Tag Archives: US presidency

Day 31: Republican Party Chaos

8 Oct 2016 By in Candidates and Campaigns Tags: , , , , , , , , 4 Comments

A serious fissure (Hawaii), © 2016 Susan Barsy
Today the signs of institutional chaos within the Republican Party are growing.  The fragmentation of the party is more open and unscripted.  The party is being called on to dump its nominee, which would be unprecedented.  It appears more certain that Trump will lose the election.  Afterward, the GOP itself is more likely to break apart than to survive.

The immediate precipitant is an ‘October surprise’: nasty footage capturing Trump boasting of his crude sexual behavior back in 2005.  The tape is causing a flap, outraging a whole new constituency of people who were not openly speaking out against Trump before.  Many GOP candidates and voters are suddenly loudly denouncing Trump, demanding that he quit the race or be forced out by the RNC.

Moreover, I agree with this darkly compelling article by Rick Wilson that the troubles of Republicans in Congress are just beginning.  The constituency that catapulted Trump to the nomination and continues to back him in the general campaign is fundamentally anti-establishment and will not mesh with either the Party’s conservative or moderate wing.  The support flowing into the GOP presidential race is thus a force antithetical to the success and cohesion of the GOP in Congress.

Leading Republicans, whether moderates like the Bushes or conservatives like Ben Sasse, know they cannot cooperate with Trump without his damaging them.  Were Trump to be elected, the ideological divisions among Republicans in Washington would be unlike anything modern Americans have ever seen.  (The closest parallel might be the ‘accidental presidency’ of Tyler back in the 1840s, or the dark-horse ascendancy of his successor James Polk.)

Given that figures like Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz have been badly damaged by attempting to work with their party’s ostensible standard-bearer, other GOP leaders are bound to begin strategizing about how to keep their distance and distinguish their branch of Republicanism from Trump’s.  I would not be surprised to see the party break into three.

Image: A serious fissure (Hawaii),
© 2016 Susan Barsy

The Rebel Angels

24 Mar 2016 By in Republican extremism Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Senator Mitch McConnell (Courtesy of the Library of Congress)
In Paradise Lost, Satan (a.k.a. Lucifer) is the leader of the forces Milton describes as ‘rebel angels.’  Satan is the most glorious of angels, but he can’t stand the idea of serving God.  He chafes at the idea of obedience.  He actually persuades many other angels, who look up to him, to wage war against God, famously declaring ‘Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.’  God puts up with Satan as long as he can but, finally angered, he quells the rebel angels by turning every last one of them into snakes.  Unfortunately, Satan, a sibilant snake, still has the gift of speech.  And, though much reduced in his status, cosmically speaking, he still has the capacity to make trouble for earthlings, which he does when he successfully tempts Eve to eat of the apple, destroying the good thing Adam and she have had going in the Garden of Eden.

Milton’s fable of the fall of Lucifer aptly encapsulates the dynamic playing out in the Senate.  The Senators, though immensely powerful, resent the President’s authority—in fact, they resent the President personally.  They simply loathe the President, and this loathing has eventually driven them to forget their duties, and their proper place in the scheme of things.  Discontent, they disdain the glories of their rightful position and their great capacity, as Senators, to effect what contributes to the betterment of our country.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, in particular, has warred against the Senate’s limited role in the selection of Supreme Court nominees.  He has militantly declared he will not do his duty, nor does he want other Republican Senators to do theirs.  He seeks to prevent the President from placing Merrick Garland on the high court, claiming that the next President will better represent ‘the people’s will.’  More recently, McConnell has disgraced himself by subjugating his own judgment on the matter to the judgment of two lobbying groups.  He falsely claims that history gives his acts legitimacy.  These are the marks of a man no longer content with dimensions of his own authority.

In truth, both the President and the Senate, as constituted, represent the people’s will.  The Senators are each delegated to express the will of their states, just as much as the President represents the people’s will nationally.  In straining to control all that happens in our political cosmology, the Senate’s ‘rebel angels’ are undermining their own prestige and the Senate’s once-illustrious reputation and authority.

Collectively, the Senate’s exercise of ‘advise and consent’ might confirm Judge Garland as a fit selection for the Supreme Court.  But wouldn’t that be a triumphant outcome, given that we live in a fallen world?  We are, as much as in Milton’s time or in Lucifer’s, ‘sufficient to stand and free to fall.’

Image:
1992 photograph of Senator Mitch McConnell by Laura Patterson,
from this source.

Will the Electorate Destroy the Political Parties?

17 Feb 2016 By in Candidates and Campaigns Tags: , , , , , , , , 4 Comments

Artist's sketch shows men talking excitedly at an open-air polling place in NYC.

Something utterly unforeseen could happen in this election cycle: the electorate could destroy one or both of the parties through primary voting.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are ‘hearing from ordinary America’, and the message is hostile.  On the Republican side, voters are heavily favoring Trump, a sometime Democrat and independent only weakly identified with the Republican Party.  On the Democratic side, voters have shown an unexpected interest in Sanders, a lifelong independent who is parasitically exploiting the Democratic brand.  Meanwhile, the veteran politicians who have come up through the parties have had an unexpectedly hard time making inroads against the spoilers, a sign that the parties are badly out of touch with the times.

We hear about the ‘establishment,’ but what is it really?  The parties, we are discovering, are impotent.  There is little capacity for concerted action among party politicians themselves.  If there were, they would have stopped these threatening insurgencies long ago, shutting out Trump and denying Sanders his putative connection with the Democratic Party.

Trump and Sanders are political bounders.  Who are their friends on the Hill?  How would either of them accomplish anything, were either handed the presidency?  Who would their advisers be?

Yet, faced with such a sub-optimal outcome, the senators, governors, and leading congressmen within each party have exerted no discipline, done nothing in unison.  Democratic governors and senators are not speaking out, urging voters to back Hillary.  Leading Republicans watch helplessly as, with each gladiatorial debate, their candidates further damage and degrade the party.  In the process, party feeling—that most basic of bonds—is being destroyed.

And all because Congress has failed to serve ordinary America.  The national leadership of both parties, as embodied in Congress, has shirked its duties.  Congress has not worked to create the virtuous circle of corporate responsibility, abundant skilled employment, and robust domestic consumption that would make our economy strong.  It has not confronted our ridiculous trade imbalance with China.  It has not resolved the issues around immigration and citizenship that are practically and symbolically urgent to millions of Americans.  Finally, Congress has ignored the fact that it must rein itself in and show the American people that it cares about efficient and effective governing.  Those who serve in the House and Senate have no sense of urgency—the urgency that both Trump and Sanders, for all their defects, are brilliantly communicating.

It’s wild and alarming to imagine the parties being destroyed from inside.  If Trump wins the delegate race, for instance, others within the GOP will face a choice: either embrace him and his ideology, back a ‘protest’ candidate, or break away to form their own new party.  Americans witnessed something of this sort back in the 1850s, when, over the course of a decade and in response to the festering problem of slavery, the Whig Party fell apart, the Democratic Party split into northern and southern wings, and the Republican party emerged out of nowhere, sweeping Lincoln to prominence and victory.

Nothing so cataclysmic has happened in our lifetimes.  Yet, many signs indicate that the current party system is losing its salience because it has grown deaf to the people’s needs.  In such circumstances, parties can become defunct with surprising speed.  Trump, Sanders, and even Bloomberg understand that, for an intrepid candidate, the parties’ senescent condition spells personal opportunity.  Any of these candidates, if successful, would force a dramatic shakeup within the parties, transforming the political landscape of the nation and the capital.

RELATED:
‘Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump’ (NYT)

Image: from this source.

This artist’s sketch from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper shows voters talking excitedly at an open air polling place in 1856.  The caption reads ‘Scene at the polls.  Boxes for the distribution of tickets.  Everybody busy.’  At that time, voting consisted of obtaining a pre-printed party ticket and putting it in a ballot box.  The three booths are labelled with the names of the three presidential candidates: Buchanan, the Democrat and victor; Fremont, the nominee of the new Republican (anti-slavery) Party; and Fillmore, who represented the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party.  Though the Democrats were victorious, the Republicans’ success in carrying some northern and eastern states created the impetus that would bring the new party to power four years later.

The GOP Candidates Debate on CNN

17 Sep 2015 By in Candidates and Campaigns Tags: , , , , , , , 2 Comments

I expect Donald Trump’s support to wane slightly after last night’s debate.  Of the eleven Republican presidential candidates to appear, several of his rivals are likely to gain.

Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio pulled out strong performances; Chris Christie had some effective moments, too.

Scott Walker was allowed plenty of airtime but came off as bland; Mick Huckabee came across as pleading for our indulgence (he had least business being on the stage).  Ben Carson lost ground by relying too much on low-energy generalities.  Kasich had one or two strong moments but relied too much on his record of performance in Ohio and the Senate.  The demand was for vision, and a sharp take on policy.

The moderator, Jake Tapper, with occasional questions from Dana Bash and radio personality Hugh Hewitt, did a great job of keeping the three-hour debate focused.  It was a strenuous format.  Candidates were called on unpredictably.  Tapper shifted the topic of debate often and quickly, sometimes arbitrarily cutting off comfortable discussions.  By and large, candidates spoke spontaneously and avoided boring set speeches.  Ted Cruz and Scott Walker were the worst when it came to spontaneity.  Cruz, of all the major candidates, is the most personally unappealing.  And, although Fiorina came across as powerful and poised, she fell back on rehearsed remarks too much, both in her discussion of the military and in the closing.

It was fascinating to hear how the candidates varied.  Their discussions of the legalization of marijuana, of the consequences of US’s military involvement in Iraq, the Iran nuclear deal, immigration reform, and the role of the Supreme Court under John Roberts, were particularly revealing.  Only Rand Paul and Ben Carson resolutely refrained from saber-rattling.  The other candidates vied to out-do one another with violent promises.  Scott Walker promised that if elected President, he would undo the nuclear deal with Iran ‘on day one.’  Fiorina likewise asserted that we should have no dealings whatever with Vladimir Putin, a position that Bush, Trump, and Paul all used to draw a contrast.  Several of the candidates invoked Reagan, insisting that the US is strongest when engaged diplomatically with the world’s scariest players.

Trump claimed that he would restore respect for America and ‘get along with everybody,’ but, when asked about his limited knowledge of foreign affairs, said only that he would put together a first-rate team.  Bush pleaded, more effectively than did Kasich, for a foreign policy committed to multilateralism and steady global engagement.  When one of Bush’s rivals tried to attack his brother’s record after 9-11, Bush’s simple response, ‘he kept us safe,’ drew sustained applause.

Cruz’s worst moment came when he tried to disavow his one-time support for John Roberts, whom he now depicts as an arch-enemy.  Trump’s worst moment came when he tried to compliment Carly on her beauty.  He also failed to summon a convincing reply when Bush accused him of having tried to get concessions on casino gambling from Hillary after giving her campaign money.

Bush’s best moments came when he admitted having smoking pot forty years ago, when he argued for a nuanced approach to immigration, and when, in the debate’s closing moments, he threw out the goal of propelling the US toward a high-growth-rate economy.  Marco Rubio showed his command of a rational immigration reform plan, but looked callow when he proclaimed that he had missed votes in the Senate because (essentially) the entire direction of Congress is mistaken.  His announced determination to leave the Senate in order to seek the presidency shows how unprepared to be president he really is.

All in all, the debate was refreshing in its breadth and intensity.  In the press of competition, the candidates, desperate to differentiate themselves from one another, came across quite candidly.  The bracing back-and-forth of this, the second GOP debate, casts into relief the dangerously lackluster character of the Democratic field.   A Democratic contest between Hillary and Bernie is going to make for poor entertainment indeed.  For now, the energy is with GOP field.

Who Will Climb to the Top of the GOP Heap?

18 Jul 2015 By in 2016—GOP primary, Candidates and Campaigns Tags: , , , , 2 Comments

The GOP heap (photomontage), © 2015 Susan Barsy
My take on the declared Republican presidential candidates.  They are listed in reverse order, from least to most likely to rise to the top of the heap.  Those in red I consider to have no chance of winning.

16. Ben Carson  Lacks government experience.  Our nation and its foreign affairs are too complex to hand over to a novice.

15. Carly Fiorina  Her record as a business executive is too mixed to warrant considering her as a candidate for the nation’s chief executive.  She failed to gain the confidence of California voters in a run for the Senate, a proof of her unelectability.

14. George Pataki  Who?  To say that he’s missed his moment is an understatement.

13. Donald Trump  In his previous run, he proved himself a wash-out, using his candidacy to cast groundless aspersions against President Obama’s Americanness.  He’s followed this up with offensive remarks about Mexicans.  Basically a nativist, Trump shows an utter disregard for popular sentiment in putting himself forward again.

12. Ted Cruz  Smart, but too unlikable to be a viable candidate. He believes he needs no one else, a red flag given that our political system is based on interdependency.  Cruz has recklessly pitted himself against others, including wiser members of his own party, revealing a narcissism that’s pretty scary.

11. Mike Huckabee  He washed out in the previous presidential election cycle as soon as he faced primaries in the large urbanized states; what has changed?

10. Rick Santorum  Similarly, this guy has a problem tolerating diversity.  He fizzled out last time and hasn’t scored any big accomplishment to improve voters’ negative perceptions of him.   

9. Chris Christie  An east-coast media darling.  Someone who disavows responsibility for his underlings in the tiny state of New Jersey shouldn’t be put in charge of a vast federal bureaucracy.

8. Scott Walker  He’s far too provincial and inexperienced to be put in charge of America’s foreign affairs.  I’m not sure he could pass a course in geography.  Remember Rick Perry?  Walker is unlikely to fare well with a population that’s far more ethnically and racially diverse than that of Wisconsin.  Charges of corruption have already begun dogging him.

7. Marco Rubio  He’s smart; he’s likeable; but he isn’t ready.  While he’s shown his ability to ‘talk the talk’ with Florida’s diverse voters, I doubt that struggling Americans will find much to identify with in him.  He’s more of a wunderkind, a Latino JFK.

6. Bobby Jindal  Smarter and more nuanced than Scott Walker, Jindal is a talent with significant liabilities.  Though I wrote him off a long time ago after his abysmal 2009 State of the Union Response, he conveys more sophistication and sincerity when speaking off the cuff.  As a man of color, a Southerner (not a Floridian—big difference), and a child of immigrants, he speaks effectively about the need for cultural unity, a major underlying worry that American leaders seldom constructively address.  This guy doesn’t play identity politics—hooray!   He needs to get onto the national stage, but is running for president this time around really the best way?

5. Rick Perry  Like it or not, we have to pay attention to him, because he’s governing one of the largest of the states and by some measures it’s thriving.  He’s still going to have problems persuading anyone that he’s competent to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs, but his no-holds-barred pro-corporate approach to the economy is going to win him a lot of powerful backing.  He’s going to emerge as the leading pro-business anti-regulation candidate (unless he fails to beat those felony charges).

4. Lindsey Graham  An interesting candidate who’s got some name recognition and might be an effective president, given his extensive experience of Washington and the Senate.  He’s got foreign-policy chops, coupled with what pass for socially moderate views, but is probably too much of a hawk to prevail, given that main-street Americans wants to do less overseas.  He might do better than expected if he succeeds in mobilizing the southern and mid-Atlantic base of the GOP outside Florida.  On the other hand, he might suffer from “Senator-speak,” Christopher Dodd’s problem.

3. John Kasich  You haven’t been hearing much about him because he’s been too busy running Ohio.  Besides, this guy will never be much of a media darling.  Of all the truly conservative candidates, however, this one is the most formidable, because he is from a large industrial state, and is the most experienced of all candidates in addressing the nation’s profound economic pain on the front line.  I believe that as many of the less viable conservative candidates drop out, conservative voters will gravitate toward Kasich.

2. Jeb Bush  He will remain near the top because he is the safest choice.  Choosing the “Bush brand’ means getting all the human capital arrayed around the Bushes in their individuality—a factor positively associated with continuity in these changing and uncertain times.  Wigged out by all the unknown qualities of all the other candidates, many moderate and benighted GOP voters will pull the lever for Bush.  The candidate himself has yet to show that he has a ‘fire in his belly,’ making him vulnerable to more ardent rivals, like Rand Paul.

1. Rand Paul  This guy remains formidable because he’s one of the few candidates who could draw in a lot of voters who don’t normally swing Republican and beat Hillary Clinton.  Moreover, with his off-beat combination of libertarian and unorthodox views, Paul is one of the few Republican candidates who could actually catalyze the Republican Party and configure it into something new.   He’s won a lot of respect because of his willingness to assert his convictions without doing so (as Cruz has) at the expense of his party.  His opposition to the growing surveillance state and his occasional willingness to cross the aisle to support positions similar to those of President Obama mark him as a maverick and a game-changer within the GOP.  It would be cool if he could redefine the voting blocks that make up the GOP, something that hasn’t been done since the Reagan Revolution of 1980.