(apologies to The Who)
Had to put this one out tonight: Today the Scots vote on the referendum for independence from Great Britain. I have gone into a couple or three chats on the subject and have a pretty good idea about what the Scottish electorate are thinking about this. The question that they and time may answer is this: Is this proposal, and are the people behind it, crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy?
It is definitely a leap into the unknown in many areas. A whole lot of the discussion is on the topic of what currency a sovereign Scottish nation would choose, and whether they would be able to keep using the "British" pound sterling, which they all seem very attached to. I think this is a misdirection, personally; the Scots can always make their own currency, which clearly should be called the "kilt" (somewhat like the New Zealand kiwi) and tie its value to the pound, whether 1:1 or some other ratio. That is, if they can find the reserves in their central bank (there already is a Bank of Scotland) to defend it from the certain challenge that will come in due course (when the speculators think the timing is right). Then there is the question of Europe, and the Euro, and all that, but frankly, it isn't even so certain that Britain, as we know it, is going to stay around in the European Community much longer--that may be particularly true if Scotland splits off. They can take London's seat at the table--and be quiet, or take on the Euro if they can arrange the terms of admission.
Then there is the fact that the proposed terms of the referendum would keep for Scotland the current Queen and monarchy, and that Britain would still provide for their defense (which necessarily means Whitehall would conduct diplomacy with other nations on their behalf). To me, that reduces their proposed sovereignty to something less than that.
There is a lot of talk about liberty and freedom, but not much of a convincing case that theirs is unduly restricted by remaining in the Union. (I wrote United Kingdom but then realized that apparently isn't at stake.) Take away all the fine-sounding talk, and it comes down to money and subsidy: who is subsidizing whom, and who will be better off if they separate?
My answer--and I am surprised it has not come out more clearly in the "no" campaign (also known, not very favorably as the "Better Together" campaign)--is that no one will be better off. Yes, surely there is money going into London, money that never comes out, and compared to the rest of the U.K., Scotland probably has a bit more going for it in terms of natural resources. The Scottish will have to start all over, in a number of ways, and they will have a hostile neighbor close by.
In terms of Britain, the Conservatives will be forever branded by the insensate blunder Cameron made to promise the referendum (what did it get him in the elections? nothing!), while Labour's lack of leadership at this critical moment should exclude them in the future, though losing most of the Parliamentary seats they have if Scotland goes will be a hefty punishment. The British Government's promise to provide substantial, additional autonomy to Scotland if it remains within is the right kind of answer because it is a valid argument to vote against independence, but it is late, and too vague. The Liberal Democrats might be the only ones who come out of this looking less than ridiculous.
The committed Scottish nationalists will vote yes, the conflicted nationalists (ones with British sympathies) will vote no, so who are those few undecided who will decide it? I would say they are those who have no idea what will happen if the referendum succeeds. Common sense should tell them to vote no rather than plunge off the cliff into the unknown, and that is why I think the referendum will fail, narrowly.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Vice, Growing Up, and Death
I would name these (the first two in no particular order, though surely Death must come last) to be the three main general topics of today's life in America, replacing the "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" of some recent, but bygone, decades. Sex is too ubiquitous and easy to be controversial these days, drugs are certainly still present but too embarrassing for most to discuss, while rock & roll, so I am told, is "Dad music".*
Vice
The point to start with is that, as misbehavior goes, these describe relatively minor crimes, not at the level of the mega-drug dealer/killer criminals of the '80's "Miami Vice". Crime, and punishment, is still as big a topic as ever in American life, it's just not as interesting (it's played to death). As a class, perhaps unfortunately, vice makes up the interesting parts of many people's lives, the stuff that folks just can't stop texting, Facebook-ing, gossiping, blogging, putting on "reality" shows and CNN, and tweeting their little bird brains off about.
Vice is basically the hot thing in news media, if anything is: there is Vice News, vice.com, Vice the TV show on HBO (connected with vice.com), Vice the youtube channel, and about two-thirds of everything else on TV that isn't crime-scene forensics and sports is about vice. Let's take for example the two biggest stories of the last two weeks. No, not Ukraine and ISIS, but the leaked nude photo story and the Ray Rice story. There is vice in each; "sexting" is what I would call "a minor bad habit", while the practice of bullying, in general, is certainly reflective of "a moral flaw or weakness", and you could add a couple other associated behaviors from the incident, such as being drunk in public, arguing and spitting on your spouse in a hotel elevator.
Both cases have in common what I would call a new kind of vice: the absence of awareness that things we do on the Internet (in its various forms) or in public places are no longer private behaviors. This "vice of naivete" is a sin of a new kind, one that will be relentlessly attacked by the World As We Are Coming To Know It. There is only one definitive way to eliminate this vice: go completely off-grid and live outside the closed-circuit TV zone. Any other behavior in this electronically hyperconnected society will be more akin to the way that we nowadays pursue "health" in a futile effort to prevent eventual aging and death, beacuse all the security hygiene, pretty-good-privacy, and cookie deletion in the world won't protect us from determined hackers. We must either live publicly without vice (or even wardrobe malfunction), or be prepared for the world to see it (if it is interesting enough to somebody with the means and inclination to uncover and disclose it, that being the random, unfair part of the law of the Internet jungle).
Hacking, though, I would argue is something different, and not merely one of these vices of minor gravity (such as voyeurism, or lust, both of which certainly enter into this discussion)--regardless of the law in force, it is something heavier, and not a game, though most hackers themselves seem to view it as such. It is basically the illegitimate pursuit of unauthorized access to information, regardless of motivation or the use that is made. In this case, it was gross violation of privacy, which should be a criminal offense in itself, but at least there are other significant legal violations pending for the unknown hacker. As for Rice, I always thought that the spousal assault cases didn't proceed without the spouse pressing charges, but apparently the video evidence is enough to make a case without his wife's cooperation. "Stupid bully in public"--guilty as charged, but we will let you off easy because you're a football player--if the video doesn't surface, in which case will take away your livelihood.
Changing the subject but not the reference, Vice News is trying to stand out with its coverage of ISIS (which, I would submit based on the argument here, is not about vice but something else--a medieval form of Nazism, maybe, but anyway...) It had a long video report from inside ISIS-controlled areas (the search of which cost the lives of Stephen Sotloff and James Foley, so you better believe they were careful, and careful not to offend), and, speaking of ISIS, here is a praiseworthy article I suggest reading, a subject which I will take up in the near future (after I think about it some more).
Finally, I should put in another plug for "Inherent Vice", the movie based on the Pynchon book, which is coming out later this year. The meaning of the words is important to the story, as I remember, and the meaning of the phrase (in both its original sense and in Pynchon's subversive use of it) may be a little surprising--it's not just referring to "a bad guy" (though maybe partially so).
Growing Up
There is some diversity of opinion as to whether it's the "wrath" or the "warmth" of the clouded crowd (wha?), and it's not the most artistic of songs, but the theme of both quotes is the same: "they" want us to grow up, we reject it. Growing up= Coming down. (There is a nice play on words in the Springsteen song that suggests something about drinking too much and throwing up.)
There's no doubt that maturation in our society is both long and that children are increasingly exposed to more, and sooner, than they once were. The result, I would submit, is a lot of ambiguity about when this process is supposed to be complete. A lot of societies have their official "coming out" events; we have a whole lot of them, none definitive.
A point of reference for this section is an entertaining, but serious piece by A.O. Scott, the Times' senior film critic, who announced "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture" in the Sunday Times Magazine edition of September 14. He's become convinced that there's an epidemic of people of adult age in our society who cling to the ways of childhood, that there's no stopping it, and that we may as well accept it.
I found his argument a bit confusing, and much stronger on the argument of the end of patriarchy than of any and all "adult" behavior. With respect to men, in particular, much of what he describes fits into the category that has for decades been identified as "mid-life crisis". Further, he goes into detail to explain how this refusal to grow up has been part of American culture (by which he means particularly popular novels, music, TV, and film), basically forever (he brought Benjamin Franklin into the argument). So, what is so new? Mostly the end of the exclusivity of this kind of entitlement behavior ("I behave in this childish way because I can") to men.
I could go on, but I think it's best that you come back to me after you've read Scott's arguments and comment here (anonymous or not, I don't care). As for myself, I hold tenaciously to my right to pursue entertainments I enjoyed when I was younger and beliefs that I held when I was younger; becoming older doesn't mean I have to give up everything that was fun or that was liberating in my own philosophy (though I have chosen to give up a few things, particularly my naivete and, somewhat related, my tendency toward sarcasm).
One thing that I will insist upon, though, is that there is room for, and a necessity for, giving more serious considerations their place in life. As long as we live in a world with war, a world in which it is difficult for a person of normal intelligence and training without special privilege to make a living suitable for his/her family by working an appropriate portion of his/her life, we can not afford to be at play at all times. And I don't quite buy the concept that "work should be the thing we do for fun"--not for most of the people, most of the time.
Obit Dept.
It has been awhile, and the recently departed have piled up--not literally so, but the list has become long. The predominance of names from the entertainment world suggests that I might have put this at the end of the Film preview, but that was already too long (not that this post isn't). I will mention some names with brief commentary.
Richard Attenborough - (Aug. 24) - I lead with the longtime character actor and leading Chelsea football backer. He is most known, justifiably, for being the director of Gandhi, one of the all-time great English-language movies.
Robin Williams - (Aug. 11 ) - A man of immense talent, which was always on display, and a darker side which was not evident, but was perhaps predictable, based on his manic on-stage behavior as a comic. Certainly he demonstrated the capability of being serious, as he did in his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting. His depression may have been partly from the diagnosis of early-stage Parkinson's, something disclosed only after his death, or partly from the persistent pain felt by a recovered user of addictive substances, something about which he was somewhat open. His career was certainly fulfilled, but the loss is ours, as we will not have his incisive commentary on many more years of events and social change which we might otherwise have gained.#
James Garner - (July 19) - One of the most popular movie/TV personalities of the past 50 years. I don't know that much about him beyond his performances (the original Maverick and Rockford Files being the most memorable), but he seemed to bring his great, wisecracking personality to every role. So maybe his range wasn't that great; he delivered good value.
James Brady - (Aug. 4) - A public servant who performed his greatest service to the public after he couldn't work in government anymore. The most seriously injured of those attacked by Hinckley in 1981 (Ronald Reagan was the most seriously lucky, in a way, though I read now that the bullet that reached his heart was actually off a ricochet, so maybe his luck was mixed.), Brady had brain damage which affected his motor functions for the rest of his life. He was retained as honorary press secretary for years after, then became the most prominent spokesman willing to challenge the gun lobby for sensible gun reform (at least until Gabby Giffords). His organization had considerable success and lives on--it is very active in this year's campaign, as it tries to fend off the accusation that advocating gun control equals political death.
Lauren Bacall - ( Aug. 12) - Her best years were mostly before my time, but the charisma of the Bogie-Bacall relationship has an eternal glow. An early role model for what is now sometimes called a "new feminist"--confident, powerful, sexy.
Don Pardo - ( Aug. 18) - One of the true kings of the small circle of professional voice-over artists. I remember him from Art Fleming's Jeopardy and the original "Price is Right" even before he began his 30+ year run doing the intro for Saturday Night Live. With today's voice communication, he literally was able to phone it in, the past few years. And I mean that in the best way, that he was still able to do it, even age 96. I am surprised to read that that was his real name.
Joan Rivers - ( Sept. 4) - Her humor was not my favorite kind: too much dishing on others, though she had self-deprecating humor as well, and showed love at times. I actually think she was well appreciated in Hollywood, and certainly had more longevity than most. Except for:
Betty White - (not dead yet!) - Wow, think of all the stuff she has done. My earliest memory of her was on Password (the black and white version)--she was married to the host, Alan Luden, as I recall. I mention her only because there was a somewhat justified rumor that circulated a week or so ago that she had died; actually she had only "dyed", and a press release--probably intentionally misleading--had been misunderstood.
Marvin Barnes - ( Sept. 7) - A great basketball player and one of the truly unusual characters in NBA history (there are many, but he was one of the more unusual ones). Also known as "Bad News Barnes", which gives a suggestion of the reputation that he had (and earned). Read more fully about Barnes in this obituary in the local paper of Providence, R.I., where he first earned fame as one of the stars on the basketball team of Providence College. Pretty much earned the college's fame then, too, he and guard Ernie Di Gregorio.
Wolfgang Leonhard - (Aug. 17) - This man had a significant effect on several different historical eras, though few ever heard of him. He was born into Communism in Vienna in 1921, then lived in Germany and Sweden with his mother as long as it was safe to be a Communist there. When it wasn't they went to the Soviet Union. He became, through first-hand experience, an expert on the Comintern (Stalin's group to advance his brand of Communism internationally), then he was dropped into East Germany after the war as a political organizer to drive the country into the Soviet camp. Obviously, he and his colleagues were successful, and the leader of his group, Walter Ulbricht, became dictator there. Still, he was dissatisfied with the outcome (perhaps philosophically, perhaps personally disappointed) and escaped, through Yugoslavia, into the West. He became a lecturer and writer specializing in chronicling the misdeeds of the Soviets, particularly in other countries' affairs. I saw him teaching a lecture course on Eurocommunism, when it was a hot topic (mid'70's); his point of view was (simplifying excessively): "these may be nice guys (the Communists in Italy, Spain, and France), but a Communist is a Communist. I know their tricks, and the Soviets are backing them, both openly and secretly." Yes, but we were doing the same on the other side, weren't we? Anyway, Eurocommunism never quite got its day in the sun in any Western European government, and the movement died--with Aldo Moro, some would say, or possibly with Enrico Berlinguer. It's certainly pretty much a dead issue now.
*I am a dad, and therefore accordingly interested, but I have to acknowledge that there are many who do not have that privilege, and my bias may have prevented me from recognizing just how much musical times have changed. This is part of my effort to do that.
+ It says there that the etymology of the other meaning of vice, as in Joe Biden, V--- President, is completely separate from that of the bad behavior one; both come from Latin, but naughty is from "vitium", while the VP one comes from the ablative of "vicis", change or alternation.
#I notice that Robin was one of eight Williams dying in August who made the Wikipedia list for that month. One was Tim Williams, age 30, of a band called Suicidal Tendencies. Not funny.
Vice
What is it, exactly? Merriam-Webster online has the summarized definition as:
bad or immoral behavior or habits
: a moral flaw or weakness: a minor bad habit
which I think hits all the main points I want to discuss.+The point to start with is that, as misbehavior goes, these describe relatively minor crimes, not at the level of the mega-drug dealer/killer criminals of the '80's "Miami Vice". Crime, and punishment, is still as big a topic as ever in American life, it's just not as interesting (it's played to death). As a class, perhaps unfortunately, vice makes up the interesting parts of many people's lives, the stuff that folks just can't stop texting, Facebook-ing, gossiping, blogging, putting on "reality" shows and CNN, and tweeting their little bird brains off about.
Vice is basically the hot thing in news media, if anything is: there is Vice News, vice.com, Vice the TV show on HBO (connected with vice.com), Vice the youtube channel, and about two-thirds of everything else on TV that isn't crime-scene forensics and sports is about vice. Let's take for example the two biggest stories of the last two weeks. No, not Ukraine and ISIS, but the leaked nude photo story and the Ray Rice story. There is vice in each; "sexting" is what I would call "a minor bad habit", while the practice of bullying, in general, is certainly reflective of "a moral flaw or weakness", and you could add a couple other associated behaviors from the incident, such as being drunk in public, arguing and spitting on your spouse in a hotel elevator.
Both cases have in common what I would call a new kind of vice: the absence of awareness that things we do on the Internet (in its various forms) or in public places are no longer private behaviors. This "vice of naivete" is a sin of a new kind, one that will be relentlessly attacked by the World As We Are Coming To Know It. There is only one definitive way to eliminate this vice: go completely off-grid and live outside the closed-circuit TV zone. Any other behavior in this electronically hyperconnected society will be more akin to the way that we nowadays pursue "health" in a futile effort to prevent eventual aging and death, beacuse all the security hygiene, pretty-good-privacy, and cookie deletion in the world won't protect us from determined hackers. We must either live publicly without vice (or even wardrobe malfunction), or be prepared for the world to see it (if it is interesting enough to somebody with the means and inclination to uncover and disclose it, that being the random, unfair part of the law of the Internet jungle).
Hacking, though, I would argue is something different, and not merely one of these vices of minor gravity (such as voyeurism, or lust, both of which certainly enter into this discussion)--regardless of the law in force, it is something heavier, and not a game, though most hackers themselves seem to view it as such. It is basically the illegitimate pursuit of unauthorized access to information, regardless of motivation or the use that is made. In this case, it was gross violation of privacy, which should be a criminal offense in itself, but at least there are other significant legal violations pending for the unknown hacker. As for Rice, I always thought that the spousal assault cases didn't proceed without the spouse pressing charges, but apparently the video evidence is enough to make a case without his wife's cooperation. "Stupid bully in public"--guilty as charged, but we will let you off easy because you're a football player--if the video doesn't surface, in which case will take away your livelihood.
Changing the subject but not the reference, Vice News is trying to stand out with its coverage of ISIS (which, I would submit based on the argument here, is not about vice but something else--a medieval form of Nazism, maybe, but anyway...) It had a long video report from inside ISIS-controlled areas (the search of which cost the lives of Stephen Sotloff and James Foley, so you better believe they were careful, and careful not to offend), and, speaking of ISIS, here is a praiseworthy article I suggest reading, a subject which I will take up in the near future (after I think about it some more).
Finally, I should put in another plug for "Inherent Vice", the movie based on the Pynchon book, which is coming out later this year. The meaning of the words is important to the story, as I remember, and the meaning of the phrase (in both its original sense and in Pynchon's subversive use of it) may be a little surprising--it's not just referring to "a bad guy" (though maybe partially so).
Growing Up
They will see us waving from such great heights
Come down now, they'll say
But everything looks perfect from far away
Come down now but we'll stay
--"Such Great Heights", The Postal Service (and then by Iron and Wine), written by Benjamin Gibbard and, Jimmy Tamborello (of The Postal Service).
I hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd, but when they said, "Come down", I threw up. Oooh...growing up.
--Bruce Springsteen (of course)There is some diversity of opinion as to whether it's the "wrath" or the "warmth" of the clouded crowd (wha?), and it's not the most artistic of songs, but the theme of both quotes is the same: "they" want us to grow up, we reject it. Growing up= Coming down. (There is a nice play on words in the Springsteen song that suggests something about drinking too much and throwing up.)
There's no doubt that maturation in our society is both long and that children are increasingly exposed to more, and sooner, than they once were. The result, I would submit, is a lot of ambiguity about when this process is supposed to be complete. A lot of societies have their official "coming out" events; we have a whole lot of them, none definitive.
A point of reference for this section is an entertaining, but serious piece by A.O. Scott, the Times' senior film critic, who announced "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture" in the Sunday Times Magazine edition of September 14. He's become convinced that there's an epidemic of people of adult age in our society who cling to the ways of childhood, that there's no stopping it, and that we may as well accept it.
I found his argument a bit confusing, and much stronger on the argument of the end of patriarchy than of any and all "adult" behavior. With respect to men, in particular, much of what he describes fits into the category that has for decades been identified as "mid-life crisis". Further, he goes into detail to explain how this refusal to grow up has been part of American culture (by which he means particularly popular novels, music, TV, and film), basically forever (he brought Benjamin Franklin into the argument). So, what is so new? Mostly the end of the exclusivity of this kind of entitlement behavior ("I behave in this childish way because I can") to men.
I could go on, but I think it's best that you come back to me after you've read Scott's arguments and comment here (anonymous or not, I don't care). As for myself, I hold tenaciously to my right to pursue entertainments I enjoyed when I was younger and beliefs that I held when I was younger; becoming older doesn't mean I have to give up everything that was fun or that was liberating in my own philosophy (though I have chosen to give up a few things, particularly my naivete and, somewhat related, my tendency toward sarcasm).
One thing that I will insist upon, though, is that there is room for, and a necessity for, giving more serious considerations their place in life. As long as we live in a world with war, a world in which it is difficult for a person of normal intelligence and training without special privilege to make a living suitable for his/her family by working an appropriate portion of his/her life, we can not afford to be at play at all times. And I don't quite buy the concept that "work should be the thing we do for fun"--not for most of the people, most of the time.
Obit Dept.
It has been awhile, and the recently departed have piled up--not literally so, but the list has become long. The predominance of names from the entertainment world suggests that I might have put this at the end of the Film preview, but that was already too long (not that this post isn't). I will mention some names with brief commentary.
Richard Attenborough - (Aug. 24) - I lead with the longtime character actor and leading Chelsea football backer. He is most known, justifiably, for being the director of Gandhi, one of the all-time great English-language movies.
Robin Williams - (Aug. 11 ) - A man of immense talent, which was always on display, and a darker side which was not evident, but was perhaps predictable, based on his manic on-stage behavior as a comic. Certainly he demonstrated the capability of being serious, as he did in his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting. His depression may have been partly from the diagnosis of early-stage Parkinson's, something disclosed only after his death, or partly from the persistent pain felt by a recovered user of addictive substances, something about which he was somewhat open. His career was certainly fulfilled, but the loss is ours, as we will not have his incisive commentary on many more years of events and social change which we might otherwise have gained.#
James Garner - (July 19) - One of the most popular movie/TV personalities of the past 50 years. I don't know that much about him beyond his performances (the original Maverick and Rockford Files being the most memorable), but he seemed to bring his great, wisecracking personality to every role. So maybe his range wasn't that great; he delivered good value.
James Brady - (Aug. 4) - A public servant who performed his greatest service to the public after he couldn't work in government anymore. The most seriously injured of those attacked by Hinckley in 1981 (Ronald Reagan was the most seriously lucky, in a way, though I read now that the bullet that reached his heart was actually off a ricochet, so maybe his luck was mixed.), Brady had brain damage which affected his motor functions for the rest of his life. He was retained as honorary press secretary for years after, then became the most prominent spokesman willing to challenge the gun lobby for sensible gun reform (at least until Gabby Giffords). His organization had considerable success and lives on--it is very active in this year's campaign, as it tries to fend off the accusation that advocating gun control equals political death.
Lauren Bacall - ( Aug. 12) - Her best years were mostly before my time, but the charisma of the Bogie-Bacall relationship has an eternal glow. An early role model for what is now sometimes called a "new feminist"--confident, powerful, sexy.
Don Pardo - ( Aug. 18) - One of the true kings of the small circle of professional voice-over artists. I remember him from Art Fleming's Jeopardy and the original "Price is Right" even before he began his 30+ year run doing the intro for Saturday Night Live. With today's voice communication, he literally was able to phone it in, the past few years. And I mean that in the best way, that he was still able to do it, even age 96. I am surprised to read that that was his real name.
Joan Rivers - ( Sept. 4) - Her humor was not my favorite kind: too much dishing on others, though she had self-deprecating humor as well, and showed love at times. I actually think she was well appreciated in Hollywood, and certainly had more longevity than most. Except for:
Betty White - (not dead yet!) - Wow, think of all the stuff she has done. My earliest memory of her was on Password (the black and white version)--she was married to the host, Alan Luden, as I recall. I mention her only because there was a somewhat justified rumor that circulated a week or so ago that she had died; actually she had only "dyed", and a press release--probably intentionally misleading--had been misunderstood.
Marvin Barnes - ( Sept. 7) - A great basketball player and one of the truly unusual characters in NBA history (there are many, but he was one of the more unusual ones). Also known as "Bad News Barnes", which gives a suggestion of the reputation that he had (and earned). Read more fully about Barnes in this obituary in the local paper of Providence, R.I., where he first earned fame as one of the stars on the basketball team of Providence College. Pretty much earned the college's fame then, too, he and guard Ernie Di Gregorio.
Wolfgang Leonhard - (Aug. 17) - This man had a significant effect on several different historical eras, though few ever heard of him. He was born into Communism in Vienna in 1921, then lived in Germany and Sweden with his mother as long as it was safe to be a Communist there. When it wasn't they went to the Soviet Union. He became, through first-hand experience, an expert on the Comintern (Stalin's group to advance his brand of Communism internationally), then he was dropped into East Germany after the war as a political organizer to drive the country into the Soviet camp. Obviously, he and his colleagues were successful, and the leader of his group, Walter Ulbricht, became dictator there. Still, he was dissatisfied with the outcome (perhaps philosophically, perhaps personally disappointed) and escaped, through Yugoslavia, into the West. He became a lecturer and writer specializing in chronicling the misdeeds of the Soviets, particularly in other countries' affairs. I saw him teaching a lecture course on Eurocommunism, when it was a hot topic (mid'70's); his point of view was (simplifying excessively): "these may be nice guys (the Communists in Italy, Spain, and France), but a Communist is a Communist. I know their tricks, and the Soviets are backing them, both openly and secretly." Yes, but we were doing the same on the other side, weren't we? Anyway, Eurocommunism never quite got its day in the sun in any Western European government, and the movement died--with Aldo Moro, some would say, or possibly with Enrico Berlinguer. It's certainly pretty much a dead issue now.
*I am a dad, and therefore accordingly interested, but I have to acknowledge that there are many who do not have that privilege, and my bias may have prevented me from recognizing just how much musical times have changed. This is part of my effort to do that.
+ It says there that the etymology of the other meaning of vice, as in Joe Biden, V--- President, is completely separate from that of the bad behavior one; both come from Latin, but naughty is from "vitium", while the VP one comes from the ablative of "vicis", change or alternation.
#I notice that Robin was one of eight Williams dying in August who made the Wikipedia list for that month. One was Tim Williams, age 30, of a band called Suicidal Tendencies. Not funny.
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Progress Report - Pt. 2 - Politics
I was on Yahoo! today* and saw a teaser for an article by Matt Bai, a reporter they have signed up in an effort to be a more serious, complete website. It was called, "The Coming Foreign Policy Election." I didn't read it at the time, but I thought to myself, "Matt Bai, if that's what you think, you're a dope." To be fair to Bai, when I read the article later I saw that he's not talking about this election, but the one in 2016--so he's not a dope, just jumping the shark by about two years: Any honest analyst would have to say he/she has no clue at this time what the 2016 election will be about.
He was also, if my memory serves, one of the shark-jumpers who jumped all over President Obama a couple of weeks ago when Obama honestly stated that his administration didn't have a strategy for ISIS yet. Of course, after that gaffe the strategy gap was filled quickly. The strategy is an obvious one, it just took a little while to get all the key allies in line. And, they are: Western Europe of course, but then Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the two ones that will cooperate fully on an unacknowledged basis: Iran and Russia.
This could be a bit of a turning point in our relationship with Iran, if both countries allow it to be, as there is no country, outside Iraq and Syria, which has a greater desire to suppress ISIS and its throwback transnational ambitions than Iran. The need for the others in the alliance arises because ISIS has shown some quality as a movement: they have not collapsed from too-rapid expansion, the majority populace under their control has found life actually improved (from the chaos they were experiencing, in Syria, and from the religious discrimination in Iraq), and, from a global Islamist/jihadi status aspect, they have scored points for audacity and for coming out in the open, which will help their recruiting (poor fools, heading off to ignominy, death, and no virgins!). ISIS' weakness, which will allow the containment/rollback/destruction scenario to work, is the one that all fanatical movements with global ambitions eventually face: their neighbors despise them.
Anyway, back to Bai and foreign policy: even two days ago it seemed as though Obama's foreign policy was circling the toilet drain, with each day bringing new abomination, without any effective response from our part. Bai will have learned in the last 48 hours how quickly that can all change, though: Ukraine and Russia have settled, the alliance against ISIS is forming up rapidly, and the events which led him to write the editorial were essentially disproved in two days, not two years (though I doubt he will be admitting as much in his appearance this week on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"!) 2016 could still be an election year in which foreign policy issues predominate; however, I disagree with him that 1980 and 2004 were such+.
In 2014, though, foreign policy will be near the bottom of issues voters cite to pollsters--if they can think of any at all to cite. The playing field for both sides is remarkably devoid of any issues, and both sides seem to want it that way. The whole Boehner lawsuit/possible impeachment thing is a red herring that both sides seem to be able to throw out effectively to the more predatory fish in their respective e-mail ponds: the lawsuit is a joke, one based on the hypocritical argument that Obama has not implemented Obamacare sufficiently rigorously; it has no chance of succeeding, and impeachment would blow up in the Republicans' faces if it were tried on Obama. Immigration?--action is off the table now: Democratic Senatorial candidates in red-leaning states were worried it would hurt them. Keystone XL? - not a powerful issue, and Obama can put it off, too. Minimum wage? - it helps Democrats with turnout of its base, but not convincing the (few) true fence-sitters, while possibly persuadable Republican voters of all economic classes remain attached to their trickle-down ideology. Citizens United? - Unfortunately, it's just become a partisan club for Democratic candidates and office-holders to use against Republicans, who therefore respond defensively and instinctively to oppose any change, and thereby preserve the (unacceptable, even for them, if truth be known) status quo. Then, of course, there is the #1 issue, especially in a midterm election--the Economy? It is likely to stay on the same, sluggish course, and there is little the President could do, with or without Congress, and much less that Congress can do on its own.
What this election is about, for both sides, is simply the aggregation of a few bits more of power through skillful fund-raising and the exploitation of those funds. For the Democrats, this means replicating the Obama campaign methods in 1000 local points of turnout activity, combined with some carefully prepared local tactical advertising based on issue-related focus groups and polling. The Republicans don't need polls, organizing money, or advisers: they can lead from their gut (Establishment conservative or Tea Party), throw red meat to their base, spend copiously from secret PAC money in the hundreds of millions, and do their best to suppress overall turnout levels.
Ten Most Important State Elections (to Me)
You may have seen a few other Top Ten lists--most vulnerable incumbent Senators or Representatives (they run out of ideas before they get to 10)--closest races, Howard Dean's Dozen, maybe the Mayday.us selections (I may comment on those when they are complete, as I want to give that group every possible promotion, and their choices are quite interesting). What I find is that there are a bunch of states with very little going on, while some have multiple races that are closely contested while also presenting significant differences between their political positions. Giving for Democrats at a statewide level can help at all levels, or conversely, giving locally could help tight statewide contests. So here are my Top Ten state races, from the bottom up:
Honorable Mention - Texas, where I expect nothing very interesting in terms of results, but Wendy Davis' run at Typical Texan Tool Greg Abbott (latest product of the 3-T Ranch) is at least honorable; New Hampshire, which I think will be OK for Jeanne Sheehan as Senator and for both Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter in contested House races; and New Mexico, where I am registered to vote: Tom Udall should win easily over a self-funded opponent, while Susana Martinez should be able to hold onto her job and position herself as a desperation VP candidate for the Republicans in 2016 if they really Need A Woman (and being Hispanic is a bonus chip) to counter You-Know-Who.
10) Arkansas - I've got no horse in the tight Senate race (Pryor gets nothing from me because of his vote on gun background checks), but the fact that Democrats are competitive in the Senate and Governor races is interesting, anyway
9) Georgia - I'm not really a believer, but the Democrats have fielded probably their best possible Senatorial candidate (daughter of longtime moderate Dem. Senator Sam Nunn) to compete for a vacant seat, and the polls are all over the place.
8) Colorado - Sen. Mark Udall in a do-or-die race vs. a Tea Partier. Udall should win but there is risk, and no room for error given the close count for control of the Senate. Gov. Hickenlooper is favored to hold on against reaction (this is now a Legal Marijuana state, and some are dismayed he let that happen) and hold off his opponent.
7) Illinois - The state of my current primary residence is a mess, and this is counting against Pat Quinn, even though he seems like a decent guy and he didn't make the mess. I'm sure electing a big-money trickle-down guy like his opponent will not make it better, but he'll be more willing to approach the legislature for hand-outs to big companies threatening to move jobs out--at least I think that is the marginally-prevailing voter wisdom. There are several very closely contested House races, in particular those of (I will name the Democrats--the Republicans don't send me constant emails to remind me who they are!) Brad Schneider in the northern suburbs, and Ann Callis (a strong race against an incumbent), Cheri Bustos and Bill Enyart (who has not asked me for money!) downstate. Dick Durbin should have no problem winning re-election, and despite all the emails asking for money, I don't think Tammy Duckworth should, either.
6) Wisconsin - The one race I am following here is one of the big headliners this year: the much-hated Scott Walker (many Republi-con pundits' "interesting" choice for the 2016 Presidential nomination) is fighting, once again, for his political life. He may lose this one; it seems the promised trickle-down flow of his union-busting was not so much. No Senate race (that hasn't stopped Tammy Baldwin from deluging my Inbox, though).
5) Michigan - There is a chance that Michigan's Republican governor may lose, but the truly critical race is for the open Senate race. Rep. Gary Peters is trying to prevent a Republican pick-up and the money is flowing. Peters is a very slight favorite.
4) North Carolina - Riding somewhat on President Obama's success in that state in 2008, Kay Hagan defeated Elizabeth Dole to take a Senate seat to which she is trying desperately to hold--this time without the Obama machine's support (her choice). She is clinging to that elusive middle-of-the-road positioning, which puts her a long distance from her opponent, whose positions suggest a nostalgia for the Bad Ol' Days of Jesse Helms. Based on incumbency and the advantages of a centrist position, one would think this is winnable, and it is, but the outcome is greatly in doubt.
3) Iowa - This is a battleground state on all levels, thoroughly purple. The Republican Governor Terry Branstad is likely to break all existing records and win yet another term, though his opponent Jack Hatch is pushing hard, trying to exploit Branstad Fatigue. There are close races in several Congressional districts, particularly for the re-election of Dave Loebsack, and for open seats sought by Staci Appel and Pat Murphy, while all people of goodwill are hoping Jim Mowrer has some chance to defeat that racist blowhard Steve King (probably not). The big one, though, is the Senate race to fill the seat of retiring longtime Democratic Senator Tom Harkin: Congressman Bruce Braley is the candidate, his party credentials are strong, but his campaign has left the door open for a Tea Party woman candidate. Yet another do-or-die race for national Democrats.
2) Florida - Floridians have a chance this year to send Governor Rick Scott back to wherever he came from (or, preferably, to jail, where he belongs). The alternative to him is former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost a Senate race (as an independent) to Marco Rubio, but now has become a Democrat. He governed as a moderate before, so it's fair for him to say he does not feel at home in his former party anymore (though that may not dispel his political opponents' charges of opportunism). There are some competitive House races in Florida (I have been getting many emails from Patrick Murphy--not the one in Iowa above, which has been confusing--who is in a close race to hold his seat, as well as many enjoyable ones from Alan Grayson, who apparently has a fairly easy race this time). No Senate race here (or in New York or California; Texas has a near-walkover for John Cornyn. It is almost certain this election will break records for low turnout, but these circumstances will have something to do with it, along with the political stalemate, the flood of negative ads we can expect....)
1) Kentucky - There are two routes toward the desired outcome that Mitch McConnell will not be the Senate Majority Leader in 2015-16. The complicated one involves keeping net Democratic seat losses to less than six (with West Virginia, South Dakota, and now Montana near certain, and a variety of states that are possible losses, some but not all of which are discussed above). The more direct route is voting him out of office completely, and I am thrilled to report that is still a possibility this year. I should not get my hopes up, but his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is a strong candidate, a determined campaigner careful to hold to moderate positions appropriate for her state, while Mitch is....one of the least likable politicians ever. They tried a campaign ad in which he smiled, and I think they had to pull it, as he was scaring little children. The good news is that Kentucky is always one of the first to produce its voting results on Election Night, so I will know early on whether to place my hopes elsewhere.
2014 Elections - Special Cases:
a) Louisiana - Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is running against both a Tea Party candidate and an Establishment Republican candidate. The conventional wisdom is that she will finish first but fall short of 50%, which by Louisiana rules would necessitate a runoff election a few weeks later against the second-place finisher, then that wisdom suggests she might lose that race, which may at that time be determinant of control of the Senate. Landrieu is a pureblood politician who picks her spots and avoids votes which will condemn her with her conservative state's electorate. I'm rooting for her to win it in regulation time and think she can do it. If it goes into overtime, though, with the Senate at 50-49 Republican, it will be an insane mini-campaign, no matter who she has as opponent (New Orleans TV stations are holding time slots open for the windfall revenue, I'm sure).
b) Alaska - My view of the toss-up Senate race in Alaska is like that of the Arkansas race above: there's an endangered, incumbent Democrat who will have to win without my support. My disappointment is greater with Alaska's Begich (I never had any expectations for Pryor), though I suppose I should be more understanding of his position: he represents a state full of gun nuts who celebrate the idea that shooting moose from a helicopter is sport, and in fact I was reading that the Gun Owners of America give him a failing grade, despite his effort to appease them by opposing universal background checks for purchases, because of anti-gun crimes like supporting an advocate of gun restrictions for the judiciary and (horrors!) voting in favor of implementing the well-known anti-gun legislation Obamacare (?). OK, Mark, I know you're not one of them, but have you shown you're one of us?
c) Hawaii - This is the state which has had the most dysfunctional Democratic party this year, but it will probably turn out OK for them in the end. The story goes like this: When longtime Senator Daniel Inouye was dying, he spoke with Gov. Abercrombie and suggested Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat until the special election. When Inouye died, Abercrombie named instead Brian Schatz. This "betrayal" opened up a rift between Whites and Asians in the state's Democratic party leadership, with the result that Abercrombie was punished with a massive primary defeat. Meanwhile, Schatz squeaked out a victory over Hanabusa in the Senate primary. I received tons of requests for money from both Schatz and Hanabusa (I refused to get any of my money involved in the spat). The likelihood is that both Schatz and the Democratic nominee for Governor will win. Despite the intraparty feud, the Democrats are still too powerful in Hawaii.
d) Kansas, as in "What's Wrong with....?" - Could Kansas become the new Iowa (only without the showoff Presidential caucus drama)? My reading is that the revival of Democrats there is mostly connected with severe disenchantment with former Senator (and onetime Presidential candidate), now Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback rammed through income tax cuts, and is suffering the usual consequences: ingratitude (it's never enough!), budget deficit, downgraded credit, lack of trickle down flow. He is running for re-election and is likely to lose. Poor old Pat Roberts, the longtime Senator, seems to be feeling the downdraft, and with the developments this week he suddenly finds he may be in a fight. The Democratic candidate withdrew from the race and threw his support to independent candidate Greg Orman. All of a sudden Orman appears to be a threat to defeat Roberts (though a ruling that the Democrat was too late to take his name off the ballot will help him defend his seat).
Orman is regarded as a "true" independent, and in the style of Angus King (elected Senator from Maine in 2012) has not committed to joining the Democratic caucus if he wins. So, we may have a scenario such as I described back then (though it didn't come to pass, as the Democratic control of the Senate didn't depend on King's joining them). What I find interesting is the idea that we could have three Independents in the Senate next year--could this be the beginning of a "swing caucus" that could help break the partisan deadlock?
Other States--Ones in which Democrats should expect mostly Good statewide outcomes: Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania. Ones that they should expect Bad ones: Mississippi, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana. Those last three states are ones that had Democratic Senators that almost surely will go Republican. After the loss of those three, Democrats can afford a net result of no worse than -2 out of the many close ones they are defending (including Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire) and the 2-3 they have a chance to gain (Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas).
*Maybe a topic for another day. Yahoo!'s website is a real frustration, but I have not yet learned how to live without it.
He was also, if my memory serves, one of the shark-jumpers who jumped all over President Obama a couple of weeks ago when Obama honestly stated that his administration didn't have a strategy for ISIS yet. Of course, after that gaffe the strategy gap was filled quickly. The strategy is an obvious one, it just took a little while to get all the key allies in line. And, they are: Western Europe of course, but then Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the two ones that will cooperate fully on an unacknowledged basis: Iran and Russia.
This could be a bit of a turning point in our relationship with Iran, if both countries allow it to be, as there is no country, outside Iraq and Syria, which has a greater desire to suppress ISIS and its throwback transnational ambitions than Iran. The need for the others in the alliance arises because ISIS has shown some quality as a movement: they have not collapsed from too-rapid expansion, the majority populace under their control has found life actually improved (from the chaos they were experiencing, in Syria, and from the religious discrimination in Iraq), and, from a global Islamist/jihadi status aspect, they have scored points for audacity and for coming out in the open, which will help their recruiting (poor fools, heading off to ignominy, death, and no virgins!). ISIS' weakness, which will allow the containment/rollback/destruction scenario to work, is the one that all fanatical movements with global ambitions eventually face: their neighbors despise them.
Anyway, back to Bai and foreign policy: even two days ago it seemed as though Obama's foreign policy was circling the toilet drain, with each day bringing new abomination, without any effective response from our part. Bai will have learned in the last 48 hours how quickly that can all change, though: Ukraine and Russia have settled, the alliance against ISIS is forming up rapidly, and the events which led him to write the editorial were essentially disproved in two days, not two years (though I doubt he will be admitting as much in his appearance this week on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"!) 2016 could still be an election year in which foreign policy issues predominate; however, I disagree with him that 1980 and 2004 were such+.
In 2014, though, foreign policy will be near the bottom of issues voters cite to pollsters--if they can think of any at all to cite. The playing field for both sides is remarkably devoid of any issues, and both sides seem to want it that way. The whole Boehner lawsuit/possible impeachment thing is a red herring that both sides seem to be able to throw out effectively to the more predatory fish in their respective e-mail ponds: the lawsuit is a joke, one based on the hypocritical argument that Obama has not implemented Obamacare sufficiently rigorously; it has no chance of succeeding, and impeachment would blow up in the Republicans' faces if it were tried on Obama. Immigration?--action is off the table now: Democratic Senatorial candidates in red-leaning states were worried it would hurt them. Keystone XL? - not a powerful issue, and Obama can put it off, too. Minimum wage? - it helps Democrats with turnout of its base, but not convincing the (few) true fence-sitters, while possibly persuadable Republican voters of all economic classes remain attached to their trickle-down ideology. Citizens United? - Unfortunately, it's just become a partisan club for Democratic candidates and office-holders to use against Republicans, who therefore respond defensively and instinctively to oppose any change, and thereby preserve the (unacceptable, even for them, if truth be known) status quo. Then, of course, there is the #1 issue, especially in a midterm election--the Economy? It is likely to stay on the same, sluggish course, and there is little the President could do, with or without Congress, and much less that Congress can do on its own.
What this election is about, for both sides, is simply the aggregation of a few bits more of power through skillful fund-raising and the exploitation of those funds. For the Democrats, this means replicating the Obama campaign methods in 1000 local points of turnout activity, combined with some carefully prepared local tactical advertising based on issue-related focus groups and polling. The Republicans don't need polls, organizing money, or advisers: they can lead from their gut (Establishment conservative or Tea Party), throw red meat to their base, spend copiously from secret PAC money in the hundreds of millions, and do their best to suppress overall turnout levels.
Ten Most Important State Elections (to Me)
You may have seen a few other Top Ten lists--most vulnerable incumbent Senators or Representatives (they run out of ideas before they get to 10)--closest races, Howard Dean's Dozen, maybe the Mayday.us selections (I may comment on those when they are complete, as I want to give that group every possible promotion, and their choices are quite interesting). What I find is that there are a bunch of states with very little going on, while some have multiple races that are closely contested while also presenting significant differences between their political positions. Giving for Democrats at a statewide level can help at all levels, or conversely, giving locally could help tight statewide contests. So here are my Top Ten state races, from the bottom up:
Honorable Mention - Texas, where I expect nothing very interesting in terms of results, but Wendy Davis' run at Typical Texan Tool Greg Abbott (latest product of the 3-T Ranch) is at least honorable; New Hampshire, which I think will be OK for Jeanne Sheehan as Senator and for both Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter in contested House races; and New Mexico, where I am registered to vote: Tom Udall should win easily over a self-funded opponent, while Susana Martinez should be able to hold onto her job and position herself as a desperation VP candidate for the Republicans in 2016 if they really Need A Woman (and being Hispanic is a bonus chip) to counter You-Know-Who.
10) Arkansas - I've got no horse in the tight Senate race (Pryor gets nothing from me because of his vote on gun background checks), but the fact that Democrats are competitive in the Senate and Governor races is interesting, anyway
9) Georgia - I'm not really a believer, but the Democrats have fielded probably their best possible Senatorial candidate (daughter of longtime moderate Dem. Senator Sam Nunn) to compete for a vacant seat, and the polls are all over the place.
8) Colorado - Sen. Mark Udall in a do-or-die race vs. a Tea Partier. Udall should win but there is risk, and no room for error given the close count for control of the Senate. Gov. Hickenlooper is favored to hold on against reaction (this is now a Legal Marijuana state, and some are dismayed he let that happen) and hold off his opponent.
7) Illinois - The state of my current primary residence is a mess, and this is counting against Pat Quinn, even though he seems like a decent guy and he didn't make the mess. I'm sure electing a big-money trickle-down guy like his opponent will not make it better, but he'll be more willing to approach the legislature for hand-outs to big companies threatening to move jobs out--at least I think that is the marginally-prevailing voter wisdom. There are several very closely contested House races, in particular those of (I will name the Democrats--the Republicans don't send me constant emails to remind me who they are!) Brad Schneider in the northern suburbs, and Ann Callis (a strong race against an incumbent), Cheri Bustos and Bill Enyart (who has not asked me for money!) downstate. Dick Durbin should have no problem winning re-election, and despite all the emails asking for money, I don't think Tammy Duckworth should, either.
6) Wisconsin - The one race I am following here is one of the big headliners this year: the much-hated Scott Walker (many Republi-con pundits' "interesting" choice for the 2016 Presidential nomination) is fighting, once again, for his political life. He may lose this one; it seems the promised trickle-down flow of his union-busting was not so much. No Senate race (that hasn't stopped Tammy Baldwin from deluging my Inbox, though).
5) Michigan - There is a chance that Michigan's Republican governor may lose, but the truly critical race is for the open Senate race. Rep. Gary Peters is trying to prevent a Republican pick-up and the money is flowing. Peters is a very slight favorite.
4) North Carolina - Riding somewhat on President Obama's success in that state in 2008, Kay Hagan defeated Elizabeth Dole to take a Senate seat to which she is trying desperately to hold--this time without the Obama machine's support (her choice). She is clinging to that elusive middle-of-the-road positioning, which puts her a long distance from her opponent, whose positions suggest a nostalgia for the Bad Ol' Days of Jesse Helms. Based on incumbency and the advantages of a centrist position, one would think this is winnable, and it is, but the outcome is greatly in doubt.
3) Iowa - This is a battleground state on all levels, thoroughly purple. The Republican Governor Terry Branstad is likely to break all existing records and win yet another term, though his opponent Jack Hatch is pushing hard, trying to exploit Branstad Fatigue. There are close races in several Congressional districts, particularly for the re-election of Dave Loebsack, and for open seats sought by Staci Appel and Pat Murphy, while all people of goodwill are hoping Jim Mowrer has some chance to defeat that racist blowhard Steve King (probably not). The big one, though, is the Senate race to fill the seat of retiring longtime Democratic Senator Tom Harkin: Congressman Bruce Braley is the candidate, his party credentials are strong, but his campaign has left the door open for a Tea Party woman candidate. Yet another do-or-die race for national Democrats.
2) Florida - Floridians have a chance this year to send Governor Rick Scott back to wherever he came from (or, preferably, to jail, where he belongs). The alternative to him is former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost a Senate race (as an independent) to Marco Rubio, but now has become a Democrat. He governed as a moderate before, so it's fair for him to say he does not feel at home in his former party anymore (though that may not dispel his political opponents' charges of opportunism). There are some competitive House races in Florida (I have been getting many emails from Patrick Murphy--not the one in Iowa above, which has been confusing--who is in a close race to hold his seat, as well as many enjoyable ones from Alan Grayson, who apparently has a fairly easy race this time). No Senate race here (or in New York or California; Texas has a near-walkover for John Cornyn. It is almost certain this election will break records for low turnout, but these circumstances will have something to do with it, along with the political stalemate, the flood of negative ads we can expect....)
1) Kentucky - There are two routes toward the desired outcome that Mitch McConnell will not be the Senate Majority Leader in 2015-16. The complicated one involves keeping net Democratic seat losses to less than six (with West Virginia, South Dakota, and now Montana near certain, and a variety of states that are possible losses, some but not all of which are discussed above). The more direct route is voting him out of office completely, and I am thrilled to report that is still a possibility this year. I should not get my hopes up, but his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is a strong candidate, a determined campaigner careful to hold to moderate positions appropriate for her state, while Mitch is....one of the least likable politicians ever. They tried a campaign ad in which he smiled, and I think they had to pull it, as he was scaring little children. The good news is that Kentucky is always one of the first to produce its voting results on Election Night, so I will know early on whether to place my hopes elsewhere.
2014 Elections - Special Cases:
a) Louisiana - Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is running against both a Tea Party candidate and an Establishment Republican candidate. The conventional wisdom is that she will finish first but fall short of 50%, which by Louisiana rules would necessitate a runoff election a few weeks later against the second-place finisher, then that wisdom suggests she might lose that race, which may at that time be determinant of control of the Senate. Landrieu is a pureblood politician who picks her spots and avoids votes which will condemn her with her conservative state's electorate. I'm rooting for her to win it in regulation time and think she can do it. If it goes into overtime, though, with the Senate at 50-49 Republican, it will be an insane mini-campaign, no matter who she has as opponent (New Orleans TV stations are holding time slots open for the windfall revenue, I'm sure).
b) Alaska - My view of the toss-up Senate race in Alaska is like that of the Arkansas race above: there's an endangered, incumbent Democrat who will have to win without my support. My disappointment is greater with Alaska's Begich (I never had any expectations for Pryor), though I suppose I should be more understanding of his position: he represents a state full of gun nuts who celebrate the idea that shooting moose from a helicopter is sport, and in fact I was reading that the Gun Owners of America give him a failing grade, despite his effort to appease them by opposing universal background checks for purchases, because of anti-gun crimes like supporting an advocate of gun restrictions for the judiciary and (horrors!) voting in favor of implementing the well-known anti-gun legislation Obamacare (?). OK, Mark, I know you're not one of them, but have you shown you're one of us?
c) Hawaii - This is the state which has had the most dysfunctional Democratic party this year, but it will probably turn out OK for them in the end. The story goes like this: When longtime Senator Daniel Inouye was dying, he spoke with Gov. Abercrombie and suggested Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat until the special election. When Inouye died, Abercrombie named instead Brian Schatz. This "betrayal" opened up a rift between Whites and Asians in the state's Democratic party leadership, with the result that Abercrombie was punished with a massive primary defeat. Meanwhile, Schatz squeaked out a victory over Hanabusa in the Senate primary. I received tons of requests for money from both Schatz and Hanabusa (I refused to get any of my money involved in the spat). The likelihood is that both Schatz and the Democratic nominee for Governor will win. Despite the intraparty feud, the Democrats are still too powerful in Hawaii.
d) Kansas, as in "What's Wrong with....?" - Could Kansas become the new Iowa (only without the showoff Presidential caucus drama)? My reading is that the revival of Democrats there is mostly connected with severe disenchantment with former Senator (and onetime Presidential candidate), now Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback rammed through income tax cuts, and is suffering the usual consequences: ingratitude (it's never enough!), budget deficit, downgraded credit, lack of trickle down flow. He is running for re-election and is likely to lose. Poor old Pat Roberts, the longtime Senator, seems to be feeling the downdraft, and with the developments this week he suddenly finds he may be in a fight. The Democratic candidate withdrew from the race and threw his support to independent candidate Greg Orman. All of a sudden Orman appears to be a threat to defeat Roberts (though a ruling that the Democrat was too late to take his name off the ballot will help him defend his seat).
Orman is regarded as a "true" independent, and in the style of Angus King (elected Senator from Maine in 2012) has not committed to joining the Democratic caucus if he wins. So, we may have a scenario such as I described back then (though it didn't come to pass, as the Democratic control of the Senate didn't depend on King's joining them). What I find interesting is the idea that we could have three Independents in the Senate next year--could this be the beginning of a "swing caucus" that could help break the partisan deadlock?
Other States--Ones in which Democrats should expect mostly Good statewide outcomes: Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania. Ones that they should expect Bad ones: Mississippi, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana. Those last three states are ones that had Democratic Senators that almost surely will go Republican. After the loss of those three, Democrats can afford a net result of no worse than -2 out of the many close ones they are defending (including Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire) and the 2-3 they have a chance to gain (Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas).
*Maybe a topic for another day. Yahoo!'s website is a real frustration, but I have not yet learned how to live without it.
+--maybe 2002 was, uniquely so for a postwar midterm election, but the Bush victory in 2004 was much more about John Kerry's perceived weakness as a Presidential candidate than any demonstrated Bushite foreign success--the Iraq "victory" line had already worn thin for most--while 1980 was only partly about Jimmy Carter's foreign policy miscues, but also about a really bad economic environment, just the same--with the shoe on the other foot--as 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
