Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘us election’

The sweeping gains made by Democrats tonight only tell half the story. There were also a number of issues votes that, if nothing else, indicate that the country is feeling more anti-Bush right now than pro-Liberal. For example:

• Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage won approval in South Carolina, Tenessee, Virginia and Wisconsin, with similar amendments on the ballot in 4 other states also expected to pass once the votes are tallied. This would mean that a total of 28 states – more than half – will have banned gay marriage in the U.S., delivering a serious blow to the hopes of people in favour of equality and civil rights.
• Arizona passed measures against illegal immigrants, including making English the state’s official language.

On the other hand:

• Missouri passed a measure to guarantee stem cell research would be permitted.
• South Dakota’s voters rejected an attempt to restrict abortion in the form of proposed legislation.

Some analysts have further noted that, though Democrats made significant gains, they may have done so at the expense of ideology, since many of the newly-elected Democrats are much more moderate than Liberal while many of the defeated Republican incumbents were on their party’s more moderate wing. So the House (and possibly the Senate) may have shifted to the left, but both parties actually shifted to the right in the process.

What will it all mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

Democrats have to be drunk with power tonight. With a decisive victory to take back the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years, and even a narrow victory in the Senate within their sights, the overwhelming emotion among Democrats tonight must be one of feeling invincible.

But, for the sake of the United States, I hope that drunkenness subsides soon, or else all they’ll be left with is a giant hangover.

All of the planets aligned for the Democrats right now. Increased frustration at Bush’s policies – namely, the war in Iraq – combined with ill-timed sex scandals and a lot of general weariness led to a sort of protest vote against Republicans as proxies for Bush. But Democrats would do well to note that there’s still two long years until 2008. That’s enough time to either put up or shut up, so to speak.

It’s easy to gain popularity by pointing fingers in opposition (well, for everyone but John Kerry, anyway). It’s a lot harder to make excuses once you’re in the hot seat. A lot of eyes will be on the Democrats now, looking to see what they do with these two years of limited power, in order to decide what to do about 2008. If tonight’s vote was against Bush, the next presidential election will be about some sort of vision for the country… and despite the Democrats’ victories tonight, they haven’t conclusively demonstrated that they have one.

The Democrats, therefore, have a choice to make. They can either spend the next two years dragging the country down into myriad scandal investigations, handing out subpoenas like tissues and clamouring for time on TV. That’s door number one, and it leads to a path of increased cynicism, frustration and disillusionment with politics in general.

Or, they can take the tougher road and start taking a stand on issues and trying to once again define a voice for the party. Door number two means taking whatever limited power you’ve been handed and trying to actually do something with it. Agree or disagree, voters will generally have a lot more respect for someone who leads than for someone who blames. This is what the Democrats didn’t figure out in 2004, and from many of the interviews I’m seeing tonight with key Democrats, I don’t think they’ve figured it out in 2006 either.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Democrats weren’t the big winners tonight. Not because a serious backlash could still result in a resounding Republican victory when it counts, in 2008’s Presidential election – though it’s certainly possible. But because we haven’t seen anyone try to raise the standard of debate with this election. It’s the same old corruption scandals, negative campaigning, negative issues, finger-pointing about Iraq and threatening of congressional investigations that we’ve seen a million times before. And it’s coming from all sides.

In reality, there may be no true winners in tonight’s election, only losers: the American people.

Key contests tonight:

• Congress: Democrats take control with a projected 16-seat gain.
• Senate: Still too close to call, but looks like the Republicans will narrowly hang on.
• Hockey: Habs 3-2 over Oilers in a shootout.

Everyone knows which one of those is the most important in my book, of course.

Tomorrow’s U.S. midterm election is garnering way more attention than this non-event typically gets. The prospect of the Democrats taking back one or maybe even both houses has got a lot of people talking, but it’s really the same old nonsense, rehashed.

If the Democrats take control of the House (somewhat likely) and/or the Senate (highly unlikely) tomorrow, will that mean Bush will be relegated to lame duck status? Is tomorrow’s vote pivotal for gays/women/minorities/Iraq, or will it really not change very much? If the Democrats win some power, will they use it to legislate, or will they use it to launch a bunch of costly and pointless probes and investigations into Republican behaviour that will make voters sigh and roll their eyes at the endless scandal circus?

What will the results spell for 2008? Will it scare Republicans into a voter backlash, or will it energize the Democrats and give them momentum?

Personally, I hope that the Democrats gain control of Congress at least, not because I’m particularly disposed to favour one side or the other (I’ve already spelled out my objections to the giant either-or wedge in American politics numerous times) but because, on principle, I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I’ve seen what happens too many times with the lack of a strong enough opposition. The Canadian Liberals, for instance. Even my years at Concordia were instrumental in demonstrating the pitfalls of having too much power concentrated in too few hands. The Bush administration has had a blank cheque for quite some time now, and it’s time to instill some checks and balances in the form of a more powerful opposition.

Basically, what it boils down to is my belief that the more handcuffed a government is, the less it will be able to do… and, hence, the less harm it will be able to do. Like doctors, government officials ought to be required to swear an oath of office that begins with “first, do no harm”. But, since they don’t, the next best option is to limit their power as much as possible.

Sure, it was scripted – but these days, what real political debate isn’t? Sure, it was cheesy at times – but nowhere near as ridiculous as Dubya’s mixup between Saddam and Osama in the real debate. And sure, it was fiction that bordered on the completely, utterly unrealistic. But the live debate episode between West Wing fictional presidential candidates Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) was so much better than the real thing, I nearly cried. After a couple of seasons of genuine suckage after Aaron Sorkin’s departure, the show is starting to regain its legs.

The candidates threw out the debate rules and went after each other on issues including gun control, healthcare, education, immigration and even the word “liberal”. Why can’t real political debates be like that?

After all, politicians have essentially been actors for years. And I’m not just talking about Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Most of them are reading off rehearsed scripts, playing a part, saying their lines. So why don’t their lines ever sound so good in real life?

Now, the show has an obvious liberal bias, with Martin Sheen having played the fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlett for the last 6 seasons. The show’s audience is over 75% Democrat, and its cast includes some of the most outspoken liberal actors in Hollywood. An online poll on the show’s site as to who won the fake debate is running 65% for Santos. In fact, an independent poll – yes, a real pollster actually ran a poll about fictional candidates, in a bizarre twist – surveyed an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and found that 59% favour Santos. It’s virtually pre-ordained that Smits is going to emerge the winner.

But Alda’s character is fighting a serious campaign. They’ve scripted Senator Vinick as a centrist, pro-choice Republican from California, with just enough centrist appeal that he could – theoretically – win the television presidency. An anti-Bush, in other words. And I must admit, if it were a real debate, he would have nearly wiped the floor with Matthew Santos… despite the fact that there were clearly lines he – presumably a Democrat in real life – nearly choked on while having to speak. Hell, I figure I’d be a Democrat if I were American, and even I woulda voted for him.

Wouldn’t it be gutsy of the show’s producers if they wrote a Vinick victory and let the Republicans take office on the show? Of course, it would be a Democrat’s funhouse version of the Republican party… but it would sure be more interesting than the assumed outcome. I’d love to see them try.

And you know what else would be really neat? If this debate inspired some real political debates to follow a similar format, allowing candidates to actually debate issues for a change. I’m willing to bet a lot more people would watch – and consequently, a lot more people would vote.

Update: I admit, I was curious about the fact that the debate was going to air twice – once on the east coast and once on the west. So I tuned into NBC Seattle and was rather shocked to notice that, though the script was nearly identical, the actors’ tones had changed dramatically. In debate #2, Santos seemed to be the clear winner, scoring definitive points over Vinick on nearly every issue. I wonder if the actors were coached in the interim to make a pre-determined Santos victory seem more plausible? At any rate, it’s amazing how the same lines could have such a different effect when spoken with slightly different pauses, tones and facial expressions. Food for thought.

Bono called Paul Martin “infuriating” for his refusal to make large commitments of increased foreign aid in the wake of Live 8:

“He’s very difficult to deal with because he won’t agree to things that he doesn’t believe he can deliver, although that is very frustrating and annoying and infuriating,” Bono told reporters while standing next to Martin.

Canada currently spends the equivalent of 0.26 percent of GDP on foreign aid. Martin says he would rather commit to small increases he knows he can afford than make long-term promises.

Bono, I love your music and the video for Where The Streets Have No Name kicks ass. So I mean this with all due respect: shut up!

Martin may be a weak political leader who waffles more than an Eggo, but at least he’s a political leader. Who elected Bono leader of anything?

This is just part of a larger rant that I have about celebrities and politics. We used to have economists talking about the economy, international relations experts discussing international relations, political analysts talking politics… Agree or disagree, the people leading the discourse usually actually knew something about their topic and had solid credentials in their field.

Since when did “#1 on the Billboard rock charts” become a credential for discussing world trade or poverty?

This is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for years, and has been encouraged by the fact that stars get publicity for their political action, and are under a large amount of pressure to pretend to care about causes bigger than themselves. Some actually do care. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is this notion that we’re supposed to listen to them because they’re celebrities. In a debate about world trade, if you put a Ph.D. in global economics at a table with Jeanine Garofalo, why should we assume that they’re on equal footing to discuss the issues? I won’t give much weight to Paul Martin’s opinion on rock music, so why should I care so much what Bono thinks about politics?

In last year’s American election, in which we had Springsteen singing for Kerry and Britney Spears cheering for Bush, I couldn’t help but wonder whether anyone was actually basing their vote on what celebrities were saying. And if so, what does that say about the electorate?

That’s my issue with Live 8 in general. International aid and third-world poverty are serious issues, and nobody elected Roger Waters or Dave Matthews to decide how best to spend our tax dollars to deal with them.

Celebrities are human beings – often with good hearts and fat bank accounts. If they want to do charity work or get involved in worthy causes, more power to them. But when they use their charity work as a publicity stunt, it cheapens them and their cause.

It also creates issues among fans who respect celebrities for their art but dislike their politics. Should I refuse to watch Sean Penn’s movies because I don’t like his soapbox political views? No, that’s mixing issues, isn’t it? But by suggesting that his celebrity status lends credence to his politics, the celebrities themselves have mixed those issues, leaving someone like me to either have to avoid art because of politics, or wonder if I’m implicitly supporting politics because of art. When I go to an Our Lady Peace concert and, in the midst of screaming and cheering, Raine Maida shouts that we should “send a message to Bush to stay out of Iraq”, it puts a sour taste in my mouth. Regardless of his message (I’d feel the same way if Raine said the opposite), suddenly I’m no longer at a rock concert, but at a political rally. It didn’t say that on my ticket. I didn’t pay for that. All it did was to make me feel manipulated and used.

The most reasonable point I’ve ever heard from a celebrity on the issue of celebs in politics comes from Alice Cooper:

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock-and-roll, because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Cooper’s comments were made in the context of last year’s US election campaign, but they’re equally valid for issues like foreign aid and world trade.

So let Bono think that Paul Martin is “infuriating”. That’s fine. I don’t really care. I may disagree with Martin an awful lot, but here he is being eminently reasonable, refusing to make lavish promises he can’t keep and instead sticking to more immediate, gradual commitments. Foreign aid in itself won’t solve African poverty overnight. And, despite what he may think, Bob Geldof is not uniquely qualified to tell us how to think.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe – just maybe – if Bono were Canadian and had actually voted for Martin, then his criticism might be a bit more valid. In the meantime, please stick to rock music and let the politicians stick to politics.

This quiz seeks to go “beyond red or blue” and classify American voters according to 9 different political categories:

Contrary to the widespread impression of a nation only divided into two unified “red” and “blue” camps, our latest survey finds important cleavages on values and basic attitudes within each party. As a result, both parties face internal challenges as well as opportunities to expand their constituencies.

Anyway, the quiz stubbornly insists that I’m an “enterpriser”, which it classifies as Republican, Conservative, rich and male. Er… not exactly accurate. I tried to tell it that I was against government meddling in religion or morality, in favour of gay rights, and that I probably would’ve voted for Kerry if I were American, but it didn’t listen. I guess I have to win the lottery and get a sex change operation now.

Then again, reading the 9 categories I have to conclude that I don’t fit any of the descriptions. “Canadian”, unfortunately, was not one of the choices.

(Via Mike Silverman, who the quiz didn’t listen to either).

From a Gazette editorial on whether disgruntled US Liberals will try to move here:

No one can say whether a northward exodus of liberal Americans will materialize. After the dust of this hotly contested election settles, they will reflect on other priorities, including home, employment and family. But an influx of left-leaning Yankees might well invigorate the Canadian political scene. After all, if they became citizens, they would probably be natural Conservatives.

Meanwhile, Damian is amused by the idea that some of them could claim refugee status. Like him, I’d love to see them try.

That seems to be the buzz.

But could she really win? Could she capture more votes than John Kerry did last night? Certainly she’s more charismatic. She’s a proven campaigner and she was probably the brains behind any good decisions that Clinton made during his term. And both she and her husband are evidently still hugely popular.

But would it be enough?

I can’t help but think that… god damn, this election is just barely over! Can we give it a rest for a while before we start campaigning for the next one???

Bush winning the election is not what’s making me so uncomfortable. At least, it doesn’t make me any more uncomfortable than a Kerry win would have.

The trouble is, the combination of results that have given the Republicans another four years in the White House, significant gains in Congress and a virtual lock on the Senate all at the same time. That means that one side pretty much dominates all three houses – as opposed to the tenuous hold they had last term. And no matter what side the power is concentrated on, that is too much power for one team in a nation that is very much bitterly divided.

The GOP doesn’t have much to hold them back now. Despite the fact that nearly half the country didn’t vote for them, they have a popular vote win, a win on “their” issues in many direct questions, and pretty much a free rein to move the country even further to the right for the next four years – and, with Supreme Court appointments, for a long time after that.

Gay marriage is not an issue that should be decided by popular vote – because a majority shouldn’t get to decide to deny rights to a minority. But look for the Republicans to push ahead for a nationwide constitutional ban on gay marriage, for no good reason other than because many people find the idea distasteful. In fact, this issue probably helped Bush win the election, by encouraging Conservatives to go cast a vote. Similarly, abortion is once again in trouble. We can probably expect a woman’s right to choose being gradually chipped away in the next few years.

Many Kerry supporters are disappointed because they fear another four years of what they perceive to be devastating international policies by the Bush team. Personally, I’m much more concerned about the domestic American scene. In fact, the Democrats most likely lost this election by assuming Iraq was the only issue, and failing to make a strong case for their liberal values at home.

And with so much power concentrated on the Republican side, I admit I’m worried. I’d be just as worried if all the power were concentrated on the left. Either way, too much power in one camp with too few checks and balances is a dangerous thing.