In my lifetime, at least during that time period when I have been very aware of the political process, I have come to the following two conclusions relating to the election of Presidents in the United States and to the support or lack of support they receive during their presidencies.
The first conclusion is that the United States has either a center or center-right bias in terms of politics. Most Americans want to live their lives in peace, pay their bills and taxes on time, be respected as human beings, be patriotic, support the less advantaged, and enjoy their families. To me the major reason the Tea Party arose over the past year or so is that a lot of people felt
that they had lived their lives following these behavior patterns and that, somehow, they were being penalized for acting that way.
In the same vein, populism has never won national elections. Even the Clintons realized this as is reported in Robert Rubin’s book “In An Uncertain World.” To me Al Gore lost the election of 2000 because his campaign for the presidency took a “populist” turn. Otherwise, he seemed to be a certainty.
The second conclusion I have reached is that presidents are elected more by who people vote against rather than who they vote for. I would contend that the last president who was voted into the White House on the basis of people voting “for” them was Dwight Eisenhower. Not only was Eisenhower extremely popular as an individual, he was the face of the World War II victory.
But, let me give you my reasoning. John F. Kennedy was elected because people voted against Richard Nixon. Lyndon Johnson was elected because people voted against Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon was elected because people voted against the very liberal and populist Hubert Humphrey. Richard Nixon was re-elected and re-elected by such a large majority because people voted against George McGovern. People voted against Gerald Ford because of the Nixon “thing” and elected Jimmy Carter.
Ronald Regan then became president as people voted against Jimmy Carter. Ronald Regan was re-elected and won by such a large margin because the electorate voted against the liberal Walter Mondale and the very liberal Geraldine Ferraro. George H. W. Bush was elected because people voted against the very liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.
Bill Clinton won over George H. W. Bush because people were tired of Republicans and voted against Bush. Clinton was also centrist enough to not frighten anyone (I had a good Republican friend tell be before the election that Bill Clinton would be the best “Republican” Democratic President we would ever see…and he was right!) Clinton was re-elected and re-elected by a large margin because people voted against Bob Dole.
Above, I gave you the reason why I believe that George W. Bush was elected in 2000: people voted against the “populist” Al Gore. Bush was re-elected because people voted against the very liberal John Kerry. And, the obvious conclusion one can draw from this is that in 2008 people voted against George W. Bush and what he and the Republicans had come to stand for. Obama was neither threatening enough to prevent his election, nor the election of a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.
Where do we stand after the mid-term elections which took place recently? My interpretation: people perceive President Obama and the Democratic Congress as too far away from their center or center-right leanings. They seem too “populist”. Second, they voters voted against the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress.
To me, this second point is very, very important. When people believe that they are “elected in” because of either who they are or who their party is, they develop a hubris that almost immediately plants the seeds of their downfall.
If someone from the “left”, or from the “right”, gets elected and takes the position that “The public overwhelmingly gave me a mandate to carry out my program”…they are in trouble. Early on they discover that the “centrist” electorate didn’t really give them a “mandate” they just voted the other “guys” out. As the new president then tries to get his program enacted he runs into quite a bit of difficulty and he also finds his popularity rating declining. These are tendencies are tough to overcome in the next election.
Failure occurs, not because of the president’s inability to popularize his program. It is not the president’s inability to be more political. It is not because the president had been “too substantive” or “too serious”. It is not because the American people are under stress and don’t think clearly.
It is because the American electorate is center to center-right in its political leanings and that the new president is in office, not because he and his program were elected overwhelming by the people, but because they voted against the other guy.
Rather than carrying the election-day hubris into the Oval Office, maybe a new president needs be a little more humble about the reason he was elected in the first place.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Ages: Part II
Sara Robinson presented us with a thought-provoking piece in the New Republic this week. (See “Building the Progressive Brand”: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78278/building-the-progressive-brand.)
She starts off with, “Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for.” Then she lists four items: low taxes, small government, strong defense and traditional families.
Robinson then asks, “OK, now: What do Democrats and progressives stand for?”
Then, “Take your time. It’s a tough question.”
When I was growing up, the tables were turned. People seemed to know what the Democrats and liberals stood for. The Republicans did not have a brand, at least one that was credible. This was developed in the 1960s and 1970s leading up to the election of Ronald Reagan.
Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot.
This is my first “crack” at trying to go back and see what it was that the Democrats stood for and comment on what happened to this “branding.”
My initial list of the four things I think about when I go back and reflect on what the Democrats stood for I come up with the following list: freedom, equal opportunity, economic security and anti-discrimination.
Expanding on these I would argue that freedom meant more than just free speech and free movement. It meant freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of lifestyles and so forth, at least if people living these freedoms did not act in a way that interfered with the ability of others to also enjoy these freedoms.
Equal opportunity could be translated into the possibility that anyone could achieve any outcome available to those in the society. Anyone, for example, could become President of the United States, or, President of General Motors, or, anything they set their mind on.
Economic security related to the goal to secure individuals the minimum standard of living and a job that one could achieve a degree of self-respect in.
Anti-discrimination meant that every individual should be treated in a similar fashion; that it did not matter whether one was black or brown, or, Roman Catholic or Jewish, or, a woman, or whatever. All people were human beings and they should be treated as human beings.
What happened to these beliefs? To the “liberal” brand?
One could say that, over time, the Democrats and liberals didn’t maintain their brand. They either abused the brand or lost control of its content or allowed others to define what their brand was.
For example, freedom morphed into the “me” generation, “my way or the highway”, or “doin’ your own thing.” Freedom became “license”. This movement has been dissected in Jonathan Franzen’s recent bestseller carrying the title of “Freedom”.
The second of these, equal opportunity for everyone has evolved into the idea that everyone has a right to equal outcomes. Rather than have a chance to become anything in this society, a lot of people believe that many people think that it is their right to positions or wealth or attention.
This may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but it has gotten to the point where many believe this is what they mean.
Third, economic security has been translated into the belief that government is to provide “entitlements” to everyone. People are entitled to a job, people are entitled to own a home, people are entitled to have a car, and so on and so on. The government must almost constantly stimulate the economy through budget deficits and credit growth in order to provide the jobs and income so that all economic insecurity is banished. This philosophy, of course, is said to lead to “big” government.
Again, that may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but this is how many see the consequences of their objectives and programs.
Finally, the aim to reduce bias and discrimination in society has been seen as allowing people to claim “victim-hood”. Thus, rather than looking at this effort in a positive context, the attempt has been seen as giving people an “excuse” for their psychological problems, their failures, and their exclusion. They can now claim that they are “victims” indicating that their problems are the result of someone else, something which they have no responsibility for and should be compensated in some way for this treatment.
Personally, I can relate to the brand of “the Democrats and liberals” and progressives that I have defined above. Not, of course, as they have been converted to, but in terms of their original intent.
To me, it is not so much a question of developing a new brand for the Democrats and progressives, it is a matter of converting these basic ideas into terms and concepts that people in the 21st century relate to. In this respect, I know what I stand for. People just are not expressing it in a way that I can say…”Yes, I stand for that!”
This has been what the Republicans and conservatives have strived for. This is what the Republicans and conservatives, to a great extent, have achieved.
I believe that these fundamental “liberal” ideas still resonate…just not in the way they are being presented.
She starts off with, “Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for.” Then she lists four items: low taxes, small government, strong defense and traditional families.
Robinson then asks, “OK, now: What do Democrats and progressives stand for?”
Then, “Take your time. It’s a tough question.”
When I was growing up, the tables were turned. People seemed to know what the Democrats and liberals stood for. The Republicans did not have a brand, at least one that was credible. This was developed in the 1960s and 1970s leading up to the election of Ronald Reagan.
Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot.
This is my first “crack” at trying to go back and see what it was that the Democrats stood for and comment on what happened to this “branding.”
My initial list of the four things I think about when I go back and reflect on what the Democrats stood for I come up with the following list: freedom, equal opportunity, economic security and anti-discrimination.
Expanding on these I would argue that freedom meant more than just free speech and free movement. It meant freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of lifestyles and so forth, at least if people living these freedoms did not act in a way that interfered with the ability of others to also enjoy these freedoms.
Equal opportunity could be translated into the possibility that anyone could achieve any outcome available to those in the society. Anyone, for example, could become President of the United States, or, President of General Motors, or, anything they set their mind on.
Economic security related to the goal to secure individuals the minimum standard of living and a job that one could achieve a degree of self-respect in.
Anti-discrimination meant that every individual should be treated in a similar fashion; that it did not matter whether one was black or brown, or, Roman Catholic or Jewish, or, a woman, or whatever. All people were human beings and they should be treated as human beings.
What happened to these beliefs? To the “liberal” brand?
One could say that, over time, the Democrats and liberals didn’t maintain their brand. They either abused the brand or lost control of its content or allowed others to define what their brand was.
For example, freedom morphed into the “me” generation, “my way or the highway”, or “doin’ your own thing.” Freedom became “license”. This movement has been dissected in Jonathan Franzen’s recent bestseller carrying the title of “Freedom”.
The second of these, equal opportunity for everyone has evolved into the idea that everyone has a right to equal outcomes. Rather than have a chance to become anything in this society, a lot of people believe that many people think that it is their right to positions or wealth or attention.
This may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but it has gotten to the point where many believe this is what they mean.
Third, economic security has been translated into the belief that government is to provide “entitlements” to everyone. People are entitled to a job, people are entitled to own a home, people are entitled to have a car, and so on and so on. The government must almost constantly stimulate the economy through budget deficits and credit growth in order to provide the jobs and income so that all economic insecurity is banished. This philosophy, of course, is said to lead to “big” government.
Again, that may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but this is how many see the consequences of their objectives and programs.
Finally, the aim to reduce bias and discrimination in society has been seen as allowing people to claim “victim-hood”. Thus, rather than looking at this effort in a positive context, the attempt has been seen as giving people an “excuse” for their psychological problems, their failures, and their exclusion. They can now claim that they are “victims” indicating that their problems are the result of someone else, something which they have no responsibility for and should be compensated in some way for this treatment.
Personally, I can relate to the brand of “the Democrats and liberals” and progressives that I have defined above. Not, of course, as they have been converted to, but in terms of their original intent.
To me, it is not so much a question of developing a new brand for the Democrats and progressives, it is a matter of converting these basic ideas into terms and concepts that people in the 21st century relate to. In this respect, I know what I stand for. People just are not expressing it in a way that I can say…”Yes, I stand for that!”
This has been what the Republicans and conservatives have strived for. This is what the Republicans and conservatives, to a great extent, have achieved.
I believe that these fundamental “liberal” ideas still resonate…just not in the way they are being presented.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Ages: Part I
Maybe we need to be a little more cognizant of what might be called “the Age of the Times.” That is, the dominating forces that seem to be at work during a particular period of time that, in a real sense, help to define what is going on.
There was a column in the New York Times yesterday, September 12, 2010, titled “The Presidency, Chained to the World” that set me off thinking in this way. To quote: “The farther we get from presidencies, after all, the more we tend to view them as belonging to periods rather than individuals, as sometimes overlapping clusters along the country’s historical continuum.”
The specific concern of this piece was this: “When historians look back 50 years from now, in what era will they place Mr. Obama’s presidency, and what does it say about the challenges he faces?”
I have been trying to put the major issues of my lifetime into a perspective to help me define what went on.
Of course, one of the major things to take place in my lifetime was the Viet Nam war and the events of the 1960s. My daughter asked me one time, several years ago, what was the big deal about the 1960s.
I had the chance to talk with Andrew Young one time when he visited the campus on which I was teaching. After discussing several other things, I mentioned to him the question that my daughter had asked me. And, I then asked him: “You were there. You were on the front lines. You faced smoke bombs and dogs attacking you. What do your children ask you about that period of time?”
His answer: “The same question that your daughter ask you.”
I was taken aback by this answer.
Certainly, a person that went through this period could honestly say that the person they were entering the 1960s was entirely different from the person they were beginning the decade of the 1970s. But, what was the difference? What defines the era?
Or, does this period have to be put into a larger picture?
Going into the 1960s, America was a country that became the predominant economy in the world during the 1930s. The country emerged from World War II as the unquestioned military power in the world. We were at the top!
Within this context, maybe the 1960s saw how the hubris built up over the past 30 years or so got applied to a little, insignificant war over in Southeast Asia. And, this war channeled feelings that were growing in the 1950s relating to civil rights and equality for women. And, these were all “hot buttons” for the young growing up during this time.
The young had been raised on becoming individuals, individual authenticity, and ideas about freedom and rebellion from the stuffing old society and norms of their fathers and mothers. Marlon Brando, James Dean, and others were our role models. There were also the Beat Generation…and there was the war!
I saw some of the effects of this war in my teaching at Lansing Community College in the 1963-1964 period. I had grown up with the expectation that I would go to college and graduate, get a job, and work for the next forty-some years and then retire and play golf. The “kids” I taught at this time…they saw themselves as getting out of community college, getting drafted, and getting killed…all within the next two to three years. Their future collapsed into a very short horizon and they believed that with such a future…what was wrong getting drunk on a regular basis…taking drugs…having sex where ever one could…and so on and so on.
Attitudes like this began to permeate the culture…at least to the younger folk.
But, this also got tied into civil rights. We were talking about freedom. And, then there was the women’s movement. Note that this came along with the “pill” giving women the opportunity to have casual sex on a regular basis…just like the guys. Of course “the guys” supported this liberation, this freedom…what a gift…girls became readily available when it used to be so hard to have sex with any of them on a regular basis!
This was not all, but the future was never the same.
Was this a part of something still bigger? Information technology was advancing and information was spreading in a way and at a speed it had never advanced before. I remember seeing the war in Korea on television and George Wallace fight integration in the south. I saw John F. Kennedy speak to the 1956 Democratic convention. I saw a Vietnamese general shoot someone in the side of the head on national television. And, there was, of course, a lot more. But, many people were a lot more aware of the world…in real time!
Let me put this in another context. Going back to the New York Times article: “What historians are suggesting is that the modern president may simply not be able to exercise that same firm grasp—or at least not most of the time.” The reason is that we have moved into an age of global interdependence.
“With global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influences beyond our territorial borders that are less obvious and less easily answered than the launch of a Soviet satellite. And those influences, perhaps, directly undermine our ideal of what a president should be.”
In the 1950s, the United States was at the “top of the heap.” It was Number One. In the 2010s, the United States is one among many…at least in a lot of things.
I was growing up in the 1950s. I am near the end of my career in the 2010s. What took place during this time period? How can one define this age?
Something happened after the 1950s. I feel that something else is happening now, something that is moving us on to the next “Age”.
I saw a movie a week ago Friday. The movie was called “Going the Distance” and starred Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, and Christina Applegate (the daughter on TV’s Married with Children). The movie, seemed to me, to present a glimpse of what young people are facing today…few jobs, no leaders to provide role-models, no direction, nothing to believe in, and basically searching for something to latch onto, to hold onto, and such. No one is confident about the future. The main characters seemed adrift in a way I didn’t recognize, in a way I didn’t feel a part of.
So my quest in these posts is to try and add some definition to the last sixty years. To interpret how this time period led up to where we are now. And, to try and get a hold of where things are going. Thus, this commentary will consist of a number of parts. Of course, it is just my interpretation.
There was a column in the New York Times yesterday, September 12, 2010, titled “The Presidency, Chained to the World” that set me off thinking in this way. To quote: “The farther we get from presidencies, after all, the more we tend to view them as belonging to periods rather than individuals, as sometimes overlapping clusters along the country’s historical continuum.”
The specific concern of this piece was this: “When historians look back 50 years from now, in what era will they place Mr. Obama’s presidency, and what does it say about the challenges he faces?”
I have been trying to put the major issues of my lifetime into a perspective to help me define what went on.
Of course, one of the major things to take place in my lifetime was the Viet Nam war and the events of the 1960s. My daughter asked me one time, several years ago, what was the big deal about the 1960s.
I had the chance to talk with Andrew Young one time when he visited the campus on which I was teaching. After discussing several other things, I mentioned to him the question that my daughter had asked me. And, I then asked him: “You were there. You were on the front lines. You faced smoke bombs and dogs attacking you. What do your children ask you about that period of time?”
His answer: “The same question that your daughter ask you.”
I was taken aback by this answer.
Certainly, a person that went through this period could honestly say that the person they were entering the 1960s was entirely different from the person they were beginning the decade of the 1970s. But, what was the difference? What defines the era?
Or, does this period have to be put into a larger picture?
Going into the 1960s, America was a country that became the predominant economy in the world during the 1930s. The country emerged from World War II as the unquestioned military power in the world. We were at the top!
Within this context, maybe the 1960s saw how the hubris built up over the past 30 years or so got applied to a little, insignificant war over in Southeast Asia. And, this war channeled feelings that were growing in the 1950s relating to civil rights and equality for women. And, these were all “hot buttons” for the young growing up during this time.
The young had been raised on becoming individuals, individual authenticity, and ideas about freedom and rebellion from the stuffing old society and norms of their fathers and mothers. Marlon Brando, James Dean, and others were our role models. There were also the Beat Generation…and there was the war!
I saw some of the effects of this war in my teaching at Lansing Community College in the 1963-1964 period. I had grown up with the expectation that I would go to college and graduate, get a job, and work for the next forty-some years and then retire and play golf. The “kids” I taught at this time…they saw themselves as getting out of community college, getting drafted, and getting killed…all within the next two to three years. Their future collapsed into a very short horizon and they believed that with such a future…what was wrong getting drunk on a regular basis…taking drugs…having sex where ever one could…and so on and so on.
Attitudes like this began to permeate the culture…at least to the younger folk.
But, this also got tied into civil rights. We were talking about freedom. And, then there was the women’s movement. Note that this came along with the “pill” giving women the opportunity to have casual sex on a regular basis…just like the guys. Of course “the guys” supported this liberation, this freedom…what a gift…girls became readily available when it used to be so hard to have sex with any of them on a regular basis!
This was not all, but the future was never the same.
Was this a part of something still bigger? Information technology was advancing and information was spreading in a way and at a speed it had never advanced before. I remember seeing the war in Korea on television and George Wallace fight integration in the south. I saw John F. Kennedy speak to the 1956 Democratic convention. I saw a Vietnamese general shoot someone in the side of the head on national television. And, there was, of course, a lot more. But, many people were a lot more aware of the world…in real time!
Let me put this in another context. Going back to the New York Times article: “What historians are suggesting is that the modern president may simply not be able to exercise that same firm grasp—or at least not most of the time.” The reason is that we have moved into an age of global interdependence.
“With global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influences beyond our territorial borders that are less obvious and less easily answered than the launch of a Soviet satellite. And those influences, perhaps, directly undermine our ideal of what a president should be.”
In the 1950s, the United States was at the “top of the heap.” It was Number One. In the 2010s, the United States is one among many…at least in a lot of things.
I was growing up in the 1950s. I am near the end of my career in the 2010s. What took place during this time period? How can one define this age?
Something happened after the 1950s. I feel that something else is happening now, something that is moving us on to the next “Age”.
I saw a movie a week ago Friday. The movie was called “Going the Distance” and starred Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, and Christina Applegate (the daughter on TV’s Married with Children). The movie, seemed to me, to present a glimpse of what young people are facing today…few jobs, no leaders to provide role-models, no direction, nothing to believe in, and basically searching for something to latch onto, to hold onto, and such. No one is confident about the future. The main characters seemed adrift in a way I didn’t recognize, in a way I didn’t feel a part of.
So my quest in these posts is to try and add some definition to the last sixty years. To interpret how this time period led up to where we are now. And, to try and get a hold of where things are going. Thus, this commentary will consist of a number of parts. Of course, it is just my interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)