Okay, I was caught off guard by the Trump landslide. I'm less surprised by the Republicans keeping the House and Senate but I didn't see Trump astriding the Republican colossus. The real eye-opening part of watching last night's return: I kinda knew this but, man, I didn't realize how badly America hates Hillary Clinton. I knew she had her detractors, she had her doubters and she was an uncommonly dull candidate for a Democrat but I thought there was enough skepticism of Trump and enough of a left-wing groundswell to keep Hillary around for four more years. Nope. She is officially done as a public persona in America. And Donald Trump's career just took an unexpected setback. Trump is about to realize what I have long known: President of the United States of America is the ultimate dead end job. He could've been out making big money being a loud mouth political type, instead he's stuck actually governing. What a drag for that guy.
As I wrote in a previous post, the Congress runs the government while the President gets all the attention. We may think we just witnessed a revolution of the right wing weirdos but I would suggest the opportunity has swung back for the Republican establishment to treat Trump like a pinata for the next four years and purge the party of the loons. We'll see. To that end, I think the real winner last night was Paul Ryan: he has the job of herding cats (stupid ass Republican cats, no less) but if he can build a coalition within the House and a bridge to McConnell in the Senate, he can pretty well do whatever he wants for the next 2-4 years. I have a bold suggestion for each of the Republican leaders: McConnell should immediately affirm Merrick Garland (I kinda like him and I think he could bring a fascinating shift to the Court) and Ryan should immediately push through whatever immigration bill (*) he thinks he wants. I think its important for both houses of Congress to give an early thumb to the eye of the new President (that they don't actually like) by removing the only two things he might genuinely have an interest in. Encourage President Trump to reform NATO (yeah, go solve that Europe problem, Don, we'll take care of everything til you get back) and pick up where Michelle Obama left that obesity epidemic.
Since I'm hanging on the notion that last night was about vanquishing Hillary more than welcoming Trump, I am still skeptical of Trump's popularity. Who likes this guy? The guy just got 100 million votes and I still can't figure out who actually wants this man to be president--including the man himself! The idea that Trump is gonna clean up Washington is just straight foolish. He has no idea how to accomplish that task and who the fuck is gonna help him figure it out? Under Obama the Republican Congress just laid low but under Trump they'll have a mandate to do what they want with an Executive to rubber stamp their desires and offer little resistance. Trump didn't get rich by being a consensus builder and in DC he'll be so out of his element, he'll just yap and yap and do nothing at all. I think Ryan and McConnell will effectively control him behind the scenes and sponge off his popularity enough to look like real statesmen. Ideally, after four years Trump will be tired of being president and the Republican establishment will be back in control (look for Cruz to get marginalized and Rand Paul better do something bold or he'll be long gone by 2020), ready to take a real run at the White House (how about a Ryan/Rubio ticket in 2020?). Meanwhile the Democrats will have a few years of loudly suffering to develop some kind of hero by 2020 (sorry, kids, I don't think Elizabeth Warren is that guy and who drank more sad gulps of Chivas last night than Joe Biden?).
I'm not a political guy but I found myself more amused than I thought I would be by watching the liberals flounder and look all aggrieved. When they're in control their self-important smugness is unbearable, their moral pseudo-superiority is maddening and the way the fall prey to their own malformed observations is embarrassing. And, of course, political losers always portray the victors as...(fill in generational pejorative)...and themselves as kindly victims wondering why God lets bad things happen to good people. Conservatives are uptight assholes no matter what happens and George W. Bush was so tired of being president that I didn't get the same joy of watching the Obama revolution sweep out the last of red hot Cheneys.
Is Trump dangerous? Good lord, I think he'll be the most ineffective President since Carter--and I just thought that about the last guy! I see no scenario where Donald Trump wants to be re-elected in 2020. He'll enjoy the inauguration (legendary for executive blow jobs!) but by Day Two, he'll be ready to pull the ejector seat and get back to where he once belonged. Foreign policy-wise I think he could have some minor successes but they'll be the kind that disappoint his most ardent supporters. In short, Tuesday night was his absolute peak in this business, nothing but a black diamond slope in his future. And this Presidency will soak up what influence he might've had, as opposed to Obama who will be a beloved public figure for the next 30 years, Trump will be shown to be ineffective and useless and defeated. Coke-fueled benders in the White House are probably a total drag, no fun at all, and tweeting about fat chicks at 3 in the morning will eventually get him murdered by his bodyguards. Seriously, I'm kinda feeling sorry for the guy, his life is ruined! He thinks his parents are on vacation and he's got the whole house to himself but, no, he's gotta run the family business 24 hours a day instead. This ain't doggie heaven, it's doggie hell.
Mitch McConnell is old, his job is to groom the next old white guy to dominate the Republican side of the Senate. But Paul Ryan could be the one, he's the ascendant star right now. And if he pulls the House Republicans together, he'll rule Washington for the next few years while the Democrats point all their weapons at hapless Trump.
(* Immigration is the ultimate pointless American debate: every 20 years or so since 1650 the locals have complained about interlopers and the local constabulary hems and haws and pretends to do something about it and the never does because deep down they kinda like the newcomers and are powerless to stop them anyway. Immigration is a function of economics not politics but political animals think nothing is beyond their entreaties. When the economy dried up in 2007 so did immigration to America, the rednecks didn't notice but the chances of them getting served by the political sphere is just as remote under Trump as it was under Obama. He'll give them a voice but will he give them actual power? Oh, come on, man! Remember Trump wasn't elected by rich white people, he was elected by poor white people--and even then it was only because the minorities where wary of Hillary)
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Decision 2016
We're less than a week away from the next Presidential election. Hillary Clinton's lead had shrunk a bit recently because of (vague) news about new revelations in her email scandal. To recap: When Hillary was Secretary of State she chose to keep a personal email server rather than the gov't issue version. This is probably illegal though probably not unusual. What are the American people to think of this activity? I dunno. I know nothing about how the gov't keeps its emails and I don't know why I would know or would want to know. My instinct is that the Madame in Charge makes the rules of order and if she chooses to have email sent to her AOL account instead of her .gov account, it matters not to me. The gov't gets hacked all day every day so the argument that her machinations imperil cyber-safety doesn't really wash with me. The emails are the property of the American people and subject to FOIA requests and such, that's true. But I don't see how the serves itself makes any difference: if the sitting Secretary of State chose not to release certain communications, I don't know what the New York Times or the American people are gonna do about it. That's not a function of Hillary Clinton or her predecessors or successors, it is the cold fact that Executive Privilege is beyond the citizenry and that's just how it lays, bro.
The President could go on TV tonight and explain every intricacy of...say, the tax code...but who would watch and who would understand it anyway? The White House could not possibly give a complete accounting of its day-to-day affairs even if it wanted to and why would it want to? Donald Rumsfeld at the height of the occupation of Iraq could calmly explain the ins-and-outs of policy to the American people but how would that make his job any easier? How would that make the American people safe or more secure? Or even more well-informed? Knowledge is a malleable commodity and your politicians want to mall-u as much as they can. We can pretend that the Blue Guy is more trustworthy than the Red Guy or vice versa, but that's hopeless bullshit and you know it. Politics, like tic-tac-toe and global thermonuclear war, is a losing game and the only way to win is not to play. (Said it before I'll say it again: if they wanted to take away my right to vote, I'd vote against it; until then I think voting is not merely a dumb waste of time but a deluded and quite possibly dangerous way to engage in the civic sphere. The idea that is your duty is absurd nonsense and an indication that we are doing it wrong as a people)
This election has been backwards in the sense that it is the Republican who is the fiery rabble-rouser while it is the Democrat who is the staid old hand who preaches a stay-the-course philosophy. And to continue the backwardness: I believe a Trump presidency would look like an Obama presidency (zero foreign policy interest, no support from the Republican Congress, able to win people over with press conferences but not much else) while a Hillary presidency would look like the George W. Bush administration (active military, sucking up to elderly voters, defiant and defensive in the face of criticism). So do Trump supporters really want change because I don't think they'll get it; and do Hillary supporters really want more of Obama because I don't think they'll get what they want either. The electorate is been turned inside out--thank goodness Americans don't actually pay attention once the election is over.
My previous post was about the steady rise of an executive branch that wants to communicate more directly with the American people leading to a rise in responsibility without any commensurate rise in actual power. This has led to elections where people increasingly put unrealistic expectations onto the candidates. For example, this election seems like a referendum on women's issues where Hillary represents womens' reach for more power while Trump represents the recalcitrant old ways. But I would suggest this embodiment is entirely skin deep. Once the President is chosen, women will possess no greater power under one than they would have under the other because the President doesn't have much control over how women live their lives in this society. African-Americans may have believe that an Obama Administration would make everything obviously better for black people but after 8 years is anything really different for minorities in this country? Perhaps. Perhaps a black president inspires black people to take more professional control or be more bold in their social dealings but does any of that really come from White House policy? America is run by the culture and the economy, not the government. The government is there to safeguard our basic freedoms, not make anything better. We can ascribe symbolic significance to our leaders but that's not the same as leaders actually having transformative powers.
These candidates have legendary negative ratings from the electorate. Again, though, this strikes me as false. The idea that Trump would be a dangerous president doesn't really account for the checks and balances of the American system. I think Trump would be a largely ineffective president, neutered at best. The President's only real clear power is in foreign policy and so far Trump has shown no acumen or philosophy for dealing with foreign affairs. He has an old timey Republican bluster about being a powerful foreign presence but his bluster is the talk of a guy who has never had to do any of this shit before and I suspect if he was in power he would be every bit as reticent to send troops abroad or drop bombs on other countries as Obama has been. And the idea that Hillary is some crazed socialist ideologue misses that I think she would actually be a coldly calculating pragmatic politician that America hasn't seen since the days of Bob Dole as Majority Leader. I think she would be much more likely to reach out to the Republican Congress than Obama (or Trump) and I think she would give them the opportunity to make deals more than the popular consensus realizes. I think Hillary gets how Washington works more than any President since HW Bush, maybe even Nixon. Hillary will be an active executive and will force Congress to act in a way that Obama never had any appetite for.
I think the next four years will be brutal on whoever wins this election. I think Trump doesn't really even want to be President and this is all the perfect setup for a new network to compete with Fox News: he's discovered his core audience who thinks the system is rigged, that Hillary is a criminal and that the Republican Party (and Fox News) is too soft to be of much use any more. Winning the election would be a major career setback for Trump and, let's face it, good god this guy would suck at being president. As for Hillary, I've long thought the she would be the next president and I also long thought that she would not run for reelection in 2020. I think her health is not as strong as she likes to make us think, I think she has no stomach for another election run, I think the next four years will see a lot of international and economic challenges (I'm hoping my next blog post will be on that topic) and I think giving herself only four years will keep her high intensity each day in office. As much as the commentary as suggested the political parties are tearing themselves apart, I suspect four years from now we will have long forgotten what a clusterfuck this election season truly was (no Trump, no more Bushes or Clintons, no Christie, no Sanders, no Pence, I see a completely new slate of challengers).
I think Hillary Clinton will be the next president and I'd like to think she'll be good. Like I said, I think she'll be a measured and pragmatic (and stonewalling) executive. I think she'll alienate her supporters with her active foreign policy, I think she'll look to make deals in Congress (my dream is Social Security reform, which has to come from a Democrat) and she'll try to restore the presidency to the unfun office it used to be. I think she'll be able to use Bill as the perfect sponge for controversy, look for Bill to put on the clown suit whenever the focus needs to go somewhere else. As for Trump, he'll be off to be a TV star and randomly appearing on Fox News or Twitter won't be enough for him. Pillorying Hillary will be fun for a while but soon enough he'll move on to other things, puncturing the presidency will always be low hanging fruit but he'll find other things to keep the audience watching.
The good news: America is fine. We waste a lot of resources, a lot of time and money, but in general its because we are rich and can afford to. The day will come when we can't afford it any more but hopefully that'll be a hundred years from now. The reason everything looks bad is because we're looking at all the bad parts (partisan politics) and acting like its way more important than it actually is. If we'd just deflate the pompous megalomaniac political motherfuckers we'll all be better off. I don't vote because I don't like any of these people and I don't feel like any of them truly represent me. Fortunately I don't feel like I need these people to pander to me. Ignore the politicians and give them less money--SPEND THE MONEY ON WHAT YOU WANT IT SPENT ON INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR CONGRESS TO PLEASE YOU!--and America will seem like a much more egalitarian and enlightened place. We have resources, we have opportunity, we have fun and sexy lives. Live healthy, live smart and don't wait for others to make your dreams come true and all will be well.
The President could go on TV tonight and explain every intricacy of...say, the tax code...but who would watch and who would understand it anyway? The White House could not possibly give a complete accounting of its day-to-day affairs even if it wanted to and why would it want to? Donald Rumsfeld at the height of the occupation of Iraq could calmly explain the ins-and-outs of policy to the American people but how would that make his job any easier? How would that make the American people safe or more secure? Or even more well-informed? Knowledge is a malleable commodity and your politicians want to mall-u as much as they can. We can pretend that the Blue Guy is more trustworthy than the Red Guy or vice versa, but that's hopeless bullshit and you know it. Politics, like tic-tac-toe and global thermonuclear war, is a losing game and the only way to win is not to play. (Said it before I'll say it again: if they wanted to take away my right to vote, I'd vote against it; until then I think voting is not merely a dumb waste of time but a deluded and quite possibly dangerous way to engage in the civic sphere. The idea that is your duty is absurd nonsense and an indication that we are doing it wrong as a people)
This election has been backwards in the sense that it is the Republican who is the fiery rabble-rouser while it is the Democrat who is the staid old hand who preaches a stay-the-course philosophy. And to continue the backwardness: I believe a Trump presidency would look like an Obama presidency (zero foreign policy interest, no support from the Republican Congress, able to win people over with press conferences but not much else) while a Hillary presidency would look like the George W. Bush administration (active military, sucking up to elderly voters, defiant and defensive in the face of criticism). So do Trump supporters really want change because I don't think they'll get it; and do Hillary supporters really want more of Obama because I don't think they'll get what they want either. The electorate is been turned inside out--thank goodness Americans don't actually pay attention once the election is over.
My previous post was about the steady rise of an executive branch that wants to communicate more directly with the American people leading to a rise in responsibility without any commensurate rise in actual power. This has led to elections where people increasingly put unrealistic expectations onto the candidates. For example, this election seems like a referendum on women's issues where Hillary represents womens' reach for more power while Trump represents the recalcitrant old ways. But I would suggest this embodiment is entirely skin deep. Once the President is chosen, women will possess no greater power under one than they would have under the other because the President doesn't have much control over how women live their lives in this society. African-Americans may have believe that an Obama Administration would make everything obviously better for black people but after 8 years is anything really different for minorities in this country? Perhaps. Perhaps a black president inspires black people to take more professional control or be more bold in their social dealings but does any of that really come from White House policy? America is run by the culture and the economy, not the government. The government is there to safeguard our basic freedoms, not make anything better. We can ascribe symbolic significance to our leaders but that's not the same as leaders actually having transformative powers.
These candidates have legendary negative ratings from the electorate. Again, though, this strikes me as false. The idea that Trump would be a dangerous president doesn't really account for the checks and balances of the American system. I think Trump would be a largely ineffective president, neutered at best. The President's only real clear power is in foreign policy and so far Trump has shown no acumen or philosophy for dealing with foreign affairs. He has an old timey Republican bluster about being a powerful foreign presence but his bluster is the talk of a guy who has never had to do any of this shit before and I suspect if he was in power he would be every bit as reticent to send troops abroad or drop bombs on other countries as Obama has been. And the idea that Hillary is some crazed socialist ideologue misses that I think she would actually be a coldly calculating pragmatic politician that America hasn't seen since the days of Bob Dole as Majority Leader. I think she would be much more likely to reach out to the Republican Congress than Obama (or Trump) and I think she would give them the opportunity to make deals more than the popular consensus realizes. I think Hillary gets how Washington works more than any President since HW Bush, maybe even Nixon. Hillary will be an active executive and will force Congress to act in a way that Obama never had any appetite for.
I think the next four years will be brutal on whoever wins this election. I think Trump doesn't really even want to be President and this is all the perfect setup for a new network to compete with Fox News: he's discovered his core audience who thinks the system is rigged, that Hillary is a criminal and that the Republican Party (and Fox News) is too soft to be of much use any more. Winning the election would be a major career setback for Trump and, let's face it, good god this guy would suck at being president. As for Hillary, I've long thought the she would be the next president and I also long thought that she would not run for reelection in 2020. I think her health is not as strong as she likes to make us think, I think she has no stomach for another election run, I think the next four years will see a lot of international and economic challenges (I'm hoping my next blog post will be on that topic) and I think giving herself only four years will keep her high intensity each day in office. As much as the commentary as suggested the political parties are tearing themselves apart, I suspect four years from now we will have long forgotten what a clusterfuck this election season truly was (no Trump, no more Bushes or Clintons, no Christie, no Sanders, no Pence, I see a completely new slate of challengers).
I think Hillary Clinton will be the next president and I'd like to think she'll be good. Like I said, I think she'll be a measured and pragmatic (and stonewalling) executive. I think she'll alienate her supporters with her active foreign policy, I think she'll look to make deals in Congress (my dream is Social Security reform, which has to come from a Democrat) and she'll try to restore the presidency to the unfun office it used to be. I think she'll be able to use Bill as the perfect sponge for controversy, look for Bill to put on the clown suit whenever the focus needs to go somewhere else. As for Trump, he'll be off to be a TV star and randomly appearing on Fox News or Twitter won't be enough for him. Pillorying Hillary will be fun for a while but soon enough he'll move on to other things, puncturing the presidency will always be low hanging fruit but he'll find other things to keep the audience watching.
The good news: America is fine. We waste a lot of resources, a lot of time and money, but in general its because we are rich and can afford to. The day will come when we can't afford it any more but hopefully that'll be a hundred years from now. The reason everything looks bad is because we're looking at all the bad parts (partisan politics) and acting like its way more important than it actually is. If we'd just deflate the pompous megalomaniac political motherfuckers we'll all be better off. I don't vote because I don't like any of these people and I don't feel like any of them truly represent me. Fortunately I don't feel like I need these people to pander to me. Ignore the politicians and give them less money--SPEND THE MONEY ON WHAT YOU WANT IT SPENT ON INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR CONGRESS TO PLEASE YOU!--and America will seem like a much more egalitarian and enlightened place. We have resources, we have opportunity, we have fun and sexy lives. Live healthy, live smart and don't wait for others to make your dreams come true and all will be well.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
A Brief History of the American Presidency (1884-present)
Grover Cleveland, in addition to being the 2nd highest accumulator of electoral votes in American history, is the only US president to serve non-consecutive terms. He was elected in 1884, lost his re-election bid in 1888 to Benjamin Harrison, but returned in 1892 to defeat Harrison and re-claim the White House. Because of this quirk Cleveland is an excellent starting point in the evolution of the presidency.
In the early days of the Republic, the Congress ruled the country. The president handled foreign affairs and the day to day business of the Republic but didn't determine much of spending or law. Some presidents fought Congress but most acquiesced.
Cleveland's 1st term is the last true acquiescent executive. He muddled along, did what was necessary but more or less the nation he led was the one handed to him by Congress in action, in law, in spirit. And Cleveland was cool with that.
Then came Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of William Henry Harrison (the guy who got sick on inauguration day and died without ever digesting a good meal as president). Old man Harrison was connected to the old guard: he fought alongside James Monroe and he fought for James Madison; but grandson Harrison was just another white man with a big hat. He was notable for one thing: he was the first president (since Andrew Jackson) that demanded shit from Congress. Give me this, I want this, we need more of this, why haven't have I gotten more of that? Congress mostly just ignored President Grandson. Harrison never got anything he wanted and is not a particularly noteworthy president. But he changed the tone of dealings between the White House and Capital Hill.
Re-enter Cleveland. Now he was invigorated and wanted to become the active leader that Harrison had been, hoping for more success than his successor/predecessor. Cleveland was a moderately popular and successful Prez largely because he demanded and received more from Congress.
Next came William McKinley. McKinley was an ordinary Republican: austere, bland, wanted a do-nothing gov't. A lurch back toward Congress' complete control. Then he died (in Buffalo). (I would suggest 1896 is the origin of the modern political parties: McKinley would be a recognizable Republican today (more Jeb Bush than Ted Cruz) and William Jennings Bryan would be a recognizable Democrat today (from the far off Bernie Sanders wing))
McKinley's Veep, Teddy Roosevelt, liked the new style of president that Cleveland suggested: a charismatic personality that would by-pass Congress and speak directly to the American people to set an agenda creating a set of expectations that previously would've only been had by the moneyed classes. Roosevelt was a populist and a supporter of the poor against the wealthy and built a great support among the populace from his bully pulpit. The gov't was beholden to the people and must do more to inform them and include them.
TR's handpicked protege, William Howard Taft, however, was more of a McKinley-style Republican (or a 1st term Cleveland). Taft is the only president who served on the Supreme Court (and his public career is more distinguished as a jurist than as a Prez). Taft had a judicial state of mind, fascinated by the philosophical nuts and bolts of how the Constitution works rather than political minutiae and force of personality. Taft wasn't the kind of big personality that wanted to sell an agenda to the American people or get in the way of letting Congress run the country. He was a great disappointment to Roosevelt who returned (Cleveland-like) to attempt to win back the presidency only to fall short and spoil Taft's chances of reelection.
Instead the next prez was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson brought back a forgotten custom: the State of the Union Address. The Constitution says that the Prez must give Congress an annual accounting of the affairs of gov't; it doesn't say it has to be in speech form but Washington and Adams liked public speaking so they turned it into an annual speech to Congress. Jefferson didn't like giving speeches so he gave up on the oral tradition and just produced a written report (itself a conglomeration of annual cabinet level reports), which became the new tradition for over 100 years. But Wilson wanted to be more public, more outgoing, more like Teddy Roosevelt (or a 2nd term Cleveland). (His administration is ultimately marred by ill health which kept him from being more connected with the people and the state of affairs)
Next is Harding. Harding...well...kinda sucked at everything that could possibly be expected of a Prez. In fairness to Harding, I think he would've agreed with my assessment. But on election day 1920 he electrified enough voters to become Prez, mostly because women apparently thought he was dreamy (yipes! Gotta say: 1920 dreamy doesn't look like a peak vintage). His handsome visage (sic) created a connection to the populace. (Worth noting that his opponent was James Cox, Founder and CEO of Cox Communications, a megalithic media company still around today. Just because you run a communications company doesn't mean you're a natural born communicator)
After Harding died (Google it), came Calvin Coolidge. He is remembered as 'Silent Cal' but in his day he was actually a popular and well-respected radio talker. He made concise, pointed speeches that clearly explained what his intentions were as Prez. He was well liked for being level headed. (Worth noting he had a gangbusters economy which allowed his plain speaking style to appeal to people rather than irritate them)
Then came Herbert Hoover. I recently heard it said of him: 'if he'd become Prez in 1920, he would've been more popular than FDR, he would've been the Reagan of his time' (paraphrasing). Yup, he was the guy that get left holding the bag when the roaring economy stopped roaring. If he'd been there when the music got started, he would've been a house on fire. But after 1929, the whole everything was on fire. He was unable to get much done (nowadays we blame a mix of the Federal Reserve,the Treaty of Versailles and international manipulation of gold prices) and the economy kept spiraling out of control. He was unable to communicate a strong theory for dealing with the problems the nation faced and confidence wasn't restored til Hoover was gone.
FDR. Clear vision, clear message, dropped verbal bombs on an opponent (Hoover) that was easy to hate. Lured the people in with his soothing radio voice. Populist to the core. Way more Keynesian then Keynes ever was. Expanded the expectation of gov't service, the necessity of gov't control, of increased spending, power and regulation. The people loved him. Going to war only broadened his reach, his appeal and his legacy. Arguably the most powerful and popular Prez in the nation's history.
Truman was tolerated at best, squeaking through the election of 1948 which no one really thought he would win (least of all the Chicago Tribune). In hindsight he was a pragmatic prez who continued the parts of the FDR doctrine that people liked and presided over the defensive shell of the Cold War that lasted for decades. But at the time he was thought of as FDR's half wit flunkie and a notoriously awful public speaker. And along with Herbert Hoover, Truman was probably the only Prez whose appearances were more pervasive in film than in radio or TV. He reserved himself to a slower, more deliberate medium.
Eisenhower was a vastly popular and well respected General who was easily whisked into the White House. The first true TV Prez. He stayed admired all through his administration and the economy was good (still my model of how great an American Prez can be).
JFK defeated Nixon on TV but not on radio.
LBJ couldn't overcome the liberal media showing all those American teenagers and their hippie jam music.
Nixon was felled by the media. So far the only Prez literally run outta office by journalism.
Ford in this discussion is like Taft: returning the power to Congress and the Supreme Court, shrinking the executive. His most notable accomplishment at the time was being ridiculed mercilessly on a new TV show called Saturday Night Live. Perhaps still to this day our most ridiculed Prez (think about that...).
Carter rose to prominence with the help of Hunter S. Thompson on the pages of Rolling Stone and an eye-opening, still classic Playboy interview. In this discussion though he's more like Harding: Carter bungled everything about being Prez, it was a tough time to be Prez but, dude, he didn't have a Secretary of State for like two years! He is still the model of how to not do the transition period. He projected an air of 'malaise' and routinely dismissed cabinet officers. Nightline is a direct outgrowth of the Carter Administration: a news show started initially to cover only the story of the hostages in Iran and just kept running after the hostages returned. The 24 news cycle was right around the corner.
A quick recap: Roosevelt and Wilson were legendary public speakers; Coolidge and FDR were legendary radio speakers; Eisenhower and JFK were the original TV presidents; LBJ and Nixon were the media casualties; Ford and Carter were largely at the mercy of the media. Ronald Reagan changes all that.
TV News was by 1980 a for-real thing with the immediate result being that the American people just start electing movie stars (though Orson Welles once warned that Ronald Reagan was not the hero, 'but the hero's best friend'). Tim Russert told a story that always stayed with me: Russert and Brokaw are hanging out at the White House on the last day of Reagan's presidency, one of them asks Reagan: 'What's your secret, Mr. President?' Reagan pauses, says: 'I know what I look like photographed from every angle.' Bingo!
But then George HW Bush was a media disaster who was carved up by Bill Clinton in 1992. Bush, like Truman, is a much more respected Prez in hindsight for his foreign policy accomplishments but in his day was bumbling boob on the TV who appeared utterly disconnected from modern American life.
Clinton was the offspring of Ronald Reagan: a whiz with the media, great public speaker that was wonky enough to get through any interview looking pretty good. And he instituted a new policy: daily press briefings. Every day reporters would gather together and instead of doing their jobs as journalists, they would be told exactly what the administration wanted them to know in perfect bite size chunks. The days of the Executive fighting the media are officially over, co-opting the media is the new way of things.
George W Bush was a notoriously bad speaker, except that that was a perfectly calculated shtick. He gave the 'Is our children learning?' speech like 6 times that day, it wasn't a one-off gaffe, it was an choreographed folksiness. Dishonest or merely overly practiced, what do you expect from a Prez nowadays? Not everyone knows what they look like from every angle.
Barack Obama is a dynamic public speaker and a very engaging personality. The obstructionist Congress has not allowed him to do much, the Supreme Court muddles along with only minimal support of the Obama agenda, his foreign policy is...uhh...let's say petulant. But he's still a gifted speaker and persona able to win back the American public at a moment's notice. I'm still not sure what Obamacare is or what it's gonna do (or if it's ever really gonna do anything) and I can't really think of anything else he's done, but he'll be an engaging personality for a few more decades in American life. And that'll matter a great deal in the historical perspective of the Obama administration.
Benjamin Harrison wanted more and he hounded Congress in a way rarely seen before. Teddy Roosevelt stumbles on the notion of reaching to the population through charisma, skipping Congress and going forth and acting like he runs the place. Here's the thing: he doesn't.
The Congress still very much runs everything in the same way Congress always did. Congress is the one that's putting down the deep influence on education, healthcare, taxes, financial regulation, labor laws, etc. not the Prez. The Prez is capable of funneling all of the Executive branch into a single personality, a single voice, a single charismatic character, a leader in a way that Congress simply cannot. But our founding father wanted the Presidency to be a foreign policy position (as exemplified by George Washington on Day #1) whose main domestic duty was controlling the military and keeping Congress from doing really dumb shit. The Prez was meant to be a retiring personality, who appeared only when necessary to perform only the most necessary task. But after Teddy Roosevelt, the populace expects the Prez to speak only to them and to tell them everything (as if that were even possible much less likely) and to give them what they want. The Prez's ability to actually give the people what they want is only marginally greater than it was in the 19th century, but the Prez's ability to look like he can and take credit/blame no matter what happens is vastly expanded. Our personal connection with a Prez (or antipathy toward his enemy, which I would suggest is a much more potent and pervasive force) has strengthened with the technology. The Prez's ability to produce a cult of personality is greater than ever but the Prez's ability to lead by fiat is still pretty minimal.
The Presidency is the same as the Presidency always was. Except its waaaaaaay louder now! We look at photos and videos of potential Presidents, we hear speeches, soundbites, debates and once they become Prez the press corps will expect a daily briefing. Public relations is pretty much 100% of the candidate's job because if he can't do that, he doesn't get to be Prez. It's not about foreign policy or judicial leanings, its about being more popular than the other douche bag on the first Tuesday in November. All those qualifications come later.
We think the office of the Prez is more powerful than it actually is. And while sometimes speeches can be powerful things, the Prez has an increasing amount of responsibility but a static amount of actual power.
I bring all this up because Monday night we'll have the opening debate between our latest presidential contenders: Donald Trump (reality show veteran) and Hillary Clinton (First Lady during the first daily press briefings in the White House). Is it any wonder that we look to the television to give us familiar faces to vote for? (To be honest, I must confess: say what you will about Trump, he is a showman and he's got me more interested in these debates than of any political debates of my lifetime) We want those faces to give us stuff. Too bad we keep looking to the wrong people.
As a recap, let's perform a Pascal experiment measuring Loudness and Likability.
Loud/Well-liked: TR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Loud/Not Well-liked: LBJ, Nixon, W Bush
Not Loud/Well-liked: Coolidge, Eisenhower
Not Loud/Not Well-liked: Taft, Harding, Hoover, Truman, Ford, Carter, HW Bush
Where is the advantage for a politician to not be loud? Forceful personalities that can survive the media burn are the only ones that can become well-liked leaders. Posterity is only for the future, we want the President to please us today. The fact that the Prez is ill-equipped to actually satisfy the citizenry in that way never really registers with the electorate. It just keeps voting for the guy that most think is the nicest, the least objectionable. And we fight each other to the death over it.
PS -- During the time period I've just gone over, one could argue that the single most powerful gov't employee of all was J. Edgar Hoover. Funny....I didn't mention him once.
In the early days of the Republic, the Congress ruled the country. The president handled foreign affairs and the day to day business of the Republic but didn't determine much of spending or law. Some presidents fought Congress but most acquiesced.
Cleveland's 1st term is the last true acquiescent executive. He muddled along, did what was necessary but more or less the nation he led was the one handed to him by Congress in action, in law, in spirit. And Cleveland was cool with that.
Then came Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of William Henry Harrison (the guy who got sick on inauguration day and died without ever digesting a good meal as president). Old man Harrison was connected to the old guard: he fought alongside James Monroe and he fought for James Madison; but grandson Harrison was just another white man with a big hat. He was notable for one thing: he was the first president (since Andrew Jackson) that demanded shit from Congress. Give me this, I want this, we need more of this, why haven't have I gotten more of that? Congress mostly just ignored President Grandson. Harrison never got anything he wanted and is not a particularly noteworthy president. But he changed the tone of dealings between the White House and Capital Hill.
Re-enter Cleveland. Now he was invigorated and wanted to become the active leader that Harrison had been, hoping for more success than his successor/predecessor. Cleveland was a moderately popular and successful Prez largely because he demanded and received more from Congress.
Next came William McKinley. McKinley was an ordinary Republican: austere, bland, wanted a do-nothing gov't. A lurch back toward Congress' complete control. Then he died (in Buffalo). (I would suggest 1896 is the origin of the modern political parties: McKinley would be a recognizable Republican today (more Jeb Bush than Ted Cruz) and William Jennings Bryan would be a recognizable Democrat today (from the far off Bernie Sanders wing))
McKinley's Veep, Teddy Roosevelt, liked the new style of president that Cleveland suggested: a charismatic personality that would by-pass Congress and speak directly to the American people to set an agenda creating a set of expectations that previously would've only been had by the moneyed classes. Roosevelt was a populist and a supporter of the poor against the wealthy and built a great support among the populace from his bully pulpit. The gov't was beholden to the people and must do more to inform them and include them.
TR's handpicked protege, William Howard Taft, however, was more of a McKinley-style Republican (or a 1st term Cleveland). Taft is the only president who served on the Supreme Court (and his public career is more distinguished as a jurist than as a Prez). Taft had a judicial state of mind, fascinated by the philosophical nuts and bolts of how the Constitution works rather than political minutiae and force of personality. Taft wasn't the kind of big personality that wanted to sell an agenda to the American people or get in the way of letting Congress run the country. He was a great disappointment to Roosevelt who returned (Cleveland-like) to attempt to win back the presidency only to fall short and spoil Taft's chances of reelection.
Instead the next prez was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson brought back a forgotten custom: the State of the Union Address. The Constitution says that the Prez must give Congress an annual accounting of the affairs of gov't; it doesn't say it has to be in speech form but Washington and Adams liked public speaking so they turned it into an annual speech to Congress. Jefferson didn't like giving speeches so he gave up on the oral tradition and just produced a written report (itself a conglomeration of annual cabinet level reports), which became the new tradition for over 100 years. But Wilson wanted to be more public, more outgoing, more like Teddy Roosevelt (or a 2nd term Cleveland). (His administration is ultimately marred by ill health which kept him from being more connected with the people and the state of affairs)
Next is Harding. Harding...well...kinda sucked at everything that could possibly be expected of a Prez. In fairness to Harding, I think he would've agreed with my assessment. But on election day 1920 he electrified enough voters to become Prez, mostly because women apparently thought he was dreamy (yipes! Gotta say: 1920 dreamy doesn't look like a peak vintage). His handsome visage (sic) created a connection to the populace. (Worth noting that his opponent was James Cox, Founder and CEO of Cox Communications, a megalithic media company still around today. Just because you run a communications company doesn't mean you're a natural born communicator)
After Harding died (Google it), came Calvin Coolidge. He is remembered as 'Silent Cal' but in his day he was actually a popular and well-respected radio talker. He made concise, pointed speeches that clearly explained what his intentions were as Prez. He was well liked for being level headed. (Worth noting he had a gangbusters economy which allowed his plain speaking style to appeal to people rather than irritate them)
Then came Herbert Hoover. I recently heard it said of him: 'if he'd become Prez in 1920, he would've been more popular than FDR, he would've been the Reagan of his time' (paraphrasing). Yup, he was the guy that get left holding the bag when the roaring economy stopped roaring. If he'd been there when the music got started, he would've been a house on fire. But after 1929, the whole everything was on fire. He was unable to get much done (nowadays we blame a mix of the Federal Reserve,the Treaty of Versailles and international manipulation of gold prices) and the economy kept spiraling out of control. He was unable to communicate a strong theory for dealing with the problems the nation faced and confidence wasn't restored til Hoover was gone.
FDR. Clear vision, clear message, dropped verbal bombs on an opponent (Hoover) that was easy to hate. Lured the people in with his soothing radio voice. Populist to the core. Way more Keynesian then Keynes ever was. Expanded the expectation of gov't service, the necessity of gov't control, of increased spending, power and regulation. The people loved him. Going to war only broadened his reach, his appeal and his legacy. Arguably the most powerful and popular Prez in the nation's history.
Truman was tolerated at best, squeaking through the election of 1948 which no one really thought he would win (least of all the Chicago Tribune). In hindsight he was a pragmatic prez who continued the parts of the FDR doctrine that people liked and presided over the defensive shell of the Cold War that lasted for decades. But at the time he was thought of as FDR's half wit flunkie and a notoriously awful public speaker. And along with Herbert Hoover, Truman was probably the only Prez whose appearances were more pervasive in film than in radio or TV. He reserved himself to a slower, more deliberate medium.
Eisenhower was a vastly popular and well respected General who was easily whisked into the White House. The first true TV Prez. He stayed admired all through his administration and the economy was good (still my model of how great an American Prez can be).
JFK defeated Nixon on TV but not on radio.
LBJ couldn't overcome the liberal media showing all those American teenagers and their hippie jam music.
Nixon was felled by the media. So far the only Prez literally run outta office by journalism.
Ford in this discussion is like Taft: returning the power to Congress and the Supreme Court, shrinking the executive. His most notable accomplishment at the time was being ridiculed mercilessly on a new TV show called Saturday Night Live. Perhaps still to this day our most ridiculed Prez (think about that...).
Carter rose to prominence with the help of Hunter S. Thompson on the pages of Rolling Stone and an eye-opening, still classic Playboy interview. In this discussion though he's more like Harding: Carter bungled everything about being Prez, it was a tough time to be Prez but, dude, he didn't have a Secretary of State for like two years! He is still the model of how to not do the transition period. He projected an air of 'malaise' and routinely dismissed cabinet officers. Nightline is a direct outgrowth of the Carter Administration: a news show started initially to cover only the story of the hostages in Iran and just kept running after the hostages returned. The 24 news cycle was right around the corner.
A quick recap: Roosevelt and Wilson were legendary public speakers; Coolidge and FDR were legendary radio speakers; Eisenhower and JFK were the original TV presidents; LBJ and Nixon were the media casualties; Ford and Carter were largely at the mercy of the media. Ronald Reagan changes all that.
But then George HW Bush was a media disaster who was carved up by Bill Clinton in 1992. Bush, like Truman, is a much more respected Prez in hindsight for his foreign policy accomplishments but in his day was bumbling boob on the TV who appeared utterly disconnected from modern American life.
Clinton was the offspring of Ronald Reagan: a whiz with the media, great public speaker that was wonky enough to get through any interview looking pretty good. And he instituted a new policy: daily press briefings. Every day reporters would gather together and instead of doing their jobs as journalists, they would be told exactly what the administration wanted them to know in perfect bite size chunks. The days of the Executive fighting the media are officially over, co-opting the media is the new way of things.
George W Bush was a notoriously bad speaker, except that that was a perfectly calculated shtick. He gave the 'Is our children learning?' speech like 6 times that day, it wasn't a one-off gaffe, it was an choreographed folksiness. Dishonest or merely overly practiced, what do you expect from a Prez nowadays? Not everyone knows what they look like from every angle.
Barack Obama is a dynamic public speaker and a very engaging personality. The obstructionist Congress has not allowed him to do much, the Supreme Court muddles along with only minimal support of the Obama agenda, his foreign policy is...uhh...let's say petulant. But he's still a gifted speaker and persona able to win back the American public at a moment's notice. I'm still not sure what Obamacare is or what it's gonna do (or if it's ever really gonna do anything) and I can't really think of anything else he's done, but he'll be an engaging personality for a few more decades in American life. And that'll matter a great deal in the historical perspective of the Obama administration.
But it also underlies my main point: though Cleveland and Roosevelt sought to create a more powerful presidency by side-stepping Congress to win mass approval, the Congress still controls the spending and the law-making, which are the real functions of gov't. And Congress can shut down a Prez no matter how popular or respected. The modern president is ubiquitous now (thanks to technological development) but only marginally more powerful than in the days of Benjamin Harrison. The Presidency is still a caretaker job with foreign policy implications.
Benjamin Harrison wanted more and he hounded Congress in a way rarely seen before. Teddy Roosevelt stumbles on the notion of reaching to the population through charisma, skipping Congress and going forth and acting like he runs the place. Here's the thing: he doesn't.
The Congress still very much runs everything in the same way Congress always did. Congress is the one that's putting down the deep influence on education, healthcare, taxes, financial regulation, labor laws, etc. not the Prez. The Prez is capable of funneling all of the Executive branch into a single personality, a single voice, a single charismatic character, a leader in a way that Congress simply cannot. But our founding father wanted the Presidency to be a foreign policy position (as exemplified by George Washington on Day #1) whose main domestic duty was controlling the military and keeping Congress from doing really dumb shit. The Prez was meant to be a retiring personality, who appeared only when necessary to perform only the most necessary task. But after Teddy Roosevelt, the populace expects the Prez to speak only to them and to tell them everything (as if that were even possible much less likely) and to give them what they want. The Prez's ability to actually give the people what they want is only marginally greater than it was in the 19th century, but the Prez's ability to look like he can and take credit/blame no matter what happens is vastly expanded. Our personal connection with a Prez (or antipathy toward his enemy, which I would suggest is a much more potent and pervasive force) has strengthened with the technology. The Prez's ability to produce a cult of personality is greater than ever but the Prez's ability to lead by fiat is still pretty minimal.
The Presidency is the same as the Presidency always was. Except its waaaaaaay louder now! We look at photos and videos of potential Presidents, we hear speeches, soundbites, debates and once they become Prez the press corps will expect a daily briefing. Public relations is pretty much 100% of the candidate's job because if he can't do that, he doesn't get to be Prez. It's not about foreign policy or judicial leanings, its about being more popular than the other douche bag on the first Tuesday in November. All those qualifications come later.
We think the office of the Prez is more powerful than it actually is. And while sometimes speeches can be powerful things, the Prez has an increasing amount of responsibility but a static amount of actual power.
I bring all this up because Monday night we'll have the opening debate between our latest presidential contenders: Donald Trump (reality show veteran) and Hillary Clinton (First Lady during the first daily press briefings in the White House). Is it any wonder that we look to the television to give us familiar faces to vote for? (To be honest, I must confess: say what you will about Trump, he is a showman and he's got me more interested in these debates than of any political debates of my lifetime) We want those faces to give us stuff. Too bad we keep looking to the wrong people.
As a recap, let's perform a Pascal experiment measuring Loudness and Likability.
Loud/Well-liked: TR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Loud/Not Well-liked: LBJ, Nixon, W Bush
Not Loud/Well-liked: Coolidge, Eisenhower
Not Loud/Not Well-liked: Taft, Harding, Hoover, Truman, Ford, Carter, HW Bush
Where is the advantage for a politician to not be loud? Forceful personalities that can survive the media burn are the only ones that can become well-liked leaders. Posterity is only for the future, we want the President to please us today. The fact that the Prez is ill-equipped to actually satisfy the citizenry in that way never really registers with the electorate. It just keeps voting for the guy that most think is the nicest, the least objectionable. And we fight each other to the death over it.
PS -- During the time period I've just gone over, one could argue that the single most powerful gov't employee of all was J. Edgar Hoover. Funny....I didn't mention him once.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Death of Justice Scalia
Wow, this was a bombshell! The death of a sitting justice is always awkward but in the lame duck period of the sitting president and an election year, this will throw the Court of whack for probably two years.
First -- This season's Court docket was loaded with controversial cases: abortion, affirmative action, executive power, immigration, etc. To lose a Justice in the midst of this will result in a lot of inconclusive results. And considering that the next Supreme Court season starts before the election, that means 2016-17 will roll with only 8 justices, too. (Hell, a new nominee couldn't even up for confirmation for another year, virtually impossible for Scalia's replacement to have any impact until the 2017-18 season) So the next few years should pile up quite a backlog before the next Justice even gets to take the oath.
Next -- Will President Obama be able to replace him? Well...I mean...no fuckin' way, right? The Republican Congress hasn't let Obama do anything for the last 8 years, what are the chances they're gonna let him stick a new Justice on the Court right as he's leaving office? The stonewall will begin pronto, I reckon. And does the stonewalling on this issue avalanche into a complete denial of Obama's impact or will it lead into some trade-offs? For example, I suspect the Republican Congress really wants to pass TPP, especially considering how negative all of the current presidential candidates are on the topic, but they're hesitant to give Obama any victories. But Congress might throw Obama a bone on TPP because Congress really wants to pass it anyway; or it may get bound up with Scalia's death and go out with the bathwater, leaving the next president to decide whether it comes back ext year.
Down the Line -- This really throws a wrench into the current presidential campaigns, especially on the Republican side. Cruz would nominate another Scalia but Trump would not (indeed, I suspect Trump might reach out to Janice Rogers Brown, a 3rd rail personality on both sides of the political divide who might look to Trump like an interesting prize). Rubio, like Cruz, would probably favor another hard core Catholic right winger but Bush wouldn't, nor would (I suspect) Kasich. Obviously they'll all want a right winger but in this crowd there are varying levels of cultural conservatism and being hard core on economic and political issues may or may not lend itself to telling gays who can they make paperwork with. If the Republican electorate really paid attention, the next Supreme Court nomination might make all the difference in this race. Also, paradoxically, it makes Trump the moderate candidate as he is...well, let's be honest: he's a Democrat, not a Republican, so we have to assume he'd be looking for a Kennedy more than a Thomas. On the Democrat side, it's a much easier call: both Sanders and Clinton would look for the next Elena Kagan.
Obviously Justice Scalia himself was a polarizing figure and most folks will comment purely on whether they liked or disliked him. Personally, I don't really care. Whether I agreed with him or not, I thought he was thoroughly competent justice and had as much right to speak his mind as anyone we've ever put on the Court. (The problem with Americans is they think have to like everything, Democracy leads to inevitable power of popularity. Said it before, I'll say it again: Democracy is way overrated) I'm more interested in the extremely awkward timing of his passing. The Court will be in turmoil for probably two years, something not unheard of in American history, but not something I've seen in my lifetime.
First -- This season's Court docket was loaded with controversial cases: abortion, affirmative action, executive power, immigration, etc. To lose a Justice in the midst of this will result in a lot of inconclusive results. And considering that the next Supreme Court season starts before the election, that means 2016-17 will roll with only 8 justices, too. (Hell, a new nominee couldn't even up for confirmation for another year, virtually impossible for Scalia's replacement to have any impact until the 2017-18 season) So the next few years should pile up quite a backlog before the next Justice even gets to take the oath.
Next -- Will President Obama be able to replace him? Well...I mean...no fuckin' way, right? The Republican Congress hasn't let Obama do anything for the last 8 years, what are the chances they're gonna let him stick a new Justice on the Court right as he's leaving office? The stonewall will begin pronto, I reckon. And does the stonewalling on this issue avalanche into a complete denial of Obama's impact or will it lead into some trade-offs? For example, I suspect the Republican Congress really wants to pass TPP, especially considering how negative all of the current presidential candidates are on the topic, but they're hesitant to give Obama any victories. But Congress might throw Obama a bone on TPP because Congress really wants to pass it anyway; or it may get bound up with Scalia's death and go out with the bathwater, leaving the next president to decide whether it comes back ext year.
Down the Line -- This really throws a wrench into the current presidential campaigns, especially on the Republican side. Cruz would nominate another Scalia but Trump would not (indeed, I suspect Trump might reach out to Janice Rogers Brown, a 3rd rail personality on both sides of the political divide who might look to Trump like an interesting prize). Rubio, like Cruz, would probably favor another hard core Catholic right winger but Bush wouldn't, nor would (I suspect) Kasich. Obviously they'll all want a right winger but in this crowd there are varying levels of cultural conservatism and being hard core on economic and political issues may or may not lend itself to telling gays who can they make paperwork with. If the Republican electorate really paid attention, the next Supreme Court nomination might make all the difference in this race. Also, paradoxically, it makes Trump the moderate candidate as he is...well, let's be honest: he's a Democrat, not a Republican, so we have to assume he'd be looking for a Kennedy more than a Thomas. On the Democrat side, it's a much easier call: both Sanders and Clinton would look for the next Elena Kagan.
Obviously Justice Scalia himself was a polarizing figure and most folks will comment purely on whether they liked or disliked him. Personally, I don't really care. Whether I agreed with him or not, I thought he was thoroughly competent justice and had as much right to speak his mind as anyone we've ever put on the Court. (The problem with Americans is they think have to like everything, Democracy leads to inevitable power of popularity. Said it before, I'll say it again: Democracy is way overrated) I'm more interested in the extremely awkward timing of his passing. The Court will be in turmoil for probably two years, something not unheard of in American history, but not something I've seen in my lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)