Thoughts on the campaign so far

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s been interesting—as in, “may you live in interesting times.”

It seems long already. And although previous presidential election years have featured heated battles, this one seems even more heated.

Maybe I’m just not remembering correctly. But there’s an element abroad in the Republican land that seems more vicious and more sparked by anger than ever before. And that’s not an indictment of any particular candidate, although I think that at the moment Gingrich is riding that anger and Romney is more the recipient of it. But the anger preceded both of them.

For me as a blogger, this campaign represents a dilemma. Not the dilemma you might think I mean; I’m not torn about who to support. I’ll do what I always do there: observe, think, and call it as I see it. If I change my mind at some point—well then, that’s something that’s happened before, isn’t it?

No, the problem is that this campaign season has raised enough issues to keep me writing in all my free time and then some. I’ve got notes for about twenty in-depth, magazine-article-long pieces, each of which would take me about fifty hours to research and write with any sort of adequacy.

I won’t be getting to most of them, but they’re about larger issues than this campaign: the place of anger in American politics, the class war that’s fomenting and being fomented by both sides (a rather unique moment in history, I believe), attitudes towards capitalism and its morality, the popular notion that there are “elites” on either side who are the puppeteers in the process that selects the eventual nominee, “establishment” Republicans vs. supposedly non-establishment ones, how the term “flip-flop” is used as a pejorative and whether it means more than to change one’s mind, the extremes of right and left and what they want to happen in America (and how they resemble each other and how they differ).

That’s just a few. You can see my dilemma.

For me, the unease of the campaign season began as the first candidates I would have liked to have seen enter the race refused to do so. Oh, I thought, if that one says no, it’s okay because surely that one will say yes.

But it was not to be, and I think that’s at least part of what’s driving the general anger here: who among us still has a candidate in the race that he/she would have chosen at the outset? Or forget that dream: who among us has a candidate in the race that he/she still considers to be a good one?

Some of you may think there is; I don’t. I just don’t. And that’s not whining and wanting the moon; I’ve never felt so negative about a slate in all the years I’ve been observing these things (although I have to say that the 2008 Republicans were a close second).

I also think the extraordinary number of debates has been a big mistake. I’ve never liked debates (or even speeches, for that matter) to begin with. I think that debates give the press too much power to shape the event, and emphasize superficial characteristics and mostly lead to sound bites and ways to discredit perfectly reasonable candidates. Debates with a lot of characters (as these earlier debates featured) especially favor the short punchy and nearly meaningless statement.

The result that I sense from all of this (and apparently the editors of the WSJ agree with me, although they’re a bit nastier about it) is that the Republican candidate will lose. That was always a concern for me, although at first I thought Obama especially ripe for the picking. But the whole crew is so tarnished now that Obama will start looking a lot better to more and more of the American public—or at least, to enough of them for him to squeak out a win.

That thought troubles me greatly. Should I be philosophical and say, as the WSJ seems to be saying: then Republicans deserve it? Maybe, but I don’t think the country deserves it.

Those who champion this candidate or that one with more enthusiasm than I seem to think victory’s in the bag. That we could nominate anyone who can speak and breathe and the country will vote for him/her in a wild spasm of rage against Obama. I say no; won’t happen—just cause you’re that angry at Obama doesn’t mean most people are, nor does it mean that the majority of voters wouldn’t be even more repulsed by the Republican candidate du jour.

Who are these people?

The New Neo Posted on by

I was researching a post I might write some day about Republican presidents, and I came across this photo.

Who are these people?

Scions of two Republican presidents, they are Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower, who married in 1968 and are still married, an achievement in itself (they were both 20 years old at the time of their wedding; they had met as children at the 1956 Republican convention that nominated Julie’s father for VP and David’s grandfather for president). The above photo was taken at the wedding of the son of Julie’s sister Tricia, in the summer of 2011, which would make Julie close to 63 years old.

I suspect a smidgeon of cosmetic surgery. But whatever it is she’s had done or not had done, she looks awfully good. In her face I see both parents, and somehow it works despite the fact that her father was not the handsomest of men. Interesting factoid: her Wiki entry states that she and her husband donated quite a bit of money to the campaign of one Barack Obama in 2008.

Now quick, who’s this?

Their daughter, Jennie Elizabeth Eisenhower, who is also Nixon’s granddaughter, Eisenhower’s great-granddaughter, and an actress.

The cruel Coulter

The New Neo Posted on by

I almost never write about Ann Coulter. She’s not my cup of tea: too abrasive, and inclined to say over-the-top things just for effect.

But it’s long been clear that she’s very intelligent, as well as ballsy. The lady can talk; her mind habitually races. Coulter has never seemed to hold back through fear of saying controversial things—if fact, she’s seemed to get her kicks from observations that were un-PC, the more outrageous the better.

So I was surprised a while back when Coulter came out for Romney. He wouldn’t appear to be her candidate at all; the “safe” “establishment” guy? I’d have thought that almost anyone else except the far-out Ron Paul would offer her more of the conservative red meat she’d be looking for. Coulter’s stated reason for supporting Mitt was that she wanted a win for Republicans and a defeat for Obama, and only Romney was the best bet to do it.

It certainly didn’t seem to be in her own interests to go for Romney. The anyone-but-Romney crowd was up in arms. “Republican media elite” they sniffed; what do you expect? But that argument didn’t make much sense to me in Coulter’s case. I couldn’t figure out what would be in it for her if she backed Romney and trashed the others—especially Newt, who would seem to be her stylistic twin.

Coulter has earned her bread and butter by being a feisty contrarian, not an “in with the in crowd” gal. And yet, here she was for the blandest guy in the bunch, and not the most conservative candidate either. This was not going to play well with her base.

And judging by this tape, South Carolina certainly hasn’t made her change her mind. In fact, she’s doubling down. Like Newt, Ann doesn’t pull her punches. She’s got some interesting things to say, especially about Newt’s conservatism:

NOTE: By the way, do you know what the word “coulter” means? Pretty descriptive, I’d say:

A blade or wheel attached to the beam of a plow that makes vertical cuts in the soil in advance of the plowshare.

How did I know to look it up? It occurs in one of my very favorite poems “To a Mouse” by Robert Burns. I’ve long been aware that it refers to some sort of plowlike implement, but had never learned exactly what till now:

…Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,
An’ weary winter comin fast,
An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro’ thy cell…

The cruel coulter.

Come for the politics, stay for the dance

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday commenter “davisbr” offered the following slogan for the blog, “Come for the politics, stay for the dance.”

I love it—and not least because it can so easily be reversed, “come for the dance, stay for the politics.” Politics is a sort of dance, isn’t it?—although not always or even often a pleasant one. Usually you’ve got to have some mad skills to win, not to mention endurance.

Yesterday, on that same thread, commenter “Honeyimhome” offered the following ballet comparison of the GOP frontrunner candidates:

Romney: been to the right schools, put in all the work, has all the technical skills,

Mechanically he’s all there, but not enough people are really convinced he can be the numero uno ballerina.

Newt: kind of hard to do a ballet comparison, because he’s not really refined for a ballet. Maybe a cowboy ballet. He’s the star of the show though, whatever it is.

That’s my takeoff point to tell you that in fact there are cowboy ballets, surprisingly enough. In fact, there was a certain vogue for them in the late-30s through early 50s, part of the “Americanization” of the previously-European art of ballet. Agnes de Mille’s “Rodeo” was one.

“Billy the Kid” was another.

And then there was Balanchine’s “Western Symphony,” which looked a bit like “Gunsmoke”—heavy on the dance-hall girls, although it slightly predated the TV show:

All are rarely performed these days. And none suit Newt, whom I don’t see as a cowboy anyway. Romney might be able to find a place in one of them, though, if you costumed him right, as well as George W. Bush and most assuredly Rick Perry. And Obama could do a stint too, I think.

What would suit Newt the ballet dancer? I have to admit it’s a tough one. And though I hesitate to offer the following because I’m not into mockery, I have to say that it’s the very first thing that leapt to my mind when I read “Honeyimhome’s” comment. Newt supporters, please take it in the spirit in which it’s offered; it’s a clip of which I’ve long been fond, and one of the reasons is the surprising skill of the portly lead dancer’s maneuvers, and her (it’s a she, but it always looked like a “he” to me) very obvious satisfaction with herself:

And now, I’m very happy to say, I will file this post under the categories “dance” and “election 2012.” Not a combination that usually exists in nature.

The sentiment…

The New Neo Posted on by

…I’ve seen on a lot of blogs is this: “If Newt is nominated, win or lose it’ll be a great show.”

Politics as a WWD match. There’s a lot of that going around.

Would Newt be the heavy? And would that appeal to anyone but conservatives eager to sit down with a beer and enjoy the fight?

Some say that, if nominated, Newt would be clever enough to change tactics and surprise Obama. Would we see a kinder, gentler Gingrich (again)? And would the American people buy it?

The claim reminds me of statements from the left (remember when they liked Obama?) that Obama’s so clever that he’s really playing 3-D chess. Beware the perception of the politician as great Jedi master. You might end up disappointed.

This may be only marginally related (if that), but I think it’s weirdly entertaining:

The primaries and the candidates and the general: let’s get practical

The New Neo Posted on by

I know a lot of you are Gingrich supporters and I’m not. We’ve debated that quite a bit: why I’m against and you’re for. But now I want to ask a question: why is it that you think he has a good chance of getting elected? Because I don’t see it.

This isn’t about whether Romney has a good chance to beat Obama either; it’s very possible, as I’ve said many times before, that Obama would beat either of them. Many of you have also made it clear that you don’t care if Romney polls better than Gingrich against Obama, or even if he beats Obama. You consider Romney and Obama would be more or less equal as presidents (I think that’s madness), so even if Romney could beat Obama, you would sit the election out if he’s nominated and if he won you wouldn’t celebrate any more than if Obama had been the victor.

I get that, although I strongly disagree with it. But my question is about how you come to the conclusion that Gingrich has a good chance of winning it all.

I’ve looked at Gingrich’s polls and I see someone who’s been doing poorly against Obama. And Gingrich is hardly an unknown newcomer. On the contrary, he is very well known, and has been for nearly two decades. So it’s not a question of getting to know him—unless you believe that people will get to know the mythical kinder, gentler Newt. I just haven’t seen that guy, nor do I think we’d be seeing much of him in the general.

For quite a while I’ve been searching online for figures on Gingrich’s approval ratings, and finally I located them. Here they are, and it’s not pretty:

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Simply put, I just don’t see how someone with those kind of stats can win against Obama. That’s just practicality, and has nothing to do with my own opinion of Gingrich. I don’t really see what could improve those figures much, either. And high disapproval tends to matter in an election, especially when trying to unseat a still-relatively-popular incumbent.

When you imagine Gingrich debating Obama, you see him sticking it to the MSM and arguing rings around the president. But most of America won’t see it that way. They’ll see a nasty man next to a pleasant one. They’ll see an unattractive man next to an attractive one. They’ll see an old guy next to a young one, a fat guy next to a thin one.

Romney opponents are fond of saying that in the general, Obama will attack him for Bain, Romneycare, his taxes, and being rich. That’s all true. But why would anyone think that Gingrich won’t be attacked for Fannie and Freddie, the hypocrisy inherent in his private life, and his censure by the House and his ethics convictions? Do you think Americans will be more incensed by the Romney’s baggage than Gingrich’s? I don’t see why.

By the way, here are the most current polls that show Gingrich vs. Obama and Romney vs. Obama (scroll down). Obama cleans Gingrich’s clock, whereas Romney is competitive with Obama. I realize that’s just a snapshot in time and that polls can and will change. But I cannot see a likely scenario in which Gingrich gains all that much on Obama.

By the way, go back and look at a whole bunch of Gingrich vs. Obama polls over time, and you’ll see that the results are quite stable, except for an outlier or two. Do the same for Romney vs. Obama. They’re much better, going back to last summer, and consistently so.

So, how would it work? How would Gingrich beat Obama given all these facts?

Why Gingrich, why now?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “reliapundit” has a question:

Gingrich retook the lead in SC thanks to…conservatives…who no longer seem to have any problems endorsing a serial adulterer—one who gave the finger to the Tea Party when he endorsed Scozzafava.

And thanks to a conservative base that sounds more like the anti-capitalist bolsheviks of the OWS than free-marketeers.

It’s insane.

The SC crowd applauded applauded the serial adulterer who had to pay the house $300,000 in fines due to ethical violations, but they booed a self-made millionaire who has paid all his taxes.

Bizarre.

Can you explain this mass hysteria?

I can certainly try, as I did here, in a comment on which I will now expand.

Voting is not completely or perhaps even predominantly rational, although we like to think it is. The right tends to run somewhat less on emotion and more on rationality than the left (at least, IMHO, on average) but is by no means immune to this sort of behavior.

Emotion in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. As I’ve said elsewhere several times, we must evaluate and react to candidates on subtle signals they give out about what kind of people they are: likeable or not, calm or excitable, arrogant or less arrogant (I’ll leave out “humble,” because most candidates aren’t going to exhibit that particular characteristic), able to laugh at oneself or not, comfortable in one’s skin or awkward.

You get the idea. These things—which I’ll summarize as personality and temperament—are not irrelevant to how a person would function as president.

The last few election cycles have featured an electorate with its own emotions at high pitch. Last time it was the Democrats who had been through the ringer for eight years (with a legislative reversal two years earlier, 2006, that had given them some hope), and believed themselves to be due. After a tough primary, they united behind a (to them, at least) charismatic candidate who emphasized hope for the change they were looking for.

Now, after three years of that and two of a Democratic Congress, plus a lot of anti-conservative reporting in the MSM and the rise of the Tea Party and a very bad financial climate, both parties are pretty angry but Republicans are more so.

A lot of Republicans also have a feeling of angry desperation about their candidates. Few people are really happy with the slate, and it’s particularly galling because most people perceive Obama to be highly vulnerable this year. This should be our time, they think; and this group’s all we’ve got to show for it?

In that climate, it’s no surprise that a Gingrich might rise to the fore. After all, he’s the near-perfect candidate for an angry conservative electorate that’s also angry at perceived RINOs such as Romney and 2008”²s McCain, whose wishy-washy moderation and lack of fight is perceived as having led to Obama’s victory, and whose candidacy is thought to have been “forced down our throats” by a conspiracy of Republican elites.

That’s the angry crowd Gingrich plays to when he gives it back to the media when they ask him gotcha questions during the debate, the crowd that sees Romney as the same-old same-old McCain-esque pap. They want blood (metaphorically speaking), and Gingrich gives it to them.

Gingrich is also perceived as being the best person to beat Obama in debate. Despite his considerable baggage and his own “flip-flopping” (for example, he supported an individual Romneycare-like mandate), he (unlike Romney) is also considered the true conservative in terms of policy; after all, he led the conservative return to power in the mid-90s. As for Gingrich’s Bain attack—which reliapundit notes has the crowd acting a bit like OWS—it plays to a populist strain and “anti-finance-guy” sentiment that exists in conservatism to a certain extent and is not limited to the left.

The ethics charges? They’re seen as minor and trumped-up, for the most part—whether the general electorate will see it that way or not.

Gingrich’s supporters shrug off Gingrich’s personal history of marital cheating as being of little import. It’s been my observation that many people (on both sides) will jettison principles like the idea of fidelity, and ignore old violations, if they think a candidate can offer a lot of other things (or even one big thing) that they like very much. Plus, the rationalization is that Gingrich has gotten religion and repented. To Christian fundamentalists personal morals are certainly important, but religiously-motivated repentance is understood as being very real and meaningful, and requires forgiveness. Personally, I don’t buy it in Gingrich’s case (I also find his current wife puzzlingly strange). But then, I’m not an evangelical, nor am I a Gingrich-supporter.

Another phenomenon occurring here is that, until the race boils down to two candidate—and especially while there are still four—any single candidate can win with about 30% or so of the vote. That can represent a small and extreme faction of the party. I always get worried when there are more than two candidates in a race (and especially more than three), because of that phenomenon. Gingrich is the beneficiary of it at the moment.

But primaries are primaries and generals are generals. What works in the first doesn’t always work in the second: just ask George McGovern or Mike Dukakis. I’ve noted before that I don’t think Gingrich will beat Obama in the general, if nominated. The particular form anger he’s channeling is unlikely to be appealing to anyone other than the right, and a certain segment of it at that.

Gingrich, Romney, and South Carolina

The New Neo Posted on by

So, tomorrow’s South Carolina’s big day.

As a Romney supporter, I wish he’d take a much more aggressive tack in either releasing his tax returns—or, perhaps more importantly, explaining why he pays 15% and why that’s not only perfectly legal but perfectly fine. The fact that he’s not doing this effectively enough conjures up some speculation that there’s something to hide in those returns, or that he’s just not got enough fight in him.

The latter criticism is particularly important now that Gingrich has emerged as Romney’s main rival. You can say many negative things about Newt (and I have!), but one of them will never be “he’s just not got enough fight in him.”

Polls show Gingrich is rising right now in South Carolina vs. Romney. I wrote last week about one annoying (to me, anyway) aspect of the reportage about this: the MSM and many blogs have mostly framed the trend as though Romney had South Carolina sewn up previously, and that now Gingrich’s standing there is something new and different.

But that’s an incorrect representation of the history of South Carolina voters’ attitudes towards the two candidates. The truth is that Gingrich was long the frontrunner in that state, and Romney’s bump was recent and of short duration (post-Iowa, from about 1/5 to 1/17), and his lead never as large as Newt’s had previously been there. Gingrich’s resurgence is more in the nature of a restoration than a coup (see that previous post of mine for the details that show this).

Does it matter? Not really; if Newt’s ahead at the right time (tomorrow) then he wins.