to contradict the sciences, we got trouble. Where they are used as a test of eligibility for public office, we are no longer in America, even if we are very much in red Alabama.
Sometimes only mockery is broad enough and sharp enough to answer folly:
"Ah believe the yoo-nee-verse is six thousand years old and dinosaur remains are a test of our faith, and nothin' will ever convince me otherwise.
"And ah say we should make the laws of Moses replace these-here sek-yoo-lar laws we got now.
"Besides, mah opponent married outside his family."
We are just going to have to wait out Alabama and the other deep red states, the same way we waited out the Soviet Union. Immigration from Northern states and other countries will eventually dilute the propensity for stupidity-worship and make it possible to unify the country.
Ol' Brad knows better than to let those charges stand! He at once replied that he does too believe that every word of the Bible is literally true and that evolution is wrong. He wants to make sure everyone in Alabama knows he's as big on fact-denying and reality-defying as any of 'em.
He says the ad was a joint plot by his primary opponents and the Dems. Seems they're ganging up on him to try to make him seem intelligent, which would render him unelectable.
This is what politics is like in Alabama. Sometimes I find myself wishing that the Souf had gotten safely out of the Union and stayed out. But I don't really feel that way, because I think in the longest term things will change. Still, the aggravation is there, along with that mind-bending legacy of slavery, segregation, and opposition to every notion that's honest or humane.
And don't think I'm criticizing religion, by the way. I am satisfied from much evidence that a spiritual realm exists, that we survive our deaths, and that miracles occur in this world. But literal-mindedness, exclusivism, and triumphalism are not legitimate features of any religion; they are hateful attempts to marginalize and one-up other people.
And when religious beliefs are taken to be factual claims and are used to contradict the sciences, we got trouble. Where they are used as a test of eligibility for public office, we are no longer in America, even if we are very much in red Alabama.
Sometimes only mockery is broad enough and sharp enough to answer folly:
"Ah believe the yoo-nee-verse is six thousand years old and dinosaur remains are a test of our faith, and nothin' will ever convince me otherwise.
"And ah say we should make the laws of Moses replace these-here sek-yoo-lar laws we got now.
"Besides, mah opponent married outside his family."
We are just going to have to wait out Alabama and the other deep red states, the same way we waited out the Soviet Union. Immigration from Northern states and other countries will eventually dilute the propensity for stupidity-worship and make it possible to unify the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)