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.