AMERICANUS MELLIVORA CAPENSIS
To fully appreciate this blog post, you should first view the YouTube.com video on honey badgers...here ==> video.
Assuming your stomach is strong enough to get through the video, it is hard not to admire the sheer tenacity of the honey badger, whose native home is Africa and parts of Southwest Asia. The honey badger is, as they say, bad-ass. Some wildlife biologists have classified the honey badger as, pound-for-pound, the most ferocious creature on earth. Even in defeat, it will often inflict so much damage on its rival that both will die when the fighting is over. Its hard not to see similarities with our current political conflict between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
In about one-in-three presidential elections the American electorate is treated to what I call a "honey badger candidate." This is a candidate that can summarized by one simple motto: "Either you die, or we both die." In 1992, it was Ross Perot and his prey was George H. W. Bush. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his target was Al Gore. And, in 2012, the Republicans are blessed to have their own honey badger candidate, Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich will probably not win the Republican nomination, and Mitt Romney probably will. But just as a honey badger will attack and eat a highly venomous snake like the puff adder, even at the risk of losing its own life in the process, such is the dynamic we now see in the Republican nomination fight. Newt is not the kind of man to put up a good fight, concede defeat, and then stand on the dais at the Republican convention with his arm around Mitt and endorse his formal rival for president. Nope. It's just not in his DNA. He will fight for this nomination until he wins, or they both lose.
Contrast Gingrich with Hillary Clinton in 2008 who had a much better chance at winning her party's nomination. Yet, even after all of the cynical dissembling and sometimes petty accusations that transpired during the Democratic nomination race (much of it coming from Bill Clinton), Hillary did not bring down her party's nominee. She was always going to get in line behind her party's candidate, even if her heart wasn't completely in it. That is not how the 2012 Republican nomination will end.
Yes, Gingrich will eventually concede. Once Romney has the delegates, there is not much else he can do. And Newt will not mount a third party candidacy (which is entirely possible with the "other honey badger candidate" in this race, Ron Paul). To do that would be counter to Newt's primary motivation which is to vanquish a man he believes is merely posing as a conservative in order to win the Republican nomination.
In Newt's world, it is not the opposition candidate (Obama) that most threatens the political balance of nature. After all, conservatives need Democrats like Obama to draw their contrasts and to justify their existence. Obama serves a purpose. He makes their brand of conservatism relevant. Romney does not. Instead, Romney is the ultimate existential threat. And Newt knows that. And that is why Newt will allow for only one of two outcomes in 2012: either he wins the Republican nomination, or both he and Mitt go down together. There is no other acceptable outcome for a honey badger.
GLOBAL WARMING: GEORGE CARLIN'S "EARTH PLUS PLASTIC" ROUTINE
Regardless of your opinion regarding global warming, it's hard not to laugh at the late-George Carlin's classic bit on the subject. His view was so offensive at the time that members of his own audience started to turn on him during the middle of the routine (if you listen close enough at the 1:48 point, you can hear people yelling back at George). Nonetheless, regardless of your point of view on global warming, sit back for just a moment and enjoy one of our country's great comic geniuses:
GEORGE CARLIN ON GLOBAL WARMING
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
GINGRICH PATH TO NOMINATION DIFFICULT...BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE
Gingrich may actually win SC. Predictably, the mainstream media (and blogosphere) are dismissing Gingrich's potential to win the Republican nomination and reminding us that conventional wisdom says the eventual Republican nominee will be the person with the best organization and big campaign bank account: That would be Mitt Romney. (Here are just a couple of those dismissals of Gingrich: Click Here and Here) I tend to believe conventional wisdom on this.
However, this may be the year conventional wisdom gets turned upside down. Remember, the Republicans have increased the percentage of conventional delegates allocated through proportional voting; in part, because of complaints after the 2008 election McCain wrapped it up far too early given the number of Republicans dissatisfied with their eventual 2008 nominee. Bottom line: The probability that Romney wins the nomination on the first ballot is still high, but not as high as it would have been in earlier elections.
So, for the time being, let's try the alternative history approach. How could Gingrich still win this thing (and Santorum as well). Obviously, the first step for Gingrich is to win South Carolina and Florida. Neither are easy for Gingrich to win (especially Florida) but, for argument's sake, let us assume that he does win both.
However, this may be the year conventional wisdom gets turned upside down. Remember, the Republicans have increased the percentage of conventional delegates allocated through proportional voting; in part, because of complaints after the 2008 election McCain wrapped it up far too early given the number of Republicans dissatisfied with their eventual 2008 nominee. Bottom line: The probability that Romney wins the nomination on the first ballot is still high, but not as high as it would have been in earlier elections.
So, for the time being, let's try the alternative history approach. How could Gingrich still win this thing (and Santorum as well). Obviously, the first step for Gingrich is to win South Carolina and Florida. Neither are easy for Gingrich to win (especially Florida) but, for argument's sake, let us assume that he does win both.
Don't forget during Gingrich's first surge, polls in Florida swung dramatically in his favor. He can win Florida, but even if he does, he walks out of there with little organization nationally and significantly less money than Romney. Whereas in South Carolina and Florida, Gingrich can debate his way into victory (in lieu of having organizational or money), but that strategy doesn't work after Florida. After Florida, it's Super Tuesday and that, as in the past, requires an ground game that only money and organization can provide.
But, what if? What if after a Florida victory, Gingrich receives the endorsements of Republican governors, state legislators and congressman that weren't in Washington when Gingrich was the Speaker. They don't the experiences with the "bad" Gingrich Version 1.0, they only know Gingrich 2.0 (or perhaps he's up to Version 3.0 now). With these endorsements comes the money. It's too late the build the organization that matches Romney's. But it is not too late to build the media campaign to match Romney's. With new money post-Florida, Gingrich (or Santorum) can compete all the way through early June and that includes the big states (minus Virginia, of course).
This may be the first Republican presidential nomination process that re-writes the old assumptions about the importance of organization and money. Ask Hillary Clinton about how the Democratic nomination process has changed in her lifetime. The watershed moment for the Democrats was Jesse Jackson in 1984. In that nomination race, Jackson received 21 percent of the popular vote but only 8 percent of the delegates. Jackson, personally, made sure the Democrats changed the relationship between votes and delegates in future Democratic nomination races. Barack Obama is the direct beneficiary of Jackson's efforts. And Newt Gingrich may benefit in a similar way.
Intrade.com says Gingrich has a 25% percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. That sounds about right.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
PIPELINES, OPEN MARRIAGES, and TEXAS INTERLOPERS: JUST ANOTHER MONTH IN U.S. POLITICS
It's been awhile since I last posted to this blog. As I can see from my last blog, I was reporting that Ron Paul was becoming the clear favorite to win the Iowa Republican Caucus. How did that work out? To be honest, I was an eager participant in the January 3rd Iowa Caucus and have a few thoughts to share on that experience, but that must wait for a few paragraphs so I can react to some more recent events. Where to start?
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REJECTS KEYSTONE OIL SANDS PIPELINE
To me, Obama's rejecting the Keystone pipeline is the most important event in presidential politics so far this year (story here). Yes, even more so than the apparent Santorum win in Iowa or the potential upset of Romney in South Carolina by Newt "Look honey, think of my as an uncommitted delegate to our marriage" Gingrich. Within the political operative arena, David Axelrod and his political staff still bask in their glory of their 2008 victory. And rightfully so. The defeat of the Clinton machine and solid (if not overwhelming) defeat of John McCain and Sarah Palin cemented Axelrod's reputation as a shrewd political strategist.
But, as with any electoral victory, with the victors follows the myth. The 2008 presidential election was handmade for a Democratic victory. If Hillary wins the nomination, we'd be talking about her reelection campaign right now. Even her defeat in the nomination battle was as much about her flaws as it was about Obama's qualities. Axelrod's brilliance was recognizing that the opportunity was now for his inexperienced candidate, who otherwise should have waited until 2012 or 2016 to run on the top of the ticket. Axelrod saw the void and had the candidate to fill it. Axelrod's kudos are therefore well-deserved. But now the Keystone decision.
The New York Times/CBS Poll released today highlights the problem for Obama. He is not doing well enough among "swing voters" to win this election. Thirty-one percent favorability among these voters will mean defeat in November. As my simple economic model of presidential election outcomes suggests, for every 0.1 percent drop in the unemployment rate, Obama's chance of reelection goes up about 10 percent. Right now, at 8.5 percent unemployment, Obama still has roughly a 45 percent chance of reelection. So, it is possible that President Obama can sit tight and watch the unemployment rate drop 3 or 4 more tenths of a percent and he will be sitting in a good position come November.
That said, the NYT/CBS Poll should send chills down the collective spines of Obama's Chicago brain trust. In Iowa, "swing voters" make the state competitive in almost every single presidential election. [My prediction: If Obama loses Iowa, he cannot win reelection]. But the narrative emerging rapidly from the Keystone pipeline rejection is that Obama cares more about environmental lobby interests, than the interests of working-class Americans. This narrative doesn't require Fox News for its creation and propagation. This storyline bubbles up from every small-city coffeeshop in Middle America right now. "Swing voters" aren't focused on the potential impact of the Keystone pipeline on the Ogalala Aquifer. Do these environmentalists understand the energy requirements to sustain the world economy going into the future? Our economy is vulnerable to the upward price pressures exerted by the rapidly growing energy appetites of China, Brazil and India (and many other non-European developing economies). We, as a country, cannot afford to under-utilize existing energy resources in our region because of the potential damage to the Ogalala Aquifer.
To be fair, Canadian oil (particularly shale oil) is relatively expensive and dirty compared to Saudi oil. It's is not the guaranteed game-changer that the oil companies want you to believe it is. Nonetheless, to not exploit it will look stupid in retrospect, especially if the world dips into another, probably more severe, economic recession when we realize there is not enough easy (and cheap) oil to power the growth of our world economy. China will mine every ounce of coal, pump every barrel of oil, and build every cheap nuke power plant it can, in order to keep its economy going. There are environmentalists in China too. And they have real power. Chinese leaders can see, as anyone that has visited China can attest, that China's environment is over-stressed and, in the long-run, will hurt China's future growth. Still, the Chinese Communist Party believes it cannot pursue current growth and develop a strategy for limiting the environmental damage caused by this growth. Good luck.
The Washington environmental lobbyists I met while living in Washington, D.C. were exceedingly bright, ambitious, and largely un-hypocritcal. They recycled. They made people like me feel guilty for not recycling. They drove hybrids (like I do). They promoted environmental education in the schools. They lived what they believed. To their personal satisfaction at least.
But, let's be honest. When you pack up your 45 MPG Prius on the weekend to go biking around the well-developed bike paths and trails of the Virginia Appalachian mountains (that, by the way, require you to drive up a four-lane interstate highway that barrels through some of the prettiest terrain in this country and required untold millions of gallons of gasoline to build); stop off on your way at Starbucks for some cafe lattes (yes, it is a stereotype, but also dead accurate); and then regale yourselves on your cardiovascular exploits while dining at the most convenient chain restaurant you can find late night along Interstate 66 --- you appear utterly self-serving and short-sighted to those working class people who need jobs -- like the jobs that come with building a pipeline right through the heart of the Ogalala Aquifer.
Check out George Carlin's take on environmentalism. I particularly love his point regarding 'plastics' starting at the 5 min. 18 sec. mark: http://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4
Mr. Obama, you're not just pissing off Republicans when you play a bureaucratic game of red-light/green-light with the Canadian and American oil industry, you are alienating your 2008 coalition. But what must be so frustrating for Obama supporters is that Obama knows he is playing a high-stakes, high-wire act. "Let's placate the environmental lobbyists now because we may have to throw them under the bus later." It may work. And if it does, Axelrod is more of a genius than he is already given credit.
But my money is on it not working. The move is too cynical for a country already numb on political cynicism. And its not just the Koch brothers and Fox News that will trumpet that conclusion. It will be the "swing voters" you will need to win reelection.
[This final thought: the land between Canada and Texas is FUGLY. Build all the pipelines (and windmills) you want as far as I'm concerned. Those of you from pretty parts of the U.S. that are forced to drive through this region of our country know what I'm talking about. This is not a part of the country that needs its beauty preserved. And aquifers have proven to be resilient to human development. So, build, baby, build.]
GINGRICH WANTED AN OPEN MARRIAGE...AND THE NEWS HERE IS WHAT?
Nobody is a bigger Gingrich-basher than I am. He is a moral toad. But like many, I admire his candor (for example, his nuanced debate answer regarding amnesty for illegal aliens) and even when he is historically inaccurate and insensitive, such as his tone-deaf attempt to explain the history of Palestinians, I enjoy the intellectual exercise. You don't have to be right to be interesting. That defines Newt Gingrich for me.
Like Bill Clinton, he is not a good husband. Unlike Clinton, he does not engender loyalty and respect from his peers. Newt Gingrich will not win the Republican nomination because of this latter problem. Therefore, all he can do is delay Romney from getting the nomination. My analysis certainly isn't new on this issue. [My conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin wants Gingrich and Santorum to do well enough to prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot so she can ride in and unite the Republican right and win the nomination herself is relatively novel, however. Someone, please ask Bill Kristol if this theory is crazy?]
But Gingrich continues to represent the idealistic wing of the Republican Party that is itself divided into two distinct camps: social/religious conservatives and the anti-government Tea Party faction. Yes, they overlap somewhat. And, yes, Ron Paul slices off the isolationist portion of the Tea Party faction (about 10-15 percent of Republican voters). But a morally upstanding version of Gingrich could have united the two camps. The Gingrich we have cannot.
What about Santorum? I was impressed with his last debate performance. Like many, I dismissed him in Iowa, even after the evangelical community coalesced around him. But he is attractive to the social conservative wing, even if it doesn't excite them the way Palin excites them. If he found a way to reach out to the Tea Party without alienating social conservatives, he could be the Romney alternative going forward (similar to Governor Huckabee's stalking of McCain in 2008). But, the recent South Carolina polls don't seem to show any signs of a Santorum surge. Ego vobis valedico, Rick. (That applies to Rick Perry too.)
AND NOW TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES...
Finally, my Iowa Caucus experience. It was Dickens-like. My night at the Iowa Republican Caucus (Precinct 67) offered the best of American politics...and the worst. The fact that I couldn't find the caucus site (as there were no signs to help you find it!), meant I started the night started in my negative place. To then have to sit and listen to a Ron Paul supporter pontificate about the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve for 15 minutes put me deeper into my negative place. And then to see a young kid, a boy to my eyes, stand up and announce he was the "precinct chairman" meant I was in a fully-reclined position in my negative place at the start of the caucus.
[Note to Ron Paul: I love you, man. I love your anti-war stance; your anti-Big government stance; and your consistency regarding freedom and liberty. You are 70 percent right about most things -- which puts you ahead of every politician in this country except maybe Jerry Brown. But, sir, your supporters sometimes come across as kooky. Frankly, you are a bit kooky, in a fun, grandfather-like way. But your supporters, with their tendency to dwell on things like Federal Reserve conspiracies, makes their kookiness start to venture into Lyndon LaRouche-territory. Just be aware of the issue. No need to thank me.]
Once the preliminary, bureaucratic stuff was out of the way, things improved. Eventually, the Precinct 67 caucus goers divided into their respective candidate groups to pick someone to speak on behalf of their candidate. I went to the caucus intending to vote for John Huntsman. As not a single soul at my caucus appeared to support Huntsman, I gravitated to the group that was closest to me...the Ron Paul supporters. Who I probably would have called my second choice anyway, given the choices that night. So we picked our speakers, who, across all of the candidate groups, tended to be person with the loudest, most obnoxious personality. But not always the case.
For Michelle Bachmann, who I think is the most attractive U.S. politician since....Mitt Romney, her speaker probably didn't do her any favors. He was an older gentlemen with a low-register voice and a tendency to slur his words. He read from a script sent via email the previous evening to Michelle's supporters. Her campaign sent out two versions of the script: a 1-minute version and a 5-minute version. Unfortunately, her supporter in Precinct 67 chose to read the 5-minute version. When he was done (at about the 7 minute point), the applause was polite and, as someone who didn't have the courage to stand up and defend his own candidate, I didn't have any grounds on which to judge him. If I thought he was actually drunk as he read the script, I think I would have switched my support to Bachmann. As it was, I stuck with Ron Paul. Bachmann had 4 supporters this night (out of 121 caucus goers).
Next up were two Gingrich supporters. This is when things really improved. When I started to think, "Damn, this is a how a democracy is supposed to work." Ironically, both Gingrich speakers looked like Newt Gingrich -- short, fat and gray on top of the noggin. Oh, and very articulate and interesting. The first Gingrich speaker spoke without notes or preparation. He gave an honest assessment of his candidate's flaws (...the many marriages, alienating his party when he was Speaker, sitting down with Nancy Pelosi and acting like he cared about the environment enough to do something about it...bad stuff like that.). He then launched into a well-spoken dissertation about the need for a president to have intellectual strength and flexibility: two qualities he felt his candidate has in abundance. This was a Republican talking! Flexibility? Did this guy not get the message after 2008? The Republican Party excommunicates anyone who doesn't stick to "our core conservative values," as Sean Hannity likes to call them. Such admonitions are then generally followed by some reference to Ronald Reagan (who happened to be incredibly flexible when governing, though not appearing to be so on the campaign stump).
The second Gingrich speaker was equally articulate and engaging. He was also short, fat and professorially gray. When he was done, it was hard not to notice a number of people murmuring things like, "It makes me almost support Newt." Of course, only 10 actually did support Newt. So much for good speeches.
Next up were two female and youngish Rick Perry supporters....from Texas! What? Don't you have to be from Iowa to vote in the Iowa Caucus? Apparently not. They had an apartment on Ingersoll Avenue (and a utility bill to prove it) and were looking forward to moving to "warmer" South Carolina that month (not to vote, of course, but to work on the campaign). I won't question the logic of how both major political parties in Iowa set such a low standard for participation in the Caucus. I understand. In Iowa, we're happy anyone would want to come to Iowa. Please, visit anytime. Want to vote too? Go right ahead. Please, take one of our smart children before you go. [I'm kidding! I love Iowa. If I can borrow the Coen brothers description of Minnesota, Iowa is Siberia with family style restaurants.]
Back to the Caucus. I don't even remember the Perry speeches. They meandered. Kind of like him during a debate (..that is, the early debates. He got better later on. I even thought his last one in South Carolina was pitch perfect for his style. Don't count they guy out in 2016. Yeah, I said 2016: Clinton versus Perry.). In the end, Perry received two votes in Precinct 67. The two people that stood up to speak! I guess during the speaker selection break-out, their decision wasn't who would speak, but the speaking order.
The Ron Paul supporters were next in line to speak. Two young men, apparently students at the local medical school, stood before the crowd. Awkward and confident. With an opening line that I would have counseled against, the first young man said, "I voted for Barack Obama in 2008." OK, he lost the audience and it was pretty much downhill from there....even the parts where I agreed with the kid made me squirm. "Young man, I appreciate your anti-war stance," I thought, "but you need to think about your audience here." This speech would kill (in a good way) at the Unitarian Church on Bell Avenue. At the St. Augustin Church School auditorium, during the Republican Caucus, its a buzz kill. "No suicide bomber has ever come from a country that hasn't been occupied by Americans!" he said sanctimoniously. Totally and utterly untrue, but I understood his point.
His follow-up act was no better. He emphasized less the imprudence of "foreign occupations," preferring instead to focus on U.S. monetary policy and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Again, I don't disagree with the general argument that recent U.S. monetary policy will have an adverse impact on the U.S. standard of living going forward. It's just the there is something about the stridency of youth that makes even reasoned arguments sound impetuous and ill-considered. Had one of the two Gingrich guys given the same speech, I would probably be applauding it. As it was, I found it annoying to hear an argument about monetary policy during the LBJ administration coming from a pimply-faced kid born during the Reagan administration. But, those were my guys so I applauded louder for them than anyone else during the evening. Being a Ron Paul supporter is kind of like being a Packer fan right now. I can criticize Aaron Rodgers and the Packer preparation against the Giants, but don't anybody from the outside dare take a shot at my team. Unlike the Packers, however, Ron Paul won his contest in Precinct 67 with 50 votes.
Last up were the Santorum and Romney speakers. I won't dwell on what the Santorum supporters said because they basically said, "We don't really know this guy, but we were told to come here and vote for him." I'm paraphrasing....a lot, I suppose. But one of the Santorum supporters did admit to me that they hadn't even heard of the guy until two nights before the Caucus. The Iowa evangelical robo-machine was worth 17 votes for Santorum in Precinct 67 this night.
Finally, the Romney supporters. Like Romney himself, anything his supporters said this night has been long forgotten by me. It was bland, inoffensive, and used the term "private sector" a lot. In the end, 38 people wrote "Romney" on their voting card. Good enough for a second place showing in Precinct 67.
As sarcastic as I probably seem now, I walked away that night feeling very positive about the democratic process, Iowa, and even the Republican party. Unlike the national party rhetoric (or what you hear on a given night on Fox News), there is great diversity of opinion within the Republican party. These are relatively wealthy Republicans living in Precinct 67 in Des Moines, Iowa. A relatively homogeneous community (those Texas carpetbaggers, notwithstanding) but with many experiences and points of view. The inflexibility you see at the national level isn't necessarily a reflection of public opinion. What I saw at the local level was not consistent with the unwarranted level of cheers I hear from the debate crowds when their candidate delivers an impassioned, usually well-rehearsed, applause line that is more demagogic than decorous or enlightening.
I always get annoyed when I hear today's pundits suggest our nation's political discourse is at an all-time low. It may be true. We do have evidence that our representatives are more ideological than ever and that they vote along party lines more than ever. I could be convinced as well that our leaders have lowered the public discourse in the last ten years (or perhaps twenty-five years...pretty much since Gingrich became a national figure in the last 1980s ironically enough). But I don't believe it reflects public opinion and I don't believe it is sustainable. The quality of our public discourse has an equilibrium that eventually our politicians will rediscover. Our imperfect democracy, that more often than not seems to disproportionately benefit a few, also has hardwired into it mechanisms that occasionally brings the hammer down on those that promote these injustices. That does not bode well for the current leaders of the Republican party, but based on the people I met in Precinct 67 (including the two Texas interlopers), I think there is always room for hope. Did I just say, 'hope'?! Oh shit, I think they're going to take away my Republican membership card. But don't worry. If I show up at the caucus in four years with my utility bill, I'll be back in good stead with the party.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REJECTS KEYSTONE OIL SANDS PIPELINE
To me, Obama's rejecting the Keystone pipeline is the most important event in presidential politics so far this year (story here). Yes, even more so than the apparent Santorum win in Iowa or the potential upset of Romney in South Carolina by Newt "Look honey, think of my as an uncommitted delegate to our marriage" Gingrich. Within the political operative arena, David Axelrod and his political staff still bask in their glory of their 2008 victory. And rightfully so. The defeat of the Clinton machine and solid (if not overwhelming) defeat of John McCain and Sarah Palin cemented Axelrod's reputation as a shrewd political strategist.
But, as with any electoral victory, with the victors follows the myth. The 2008 presidential election was handmade for a Democratic victory. If Hillary wins the nomination, we'd be talking about her reelection campaign right now. Even her defeat in the nomination battle was as much about her flaws as it was about Obama's qualities. Axelrod's brilliance was recognizing that the opportunity was now for his inexperienced candidate, who otherwise should have waited until 2012 or 2016 to run on the top of the ticket. Axelrod saw the void and had the candidate to fill it. Axelrod's kudos are therefore well-deserved. But now the Keystone decision.
The New York Times/CBS Poll released today highlights the problem for Obama. He is not doing well enough among "swing voters" to win this election. Thirty-one percent favorability among these voters will mean defeat in November. As my simple economic model of presidential election outcomes suggests, for every 0.1 percent drop in the unemployment rate, Obama's chance of reelection goes up about 10 percent. Right now, at 8.5 percent unemployment, Obama still has roughly a 45 percent chance of reelection. So, it is possible that President Obama can sit tight and watch the unemployment rate drop 3 or 4 more tenths of a percent and he will be sitting in a good position come November.
That said, the NYT/CBS Poll should send chills down the collective spines of Obama's Chicago brain trust. In Iowa, "swing voters" make the state competitive in almost every single presidential election. [My prediction: If Obama loses Iowa, he cannot win reelection]. But the narrative emerging rapidly from the Keystone pipeline rejection is that Obama cares more about environmental lobby interests, than the interests of working-class Americans. This narrative doesn't require Fox News for its creation and propagation. This storyline bubbles up from every small-city coffeeshop in Middle America right now. "Swing voters" aren't focused on the potential impact of the Keystone pipeline on the Ogalala Aquifer. Do these environmentalists understand the energy requirements to sustain the world economy going into the future? Our economy is vulnerable to the upward price pressures exerted by the rapidly growing energy appetites of China, Brazil and India (and many other non-European developing economies). We, as a country, cannot afford to under-utilize existing energy resources in our region because of the potential damage to the Ogalala Aquifer.
To be fair, Canadian oil (particularly shale oil) is relatively expensive and dirty compared to Saudi oil. It's is not the guaranteed game-changer that the oil companies want you to believe it is. Nonetheless, to not exploit it will look stupid in retrospect, especially if the world dips into another, probably more severe, economic recession when we realize there is not enough easy (and cheap) oil to power the growth of our world economy. China will mine every ounce of coal, pump every barrel of oil, and build every cheap nuke power plant it can, in order to keep its economy going. There are environmentalists in China too. And they have real power. Chinese leaders can see, as anyone that has visited China can attest, that China's environment is over-stressed and, in the long-run, will hurt China's future growth. Still, the Chinese Communist Party believes it cannot pursue current growth and develop a strategy for limiting the environmental damage caused by this growth. Good luck.
The Washington environmental lobbyists I met while living in Washington, D.C. were exceedingly bright, ambitious, and largely un-hypocritcal. They recycled. They made people like me feel guilty for not recycling. They drove hybrids (like I do). They promoted environmental education in the schools. They lived what they believed. To their personal satisfaction at least.
But, let's be honest. When you pack up your 45 MPG Prius on the weekend to go biking around the well-developed bike paths and trails of the Virginia Appalachian mountains (that, by the way, require you to drive up a four-lane interstate highway that barrels through some of the prettiest terrain in this country and required untold millions of gallons of gasoline to build); stop off on your way at Starbucks for some cafe lattes (yes, it is a stereotype, but also dead accurate); and then regale yourselves on your cardiovascular exploits while dining at the most convenient chain restaurant you can find late night along Interstate 66 --- you appear utterly self-serving and short-sighted to those working class people who need jobs -- like the jobs that come with building a pipeline right through the heart of the Ogalala Aquifer.
Check out George Carlin's take on environmentalism. I particularly love his point regarding 'plastics' starting at the 5 min. 18 sec. mark: http://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4
Mr. Obama, you're not just pissing off Republicans when you play a bureaucratic game of red-light/green-light with the Canadian and American oil industry, you are alienating your 2008 coalition. But what must be so frustrating for Obama supporters is that Obama knows he is playing a high-stakes, high-wire act. "Let's placate the environmental lobbyists now because we may have to throw them under the bus later." It may work. And if it does, Axelrod is more of a genius than he is already given credit.
But my money is on it not working. The move is too cynical for a country already numb on political cynicism. And its not just the Koch brothers and Fox News that will trumpet that conclusion. It will be the "swing voters" you will need to win reelection.
[This final thought: the land between Canada and Texas is FUGLY. Build all the pipelines (and windmills) you want as far as I'm concerned. Those of you from pretty parts of the U.S. that are forced to drive through this region of our country know what I'm talking about. This is not a part of the country that needs its beauty preserved. And aquifers have proven to be resilient to human development. So, build, baby, build.]
GINGRICH WANTED AN OPEN MARRIAGE...AND THE NEWS HERE IS WHAT?
Nobody is a bigger Gingrich-basher than I am. He is a moral toad. But like many, I admire his candor (for example, his nuanced debate answer regarding amnesty for illegal aliens) and even when he is historically inaccurate and insensitive, such as his tone-deaf attempt to explain the history of Palestinians, I enjoy the intellectual exercise. You don't have to be right to be interesting. That defines Newt Gingrich for me.
Like Bill Clinton, he is not a good husband. Unlike Clinton, he does not engender loyalty and respect from his peers. Newt Gingrich will not win the Republican nomination because of this latter problem. Therefore, all he can do is delay Romney from getting the nomination. My analysis certainly isn't new on this issue. [My conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin wants Gingrich and Santorum to do well enough to prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot so she can ride in and unite the Republican right and win the nomination herself is relatively novel, however. Someone, please ask Bill Kristol if this theory is crazy?]
But Gingrich continues to represent the idealistic wing of the Republican Party that is itself divided into two distinct camps: social/religious conservatives and the anti-government Tea Party faction. Yes, they overlap somewhat. And, yes, Ron Paul slices off the isolationist portion of the Tea Party faction (about 10-15 percent of Republican voters). But a morally upstanding version of Gingrich could have united the two camps. The Gingrich we have cannot.
What about Santorum? I was impressed with his last debate performance. Like many, I dismissed him in Iowa, even after the evangelical community coalesced around him. But he is attractive to the social conservative wing, even if it doesn't excite them the way Palin excites them. If he found a way to reach out to the Tea Party without alienating social conservatives, he could be the Romney alternative going forward (similar to Governor Huckabee's stalking of McCain in 2008). But, the recent South Carolina polls don't seem to show any signs of a Santorum surge. Ego vobis valedico, Rick. (That applies to Rick Perry too.)
AND NOW TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES...
Finally, my Iowa Caucus experience. It was Dickens-like. My night at the Iowa Republican Caucus (Precinct 67) offered the best of American politics...and the worst. The fact that I couldn't find the caucus site (as there were no signs to help you find it!), meant I started the night started in my negative place. To then have to sit and listen to a Ron Paul supporter pontificate about the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve for 15 minutes put me deeper into my negative place. And then to see a young kid, a boy to my eyes, stand up and announce he was the "precinct chairman" meant I was in a fully-reclined position in my negative place at the start of the caucus.
[Note to Ron Paul: I love you, man. I love your anti-war stance; your anti-Big government stance; and your consistency regarding freedom and liberty. You are 70 percent right about most things -- which puts you ahead of every politician in this country except maybe Jerry Brown. But, sir, your supporters sometimes come across as kooky. Frankly, you are a bit kooky, in a fun, grandfather-like way. But your supporters, with their tendency to dwell on things like Federal Reserve conspiracies, makes their kookiness start to venture into Lyndon LaRouche-territory. Just be aware of the issue. No need to thank me.]
Once the preliminary, bureaucratic stuff was out of the way, things improved. Eventually, the Precinct 67 caucus goers divided into their respective candidate groups to pick someone to speak on behalf of their candidate. I went to the caucus intending to vote for John Huntsman. As not a single soul at my caucus appeared to support Huntsman, I gravitated to the group that was closest to me...the Ron Paul supporters. Who I probably would have called my second choice anyway, given the choices that night. So we picked our speakers, who, across all of the candidate groups, tended to be person with the loudest, most obnoxious personality. But not always the case.
For Michelle Bachmann, who I think is the most attractive U.S. politician since....Mitt Romney, her speaker probably didn't do her any favors. He was an older gentlemen with a low-register voice and a tendency to slur his words. He read from a script sent via email the previous evening to Michelle's supporters. Her campaign sent out two versions of the script: a 1-minute version and a 5-minute version. Unfortunately, her supporter in Precinct 67 chose to read the 5-minute version. When he was done (at about the 7 minute point), the applause was polite and, as someone who didn't have the courage to stand up and defend his own candidate, I didn't have any grounds on which to judge him. If I thought he was actually drunk as he read the script, I think I would have switched my support to Bachmann. As it was, I stuck with Ron Paul. Bachmann had 4 supporters this night (out of 121 caucus goers).
Next up were two Gingrich supporters. This is when things really improved. When I started to think, "Damn, this is a how a democracy is supposed to work." Ironically, both Gingrich speakers looked like Newt Gingrich -- short, fat and gray on top of the noggin. Oh, and very articulate and interesting. The first Gingrich speaker spoke without notes or preparation. He gave an honest assessment of his candidate's flaws (...the many marriages, alienating his party when he was Speaker, sitting down with Nancy Pelosi and acting like he cared about the environment enough to do something about it...bad stuff like that.). He then launched into a well-spoken dissertation about the need for a president to have intellectual strength and flexibility: two qualities he felt his candidate has in abundance. This was a Republican talking! Flexibility? Did this guy not get the message after 2008? The Republican Party excommunicates anyone who doesn't stick to "our core conservative values," as Sean Hannity likes to call them. Such admonitions are then generally followed by some reference to Ronald Reagan (who happened to be incredibly flexible when governing, though not appearing to be so on the campaign stump).
The second Gingrich speaker was equally articulate and engaging. He was also short, fat and professorially gray. When he was done, it was hard not to notice a number of people murmuring things like, "It makes me almost support Newt." Of course, only 10 actually did support Newt. So much for good speeches.
Next up were two female and youngish Rick Perry supporters....from Texas! What? Don't you have to be from Iowa to vote in the Iowa Caucus? Apparently not. They had an apartment on Ingersoll Avenue (and a utility bill to prove it) and were looking forward to moving to "warmer" South Carolina that month (not to vote, of course, but to work on the campaign). I won't question the logic of how both major political parties in Iowa set such a low standard for participation in the Caucus. I understand. In Iowa, we're happy anyone would want to come to Iowa. Please, visit anytime. Want to vote too? Go right ahead. Please, take one of our smart children before you go. [I'm kidding! I love Iowa. If I can borrow the Coen brothers description of Minnesota, Iowa is Siberia with family style restaurants.]
Back to the Caucus. I don't even remember the Perry speeches. They meandered. Kind of like him during a debate (..that is, the early debates. He got better later on. I even thought his last one in South Carolina was pitch perfect for his style. Don't count they guy out in 2016. Yeah, I said 2016: Clinton versus Perry.). In the end, Perry received two votes in Precinct 67. The two people that stood up to speak! I guess during the speaker selection break-out, their decision wasn't who would speak, but the speaking order.
The Ron Paul supporters were next in line to speak. Two young men, apparently students at the local medical school, stood before the crowd. Awkward and confident. With an opening line that I would have counseled against, the first young man said, "I voted for Barack Obama in 2008." OK, he lost the audience and it was pretty much downhill from there....even the parts where I agreed with the kid made me squirm. "Young man, I appreciate your anti-war stance," I thought, "but you need to think about your audience here." This speech would kill (in a good way) at the Unitarian Church on Bell Avenue. At the St. Augustin Church School auditorium, during the Republican Caucus, its a buzz kill. "No suicide bomber has ever come from a country that hasn't been occupied by Americans!" he said sanctimoniously. Totally and utterly untrue, but I understood his point.
His follow-up act was no better. He emphasized less the imprudence of "foreign occupations," preferring instead to focus on U.S. monetary policy and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Again, I don't disagree with the general argument that recent U.S. monetary policy will have an adverse impact on the U.S. standard of living going forward. It's just the there is something about the stridency of youth that makes even reasoned arguments sound impetuous and ill-considered. Had one of the two Gingrich guys given the same speech, I would probably be applauding it. As it was, I found it annoying to hear an argument about monetary policy during the LBJ administration coming from a pimply-faced kid born during the Reagan administration. But, those were my guys so I applauded louder for them than anyone else during the evening. Being a Ron Paul supporter is kind of like being a Packer fan right now. I can criticize Aaron Rodgers and the Packer preparation against the Giants, but don't anybody from the outside dare take a shot at my team. Unlike the Packers, however, Ron Paul won his contest in Precinct 67 with 50 votes.
Last up were the Santorum and Romney speakers. I won't dwell on what the Santorum supporters said because they basically said, "We don't really know this guy, but we were told to come here and vote for him." I'm paraphrasing....a lot, I suppose. But one of the Santorum supporters did admit to me that they hadn't even heard of the guy until two nights before the Caucus. The Iowa evangelical robo-machine was worth 17 votes for Santorum in Precinct 67 this night.
Finally, the Romney supporters. Like Romney himself, anything his supporters said this night has been long forgotten by me. It was bland, inoffensive, and used the term "private sector" a lot. In the end, 38 people wrote "Romney" on their voting card. Good enough for a second place showing in Precinct 67.
As sarcastic as I probably seem now, I walked away that night feeling very positive about the democratic process, Iowa, and even the Republican party. Unlike the national party rhetoric (or what you hear on a given night on Fox News), there is great diversity of opinion within the Republican party. These are relatively wealthy Republicans living in Precinct 67 in Des Moines, Iowa. A relatively homogeneous community (those Texas carpetbaggers, notwithstanding) but with many experiences and points of view. The inflexibility you see at the national level isn't necessarily a reflection of public opinion. What I saw at the local level was not consistent with the unwarranted level of cheers I hear from the debate crowds when their candidate delivers an impassioned, usually well-rehearsed, applause line that is more demagogic than decorous or enlightening.
I always get annoyed when I hear today's pundits suggest our nation's political discourse is at an all-time low. It may be true. We do have evidence that our representatives are more ideological than ever and that they vote along party lines more than ever. I could be convinced as well that our leaders have lowered the public discourse in the last ten years (or perhaps twenty-five years...pretty much since Gingrich became a national figure in the last 1980s ironically enough). But I don't believe it reflects public opinion and I don't believe it is sustainable. The quality of our public discourse has an equilibrium that eventually our politicians will rediscover. Our imperfect democracy, that more often than not seems to disproportionately benefit a few, also has hardwired into it mechanisms that occasionally brings the hammer down on those that promote these injustices. That does not bode well for the current leaders of the Republican party, but based on the people I met in Precinct 67 (including the two Texas interlopers), I think there is always room for hope. Did I just say, 'hope'?! Oh shit, I think they're going to take away my Republican membership card. But don't worry. If I show up at the caucus in four years with my utility bill, I'll be back in good stead with the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)