Filed under: U.S. Politics
In the first politically relevant chance for Republicans to get some “good numbers” (albeit in from an insignificant sample size in a largely pointless escapade), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the day, clinching the GOP’s New Hampshire straw poll with 35% of the 273 votes cast. That’s not a surprising outcome, as Romney’s base of support in Massachusetts is considerable, so it may be more instructive, in this case, to look at who didn’t win (I know, I know, the title was “Mitt’s It,” and now he isn’t really it, sorry Mittheads).
Who didn’t come in second place is any Republican who’s presidential ambitions are anything more than idealistic fantasy. By which I mean, the Ron Paul revolution continues. Paul, crushed as he was by Romney (netting just 11% to Mitt’s 35%) nonetheless finished as the runner-up. This, much like the Romney win, is probably not especially indicative of anything one wouldn’t expect going in; the grassroots network of Ron Paul supporters tend to give him a lot of sway in smaller, local oriented polling environments like these, sometimes to the chagrin of the more mainstream conservatives participating.
What’s more interesting, seeing as Ron Paul hasn’t a shoehorn’s chance in a sandal shop of winning the nomination, are the results that shake out after him. Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty came in third, with 8%- just a notch ahead of reality TV star and half-term governor Sarah Palin at 7%. Pawlenty has undergone something of a national media blitz lately, under the guise of promoting his new book “Courage to Stand,” which is, needless to say, a blindingly trite title. Pawlenty’s appeal from an image standpoint, it would seem, is that he’s neither off the deep end of the conservative and anti-intellectual spectrum like a Palin, Bachmann, or DeMint, nor is he as vitriolic in his rhetorical style.
Should all the talk about a more civil political discourse last (for the record, the official editorial opinion of The Crater is that the pendulum of a tragedy always swings back, and we’ve probably only got another couple weeks tops), that could play to his advantage, but make no mistake; he is a hard-right social conservative. He even claimed to want to reinstate the military’s ban on openly serving gays and lesbians, which is about as tone-deaf and politically inane a position as I can imagine a presidential hopeful staking out for themselves. He also suffers from being too transparently handled by image consultants- unless, of course, you seriously believe he unwinds at the end of a long day by visiting hockeyfights.com.
“Occasionally, if I really need a good mental break and I can’t get out on the ice for one of those old-timers’ games, I’ll sit at the computer when I’m home at night and pop over to hockeyfights.com to watch a few of the latest videos… watching two guys, gloves down, helmets off, pounding each other while the ref stands back and lets it happen.” (from “Courage to Stand”)
I grant you I can’t be positive, but given that presidential hopefuls overtly and shamelessly try to remake themselves to improve their odds, I’ll just say it: I don’t believe for a hot minute that Tim Pawlenty watches hockey fights to chill out. At best, it might be a chance to make him seem a little more manly while co-opting Sarah Palin’s hockey-mom mantle. At worst… well, it could be true!
Behind P&P, the inimitable Michelle Bachmann tied for fifth place at 5%, along with her “Tea Party caucus” pal Jim DeMint. Somebody I’ve never heard of (that Politico refers to as “pizza mogul Herman Cain”) finished next with 4%, followed by a smattering of familiar conservative names at 3%; Huckabee, Santorum (yeah, right), Daniels, Pence, and Christie. Notably president-y looking Senator John Thune, along with President Obama’s ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, finished with no votes, earning them the indignity of being established Republican names who lost to Donald Trump, who netted 1%. I can’t imagine establishment darling Haley Barbour, for that matter, is that happy with his nil performance. Considering the level of institutional conservative enthusiasm for him, a sign of such poor connection with the New Hampshire GOP is staggering to his prospects (though not as much as the credible perception of him as a racist).
Taking full view of the Republican field as it likely stands now, warts and extremists and all, I frankly see little impediment to a Romney win. Paul is too extreme, Palin is too self-centered (and proud of her anti-intellectualism), and her base overlaps fatally with Bachmann’s. Rick Santorum went from mainstream conservative to extreme conservative in a half-decade’s worth of public opinion drift, and he doesn’t seem to realize it yet. Mike Huckabee is somewhat charming, but extremely hard-right, and not to be crude, but he’s regaining enough weight that it may be a prohibitive issue for him (I don’t like it, but image does matter). As much as I’ve railed against the idea in the past, it may end up true that Tim Pawlenty, who’s always struck me as a profoundly “meh” political figure (judging by charisma, which is so important for a candidate) may be the biggest hurdle in Romney’s way.
So, maybe I was right from the very beginning.
Mitt’s it!
Filed under: U.S. Politics | Tags: boehner, cbo, health care, narratives, repeal
House Republicans are, as I type, moving to vote on a repeal of the Democratic health care reform law. In an early legislative season that’s been tumultuous in the wake of the Jared Loughner rampage, this has nonetheless been the expected, first major initiative that Speaker Boehner and company have taken up. They’ve conspicuously stopped calling it a “job-killing” bill, which is endearing as evidence of shame, even if it’s only political, but it’s ultimately a silly and somewhat vacuous gesture. Calling it “job-killing” versus “job-crushing” doesn’t fix the truly relevant question about that statement, namely; is it true?
The CBO says no (via Factcheck.org).
Both Democrats and Republicans have decried the findings of the Congressional Budget Office when those findings haven’t suited their politics, I won’t deny that. But what does that suggest about the CBO? Perhaps, it means that they are the very thing they’re supposed to be- a non-partisan entity that focuses on fiscal impacts, not political ones. Whether the CBO’s projections are proven to be entirely accurate, though, the Republican claim is still demonstrably false. They cite the source of their “job-killing” claim as the CBO itself, and misrepresent a portion of their analysis to an absurd extent to seal it. The above Factcheck.org link tells the full story.
So, in an honest policy debate, insofar as we have systems to predict fiscal impact of legislation, the correct answer is no, you can’t credibly call the health care reform law a “job-killer,” or “job-crusher.” They could change it to “respectfully, we know this bill will cost us jobs,” and while less verbally edgy, the core problem stands.
But what about the political benefits? Politicians, as it happens, sometimes lie to improve their standing with voters. In the case of the present Republican congress, many of the newly elected rode on a promise to their constituents to repeal health care (insurance) reform. They knew then, as they know now, that this is flatly impossible so long as Obama and his veto pen are in office. But the political value of a divisive issue only lasts so long, and as the law’s rather benign nature becomes more apparent in the years to come, waiting for a potential Republican president in 2012 to sign a repeal is futile, and would almost certainly be calamitously unpopular. If the Republicans want to make good on their umbrage, they more or less have to do what they’ve done, and tackle this as soon as possible.
I somehow suspect, though, that the entire strategy was doomed from the moment they started telling a fired-up, reactionary base that they were going to tear down the law that they loathe so well. The baldly obvious concern for Republicans is whether those fervent, passionate supporters will be sated by what essentially amounts to a show vote. With no genuine chance of repeal, Speaker Boehner has resigned himself to engineering a display of the new Republican power in the House- a power that he knows from the get-go will be insufficient to deliver the goods.
Were I a political strategist, I would argue that the first priority for such a loud, demonstrative takeover of one branch of congress should be to sponsor conservative legislation with enough crossover appeal to pass the Senate, and at least force Obama into a gut-check on using the veto. Regardless of what your rhetoric has been, nobody is going to be impressed that your bold new majority heard the people’s mandate and accomplished… not really anything. It’s an inept attempt at forming a political narrative, which is shocking considering the Republican Party has always run circles around the Democrats at narratives. And as the claims prominent Republicans made during the health care fight, the stuff of “pulling grandma’s plug” and “government takeovers” become more starkly ridiculous by the visible lack of upheaval our system has suffered, this issue’s value has nowhere to go but down.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
“…they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you’re done.”
Those words belong to Jon Stewart, spoken about the Bush Administration in 2007 during an interview with Bill Moyers. Stewart could easily have applied this standard to the two-year cycle of the House of Representatives, as well. His words seem especially prescient as the 112th Congress has kicked off, and Republican rule under Speaker Boehner is in effect.
It seems to a certain extent trite and pointless to harp on an individual politician breaking a campaign promise. I’m not so ideological as to ignore that broken campaign promises might be the most truly bipartisan thing in Washington. I don’t entirely dismiss a politician on those grounds, either, because I realize that the process of getting elected in American politics more or less demands a certain amount of duplicity. On the subject of faith, for example; an atheist man or woman would be well served to do a few photo-ops at a church and get on their knees now and then. It may be anathema to their very core, and they may feel depressed or like craven liars to do so, but the political benefit of that lie is undeniable.
These are individuals, making individual choices (many more sympathetic than others- I tend to feel more for the closeted Senator than the guy raving about death panels, personally, but that’s my kick) that they may feel is motivated by political necessity. It doesn’t demand, though, that they abandon all the specific policy proposals they’ve made, or that the basic platform they ran on can’t hold true, even as particular promises therein may be unrealistic, or too arduous to tackle. It’s quite another thing, though, for a major political party’s entire rhetorical narrative and professed philosophies to come into such sharp conflict with the reality of their habits and desires.
To say the Republican Party sold its soul to the Tea Party movement wouldn’t quite be right; it’s more like the Tea Party loaned them a set of crutches. The Tea Parties’ stated principles, as generally defined as possible, were predominantly spending cuts, limited government, and lower taxes. There was/is also a strong reliance on the Constitution (and a generally conservative interpretation of it) and the use of Constitutional imagery to stir up the ol’ patriot’s blood. Because this movement was (in addition to a lot of funding from a number of extremely wealthy conservative and libertarian businesspeople) ideologically aligned with the stated philosophy of the Republican Party, the GOP was able to easily cash in the Tea Party, promising they’d restore fiscal sanity to Washington. Seeing as there is no credible third party in America at this moment, the choice becomes academic: can the Tea Party organize into its own elected faction? No. Can they vote third party and have any sort of impact on the government? No. So pull the lever marked “R” come November!
The problem is, limited government and reduced spending isn’t really what the Republican Party writ large is all about. True, they talk about it a lot- seemingly endlessly, as a minority party. But when Republicans have held substantial governmental power, you don’t see the kind of cost-cutting, bureaucracy reducing measures their talking points would lead you to expect. The story of the American government’s evolution is largely consistent: a state, which fluctuates in the particular ways it exerts control (business regulation vs. drug laws, for example), but never coming at much expense to the true size and power of the institution as a whole. Democrats, when they’re being honest and unafraid, will admit to you that the core philosophical difference between them and Republicans is that they believe the government can be a positive force in people’s lives, and that even at the risk of a bloated government the positives of the service provided is critically important to society. Republicans profess more or less the opposite (again, speaking in broad narratives here), that the government is an impediment to individual freedoms, economic growth, and should get out of the way whenever possible.
You can say what you will about the merits of either philosophy, but the reality is that when Democrats take power, they come a hell of a lot closer to doing what their narrative would have you believe they want to do. When the Republicans ascend, they invariably have to begin the endless, awkward dance of explaining why they were acting like Congressional supplies were going to be bought at the dollar store, when they really want to go to Staples like always.
See these past few days, as the Republican “Pledge To America,” which promised $100 billion in spending cuts this year, begins to be reeled back in. Now it’s just “hypothetical” language, and as they’re unwilling to tackle Medicare (political suicide), Social Security (the same), or defense (which is loaded with wasteful spending that the Pentagon would like to cut, but runs squarely against the other biggest Republican narrative), those cuts may not be there. And it’s only the first way in which those truly passionate about spending, restraint, and transparency in government should prepare for Speaker Boehner to mess with their world.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
More news from the fertile hills of New Jersey! From out of the maelstrom of snow and sleet, a political thorn has stuck in the side of Governor Christie. As has been somewhat exhaustively covered, Democratic activists as well as citizens throughout New Jersey (as well as Ed Rollins) are upset that Christie was absent from the state for the worst duration of the colossal blizzards that descended on the Northeast last week. Upon returning from his previously schedule family trip to Disney World, the Governor was unrepentant.
“I would have been doing the same thing here as I would have been there,” Christie said. “I would have been in a room someplace. I would not have been out, like, driving a plow.”
“This is just partisanship… I made a promise to my children… that I was going to take them to Disney World,” said Christie. “I was not going to look at my children and say we’re not going.”
In my personal opinion, Christie’s presence or lack thereof is probably of minimal importance to the function of state services during a blizzard. The absence of Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno deepens the wound, but her excuse of spending time with her ailing father seems (albeit subjectively) more sympathetic than even Christie’s. It should be said, however, that these two are the top two state executives in New Jersey, and as such, it paints an abhorrent picture from a political standpoint to have neither of them present in a time of such urgency. Christie himself recently filed for FEMA relief funds (which will be forgiven because of the crisis, but is nonetheless incongruous with much of his anti-federal and anti-spending rhetoric), which forces him to tacitly admit that he was absent during a “state of emergency.” Speaking in terms of raw politics, his decisions and subsequent response to criticism have been extremely poor.
Furthermore, it would be pertinent to know at what point both Christie and Guadagno’s plans to depart were specified. The two should have made arrangements with one another to ensure that at least one of the two people with the word “governor” in their title was in state, and that’s true any time one of them wants to take a vacation. Seeing as Guadagno’s trip is reportedly predicated on her father’s ill health, hers should likely have taken precedence. Christie’s promise to his children may be personally binding, but to tell them that the trip will have to be postponed until Guadagno returns doesn’t seem like the stark betrayal of trust that he’s been selling it as, nor can that be (strident as it may sound) his primary mentality when charged with leadership of an entire state.
But, to keep some sanity about us, let’s remember; poltiically tone-deaf or not, Christie’s right. He wasn’t going to be driving a plow or shoveling snow, and it somewhat strains the credulity to think that things were markedly worse by this particular absence. And yes, a large amount of the criticism likely has more to do with partisanship than anything else. For Chris Christie to lash out against partisanship, though, is a bit of a chuckler.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has, since rising to national prominence in dispatching then incumbent Jon Corzine, become something of a phenomenon of the national conservative movement. As Jason Zengerle’s article in New York Magazine detailed last month, one of the critical cornerstones of his popularity is the bevy of videos his staffers record of him during speeches and public events. Dubbed by some in the conservative media sphere as “Chris Christie porn” (a somewhat unpleasant example here), or more politely as Chris Christie “moments,” they are videos captured of the Republican governor tearing into his opponents. What is somewhat unique, though, is that the opponents he challenges aren’t necessarily other politicians or public figures. For example, his rebuke of a New Jersey schoolteacher, or the same article’s account of his argument with a middle-aged New Jersey citizen over the scrapped ARC tunnel project.
Being willing to clash with your own constituency is not a tact too many politicians are willing to take in a public setting, which is one of the reasons I suspect these confrontations have become so popular within conservative circles. Whereas the concept of political “red meat” normally refers to one politician savaging anther to flare up their base, the sight of a powerful governor willing to lock horns with the common citizen appeals to a more personal instinct. It’s one thing for Christie to call out a guy like Jon Corzine, but there’s an additional seductive appeal to the idea of him tearing down not a political elite, but the sort of person the average conservative might know personally and vehemently disagree with.
Invariably, Christie’s argumentative style and commanding presence have sparked speculation about a presidential run, which Christie has steadfastly denied. It’s difficult to ignore, though, the clearly calculated effort both he and his campaign make to instigate and circulate these conservative “pump-up” videos around YouTube. From New York Magazine:
Now in Moorestown, Christie was hoping to create another such moment. After some introductory remarks, he opened the floor to questions. “For those of you who have seen some of my appearances on YouTube,” he cautioned, peeling off his suit jacket as he spoke, “this is when it normally happens.” Then, recognizing the man who was first in line at the microphone, Christie began to grin. “This could happen right here, ladies and gentlemen! This guy at times has the tendency to annoy me … Get ready! If you have your own cameras, start rolling!”
If I had to make a reasoned guess, I’d say Christie’s presidential choice will be made very late; late enough, at least, for him to reckon whether the economy will stay mired enough for Obama to be a vulnerable incumbent. Assuming Christie has the same basic recognition of national politics that nearly every strategist in Washington has, he’s got to know that if the economy starts to surge, Obama will likely be a juggernaut in 2012. At 48, Christie is still young enough that he could sit an election cycle and make a play for it in 2016 if he so desired. The problem with this strategy, however, is twofold. The most obvious issue is whether his popularity within conservative circles, which I’d currently consider enough to make him a contender to win the Republican nomination, can hold up for that long. He’d also have to win re-election as governor in that scenario, and it remains to be seen whether his abrasive style will begin to wear on New Jerseyites who are closest to it. The second problem, at the risk of seeming too blunt, is his weight. Christie is significantly obese, well beyond the chubbiness that was enough to illicit mockery over Bill Clinton’s fitness. Nor does his body carry said weight in a particularly subtle way. I have significant doubts whether Americans will be willing to elect a president in that physical condition, which is also why I suspect Mike Huckabee, who has been showing signs of regaining some of the weight he famously lost pre-2008, may hurt his own chances.
What Chris Christie is perfectly primed for, however, is to be the Republican VP candidate. Whether Joe Biden returns for a second run, or Obama selects a new running mate, neither are likely to illicit the vibrant support that Christie could from the Republican base, especially as his combative style fits perfectly the campaign job description for an insurgent ticket. If paired with a top-ticket, reasonably inoffensive Republican (presidential lookin‘ John Thune, anyone?), his presence could bolster a surprisingly potent challenge to Obama’s re-election prospects. But in the meantime, Governor Christie (George Washington incarnate) has time to bide, and DVR tapes to buy.
South Carolina’s Republican senator, Jim DeMint, has announced he’ll be bringing a bill before the Senate, the gritty details of which I’ve had trouble nailing down, but the jist of it is this: DeMint has taken objection to the dismissal of Juan Williams from NPR this week and has taken the opportunity to move to financially wound public broadcasting, both on radio and television. In his own words:
“Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree… The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of today’s issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda.”
Having laid the track down, DeMint then fired up the Fiscal Conservative Express.
“The country is over $13 trillion in debt and Congress must find ways to start trimming the federal budget to cut spending…”NPR and PBS get about 15 percent of their total budget through federal funding, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own. With record debt and unemployment, there’s simply no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize a liberal programming they disagree with.”
There’s a lot to wade through here. First, I’ll grant you that somebody who reads this and gives a fist pump because they’ve always felt NPR was a dishonest liberal racket is going to be damn near impossible to convince otherwise. How we relate emotionally to media, to my mind, plays a critical role in the information we seek out and the personalities we gravitate to. I’ll gladly acknowledge that there are times when I feel an urge to bury myself in exclusively left-wing media because I agree with it, it validates those agreements, and leaves me feeling a little less isolated in the world. But this urge isn’t an urge motivated by purest pursuit of fact, so much as it is similar to a craving for a favorite food, or a vice of choice. It’s important to constantly challenge those impulses that would allow our brains to live entirely in the echo chamber.
Having said that, and in full recognition of the biases I bring to the table as a political commentator, here’s what I’ll say: NPR is not a liberal news outfit. They’re probably just left of center, I’ll admit, but I think the extent to which their programming emphasizes calm discussion and education reinforces this perception beyond the reality. They have interesting and engaging debates constantly, both left vs. right, as well as providing some of the least biased straight news coverage out there. These aren’t verifiable facts, but I urge anybody who isn’t familiar with their organization, try listening to the local affiliate (88.5 FM Bay Area is the one I use, I believe 91.7 is the other) the next few days, and decide for yourself. Regardless of whether you decide it is a cabal of high-minded liberals or not, I think you’d be hard pressed to say that their journalistic standards towards objectivity aren’t more strong and clear than on any televised news option. When they interview Senate and Gubernatorial candidates, they almost always give them equal time, even though the Fairness Doctrine is long dead.
Part of this standard is the NPR Ethics Code, which I’ve referenced here before. That Juan Williams’ long-term relationship with Fox News Channel violated those standards seems, to me, beyond discussion; NPR’s policy is more or less “don’t say it there if you wouldn’t say it here,” and the difference in candor between NPR Juan and Fox Juan is substantial. Senator DeMint tries in his quote to make this a first amendment issue, and in doing so falls prey to the same confusion that embroiled Laura Schlessinger after her racist soliloquy (her commentary of race relations, in fact, was much more illuminating of this racism than her memorable, repeated slurs). Appearing on Larry King after the incident, Schlessinger said she was quitting her radio program, because she wanted to find a format wherein her first amendment rights weren’t being stifled. Sad to say, the first amendment has little or nothing to do with it. The first amendment is why there’s no state or governmental action that could be taken against her, but beyond that, it doesn’t assure her a daily drive-time talk radio show. If anything, NPR kept WIlliams around much longer than I’d personally have expected, given his willful decision to go against the spirit of their ethics code and regularly appear on the most hyper-partisan news station on television.
DeMint’s subsequent fiscally conservative chatter is more or less hollow, to boot. NPR’s public money (as the bulk of their funding is through underwriting and donations) for last year came to just over 3.3 million dollars, otherwise known by Washington standards as utterly irrelevant chump change that’s not even close to paramount if you’re looking to reform how the federal government spends money. It’s not a meaningful savings, it’s a political game, being played with a news outlet intended to service the public good. Which, for a pretty low government expenditure it does so very, very well.
To be clear, it’s impossible to know the true thoughts bumping around inside Jim DeMint’s head. But by the very easily examined facts of what he’s said and what he’s chosen to rally against, it seems like just another effort to weaken ways in which the government helps the public good, and to slide more and more media (and ultimately government functions of all shapes and sizes) off the public rolls and into the private market.
In conclusion, just remember: this is not a story about free speech, nor about government waste. It’s about Juan Williams disrespecting the standards of his employer, being fired (and hired to a much richer deal with Fox), and crying sour grapes while Jim DeMint pounds his Senate pulpit.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
I’m generally wary of pigeonholing various different political minds into one “groupthink” entity, as this lends itself to oversimplification in political analysis. Were I to do that, I might be left to assume that Barack Obama has some sort of disdain for the gay community, or at least for the touchstone political issues that resonate for them these days. This, of course, wouldn’t be wholly fair; the events that have transpired regarding the military’s gay ban in recent days could be argued to have as much to do with judicial procedure and the rule of law as anything (though I’m nonetheless rather galled). However, from a purely political perspective, it’s nice to see a Democratic administration doing what Democrats do best, rallying disappointing and agonizing their base.
Let it not be said (as Robert Gibbs quipped some time ago) that I’m merely a unsatiable liberal who won’t be happy until the Pentagon shutters its windows for good, or that I’m being too cynical about the record of the present administration. I very proudly voted for the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008, not because I believed that what waited beyond was the leftist, pot-saturated, euro-socialist style America of my dreams. It was, as virtually every vote I’ve ever cast has been, a vote of pragmatism.Pragmatism mixed with the exhilaration of a possible post-racial awakening, sure, but I always knew at least a few of the warts. Obama’s a charming guy with some smart ideas and a million dollar smile, sure, but he’s never supported gay marriage, which is as much of a blatant up or down morality choice for me as any (and the choice isn’t the one the mass appropriators of the word “moral” would have you believe).
His stated position has always been a support for hospital visitation rights for homosexuals, as well as civil unions, but Joel Burns (the openly gay Fort Worth councilman who recently gave this chilling and emotional speech on the recent spate of gay teen suicide) getting to call the man he loves “my husband” is too much. Why does “redefining” a word matter so much to those who stand to lose nothing by it? Did it matter so when anti-miscegenation laws were disbanded (well yes, according to the wrong side of history back then)? This is a tired example, but I have yet to be given a logically compelling counter.
I’ve always hoped, perhaps unrealistically, that his position on gay marriage was little more than political calculus for President Obama. It’s still a very contentious national argument, one that prominently features a pervasive and very well-funded bunch of religious organizations on the opposition. The Proposition 8 incident in California two years ago is a vivid example; an incredible torrent of out-of-state money and publicity, much of it from groups religiously opposed to gay marriage, made a heavy impact on the result. When viewed through the prism of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, however, things becomes somewhat murkier and more concerning, as this political riskiness couldn’t be less true of this issue.
Polling has been somewhat variable on this issue, but most all credible polls have shown something from either a reasonable to dominant level of public support for repeal. Conservatives writ large don’t seem to view this as a worthwhile political issue, the main public opponent of repeal being the zero-integrity Sen. John McCain (a title he’s seized in recent years by utter lack of political principal or shame, obscuring the staggeringly high-integrity account of his willing detention in Vietnam) whose twisting machinations on the policy have been sad and infuriating to see. But John McCain is not a kingmaker in Republican politics anymore, if he ever even was, and as such the politics implications of all this become more bewildering. Unless you’ve been paying no attention to the national media narrative (a luxury I’ve never felt comfortable affording myself), there’s this thing the Democrats are worried about- it’s called “the voter enthusiasm gap.” In short and sweet terms, Republicans YEEEEEAAAGAGGGGHHHH!!! Democrats meh.
The conventional wisdom would dictate that in a time when everybody- even you, yourself- suspects that your posse isn’t quite as riled up and ready to start cracking skulls as your rivals from the other end of town, a pep talk might be in order. Some sort of morale boost to make sure the grunts you’re gonna be strapping brass knuckles to and shoving to the front of the fray don’t decide, “hey, I love this episode of Seinfeld. I’m sure the guys will be fine without me.” Allowing gays to openly serve is that morale boost. It’s pure and simple civil rights reform, a shot in the arm on just the sort of issue that allows liberals to argue their ideals on a moral level. For the justice department to appeal the recent judicial injunction against the policy may be academic, to an extent; it stands to reason that a government should generally seek to uphold its congressionally approved laws, and though I’ve heard conflicting reports as to the extent of President Obama’s individual ability to halt the policy (by executive order, for example, a cudgel George W. Bush wielded so long and so well), I’ll suppose for a moment he can’t do it. Even taking that as the cold, hard facts, this simply hasn’t been a cornerstone issue for the President from a policy standpoint, or a rhetorical one. He should be starting every campaign rally, every press conference, and every public event by asking the American people why, in a time of war, the Republican party is willing to wield Senate powers to watch gay men and women who are willing to risk their lives in our armed forces get kicked out. It’s simple, blunt politics, and I don’t know why it isn’t happening.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
…it’s overly cynical to view a politician’s every action as indicative of a larger worldview, but I nonetheless was distressed to hear about the Obama administration’s state of agreement with the Bush people regarding the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. As it happens, I’ve not discarded the possibility that this is in some way an understandable decision. Nonetheless, it stings. It’s just another reminder that even as the world becomes more liberal, as it slowly seems to be, it’s unlikely it’ll catch up to me before I die. In any case, I’m a realistic person, and although it looks pretty dismaying, I’ll give the Obama gang a chance to explain or justify this before drawing any hard conclusions.
It’s a sharp contrast to the later Bush years (although really, given my hardcore leftist streaks in most regards, you may as well stretch that to three months prior to the 2000 election) in which I presumed that everything George W. Bush did was wrong. I assumed that half of what he said was duplicitous fear mongering, distortion, and irresponsibility, while the other half of his sincerest beliefs (fuck gay marriage!) made him that much more unpleasant to witness.
I suspected there would be- and I’ve seen it voiced on a few pundit based political shows (the names, dates, and anchors of which escape me, proving that I’m a shitty journalist)- a reactionary push against trashing the Bush presidency in the infancy of Obama’s tenure. Conservatives that I’ve heard defending and reshaping the Bush “legacy” have reason to be pleased, seeing as there was no chance for a redemption while the man was in office, and now that he’s disappeared to Texas the clarion call can be issued:
“He’s not the president anymore! Can we just stop talking about George Bush?”
A fair point in the annuls of political humor, perhaps. I am indeed pretty fed-up with those cheap pocket books full of Bush-isms. I’ve had my fill of Cheney hunting jokes. But I infer something somewhat dangerous about that mentality, namely that the Bush years and George Bush himself may not be viewed with the proper withering gaze when generations just now removed from their rule look back. James Loewen, in his very enjoyable book “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” highlights the crux of my concern. His book documents innumerable false-facts, deceptions, and omissions that exist in the modern American History textbook. As somebody who isn’t too far removed from those days (Redwood ’04!), I felt very fulfilled to finally have one of my chief problems with high school history fleshed out in a way I couldn’t have managed.
“Many African societies divide humans into three categories: those still alive on the earth, the sasha, and the zamani. The recently departed whose time on earth overlapped with people still here are the sasha, the living dead. They are not wholly dead, for they still live in the memories of the living, who can call them to mind, create their likeness in art, and bring them to life in anecdote. When the last person to know an ancestor dies, that ancestor leaves the sasha for the zamani, the dead. …By definition, the world of the sasha is controversial, because readers bring to it their own knowledge and understanding, which may not agree with what is written. …Avoiding the sasha surely does not meet students’ needs. Textbook authors may work on the assumption that covering recent events thoroughly is unnecessary because students already know about them. Since textbook authors tend not to be young, however, what is sasha for them is zamani to their students.”
The same chapter details Loewen’s shock at finding that a fourth of a class he taught in 1989 believed that the Vietnam war was between North and South Korea (which, Loewen says, seemed to him the same as answering “1957” to the question, “when did the war of 1812 begin?”).
The fact is, I don’t trust the generation below me to learn the proper lessons from the Bush presidency. Until enough distance has occurred- until, for instance, I might be writing a textbook- I fear that the combination of the excitement and glitz of the new Obama era with the fatigue and decay of the prior eight years may make people additionally resistant to discussing and explaining Bush/Cheney to their children. I’m worried that their administration will wash away into dust, and that future generations will think of it no more than I ever think about Herbert Hoover.
I’ve grown up in the California Bay Area my entire life, a veritable paradise for any hard leaning liberal who appreciates a hike or a marine breeze. So in a way, I lucked out, because the political climate was very aware, if sometimes inane. Raised in a democratic haven and starting high school the first year of the Bush presidency burns him into my memory pretty unstoppably as you may imagine, so I have no fears for my own recollection. Jon Stewart remarked once about Nixon that he felt whoever was president when you were seven years old, you’d always remember as “the President.” I think there’s a real truth to that, mostly because I usually feel warm and comfortable in that childlike way whenever I see Bill Clinton on TV.
I suspect there are people who’ll grow up feeling a similar reaction to Bush. No matter how low his approval ratings sunk, and how few people would defend him in the final days, the presidential legacy-making machine tends to be quite powerful. I won’t be surprised if fifteen years from now, a significant (let’s say forty percent) portion of the country will look back at Bush and think, “Sucks that such a dumb guy became president, but his heart was in the right place. At least he kept us from being attacked again! And he was kind of a funny guy! People who knew him liked him.”
Nothing in that preceding bit of dialogue is necessarily untrue. It is, however, completely unfitting analysis to be laid on George W. Bush, a man who I expected to wreak untold havoc on the state of my nation and my planet all the way back in 2000. I was only fourteen then. So, with all due respect, I think you should take the advice of the guy who had Bush pegged as a failure before he was registered for freshman gym class over, say, a conservative pundit who’s bellowing about how we don’t have Bush to blame anymore. Talk about this kind of stuff. It’s important. Probably won’t matter for me, but someday, someone is going to do something very important with the knowledge of how America’s current history played out, and if we’re all especially watchful, we might be able to make that something positive.
(Although my appreciation should be obvious, be sure to check out “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen. It’s swell.)
The Crater 