This was on Politico.com the other day: President John Tyler’s grandchildren still alive. Apparently, there are two living grandchildren of the 10th President, John Tyler. (You know, William Henry Harrison’s running mate? Labelled ‘His Accidency’ by detractors when he succeeded to the highest office? Annexed Texas? Got elected to the Confederate Congress? Yes, that guy!) Turns out that Tyler had fifteen children, one of whom, born in 1853, had two children in 1924 and 1928, who are still around. The fact that they are alive is apparently enough subject matter for an entire article.
It gets better: Politico followed up the next day with an article quoting the one born in 1928, who was asked to weigh in on the whole Romney-Gingrich primary nomination thingy. He calls Newt a “big jerk” who “needs to stick with the same wife”, calls himself a conservative, and disses President Obama for “taking it away from those that have.” He praises Mitt Romney’s business credentials, and appears to be leaning towards him, although stating that he is undecided. Congratulations, Mitt. You win the crucial ‘grandchildren of dead nineteenth century presidents’ demographic.
Yes, days away from the Florida Primary, and we are all on the edge of our seats wanting to know what the eighty-four year-old descendant of a President who consistently appears at the bottom of lists of greatest Presidents thinks about the Republican nomination.
Michael Lind is one of my favourite writers on American politics and history. He’s an old-school New Deal/Great Society Democrat who has no time for the Wall Street-friendly leaderships of either major party, and his columns often take a big picture view of the country’s history by linking political issues from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to modern controversies. He is particularly good at explaining the great switch in party bases which has occurred since the end of the 1960s, i.e. how the Republicans won much of the Northern Catholic and Southern base of the Democrats, and how the Democratic Party came to be seen as a welcoming home for exiled Rockefeller Republicans.
One of Lind’s recent columns in Salon gave me a ‘Eureka’ moment when he compared today’s Republican Party with the Jacksonian-era Democratic Party. Both, he argues, are led by a class of rent-seeking aristocrats, whether they be slaveowners like Andrew Jackson or hedge fund types like Mitt Romney, and supported by foot-soldiers seduced by cultural populism, from the yeoman farmers of the antebellum South to the Angry White Male demographic today.
On the surface, Lind’s thesis sounds similar to that of Thomas Frank’s book What’s the Matter with Kansas, but it improves on it considerably. Frank’s analysis is a Marxist one (whether or not he would use that term himself), and he damns working-class Republican voters for voting against their economic interest while ignoring the reverse situation (elites who vote Democratic due to their social liberalism). Most importantly, in true Marxist fashion, Frank lumps all types of capitalists together. Lind, on the other hand, looks at the policies being advocated by today’s GOP, and drives a wedge between rent-seekers and the captains of industry. For example, the abolition of estate taxes helps “the Bushes and Romneys” but doesn’t do anything to stimulate production or consumption. And unlike Frank, who portrays the alliance between Wall Street and Nascar Dads as something new, Lind knows that America has seen this all before.
Lind brings into play his lucid understanding of American political history, and makes the connection between the two men pictured at the top of his column – Andrew Jackson and Mitt Romney. Contrary to some liberal historians such as Arthur Schlesinger, who like to conscript Old Hickory as the ideological ancestor of the New Deal, Lind reminds us of Jackson’s membership of “the most parasitic rentier elite in American history” (i.e. that one that was defeated in 1865). Jackson’s attacks on the Second Bank of the United States, he argues, appeared to be aimed at a privileged financial elite, but resulted in the privatisation of its functions to Democrat-supporting private banks, a process similar to the plans of Paul Ryan and others to privatise Medicare and Social Security.
Lind doesn’t explicitly make the connection, but he is implying that the heirs to the Whiggery and early Republicanism of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln are to be found in the opponents of the Jacksonian party. This fits the historical narrative which runs through much of his work, that is, that American liberalism owes more to the legacy of Alexander Hamilton’s dirigisme than to Thomas Jefferson’s ‘yeoman farmer’ ideal. In the article, Lind outlines a hypothetical economic platform which might be supported by a pro-business (as opposed to pro-hereditary wealth) GOP. Its components – infrastructure investment, research and development, energy independence, etc. – would be more likely to be promoted by the presidential wing of the Democratic Party, and are reminiscent of Thomas Friedman’s imagined third parties (such as the ‘Geo-Green Party’ advocated in this 2006 NYT column).
…This happens. What annoys me is the comments by a founder of the Tent Embassy, who reacts to a remark by Tony Abbott saying that the embassy is no longer relevant, and instead of rolling his eyes and thinking ‘there goes the Mad Monk again’ (as I did), he calls it “inciting racial riots.” Overreact much? Abbott’s assertion that indigenous Australians have few problems was stupid (as is everything that comes out of the mouth of the Santorum of the Antipodes), but the protestors are attacking him for questioning the existence of their precious embassy, not for his nonchalance about the continued third-world living conditions in remote Aboriginal communities. The result of today’s incident will be no improvement in the lives of indigenous Australians, while the twisting of Abbott’s words (“probably time to move on” was heard as wanting to “tear down the embassy” by the idiot quoted in the linked ABC article) will give the right-wing culture warriors more ridiculous talking points. Andrew Bolt in particular will just love this. Well done, idiots.
Stumbling on this six year-old article in the Washington Post today, I was reminded of the history of the State of the Union address. The address has been delivered in person, more or less continuously, since the Wilson Administration. Prior to that, it was usually sent to Congress in the form of a letter, to be read out on the President’s behalf to a joint session of both chambers. It seems that this practice owes much to Thomas Jefferson, who thought that a President delivering an address to Congress in person seemed too monarchical, as it resembled the custom of the Speech from the Throne in the Westminster system. These days, it would seem that the ceremony is much more extravagant and monarchical than in Jefferson’s day.
The author of the WaPo article, Lewis L. Gould, notes that the constitution’s requirement that Presidents inform Congress of the ‘state of the union’ was never intended to be an annual festivity with a surfeit of pomp and ceremony, and that pre-Wilson addresses tended to take the form of wonkish policy recommendations rather than short, soundbite-friendly speeches. He also makes a good point when noting that the SotU has the atmosphere of a pep rally, and doesn’t encourage a President to speak frankly about the nation’s problems.
The State of the Union address appears monarchical largely because the President need not submit to questioning by members of Congress on the agenda he has just laid out. He simply stands above them and delivers his list of demands. In many ways, it symbolises the President’s aloofness from the political fray which characterises the American model of separation of the legislature from the executive. That same aloofness is responsible for the glorification of some Presidents as god-like figures (FDR, Reagan, etc.) and others as lonely, hopeless figures (Hoover, Carter, etc.)
Imagine if the United States adopted the provision of the Confederate constitution which allowed for members of the executive branch to appear before either house of Congress for questioning. An American Question Time would allow for a President to fight for his agenda in Congress, and would lead to a stronger party system, as the President would be visibly serving as the leader of his party rather than as appearing to hover above the partisan fray. It would cut Presidents down to size, but would also give them an opportunity to secure greater support for their policies by affording them a daily chance to trash the alternative ideas of their opponents. It would annoy all those talking heads in the Lamestream Media who bemoan the loss of some mythical state called ‘bipartisanship’ in Washington. And best of all, it might lead to the election of better Presidents, as the role of the chief executive would come to be seen as more about getting legislation passed, rather than as speechifying and parroting the same old American exceptionalist cliches.
Only a short while after I noted his proposal from many years ago for statehood for American colonies in space, Newt Gingrich has mentioned that very topic in a speech on Florida’s SpaceCoast:
"When they have 13,000 Americans living on the moon," he said, "they can petition to become a state."
Only thirteen thousand? And people criticised President Lincoln for admitting Nevada to statehood when it was just short of the then-customary sixty-thousand population limit. And what would this do to the Wyoming Rule?
I haven’t been covering Australian politics much on this blog – the whole Julia ‘n’ Tony Show is a bit dreary and there’s so much more exciting stuff going on in the Republican primaries and the campaign for the French presidency. However, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about electoral systems and decided to do a little experiment to see what Australia’s political scene would look like if the federal, state, and territory parliaments which currently use single-member districts switched to a mixed-member proportional system.
I’ve ignored Tasmania and the ACT, since they already use a form of proportional representation (the Hare-Clark single transferable vote) and have used the most recent election result in each jurisdiction. Each legislature has doubled in size, with the new seats allocated proportionally to all parties which score three percent of the total party vote, or one electorate seat.
Federal parliament, as of the 2010 election (300 seats + 4 overhang seats):
Labor, the Liberals, the LNP, the Nationals, and the Greens hit the 3% threshold; the WA Nationals and the CLP qualify by electing an electorate member, but don’t earn any further seats.
Likely result: Labor-Greens coalition (160 seats to 144)
New South Wales, as of the 2011 election (186 seats + 3 overhang seats):
*Liberal: 80 seats (51 electorate + 39 list)
*National: 26 seats (18 electorate + 8 list)
*Labor: 53 seats (20 electorate + 33 list)
*Greens: 21 seats (1 electorate + 20 list)
*Christian Democrats: 6 seats (6 list)
*Independents: 3 seats
The Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, the Greens, and the Christian Democrats hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Liberal-National coalition (106 seats to 83).
Victoria, as of the 2010 election (176 seats):
*Liberal: 73 seats (35 electorate + 48 list)
*National: 13 seats (10 electorate + 3 list)
*Labor: 69 seats (43 electorate + 26 list)
*Greens: 21 seats (21 list)
The Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, and the Greens hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Labor-Greens coalition (90 seats to 86) – John Brumby remains Premier.
Queensland, as of the 2009 election (178 seats + 4 overhang seats):
The LNP, Labor, and the Greens hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Labor-Greens coalition (98 seats to 84).
Western Australia, as of the 2008 election (118 seats + 3 overhang seats):
*Liberal: 50 seats (24 electorate + 26 list)
*National: 6 seats (4 electorate + 2 list)
*Labor: 47 seats (28 electorate + 19 list)
*Greens: 15 seats (15 list)
*Independents: 3 seats
The Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, and the Greens hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Labor-Greens coalition (62 seats to 59) – Alan Carpenter remains Premier.
South Australia, as of the 2010 election (94 seats + 3 overhang seats):
*Labor: 38 seats (26 electorate + 12 list)
*Greens: 8 seats (8 list)
*Liberal: 42 seats (18 electorate + 24 list)
*Family First: 6 seats (6 list)
*Independents: 3 seats
Labor, the Liberals, the Greens, and Family First hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Independents holding the balance of power between a Labor-Greens coalition (46 seats) and a Liberal-Family First coalition (48 seats). A Liberal-Greens coalition (50 seats) and a Liberal-Labor ‘Grand Coalition’ (80 seats) are also possible.
Northern Territory, as of the 2008 election (50 seats + 1 overhang seat):
Labor, the CLP, and the Greens hit the 3% threshold.
Likely result: Independent Gerry Wood holding the balance of power between a Labor-Greens coalition (25 seats) and the CLP (25 seats). A CLP-Greens coalition (27 seats) and a CLP-Labor ‘Grand Coalition’ (48 seats) are also possible.
Jon Huntsman has withdrawn from the Republican primary race. His timing is rather interesting – only a few days after being endorsed by South Carolina’s largest newspaper. Perhaps he dropped out after seeing some bad internal polling, or perhaps there is more to this. Huntsman has polled reasonably well as an independent candidate in hypothetical three-way match-ups against Obama and a Republican candidate, and he may be preparing to emulate John Anderson in 1980, who quit the GOP and launched an independent campaign. Huntsman’s diplomatic experience and previous work as ambassador to China could also make him a potential Secretary of State in a second Obama administration.
A Huntsman independent/third-party campaign could be interesting. He has name recognition, and certainly has enough funds if he is willing to use his private wealth for such a campaign. His base would be economically conservative, socially moderate independents, a group which swung heavily to the Republicans at the 2010 midterms, and which will be key to a GOP victory in 2012. Huntsman may not win a single state’s electoral votes (including his home state of Utah, given that Mitt Romney now looks the likely GOP nominee), but he could draw away enough votes to deprive the Republicans of enough electoral votes to make things very interesting. In an earlier post, I speculated about the effect of such an independent candidacy, but had in mind Michael Bloomberg. Huntsman, running as an independent, could do just as much damage and attract the same type of voter, but would have a broader geographic and demographic appeal.
What does Huntsman’s withdrawal mean for the remaining Republican candidates? Not much, although it deprives the Anyone But Romney crowd of another potential saviour. Given that Rick Perry’s campaign is a laughing stock, Newt Gingrich is faltering and has been damned as a socialist for his anti-Bain Capital line, Ron Paul is unacceptable to the party, and Rick Santorum probably can’t overrun Romney, there doesn’t appear to be anyone left who can stop the weakest frontrunner in the history of the modern primary system from walking away with the nomination. The rallying of a group of 150 prominent social conservative leaders to Santorum might not amount to anything in the primaries, but it’s hard to see those elements easily putting aside their differences with Mittens.
My prediction: conservative disenchantment with the Romney coronation will manifest itself tangibly by November – either in the form of a third-party movement (whether that be a brand-new party or a mass defection to the Constitution Party), or in the form of a last-ditch late entry into the primary contests in May and June by someone like Chris Christie or Paul Ryan.
