Did the democratic process work this time? Yes / No / Maybe. ...

Argument: The democratic process worked this time.

            Despite the messiness of the political process, this election cycle has done what it is supposed to do. It allowed voters to focus on issues that are at the core of democracy and governance. And it may – just may - have alleviated the biggest problem of our democracy: intransigent polarization that prohibits compromise.

            There will always be a sizeable percentage of the electorate that opposes the other side. There are about 120 million votes likely to be cast this time. (That is about 50-60% of the potential number of voters). Even in the most lopsided elections, a presidential landslide in the popular vote means getting 5% more than your opponent.

            In past wipeouts, the losing side gets 38-40% of the vote — that includes FDR in 1932, LBJ in ’64, Reagan in 1984.

            Since the 1990’s, losers average more than 45% of the vote; the margin of victory averages less than 5%.

            The result has been an electorate divided down the middle on almost every issue. That means gridlock . . . divided government, refusal to compromise, divisive rhetoric. Do nothing Congress . . . high disapproval ratings by everyone on all sides.

Although the media has found some who hate both alternatives, and some who can’t decide, and some who don’t care . . . the truth is that there is a clear choice this time and the choice might make a real difference in our future.

This election may move the needle:

            By his extreme rhetoric, Trump did us a service: he crystalized for many voters where they drew the line in their feelings about core democratic values. And many abandoned him and crossed the line to the other side . . . or at least retreated to the sidelines.

            A few Sanders followers did the same.  

            Trump may lose (and Clinton win) by a landslide. His base of supporters may prove to be smaller than feared. If so, Can this break the deadlock that causes dissatisfaction with government? Here are the reasons why it might.

            Trump’s small cadre of surrogate spinners hope for a revival of the “silent majority” that backed Nixon to victory against the “elite liberal media” and “unwashed protesters” of the time. But their time ended forty years ago. The “majority” is now reduced to a dwindling minority, overwhelmed and enervated by the rapid social changes they couldn’t stop.

            There are far fewer voters who are truly undecided by this time. Our voter turnout is always low compared to other countries. We take our democracy for granted and we fail to educate and inspire vast chunks of the population enough to take the time to pay attention. There is a direct correlation between education and voter turnout (although college students seem to be impervious to any inspiration to vote in numbers comparable to the grandparents).

            But the lengthy and loud process that has seen large vocal crowds at events, and high viewer ratings has been reflected in arguments around water coolers, at parties and family dinners all over the country for many months.

            More people paid attention in this cycle, continuing a trend that began with Obama in 2008. Sanders expanded the base of small donors that Obama had begun. And even Trump benefitted from a base of donors who might have given to evangelists instead.

Clear choices were offered this time. Despite the cries of those who complain that neither candidate deserves their vote, the fact is that a vast majority of people have seen enough differences between them to make up their minds to vote for one of them and against the other.

The primaries did the job, reflecting the mood of the people:

- In the Democratic primary, there were two clear choices. Sanders urged a more radical progressive agenda. Clinton’s program suggested more incremental progress. Generally, the perception of the radical vs. the moderate was correct. Clinton supporters argued that Sanders was proposing unrealistic, unattainable goals. Sanders people distrusted Clinton’s coziness with the established powers that they felt needed to be fought.

   

         These two visions and notions were rather sharply drawn and gave voters enough information to at least think seriously about their own preferences. They gave Clinton a solid win while forcing her to strongly consider the issues that Sanders raised.

            That is how it is supposed to work.

- The Republican primary exposed the weaknesses of the party’s established leaders. The Tea Party movement that emerged in 2010 to elect a sizeable cadre in Congress and took over 30 state houses showed disillusion with the failure to achieve unrealistic promised goals.

            The frustrated Right appreciated Trump’s snarly ridicule of those elected Republicans who failed to overthrow Obama and his far left agenda: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Mitt Romney – all pitiful compromisers in their view were victims of Trump’s attacks.

            From the perspective of conservative voters, they controlled the Senate and the House, the Supreme Court, and state governments. Yet, they could not prevent socialized medicine (Obamacare), destruction of traditional marriage, and the flow of Hispanics, drugs, and Islamic terrorists. Both Bush presidencies were disappointments: the federal government grew, the economy shrunk, jobs were lost, wars were disastrous, our enemies prospered.  

           

- A plurality of Republican voters chose a populist, narcissist, chauvinist, authoritarian non-politician billionaire to voice their bitterness at the changes they could not stop.

            The immigration / terrorism issues that Trump made the center of his campaign from his first speech stimulated the portion of my generation that lost every battle of the cultural wars of the last 60 years, particularly equal rights for African Americans, women, and homosexuals.

            Projections are that America in the near future will no longer be mostly white. Diminishing white male Christian dominance is a subject for panic for that demographic.    

            This may be a last stand for that aging bloc.  

- Exposure of Trump’s flaws during the long, long campaign has peeled away huge chunks of Republican voters.

            First, his vicious attacks on primary opponents eliminated Bush supporters, Kasich backers, even Cruz followers. Koch Brothers and other traditional GOP deep pockets backed off. Of course, he negated any possible inroads into the Democratic hold of any minority voters.

            He lost support from GOP security / military experts with his fixation about Putin, his impulsive shrugs about nuclear proliferation, and his rash discounting of NATO as if it was a losing business. His cruel sniping at “loser” McCain as a captive, and at a Muslim father and mother of an American war hero offended many patriotic veterans who should have been his most loyal backers.

            Of course, his biggest loss is among almost all women: whatever age, ethnic identity, working or not, educated or not, Christian or not.

            He couldn’t hide his blatant sexism.

            It undermined any claim he might have made of moral superiority over the Clintons.   

        It exposed his outdated notion of manhood, one that even conservative women with hard drinking dirty joking husbands could not abide.

The choice between Trump and Clinton becomes very clear.

          

 The debates produced a clear result. All polls showed that voters favored Clinton by about 2 to 1. That is an enormous margin, especially in a country that has been so divided for so long.

The debates received record viewing on all media sources for all age and gender groups. In a campaign where fears of enthusiasm gaps and voter suppression are rampant, this fact is encouraging.

Of course, Trump is the main reason for the heightened public fascination with the election news and entertainment. He is his own reality show, soap opera, talk show, stand-up comedy act. He moves the ratings needle for cable infotainment like no one. He has received billions in free airtime from them, and they probably think it was well spent.

The possible outcome:

- Trump may lose the popular vote and electoral college vote by a landslide.

- If Clinton wins big, she may assume she has a mandate for her program.

             BUT: Bill Clinton thought he had a mandate for change in 1992. He had urged universal health care in the campaign and when he won, he thought it was what the voters wanted. He spent precious political capital losing that fight that was led by Hillary.

- Democrats may win control of the Senate, and reduce the GOP House majority.

            BUT: The seats Republicans lose in Congress will probably be those of former “moderate” or at least less extreme conservatives (like Ayotte of N.H.). This could stiffen the intransigence against any compromise.

The optimistic view:

Proof that the Tea Party core is not as potent as it was thought to be (just as the past movements like Christian Coalition showed weakness) may embolden Paul Ryan to compromise on some issues.

Clinton’s centrism (given a mandate) may permit her to deal with Ryan, McCain, Graham, Flake, and a few other rational members of the loyal opposition. The first and most doable issue might be immigration reform. Borders and a path to citizenship can be worked out in a comprehensive form without frittering all her capital.

            The advantages to both sides of settling this issue once and for all are so obvious that it seems that it should be one issue that could be decided, once Trump’s extreme rhetoric is relegated to an impotent minority on the extreme right.

            Whether Ryan has the courage to risk alienation of even this diminishing constituency is an open question.

Once having compromised on this issue, he will have to appear tougher on others, but he can argue a net gain by re-claiming a portion of the growing Hispanic vote for the party.

Another area ripe for compromise is criminal justice reform. There is a consensus for change from the Draconian sentences and prison overpopulation, a return to the emphasis on rehabilitation, and drug programs. Legalization of marijuana is on the table – if the state experiments in Colorado and California prove regulation and taxation to be feasible

Clinton will face a challenge from her left on important economic issues: Taxes, corporate regulation, trade. The wish list includes college financial relief.

            Republicans will fight these changes, but probably with more traditional arguments. The Tea Party intransigence that forced government closures proved to lose votes for the party and the election gives rational leaders the stronger argument.

            Ryan, the self-proclaimed Budget maven is going to want to fight for balanced budget, reduced debt, and the other traditional GOP issues. Warren and Sanders are going to fight the good fight in Congress over this and Clinton is going to have to figure what she can get away with.

            It will be a stern test of Clinton’s claimed negotiation skills and experience.

Foreign Policy

In foreign policy, Trump’s contribution has been to crystalize the public’s recognition of Putin as a real threat to American interests in the middle east and eastern Europe.

            The cyber war with Russia will heat up and a consensus will emerge to seal the leaks for security reasons.

            Clinton will have trouble with her left on foreign trade treaties and humanitarian efforts in the Middle East and Africa.

            By inauguration day, the Mosul offensive may have progressed well, pushing ISIS out of power in the city and reducing the “caliphate” to a shell of its former pretensions. Syria will be the next battleground and provide the biggest foreign policy challenge to the new administration.

            The foundation laid by Obama: Shiites, Kurds, Syrian rebels, Turks, and US technology, air power, advice, coaching, intel, rangers . . . rather than massive US ground forces . . . should allow Clinton some leverage against Assad & Putin in negotiations for an end to the crisis.

            Clinton will have to deal with North Korea, Israel, and unforeseen crises. Whether she will prove to be the hawk / interventionist that liberals and libertarians fear or whether she will be a wise consensus builder, we can’t tell.

            The point is that the voters this season were presented with clear choices and enough evidence to decide their future. 

Here Lies My Generation (1968-2008) R.I.P.

To use an old "Ghostbusters" phrase, the streams of crime and politics crossed this week with nearly cataclysmic results.

In Pennsylvania, a young white woman who claimed to be a McCain worker played a nasty race card, trying in her sadly psychotic way to "work" for her candidate. Conspiracy theorists didn’t need to sound paranoid to question whether she was a designated "suicide bomber" for her cause rather than a weird sick kid acting alone. Certainly, it can be reasonably argued that in the least, she was inspired to her crime by the panicky rhetoric of her candidate’s supporters.

Maybe I’m a bit paranoid to suggest that a shiver goes up my spine imagining what would have happened if the cops believed her story and if she had picked some black man from a line-up, but I don’t think so. I’ve seen too many such cases end up with long prison sentences.

It didn’t take Nostradamus to foresee that Barack Obama’s presence would stir thousands of ugly and dangerous vermin to rise from the substrata where they hibernate. Such creatures thrive during hard times. Economic distress releases forces that drift on the air, demanding scapegoats for the coming bloodlust. It is possible to read too much into the shouts of "terrorist," "socialist," and "kill him" that have been heard on the fringes of crowds or in blogs. But the law doesn’t think so. It is a crime in California and most states to threaten death or injury even if there is no intent to actually carrying it out if the person threatened can be said to be reasonably placed in fear. (Penal Code section 422).

Campaigns of the recent past haven’t stirred such juices on any side. I haven’t seen this much emotion since 1968, and I think I know why.

The screams are the death rattle of a generation, at least the half of the generation that fought the central wars of the last half of the 20th Century from the Right.

The Cold War, The Civil Rights struggle, and The Viet-Nam War each revealed (or caused or exacerbated) traditional cultural divisions in our country. Most people aligned themselves on the same side of all three issues. If you were anti-communist, you were against "radical" solutions for racial equality, and certainly against terminating the Viet-Nam War without "victory" and "honor".

If you favored rapprochement with the Soviets and opposed support for dictators, even if anti-communist, the odds were that you supported civil rights and liberties, and also, you protested and opposed the Viet-Nam War.

All of the ancillary battles of the era generally found the same alignment. Your attitudes about The War also predicted your feelings about women, gays, immigrants, crime, welfare, drugs, abortion, and often seeped into many other tangential cultural issues, including parenting, religion, education, rock music, fashion, entertainment, movies.

Of course, race was the initiating wedge issue. Nixon's southern strategy of 1968 and 1972 was premised on the South's resistance to racial progress, and bled into every other cultural issue we live with today.

The cultural divisions were so bitter that they colored every election since until each side was polarized, manipulated by hot button wedge issues. Throughout the next thirty years, the generation was split down the middle on virtually every issue and presidential candidate. The more or less permanent 45% to 45% permanent split reflected in divided government for most of the time, with the "swing" 10% of "independent" voters in a few states becoming the deciding vote, sometimes tweaked by third party nuisance candidates (like Perot and Nader).

George W. Bush’s pitifully flawed presidency with its disastrous policies and incompetence has caused severe mental depression for the aging pro Viet-Nam half of the generation. They are almost too old to have the energy to fight back this time. Katrina, Iraq Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Libby, and all the other blows have taken most of the fight out of them.

This happened to the Left after Carter’s debacle laced presidency, with oil crises, inflation, high crime rates, the Iran embarrassment, leading to Reagan "democrats" crawling to the right, until redeemed by a triangulating centrist, Bill Clinton, who cruised barely left of center, co-opting some previously divisive issues by conceding them (welfare, fiscal restraint, crime).

The Crash of 2008 is the final crushing skull exploding blow to the other half of my generation. They must now go hat in hand and beg BIG GOVERNMENT to save them so that they can crawl away into retirement.

Yet, I see a weird, almost tragic irony to McCain’s status. He reminds me a bit of Hubert Humphrey, a man with a reputation for decency, a pioneer of civil rights, who found himself running in 1968 as the supporter of the war despised by his own party. He became an object of ridicule, an anachronism on the wrong side of generational shifts.

But John McCain is no Hubert Humphry. He is psychologically incapable of disassociating himself from his side of the '60's generation struggle. He remans a prisoner of war.

McCain sees "victory in Iraq" as a way to disprove the truth of Viet-Nam, to justify his life. He represents the last gasp of his frustrated and terrified lost generation. That is why, for all his obvious deficiencies as a perfect candidate, for these unreconstructed survivors of the "Silent Majority" of the 60's and 70's, he is the appropriate symbol.

Then again, maybe this election is also the last best hope for my side of the generation war as well. Obama seems like JFK reborn for many of us, and maybe it is wishful thinking. But we haven't got too much time left to wish or to dream impossible dreams. One last gasp of optimism is all we have. So we're going all in this time.

Seems Like Old Times

I can keep silent no longer. Politics is not usually my blog fodder, but sometimes I simply have to stand up and squawk.

Today it is mostly the Obama thing. I’ve heard and read some of my generation talk of him as the ghost of JFK and /or RFK spectrally merged with the soul of MLK.

I admit that when I listen to his speeches, I feel a chill breeze that often accompanies ghostly visions. I get a flashback to the long suppressed tingle my people felt when those apparitions first spoke to us. I was still in high school when I first heard the word "charisma" in the summer of 1960 after JFK’s speech accepting the nomination. From then on, words like "the torch has been passed to a new generation" ... "ask what you can do for your country" and "I have a dream," were intoxicating ... yes, I blush to say, inspiring.

How much substance there was beneath the soaring rhetoric was not in issue back then. That feeling is like the hope of puppy love - it blots out all reason, resists logical analysis, thrives on chemically induced passions.

By the time I graduated law school, eight years later, all such passion had been sapped. We had barely survived the macro i.e: BIG events: The Bay Of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Dallas Weekend, The Warren Report, Goldwater, The John Birch Society, Viet-Nam, Governor Reagan, Mario Savio, Watts Riots, Detroit Riots, Stokely Carmichael, The Black Panthers.

Then came 1968.

The year began by cruelly reviving some of our hopes. The Prague Spring promised freedom in Eastern Europe, Gene McCarthy defeated LBJ in the NH primary & RFK entered the race. LBJ quit. By the end of the summer, while I studied for the Bar Exam, any residue of hope was gone.

We turned away from it all. Some time later, while moving in with Bijou, I found an old college textbook: sociologist David Riesman’s "The Lonely Crowd."

Riesman divided personalities in three general types: Other directed, Outer (or Tradition) directed, and Inner directed. His theory seemed apt to what happened in the following decades. Most in my generation spun inward for satisfaction, first to drugs, sex, music, "self-realization," then to career and acquiring things, and eventually to outright greed. It was a dizzying trip from "I have a dream" to "Greed is good."

By the 90's we were ready for Bill Clinton. His style was a stew of JFK’s voice, gestures and virile persona calculated to attract listeners to his earnest caresses. Like the therapists most of his generation trusted, Bill convinced people (mostly women and minorities) that he heard, understood and cared about each of them, one at a time.

I never felt the magic. I had watched his rise as a "new democrat" in the DLC, knew that he was not about ideals or visions, but compromise and finding ways to win. Not that there is anything wrong with that ... in fact, it is a fine strategy – as he proved. But it is not "inspiring," not likely to move a generation to action. It is notable that Clinton achieved most while Congress was in Newt Gingrich’s control, between ‘95 and ‘97.

After abandoning his "radical" health care plan, he admitted that "the era of big government was over," and got do-able things done: he balanced budgets, reformed welfare, made trade agreements and crime laws, embraced globalization and technology. He was credited for prosperity – which was in part fueled by the disintegration of the Soviet Empire’s threat that permitted lowered defense spending and the tech bubble.

Bill Clinton’s willingness to find a "third way," a strategy that was more cynically labeled "triangulation," also permitted him to raise more campaign money than any Democrat before him. His policies were not threatening to corporate contributors and they preferred him to riskier alternatives on the Left. Positions were calibrated by polls and focus groups to a finer point than ever before, straddling the Center with deft balance.

Bill’s eventual fall was the stuff of Greek Tragedy. Like his model, JFK, his womanizing, ruthlessness, deceptions, were the flip side of his character. But unlike JFK, his times did not permit concealment until after his legend was secure. Ironically, by legitimizing the politics of personal appeal, Clinton opened himself to scrutiny of his personal flaws. Character would now be fair game and whether we would lose the "great" leader in search of the "good" person would be a question.

Now we find Obama presenting himself as the leader who can heal polarization and inspire a "new generation" to believe in the democratic illusion: that government can solve problems. He wants to change direction, not only from the Bush mess but also from the style of creating "wedge issues" that stir anger against ... the enemy. His"story," his appearance and his demeanor all personify the difference in a way reminiscent of TR, FDR, & JFK.

When he speaks, those of my generation can’t help but think of him (wishfully) as the shocking proof that we were right after all back when we were young — integration, optimism, public service, good faith, eloquence, excellence, ideas — they can lead to progress.

But now the inherent filth of campaigning in a democratic election is testing that wish. One of Borenstein’s favorite Laws is that anyone who wants to be president should be suspect. Obama certainly "has the bug." He wants it bad. In recent debates, he’s played the dirty game, rising to the bait all too readily, risking everything, exposing his weaknesses.

A recent New Yorker article pinpointed the theoretical differences between Hillary Clinton and Obama. As defined in a recent debate, Obama sees the presidency as the pulpit to inspire movements for positive change; Clinton sees it as a seat of limited power to do enough to get re-elected.

My suspicion is that, although we always seek the inspirational leader, the fact is that the pragmatic compromiser almost always accomplishes more good.

The trick is to find one who can do both. Inspirational leaders can only move the ball when events conjoin to form strong coalitions, dissolving the usual American public’s polarized state of apathetic skepticism. When the stars align, as for a few years for TR, then for Wilson and again for FDR and even LBJ (from ‘65 to ‘66), the ball can be moved forward in greater increments.

2008 seems to be a time when the seas are ready to part. I might even say that if it doesn’t happen, the Democratic Party should declare bankruptcy and flee.

Yet, it can happen. If Clinton and Obama scratch each other’s eyes out and if Clinton wins the nomination, alienating Obama and his base; and if, say, Romney is nominated, the scenario might make him the candidate of "change" and her the return to the bad old days.

What a revoltin’ development that would be.