Sea Change or Swan Song: Part II: Deeper fundamentals of U.S. politics

Last time we explored the many reasons why the advance of the Republican Party, in the U.S. mid-term elections, may be a lot of sound and fury, signifying very little. For example, nearly all of the Senate contests this year inherently disadvantaged Democrats… but a large majority of those in 2016 imperil defending Republicans.

This time, I’d like to dive into some other factors that veer away from those wrangled-over by the media.

== Differences in personality ==

Lest anyone conclude “Brin is just a reflex liberal”… in fact, I have given keynotes at libertarian conventions (albeit as a representative of Adam Smith and not Ayn Rand!). I believe my party registration (it doesn’t really matter in California’s non-partisan elections) is still republican. 

In fact, I do weigh in fairly often against what I deem to be mad obsessions of a fringe on the left! Just because today’s entire-US-right has gone loco, that doesn’t mean we should trust the far-left, which sometimes reveals a level of nostalgic anti-science fanaticism that too-closely resembles their supposed enemies. 

(Oh, you new-age 'vaxxers,' go ahead and write in with your outrage! All you accomplish is to reassure me that my political spine can still turn and notice craziness in all directions.)

But yes, my main focus is on the GOPper right and its masters, right now, because their deliberate re-ignition of Civil War and their scheme to demolish American pragmatic negotiation constitutes bona fide treason against a civilization that has been very good to us. It is the clear and present danger. 

Mark my words, though. Someday, when we solve this crisis, we will need to turn our jaundiced gaze leftward again. 

And if your political spine is fused, making you only able to perceive threats to freedom and civilization in one direction, then you are part of the problem!  See a memic chiropractor.

== Suppose the feudalists get their wish ==

Indeed, all the more so, should the Koch-Murdoch-Saudi oligarchic putsch succeed!

In that case, lefty radicalisms like Marxism are guaranteed to revive. Along with talk of tumbrels. The surest sign that the Koch boys are nowhere near as smart as their sycophants say they are? Ignoring this blatant inevitability – that restored oligarchic feudalism will lead to worldwide radicalization of a kind that will not benefit them one bit.

See this turnabout illustrated in a book set in 2045, called Existence.

There is one cohort of American political life that remains sane and … well… American, in its attitude of pragmatic willingness to try an eclectic mix of solutions, to negotiate with their neighbors, to use politics, as a supplement to private endeavor. And for now, at least, that element – moderate liberals – still dominates the Democratic Party… no matter how many lies you are told by Sean Hannity.  As illustrated by this clear study and graphic, charting responses to the question: "Would you rather have a member of Congress who compromises to get things done, or sticks to their principles no matter what?":

== Compromise or not? ==

A recent Pew poll found sizable majorities of Americans think Republicans should try to work with President Obama and that Obama should work with them. But here again, there’s a stark partisan difference. 52 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents think Obama should find common ground with Republicans, even if it disappoints them. But only 32 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaners say the same on their side, while 66 percent of Republicans say their leaders should stand up to Obama even if less gets done.”

This effect is illustrated by another chart from Pew, showing where folks like to get their news.  Missing from the survey is Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Sure, it is kind of sad that millions of kids get their news that way… but well… I have pointed out elsewhere that Stewart is actually fairly balanced, often skewering the left and having more top conservatives on his show than all of Fox has top liberals, in any given year.

The dismal, near bankruptcy figures for MSNBC say it all. No matter how hard MSNBC tries to copy Fox’s lucrative formula, liberals get bored at Nuremberg Rallies of a single point of view, and wander away!  No-so, apparently, Fox viewers.

== The crux ==

Okay, so from last time, let’s zero in upon the question of 2016!

Only once, since the Roosevelt era, has a two term president been succeeded by a newly elected administration from his own party… when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by George H. W. Bush.  Does this pattern bode poorly for the next democratic nominee? Presumptively now Hillary Clinton?

It’s a puzzler. Certainly, the American voting public tends to get nervous with one-party strings.  Hence, if the GOP chooses a non-ideologue candidate in 2016, there might be some swing momentum.  (Especially if the GOP can make people ignore the crowd of Bushite officials who will surround their nominee, as they did the "mavericks" McCain and Romney.)

On the other hand, there are other explanations. For example, George H.W. Bush was the only Republican vice president in 50 years who was even remotely qualified for the executive office. All the other GOP VPs were simply awful. (I personally despise GHWB, but for other reasons, having to do with the worst stain on American honor in 70 years. But on paper, yes, he was qualified.)  

Democrats, in contrast, always pick responsible fellows as VPs, who are calm and qualified… but also boring and hence terrible candidates for the top job: e.g. Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Biden. 

These two trends have tended to curse a majority of successor nominees, who were, in most cases, sitting vice presidents.

== Dynasty Fatigue ==

Another factor will be possible dynasty fatigue.  If the dems nominate Hillary and Republicans choose Jeb Bush, the whole world will mock us. Even if it is just Hillary… who by now is vastly better qualified than she was in 2008, and is a solid person in most respects… the dynasty effect will still be deemed somewhat of an embarrassment.  Here I offer a simple piece of guerrilla webtheater that might deal with this, well in advance. Or else inoculate her from the issue. 

Of course, the dynasty thing gets even more disturbing when you realize that the Bush family consider themselves to be a branch office of a certain middle eastern royal house, that co-owns Fox. Do not believe that influence has faded, even an iota. As I said, for all of their “maverick” pretensions, both McCain and Romney surrounded themselves with Bush administration figures and family retainers, top-to-bottom. Until the GOP has a true, inner upheaval, the “brain trust” that gave us Iraq quagmires, economic calamity and near-total destruction of the US Army and reserves -- and zero positive outcomes in any metric of US national health - is what you’ll get with any GOP presidency.

One more element that might affect 2016 would be if the tech billionaires -- like Gates and Buffett -- decide that too much is at stake, and get involved to a degree that counter-balances the Koch-Murdoch-Saudi-Adelson oligarchy that has been busy buying American politics. The miracle is that a large percentage of our current wave of billionaires are actually loyal to the American enlightenment experiment that has been so good to them! Perhaps more will step into help save us… till we finally fix the debacle and work with Larry Lessig to get the money out of politics.

Of course, many other factors will come into play by 2016. We'll be distracted, by then, by the War Against the Newts. The return of Jesus and his new show on Comedy Central. The Purple Plague will be a factor. The sale of the first million Robot-Buddies. That really effective IQ-boost pill (oh, pretty please?) may truly alter that pesky War on Science...

...and don't forget the vast revival of both reason and hope that will overwhelm all cynicism on Earth, with the release of StartideRising: the Motion Picture. Ahem. If Mssrs Spielberg or Nolan will only get on the phone, chop-chop.

Ah… the possibilities. It’s why I spend most of my life living in the future.