NYCweboy

The Election Results: Yes, They Could... But It's Not Very Likely

In the end, it came down to expecting more: even Bob McDonnell couldn't deliver the expected 20 point rout of Creigh Deeds, just 19. We expected more drama, less certainty, more divisiveness, less muddle. We got none of it... and what we deserved. So now what?

If there's a thread to link a variety of mixed election results it seems, largely, like what I thought going in: this was anger, by and large that was taken out on the nearest and most incumbent... and beyond that, there's not much to tell, because Republicans have no idea how to capitalize on what actually worked.

Conservatives might have gotten their dream of a "right wing revival" storyline... but all those eggs in the NY 23 basket were a mistake - the results made clear that internal right side dissension mostly hurts their side, sweeping Bill Owens to a modest victory (no Democrat since before the Civil War in that region), and showing that national intervention in local elections is usually a bad idea. Conservatives had argued that a tight three way tie which Owens prevailed in would help their cause with Owens too weak to pull the seat in a two way future race; but Scozzafava managed to wreck that by dropping out, endorsing Owens... and remaining on the ballot to pull just enough votes to wreck Hoffman.

Conservatives may deny the obvious message in the loss, but that doesn't mean their ability to wreck the careers of moderates isn't suicidial: Voters who were angry enough to pick Scozzafava over Hoffman after she "dropped out" are Republicans who don't like the far right wing, and don't mind making it heard, and don't care that a Democrat would win as the result. That can't help the far right, and has little or nothing to do with anyone outside of the ever narrowing circle on their side. The failure to win NY 23 is huge, has enormous national implications (Marco Rubio, your clue phone is ringing) and will probably be the latest example in right wing denial over reality, a reality that clearly suggests that internal divisiveness and narrowing of the base is hurting, not helping Republicans. And it can't be stopped.

The Anger Is Real; The Right Wing Revival Is Not.

Off year election season is just kind of weird; in the "24 hour news" age, there's a whole political evaluation machine sitting around, little to do... and there's always a "trend report" needed for the next year.

And of course, there's the off chance that something real is actually happening.

Virginia and New Jersey's races for Governor always serve as the bellweather of their years, since they make easy commutes for northeastern reporters based in the NY-DC axis, and in both cases are the rather disrespected cousins of the neighboring metropolis. And usually, they don't necessarily tell us all that much, since both have fairly unique characters ("unique" is one of those adjectives a New Yorker can love when referring to the world across the Hudson, and that view is even stronger across the Potomac).

Still, with Jon Corzine struggling and Republicans poised to retake Virginia, something's clearly happening. The question is... is it proof of some sort of Republican, or right wing, revival, an indictment of failure so soon after Obama's election?

My own guess... kind of yes, kind of no. There's a lesson in this year's elections for the left... and for the right. But not what I suspect many people think it is.

Silence of the Dudebros

I was struck - but not surprised - by the relative silence over a Sunday front page NYT article about the White House's "DudeBro" problem: the reality that the President is surrounded by the lefty equivalent of the all male "boys club" mentality that can be found many places, including Washington politics.

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

I think the relative silence was in part a shrug of obviousness: this is not new, and really has been dogging the Obama folks since the campaign with Hillary Clinton - who, wouldn't you know it, gets to be cited as the "we don't have a woman problem" example since she is now Secretary of State. I suspect that many feminists are wondering mostly why it took everyone this long to figure out the obvious.

Of course the "DudeBro" problem is a problem; and, of course, it goes a long way to explaining why the Administration has a variety of problems dealing with a number of women's issues and, by extension, the problems that have developed with gay and lesbian activists as well. When you surround yourself, comfortably, with mostly straight guys who share your straight guy interests... you get, well, comfortably DudeBro.

What's remarkabel, to me anyway, is watching the regression of progress I figured couldn't really be shaken; we're re-arguing issues that I feel like should have been settled long ago. The rise in anti-feminist stupidity, not just crassly sexist, but frankly disturbing anti-woman presentations in advertising and media, is deeply concerning. Or the stupefying conversations I've had - most recently at Red's wedding - suggesting that "gays have to be patient" when looking for progress on, say, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Mustn't rock the boat. Must realize... this could be controversial, And difficult.

There's a sense that we're either moving forward on stuff like this... or slipping back. And, unfortunately, I think it's fairly obvious that the backsliding on progress for women and gays is systemic, and has everything to do with a comfortable, casual sexism that's taken hold, even as we mouth platitudes about progress and "change" since the election. Who cares if the President plays golf with only men? Or sets up basketball tournaments among the DudeBros? Hey... he's way better than that last guy! And his stay-at-home, no career of her own wife? That's her choice!

The point is... these are choices, in the most problematic sense. They are choices to accept the status quo, to not do the hard work - the teaspoon work as Melissa McEwan puts it - of challenging every prevailing notion of sexism and "traditional" expectations. As my female dinner companion - a well connected political woman in DC - told me about her thinking to finally change jobs after several years, she wouldn't contemplate working in the White House - "I like my family and my life too much" she said. That, of course, shouldn't be the choice. And when it is... it's not surprising that women, collectively, opt for alternative choices.

I suspect we're stuck with the DudeBro problem for some time to come; and like a number of entrenched, ignored, and often dismissed observations about a systemic problem with the supposed "progressiveness" of the Obama Administration that state obvious relaities... I also suspect that they're indicative of the growing political rumblings that the Democratic Establishment might consider owning up to, rather than denying. There's a reason that dissatisfaction seems to be growing, why surface notions that "everything is fine, and politics is hard and progress is slow" don't really suffice as defenses of the Obama Administration's weaknesses (and "we're way better than the last guy" is really... just getting old). If we can't admit and face that not everything is golden with this White House, we can't change it. And if we can't change it... then people will look elsewhere for the progress they seek. Bet on that, Dude.

The Tragic Mulatto Goes To Louisiana

One of the most eye opening moments for me about race was the discovery that I was not alone; yes, I've had a sister and cousins of mixed race heritage, but it wasn't until college that I discovered that we, really, were not oputside of America's historical narrative.

I forget that a lot of people have not been exposed to "the tragic mulatto," a literary device going back to colonial times, used as an argument against miscegenation. Basically as implied, the stories revolve around the idea that a child of mixed race faces a sad, tragic existence, never accepted in any community, forced to lie and pretend, always in fear of being found out. It's tragedy... so things really never end well.

Perhaps the best known - and indeed, archetypal - presentation of the Tragic Mulatto (who, BTW is almost always a woman) is in the Broadway show that is considered the first real musical: Showboat, which is the tale of one tragic mulatto woman who gives birth to another, with tragedy all around. And singing! And dancing!

This archetype has really never died, and it has colored our societal perceptions of race mixing and children of mixed race parentage. Often, without thinking (or with), people will say "I'm sure it can't be easy with your heritage" suggesting endless tears, shame, and rejection. I ignored a lot of this for years... and then I found it kind of silly.

It's not necessarily easy, and I wouldn't minimize the difficulties many faced, especially prior to the Civil Rights Era (when the "one drop" rules of race meant there wasn't a "mixed race," just another shade of black). Shelby Steele, as I always like to remember, is a good barometer of that transition, and continues, really, to struggle with notions formed in that period. But life is not "tragic" even when it's hard; as much as children of mixed racial heritages may face unique dilemmas in a society that sees, often, only black and white, it's also a life that's very normal, very ordinary... and not really difficult for many. It is not Imitation of Life - and it wasn't, even then.

I hadn't planned to mention any of this, but I've been struck by a news story that came up, and stuck with me, as it did for others. A Justice of the Peace in Louisiana is denying mixed race couples who ask him to perform their weddings, and part of his reason for it is this:

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said. Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Bardwell's action, it can be pointed out, is illegal; as it has been since Loving vs. Virginia. And it's worth noting that his rationale - the sad plight of mixed race children - is a rationale also advanced by the State of Virginia in Loving, and also smacked down then. And what it is, yet again, is what we live with: the Tragic Mulatto, shunned once more, accepted by none, pariah to all. Which is especially hilarious in Louisiana of all states, where they have an entire group of people with a word, Creole, to describe their mixed race population.

It's well past the time to let this shit go.

The Fight For Our PJs

When I first saw the kerfuffle developing around John Harwood's report of a White House Advisor saying "they [bloggers] should get out of their PJ's and put on some clothes and get out in the world," I pretty much planned to avoid it. There was a certain "oh no, not again" quality to the whole thing and a "why bother" aspect to responding that seemed paramount.

But a sense of impending deadline, the choice of not posting anything at all yesterday, and a slightly off-kilter sense of humor combined yesterday to push me to toss off what I figured was a cute, idiosyncratic point of taking the comment apart not for the politics, but for the fashion - a defense of pajamas, and the more relaxed life they imply as compared to an uptight, bound up life in the corporate world of suits and "seriousness."

And two unexpected things happened - one is that my dear J in B got on me for being unserious, and the other is that I got angrier as the whole thing didn't go away.

So now - a little pissed and a little more serious - I'd like to make the point again, more vigorously: there's nothing wrong with "blogging in PJs" and we (the blogger nation) need to stop feeling down and defensive when it's brought up. In every sense - from our relaxed lifestyles to our passionate writings to our political impact - we are winning. And we should act like it. Defend the pajamas! Embrace the pajamas! Pajama people rule!

If I'm Not The One...

A couple weeks back, I got stopped by the police in one of those all-encompassing drunk driving sweeps - this never happens to me, so I was really very bewildered - and being not drunk, it all went very smoothly, though I nearly blew it because I thought the officer was just waving me through when he wanted me to stop.

There's this moment, I think most people get, when stopped by police and asked some question out of the blue - like "have you been drinking?" - where the combination of confusion and defensiveness sends up the wrong signals. And I was reminded of something that I think is still worth keeping in mind, in this post-terrorist age... that the balance of having security and giving up some of our freedom is a dance many people don't want to do.

And the reason, primarily is "not me."

The Labor of Preserving Illusions Or Letting Them Go

More than most Labor Days, I suspect that this year's official "end of summer" (yes, yes, autumnal equinox is 2 weeks away... but you know what I mean) is meant to be a real "restart" for many people and many issues. Summer in America is all about escape, and our escapist tendencies, I think, have kicked in a little more than ever in this post economic apocalypse year. Take the vacation while you can... or don't worry about the job search until later... I've just seen a lot of "I'll think about it tomorrow" or more like next month, especially all through August.

Tomorrow, a lot of that putting off will come due, especially in terms of our national politics. In two days, President Obama is giving two major speeches, one to "reset" the health care debate, the other to indoctrinate children into his unholy schemes to... oh, sorry. Just kidding.

The serious side is that President Obama will return to the national stage - and let's give credit to him actually taking "vacation" seriously enough to not make a lot of public appearances, except for the most necessary one (Kennedy's funeral) - to a nation that is not what it was, even a few months ago. The distinct sense that there's more bad than good right now, that people are growing disillusioned with the President, Congress, and government generally, can't really be ignored. Whether anyone, even the President, can fix that, remains to be seen.

But in some ways, contrarian that I am, I think "disillusion" is the wrong word - perhaps the more useful way to think about what's changed, especially over August, is that illusions, dreams, and fantasies have come hard up against some necessary realities. The limits of Presidential power, of the potential for massive progressive change, of stopping real change solely through fear, anger and desperation... these things needed to sink in. And maybe, when President Obama returns to the national stage, we can see him in a more realistic, human way... and begin to make progress - however slowly - on the real problems we face.

The Blame Game... Blame Canada, Blame Grandma...

As we move into the hopefully final unproductive week of summer, the question of where things go on healthcare reform is both wide open... and pretty well wrecked. It's hard to see how progress can be made on the current mish-mash of bills (especially the painfully nonexistent bill yet to be produced by Senate Finance), but any sense of the alternatives, or a negotiated deal or giving up all together... is entirely unclear.

Already, the Washington, mass media conversation is moving away from specific reforms to "horse race" questions of who's up, who's down, and what went wrong... along with mournful sobs of "if only Teddy were here" which continue to overstate what Kennedys actually do. It would be helpful to have a Ted Kennedy just now for two rather basic reasons: he knew stuff, and he did the work to get it done. Beyond that, progressive dreams that Teddy would have ended private health insurance when no one else could... are pretty much fantasy.

Without agreeing to the rules of the blame game, I think it is probably time to asses what's not working, figure out some sense of why, and figure out if anything can be done. Ever the optimist, I think we will, ultimately, see some sort of healthcare reform. My bet, though, is that it will be modest, fairly incremental, and please probably no one... a result that will hurt Democrats and the President more than Republicans.

Bitter, Small Party of Several Thousand

As the heat dies down and vacations end, the story of this August is, in some ways, the story of a mythical phoenix rising from the ashes... I'm speaking of course of the sudden "resurgence" of the Republican Party.

Day after day, the drumbeat of polling suggests that opposition to health reform, as well as the challenges of other governmental projects (like Cash for Clunkers), and the general sense of economic distress has "ruined" president Obama's popularity and sent many folks rushing back to the Republican Party.

Aside from the fact that I think poll driven news writing is the worst kind of lazy journalism (except possibly trend articles based on pseudo science), I tend to think the newfound appeal of Republicans won't translate into much... at least for now. Republican - and the conservatives who feel they are stuck with their party - have not solved the very basic problems made clear in the last two election cycles. Indeed, if anything, the August "resurgence" tends to underline what hasn't happened more starkly than ever: without compelling alternative ideas, and without fresh leadership, Republicans have, in fact, little to offer but the same brew of anger, bitterness, sarcasm and resentment that the modern conservative movement has been relying on for years. That tactic is old, and relying on it to defeat healthcare, in particular, will amount to little.

It's a little, though, that could make a difference, if only a small difference. Small shifts in public sentiment built on appeals to anger and fear will make some of the more vulnerable members of Congress - especially in the House - potential victims. The bigger reality, though, is that Republican marginalization has put big, long term success out of reach... and that hasn't changed.

The Massachusetts Miracle

I think I've been clear on not being particularly worshipful when it comes to sacred cows and going along with group opinion. That said, I don't want to come off as unnecessarily mean or cruel. But it seems a moment yet again, to make a couple of points: a) Ted Kennedy still isn't dead yet, and b) trying to manhandle the selection of your replacement is not a noble gesture.

Nobility and the romance of greatness have always been the drivers of the "Kennedys as royalty" story. Ted Kennedy has always lived in the reflected glory of this storyline, since his messy, rich-boy life rarely fits the mythological overlay. (Indeed the "Kennedy royalty" story could and should really be summed in four people - John, Jackie, John Jr. and Caroline... and left at that.) Today, we got yet another preview of the laudatory adulation that will follow the Senator into the beyond, as a fairly crass political maneuver was yet again dressed up as a noble, selfless gesture for The Good of Us All.

The short version is: back when John Kerry was running for President, Massachusetts Democrats (i.e. Kennedy and Kerry) were concerned that a vacancy in Kerry's Senate seat would allow Mitt Romney, then Governor to appoint a more favorable political ally than they would have wanted (e.g. a Republican, though a statewide successful Republican in Mass is also a unicorn, generally). Thus they put in place, through through the Democratic controlled state leguslature, a 145 day hold on appointments that calls for a special election.

Now, it turns out, 145 days may be a disaster: if, as is being hinted, Kennedy may either resign or may indeed be so ill as to be near death, the 145 day hold will leave the Senate without the 60th Democratic vote needed to pass healthcare reform (and other key bills). Kennedy, of course, has been an architect of the healthcare process, and it has indeed been unfortunate that he hasn't been able to be a part of the process at such a crucial moment.

Still, the attempt to essentially negate the "Romney clause" is blatantly, obviously meant to be yet another step in Democratic machine, backroom control of Massachusetts politics. Even if, as is suggested, the seat could be filled with a "seat warmer" Dem who would step aside for the next election, the intent is clearly to do an end-run around the politics of actual choice. And it's a fairly cynical, hard nosed political admission that success in the Senate will hinge on the 60 vote majority that stifles all filibusters (when unified).

That's why Deval Patrick's soupy words of praise seem so hollow: “It’s typical of Ted Kennedy to be thinking ahead and about the people of Massachusetts, when the rest of us are thinking about him."

It's likely that the process to replace Kennedy will be a mess; for more than 30 years, neither Senate seat in the state has really been in play (just ask Mitt Romney, who Kennedy defeated along the way), nor has most of the House delegation in any meaningful way (Paul Tsongas to Ed Markey to Niki Tsongas is just one glaring proof). That the process of replacing Kennedy could open up, and break, the hard rule of the state's Democratic machine is, naturally, terrifying to politicos who like the status quo. And it's why my idea of being a Democrat is to look a little askance at the areas - especially in the northeast - where the party has longstanding dominance and bad habits are far too ingrained. Like repeatedly manhandling the process of special elections to achieve politically desirable results.

There's really no reason to give into the combination of emotional blackmail and bald political calculus in Kennedy's request... and it's rather insulting, at least to people's intelligence, to claim altruistic motives at this late date. If Kennedy's concern was for giving Mass residents the best, most dynamic representation possible, a life-ending illness is reason enough to resign, as Kennedy could have, months ago. It's a perfectly good reason to reign now, and set the 145 day clock in motion.  That Kennedy sees, as is so ofteh the case, himself as the last, best hope for his own seat doesn't ennoble him. It's a reminder of how much the Kennedy story can mistake personal progress for a royal one. The real Massachusetts miracle will finally be breaking free of it.