Obama Was Re-Elected President Yesterday

08 Nov 2012

After the elections of 2012: A first attempt at an essay

“When philosophy paints its gray on gray, then indeed has a form of life grown old. It cannot be rejuvenated, but only understood. When dusk starts to fall, the owl of Minerva spreads its wings and flies." G.W.F. Hegel (Philosophy of Right, 1820)

A Orienting the mind through thinking

Making the proper distinctions brings clarity to thinking. When the mind is disturbed by events, as mine was by the election results two days ago, one must use reason to sort through the emotional and intellectual disturbances. Making the proper distinctions is an important part of reasoning, and right reasoning restores balance and sanity to consciousness. Leaving one’s mind drenched in emotions and disturbing thoughts arouses more disorder, disturbs psychic peace, abandons one to mental confusion, and denies reason an opportunity to throw light on various parts of reality. Hence, the disturbed soul must turn to thinking, and especially to making the proper distinctions and asking the right questions, in order to “live well,” to thrive, and ultimately to return to its proper place within the Whole.

And what is the human mind’s proper place within the larger scheme of things? That is, what is the proper function of the human being, moved from within by mind under the discerning guidance of reason? Human being’s proper function is to thrive, to be “happy,” doing its particular tasks well, and seeking to understand the Whole of which each being is a living part. In Aristotle’s summarizing words, “Man by nature desires to know,” for in knowing what is, and especially the ultimate causes of all that exists, one experiences happiness, and in Platonic terms, “rises towards the Beyond.” To think, to reason, to gain insight, to know--all within the existential response of loving trust in the mysterious process of the Whole--the human being becomes what it truly is: a partner with the divine Mind guiding all being-things to perfection in itself.

In sum, this particular being, existing here and now, wants to sort through the disturbances aroused by recent political events in order to be open to the truth of reality: to the divine Presence that is moving all things into oneness with itself. Mental disturbances break the peace of union, as they are in effect little rebellions against the cosmic order being established by the Divine Mind. What causes mental disturbances? The mind yields to irrational forces without and within. Right thinking employs reason to restore mental order, and so to be at once an image of the order of the Whole, but to be a partner in divine creativity bringing forth all from nothing, and returning all into itself.

B. A few questions raised by the elections

Through thinking, I just moved from mental disturbances to a contemplative gazing towards the divine “steering all things through all,” using Heracleitos’ phrase. What does this mean? Thinking is a human mode of participation in God. The human mind or soul is aroused to think because we exist in an incomplete and ever-unfolding mystery. We do not exist in a state of complete peace, union, fullness of life, happiness. Rather, human being exists in tension between disturbance and order, between incompleteness and completeness, between coming-to-be and passing away. Whether animals think about their place in the Whole, I do not know. But to be fully human one must be engaged with one’s mind and one’s body in life as it unfolds. Human is reality ever moving towards fullness of life, of being, of loving-knowing. To be human, one must share consciously and freely in this perfecting process.

Now, what is disturbing my mind from within? What feelings or thoughts are preventing me from living in peace, of being more truly one with the ultimate source of all that exists? Or, is asking such questions just a form of wallowing in the disturbances? Must the mind discover the causes of its own disorder? Is that part of the price of a return to balance? Is that part of the price of freedom: to discover why one’s mind is not fully at peace, and to take action to restore order?

The main distinctions I make in response to present mental disturbance are the following: (1) This week’s elections, including the Presidential election, and the results, over which I have no control. (2) What these results indicate about American politics. (3) Possible ways to work towards better results in the future. (4) A few decisions to consider. (5) The underlying conditions of our society.

Regarding the first (1), it does no good to yield to anger, sorrow, hatred, joy, or just plain excitation over these events. They are past, and there is nothing I can do about them. I acknowledge my disappointment, even sorrow, but I also choose not to indulge in these feelings, but rather to learn from them. And that is one reason I am writing now. I have many concerns for our body politic aroused by the results, concerns for particular persons and groups, concerns for one young man I know personally who apparently lost his job. And I am prepared to take steps at the right time to assist either a better alternative (individual or party) to those who won the election, and to assist persons who may be suffering from the results.

Regarding the second point (2 above): I have begun to think about what the results indicate about American politics, and especially what the more conservative party must do in order to win elections, even as it becomes more insightful, more understanding, more able to help improve some of the deeper and more persistent problems afflicting our body politic. Winning elections and gaining power ought not to be the primary goal, but a means to serve the common good. Much is seen in the recent elections which reinforces known truths about the defects and strengths of the American character. That the President won re-election by vilifying his opponent, by a focused “smear campaign,” was visible to anyone observing as fairly as possible. President Obama did not take a “high road” of presenting the best that he has to offer, but spent enormous financial and human resources arousing anger and hatred in people for his opponent (Romney) and the social class to which he belongs (“the top 1%”). Hence, victory was gained at the cost of performing many ignoble actions, and perhaps more importantly, of inflaming increased anger, hatred, and division in the body politic. (Other than listening again to one of Obama’s campaign speeches--a most tedious task--one could watch a few minutes of the Vice-President’s performance in his “debate,” and see the tricks of doing anything to distract the mind of listening and thinking to what his opponent has to say.) What shows up is that American political leaders, or rather some of them, are willing to use destructive means to attain their goal of gaining political power. For the sake of one’s power-position, the body politic gets knifed, sliced, agitated, and divided. Hence, part of my sorrow and disappointment is not only that President Obama won, but that he did so by engaging in tactics that damage the common good. What does it say when a person who claims to be seeking to serve the common good, proceeds by dividing, agitating, harming the common good? What it suggests to me is that for such a person, gaining power is the real goal, and that any means needed to gain and maintain power are justified. Most unfortunately, this is an all-too-common problem in American politics, and it showed up with shocking bluntness in the recent Presidential election. In short, American politicians will lie, obfuscate, smear, avoid, promise all sorts of “goodies,” and so on, all to gain or to maintain political power. Or viewed from the role of the voters: Many Americans are unwilling or unable to discern truth from error, good character from bad character, deception from reality. “We the People” live in spiritual darkness which clearly shows up in politics.

Regarding the third point (3), about what to do to work towards better results in the future, I will leave that question for the time being. First I prefer to see the problems, the underlying diseases, as well as I can, before offering any possible medicine or solutions on the more explicitly political level. After all, politics is a form of activity within a culture; in the United States of America, it is not only the political landscape that displays evident problems, but more fundamentally, the American culture, the American way of life.

I suggest several practical points (4) as a first response for consideration. Given what has been displayed by the President of the United States, with numerous politicians and citizens complying by supporting him, how could one respect the man, or listen willingly to his voluminous and often voluble speeches? His seemingly empty words, his calculating promises, and his impassioned rants against those whom he hates or judges to be his political enemies reveal a politician to whom one would only foolishly listen. Immediately after the election of 2012, the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, told the President to lead, “and we will follow.” The House Republicans may seek to work with the President and his party, but need to resist being “led” by him, lest they share in his deceitful and destructive ways. One should follow a good person who leads, not a highly defective “leader,” regardless of his power-position and outward displays of “authority.” Hence, the Speaker’s words were flattering to the President and may have suggested a sycophantic attitude, or a genuine but naive attempt to “be led” by the President. What matters here is that by his actions and words, the President has forfeited a position of serving as a true leader or political model. His actions and words have rendered respect impossible, unless one willingly blinds himself from the President’s actions. What shows up is that this man has gained and maintained political power, but forfeited authority. Hence, one must choose to follow right reason, and respectfully obey only those men and women displaying in public good character and genuine concern for the well-being of our country.

Now we come to the main issue (5) clarified by the recent elections, hinted at above: the underlying condition--disordered condition--of our American political society. So many issues must be raised, so many problems must be seen and sorted out, that only some sketchy hints can be provided here at the present time.

C. On the disorder of American political society

The recent elections illustrate underlying diseases in the American body politic, but they are not primary causes, nor do they change my thinking on our regime, our American way of life. My desire to disengage from much that happens in American society is not new. I am not one to think, “I may leave this country,” because the elections did not go the way I would wish. Rather, what I think and write now is what I have thought for years. Indeed, I do not want to be unduly moved or biased in my judgment because being disappointed by the recent elections. Both political parties display the diseases rampant  in our body politics, although perhaps to differing extents, or in different ways. The worst of the underlying spiritual and political problems seem to show up in our large urban areas, but rural and small-town America is by no means exempt from the diseases. For a major cause of the relative equity of disease is the power of media, entertainment, “higher education,” and government to penetrate into the furthest recesses of American life, thinking, and practice. No one is protected from these powerful social diseases.

If American society is not in a late stage of decay, and not dying in us and around us, then I am radically mistaken. This issue will be partially examined below. First, however, assuming that American society is corrupt, one wonders, “What can one do?”

D. What is one to do?

Granted, an analysis of the spiritual and political condition of American society should properly be offered before attempting to answer the question, “What is one to do?” In order to act reasonably, one must discern properly the conditions in which he is living. Suffice it for the present to note that although I have not yet written the preceding section analyzing the disorder in American society, it is a subject about which I have given much thought since the mid-1960’s. The upshot of my thinking on American society can be given most briefly, without details or explanations at this time, and this short summary may suffice to consider the practical question, “What is one to do?”

And this is the summary view on American political society: The substance of politics is the character of the human beings in the political society. Americans display an enormous range in qualities of character, from well-ordered and prudent down to very serious mental and spiritual disturbances. The bulk of the people seem to be well-intentioned, but heavily immersed in a culture of self-seeking: pleasure, entertainment, restless money-making, self-worship in various forms. As for the ruling elite, what most comes to mind is that our political and social leaders display enormous “egos,” or over-weening self-love, greed, lust for power, deceitfulness. These traits do not show up in every political and social leader, but they predominate.

So what is one to do in this society? Surely it depends on one’s age and station in life. As things stand, I do not understand why one would want to bring children up in this country today, given the overwhelming effects of a highly corrosive and corrupting culture. One cannot escape the destructive power of the entertainment industries, the mass media, mass education, and the power elites. If one is sufficiently old enough and grounded enough not to have to be immersed in “education” or indulge in popular entertainment and the foolishness of mass media, then one can “keep oneself unspotted by the world” to one extent or another, albeit with enormous effort. For these older people I will offer some thoughts below.

But for young persons who are being “educated” in American schools, colleges, and universities; and for those who freely and willingly indulge in mass entertainment and the offerings of main-stream mass media, then I can offer virtually nothing other than to say: Become aware that you are being manipulated, brain-washed, and corrupted, whether you want to be or not. Your minds are being malformed by men and women who know very little about proper intellectual and spiritual formation (right paideia), and because you lack the experience to judge wisely of what is being done to you, your chances of thriving mentally and spiritually are slight indeed. You need to ground yourselves in divine reality and right reason as well as you can. But know this: The forces at work in your “education” and “entertainment” are corroding whatever sound order may have been built in you from the earliest years, largely by the hard work of your parents. You may survive and live, but you will be sharing in the evils of this culture more than you realize. You need to make conscious and deliberate breaks from the mass culture, but without formation from within, you will not know how, and attempts may be more foolish (as in rebellion) than wise and life-giving (as in genuine conversion of mind).”

***

On fleeing the culture: introduction by way of referring to my life

Now I write for those of us who are no longer subjected to “education,” who can refuse to indulge ourselves in popular music and mass entertainment, who know enough not to rely on the propaganda machine of the mass media (especially major news and entertainment outlets). I write for those of us who understand that American society is corrupt and corrupting, and who desire to free ourselves from its worst influences, and to do what we can to benefit ourselves and perhaps a few others. I write on behalf of Americans who have the sense to know that the ship is sinking, and that we must at least put on life jackets and prepare to swim in icy-cold waters; for the Titanic of American society has been taking leaks for years, and a number of icebergs may be about to rip the hull wide open.

Before generalizing, I shall make a few concrete suggestions based on my life and experience, which may or may not be of any worth for someone else. Still, it gives an idea of the direction in which to go: flee immersion in the culture!

Years ago, having experienced mental abuse at the hands of “Progressives” in the Catholic Church, I learned a lesson: That I am in the church, but not of it; that I do my duties, but keep myself as unspotted from the church’s politics as I possibly can; that I remain in the church to help serve spiritual-intellectual needs of others, and for my own financial support, but not primarily for spiritual enrichment. My spiritual life is nourished primarily through studying philosophy, political philosophy, and some theology, and only to a lesser degree, through fellowship or communion in the church. In other words, I remain active in the church as a means to assist others, but also because I still need to earn an income.

Now I add to my formula of being “in the church but not of it.” Although I may wish to do so, I cannot say, “I am in America, but I am not of it.” For I am indeed of the American political order from birth, so I cannot in truth say that “I am not of the American regime.” I am not only an American citizen, but I think and act in ways that are distinctly American, whether I like it or not! This country is my homeland, and it has constituted a very large part of my psychic formation. On the other hand, I am choosing to detach myself to the extent possible from much that is current now in this country: First and foremost, from the American mass-pop culture, especially as it propagandizes through the entertainment and music industries. For years I have reduced my exposure to this cultural garbage--to put the matter bluntly--to the extent possible. But watching television, I cannot escape the trash music on commercials, or the effect of entertainment-”values” even on news broadcasting. So I must limit television watching more than I have in recent years to keep myself less spotted by the corruption of American mass culture. Secondly, since 2004 I have been investing in U.S. equities, which I can continue to do for the time being. But to limit time wasted on them, I must keep off margin to the extent possible, not spend hours watching CNBC with financial news and chatter, and look for other ways to invest for my financial future that require less mental involvement.

***

General considerations on fleeing American culture

Orienting question: Given that we already live in the United States of America, and given an awareness that there is much in this regime and culture which corrupt and wound genuine human-spiritual life, what is one to do? What are the main options open for a person who recognizes the need to reduce immersion in mass culture, and to break from corroding influences to the extent possible? Several different answers to the orienting question are outlined below, then briefly explained. Finally, we shall focus on what seems to be the most reasonable response.

" A. Extremist-destructive responses to decadent American culture

1. Deny that American mass culture is corrupt and corrupting: the way of spiritual blindness

2. Attempt to flee from the corrupt culture by leaving the USA: the way of ignorance of reality

3. Seek to destroy the political regime and culture by violence: the way of terrorism

4. Wait for, even desire, the “utter collapse of the system” (the way of apocalyptic dreaming)

B. Half-hearted, spiritually foolish responses to decadent American culture

1. Make one’s peace with the culture, submerging oneself in it: the way of spiritual laziness

2. Embrace American culture and try to “move it forward” to become more “progressive,”

that is, more decadent: the way of Gnostic intellectuals

3. Believe that the culture will transform itself for the better: the way of magic

4. “Pray” that things will get better in the corrupt culture: the way of futile wishing

C. More constructive ways to live and thrive in decadent American culture

1. Do one’s daily duties and tasks while seeking to remain “unspotted by the world”

2. Seek to understand the nature and causes of the corruption, and avoid them

So much for a first essay written after the election of 2012, and trying at least to raise a few questions about underlying issues, especially the decadence of our mass culture. Duties press on me that I am unable to organize an essay or pursue questions as I wish. My plan is to post this draft as a first response, and then to begin afresh.

The Pain of Working-Class Catholic Americans

There are, no doubt, many casualties in the American body politic as the country is torn apart by divisive and ideological politics.  

As a Catholic priest, parishioners confide in me about some of their mental anguish caused by divisive politics.  The most common problem I have heard in the present election cycle, similar to the recent past but now more intense, is the anguish in the minds of blue collar, working-class Catholics.  All of their adult lives they have been loyal Democrats, and speak with joy and pride about the Democratic Party of the past:  about Kennedy especially, but also about LBJ and Humphrey.  They do not speak with pride about leaders such as McGovern, McCarthy, Carter, Gore, or Kerry.  Some of them mention Bill Clinton with mixed feelings.  But what they now feel is the mental pain of being caught between their sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party and their strong disagreement with a number of prominent policies now embraced by their party.  These working-class Catholics feel dispossessed by a party that favors “abortion rights,” “gay rights,” “extreme environmentalism,” “climate control,” and so on.  These are probably the four issues about which they express disagreement most often.  But they clearly cannot identify with national Democratic leaders, either.  In brief, they embrace the politics of the Democratic Party of the New Deal to the Great Society, but surely want nothing to do with the beliefs and policies of leaders such as Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama.  For these men, their sense of betrayal by the Democratic Party is not based on racial or gender prejudice, and to interpret it that way would be unjust.  

What surfaces among Catholic Democrats is a clear split in the Democratic Party between older and middle-aged working class men and women and a more socially liberal element of the Party dominant in large urban areas, especially in greater New York and California.  These Catholic Democrats express respect or affection for none of the national Democratic figures; on the contrary, they speak of them with disdain and disgust, in terms similar to those used by more avowedly conservative Catholics.

To some extent, one finds a similar split among Republicans:  between more rural and small-town Republicans in the south, midwest, and west, and the more “monied Republicans” of the Northeast (the group sometimes called “country-club Republicans”).  But to the present I have not heard Republican Catholics speak with anything like the anguish of working-class Democrats, who speak in private with passion and anger at the Party that they believe has betrayed its principles, and surely left them alienated.  These working class Catholic Democrats are clearly a casualty of contemporary politics in the USA. 

We The People, We......

The second presidential debate in this cycle is over.  Who won?  Not a mature question, really. The question itself reveals the disease of warfare.  And the fighting continues.

We the People... we the losers.  We witnessed more verbal bickering by two lawyers, both Harvard trained, each trying hard to make his case to gain or to maintain power, and to defeat the other.

The debate is over, the feuding goes on. Soon this election will be over, and the incessant feuding that has become the stuff, the essence, of American politics will go on and on. The fighting for power will not cease. Truth suffers, problems do not get solved, the fighting and struggling for power, for dominance, will continue unabated.

Why is American politics reduced to fighting for power? Partly, because of our human potential to seek power rather than truth and the common good. But more existentially, given what we have become, the unending feuding is a function of our loss of reason. Clever arguments, citing selected facts, do not make a well-reasoned argument. Watching Obama and Romney reminds me of children on a playground, bickering: much heat, little light. No, not men, but wounded and wounding warriors.

We are the losers. Long after Election Day, fighting will continue, with too little time, attention, effort given to solving real problems.

Talk is cheap, and argumentative talk is ugly to hear, disturbing, like being exposed to powerful, seemingly interminable winds. They blow and blow, allowing no quiet reflection.

What have we become? Whither are we tending? Nietzsche saw it clearly:  we are plunging headlong into perpetual warfare.

A Memo To Fellow Americans

10/13/2012

 

We have now seen two "debates" of the season. Obama did poorly, as many viewers believed. But few named the problem: an image of a leader, a politician largely created by media hype, was on display as embarrassingly empty of substance. But that was not new to reasonably objective citizens to in the least. Having heard Obama many times, I have seen the overwhelming preference for poetic-sounding phrases, and very little substance. But in his debate with Romney, Obama displayed not only his characteristic arrogance, but disdainful contempt for his political opponent.  It was literally painful to see what the political character of “We the people” is becoming:  the “ugly American,” indeed. 

But last night was for me considerably more revealing of the descent of American political leaders into an abyss of shrunken, self-indulgent, irrational psycho-drama.  It was deeply disturbing to me, as a citizen, to see how defective a character is the Vice President of the United States. I expected more decency from Joe Biden. He has been described as a kind man, whom Brit Hume has said "would give you his shirt." He may be likable, personable, friendly to his friends or to non-threatening politicians.  But as the Obama team has been on a downward slide in the polls, and the reality of losing the election has perhaps appeared possible to Obama-Biden for the first time (truth dawns very slowly on men living in a world of illusion), Biden displayed ugly and even sick characteristics. One of his long-term supporters from Delaware, hedge fund manager Gary Kaminsky, said on CNBC today that he has supported Biden with money over the years, attended Biden's speeches to hedge fund managers, and seen that "most of Biden's funding" came from Wall Street. Then Kaminsky heard Biden criticize Wall Street, but even more, display such a contemptuous character towards Ryan that Kaminsky said, "I would have slugged him in the face and walked off the stage." Well, Ryan kept his cool quite well, and endured an estimated 82 interruptions, plus sneers, smirks, laughing, hyena smiles.

Morally and spiritually speaking, the Vice-President self-destructed on national TV last night.  Here is a prediction:  20 years from now, or even 10, when Joe Biden has long been in private life or deceased, whatever good deeds he did in politics will not be remembered nearly as much as the night he "lost it" in full view of the watching nation. Of all the scenes in Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates so far, Biden's performance will stand out as the most vicious, most contemptuous, most bizarre. As for the content of what he said, who could concentrate on either man's words, when a man close to 70 was carrying on as if he were an immature teen-ager?
 
One person wrote that "Joe Biden was just being Joe." And he wrote the same line when Biden made the most openly racist statement I have heard from a leading politician in my life: "They gonna put y'all back in chains."  "Joe was just being Joe."  I am convinced that if Romney had said that same line, he would have been attacked in an unprecedented media assault on his private character, on his "racism," and on his "Mormon faith" for being "anti-Black."  Romney would have been publicly shamed as we have never seen. But "old Joe is just old Joe."  In other words:  If someone is on “our team,” he can say and do anything--no matter how foolish, how bad, how destructive of the common good--and that is okay--as long as “we win.”  That is a highly short-sighted and unwise stance. 

Well, Joe Biden may have done some good things in politics, but he has surely done some foolish things. But neither good deeds nor good character were on display last night. Rather, we Americans had a glimpse of the ugly depths to which we are descending as a people in history. When our highest elected officials act in this way, what example is being set before our youth, or even our adult citizens?  Were we shown how to act civilly and respectfully in the public forum? As President Clinton made sexual immorality acceptable for many Americans, Vice-President Biden went a long way to make an open display of contempt and disrespect for one’s opponents publicly acceptable. Obama displayed rank contempt for Romney, but his performance was vastly outdone by his lieutenant.
 
Three more points. First, at the end of his disturbingly rude performance, Biden made the claim that he accepts the Catholic teaching that human life begins at the moment of conception. Then he said that he would not want to enforce his belief, but, in effect, allow each person to make her own decision about whether to bear the child or to abort it. The structure of this argument is no different from this: "I think that Jews are human beings, but I would not impose my morality on those who think that Jews can be exterminated." If Biden had said, "The fetus is not human," the "pro-choice" stance would be more consistent, albeit deeply wrong. Or he could have given Obama's sophistical answer to the question:  Asked about whether or not the fetus is human life, Obama smartly quipped, “That is above my pay-grade."  But Biden’s argument is: “It is a human life in the womb, but you are free to take its life if you wish." That was the essence of his argument. Here we see not only stupidity, but a callous disregard for the weakest among us.

Second, the arguments one way or another do not matter when one's performance is so badly vitiated by his behavior. If anyone needs to be shown that analyzing a person’s words alone is not sufficient, that the context and the actions displayed must be taken into account, Joe Biden's performance last night gives the textbook example.  Biden shows everyone this: It is not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. Do not say, "I care for people," "I want to help the poor," “I believe in the middle class,” and then treat the human being next to you with proud contempt, disdain, rudeness. Biden has given politricks a new word. To "Biden" someone means to treat your opponent with sheer disrespect and mocking scorn. Ryan got Bidened, and acted gentlemanly in the process.

Third, as I think about this disgusting episode in American politics, I realize the obvious: totalitarianism is the end-form of progressive politics. I may have read that before in political philosophy, but now I understand and grasp it. To remove freedoms from citizens in the name of "caring for them;" to build up enormous governmental power in order to "be more fair, to give everybody an equal shot;" to seek political power as one's highest good; to use one's enormous power and prestige of office to destroy or belittle one's opponent:These and much more we are witnessing as our country continues its slide into totalitarianism. We cannot say, "I did not see it coming." When politicians use the cloak of "equality and a fair shot" to magnify their power, we are seeing tyranny in the making; but when they greatly magnify governmental power, and ride rough shod over local and state communities, over political opponents (especially "the other Party"), we are watching how Progressivism from T Roosevelt through Obama is bringing into being an American form of totalitarian regime that crushes whatever would resist or question its power. In the Vice-President's performance last night, we had a glimpse of blossoming totalitarian politics in America. Consider what you are seeing, my fellow citizens, for this is the country we are becoming. It has been by our choices and our passivity, and the work of highly ambitious and power-seeking human beings.
 
What is one to do?  Leaving our country physically does not seem prudent.  But one must make some kind of exodus from this decadent culture and “progressive” regime, and withdrawal into a more wholesome life. And yet, one has a duty to expose the evil of our political culture, and to resist it to the extent possible. I will not be cynical and repeat the claim that in a democracy the people get the leaders they deserve. For we are a highly manipulated so-called “democracy,” in which mass media, intellectualistic elites, party machinery, and groups that benefit from the tyrannical State are drowning out the public philosophy and common sense, and forcing leaders on us who rule by power and manipulation, by lies and deceit, by providing “goodies” to people greedy for gain or “entitlements.”
 
What have we Americans done to ourselves?  Whither are we heading?  Do we really want to be partners in a totalitarian State?  Or, can we resist so much evil in ourselves and in our political culture, and begin to rebuild the Republic?  Then again, is it perhaps too late for this regime, this people in history?  I do not know; but I think that our fate is indeed in the balance.

"Aura Of Power"

10/04/2012

 

Please look at this 1.5 min clip from last night's debate [noted below]  The GOP added music, which I would not have done.  I will look for more clips. They may reveal more.

Obama is not used to being spoken to in that way.  Presidents do live in a bubble of believers and supporters. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Baby Bush, Obama display the same reality. As a political scientist, this phenomenon stands out to me.  These men are treated as Emperors, as gods, and how dare anyone question them.  It is not at all a sign of political health in our country, but of a huge gap between rulers and ruled.  We are a democracy in name, an empire in reality.  We the People do not know or face this truth.

These political leaders need more genuine, open discussions with their opponents. Consider how the PM of the UK must speak before Parliament regularly, and how they are booed by opponents. That is much healthier than our American elevation of Presidents as Messiahs. (UK gives the divine aura more to the Monarch, removed from politics.) To my mind, this elevation of the Leader was what last night displayed. The same unmasking occurred to Reagan in 1984 in his first debate. These Presidents are not accustomed to being cross-examined or openly assaulted in public. They need more of it.  Reality breeds humility.

Friends, our elected political leaders are indeed a governing class, and largely removed from real life.  Both parties.  Virtually identical in this regard.

We see the truth of Lord Acton's insight: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether Roman or Chinese emperors, or Popes and bishops, or leaders of ideological mass movements, or American Presidents, the same disease of the arrogance of power and protection from the truth of reality shows up. And this reality of self-importance and self-worship is masked by political hoopla, smiles, handlers, media that share in the aroma of power, and so on.  
www.youtube.com/embed/dKMUHcgsbag

After The First "Predidential Debate" of 2012

03 Oct 2012

Folks,

This "Presidential debate" made me uncomfortable, and I need to think about why.  President Obama looked into the camera a number of times, and as I watched, I wished that Romney would do the same.  But Romney often addressed Obama directly, and looked at him, whereas Obama addressed Romney far less often. Also, for being old enough to be Obama's father, I thought that Romney looked younger and fresher, and Obama looked a little shrunken, tired. I am not sure why, but office has its burdens.

I have seen that on a "vote meter," Romney's impassioned speech to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans, discussion, and make decisions received a strongly favorable response. Indeed, this speech had the strongest response in the "focus group" in suburban Denver. Supposedly, suburban Colorado is a remarkably accurate predictor of Presidential elections in the U.S.  

But I wonder why the whole "debate" make me feel a little restless, uncomfortable? In good part, it seemed that each man spoke past the other, that they were not seeking common ground, but to make themselves look good, and the other bad. That is politics, but the lack of openness to reasoning together makes me, at least, feel uncomfortable. A good leader helps each person to feel that s/he is contributing something to the common good. Why could not either of these two men have said to the other, "You have a good point there, and I need to take it further into account." 

When so much power is at stake, truth is not the foremost goal.  Each side seeks victory in the polls, not to see "truth emerge in the marketplace of ideas."  I understand that, and expect it in our "democratic political system," but I much prefer genuine intellectual engagement to political posturing.  For my part, I pity men and women who get caught up in politics.  They are not evil, not fools, but they must compromise so much of nobility of character.  Political leaders often sacrifice goodness to the quest for power.

One thing for sure: Romney did a much better job last evening than Senator McCain did in 2008. Obama was, I think, weaker than he was in 2008, because he seemed less present, less engaged.  No doubt the office of President weighs very heavily on a person. Consider how Obama has visibly aged; the same happened to the younger Bush, and to Bill Clinton, during their tenures in office.

As I watched this "debate," I spontaneously thought that three times, Romney "hit the ball out of park," and that Obama did the same once.  But then, my preference for Romney may bias me to judge fairly of their qualities as debaters. It would be interesting to hear a truly objective analyst of the political scene to see what he or she would say.

The one line by Obama that most fascinated me was "I believe in America's [pause] future."  I was expecting, "people." How can one believe in what does not exist? The future is indeed empty of content. We must choose and act to make our present become future. Why did he not say, I believe that the American people can realize a good future," or some such formulation?  I wonder if Obama also could say, "I believe in America's past, and its present."  Or, "I believe in America."  The use of "future" deserves careful reflection because, as I said, the future has no substantial reality, it is merely possible. So how can it be the object of "believe?"  Maybe he meant, "I believe that America has a good future."  That could be. But frankly, our "future" is fully open, fully dependent on our choices and actions. Nothing in "the future" is guaranteed, fixed. Nothing is "pre-determined," except that "everything that comes into being must perish," including our country.  And this is a truth that Americans do not like to face, as I have discovered repeatedly while teaching courses in politics to American college students. 

These thoughts will be continued after I have more time to think.

"Aura Of Power"

10/04/2012

 

Please look at this 1.5 min clip from last night's debate [noted below]  The GOP added music, which I would not have done.  I will look for more clips. They may reveal more.

Obama is not used to being spoken to in that way.  Presidents do live in a bubble of believers and supporters. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Baby Bush, Obama display the same reality. As a political scientist, this phenomenon stands out to me.  These men are treated as Emperors, as gods, and how dare anyone question them.  It is not at all a sign of political health in our country, but of a huge gap between rulers and ruled.  We are a democracy in name, an empire in reality.  We the People do not know or face this truth.

These political leaders need more genuine, open discussions with their opponents. Consider how the PM of the UK must speak before Parliament regularly, and how they are booed by opponents. That is much healthier than our American elevation of Presidents as Messiahs. (UK gives the divine aura more to the Monarch, removed from politics.) To my mind, this elevation of the Leader was what last night displayed. The same unmasking occurred to Reagan in 1984 in his first debate. These Presidents are not accustomed to being cross-examined or openly assaulted in public. They need more of it.  Reality breeds humility.

Friends, our elected political leaders are indeed a governing class, and largely removed from real life.  Both parties.  Virtually identical in this regard.

We see the truth of Lord Acton's insight: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether Roman or Chinese emperors, or Popes and bishops, or leaders of ideological mass movements, or American Presidents, the same disease of the arrogance of power and protection from the truth of reality shows up. And this reality of self-importance and self-worship is masked by political hoopla, smiles, handlers, media that share in the aroma of power, and so on.  

www.youtube.com/embed/dKMUHcgsbag

After The First "Presidential Debate" of 2012

03 Oct 2012

Folks,
This "Presidential debate" made me uncomfortable, and I need to think about why.  President Obama looked into the camera a number of times, and as I watched, I wished that Romney would do the same.  But Romney often addressed Obama directly, and looked at him, whereas Obama addressed Romney far less often. Also, for being old enough to be Obama's father, I thought that Romney looked younger and fresher, and Obama looked a little shrunken, tired. I am not sure why, but office has its burdens.

I have seen that on a "vote meter," Romney's impassioned speech to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans, discussion, and make decisions received a strongly favorable response. Indeed, this speech had the strongest response in the "focus group" in suburban Denver. Supposedly, suburban Colorado is a remarkably accurate predictor of Presidential elections in the U.S.  

But I wonder why the whole "debate" make me feel a little restless, uncomfortable? In good part, it seemed that each man spoke past the other, that they were not seeking common ground, but to make themselves look good, and the other bad. That is politics, but the lack of openness to reasoning together makes me, at least, feel uncomfortable. A good leader helps each person to feel that s/he is contributing something to the common good. Why could not either of these two men have said to the other, "You have a good point there, and I need to take it further into account." 

When so much power is at stake, truth is not the foremost goal.  Each side seeks victory in the polls, not to see "truth emerge in the marketplace of ideas."  I understand that, and expect it in our "democratic political system," but I much prefer genuine intellectual engagement to political posturing.  For my part, I pity men and women who get caught up in politics.  They are not evil, not fools, but they must compromise so much of nobility of character.  Political leaders often sacrifice goodness to the quest for power.

One thing for sure: Romney did a much better job last evening than Senator McCain did in 2008. Obama was, I think, weaker than he was in 2008, because he seemed less present, less engaged.  No doubt the office of President weighs very heavily on a person. Consider how Obama has visibly aged; the same happened to the younger Bush, and to Bill Clinton, during their tenures in office.

As I watched this "debate," I spontaneously thought that three times, Romney "hit the ball out of park," and that Obama did the same once.  But then, my preference for Romney may bias me to judge fairly of their qualities as debaters. It would be interesting to hear a truly objective analyst of the political scene to see what he or she would say.

The one line by Obama that most fascinated me was "I believe in America's [pause] future."  I was expecting, "people." How can one believe in what does not exist? The future is indeed empty of content. We must choose and act to make our present become future. Why did he not say, I believe that the American people can realize a good future," or some such formulation?  I wonder if Obama also could say, "I believe in America's past, and its present."  Or, "I believe in America."  The use of "future" deserves careful reflection because, as I said, the future has no substantial reality, it is merely possible. So how can it be the object of "believe?"  Maybe he meant, "I believe that America has a good future."  That could be. But frankly, our "future" is fully open, fully dependent on our choices and actions. Nothing in "the future" is guaranteed, fixed. Nothing is "pre-determined," except that "everything that comes into being must perish," including our country.  And this is a truth that Americans do not like to face, as I have discovered repeatedly while teaching courses in politics to American college students. 

These thoughts will be continued after I have more time to think.

Government Or No Government

 Sept. 6

Two extremes of thoughts are tangling in my mind this morning, neither of which I find admirable, both disturbing:  One is a kind of motto developed by the DNC, and used in their video:  "Government is the one thing we all belong to."  The other comes from a "liberal-libertarian" whose article I read this morning, arguing for the needlessness of having any government at all.  Two extremes, both have wide appeal, apparently. 

The second view, which is really anarchistic, probably comes to us from Ayn Rand, and as far as I can tell, leaves the weak and poor utterly at the mercy of the wealthy and powerful.  Private "insurance companies" would take the place of any "coercive government."  The view is propounded by a professor in Nevada, and it typifies what I think of intellectual pursuits in American universities (other than physical sciences):  in large part, brain-washing by ideologues, left or right, who seem divorced from reality.  I pity our students and young people.  Best advice I would have for someone going to college now: study a physical science or engineering, and keep as free as possible from all ideologically-inclined courses taught under the guise of "history," "liberal arts," "political science," "philosophy," and so on.  And that is most unfortunate, as the life of the mind suffers.  But the main casualty of our ideologically-drunk culture is the life of the mind, real thinking.

As for the slogan from the DNC, that "Government is the one thing we all belong to," it is nearly an inversion of our Founding principles:  "We the People" form a government, and are in principle superior to it.  Civil society precedes and overarches any and all governments.  On a popular level, the common in "the people" or "the country" was captured in JFK's  well-known phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  (He did not say, "Government," nor did he tell folks to ask what Government can do for them.)  Here, we are all members of "the country," which has a government as a part of it, not as the whole; and government needs to defend the whole country, protect the weaker members from the strong, serve justice.  Or again, remember the classical understanding that nourished western thought for centuries, and is so unlike this Governmentalism heard at the DNC:  We all belong to the Whole, the universe; and participate in it with our bodies, souls, reason.  Not "government," but reason (logos) is the common (koinos) which all share--a view articulated 2500 years ago by Herakleitos of Ephesus. 

The claim that "Government is the one thing we all belong to" would be an ideological child of European "Democratic Socialism" from the late 19th century to the present.  It is based on the creed of Marx, but has dropped the call for violent revolution, and freezes the Marxist-Leninist stage of the "dictatorship of the Party" through government, not going on to Marx's goal of a "classless society" without any need for government.  In effect, this Democratic worldview is a more or less "benign" totalitarianism, in which the individual human being, and all non-governmental groups within society, are subservient to the "Government."  (And the "Government" is preferably controlled and dominated by one "Party," of course.)  This phenomenon was already analyzed by Nietzsche in the 1880's, who wrote about "the Idol State," and explained how degenerate Christianity, Socialism, and Democracy form the creed that creates a "herd mentality," making all subservient to the State.  Fascism, Soviet Communism, and National Socialism are all based on the same essential desire:  the individual and social units are subservient to the almighty, controlling, compelling, monopolistic Government.

So the liberal-libertarians want to dismantle the State, and at least the chosen spokesman for the Democrat Party (USA) seeks to elevate the Government / State as the one and only common reality to which we all belong.  I do not find such views "scary" (it is common now to find things "scary," as children do), but I find them disturbing, because these extremist views, detached from reality, have gained such a powerful grip in the consciousness of so many of our people.  "Age of ideology" indeed.  Common sense, with its grounding in reality, is increasingly eclipsed by ideological non-thinking. 

I must wonder, as I often have, if our country has not in reality become totalitarian, a way of life (or of death) developed mainly by men / women seeking power, and embodying their will to power in all-powerful institutions (mainly, Government).  What are political parties but means to get and to keep political power?  That is the foremost lesson of the recent party conventions.

A Silent Memo To The Republican Party

23 January 2012 (slightly revised on 29 January, before the Florida primary)

I write the following memo mainly as a political scientist and observer of the present Republican Presidential primaries. As a citizen I have my preferences, as a political scientist I seek to analyze the phenomena that show up. Indeed, even as I write this memo, I must suspend my personal feelings for one of the leading candidates, who has much to admire, and much to offer our country. Now is the time for analysis, not emotion-based preferences.

Three Presidential candidates have won the first three primaries: Senator Santorum carried Iowa by a few votes, Mitt Romney swept New Hampshire, and Newt Gingrich swept South Carolina. On 31  January the first large state holds its winner-take-all primary: Florida. From being sharply ahead in  Florida several days ago, a week ago, polls reported that Gingrich opened a sizable lead; but most   recent polls show Romney racing towards a victory in Florida. The wheel of Fortune keeps turning--  quickly.

What served Gingrich so well in South Carolina--moving him from a distant second in the polls to  a distant first place victory in the election--was largely the performance of Gingrich and Romney in the two debates immediately before the voting on 21 January. In both the Monday and Thursday debates, Romney showed himself to be unsure, flustered, unable effectively to handle questions about his work at Bain Capital and his seeming reluctance to release his tax returns. Romney waffled, and lost the appearance of looking “Presidential.” In the same two debates, Gingrich was combative, focused, a fountain of clever one-liners, and effectively played to the crowds by moving attention from his own moral failures to the media. Gingrich showed himself to be a force in debate that perhaps no one on the present American political scene can match. (Note: Obama looked fairly good in debate compared to McCain in 2008, but McCain’s performance was surprisingly weak, given his background and experience. Obama’s talent has been more in making some long and captivating speeches than in debate or handling himself in live questioning.)

But then to my surprise, a renewed Mitt appeared in the two Florida debates this past week: he was much more decisive, more aggressive towards Gingrich, and visibly stunned Gingrich with his clever come-back on the issue of owning stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “Have you seen your own portfolio? You also own stock in Fannie and Freddie.” “Bust,” as kids would say. Even if Santorum won the second debate, as commentators from CNN agreed, Romney effectively body-slammed the bloated Gingrich.

What I write now to the Republican Party and its Presidential candidates is “silent” because it will have no effect in the political world. Still, some analysis seems worth the effort, even as the world of campaign politicking changes so quickly.

If Gingrich wins in Florida, it is difficult to imagine how Romney could win the nomination, especially given Gingrich’s much greater strength in the southern states. And the Republican Party is now solidly grounded in the South and Southwest. States in which Romney could handily defeat Gingrich--such as New York or Michigan or New Jersey--have not voted for a Republican presidential candidate in recent years. They are, indeed, strongholds of the Democratic Party. If Romney cannot inspire sizable proportions of voters in Southern and border states, how could he possibly be electable as President? And if Gingrich can appeal only to Southerners or perhaps voters in some mountain states--or “Tea Party” folks--how could he avoid going down to a solid defeat at the re-election of Barrack Obama? If Romney wins in Florida, Gingrich would still have a solid base in the Southern states, and the blood bath would continue. But then again, Romney would have regained his lost momentum, and won an important victory over his heretofore main opponent--the one Romney’s team foolishly considered road kill after Gingrich’s very poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. Despite efforts to slice him to pieces, “Chucky” lives.

As some commentators have begun to argue, the Republicans may be on the road to a “brokered convention.” As I see it, the two leading candidates each has major weaknesses, which would almost guarantee Obama’s re-election. Having spent nearly forty years in the Washington establishment, it sounds absurd for Gingrich to keep speaking about “Washington insiders.” If Gingrich is not a “Washington insider,” who is? And many voters are “fed up with Washington,” and have a visceral repulsion to Washington insiders. Newt may dance verbally, but his past will catch up with him sooner or later; he is too old and too slow to outrun the shadow of his past. And sooner or later, the two sides of Newt so evident when he became Speaker of the House in January, 1995, will re-appear: on the one hand, a professor who could give a highly intelligent and knowledgeable speech on American politics and the Constitution as his inaugural speech as Speaker; and then, a few months later, the same erudite politician could show himself to be a horse’s backside by whining about not being given a first-class seat on an airplane. Gingrich has for years been his own worst enemy, and that reality will re-appear sooner or later.

As for Romney, his timing for a Presidential run could not be more problematic. In a time when many American citizens across the political spectrum are suspicious and distrustful of “Wall Street” and “the wealthy” (and especially the two together), Romney presents himself to voters, and he is more of a “Mr. Wall Street” than any candidate for President I can recall in the past fifty years or more. And even as Romney seeks to sell himself for his background in business (in Bain Capital), a large number of Americans--from left and right--do not trust “big business” and what it has done, or is purported to have done--to our culture. Although Romney appears to have a good and stable character, he evidently has a kind of boarding school difficulty connecting emotionally with many Americans; for evidently, by background, experience, and character traits, Romney is not “a man of the people,” but clearly “a man of privilege.” How can a candidate who has an enormous net worth and pays a much lower rate of income tax than most hard-working Americans be able to “feel your pain” in any believable way? By all appearance and by what I have read, Romney is a good man, but as a “money Republican,” he cannot relate to the millions of Americans who worry about losing their jobs, or not having a pension, or the loss of Social Security, or simply not being able to retire at a reasonable age for lack of funds. In a word, Romney is a good man at the wrong time. And that fact has been coming to light. Unless he can learn quickly to relate to “ordinary folks,” and unless he finds a way to minimize his wealth in a political climate hostile to wealthy Republican-plutocrats, he would go down to defeat at the hands of the more populist Obama.

Hence, It increasingly becomes evident to me, as a political scientist watching Gingrich and Romney, that despite their splashy bloodbath, neither man as he appears now is electable as President. Neither the bloated Mr. Washington (Newt) nor the rich Mr. Wall Street (Mitt) could stand up to the forces aligned to guarantee Obama’s re-election. Obama is not bloated, but sleek and smooth; and although a wealthy man (and surely one of the “top 1%” himself, as are Romney and Gingrich), Obama’s racial identity and populist, anti-wealth rhetoric helps voters overlook or choose to ignore his wealth and power. Obama is a wealthy man, but that reality is plainly eclipsed by his likable, athletic, smooth persona. And although not politically correct to say so, I add: Just as it is a bad time for a politician to be part of the Washington Establishment or a “Wall Street bankster,” it is a very good time to be “a minority.” And in politics, timing is everything.

What might the Republicans do? Just let the blood bath continue, and go down to defeat in November? Senator Santorum and Representative Ron Paul are not electable, either. One is another young man who has legislative experience rather than executive experience, and the other is a consistent, devout libertarian who appeals mainly to the young and inexperienced. Ron Paul is entertaining, but quite simplistic and even naive.

Unless Romney could disavow Wall Street and pull a St. Francis--giving away all of his wealth--and learn to think, to feel, to experience as a human being without vast material resources, he should realize that we are not in the “Roaring Twenties,” when wealth was so idolized, but in a time of wide scale economic and social suffering: hence, Romney’s days as a political leader are most likely behind him. Unless Gingrich were to be transformed from a self-important Power Broker used to pulling the strings of others, into a saintly servant of the suffering, his political days are also past. Unless something unforeseen happens to transform caterpillars into butterflies, I say to Romney, and especially to Gingrich: Exit, stage right.

Again I ask, what are Republicans to do? Or what should the hidden elite in the Republican Party do, to keep its Presidential candidates from slicing up each other just for a nearly inevitable defeat to Obama? But then again, if Romney were to have a string of victories beginning in Florida, and if he handily and effectively defeated and silenced Gingrich’s mouth, perhaps he could recover and effectively transform himself from a plutocrat with an aristocratic character into a Democratic- Republican voice for “liberty and union, one and inseparable, now and forever,” and for a more perceivably just and equitable distribution of goods and services, even while reducing the size, scope, and expense of the federal government. A huge task indeed, but not wholly impossible with the right handlers and a genuine renewal in Mitt Romney.

In truth the best men and women in the Republican Party, of whom I am aware, do not want to run for President. And that is what one would expect, because in a country such as ours, the most noble and most talented human beings are not drawn into politics--something which political scientists have observed since de Tocqueville and Bagehot in the 19th century. (Indeed, according to Bagehot, America’s best talent has long been drawn into business, not politics--partly for wealth, but more essentially for the greater freedom to use their talents.) Political office, especially at the highest levels, appeals to men and women with highly bloated self-conceptions and obsessions for power--perhaps masked in a desire and promise to “transform the world,” using Obama’s phrase from 2008. This phrase, with which Obama concluded his famous speech at the Jefferson and Jackson dinner in Des Moines early in his Presidential campaign, was first articulated by Karl Marx in his well-known 11th aphorism from the Theses on Feuerbach of 1845: “Philosophers of old only sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it.” (Perhaps ironically, this very well known teaching of Marx serves as the epitaph on his grave in London. But apparently the error did not die with its originator.)

The best one can hope for, perhaps--if Romney cannot transform himself quickly from plutocrat to a man-of-the-people, is the virtually impossible: that at a dead-locked convention, Republicans would turn to two qualified, talented, virtuous, intelligent men or women to form their ticket. Two names come readily to mind: Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Characteristically, Daniels and Rice have said that they do not wish to seek higher office: Daniels because his wife does not want him to run for President, and Rice because she has repeated her desire to remain out of public life.

Perhaps the more sadly realistic and possible outcome is that two probably unelectable Republican candidates will continue to slice one another into pieces, and then not waste resources on either Romney or Gingrich going up against Obama. Rather, spend the money to help Republicans hold on to control of the House of Representatives and to regain a majority in the Senate.

Note On Romney's Flaw

This week has been a significant turning point in the Republican primaries.  There will likely be more turning points.  I watched the turning point in action this week:  the two South Carolina debates, Monday and Thursday nights.  Gingrich triumphed.  Romney faced pestering about his association with Bain and then about releasing his tax returns.  He appeared irresolute and weak, indecisive, even flustered.  Had he not expected these questions and prepared sharp answers?  On the other hand, just before the Thursday debate, Newt was side-swiped by his ex-wife's claim that he had asked for "an open marriage."  When questioned on this, Newt attacked the questioner and the liberal media, displaying decisiveness, courage, even hutzpah.  He was given a standing ovation by the huge crowd.  Previously on Monday night, Gingrich had a number of punchy, incisive lines that struck home to the listeners, while Romney fiddled.  Their main differences are in style and character, not favored policies. 

The nomination has been Romney's to lose.  It probably still is, as he has huge funding and wide support (although he has been dropping sharply in most recent polls).  He may have thought that a bland, "do not rock the boat" approach would suffice.  Perhaps it would work against Obama, but not in the primaries with Gingrich in the race.  Newt is incendiary, but also politically astute and very sharp, with considerable knowledge of history and politics.  Yes, he is "erratic,"  as Santorum charged last evening in the debate, but that very quality contrasts with Romney's safe blandness. 

My present guess is that South Carolina will end Santorum's campaign, and that Ron Paul will remain off on the side, appealing mainly to the very young (politically naive, fervent) and to libertarians.  Hence, for the Florida primary of 31 January, Romney will be more directly paired against Gingrich.  Romney has had a huge lead, and has strong appeal to the elderly and more moderate voters.  If not in Florida, at least in coming primaries, if he wants to win the nomination, Romney will have to change his style, and show more command, more political courage, more decisiveness.  Ironically, Romney is like Obama in the smooth, no-ruffle style as a public persona.  Gingrich is utterly different:  brash, aggressive, even nasty.  And often refreshing, and humorous.  My political guess is that either Romney becomes more aggressive and much more decisive, in effect learning from Gingrich, or he will not get the nomination.  Why?  Republicans not only want to win back the Presidency, but they want to elect a leader, not a "stuffed shirt," as one of the candidates (Perry?) called Romney.  Surely Willard Romney has some very good qualities, but until he rolls up his sleeves and shows some real fight, an increasing number of voters may well turn from him.  Or so it seems to me.

O Fortuna!

Thoughts On The Presidential Election Of 2012: View From January

Now that Mitt Romney has won both the Iowa Republican caucuses and the Presidential primary in New Hampshire, virtually every voice I have heard is quite convinced that, excluding a wholly unforeseen event (such as a death or personal catastrophe), Romney will be running against Obama for the office of President this coming fall. As of last evening, Intrade gives Romney an 85% chance of winning the Republican nomination.

A major decision both Obama and Romney will face is the choice of their Vice-Presidential running mate. For Obama, the question is whether or not to keep Biden on the ticket. It seems obvious to a number of observers that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would strengthen the Obama ticket considerably. As for Romney, names which I read mentioned as running mates include Senator Rubio of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Condoleezza Rice. In my opinion, Rubio or Rice would most strengthen the ticket. But then, according to studies, the choice of vice presidential candidate historically has little effect on the ticket's success or failure.

Without declaring my own preference, if I had to bet on whether Obama would be reelected or not, I would give him better than a 50% chance. In fact, I think that defeating him would be a most difficult task for anyone. I give several reasons:

1. First, Obama is the incumbent, and Americans nearly always re-elect the incumbent as President (Carter and the elder Bush were the only two exceptions since Herbert Hoover).

2. Second, President Obama has amassed an enormous "war chest," and has access to vast financial assets for his campaign.

3. Third, a liberal Democrat can count on winning nearly 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory from the first day of the campaign. It is highly unlikely that Obama would not carry California, New York, Illinois, and just these three states together have about 100 electoral votes. But there are other highly urbanized states that are virtually beyond Republican grasp at this time of our history. Of all the states rich in electoral votes, only Texas is highly likely to go Republican. Presently, rural and small town America tends to be much more Republican, and urban America tends to be much more Democratic; and by far, most Americans live in large urban areas, or their suburbs.

4. Fourth, with the exception of Fox News, I cannot discern any significant news network on American TV that has not displayed a clear preference to support Obama's first election and his Presidency. It may be that mass media are not significant now in moving public opinion, but given what occurred in 2008, it is evident that many media voices were not only friendly to Obama, but openly enthusiastic about his "historic candidacy." I have not seen evidence of a change in this regard.

5. Fifth, as things now stand in the U.S. economy, there are a number of signs to which Obama can point to say--and with some good reason--that "our economy is improving," and no doubt he will say, "and it has happened on my watch." If the unemployment rate continues to fall, historical evidence strongly suggests that the incumbent President will be re-elected.

6. Sixth, Obama will have little difficulty ridiculing Congress as the source of all sorts of problems in our political culture, especially given the public disrespect for Congress. That Democrats have controlled the upper house, the Senate, throughout Obama's first term, and that Democrats controlled the House for Obama first two years will be silently ignored. Congress will be a whipping boy, and the boy in this case will have the face of an elephant.

7. Seventh, Many Americans have been proud to have elected a minority President, as it has so often been called "historical." Indeed, given the history of race hatred and tension in our country, there is a good deal of truth to this claim. Hence, many voters may be reluctant to vote against the man who broke through significant "race barriers" in getting elected President in the first place.

8. Eighth, Romney has some baggage which will be used against him repeatedly and no doubt effectively:

(a). First, that Romney has "flip-flopped" on significant issues, depending on which voters he was appealing to (for example, being pro-choice in Massachusetts, but pro-life when running in Republican primaries.). The "flip-flipper" charge has already been heard repeatedly.

(b) Second, Mitt Romney is LDS ("Mormon"), and although many will not say so publicly, a sizable number of self-professed "evangelical Christians" either would not vote for a "Mormon," or would do so very reluctantly. Exit polls in New Hampshire, for example, showed that conservative Catholic Rick Santorum relatively out-performed Romney among self-described evangelicals, but Romney out-performed Santorum among Catholics. Evangelical Protestants, most of whom have been voting Republican, may boycott voting for Romney in sufficient numbers to cost Romney such states as Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, and others. The "Mormon factor" could be decisive. (Note that states with high proportions of LDS citizens are among the strongest conservative-Republican strongholds in the country: Utah and Idaho, mainly.)

(c) Third, Romney comes from that now infamous "1%" of the population that Obama and the "occupiers" have roundly stigmatized. Americans have a strongly egalitarian bias in our culture, and it is easy to re-awaken dislike, hatred, or envy towards the richest of the rich. Class envy and hatred are at least as real in America as race hatred. And not only is Romney from the "money class," but he made vast sums in what Governor Perry keeps calling "vulture capitalism," that is, private equity, which could be seen as an extreme case of Wall Street power and money gone amuck. Given the "Wall Street bail out" that infuriated many Americans in the past several years (including many conservatives, by the way), to label Romney as a "Wall Street banker" could be a kiss of death. And the label will stick, because of his years of running Bain Capital.

Just as I finished writing the previous paragraph, I saw a commercial on TV sponsored by the Democratic Party, featuring Romney saying, "I enjoy firing people." And so it will go.