Sunday 18 November 2012

Filling a Gap


When I was a kid one of the things I wanted most when I grew up was a room of my own filled on all sides with loads of books.  (I was a weird kid).  But now, lo and behold, I’ve pretty much got exactly that.  It’s not a huge room, and it’s not just "mine", but its full of books and I can go in there and read any time I want other than workdays, weekends when I’m doing something with the kids, most evenings and while I’m asleep.  So I get a couple of hours a week.  That’s cool.

But this post isn’t about the room so much as its contents, and that’s because this week one of the most highly anticipated books ever has been published and is, at long last, available to the public.  I’ve been waiting (along with lots of others) for this particular work to come out for years.  The story behind the book is fascinating – and is, in and of itself probably fit for a screenplay.  It concerns the biography of one of the greatest figures of the last century, has had everyone wondering for years if it would even appear, includes the fulfillment of an author's wishes from beyond the grave and it is still uncertain as to whether it will even work.  But it’s here – and for now that’s enough.

For those of you who don’t already know what I'm talking about the book in question is “The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill – Defender of the Realm” by William Manchester and Paul Reid.  This is the third volume of Manchester’s majestic biography – the first two – (Visions of Glory 1874 – 1932 and Alone 1932 – 1940) are considered masterpieces – cited by both historians and everyday readers as two of the greatest biographies ever written.  (For example – Ernie Adams, the mysterious “football researcher” who works with Bill Belichick and the Patriots revealed to David Halberstam that the two volumes were his favorite books).  For me – I can’t even tell you how much I enjoyed these books.  They are incredible – combining extensive research and knowledge of the subject with just the right amount of personal investment.  A good biography informs you and makes you care about the subject.  A great biography informs you and makes you care about the subject and his times.  A transcendent biography informs you and makes you care about the subject, his times and the biographer.  Guess where I put Manchester’s work?

Visions of Glory was, upon its appearance in 1983, an immediate sensation – it described Churchill’s formative years, his capture and escape during the Boer War, his prescience and fall from grace during World War I – and then his career up to the time he first became alarmed at the growth of fascism in Germany.  It made all of this come to life – it was an ideal (though not, as some carped, an idealized) account of Churchill’s life.  This was particularly true for Americans, who would not have been as well versed in some of the vagaries of British society (such as the relative hell of boarding school) as those in Britain. After the first book came out it seemed like an interminable wait until the next volume (but it really wasn’t that long).  The second book (published in 1988) started in 1932 and left off just as Churchill was achieving his long time goal of becoming Prime Minister (after bucking the establishment in Britain by being the only politician of note to warn continually of the dangers of Hitler’s rise).  But, having achieved his goal after standing alone for so long personally, he inherits a country that now stands alone – with Germany having conquered all of Europe and bombers anticipated in the air any moment.  The next book would tell the story of this supreme battle.  The reading public awaited eagerly.

And then – silence.  Nothing was published for 5, 10 then 15 years.  Rumors and pronouncements about Manchester’s health began to filter in – he had had strokes, was unable to work, was writing via Dictaphone, the book would never happen, no- wait – the book was due out next year. 

Sadly, in 2004, William Manchester died.  It seemed that the third volume – the final part of one of the greatest biographies in American literature – would remain unfinished.  But it gradually became known that in the months before his death Manchester had passed the task of completing the book off to Paul Reid, a newspaperman from Florida.  Manchester had actually resisted this for a long time – but finally asked Reid to come up and complete an “audition” chapter to see if he could actually handle the assignment.  It seems he passed – and Manchester bequeathed his research materials to Reid.

That was some bequest.  Manchester was one of the great researchers – meticulously organising his materials into bound 100 page legal pads he called “clumps”.  Unfortunately many of these clumps were annotated with Manchester’s handwritten notes, in a manner that only he could fully decipher, like Leonardo’s notebooks.  Reid was given 100 of these “clumps”, plus about 130 pages of manuscript, and was left (ironically “alone”) to finish the book.  He went to work.

Years passed – if you searched the internet whole websites were dedicated to speculating on whether the book would ever be finished.  The task seemed impossible – and Reid was very close mouthed about the whole thing.

And now – here it is.  It’s out.  The book lists both Manchester and Reid as co-authors, one dead for eight years, the other charged with bringing him (as well as Churchill) back to life.  I’m awaiting delivery as we speak, but in a few days I anticipate filling one of the most gaping holes in that room full of books – the spot for Volume 3.

(Now if Robert Caro would finish up the LBJ series, the other hole can be filled).

In honor of this momentous occasion I’m reviving the list of the month (and making it the primary post) to go through all of the Manchester books I have in the library.  Not ranking them (they’re all good) – just setting them out there if anyone wants to chase them down.  Obviously, I recommend doing just that.

1.       The Glory and the Dream

Manchester’s history of the United States for the years 1932-1972 seeks to explain the changes to American life and politics brought about by the New Deal in the post-depression era.  From a practical standpoint, if you are looking to understand where the current liberal/conservative split in American politics comes from, there is probably no better source.  This was my first encounter with Manchester’s works, and from a reader’s perspective I can tell you that the writing about the details – the small, forgotten events – is what makes this book special.  As an example, Manchester’s description of the great New England hurrican of 1938 (which dwarfed Sandy) is one of the greatest chapters about the power of weather you’ll ever read.

2.       Goodbye Darkness

William Manchester served as a Marine in the Pacific theatre during WWII.  His time there included participation in some of the most horrific battles in the entire war, (such as Okinawa), a close friendship with his fellow Marines who had fought in even more of those battles and a Purple Heart for serious wounds. This account personally and searingly recounts what happened during his time there and what it did to him for the years afterward.

3.       A World Lit Only By Fire

Manchester's reconstruction of life in the Middle Ages is not his best work, but it does serve to enlighten a reader as to what was “dark” about the dark ages and what wasn’t renewed by the renaissance.  It is also an interesting counterpoint to a book by another favorite historian, Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror”.

4.       Death of a President

Commissioned (and then disowned) by Jacqueline Kennedy, this controversial book remains the standard by which events up to and following the assassination (but not the act itself) are measured.  It is the primary source for any discussion of these events.  What other people say about these things (what the presidential party and Oswald did up to the point of the motorcade, what happened on Air Force One on the way back to Washington, etc.) starts here and then either agrees or disagrees with Manchester’s account.  For the record, Jackie Kennedy never disputed the accuracy of this book – she simply felt it too sensitive a matter to reveal some of the truths it contains.  As much a part of history as a history itself.

5.       American Caesar

When Manchester served in the Pacific it was Douglas MacArthur he served under.  When he talks about the way his fellow combatants felt towards their commander he knows what he’s talking about.  For the avoidance of doubt “Dugout Doug” was not well liked by his men.  They thought him cruel, disconnected and questioned his courage.  When he began his biography of MacArthur Manchester uncovered an incredibly complex figure – perhaps as detestable as those men believed him to be – but for entirely the opposite reasons. 

6.       The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill (Visions of Glory 1874-1932)

7.       The Last Lion – Winston Spencer Churchill (Alone 1932-1940)

See above.

I haven’t read The Arms of Krupp, Manchester's investigation of the German munitions manufacturer – but it’s a book I will get to and I consider it money in the bank.  First up though is Defender of the Realm – I can’t wait.  Oh – Manchester is from Springfield, Massachusetts – very much a product of Western Mass.

Monday 12 November 2012

No Party Like a Third Party


The election just passed has been exhaustively analysed and hashed over during the past week and, without doubt, will continue to be chopped up, deciphered, re-ciphered, interpreted, neglected, detected and inspected for the coming months.  We’ve been told that this isn’t as dominant a win for the Democrats as it seems (true), that it is a dire warning for the Republicans (also true) and that it signals a decisive turning point for the (choose one) (a) makeup of the electorate; (b) future of the country; (c) accepted view of what constitutes “normal”; or, (d) all of the above.  (Hint – go with “d”).  Of course, you can, with equal certainty, say the same thing about every presidential election ever held.  I’ve heard people compare this to the 1948 election (and they are right), to the 1800 election battle between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (they’re right again) and to the 1912 barn burner between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes (they’re right on this one too) – and every person making the comparison points to their particular past contest of choice as definitive – and, yes, every point they make is absolutely correct.
You see – when you are talking about a country as large and important as the United States every such election is definitive.  They are all equally important (in that they define the mood of the country at a given point in time), but, just like Animal Farm says – some are “more equal than others”. So when you read the analyst who trumpets that the Republicans either have to adjust their focus to include Latinos (or gays, or a graduated tax system, or health care reform, yadda, yadda, yadda) they’re talking complete sense.  And trust me, you are going to get loads of people talking complete sense to you in the coming months.  If you’re a political junkie (the author, at this point, is looking sheepish and raising his hand) this is the stuff you complain about (“Jesus – not another person telling me what this was all about”) - and still you read it.
But often, in the rush to explain what was really important, a couple of things will get overlooked.  Those are the things I like to examine.  Leave the big issues to someone else – I like to look at the fringes. This is how I justify having majored in Political Science.  So, out of these outliers scenarios I’ve picked a couple that aren’t getting looked at very closely but might possibly end up being the big take-aways from the election  just held if things happen to fall  -   just – exactly  --- into  --- the --- right ---place.  Here’s the first one:
The Real Republican Achilles Heel
Look – if you are a Republican I feel for you this week – I really do.  You must be like the fighter who gets knocked out by a lucky punch – everyone acts like you got absolutely creamed, but you feel just fine – so why is the doctor standing over you and your trainer throwing water in your face?  What the hell just happened – waddya mean I lost?  Get those smelling salts away – I’m fine dammit!
And then you try and stand up – your legs feel a bit wobbly.  And your head hurts a bit.  That’s all – you’ll get ‘em next time. 
And maybe you will – but – to strain the analogy a bit further – you gotta learn to keep your left up.  Your left arm that is – something the Republicans aren’t really known for having.  They better get one.  The Republicans only started to get back in to the race when Romney started to moderate his views.  And everyone from Mario Rubio to Fox News itself is telling them they better start to address the “Latino” problem.  In this case you really should read “Latino” as meaning “everyone who isn’t white, male, straight and rooting for a team inside the Southeast Conference”.  But the election was only lost by a few percentage points and this is, after all, the party of the aforementioned Rubio, of Condoleeza Rice, of Herman Cain, of – well, a bunch of others whose names escape me at the moment – but my point is – this is a fixable problem.
Which is true – there is no reason why the various gaps plaguing the Republican party can’t be plugged without compromising the basic conservatism at the party's core.  I’m not a huge fan of that philosophy but I do think it is vitally important that it be represented within the political arena.  If you were to poll the party membership I bet you could find a 70-30 margin in favor of compromising on something like immigration, for example.  Hell – both of the Republican nominees before Romney were big proponents of immigration reform.
And that’s where things get dicey.  Look at that second number. That 30% isn’t going to necessarily go along with your plan.  In fact – it wouldn’t be surprising if a third party candidacy would be spawned out of that “base”.  Just this year, for example, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul and Donald Trump all flirted with a third party candidacy.  And this was in a year when the Republican nominee didn’t move leftward at all.  He ran as far right as he could.  He chose a right wing VP nominee.  He disavowed the very health care reform that he invented!  He attacked Big Bird for crying out loud!
Move left on immigration, birth control, gay rights - and you are flirting with a third party candidate arising.  History shows this is what happens when parties try to shift away from a long time base.  Ask an old time Democrat who George Wallace was.  Ask an even older one who Strom Thurmond was.  And this Republican party, right now, would be utterly destroyed by a third party candidate that springs from its right wing.
The vulnerability to a 3rd party candidacy is reflected in the numbers surrounding the various states that could be considered “in play”. These would include not just the states that the Republicans won by a narrow (within 10 point) margin, but the states that they lost within that margin as well. This is because once a state leaves the “competitive” column it no longer commands the single most important resource associated with elections – money. So, let’s take a look at the states that qualify for such treatment:

Narrow Republican Wins:

N.C. – 51-48% (3%)

GA – 53-45% (8%)

Ariz – 54-44% (10%)

MO – 54 – 44% (10%)

SC – 55 – 45% (10%)


Narrow Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-49 – (1%)

OH - 50 -48 – (2%)

VA - 51-48 – (3%)

Colo – 51 -47 (4%)

IA – 52 – 47 (5%)

PA – 52-47 (5%)

Wis - 53-48 (5%)

NH - 52-46 (6%)

Nev – 52-46 (6%)

MN - 53-45 (8%)

Mich – 54-45 (9%)

NM - 53-43 (10%)

Some people would look at this and say “there are more states that were close for the Democrats than for the Republicans – the Republicans only have to win a few of those” – and they’d be right.  But look what happens when we introduce a right wing third party candidate.  Just for arguments sake let’s say that this candidate only does about 25% as well as the last truly viable third party candidate – Ross Perot, who got about 20% of the vote.  So we’ll give our imaginary candidate 5% of the vote and take it from the Republican totals – then we get this:
3rd Party Revisions For Close States:

Republican Wins      

N.C. – 46-48%*

GA – 48-45% (3%)

Ariz – 49-44% (5%)

MO – 49 – 44% (5%)

SC – 50 – 45% (5%)

* (Becomes Democrat Win)

Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-44 – (6%)

OH - 50 -43 – (7%)

VA - 51-43 – (8%)

Colo – 51 -42 (9%)

IA – 52 – 42 (10%)

PA – 52-42 (10%)

Wis - 53-43 (10%)

NH - 52-41 (11%)**

Nev – 52-41 (11%)**

MN - 53-40 (13%)**

Mich – 54-40(14%)**

NM - 53-38 (15%)**

** (Becomes “Comfortable” State)

This does two things. First, it adds a state to the Democrats that they won in 2008 and just barely lost this time.  That’s bad enough news for the Republicans.  But what it also does is free up all the money that was spent on the five now comfortable states to be used in the now extremely competitive states.  And here is where the math kicks in – when calculating what the 3rd party candidate subtracts from the Republican percentages all you do is take the amount from their vote and lower it by five.  The Democrat doesn’t benefit directly.  But when that money starts flowing into states like Georgia, and South Carolina – you don’t just subtract from the Republican vote – you add to the Democrat.  So let’s say those extra resources only shift a measly three percent of the vote from the R to the D column.  Just 3%.  Well, here’s what happens:

3rd Party Revisions For Close States:

 Republican Wins      

N.C. – 43-51% (8%)*

GA – 45-48% (3%)*

Ariz – 46-47% (1%)*

MO – 46 – 47% (1%)*

SC – 47 – 48% (1%)*

* (Becomes Democrat Win)


Democratic Wins:

FL – 50-44 – (6%)

OH - 50 -43 – (7%)

VA - 51-43 – (8%)

Colo – 51 -42 (9%)

IA – 52 – 42 (10%)

PA – 52-42 (10%)

Wis - 53-43 (10%)

NH - 52-41 (11%)**

Nev – 52-41 (11%)**

MN - 53-40 (13%)**

Mich – 54-40(14%)**

NM - 53-38 (15%)**


Republicans would be left with one state - Texas - in the top dozen of electoral vote prizes. If this happens we’re in 400+ electoral vote territory – that’s a meltdown. 
“But” – you say -  “you’re not taking in to account that the new Republican nominee would be taking some of those moderate votes, and Latino votes and closeted gay Republican votes back from the Dems”.  Maybe I’m not.  But you’re also forgetting that the Democrats won’t be running a black guy who is coming off a four year recession in 2016.  It’s likely that they could be either (i) running a woman (what’ll that do to the gender gap?), or, (ii) running a southerner in the Bill Clinton mold (think you’ll hold on to Georgia then?).  Or both.  If this happens and there is a third party candidacy out of the Republican right wing – and there is historic precedent for this when a party adjusts – you could be looking at Republican Armageddon.
(Actually – I’m going to copyright “Republigeddon ©” right now).

WINK

  I want to talk about a sensitive and multi-faceted subject but I'm pretty sure I'm not a good enough writer to capture all that nu...