Let me be blunt: when Republicans run against an incumbent Democrat president, they usually choose a damaged war veteran as their candidate. The ‘96 election set the pattern: Bob Dole v. Bill Clinton. (A less caustic analysis is that they pick someone who has run before in primaries and lost. It was Dole’s turn, given that logic.)
The secondary GOP default for picking a nominee is to hand it over to whichever suitable patrician is available, one preferably with strong political family connections. In 2000 that was George W. Bush, who, though absent of most of his father’s abilities, had one large advantage his father lacked: his six-pack ordinariness, his common man touch. It proved to be the right cultural mix for the times, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and had the election stolen out from under him by the Supreme Court.
The Democrats in 2004 threw up their own patrician, John Kerry, also a war vet, perhaps damaged, at least by the Swift Boat forces. Then, in 2008, Barack Obama continued his run of electoral luck and the Republicans broke their pattern and nominated John McCain, yet another damaged war veteran, someone born to lose.
Among McCain’s problems was the conflict that damaged him was the Vietnam war. It was a war no one wanted to revisit. Indeed, when Dole ran in ‘96, it was at the height of the “Greatest Generation” craze. Dole profited from that, but nothing else. The Vietnam war in the 2008 primaries was shouldered by Hillary Clinton and, finally, Democrats turned away from Hillary and it: it was the war her husband, Bill, had managed to avoid. One reason Barack Obama won the nomination is that the electorate was tired of both the Vietnam war and the Clintons.
Obama represented the future. Boy, the public was thirsting for the future, to put behind them the Bush family, the Iraq and Afghanistan war, the Wall Street meltdown. They wanted to turn the page and no page was more different than Barack Obama. But when they fianlly read the page, it turned out to be the same old, same old.
Now, in 2012, we have a GOP with a unappetizing choice, devoid of damaged war vets; in fact, there are two chicken hawks available, with no more military service between them than Bill Clinton had: both Romney and Newt Gingrich had deferments from the draft, and when the lottery was inaugurated, Romney drew a high number. By that time, Gingrich had children from his marriage to his former history teacher.
Everyone, though, of the appropriate generation, has been damaged one way or another by the Vietnam war. Only Ron Paul, ancient as he is, brings up Romney and Gingrich’s lack of service, since he served in the Air Force from 1963 - 68 as a medical officer. It is nothing short of amazing to listen to Ron Paul take on (in his “victory” speech after his fourth place finish in the Florida primary) the mantle of the only anti-war candidate in the field, both Democrat and Republican. Apparently, it is one of the major things that attracts the young to his candidacy.
After Florida, it appears to one and all to be a “two man” race. Romney, like George W., is assuming the role of the patrician candidate, son of George Romney, born in Mexico, but a future presidential wanna-be (the birthers were a generation late; but John McCain had the same problem, since he was born in the Panama Canal zone), a governor of Michigan and a member of the Nixon Cabinet.
Gingrich will continue to be a pest, though it is not out of the world of probability to imagine a Romney/Gingrich ticket, if only to “bind” the splintered party together.
But, and this is a large but, Mitt Romney has one positive precedent hidden in his history that may ultimately benefit him. Romney personifies everything associated with Wall Street and the beleaguered 1%. He is the person who represents the 2008 meltdown, the cause of wealth disappearing everywhere (except into Swiss accounts and banks in the Cayman islands), the reason TARP and both the Bush and Obama administration spent the peoples money to bail out the too-big-to-fail financial industry.
One would think someone who represents to a tee everything the majority of Americans finds reprehensible in recent history could not win the presidency a mere four years after the crash and the start of the Great Recession.
Yes, one might think that. But here is the counter example: what would be the odds that seven years after 9/11 a man with the middle name Hussein would be elected President of the United States? A trillion to one? That is the precedent that Romney may be counting on. That the voters of America will do something totally unexpected and then suffer their bitter disappointment later, silently or not so silently, given their past precedents.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
OUR POST-SATRICAL PRIMARIES
One thing is clear: Newt Gingrich is not running as Ronald Reagan, but as Margaret Thatcher, at least the Thatcher caricatured by Spitting Image, the Brit satirical television show, circa 1984. Gingrich has often been lampooned as a puppet, one in particular, the malevolent horror-film character Chucky, but Spitting Image’s Thatcher seems the more pertinent choice.
Watching the new film, The Iron Lady, where Thatcher is portrayed magnificently by Meryl Streep, it was startling how many of Thatcher’s speeches of the 1980s sounded like Gingrich’s recent ones: get those children off their duffs and give them a broom! – all that sort of boot-strap rhetoric Thatcher favored: Let everyone pay the same tax, rich and poor alike, which will end the terrible graffiti in the council house neighborhoods, etc.
The two recent films about 20th century historic figures, the UK’s Thatcher and our own J. Edgar Hoover, are, oddly, both love stories. That might not be strange for Hollywood films (though The Iron Lady has a lot of British support – even, evidently, money from the UK’s public arts program. Thatcher would be spinning in her grave, if she was in a grave.)
Both films have the star power of famous American actors in the namesake roles, and both Streep and Leonardo DiCaprio give more warm human interest to their subjects than either of the individuals possessed. They make both figures somewhat lovable, not a quality either had, or projected, in their public roles.
But love stories both films are: Thatcher and her husband, Dennis, and J. Edgar and Clyde Tolson, whatever Tolson could be called, husband, confidant, bromance boy.
I wrote a book about a trial of anti-war priests and nuns Hoover instigated (The Harrisburg 7 and the New Catholic Left) and, back in 1972, Hoover’s visage kept reminding me of a line from a popular song of the period (MacArthur Park): Someone Left the Cake Out in the Rain. That’s what Hoover looked like back then. DiCaprio’s makeup in J. Edgar isn’t up to the quality of Streep’s; indeed, DiCaprio, however he ages, still looks like a little boy in all his roles, and, for Hoover, it is a strange look indeed.
Back in 1972 Clyde Tolson and Hoover’s relationship wasn’t commonly known; journalists were more discreet then, at least nationally. You had to be in the know. Now everyone’s in the know. When I watched The Iron Lady in a Midwestern cineplex there were only six people in the theater; even if Streep wins an Oscar for her performance, the film will still be a hard sell for Americans. You really need to know a lot about the history of the period to keep anything straight (though that is true even for J. Edgar), and even if you know – and I do: I wrote a novel about the Thatcher era NUM coal-mining strike (Notts) – it remains confusing in the film.
But history is always confusing, I suppose. We’ll have to ask our historian-in-chief candidate, Newt Gingrich. Less confusing if you say everything, as Newt does, with such conviction and bravado. The less conviction one has, the easier it is to sound absolutely certain. Like most serial adulterers, Newt shows signs of being a pathological liar, one well-practiced.
One historical comparison that offers itself is that Newt is playing J. Edgar to Mitt Romney’s Clyde Tolson. Gingrich is the huffer and puffer, a la Hoover, out front, hogging the limelight, while Romney remains the tall, handsome figure in the shadows, looking confused.
Because of the unprecedented number of debates and the compressed onslaught of caucuses and primaries, the Republican primary season has elevated all its participants to the realm of the grotesque. (Just name those who have dropped out and you can see what stalwarts in that regard even the B-team was.) So, it is fitting that the most grotesque figure of them all, Newt Gingrich, is now the Republican frontrunner. Spitting Image, indeed. He’s a Hogarth etching in the flesh, but, it doesn’t much matter, since we are now all living in a post-satirical age.
Watching the new film, The Iron Lady, where Thatcher is portrayed magnificently by Meryl Streep, it was startling how many of Thatcher’s speeches of the 1980s sounded like Gingrich’s recent ones: get those children off their duffs and give them a broom! – all that sort of boot-strap rhetoric Thatcher favored: Let everyone pay the same tax, rich and poor alike, which will end the terrible graffiti in the council house neighborhoods, etc.
The two recent films about 20th century historic figures, the UK’s Thatcher and our own J. Edgar Hoover, are, oddly, both love stories. That might not be strange for Hollywood films (though The Iron Lady has a lot of British support – even, evidently, money from the UK’s public arts program. Thatcher would be spinning in her grave, if she was in a grave.)
Both films have the star power of famous American actors in the namesake roles, and both Streep and Leonardo DiCaprio give more warm human interest to their subjects than either of the individuals possessed. They make both figures somewhat lovable, not a quality either had, or projected, in their public roles.
But love stories both films are: Thatcher and her husband, Dennis, and J. Edgar and Clyde Tolson, whatever Tolson could be called, husband, confidant, bromance boy.
I wrote a book about a trial of anti-war priests and nuns Hoover instigated (The Harrisburg 7 and the New Catholic Left) and, back in 1972, Hoover’s visage kept reminding me of a line from a popular song of the period (MacArthur Park): Someone Left the Cake Out in the Rain. That’s what Hoover looked like back then. DiCaprio’s makeup in J. Edgar isn’t up to the quality of Streep’s; indeed, DiCaprio, however he ages, still looks like a little boy in all his roles, and, for Hoover, it is a strange look indeed.
Back in 1972 Clyde Tolson and Hoover’s relationship wasn’t commonly known; journalists were more discreet then, at least nationally. You had to be in the know. Now everyone’s in the know. When I watched The Iron Lady in a Midwestern cineplex there were only six people in the theater; even if Streep wins an Oscar for her performance, the film will still be a hard sell for Americans. You really need to know a lot about the history of the period to keep anything straight (though that is true even for J. Edgar), and even if you know – and I do: I wrote a novel about the Thatcher era NUM coal-mining strike (Notts) – it remains confusing in the film.
But history is always confusing, I suppose. We’ll have to ask our historian-in-chief candidate, Newt Gingrich. Less confusing if you say everything, as Newt does, with such conviction and bravado. The less conviction one has, the easier it is to sound absolutely certain. Like most serial adulterers, Newt shows signs of being a pathological liar, one well-practiced.
One historical comparison that offers itself is that Newt is playing J. Edgar to Mitt Romney’s Clyde Tolson. Gingrich is the huffer and puffer, a la Hoover, out front, hogging the limelight, while Romney remains the tall, handsome figure in the shadows, looking confused.
Because of the unprecedented number of debates and the compressed onslaught of caucuses and primaries, the Republican primary season has elevated all its participants to the realm of the grotesque. (Just name those who have dropped out and you can see what stalwarts in that regard even the B-team was.) So, it is fitting that the most grotesque figure of them all, Newt Gingrich, is now the Republican frontrunner. Spitting Image, indeed. He’s a Hogarth etching in the flesh, but, it doesn’t much matter, since we are now all living in a post-satirical age.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Dr. Gingrich and Mr. Chucky
Now, we’re done with New Hampshire. The interesting development is the blowback criticism of Newt Gingrich toward the predatory capitalist, Mitt Romney, echoed momentarily by the national nonentity, Rick Perry. Newt made a mockery (and a web address) of Mitt’s “pious baloney,” describing how Romney has been a financial firm show horse candidate since the early 1990s, not the “job creator” he poses as. And, more, pertinently, Newt went after Bain Capital, Romney’s never-ending private equity piggy bank, via his SuperPAC, Winning Our Future, funded by the usual and strange FON, a casino-owning big better. Newt talks about Bain Capital “looting” companies, adding a laundry list of the usual corporate malfeasance.
It’s been effective. Too effective for the GOP and Gingrich is under considerable pressure to walk back all his criticism. I’ll wait to see if the half-hour 60 Minute-like take down of Bain actually runs anywhere. 30 second commercials have thus far, but, again, the question is, Will they continue?
Walking back will be nothing new to Newt. He did so shortly after, rightly, condemning Paul Ryan’s Gut Medicare program as “right-wing social engineering.” Later, he said anyone using the film of him saying so would be uttering a “falsehood”, since he was now unsaying so.
But, this larger change in rhetoric came before Newt’s appearance on Meet the Press back in May charging right-wing social engineering. I suppose one must credit Frank Luntz, or one of his Republican clones. Beginning in 2011 (and perhaps earlier), Republicans started appropriating the language of progressives: so one heard Sarah Palin (remember her?) denouncing “crony capitalism”; and other Republicans were whining about the evils of “class warfare.”
The logic seemed to be: if you use the other side’s words often enough eventually you will make the words meaningless. Since the GOP has been making words meaningless for years, it seems to be a long-term strategy. I’m not sure Luntz got everyone in the Republican fold to switch out “the rich” to “job creators,” but you won’t find the phrase job creators used much before 2011.
But Gingrich, et al., took the word-appropriation business a bit too far, since he was making whole sentences of them, not just phrases and sound bites. Mitt Romney has been speaking nothing but sound bites, pious baloney as Newt pointed out.
Only when Romney goes rogue, speaks for himself, as he did last weekend, saying “I like being able to fire people...” - it didn’t matter, as he claimed, the words were taken out of “context”, because Romney said them with such obvious sincerity – does his true self shine through. Romney may well win the Republican nomination, though, given his background as the former head of a predatory investment firm (private equity), it remains as improbable, given recent history, as someone with the middle name Hussein becoming the nominee of the Democrats in 2008.
Gingrich, though, will continue his usual Jekyll and Hyde performance; but I’m hoping, to update the analogy, that he lets his Chucky side come blazing through, rather than his professorial Dr. Gingrich side, creating mayhem all the while he continues to debase our poor, battered, language pell-mell.
It’s been effective. Too effective for the GOP and Gingrich is under considerable pressure to walk back all his criticism. I’ll wait to see if the half-hour 60 Minute-like take down of Bain actually runs anywhere. 30 second commercials have thus far, but, again, the question is, Will they continue?
Walking back will be nothing new to Newt. He did so shortly after, rightly, condemning Paul Ryan’s Gut Medicare program as “right-wing social engineering.” Later, he said anyone using the film of him saying so would be uttering a “falsehood”, since he was now unsaying so.
But, this larger change in rhetoric came before Newt’s appearance on Meet the Press back in May charging right-wing social engineering. I suppose one must credit Frank Luntz, or one of his Republican clones. Beginning in 2011 (and perhaps earlier), Republicans started appropriating the language of progressives: so one heard Sarah Palin (remember her?) denouncing “crony capitalism”; and other Republicans were whining about the evils of “class warfare.”
The logic seemed to be: if you use the other side’s words often enough eventually you will make the words meaningless. Since the GOP has been making words meaningless for years, it seems to be a long-term strategy. I’m not sure Luntz got everyone in the Republican fold to switch out “the rich” to “job creators,” but you won’t find the phrase job creators used much before 2011.
But Gingrich, et al., took the word-appropriation business a bit too far, since he was making whole sentences of them, not just phrases and sound bites. Mitt Romney has been speaking nothing but sound bites, pious baloney as Newt pointed out.
Only when Romney goes rogue, speaks for himself, as he did last weekend, saying “I like being able to fire people...” - it didn’t matter, as he claimed, the words were taken out of “context”, because Romney said them with such obvious sincerity – does his true self shine through. Romney may well win the Republican nomination, though, given his background as the former head of a predatory investment firm (private equity), it remains as improbable, given recent history, as someone with the middle name Hussein becoming the nominee of the Democrats in 2008.
Gingrich, though, will continue his usual Jekyll and Hyde performance; but I’m hoping, to update the analogy, that he lets his Chucky side come blazing through, rather than his professorial Dr. Gingrich side, creating mayhem all the while he continues to debase our poor, battered, language pell-mell.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The First Lady’s Lack of Firsts
Because of a new book, called The Obamas, a volume mainly about Michelle, the First Lady, there will be a lot of attention paid to her role in the White House and I’ve decided to write publicly what I have been saying privately for the last year or so, before all is lost in the deluge of print to come. The New York Times ran an excerpt from the book on Saturday – its author is one of its reporters, based in Washington (this is what is called being well placed) and reviews are just starting to appear.
One reason I haven’t written about this before is that it is a sensitive subject, and I was waiting for some woman to write about it. Coincidently, or not, the new book is by a woman, Jodi Kantor. Why be a critic, or critical of, the First Lady? I have enough problems. Well, in any case, what I was being critical of is the Obama administration, through the public persona it has created for Michelle Obama.
It is as if the ascendancy of a black American as president was enough of a break-through, that anything else would be superfluous. And the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, had the experience of putting his wife front and center (better to keep her busy, doubtless) and that didn’t work out too well (see Hillary care). But the times had change; boy, have they.
But, in the White House, it’s been the 1950s for the First Lady. Her first big splash was her garden; it began in March of 2009. For months they (the press and the image makers in the White House) turned Michelle into a field hand. If I saw one picture with her posing with a yam in her hand, I saw a thousand. Of course, she was a more fashionable gardener than Martha Stewart, when it came to what she wore. But her first public image was field hand, the second image was clothes horse, and her third large public project was to scold fat people.
Now all of this has a purpose and isn’t necessarily venal, but it is so retrograde I was waiting for some feminist to point it out. But I didn’t see one do so. Not that that means no one did. But Michele Obama, one must remember, was a corporate lawyer, one that was asked to show the new guy, Barack Obama, the ropes when he joined the firm she worked for; when Obama finally won election to the Illinois State Senate she began to get even more gainful employment in the upper corporate management world.
But for the US Senate and the Presidency she’s been turned back into housewife, become a most traditional First Lady. Fine. But what it shows and highlights is all the other turn-abouts for the Obama administration – its (and his) tendency toward living high on the hog, palling around with the upper ups. Barack Obama successfully hid a number of things before he was elected president; had I known he was so fond of golf I would have been even more skeptical at the time than I was.
As I have written elsewhere, Barack marrying Michele was, for Obama, a political decision in the same way Bill Clinton marrying Hillary was. Clinton knew he couldn’t marry one of the bimbos he frequented if he wanted to be taken seriously as a politician. He had to marry someone serious like Hillary. Barack Obama faced the same sort of political choice.
Miraculous as Obama’s election was for a boy from a half-Kansas and half-Kenya background, the first president-to-be whose father hadn’t been born in the “new world,” he would never have been elected Senator, much less President, if he had married a white wife. But nothing said that after he was elected President he had to make his wife into a field hand, clothes horse, or scold of fat people. But, Obama, the great conciliator, evidently didn’t want to make any more waves than necessary, and certainly neither did all those “progressive” Chicago pols he brought with him into the White House, some of whom are gone, some of whom are still there. Luckily for him, the Republicans he opposes are so puerile he doesn’t have to be exactly pure. But, please, no more yams.
One reason I haven’t written about this before is that it is a sensitive subject, and I was waiting for some woman to write about it. Coincidently, or not, the new book is by a woman, Jodi Kantor. Why be a critic, or critical of, the First Lady? I have enough problems. Well, in any case, what I was being critical of is the Obama administration, through the public persona it has created for Michelle Obama.
It is as if the ascendancy of a black American as president was enough of a break-through, that anything else would be superfluous. And the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, had the experience of putting his wife front and center (better to keep her busy, doubtless) and that didn’t work out too well (see Hillary care). But the times had change; boy, have they.
But, in the White House, it’s been the 1950s for the First Lady. Her first big splash was her garden; it began in March of 2009. For months they (the press and the image makers in the White House) turned Michelle into a field hand. If I saw one picture with her posing with a yam in her hand, I saw a thousand. Of course, she was a more fashionable gardener than Martha Stewart, when it came to what she wore. But her first public image was field hand, the second image was clothes horse, and her third large public project was to scold fat people.
Now all of this has a purpose and isn’t necessarily venal, but it is so retrograde I was waiting for some feminist to point it out. But I didn’t see one do so. Not that that means no one did. But Michele Obama, one must remember, was a corporate lawyer, one that was asked to show the new guy, Barack Obama, the ropes when he joined the firm she worked for; when Obama finally won election to the Illinois State Senate she began to get even more gainful employment in the upper corporate management world.
But for the US Senate and the Presidency she’s been turned back into housewife, become a most traditional First Lady. Fine. But what it shows and highlights is all the other turn-abouts for the Obama administration – its (and his) tendency toward living high on the hog, palling around with the upper ups. Barack Obama successfully hid a number of things before he was elected president; had I known he was so fond of golf I would have been even more skeptical at the time than I was.
As I have written elsewhere, Barack marrying Michele was, for Obama, a political decision in the same way Bill Clinton marrying Hillary was. Clinton knew he couldn’t marry one of the bimbos he frequented if he wanted to be taken seriously as a politician. He had to marry someone serious like Hillary. Barack Obama faced the same sort of political choice.
Miraculous as Obama’s election was for a boy from a half-Kansas and half-Kenya background, the first president-to-be whose father hadn’t been born in the “new world,” he would never have been elected Senator, much less President, if he had married a white wife. But nothing said that after he was elected President he had to make his wife into a field hand, clothes horse, or scold of fat people. But, Obama, the great conciliator, evidently didn’t want to make any more waves than necessary, and certainly neither did all those “progressive” Chicago pols he brought with him into the White House, some of whom are gone, some of whom are still there. Luckily for him, the Republicans he opposes are so puerile he doesn’t have to be exactly pure. But, please, no more yams.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Superfluity of Iowa
As I wrote in my book on the ‘96 presidential campaign, Campaign America '96: The View From the Couch, the quadrennial election cycle is a WPA project for the upper end of intellectual workers: TV in all its forms, printers, newspapers, and their attendant personnel, all profit from the cash SuperPacs and the candidates lavish on the local media of various primary states, as well as the millions that will be spent on the national election itself. So who would want to put a stop to it? Certainly not the chattering classes, which gain so much from it. But Iowa does strain one’s credulity as being necessary to the political process.
Who cares about what the hundred thousand or so Iowans think about the candidates in question: in the case of 2012, the sorry group of Republicans vying for the nomination?
I’m certainly not the first or last to raise that question; this year it has already been batted around quite a bit. But it has provided a lot of fodder for discussion during the dull period between Christmas, New Year’s, and, what, Valentine’s Day? Look at Romney, who gets the same number of votes as he did in 2008 when he lost to the formerly obese former Governor of Arkansas, now Fox News commentator, Mike Huckabee. Romney, the 25 percenter. Same as Rick Santorum, more or less, the pol who will protect us all from bestiality, though he’s the Senator who lost his last race in the great state of Pennsylvania by over 15 percent. And Ron Paul, who is hardly a Republican, though he votes with its caucus, since he is so much a Libertarian, of the old school sort, crazy as a loon, who somehow still lures the most gullible young, with his promises of legal drugs and no war.
Thus far, Iowa has shown us nothing has changed; the only thing all the attention lavished accomplished was the jettisoning of Michele Bachmann, the native-born Iowan who now brings so much pride and honor to the state of Minnesota. Rick Perry (aka Governor Ferry) now pledges to continue to stumble on, providing low comedy and high jinks wherever he goes.
But, given the general uselessness of Iowa, a place where, when Chris Matthews asked where he was on his own MSNBC Hardball show and was told Des Moines – he indicated what he had meant was where, actually, was Des Moines located in the state and when he was told, somewhat in the middle, he offered up the excuse that he had flown into an airport and who would know, etc. - the meaning of flyover states came, once again, sharply into focus. Yet, Iowa did play a most critical role in recent American presidential history. I haven’t heard anyone mention it, though, doubtless, someone, somewhere, has. Certainly, when it comes to the GOP, Iowa is an empty hole, sound and fury signifying not much at all. But, when it comes to Democrats, Iowa changed history in 2008.
Iowa proved one thing: white people (aka Iowa) would vote for Barack Hussein Obama. That was its signal service to the commonwealth in 2008. And after Obama won Iowa (amassing nearly 100,000 votes in the primary), the red sea of racism was temporarily separated and the chosen people rushed through and managed to elect Obama to the presidency. I guess that’s enough reason for the east coast media to continue to dump so much money on Iowa and Iowans every four years. They’re owed.
Who cares about what the hundred thousand or so Iowans think about the candidates in question: in the case of 2012, the sorry group of Republicans vying for the nomination?
I’m certainly not the first or last to raise that question; this year it has already been batted around quite a bit. But it has provided a lot of fodder for discussion during the dull period between Christmas, New Year’s, and, what, Valentine’s Day? Look at Romney, who gets the same number of votes as he did in 2008 when he lost to the formerly obese former Governor of Arkansas, now Fox News commentator, Mike Huckabee. Romney, the 25 percenter. Same as Rick Santorum, more or less, the pol who will protect us all from bestiality, though he’s the Senator who lost his last race in the great state of Pennsylvania by over 15 percent. And Ron Paul, who is hardly a Republican, though he votes with its caucus, since he is so much a Libertarian, of the old school sort, crazy as a loon, who somehow still lures the most gullible young, with his promises of legal drugs and no war.
Thus far, Iowa has shown us nothing has changed; the only thing all the attention lavished accomplished was the jettisoning of Michele Bachmann, the native-born Iowan who now brings so much pride and honor to the state of Minnesota. Rick Perry (aka Governor Ferry) now pledges to continue to stumble on, providing low comedy and high jinks wherever he goes.
But, given the general uselessness of Iowa, a place where, when Chris Matthews asked where he was on his own MSNBC Hardball show and was told Des Moines – he indicated what he had meant was where, actually, was Des Moines located in the state and when he was told, somewhat in the middle, he offered up the excuse that he had flown into an airport and who would know, etc. - the meaning of flyover states came, once again, sharply into focus. Yet, Iowa did play a most critical role in recent American presidential history. I haven’t heard anyone mention it, though, doubtless, someone, somewhere, has. Certainly, when it comes to the GOP, Iowa is an empty hole, sound and fury signifying not much at all. But, when it comes to Democrats, Iowa changed history in 2008.
Iowa proved one thing: white people (aka Iowa) would vote for Barack Hussein Obama. That was its signal service to the commonwealth in 2008. And after Obama won Iowa (amassing nearly 100,000 votes in the primary), the red sea of racism was temporarily separated and the chosen people rushed through and managed to elect Obama to the presidency. I guess that’s enough reason for the east coast media to continue to dump so much money on Iowa and Iowans every four years. They’re owed.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Saving Social Security, Not
Pundits are celebrating President Obama’s “victory” over the Republicans for forcing them to their knees and making them pass the two month extension of the payroll tax reduction. Excuse me, but I’m not applauding. Among the many stories the media has misreported over recent decades, Social Security is one of the most egregious examples. Journalists don’t seem to understand the program until they start collecting payments from it in their sixties. Even calling the monies going into the program a “payroll tax” is misleading. They are premiums, since Social Security is an insurance program.
It is actually called the federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. So, you may call them taxes, but they are premiums. Do you want to stop paying your fire, car, life insurance premiums?
That has been one of the right-wing complaints that they have successfully inserted into the pubic “debate” about Social Security: that when you die you can’t leave “what’s left” to your heirs. Of course, even that is a lie, since the surviving spouse gets her/his benefits raised if the dead spouse’s were higher; and minor children receive benefits. Nonetheless, since Social Security is an insurance program those who benefit the most are those who live the longest. Indeed, if you live into your nineties, SS pays off big; it is, more or less, an annuity, and the longer you live the longer (and larger) is your benefit. Insurance is usually a bet, because no one knows how long they’ll live.
The anti-Social Security privatizers have spread so much misinformation about the program over the last three decades, it is no surprise so many people are confused. And the press has been of little help. The GOP is, of course, the worst offender; George W. Bush called the bonds issued to cover the Social Security surplus over the years worthless. This is the crux of the problem for both sides.
On one hand, Social Security takes in more than it puts out; it has for years. Now the yearly surplus is less, but it remains (recently, so many jobless have retired “early” there was a small dip, but now there is a surplus again.) And the trust fund is stuffed with money from all the years of large surpluses; one hears, correctly, that if nothing is done to grow Social Security, it will be able to pay 75% of benefits indefinitely, beyond 2035.
But, politicians, especially Republicans, don’t consider the Social Security trust fund, the larger accumulated surplus (over 20 trillion), a surplus; they consider it debt, because it has been spent: given to Wall Street and the military industrial complex, mainly. We arrive at the sad irony that America’s working stiffs have been paying the bonuses for all the investment bankers over the years, as well as for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush kept off the books.
And now, we have the sad, smaller irony that the American workers are funding the Obama administration's tiny stimulus program, the lowering of the “payroll tax” (and for employers, too!). We paycheck workers are giving ourselves the puny amounts each month that Obama takes credit for.
And this is what is worse. Everyone is used to the Republicans trying to damage Social Security. But it is the Democrats who need to be watched. They like this “tax” break because it is so “efficient”. No need to cut checks, start a program. Just reduce the amount coming in, and, voila, money in everyone’s pocket. Of course, it is their own money, which is being taken out of their insurance system and will eventually have to be put back – but at what cost? More federal workers furloughed? More Medicaid cuts?
It was too tempting for the Democratic suits in Washington, all that efficiency. They consider it a version of domestic realpolitik. It makes me sick. Their chipping away at the system allows other attacks to wiggle in. They’ve given Social Security one fatal attribute of the touted 401(k) “retirement” program. It can be raided, gotten to when “emergencies” arise, which is why, among other reasons, so many 401(k)s have such small amounts in them at retirement.
Once the Democrats decided to lower the Social Security payroll tax, a thing the Republicans proposed long ago in order to weaken it, they opened up Pandora’s box to other changes. Watch President Obama, even when, as it is likely, he wins a second term, go along with raising the retirement age, without raising the cap on the richest Americans’ contributions; he’ll be applauded by his Wall Street backers.
But, again, the chief irony is that working Americans have been funding the bubble spending, the wars and the bonuses, as George W. Bush merrily spent the Social Security trust fund surplus and now everyone bemoans the deficit and wants to have the people, the workers, who contributed the cash for the bubble, take the hit and change Social Security so they will be paid back less, take the haircut that the Wall Streeters have avoided, all the while giving themselves a Christmas tax break, while the rich continue to give nothing, nothing at all.
It is actually called the federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. So, you may call them taxes, but they are premiums. Do you want to stop paying your fire, car, life insurance premiums?
That has been one of the right-wing complaints that they have successfully inserted into the pubic “debate” about Social Security: that when you die you can’t leave “what’s left” to your heirs. Of course, even that is a lie, since the surviving spouse gets her/his benefits raised if the dead spouse’s were higher; and minor children receive benefits. Nonetheless, since Social Security is an insurance program those who benefit the most are those who live the longest. Indeed, if you live into your nineties, SS pays off big; it is, more or less, an annuity, and the longer you live the longer (and larger) is your benefit. Insurance is usually a bet, because no one knows how long they’ll live.
The anti-Social Security privatizers have spread so much misinformation about the program over the last three decades, it is no surprise so many people are confused. And the press has been of little help. The GOP is, of course, the worst offender; George W. Bush called the bonds issued to cover the Social Security surplus over the years worthless. This is the crux of the problem for both sides.
On one hand, Social Security takes in more than it puts out; it has for years. Now the yearly surplus is less, but it remains (recently, so many jobless have retired “early” there was a small dip, but now there is a surplus again.) And the trust fund is stuffed with money from all the years of large surpluses; one hears, correctly, that if nothing is done to grow Social Security, it will be able to pay 75% of benefits indefinitely, beyond 2035.
But, politicians, especially Republicans, don’t consider the Social Security trust fund, the larger accumulated surplus (over 20 trillion), a surplus; they consider it debt, because it has been spent: given to Wall Street and the military industrial complex, mainly. We arrive at the sad irony that America’s working stiffs have been paying the bonuses for all the investment bankers over the years, as well as for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush kept off the books.
And now, we have the sad, smaller irony that the American workers are funding the Obama administration's tiny stimulus program, the lowering of the “payroll tax” (and for employers, too!). We paycheck workers are giving ourselves the puny amounts each month that Obama takes credit for.
And this is what is worse. Everyone is used to the Republicans trying to damage Social Security. But it is the Democrats who need to be watched. They like this “tax” break because it is so “efficient”. No need to cut checks, start a program. Just reduce the amount coming in, and, voila, money in everyone’s pocket. Of course, it is their own money, which is being taken out of their insurance system and will eventually have to be put back – but at what cost? More federal workers furloughed? More Medicaid cuts?
It was too tempting for the Democratic suits in Washington, all that efficiency. They consider it a version of domestic realpolitik. It makes me sick. Their chipping away at the system allows other attacks to wiggle in. They’ve given Social Security one fatal attribute of the touted 401(k) “retirement” program. It can be raided, gotten to when “emergencies” arise, which is why, among other reasons, so many 401(k)s have such small amounts in them at retirement.
Once the Democrats decided to lower the Social Security payroll tax, a thing the Republicans proposed long ago in order to weaken it, they opened up Pandora’s box to other changes. Watch President Obama, even when, as it is likely, he wins a second term, go along with raising the retirement age, without raising the cap on the richest Americans’ contributions; he’ll be applauded by his Wall Street backers.
But, again, the chief irony is that working Americans have been funding the bubble spending, the wars and the bonuses, as George W. Bush merrily spent the Social Security trust fund surplus and now everyone bemoans the deficit and wants to have the people, the workers, who contributed the cash for the bubble, take the hit and change Social Security so they will be paid back less, take the haircut that the Wall Streeters have avoided, all the while giving themselves a Christmas tax break, while the rich continue to give nothing, nothing at all.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Keyes to the Caindom
With any luck, we are counting down to a precious few the last days of Herman Cain. This huckster is coming to the end of his string of charm; the smiling salesman, non-politician politician act will only get you so far in this world. You do need to know a thing or two. Cain, like Clarence Thomas, has profited from the affirmative action culture he decries. Justice Thomas never thought he was being accepted for his own wonderful self. Why would he have been? He needed all sorts of help to get to Holy Cross and the same sort of help to get into Yale’s law school; and the help was there for his generation. But he’s repaid that help with great helpings of scorn and derision. And what has Thomas done of note during his twenty years on the Court, besides being the fifth vote majority for its conservative, right-wing decisions? He is only thwarted when the Court won’t go as far right as he wishes.
Cain’s adoption of Thomas’s troubles, his high-tech lynching rhetorical excuses (and who now thinks Thomas innocent of Anita Hill’s charges?), and Cain’s penchant for attracting serial sexual harassment complaints of employees and potential employees, links them both. When Gloria Allred is on the scene, standing next to some aggrieved bottle blonde, watch out. Her client’s resemblance to Gennifer Flowers is fate’s unique talent for irony on display yet again. But Cain’s feigned ignorance and forgetfulness about what he did and when he didn’t do it is more of his own particular brand of harassing the general public. There’s so much Cain doesn’t know and a lot of it is that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. It’s a sort of Donald Rumsfeld problem; the unknown unknowns of Herman Cain are legion. He gives the equally empty-headed Rick Perry a run for his money.
The current Republican primary process has been a debacle for the entire GOP. This isn’t the first time the primary period has played a critical role. A memorable one was the New York state Senate primary in 1992 on the Democratic side, one that allowed Alfonse D’Amato to have one last term. But destructive primaries are usually carried out on the local level; this is the first one that has been such a disaster on the national scene.
Debates usually have open audiences, and those were often seeded with supporters of the various candidates, but these Republican primary debates appear to have only the most partisan of audiences, which brings about the cheering for the death penalty, leaving the sick to die, and the boos directed toward gay soldiers and the even the mere question to Cain about “character” at the most recent debate on CNBC. This is new, too, and contributes another actor (the audience) to the circus clown show atmosphere.
Alan Keyes use to be the GOP’s carpet-bagging candidate, traveling most anywhere (even to Illinois to run against Barack Obama for Senate), playing the same role as does Cain, to show the “big tent” (pup tent) aspect of the Republican party. African-Americans who pop up in the GOP know they are working the less busy side of the street, where the road to advancement is quicker. Keyes was strange is a creepy way; charm eluded him. His initial connection to the GOP seemed to be the fact that he had been the roommate of Bill Kristol at Harvard, but Keyes was always willing to be the black face in Republican campaigns. He has since devolved down to being an anti-abortion agitator.
Cain is the other side of that GOP coin: the glad-hander, salesman, man of the people. He does not exude the rather too rarified semi-intellectual aura of Keyes. Keyes, like Cain, ran for offices as a business proposition. It didn’t cost him money; it increased his net worth. This duo is the comedy-tragedy face of the Republican party, A-A minority division. Keyes was always too weird to be comedy. I can’t remember him ever cracking a joke and I wrote a lot about him in my 1996 campaign book. He’s the tragic view of life. But Cain is comedy through and through (Princess Nancy!). I’m not sure Mitt Romney will be the last man standing after the GOP freak show primaries are done, but I’m pretty sure his veep pick won’t be coming from the other men and the one woman on the debate stages he’s been sharing.
And Barack Obama will be able to slide through to a second term, if those who voted for him the first time around manage to drag themselves to the voting booths in November of 2012, or, at least, a sufficient percentage of them – except for Bobby Rush, Obama has been exceedingly lucky in his opponents the Republicans have dealt him. But that’s a big if and remains to be seen.
Cain’s adoption of Thomas’s troubles, his high-tech lynching rhetorical excuses (and who now thinks Thomas innocent of Anita Hill’s charges?), and Cain’s penchant for attracting serial sexual harassment complaints of employees and potential employees, links them both. When Gloria Allred is on the scene, standing next to some aggrieved bottle blonde, watch out. Her client’s resemblance to Gennifer Flowers is fate’s unique talent for irony on display yet again. But Cain’s feigned ignorance and forgetfulness about what he did and when he didn’t do it is more of his own particular brand of harassing the general public. There’s so much Cain doesn’t know and a lot of it is that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. It’s a sort of Donald Rumsfeld problem; the unknown unknowns of Herman Cain are legion. He gives the equally empty-headed Rick Perry a run for his money.
The current Republican primary process has been a debacle for the entire GOP. This isn’t the first time the primary period has played a critical role. A memorable one was the New York state Senate primary in 1992 on the Democratic side, one that allowed Alfonse D’Amato to have one last term. But destructive primaries are usually carried out on the local level; this is the first one that has been such a disaster on the national scene.
Debates usually have open audiences, and those were often seeded with supporters of the various candidates, but these Republican primary debates appear to have only the most partisan of audiences, which brings about the cheering for the death penalty, leaving the sick to die, and the boos directed toward gay soldiers and the even the mere question to Cain about “character” at the most recent debate on CNBC. This is new, too, and contributes another actor (the audience) to the circus clown show atmosphere.
Alan Keyes use to be the GOP’s carpet-bagging candidate, traveling most anywhere (even to Illinois to run against Barack Obama for Senate), playing the same role as does Cain, to show the “big tent” (pup tent) aspect of the Republican party. African-Americans who pop up in the GOP know they are working the less busy side of the street, where the road to advancement is quicker. Keyes was strange is a creepy way; charm eluded him. His initial connection to the GOP seemed to be the fact that he had been the roommate of Bill Kristol at Harvard, but Keyes was always willing to be the black face in Republican campaigns. He has since devolved down to being an anti-abortion agitator.
Cain is the other side of that GOP coin: the glad-hander, salesman, man of the people. He does not exude the rather too rarified semi-intellectual aura of Keyes. Keyes, like Cain, ran for offices as a business proposition. It didn’t cost him money; it increased his net worth. This duo is the comedy-tragedy face of the Republican party, A-A minority division. Keyes was always too weird to be comedy. I can’t remember him ever cracking a joke and I wrote a lot about him in my 1996 campaign book. He’s the tragic view of life. But Cain is comedy through and through (Princess Nancy!). I’m not sure Mitt Romney will be the last man standing after the GOP freak show primaries are done, but I’m pretty sure his veep pick won’t be coming from the other men and the one woman on the debate stages he’s been sharing.
And Barack Obama will be able to slide through to a second term, if those who voted for him the first time around manage to drag themselves to the voting booths in November of 2012, or, at least, a sufficient percentage of them – except for Bobby Rush, Obama has been exceedingly lucky in his opponents the Republicans have dealt him. But that’s a big if and remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)