Red, White and Who?

Representative McCarthy is on his 11th (& counting) vote to become Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States Congress. The Speaker is the headteacher of the HoR, enforcing its rules and controlling what can happen. 

It's a political position; a Republican speaker - like McCarthy - would only allow Republican business to occur. Traditionally the party aligns behind its chosen nominee and the majority party wins. The House is open for business.

However, the Republican party's slim majority means that a 20-strong bloc of right-wing Reps are denying McCarthy the position, voting against him for various reasons.

This is despite McCarthy having President Trump's endorsement. Such an endorsement may have been a golden ticket in the past, but on this issue has little effect. Many are now speculating that Trump's hold on the Republican party - and those on the right who are most loyal to him - is weakening. (See Politico and Reuters)

This is mistaken, and typical of a short-term media emphasis which still has no understanding of the deep causes of Trump's rise. Basic analysis argues that the Republican party is moving beyond Trump. More intelligent analysis sees that the party is still led by 'Trumpism', just not Trump any more. Neither are quite right.

Trump is failing to get his way: true. But the Republican right, and the 'Freedom Caucus' prominent within it were never his to begin with. He is a part of an older story that has troubled America for far longer than a journalist's memory.

In fact, they pre-dated his rise by several years, emerging in the tumultuous post-Bush years alongside the the Tea Party (remember them?); a mass movement opposing Obama's Democrats and fears of government overreach. This movement, in turn, was enabled by the increasingly combative style introduced to Congress by Newt Gingrich under President Clinton in the 1990s.

The Republican Party had been struggling with internal divisions since Obama's election in 2008, and was shifting ever further right anyway, before it found a lightning rod in one of America's most famous billionaires. (For more on this, read Tim Alberta's superb chronicle of the period, 'American Carnage')

This means Trump - and the Trumpism he unleashed - are only fellow heads on the hydra to the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party, the evangelical lobby, and other right-wing influences. For long, Trumpist influences were the most powerful heads, but they were still attached to a body of thought far greater than they.

Radical Republicans on the right-wing know this. They have always owed their loyalty to what their constituents want and feel about America, from well before the 2016 election. For a brief time their electorates then demanded a bending of the knee, but now it's business as usual again.

Trump, then, is a part of this story, but it is a mis-framing to say the Republican Party is moving past him as though they have unceremoniously dumped their driver on the side of the road. At most, Trump is an over-zealous navigator with a hand on the wheel. He make take back control of this movement again.

But even assuming he doesn't, the deep forces and dislocations in American society remain. There is a reason Republicans still do well at gubernatorial and state legislature level; millions of Americans are uneasy about the country they live in, and what the Democrats want for it. Many are frustrated by left-wing moral hectoring while the economy struggles; many fear government overreach; many are angry about elite privileges ('Strangers in Their Own Land' by Arlie Hochschild is worth reading here).

These are not new problems. The only difference is that Trump is no longer the vessel for them, just as he wasn't a decade ago. 

At least American politics is consistent; there seem to be no solutions either, ten years on.

Until that changes, McCarthyite chaos will continue.

Political Leadership: Managers (Angela Merkel) 5/5

It took just 1 minute and 40 seconds for Angela Merkel to dismiss Norbert Roettgen from his job. There were no platitudes or well-wishes, simply a limp thank-you and the nomination of his replacement in front of the press.

The Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety was gone. 

He remains just one of two ministers Chancellor Merkel has ever sacked outside of reshuffles, dismissed in 2012 for helping lose a major regional election.

Merkel is Europe's longest serving democratic leader. She has overseen four coalition governments and everything the twenty-first century has to offer. 

And she is the epitome of the manager-leader. This is the politician who can lead a complicated team through any trouble, exercising both ruthlessness and patience at the very top level. 

And after sixteen years, she's still very ruthless. That second minister was sacked just last year.

Political Leadership: Empaths (Joe Biden & Ted Heath) 3/5

Chopin's 'Prelude, Op 28, No.15' swirls around an opening scene in the 'Crown'. The piece is played by Prime Minister Ted Heath, who was in turn swirled around by miners' strikes across his premiership.

Heath is seen as removed from the action. He is distant, aloof. Yet these strikes would lead to rolling blackouts and a cold, long winter. 

The British people would suffer and no-one was telling them why. Heath took the blame, losing a general election soon after.

A thoughtful leader knows they are responsible for not just the economic, but also the emotional wellbeing of their people. 

In times of crisis, this wellbeing can fracture; the leader must restore it. They have to articulate the population's feelings, soothe their grievances, and forge a path out of the depths.

This is the 'empath-leader'.

Political Leadership: Storytellers (Donald Trump & Theresa May) 1/5

'Stop the steal'

'Grab her by the pussy'

'Build the wall'

'Mexican rapists'

'Rocket man'

'China virus'

'When the looting starts, the shooting starts'

Donald Trump is the most formidable storyteller of a generation. His comments are foul, and remembered by millions. To gloat that he will be judged by history ignores that he is able to shape what we consider as history. That is the power of the storyteller. 

But what is it to be a storyteller? Why is it the most important of our five abilities for any political leader? And what happens if you don't have it?

The Donkey Kicks Back

I rate the Democrat Party's leading candidates for President.

Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren. The Democrat Party has four leading candidates for the 2020 Presidential nomination. 

After a series of local Party votes a winner will emerge to challenge President Trump for the leadership of the free world. 

And it will be one of these four; lacklustre television debates and funding limits mean that a dark horse (such as O'Rourke or Buttigieg) is becoming increasingly unlikely.

So who will, a) win the nomination?, and b) have the best chance of victory in what will likely be the most chaotic, slanderous and unpleasant election in American history? I've judged each candidate on their chances. 

But I can only cover so much, and you may disagree. Quite right. Let me know what I get wrong and what you think, in the comments or on Instagram.

Bernie Sanders

"Our infrastructure is collapsing. Teachers are underpaid. Veterans sleep on the streets. Families can't afford childcare"

Age: 77

Current Job: Independent senator for Vermont (but officially allied with Democrats)

Previous Career: Mayor of Burlington, Vermont Congressman

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris, 2) Elizabeth Warren

In the Polls: 16.0% (RCP Poll of Polls)

Donation Record: $6mn raised within 24 hours; c.$72mn overall (precise figures unclear)

Key Policies:

• Healthcare - introduced universal healthcare ('Medicare for All') into mainstream and frequently attacks drugs firms/bosses

• Immigration - Backs comprehensive reform of immigration policy and enforcement

• Climate - Pioneered 'Green New Deal' (more here) and has a history of environmental action

• Education - Supports free tertiary education ('College for All')

• Justice & Drugs - Prefers rehabilitation and early prevention to deterrence; pro-weed-legalisation

• Foreign Policy - moderately isolationist; mixed on Israel; pro-defence spending cuts

• Taxation - Much higher taxation on richest earners and businesses

Chances:

In 2016, Bernie was the outsider to Clinton, his plans on universal healthcare and free tuition dismissed as too excessive for a Presidential candidate. Yet today, with one notable exception, those ideas are values cherished across the Democrat Party. 

His perceived integrity and appeal to white working class voters - the traditional Democrat base - create significant hype and energy. But his chances of winning the nomination are limited by a lack of anything really edgy and new, allowing alternatives to flourish. The huge cost of his policies is a valid concern too.

He would not beat Trump. Four years of on-off Twitter attacks have poked holes in his broader reputation and his staunch-left position makes appeals to the centre difficult. 

His age makes a difference too; this is one of the most exhausting jobs in the world, and the reliability of an eighty year-old is thus questionable. His attitudes towards the military, a cherished icon of American power, would also not sell.

The real danger is that, upon losing the nomination, he would run anyway as an independent. This would be disastrous, siphoning key votes from the Democrats just as the electoral stakes are the highest since World War Two.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 5/10

Kamala Harris

"This election is about you, your hopes, your dreams, your fears, and what wakes you up at 3 a.m."

Age: 54

Current Job: Democrat Senator for California

Career: District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California

Rivals: 1) Bernie Sanders, 2) Elizabeth Warren, 3) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 8.0% 

Donation Record: $1.5mn within 24 hours; $23.8mn overall

Key Policies: 

• Healthcare - Backs 'Medicare for All' which would provide universal health insurance

• Immigration - Opposed to most current policy (ie anti-wall, detention centres, and splitting families)

• Climate Change - Supports the Green New Deal 

• Education - Free college for incomes below $125,000, and has planned for a large teacher pay rise 

• Justice & Drugs - Pro-weed legalisation; anti-death penalty; history of tough action as California DA ("I did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of the state of 40 million people")

• Foreign Policy - Favoured withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan; opposed to Yemen involvement; staunchly pro-Israel

• Taxation - Introduced a tax cut for middle-class provisionally costing $2.8trn over a decade

Chances:

An uncontroversial, well-liked candidate, Mrs Harris sits fourth in a race of twenty-four. She is probably the most charismatic of the front-runners with relative youth and an advantageous background (child of immigrants, success as Attorney General). 

She's fairly strong on policy, with her middle-class tax cuts a detailed appeal to the centre-ground, and she has an ability to connect to key demographics. 

I don't agree with all of this, but the 29% figure is clear.

However, she will struggle to distinguish herself from the other three, being too left towards Bernie Sanders (see similarities on education, climate, and healthcare), too wonkish towards Elizabeth Warren, and sharing too many potential voters with Joe Biden. 

Yet her clear message, readiness to pivot towards the centre, and more conservative action on crime means that if she can secure the nomination, she will have a chance in the real thing. 

A quarter of Democrats already think she could beat Trump - more than most candidates. I agree.

Chances of being Nominated: 5/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 8/10

Elizabeth Warren

"Today's big tech companies have too much power-too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They've bulldozed competition...and titled the playing field against everyone else."

Age: 69


Current Job: Senator for Massachusetts

Career: Law Professor; oversaw post-Recession economic stimulus; adviser to President Obama on financial fair play

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris 2) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 17.3%

Donation Record: $300,000 within 24 hours; $25.1mn overall


Key Policies:

• Healthcare - Backs Medicare for All and favours profit regulation for insurance companies; has suggested opening a government-run pharmaceutical firm to bring prices down

• Immigration - pro-ICE (immigration agency) replacement; favours decriminalising illegal border crossings

• Climate - Supports GND; wants public companies to disclose impact of climate change; has suggested new laws on water cleanliness, methane pollution, etc.

• Education - Plans to partially forgive student debt & make public higher education free

• Justice & Drugs - pro-weed-legalisation; anti-death penalty

• Foreign Policy - favours Afghanistan withdrawal; opposed to Yemen involvement; has criticised Israel openly

• Taxes - reversal of 2017 tax cuts; wealth tax on 75,000 richest Americans

Chances:

Elizabeth Warren has a reputation of being a policy 'wonk' - someone who likes detail and understands the complexity of law. Where the above candidates had eight/nine policy categories on other websites, Warren had about twelve, each properly developed.

This is in contrast to Sanders' big-picture thinking, or Harris' inexperience in high office. Warren's plans to heavily regulate Big Tech have gone down a storm, helping her sit ahead of Bernie in the polls. 

But the cost, oh the cost. $37 trillion over ten years for all her policies. And does she have the sparkle necessary to out-charm Biden?

Trump and Warren would be a very, very entertaining contest; his opportunism versus her structured detail. In theory, she is capable of gaining moderate Republican votes, but could she stand up to Trump in a TV debate, where her deliberate, scripted speech would be drowned out?

Yet the focus on plausible policy is encouraging, and if she could make the message heard, Warren would be in with a chance.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 7/10

Joe Biden

"We're all human, and we can all be misled. When leaders don't level with citizens, we can't expect them to make good judgments."


Age: 76

Current Job: N/A

Career: Delaware Senator; Vice-President

Rivals: 1) Elizabeth Warren.

In the Polls: 30.5%

Donation Record: $21mn April-June 2019 + $10.9mn cash on hand


Key Policies:

• Healthcare: Wants to build upon Obamacare - which he helped introduce - but anti-Medicare for All due to cost

• Immigration: Wants to increase border security, but not Trumpian style

• Climate: Has not endorsed GND, but fully backs Paris Accords; criticism for 'cut and paste' climate plan

• Education: Supports free college education; pro-universal preschool care

• Justice & Drugs: History of deterrence-based crime law (more prison & police funding etc.)

• Foreign Policy: Tough on Russia; supported drone strikes in Syria; anti-Libya intervention

• Taxes: Higher taxes on wealthy Americans; increased tax relief for middle-class

Chances:

Joe Biden. Three-time Presidential contender, former vice-president, and long-term senator. After an early surge to 42%, 'Uncle Joe' has fallen somewhat, but is still the clear leader. 

A tough man lies behind the amiability; his wife and daughter died when he was 29, and a son passed away four years ago. He has integrity and commands genuine appeal in the 'rust belt' swing states, as well as having a history of pragmatism that is sorely lacking in America. 

If he showed some developed policy ideas, and overcame some awkward historical senate votes, he might be able to defend his left flank from Warren and Harris. 

But he could well stumble at the televised debates in September, and his perceptions of race, gender and personal space are still clumsy.

The Economist has written that 'Mr Biden's long-ago working class roots are [not] a substitute for the serious reappraisal of economic policy' needed. 

They aren't wrong. Biden will not bring the energetic changes that much of America is looking for. 

He is too prone to gaffes and his support base too apathetic (in comparison to the frantic cheers at rivals' rallies) to hold up for eight months against an incumbent who will find gaps and holes everywhere. He might win the working-class, but he would lose the left-wing, especially as Sanders would probably run if Biden won.

Chances of being Nominated: 8/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 4/10

This is how I ranked the four:

Winning the Nomination:

1. Biden
2. Warren
3. Harris
4. Sanders

Winning the Presidency:

1. Harris
2. Warren
3. Sanders
4. Biden

On this conclusion, it seems that Warren has the best combined chance of victory, while Biden would be thoroughly unsuitable if elected as candidate. Sanders is barely worth considering. 

Yet there are still seven months until the primaries begin in March, and anything could happen. Let's just hope 'anything' favours Kamala Harris.

Theo

Oscillating Tones

Freedom of speech is under attack, but maybe not forever.

Freedom of speech is struggling. The ability to openly discuss our thoughts has long been an important value in western democracy. Yet internet echo chambers and the dismissal of news as 'fake' by politicians mean that we as citizens are beginning to casually reject facts and principles that we disagree with.

One psychology experiment, for instance, found that we are willing to forgo money in order to avoid experiencing opposing opinions such as on gun control or gay marriage (more here). This is inflamed by silent algorithms, subtly influencing what we see on social media.

If you can't handle criticism of minorities,
short of inciting direct violence,
then grow a thicker skin

Because the internet, for the first time in the modern era, allows us to actively avoid neutral fact and contrary opinions, making us more hostile when opposition does surface. 
It also means everything we say can be picked apart for the smallest reasons, making us quickly feel morally engulfed or uncertain. 

These effects act as a brake on the freedom to ask questions and talk about the day's key issues. Better to stay quiet than get dragged into endless, unwinnable, comment wars.

The Importance of Being Earnest

This is alarming. There's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It allows criticism of politicians and government failures; a Nobel Laureate once pointed out that 'no democracy with a free press ever endured famine'. Free debate inspires innovation and creativity, with the killing of bad ideas and the encouraging of good ones. This explains why Silicon Valley has sprung up in America, 'land of the free'.

So is society doomed to collapse into petty squabbles for the foreseeable future?

Maybe not. A similar trend often occurs in high-stress periods. For example, during the Vietnam War, Max Hastings, a historian, has pointed out that opposition to the war quickly mutated into young people admiring 'Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara...heedless of the oppression their heroes promoted' (e.g. Mao's actions killed 20-45 million people). 

Apparently, if you're pro-war, you're a fascist

In this case, vague anti-war beliefs quickly evolved into support for North Vietnam, a nation which impoverished 8 million of its own people under 'rent controls'. 

Because everyone was/is so determined to get across their opinion, they shout more loudly and more radically to get attention. Anything in the middle ground is savaged by both sides, ergo, a loss of freedom of speech.

Yet in Vietnam, Saigon was overrun, the war ended and society returned to suburbia. The spite died down, and normal returned.

That holds promise for today. Freedom of speech is under threat. But it may not be permanent.

Theo

Trump wins!...?

Oh.

That was the reaction of most, stunned, individuals in Britain upon hearing of Donald Trump's shock victory in the USA last Tuesday. It was almost totally unexpected by the rest of the world - how could such a man be given the leadership of the most powerful nation on the planet?

The Democrats are, for now, broken. Their spine has been snapped in a totally 'Bane-breaks-Batman' move (You know, in the sewers...where Batman walks in all cocky and he gets humiliated and wrecked? Quite a lot like this election come to think of it). Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio (reliable Democrat states) fell to the Republican party as did most of the swing states in the 'rust belt' - an area where much of America's now abandoned industry lies. The two questions that the Democrats need to ask themselves are: 'Why?' and 'How?' Why did The Donald win? And how did he achieve this? Thankfully, a lovely soul has complied an easy-to-read analysis!


How:

As I briefly mentioned, the Democrats rely on a solid bloc of states in the north and west as cash cows; they can use them as a dependable source of votes before they even get to the swing states, the most critical voting grounds.

In the Obama-Romney election in 2012 (Map below), you can see that the democrats have secured a medium sized block in the north-west. Wisconsin (WI), Ohio (OH), and Virginia (VA) are all blue. This gave Barack a comfortable number of votes over Romney



Obama-Romney 2012 (Republicans in red, Democrats in blue)

However, in 2016 (no map available) it was already very close between the two candidates amongst these sates, and then Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania all voted Republican. This was a crushing blow, and gave Trump a combined total of 54 extra votes!




The loss of these states was a critical blow to the Democrat party and was  the main reason HOW they lost the election. 'Why' is significantly more revealing.

Why:

Throughout all the campaigning, the media consistently focused on Republican supporters who garnered controversy; those who were racist or xenophobic; those who were misogynist or just plain dumb They captured the attention of the world and gave us the impression that it could only be a minority that were voting for Trump. Not everyone in the USA was that racist or offensive, surely?

And we were right. Not everyone IS that offensive or racist, or was attracted to Trump because of his consistent prejudices and the scandals he endured. But people were attracted because of his pledges to reform society and his promises to 'Make America Great Again' (commonly termed as 'populism', this is the art of spouting rhetoric and making grandiose statements to fit with whatever the general public wants to hear). It was extremely effective at attracting disaffected voters who felt that D.C had done nothing for them in the last eight years. They, just as Trump said, 'wanted that swamp drained' and a new, refreshing, and genuine, politician in power.

This quiet block of voters (most of whom aren't on social media, or own large businesses) were simply overlooked by the Democrat campaign team. And when push came to shove, they turned up in huge numbers to vote...for Trump.


Thanks for reading and please keep an eye out for the next blog, coming soon!


 And huge thanks to Joel Bishop for inspiring me to write a blog, check his stuff out at http://lennyfilmreviews.blogspot.co.uk/