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.
No comments:
Post a Comment