A NATIONAL CELEBRATION--Today, of course, we are celebrating a Great Canadian Event, the national football championship game. As everyone knows, it's in Edmonton, with the Saskatchewan Roughriders taking on the Montreal Alouettes in a contest for the Grey Cup. Millions of us, myself included, with my amazing extended family, will be watching.
But there is another great event taking place in Canada today as well, and I like to claim, more or less in a jocular way, that it is what's being celebrated in the form of The Big Game and, thus, by all of Canada.
I can say that with some confidence, too, because the Grey Cup game often falls on the same day as the second event.
I blush to say what that second event is, but there's no avoiding it, so here goes:
Today is my birthday! The day I begin yet another orbit of the sun. And, today, instead of mounting my blog's soapbox and declaiming about some failure in fairness and justice and common sense, or poking fun at this or that, I intend to indulge myself and use this space to speak about my birthday, birthdays in general, their meaning (if any), and about the matter of aging.
Myself, I'm a "Thursday's child," a child the time-honored verse says will go far. (You know, the verse that says Sunday's child is this, Tuesday's child is that, and so on.)
Well, I've already covered the question of going far with the reference to my new year getting under way by starting another circuit of the sun, which is one hell of a long way. How long? I've heard it said by experts (being the Monty Python comedy group, with its "Galaxy Song") that our globe, which spins at the rate of about 1,000 miles an hour, takes a year, travelling in orbit, to make one circuit of the sun, and it's moving at a rate of 19-or-so miles per second in so doing.
SO, EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET is going far (and, you might say, moving fast, flying off in all directions).
Okay, maybe that's not what the Thursday's child line meant by going far. It no doubt means something like "going far in life." How far I've gone or will yet go in life is for others to say, not me.
One thing that I can state for certain about my birth is that it came at an historic time--almost exactly one month after the Great Crash of Wall Street that marked the beginning of The Great Depression.
In fact, another little joke I concocted about my birthday--that I was the first good thing to happen after the Wall Street Crash--came to my mind when I suppose I was around eight or nine years of age and the idea of what an economic depression was had finally hit me. Until then, I suppose I had thought this was the way things always were, since it was all I had known.
I learned a lot from hearing my father talk at great length about Wall Street, in a very unkindly way--somewhat, you know, the way people talk so angrily and bitterly about Wall Street today. History, it seems, does repeat.
My own childhood slowness in recognizing economic reality, such as might be expected in a well-fed-and-clothed rich kid with few worries (whom we defined as being a kid whose father had a regular job and whose kitchen had an actual fridge) was not a result of mental laxness. No, I think it was because I was a child, and, although we were economically poor, we (my brother, sister and I and our chums) always were able to find ways in East Vancouver of playing games and making up our own entertainments.
Depression or no depression, we managed to have fun. (But once we got a radio, probably from some used-furniture shop, that was heavenly, I couldn't get enough of it. Oh, I loved that old Lyric.)
IN RECOGNITION OF TODAY'S PERSONAL OCCASION, I have searched for information on the celebration of birthdays. One thing that took my eye (looking at Wikipedia) is that early Christians were against birthday celebrations because at that time birthdates were linked to astrology, considered by Christians to involve heathen and pagan beliefs, and therefore the work of the devil. Today, we look at horoscopes, most of us, just for fun.
Then I thought, well, perhaps I can find a quotation or two on birthdays from some famous writers. I have quite a number of books of quotations, yet my findings were sparse. But here's one from Alexander Pope (1688-1744), the great English poet:
"...pleas'd to look forward, pleas'd to look behind,
and count each birthday
with a grateful mind..."
That's a nice thought indeed. I lifted it from a book called 40,000 Quotations, published by Halcyon House, New York, 1937.
THEN I SEARCHED FOR QUOTATIONS on aging, since I am, with much gratitude to medical science, still enjoying the process of aging.
Here's a quote from the Bible:
"Good old age." Genesis XV, 15.
An English writer named Seymour Hicks wrote this:
"You will recognize, my boy, the first sign of age. It is when you go out into the streets...and realize for the first time how young the policemen look." Quoted in the Penguin Dictionary of Modern Quotations.
Another Englishman, named Ronald Blythe, declared that:
"With full-span lives having become the norm, people may need to learn how to be aged as they once had to learn how to be adult." From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Blythe had a point.
The French essayist La Rochefoucauld, in his Maxim 461, said:
"Age is a tyrant who forbids at the penalty of life all the pleasures of life." The International Encyclopedia of Prose and Poetical Quotations, Copp Clark Co., Toronto, 1908 edition.
I'll try to remember that viewpoint in celebrating my birthday today.
"THE TENDENCY OF OLD AGE, say the physiologists, is to form bone. It is as rare as it is pleasant, to meet with an old man whose opinions are not ossified." That's a quote from J.F. Boyse, in 40,000 Quotations. All I can say about it is, "Hear, hear!"
A writer by the name of Bonstetten has recorded these thoughts on aging: "To resist with success the frigidity of old age one must combine the body, the mind and the heart. To keep these in parallel vigor, one must exercise, study, and love."
Now, there's a man of wisdom for you.
I have many more quotations at hand on age and aging, but too many of them are looking at the subject in a somewhat gloomy manner, and I do not believe birthdays are the sort of days that need any consideration of such sentiments. So I will end these notes on the passage of time, as represented by birthdays, with the following two gems.
"There's no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval." -- George Santayana, quoted in The Viking Book of Aphorisms, a personal selection by W.H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger, 1966.
"Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative." -- Attributed to Maurice Chevalier, the great French entertainer, quoted in Contemporary Quotations, 1964.
THE 1929 GREY CUP--In case I am asked, "Was there a Grey Cup, Granddad (or Great-Granddad) 'way back in 1929?" I will supply the answer now. You bet your life there was, kids. The Hamilton Tigers played the Regina Roughriders in Hamilton. Hamilton won, 14-3.
They did not hold it on my birthday that year. Probably because they hadn't yet heard of my birth, since the game was held on November 30, 1929, only two days after my birth.
I did not watch it on TV. Well, I was only two days old. But that's not the only reason I didn't watch it on TV. Nobody did. You will find this hard to believe, kids, but there was no TV then. And, you know, life still went on....
MUSN'T FORGET THE POLITICAL SCENE. In the world of politics of that day, the names I'm about to record were relatively famous.
Those in three of the top jobs, on the day I was born, were the following.
Premier of B.C., Simon Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, in office from 1928-1933.
Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Liberal, who had several terms: December, 1921 to July, 1926; September, 1926 to August, 1930, and October 1935 to November, 1948.
In the U.S., Herbert Hoover, Republican, was President.
Oh, before I head off to my party, here's your truly's horoscope for the day, courtesy The Vancouver Sun:
"Sagittarius (Nov. 22-Dec. 21)-- The changes going on within your personal circle may be disconcerting but, as long as you know where you belong and how you can make the most of your situation, you have nothing to fear."
Well, how hard can that be?
Happy Birthday--whenever yours may come!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
THE KEY TO EQUALITY FOR WOMEN
WHAT FOLLOWS IS DEFINITELY A PITCH for the women's vote, and I think that by the time I've outlined it you'll see how sane, sensible and simple it is.
Before I get into the details, however, I'm obliged to disclose an element of self-interest, which is that I am the father of three daughters and thus personally interested in issues of women's equality (as are they, and as was their much-loved late mother, my wonderful Shirley).
I also have to declare that in making a pitch for the women's vote I am not running for anything, I am not seeking elected office--but I am making a pitch on behalf of women's voting rights.
Oh, you might say, women have long had the vote, where have you been? And I say, sure, but has it brought them equality? In other words, there's more to it than just having a vote.
The pitch I am about to make shows the way to gender equality in electoral politics. Such equality does not now exist, though it is paid lip service. The deck is stacked against women when it comes to electing representatives to local, regional, provincial and national bodies. I also say the answer to the problem is so obvious that it's shocking to realize it has never been adopted.
I believe there remains truth in the old saying that "it's a man's world," in spite of decades of so-called advances in women's equality. The peculiar thing to me is that we keep hearing and reading about the "glass ceiling" in board rooms and in other areas of private business, finance and industry, as well as in politics, but we don't hear much about the solutions, other than that, well, some advances are being made, male leaders and those in power are showing more awareness, etc. etc. (Really? Sure, women now make up some 22 per cent of Canada's House of Commons, up 1.4 percentage points in a decade. Wow.)
Clearly, statistics on advances for women change slowly and women, though making up half and even marginally more of the population, remain significantly under-represented.
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT MIGHT BE called a more advanced nation in the field of women's rights, Norway, has taken a significant step forward, but even it comes short of "going half-way." The Swiss-based writer and academic Ginka Toegel, points out that in 2008 Norway introduced "the requirement of 40 per cent women on boards." There was an initial outcry of criticism in the media and politicians, she notes, but it was found that there were easily enough qualified women for the jobs, and the results have been excellent.
The proposal I have to make does not relate to the private sector, and it is not based at all on what Norway may have done or not done. It is based on something I discovered about six years ago as a great idea that would deal with the gender equality issue pretty well at its roots: electoral equality of the sexes.
The system I endorse would make gender equality on all our publicly elected bodies not a matter of whim or chance, but would make it a sure thing, whatever the body up for election or whenever the vote might be held.
THE OUTCOME COULDN'T HELP BUT DELIVER equality for women in all segments of society. The system would work like this:
Electoral laws would be amended to ensure that in each and every riding, provincial or federal, in each and every seat available on any municipal or regional body, there would be a female representative and a male representative.
Voila! Gender equality in fact, in spirit, in every practical way--with all the consequent improvements to society that could not help but result. Because the woman's viewpoint today is, I believe most women will agree, vastly under-represented in our legislatures and national parliament. The guarantee of gender equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not doing the job.
I don't claim credit for the method of equal representation I am proposing. To the best of my knowledge, it, or some form of it, originated in first nations communities, and was proposed and voted on by referendum in some Arctic communities; unfortunately, it was voted down.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that dominant male influence--and perhaps larger male voting numbers--were factors preventing implementation of a built-in equal gender representation in the Arctic.
People with whom I have discussed this idea have questioned how it could be practically done. My answer is that in each provincial and federal riding there would be a ballot with a list of male candidates, and a ballot with a list of female candidates, and the person to top the poll would be an elected member--thus, one woman representative for the riding, and one male.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSE? All those extra salaries, and related costs? These are the main questions people ask. My answer is that this could be worked out by perhaps some consolidation of constituency boundaries, so that the increase in number of MLAs and MPs would not be drastic. Or, heck, we could go to an actual doubling of representation. As to the expense, well, I would ask: "What price can you put on democracy?" And when half the population is greatly under-represented, then it's rather difficult to call that real democracy, don't you think?
I made a proposal to amend electoral law along these lines to the B.C. Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform of 2004, in a written submission. I received thanks for the submission from the assembly's office staff, but in its final report I could find nothing on the subject of electoral equality for women. This, despite the fact that in appointing the members of the commission, the provincial government had taken pains to ensure that half its membership was made up of men and half of women.
We have yet, by the way, to see any significant reforms arise from the commission's efforts. It devoted most of its attention to a choice between to the majority-plurality system of declaring a winner in any given seat and the proportional representation-single transferrable ballot system, with no inclusion of gender equality in its findings.
In a 2009 referendum on the choice, the single transferrable ballot system fell far short of the 60 per cent majority that was required for its adoption, so the majority-plurality system remains in effect.
Ladies, you've got to put the heat on those guys running our politics. Remember, true equality is the objective. And you haven't got it, because it really requires equal representation.
Before I get into the details, however, I'm obliged to disclose an element of self-interest, which is that I am the father of three daughters and thus personally interested in issues of women's equality (as are they, and as was their much-loved late mother, my wonderful Shirley).
I also have to declare that in making a pitch for the women's vote I am not running for anything, I am not seeking elected office--but I am making a pitch on behalf of women's voting rights.
Oh, you might say, women have long had the vote, where have you been? And I say, sure, but has it brought them equality? In other words, there's more to it than just having a vote.
The pitch I am about to make shows the way to gender equality in electoral politics. Such equality does not now exist, though it is paid lip service. The deck is stacked against women when it comes to electing representatives to local, regional, provincial and national bodies. I also say the answer to the problem is so obvious that it's shocking to realize it has never been adopted.
I believe there remains truth in the old saying that "it's a man's world," in spite of decades of so-called advances in women's equality. The peculiar thing to me is that we keep hearing and reading about the "glass ceiling" in board rooms and in other areas of private business, finance and industry, as well as in politics, but we don't hear much about the solutions, other than that, well, some advances are being made, male leaders and those in power are showing more awareness, etc. etc. (Really? Sure, women now make up some 22 per cent of Canada's House of Commons, up 1.4 percentage points in a decade. Wow.)
Clearly, statistics on advances for women change slowly and women, though making up half and even marginally more of the population, remain significantly under-represented.
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT MIGHT BE called a more advanced nation in the field of women's rights, Norway, has taken a significant step forward, but even it comes short of "going half-way." The Swiss-based writer and academic Ginka Toegel, points out that in 2008 Norway introduced "the requirement of 40 per cent women on boards." There was an initial outcry of criticism in the media and politicians, she notes, but it was found that there were easily enough qualified women for the jobs, and the results have been excellent.
The proposal I have to make does not relate to the private sector, and it is not based at all on what Norway may have done or not done. It is based on something I discovered about six years ago as a great idea that would deal with the gender equality issue pretty well at its roots: electoral equality of the sexes.
The system I endorse would make gender equality on all our publicly elected bodies not a matter of whim or chance, but would make it a sure thing, whatever the body up for election or whenever the vote might be held.
THE OUTCOME COULDN'T HELP BUT DELIVER equality for women in all segments of society. The system would work like this:
Electoral laws would be amended to ensure that in each and every riding, provincial or federal, in each and every seat available on any municipal or regional body, there would be a female representative and a male representative.
Voila! Gender equality in fact, in spirit, in every practical way--with all the consequent improvements to society that could not help but result. Because the woman's viewpoint today is, I believe most women will agree, vastly under-represented in our legislatures and national parliament. The guarantee of gender equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not doing the job.
I don't claim credit for the method of equal representation I am proposing. To the best of my knowledge, it, or some form of it, originated in first nations communities, and was proposed and voted on by referendum in some Arctic communities; unfortunately, it was voted down.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that dominant male influence--and perhaps larger male voting numbers--were factors preventing implementation of a built-in equal gender representation in the Arctic.
People with whom I have discussed this idea have questioned how it could be practically done. My answer is that in each provincial and federal riding there would be a ballot with a list of male candidates, and a ballot with a list of female candidates, and the person to top the poll would be an elected member--thus, one woman representative for the riding, and one male.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSE? All those extra salaries, and related costs? These are the main questions people ask. My answer is that this could be worked out by perhaps some consolidation of constituency boundaries, so that the increase in number of MLAs and MPs would not be drastic. Or, heck, we could go to an actual doubling of representation. As to the expense, well, I would ask: "What price can you put on democracy?" And when half the population is greatly under-represented, then it's rather difficult to call that real democracy, don't you think?
I made a proposal to amend electoral law along these lines to the B.C. Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform of 2004, in a written submission. I received thanks for the submission from the assembly's office staff, but in its final report I could find nothing on the subject of electoral equality for women. This, despite the fact that in appointing the members of the commission, the provincial government had taken pains to ensure that half its membership was made up of men and half of women.
We have yet, by the way, to see any significant reforms arise from the commission's efforts. It devoted most of its attention to a choice between to the majority-plurality system of declaring a winner in any given seat and the proportional representation-single transferrable ballot system, with no inclusion of gender equality in its findings.
In a 2009 referendum on the choice, the single transferrable ballot system fell far short of the 60 per cent majority that was required for its adoption, so the majority-plurality system remains in effect.
Ladies, you've got to put the heat on those guys running our politics. Remember, true equality is the objective. And you haven't got it, because it really requires equal representation.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
CANADIAN RATES U.S. ELECTION A SMASH HIT
AN ENTERTAINMENT DELIGHT--Put up your hands, all Canadians who experience a guilty pleasure in watching U.S. political mayhem. Right, I knew it: The vast majority of you.
And I am pretty sure it would be a good bet to wager that the number of Canada's TV sets tuned to U.S. channels for American election results on Nov. 2 equalled, if not exceeded, the usual ratings for Canadian elections. (I haven't yet seen any of our Canadian TV ratings for the U.S. election night, and I'm not even sure the ratings people make such comparisons, but I'm sticking with my claim, I am, until proven wrong.)
Of course, the big political show in all the American states has been loads of fun for weeks, if not months, and beyond any doubt will continue to be extra-rich entertainment for Canadian political junkies for a good time to come, especially over the next two years.
However, before getting into some of the details of that most unpretty post-election political picture in the U.S., I must first give assurance that I am not making total fun of U.S. politics.
It undoubtedly does have its comic side, when one gazes in fascination at the political fringes and extremes in that country.
But U.S. politics is also a most serious business, because we are looking at a nation which frequently asserts that it is the most advanced, richest and powerful country in the entire history of the universe. That it can wipe out life on this planet is beyond question, but I'm not so certain, nor are lots of others, of its complete superiority in all other fields.
Whichever way one looks at it, though, the U.S. political system is fascinating for its drama, for its nonsense, for its characters, for its laugh potential--and that all adds up to major entertainment. (Don't take my word for it. That American humorist of eons ago, Will Rogers [1879-1935], said it best, in protesting that he didn't make up jokes about U.S. politicians--to get laughs he only had to report what they were doing. He said, too, that "all politics is apple sauce.")
SPEAKING OF DRAMA: Just today (Nov. 4), President Obama held his first post-election cabinet meeting, and emerged offering cooperation and conciliation and compromise on a number of matters to the Republican victors, calling a meeting for later in the month with their leaders.
What will emerge from that meeting is anybody's guess, but for my two-cents-worth I'd say his offer is an obvious initiative-taking ploy. He can be sure he is going to get little cooperation from Republicans, that conciliation is hardly at the forefront of their minds. He is aware they will press their advantage hard over the next two years with the aim of achieving his political destruction in time for Presidential Election 2012.
No doubt he is trying to place them in the position of being spoil-sports, making them refuse his cooperation, and tagging them with the blame for achieving nothing but gridlock in dealing with their nation's severe problems (and ours, too, in some important ways). Now, one doesn't know for certain that that's what is in his mind, but it would seem to be the most sensible way for him to go.
The outcome of all this seems to add up to bitter U.S. political warfare for at least two years. How it will end is the great mystery, the thing that makes for drama and great show biz. If you want an extreme prediction, by the way--well, one of my old newspaper pals, who has been known to make astute observations, actually thinks the situation could deteriorate into a new civil war, partly as a consequence of the impatience of the Republican Party's extreme Tea Party wing with Washington's slow way of moving. My pal adds that such a civil war could even include a military political coup.
I repeat: Talk about drama! Talk about entertainment!
BUT THEN THERE'S THIS VIEW--Another good friend of mine, one with a background in finance and economics, sees a couple of possibilities (which do not include, at all, any kind of armed civil war or coup).
One: That the heavy new Republican power in Congress may press the U.S. into even more corporate-directed breaks for big business, continued huge and even larger defense spending backed by pressures for more aggressive foreign policies, and consequent discarding of the budget slashing so adored by Conservatives. This, he originally felt, would likely create even more U.S. national debt, a worsening of the balance of payments, and dangerous additional inflation.
Two: On the other hand, he concedes, a cooler look at the possibilities must perceive that Obama still holds considerable power. That's a reference to the fact (which my friend and I discussed) that his Democratic Party has retained its majority in the Senate, enabling it to block the now-Republican House, and he has considerable executive power, including a veto on legislation. Obama therefore can deny the Republicans any near-term realization of their ambitions.
So it seems clear that he will use these powers to try to show the Republicans to be quite the opposite of a party that works for the average American. To back this position, which he tends to favor most, my friend says: "The checks-and-balances can now work in the opposite direction. The Republicans have plenty of time to hurt themselves."
I would have to say that, though I might be missing something here, my second friend's thoughts have more likelihood of becoming evident than do the thoughts of my "civil war" friend.
Myself, I wouldn't discount the violence theory absolutely, because it seems that plenty of armed militia types back the Tea Party, and the possibility of some idiotic outburst in a local way is conceivable, even if remote. These are aggressive people.
On balance, the U.S. political future depends largely on what Obama does to handle the Conservative wave. He can win reelection if he plays the Republicans with care, while ready to aggressively counter their power plays and right-wing measures. And he will have opportunities to exploit conflicts sure to come between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. That would add in a big way to the entertainment. Imagine--a possible break-away in Congress of the Tea Party from the Republicans.
But if President Obama gets locked into the compromise position that he now seems to be taking, he probably will have a limited political future.
AS FOR THE HISTORIC TUESDAY VOTE, I think we should emphasize that for Americans it was a hard-times election, and voting in hard times almost always goes against the party in power. In the same breath one must note it was also one of those odd American creatures known as mid-term Congressional elections--and historically those tend to go against the party in office.
Given two factors like that, it's hard to see how the Obama government could have avoided a significant loss.
I hate to say this, but I have a feeling that Obama's losses might have been the result of a degree of racism too. Some observers have sensed hints of this in parts of the electorate, pointing to upper Southern states where the Democrats did not fare well. In addition, part of the Republican Tea Party wing brandished campaign banners that indicated racist leanings.
In viewing the Republican victory, I believe the Republicans are not necessarily going to tread an easy path in approaching the 2010 election.
There will be no shortage of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination--as many as 15, in fact, according to some analysts.
That might be a healthy thing for any party, to see such a deep interest in its ranks for that big job--but such contests can also be terribly bitter and sometimes leave lasting fractures within a party.
UNDOUBTEDLY A LEADING CANDIDATE for the Republican nomination will be the Alaska belle, Sarah Palin. I don't see her chances as good, but she certainly is in the running.
And, in case you haven't noticed, she is something of a take-no-prisoners type of fighter, not shrinking from showering ridicule and contempt on her opponents and critics. These are "qualities" that turn many people off. But I suppose it's rough-hewn Alaska for you. After all, she does describe herself in Alaskan terminology, referring to herself as a "momma grizzly" in politics. Then there's the other term, remember, which she applied to herself as a soccer mom. A soccer mom, said she, was "a pitbull with lipstick."
Thus, we might reasonably suggest that if she tries to maul her opponents in the nomination race as a momma grizzly might, politically, and rips at them in the manner of a pitbull, then she will create firm enemies for herself within her party.
One other factor working against her is that, after the Nov. 2 vote, she got some blame from within her party. Two of her Tea Party senatorial candidates lost seats that were definitely up for grabs by the Republicans. In other words, they should have won them. But the two Tea Party candidates backed by Palin, in Delaware and Nevada, lost those seats ignominiously, thus depriving the Republicans of a majority in the Senate.
I RATE MS. PALIN AS A LOW-POSSIBILITY presidential nomination candidate for one other reason: She did not run for anything in the Nov. 2 election. She did not, like so many of her Tea Party candidates, put her political future on the electoral line, to actually demonstrate and prove her reputed vote-getting power. Those who did win for the Tea Party likely will in my view begin to regard her, after a few weeks at their new jobs in the national legislature, as an outsider looking in, and themselves as better experienced and qualified on the national scene than she is.
They might also begin to think of Ms. Palin as having used the 2010 Congressional election campaign for no other purpose than to further her presidential ambition.
And, last but not least, they can easily blame her, as the most prominent face of the Tea Party, for the fact that on Nov. 2 the Tea Party Republicans elected only about 32 per cent of their candidates, after having held much higher expectations.
So there you have it, my two-cents-worth. Does it foreshadow some greatly entertaining TV viewing, and newspaper and magazine--and Blog--reading over the foreseeable future? You will decide that for yourselves. But I say it does, in spades.
And I haven't even talked yet about the menu of economic, fiscal or foreign policy changes that will result from this election.
So I expect you will stay tuned, folks, to those U.S. news channels. Because you know it's going to be a blast.
And I am pretty sure it would be a good bet to wager that the number of Canada's TV sets tuned to U.S. channels for American election results on Nov. 2 equalled, if not exceeded, the usual ratings for Canadian elections. (I haven't yet seen any of our Canadian TV ratings for the U.S. election night, and I'm not even sure the ratings people make such comparisons, but I'm sticking with my claim, I am, until proven wrong.)
Of course, the big political show in all the American states has been loads of fun for weeks, if not months, and beyond any doubt will continue to be extra-rich entertainment for Canadian political junkies for a good time to come, especially over the next two years.
However, before getting into some of the details of that most unpretty post-election political picture in the U.S., I must first give assurance that I am not making total fun of U.S. politics.
It undoubtedly does have its comic side, when one gazes in fascination at the political fringes and extremes in that country.
But U.S. politics is also a most serious business, because we are looking at a nation which frequently asserts that it is the most advanced, richest and powerful country in the entire history of the universe. That it can wipe out life on this planet is beyond question, but I'm not so certain, nor are lots of others, of its complete superiority in all other fields.
Whichever way one looks at it, though, the U.S. political system is fascinating for its drama, for its nonsense, for its characters, for its laugh potential--and that all adds up to major entertainment. (Don't take my word for it. That American humorist of eons ago, Will Rogers [1879-1935], said it best, in protesting that he didn't make up jokes about U.S. politicians--to get laughs he only had to report what they were doing. He said, too, that "all politics is apple sauce.")
SPEAKING OF DRAMA: Just today (Nov. 4), President Obama held his first post-election cabinet meeting, and emerged offering cooperation and conciliation and compromise on a number of matters to the Republican victors, calling a meeting for later in the month with their leaders.
What will emerge from that meeting is anybody's guess, but for my two-cents-worth I'd say his offer is an obvious initiative-taking ploy. He can be sure he is going to get little cooperation from Republicans, that conciliation is hardly at the forefront of their minds. He is aware they will press their advantage hard over the next two years with the aim of achieving his political destruction in time for Presidential Election 2012.
No doubt he is trying to place them in the position of being spoil-sports, making them refuse his cooperation, and tagging them with the blame for achieving nothing but gridlock in dealing with their nation's severe problems (and ours, too, in some important ways). Now, one doesn't know for certain that that's what is in his mind, but it would seem to be the most sensible way for him to go.
The outcome of all this seems to add up to bitter U.S. political warfare for at least two years. How it will end is the great mystery, the thing that makes for drama and great show biz. If you want an extreme prediction, by the way--well, one of my old newspaper pals, who has been known to make astute observations, actually thinks the situation could deteriorate into a new civil war, partly as a consequence of the impatience of the Republican Party's extreme Tea Party wing with Washington's slow way of moving. My pal adds that such a civil war could even include a military political coup.
I repeat: Talk about drama! Talk about entertainment!
BUT THEN THERE'S THIS VIEW--Another good friend of mine, one with a background in finance and economics, sees a couple of possibilities (which do not include, at all, any kind of armed civil war or coup).
One: That the heavy new Republican power in Congress may press the U.S. into even more corporate-directed breaks for big business, continued huge and even larger defense spending backed by pressures for more aggressive foreign policies, and consequent discarding of the budget slashing so adored by Conservatives. This, he originally felt, would likely create even more U.S. national debt, a worsening of the balance of payments, and dangerous additional inflation.
Two: On the other hand, he concedes, a cooler look at the possibilities must perceive that Obama still holds considerable power. That's a reference to the fact (which my friend and I discussed) that his Democratic Party has retained its majority in the Senate, enabling it to block the now-Republican House, and he has considerable executive power, including a veto on legislation. Obama therefore can deny the Republicans any near-term realization of their ambitions.
So it seems clear that he will use these powers to try to show the Republicans to be quite the opposite of a party that works for the average American. To back this position, which he tends to favor most, my friend says: "The checks-and-balances can now work in the opposite direction. The Republicans have plenty of time to hurt themselves."
I would have to say that, though I might be missing something here, my second friend's thoughts have more likelihood of becoming evident than do the thoughts of my "civil war" friend.
Myself, I wouldn't discount the violence theory absolutely, because it seems that plenty of armed militia types back the Tea Party, and the possibility of some idiotic outburst in a local way is conceivable, even if remote. These are aggressive people.
On balance, the U.S. political future depends largely on what Obama does to handle the Conservative wave. He can win reelection if he plays the Republicans with care, while ready to aggressively counter their power plays and right-wing measures. And he will have opportunities to exploit conflicts sure to come between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. That would add in a big way to the entertainment. Imagine--a possible break-away in Congress of the Tea Party from the Republicans.
But if President Obama gets locked into the compromise position that he now seems to be taking, he probably will have a limited political future.
AS FOR THE HISTORIC TUESDAY VOTE, I think we should emphasize that for Americans it was a hard-times election, and voting in hard times almost always goes against the party in power. In the same breath one must note it was also one of those odd American creatures known as mid-term Congressional elections--and historically those tend to go against the party in office.
Given two factors like that, it's hard to see how the Obama government could have avoided a significant loss.
I hate to say this, but I have a feeling that Obama's losses might have been the result of a degree of racism too. Some observers have sensed hints of this in parts of the electorate, pointing to upper Southern states where the Democrats did not fare well. In addition, part of the Republican Tea Party wing brandished campaign banners that indicated racist leanings.
In viewing the Republican victory, I believe the Republicans are not necessarily going to tread an easy path in approaching the 2010 election.
There will be no shortage of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination--as many as 15, in fact, according to some analysts.
That might be a healthy thing for any party, to see such a deep interest in its ranks for that big job--but such contests can also be terribly bitter and sometimes leave lasting fractures within a party.
UNDOUBTEDLY A LEADING CANDIDATE for the Republican nomination will be the Alaska belle, Sarah Palin. I don't see her chances as good, but she certainly is in the running.
And, in case you haven't noticed, she is something of a take-no-prisoners type of fighter, not shrinking from showering ridicule and contempt on her opponents and critics. These are "qualities" that turn many people off. But I suppose it's rough-hewn Alaska for you. After all, she does describe herself in Alaskan terminology, referring to herself as a "momma grizzly" in politics. Then there's the other term, remember, which she applied to herself as a soccer mom. A soccer mom, said she, was "a pitbull with lipstick."
Thus, we might reasonably suggest that if she tries to maul her opponents in the nomination race as a momma grizzly might, politically, and rips at them in the manner of a pitbull, then she will create firm enemies for herself within her party.
One other factor working against her is that, after the Nov. 2 vote, she got some blame from within her party. Two of her Tea Party senatorial candidates lost seats that were definitely up for grabs by the Republicans. In other words, they should have won them. But the two Tea Party candidates backed by Palin, in Delaware and Nevada, lost those seats ignominiously, thus depriving the Republicans of a majority in the Senate.
I RATE MS. PALIN AS A LOW-POSSIBILITY presidential nomination candidate for one other reason: She did not run for anything in the Nov. 2 election. She did not, like so many of her Tea Party candidates, put her political future on the electoral line, to actually demonstrate and prove her reputed vote-getting power. Those who did win for the Tea Party likely will in my view begin to regard her, after a few weeks at their new jobs in the national legislature, as an outsider looking in, and themselves as better experienced and qualified on the national scene than she is.
They might also begin to think of Ms. Palin as having used the 2010 Congressional election campaign for no other purpose than to further her presidential ambition.
And, last but not least, they can easily blame her, as the most prominent face of the Tea Party, for the fact that on Nov. 2 the Tea Party Republicans elected only about 32 per cent of their candidates, after having held much higher expectations.
So there you have it, my two-cents-worth. Does it foreshadow some greatly entertaining TV viewing, and newspaper and magazine--and Blog--reading over the foreseeable future? You will decide that for yourselves. But I say it does, in spades.
And I haven't even talked yet about the menu of economic, fiscal or foreign policy changes that will result from this election.
So I expect you will stay tuned, folks, to those U.S. news channels. Because you know it's going to be a blast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)