F Scott Fitzgerald and The 2012 Election

F Scott Fitzgerald once stated that ‘there are no second acts in American lives’. If President Obama is re-elected in November this could well be the defining description of his second term as he will face a much more restrictive political environment than he faced in 2008. If returned to the White House he will likely be confronted with a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and a closely divided Senate. If this is the case then President Obama will be focused on defending the accomplishments of his first term instead rather than pursuing more of the ambitious legislative projects which defined it.  

Whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins in November the president will be constrained by the political composition of Congress and particularly the Senate. In contrast to 2008 when the incoming President Obama entered office with a Senate majority of 60, the best the winner of 2012 race can hope for is a slender majority in the upper chamber. If Mitt Romney wins he will face a Democratic Caucus eager to use the full arsenal of procedural delaying tactics that the Republicans used in Obama’s first term.

The USA may be entering a period where the Republican Party seeks to wield power through Congress, the strategy the Democrats used for much of the 20^th century. The recent census resulted in traditionally Democratic states like New Jersey loosing Congressional seats whilst states like Texas gained them. Winning the Senate is a key objective for Republican Super PACs such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS who are looking to win the four seats which would secure the Senate for the GOP. With many more Democratic Senators facing re-election in 2012 the Republicans have a structural advantage in the General Election which will make their pursuit of a Senate majority that much easier.

If President Obama wins his second term and faces a Republican controlled House and Senate then his domestic priorities will likely be defensive in nature. He would look to defend the Affordable Care Act, his signature achievement, from any Congressional attempt to defund it. Critically he would seek to defend Democratic spending priorities, such as Medicaid and Medicare, from bearing the brunt of any contraction in federal spending. 

Homeland Review: Eavesdropper, Torturer, POW, Spy

Since the events of 9/11, spy fiction has provided an eerily astute reflection of the US's response to terrorism. The aftermath of 9/11 brought foreign wars, extraordinary rendition and 24. The public's appetite for an aggressive military response was expressed almost to the point of parody by 24 and the carte blanche attitude of its protagonist, Jack Bauer. After a decade public fatigue with endless conflict is reflected in a nation's politics and choice of spy dramas. The US has withdrawn from Iraq and 24.

To fill this gap we now have Homeland, in which the portrayal of spies and intelligence work is much closer to Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy than 24. John Le Carre cut across the grain of his genre when he showed the intelligence world to be filled with incompetent and petty bureaucrats rather than uniformly filled with heroic men of action. Homeland follows in Le Carre's tradition, showing us a talented but damaged heroine, in Carrie Mathison, as part of a still talented but damaged CIA.

Played by Claire Danes, Carrie Mathison is a brilliant cypher for all of our concerns about the powers and capabilities of the intelligence services in the post-9/11 era. That she's brilliant and talented there is no doubt. Mathison's perceptions of the world are dark, paranoid and unfortunately often correct. However we find out her abilities are linked to her own bi-polar disorder. Yes she sees darkness and plots where no-one else does, but how many are real or merely projections from her fragile mind?

Mathison's fear of failure is all consuming. Her obsessive nature has caused her to focus her entire life on the validation provided by her job. There has been little time for a personal life as a result. She takes any failure by the agency personally and the audience sees the damage this does to her already damaged psyche.

This fear of failure is mirrored in her employer the CIA. The agency has absorbed the failure of 9/11 and the self-inflicted damage done to its reputation by its involvement in rendition and torture. As a result the CIA is easily manipulated by officials in Washington, who use the agency's failures as leverage. They ensure that the agency adopts a 'play it safe' counter-terrorism strategy which is heavy on the drone strikes at the expense of the nuances and risks of intelligence work.

Mathison's foil is Sergeant Nicholas Brody, a Marine who was held captive in Iraq by Al Qaeda for 8 years. Returned after a successful raid frees him from an Al Qaeda safe house, Brody is given a hero's welcome by the public and White House officials who see his return as a public relations coup. Tortured and isolated during his time in captivity, Brody carries as many mental scars as Mathison. While the public perceives someone who made it through captivity unscathed, the audience sees the damage done to his memories and temperament. Both Brody and the audience come to realise they can't really trust his memories of captivity, giving the early episodes the feel of the Manchurian Candidate.

The first series hinges on Mathison's distrust of Brody when America as a whole is sweeping to embrace a hero returning home. Only Mathison with her condition would question the return of a POW after so long. What follows is one of the most engaging story driven series since The Wire as Mathison pursues her suspicions about Brody firmly against the grain of expert and popular opinion.

Homeland has already picked up some unexpected praise as President Obama referred to it as among his favourite television programs. It's not hard to see why as Homeland creates one of the most realistic portrayals of intelligence work on screen. In contrast to 24, in which uber-spy Jack Bauer tortures until he gets the information he needs, in Homeland information is uncovered through long conversations with terrorists who happen to be real people as well. The spies do their best work by manipulating the human anxieties of their suspects to get information rather than trying to waterboard their way to a corrupted truth. When violence is used it is shown to be a crude instrument which often results in negative side effects that come back to haunt the agency.

The contrast with 24 is striking throughout. It is interesting to see that it was adapted by two former 24 writers, as Homeland refutes so much of the ethos that 24 tried to impart. One of 24's biggest failings is that it rarely showed the consequences of the violence used by its protagonists in the pursuit of terrorists. Homeland doesn't shy away from this, showing that the repercussions of the CIA's methods are complex and at times disastrous.

Homeland is a television series which portrays the realities of the intelligence world, sophisticated characters and one of the tensest finales you're likely to see on television. Le Carre himself would recognise instantly the world created here with its flawed protagonists, twisted allegiances and spy craft. It's hard to give higher praise.

Charles and the Monarch's Constitutional Hara-Kiri

Republicanism on the Left has traditionally been the counter-part to a keenness for the Gold Standard on the Right: a useful indicator that the beholder has a fondness for ideas comfortably outside the political mainstream.

With the coming Jubilee the UK faces another round of ersatz debate over the monarchy. It is pointless because the relevance of this conversation will remain in stasis until the death of the Queen. Her personal popularity obfuscates any analysis of the monarchy as an institution itself.

The republican movement wastes time and precious oxygen by protesting the Jubilee. However the lifeless sails of republicanism will soon billow and strain from the hot air produced by our current Dauphin. Darwin made no comment on whether being prone to gaffs is a trait which is able to percolate through the genetic line. If it is then Charles is a child strongly of his father’s patrimony.  

The ascension of Prince Charles to the throne will be a victory for Republicanism on a scale not seen since Darth Vader reordered the constitutional foundations of the Empire by throwing the Emperor down into the abyss of the Death Star.  The British people have an affection for the current Queen which is measured by the only metric which seems to matter in modern life, opinion polling. Only the most ardent Royalist would suppose it extends to Charles.

In a liberal democracy a constitutional monarchy is popular and possible when the monarch in question realises the limits of their influence, a necessary limitation Charles has constantly chaffed against.  His influence peddling for the practitioners of pseudo-science is distasteful in particular and scrutiny over how he has used his influence will increase as he moves closer to the throne.

Romney, Gingrich and a Fleeting Consensus

The coverage of the GOP nomination fight so far has been drenched in soggy clichés confidently stating that the Republican electorate will eventually settle for Mitt Romney after flirting with a raft of other potential suitors. The coverage has mainly focused on how other candidates have exploited the weaknesses of front runner Romney, contrasting his apparent moderation with their own bona fide conservatism. This hesitance to accept Romney has led to the party spreading the electorate wealth, with three separate candidates winning the first three primaries.

Looking beyond the relative appeals of the candidates there is a structural reason for the variety of winners. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan created the coalition of social, fiscal and defence conservatives that have been the backbone of Republican electoral success since the 1980s. Until recently the GOP has treated these three positions as orthodoxy. The 2008 election was the first real sign of disunity within the coalition, with the social conservatives in particular being especially unhappy with the nomination of John McCain.

Social conservatives maintain strong doubts about Mitt Romney, finding his Mormonism unpalatable and his former moderation on social views unacceptable. Thirty years after the election of Ronald Regan social conservatives have not yet seen their most keenly held ambitions fulfilled. There has been no roll back on the legalisation of abortion or the ban on school prayer. Congress repealed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' over the protests of social conservatives with the support of several Republican Senators. As a result they have been the most stubborn holdouts to Romney, instead favouring candidates who they consider will be more aggressive in the promotion of social conservatism.

Rick Santorum has sought to capitalise on the frustration of social conservatives as the central theme of his campaign. This frustration among social conservatives has contributed to the truncation of Romney's lead in the polls. Santorum's victory in Iowa damaged Romney's hue of inevitability and opened the door for Newt Gingrich who confounded both rational expectation and expert opinion to carry South Carolina on the back of strong debate performances.

Defence and foreign policy hawks have been given pause for thought by the rise of Ron Paul and his brand of isolationism. The more hawkish elements of the party have long been in the ascendency, but the 2010 Midterm elections saw isolationist tendencies once more appear within the Republican electorate. While Ron Paul is the only candidate who embraces a drastically insular foreign policy, he wouldn't have killed Osama Bin Laden nor would he take military action against a nuclear armed Iran, a section of the Republican electorate has clearly more become more receptive to the central isolationist tenant of his campaign. The appeal of Paul has had an effect on the race with both Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich attacking President Obama's decision to use force in support of the Libyan rebels. Only Mitt Romney has given his full throated endorsement to the traditional platform of defence conservatives, backing an open ended presence in Afghanistan in the same manner McCain did.

Only on Iran, again with the exception of Paul, is there consensus on stopping the Islamic Republic developing a nuclear device. However the Republican position on Iran is ersatz foreign policy. It features so highly on the agenda because of its appeal to a slice of domestic evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews who see Israel as under imminent mortal threat from Iran. The most fervent advocate of military action against Iran is Santorum who draws support heavily from the evangelical movement. That most Republican candidates have endorsed the possibility of action against Iran is more to do with the domestic appeal of this policy to these two groups than the electoral appeal of neo-conservatism.

The attacks from Gingrich and Santorum on Romney's record at Bain Capital are unorthodox within a Republican primary. The party has constantly referred to itself as the champion of free trade and business enterprise and Republican rhetoric praises those who create jobs and wealth. Romney himself promises to designate China as a currency manipulator and to put in place tariffs to balance against this if elected President. Protectionist sentiment concerning China's impact has usually been from the Democrats who traditionally draw support from the northern industrial states which have been squeezed by low cost of Chinese manufacturing. Perhaps this is a reflection that the issue of growing income inequality has percolated into the Republican race for the first time. While the GOP can hardly be accused of abandoning capitalism, it is interesting to see that candidates for the party's nomination can win support through attacks on 'predatory capitalists', language which used to largely be confined to the Democrats.

The attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital in are all part of the bluster and thunder of an election race. However the attacks on the inequities of US capitalism are sticking to Romney, and Obama, from the State of the Union, will seek to press home this message in the general election. It is an interesting historical quirk that it is the Republicans who have helped manoeuvre the topic of income inequality into the centre of a general election. There is clearly an audience even within the Republican Party which is receptive to arguments on this subject.

The ideas and beliefs on which political parties profess to fight elections has over time shifted and sometimes swerved. It is not always clear if the debates and arguments seen in this primary fight are signs of any great shift in Republican thinking. However the race so far has shown that there is a space within the Republican Party for the questioning of traditional orthodoxy, particularly on foreign and fiscal affairs. Romney's primary record so far has judged him poorly on his ability to be the consensus candidate accepted by all three groups. However this primary race has revealed that parts of the conservative orthodoxy have been challenged by groups within the GOP. Romney is trying to become the consensus candidate at the moment when that consensus is beginning to change.

New blogging opportunities

I'll be publishing new material at a couple of new sites.

At Hackeryblog http://hackeryblog.wordpress.com/author/alexdimascio/

And Sabotage Times http://www.sabotagetimes.com/author/alex-di-mascio/

Hopefully I'll continue to post stuff here for you my loyal reader.

Everything in moderation, including moderation

Thus spoke Oscar Wilde

Moderation, a trait which a substantive and vocal part of the Republican electorate now openly states, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. This logic places Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty and Daniels at a severe disadvantage at winning the nomination and really challenging Obama in the 2012 election.

All four have been governors and have differing elements of crossover appeal to the wider electorate. However this experience of governance coupled with the potential to appeal to centrist voters has not warmed any of these men to the base. While all adhere to the core principles of modern conservatism, each according to the base, has dabbled with some unspeakable heresy which rules them unfit to be the party's nominee for President. Romney enacted health care reform in Massachusetts which seems uncomfortably similar to Obama's plan. Huntsman has tacked away from the social conservatives on the issue of gay rights as well has serving the administration as ambassador to China. Pawlenty once advocated cap and trade and Daniels has suggested steering clear of social issues until after the economy is fixed.

The Tea Party, though often amorphous and contradictory, is setting the contours of the debate within the party. It shows no signs of moderating its idealogical commitments in the face of and electorate which in 2012 who will be younger, less white and right wing than 2010 electorate which swept so many of their candidates into office. As a result the otherwise more moderate candidates are having to recast their own records and views in order to appeal a base which is increasingly conservative.

Romney's experience within the party shows the danger of doing this. He quickly embraced the social conservative default on both abortion and gay marriage, while simultaneously stating that his Massachusetts health care proposal was fine at the state level but the almost identical version of it rolled out by Obama was unconstitutional and financially reckless. As the result Romney has managed to recast himself not as the man of all seasons but as the man with two faces. A once plausible candidate with a strong economic record is distrusted by the socially conservative base who rightly notice that he is an inauthentic messenger for their deeply held beliefs while independents and moderates have been put off by his lurch to the right. Ultimately Romney will suffer from his win-at-all costs strategy in 2008 where he overreached in selling himself to conservative voters at the expense of broader national appeal. That or they pull out all together as Daniels did, either not wishing to engage in such intellectual gymnastics or perhaps guessing that he as a moderate would be better served running in 2016.

With the unemployment numbers as they are and the entire national debate being consumed by economic issues it is astonishing that candidates with high profile business and management experience have either decided or been forced by the intellectual climate in their party to focus on their adherence to idealogical sacred cows over social issues, climate change and the debt ceiling. It's interesting that Daniels, one of the stronger candidates, has withdrawn entirely perhaps to save himself for 2016 not wishing to taint his “brand” with the concessions he'd have to make in order to win the 2012 election.

Democracy is fundamentally about competition. The Tea Party's adherence to idealogical commitments above all else will undermine this competition if they are allowed to set the the tone of the debate within the Republican party. The Republicans cannot hope to recapture centrist voters when part of their base sees Mitt Romney's ability to speak French as elitist and out of touch with what they call the “Real America”.   

Why Nick Got the Blues

Many have wondered why Nick Clegg has thrown the fate of his party and his own political fortunes, once riding so high, in with a program of financial austerity which was always going to be politically unpopular. Why has he placed the survival of the coalition ahead of treasured Lib Dem policies like the scrapping of tuition fees? There are two answers, one the background of Clegg himself and two the fear of being blamed for undermining a government which has a severe economic crises to deal with.

Much has been made of Clegg's social background and the parallels with Cameron which have enabled a harmonious relationship between both leaders. However while the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg is probably important it's hardly enough to keep the coalition together during periods of strife. Clegg's background as an MEP has been largely ignored by the UK press, who have always maintained that European politics is a form of exile. The flippant dismissal of his background in European politics ignores that EU politics consists heavily of coalitions and compromise between parties. To what extent then has his background in European politics informed his decision making over the domestic?

Clegg's priority has been to maintain the stability of the coalition as he needs to show that they are a viable form of government for the UK which has been traditionally used to a single party being in charge. The UK public is used to governments which have the discipline and power to enact change on their own terms. Clegg has calculated that they would not tolerate a coalition in a time of financial crises if their contribution was seen to be excessively obstructionist. To 'break the public' in to the idea of coalitions, for want of a better metaphor, Clegg has viewed decisions through the lens of coalition integrity. For better or for worse the coalition must stand if the Liberal Democrats are to be seen as a responsible governing party.

They key word there is 'excessively'. To what extent will the public and the Lib Dem voters accept acquiescence towards the Conservatives in the name of government stability. Clegg was hammered and rightly so for his capitulation on tuition fees, with the public rightly reckoning that he and the senior party leadership rolled far too easily on the issue of the fee increase. Thus is the unpleasant role of the junior coalition member. Can you exert influence without being considered a hostage taker? Will your compliance be viewed as collaboration?

I would argue that Clegg was correct in recognising that the public would not have tolerated the Liberal Democrats, as the party who came in third, taking the policy initiative in the aftermath of the election. While Cameron did not win outright, he still pulled in the largest number of seats and thus possessed the legitimacy to govern. What has dammed Clegg is his party's derogation from the 'Mr Nice' role in front line politics. No longer will the Liberal Democrats be able to offer what amounts to a money laundering service in politics. Vote for us and you've participated in democracy and because we'll never get into power your vote will never connected with the dirty business of actual government.