Santorum Surge II

If there is anything I've learned regarding politics, it's to expect the unexpected.  Actually that's not just politics but in life in general.  Obviously the unexpected doesn't happen all the time - then it wouldn't be unexpected.  But think about seminal events in recent history - or just your own personal history.  At the moment that said event was occurring, often we find ourselves saying, "If you would have told me 3 months ago that X - I wouldn't have believed you. "  If you would have told me that a Freshman Senator named Barack Obama (rhymes with Osama) would be our first black President elected in 2008, in 2004 - I would have laughed in your face.  But by that time the events had been set in motion.  Grant it, a lot still had to happen for the pieces to fall into place but the big ones, the structural ones, were already set (namely Clinton scaring other serious contenders away except for Edwards, Obama being extremely capable at organizing and building an organization around him, a core of Democratic support - possibly the most engaged 10-20% that would not settle, Bush winning re-election forcing him to account for his shitty tenure- had Kerry won he would have gotten blamed and would have lost bad in 2008, probably) . 

This sort of realization of how events unfold led me to predict, WRONGLY, that we would see marijuana legalization in four years (right after Obama was elected).  But you can see how it could have happened - Obama is elected and leaves states to their own devices, Schwarzenegger had publicly stated he was in favor of it as a tax generating project, a sagging economy and growing deficit, Ron Paul had bolstered the libertarian republicans about freedom in general, public opinion was moving in the right direction and as of right now support for medical marijuana is above 50%), the media was increasingly addressing the issue as a serious topic to discuss as opposed to a joke or as some way to deride "stoners"- this is important as key mover of public opinion.  Despite all this, and that for some inexplicable reason, Obama has gone back on his "leave it to the states policy"- legalization has not happened (although that was probably  50-50 bet anyway).  Hey, you win some, you lose some.  A few pockets of the country have legalized but unlike gay marriage, a wave of change has not followed it yet. 

My point is, is that despite Romney being the clear front runner early  (Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean anyone) and still by delegate count - you never saw him catch fire.  Obama actually faced this as well being the insurgent 4 years ago, but eventually Edwards attacked Hillary causing her to sling mud, making her look dirty. Obama talked about hope and change. And he snuck Iowa out of his back pocket (unbeknownst to us at the time he actually had an advantage over Clinton because of his superior ground game) lending him some immediate legitimacy.  The difference between Romney and Obama though, is that Romney is/was a known quantity.  Obama was not.  And despite being the conservative's conservative 4 years ago, nobody trusts him now.  The base is LOOKING for a reason to not vote for this guy. 

I don't know about historical precedents in this sort of situation - but the republicans have a nominating process where , depending on MI, AZ, and Super Tuesday, any one of the possible nominees, won't be able to secure the nomination (w/o super delegates).  Brokered convention?  Establishment pick that won't piss off the base? Christie, Palin, Jindal…. This much is certain, someone must be nominated.  But the establishment, despite the weak economy, already didn't think they could beat Obama (evidenced by the weak field) and now the economy may be improving.  LITERALLY anything is possible, Paul, Santorum, CHENEY, even Pawlenty (who should be kicking himself).  Whatever happens, I won't be surprised.

Romney as nominee - 50/50

The Santorum Surge

Given the tumult in the Republican primary race, it seemed remiss not to take a closer look both at the surging Rick Santorum and at the race as a whole.

First off, a mea culpa. Last summer I attended a dinner, and found myself at a table with a self-important, egotistical, and downright demeaning investment professional. Needless to say we agreed on little. At one point in the evening, this individual explained that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, and would then defeat the socialist incumbent in the fall. I replied by questioning Romney's acceptability to the party base, and suggested that a movement Conservative had a better than even chance of upsetting the forthcoming coronation.

Fast forward six months, and, while I certainly wasn't willing to call the November election, I was fairly confident that Romney had the nomination in hand. All the signs were moving in his favor, and his opponents were self-destructing one by one. So, I made a mistake, and shouldn't have discarded my original opinion quite so quickly. Now, an addendum is in order. I never, be it this past June or three weeks ago, never believed that Rick Santorum had so much as in iota of a chance. Truthfully, I might not even have been aware that he was running last summer.

I still believe that Romney is the most likely nominee, however, all the same, I can't help but wonder if that belief is simply a regurgitation of popular opinion. Santorum is surging and, while such surges have come and gone in the past (see Cain, Herman, Gingrich, Newt, Ginrich, Newt Again, Perry, Rick), and while Michigan is noticeably tightening, we're but a week out from the Arizona and Michigan primaries. If Romney doesn't hold Michigan, then a compelling narrative is established for Super Tuesday a mere week later. I've seen not a word printed on the forthcoming Washington caucus, so can't judge how, or if, that might impact the race.

I'm curious as to what others think of this state of affairs. Can Santorum sustain his surge? Will the all-important South swing to him in force, and would such a swing presage a tsunami...or a contested convention?

On a related topic, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the possible underlying causes of this electoral shift, be it temporary or lasting. My gut tells me that we're looking at a combination of Santorum being the last not-Romney standing, combined with the unusual characteristics of the voting population.

As Timothy Egan of the NYT points out, the primaries (and, though he doesn't explicitly make the distinction, the caucuses especially) haven't exactly inspired the country; turnout has ranged from abysmal to, in Maine, a level so low as to be a statistical rounding error. The turnout has also accenuated the historical problem of primaries being decided by the most fervent, ideologically strident voters, given that they're the ones who get out to vote, creating a Republican electorate this season that is "old, white, (and) uniformly Christiam".

This voting bloc provides one possible explanation for the positions taken by the field; they're not appealing to the nation; they're not even appealing to their party. They're attempting to appeal to their party's crazies or, as they're known on both the left and right the "activists".

So, what's causing this? And, in a related vein, could Santorum actually stand a chance in the general? The easy answer is "no, of course not". The man is a walking stereotype of all of the smug and sanctimonious pricks who know that they are right and that you are not only wrong, but, because you disagree with them, are fundametally evil. His positions on the issues of the day (both this day and those issues issues whose last day of note was in 1912 rather than 2012) are so extreme or bizarre that I have trouble conceiving of a Republican path to anything approaching victory. And yet...party identification has taken an increasing hold over the electorate of both sides. I have to wonder how close the race could actually become.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

It seems there are two prevailing definitions of this term and both are totally opposite one another.  It both describes the lack of critical thinking surrounding Obama (think kool-aid drinkers) of his supporters (it is derived from Bush Derangement Syndrome) and the hyper paranoia of the take 'r' guns-FEMA re-education camps-fascism-not an American citizen-Bush approval opponents of Obama.  

It can't be both!

Or can it?

Just like Herpes and Hepatitis, maybe ODS should have multiple distinctions.  But how to create those distinctions.  Hep uses alpha characters, Herpes uses numeric.  Maybe ODS should use greek?  The only problem is  I don't know greek except for baklava, gyro, and idiot (idiot might be latin).  Hmmm.  Well, since Obama is *from* Chicago, one area of the country where we serve  and pronounce "gyros" as they do in Greece (NO lettuce, tzaziki sauce, tomato, onion and yee-ros), perhaps the ODS that's favorable to Obama should be called ODS-Gamma.  And the since Bush is an idiot, the ODS that's favorable to Bush / "conservatives" should be designated ODS-Iota.

Thoughts?

PPP

The Work World

I'm finally posting about my job.  Here it is.

I hate it.  

Cynical Commentary II

Heh. Funny you should mention Maher. After I posted that piece, I pulled up the previous day's Real Time episode that I'd DVR'd and finally watched it. When Maher made that joke I sat there thinking "Son of a bitch. Next time, you really have ta watch all of the commentary shows before posting on a hot topic. Moron."

Thanks for the positive comments. I have to admit though, reading through it later, I thought the whole thing could have been edited down a whole lot and structured much more tightly. I assure you, the only reason parts of it sounded even halfway decent was due to the fact that this post allowed me to integrate a couple of separate ideas that I've been kicking around for a few years. The immigrant nation vs. ethnic nation and Huntington strands of thought in particular.

Cynical Commentary about Torture Commentary

Well DH, I have to say I agree with all you wrote.  I coulc probably take exception with some of the ticking time bomb scenario stuff, I think it will just take away from my sarcasm.

Did you plagiarize much of that? It read like poetry, or at least, a professional writer. Catchy conclusion and all.

But I particularly enjoyed the rip off of Maher with the "Jack Bauer as defense of reality" comment.

Well said friend.

Torture and the American Identity

Tortue.

It's really a great conversation starter.

I've vacillated on just about every aspect of this issue over the past several years. Is it ever effective? If it is, can it be justified? If/when it's justified, is it then also morally permissible?

I eventually came to the conclusion that, although not being in the industry I could never know for certain, it seemed that enought people believed there to be value to gain from the now euphemistically rephrased "enhanced interrogation techniques" that there were probably times when such action was effective. When that was the case, when lives were on the line, then torturing the one whose knowledge could prevent the coming atrocity was justified. I even came to what I decided was a very mature worldview; that torture was not morally justified, but when it was necessary, men and and women could willingly choose to sacrifice their dignity and morality for the good of the nation, knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and knowing that they should, and would be prosecuted for them. It was all very nice and honorable, with what, in my world view, is the ultimate personal sacrifice thrown in to top everything off. And it was wrong. In every god damned sense, it was wrong.

Over time, I came to revise my belief based on two concurrent but separate tracts of thought. First on the dry and uncontroversial basis of the very effectiveness of physically torturing someone. The more I read, the more I learned, the more I critically thought about the issue, the less compelling the need for torture seemed. As much as I enjoy watching 24 (as does, apparently, Bill Clinton, oddly enough), the series has had one effect on the American political debate that's as unbelievable as it is unjustified. We're now at a point where Republicans try to explain that the Democrats don't understand the real world, and to emphasize their point, they site Jack Bauer. Wha?! When one of the primary pieces of evidence supplied by one side of a debate is a fictional character in a fictional world, I can be pretty confident that something has gone awry in the universe.

Dick Cheney has exemplified this mentality. But the thing is, to get to the point where you have a suspect in custody ready for interrogation, you must already have a very strong handle on the situation. I was never able to articulate this idea very well, but Stratfor put it very effectively earlier this week when they wrote:

"A great deal of tactical information on the individual — what he knows, the organization he works for and that organization’s activities — is all necessary to get to that point. This is rarely the case in either police work or the intelligence community — and if authorities did have that much highly specific intelligence, the time-consuming process of torture is rarely either necessary or an efficient means of gathering further details."

So torture as an effective means of coercion just doesn't seem to pan out. Full stop, right? Wrong. Because the effectiveness is just one aspect of this story, and arguably it's the less important one. Because even if it were justified by the information to be gained from a suspect, the question would still remain: Is this morally right?

The answer shouldn't even be a question. Shephard Smith put voice to what so many people were thinking earlier this week when he exploded on camera in indignation as the two men he was on stage with debated the legality of torture. As he so effectively pointed out, it's not a question of legality. Of Bybee's memos or executive directives. It's a question of who we are. The Right (and I use that term not in its historical context, recent or otherwise, but in the current"Rush Limbaugh-Republicans" sense of the word) claims that, as Americans, we need to fight for American values. This is true, and thirty or forty years ago, is why I would have been a Republican, when the alternative was a wishy-washy cultural relativism. Ronald Reagan, the Right's hero, in championing a treaty banning torture, understood this in a way that is today lost. However, the Right today often seems to be concerned not with defending America the idea, the ideal, but America the place.

Now America is a place; its people and its position in the world has been defined by its geography, but Americans have never been defined by where their fathers and mothers were born and bred. This immigrant society that we have is what sets countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand apart from almost every other nation on earth. Now this ideal hasn't always been perfectly followed; in the U.S. alone, there's a long litany of resentment and persecution towards the 'other'. Native American genocide and/or forced relocation, Slavery, Jim Crow, NINA, Yellow Peril, the list could go on for another page and a half. But in the end, America has always (and, as time has gone by, more consistently) come back to the belief that being an American isn't about your ethnicity, your creed, your faith. It's about a mentality. A set of principles. It's about an idea.

Being accepted as an American is, in most places, far easier than becoming an American. That's not an oxymoron. Legally becoming a citizen takes many years, cards of various hues, and mounds of paperwork. Being accepted as an American is fairly simple. In this society, people are accepted as Americans simply by wanting to be an American. Though the government aspires otherwise, that is obviously and manifestly not the case in, say, France, or most of the rest of Europe. This cultural trait is one of the great strengths of our country. Nearly as important, the U.S. has an uncanny ability to take in new peoples, add their culture to the American fabric, and create a new and ever evolving culture for all, one that the immigrant's children have historically readily adopted, even if doing so was more difficult for their parents. America is kinda like a good version of the Borg.

So what is America then? America is its people, and those people are, again, defined by a mentality and set of principles. America is an idea. I accept that this makes America an inherently weaker entity than most other nations on Earth. About five years ago, I picked up Samuel Huntington's (of Clash of Civilization's fame) latest work, Who Are We?, due solely to his previous work. The gist of the book's argument is that America has to reembrace Protestantism, or we're headed down a path towards two nation's, one Hispanic and non-aspirational, and the rest of us. His argument is that America, as a nation based on an idea rather than an ethnic history has an inherent long-term weakness. Now I disagree with his assessment on several fronts, but I concede the central concern of a divide opening between people of different backgrounds. I concede his concern, but I reject his central hypothesis.

America is and can a remain a country that exists based on its ideals, on its promise, and on its purpose. I love America, not because I was born here. I love this country because it is a nation that accepts all comers. Because it is a nation that exists not for the sake of existence, but exists to embody and puruse the ideals on which it was founded, and on which we have been raised. Torture in the name of preserving America is not only unjustified. It's an oxymoron.