It's Parliamentary, Part II

 

Well, well, well.  In my last post concerning the mid-term election I asked everyone to channel their “inner Blandford” – a reference to the second-place finish recorded in my hometown by Robert Kelleher in the 1976 Democratic Presidential Primary.  Kelleher wanted to replace the U.S. form of government with the UK parliamentary model – and in Blandford he damn near won.  Under that system voters are much more conditioned to vote for (or, in many instances, against) a party rather than an individual.  My reasoning was that this was the perfect moment for exactly that mentality to evidence itself within the American electorate.

And, goddammit – that is exactly what happened.

Across the country, regardless of name, notoriety, personality, religion, gender, family ties, military service – yes, even, despite the fixation of the Commander in Chief on its importance in the consideration of the electorate, - even without regard for the relative firmness of their buttocks – Democrats won. In Iowa voters selected the party whose candidates knew the difference between a Hawk and a Hawkeye.  In Georgia – well, they did exactly the same thing.  In Texas there have been many people wondering where the Cowboys “D” has gone.

Now we know – all the “D’s” in Texas have gone to Washington. 

So now we get to sit back and ask “What does this all mean?” Well, for the Cowboys it means that this is going to be another year that they will not win the Super Bowl.

So, that’s good.

Politically – it’s a bit more difficult. Everyone will have a theory about where this sits “in the big picture” and everyone will be partially correct - and partially incorrect. Most political commentary is conducted like a game of blindfolded darts.  You know roughly where the target is, you can figure out which is the pointy end of the dart – and it doesn’t cost you anything to take a shot.  As to whether you’ll actually hit the target…

Well, shit, it’s a game of blindfolded darts.

Everybody has an opinion, everyone has a point of view, ya pays yer quarter, ya takes yer shot. There were thousands (perhaps millions) of conclusions drawn and outcomes analyzed in the days following the mid-terms. One of the more popular ways to do any sort of analysis has recently become the “takeaway” approach.  The author – let’s say he’s a sportswriter – has to get something up on a website as quickly as possible.  Nowadays deadlines come up even quicker than they used to when you wrote for a newspaper. (Note to the younger crowd – a “newspaper” was a physical object made of pages of thinly spread dried wood pulp covered with writing and produced by “reporters”. Each day millions of individuals would purchase this object in order to ignore the reporters’ stories and read comics about large dogs like “Marmaduke” and “Howard Huge”. They would then use the remnants to train their own dogs not to piss on the rug).

 

In order to make it easier to meet these deadlines writers will jot down notes throughout the event they are observing and then turn them in to “takeaways” when they submit their musings.  This means that the story that gets posted to the website is entitled something like “Five Takeaways from the Patriots’ Win Over the Dolphins” or “Five Takeaways from the Season Premier of “Real Plumbers’ Wives of Rhode Island”. This allows the writers to develop content while the event they are covering is still in progress and post a story that actual has no continuity whatsoever.  They don’t have to tie one thought to another, they don’t have to provide transitional sentences or paragraphs – in some cases they can even post “takeaways” that are seemingly opposite in nature.  Just watch this for an example:

 Two Takeaways from Observing “Takeaway” Journalism

1.       1. It’s the worst form of sham “journalism” ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

2.       2. It’s pure genius perfectly suited for the modern news appetite.

See – isn’t it great! You can get away with damn near anything.

That said – here we go:

Five Takeaways from the Democrats’ Big Blue Tsunami

1.      1.  It Really Wasn’t a “Repudiation of Donald Trump”

Oh - how I wish this wasn’t true.  I would love to join the crowd writing about how this election marks “the end of Trumpism”, the final “nail in the coffin of Donald Trump’s influence”, a complete repudiation of “all that Trump represents”.  The joy on the faces of the talking heads on MSNOW and CNN is so fun to watch.  They’re so happy.  You do not want to ruin their moment.  They remind me of the crew on “30 Rock” celebrating “sandwich day” https://www.facebook.com/reel/814804301278729

This is their day – the results out of South Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi – MISSISSIPPI! - are like the dipping sauce of their lives – God bless us every one!

Unfortunately – it isn’t true.  Donald Trump wasn’t repudiated during this election.  You see – Donald Trump wasn’t on the ballot.

“But wait” you say. “Donald Trump told everyone to pretend he was on the ballot! So there!  It’s on tape – over and over.  He said it so it must be true!”

Oh – bless you.  Think about what you are implying.  You are basing this statement on the proposition that something Donald Trump says makes it true.  He said to pretend he was on the ballot – so people must have done exactly that. 

Just slow down – does the fact that Trump says something did happen, or will happen, or should happen, or is even possible – make that something “true”?

Ever?

This is a man who claims windmills are simply expensive vehicles to promote the mass murder of birds. Who said, with a straight face, that ingesting disinfectant would be the big break we needed in fighting the Covid virus. Who disregarded the results of an entire election. So – does his having told people to pretend he was on the ballot mean that they actually did that very thing?  Does it mean that they imagined his name there, had his orange visage burned into their mind - and said “no”?

Of course it doesn’t.  When voters got to the polls this November they were smart enough not to pretend anything – they voted for the choice that was before them.  They did, in fact, repudiate something at the ballot box – but it wasn’t Donald Trump, because no matter what he said – he wasn’t there.

 

What was repudiated was the Republican Party – Americans did exactly what I was hoping they would do – they voted as if this was an election under a parliamentary system of government.  They did not vote for or against any one individual – they voted against the party that has obviated its obligation to act as a brake on the excesses of its “leadership”. Against the party that has become a willing lackey to idiocy.  Against a party that decided to simply discard those within its ranks who said “wait just one second” – people like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, John Cornyn, the Bush family, Adam Kinzinger – all of whom were deemed “RINO’s”, all of whom were vindicated by this year’s vote.  They said the party (the party – not Trump) would pay a price for blind obedience – and boy were they right.

Yes – I know that the crop of candidates put forward by that same Republican party was a buffet made up of a fine selection of excrement spread over some very, very expensive bread. That when looking at the slate of individuals with “R’s” after their names they saw people like Ken Paxton (who even Trump told to get a better fitting suit, which is a bit like Pinocchio telling someone to get a nose job), Cindy Hyde Smith (Barbie’s evil step-granny) and Darline Graham (who, let’s face it, can’t even spell “Darlene” right). But an array of Marvel superheroes could have been on the ballot this year and if an “R” appeared after their names – they were going down.

This still means there is a great deal for Dems to celebrate – if not as heartily as would be done if this was an outright rejection of Trump – but perhaps more meaningfully.  Polls over the years have consistently shown that on a majority of the issues voters side with the positions held by Democrats.  They are for the right to choose.  They are for affordable health care.  They are for strongly supporting public education. They are for improved infrastructure. The problem was that while individually these positions were supported – when gathered collectively under the Democratic umbrella the sale became much harder.  Part of that was due to the fact that the Dems were largely seen as losers.  There were some outliers (Barack Obama, for one example) but for the most part the Chuck Schumer’s, Kamala Harris’s and Hillary Clinton’s of the world would ignite more anger on the right than enthusiasm on the left.  Not to mention that they did absolutely nothing for the center.

However – you know what one of the best antidotes for being perceived as a loser would be?  Winning.  And there was a whole lot of winning being done this past week.  The fact that Americans behaved, en masse, as if they were voting in a parliamentary campaign waged between the Tories and Labour (as opposed to 500 separate popularity contests) was a good thing. While this result, tempting as it may be, cannot (and should not) be taken as a direct repudiation of Trump – it is a clear message to those underlings who feel that the way to salvation is to simply mimic his every utterance.  That message is simply this – when we want to express anger and frustration – we’ll vote for Trump.  When we want to get a job done right – we won’t vote for a pretend candidate, and we won’t vote for a group pretending to be a “party” when they are really just a Greek chorus.

That’s the long game and I’ll take that.  I’ll take that over gloating about Trump’s demise any old day.

2.       2. It Doesn’t Mean That There Won’t Ever Be Another Trump

Well before all of the races had been called (which, by the way, still hasn’t happened) there were Republicans jockeying for position in the 2028 Presidential sweepstakes. Well – there was J.D. Vance who was quick to tell everyone that the reason for the loss was “the war”.  This was done in order to begin the process of distancing himself from the very administration of which he is a part.  In the ranks of the press the pundits quickly pivoted to the 2028 Presidential race and noted how this was likely how all of the potential Republican candidates will behave.  After all, when you’re losing Kansas, Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi – you would think that the logical thing to do would be to run as fast as you possibly can away from the positions that gave rise to that situation.  It couldn’t possibly be a good campaign strategy to sign on as being in complete lock step with Trump.  There can only be one – and there will never be another.  Right?

Not so fast.  Taking that approach may seem logical but it ignores recent history.  People forget how Trump managed to win the 2016 Republican nomination in the first place. It was hardly an “orange tsunami”. Trump did not sweep to an overwhelming victory.  In the crucial series of primaries held up through “Super Tuesday” he won a number of States – but only by finishing with a plurality of votes ahead of a widely split field made up of more established figures like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina (remember her?) and Ben Carson.  All of those candidates informed their audiences that they should be President, that Trump was crazy and that they were (by contrast) the voice of reason. The voices of reason won about 65% of the vote in those races.  It’s just that they won it in varying increments of 20%, 15%, 10%, 8% and a bunch of 5 percenters.  Which is another way of saying – they lost.

If all of the contenders for the next Republican nomination line up to introduce themselves as the next “voice of reason”, ready to repudiate the Trump legacy – I predict that there will arise from the mud a “Trump golem”.  This will be the candidate unafraid to say; “I will build that wall, I will drink that disinfectant, I will fight that war, I will dance in that ballroom in the shadow of that big, beautiful, triumphal arch”.  He (or she – but probably a white guy) will proudly wrap himself in the fatty pillows of Trump’s ample bosom and sail to victory with a series of 32% “victories” over the bewildered mainstream candidates.  Then, after having called this same candidate a lunatic throughout that same primary season the defeated candidates will have an epiphany and decide that old crazypants is their kinda guy anyway. 

So – yes – it is hard to envision how a second Trump could arise to command a majority of the GOP right now – especially after that comprehensive ass-whuppin’. But -  it should be remembered that whoever seeks to be that Trump 2.0 doesn’t have to command a majority.  They just have to hold on to the true believers while the rest of the field splits the vote.

3.       3. The Results Don’t Really Constitute Good News for “Democratic Socialists”

What?  How can I say this! The far left of the party has been vindicated – hasn’t it? What about Abdul El Sayed in Michigan?  What about the House victories in New York and California?  What about Nithya Raman – new mayor of L.A. and proud DS member?

Congratulations to them all – but surfing to victory on a blue wave is different from powering the wave itself.  Analysis of the voting patterns throughout the country clearly show that while all Democrats (including those on the left wing of the party) benefited from the changes in voter preference – the farther left you go – the less benefit you received.  Someone like James Talarico (an avowed centrist) got a much bigger boost than did Angie Nixon.  That is why Talarico is spending this week in Washington getting a lesson in how to find his Senate office and Nixon is being lauded as having had a “near miss” in her Florida race for the Senate.

The bottom line of politics is this “did you win – or did you lose”?  Not every election cycle is going to be this blue – and if you belong to a wing of the party that underperformed during the bluest race ever – it is doubtful that you will exceed expectations when things get tougher.  And while I welcome the fact that it is now not going to be possible to defeat a candidate just by going “OOOOOOH – a SOCIALIST!!!” I still think the best route to continued victory for Democrats is to strongly establish themselves as “the party of normal”. 

4.       4. The Best Thing to be Coming Out of This is “Normal”

Which leads to my next takeaway. If I were forced to choose a single thing on which to base a conclusion for why the Democratic landslide took place I would not choose any of the following:

1.       The war with Iran

2.       The price of gasoline

3.       The cost of living (“affordability”)

4.       The corruption of the Trump administration

5.       The activities of ICE

6.       The price of tea in China

All of these things probably contributed to the way the country voted (even the Chinese tea issue, since all things China seem important these days).  But if there were to be a single root cause for what we have just seen I would attribute it to the country’s collective desire to get back to what is deemed “normal” governance, “normal” politics, “normal” news. 

I get a distinct sense of burnout when it comes to the craziness factor.  This had previously manifested itself in frustration on the part of the Democrats – what I call the “how can they keep getting away with this shit!?” factor. What they really meant was “How is this shit becoming “normal?”.  For example – consider the reaction when Pete Hegseth began firing Generals, Admirals and other high ranking military staff because they were female or minority.  Not because they hadn’t served with distinction, because they lacked skills, because they refused to carry out orders.  Spin it whatever way you want to – these people were being removed from the active duty rolls and having their careers ruined because Hegseth perceived their rise as being due to a “competitive unbalance” – and he was on a one man crusade to right what he saw as this egregious wrong.

To the Democrats this seemed to pass by nearly unnoticed – despite their best efforts to stop it.  It seemed like something that would have created huge outrage in the past was now just seen as “business as usual”.  This is what leads to the “how do they keep getting away with this shit?” reaction – the fear that this is becoming normal.

Well – the mid terms provided an answer – they aren’t getting away with this shit.  In numerous elections the Democrats fielded military veterans who won election (or scared the daylights) out of the Republicans who have allowed this sort of thing to become “normalized”.  The best example is probably that of Nancy Lacore – a three-star Navy admiral who served impeccably for 35 years before Hegseth unceremoniously fired her for the crime of having a vagina.  Ms. Lacore will now be Congresswoman Lacore after having flipped the district previously served by Nancy Mace.

 “Petey, Petey where’s the three star? – Gone to the Congress – har har har”.

Voters are sick of claims of rigged elections, vaccine denials, arresting some poor guy for vandalizing the reflecting pool so that you can avoid taking responsibility for hiring incompetent fools, smuggling roadkill into Central Park, ballrooms, renaming monuments and buildings after yourself, holding “gotcha” hearings where you get your facts completely screwed up, no bid contracts, using inside information to enrich yourself, ballrooms, running on a promise to release the Epstein files then refusing to release those same files, calling anyone who disagrees with you “losers”, all the stupid, stupid nicknames, UFC events on the White House lawn, ballrooms, using the justice department to attack people who were simply doing their jobs, hiring buffoons to patrol the nation’s streets and shoot people turning their vehicle around and nurses who are helping injured people, telling colleges and universities how to run their own admissions offices, telling museums what items and exhibits they can display, ballrooms, appointing your son’s ex-girlfriend to ambassadorships, allowing your son’s ex-girlfriend to embarrass the country by bribing people to pay their credit card bills, Lauren Boebert, describing every Muslim as a “jihadist”, ballrooms, calling any female reporter who asks a tough question a “nasty person”, tilting at windmills, getting in the way during the World Cup presentation, Kash Patel’s drinking, Kash Patel’s self-promoting videos, Kash Patel’s spending habits, Kash Patel’s eyes, fake outrage at casting black actors in “The Odyssey” – you know – everything. 

Oh – and ballrooms, just so damn sick of ballrooms.

So, the real winner of the election was “normal”.  The bizarre antics of the Trump administration and its enablers within the Republican ranks were not themselves “normalized” – instead they were “penalized”. The GOP was identified as the willing purveyors of this nonsense and were appropriately rejected when people voted. You’re the party that keeps holding these stupid hearings – not voting for you.  You’re the party that when we say hamburger costs too much says “find another protein” – not voting for you.  You’re the party that decided Elon Musk should determine what the government looks like – not going there. The Democrats, long derided as the party of the crazies – have started to look pretty damn sane.  As long as they don’t go crazy - the way is clear for them to be “the party of normal” for a long time to come.

5.       5. “Normal” Ain’t What it Used to Be

The last sentence of the section above is scary for both Republicans and Democrats alike. For Republicans it is obviously worrying that a carefully crafted image of themselves as being fiscally, morally and politically responsible when compared to “those crazy leftists” is being lost.  They had managed to preserve that impression for decades despite the fact that fiscally the deficit has exploded under every Republican administration since Nixon and that they’ve presided over the worst economic meltdowns during that era. Morally – they’ve maintained they patrol the high ground for years despite the fact that they’ve routinely averted their eyes from the moral failings of their disgustingly self-righteous advocates (I could list an entire slate of corrupt fundamentalist preachers but let’s just stick with officeholders).  Republicans selected as Speaker of the House an individual who went to prison for abusing underaged boys and had a Senator who routinely opposed gay rights – and was then arrested in a Minneapolis airport for soliciting sex in a bathroom (he plead guilty to the charge). That’s somehow been overlooked. Politically, the GOP claims that they have been the party of the middle class – despite undermining that same class’s access to health care, education, transport, workers’ rights and housing. They’ve claimed they are “keeping the government off people’s backs” and preserving their rights – despite pushing for the repeal of a woman’s right to choose, a tenant’s right to maintain their home, a teacher’s right to instruct their class or an individual’s right to quietly, and without interfering with anyone else, live their life in the manner they see fit. 

 

Somehow – all these things were deemed normal – until now.  The GOP seems to have gone too far, because when Texas starts turning bluer than Jack Nicholson at the end of “The Shining” – there’s a new definition of “normal” coming around.  

But it’s easy to assert that the Republican’s are losing their hold on being seen as the more “normal” party.  What’s harder is to explain why Democrats are scared that they won’t be able to pick up the mantle of “the party of normal”.  Why this is so comes down to this simple fact – the Republican’s know they’ve gone too far.  The Democrats don’t know how far they can go.

What I mean by this is that while Republicans can look at the results of this past election and find definitive proof that forever wars, rising prices, revolving press secretaries, ICE excesses and ballrooms have taken the country too far – Democrats have yet to establish what “too far” will mean in terms of their own behaviour.  However – it is possible to make a few educated guesses.

For example – while it is likely the case that it is no longer possible to simply say “there are two genders, and that is it” and then simply stick your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA” while people try to have a discussion about this subject – it is also not possible to avoid having an actual discussion about the subject.  This, for Democrats, will mean that they need to acknowledge that the conversation that then takes place must be a true dialogue and not a lecture.  They will, for one example, need to acknowledge that it is not irrational for parents to be concerned about their daughters competing in sporting events that include transgender athletes.  Often that concern can be addressed by noting that there is no reason to be alarmed by transgender competition in things like track, cross country, tennis, golf and many other sports that are easily integrated.  The fact that “my daughter might lose” is not a legitimate argument.  On the other hand – transgender competition in sports like soccer, field hockey, wrestling, basketball and other such competitions will require some deeper thought. The worry that "my daughter might get hurt" is a legitimate concern. In the same way that boxing or Pop Warner football uses weight classifications, or high schools in almost every state class members by size divisions, some manner of balanced categorization will need to be considered.  Those raising this point should not be immediately dismissed as bigots – if they are Democrats run the very real risk of losing the “party of normal” tag before they’ve even started.

The same tempered approach needs to be taken regarding topics like immigration, health care, climate, taxes, infrastructure, competitiveness – just about everything to be honest.  Being the party in power led to a certain level of hubris on the part of Republicans – they felt they could get away with anything, that anger equated with reason, that might made right and that image corresponded to reality.  If they wish to remain the party in power (and, perhaps more importantly, if they hope to extend that power into the other two branches of government) then Democrats cannot make that same mistake.  There are reasons – legitimate reasons – why Trump voters (which include huge numbers of people who should, by all rights, be part of the natural Democratic constituency) were as pissed off as they were for so long.  Democrats in this new era ignore that anger at their peril.