2014 Political Preview: Europa/Italia--Pt. 1

I aim to demystify two extremely complicated subjects in this post, and one which will follow soon after:  the proposal for reform of the electoral system in Italy, and the upcoming (in May) elections for the European Parliament.

I suppose I should try to make the case to my audience--those who are not Italians, or Europeans of any kind--that these are important subjects.  I know one group to whom these subjects are intrinsically of interest, and that would be the political scientists.  Italy has long been a case study in the conflict between the desire for greater democracy, which in Italy has taken the form of elections with proportional representation and multiple parties, and for governmental stability (which has been elusive in Italy with that system); while the European Parliament is a political experiement in multicultural representative democracy far more adventurous than has ever been attempted previously. Far more complex than the US democracy, the only plausible comparison is to India's electoral system, but Europe's system does not have the unifying element of a single, historically-dominant party (the Congress Party), and those unified by their desire to oppose it.   Beyond that, just consider that Europe's economy is far larger than China's, larger even than the US', so that if it were considered a single economy--and what is the European Union if not an attempt to make it so?--it would be the largest.  And, considered as a unit, Europe is lagging in its recovery from the Great Crater, so this has a significant effect on the global economy.  Further, within Europe Italy leads in lagging, that is, it is the country with the largest net loss in GDP yet to be recovered from the double-dip recession that has been experienced in Europe. So, whatever, interesting and/or important,  I hope you're convinced.  If so, read on, and I will be your Virgil to lead you through the dark paths ahead.

Primer on Italian Electoral Reform History:  
70 Years in 10 Minutes (if you read slowly) 
Before I can go into depth about this political lightning rod named Matteo Renzi and possibly explain what this reform thing is all about (and how it might be a little different from all the other electoral/political "reforms" that have occurred in Italy since World War II), I  need to give a little background.  I refer you also to the two other times that I have dared to post on Italian politics before, both within the last twelve months.  One of these was in February, 2013, just after the last Parliamentary elections, on the challenge of forming a government, and the other was in June when, contrary to many people's expectations, a government was actually formed.

So, a  primer: Italy's Parliamentary system has generally had elections driven around party lists with proportional representation within regions (the word is used loosely here, the electoral districts do not necessarily correspond to the Italian governmental regions); if your party could get over 5% of the vote, it will have representation in Parliament.  There are two houses of the Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; today's Italian Senate differs only by having some lifetime members, an honor to those who have served the government prominently and honorably (that cuts it down, as will be discussed),slightly different computational formulas, and the electorate is limited to those over 25 years of age (so there, whippersnappers!).

The result of the party list/proportional representation scheme has been splitting of the electorate, with two or three larger parties in double digits but always less than 50%, and a few smaller parties with less than 10% nationally (and some much less, but scoring Parliamentary seats on a regional basis).  The pattern, for most of the postwar period, has been shifting alliances and coalition governments based on pooling the strength of one or two large groups and a lot of similarly-minded smaller ones.  The test of a coalition is its ability to maintain a majority in key test votes; failing a test vote, the government is dissolved, and either a new coalition is formed or early elections are called.

This system was highly democratic, in that most votes end up gaining representation in Parliament, and with some resemblance to their number, but more democracy does not necessarily translate into good governance.  The larger parties in Italian history have eventually failed their supporters and collapsed.  The three large parties of the postwar period--the Communists (the P.C.I.), the Socialists (the P.S.I.), and the Christian Democrats (D.C.--somehow the third initial of the inevitable TLA--three-letter acronym--was omitted, perhaps it was their flaw)--all collapsed in the early 1990's, due to a combination of scandals, of alleged bribery and of the exposure of the infamous P2 Masonic lodge (which seemed to run everything in secret), along with the end of the Cold War, which demoralized the Communists, but also removed the reason for uniting in the DC as the hated-but-necessary alternative to Eurocommunism. These were the latest in a series of party formations and collapses dating back to the beginning of the modern Italian state, including also the Liberals, the Republicans, the Social Democrats, the Popular Party (P.P.I.) and the Fascists. With the exception of the Fascists, whose ruin was entering into WWII with opportunistic intent and disastrous result, the usual theme was unreliability of the leadership's loyalties and internecine squabbling.

Without a doubt, these themes have continued, but since the early Nineties, there has been a sincere search for a two-party system, Italian style. The multiplicity of parties has continued, but there has been a unifying force:  the dominant Italian politician of the last twenty years, Silvio Berlusconi;  and the coalitions have been roughly aligned around the (Berlusconian) free-market appeal against socialism/Communism and for patriotism (or provincialism), and its natural (for Italy, anyway) opposition, good-government social democracy oriented toward greater participation in the European Union.

In 1993, Italy changed the electoral law (through a referendum) from the traditional, fully "democratic" one with proportional representation and preference selection, to one with a mix of single-representative electoral districts and proportional representation with list order fixed by the parties. In 2005, the political forces aligned (basically with Berlusconi's desire) to create a new law designed to ensure major-party coalitions. Under this law, the parties could choose to agree to run in coalitions (though they would have different lists of candidates), and the coalition with the largest share of the popular vote (in the Chamber of Deputies only) would get enough additional representatives to reach 55% of that house, thus ensuring the basis of a majority. This worked pretty well--there were "only" four different governments between 2005 and the 2013 elections, well below the postwar Italian average--but the system was wrecked by events which converged in 2013, a couple driven by decisions of the Judiciary (an additional, powerful and unpredictable force itself), and a couple driven by the inherent flaws of the system.

First, there were the results in 2013, in which the top three party/coalitions--called (in translation) "Common Good" (the center-left), "Center-right", and "5 Star" (the iconoclastic movement headed by Beppe Grillo, see previous post) each obtained greater than 25% and less than 30% in the vote for the Chamber of Deputies. Despite the center-left coalition having received a mere 0.4% more than the center-right, it gained the majority bonus and went to 55% of the Chamber, the other two groupings dropping below 20% (and the other parties outside these groupings dropping from 16% of the vote to 8%)  of deputies. In the Senate, the popular vote results were similar (though a lower % for  5 Star, which tends to have more support among the young), but without the majority bonus the other two groups were virtually equal at about 40% of Senators.

So, in the Chamber of Deputies there was no problem, but a new government must be supported by majorities in both houses, and the Senate was the problem.  The little parties could be managed, but with 5 Star firmly against any agreement or coalition, the only solution was an agreement between center-left and center-right.  With the economic emergency, and the need above all else to agree on a budget which would convince the German bankers to continue to support Italy's, a non-partisan govenrment was formed.  Instead of being led by Pier Luigi Bersani, the leader of the largest party of the "victorious" center-left (now called the "Democratic Party"), a lesser politician from that party, the able but somewhat colorless Enrico Letta, was chosen as prime minister, with the center-right gaining a major share of the government posts, and the party furthest to the left of the center-left coalition (let's call it, the S.E.L., "the Greens") cut out of the deal. Bersani did the honorable thing, given his inability to close the deal and the fairly weak plurality his coalition obtained, and resigned as leader of the Democratic Party (he has since had a serious stroke, so it is unclear if he will return to any active political role).

Next come the two judicial results which have combined to cause turmoil in that "historic compromise" government (I use the phrase ironically).  It was formed to bring Italy's economy out of its slide; it hasn't done much to make that happen, though the slide seems to have slowed.  It did, however, manage to survive its first crisis, which came at the conclusion of a series of court cases lasting years, in which Silvio Berlusconi's conviction for tax evasion was finally, definitvely, affirmed (subject to appeal, of course).  It then fell to the Senate to decide whether to expel Berlusconi from its membership or defy the courts.  This split the center-right party down the middle. A significant number of his side, perhaps surprisingly large, decided to cut Berlusconi loose (they formed a new party called "New Center-right"--N.C.D.), and he was expelled from the Senate--forever (unless they change their mind someday).  The Senate coalition regrouped without the Berlusconi loyalists, who have taken on his party's former name, Forza Italia ("Go, Italy!"), and are seeking to bring down the government and bring new elections--in this regard, they agree with 5 Star, who got close but won no cigars out of the last election and are looking for a rematch.

Late last year, the Constitutional Court, Italy's highest, handed down a decision that the application of the 2005 law in the 2013 elections violated the Constitution, because the current law does not specify any minimum level of popular vote required to get the majority bonus; thus, the law departs too far from democratic principles.  In theory, with a dozen parties, a party could get 10% of the vote and end up with 55% of the deputies; in the event, the center-left coalition went from 29.5 to 54.8%, and this was too much for them. They did not specify what needed to be done, nor did they deny Parliament the right to make the electoral law, but they did say something needed to change--and before the next Italian Parliamentary election occurs.  Otherwise, the system would go back to the original proportional/preference scheme.

Matteo Renzi and the Italian Electoral Reform

Enter--finally!--Matteo Renzi.  Renzi is not in the Parliament, nor in the current Letta government; his day job is Mayor of Florence.  His real job, though, is head of the Democratic Party; he won a dramatic victory among the party loyalists last fall with two-thirds of the votes, and as the head of PD, he is also the de facto leader of the center-left, for the next election (which will come in the European Parliament this May; a subject for Part 2).  Renzi has stepped dramatically into the fray (the Italian word they use is usually "palude", the swamp) and volunteered to help concoct an Italian electoral law which will satisfy the Constitutional Court and set the stage for the next Parliamentary elections.

I have to say I admire his courage (also his youthful vigor, he is thirty-something) in taking on this role.  There are approximately as many possible solutions to this challenge as there are Deputies plus Senators (945!), and every one of them probably has a different solution in mind.   Here are a few of the issues he is tackling, and the proposed solution in the draft law*:

1. Whether there will be lists at all, or whether it will all be one seat per district, most votes wins;
2. Whether the parties will have the same list of candidates or different lists, by region, and the right to determine the list order or whether it will be determined in a primary;
3. Whether there will be a majority bonus, and at what level of popular vote it will kick in, and what will happen if no coalition gets to that level;
4. What the minimum level of votes for representation in Parliament will be, and whether there will be any regional concessions (i.e., whether that minimum will apply on a national basis only); 
5. What, if anything, will be done to bring more women into the Parliament; and, last but not least,  
6. What's to be done about the Senate? 

The current answers proposed by Renzi are:

1. There will be lists (basically non-negotiable to Renzi); 
2. The parties will name the lists (though he is agreeable to having primaries, they would not be mandated in the law); 
3. Majority bonus is currently negotiated to kick in at 37% (boosting the leading coalition's level to 55%, though that is negotiable--the idea is to have it safely above 50% so the government would be stable), but so far, there is no plan to deal with the situation in which no coalition reaches the minimum level--it would lead to a difficult Parliamentary environment and probably necessitate new, early elections;
4. The minimum number is being negotiated downward, to try and get some minor-party support, with 4.5% and 4.0% being discussed--allowances for provincial qualification is still under discussion; 
5. Women will be equally represented on the lists, though there is the possibility for trickery (some women have discovered that and are challenging the provision); and 
6. Tthe current thinking is either to abolish the Senate, or make it a dilatory, honorary body like the House of Lords in the U.K., which advises on laws but whose support is not required for a bill to become law.  This would be a separate bill, approved after the Election Law (which the Senate must approve!), but which would take effect either before or after the Electoral Reform law. 

Renzi's strategy is a hard-sell to the center-left and the center-right, both those within the government and outside it.  The little parties, of left, right, and center, have to come to Renzi to try and get the crumbs which will allow them to survive; otherwise, they need to compromise their ideology in the interests of their future and join either the center-left or the center-right coalition, or try somehow to survive in the cracks of the two-party future.  The amazing things are that Renzi has gone privately to Berlusconi and gotten him to go along, and that nobody seems to have much objection to eliminating the Senate--even the Senators themselves.  Most of them are prominent people with careers and feel that they can release this burden, or otherwise find employment in the government or in the parties. As for Berlusconi, the key aspect was retaining the electoral list--at the top of which he can put his own name, even though he will not be able to serve in Parliament unless the rules are changed--instead of going back to single electoral districts. (This works for Renzi, and his nascent cult of personality, as well.)  I would imagine that Berlusconi will also derive some pleasure from putting out of business the club that kicked him out.

The proposed reform has caused a lot of agita+ to everyone except Renzi and Berlusconi, including Letta (the debate can definitely cause the fall of his government), other members of his own party (who are being put in the shade), of the other parties of the governing coalition (who are being squeezed), of the parties of the extreme left and right (in extreme danger of losing representation in Parliament), and, finally and most gravely, the 5 Star Movement of Beppe Grillo. Grillo & Co. are opposed to any form of electoral reform short of direct election of members (very much in line with their general proposition for direct participation, and elimination of parties and alignment along a left-right spectrum); what they want tactically is to find a way to break down the government and go to new elections in the old style. They felt they were close to getting the upper hand, and further government ineptitude can only lead to greater success for them.

The volume amped up this week as the bill was presented to Parliament; 5 Star tried obstructionist tactics which bordered on disrespect for the institutions--something I'm sure they feel but are not permitted to express (it could lead to criminal action). The first test--defeating a motion that the proposed reform was itself unconstitutional--was surmounted with strong support from the government parties, as well as Berlusconi's.  The real debate will start in a week or two; Renzi will want to make some tactical concessions to bring in as much support as possible, as some of the deals he will have to make will turn off members of the smaller parties in the government--which after all is not his government--and the members are likely to be able to register their personal objections anonymously, in a secret ballot.

Regardless of the outcome of the debate--and the forces for passing something are very strong at the moment, despite the difficulties--Renzi has placed himself at the top of the list of candidates to be the next premier. Both he and Berlusconi have calculated that the reform would lead to a direct competition between his Democratic Party and a regrouped Berlusconi coalition, and Renzi would like his chances in that one: Berlusconi's support is ever more fragile in the public and the political elites.  Still out there in (dis)loyal opposition, though, will be Grillo and his forces; in the meantime, Grillo has an ideal opportunity to upset the balance of political forces in Italy through the elections for the European Parliament in May.

* I have not yet found access to a text of the draft law--I refer you to the following articles (Google will translate to English) on formulas under consideration and the recent laws, and one in English that helped clarify things.
+agita =upset stomach;  a useful word, though basically one of Italian-Americans and just a few from Italy's South. 

General Update

Go Back to 'Doing Nothing'
What is this infernal Congress thing up to?  It's fine that there is some sort of general budget agreement--something is better than nothing--though there seems to be a lot randomness in what's in and what's out (I'm sure it's not random, but a function of who's paid their subscriptions to key members' ears).  It didn't solve any of the heated political issues like the Farm Bill (and associated food stamps for the poor), the extension of unemployment insurance, and the upcoming debt ceiling.

What?  How can the Republican leadership line up for a budget and then say they don't agree to the increase in the debt that flows directly from the spending?  I think--I hope--if they try to pull this nonsense again that President Obama is going to have a nice political bombshell waiting for them.  Something like, "Forget the statutory debt limit--we're spending the authorized amounts.  Do something about it, if you think you can." My assessment is:  They can't, and President Obama should be fully aware of that by now.

And while I'm ranting about Congress, I have to focus directly on the Senate--and particularly on certain middle-Atlantic Democratic Senators--who have combined with a bunch of Republicans to take it upon themselves to make foreign policy--bad foreign policy--with regard to Iran.  They say the bill is designed to make sure Iran follows through on its responsibilities in the interim agreement (it is already doing so) and force its hand in the general negotiations on reduction of forces, but they have an exaggerated and distorted view of both the US' economic and poliical influence on Iranian domestic politics and how to conduct a negotiation.  One could say they are being the "bad cops" in order to allow President Obama to "good cop" a deal, but the whole idea around that concept is that it is supposed to be a cooperative effort.  This is just political play-acting to show that they are more pro-Zionist than the Israelis.  Speaking of Zionists....

Ariel Sharon
Sharon was indeed one of the nationalist Great Men, which, as I discussed with regard to Nelson Mandela recently, does not mean he was a good man (though, to be clear, Mandela was).  So Twentieth Century, though.   I basically said my piece and made my peace with him eight years ago, when he basically died--this was merely the cessation of bodily functions.

I will limit myself to saying this: they say he wanted to be remembered as a Man of Peace; he was not that at all.  He was a warrior, and a leader of warriors, and an effective, calculating, brutal one at that. They say he might have been the guy who could have rammed through a peace deal, but it turned out he was not (whether he was just unlucky to have had his stroke at that time, or whether it was not going to happen, we will never know).  Clearly his successors, Ehud Olmert of his party and Benyamin Netanyahu of the Likud, were not the people to complete the deal.  Sharon's legacy is the stupid Wall between Israel and the Palestinians; my hope is that it crumbles or is torn down.  Then, maybe, it will be time for him to rest in peace; his soul (if there is such) has no business doing so now.

Sports Report
I have no suitable transition, so this admission of ineptness will have to do.

It's hard to believe that the new pro tennis season has started already, with the Australian Open.  The weather is outrageously hot (no "climate change" here, is there, deniers?)  It will be just a test of fitness and stamina, so the number one question for the men's side is whether Novak Djokovic can hold up.  He has had some problems in the past with the heat there, but his conditioning has gotten a lot better, aided by a gluten-free diet.  On the women's side, the main question is whether it will be Azarenka or Sharapova who loses to Serena Williams in the final.  My recommendation is that the tour change things around a little, give a longer warm-up period (maybe some optional East Asian tourneys?) and move the Aussie grand slam to March or April, when temperatures may be a bit more reasonable down under.   Do it soon, like next year, hopefully not after some player collapses or dies from heat stroke.

Next: I think that NBC (and its owner, Comcast) is headed for a massive ratings disaster with the Winter Olympics that will begin soon.   The latest is that they will not be doing free podcasts; you will have to pay to see it live, which will tick off the enthusiasts, of which there are precious few for the winter sports in the US.

 I see nothing that will be both compelling and new for the rest of us potential mass-market viewers:  Shaun White is competing, will be able to go after some new and different gold medals, but is tired of his nickname as the "Flying Tomato" (or "Il Pomodoro Volante", as he was called in Torino last Olympics--I love the sound of it, try saying it out loud).  I say, oh yeah?  Die your hair white (for camouflage), then.   Lindsay Vonn (and her Tiger beau) will not be attending, or at least she will not be competing, due to injury; however,  I'm guessing she will be paid incredible sums to do commentary there--I don't blame her at all, though.  The US and Canadian hockey teams (men and women) will go to war again--all too familiar.   Oh, no! Apollo will not be competing in the most bogus of the ballyhooed events, short-track speed skating. At least the Bob Costases of the massive US (broadcasting) team that will attend can phone in their reports from the relatively balmy lakeside Sochi headquarters instead of heading out into the trackless cold mountains.

Baseball has announced there will be two exhibition-games-that-count in Australia a week before Opening Day, an impressive willingness to bend all rules to create a publicity stunt.  More intelligently, they have taken a page from the NFL and will allow managers to challenge two rulings per game (that's one per half) to go to the video tape.  That's potentially four more long-form advertisements per game, as if the games weren't too long already; there will probably be some sort of make-up provision to reduce game time, borrowing from tennis, which will allow umpires to call a ball if the pitcher stands there too long on the mound, tugging on his cap and pulling up his jock.

What I saw today on this topic is that baseball's "neighborhood play", in which the second baseman turning a doubleplay makes a phantom move with his foot in the general neighborhood of second base before throwing to first (and often does not touch the base, as the rules would require),  will not be reviewable, by request from the players' association.  The reason is clear: The "neighborhood play" is the flip side of the baserunner charging in with spikes up, and this allowance will protect infielders from a certain amount of career-damaging injuries.  I am sure that the umpires will be guided not to allow the infielders to take it too far--if they don't even move in the general direction, they will be permitted to call the baserunner "safe".  I have to say that this was a good decision from a humanitarian point of view, as is the one about cutting down home-plate collisions.  Yes, "baseball is getting soft", but it was never supposed to be football.

Finally, with regard to football, the NFL conference championship games (a little better transition):  your intrepid previewer had three of the final four teams right (the fourth, the Saints, ended up having to play the Seattle Seahawks in the last round, so the pairings made it impossible). The team I overlooked, last year's Super Bowl runners-up (let's not call them losers) the SF 49'ers, are the Sweet Babboo crush of expert football analysts:  they have a very exciting young quarterback, and a good defense, and some impressive playoff performances at their back.  Seattle has all the above (except the playoff history), and they have home-field advantage, which the Seahawks, their noise-focusing and weather-funneling stadium design, and their frenzied fans, have made into their critical competitive edge. So, I'm going against the smart money and picking the home team.

Will Seattle get its first championship in any sport in thirty-some years?  I would say it's unlikely:  the Denver Broncos seem to be the team of destiny this year.  Peyton Manning, who has had the greatest regular season in the history of quarterbacks this year, has willed and skilled his team to the top:  it would be unjust if the Broncos were to lose, either to the Patriots this weekend or in the Super Bowl.

The Great Privacy Debate Begins

If there is anything about which I have been insistent in this blog, it is the call to place the debate over what's private into the public arena.  Until now, one of the worst aspects of the political performance of President Obama, both as candidate and as President, has been his lack of attention or initiative in this area, and I have criticized him frequently for it.  I had reason to look for more from him, as constitutional scholar was one of his career specializations, prior to his electoral one.

I do have to thank Edward Snowden and his outing of the NSA's methods of high-tech espionage for finally launching this debate and bringing it into the public eye.  I find it hard to consider Snowden a hero, this hired hand who took it upon himself to decide to break his oaths of secrecy; he doesn't quite qualify as a "whistleblower", in the legal sense which protects such activity, because the activities he revealed have been thoroughly vetted, albeit against extremely lax legal limitations.  On the other hand, he's definitely been a whistleblower in the senses of a) blowing the whistle to signal the start of the game; and b) using the fricative (not "fricking") device to call attention to himself.  And, again, his "revelations"--none of which were truly new and surprising, to those who've been paying attention--have performed a public service in focusing our attention on the subject.

That being said, making the issue all about the NSA is a bit misplaced, I think.  There was clearly an abuse of the quietly-granted prerogatives the organization got from Congress and the Courts, and the simple public disclosure of their methods probably invalidates those recent ones (though they would be able to find new ones).  Then there is the reform that is now going to be forthcoming.  In that sense, debate is tardy:  the fix is already in.  President Obama commissioned a group of four experts on the subject, and they produced a report with 46 unanimously-agreed measures. They understood very clearly that there are times when information must be obtained for reasons of security, but that expectations under normal circumstances should be that the government not snoop around in people's business without reason, exactly the principle I have been proposing for years. I expect Obama will be announcing very soon that he will be putting virtually all of the recommendations into place--they are basically within the realm of Executive Branch discretion.

I would say the most important provision will be the naming of a public advocate to argue, at the appropriate times, against warrants for privacy invasions at the FISA court that has been until now a rubber stamp, if not bypassed entirely. This advocate will need to be a strong individual with a proven regard for the protection of the public's privacy interest, comparable to the way Elizabeth Warren or Richard Cordray were for the newly-created role as consumer advocate in financial dealings, and that quality will need to be sustained over time.  This last will be the hard part, as the historical tendency is for such roles to be co-opted by the power centers.  One other notable recommendation is some attempt to restrict the snooping on data flows outside the US, whether or not they involve Americans; this is WORSP-behavior at its worst.

My hope is that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a vigorous public discussion of what activities, by which people, should be left out of the public eye (and the private eye), and when something that someone does is legitimate grist for the public mill.  The media today is a gluttonous shark, which smells sweet new blood, munches furiously, spitting out the bones, then darts off for new prey.  With Warhol's prediction coming partly to fruition, of brief celebrity for many (not all, yet), this is leaving a lot of casualties and not providing much cultural nutrition.

2014 General Political Preview: US

Unlike 2013, a phony election year which led to broad, mistaken conclusions about the body politic and enormous efforts to raise money for a very small number of races, 2014 is a real election.  One-third of the Senate, all the House, and a whole lot of state governors' races are being contested this year.

CNN had an interesting poll recently in which they asked the voters who had more to fear from the 2014 elections.  33% of respondents said the Republicans; 19% said the Democrats; but the plurality (48%) was that the party that had the most to fear was The Voters.  I think they had it almost right, as the Democrats have as much to fear as the Republicans from 2014, but mostly we recognize that we are going to be bombarded with solicitations, ads, a lot of baloney, and not much to show for it.The 2012 election's results led to a lot of people saying, "elections have consequences"; those consequences were not fully apparent last year, and I'm not sure about 2014, either.  Similarly, this election will have a lot of hullabaloo--mostly about the "do-nothing Congress" and the contrarian point of view that inertia is a Good Thing--and an endless series of fund-raising efforts, but the fear I share with those who selected The Voters is that the consequences may be vanishingly slight.

Nevertheless, the risks that are present with this year's balloting, and the attention it will draw, suggest that I should go out on the limb--once again--and tell my dear reader what s/he should be listening and looking for in this year's cacophony, and what one can predict about the likely outcomes.  Today, we address the issues that are going to be salient; in a post in the near future, we will get down to cases.

Issues: It's not the Stupid Economy
Of course people will always vote their pocketbooks to some extent--whether they perceive their economic interests accurately and vote them effectively, that's another matter.  As the vast money raised and blown on the Romney campaign in 2012 showed, even the big-money contributors are having a hard time getting what they want out of their freely-donated "speech".

This year, though, I can't see either party making a trenchant economic argument that will move voters, absent a sudden collapse of some kind--and I don't think even a bursting Wall Street bubble would qualify, unless accompanied by a more general unraveling.  A lot of people would be glad to see those wolves and parasites (those people's view; not wholly mine) down on the same level with the rest of "us". The economy isn't doing that badly, after all. Fifth year of sustained growth, unemployment down to new normal levels, inflation very low, interest rates low--sorry, I can't agree with the nay-sayers on either side of the aisle.  The new Fed chair-pilot Janet Yellen seems to have worked out the glide path with outgoing chair Bernanke and the plan is for a seamless transition toward autopilot and cruise control.  There are issues that will have economic ramifications, but I think those are secondary for them--they are primarily social issues.

My view is that healthcare will not be the hot issue in 2014 that some think, fear, or hope.  The Republicans got their mileage from it, but the program is not going to be stopped, and the Democrats--if they have any sense--will stop short of accepting comprehensive ownership of the whole mess and stick to what the Affordable Care Act actually does and does not do.

Neither will the Republicans be able to make any more hay about the budget deficit this year.  President Obama has essentially fulfilled his promise to reduce the budget deficit by half and the current deficit is not in itself a problem.  There is a problem, but it is a long-term one, and it will not be addressed honestly this year by either party. The failure of the government shutdown effort has dampened Republican enthusiasm for mud-wrestling on the deficit and the debt ceiling, and just in time for their chances this year, I'd say.

Return of the Social to the Media
So, what is there that will get people excited?  I think there are a few social issues that have gotten people's attention in recent months and upon which politicians may be forced to take positions.

First, it is evident that the recent flood of states that have moved to legalize same-sex marriage has raised it as a topic that will remain current for 2014. Those states that came out forcefully and made popular-backed changes may have moved on, but there are several states where the outcome is still conflicted, and there are still more in which the issue has only begun to rise.  Then there is the federal question, whether the marriages of one state should, or must, be recognized by others--my understanding is that same-sex marriages do not yet have that federal cross-border protection.  The momentum for the movement to allow same-sex marriage remains strong, and the reaction is regrouping, so there will be some relatively hot clashes in the near future.

Next, there has been a creeping anti-abortion movement which has obtained success in several states by making access to abortions difficult.  Limitations around the term of the pregnancy, reducing the doctors or clinics that can perform them, putting onerous hurdles in the way of those seeking them (your ultrasounds, permission slips, required re-educational programs, etc.) are having an effect, and there is a majority on the Supreme Court--with all of swing Justice Kennedy's temporizing--that can only be watching all this with concern.  Whether or not SCOTUS takes some action this year--and I'd bet against--I think the activists on both sides of this issue will be pumping hard for contributions and working the candidates to take stands, particularly in contested state gubernatorial and legislative elections.  I think it will be the central issue in the Texas governor's race, for example, and could spark a surprising result if Democratic candidate Wendy Davis, who came to national view in filibustering abortion restrictions in the state legislature, can mobilize national support and Texas women and minorities.  Someday it will happen, if not in 2014, and it will make a dramatic change in the political landscape when it does.

Then there is the Herbal Liberation Front--the strengthening movement for decriminalization of marijuana.  Despite major victories in a couple of states, the definitive success of the effort is far from secure; with the current status, a new administration could legally decide to crack down on legalized distribution in those states--both for personal and for medicinal use--and we would be back to Square Zero. (and I do mean Square!) As I argued recently, the key initiative--one which will not pass in this Congress--will be a Federal protection for states to take the measures they choose to liberalize possession, or not. Candidates for Congress will, and should be expected to, take positions on this issue, and those positions may have consequences.  Further, there will undoubtedly be new state initiatives on ballots in 2014, which will keep attention on the issue regardless of Congressional candidates' reluctance to antagonize either pro-pot libertines and libertarians or anti-pot reactionaries.  My priority on this will be to express continuing solidarity with the experiment of Colorado and Washington and protect it from ridicule or Federal intrusion.

Finally, there is the growing inequality of income and wealth in the country, which is really a social issue with economic implications, and what can and should be done about that inequality. The fact that the economy's growth is all going to relatively few would not be so bad, if they were spending it in ways that were perceived, or actually, helping the rest.   The Democrats are hoping that they can use empathy for the less fortunate as a wedge issue to either embarrass Republicans or pressure them to pass things they don't like, like unemployment insurance, food stamps, or an increase in the minimum wage.  I would predict the results will be:  embarrassment--yes; unemployment insurance extension - no (!); food stamps--yes; minimum wage--no.

I do think that 2014 will see a renewal of debate about taxation, which from a long-term point of view is really the way to address this issue.  President Obama will look to accomplish something in this area, probably in the next Congress, but the debate this year may begin to frame the possible outcome. It's early to predict how that will come out, but I could envision a compromise solution which involves both more progressive and less progressive taxation:  raising the income limits substantially (or eliminating them) for the (regressive) Social Security contribution, lowering the top tax rates on the basic income tax, but removing enough deductions to make general tax revenues neutral (or slightly higher).  I could also see a trade-off with the special low tax rate for capital gains ending in exchange for lower corporate tax rates.  With this logic, the debate will focus on the types of deductions to be removed, and this will up the ante for those special interests who need to protect theirs. I can see both parties goading the lobbyists to put down PAC money by raising this threat.

Is It Safe Out There? 
There are two topics that are generally discounted, but I think could emerge as major issues in the 2014 elections.  I will say first, that I hope these two emerge, because they are debates that we need; second, I would bet that they would, but only if I am given generous odds.

The first is a new, post-GWOT (Global War on Terror) debate on security, military spending, and foreign policy.  I think President Obama is ready to allow this one to come forward and not try to snuff it out with some sort of demagogic, flag-waving artificial scare tactics, which is usually the case.

I am hoping that the issue will not arise because of some tragic incident, and I'm definitely putting the advice out there to beef up security at all our embassies, consulates, and other outposts on September 11, 2014, especially anywhere in the Middle East.   We should take a couple of divisions that are being removed from Afghanistan, send home the veterans, but keep the units in the region, and parcel out the new recruits  to these locations. The contrary argument--bring everybody home--will be a popular one, but it is unwise, and I don't think it will be adopted.

Afghanistan itself will present an issue, with this proposed Security Agreement that would potentially keep American troops on the ground there for 10 more years (albeit in reduced numbers).  This is unpopular in the extreme at home, and it's likely to  be an unsettled issue in Afghanistan itself until after the elections there:  will the new President want us there--as a tripwire to help prevent a collapse--or will he want us out in order to remove an obstacle to a possible peace agreement?  And how will we feel about that, when the new President makes a deal and lets the Taliban back into controlling Kandahar?  About how we feel about letting the Sunni militants take back Fallujah (as they just did), I'd say.

Then there are all the other countries in the Middle East and the security issues--about one or two per country.  I don't think Iran and its nuclear program will be the hot button this year, but their involvement in the scraps in Syria and Lebanon could be.  Then there is Israel, and the Palestinians, and their respective inclinations to pretend to make a deal, and the Egyptians who are thumbing their nose at us, and the Libyans who are thumbing their nose, and the Saudis who feel unwanted.....it will be surprising if there is not an urgent security crisis of some kind in the Middle East this fall that will draw our attention.

The Meta-Election 
You saw the term here first:  this is the second issue that I am hoping will surprise and emerge. I think there's a good chance that a huge portion of this year's electoral dialogue could be about the nature of our elections themselves, as we conduct them today, and the Cost of Bad Quality associated with them.  One way this could come forward would be through a series of "third-party" independents of left (Democratic dissidents), center (moderate Republicans), and right (Tea Partyists) who make serious bids for office challenging the two major-party candidates.  An even more helpful development would be a debate about the ridiculous amounts of money being spent, and what would be required to scale back the fund-raising arms race.

At the end of 2013, I was receiving about fifty emails a day from various party fundraising groups and individual candidates, all trying to convince me that I really needed to give them money so that they could meet some arbitrary year-end fundraising goal.  With one exception, Lois Frankel, who is trying to pre-empt a return run by Allen West in her district (anything to keep him out of the limelight), I did not give to any of them--what's the point, really?  Do they really think that showing that they can raise a bunch of money quickly from out-of-state contributors is going to inhibit their opponents from running, or raising money? Giving only encourages them, at this point.

I think that people are about fed up with the current electoral system, and a recent poll suggested they are ready to look at wholesale change. So, what is needed to change?  A couple of constitutional amendments, the way I see it.  One would be to specify that corporations (or special-purpose vehicles, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations) have certain rights and responsibilities, but that they are not the same as those for individuals.  A second one would be to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President through the popular vote.  I also think it's time to bring forward the idea that we should have the President serve one six-year term:  I am convinced there will never be another President who has a successful second term (the last was Eisenhower, I guess).

Another aspect of this meta-election concept is the whole question of access to the voting booths, with the Democrats driving to make it simpler and the Republicans seeking to obstruct the masses. We can expect the volume level on "voter fraud/voter suppression" to rise dramatically as the election approaches, as turnout will be a make-or-break issue for the Democrats. Particularly it concerns access for the minority voters, and this is what the Congressional block on immigration reform is all about:  trying to impede the growth of Hispanic voting power for the long run. That is why the piecemeal approach of the House to the issue this year will include more visas for professionals and will look to reduce conflict about deportation, but it will not grant a path to future citizenship for the undocumented.

This bring us to the bottom line:  the main issue which will be resolved in the 2014 elections will be the political careers of those who are running.  I will address their concerns in a future post.

In the meantime, let me give one more plug to Nate Silver, the proven colossus of sound statistical analysis for use in predicting electoral outcomes  Nate has packed up from the New York Times (and they have left 538.com to be bought up by some silly Chinese merch site--don't go there!) and moved to ESPN.  He has been recruiting additional editorial talent and will be starting a site there (I think it will be called "FiveThirtyEight", though I hope that reference to the Electoral college will become obsolete soon)--in the meantime,ESPN's blog Grantland has provided him a temporary home when he gets the chance to post, as he did here about the shutown.

2013 Review

This is the time when the custom of the country is to  look back and review the year just ending. It's somewhat random, the idea of the December review of the year gone by, not what I'd call natural:  In times past, the calendars of most classical societies began the year in the spring. If we followed that pattern, we'd have the whole winter to stay in from the cold and think (in the dark, or by candlelight) about the growing season and harvest season of the past twelve months.

That might not sound too attractive, but it would make more sense to review the past year when it is actually over, instead of sometime in the middle of December, when more could still happen that's worth including in the recap.  I'm waiting until the very end, so there isn't much chance of that (just over 0.1% of the year remaining).  One year, I might do a Meta-Review in January--"the year's 10 best '10 best'"--maybe drawing one from news, music, sports, movies, etc.--but it's not going to be this year; I haven't got time for the research now.  More about that in some future posts.

The Year in Obama
I'm sure you are reading elsewhere that this was a disastrously bad year for the Obama Administration. In particular, the media-borne criticism has been that he is an incompetent executive and that the public has lost confidence in him.  I would argue, on the contrary, that in 2013 he was vindicated, time after time, despite the increasingly desperate efforts to defeat him.  I will argue--in my preview of 2014--that the efforts will become even more desperate, and that they will be defeated even more comprehensively.  (link to follow)

First, though, we must stipulate three points, ones that I have made before, but must reiterate for purposes of the argument:

1. the President does not control the economy; 
2. the President does not control Congress; and 
3. expectations for reform must be limited by an appreciation of the difficulties involved. 

Instead of a portrait, initially sketchy but refined over time, we get this perpetual cycle of creation and destruction of our great and famous.  Presidents are an extreme case.

President Obama was exalted more than he deserved for his victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. His campaign performance was never as great as it was made out afterwards, nor as poor as it was described when he was perceived to have a subpar TV appearance in the first debate.  Romney was just the strongest of a weak field of Republican candidates; I'll admit it wasn't quite as close as I thought, but just by a couple of states' worth of electoral votes.

The tear-down started almost immediately, with the Benghazi affair.  Although it occurred two months before the election, it didn't connect as a serious campaign issue;  however, early this year came the craziness of Susan Rice's media and Congressional crucifixion following her appearances after the incident on the talk-show circuit, then the hearings, and John Kerry's rise as Secretary of State.  Now, finally, the story comes full circle as the Times reveals that, in fact, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the riot and it was fomented by militia groups we had once supported. The right wing blog Townhall concedes the point and says, in effect, that detail didn't matter.  True, but a little late.  And Kerry?  He is on a bit of a roll, if a fragile one, with the interim deal on Iran and the success (so far) in avoiding a seemingly inevitable military involvement in Syria.

Congressional affairs can't be said to have given what Obama wanted (no immigration reform, no background check requirement for all gun purchases), but he ended up with the upper hand in two critical cases.  The "nuclear" confrontation came and was overcome, in the manner I suggested back in November of 2005, when the shoe was on the other foot:  Save the protracted filibuster dramatics for the big ones, the Supreme Court appointments that can change the direction of the whole government. The government "shutdown", of course, was just round 5 of a 12-round bout, but one that was won overwhelmingly, including a "standing eight count", the boxing term for the equivalent of a knockdown with the opponent on his feet but staggered, accomplished by the defending champion in the dark (blue) trunks.

And then there was the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  I first heard of the impending website fiasco only days before it was due to go live, from former Gov. Howard Dean, the man who should probably have been given responsibility for the implementation in the first place.  OK, the President is responsible for the execution of the law, and it was fumbled; and, he did fail to put the correct qualifier "if it is adequate" on his promise that "you can keep your insurance" (and he did allow the standard of adequacy to be placed a lot higher than it needed to be, as part of his deal--let's face it--with the insurers); however, Obamacare will end up doing most of what it was designed to do.  The real problems are that it was not designed to do nearly enough and that now Obama has been associated with ownership of US healthcare in general, and the responsibility for remedying its every defect.  One can only hope that this particular cycle will end with a separation announcement, in which Obama can put the hurting where it belongs, on the insurers and on those states which tried to prevent the ACA's implementation through every means they had.

I'm sure Obama will be feeling unloved and injured by the harsh treatment he received in 2013, but I hope he realizes it is just part of the circle of (political) life and his fall from grace is not as real as it may seem.

Fall Sports Preview Reviewed
A lot of the preview topics (for example, basketball and soccer) have not yet had definitive results--my hopes for the Bulls were dashed with DRose's new injury, and Chelsea remains in the middle of a crowded group at the top in England--so the predictions/comments which I made and must now assess are the ones about the regular season of football, NCAA and NFL, and the post-season of baseball.

My early-season NFL comments (dated Oct. 1) were right on the mark.  I was pleased by the changing of the leadership, citing the bad starts of the Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, and the Packers--only that last team made it into the playoffs, and that one just barely.  I identified the Seahawks and Broncos as the early standouts (and they ended up as the #1 conference seeds) and the Saints and Patriots as veteran teams that could threaten to go deep in the playoffs.  Those were good guesses, too, though the Saints' narrow loss of the division title to Carolina means they will have a very tough time getting through. My prediction at this point is that the Broncos, this season's team earmarked for destiny, whipped into line by Peyton Manning's extraordinary ambition, will face whatever team in the NFC can muster a bit of defensive prowess (the Eagles, maybe?)

For the NCAA, the appropriate internal reference point is my later post on the subject, and my follow-up comment to that.  As for my commentary now, I refer to Daft Punk and lyrics from their big 2013 hit:

Like the legend of the phoenix/All ends with beginnings/What keeps the planet spinning/The force from the beginning/We've come too far to give up who we are/So let's raise the bar and our cups to the stars...We're up all night to get lucky

Yes, the BCS and NCAA got lucky in their drunken stagger to the end of the current cycle of chaos and stupidity, as two teams with appropriate records, one from the predominant SEC, made it to the championship.  I wish them slightly more luck in the future as they improve their system slightly, and I urge all fans of Something-other-than-Chaos to avoid all conference championship games, live or on TV, in all collegiate sports, as a form of protest to the corruption and venality of the college presidents, TV networks, and conference directorates.

Baseball:  there is little to say except that I failed to recognize the Botox-driven Beards of Destiny for what they were.  The Tigers should have beaten them but manager Jim Leyland failed to keep sufficient faith with his starters and was punished for it. I can't take much credit (or pleasure) in the Cardinals' run to the Series, as it was quite likely all along.  I do find the NL the more interesting league upon which to speculate with regard to 2014 (even though it's the AL doing most of the free agent spending, as usual):  were the 2013 Pirates the equivalent of the 2012 Nationals?  Are the Dodgers or Reds contenders next year?  Are the Nationals?  Tune in next spring, when we know what the starting rotations' composition and their health status look like.

Preliminary Review of 2013 Movies
Even though the year is essentially over--and it looks to be a top-drawer one in the overall assessment--my review is only preliminary:  mostly it's the fault of the movie studios' scheduling, a perennial irritant for me which is worse this year.  The game, for the producers of serious films which are not commercially as competitive, is to do a phony release before 12/31 and distribute the film out to the Academy in the hope that it will reward them and boost their subsequent box office.

The prime offenders this year are Nebraska, August: Osage County, Wolf of Wall Street, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Her.   A couple of them--in particular, the last two I named--are ones that I am very excited to see (and don't know when I will--more on this later).  August and Wolf are two that I am quite willing to ignore despite their pre-release hype and star power.  What, August:  Osage County is a comedy (as nominated for the Golden Globes--probably trying to avoid the ultra-competitive drama categories)?  Wolf of Wall Street has some of the worst word of mouth I have ever seen, especially a killer diss from the daughter of one of the real-life principal villains, which made me resolve not to ever give a penny to the movie--directly or indirectly--if any of the money goes to the guilty-as-sin author of the book from which it was drawn.

So, let us instead celebrate those movies which dared to release properly during this season:  American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, Hobbit pt. 2 (Desolation of Smaug), and Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  The last two were well-made but commercially certain, so the decision to release was not risky (and made long ago).  I have not seen Saving Mr. Banks, which emerged late and could be a dark horse, but I would say--provisionally, because of the offending, really-released-in-2014 movies castigated above--that most of the award honors for 2013 should go to three movies: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, and Gravity. 

I notice a direct comparison between each of the three and one of the top movies of recent years:  American Hustle vs. last year's Oscar Best Picture, Argo; 12 Years a Slave vs. last year's best picture, Lincoln; and Gravity vs. the similarly ground-breaking space travel-and-special-effects flick Avatar.   All of these are fine, worthwhile movies, but I think the 2013 efforts are at least as good as their counterparts. Hustle is the one that most surprised me--I didn't even have it in my fall movie preview--and seeing it proved even better than my raised expectations.  The dialogue is first-rate, as is the acting level of the ensemble; I think it should garner 8-10 Oscar nominations and several awards.  Also, versus Argo (and Zero Dark Thirty, for that matter), they are very much up-front about the fact that they mix truth and art, and I like Hustle's artistic additions (like the main characters' development, and the critical, brief performance of Robert DeNiro as a top gangster) better than those of the other two.  Like Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave is a difficult movie with an 1800's theme; this kind of boldness should be rewarded.  Like Avatar, Gravity has a storyline full of holes, but the payoff is well worth it--Avatar won three of the more technical awards, and Gravity should get those and possibly more.

In terms of awards, the hot categories will be the lead actor/actress ones and director, which have extremely rich fields of contenders.  I will be rooting for American Hustle's Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and for Joaquin Phoenix in Her, at least to get nominations.  What I think, though, is that the actual winner for actor will be Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years, and it would be thoroughly deserved.  For Best Actress, I feel Sandra Bullock in Gravity would have been close to a lock for Best Actress if she had not won for Blind Side a couple of years ago.  Given that,  Adams might squeak through, as she may be the only nominee in the category who has not previously won an Oscar (vs., say, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Bullock).  Wow--that's quality!  As for Director--it's tough:  there are so many good candidates, they should expand the category in 2013 to 10 nominees, as they have done with Best Picture (auteur theory salute).  Just to be nominated in this category this year is a high honor. My guess is that the winner will be Steve McQueen, for 12 Years a Slave, over Alfonso Cuaron (for Gravity), David O. Russell (for American Hustle), Spike Jonze (for Her), and either Alexander Payne (for Nebraska) or Paul Greengrass (for Captain Phillips).

This last-named movie leads me to the final point in my movie review: My condolences to those movies of quality released in long ago September or October (Captain Phillips, Rush, The Spectacular Now) or even before (Great Gatsby, Mud)--memories are too short, you had no chance for award consideration.

Oh--Best Picture?  An afterthought for me, a popularity contest among the Academy based on their guilt trips and other social impulses.  Probably 12 Years a Slave.

Last Notes
My apologies to Arcade Fire, Daft Punk, and Jack White--all of them had strong 2013 releases to which I paid insufficient heed.

This year in Death:  Nelson Mandela, Doris Lessing, Lou Reed, Charlie Trotter, Ray Manzarek, Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, and Ed Koch.  Peace be unto you all. *

*According to a recent survey (you can see the map in The Economist, if you've paid them), that's the second-person-plural form used most often just in Kentucky (and it comes naturally to me); it's "yinz" in western Pennsylvania (you-ins?),  "you guys" in most of the US, and, of course, "y'all" in the Southeast.  And "you lot" in much of England. 

Decriminalizing Pot: A No-Brainer*

Joking aside, I am fully in favor of changing the Federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.  I have indicated this before (for example, here and here), but not as clearly and unambiguously as I should have done.

Here I follow the example of The Nation magazine, which devoted most of its Nov. 18 issue to the argument that now, as always, is a good time to change the law.  The lead was a "full-throated", signed editorial (titled "Waiting to Exhale") by Katrina vanden Heuvel (one of my editorial heroes, to be sure), which endorsed all the main arguments and came up with a couple of unusual ones:

• The last three Presidents have all been pot smokers at some point in their life;
• So has she, and she finds it difficult to explain to her daughter;
• The enforcement of the law has been unjust, focused on the poor and minorities;
• It is not as harmful as legal substances like tobacco and alcohol; and, most meaningfully,
• Public opinion has come around so that it is no longer political suicide to advocate it. 

The terms of the change advocated by the various Nation contributors are somewhat unclear, and the most frequently-used word is "legalize".  What they consistently mean, and what I advocate, is to repeal the Federal prohibition and permit states to allow its personal use under some common-sense regulations, as opposed to the current status, in which Federal enforcement of prohibition is always a threat.

Marijuana is not good for everyone, I would contend:  it's not for children, it can accentuate the problems of those tending toward paranoia, unhygenic use of it can spread respiratory illness, and its persistent use might adversely affect those with a tendency toward diabetes (by causing dramatic change in the blood sugar level; on the other hand, it might help, too!)  Its use while driving is problematic, rather than disastrous, as is the case with elevated levels of alcohol consumption: my unscientific observations suggest it causes slower driving, with more risk of distraction and drowsiness. All in all, hardly a catalog of demerits which justifies prosecution, much less persecution, of all use by responsible adults.

The formula on the table is a bill which would allow folks its use in compliance with state laws.  This is a good idea to gain possible support from some Republicans with libertarian leanings (as opposed to the reactionary "big-government conservative" types), which would be essential if the current Congress is going to pass anything worthwhile.  That would allow the varieties of more permissive State laws, from the Colorado/Washington legal personal use, to the permissive use of medical marijuana (as in California) to the more restricted ones, and would clear the way for more initiatives in the states.  It would also permit those states whose economic conditions and/or contractual commitments require them to continue to build more prisons and to  incarcerate large numbers of people for this nonviolent behavior, and would permit small-s stoners to do their homework and be clearer about the states/localities they should avoid.

*I came to the conclusion, and the witticism, on my own, but such an obvious remark could hardly be original.  Sure enough, Google traced it for me back to a comment made by the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, Bill Piper. It's a serious subject for him, as for me, but that doesn't mean one can't have a little fun with it. 

Transitions

As I recall it, that was the old Newsweek magazine's title for its obituary page.  Yeah, there were a few other items on it, people retiring or taking on new roles, but mostly the transitions were to a more permanent status (like the one Newsweek made, recently).

 A Great, Good Man
The history of the twentieth century, it is already clear, will be one which features a number of Great Men:  national leaders who came to dominate the landscape, who provided the leadership which induced their followers to produce the great changes, for good and for ill, which marked the century.  Stalin, Mao, Churchill, FDR, Tito, Mussolini, Nehru....the list goes on.  The last of these Great Men still standing was Nelson Mandela, the father of modern, post-apartheid South Africa, who died this week.  Unlike many of these, he seemed to be also a good person, one who cared about the "little people", and one who did not crave power for its own sake.

Mandela suffered greatly, but his victory was all the more massive in the end for his pain.  I do not know his religion, but for me he demonstrated the ideals of Christianity through his life more than most.

First, he was a communitarian, one who believed in the sharing of wealth.  He was not a Communist, as such, though he did ally himself and the African National Congress which he led with the South African Communists during the darkest days of his revolutionary opposition to the apartheid regime.

His greatest example for us all came upon his release from prison after 27 years, when he spoke without bitterness and sought reconciliation with white South Africa.  Then, again, he yielded power voluntarily after a single term as President, when he could easily have stepped into the usual "President for life" role seen far too often in Africa's post-colonial history.

Mandela became an advocate for the poor and powerless all over the world, a leader of the non-aligned movement.  That meant he was not a friend of the US government for the most part.  When the chips were down, as in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to support the sanctions of the apartheid regime, our government rarely met the test, so his alliances were often with our political enemies, like the Soviets, Red China, Yasir Arafat, and Fidel Castro (Castro could be counted as one of those Great Men I mentioned, and he's still alive, but I'd hardly consider him "still standing".)

Yes, he did advocate and lead violent actions, though from what I have read, they were not what we think of as being "terrorism"--acts designed to kill innocent civilians--but ones designed to disrupt and sabotage the tyrannical, racist system. In his day, when he had to be, he was a warrior, but one for justice, and then he became a notable peacemaker.

I have to thank The Special A.K.A. for the song named for him (a/k/a "Free Nelson Mandela") from 1983, which introduced me for the first time to the growing legend.  And what a song, by the way!

The US Men's Soccer Team's World Cup Chances
OK, they're not dead yet--the draw was just announced, the games are several months away--but it looks very doubtful that the USA team will make it out of the first round in the World Cup in Brazil next year.  They are in a group with Germany, which is one of the top favorites, with Portugal, a squad full of top-rated international talent, and Ghana, which has been the immediate cause of our elimination in the last two World Cups. Two teams will advance.  The US will seek revenge against Ghana, and will be a target of revenge for Portugal, but is unlikely to be more than a troublesome obstacle for Germany, the team for which our coach Jurgen Klinsmann performed so well in past WC's.

The USA team emerged to its potential in recent months, playing well in the final round of our regional qualifying and finishing first in the group (after a putrid set of performances in the preliminary round, which we barely escaped).  This got us exactly nothing in the draw--we were not one of the eight top-seeded teams--so we took our chances and got hosed. Mexico, in contrast, which under-performed in the final round, finishing fourth and having to win a playoff with New Zealand to make it in at all, got a more comfortable group and is quite likely to go through if it can edge out Croatia.

Two countries whose seeding I have to question are Uruguay, which has proven tough in the past but finished fifth in South American qualifying and also had to play in for a spot, and mighty Switzerland. Uruguay got put in the absolute toughest group, with unseeded England and Italy (and poor Costa Rica), while Switzerland has a relatively easy road to the second round (with France, Honduras, and Ecuador).

Just as the groups show wide disparity in quality, the pairings for the following rounds suggest there will be easy and extremely challenging brackets.  Probably the most critical first-round game will be the matchup between Spain and Netherlands, the two finalists in 2010.  Paired in the same group, one would expect them both to advance fairly easily (over Chile and Australia), but one of them will face Brazil in the second round.  Brazil's path to the Cup semifinals looks difficult to me; after a fairly easy group (the one including Mexico) for the first stage would likely come Spain or Netherlands, then Italy (assuming they finish second in the group, as they always seem to do, but then win in the first knockout round).

Assuming Brazil wins its group, it almost behooves Spain or Netherlands to lose that game and finish second, where its path will likely be easier.  In the bottom half of the brackets, though, I see few obstacles for Germany and Argentina to win through to the semis (and face Brazil and Netherlands/Spain, respectively).  My prediction is for a Brazil-Argentina final, with the home team a big favorite to win it all--and a big target for any quality team looking to make its name with an upset of historic proportions.  It's not likely, but it can happen--after all, Brazil is always a favorite and has won "only" five times, and it lost (to Uruguay) in the one previous instance that the World Cup final was in Brazil.

The Usual Chaos and Disaster

It's the BCS, of course.  Two critical games yesterday set the stage for yet another--thankfully, final--mess in college football's attempts to set up a conclusive single game for the national championship.

The first was the narrow victory of Ohio State over a mediocre Michigan team, 42-41, when Michigan went for a two-point conversion late in the contest rather than a more certain tie and the randomness of college football's overtime scheme.  (The result would not be random if the teams were unequally matched, but, of course, overtime presumes the teams have ended up tied after 60 minutes of play. One could argue that Michigan's coach knew their team was weaker, thus the gamble rather than opting for a fair chance at a 50-50 proposition.) The victory allowed the Buckeyes to finish their regular season undefeated and, as such, hold onto their bid for a berth in the finale, if they can win their conference championship game next week, a game against a very respectable 11-1 Michigan State team.

The second result was the real wild card, though, as #1 Alabama lost on the final play of the game to their in-state rival, Auburn (which was once defeated and ranked #5 going into the game).  The improbable finish was a 100+-yard return of a missed field goal attempt--itself the result of other improbable outcomes, most immediately a referee's decision to put one second back on the clock and give Alabama that chance for a long field goal try.  Auburn, which had escaped defeat in its previous game on a last-minute desperation "Hail Mary" pass, has to qualify as one of the most fortunate potential champions in history, but they did hold their own against, and finally defeat, a team which has had a historic run of quality over the last three years, winning two national championships and which seemed headed for another one this year until yesterday.

Besides Ohio State and Alabama, there was one other team from a "top-level conference" (defined as being one that has an automatic berth in one of the four BCS games) which entered yesterday undefeated. That was Florida State, and they closed out their regular season with a decisive victory over Florida, normally a close matchup but not with this year's underperforming Gators.  Florida State still needs to win the ACC championship against #20 Duke to earn its berth in the championship game, but it seems very likely.

The problem is that today the SEC has the #3 (Auburn), #4 (Alabama), and #5 teams (once-beaten Missouri), as well as several more top 10-quality teams (#8 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #22 Georgia, and #24 Texas A&M, all of which dropped down only because they have to play so many games against other SEC teams).  Also worth noting is that the SEC is 7-for-7 in the championship game since it was established, usually defeating its opponents decisively.  Effectively, the winner of the SEC championship game has been the uncrowned national champion even before the championship game most years--it was that obvious.  Only the absence of an SEC team with an unblemished record (Auburn lost to LSU fairly early in the season), combined with unbeaten teams from two of the stronger also-ran conferences, could produce an  outcome in which an SEC team would not get an invite.

I am no fan of the SEC football establishment--it is truly the AAA pro league training "amateurs" for the NFL--but, honestly speaking, having a national championship game in which no SEC team is included would be yet another sad BCS joke.  There is some possibility Florida State or Ohio State could lose, just as it was conceivable Auburn could beat Alabama before it happened, and if Auburn should lose to Missouri in its conference championship (more likely but still not probable), there would be a less-strong top claimant from the conference.   More likely, though,  there will be a sham championship game between OSU and FSU, while the two best teams in the country--Alabama and Auburn--will be excluded.  I would love to see them play each other in a rematch, for "the real heavyweight title".

If the NCAA had just moved a little faster, the scheme they have planned for next year, with four teams in a two-round playoff, would have worked perfectly.  Match the four of them (assuming Auburn, Ohio St., and Florida St. each win their conferences, and adding the defending champs) any way you want, you would have gotten an honest championship game out of the winners. I predict that this format, although improved, will still prove to be more than a little faulty, with the problem then moving to the identity of the fourth-best team (as opposed to the fifth-best), because that's just the way the BCS ball bounces.  Their karma is bad enough that I think they will have to continue to pay for their sins.

Doris Lessing

The Nobel prize-winning author died two weeks ago today.

Lessing was a prolific writer who covered a wide range of subject matter over a long period of time (she was aged 94 at her death), but there were certain persistent elements in her art.  Number one is the clinical precision with which she addressed emotion in her fiction.  This seems like a contradiction, but what one can find on virtually any page of any of her novels (I have not read her non-fiction)  is close attention to the emotional state of her character, always described succinctly.

Number two is a cross-cultural approach; she was a person who traveled widely and lived in various societies.  She tended to look for the universal characteristics, but she drew upon her awareness of the specifics of many cultures.

Number three would be the frustration which comes from a search for universal justice.  She was a Communist before that got too repugnant; she wrote one of the great treatises on women's liberation but then denied that she was a feminist; she had a phase, in the '70's and '80's, in which she examined the motivations which drove people to become "terrorists".

I think that eventually she concluded that she could not identify the way out of our political morass for all of us, and that drove her to what I considered her most interesting work:  her "science fiction" series.  The books were collectively called by her "Canopus in Argos: Archives".  The series had an almost impossible ambition:  to explain--fictionally--the largest themes that we can imagine.  It was essentially a retelling of some key aspects, focusing on the commonalities, of all the sacred texts of the ages--the Bible, Koran, the Hindu classics, Buddhism, etc.

Her version was the archives of "godlike", immortal emissaries of an interstellar empire challenged by rival empires with less pure motives. The Canopeans possess(ed) certain powers--powers over nature, and great physical capabilities sufficient to move planets--but also to move through different planes of existence, and even to inhabit the minds of mortals.  Still, the powers were not unlimited. and the interplay of Canopus' plans with the interference of rivals created the world we live in, one which repeatedly disappointed Those Who Formed Us; they regarded us with pity, exasperation, but recognized their responsibility for our fate.  I would describe the theory as "intelligent design--imperfectly executed", and I imagine it to be somewhat like the way our dear President looks upon our flawed society (!)

Two of the novels, The Sirian Experiments and Shikasta, dealt primarily with Earth and the evolution of life and human society here.  The others dealt with various universal themes, like social decay, and love.  Shikasta, the first of the series (1979), is the one to which she applied her most powerful efforts of creativity and synthesis.  Among the topics she "explains" are the shifting of the geologic and magnetic poles, the separation of Pangaea into continents, the near-universal Great Flood legends, the reason why so many of our religions arose during a fairly short period of time (+/- 600 B.C./A.D.), and, most provocatively, our future.  She anticipated the Chinese resurgence, predicting that their superior administrative skills would prove irresistible to most of the world; however this would not bring universal harmony, but a doomed endgame.  (This was, of course, written before the definitive change toward a more pragmatic economic approach and the rise of China as an international player, as well as before the end of the Cold War, which she apparently foresaw as being but a transitional phase.)

It boils down to a hypothesis, one which either does or doesn't help explain the phenomena of our lives.  As I say, incredibly ambitious.  It's the kind of work which might be considered 200 years from now as a bold attempt to try to go beyond the limitations of our own life experiences and gain a greater understanding.  For that, I definitely think that the Nobel prize--which came to her at age 89, and which honored the body of her work--was well earned.

Sorry I didn't get to this a little sooner; that little problem with Google to which I referred recently contributed  to my delay but does not totally excuse my tardiness.  I will say that, with an obituary post, it's better to think twice and write once (and to edit multiple times)

Going Nuclear

Democrats say "YEA!"
Nobody got blown up, no document got flash-fried, no edifice of our governmental institution was levelled. References to "fallout" were a natural headline selection, but there is no radiation leaking from the Senate's 52-48 vote to change its own rules and allow simple majorities to bring cloture on their constitutional "advice and consent" role of approving Presidential nominations to Executive branch positions and Federal judiciary posts (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court).

Instead, this was a thoroughly pragmatic decision to allow qualified nominees to break through the party lines and perform their duties.  The fall of previous accommodations to allow a limited number of individuals to run through the gauntlet and preserve the unlimited debate, enforced by the lack of a super-majority,which was no debate, just a block--this was driven to a fairly extreme measure by the unlimited recalcitrance by the Republican minority.  Their ability to block selected nominations was ruined by their inability to limit it to selected ones.  Nominees, particularly for the agencies the Republicans didn't like, had to put their careers on hold for years while waiting for action that was not forthcoming.  That kind of sacrifice was impeding the ability of the Administration to govern, so something needed to be done.

We should not make too much of the change involved--this does not create "tyranny of the majority", as it does not pertain to legislation.  This blocking ability was not enshrined in the constitution in any way, and I suspect that minority members will still be able to filibuster--retain the floor and speak indefinitely--a given nomination if they can muster the lungpower and the support of colleagues, and that, rather than this perverse application of the rules that was occurring, is much more in line with the tradition of Senate filibuster*.

The thing that is most ominous to me about it is that the particular resolution--no change to legislative rules, the Republicans bearing it and promising revenge--is based on a somewhat shared set of calculations:  no big change to the Republican House majority or to the narrow edge (one way or the other) in the Senate, and a probability that the Republicans gaining control of both Houses and the White House in 2016 is more likely than the Democrats' doing so.

I don't actually share that calculation:  I think the Republicans are headed for a major collapse in the next general election (2016, not 2014) unless they change their ways.  I salute the young Democratic Senators--particularly Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who refused to accommodate themselves to ineffectiveness--and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was moved to act by a combination of careful calculation and by the refusal of his counterparts to heed his threats.

Iran Says, "Not Quite So Much"
The achievement of an interim deal between Iran and the global community--to freeze Iran's nuclear enrichment program for six months, while releasing a small amount of funds impounded by the sanctions--is a success above all for new Iranian President Rouhani and his policy of seeking more regular relations with the rest of the world, particularly the West.  The second winner is President Obama, who said he would talk with Iran and had gained nothing from that willingness until now. The third winner is the countries of Russia and China; they were uncomfortable with the severity of the sanctions with which they had reluctantly agreed.  Now they see the benefits of working with the West to achieve a goal, which will encourage more participation and more leverage for them in the future.

Are there any losers?  Only those who sought the military option in the near future.  I figure those--some elements of Israel's ruling coalition, some of the Sunni Islam forces, maybe some of the hawks in the US--guessed that they could stay out of the mess which would ensue, and then sweep up more power from the chaos that would follow when Iran's ambitions would be definitively thwarted.  Secretary of State John Kerry is a potential loser; if this policy fails, he will be the one blamed.  Even the more hardline factions in Iran should be able to benefit from supporting relaxation of tensions, if it helps with the economy and prevents the devastation of the regime.

I think we should all be realistic about the longer-term result, something that will become clear over the next six months if Iran complies with the agreement, as I believe it will.  Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program, albeit with renewed supervision.  They will pass off uranium enriched to the danger level or beyond, but they can make more (or buy more) if tensions rise again.  From a game theory point of view, Iran has correctly concluded that their leverage is maximized when they maintain the potential to make nuclear weapons in a fairly short time, but don't actually do so.  We can hold the clock/calendar of potential nuclear war with Iran at 90 days or so.   Real improvement in relations with the US may be possible, but it will not happen through a comprehensive rollback of the nuclear program, but with a change in Iran's level of destructive participation in the internal wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.  These may not be likely.   I don't see a peace treaty signing occurring between Obama and Supreme Leader Khamenei (or his successor, if he dies)--and Obama should meet with no one else, as I pointed out years ago.

* For the classic novelistic treatment of the Senate's role and the filibuster's role in nomination approval, by a rabid anti-Communist, see Allan Drury's Advice and Consent, a favorite from my childhood.

November 23, 1963

This date is memorable, I've been told, for the premier episode of the BBC science fiction series Doctor Who.  Dr. Who is notable for its high concept--the desperate adventures of a time-travelling friend of humanity (who needs to regenerate himself every so often in order to keep himself young and geekily handsome), the last of his breed, saving us from a series of consistently gruesome alien invaders--its amusing, very British, dialogue, and its comically low production values.  The program is celebrating its 50th anniversary with a new episode, which I am viewing as I post this.

The Day Before
No one sentient then and now can ever forget that day.  I was in second grade; we were sent into an unscheduled recess after the announcement over the intercom of President Kennedy's wounding.  History buff that I was at that age, I remember telling one of my classmates of the story of President Garfield (1881), who was wounded by an assassin, had largely recovered, then relapsed and died.  Kennedy's fate, his skull torn apart by the mortal third shot, was not in such doubt.  The imagery of the funeral parade through the capital, his coffin lying in state, and the burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery are what remain clear in my memory, fifty years later.

The Day After
I wasn't watching, but I was not far away from the TV when the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas jail house.  Shocking as Kennedy's killing was, I think this event was even more shocking; that such a suspect would be paraded before the TV cameras, that some guy, a nightclub owner with a dicey history--so not a peace officer, or even a reporter--would be let into such a public, secure facility with the opportunity to pull his gun and plug him at point-blank range.  I can't recall another instance in which cold-blooded murder was shown on live national TV.

I think it was Ruby-on-Oswald, rather than Oswald-on-Kennedy, that really caused the conspiracy stories to proliferate and persist.  It's a very reasonable question:  why would this guy ruin his life--there was no question of possible innocence, and no chance of leaving prison ever afterwards--as though it was a personal vendetta or crime of honor?

Contrary to what some maintain, I think the scientific exposition shown on PBS' Nova some years ago (and re-broadcast this week, of course) provided some pretty clear evidence that it was Oswald, and no one else, who pulled the trigger.  The first shot missed, the second had the incredible fortune of going through Kennedy's neck, into and through Texas Governor John Connally's back and then breaking his wrist, while the third was the fatal shot which shattered Kennedy's skull.  There was also the fact that a Dallas policeman was killed less than an hour later, apparently trying to detain Oswald from his escape, which points to probable guilt.

Still, there is the question of why these men--Oswald and Ruby--would destroy their lives for their separate purposes.  Oswald, it's clear, despite some head feints on his part, was a committed Communist, enamored of the Soviets and a defender of Fidel Castro's Cuba.  Ruby, for his, was an anti-Castro activist, and an associate of Chicago Mafia figures who had plenty of reason to oppose Castro (their big investments in Cuban casinos having been ruined by the Communist takeover there).  Each could have been a willing tool in the designs of their guiding figures, though the evidence of any actual push is lacking, and the evidence of mental instability in each is plentiful.

There is a third possible conspiracy, though, and it is the one that is most convincing to me as a back story  for a conspiracy to lie behind what happened fifty years ago yesterday.  It is now a well-documented fact that Kennedy was trying to have Castro killed in the months prior to his death.   Castro could well have concluded that it was "kill or be killed", and that finding the right person--one who was a sufficiently skilled marksman, someone who would stubbornly protest both the righteousness of his cause and at the same time his innocence--was actually the magic bullet.  The fact that Castro needed to deny any involvement at the time, and that he has maintained that ever since (even, recently, questioning whether Oswald was the killer)  means nothing, one way or the other.

Ultimately, though, it was fate that was the hunter.  Without the third shot--and Kennedy's back brace which held him up in position for a clean look--he probably would have survived (as Reagan did, as FDR did the assassination attempt before he had ever begun his administration, as Kennedy himself survived an attempt before his inauguration).  Ruby's path to his fateful shot at Oswald also seemed random, his attack spontaneous.

JFK in History
Apart from the days of his death and the fireworks which followed, the only other memory I have of his Presidency was the fear of annihilation that came with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  Yes, we were taught to "duck and cover" under our desks in my first-grade class, which would at least have made our bodies easier to find. Subsequent research has indicated that, far from being responsible for the threatened escalation toward a potential nuclear war, Kennedy was the voice of reason on our side which was critical in keeping things from blowing up.  So, let us praise his judgment at the decisive moment, after recognizing that he had already gone through the hard experience of being bamboozled into the Bay of Pigs, into increasing the Vietnam involvement, and into placing nuclear missiles into Turkey (which, again, gave the Communists a private justification for the aggressive act of putting missiles into Cuba).

Apart from that, clearly he is and will always be the symbol of American power at its proudest moment--challenging the Soviets on all fronts, challenging Americans to serve and to go into space, to end Jim Crow segregation and, it's been pointed out recently, to broach the idea of universal health care--America still undefeated and potentially limitless.  That pride, it's clear now, was due for a fall, but the great potential he saw still remains.

The grade on Kennedy's Presidency has to be incomplete--he had set the stage for the key battles on civil rights, for critical decisions on Vietnam, that happened without him (perhaps influenced by his memory).

Tutti Morti

That's the day Italians remember their dead friends and relatives; it means "all the dead". It's actually Nov. 2, the day after All Saints' Day, which is in turn the day after Hallowe'en night. So, though I'm late, let's start with an Italian:

Lucio Dalla 
My favorite (non-operatic) Italian singer actually died, suddenly, last year, but I only found out about it recently.  Dalla's peak was in the '70's and '80's; he was fun-loving, romantic, and serious, all at the same time (or at least that's the impression he gave to me).  He gave off a bit of an anarchic, post-hippie kind of vibe, one which probably didn't survive the insanity and paranoia of the Red Brigades era (their crimes, their punishment) too well.   At any rate, though he continued to produce and was still revered, I don't think he captured the moment there quite so well after that.
He had good musical arrangements and was skilled at several instruments, but his particular appeal came from his lyrics.  They appealed to the popular sensibility and were written in a colloquial, but not vulgar, style. He sang about normal people and their aspirations, the craziness of society, things like that.  His political stance was to stay non-politicized. He was sort of their Bruce Springsteen.

Lou Reed  
Speaking of Italy (where Reed was very popular), when I first went there people commented to me about the play on words of his name:  "Lou Reed= Lurid" (with an Italian pronunciation; their word is "lurido", and it's not a compliment, either).   I had to tell them that if it was intentional, it was news to me.  Looking on wikipedia, it turns out his real name was Lewis Reed, so the nickname was a natural one, even if the transgressive suggestion of the stage name was intentional.

I am one of those hipster/anti-hipster types, so I have to disagree with the Conventional Wisdom of the elitist rock critics who worship the Velvet Underground.  They may have made some local commotion in the East Village and thereabouts in their day, but they were basically gone before they ever got anywhere.  Their music is about 50% OK and 50% totally unlistenable.   I recognize they were avant-garde, but so are a lot of others who never get the publicity; the fact that they were edgy is not so unusual or ground-breaking.   I don't find the evidence of "influence" on everything that came afterward very convincing.

On the other hand, the group did give birth to a couple of folks who made enduring impacts on popular music, "post-punk" (as those elitist critics like to say).  One was Brian Eno--a topic for another day, but let's just admit that this guy's far-out methods and vision have continued to break ground ever since.  The other was Lou Reed, who was both a genuine rocker and a bit of a poet.  

I won't say that everything he did was brilliant (I think I covered that idea already)--he did, after all, release "Metal Machine Music", one of the worst (if not the worst) albums I have ever heard all or in part.  He did do "Sweet Jane",  "Walk on the Wild Side", and a lot more over the decades.  He had legs.  I think he was also a decent guy; otherwise, he would never have won over Laurie Anderson, his wife in the later years, who just published a very moving obit for Rolling Stone.

Charlie Trotter
He ruled the Chicago restaurant scene for a couple of decades, and that's saying something.  There are a dozen or more of Trotter-knockoff-type restaurants in the area now.  I'm not sure that's a good thing:  basically the idea is that the chef is king, you eat what he wants you to eat and pay a lot for the privilege and the exclusivity, and if you work in the kitchen, you cringe and learn.

His influence seems to have gone well beyond Chicago.  He has contributed greatly to making nouvelle cuisine more than a fad and to inventing the fad which is molecular gastronomy.

I never ate at any of his restaurants.  I wouldn't say that I never would, but I'd have to think twice (once for the cost, the other for surrendering to a subservient consuming role).  He closed his main one a year ago.  I'm not sure if he knew then that he was going to die soon, which he did two days ago, aged only 54.  We'll probably find out the back story on that pretty soon.

The Tea Party
OK, I exaggerate.  When the death-wagon comes around and the call comes out to "Bring out your dead!", they're the ones who'll pipe up and say "Not dead yet!"   There will still be many Tea-baggers re-elected in 2014 in extreme right-wing districts (with limited exceptions, they've had very little success ever in statewide elections),  and they will poison wells in Republican primaries probably for decades to come.

But still, their movement is clearly headed for demise.  It's not so much Chris Christie's big win, which points to a path of hope for those Republicans who are not willing to accept permanent second-place status (or even third, in time) in national politics.  It's more that the Establishment of the party, which has tolerated them up until now, has decided to cut them off as being bad for business.  It was the shutdown, and their arrogant approach to try to drive the federal government from their position controlling 10-15% of the electorate, that was the cause of their non-tragic fall.