Jonathan J. Prinz / Beyond All That

Undecided.

By the time they got to South Carolina, Barack Obama won the primary with a clear majority, 55.44%.  Hilary Clinton came in second at 26.52%.  Native son John Edwards, who had spent by far the most time and money there, got only 17.57%.  They obviously they knew who he was before the rest of us did.  Seven Democrats were still in the field, compared with four contending in Saturday’s Republican contest. So Obama’s win back in 2008 is all the more impressive, reflecting a level of conviction that is absent in the Republican primaries of 2012.  This is not to say that Obama had the nomination sewn up, which we know he didn’t.  And along the way there were times when things got pretty nasty.  Nonetheless while many Democrats, myself included, supported Obama and were confidant he would prevail, we could enthusiastically support Senator Clinton were that not the case.   That may not be true for Republicans today.

From the outset, Mitt Romney, considered most likely to lead his party in November, has been unable to garner anywhere close to a majority support.  Even on his home turf in New Hampshire he could only muster 39.9% of primary voters.   We don’t know if Newt Gingrich’s surge spells Romney’s end —probably not — but it does suggest a race that will both drag on and whose outcome is more uncertain than ever.  With Iowa, New Hampshire and countless debates on the record, exit polls suggest a vast majority of Gingrich voters made their decision either just before or on primary day.  Primaries are not necessarily indicative of general elections but this certainly suggests a Republican electorate undecided and in flux.

The results of Edison Research’s exit poll are interesting.  98% of the participating voters where white.  That certainly reinforces in the extreme my last post.  To put this is perspective, according to the census bureau 66% of South Carolinians are white and nearly 28% are African American (more than twice the national average).  That only 1% of GOP primary voters were black speaks for itself.  Newt achieved a plurality in most of the attribute areas covered by Edison whether gender, self-identification or views on issues.  The single exception is where he actually got a slim (51%) majority — can defeat Barack Obama.  That number may prove most damaging to Romney, whose argument has largely been built around electability.  Interestingly Newt (9%), the serial philanderer, and Romney (19%), the steady family man, both performed poorly on has strong moral character.  The first’s showing shouldn’t be surprising, the second’s may have more to do with his social issue flip-flopping than necessarily with the business vulture charge he’s endured in recent days.  I would think that Newt’s sordid private life, given a pass on Saturday, might not be overlooked in other places.

Republican voter turnout was appreciably higher this election cycle (601,111 vs. 445.677, up 35%) so you can argue enthusiasm runs higher.  What I found most interesting as a measure of where we are, or perhaps how we feel, is that Ron Paul gained proportionately more.  His numbers increased almost five fold from 16,155 in ’08 to 77,993 this year.  Even more striking is that he had a plurality (albeit at only 31%) of the 10-29 demographic; only 16% of Romney supporters were in that age group.  Those numbers probably reflect work Paul has done with younger people including many college campus appearances, but may also reflect an unease manifest in the next generation of which both Republicans and Democrats alike should take careful note.  The prospects of young people just out of college or starting out in general just aren't very good these days; the much-touted American dream no longer seems within their reach.  Without question, Ron Paul’s rhetoric is both simplistic and misleading, but taken by themselves his rants against government or against overseas wars resonate with many Americans, both young and old.  It is also a reminder that people with no chance of being elected, which describes Paul and in a different way some of his young supporters, have the luxury of saying whatever they want.  They will never be asked to back up their contentions or positions with action.  Any elected official understands the difference between campaigning and governing, except seemingly the Teas in Congress.

Some Democrats may be disappointed with Obama’s performance to date.  Like many others they may feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.  Nevertheless, the President faces no opposition from within his party — no Gene McCarthy challenging LBJ.  He can expect their full and most likely enthusiastic support in November.  In contrast, few Republicans seem to be happy campers.  They jumped on Newt’s bandwagon in South Carolina but were with Mitt two weeks back and more or less, it turns out, with Rick Santorum days earlier.  If you listen to their audiences (ones that pale in comparison to crowds drawn by both Obama and Clinton in ’08) you may hear loud cheers but, if polls are any indication, there remains a serious enthusiasm gap.  More Republicans are turning up this year to vote, but there just is no electricity in the air.  Whatever passion there may be (and it’s very hard to discern much) seems to be fickle and fluid.  That roller-coaster leader-of-the-moment we saw in the earliest days of the contest may say more about where Republicans are today than about this particular shrinking candidate field.  Even with fewer options on the table, the choice remains uncertain and uncertainly taken by voters.

How the Republicans and Democrats feel about their candidates will certainly matter in November, but the election will be decided by independents.  According to a 2009 Pew Research Study 39% of the electorate now identify as Independents (33% Democrats, 22% Republicans).  Those numbers may have changed somewhat since, but I’d suggest Independents are de facto America’s third party.  They may not have a candidate of their own nor are they likely to be of a single mind, but both major party candidates will definitely be paying them a great deal of attention in the run up to November.  That fact, and the necessary nuance that is required in courting their votes, drives partisans up the wall.  It is precisely why primary contests in which candidates must appeal to a very narrow, often near-fringe, constituency is not only so different from the General but can also be so damaging to the standard bearer who has leaned too far right or left in gaining the nomination.  Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.

South Carolina showed again that unlike Nixon in his day, Romney is not yet The One nor that he necessarily will be in Tampa come summer.  Will his party come together and evidence more than what the columnist Ross Douthat described as weary resignation in selecting their leader?  Hard to say, but they may well yet muster up the passion that now remains elusive.  Will it happen soon enough or be sufficiently intense to win back to the White House in November?  I doubt it, but don’t fully discount it either.  We are living in very fluid and unpredictable times.  Just days before South Carolina, Mitt was a headed for certain victory and we know what happened to that, virtually overnight.  Copies of the current New Yorker and New York Magazine appeared in my mailbox.  Lots of good pieces and, in some areas, as timeless as things can ever be these days.  But on the political front, both offered yesterday’s news and opinions.  Print is dying not because it isn’t wonderful to hold a page in your hand, but because events are moving too fast for it.  Our demands for information with real-time currency are just much more acute than ever before.  We don’t only want it, but can get it minute by minute, and do.  Those print magazines sitting before me as I write are a good metaphor for the GOP race.  Don’t like the weather?  Just wait an instant and it is sure to change and, even then, don’t expect it to be predictive of storms or sunshine to come.

Ah, the…old days.

In a recent column David Brooks reports being struck that Republican audiences this year want a restoration.  America once had strong values…but we have gone astray.  We’ve got to go back and rediscover what we had.  He went on, I agree with the sentiment, but it makes for an incredibly backward-looking campaign. I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.

The idea of restoration is exactly what his audiences probably consider when Mitt Romney speaks of taking America back.  And that back is not to either of the Bushes (who’ve become stump non-persons) but to an idealized Ronald Reagan.  For years Republicans were green with envy that Democrats had FDR’s flag to wave while they had to reach far back to being the Party of Lincoln.  It’s not to discount Lincoln — most of us would gladly and do claim him — but rather that the Great Emancipator seems so, well, Democratic.  Reagan on the other hand is larger than life, seen as a legitimate counterbalance to Roosevelt.  His were the mythical golden years, when the country was set on a course of prosperity and power.  Reagan stands for lower taxes and a strong economy, for winning the Cold War and emerging as the World’s only superpower.  Both the prosperity and the superpower notions are more than just appealing.  They represent an ego-enhancing reassurance about our invincibility, our exceptionalism.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, it’s not only Republicans who look back wistfully to the good old days. We long for a restoration of the time when being middle class meant something, when unions were fighting successfully for workers and when our kids could go to college without obliterating our savings or emerging as debtors.  We all like to think that politics was so much kinder when Ronnie and Tip could do business together or when Mr. Sam (Rayburn) invited Democrats and Republicans alike (well, almost alike) to join him for those famous late afternoon cocktail hours.  Ah, the good old days.

Of course they weren’t all that great and in some respects not all that different from today.  Just take one small example.  In 1952 the columnist Stewart Alsop branded Adlai Stevenson an egghead.  It quickly became an epithet.  Anything intellectual was considered bad and, by implication, out of the mainstream — not like Ike and certainly not like us.  Today Barak Obama is branded professorial (read egghead) — not like real Americans, not like us.  How we view intellectuals in this country, including that universities are increasingly looked to as vocational schools rather than places of learning, is a matter for another time.

Brooks is concerned about a backward-looking campaign.  He thinks we should be thinking and talking about the future.  I couldn’t agree more.  I also concur with his assessment of today’s Republicans as the receding roar of white America and that the life and place for which they (and many of us) yearn will never return.  But insofar as the upcoming election is concerned, I think Romney and his supporters are being more than unrealistic.  Talking about taking (going) back is a serious strategic blunder.  No politician, even with good sloganeering, is in full control of the message, how it’s heard rather than how it is meant.  So Romney’s invitation to look or go back actually runs contrary to (and might cancel out) his storyline about Obama’s poor performance in the present.  It reminds us that Reagan actually sent us on a road to a highly leveraged faux prosperity whose endpoint was the stunning, and in retrospect fully predictable, collapse of 2008.  Moreover it lays bare how ephemeral being the last standing superpower is a modern world where the reality of globalization leads directly to a more level playing field.  By the way, whether we aggressively promoted it or not, in the information age globalization would have happened on its own, probably just as fast.

You can’t call for a return without prompting the question, return to what?  And that’s exactly where Democrats and the President should want voters to look.  It may well be that Republicans have tried to erase the presidential firm of Bush & Bush from our minds, but Americans have shown themselves to have only short-term memories.  It’s been almost a quarter century since Reagan left office, which means that a large swath of the population wasn’t born or old enough to worship at his alter.  In contrast George W. Bush was in office just three years ago and, efforts to erase him from history are laughable.  He remains top-of-mind.  What his presidency wrought at home and abroad — how it impacted on our individual lives — doesn't make for a pretty picture.  Obama will be happy to focus on that past, to ask Americans if they want to return to it.  When Republicans urge us to go back, he’ll remind us again that it was their man Bush who bequeathed him and us a colossal mess to clean up.  As with hurricanes, tornedos and floods the garbage left behind by a financial meltdown is so massive that it isn’t easily or quickly collected.  Just ask the residents of New Orleans.  The cleanup and rebuilding, as they know so well, takes substantially more time than tearing down.  Restoring the past may speak to some who don’t like where we are today or who we have become as a nation, but focusing on the rearview mirror rather than on the road ahead is always hazardous, often fatal.

Brooks may despair of what has become of the party and ideology he largely supports, but he can’t undo the bed they have chosen to make for themselves.  In narrowing their constituency to mostly people like us — few Blacks, Latinos, Gays or any of the others they demonize — it’s unsurprising that Republicans share a sense (and reality) of displacement.  They may find it unnerving, may lash out with an angry Tea Party, but they can’t turn the clock back.  Brooks, himself one of those eggheads they disdain, tells the truth.  Yesterday is really gone.   You can ask Eastman Kodak about that one.  Perhaps neither the rank and file nor their leaders get (or admit to getting) it, but those they paint as the other are fast becoming us.  And it’s the very multidimensional us that has always been America at its best, a nation of others who have kept our creative juices going, given us a unique identity.  Perhaps in this election cycle we’re not yet ready to talk directly and honestly about the real America of 2012, but the time when any one of us can afford to sit with blinders on is running out.   

This election is bound to be about the economy, and perhaps we’ll see a discussion about the role of government — more or less — in our lives.  That kind of conversation is long overdue, but don’t count on it happening.   Part of what will likely drive us as voters this fall is whether or not we want to go back.  What we decide will depend in large measure on how we perceive the good old days and whether we think this nation can manage and, more importantly thrive, in a very different time.  My advice to you is simple.  If you’re yearning for the past — the old days — get over it!

Affirmation with attendant questions.

It’s unsurprising that the religious right leaders gathered in Brenham Texas voted to endorse Rick Santorum.  Unlike Newt, whose religiosity comes off as opportunistic, and the other Rick who has shown himself unpredictable, Santorum is clearly and consistently one of them.  That said, what they perceive as his strength — an unabashed religious fervor — is precisely what makes the former senator so problematic to those of us concerned about any erosion in the Jefferson’s Wall of Separation.  Indeed Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, and the gathering’s spokesman epitomizes those theocrats that would have us tear much of it down and submit to their ideas and ways.

As Republican candidates actively seek support of those who by word and action challenge it, last week the Supreme Court issued a significant, albeit narrow, ruling affirming the Establishment Clause.   At issue in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was whether a religious institution, in this case a Lutheran church school, is covered by a ministerial exception in dealing with one of its employees. Hosanna-Tabor had fired Cheryl Perish a called (ordained as minister) teacher who suffered from narcolepsy rather than let her return to work.  She brought suit under The Americans with Disabilities Act.   Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck a balance for us.  The church must be free to choose who will guide it on its way.

When our highest court upholds church-state separation, especially in the current political climate, we all have good reason to celebrate.  At the same time, the ministerial exception invoked and confirmed in this case seems to fly in the face of the protections embodied in the ADA, protections most of us value.  Had Ms. Perish worked for anyone else, her suit would have been judged solely on its merits — was she fired because she was ill — and nothing else.  To me, this case presents a troubling conundrum.  On the one hand, we absolutely don’t want the government dictating who religious institutions chose to lead them, on the other we want all employees, regardless of who they are and where they work, to be protected.  So the Court was faced with a really tough choice.  It came down on the separation side deciding that while the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is important, that is trumped by the interest of religious groups in choosing who will teach their beliefs. Trumped but limited to this case or assumably ones exactly like it.  Clearly their decision reflects that they too understood the conundrum. As Chief Roberts put it: ...We express no view on whether the [ministerial] exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers.  There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

Whenever we set up protections for one class of people not accorded to others we walk a fine line.  The Establishment Clause was aimed at protecting against a government that would subvert religious freedom and independence.  Roberts methodically recounts that background in his decision referencing, among others, The Act of Supremacy of 1534 [that] made the English monarch the supreme head of the Church.  He reminds us that, seeking to escape the control of the national church, the Puritans fled to New England.  They were not alone in seeking religious freedom.  But who exactly should have that protection?  Should it be limited to those groups who believe in a god, or who profess following divine teaching and direction or should it also protect, say a group that challenges a god’s existence or more pointedly speaks against such a deity?  The organized Secular Humanists have skirted that important issue by presenting themselves as a church — in effect a godless-religion. 

In 2005 a Federal Appeals Court, faced with the plea of a prison inmate, ruled that that atheism is equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment.  It follows then that courts are likely to protect the rights of an individual atheist, though perhaps more on the grounds of the Frist Amendment’s free speech guarantee than necessarily its establishment clause.  If so, that’s too bad because in my view her lack of belief in God should be treated identically as would be the case for a theist follower an organized religion, and for the same legal reason.  But would an organized group of atheists who refuse to follow the secular humanist route in calling themselves either a church or a religion be accorded the same ministerial exception that the Court gave Hosanna-Tabor?  I’m talking here about an organization made up of people coming from what Pew and others characterize as the fastest growing group on the religious landscape.  What criteria might the Court use to make that judgment?  Would it be sufficient for the group to designate leaders or would they need to have established a formal set of beliefs and/or rules of governance?  Would they have to have incorporated?  Given where we’re actually headed in this assumed religious country, this is not a far-fetched question.   Associations of atheists already exist likey to both promulgate and then effectively transmit their beliefs to the next generation.  Others may be formed in the future even if only to get the seat they deserve at the table of public discourse.  How would the Court treat these non-churches — how would they as institutions be protected by the Establishment Clause?

Given the militant reaction of the religious right to the so-called value issues currently focused on what they call traditional marriage, it’s fair to wonder how they would feel if an atheist entity were accorded, or even to claim, a ministerial exception?  Think about it.   The very idea that atheism could be placed on the same legal plane as theism would be no less troubling than allowing abortions or same-sex unions.  That God isn’t ultimately more important to evangelicals and other orthodox religious than terminating a pregnancy or allowing gay and lesbians — mere mortals — to marry would be mystifying.  In fact, I would think that in their worldview according atheists equal establishment clause status would be nothing short of blasphemy.  It would be seen as the ultimate slippery slope.

Courts generally don’t answer unasked questions and, to inoculate themselves, are loath to publically speculate on issues and cases that might be.  Who knows whether in the privacy of their conference or individual chambers these questions have been discussed or even considered?  There is no evidence that any member of the Court is an active atheist or even an agnostic.  Their rulings on the establishment clause aren’t theologically grounded other than to protect freedom of those who are.  It may take a long time, if ever, for this issue to present itself.  And the questions raised in Hosanna-Tabor are by no means limited to the ones just posed.

Having personally experienced being employed as a clergyman and then as a business executive, I come to this issue with a little different perspective than those who don’t share that experience.  Of course the purposes of my different employers were different as was the work.  Many churches and clergy see the ministry as a calling (sometimes literally the result of divine intervention or purpose) — The Lutheran’s gave Ms. Perish the title: called-teacher.   I never saw it that way, and not all religions do either.  The fact is that, regardless or the job description or work, both as a rabbi and as an executive I was an employee.  I was expected to perform and in return expected a salary check to reach me when promised, to have appropriate working conditions and to be treated fairly and equitably by my employers; synagogue board or company.   We all know that doesn’t always go well.  And we know from the sexual abuse scandal, both the criminal acts and the cover-up, that religious institutions are not immune from wrongdoing.  Ms. Perish’s employers dodged a bullet that would likely have hit its target had she worked for any other kind of school, public or private.  I don’t think the ADA was meant to exclude any employer or not to protect the rights of any individual.  The Court’s decision certainly re-affirmed the establishment clause, but it’s hard to deny it raised as many questions as it answered.

Pure. Well not exactly.

Even Ivory couldn’t be called 100% pure.  The claim its makers did make (99.44%) was constructed, as much promotional hype as reality.  Take your pick, neither 100 nor 99.44%  necessarily means the best or even better cleaning.  And that’s even more so with politics.  As said in my last post, if you want purity, get out of the political kitchen.  Linking purity with politics is an oxymoron.  Clearly that’s something those engaged in the unfolding Republican Presidential primary either don’t know or want us to forget.  From Iowa into New Hampshire and now South Carolina, claims of purity are getting a real workout.  One contender after another is promoting himself (the single herself has left the stage) as the real, or shall I say pure, conservative.  That’s of course in contrast to his impure opponent.  It’s a uniquely Republican debate.

Pure in a political setting suggests being in possession of the truth, the kind of absolute truth claimed by the religious right with which some of these conservative candidates closely identify.  Democrats and especially liberals are more circumspect about possessing the truth.  But there is another reason they don’t engage in this purity rhetoric.  Thanks in large measure to Ronald Reagan, liberals and liberalism has been demonized — the L word.  While there is more than ample reason for Democrats to explore liberalism and to re-identify with it — a subject for the future — for now we should be grateful that the GOP’s great (and seemingly only) hero saved us this public pursuit of purity.

Like anyone who preaches a message of the only truth, these absolutists see their political ideology as 100% pure and thus somehow sacrosanct.  Their truths include that only smaller government, lower taxes, and less social programming will solve all our ills and bring on prosperity.  It’s a pure truth that lends itself to no compromise and no one represents it more clearly and purely than Ron Paul.  It is that purity, and most especially his being so up front and consistent about it, that has made Paul so attractive.  To be sure, many of his most loyal long-term followers and more so his recent converts (which include some very strange bedfellows) don’t spend much time considering the consequences of his pure message.  Considering how change-resistant we Americans really are, it’s unlikely many (if any) of them would welcome how translating the rhetoric into reality would impact on their individual or communal lives. 

In a short New Yorker piece, Enemy of the State, Nicholas Lemann spells out where government-shrinking, the purist kind espoused by Paul and that echoed by Republicans out on the hustings, leads.  If rigorously put into practice …Paul’s vision, he writes, would mean …A minimal state, without welfare provisions for the unemployed.  A quarter of a million federal workers…joining those unemployed.  Foreign policy and national defense reduced to a few ballistic-missile submarines. The civil-rights legislation of the nineteen-sixties repealed, and in a financial crisis …no regulation that might have prevented it, no government stabilization …and no special help for working people hurt by it.

Oh, but that’s in the fine print, and to focus on logical implications is to miss the point.  Talk is cheap.  Paul’s edge comes in large measure because he never has to deliver — as say does a president, governor, or mayor.  No need to put up, so none to shut up.  And in Paul we can see the polar opposite of what we simple mortals face.  Most of our problems don’t lend themselves to pure solutions.  Our everyday real world and how we address it has more in common with President Obama or any one of his predecessors than those purists on the campaign trail.  Sure the Tea Party folk who were elected to Congress will tell you that it’s possible to remain pure, but look at the result, the havoc they have caused.  Having the objective of halting the wheels of government makes great headlines, but its pontificating purists don’t have to get social security checks out, fill pot holes or send someone’s loved ones to war. 

So all this debate about purity rings pretty hollow, a sharp departure from reality.  I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but the charge that he is a flip-flopper is totally disingenuous.  Not only have all his office holding opponents made pragmatic adjustments in their public lives, most (including Saint Paul) have likely done so at home.  Navigate a marriage or raise a child without the occasional flip-flop and you’ll deserve a place in Guinness.  There is no purity in the life of, by definition, imperfect human beings.  The purity espoused in all those pronouncements and debates suggests a stubbornness that obviates the give and take that make America what it is, that make it possible.  And this isn’t a matter of ideology.  It would apply to pure liberalism as well as pure conservatism, neither of which have a lock on truth — the right and only way.

My purpose here is not to suggest that heartfelt beliefs and core principles are not important.  There should be options that go beyond the pale, places where we take an absolute, even purist, stand.  One would hope that all those who serve, or seek to serve, in public office live by some purist ideal, that they possess core values.  In a fundamental way, we depend on that being so, which accounts for why we are so often disappointed.  It’s that experience and disappointment that suggests each and everyone of those self-proclaimed purists engaged in the who is the pure conservative debate is blowing smoke. It's not that what they're selling isn't pure, just that its pure malarkey.  What is it they say about glass houses?

Change out the Veep time.

Franklin Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents — John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace and of course give em hell Harry S. Truman.  Since then only Richard Nixon had two — Spiro Agnew and Gerald Ford — and that was born out of criminality.  Tobacco chewing Garner famously said the office was not worth a bucket of spit, and for years it was hard to argue with his assessment.  Our vice presidents were mostly understudies on deathwatch with the odds of ever taking center stage stacked against them.  Nonetheless, nine such watchers did move up including the forgettable Millard Fillmore, but also Truman and Lyndon Johnson.  Teddy Roosevelt, unquestionably one of our greats, came to office when another president’s heart stopped.

One would think that eight in-office deaths would have put greater pressure on presidents to better prepare their Veeps, to bring them more into what one called the loop.  Truman was famously uninformed, this despite FDR’s having been in such poor health that his succession was considered a foregone conclusion upon nomination at the 1944 convention.  It took the ninth, John F Kennedy’s, and a subsequent 14-month vice presidential vacancy to command the proper attention resulting in the 1967 25^th Amendment.  Its importance came into play almost immediately in the dual Agnew-Nixon disgraces resulting in two vice presidential appointments in succession: Ford and then Nelson Rockefeller.

In the wake of that experience, Jimmy Carter literally transformed the office by making Fritz Mondale the first authentic vice presidential partner.  Neither Reagan nor the G.H.W. Bush went quite that far, but clearly Clinton, the younger Bush and Obama did.  Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden have all been major, at times decisive, players in their respective administrations.

Perhaps most of our vice presidents haven’t been more than frustrated understudies or the office more valuable than that bucket of spit, but it seems every time a president faces reelection talk abounds about changing out his number two.  The argument usually goes that the president would be a stronger second term prospect with a different running mate.  Nixon, as Ike’s Veep, was haunted by such talk, as were both Quale and Chaney.  Lyndon Johnson was never a favorite of the Kennedy crowd and talk of his replacement began the day after he was sworn in as number two in January 1961.  So here we go again.

Bill Keller is only the latest pundit to suggest that President Obama consider rearranging his administration by switching Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton’s seats around the table.  That particular idea was floated back in '08 when some saw the then Senators as better candidates for the offices they didn’t get than for the ones that they took.  Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, seemed a natural for State; with a near nomination win, many Clinton supporters felt she was entitled to be vice president.  An Obama-Clinton pairing was seen to be a dream ticket, but unquestionably one that presented all kinds of issues, not the least a Bill problem.

Three years in, it’s more than fair to say both Biden and Clinton have substantially out performed expectations.  Biden has been among the most active and effective of vice presidents.  Beyond all else, he has served as an important counterbalance to the hawkish generals whom Obama, like all Democratic presidents must, has had to pay due deference.  Clinton has been a remarkably adroit and effective diplomat walking the walk (or flying it) and gaining respect both at home and abroad.  Few thought he, the unbridled talker, and she, the thwarted candidate, would be an easy or disciplined fit in subordinate roles.  It is a tribute first to them and also to the president that such calculations were unfounded.  It is no less a tribute to this trio that the idea of a switch is so viable, whether or not it is desirable, possible or probable.  Perhaps some people had trouble thinking of Biden or Clinton going into their current roles, but no one questions for a moment either taking on the other’s job today or doing so with distinction. 

So it appears that nothing should stand in the way of making this switch.  For sure Clinton’s many dedicated 2008 supporters would be delighted to get their dream ticket at long last.  In what is likely to be a challenging, some say inevitably close race, it could make the difference between victory and loss.  Neither is this a novel argument nor is history on the side of a switch.  Sitting vice presidents simply don’t get dislodged.  Carter/Mondale, Bush/Quale, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Chaney — the first two pairs lost their reelection bid the second two won.  Regardless, both teams remained in tact.  Talk of replacing vice presidents was often rooted in dissatisfaction.  Quale, for example, was never more than a mystifying choice and Cheney had taken on his Darth Vader persona.  Nothing like that exists today. Quite the contrary, the hopes of Clinton supporters notwithstanding, Joe Biden’s selection was greeted positively when first made and his performance has only enhanced his image.  He is neither seen as a lightweight or as a Star Wars villain.  But perhaps most important, the Vice President seems to like his job and, by all accounts, the President feels the same in having him at his side.  End of story.

Talk of switching out vice presidents has been a favorite parlor game for both political junkies and the opportunistic manufacturers of news who live off it.  It has always been a sideshow and distraction — and likely to remain so.  Nonetheless, there is one aspect this time around that makes it both different and deserving of some serious attention.   In fact, it presents an opportunity for a discussion that shouldn’t be missed.  Secretary Clinton is a woman.  Switch outs may never have happened, but seven twentieth century vice presidents moved on to the presidency and two more were their party’s nominees.  Holding the office is not inconsequential.  Possession has proven to be nine-tenths of the law.  In that, replacing Biden with Clinton might present our best shot of finally getting a Ms. President into the White House.  I think Mondale had that in mind in picking Geraldine A. Ferraro (who died last March) as his 1984 running mate.

It is a sad commentary on our country that a decade into the twenty-first century there are so few women — some might argue virtually none — politically well positioned for the presidency.  We can make all the partisan jokes we want, but that John McCain had to select a Sarah Palin reflects badly on all of us.  The reality is that he had no deep or even viable candidate bench. The Democrats remain equally impoverished in that regard.  Just try and make your pick.  I’ll give you the minute McCain seems to have taken and be assured that aside from Hilary Clinton no name will come instantly and easily to mind.  Let’s remember that an African American’s rise to the presidency in the ordinary elective way was the exception, not the rule.  Fundamental change — in this case bringing a woman in striking distance of the presidency — often, if now always, has to be force-fed in this great country.  To our shame, we badly lag behind other democracies in female leaders.  And before we give them too much credit, that may not have happened either absent the precedent established when women ascended to the throne — that only because there was no male heir.  Elizabeth, and the few but notable queens before her, laid the groundwork for a Thatcher.  Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

I don’t think an Obama-Clinton ticket is in the cards, or that his re-election is anyway dependent on replacing Biden.  At the same time, I can’t help but being somewhat disappointed that we will, for very good and understandable reasons, miss this opportunity.  We can’t really have change in America or fulfill its dream until women have been mainstreamed into both the circles and the pinnacle of leadership.  Considering that the hypothetical dream ticket is more than likely to win in November, the election that’s all about the economy could end up being a tangible and most necessary game changer, dream fulfiller.  That possibility is, at the very least, worth contemplating.

Don’t believe the partisan left-right rhetoric, there is no black and white in political decision-making.  To paraphrase good old Harry: if you’re looking for pure, get out of the political kitchen.  So Obama, even if he wants to make history, will likely stay the course.  Bill Clinton always characterized his big decisions as the right thing to do.  Some (not all) of that could be discounted as hyperbole.  It’s intriguing to think Obama might consider Hilary Clinton as his 2012 running mate.  In the ideal world — wherever that may be — it might turly be the right thing to do.  Right for him — yes.   Right for the country — absolutely.

To the right of right, amen.

One of the results of Iowa’s last man standing outcome is that the new Romney challenger is perhaps the most socially/religiously conservative candidate in the race.  Rick Santorum’s tenure in Congress was marked by battles against choice and for, among others, abstinence-only and creationism teaching in schools.  He is one of those evolution is a theory kind of guys.  Of course he vehemently opposes to same-sex unions and his recent exchange with New Hampshire college students illustrates how doctrinaire but vapid his arguments.  Santorum, who will be remembered for equating homosexuality and bestiality, now suggests same-sex unions equate to a certain next step: polygamy, in this case, say, between three men.  Let’s not even begin to consider what kind of a mind can conjure up such a weird argument.  If that’s the intellectual case for the things religious rightists oppose — marriage equality, reproductive rights and stem cell research among them — bring it on.

Iowa has always been fertile ground for the right’s religious agenda.  It is there that we routinely find candidates across the board pandering to those who would break down the walls of separation.  It is in Iowa that Michelle Bachman preached in church the week before the caucus.  It didn’t help.  It is a place of confession and redemption, think Newt wearing his newborn Catholicism on his sleeve, with the object of his adulterous subterfuge Callista hanging dutifully on his bent arm.  Iowa is where the Reverend Governor Huckabee emerged victorious in 2008 only to evaporate almost immediately in a sober cool New Hampshire primary night.  To be fair, Democratic candidates, including the now president and state secretary did their share of religious pandering last time around.  New Hampshire also boasts its religious conservatives, albeit the New England kind, and even more so does South Carolina where far right evangelicals abound.  But don’t expect religion to dominate for very much longer.  Santorum will implode, not only because of his message, but also because of his extreme, sometimes downright weird, rhetoric.  McCain and Obama’s command performances at Rick Warren’s Saddle Back are a distant memory and unlikely to repeat themselves.  Whatever happened to Warren?

It isn’t only that today’s voters are more focused on the economy, which in my view has always been the primary interest of the American electorate, but that in the real world this kind of religious fervor is on the wane.  Twenty-five percent of young Americans are dis-identifying with religion.  That number is likely to grow, which is exactly what Romney hopes will happen to his still solid twenty-five.  Santorum’s views on marriage no longer mirror the majority and, while it is never smart to predict Supreme Court decisions, may ultimately be of no legal consequence.  People like the former Pennsylvania senator attribute our weak economy to a decline in family values, but David Brooks somewhat supporting views notwithstanding, that is a hard case to make.  I don’t remember it being part of anyone’s economic analysis, left or right.  But that’s another discussion.

I don’t think religious confessions will fly this time around, but at the same time Iowa and the entire GOP candidate field is a reminder that the faith card is still being played.  You don’t have to be the late Chris Hitchens to feel that religion has no place in politics.  For one thing, we want our political leaders to justify their positions with provable facts — I did say we want.  One may confidently believe in God says, attribute one’s actions to the divine, but proving that is another matter.  Not one of those who make such claims can give a credible response to the simple question, how do you know that?  I believe it to be so — sincere as it may be — just doesn’t cut it.  When it comes to God says, my claim is safely as good, or as weak and unsubstantiated, as is yours.  Moreover, however egalitarian we may be, it is usually a claim on behalf of the truth and true God of the claimant’s faith.  As the writer and student of religion Stephen Prothero points out in his book of that name, God is not One.  Indeed, what a person of one belief system says with such certainly is God’s view may be, and often is, diametrically the opposite of another’s attribution.  Remember that both presidential candidates in 2008 were literally forced into confessing their fidelity to Christ.  That might conform to the views of a majority of Americans, but not to all of us, committed theists and non-theists among them.  Religion in politics is a slippery slope that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, divides rather than brings us together.

And perhaps that’s really the point here.  We have enough in this country that divides us.  I have no particular hope that this election season or the coming years, regardless of who is running things, will bridge that divisiveness.  It seems clear that even President Obama who ran first time around on bringing us together — giving voice to Lyndon Johnson’s dictum let us reason together — to his governing has thrown in the bi-partisan towel.  Many on his side applaud that change, myself included.  The truth is you can’t play a civil game of baseball when your opponent is playing knock-down football on the same field.  Let us reason together, was another time you’ll say.  Perhaps so, but don’t tell me, or worse tell yourself, that we are better off that way.  We are not.  How much or how little government we should have is a legitimate question.  Where God stands in all of this adds nothing to finding an answer.  If anything, it gets in the way.

A landslide of 8.

Well, I guess the games really have begun in earnest.  122,255 of Iowa’s Republican faithful made it to the caucuses.  However the pundits score the outcome or project its importance, after months of campaigning, endless debates and poll gyrations Iowans still couldn’t decisively decide who should lead them to the promised land.  Yes, Mitt Romney was declared winner, but 24.6% — by 8 votes?  Hardly a sign of rousing support much less any kind nomination mandate.  It seems only to confirm that he can’t break through that 25% ceiling, exactly where he started a year ago.  To put Iowa in perspective, just Imagine if come November we would have a presidential victor supported by less than a quarter of the voters.  How could he possibly govern or be seen as having the right to do so?  Now that’s highly unlikely even let’s say with Paul, Bloomberg and perhaps Romney joining Obama in a 4-way race, but you get the point.  Romney doesn’t yet have his party behind him and perhaps he never will.

I don’t know that Iowa is predictive of anything — their pivotal first out of the gate role has always seemed curious to me.  But I think the outcome does underscore how divided the country.  Even with a moderately homogeneous Republican electorate there — generally more conservative and religious (think especially the Bachmann/Santorum pitches) they evidence polarity not unity.  Romney, Santorum and Paul are not natural or comfortable bedfellows.  Neither are their supporters.  Truth be known, a similar division exists within the Democratic ranks with various constituencies expressing widely differing degrees of support of, or disappointment in, the President and his policies.

It’s the conventional wisdom that as polarized as the country may appear from the discourse, the majority of Americans are in the middle.  Don’t believe it. Those who have taken the time to become really informed on the issues and the solutions are all over the map.  Sure a majority of Americans may (and I stress that word) want an end to the divisiveness, but they certainly aren’t putting their leaders’ feet to the fire to get that done.  The opposite of demanding compromise, most think one side or the other is caving in too soon and too often.  In our economic despair we have, if anything, retrogressed into a nation more divided not less.  Neither Tea Party nor Occupy, the only visible ground-up movements, are close to centrist in their approaches.  We can argue whether one or the other is being manipulated (which means that we are too), but let’s agree that both are comprised of absolutists to whom any compromise whatsoever is considered selling out, somehow impure.  We can see to what effect that works in the performance of Tea legislators who rode in on the protest wave of 2010 and I’d guess much the same would happen if their Occupy counterparts would prevail in 2012, not that there is any sign they will even engage in that way.

We have no center or only a center defined as agree with me because I’m right in my thinking.  And perhaps that isn’t so surprising or necessarily wrong.  Read Paul Krugman (with whom I usually agree) and then some equally credentialed economist on the right and you will see that even the most informed judgments can be 180^o apart.  Is Krugman right that debt is misunderstood and not really the central problem?  He makes a compelling case, but an awful lot of smart people have bought into the idea that debt is the problem.  Again, that’s not the issue here but rather that the center where supposedly the majority of people find themselves is nothing but an illusion.

It is said that Iowa’s vote this year was the closest ever, translated the most inconclusive.  If you agree with my contention that most of us are more all over the map than at any common center, then Iowa is (despite whatever makes it an outlier) typically the America we know.  It will be interesting to see how the GOP race plays out, and rest assured the press hopes it will play out very, very, very slowly.  It still isn’t clear who might be Obama’s most difficult opponent.  At this early date with the economy still teetering at the edge, it is impossible and foolish to make any absolute predictions about November.  For now Charlie Rose, among others, seems to relish finding talking heads who will, even if with some caveats, trash the President.  That’s what makes for a race, what makes it interesting.  But let’s remember, there is really no one else to trash at this point.  That will change.  Also a third or fourth party contender would have an impact on the outcome.  Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton and Ralph Nader didn’t exactly serve George Bush badly.

Will we ever see that mythical center that’s supposed to exist?  I guess one would hope so, or some might.  But then again, we’ve rarely moved on in this country, positively or negatively (depending on your point of view), from a dominant center.  Perhaps there was some agreement on civil rights but it was leadership taking what, in the context of history, was a radical left position that moved the ball.  I don’t think we turned to the right because that’s necessarily where the center lay.  Reagan, the ground having been prepared by Goldwater and Nixon (and a long in coming), dragged us in that direction.  When it acquiesces, which it does, the center moves one-way or the other, inexplicitly and inconsistently — no substantive questions asked.  And they call Romney a flip-flopper.

 

OMG, here we go again.

With Helen Mirren at Buckingham and Meryl Streep occupying 10 Downing how can the Brits go wrong?  They are clearly in the most capable (and talented) hands.  And with Tina Fey having gotten nowhere near the White House, we have every reason to hope.  We dodged what could have been a fatal bullet.  Some have suggested Streep is more Thatcher than Thatcher.  Easily claimed when the Iron Lady is of such poor heath and diminished mind that she cannot make a case for herself.  As to Fey being more Palin than Palin, the jury will probably always be out because while the lady of Wasilla is good at stuffing her bank account, she has never been able to make a coherent argument about anything, much less for herself.

Republicans go to caucus this week.  Let the serious games begin.  If 2012 will show us anything; it will remind painfully that our election cycles are far too long.  Not only do they go on interminably, they essentially put our governance on ice.  You could argue that this is not such a bad thing, but don’t buy that Kool-Aid.  We have essentially been in limbo since the 2010 off year ballot (the least productive Congress since the 1880s) and the paralyzing result has been anything but good.  Even now, as the President has agreed to put off raising the debt ceiling for a few days, one can almost predict the sound and fury signifying nothing that will present itself with their return from holiday break.  Sorry old Bard for the steal, it was just too hard to resist.

One always hopes that on some small level progress can be made in the passage of time.  Forget that dream.  As the country continues to be devoured by economic stagnation and cancerous income inequality, Republican candidates are again tuning to God about whose stature in the face of evils like same-sex marriage and abortion seems so much more important than all  those struggling families both the underemployed and the jobless.   Of course they have always been close to the Almighty, always tried to outdo each other on that.  Mike Huckabee, God's super pitchman, considered entering the fray.  No need, we’ve got it covered with lovely Michelle Bachmann, the anti-abortion vigilante mother who also fostered those 10,000 wonderful kids.  Who knew she’d flame out so quickly?  Sad, no one seems to have shared that fact with her?  Again, no worry.  Rick Santorum to the rescue, stepping so deftly into the vacuum.  To be fair, Santorum brought God to the Senate’s floor long before the woman from Minnesota brought the divine to the lower House.  So I guess he is really just filling his own vacuum.  Too bad that important handful of American voters in Iowa might, dare I say, abort his resurrection at the starting gate.

Newt is crying at year’s end and we haven’t even reached New Hampshire where Hilary was revived by tears.  Did you know his mother, whose memory brought his on, made him sing in the Church choir?  Ah history.  Wonder if this uber historian of highly valued (very highly) wisdom and perspective realizes that, crying can carry you just so far.  And that’s not to the finishing line.  Think Muskie (historians surely remember Muskie).  And by the way Hilary did have a shot at Virginia, the place where he currently hangs his had and his beloved’s crown jewels, and she still didn't prevail.  By the way, I hear the bathroom lighting is awesome.

Everyone is really excited about Ron Paul, well maybe not everyone.  At 76 (the Chinese have nothing on us) he shows himself to be a man of such underlying youth and vigor.  Move aside Antonin; this guy claims to be the authentic originalist.  No government and certainly no regulations especially against bigots and kooks is definately the way to go.  Paul’s anti-war positions are said to appeal to young Occupiers, his anti-Washington positions to young Tea’s.  My guess is that neither group is reading the small print of his record, which is pathetic since it's in 16 pt. Times Roman, easily read and transparent to any octogenarian.  No reading glasses required.

Meanwhile, the capital rich "bane" (cheap shot) of Massachusetts (or is Michigan) moves along.  Quite impressive really that someone can be so carefully be wrapped in, at once,  a slick and awkward package.  Neat hair.  That said, it’s hard to see him being dislodged from unenthusiastic but still top billing.  By the way, what happened to the other Mormon, the shining star Chinese speaker from Utah?  We all thought he might have been a contender.  Oh, well what do we know?  Go figure. 

Without putting myself out on a limb with a firm prediction, Republicans have historically (Newt, I’m learning) given their nod to the person whose turn it is perceived to be.  Reagan, GHW Bush, Dole, and cranky old McCain to be specific.  W was odd man out in that regard, but…well he was odd man out.  All of these fresh new faces had struck out the first time they came up to bat and the party elders (don’t think they’ve disappeared) felt they were entitled to run the bases if they came up again.  In the old fashioned way, they had earned it.  Each had more or less practiced hard and it’s not polite to turn a guy down more than once.  So an upset notwithstanding (or, borrowing from Gail Collins obsession, that he’s puts his dog on his in-motion campaign bus roof), Mitt will likely be it.

In 2008 the Democrats showed us that the show can go on for longer than we expect.  It ain’t over till it’s over (not Shakespeare, but still a steal that should be acknowledged).  But of course back then there were a lot of authentically substantive candidates, two especially so. Maybe their debates didn’t get big ratings as reality  low rent TV entertainment, but they were for the most part believable as potential Oval Office occupants.  So the show may go on a bit, but if it doesn’t I wonder how the sourpuss Mitch and the sonorous sun-tanned John will feel about that.  Will they have to take a back seat?  Not to worry, not much can be expected to happen under that big dome this coming year.  Little leading required.

And that’s the way it is…Saturday, December 31, 2011.  Oh how I miss Walter.   See you next year.

Thoughts at year's end.

Just days away from 2012, a year likely to be totally consumed by an election still eleven long months away, it’s probably a good time to look back an assess.  After reading Charles McGrath’s enthusiastic NY Times story on Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Margret Thatcher in Iron Lady, I couldn’t help but think of 2008 and the marathon contest between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.  Thatcher, we all remember, was the first woman to become a head of government in her own right.  The film’s British director Phyllida Lloyd, by no means a Tory, told McGrath, I was sitting in my room at university when the radio announced that she had been asked to form a government, and I went ‘Yes!’ It felt like one for our team.  To which Streep added, I did the same thing.  We all thought if it can happen in England, class bound, socially rigid, homophobic — if they can elect a female leader over there, then it’s just seconds away in America.  Well obviously not seconds, Senator Clinton didn’t make it.

The 2008 primaries were tough for the two candidates but also for many of us in being forced to choose between our equally strong commitments to feminism and civil rights — our dreams of righting inequities and imbalance on both counts.  What a painful choice — the first woman President or the first African American.  As you know, I opted for Obama to some degree because, having experienced the Bush dynasty, I was loath to see a Clinton one.  But perhaps equally so, having sat in the hot sun just feet below the lectern where Martin King spoke of them, I was overtaken by dreams.  I was not alone.

Clinton and Obama were both compelling candidates, both highly qualified to lead the country.  As Senators, a position that has rarely led to the White House, one couldn’t argue that one was more electable than the other.  Clinton rested her campaign on experience, which she surely had.  Obama, focused on change, something the country desperately wanted.  It struck a chord and in the end his argument carried the day, supported in great measure by his personal charisma and star quality.  Cranky old-looking John McCain didn’t have a chance.

There is no more favorite game political junkies play than, what if?  How might things have turned out if the now Secretary Clinton had won in ’08 and Obama had not?  Specifically, how might she have addressed the economy, the still raging wars, healthcare and all the other problems we’ve had in these last three years?  Hilary Clinton, as her campaign and history in public life have clearly shown, is an unabashed Centrist.  She supported the Iraq invasion and is generally hawkish.  Since many of us saw hers as a race for a third Clinton term, one also has to take her husband's presidency, (in which she was deeply involved — part of her experience) into account.  Clearly, some self-inflicted wounds clouded Bill Clinton’s tenure and, like Obama or more so, he was the object of irrational hate from the far Right.  Even so, Clinton had some significant accomplishments including a successful intervention in the Balkans and most notably leaving office with a budget surplus.  Nonetheless, he failed to deliver on healthcare, gave in with the disgraceful don’t ask, don’t tell policy and shepherded the repeal of Glass-Steagall, something that has led to disastrous and fully predictable consequences.

If there is one word that one hears most about the Obama presidency it is, disappointment.  Hilary Clinton might not have suffered the same assessment.  No one had the expectation that she would govern from the Left, and aside from the aspirational hopes for having a woman as president — finally — illusory dreams played little role for her supporters or the country.  Change was not her theme, and when she tepidly tried embracing it toward the end of a campaign falling short, it just wouldn’t play.  So in that regard, Ms. Clinton might have had an advantage relative to the President who, as I’ve said many times, suffers from not living up to our perceptions of him.  He, too, is a Centrist and always was, but I still think one to her left.  He opposed the Iraq invasion and, if reports are correct, has been less hawkish than his Secretary of State.

Bill Clinton campaigned on the Economy Stupid, and has been hailed for delivering on his promise.  He was surrounded by a financial dream team led by Rubin and Summers, men who were seen as walking on economic water.  We all know where that went.  Bush certainly had a big hand in our economic melt down but, with the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear the seeds of catastrophe were planted deep in the ‘90s, most especially in overturning Glass-Steagall.  Obama has been roundly criticized for essentially retaining Clinton’s economic team.  Is there any doubt a President Hilary Clinton would have done the exactly same?  In fact, I have always thought that bringing in those people was in part a political nod to the woman whose campaign so valiantly and almost successively shattered the glass ceiling as well as his buying into an economic miracle story, that turned out to be somewhat of an overblown myth.  Miracles have a way of doing that.

Clinton’s healthcare campaign proposals were much more robust than Obama’s, something that cost him some support throughout.  Regardless, both promised healthcare reform as an early priority and certainly Obama delivered, even if with substantially less than was wanted by his supporters or needed by the country.  Hilary Clinton ran on experience, and when it comes to the White House days her singular experience, managing the proposed healthcare bill, was an utter failure.  She was seen as heavy handed and secretive, pushing against the legislative process to the extent that no bill could be passed, probably partly out of jurisdictional pique.  The irony is that she was elected a Senator before Bill Clinton left office and, despite a skeptical reception by colleagues, turned out to be a highly effective and respected member, dare I say, one of the boys.  With that experience she might have had considerable success with healthcare this time around.  But it is also true that Obama’s decision to stand back, some would argue too far back, during the healthcare process may have reflected his style but undoubtedly was heavily influenced by the Clinton experience.  At the end, he succeeded where no other president had, and the difference between what might have been under her stewardship is probably more marginal than many of us would hope or assume.

We have ended the Iraq War.  Yes I know we have a big embassy there and continue to employ mercenaries who look and act like soldiers — quacks like a duck.  A second President Clinton would likely also have ended the war, which had long lost the support of the American people.  Obama escalated in Afghanistan.  She would have done the same and is reported to have wanted more than he was willing to commit.  Obama essentially turned the War on Terrorism into a hunt for terrorists, and with substantial success.  With the same capabilities of Special Forces and drones at her disposal, a President Clinton might have done the same and as Secretary of State (a very effective one) she certainly has been actively engaged in developing that policy.

The old argument of whether leaders or the times count most always plays into assessments like these.  I happen to believe that who is in charge makes a big difference, but the truth is that the stage on which she or he performs plays a critical sometimes-determinative role.  No one will question that both Obama and Clinton would have been handed the same terrible hand with cards heavily stacked against success.  The public was frustrated when they ran against each other and has shown itself, if anything, more so since.  These are two very different people who share similar political visions, though again I do think Obama leans intellectually and otherwise more to the left.  Having gotten three quarters of the way through a first term, both would be facing a challenging re-election bid.  In politics, especially with a nation bitterly divided, it’s hard to predict with certainty whether Democrats will prevail in ‘12, though I think he will.  Whatever happens, it’s likely the next five years will continue to be tough sledding for whoever is President and for us.  One can always hope things will turn out for the best not the worst.  For sure, there will be much to write about and hopefully with more regularity.

Happy New Year!

Get over it!

My inaugural 1968 subscription to the then newly minted New York Magazine, co-founded by Clay Felker (accessible intelligent content) and Milton Glaser (crisp design) has long run out.  Thanks to Frank Rich’s move, I ‘ve renewed.  I mostly read online, but a hard copy (albeit belated) does arrive in my mailbox.  What struck me with the first delivery was its appearance.  No not the design (still distinctive), but the sheer physical weight.  NY, at 128 pages, brims with ads, a sign of health that contrasts with, for example, Newsweek’s emaciated visage of terminal illness.  But that’s a digression.  What prompted this writing — yes, I know it’s been a long time — were three thoughtful pieces written by Rich, David Frum and Jonathan Chait. 

The first, What Killed JFK written close to the 48th assassination anniversary, compares the challenges facing the Kennedy and Obama presidencies, most notably the mindless hatred aimed at both men, the first Roman Catholic and the first African American to sit in the Oval Office.  Given my intense interest in both men, Rich brought back a variety of vivid memories.  JFK was my first presidential vote (in those days you really did have to be 21); Obama, in so many ways a fulfillment of my civil rights dreams.  David Frum, W’s former economic speech writer whose critical independent thinking drives some fellow Republicans to distraction writes, When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?  Not surprisingly, his words ring true to many of us outsiders.  But it is written in a voice of an insider who views his party’s presidential primary with both dismay and despair.  On the flip side, Chait (previously of The New Republic) poses the question, When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?  I urge you to read all three.

My father always said, anti-Semitism isn’t a Jewish problem it’s the problem of anti-Semites.  Of course, anti-Semitism, as he knew better than most, hugely affected Jews.  Likewise the state of the GOP isn’t my problem even though it definitely impacts upon all of our lives.  But the state of liberals, my liberals, is something about which I should have great concern.  I do.  It is my problem.  So, of the three pieces, the one that I hit home most was Jonathan Chait’s. 

In sum, the implied question that he poses is why do liberals (read also Democrats) seem to have such a strong, and he argues consistent, (my words) death wish?  Liberals, he contends, are dissatisfied because they are incapable of feeling satisfied.  We’re all familiar with the ongoing grousing about what Barak Obama hasn’t done and about who he is, or more accurately who he isn’t.  Chait’s point is that the same griping has occurred with each and every Democratic President, back (though to a lesser extent) to the mythical FDR.  It certainly plagued his successor Harry Truman, but equally Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and of course Clinton.  A quote he cites from Bob Herbert sums it up: The disappointment and disillusionment with President Clinton are widespread.  Ring a current bell?

We use our successful Democrats as whipping boys (we have yet to include girls) while the Republicans venerate theirs.  Conservatives, Chait says, are far less likely to turn against their president altogether. They assail the compromise but continue to praise the man…they remained consistently loyal to Nixon and Reagan.  We even turn on our near presidents.  Who can forget the grousing about Al Gore who won a half-hearted popular vote and whose manner and wardrobe seemed to matter more than the substance of his speeches and positions.  In fact, while irate over the Supreme Court’s anointment, many liberals thought that in the end there wasn’t that much difference between Bush and Gore.   Moreover, someone who sat in the White House with less than a popular mandate wouldn’t have much power, much less the ability to do great damage.  We all know how that went.

Perhaps what struck me most about the Chait piece was how very little has changed since FDR took, and then held, the White House through 3 plus terms.  Again to quote from the article, in 1935, Roosevelt adviser Rex Tugwell groused of the liberals, ‘They complain incessantly that the administration is moving into the conservative camp, but do nothing to keep it from going there.’  Well one of the reasons for that is that we seem to be much better talkers than doers — I’m mad as hell and simply will sit this election out or vote my conscience for some sure loser just to protest and make myself feel better.  Another reason of course is that deep down we know that the mover into the conservative camp is in fact doing no such thing. 

If for example, Obama is such a closet retrograde, why are Republicans trying so hard to repeal The Affordable Healthcare Act or to block the confirmation of Richard Cordray because they think the Consumer Protection Agency established under Dodd/Frank is too powerful?  Neither of these pieces of legislation represents purist perfection, but let’s not pretend that such perfection ever existed in our or any other democracy or that we have really lost touch with the reality of compromise for which we are all somewhat responsible.

Tugwell, one of the brain truster architects of the New Deal, was frustrated by his fellow liberals and their lack of action.  While the Republicans rallied around the Tea Party and caused a shift of power in the mid-term elections, Democrats and liberals have yet to figure out exactly what to do, if anything, with Occupy.  Support has been, at best, tepid.  Of course, no one knows how enduring the Tea Party will be, something that might give one pause about any such protest, regardless of ideology.  Also, while the Occupy or 99% phenomenon seems to be focused on issues that concern us generally, there remains something amorphous about it.  Sitting in flimsy tents with no well-articulated timetable or set of specific objectives, certainly not consistent ones, may well stand as a metaphor for the problem.  I don’t mean that as a criticism of the protestors  — they clearly are doing something profound and hope inspiring — but of liberals inability to get their collective act together.

Part of the problem is what I’ve discussed in other posts.  We seem averse to the effective marketing of our ideas, unable to create powerful image-laden slogans.  Tea Party, however it may be misused, harkens back to a mythical event in the American story.  It stands for both protest of the mind and the body.  Occupy embodies no such positive imagery.  The word connotes blocking, even blocking progress which is the last thing those sitting in tents around the country want.  Moreover, occupy is word with decidedly negative non-liberal geopolitical connotations: for example, occupation of the West Bank.  Just to underscore the poverty of our speech, this movement’s identity is the creation of a Canadian journalist.  Not to knock our northern neighbors, but can’t we even find words to articulate our own frustrations or issues?  Just to be fair 99% has some potential.  Let's see if it can sustain, which means be taken up by mainstream liberals.

Okay, fellow liberals (or for that matter fellow Americans), as Bill Clinton would say, I feel your pain and frustration with where we are and more specifically with the fact that Barak Obama has not lived up to our perception of him.  Get over it!  Look at the group that David Frum presents in his piece and who are playing before our eyes every day and understand that our complacency might put one of them in the White House.   Sure hold Obama’s feet to the fire if you want, but watch out for what you might wish or do in not seeing to it that he has a second term.  There are short-term reasons for that, many of which can already be seen in the campaign rhetoric on both sides.   But I’ll give just two words to think about for the long term: Roberts and Alito.  Whatever George Bush did to our reputation and our economy, whatever misbegotten military adventures, all pale in comparison to the long-term impact of appointing young hardline right ideologues to the Court.  Whoever sits in the White House between 2012 and 2016 is likely to shape our future in his appointments.  The stakes are enormous — can’t be overstated.

Just as Newt is the challenger of the moment, the idea of a third party is the new talk of the moment.  Have you noticed that its primary proponents are a mega millionaire coffee mogul and a less wealthy but still millionaire journalist/author?  99%, right.  They probably believe in what they’re proposing (or implying) and are both decent people with whom I often (but not always) agree.  That said, I sense a little promotional hype — one is using his brand as a platform and the other hawking yet another new best seller.  I won’t even mention that billionaire mayor of my former but still beloved city.   Perhaps we do need a third party, but if you’re serious, start talking it up on November 7, 2012 with four years to prepare for a viable chance, not to mention for proper thoughtful vetting.

Liberals, it’s time to get reasonable, to shed our overstated disappointments.  Time to get over it and whip up our enthusiasm.  Our future and welfare may, and probably does, depend on it.