In the wake of those frenzied and overblown Iowa Caucuses, a number of interesting thoughts:
1) That Donald Trump should have done a little traditional Expectations Dampening - you know, like politicians do. But that is not in his nature. Anyone could tell you (as I did) that Iowan conservatives are very religious and that faction turns out - hence Cruz was always the leader there, whatever the polls say. (Weirdly, Iowa democrats turn out to be way more leftist than liberals nationwide. What a state.) In any event: "The bad news for Ted Cruz: His Iowa win looks very similar to Mike Huckabee’s and Rick Santorum’s."
Only I still maintain Cruz has a cunning plan.
2) The near tie between Clinton and Sanders is actually great news for democrats. Both candidates will benefit from lively and invigorating tension. But this assumes Bernie is able to keep perspective and not get so caught up that he forgets -- you are vying, vigorously, for captaincy of a team you both know must win. Bruise each other... a little... but not too much for genuine hugs and kisses, later.
Oh and Hill? No thumbs on the scale. A cute trick would be to offer Bernie at-minimum the right to pick your Inspector General and your SEC head. No quid pro quo. Just offer it.
3) NYT Nobelist economist Paul Krugman highlights ‘uplift’ in his analysis of the Iowa returns.
Yes, he chose that word. His point being that we should choose to be more ambitious -- the one core thought that Bernie Sanders has contributed. Can we ‘uplift’ our society, our civilization?
Right now, the American public mood is addicted to downer memes, despite almost every statistical metric having improved. While science fiction is filled with many negative stories, often unecessarily so, it remains the one medium where perhaps 10% of the time, we see real optimism and hope. Prof. Krugman knows this, else why would he feature a Michael Whelan sci fi cover to illustrate his essay?
4) Did I mention demmie 'hugs?' Among many young Sanders supporters I have been noting a bit of a shrill tone, even hatred for the Clintonite Democratic 'establishment.' And sure, some degree of complaint about that is valid. And yet, I am from the 1960s, and you kids are pure amateurs at indignation. Seriously? Some persepective is called-for. Especially when some bright-bozos have been proclaiming that "radicalism" is preferable to "well-meaning but too-moderate incrementalism."
The implication is that pragmatic moderate are tepid in desiring reform. But indeed, I warned about the threat of a secret world oligarchy in my novel Earth way back in 1989 -- see my portrayal of the "Helvetian war" -- and no one dissects that trend more often or deeply than I do. Also, that novel was early re Climate Change warnings.
Do I agree with much that Sanders says? Sure. I am glad of some of the radical enthusiasm he's fired up. And note that PAC money is playing a much smaller role in this election. Cool.
Still, the world is ultimately made by pragmatists and incrementalists. Franklin Roosevelt reset capitalism and gave the workers such a big stake that it created the fantastic American middle class. Which oligarchs are busy undermining, sure. So? All that means is another Rooseveltean reset is needed. Hey, if our parents in the Greatest Generation could achieve that miracle, without diluting the best aspects of creative-competitive capitalism at all -- then we should be able to, as well.
Only dig this well, The New Deal had some radical aspects! But deep down, anyone who knew Franklin Roosevelt also knew that he was above all a politician, a pragmatist, an arm twister, and a moderate. A negotiator! The only way you can reconcile those two facts is by recognizing this: radicals will not accomplish as much in the American context as fierce pragmatists will.
And we must do our part. Obama or Clinton needed us to give them a Congress. Any failure of their incrementalism was our fault. And "radicals" without a Congress will be even more pathetically ineffective.
== Congress listens -- in sullen crankiness ==
President Obama’s State of the Union address (SOTU) got a lot of attention, including nervy Paul Ryan, who either smirked "knowingly" or else scowled, theatrically-disrespectful through the entire address, then accused Obama of “degrading” the office of president… this from the party that gave us Richard Nixon and both Saudi-Bushes.
Obama’s content – appealing for a return to the politics of
actual-negotiation – was in fact filled with things to which we might all
reasonably agree. But one topic I have
long inveighed against… electoral cheating. Especially gerrymandering -- "the
practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick
their voters, and not the other way around."
1) That Donald Trump should have done a little traditional Expectations Dampening - you know, like politicians do. But that is not in his nature. Anyone could tell you (as I did) that Iowan conservatives are very religious and that faction turns out - hence Cruz was always the leader there, whatever the polls say. (Weirdly, Iowa democrats turn out to be way more leftist than liberals nationwide. What a state.) In any event: "The bad news for Ted Cruz: His Iowa win looks very similar to Mike Huckabee’s and Rick Santorum’s."
Only I still maintain Cruz has a cunning plan.
2) The near tie between Clinton and Sanders is actually great news for democrats. Both candidates will benefit from lively and invigorating tension. But this assumes Bernie is able to keep perspective and not get so caught up that he forgets -- you are vying, vigorously, for captaincy of a team you both know must win. Bruise each other... a little... but not too much for genuine hugs and kisses, later.
Oh and Hill? No thumbs on the scale. A cute trick would be to offer Bernie at-minimum the right to pick your Inspector General and your SEC head. No quid pro quo. Just offer it.
3) NYT Nobelist economist Paul Krugman highlights ‘uplift’ in his analysis of the Iowa returns. Yes, he chose that word. His point being that we should choose to be more ambitious -- the one core thought that Bernie Sanders has contributed. Can we ‘uplift’ our society, our civilization?
Right now, the American public mood is addicted to downer memes, despite almost every statistical metric having improved. While science fiction is filled with many negative stories, often unecessarily so, it remains the one medium where perhaps 10% of the time, we see real optimism and hope. Prof. Krugman knows this, else why would he feature a Michael Whelan sci fi cover to illustrate his essay?
4) Did I mention demmie 'hugs?' Among many young Sanders supporters I have been noting a bit of a shrill tone, even hatred for the Clintonite Democratic 'establishment.' And sure, some degree of complaint about that is valid. And yet, I am from the 1960s, and you kids are pure amateurs at indignation. Seriously? Some persepective is called-for. Especially when some bright-bozos have been proclaiming that "radicalism" is preferable to "well-meaning but too-moderate incrementalism."
The implication is that pragmatic moderate are tepid in desiring reform. But indeed, I warned about the threat of a secret world oligarchy in my novel Earth way back in 1989 -- see my portrayal of the "Helvetian war" -- and no one dissects that trend more often or deeply than I do. Also, that novel was early re Climate Change warnings.
Do I agree with much that Sanders says? Sure. I am glad of some of the radical enthusiasm he's fired up. And note that PAC money is playing a much smaller role in this election. Cool.
Still, the world is ultimately made by pragmatists and incrementalists. Franklin Roosevelt reset capitalism and gave the workers such a big stake that it created the fantastic American middle class. Which oligarchs are busy undermining, sure. So? All that means is another Rooseveltean reset is needed. Hey, if our parents in the Greatest Generation could achieve that miracle, without diluting the best aspects of creative-competitive capitalism at all -- then we should be able to, as well.Only dig this well, The New Deal had some radical aspects! But deep down, anyone who knew Franklin Roosevelt also knew that he was above all a politician, a pragmatist, an arm twister, and a moderate. A negotiator! The only way you can reconcile those two facts is by recognizing this: radicals will not accomplish as much in the American context as fierce pragmatists will.
And we must do our part. Obama or Clinton needed us to give them a Congress. Any failure of their incrementalism was our fault. And "radicals" without a Congress will be even more pathetically ineffective.
== Congress listens -- in sullen crankiness ==
President Obama’s State of the Union address (SOTU) got a lot of attention, including nervy Paul Ryan, who either smirked "knowingly" or else scowled, theatrically-disrespectful through the entire address, then accused Obama of “degrading” the office of president… this from the party that gave us Richard Nixon and both Saudi-Bushes.
Obama’s content – appealing for a return to the politics of
actual-negotiation – was in fact filled with things to which we might all
reasonably agree. But one topic I have
long inveighed against… electoral cheating. Especially gerrymandering -- "the
practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick
their voters, and not the other way around."
This article
appraises how easy it would be to create fair electoral maps based upon “compactness of districts". In fact though, I do not agree with this solution –
though it would be a vast improvement.
Elsewhere I offer a ‘minimum overlap” proposal that would require just
three sentences and end the problem in a shot.
Only here I want to
comment less on President Obama’s SOTU address than on South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's official GOP response. The sub-text implications are
quite interesting. Haley admitted in an interview on CNN that her speech partly
targeted Trump & Cruz and that party leaders reviewed her speech before she delivered
it Tuesday.
Choosing her as SOTU responder was
one of the few actions that the Republican establishment could take, having completely lost control over the wild presidential
nomination race. Earlier, I suggested 1:3 odds that they are setting up Paul Ryan to step in, should the convention be deadlocked after a first or second
ballot (see below). (Ryan's scowl, all through the SOTU? A hour of
silent-and-free publicity.) But back to Haley...
The GOP establishment knows that Jeb is toast and Rubio - their new boy - is
unlikely. The Ryan Gambit is plausible, but their backup plan...?
Set up their choice to be the VP running mate.
Set up their choice to be the VP running mate.
Let's back up a bit. I believe Ted Cruz never intended to win the GOP presidential nod. He knows how hated he is, by the GOP lords. (In fact by almost anyone with normal intelligence.) His role model has to be Richard Nixon in 1952. And sure, if Jeb or Rubio or Ryan get the nom, then Cruz would be their shoe-in VP pick -- their envoy to the fundies and tea partiers, to keep them in line.
What's Cruz's payoff? Either 4 or 8 years as VP, pulling in IOUs... or else, if the GOP ticket loses this year, becoming the heir apparent to oppose the sitting dem's re-election in 2020.
Only now that plan is dashed! The rebels - Trump and Cruz - have been too successful! If Trump wins the nomination, he simply can't choose Cruz as his running mate. They'd torch the whole party. Donald would have to find a "moderate" to mollify the Lords and to soothe offended folks in Trump's wild wake. (Unless Trump then intends to dash-for-the-center! In which case Cruz might make sense as veep, after all.)
Moreover, Ted Cruz - if by some chance he wins the main nom - would have to do the same.
And so we arrive in South Carolina, where the most important Republican primary will be held. Nikki Haley will be potent there. Moreover, she is a solid VP choice for many reasons. A woman and a soother... and somewhat of an ethnic minority... though not Hispanic and not from a state the GOP needs. No matter! How better to reach out to GOP grownups and urge them to stay loyal, while either Cruz or Trump rampage about?
Haley: “It takes everyone to get their egos out of the room and really sit down and say, ‘OK, how are we going to get to a solution? That’s not something we’re seeing in D.C. right now.”
Further: Haley said that Republicans share the blame with Democrats for the nation’s distrust of Washington and need to “recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership.”
Look, it's possible she's even sincere about wanting to forge a path for American conservatism out of the hellish pit Roger Ailes led them. If so, then her getting a VP stint on a losing zombie-festival could be good news for us all, putting her in position to bring back some version of the party of Eisenhower, in 2020. It's a scenario.
I'll put no money on it though. I do know this... actually winning the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016 was not Ted Cruz's plan. As in The Manchurian Candidate, his scheme was a patient one, and now his prize, the VP slot, is slipping away from his hands, because he's been too successful. And I can just imagine him murmuring "Oh crap, now what!"
Summary: If Trump or Cruz win the nom - VP goes to Haley or some hispanic GOP pol.
If it's anyone other than those two, then Cruz gets what he really wanted - (though perhaps sugar plum fairies are now dancing in his head) - the VP slot.
== Has Trumpism run its course? ==
Donal's lack of savvy expectations limiting before Iowa means his aura has taken a hit. So, is it over? Of course not. Still...
The Eight Causes of Trumpism: This stunningly cogent article from The Atlantic fills in the historical trends that - since 1990 - have contributed to turning American politics from being about policy argument and negotiation, to an utterly polarized hate-fest. "The 8 causes of Trumpism" is actually not about Donald Trump, at all, but the forces that made 1/3 of Americans so volcanically (and illogically) furious that only a manipulative outsider-savanarola like Trump or Cruz can be viewed as appealing.
There are factors that Mr. Ornstein leaves out. Like the role that Saudi investment played in building Fox News into the incendiary fuel behind a New Confederacy. Or how those petro-sheiks and our own coal barons created a populist frenzy that (to their chagrin) is now slipping out of their control, much the way Junker-class lords in 1920s Germany thought they could foster another right-wing populism, then lived to regret it.
Still, Ornstein does feature a crucial moment -- the treasonous know-nothing act when Newt Gingrich's House GOP dissolved its own Office of Technology Assessment, and sent all the techies and boffins and nerds packing, openly declaring that science and facts that conflict with dogma have no place within the Capitol walls..
Still, Ornstein does feature a crucial moment -- the treasonous know-nothing act when Newt Gingrich's House GOP dissolved its own Office of Technology Assessment, and sent all the techies and boffins and nerds packing, openly declaring that science and facts that conflict with dogma have no place within the Capitol walls..
Now that phase 8 of the American civil war is thoroughly blatant, is it time, at last, to call it what it is? (Start ordering your blue-kepi 1865 caps now, for next Halloween!) Only then might the Blue Union do what it was forced to do, during other phases of this recurring, national fever. Win. Overwhelmingly. Then, "with charity for all," resuming our ambitious role in remaking a better world.
