Youngkin in Oval in 2025?

 Since McAuliffe lost in VA on Tuesday, attention turns to the victor; Mr. Youngkin. He's youngish (56) and obviously ambitious, so where does he go.  Virginia governors are term-limited, so in 2025 he'll be looking for a new job. Senator Kaine presumably will run for reelection in 2024, so one possibility is to run for that seat. 

Youngkin seems to combine some assets: a pleasing persona, enough political ability to thread the needle between Trump and Virginia moderates, a resume combining achievements in finance and in religion, plus the requisite family (four children).

There's discussion today of whether his campaign sets a pattern for the Republicans in the future.  The attack on CRT and support of charter schools is a tie to the right, while otherwise he seems to have a more conventional Republican platform.  So I think the test will be whether he can navigate the politics of the next two years, and lead the Republicans to a takeover of the Senate and increased margin in the House of Delegates in 2023.  If that happens, he'd make a good dark horse candidate.  

The Nose of the Camel and Government Programs

 This Politico piece traces the history of the pension program for Civil War veterans (Union army) from very limited coverage to close to universal, ending with its last payment in 2020 to a widow. It argues that because the vets developed an effective lobby organization (Grand Army of the Republic) they were able to expand the program over the years.  It goes on to cite the 20th century's Social Security and Medicare programs as similar cases where a program limited initially was expanded subsequently. All of this is in service to an argument that possibly the programs included in Biden's "Build Back Better" might have a similar destiny.

I don't quarrel with the writer's logic and hope for the expansion of BBB programs.  I do offer the instance of USDA farm programs as another instance of the expansion of government programs, an instance which is even more noteworthy than his examples.

In the years since the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed, programs have expanded to cover not only seven or eight field crops, but oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, specialty crops, aquaculture, apiculture, etc.  The only crops whose programs have been reduced as of now are tobacco, peanuts, and naval stores.

Prisoners Dilemma and the Democrats

 Some discussion this morning on the Democrats maneuvering in Congress led to this idea:

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a part of game theory where, per wikipedia: that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. In the game, if both players trust each other they can end up with an outcome which is good for both, but if they only look to their own interests with no consideration of the other player they end up with the worst result.

I see Senators Manchin and Sinema (MS) as one player; the progressives as the other player.  MS want the infrastructure bill; the progressives want the Biden "Build Back Better" bill. If the two groups cooperate they can get both; if they don't they may get neither.  Partially this boils down to how much trust the two parties have in each other, but mainly it rests on whether there's a compromise on the size and contents and tax provisions of the BBB which both can live with. 

RFK

 The possible release of Sirhan Sirhan has prompted a bit of discussion of Robert F. Kennedy's role in American history, and his prospects. 

Early on I was torn between Hubert Humphrey and JFK.  Humphrey was the stalwart liberal, the speaker on the floor of the 1948 convention, the Senator leading liberals in the 1950's.  JFK had charisma and seemed more popular. Defeating Nixon was important, and difficult; less important and less difficult than defeating what's his face last year, so after West Virginia primary showed JFK could win Protestants I accepted his candidacy.

Robert was the kid brother, feisty.  (Interestingly, I find in my memory I had conflated Ted and RFK's college records, to the discredit of RFK.) His reputation among liberals was marred by his work first with Joe McCarthy and then investigating labor corruption with Sen. McClellan. It probably hit a low point when his brother named him attorney general.

Bobby's reputation rose during the 1960's, first with civil rights and then on Vietnam, reaching its peak with me with his speech when MLK was killed.  

I'm not sure whether I would have supported RFK or HHH finally. Humphrey didn't fare well as LBJ's Veep.  It likely would have come down to the man who ran best against Nixon. We know HHH lost, barely. I think it's likely that RFK wouldn't have been able to unite the party; LBJ would have borne his grudges too long for that.

So, my bottom line is I don't think American history changed because of Sirhan Sirhan.  It would have been different, but Nixon would have won, the divisions in the Democratic party would have been there, perhaps even deeper than they were. And Nixon would have continued to be paranoid against whichever Democrat seemed strongest in the lead up to the 1972.  

Bipartisan Commisions--Watergate Version

 Finished Woodward's book, The Last Men of the President, which is mostly Alexander Butterfield's story. 

A side note--Woodward reminds that Sen. Howard Baker, the ranking Republican on the Erwin committee was initially working with the White House to protect Nixon. What was new to me, was a tidbit which Woodward interprets that Baker was still providing information to the White House, but not in person, through an aide.

So politics isn't beanbag and there wasn't a golden age of bipartisanship now lost?  

Changes in Society--Religion

 As I've mentioned, my paternal grandfather was a Presbyterian minister.  Recently I've been doing a little research using the newspapers.com archive of old newspapers. Before that I'd done a handful of searches in the NYTimes archive. 

There's a big contrast of course between newspapers in the 1890's through 1920's and now.  One hundred years makes a big difference. In terms of religion, the daily newspapers in Wilkes Barre and West Pittston paid a lot more attention to religious events than they do today. As you might expect the Times paid less attention than the smaller cities, but still there was considerable coverage, particularly on a controversy within the Presbyterian church over whether a minister was too liberal. There was also coverage in the PA cities of significant events: the dedicating of a church after its debt was paid off, an address by a minister returned from a visit to the "Holy Land", the departure of a minister for a church in Minneapolis.

These days I can't think of much in religious affairs which is covered in the media, except for religious leaders joining one side or another in political controversies, or splits over issues like the place of homosexuality in the church or the role of women priests.

Times have changed.

Inflation Worries

 Seeing media stories about the possibility of inflation.  Apparently the Biden administration is not worrying, nor is the Fed.  

I understand the logic--prices may rise for food and gas, but the underlying trend may not be above the Fed's target for long. And the rise in wages for restaurant and food service workers is good; it helps the lowest paid. 

But my cynicism is up today.  I'm worried about people on fixed incomes--the retired--will be disproportionately affected by the inflation that occurs. And worried that people vote more on the basis of what they've lost than what they have gained, meaning Democrats in 2022 will lose more elderly votes than they gain from the wage gainers.

Worst April Fools Nightmare

 Saw a tweet about Joe Manchin switching parties--an April Fool joke.  That would be liberals' worst nightmare.

Republicans--Original Practitioners of Identity Politics?

 Current reading in David Reynolds' "Abe" showed me this cartoon attacking Lincoln and the Republican party.  If the captions are too small to read, below is the Library of Congress summary: 

Abraham Lincoln's supporters are portrayed as radicals and eccentrics of various stripes. The satire is loosely based on an anti-Fremont cartoon from the previous presidential race, "The Great Republican Reform Party" (no. 1856-22), also issued by Nathaniel Currier. Here Lincoln, sitting astride a wooden rail borne by Horace Greeley, leads his followers toward a lunatic asylum. Greeley instructs him, "Hold on to me Abe, and we'll go in here by the unanimous consent of the people." Lincoln exhorts his followers, "Now my friends I'm almost in, and the millennium is going to begin, so ask what you will and it shall be granted."

•  At the head of the group is a bearded man, arm-in-arm with a woman and a Mormon. He claims to "represent the free love element, and expect to have free license to carry out its principles." The woman looks at Lincoln, saying "Oh! what a beautiful man he is, I feel a 'passional attraction' every time I see his lovely face." The Mormon adds, "I want religion abolished and the book of Mormon made the standard of morality."
•  They are followed by a dandified free black, who announces, "'De white man hab no rights dat cullud pussons am bound to spect' I want dat understood."
•  Behind him an aging suffragette says, "I want womans rights enforced, and man reduced in subjection to her authority."
•  Next a ragged socialist or Fourierist, holding a liquor bottle, asserts, "I want everybody to have a share of everybody elses property."
•  At the end of the group are three hooligans:
•  one demanding "a hotel established by government, where people that aint inclined to work, can board free of expense, and be found in rum and tobacco." 
• The second, a thief, wants "the right to examine every other citizen's pockets without interruption by Policemen."
•  The last, an Irish street tough, says, "I want all the stations houses burned up, and the M.P.s killed, so that the bohoys can run with the machine and have a muss when they please." Source: Reilly.

The Democratic Debates Start

Reps. Spanberger and AOC seem engaged in an early debate over the course of Democratic politics.  Spanberger said Dems should deep-six talk of "socialism" and "defund police", blaming that for the defeats of some Democratic representatives who gained office in 2018, and the failure to take new seats.

AOC has a twitter thread countering that position, arguing that some new progressives won (my comment--I think they won safe seats by winning the Democratic primaries) and that many candidates were lousy in their digital campaigns.

I suspect both are right.  It's a big country, but politics is often local.  So positions which are popular in one place, like NYC and its suburbs, and not in another area, like southern Virginia, or southern Florida. Appeals which work with one voting bloc may well turn off another bloc. [Updated: and people are complicated and react differently to different stimuli.]

Hopefully the different parts of the party can mostly reconcile under (probable) President Biden's leadership.  His task will be quite difficult: he's likely to be considered a one-termer, and therefore have less clout than otherwise.  I'm reminded of 1976 and President Carter's job--he too had liberals on his left, still smarting over the failure of their dreams in 1972,  and led by a Kennedy.  That didn't work out well for him. 

Congratulations to Republicans

 Republicans made significant gains in House races, mostly it seems because they nominated and supported women candidates. For that they deserve congratulations, even though one of the successful candidates is an OAnon supporter.

This is one of the ways our politics works in the long run: one party comes up with an advance, like nominating women candidates or a fund-raising mechanism like ActBlue; the party gains an advantage; the other party then tries to catch up.

Rich Democrats

I'm unsettled by the trends noted in this Bloomberg piece: specifically Democrats are becoming richer.  It's good that we've been giving money through ActBlue to the various campaigns and party organizations, but I became a Democrat back in the day when the party was a coalition of unions, ethnic groupts, and a smallish group of "eggheads", as they were famously known in the 1950's.

Now Democrats are a bit richer than Republicans, at least by some measures.  Apparently the Republicans still have the business class, the car dealers, insurance agents, small business types, but the Democrats are supported by the eggheads' grandchildren, college-educated and many with graduate degrees, plus minority groups.  A couple of my concerns: 

• there can be a disconnect in interests between the two.  For example, the rich Dems in the Northeast want to remove the limit on deductibility of state and local taxes which was part of Trump's tax cut law. 
• And all too often there's a lot of NIMBYism among the rich, when additional development would increase the supply of affordable housing.

Violence in Politics

 A survey has shown that more Americans believe violence in politics is sometimes permissible.

I think the survey is flawed, as surveys often are. In this case there's no definition of what violence is--are we talking about a demonstration resulting in broken windows, or broken bones, or a revolution.

In the broad sense if we believe in classic American history, in which the American Revolution became a light to the world, wehave to concede a place for violence.

A Letter from the President

 USDA and the administration are catching flak because of this:

The Agriculture Department last week began mandating that millions of boxes of surplus food for needy families include a letter from President Donald Trump claiming credit for the program.

 I'm trying but failing to remember somewhat of a parallel. Secretary Bergland signed a letter which we sent out to farmers, perhaps to all active producers associated with a farm.  This was, I think, in 1980, an election year.  The subject was something related to crop insurance.  I don't remember whether it was base on legislation or a policy decision, perhaps an expansion of the insurance program..  I do remember ASCS had been running a test of selling crop insurance, because Roy Cozart, who became DASCO when the Reagan administration came in, was working on putting FCIC directives into the ASCS system. That test was a failure.

IIRC we career bureaucrats, and possibly Roy, who was career but with political pull, raised an eyebrow on it. The differences between then and now: Jimmy Carter didn't sign the letter and I remember the content as being more informative and less propagandistic than the current letter.

SCOTUS and the Albright Rule

In a NSC discussion over whether and how to intervene in the Balkans during the Clinton administration Madeliene Albright said something like: "what are your great armed forces if you never use them"?  I'll transmute that into a rule, named after her:

"if you have the power, use it".

That rule may be applying in the case of the Supreme Court.  Leader McConnell had the power to freeze Obama's nomination of Judge Garland to the Court.  President Trump has the power to nominate a young conservative woman to the Court.  The Republicans may, or may not, have the power to confirm her.  

After the election the Democrats may or may not have the power to expand the Supreme Court to allow a President Biden to nominate a young liberal black woman and others to the Court and the Senate to confirm them.

It's a game of tit for tat (I initially spelled "tick for tack") with no logical ending except greater polarization.  

Personally I would oppose the steps, but I think analytically down the road some sort of new compromise would evolve.  It's the same sort of dynamic which has created a bipartisan caucus in the House of Representative pushing a compromise pandemic bill. They may fail; the caucus may split; but at some point the center will reassert itself.   

Am I Getting Conservative?

 I sometimes wonder.  It's too bad we didn't have blogs in the 60's and 70's so I could trace the changes in my opinions over the years.  As far as today's politicians go, I generally support the Klobuchars and Bidens of the world. 

I likely am more internationalist/globalist than they.  I remember the heyday of the UN, when it was still viewed by some as essential to world peace.  And I remember the decolonialization movement and our concern over getting adequate foreign aid to the third world.  Liberals mostly seem to have abandoned that focus, but the influence of my ancestral religion still runs strong--the "Great Mission" was to convert the world.

On some current issues:

• I believe in much higher taxes on everyone.  I still retain the bias of JKGalbraith's "The Affluent Society", which argued we underfunded public amenities in favor of private extravagance.  There's no need for 2-4,000 square foot homes. 
• I don't believe in reparations--I do believe in experimenting with social programs, including dispersed public housing (down with NIMBYs) and cash transfer programs. 
• I don't believe in defunding policy, though I would favor more social services, more rehabilitation programs in prison.
• I think there are many more important things people could focus on rather than taking down monuments and renaming landmarks, but different strokes as we used to say in the 60's.
• I do believe in nationalizing a lot of statistics and making reporting mandatory--crime and health come to mind. 

More From Klein

Finished Klein's "Why We're Polarized".  It's due at the library on Sat., but I may get it out again--it's that good.

One point he made struck me: the Democratic Party is an assemblage of identity groups, while the Republicans are more one identity group.  (Not sure that's 100 percent accurate, but they lean that way.)

The result is that the Dems can elect moderates who can appeal to several of their groups, while the Reps don't have that option--it's striking the balance between moderate Reps and conservative Reps.

Harris for VP

 I'm surprised at the emotional reaction to the nomination expressed in the papers and by one relative.  I'd assumed that we'd had a woman Presidential candidate and a black President, so the combination wouldn't be that significant.  It seems it is, which is a reminder that putting yourself in others' shoes is difficult and often misses. 

On Changing the Political Rules

I'm reluctant to see political rules changed.

• when you change them for political advantage, you give your opponents a rationale to do the same.  It's called a "race to the bottom".
• often you can't predict the result.

I gather the Democrats will likely do away with the filibuster in the Senate if they gain a solid majority.  I'm not clear that the conservative Dem senators would go along if the votes of Manchin and Sinema were needed.

They may try to do something with the structure of the judiciary, given the games McConnell et. al. have played over the last 5 years.

I'd rather see the Dems work harder, donate more, and win longer and bigger than take the political risks of changing rules.   

But then, I'm a rather conservative liberal Democrat I suppose. 

"A Switch Before Time" Coming?

The Supreme Court famously defanged FDR's court-packing plan by delivering some pro-New Deal decisions--the "switch in time saved nine". 

There has been some discussion of possibly expanding the Supreme Court if the Democrats won the election.  I think it's a non-starter, but some serious people have talked about it. Today's decision on the LGBTQ issue makes me wonder if SCOTUS will tread carefully between now and the election, just in case the polls are right and Dems win big. 

Not a serious thought, but we'll see.