(Sorry, I can't help myself!)
Politicians in Robes: King v. Burwell
Sometime very soon, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this case, which concerns the use of Federal money to subsidize health care insurance payments (for low-income individuals) under the Affordable Care Act in states which have not set up health insurance exchanges, but are instead having its residents sign up through the national exchange. At issue is a sentence in the law which authorizes the funding for the states that have exchanges--it doesn't specifically authorize the funding for those that don't.
The plaintiffs have found four people willing to go on record as saying that this use of their US tax dollars is somehow causing them harm--if there is no harm, there is no case, regardless of what the law did or didn't say. The opponents of Obamacare see this as a last-ditch effort to stop the law--which they have not been able to achieve legislatively--as without the aid to these states' residents (only 16 states have set up exchanges, if I remember correctly), the costs for the Federally-run exchanges will be prohibitively expensive, the number of uninsured will rise again, and the whole cart comes off its wheels.
Nonsense, the proponents of the law argue: the intent of the law to provide support for low-income individuals' insurance throughout the country is clear, as indicated, for example, by the funding cost estimates, etc. Any damage to a few people--and the viability of the claim for damages by the four plaintiffs has been challenged quite strongly--is far outweighed by the damage millions would suffer if this aspect of the law is overturned.
My feeling is that, unfortunately, the Obamacare proponents' arguments for the legislative intent (something the Supreme Court does legitimately consider, besides the letter of the law) may be vulnerable. The intent was that every state would set up its own exchange. That intent has been frustrated by states with Republican majorities which refused to do so--against the interests of their own citizens, and against the principles of states' rights which the whole state exchange concept recognized--entirely to try to frustrate the implementation of the law.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the interpretations of the nine members, and as I have argued before, it's really about their political views. There are four members who will support the Administration/Democratic view (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor); three who will definitely oppose it, because they oppose anything coming from a liberal point of view (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). So, it's really down to the decision of Roberts and of Kennedy, two judges nominated by Republicans who are the swing votes on the Court.
Kennedy is always unpredictable; his one consistent philosophy seems to be to preserve individual liberty. I feel that he will be swayed by the argument that the plaintiffs represent a class of people to whom the law causes some harm, and he will vote for their side. Roberts generally votes with the three arch-conservatives, but he went against them in the first big Obamacare case, with a tricky decision that the mandate to get health insurance required in the law was in fact a tax, and therefore within the powers of the Federal government to legislate. My guess is that he will come out with another tricky decision, finding that the plaintiffs' claim to damage is negligible, though the law's application (subsidized funding for low-income individuals in states without exchange) is not supported.
This would prolong the uncertainty and the political debate, probably the best outcome the Republicans could hope for (actually knocking down the law on the spot would cause them a big, big legislative/political problem). I could see a ruling that says, in order to prevent chaos, that states and the US government have two years to fix the problem: either the states set up exchanges, or the law should be changed to explicitly fund subsidies on the Federal exchange. (The latter, the Republicans have sworn to oppose.) Because the Republicans have the majority in both houses of Congress, then, the burden would be on the states: put up an exchange, or suffer the consequences.
The Trade Deal Fiasco
Friday's showdown votes in the House on the trade bill (fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty which had been negotiated with Japan, several Southeast Asian countries, Australia, Canada, and Mexico--for the latter two, it was an update of the NAFTA treaty of the '90's--and for an eventual similar bill being negotiated with Europe) produced a mixed result: the House narrowly passed the bill, already approved in the Senate. This will not lead to the simple up-or-down vote on the trade bills which the legislation suggests, though: in order to get the measure through the Senate, the President agreed to some separate legislation to provide assistance to those displaced from their jobs as a result of the trade bill, and that legislation needed to be approved as well, in order for the package to go to the President for his signature (I am intentionally not using the names of the bills, or the acronyms used for them, to avoid confusion).
This trade assistance bill, which in principle the Democrats strongly support, provided the opportunity for legislative sleight-of-hand for the Democrats in the House. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi providing political cover, they switched en masse against the President's wishes, and against their party's expressed intent, and voted down the trade assistance (the Republicans were generally against the assistance, so the margin of defeat was overwhelming).
This was a defeat for almost all involved: clearly a monstrous setback for President Obama, who is now confirmed, legislatively, to be a lame duck: the majority of the Democrats defied him and his last-minute appeal for their votes, I would say in a particularly spiteful way. The Republican leadership did not succeed: their intent was to support the trade bill and get it passed. Big business wanted the bill, and now it is stalled. The Democratic party was split between the pro-trade bill and anti-trade bill groups, and it really needs to get its act together.
The margin of defeat for the trade assistance was so strong, and the majority for the fast-track authority so narrow, I strongly doubt the bill is going anywhere in this Congress, though President Obama may try again. It really looks like the proposed trade bill will have to go back to the drawing board, and it will probably end up being the problem of the next Administration (as I recently predicted). Some progressive groups which opposed the bill crowed over their victory, though dailykos.com was more circumspect, as the bill is not dead, only stuck.
I really see only three possible claimants to victory in this impasse: 1) protectionists who are against all international trade bills; 2) those who do not want to give the Executive the authority to negotiate trade bills (which is tantamount to #1, as Congress would never be able to legislate a trade bill and negotiate with other countries on it); and 3) Hillary Clinton, who was able to dodge the issue of the current votes. She limited herself to speaking in favor of a "good trade bill" and never committed herself as to whether this one, the details of which have not been revealed, met her criteria. I suspect she was in agreement with Nancy Pelosi, who wanted to slow down the process and get the bill renegotiated in some areas, such as job protection, environmental protections, and labor standards, all of which sounds good but will be hard to sell to our prospective trade partners. China, which had some interest in the course of the negotiations but was not a party to them, is no doubt highly amused by the American incompetence.
Going International: Turkey
Very big news this week from the secular, Islamic-majority democracy, and its parliamentary elections. President Erdogan, head of the Islamic party which had a majority in parliament, called the elections seeking a three-fifths majority to pass constitutional amendments which would increase his powers. Instead, the voters chose to go the other way: his party lost its majority, above all because the Kurdish minority in Turkey rallied its forces and gained enough support (10%) to gain representation in Parliament. Now Erdogan will need to build a coalition with parties that can align with his political direction but will not acquiesce in his self-aggrandisement: he seems to have peaked in his power, which I would say is good for the future of the country and for its neighbors and allies.
One issue that came up in the final days of the campaign was reporting by Turkish journalists which showed heavy arms being sent by the Turkish military to Sunni forces in Syria (with which Turkey has a very long, troubled border). Turkey is not supposed to be doing this: much as they would want to support an anti-ISIS, anti-Assad, non-Kurdish military force in Syria, the viability of any such force is doubtful, and weapons provided to them seem to end up with ISIS. When push comes to shove, the anti-Assad Sunnis seem more likely to cooperate with one another, even with ISIS. Anyway, the journalists who broke the story were arrested and threatened with treason--this limitation on the freedom of the press, more than the question of helping the Sunni forces, may have weighed on voters' minds.
Since the election, Kurdish forces have attacked an ISIS-held town in northern Syria: Erdogan and Turkey are offering safe haven to the refugees from this inferno, which is something with which it is hard to argue on humanitarian grounds. I am encouraged by the confidence Turkish voters have shown in multiparty democracy, but I have to credit Erdogan for bringing considerable success and progress to Turkey, particularly on the economic front, and I have to acknowledge the difficult situation the Turks find themselves next to in Syria.
Still International: Hong Kong
I saw an article today about "thousands" of persons protesting to try to stop the imminent vote in the Hong Kong Legislative Council (partly elected, much of it appointed) to ratify the Chinese government's wishes for the direct election of the former colony's Chief Executive. Direct election, yes, but from a selection of candidates approved by Beijing. The fact that the report referred to "thousands", and not "hundreds of thousands, accompanied by mass civil disobedience" suggests to me that this will not stop the rubber-stamp LegCo from acceding to Beijing's wishes. The elections will be Iran-style.
I should think that Hong Kong is close to an inflection point, moving to a resolution of various opposing forces: the increasingly democratic tendencies of the young people, who have grown up with some rights of self-expression and liberty, the interests of the big money, which want to preserve the benefits of close association with Beijing, and (strongest, in terms of power) the centripetal force of Beijing, which will want to maintain Hong Kong as a trading port (though maybe not one of central importance) but keep it on a leash that it will eventually want to draw unto itself. The most likely result will always be for Beijing to prevail, but one cannot discount possible success for "people power" and the influence of global opinion, on an area that is not yet firmly under the Chinese thumb. I do feel that the crisis came and went last fall, and all were relieved that the war of nerves was resolved without bloodshed; even if this political battle, for which the denouement will come this week, was not resolved in the favor of Hong Kong's democrats, they at least had their voices heard clearly, both in China and in the world beyond.
Are We Ready Yet?
I guess we better be, because, ready or not, the 2016 election is barreling forth. Hillary Clinton waited as long as she could to confirm her intention to run, then kept as low a profile as possible for a couple of months; now she has done her big public launching speech, which apparently went very well for her. Jeb Bush signalled early, but has resisted his formal announcement, trying to use the rules to line up as much unofficial money as possible; now his day is due. The Republican candidates who have been sitting on the fence, like John Kasich and Chris Christie, have found their fence is receding from the battlefront, and now they are already late. Even Donald Trump is finding that he now needs to announce, or give up his charade. The first Republican debates in New Hmpshire are only about two months away.
There is also the fact, as suggested above, that it is apparent that nothing will be happening domestically to set the scene that has not already happened. The economy is continuing to recover, with growth in jobs, though they are low-paying; the Fed strategy--a couple of small increases in rates, to move them off zero and show that they can change, but nothing too dramatic--is clear; legislative initiatives are all dead in the water, and the Supreme Court continues to get older, more out of touch, and more of an issue for our decision on the next President.
Jeb's recent trip abroad has helped distinguish him from the mass of other candidates, as he demonstrated familiarity with the affairs of other countries, something that, in practice, is very important for the actual tasks a President must do. He probably also helped distinguish himself from his relatively ill-informed brother, Obama's predecessor. Whether this will help him with the food fight coming soon among all his inexperienced opponents who are fixated on providing red-meat issues for the Republican base is not clear, however; the pundits are fond of pointing out how he is not running away with the nomination, either in terms of fundraising or in the polls.
Right now, according to Real Clear Politics average of polls (as of June 2), Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio are in the top group with about 10% each, then there's a group in the 7-9% range of Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Ted Cruz. If we skip Chris Christie at 4.8% (who I still don't believe will run), Donald Trump at 4% heads the back of the pack (with seven others registering 1% or more, and by my count, about 14% selecting none of the above or don't know).
I am tempted to make a set of fearless predictions and call the Republican nomination (and the Democratic one, of course), the VP selections, the independent candidates who will run, the popular vote and electoral vote margin--they are all clear to me. I have thought better of it, though, and will wait until the Florida primary next March, which should remove any doubt about who will end up being the Republicans' nominee.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
From the Obit Desk, with a couple of Rants
It has been awhile.....
B.B. King (May 14) - B.B. King (born Riley B. King; "B.B." was an early nickname, short for "Blues Boy", back when it was not as offensive to be referred to as "boy", maybe? Or maybe that's why it became just "B.B.") was the classic blues guitar performer of his generation, a critical link between the early greats of the Depression and post-WWII years (Sonny Boy Williamson, Son House, Robert Johnson, others) and the explosion of blues and blues-derived rock performers of the late 20th century (a compressed list could include Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Robert Cray, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Duane Allman, along with dozens of lesser-known talents). He was not the only one fitting that description (Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy), but he was the most famous and the most successful and long-lived in his career (Guy is still performing). He and his guitar "Lucille" got around, all right; he seems to have been a generous performer, and judging by his numerous collaborations, well-loved and highly respected in the music industry. Music fans loved him, as well. He drew upon the original Mississippi Delta sources (the ones from Mississippi) and played the blues straight: without excessive musical embellishment on his part, and a loud, clear singing voice which had a style influenced by gospel. He is equally known for his original pieces and his covers of blues classics. His place in the history of American music is about as secure as anyone's.
Tariq Aziz (June 5) - I am rather shocked to find no previous reference in this blog to the Iraqi who was Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister and mouthpiece to the rest of the world. Aziz was a Saddam crony from all the way back: he didn't have the bluster and threatening manner of Saddam, but he was involved all the way up to his neck--which, unlike Saddam's, was somehow spared after the Iraq invasion (he was sentenced to life in prison, and died there). The fact that the invasion occurred, after all the filibustering and prevarication on all sides, was his own singular failure: his job was to keep the foreigners talking--with him, in particular--in order to prevent them from overrunning the country and throwing out the Baathists. I'm sure Saddam would have liquidated him for that failure if he'd had the chance. An interesting and somewhat ironic fact is that Aziz was a Christian; the Baathist regime was authentically secular, and that aspect of its governance seems to be lost forever from Iraq--now most of the Christians are, too.
Ed Gilligan (May 29) - He was President and Vice Chairman of American Express when he died suddenly, after becoming seriously ill on a domestic flight. At age 55, Gilligan was among the top candidates for the eventual succession to longtime American Express Chairman Ken Chenault. He had an unusual career in a couple of aspects: his entire career was with the company (that is not as common among that company's senior executives as you might think), and he built his career on an usual dimension of the company: Instead of working his way through the mainstream US Card operations or strategic direction, he built--from scratch--the company's strategy of partnering with other financial institutions and banks that wanted to issue their own cards with American Express' logo, i.e. the franchising business. This led to his taking on responsibilities such as developing the business-to-business capability and later to heading the international card business. He represented very well the entrepreneurial spirit that Chenault has championed for the company, as well as trying to develop value in the (not-quite-unique, but rare) proprietary card network.
Cynthia Lennon (April 1) - Beatles fans will recognize the name--Cynthia was the first wife of John Lennon, and the mother of their son Julian. John and Cynthia married in the early Sixties, and they were divorced one year before Yoko Ono came into (took over?) John's life. Yoko Ono wrote a very pleasant short obituary for Cynthia Lennon for Rolling Stone.
Peter Gay and William Zinsser (May 17) - Two Yale humanities professor colleagues who died (coincidentally) the same day. Gay was an expert on modern European cultural history, Zinsser a practitioner and teacher of the methods of clear expository writing. Clearly, I was not a recipient of the brilliance of either's teaching!
John F. Nash and Alicia Nash (May 23) - Their simultaneous deaths were not coincidental; they died together in an auto accident on the New Jersey Turnpike. Students of mathematics, and especially its branch called game theory (it has very little relation to today's video games, youngsters!) will be familiar with Nash's pioneering work. Film buffs will recognize them as the principal characters in the movie "A Beautiful Mind", which focused on the crisis which mental illness brought to John Nash's life, career, and marriage. (The movie won four Oscars: Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actress.) Alicia Nash (portrayed by Jennifer Connelly for her Oscar) is herself a fascinating story: her family immigrated from El Salvador, and she gave up a promising career in math herself to help John. The couple separated but reunited later in life; John Nash eventually regained control over the paranoid delusions which derailed him for decades.
Lennie Merullo and Beau Biden (May 30) - Unlike the previous two pairs of coterminous life endings, these two were very asymmetrical in their significance. (sorry, Prof. Zinsser!)
Chicago Cub baseball fans might rate Merullo as the more important; they are kind of fanatic in that way. Merullo was the last living member of the last Cubs team that played in a World Series, in 1945 (the last survivor to have actually seen the Cubs win a World Series may have died already: that event was in 1908). Merullo continued on in a baseball-related career as a scout and died at age 98.
Beau Biden, on the other hand, is one whose life clearly ended too soon (age 46). The son of Vice President Joe Biden, the highest office he held was Attorney General for the state of Delaware, but he seemed headed for greatness, perhaps on the national level. When people spoke of the possible next generation of leaders in the Democratic party, his name was among them, and President Obama himself came to deliver his eulogy. He had an outstanding military career in Iraq and served two terms as Delaware's Attorney General--he was said to be preparing to run for Governor when his illness, brain cancer, felled him.
Rant the First - Beau Biden's death from this disease, one of the most feared of all, because some forms of malignant brain tumors (glioblastoma) cause death so quickly, has occasioned a new discussion of its (generally unknown) causes. Here and here are links to two informative discussions on the topic: both mention that ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear radiation treatment, can cause tumors later in life. Also worth noting is that previous brain injury or disease, or genetic predisposition--both Joe Biden and Beau Biden had strokes--may be associated with a higher risk. Then both reports go to the question of cellphones and their possible association with it, the subject of my ranting wrath.
Cellphones produce radio-emitted frequency--a non-ionizing radiation, of a form similar to microwaves, which once had suspicions of being associated with possible cancer. The microwave producers toned down the emissions (through better screens), and eventually we stopped receiving warnings about keeping our faces too close to the microwave (not something we were likely to do, anyway). The cellphone manufacturers have consistently said there is no danger--of course, they would say that--and have said that they have also reduced the radiation produced. (Which begs the question: Why would they reduce it, if there was no danger? And, what about those who used to use cellphones back in the primitive old days?)
The scientific community has not definitively concluded on this question: there is "conflicting evidence", though perhaps more weighted to the negative side in terms of statistically significant correlations. (The evidence is a bit complicated, as there are different types of tumors, some of which the statistical evidence argues are more likely with cellphone use, some actually less likely, and don't forget to consider the question of "reporting bias" from those who later fall ill.)
I have to say I really don't like the sound of this at all: we are producing hundreds of millions of cellphones each year, and we're not really sure if they contribute to brain cancer or not? Unlike the microwave, we do put these things up close to our brains every day--at least most people do, though the versatility of the phones for other purposes, and the improvement of the "speaker" phone and plug-in earphone/microphone attachments make this less of an exclusive manner of use. I don't want to say that this sounds like the debates that went on for decades about cigarette smoking and lung cancer, because I really hope it's not analogous, but....I find the unsettled nature of this question to be unacceptable. (Yes, I know, "climate change deniers", science is never settled.)
It seems like we will have to wait 15-20 years (who knows how long it takes for these cancers all to appear, if they are in fact "caused" by an external factor?) to see if the incidence of deadly brain cancer rises dramatically--or not.
In the meantime, Berkeley, California has passed an ordinance requiring warnings about use of cellphones too close to the body. The FCC has issued guidelines on the maximum-allowed Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), but research indicates that varies widely by the type of phone and the conditions under which the phone is operating (when it is working harder to receive transmission, it steps up the energy level!) Call me scurrilous, but I'm advising all to keep the phones at least a couple of inches away from any sensitive organs, such as, for example, your brains.
Rant the Second - A couple of weeks ago, we celebrated Memorial Day, in which we honor those Americans who have fallen in the service of our country in our wars. I certainly share in the serious remembrance of them, and I would suggest we consider as well those innocents of all nations who have suffered in them. Like any American, I honor our military's bravery, and I feel that our participants in those struggles have always had honorable intentions when they went to war. My only reservation is that I feel that, as a nation, we are sometimes too willing to go to war, to believe what we are told as the reasons that we are warring.
With regard to this topic, I heard a couple of times this year what I considered to be an offensive statement: that this is the first Memorial Day in 14 years in which the US is not at war. (Here's an example, from Newsweek.) There is arguably a shade of difference in the level of the US participation in conflict this year as compared to the last 14 years (the reference is to 2001, when we entered the conflict in Afghanistan after 9/11): our participation in the hostilities in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, may have "officially" ended, but that's neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. We haven't been in a declared war since 1945, and the conflicts go on, with our active participation, in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and in a couple other countries, like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia).
What those who would say we are not "at war" mean is that we do not have "boots on the ground" in "active combat roles"--though of course we do have them grounded in Iraq (and I don't care how far they are from the current "front", it is that changeable) and in Afghanistan (a variety of levels of on-the-ground participation in training, special operations, whatever else is needed on the day, and the trend is toward increasing it). As far as I can tell, we are "at war" with ISIS (or whatever you want to call them), even if proxies are doing the combat. I guess drones don't count, bombs don't count, special operations don't count, and cruise missiles won't count. Only dead American soldiers count.
Mind you, I am not saying that we should not consider ourselves in a state of active hostilities with regard to the Taliban, or with ISIS, or with al-Qaeda, for that matter: we have had reason to go after them, and we certainly have not made peace with them. I am saying, as a friend of mine had on his bumper sticker, "I am already against the next war"--the one that some want to start with Iran. I am saying, let's at least be honest with ourselves, on a day like Memorial Day, that we still have men and women in our military subject to danger from hostile forces in multiple countries. I am saying, in the next Presidential campaign, that when candidates start talking tough about what they want to do in our military campaigns, that we ask them how many American servicepeople's lives they are willing to commit--in the most permanent way--to those ends. That was the real problem with the Iraq war: you could call it "sticker shock" about how many lives were lost, but the real point was that there was no sticker.
B.B. King (May 14) - B.B. King (born Riley B. King; "B.B." was an early nickname, short for "Blues Boy", back when it was not as offensive to be referred to as "boy", maybe? Or maybe that's why it became just "B.B.") was the classic blues guitar performer of his generation, a critical link between the early greats of the Depression and post-WWII years (Sonny Boy Williamson, Son House, Robert Johnson, others) and the explosion of blues and blues-derived rock performers of the late 20th century (a compressed list could include Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Robert Cray, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Duane Allman, along with dozens of lesser-known talents). He was not the only one fitting that description (Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy), but he was the most famous and the most successful and long-lived in his career (Guy is still performing). He and his guitar "Lucille" got around, all right; he seems to have been a generous performer, and judging by his numerous collaborations, well-loved and highly respected in the music industry. Music fans loved him, as well. He drew upon the original Mississippi Delta sources (the ones from Mississippi) and played the blues straight: without excessive musical embellishment on his part, and a loud, clear singing voice which had a style influenced by gospel. He is equally known for his original pieces and his covers of blues classics. His place in the history of American music is about as secure as anyone's.
Tariq Aziz (June 5) - I am rather shocked to find no previous reference in this blog to the Iraqi who was Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister and mouthpiece to the rest of the world. Aziz was a Saddam crony from all the way back: he didn't have the bluster and threatening manner of Saddam, but he was involved all the way up to his neck--which, unlike Saddam's, was somehow spared after the Iraq invasion (he was sentenced to life in prison, and died there). The fact that the invasion occurred, after all the filibustering and prevarication on all sides, was his own singular failure: his job was to keep the foreigners talking--with him, in particular--in order to prevent them from overrunning the country and throwing out the Baathists. I'm sure Saddam would have liquidated him for that failure if he'd had the chance. An interesting and somewhat ironic fact is that Aziz was a Christian; the Baathist regime was authentically secular, and that aspect of its governance seems to be lost forever from Iraq--now most of the Christians are, too.
Ed Gilligan (May 29) - He was President and Vice Chairman of American Express when he died suddenly, after becoming seriously ill on a domestic flight. At age 55, Gilligan was among the top candidates for the eventual succession to longtime American Express Chairman Ken Chenault. He had an unusual career in a couple of aspects: his entire career was with the company (that is not as common among that company's senior executives as you might think), and he built his career on an usual dimension of the company: Instead of working his way through the mainstream US Card operations or strategic direction, he built--from scratch--the company's strategy of partnering with other financial institutions and banks that wanted to issue their own cards with American Express' logo, i.e. the franchising business. This led to his taking on responsibilities such as developing the business-to-business capability and later to heading the international card business. He represented very well the entrepreneurial spirit that Chenault has championed for the company, as well as trying to develop value in the (not-quite-unique, but rare) proprietary card network.
Cynthia Lennon (April 1) - Beatles fans will recognize the name--Cynthia was the first wife of John Lennon, and the mother of their son Julian. John and Cynthia married in the early Sixties, and they were divorced one year before Yoko Ono came into (took over?) John's life. Yoko Ono wrote a very pleasant short obituary for Cynthia Lennon for Rolling Stone.
Peter Gay and William Zinsser (May 17) - Two Yale humanities professor colleagues who died (coincidentally) the same day. Gay was an expert on modern European cultural history, Zinsser a practitioner and teacher of the methods of clear expository writing. Clearly, I was not a recipient of the brilliance of either's teaching!
John F. Nash and Alicia Nash (May 23) - Their simultaneous deaths were not coincidental; they died together in an auto accident on the New Jersey Turnpike. Students of mathematics, and especially its branch called game theory (it has very little relation to today's video games, youngsters!) will be familiar with Nash's pioneering work. Film buffs will recognize them as the principal characters in the movie "A Beautiful Mind", which focused on the crisis which mental illness brought to John Nash's life, career, and marriage. (The movie won four Oscars: Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actress.) Alicia Nash (portrayed by Jennifer Connelly for her Oscar) is herself a fascinating story: her family immigrated from El Salvador, and she gave up a promising career in math herself to help John. The couple separated but reunited later in life; John Nash eventually regained control over the paranoid delusions which derailed him for decades.
Lennie Merullo and Beau Biden (May 30) - Unlike the previous two pairs of coterminous life endings, these two were very asymmetrical in their significance. (sorry, Prof. Zinsser!)
Chicago Cub baseball fans might rate Merullo as the more important; they are kind of fanatic in that way. Merullo was the last living member of the last Cubs team that played in a World Series, in 1945 (the last survivor to have actually seen the Cubs win a World Series may have died already: that event was in 1908). Merullo continued on in a baseball-related career as a scout and died at age 98.
Beau Biden, on the other hand, is one whose life clearly ended too soon (age 46). The son of Vice President Joe Biden, the highest office he held was Attorney General for the state of Delaware, but he seemed headed for greatness, perhaps on the national level. When people spoke of the possible next generation of leaders in the Democratic party, his name was among them, and President Obama himself came to deliver his eulogy. He had an outstanding military career in Iraq and served two terms as Delaware's Attorney General--he was said to be preparing to run for Governor when his illness, brain cancer, felled him.
Rant the First - Beau Biden's death from this disease, one of the most feared of all, because some forms of malignant brain tumors (glioblastoma) cause death so quickly, has occasioned a new discussion of its (generally unknown) causes. Here and here are links to two informative discussions on the topic: both mention that ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear radiation treatment, can cause tumors later in life. Also worth noting is that previous brain injury or disease, or genetic predisposition--both Joe Biden and Beau Biden had strokes--may be associated with a higher risk. Then both reports go to the question of cellphones and their possible association with it, the subject of my ranting wrath.
Cellphones produce radio-emitted frequency--a non-ionizing radiation, of a form similar to microwaves, which once had suspicions of being associated with possible cancer. The microwave producers toned down the emissions (through better screens), and eventually we stopped receiving warnings about keeping our faces too close to the microwave (not something we were likely to do, anyway). The cellphone manufacturers have consistently said there is no danger--of course, they would say that--and have said that they have also reduced the radiation produced. (Which begs the question: Why would they reduce it, if there was no danger? And, what about those who used to use cellphones back in the primitive old days?)
The scientific community has not definitively concluded on this question: there is "conflicting evidence", though perhaps more weighted to the negative side in terms of statistically significant correlations. (The evidence is a bit complicated, as there are different types of tumors, some of which the statistical evidence argues are more likely with cellphone use, some actually less likely, and don't forget to consider the question of "reporting bias" from those who later fall ill.)
I have to say I really don't like the sound of this at all: we are producing hundreds of millions of cellphones each year, and we're not really sure if they contribute to brain cancer or not? Unlike the microwave, we do put these things up close to our brains every day--at least most people do, though the versatility of the phones for other purposes, and the improvement of the "speaker" phone and plug-in earphone/microphone attachments make this less of an exclusive manner of use. I don't want to say that this sounds like the debates that went on for decades about cigarette smoking and lung cancer, because I really hope it's not analogous, but....I find the unsettled nature of this question to be unacceptable. (Yes, I know, "climate change deniers", science is never settled.)
It seems like we will have to wait 15-20 years (who knows how long it takes for these cancers all to appear, if they are in fact "caused" by an external factor?) to see if the incidence of deadly brain cancer rises dramatically--or not.
In the meantime, Berkeley, California has passed an ordinance requiring warnings about use of cellphones too close to the body. The FCC has issued guidelines on the maximum-allowed Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), but research indicates that varies widely by the type of phone and the conditions under which the phone is operating (when it is working harder to receive transmission, it steps up the energy level!) Call me scurrilous, but I'm advising all to keep the phones at least a couple of inches away from any sensitive organs, such as, for example, your brains.
Rant the Second - A couple of weeks ago, we celebrated Memorial Day, in which we honor those Americans who have fallen in the service of our country in our wars. I certainly share in the serious remembrance of them, and I would suggest we consider as well those innocents of all nations who have suffered in them. Like any American, I honor our military's bravery, and I feel that our participants in those struggles have always had honorable intentions when they went to war. My only reservation is that I feel that, as a nation, we are sometimes too willing to go to war, to believe what we are told as the reasons that we are warring.
With regard to this topic, I heard a couple of times this year what I considered to be an offensive statement: that this is the first Memorial Day in 14 years in which the US is not at war. (Here's an example, from Newsweek.) There is arguably a shade of difference in the level of the US participation in conflict this year as compared to the last 14 years (the reference is to 2001, when we entered the conflict in Afghanistan after 9/11): our participation in the hostilities in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, may have "officially" ended, but that's neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. We haven't been in a declared war since 1945, and the conflicts go on, with our active participation, in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and in a couple other countries, like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia).
What those who would say we are not "at war" mean is that we do not have "boots on the ground" in "active combat roles"--though of course we do have them grounded in Iraq (and I don't care how far they are from the current "front", it is that changeable) and in Afghanistan (a variety of levels of on-the-ground participation in training, special operations, whatever else is needed on the day, and the trend is toward increasing it). As far as I can tell, we are "at war" with ISIS (or whatever you want to call them), even if proxies are doing the combat. I guess drones don't count, bombs don't count, special operations don't count, and cruise missiles won't count. Only dead American soldiers count.
Mind you, I am not saying that we should not consider ourselves in a state of active hostilities with regard to the Taliban, or with ISIS, or with al-Qaeda, for that matter: we have had reason to go after them, and we certainly have not made peace with them. I am saying, as a friend of mine had on his bumper sticker, "I am already against the next war"--the one that some want to start with Iran. I am saying, let's at least be honest with ourselves, on a day like Memorial Day, that we still have men and women in our military subject to danger from hostile forces in multiple countries. I am saying, in the next Presidential campaign, that when candidates start talking tough about what they want to do in our military campaigns, that we ask them how many American servicepeople's lives they are willing to commit--in the most permanent way--to those ends. That was the real problem with the Iraq war: you could call it "sticker shock" about how many lives were lost, but the real point was that there was no sticker.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Timely Sports Report
This would seem a good moment to cover sports topics of the moment, as there is much that is just about to happen, and I just can't resist analyzing these imminent events.
NBA Finals - Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Golden State Warriors - (starts Thursday) - Though I don't have any particular rooting interest, this finals matchup intrigues me more than any for several years. We seem to be entering a new era in the battle at the highest level for basketball supremacy, with new teams among the several contenders (besides the two finalists, the Los Angeles Clippers, Atlanta Hawks, and Washington Wizards all emerged), and this may be the first of a series of epic confrontations, in the manner of Bird vs. Magic in the '80's. Lebron James and Stephen Curry are that good, if their drive, skill, and health persist.
The historical perspective suggests strongly that the Cavaliers and Lebron should be heavily favored: they have far more playoff experience, and teams that rely so heavily on the 3-pointer as the Warriors do have rarely, if ever, won the NBA championship. Sooner or later, such teams run into an opponent who can shut down their offense. Yet, I hesitate to simply follow that conventional wisdom. Golden State had the regular season's best record by a fair margin, and it has cruised fairly easily through very tough competition to win the Western Conference title. Curry has a unique ability to hit the long ones even when fully covered on defense, and he makes good decisions with his ball handling and passing. He has good options in his backcourt partner, Klay Thompson, and volatile, injury-prone center Andrew Bogut, who is playing well. Finally, in Harrison Barnes they have an young, athletic forward who can stay with Lebron and make everything difficult for him on offense. Unfortunately, I don't think James' supporting cast is strong enough this year, with Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao out and Kyrie Irving's health undependable. There is, of course, James' indomitable will to be overcome, and he has a determination to bring the championship to his home area. He may have to be patient for another year.
Belmont Stakes - Can American Pharoah Complete the Triple Crown? - (Saturday) - How many times have we been here since 1978? Twelve? When will it end? As always, there are plenty of reasons to back the colt that won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, and reasons to doubt, as well. For the latter, past history is convincing. The Triple Crown is like a Triathlon, but one in which everyone starts evenly in the second and third phases. And, like the marathon at the end of the Triathlon, the final phase is the greatest challenge.
It does seem as though the field opposing American Pharoah is not too strong, from what I can see.(By the way, I love the misspelling of "pharaoh", if that's what it is, and not merely a trick to avoid duplicating a name previously used--a requirement that is always a challenge with naming thoroughbreds.) There are a couple of horses who have not been defeated in the previous rounds, skipping those races, which often in these circumstances has made for a fresher horse at the finish of the endless, lung-bursting stretch run at Belmont. Apparently Frosted is a horse that surges late, which could make for a thrilling finish. American Pharoah looks as though it will go off as an even-money favorite, reflecting some healthy skepticism, but that doesn't seem like a bargain betting price, either. Having not seen either of the first two races, I will hope for completion of the triple but eschew a prediction.
French Open Quarterfinals - Djokovic vs. Nadal - (in a few hours) - This looks to be one of the great tennis showdowns of the decade, not diminished by the fact that it is occurring in the quarterfinals. Rafael Nadal was seeded 6th for this tournament because injuries limited his appearances last year, but he has an incredible record in the French: he has won the tournament nine times and has only lost once there, ever. Novak Djokovic is playing as well, or better, than he has ever done, and this year he seemed to be targeting this, the one major tournament he has not won.
The first set will be the feeling-out period, as Djokovic will want to test to see if Nadal is fully healthy (he has been playing his way back into shape, and actually lost a couple of times--on clay!--in the warmup tournaments). The outcome of the first set will not be critical, though, as both players are ones in which the best shot to get a set from them is early. If it goes five sets, I would pick Nadal, but my bet would be on Djokovic in four.
The rest of the tournament is hardly an afterthought for the winner, as difficult opponents await in the two rounds which will remain (probably Murray, who is also in top form, in the next round); however, the winner of this match will already have made history.
Stanley Cup Finals (Hockey) - Chicago Blackhawks vs. Tampa Bay Lightning - (starts in a few minutes) - I can't pretend to be a hockey fan, but I am excited for the town of my primary residence these days, as the Blackhawks go for their third championship in six years. Winning will not make this quite a dynasty, but would make comparisons to the NBA's San Antonio Spurs appropriate, for their resiliency and ability to deliver when the chips are down. It has been a difficult road for the Blackhawks, but they have shown the ability to rise to the occasion on the road, as they did in Game 7 of the last round. They will need to do something comparable, as Tampa Bay has the home ice advantage. Still, the Blackhawks are favored, based on their experience and having a healthy squad.
Champions Cup Final (UEFA--that's "Football") - Juventus vs. Barcelona - (Saturday) - The European club championship will take place in a neutral stadium, in Berlin this year. Juventus won the Italian league easily this year, which allowed it to concentrate on the challenge of head-to-head, home-and-away matchups through the last three rounds. Its success against Real Madrid in the semifinals was very impressive, and will allow it to go into this final with the confidence needed for this challenge. Barcelona has remained at the top level for several years and has regrouped this year as strong as it ever has been; it held off Real Madrid to win the Spanish league title this year. Barcelona's strategy will be the same as always: maximizing ball possession, looking to set up Lionel Messi to cut through the opponents' defense and find an open player with a perfect pass, or take the shot on goal himself. When it comes to defense, Barcelona's theory is that there is no need to worry about that while they have ball, but they have improved their ability to contain the counterattacks that the top teams can muster. Barcelona should be favored, but the outcome of a single-game final is always uncertain. The key for Juventus will be to ride out the pressure in the first 30 minutes, then find a goal which can give them a chance to hold on for the win, or even open a bigger lead if Barcelona overcommits on offense. (a/k/a The Chelsea Strategy)
Baseball - As is usually the case with the sport, there is less urgency with regard to baseball. The regular season will be one-third over in the next couple of days; certainly long enough to detect the significant emergence of some teams and declines of some from which more was expected. The biggest surprise has been the faster-than-expected rise of the Houston Astros, which have led most of the way in the tough AL West Division with a cast of good young stars. They have an abundance of power; their pitching may not be enough to sustain them. Similarly, the Chicago Cubs have come forward as a contender in the NL Central; they are packed with top prospects now arriving, and the surprise is that they have all come up and are doing so well, so quickly. The Cubs also have to contend with a tough division, as the St. Louis Cardinals continue to overcome all adversity--and have the best record in the majors so far--and the Pittsburgh Pirates are also likely playoff contenders. An even bigger surprise is the Minnesota Twins, who are currently on a hot streak and have a narrow lead over last year's AL champions, the Kansas City Royals. I had none of those three (Astros, Cubs, Twins) making the playoffs in my preseason predictions; I will stick with those predicted outcomes, but I accept they are teams to reckon with for the future.
The two eastern divisions look like dogfights of mediocre teams: the Washington Nationals have been inconsistent, despite having more talent than any of their rivals in the NL East. The AL East is a five-team race at this point, all the teams hovering around the .500 mark. The two teams that have been the greatest disappointments so far are the Oakland Athletics, in contention for the worst record in the majors, and their division rivals in the AL West the Seattle Mariners, who I picked to win the World Series this year. They are the only team of the ones I picked for my final four (those in the two League Championship series) which I have reason to doubt, though it is not too late for them yet (the others are the Cardinals, and the Los Angeles Angels and Dodgers).
Of course, my primary preoccupation is the Cincinnati Reds; their performance has been a little worse than the mediocrity I expected. Cincinnati hosts the All-Star game this year, and its manager, Bryan Price will be honored as an assistant coach for that game if he lasts that long. I had some doubts in the past couple of weeks,when it looked as though they might never win again, but a weekend series sweep of the Nationals has relieved his worries on that score--he will probably make it to the end of the year before getting fired.
NBA Finals - Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Golden State Warriors - (starts Thursday) - Though I don't have any particular rooting interest, this finals matchup intrigues me more than any for several years. We seem to be entering a new era in the battle at the highest level for basketball supremacy, with new teams among the several contenders (besides the two finalists, the Los Angeles Clippers, Atlanta Hawks, and Washington Wizards all emerged), and this may be the first of a series of epic confrontations, in the manner of Bird vs. Magic in the '80's. Lebron James and Stephen Curry are that good, if their drive, skill, and health persist.
The historical perspective suggests strongly that the Cavaliers and Lebron should be heavily favored: they have far more playoff experience, and teams that rely so heavily on the 3-pointer as the Warriors do have rarely, if ever, won the NBA championship. Sooner or later, such teams run into an opponent who can shut down their offense. Yet, I hesitate to simply follow that conventional wisdom. Golden State had the regular season's best record by a fair margin, and it has cruised fairly easily through very tough competition to win the Western Conference title. Curry has a unique ability to hit the long ones even when fully covered on defense, and he makes good decisions with his ball handling and passing. He has good options in his backcourt partner, Klay Thompson, and volatile, injury-prone center Andrew Bogut, who is playing well. Finally, in Harrison Barnes they have an young, athletic forward who can stay with Lebron and make everything difficult for him on offense. Unfortunately, I don't think James' supporting cast is strong enough this year, with Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao out and Kyrie Irving's health undependable. There is, of course, James' indomitable will to be overcome, and he has a determination to bring the championship to his home area. He may have to be patient for another year.
Belmont Stakes - Can American Pharoah Complete the Triple Crown? - (Saturday) - How many times have we been here since 1978? Twelve? When will it end? As always, there are plenty of reasons to back the colt that won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, and reasons to doubt, as well. For the latter, past history is convincing. The Triple Crown is like a Triathlon, but one in which everyone starts evenly in the second and third phases. And, like the marathon at the end of the Triathlon, the final phase is the greatest challenge.
It does seem as though the field opposing American Pharoah is not too strong, from what I can see.(By the way, I love the misspelling of "pharaoh", if that's what it is, and not merely a trick to avoid duplicating a name previously used--a requirement that is always a challenge with naming thoroughbreds.) There are a couple of horses who have not been defeated in the previous rounds, skipping those races, which often in these circumstances has made for a fresher horse at the finish of the endless, lung-bursting stretch run at Belmont. Apparently Frosted is a horse that surges late, which could make for a thrilling finish. American Pharoah looks as though it will go off as an even-money favorite, reflecting some healthy skepticism, but that doesn't seem like a bargain betting price, either. Having not seen either of the first two races, I will hope for completion of the triple but eschew a prediction.
French Open Quarterfinals - Djokovic vs. Nadal - (in a few hours) - This looks to be one of the great tennis showdowns of the decade, not diminished by the fact that it is occurring in the quarterfinals. Rafael Nadal was seeded 6th for this tournament because injuries limited his appearances last year, but he has an incredible record in the French: he has won the tournament nine times and has only lost once there, ever. Novak Djokovic is playing as well, or better, than he has ever done, and this year he seemed to be targeting this, the one major tournament he has not won.
The first set will be the feeling-out period, as Djokovic will want to test to see if Nadal is fully healthy (he has been playing his way back into shape, and actually lost a couple of times--on clay!--in the warmup tournaments). The outcome of the first set will not be critical, though, as both players are ones in which the best shot to get a set from them is early. If it goes five sets, I would pick Nadal, but my bet would be on Djokovic in four.
The rest of the tournament is hardly an afterthought for the winner, as difficult opponents await in the two rounds which will remain (probably Murray, who is also in top form, in the next round); however, the winner of this match will already have made history.
Stanley Cup Finals (Hockey) - Chicago Blackhawks vs. Tampa Bay Lightning - (starts in a few minutes) - I can't pretend to be a hockey fan, but I am excited for the town of my primary residence these days, as the Blackhawks go for their third championship in six years. Winning will not make this quite a dynasty, but would make comparisons to the NBA's San Antonio Spurs appropriate, for their resiliency and ability to deliver when the chips are down. It has been a difficult road for the Blackhawks, but they have shown the ability to rise to the occasion on the road, as they did in Game 7 of the last round. They will need to do something comparable, as Tampa Bay has the home ice advantage. Still, the Blackhawks are favored, based on their experience and having a healthy squad.
Champions Cup Final (UEFA--that's "Football") - Juventus vs. Barcelona - (Saturday) - The European club championship will take place in a neutral stadium, in Berlin this year. Juventus won the Italian league easily this year, which allowed it to concentrate on the challenge of head-to-head, home-and-away matchups through the last three rounds. Its success against Real Madrid in the semifinals was very impressive, and will allow it to go into this final with the confidence needed for this challenge. Barcelona has remained at the top level for several years and has regrouped this year as strong as it ever has been; it held off Real Madrid to win the Spanish league title this year. Barcelona's strategy will be the same as always: maximizing ball possession, looking to set up Lionel Messi to cut through the opponents' defense and find an open player with a perfect pass, or take the shot on goal himself. When it comes to defense, Barcelona's theory is that there is no need to worry about that while they have ball, but they have improved their ability to contain the counterattacks that the top teams can muster. Barcelona should be favored, but the outcome of a single-game final is always uncertain. The key for Juventus will be to ride out the pressure in the first 30 minutes, then find a goal which can give them a chance to hold on for the win, or even open a bigger lead if Barcelona overcommits on offense. (a/k/a The Chelsea Strategy)
Baseball - As is usually the case with the sport, there is less urgency with regard to baseball. The regular season will be one-third over in the next couple of days; certainly long enough to detect the significant emergence of some teams and declines of some from which more was expected. The biggest surprise has been the faster-than-expected rise of the Houston Astros, which have led most of the way in the tough AL West Division with a cast of good young stars. They have an abundance of power; their pitching may not be enough to sustain them. Similarly, the Chicago Cubs have come forward as a contender in the NL Central; they are packed with top prospects now arriving, and the surprise is that they have all come up and are doing so well, so quickly. The Cubs also have to contend with a tough division, as the St. Louis Cardinals continue to overcome all adversity--and have the best record in the majors so far--and the Pittsburgh Pirates are also likely playoff contenders. An even bigger surprise is the Minnesota Twins, who are currently on a hot streak and have a narrow lead over last year's AL champions, the Kansas City Royals. I had none of those three (Astros, Cubs, Twins) making the playoffs in my preseason predictions; I will stick with those predicted outcomes, but I accept they are teams to reckon with for the future.
The two eastern divisions look like dogfights of mediocre teams: the Washington Nationals have been inconsistent, despite having more talent than any of their rivals in the NL East. The AL East is a five-team race at this point, all the teams hovering around the .500 mark. The two teams that have been the greatest disappointments so far are the Oakland Athletics, in contention for the worst record in the majors, and their division rivals in the AL West the Seattle Mariners, who I picked to win the World Series this year. They are the only team of the ones I picked for my final four (those in the two League Championship series) which I have reason to doubt, though it is not too late for them yet (the others are the Cardinals, and the Los Angeles Angels and Dodgers).
Of course, my primary preoccupation is the Cincinnati Reds; their performance has been a little worse than the mediocrity I expected. Cincinnati hosts the All-Star game this year, and its manager, Bryan Price will be honored as an assistant coach for that game if he lasts that long. I had some doubts in the past couple of weeks,when it looked as though they might never win again, but a weekend series sweep of the Nationals has relieved his worries on that score--he will probably make it to the end of the year before getting fired.
Political Drama 2016: Sideshows
The 2015 storylines for the 2016 US Presidential contest have clearly emerged and are unlikely to change for the rest of this year: On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's status as clear front-runner has invited a variety of attacks upon her with little hammers in sensitive areas, the effect of which will be painful but not mortal; and on the Republican side, the profusion of candidates leading to confusion of polls, with no one emerging, even slightly, from the fog.
Therefore, we can leave the main stage to its script and observe a sidelight which the audience has barely spotted: the likelihood of dramatic storyline change from third-, fourth, or even fifth-party candidacies of a significant nature.
Hey, ho, what's the Scenario?
The discussion starts with the most likely major-party matchup: Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. One cannot say it is probable, as there are too many other possible outcomes, and the current momentum for both candidates is probably downward; however, it is clearly the one with the highest probability. For example, the current quote on oddshark.com, drawing on the sportsbook Bovada, a place where people bet real money--note: not Americans!--has the Clinton-Bush matchup favored at -250 vs. all other alternatives +170.
For me, this matchup is also the one that is most certain to draw other candidacies, as an open bowl of fruit will draw fruit flies (I avoided more vulgar comparisons). There are a host of people in both parties who declare they would never vote for Clinton, or for Bush, and of course at least as many among independents, and power abhors a vacuum--somebody will look at the discontent and say, "Why not me?" Clinton-Bush is a matchup that could draw challenges from any of the three alternate directions I think are likely in the 2016 race:
The Needle and The Damage Done
If you read up on the recent Parliamentary elections in the U.K. (for example, my previous post), you will see that third-party candidacies add unpredictability to a "first past the post" election--which the Presidential election is, a mosh of 51 state races to gain a simple plurality in each--in two ways: strength in a single state could deprive a major party of expected Electoral College votes, and broader strength can upset the dynamics of the national popular vote. (I exclude here the possibility of a third-party candidate actually winning the election. It has never happened in the US, unless you consider Abraham Lincoln's win in 1860 to be that; he won as the majority faction of a split major party.)
A challenge from a breakway candidate or an outsider, from either the left or right wing, should be expected to hurt the chances of the Democrat, or Republican, respectively. A challenge in the middle, or a populist candidacy coming from either party, or from a true independent, would have an effect that is much more difficult to predict (note the effect of the Perot candidacy, which probably hurt the Republicans more, or of Republican John Anderson's in 1980, which probably hurt the Democrats more). Clearly, Clinton and Bush (or any other major party nominee) will each try to suppress the possibility of a challenge, relying on the inevitability that a major-party candidate will end up winning, and urging the wavering not to waste their votes. Their "unified" stance--as for example, in national debates--would be to cooperate to keep those other folks out of the running, and at the same time to pose himself/herself as the only one who can prevent that Other Person from getting the White House.
Therefore, we can leave the main stage to its script and observe a sidelight which the audience has barely spotted: the likelihood of dramatic storyline change from third-, fourth, or even fifth-party candidacies of a significant nature.
Hey, ho, what's the Scenario?
The discussion starts with the most likely major-party matchup: Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. One cannot say it is probable, as there are too many other possible outcomes, and the current momentum for both candidates is probably downward; however, it is clearly the one with the highest probability. For example, the current quote on oddshark.com, drawing on the sportsbook Bovada, a place where people bet real money--note: not Americans!--has the Clinton-Bush matchup favored at -250 vs. all other alternatives +170.
For me, this matchup is also the one that is most certain to draw other candidacies, as an open bowl of fruit will draw fruit flies (I avoided more vulgar comparisons). There are a host of people in both parties who declare they would never vote for Clinton, or for Bush, and of course at least as many among independents, and power abhors a vacuum--somebody will look at the discontent and say, "Why not me?" Clinton-Bush is a matchup that could draw challenges from any of the three alternate directions I think are likely in the 2016 race:
- Populists, moderately libertarian, who object to both candidates' corporativist, militarily-hawkish perceived stances;
- Right-wingers for whom Bush is too liberal on subjects like immigration; and
- Left-wingers for whom Clinton is too moderate.
Substitute some other relatively-moderate Republican establishment type (Kasich, Fiorina, Pataki, Christie, if he should dare to present himself) for Bush and the scenario and the opportunity remain the same.
There is a much less likely possibility for a fourth angle of opposition, if the Republicans nominate an extreme right-winger (Perry, Cruz, Santorum, or Walker, if he fails to moderate his positions during the campaign) or someone totally out of the mainstream political establishment (Paul, Carson, Trump!); then, after a fractious party convention, there could be a split among Republicans with a moderate daring to uphold the sensible party line.
Finally, there is the possibility of a single-issue, or regional candidate emerging. Historically, this has been the most-frequent source of third-party challenges. There are a host of possible issues that could become salient, if the major-party nominees don't give it attention: anti-immigration, pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-gun control, pro- or anti-war, opposing the trade deals, states rights, judicial reform, drought, flooding, marijuana decriminalization, etc. These candidacies probably, but not necessarily, fit into one of the four types mentioned above.
Taking Names
The trickiest part is identifying who the third-party hero, or heroes, will be. I have to give Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal some credit for pointing out in a recent column the potential for a populist third-party to arise. He goes through all the good reasons, but then, because he can't identify the person who will have the resources or the courage to oppose, he concludes that it is something more likely for a future Presidential cycle. I disagree with him on that; he cites specifically the trade accords as being a hot topic, but that one will be long gone by 2020. The time, and the opportunity, is now (or next year, rather), and Bush-Clinton would be the perfect foil.
By definition, any challenger should be someone who is disaffected from both parties, or at least from the temporary direction of his/her party. Going up against your party's nominee is writing off your future within the party for a long time. Anyway, here are some names I have come up with:
There is also the possibility, though I can't name him, of some megabuck CEO with somewhat unconventional views whose point of view isn't being listened to, someone who fancies himself as Ross Perot redux, or a woman candidate frustrated if Hillary Clinton cannot get the nomination (it is still true that no major party has nominated a woman as the Presidential nominee).- Rand Paul - He has estranged himself from the party regulars with his current stance against re-affirming the Patriot Act with its infringement on civil liberties. He also is unique among all his party's candidates in many of his positions, his libertarians get very little respect from Republican party regulars, and he could choose to go the reverse direction from his father's history: from the Republican party, to the Libertarian Party. One particular scenario would be if he shows real strength among independents, and the young, but can't get any delegates because of party rules.
- Lincoln Chaffee - He is running as a Democrat, and no one seems to know why. His history (previous terms as a Republican, and an independent) marks him as anything but a party loyalist..
- Ted Cruz - His route to his Senate seat included defying the party regulars in Texas to win his primary, and he doesn't seem to be getting much respect in the shadow primary. Plus, he's an opportunist..
- Mike Huckabee - He seems a party regular, but with his independent power base (evangelicals, plus millions of Fox News devotees) he could attract some support for an indpendent run. He also is getting no respect, despite showing decently in the early polls.
- Donald Trump - Because he can. It wouldn't hurt his p.r., and he has the money.
- Al Sharpton - Or, it could be some other prominent African-American who feels the Democrats are not giving sufficient attention to his ethnic group's concerns..
- Bernie Sanders - I really don't think he's going to run; however, it's well-known that he is not a Democratic party regular. We'll see how it goes in the primaries: if he can't move Clinton toward a couple of his platform planks, he may feel he has to run..
- Bill McKibben, or some other radical advocate of initiatives to counter climate change (think: Green Party).
- George Pataki - I see him as the most likely moderate Republican to respond negatively to a Tea Party-type nominee..
- Ralph Nader - He's still around, isn't he?
The Needle and The Damage Done
If you read up on the recent Parliamentary elections in the U.K. (for example, my previous post), you will see that third-party candidacies add unpredictability to a "first past the post" election--which the Presidential election is, a mosh of 51 state races to gain a simple plurality in each--in two ways: strength in a single state could deprive a major party of expected Electoral College votes, and broader strength can upset the dynamics of the national popular vote. (I exclude here the possibility of a third-party candidate actually winning the election. It has never happened in the US, unless you consider Abraham Lincoln's win in 1860 to be that; he won as the majority faction of a split major party.)
A challenge from a breakway candidate or an outsider, from either the left or right wing, should be expected to hurt the chances of the Democrat, or Republican, respectively. A challenge in the middle, or a populist candidacy coming from either party, or from a true independent, would have an effect that is much more difficult to predict (note the effect of the Perot candidacy, which probably hurt the Republicans more, or of Republican John Anderson's in 1980, which probably hurt the Democrats more). Clearly, Clinton and Bush (or any other major party nominee) will each try to suppress the possibility of a challenge, relying on the inevitability that a major-party candidate will end up winning, and urging the wavering not to waste their votes. Their "unified" stance--as for example, in national debates--would be to cooperate to keep those other folks out of the running, and at the same time to pose himself/herself as the only one who can prevent that Other Person from getting the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
