At the city and country level candidates and officeholders generally attempt to govern. Office holders want to provide police and fire protection, schools, clean restaurants, the important stuff of day to day life.
Locally a Republican County Commissioner has attempted to get himself elected to regional associations with a policy advocacy agenda on behalf of federal land and timber issues. He is getting widespread criticism for it, with a focus on his travel costs and questions on whether this is worth it to the county. He now has a Republican primary opponent. It is being seen as personal aggrandizement and mission drift for a local official.
He has a job to do right here, and he should do it, rather than trotting around the region trying to influence broad policy, according to the political buzz that is getting him into hot water.
At the local and state level the GOP still generally functions as a party of governance, but there is tension here with Republican and rural voters, which has been highlighted by the decision of voters in neighboring counties to vote down tax levies to provide even minimal police service to rural areas of their counties.
This reflects two big themes in American politics. The first is the voluntary sorting of people, with citizens moving to neighborhoods and cities that "feel right" to them. People who want less government move out from population centers and people who want bicycle lanes and mass transit and city services move to the places that have them. College towns get people who want college towns. People who want their own well and septic tank move to rural settings.
Simple. But it is a point lost on some of my progressive liberal friends: some people want less government. Or, perhaps more accurately, they want lower taxes and they certainly want less in government benefits for people other than themselves.
This has a strong partisan result, showing up in maps color coded for the counties that voted for Romney vs. the counties that voted for Obama. Big rural counties with lots of land and few people vote Republican. Population density is a proxy for party.
The other big theme is the GOP at the national level becoming a protest party rather than a party of governance. It is showing up in the disappearance of governors from the Republican slate of some 16 candidates. Gone are Jindal, Walker, Perry, Christie, Bush. Kasich is floundering. They are governors.
Lindsey Graham, a Senator, left early as well. His message was one of governance. I heard him say that wars were important for American safety and that wars cost money and that Americans would need to sacrifice to pay for that security. His reward for telling this simple fact of governance? No one wanted to hear it. He said it in a room with me and 13 others. He could not draw an audience, much less a crowd.
The fight within the three realistic finalists, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are over who has the purest expression of the orthodox Republican position. Trump asserts his Mexican wall will be tighter than Cruz's, a johnny come lately to advocacy for the Wall. Cruz says that Rubio flirted with potential citizenship for immigrants while Rubio counters that Cruz did as well. TV ads go back and forth with accusations and condemnations over who is guilty of political heresy. You supported amnesty once! You once compromised on deportation! You aren't as good a Christian! You used to be more moderate!
The candidates are not the only problem. I have sat in the audiences of Republican events and I have seen the local election results on tax levies to provide police services. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and it is Republican primary voters who are saying no. Kasich had nearly a hundred Town Halls in New Hampshire and now-gone candidates Walker had 32, Jindal 22, Bush had 94, Christie had 156. They made their case to the voters and the voters heard their message. Most voters said no, thanks.
Trump is universally described as following his own compass. This misses a point. Trump is a showman with extraordinary rapport with his audiences. He feeds off them, and they feed off of him. He loves applause. He says things that get cheers and laughs and the adoration of his audience. Trump says what he wants to say, and what he wants to say is what his audience wants to hear. It isn't just Trump. It is Trump's audience. And Trump. They are in this together. That is Trump's strength.
Cruz and Rubio have massaged their messages to be generally Trump-like. They can differ with who Trump used to be five and ten and twenty years ago, and they can assert they are way better churchgoers and more learned Christians--a very low bar--but their policy advocacy is now essentially Trumpian.
Trump found the audience, nurtured the audience and has created the political environment in which the Big Three of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio still survive.
There is a curious thing happening in Nevada politics which illuminates the governance/protest cleft in the Republican Party, at the presidential level.
Nevada has a popular Republican governor. He has movie star good looks.
He is Hispanic. He does not yet have much of a national reputation but he is popular in Nevada. Republican presidential candidates don't want his endorsement. Why? Because when he transitioned from candidate to governor he had actually to govern. Nevada schools were rated #50 out of 50 states in quality. He pushed through a tax increase to improve the schools. He accepted the Medicare waiver money for uninsured Nevada citizens (same as the Kasich apostasy). He supports immigration reform and the DREAM Act. This makes him a popular governor statewide in Nevada. UNLV political science professor David Damore says "he's the most popular political figure in the state." He governed and Nevada is doing better.
Therefore, he created a grave political problem--with Republican voters. A leading Cruz supporter calls it Sandovol's "dramatic betrayal." A Politico news article quotes an anonymous Tea Party member referring to him as "toxic waste." A governor who addresses Nevada's problems with a tax increase, or even one who accepts federal money to provide access to health care for Nevadans, is guilty of political heresy.
The 2016 presidential primary election is an election among factions of the Tea Party. The original Tea Party of 1773 was not a call for incremental reform. It was a violent protest of destruction. The candidates who have survived this primary election are ones rejecting the status quo. Governors campaigning on incremental improvement were rejected.
It is hard to notice things that do not happen. What is not happening in Nevada is the public endorsement of one of the Big Three candidates for president by a popular incumbent Republican home state governor. He has made no endorsement. It might have hurt more than helped.
He has been a governor, and in this election cycle governing is toxic.
Locally a Republican County Commissioner has attempted to get himself elected to regional associations with a policy advocacy agenda on behalf of federal land and timber issues. He is getting widespread criticism for it, with a focus on his travel costs and questions on whether this is worth it to the county. He now has a Republican primary opponent. It is being seen as personal aggrandizement and mission drift for a local official.
He has a job to do right here, and he should do it, rather than trotting around the region trying to influence broad policy, according to the political buzz that is getting him into hot water.
At the local and state level the GOP still generally functions as a party of governance, but there is tension here with Republican and rural voters, which has been highlighted by the decision of voters in neighboring counties to vote down tax levies to provide even minimal police service to rural areas of their counties.
This reflects two big themes in American politics. The first is the voluntary sorting of people, with citizens moving to neighborhoods and cities that "feel right" to them. People who want less government move out from population centers and people who want bicycle lanes and mass transit and city services move to the places that have them. College towns get people who want college towns. People who want their own well and septic tank move to rural settings.
Simple. But it is a point lost on some of my progressive liberal friends: some people want less government. Or, perhaps more accurately, they want lower taxes and they certainly want less in government benefits for people other than themselves.
This has a strong partisan result, showing up in maps color coded for the counties that voted for Romney vs. the counties that voted for Obama. Big rural counties with lots of land and few people vote Republican. Population density is a proxy for party.
 |
| Red for Romney, Blue for Obama. |
The other big theme is the GOP at the national level becoming a protest party rather than a party of governance. It is showing up in the disappearance of governors from the Republican slate of some 16 candidates. Gone are Jindal, Walker, Perry, Christie, Bush. Kasich is floundering. They are governors.
Lindsey Graham, a Senator, left early as well. His message was one of governance. I heard him say that wars were important for American safety and that wars cost money and that Americans would need to sacrifice to pay for that security. His reward for telling this simple fact of governance? No one wanted to hear it. He said it in a room with me and 13 others. He could not draw an audience, much less a crowd.
 |
| The crowd a Senator draws advocating for taxes to pay for our wars. |
The fight within the three realistic finalists, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are over who has the purest expression of the orthodox Republican position. Trump asserts his Mexican wall will be tighter than Cruz's, a johnny come lately to advocacy for the Wall. Cruz says that Rubio flirted with potential citizenship for immigrants while Rubio counters that Cruz did as well. TV ads go back and forth with accusations and condemnations over who is guilty of political heresy. You supported amnesty once! You once compromised on deportation! You aren't as good a Christian! You used to be more moderate!
The candidates are not the only problem. I have sat in the audiences of Republican events and I have seen the local election results on tax levies to provide police services. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and it is Republican primary voters who are saying no. Kasich had nearly a hundred Town Halls in New Hampshire and now-gone candidates Walker had 32, Jindal 22, Bush had 94, Christie had 156. They made their case to the voters and the voters heard their message. Most voters said no, thanks.
Trump is universally described as following his own compass. This misses a point. Trump is a showman with extraordinary rapport with his audiences. He feeds off them, and they feed off of him. He loves applause. He says things that get cheers and laughs and the adoration of his audience. Trump says what he wants to say, and what he wants to say is what his audience wants to hear. It isn't just Trump. It is Trump's audience. And Trump. They are in this together. That is Trump's strength.
Cruz and Rubio have massaged their messages to be generally Trump-like. They can differ with who Trump used to be five and ten and twenty years ago, and they can assert they are way better churchgoers and more learned Christians--a very low bar--but their policy advocacy is now essentially Trumpian.
Trump found the audience, nurtured the audience and has created the political environment in which the Big Three of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio still survive.
There is a curious thing happening in Nevada politics which illuminates the governance/protest cleft in the Republican Party, at the presidential level.
Nevada has a popular Republican governor. He has movie star good looks.
 |
| Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval |
He is Hispanic. He does not yet have much of a national reputation but he is popular in Nevada. Republican presidential candidates don't want his endorsement. Why? Because when he transitioned from candidate to governor he had actually to govern. Nevada schools were rated #50 out of 50 states in quality. He pushed through a tax increase to improve the schools. He accepted the Medicare waiver money for uninsured Nevada citizens (same as the Kasich apostasy). He supports immigration reform and the DREAM Act. This makes him a popular governor statewide in Nevada. UNLV political science professor David Damore says "he's the most popular political figure in the state." He governed and Nevada is doing better.
Therefore, he created a grave political problem--with Republican voters. A leading Cruz supporter calls it Sandovol's "dramatic betrayal." A Politico news article quotes an anonymous Tea Party member referring to him as "toxic waste." A governor who addresses Nevada's problems with a tax increase, or even one who accepts federal money to provide access to health care for Nevadans, is guilty of political heresy.
 |
| Revolution, not reform |
It is hard to notice things that do not happen. What is not happening in Nevada is the public endorsement of one of the Big Three candidates for president by a popular incumbent Republican home state governor. He has made no endorsement. It might have hurt more than helped.
He has been a governor, and in this election cycle governing is toxic.
5 comments:
Well, Trump wins Nevada.
So, what happens if the protest candidate actually gets elected?
When the crowds go away, will he be able to figure out or perhaps explain how Mexico will fund that wall? Will he be able to actually articulate a real plan for replacing Obamacare? How about maintaining a coalition with Muslim countries while banning immigrants based upon religion? When anger subsides, and the TV cameras and crowds go away, hopefully he'll have a "winning" plan for succeeding the President he sought to delegitimize.
Your comment's final word is "delegitimize", which makes an important observation, one which I have been trying to make sense of. The attack on Obama has been oddly personal. Yes, the birther stuff. The criticism of Rev. Wright, which has dissolved into a different criticism: that he was brainwashed as a child into being a secret Muslim. False stories about him wearing a ring encoded "I am really a Muslim". Most recently turning him into a lame duck after 3 years. I recall a funny throwaway line in the Simpsons TV show, where a Fox News banner on the show carried the slogan: "Not Racist. But #1 with racists." The GOP has a vast body of voters who are very uncomfortable with Obama. No politician openly stands up and says, "We reject the leadership of a black president". But they paid respect to Trump's birther talk, they don't reject it, they quietly enjoy its benefits. Some Republican friends join the nearly half of Republican voters who say that think Obama is not really American and forward emails to me of that kind that circulate constantly in email chains. It is not necessarily unit-black racism at work in nativism: I saw a version of it in working class ethnic Boston. The Irish hate the Italians who hate the Greeks, etc. Obama is "other" in a way Rubio and Cruz are not. (But here is a quick hint about Cuban Hispanics. The Caribe Indians of Cuba were particularly vulnerable to European diseases. Most of Mexico and Central American "Hispanics" are mostly of Native America ethnicity. Cubans are Spanish--white, not deeply mixed white and Native American. Cubans are free to come to the US and get citizenship since they are escaping Communism. Other Latin Americans are not. Cuban immigrants are "one of us", Mexican and Central American are "other". In any case, for this or some other reason, Obama is not just dead wrong according to the GOP; he is illegitimate.
Interesting stuff on the Caribe Indians.
With respect to the President, in some respects, as to some of his opposition, this is the Jackie Robinson President. The hatred takes a different form. It appears to be more kind and gentle. But its there nonetheless.
Republicans and Democrats Crave Governance
Every candidate is making promises “to govern”. Each wants to govern, that is what politicians do with power. And voters on the left and right want governance on exactly the same issues: (1) Immigration-- either deport or legalize; (2) Wall Street and income disparity—stop the rip offs by either more regulation or by pushing back the lobbyist donor class; and (3) Economy and jobs—either use federal monetary policy and income redistribution, or stop the manufacturing exodus and trade ripoffs. Voters on both sides agree the government is coopted by special interests and political money, and want it stopped—through governance.
Democrats have little faith that Hillary can effectively govern on the three issues. She disavows Obama deportations and enforcing even existing immigration laws. She is already clearly corrupted by Wall Street money. And she’s an absolute globalist with a family foundation largely funded by foreigners. Bernie is what we on the left used to call Republican ideologs—“the lunatic fringe”. His efforts at governance would be talking to himself in the mirror, shunned by Democrats on Capitol Hill who won’t risk re-election by pushing socialist fantasy legislation of free college and single payor health care that will never even get out of committee. He’s such a “wingnut” on immigration that he advocates bringing back those already deported by Obama. Bernie’s brief “viable” candidacy was mostly due to incurable Clinton fatigue.
Republicans know that Trump is one of two candidates who could govern on chaotic immigration, Wall Street ripping off the little guy, and globalism eating their jobs. Cruz is another wingnut lunatic fringe candidate like Bernie, so he’s out. That leaves Rubio. He would softly enforce deportation laws, claim that with less regulations Wall Street will be governed by free markets, and assert that better trade deals and fewer work visas will tame globalism. In other word, Rubio is Hillary, both missing the point of the 2016 political revolution is to tear down the status quo. Rubio and Hillary are boring, untrustworthy “change the system from within” candidates. Trump, therefore, is the only viable candidate in either party who could govern consistent with prime imperative—tear down the current political structure by disempowering the donor lobbyist class. He will build a wall with billions Congress will appropriate, lest Trump campaign against their reelections, making fearsome examples of the first few. He will begin deporting millions, since that already is the law, and immigration reform is a legislative myth. He will terrorize the Congress into modifying trade and tariff treaties, and will deregulate Wall Street and offer them legitimacy if they stop corporate inversions and bring the offshore money home. That is governance whether you like the goals or not.
As Trump says at most rallies, “I haven’t even started on Hillary yet”. Picture what he did to Jeb!, but threefold. There will be relentless attacks on: (1) her sex-pervert husband whom she enabled; (2) her own version of Nixon’s chief of staff Bob Halderman with a flattop redneck hairut, except now it Hillary’s Huma Abedin, a Muslim who will soon be deposed in federal court over the email server; and (3) Bengazi as told in the movie “13 Hours”. Once everyone watches that movie, Hillary cannot recover her credibility. All this assumes she will not be hauled before a federal grand jury over classified information violations in the next 9 months.
Street fighting is a particular art of war. Trump is a champion. It is street fighting instinct that enabled him to trash George Bush as a 9-11 liar and loser who should have been impeached. Trump smacked the audience in the face and walked out with arms raised in victory to a sea of cameras. Hilary Clinton will collapse in the ring if she gets that far. America wants governance—Trump style.
Thad, I really think you have your wingnut on the wrong bolt. Trump's tactics have worked well in locking down the lunatic fringe section of the GOP. The establishment or "governance" candidates have, along with Cruz, helped divide up the rest of the field and put Trump in the seemingly insurmountable position he is in today. What excites the lunatic fringe of the GOP in the primaries may backfire in the general election when folks don't take too kindly to insulting and degrading comments to women, Hispanics, Muslims and the President. Putting these people down doesn't seem like governance to me.
If Hillary is the nominee, I think Trump will do well in taking away the white working class vote, much like Bernie did against her in New Hampshire. We shall see, there are way too many wild cards at play. The lawsuit against Trump for ripping people off through his "Trump University" scam may be farther along by then, maybe it will make it to trial with Trump on the stand. And certainly the DOJ will have made their final decisions on how to deal with Hillary's reckless use of top secret emails on her private server. We shall see.
But calling Bernie a "wingnut" does him a great disservice. He is the only candidate out there speaking truth to power, whether it is calling the CIA out for their past transgressions, or identifying the racist undertones of birtherism and GOP obstructionism. He has called for radical changes in healhcare, hit the nail on the head on the student loan debt travesty, and shined a bright light on the Wall Street pay for play. Sure, perhaps some of his plans are unacheivable, but its more crazy to not even try. And calling him a "wingnut" overlooks his very unique brand of sanity that the other candidates are lacking.
One last thing on Bernie's idealism v. Hillary's defeatism. Hillary has abandoned the lofty goals on healthcare that she previously held dear. Now she is content to advocate a tinkering around the edges approach while telling us we shouldn't fight for more. Perhaps this pessimism is warranted. But it seems inconsistent with our American tradition. Could you imagine if FDR would have told us we should not even try to push the Germans back in Europe, and be content with just keeping them off the American mainland? Or what if LBJ would have told us not to try to pass civil rights legislation, and told us instead to be content with the limited progress under Supreme Court decisions? Or what if JFK told us to be content with the first manned orbit of the earth, and not to even try to land on the moon?
Perhaps FDR, LBJ, and JFK were all wingnuts in their idealism and determination. But I am very glad they were.
Post a Comment