I like this format, which allows me to achieve several of my top goals for this blog: commenting on current events, predictions for the future, and blending in a bit of history. After awhile, I may actually get good at integrating the three meaningfully. For now, just a quick capture of this end-of-year moment:
Past: 2015--Six Noteworthy Things
1) President Obama: He defied the midterm Congressional defeat and accomplished a great deal in 2015, solely through executive initiatives and his national role as head of state. He defied the second-term jinx better than any President we have had in the last 50+ years (I'm thinking of Eisenhower as the last one who was able to maintain a semblance of effective governance through a second term).
2) 2014 Oscar nominees/winners (in February, 2015): "Birdman" and "Boyhood" were two of the best movies of recent years. The first was well-rewarded on Oscar night, the second, not so much (one Oscar for Patricia Arquette as Supporting Actress), but the fact it was even in the running was remarkable.
3) The Crisis in Europe: It took many forms, some very visible--the attacks in Paris (and follow-up battles in Copenhagen, Brussels), the refugee flood into Greece and other Balkan countries (and the counter-reaction from Hungary and some others), the Greek economic and political crisis--some not so clearly visible (the problems with the Mediterranean Sea crossing from Libya to Sicily, in the Spanish enclaves near Morocco, in Calais in France), the development of future political crises in the U.K. and Spain. Through it all, Angela Merkel led Europe bravely, making her a good choice (not a great one) for Time's Person of the Year. I would've picked Pope Francis, but he'd already won recently.
4) Crispr, other true Science breakthroughs: Crispr is the abbreviation for Clustered regularly-interspaced short palindromic repeats--I thought you would want to know. It is a technology that makes DNA editing much more readily possible, which could be used initially to counter diseases. Like other advances in genetics, it will have to be closely monitored for destructive possible uses. There seem to be similar breakthroughs coming against many forms of cancer, possibly against Alzheimer's. Medical research is starting to justify itself after decades of waste, co-optation by Big Pharma. And then there's the electric car, improved solar and wind energy, improved de-salination techniques, a new (but extinct) human species discovered, the fly-by of Pluto....
5) Trump and Sanders: I don't expect either of them to win the Presidential election in 2016, but they won the pre-election run-up in their political parties. Sanders has put on the table the issues we will be litigating for the next 20 years (as Jesse Jackson did 27 years ago), while Trump has updated demagogic politics for 21st-century media methods. Thanks for nothing special, The Donald!
6) American Pharaoh: A solid thoroughbred horse racing Triple Crown winner, he made it look pretty easy, then topped it off with a convincing win in the Breeders Cup Classic. One for the ages, ranks with Citation and Secretariat as the most successful American colts ever.
The Present: College Football
Tonight are the semifinals of the NCAA Division I men's college football playoffs. #1 Clemson vs. #4 Oklahoma, and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Michigan State. This should be a big deal, but it really isn't: the teams are all flawed to some extent (Clemson is the only undefeated one, but their ACC schedule really doesn't measure up; the other teams all had a pretty bad loss.) The fact that the NCAA chose to present the games on New Year's Eve suggests a loser's strategy: Many people, or even most, will be out of the house tonight, and they didn't dare take on the NFL's Game 17 weekend, even though it is pretty much a dud from the drama standpoint--I could see avoiding the NFL's Wild Card Weekend, one of the most popular sports events, but dodging this weekend is just lame.
I would expect Alabama and Oklahoma to win; I'll be rooting for the other guys: when faced with oppressive dominance, root for the underdog--it's a philosophy I've carried since the '60's (anti-Celtics, Yankees, Packers, though I have cooled a bit on my hate for them after several decades). The fact is, in order to make it to this level, Clemson and the top Big 10 teams (Michigan St., Ohio St., Iowa) have had to adopt the SEC's just-under-professional methods, so there's not much difference. Don't get me started about the NCAA's classless permission of the conferences' reorganization in the past few years. And, needless to say, I won't be watching.
College football is the worst offender in US sport, and I have no solution for it beyond the minor palliative of expanding the playoffs to six teams (note: the postseason college game that will interest me the most is #5 Iowa vs. #6 Stanford, to see which team has the most authentic rights to complain about the current system). The other big moneymaker of college sports, basketball, has the one-and-done problem, but also the positive, democratic aspect of March Madness: I would recommend the NBA develop a second level of D-League for McDonald's basketball high-school All Americans who don't want or need to go to college, fund it properly, and their problem will be solved. College football's go much deeper, and will require extensively reforms, along with ones in the NFL, to make the game other than "a brilliant mistake" (to quote one of Mr. McManus' best songs). The beauty of the long downfield pass, the blocked kick, or the breakaway run from scrimmage or on kick returns is undeniable, but unfortunately more than offset by the objectionable labor practices, the health risks, and the reactionary social environment associated with the sport.
2016: Looking Ahead
First of all, I think this will be a fun year in many ways. I should mention the Olympics, which will be in Rio, in August--a great idea, if the Brazilians can pull it off. It's not impossible; London managed the event well in 2012. However, Brazil is having major turmoil due to corruption in politics and in the sporting world, and their economy has crashed, due partially to the collapse in oil prices. At least US audiences will be able to watch many events, live, on several different channels--we should expect that the emerging capability to present several channels simultaneously on our sets will be utilized well.
Next, the 2016 elections should be a full-year source of interest, and, I believe, of encouragement by the end. I fully expect Hillary Clinton to win the election handily and become our first women's President in 2017, but it will be a bit of a wild ride until November (see below for a little worst-case scenario consideration). If she gets a big enough landslide, and the Republicans continue to self-destruct, the Senate should return to Democratic control, and the House will be much closer to even. This last, a much-reduced House majority, might give the GOP one last chance to try to get its act together and preserve its political power, but even without the House, control of the White House and the Senate (and the death or retirement of one of the Evil Axis of Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito) could give modern reason a chance to break up the Supreme Court's hypocritical and repressive trend.
Now, for three downers: 1) US Economic Stormclouds: I think the domestic recovery will probably survive 2016, but just barely. The headwinds are growing now, in the form of a global slowdown, headlined by weakness in China, Japan, Russia, all the OPEC and emerging Markets, with weak support for economic recovery from Europe. The stock market in the US may signal future decline with a correction early in 2016.
2) Thinking the Unthinkable: A Trump victory would be a catastrophe for US' image in the world, so heavily damaged by Bushite Misrule and only partially salvaged by Obama's administration. Either Trump or Ted Cruz winning would signal America pulling up the welcome mat and joining the fencing club, which would seem the surest way to bring about a global economic depression and increased strife worldwide. With Marco Rubio, and to some extent even Hillary, we'd have to worry about the opposite: getting so deeply entangled in the Syria/Iraq mess that we would not be prepared to deal with emerging issues in the China Sea, with North Korea, between Israel and its neighbors. With any Republican, we can expect relations with Mexico, Russia, Iran, and all the predominantly-Muslim countries to collapse disastrously, and the Europeans will once again hold view us as ridiculous. My advice to President Obama is to work things out with Turkey and Erdogan, sooner rather than later: Turkey holds the key to containing and defeating ISIS, and to getting Assad on the way out; we need to deal with Erdogan pragmatically, as we did with Khamenei, working with and encouraging open-minded, democratic forces but tolerating results which sustain distasteful leaders with autocratic tendencies.
3) Cosby, 24/7: I think it's clear that we will be plagued with this news story on Greta van Susteren constantly, and on CNN, much too frequently, through all of the coming year. I would recommend a plea bargain, in which Cosby would agree to donate all the money he will otherwise waste on legal funds to some worthy feminist cause, and cop a plea immediately to a lesser charge (but accept the label of "sex offender", which is probably of nominal significance at this stage of his life). Of course, this won't happen: he seems to believe that winning his court case (which I would consider probable) would rehabilitate his image, and that is possible to the extent that it did for O.J. Simpson. Which is to say, not at all.
I wish for you, my loyal reader, a happy, healthy, and reasonably (but not excessively) prosperous 2016!
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
When It Rains in Spain...
To complete this year which has stretched the unity of Europe near the breaking point, Spain has just completed national Parliamentary elections, with results that will lead to complications and uncertainty for the nation and its position in the European Union.
First, a little background necessary to provide the framework for understanding the current stand-off. The national politics of post-Franco Spain (since the death of the aged Fascist dictator in 1975) has been dominated by two parties: the Partido Popular (the current version of the center-right, Christian Democrat political forces which took over when El Caudillo finally kicked) and the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party). They have alternated in power since then, generally sharing 80% or more of the seats in the lower house of Spain's Cortes Generales, in which a majority is needed to determine the Prime Minister. The party which gained the most seats has always been able to form a majority, either alone or in combination with one or more of the many regional parties.
The Socialist government of PM Zapatero fell in 2011, jolted by the terrorist attacks in Madrid and the financial crisis. The PP government of Rajoy imposed austerity reforms required, under the circumstances, to reduce the budget deficit to the levels mandated by the Euro pact. As in Greece, popular reaction against austerity mobilized new forces, the "indignados" (angry) giving way to a new political party, Podemos ("we can"). A fourth major party emerged, Ciudadanos ("citizens"), a centrist party which challenged the PP as a corrupted force which has held back liberalizing reforms.
The last bit of background required to understand the current Spanish political dynamics is the longstanding conflict between the forces of national centralization and the centrifugal tendencies of Spain's regions. Recall the long battle between violent Basque separatists and the national police and military, which finally succeeded in suppressing the extreme forces and channeling Basque ambitions into autonomy. Spain's most wealthy region, Catalonia (Barcelona its capital), opted for the peaceful approach and also gained significant autonomy; however, in recent regional elections a coalition of Catalonian parties seeking a referendum on complete separation has gained power.
As with the Scottish secession movement in Britain, a majority vote in a referendum in favor of separation would create great problems for the state and for the EU: EU policy is that the new state would have to apply for admission (both Scotland's and Catalonia's secessionists have indicated they would want to do it) and the rump state--Britain or Spain--would need to agree in order to allow their admission.
Spain's post-Francoist constitution envisioned a strong central government with the King as head of state; later legislation empowered the recognition of autonomous regions, but secession was ruled by Spain's supreme court to be unconstitutional. Podemos has supported Catalonia's right to hold a referendum, the Socialists have proposed a devolution of power toward a federal state, while the PP and Ciudadanos oppose any referendum.
The Electoral Results and the Current Status+
The PP gets the first shot at forming a government, but they have immediately run into problems: all three of the other top parties have indicated they would not work with Rajoy to form a government, either in coalition or by abstaining in the vote of approval. A PP-Socialist accord would be unprecedented, and the personal rivalry of the leaders would preclude it, as well. Podemos and PP are diametrically opposed on both austerity and the critical issue of the possible Catalonian referendum. In the final stages of the campaign, the PP, which has its strength in rural areas, went after the C's support in the cities to salvage its position as leading party, and the C's, which got a significant result but not as high as they might otherwise have had, now have announced they would oppose any government by the PP.
The next phase would be an attempt by someone else to form a government, possibly a different leading figure of the PP, but more likely an attempt by the PSOE's Sanchez (or possibly another in the party) to form a coalition. If a satisfactory formula can be negotiated on Catalonia, a PSOE-Podemos coalition, or a PSOE-Ciudanos one (with Podemos abstaining, and the support of some smaller parties), or even a three-party coalition against PP, are all possible outcomes. So are a complete deadlock, which would lead to new elections, or the formation of a caretaker government headed by lesser party figures or non-partisan statesmen
After the tribulations with Greece, the refugee issue which exploded in Europe (and threatened the continental agreement to allow free travel within most of the countries), and the British election issues around Scotland, the Spanish election results promise turmoil cointinuing beyond this year of living dangerously.
+ Thanks to Wikipedia for presenting comprehensive data. I would offer a brief ad for that service, which is trying to raise some money to continue its operation.
First, a little background necessary to provide the framework for understanding the current stand-off. The national politics of post-Franco Spain (since the death of the aged Fascist dictator in 1975) has been dominated by two parties: the Partido Popular (the current version of the center-right, Christian Democrat political forces which took over when El Caudillo finally kicked) and the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party). They have alternated in power since then, generally sharing 80% or more of the seats in the lower house of Spain's Cortes Generales, in which a majority is needed to determine the Prime Minister. The party which gained the most seats has always been able to form a majority, either alone or in combination with one or more of the many regional parties.
The Socialist government of PM Zapatero fell in 2011, jolted by the terrorist attacks in Madrid and the financial crisis. The PP government of Rajoy imposed austerity reforms required, under the circumstances, to reduce the budget deficit to the levels mandated by the Euro pact. As in Greece, popular reaction against austerity mobilized new forces, the "indignados" (angry) giving way to a new political party, Podemos ("we can"). A fourth major party emerged, Ciudadanos ("citizens"), a centrist party which challenged the PP as a corrupted force which has held back liberalizing reforms.
The last bit of background required to understand the current Spanish political dynamics is the longstanding conflict between the forces of national centralization and the centrifugal tendencies of Spain's regions. Recall the long battle between violent Basque separatists and the national police and military, which finally succeeded in suppressing the extreme forces and channeling Basque ambitions into autonomy. Spain's most wealthy region, Catalonia (Barcelona its capital), opted for the peaceful approach and also gained significant autonomy; however, in recent regional elections a coalition of Catalonian parties seeking a referendum on complete separation has gained power.
As with the Scottish secession movement in Britain, a majority vote in a referendum in favor of separation would create great problems for the state and for the EU: EU policy is that the new state would have to apply for admission (both Scotland's and Catalonia's secessionists have indicated they would want to do it) and the rump state--Britain or Spain--would need to agree in order to allow their admission.
Spain's post-Francoist constitution envisioned a strong central government with the King as head of state; later legislation empowered the recognition of autonomous regions, but secession was ruled by Spain's supreme court to be unconstitutional. Podemos has supported Catalonia's right to hold a referendum, the Socialists have proposed a devolution of power toward a federal state, while the PP and Ciudadanos oppose any referendum.
The Electoral Results and the Current Status+
1- Partido Popular (PP) - led by Mariano Rajoy-- 28.7% of popular vote, 123 seats (down from 187 in 2011)
2- Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (PSOE) - led by Pedro Sanchez - 22.0%; 90 seats (down from 110)
3-Podemos - led by Pablo Iglesias - 20.7%; 69 seats (new party)
4- Ciudadanos (C's) - led by Albert Rivera - 13.9%; 40 seats (new party)Others - 14.7% of vote; 28 seats.The results definitively signal a rejection of the austerity policy, as well as change from two-party dominance, with the two insurgent parties getting over 40% of the popular vote and enough seats to have an important voice in the nature of the new government to be formed. With 175 seats needed to form a majority government, no single party can approach a majority, even with the support of all the smaller parties (which itself would be next to impossible). It is possible to form a government with less than an absolute majority of support if there are enough abstentions; typically, this would mean the agreement by a party to provide passive support and request all its members to abstain from a vote of confidence.
The PP gets the first shot at forming a government, but they have immediately run into problems: all three of the other top parties have indicated they would not work with Rajoy to form a government, either in coalition or by abstaining in the vote of approval. A PP-Socialist accord would be unprecedented, and the personal rivalry of the leaders would preclude it, as well. Podemos and PP are diametrically opposed on both austerity and the critical issue of the possible Catalonian referendum. In the final stages of the campaign, the PP, which has its strength in rural areas, went after the C's support in the cities to salvage its position as leading party, and the C's, which got a significant result but not as high as they might otherwise have had, now have announced they would oppose any government by the PP.
The next phase would be an attempt by someone else to form a government, possibly a different leading figure of the PP, but more likely an attempt by the PSOE's Sanchez (or possibly another in the party) to form a coalition. If a satisfactory formula can be negotiated on Catalonia, a PSOE-Podemos coalition, or a PSOE-Ciudanos one (with Podemos abstaining, and the support of some smaller parties), or even a three-party coalition against PP, are all possible outcomes. So are a complete deadlock, which would lead to new elections, or the formation of a caretaker government headed by lesser party figures or non-partisan statesmen
After the tribulations with Greece, the refugee issue which exploded in Europe (and threatened the continental agreement to allow free travel within most of the countries), and the British election issues around Scotland, the Spanish election results promise turmoil cointinuing beyond this year of living dangerously.
+ Thanks to Wikipedia for presenting comprehensive data. I would offer a brief ad for that service, which is trying to raise some money to continue its operation.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Past Present and Future
The Near Future: 2016
Elections, they say, are about the future, especially US Presidential elections. The way it should be, candidates put forward something resembling their visions of the future, and voters choose the person they want to be the midwife of the next four years' events--technically, how they would direct the course of Federal execution of the laws. Unfortunately, we are too easily fooled; candidates always promise outcomes they can not deliver, and the vision is obscured by the talking points and attack angles.
One of the favorite angles that candidates are trying to play this year (not unlike some other election years) is to convince us that their election will make the difference, that, with them in charge of our government, our children's future will be bright and our country will be greater than it has ever been before. It's true of all of them (that they will try to do this attempt at convincing us), and it's true of none of them (that they can make the country greater than ever). Still, I would suggest that we evaluate the prospective Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chiefs by which of the following three future outcomes they would tend to lead us:
The Distant Past: "Memoirs of Hadrian"
As they sometimes say, history rhymes, and the stanza that resonates to me with our geopolitical status and stage in our society's lifecycle is Rome, early-to-mid-Empire, roughly 50-200 A.D. Not a perfect analogy, of course, but the basic idea works well: Europe is to us as Greece was to Rome, in our emergence we had our kings (the colonial period), our phase as a popular republic, and what we have now. And that is an oligarchy, in which the critical role of our military/foreign policy has made the Commander-in-Chief (that is what "emperor" means in its Latin root) the predominant figure. Remember that Imperial Rome had the original Senate (it means "old men") but its role during the Imperial period was about like our Electoral College, confirming the election of the foremost but hardly a check on executive power.
Anyway, this period of Roman history had both a string of awful Emperors--the remnants of the Caesars' dynastic line, descendants of Julius and Augustus (Octavian)--and then, after a period of intense chaos and power struggle, a series of rulers we now know as the "Good Emperors", including five in a row who ruled for over 80 years, dying of natural causes (as opposed to the many who were killed in military coups). Their careful succession planning helped preserve some stability, and during this period, citizenship was opened up more broadly, the Empire thrived and maintained its extensive reach, and gained enough vitality for it to retain its coherence and regional dominance through a couple hundred more years of often chaotic power struggles.
Hadrian was the second of those long-ruling Good Emperors (Nerva, who founded the line, could be counted but ruled only two years), succeeding Trajan, and, like Trajan. was born to prominent Roman citizens who lived in what is now Spain. As such, one of the key characteristics emerging during the period was the expansion of fully-fledged Roman civilization beyond the Italian peninsula.
His rule was the stuff of Roman legend, as was his mourning of Antinous, his lover who died as a young man. The French author Marguerite Yourcenar wrote Memoirs of Hadrian in the 1950's, a work of fiction based on her extensive historical research into his life. She tried to incorporate all that we know of his life, his administration, his philosophy, and his times.
In terms of his lessons for us, Hadrian gave up the effort of his predecessors to try to conquer the Asian subcontinent, but instead promoted trade with it and exploration in other directions and developed the capability for the military to hold the territory it had won (most will associate his name with Hadrian's Wall, which he had built across middle-north Britain to keep out those crazy Caledonians in the north). He toured his empire constantly, planned for great cities to be built, and planned his succession through adoption of a few in whom he found to have the greatest potential (among them the famed philosopher-Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who followed in his footsteps).
There is much that we can learn from Yourcenar's attempt to re-create his thoughts, memories, and philosophy of life--the book is written as an extended letter from dying Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius--though we also see the ways our society is different from that one; one important aspect is the relative unimportance (!) of religion to Romans, in this period when worship of the pagan gods was little more than ritual, but Christianity had not yet taken hold. Of course, Yourcenar has the benefit of knowing what followed Hadrian, and she gives him a level of foresight which would be unusual for anyone, in any time.
The Present Moment--in Live Popular Music
This seems to be a special instant for live performance of popular music on TV. There is a long, and generally somewhat ugly, history of televised rock concerts--low production values, playing to the cameras, bad sound. Techniques have improved, though, and the importance of the concert tour to the economics of popular music has never been higher. Of course the quantity of video concert footage that is available is growing exponentially.
Three events I want to mention: first, the postponed performance from Paris by U2 which was televeised this past week on HBO. It was to be televised on November 14 but was cancelled after the terrorism which struck the city the day before. The event went off on the new date without incident; the performance was mostly the same as the U2 tour which this event completed: a stage running the length of the floor of the stadium with an equally large projection screen overhead; the songs were about 60% from the latest album, which featured a great deal of memories of their early lives in Dublin, and also of the terror in the Irish island in those days. You will (probably) never get a better chance to see The Edge and how he plays those guitar lines at which we have marveled for decades; Bono's voice was a bit bit thin, understandably so at the end of a long tour, but he was up for the occasion. Then there were the Eagles of Death Metal, the American band that was playing at the Bataclan theatre that was the site of the worst terrorist massacre--U2 invited them onstage to perform at the end of the concert. They played Patti Smith's song "People Have the Power" with U2 and then one of their own songs. I will say only that it was not what I thought it, or the band, would be--if you have not seen the concert, you should take a look: HBO is usually very good about rebroadcasting their content, almost endlessly, in fact.
Second, Adele will be on national network TV with a performance from Carnegie Hall on Monday night. Her album's sales are through the roof, and we don't get many chances to see her perform live. Third, there will be a special televised event that was celebrating the 75th birthday of John Lennon, on AMC on December 19, with a host of well-known performers, and I guess Lennon's songs will be featured throughout.
On the subject of covers, I would like to close this section with a discussion of "The Voice", a
"reality" TV series. part taped and part live, that presents singing talent performing hit songs. The format is a drawn-out elimination contest, in which the performers need to appear a dozen or more times, getting tutelage from established star performers who each have their own "team", with voting by Twitter, by download song purchase, and sometimes by judging from the four stars.
There are a couple of things I like about the series, which I have gradually been sucked into by my wife and daughter's interest: the singers genuinely are talented, the stars seem genuinely interested in the teaching (this season, they are Adam Levine of Maroon 5, Pharrell Williams, country star Blake Shelton, and Gwen Stefani of No Doubt, the latter two of which have developed a surprising public romance during the season), and the backup band is excellent. I hate the format, which draws the tension out excessively in each episode, and over weeks, and I hate the way the popular voting is done and how it is utilized. At the end of the day, I feel the performers are being exploited for the commercial benefit of the network (the stars/teachers, too? Their motivations/pay are not very transparent): all this exposure doesn't seem to translate into hitmaking careers for the talent, who are tested heavily and repeatedly. There's something very "Hunger Games" about it all, except nobody's getting killed.
Present: Trump/Rubio/Cruz/???
(Political Drama--Act II, Scene 1)
Still more than 50 days from the first real results of the 2016 Republican nomination contest, the online market in which I participate has already narrowed the field to three contenders--in order of support, Rubio (currently trading at 38 cents on 100), Cruz (30), and Trump (25)--three more rated with dark horse chances (Bush at 11, Christie at 6, and Kasich at 2)--and a long list of longshots at 100-1 odds. This list includes former monthly flavors Ben Carson, who has dropped precipitously during a two-week tour of the world to learn what foreign policy is, and Carly Fiorina, as well as a variety of moribund active candidacies (Paul, Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki) and some not-even- candidates like Mitt Romney, Susana Martinez, and my own longshot favorite, Paul Ryan (the scenario for him is the deadlocked party turns to a draft-Ryan movement at some late stage, out of pure desperation, and as he did with the House Speaker role, he "reluctantly" steps forward).
Looking at predictit.org's individual primary/caucus markets (which have been set up through Super Tuesday, March 1), we currently just see variations in the order of the top three. Trump leads in New Hampshire and only a couple more, Rubio in the Eastern states and Cruz in the Southern ones. The one that is viewed as the tightest three-way race, at this point, is the fourth in the series of early primary/caucuses, Nevada.
The only market where this pattern varies at all is New Hampshire. Christie edges out Cruz for third place in the betting to win the state (which seems unlikely to me), and there is a more wide-open race (and a special market) for the coveted second-place finish there: there is significant support for Bush, Kasich and Christie; however, second-place in Iowa shows the same three as usual (Carson has faded to a distant fourth at 4 cents), the betting now rather strongly favoring Cruz to win and Trump to finish second. Is there room for someone other than Tea Party wingers Rubio and Cruz, and flaky outsiders Trump and Carson, to make a run? Yes, but that person has yet to show they can garner a significant share of potential Republican voters in the polls.
The newest market to draw big interest is whether Donald Trump will declare a run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2016. This market is currently valued at over 30 cents on the dollar. We explore this concept in a brief fictional scenario below.
Possible Near Future: The No Trump Bid
Offstage, we hear rumors--shots, screams, explosions--of tragic incidents in Paris, in Colorado Springs, in San Bernardino, in Mali, and elsewhere. Our villain, the modern-day Alcibiades, the short-fingered vulgarian (an old description coming from Spy Magazine), the Man of Wherever, takes center stage.
Donald Trump smiles to hear of the latest atrocities and proclaims his newest outrage to our senses of propriety, fairness, justice, and due process. The mob howls its pleasure. Meanwhile, in a dark corner of the same stage, a group of momeymen and political strategists plots their desperate counter-strategy.
Megadonor1: We have a pot of money ready to use, but for whom? Trump laughs at us when our people meet with him. I can't see backing him in the general election.
Strategist1: Keep your powder dry, Charles. We'll come up with something.
MD1: I'm tired of this, Bill--you've been wrong at every turn this cycle.
Megadonor2: Just tell me who we are going to go with--I have wasted tens of millions on Jeb already.
Strategist2: Sorry, Boone, but you know you did that on your own.
Megadonor3: OK, so who do we rally behind? Anybody but Trump, as long as he's strong on Israel.
Strategist2: Truth is, Sheldon, the Presidency is already lost--it doesn't matter who we pick. If we nominate Rubio, or Bush, or Christie, we will get the organization behind him, and if Trump runs as an independent, his voters will show up. That way, we can keep control of Congress. I'd say, we go for whoever wins Florida, or whoever finishes second there, if Trump can win it.
All: Done!
Elections, they say, are about the future, especially US Presidential elections. The way it should be, candidates put forward something resembling their visions of the future, and voters choose the person they want to be the midwife of the next four years' events--technically, how they would direct the course of Federal execution of the laws. Unfortunately, we are too easily fooled; candidates always promise outcomes they can not deliver, and the vision is obscured by the talking points and attack angles.
One of the favorite angles that candidates are trying to play this year (not unlike some other election years) is to convince us that their election will make the difference, that, with them in charge of our government, our children's future will be bright and our country will be greater than it has ever been before. It's true of all of them (that they will try to do this attempt at convincing us), and it's true of none of them (that they can make the country greater than ever). Still, I would suggest that we evaluate the prospective Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chiefs by which of the following three future outcomes they would tend to lead us:
1) The US draws back from the dangerous and unaccepting world around us, and we try to achieve greatness within our own borders;Each of these visions has its merits and defects, and our President's responses to various challenges will not fall exclusively in one category or another, as they often depend more on the specific circumtances, but there are differences in the attitudes of the various candidates with regard to this essential question, and our choice among them is the critical issue for the year.
2) The US leans forward and acts to change the world and make it more the way we want it to be; or
3) The US presents an example before the world, acting within it in accordance with our values, but accepting that our contributions will ultimately be incorporated in the emerging global society.
The Distant Past: "Memoirs of Hadrian"
As they sometimes say, history rhymes, and the stanza that resonates to me with our geopolitical status and stage in our society's lifecycle is Rome, early-to-mid-Empire, roughly 50-200 A.D. Not a perfect analogy, of course, but the basic idea works well: Europe is to us as Greece was to Rome, in our emergence we had our kings (the colonial period), our phase as a popular republic, and what we have now. And that is an oligarchy, in which the critical role of our military/foreign policy has made the Commander-in-Chief (that is what "emperor" means in its Latin root) the predominant figure. Remember that Imperial Rome had the original Senate (it means "old men") but its role during the Imperial period was about like our Electoral College, confirming the election of the foremost but hardly a check on executive power.
Anyway, this period of Roman history had both a string of awful Emperors--the remnants of the Caesars' dynastic line, descendants of Julius and Augustus (Octavian)--and then, after a period of intense chaos and power struggle, a series of rulers we now know as the "Good Emperors", including five in a row who ruled for over 80 years, dying of natural causes (as opposed to the many who were killed in military coups). Their careful succession planning helped preserve some stability, and during this period, citizenship was opened up more broadly, the Empire thrived and maintained its extensive reach, and gained enough vitality for it to retain its coherence and regional dominance through a couple hundred more years of often chaotic power struggles.
Hadrian was the second of those long-ruling Good Emperors (Nerva, who founded the line, could be counted but ruled only two years), succeeding Trajan, and, like Trajan. was born to prominent Roman citizens who lived in what is now Spain. As such, one of the key characteristics emerging during the period was the expansion of fully-fledged Roman civilization beyond the Italian peninsula.
His rule was the stuff of Roman legend, as was his mourning of Antinous, his lover who died as a young man. The French author Marguerite Yourcenar wrote Memoirs of Hadrian in the 1950's, a work of fiction based on her extensive historical research into his life. She tried to incorporate all that we know of his life, his administration, his philosophy, and his times.
In terms of his lessons for us, Hadrian gave up the effort of his predecessors to try to conquer the Asian subcontinent, but instead promoted trade with it and exploration in other directions and developed the capability for the military to hold the territory it had won (most will associate his name with Hadrian's Wall, which he had built across middle-north Britain to keep out those crazy Caledonians in the north). He toured his empire constantly, planned for great cities to be built, and planned his succession through adoption of a few in whom he found to have the greatest potential (among them the famed philosopher-Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who followed in his footsteps).
There is much that we can learn from Yourcenar's attempt to re-create his thoughts, memories, and philosophy of life--the book is written as an extended letter from dying Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius--though we also see the ways our society is different from that one; one important aspect is the relative unimportance (!) of religion to Romans, in this period when worship of the pagan gods was little more than ritual, but Christianity had not yet taken hold. Of course, Yourcenar has the benefit of knowing what followed Hadrian, and she gives him a level of foresight which would be unusual for anyone, in any time.
The Present Moment--in Live Popular Music
This seems to be a special instant for live performance of popular music on TV. There is a long, and generally somewhat ugly, history of televised rock concerts--low production values, playing to the cameras, bad sound. Techniques have improved, though, and the importance of the concert tour to the economics of popular music has never been higher. Of course the quantity of video concert footage that is available is growing exponentially.
Three events I want to mention: first, the postponed performance from Paris by U2 which was televeised this past week on HBO. It was to be televised on November 14 but was cancelled after the terrorism which struck the city the day before. The event went off on the new date without incident; the performance was mostly the same as the U2 tour which this event completed: a stage running the length of the floor of the stadium with an equally large projection screen overhead; the songs were about 60% from the latest album, which featured a great deal of memories of their early lives in Dublin, and also of the terror in the Irish island in those days. You will (probably) never get a better chance to see The Edge and how he plays those guitar lines at which we have marveled for decades; Bono's voice was a bit bit thin, understandably so at the end of a long tour, but he was up for the occasion. Then there were the Eagles of Death Metal, the American band that was playing at the Bataclan theatre that was the site of the worst terrorist massacre--U2 invited them onstage to perform at the end of the concert. They played Patti Smith's song "People Have the Power" with U2 and then one of their own songs. I will say only that it was not what I thought it, or the band, would be--if you have not seen the concert, you should take a look: HBO is usually very good about rebroadcasting their content, almost endlessly, in fact.
Second, Adele will be on national network TV with a performance from Carnegie Hall on Monday night. Her album's sales are through the roof, and we don't get many chances to see her perform live. Third, there will be a special televised event that was celebrating the 75th birthday of John Lennon, on AMC on December 19, with a host of well-known performers, and I guess Lennon's songs will be featured throughout.
On the subject of covers, I would like to close this section with a discussion of "The Voice", a
"reality" TV series. part taped and part live, that presents singing talent performing hit songs. The format is a drawn-out elimination contest, in which the performers need to appear a dozen or more times, getting tutelage from established star performers who each have their own "team", with voting by Twitter, by download song purchase, and sometimes by judging from the four stars.
There are a couple of things I like about the series, which I have gradually been sucked into by my wife and daughter's interest: the singers genuinely are talented, the stars seem genuinely interested in the teaching (this season, they are Adam Levine of Maroon 5, Pharrell Williams, country star Blake Shelton, and Gwen Stefani of No Doubt, the latter two of which have developed a surprising public romance during the season), and the backup band is excellent. I hate the format, which draws the tension out excessively in each episode, and over weeks, and I hate the way the popular voting is done and how it is utilized. At the end of the day, I feel the performers are being exploited for the commercial benefit of the network (the stars/teachers, too? Their motivations/pay are not very transparent): all this exposure doesn't seem to translate into hitmaking careers for the talent, who are tested heavily and repeatedly. There's something very "Hunger Games" about it all, except nobody's getting killed.
Present: Trump/Rubio/Cruz/???
(Political Drama--Act II, Scene 1)
Still more than 50 days from the first real results of the 2016 Republican nomination contest, the online market in which I participate has already narrowed the field to three contenders--in order of support, Rubio (currently trading at 38 cents on 100), Cruz (30), and Trump (25)--three more rated with dark horse chances (Bush at 11, Christie at 6, and Kasich at 2)--and a long list of longshots at 100-1 odds. This list includes former monthly flavors Ben Carson, who has dropped precipitously during a two-week tour of the world to learn what foreign policy is, and Carly Fiorina, as well as a variety of moribund active candidacies (Paul, Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki) and some not-even- candidates like Mitt Romney, Susana Martinez, and my own longshot favorite, Paul Ryan (the scenario for him is the deadlocked party turns to a draft-Ryan movement at some late stage, out of pure desperation, and as he did with the House Speaker role, he "reluctantly" steps forward).
Looking at predictit.org's individual primary/caucus markets (which have been set up through Super Tuesday, March 1), we currently just see variations in the order of the top three. Trump leads in New Hampshire and only a couple more, Rubio in the Eastern states and Cruz in the Southern ones. The one that is viewed as the tightest three-way race, at this point, is the fourth in the series of early primary/caucuses, Nevada.
The only market where this pattern varies at all is New Hampshire. Christie edges out Cruz for third place in the betting to win the state (which seems unlikely to me), and there is a more wide-open race (and a special market) for the coveted second-place finish there: there is significant support for Bush, Kasich and Christie; however, second-place in Iowa shows the same three as usual (Carson has faded to a distant fourth at 4 cents), the betting now rather strongly favoring Cruz to win and Trump to finish second. Is there room for someone other than Tea Party wingers Rubio and Cruz, and flaky outsiders Trump and Carson, to make a run? Yes, but that person has yet to show they can garner a significant share of potential Republican voters in the polls.
The newest market to draw big interest is whether Donald Trump will declare a run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2016. This market is currently valued at over 30 cents on the dollar. We explore this concept in a brief fictional scenario below.
Possible Near Future: The No Trump Bid
Offstage, we hear rumors--shots, screams, explosions--of tragic incidents in Paris, in Colorado Springs, in San Bernardino, in Mali, and elsewhere. Our villain, the modern-day Alcibiades, the short-fingered vulgarian (an old description coming from Spy Magazine), the Man of Wherever, takes center stage.
Donald Trump smiles to hear of the latest atrocities and proclaims his newest outrage to our senses of propriety, fairness, justice, and due process. The mob howls its pleasure. Meanwhile, in a dark corner of the same stage, a group of momeymen and political strategists plots their desperate counter-strategy.
Megadonor1: We have a pot of money ready to use, but for whom? Trump laughs at us when our people meet with him. I can't see backing him in the general election.
Strategist1: Keep your powder dry, Charles. We'll come up with something.
MD1: I'm tired of this, Bill--you've been wrong at every turn this cycle.
Megadonor2: Just tell me who we are going to go with--I have wasted tens of millions on Jeb already.
Strategist2: Sorry, Boone, but you know you did that on your own.
Megadonor3: OK, so who do we rally behind? Anybody but Trump, as long as he's strong on Israel.
Strategist2: Truth is, Sheldon, the Presidency is already lost--it doesn't matter who we pick. If we nominate Rubio, or Bush, or Christie, we will get the organization behind him, and if Trump runs as an independent, his voters will show up. That way, we can keep control of Congress. I'd say, we go for whoever wins Florida, or whoever finishes second there, if Trump can win it.
All: Done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
