NOT EVERYONE STAYED for TEA

“America can rise up and surmount [its] problems,” cried Rand Paul, newly elected Senator for Kentucky, “if we just get government out of our way”. And there you have the battle lines of American politics – and indeed of British politics – in a nutshell.

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Don’t discount Paul Jr – who, I imagine, was named for Ayn Rand – doing the same in 2016 if not 2012. He thinks he’s good. What’s more, so does the Tea Party.

Rand Paul: perhaps his appeal will pall

As the smoke clears from the US mid-term elections, it seems that the Tea Party didn’t do quite so well as they had hoped and everyone else feared. None of the jackasses whose pictures I included in my posting of September 17th (No Pipe of Peace for the Tea P) actually got elected, though to be sure Sarah Palin, the godmother of the movement, wasn’t standing. It’s bracing to imagine how much influence my little blog must have had on American voting patterns. And it’s curiously comforting to note that California was indifferent to Meg Whitman’s billions, just as New York State shunned Carl Paladino’s threats.

Sharron from an unflattering angle

Neither was it entirely the big night predicted for Palin’s ‘Mama Grizzlies’. All bets were on Sharron Angle unseating the Democrat leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, in Nevada, but the disturbing (and possibly disturbed) Ms Angle, who evidently believes that Hispanics are Muslim, was pretty comfortably seen off. In fact, Harry Reid’s son Rory had dropped his surname from ads in his campaign to become state governor and maybe sufficient of the voters thought this unfilial enough to tip the vote against him.

Harry Reid: not a broken reed after all

Also in the west, Carly Fiorina failed to unseat the long-serving Barbara Boxer from her California Senate berth, giving the Democrats a heartening double-whammy in the state, with the retread Jerry Brown triumphing over Whitman as governor. Fiorina used to be CEO of Hewlett-Packard, in which post she was hailed by the Condé Nast Portfolio website as among “the twenty worst American CEOs of all time”. And of course the plum loco Christine O’Donnell, whom even Republican greybeards warned was unelectable when she defeated a mainstream candidate in nominations for the Delaware Senate seat, proved indeed to be unelectable. We’ve surely heard the last of her.

Carly Fiorina: just one out of twenty

But Republicans took the House and Barack Obama will have to play a canny game with the new hand he is dealt. In my view, he and his party have done themselves no favour by cleaving to the time-honoured Democrat stance of declining to carry the fight to the enemy. The Tea Party have been making the political running long enough that the Democrat strategists have no excuse for failing to put together a telling response. It’s not as if the new force in Washington has been at all subtle or tried to keep the White House guessing. You don’t have to look at Fox News for more than a minute or two to get a purchase on where these people are coming from.

Jerry Brown: running in 1975

The American right has been vocal for a long time and it’s time the left got in on the act. There are two aspects that constrain it from doing so decisively. The first is that thoughtful, liberal people do tend to offer their insights with a certain degree of tentativeness and apology. Even when they’re entertainers at the top of their game, they cannot resist exploring the weaknesses and fallacies of their allies as well as their enemies: see passim Jon Stewart. The second is that, for all the long-standing lies about the “liberal bias” of the media promulgated by Republicans, that media is almost entirely owned by right-wing capitalists. No media outlet and no reporter or columnist therein is allowed to conduct themselves in an equivalent manner to that which Rupert Murdoch has decreed shall be standard on Fox News. The outlandish, unsupported ravings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would never be tolerated if they espoused left-of-centre or even centrist views.

Charles & David Koch: the means to buy power

The same is true in Britain. Simon Heffer, Jeremy Clarkson, Melanie Phillips, Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn and the legions of their fellow pub bores may write what they like, no matter whether any of it can be remotely justified. But the very few columnists who may be taken to be of the left – Seamus Milne, say, or George Monbiot – clearly are obliged to step with care. Nothing that isn’t cogently argued and copiously illustrated is allowed to sully their pieces.

So the right gets its rallying cries heard and the resurgent Republicans will pour into Washington determined to force Obama to change course. Their supporters know just what needs to be done. Just get the government out of the way: it sounds so simple and that’s why so many simple people have marched behind that rallying cry. But hey, wasn’t the recession the fault of the banks and the lending houses? And wasn’t it a consensus among all but the anarchist fringe and the supranational squillionaires that the problem with the banks and the lending houses arose because those institutions were under-regulated? Regulation – along with taxes – is just what the post-Tea Party Republicans want to sweep away. They reckon making big bucks is “entrepreneurial”, however illegal the means of making them and however much you keep those bucks to yourself. The Koch brothers who largely fund the Tea Party are among the very richest entrepreneurs in the US. Few enterprises defend more lawsuits than does Koch Industries. The Tea Party followers believe they’re fighting for their own liberty but, much more significantly, they’re in practice fighting for capitalism to be above the law.

Clint Didier: weak argument

Democrats (like the Labour Party in Britain) are more concerned, philosophically and historically, with trying to look after the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of Emma Lazarus’ poem storied on the Statue of Liberty. That means a degree of government action, what many American voters who clearly don’t know the meaning of the term denounce in the Obama administration as “Socialism”. What’s the alternative? Here’s how failed Tea Party candidate for the Republican nomination as Washington state senator Clint Didier framed it: “We’ve got to get rid of this protecting the weak” [his emphasis]. Throw ‘em in the sea, I say.

There will be two more years of Obama before we learn whether he can gain a second term, whether the Republican hierarchy will have held its nose and pitched Sarah Palin against him and if so to what effect. As the Chinese proverb threatens: we are fated to live through interesting times.

NO PIPE of PEACE for the TEA P

I worry about the Democrats. The conventional wisdom in the party right now is that the continuing and seemingly irresistible invasion of the Republicans by outsiders backed by the so-called Tea Party in general and Sarah Palin in particular is in fact good for the Obama administration. How so? Because, Democrats argue, these “extremists” will repel mainstream opinion in the mid-term elections and preserve the hold on Congress if not the Senate for the Democrats. Well, I wouldn’t bank on it.

In the American system, party nominations for office are chosen in most states by ballots held during the summer of election year and open to any voter registered with the party. These votes determine who gets to fight the Democrat v Republican run-offs in November. The system ensures that, however slick and/or corrupt the party machine might be in any particular state, outsiders who have the money and/or catch a wave can still snatch the right to represent the party in the real election. So far, eight establishment Republican senatorial candidates have been knocked out of those run-offs by candidates without experience of office but with Tea Party and/or Palin backing. Gubernatorial and congressional scalps have also been taken in this insurgency. The views of all of these candidates are more or less off the chart of the politics known to Washington.

Take a look at the website of Carl Paladino who, in Tuesday’s ballot, secured the Republican nomination for the governorship of New York State: it’s at http://paladinoforthepeople.com. His opening foray, concerning the nomination, goes [his caps and bold]: IF WE LEARNED ANYTHING TONIGHT, IT’S THAT NEW YORKERS ARE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! It’s tempting to counter: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” or perhaps “Hooray for Captain Spalding”. But what’s scary about Paladino is that he certainly means it. If you click on ‘Play Video’ on his site, the man himself rises up and addresses you and it’s like you’re being shaken down by the mob.

Paladino: an offer New Yorkers should refuse

And just in case you imagine that being governor will satisfy him, he has included a mugshot of that most reactionary of Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, with the tagline: “the last NY governor from Buffalo became President of the United States”. Under Cleveland’s uncompromising gaze is the date 1883 when the first of his three terms began. Under Paladino’s menacing grin, it says “2011?” Quite what might happen in that non-election year is hard to fathom. Is that when Paladino will announce, from his governor’s office in Albany, that he is running for president in 2012? For do not doubt that he intends to win the governorship in November. His Democratic opponent will be Andrew, elder son of the much-loved former governor Mario Cuomo and presently the state’s Attorney General. On his site, Paladino gives us a flavour of the terms in which he will savage his rival: “ALL ANDREW OFFERS IS THE STATUS CUOMO” [his bold].

In California last June, the Republican candidacy to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor was won by Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay and the fourth wealthiest woman in the state. She has spent some $120m of her personal wealth on her campaign so far and, if she beats the Democrat candidate, the retread Jerry Brown, in November, she will be the most right wing governor of the state since Ronald Reagan. Perhaps Whitman’s movie quote on her own website should be: “Oh Jerry, don’t let’s ask for the moon – we have the stars”.

Whitman: running through her spare change

Whitman’s relationship with the Tea Party is a little patchy, though their support is not confined to candidates of more modest means. Christine O’Donnell, who won Delaware against the odds on Tuesday, only prevented a mortgage company auctioning her house in 2008 by selling it to her lawyer. She remains in dispute with the IRS over her taxes and the Tea Party’s funding support was central to her win, doubtless inspired by the fact that she is a Sarah Palin clone. Paladino, on the other hand, is a self-made multi-millionaire.

It would be foolish to underestimate the success that candidates like these have already enjoyed and to discount the possibility that they could replicate it against an unusually defensive bunch of Democratic incumbents. For anyone like me who had hoped that Barack Obama would prove to be America’s equivalent of Nelson Mandela, the turn-around in 21 months has been deeply dismaying. It is not as if his presidency has looked remotely like a failure. I suspect that it is more to do with subjective perception than objective analysis.

O'Connell: Palin imitation

Obama’s elevation was very specifically steered by notions of hope and change and competence (“yes we can”). This not only drew a sharp contrast with the flounderings of George W Bush, it was also handily underlined by the unfocussed campaign of the Republican candidate, John McCain, in the 2008 election. Well, hope of course is a momentary emotion and change is pretty hard to effect quickly. The competence thing turns out in practice to be something of a red herring. Obama has achieved much, though not as yet a discernible climb out of the economic crisis that he inherited. But what he hasn’t managed to do is to make the American people love him. And that’s much more important.

When you watch him perform, it’s not really so surprising. As articulate, thoughtful, focussed and analytical as he is, Obama comes over like a college professor. His warmth is not apparent. He never seems relaxed or engaging enough, which is why several commentators have urged him to deploy the first lady more often.

Americans – indeed, perhaps voters the world over – aren’t unduly interested in competence or thoughtfulness. Not enough wanted George McGovern or Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis to be president, no doubt because those clever, earnest men were seen as what Richard Nixon damned as “pointy heads”. The people seem to prefer a chief executive with whom they feel comfortable. The folksiest chief of modern times, Reagan, is the one they most hanker for and miss. They feel they could have sat in a bar and had a drink with Reagan and passed the time of day pleasantly. The bar room image has changed in recent years, however. Now the politicians and pundits come across like the bar fly leaning on the counter and giving it out relentlessly. What is extraordinary is that the stupid, ignorant prejudices that sustain the proverbial bar room blowhard have been elevated into a vote-winning philosophy.

It didn’t matter that Ronald Reagan was a know-nothing president, like George W and, though it pains me to suggest it of a man who has grown mightily since leaving office, like Jimmy Carter. All three came across as relaxed, easy-going guys, at least when campaigning. This works with the voters. So does the image of an experienced father-figure, like Eisenhower or LBJ or Bush Sr. So does a smart and/or charismatic persona: Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton (who got the folksy as well) and Obama. But Obama’s charisma has waned and it is endangered by the possibility of being pitched against a new rival who, however ignorant, is clearly a star.

Obama: but can we yet?

Know-nothing presidents are unusually dependent on their advisors and so the crucial ingredient in their administrations is the identity of those to whom they listen. Sarah Palin, if she were to become the first woman head of state in the US, would be the know-least-of-all-time president, but don’t imagine for one moment that such an apparent disadvantage makes her unelectable. That is what most Washington observers currently believe but I submit that they’re wrong. Palin is electoral dynamite, much more so now than when she was number two to McCain. Her biggest hurdle to beating Obama in 2012 would be the presidential debates, where her uneradicable vapidity would be under intense scrutiny. But that by itself would not necessarily be sufficient to rule her out of electability. Obama might make the strategic mistake of being – or seeming (much more difficult to control) – lofty. And whereas it was Obama who was galvanising the electorate in 2008 and bringing thousands of first-time voters (not necessarily all young voters) to join the voting queues, in 2012 it would be Palin who would be achieving that effect. The poor blacks who turned out in pride and excitement two years ago might be too indifferent to bother two years hence.

From the safety – the present safety, anyway – of Europe, the Tea Party and Palin and their candidates look just like what they are: the lunatic fringe. But they don’t think of themselves as any kind of fringe. They have a righteous belief that they stand for the true American way. Whether they have any real sense of what they might unleash is another matter.

Palin: what the hell do I know?

As the know-nothing-to-beat-the-band president, Palin would be uniquely dependent upon and uniquely susceptible to the ultra neocons who would pour back into Washington, seeing her as their creature. Which of them would pose the greatest danger to our very survival? The new-generation Friedmanites? The pre-emptive strike advocates? The climate change deniers? All of these would see their chance. Palin would be swiftly told that higher rates of tax must be abolished along with Obama’s healthcare reforms, with only the evocation of the magic name of Reagan needed to persuade her that “trickledown” economics were the most successful since the war. She would be under immediate pressure to order a nuclear strike against Tehran, having no understanding of the consequences (does she even know in which country to find Tehran?) And all measures taken to combat global warming would be reversed, just as George W Bush tore up the Tokyo Accord.

My fear that Palin will be the 45th President is real. She has already written herself more than a footnote in modern politics. If she gains the highest office, she will go down in history. I fear that that history might be vanishingly short because life on earth might well not survive her administration.