Why has The Tea Party Disappeared?

2014 Mid-Terms Part III

Why has The Tea Party Disappeared?

The outcome of the mid-terms next month remain clear where the House of Representatives is concerned. Republicans will stay in power but will they gain the six seats needed to regain control of the Senate? Too close to call.

My attention is elsewhere. There seems to be an indelible rule that what America does is followed by the Brits ten years later. I saw my first Styrofoam mug in 1970. Suddenly, in 1980, they were in all the shops here. Likewise, jeans and T shirts, the stable fashion-wear for American teenagers in the 1950s and 60s, didn’t hit these shores in large numbers until the early 1970s.

How have I arrived at this piece of nostalgia? The United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, has been around for many years. Of late, its charismatic leader, Nigel Farrage, has received a plethora of media attention. He’s ‘Unreconstructed Man Personified,’ for example he enjoys being photographed smoking a cigarette and holding a pint of beer. How politically incorrect can you be? He’s a man of the people and talks straight, or so his supporters would have it. What these supporters won’t accept and what the media won’t say is that for Farrage, politics is an open playing field. He can say whatever he wants because he’ll never be challenged in government. There is more chance of England winning the soccer World Cup in 2018 than UKIP having any serious level of political power.

Farrage, the political Mad Hatter, has seen his fortunes rise as UKIP recently claimed its first Member of Parliament. In contrast, the Tea Party in America has dropped out of sight. No one on this side of the pond had heard of the Tea Party until the mid-term election of 2010. Suddenly a group of slightly elderly men and women, mostly white and Republican, with money to spend on politics, got themselves noticed and became the darlings of the American media.

Tea Partiers were helped by wealthy Americans of the gun-toting, rugged individualism variety. Politicians of the ilk of Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin weighed in. What was their agenda? It was hard to analyse but it could be summed up in a word, “No.” No to federal government spending on the poor, no to universal healthcare, no to anything which might impact their wallets and no to anything that might impinge on freedom. These people saw a broken nation and felt they were getting shafted by economic and social change. They wanted the old America back where whites were on top, where welfare would be cut to the bone and where the federal government’s activities would be limited to defence.

Sadly, the Tea Partiers didn’t help themselves. I watched an elderly lady being interviewed. The reporter asked about healthcare. “What do you think of Obamacare?” “Shameful,” came the reply. “People should look after and pay for themselves and not look to government for help.” The reporter pressed on. “What do you think of Medicare? Should that go too?” The lady looked shocked. “Of course not, that’s an entitlement.”

My analysis is that there will always be a percentage of the electorate who are angry and demonstrate their fury in a protest vote. Eventually, any political party which bases its policies on appealing to protest alone will fail, unless it operates within a Proportional Representation system where it might pick up a few seats.

The Tea Party is no longer attractive because it has no policies to fix America’s problems. “No” to everything isn’t a policy. It’s merely political poison. The American public has seen through the veil of anger, at least insofar as Tea Party candidates are concerned, thus they will not signify in the election next month.

As the Tea Party is on its way out, we Brits are watching UKIP rise. To put it accurately, the media is reporting on UKIP every day. It’s a great story. Yesterday, a poll in The Observer suggested that one third of the electorate would vote UKIP if they believed there was a chance of the UKIP candidate winning. What the polls never ask is, “what do you think of UKIP policies?” UKIP want withdrawal from the European Union and a closure of our shores to immigrants. As to the former, it’s a popular policy. The mandarins of Europe have made the body unpopular, despite the clear benefits of membership. UKIP also forgets that this country has been built with the help of immigrants.

The media airtime and space given to UKIP is totally disproportional to its importance. It may pick up a seat or two before our General Election in 2015 but will it gain a significant number of seats? I strongly doubt it. Will UKIP draw a sufficient number of votes from Conservative or Labour to spoil their chances? If the election was tomorrow, it would but there are seven months to go.

In those seven months, UKIP will be tested on policies beyond withdrawal from the EC and immigration. What do Mr Farrage and his colleagues have to say about the economy? What is his party’s taxation policy? How would he fund the National Health Service? UKIP has had a good run but tough political times are ahead and the public aren’t fools. UKIP, look at the Tea Party and weep. Your 15 minutes of fame are almost up. 

It has to be said that the Tea Party and UKIP have moved the Republican Party and the Conservative Party to the right. I regard this as bad news for both because time and again, the Party that holds the centre wins.

Ben Bradlee

Ben Bradlee, left, with Katharine Graham in 1971

 This morning, I have a lump in my throat. Ben Bradlee passed away last night. Ben was the editor-in-chief of The Washington Post in 1972, when the Watergate burglary took place. With support from Katherine Graham, the owner of The Post, Bradlee encouraged two young reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to follow the story. Graham herself emphasised that Bradlee was “the classic leader at whose desk the buck of responsibility stopped.” Although it was The New York Times that first exposed a link between the burglars and the White House, the story went cold and the only newspaper to keep it going was The Post.

Bradlee received many honours for his work. The Post was awarded a Pullitzer Prize for its reporting on Watergate. Just recently, President Obama presented Bradlee himself with The Presidential Medal of Freedom. All this and more can be read in the many obituaries that will be published in the days to come.

In 2003, I was an undergraduate at Brunel University. (Yes, I was a mature student, although I admit I was overripe category!) For my dissertation, I chose Watergate. To be precise, I posed the question whether Nixon’s resignation of the presidency in 1974 was a direct result of constitutional process or a lucky circumstance.

One afternoon, I was in the basement coffee room of the offices of Life Magazine in Mayfair, reading back issues from the 1970s. A journalist came into the room and asked what I was doing. When I told him, he replied, “pity you weren’t here two weeks ago. Ben Bradlee was in town.” I replied that I thought he had died. “Common mistake,” came the answer, “Jason Robards bit the dust, not Ben.” Robards had played Bradlee in the movie All the President’s Men.”

My wife and I had a trip to America planned for that fall, so I wrote to Ben, asking if would let me interview him. Eventually, he agreed to give me 30 minutes early one afternoon. I had to travel from New York to DC by train. A hurricane two days previously had closed the airports. After a four hour journey, I arrived in good time at The Post’s office in F Street, armed with tape recorder and three tapes (just in case), pen and pad, (in case of recording malfunction and a camera. I sat outside Ben’s office, waiting for him to return from lunch. I had my back to him as he walked along the corridor. For an unaccountable reason, I knew he was walking towards me for 15 seconds before I saw him.

The 30 minute interview lasted for almost two hours. His large office had bookcases filled to bursting, flat surfaces had many pictures but not many of the great and good but mostly his family. He had a gruff voice, which was familiar to me, having watched Jason Robards’ portrayal shortly before I left London. Although now in his 80s, he was still a powerful man.

Ben let me tape the conversation. I re-read the transcript this morning. There are memorable passages. For example, of Bob Woodward, Bradlee puts it succinctly: “Woodward has ears that can hear a pheasant break wind at a hundred yards.” Talking about the evolving of the Watergate scandal, Ben categorised it: “God, it never got worse, it always got better, that story, and we are very dogged. I am more dogged than intellectual.”

The part I enjoyed was when I played Devil’s advocate and suggested that Nixon had so many big guns pointed at him, no one could have survived the onslaught. Bradlee leapt on my remark: “Nixon was plainly guilty. He did it, he did it. The Nixon failure after doing it was that the cover up did not work and the press was responsible for that.”

That day I was treated to a two-hour lesson in living history. What a privilege. But, sadly, in all the excitement, I forgot to have a photograph taken!

I gained the lasting impression that Ben Bradlee was truly a force of nature. He had a presence that verged on the electric. His track record as a newspaperman established that he had good and sound judgment, he was loyal both to those who worked for him and for whom he worked, he was a man of principle and a person who exemplified the finest traditions of journalism.

Ben Bradlee, you will be missed.

The 2014 Mid-Terms Part II. Where are the President’s Coat-Tails?

 In four weeks, America goes to the polls. If a British voter was shown an American voting form, confusion would run amok. Americans vote for all manner of offices, not just seats in the US and State Congresses and Capitols. They vote for judges, sheriffs and yes, even dog-catchers. This is democracy in action.

Mid-term elections are often posed as judgments on the record of the administration and its chief executive. In many mid-term elections, the President and his party receive a slap in the face from the voters. In 1946, Harry Truman saw his party’s majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives disappear. The new Republican Congress’s first act of business was to pass legislation, repeated in the 22^nd Amendment, term-limiting all presidents after Truman. In 2006, George W. Bush saw his Congressional majorities crumble. He was a two-year lame duck.

Americans have a wonderful, old-fashioned expression to assess a President’s popularity; it is a metaphor based on coat-tails, the attire of men in public office in the 19^th century. If the coat-tails are said to be “long,” it means the President is regarded by the public as successful and candidates from his party will seek his personal support. If the coat-tails are “short,” as in 1946 and 2006, candidates from the administration’s party seek to distance themselves from the chief executive. Sadly, this year Mr Obama’s coat-tails don’t seem to exist.

Elections for House of Representatives seats are often governed by local issues but this year seems to be dominated by the perceived lack-lustre second term presidency. There can be no real expectation by the Democrats that they will recover the House of Representatives. The fight is for control of the Senate, where the pundits suggest the Republicans will gain a small majority. The Republicans need to win six seats to gain control but the overall result is still too close to call. States like North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia and Colorado are in play.

What the Democrats need is the October Surprise. Let’s play the “what if” game. What would happen if:

·         US unemployment dropped below 6%, as more jobs are created as a result of administration policy.

·         Sales of new homes rise, proving a revival in the US economy.

·         Growth in new car sales, showing Americans are willing to spend on home-manufactured goods.

·         The US economy is proved to be motoring along and doing far better that the economies of China, Japan and the European Union.

·         More than 7 million Americans have signed up for Obamacare.

·         Low inflation and a strong dollar keeps interests rates low and helps business.

None of the above comes within “what if” because all of them have already occurred. Under Mr Obama, the economy, business atmosphere and access to healthcare have improved for the vast majority of Americans. However, the perception is otherwise. And in politics, perception trumps reality.

What can the President do to lengthen his coat tails? An American led victory over IS would help but this is highly unlikely to happen by November. America and most of its coalition partners will not commit ground forces. Détente with Russia, with Russian forces leaving Ukraine (not the Crimea) might help but would this occur within the next four weeks? I think not! Once again, the perception in America is a failure of leadership by its administration. The President talks about leadership but politicians are judged not on what they say but what they do.

The state of Iowa has a tight Senate race. Joni Ernst, the Republican candidate, has borrowed a plot from Series 7 of The West Wing, when the Democratic presidential nominee, Matt Santos, took time out from the campaign to do his duty as a retired USAF pilot and be re-trained. From trailing in the polls, the Santos character got a huge boost. Life has imitated art, as Ernst has spent two weeks on duty with the Iowa National Guard. The Iowa voters see this as an act of leadership and have given her a six point lead in the polls.

Would it help the Democratic cause if the President took a week out doing military training? As Mr Obama did not serve in the forces, the option is not open to him. Sadly, in both electoral and poker terms, he is looking like a busted flush.

Hillary Clinton: Has the Iowa Penny Dropped?

Ever since I got interested in American politics, one issue has confused me. Why did those seeking election not actively seek the women’s vote? It’s a straightforward issue. In America, there are more women than men who have the franchise. True, the margin is narrow but if a presidential candidate can attract the support of a substantial majority of women voters, the game might be as good as won.

Six years ago, Hillary Clinton was the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. In fact, she was “out of sight,” before the primary season started. Then came the Iowa caucus. She got a bloody nose when Barak Obama beat her into second place. True, Hillary recovered soon after in New Hampshire but the damage had been done. She fought a troubled fight, as she told too many fibs, such as being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia. Obama got the nod.

It is twenty six months before the next presidential election. Unlike Hillary and the Democrats, there is no Republican politician who has any real momentum or “the big mo” as the Americans coin it. In contrast, Mrs Clinton seemingly has no electable opposition for the Democratic top spot. However, two years is an eon in politics and by September, 2016, the field will look very different. Mrs Clinton will find it difficult to retain her lead for such a long time. What will she do to keep herself in the number one spot?

Last week may have provided the answer to this question. Hillary spoke to a Democratic Women’s Leadership forum event in Iowa. During her twenty minute speech she name-dropped Mary Burke and several other Democratic women running for office in November. She quoted Senator Patty Murray (D.Wash) about building relationships: “You work together and you get the best outcome you can.”

Last week’s speech is evidence that Hillary is going after the women’s vote. There are other women who might put their hats in the presidential ring but, at the moment, Mrs C has the gender field to herself. Currently, she is opposed by an array of Republican men. I anticipate her bringing out the argument that “it’s time for a woman president.” Added to this, she can also suggest it’s time for a new type of politics that gets beyond the DC grid lock in Congress. If she doesn’t make the gender card too obvious, she will be in a strong position.

I am not saying that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. It’s far too soon to speculate with any accuracy. However, if I have understood her strategy correctly, I believe it’s not only a good one, it could well lead to a victory.

Mr Obama, Your Foreign Policy Needs a Reality Check. What Would Henry Kissinger Do?

 

As readers of this blog will know, I am a fan of President Obama and his administration. I believe he has achieved much to benefit American society in his five plus years in office. For example, he inherited an economy in its worse state since the 1930s and has overseen its recovery. The American car industry survived as a result of his government’s intervention. And virtually all Americans now have access to healthcare which they can afford.

However, there is an area of policy where the incumbent’s administration has shown itself to be feeble. As in the past century, American foreign policy has been questionable, not to mention inconsistent. FDR wanted free trade but told the trading world to keep its hands off China. Truman agreed to provide a home for the United Nations and within no time was at loggerheads with its administrative leaders.

Eisenhower failed to realise that by interfering in Vietnam, he meddled in a civil war. The Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford administrations were ensnared by Vietnam, ending in ignominious defeat. Carter agreed terms of a SALT treaty with the Russians, only to find it rejected by Congress.

Every administration since World War II has got foreign policy ideology wrong. There was a time after the War when Foggy Bottom – the home of the State Department – showed how foggy its thinking was when it stated that everything relating to communism came out of Moscow! In other words, the Chinese were of no matter, merely the Kremlin’s playthings, a point of view that might have amused Chairman Mao.

Reagan’s aggressive stance brought about the end of the Cold War, as he spent enormous sums on the military. He was fortunate to avoid impeachment over the Iran-Contra affair. By 1993, the occupant of the White House had lost the taste for war. Clinton, quite rightly, feared home reaction to American soldiers in body bags. His successor, the self-proclaimed “war president”, engaged in The War on Terror, with disastrous results for America.

President Obama is now faced with a number of foreign threats. In my view, the biggest danger to world peace is the probable desire of the Russian government for hegemony. The annexation of the Crimea and the insurgency in east Ukraine may be just the start of a plan to regain the former USSR. America shows no sign of leading its allies in opposition to Mr Putin, save through economic sanctions which are unlikely to work. Just look at trade sanctions against South Africa in the 1970s and 80s.

Instead of facing down the Russian incursion, the west is concentrating its aim on IS. The disgusting and disgraceful beheading of three men has galvanised the Americans into coalition-building and likely military action against these jihadists. Let’s look at what is going on. The media has reported that IS has 30,000 fighting men. How is it possible to defeat a force of this size by air power alone? Soldiers on the ground will be needed but America has declared it will not fight IS this way. Others will have to do it.

It was reported this week that twenty six nations are joining together to fight IS. But no sooner was the coalition announced when it showed cracks. Turkey withdrew because it feared reprisals on its citizens. Germany said it wouldn’t participate. The British foreign secretary said British air power would not be used and was chastised publicly by Downing Street for failing to be on message. Iran has declared its lack of faith in American policy. This is no way to conduct a war.

Add to these complications that IS must be challenged in Syria. America and the United Kingdom are already fighting the Assad regime. What next? Furthermore, the anti-IS coalition includes the Saudis, who are predominately Sunni Muslims. Will they support the Iraqi Shiites?

Finally, if American troops are involved in a coalition fight on the ground, American law states that its soldiers must be led by an American. Will the coalition partners agree to this?

I am staggered by the idiocy of current American diplomacy. It’s reminiscent of the Blair government which would announce a new policy before the details had been scrutinised. Henry Kissinger was the prince of American foreign policy. His style was to conduct his romantic affairs in the public gaze. “Power,” he said, “is the greatest aphrodisiac.” However, his diplomatic deals were negotiated in private. Please, Mr President, take a lesson from HK. Do you think IS don’t know what is happening when everything is publicised?  Stop telling your enemies what you’re going to do. Get agreement from your coalition partners in private and take your opponents by surprise.

Congress Returns. Same Old, Same Old.

America’s lawmakers have returned to Washington. Under the rules, the session will be abbreviated because of the mid-term elections in November. So what can be expected? My guess is same old, same old.

For the House Republicans, the guiding principle must be “do no harm.” I don’t expect a repeat of last autumn, when the Republicans shut the government down over Obamacare. But the House Republicans are nothing if not ideologues so there could still be trouble. To keep the government working after September, the House has to pass a temporary spending bill. Provided the measures are free from add-ons objectionable to Republican ideology, such as funding contraception, the Senate will probably go along. If not, another shutdown is on the cards, in which event the Party blamed by the public will get an election-style smack.

For the Democrats, Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has to help a number of endangered incumbents by introducing popular measures. Currently, Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina look like endangered species.

One way to motivate the Democrat core may be an open attack on campaign funding. Currently, two recent Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United and McCutcheon, have allowed a vast, unregulated flood of money to be poured into political campaigns. We’re talking billions of dollars. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is leading the fight for a constitutional amendment to regulate campaign finance and stop corporations, unions and billionaire individuals from spending unlimited sums on political activity.

The measure may be popular with ordinary voters, depending on how it is promoted in the media. There seem to be equal numbers of wealthy people and institutions on both sides of the aisle, so handling the publicity could be awkward. Watch out for Mr Udall being portrayed as Don Quixote, fruitlessly tilting at Washington windmills in a hopeless cause. Let’s be frank. A constitutional amendment has no chance of success without a huge groundswell of popular support.

The Democrats will use the session to seek new laws on raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable and guaranteeing contraception coverage under Obamacare. These stand no chance of passing in the House but, once again, the failed measures may excite the core.

The Republicans will concentrate their attack on the administration with a special House hearing to investigate the 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi. Has the State Department taken steps to improve securing embassies and posts? Expect embarrassing fireworks of a partisan, political nature.

This week, Congress will be asked to approve military action against ISL. I will defer commenting further until I see chapter and verse of the government’s proposals. However, Congress should also be looking at the Russian situation and, if nothing else, strengthening sanctions. I doubt it will do anything concrete.

So, little is likely to be accomplished in the short session but there will be plenty of political hot air. As William Shakespeare coined it, “Much Ado About Nothing.”

The Weakness of America and its Allies

George Satayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The recent aggressive moves by Russia in Crimea and East Ukraine have not been met with force, except by local fighters. So far, the West has limited its response to economic sanctions. There are now proposals by America and the United Kingdom to send arms to the Ukrainians. The Russian invasion and annexation of The Crimea is almost forgotten. It is a fait accomplit.

The big question is, what will Putin do next? Has he designs on Poland or Hungary? Does he intend to restore the CSSR? Will Angela Merkel remain calm when the Red Army is camped on the borders of East Germany?

This weekend, I was asked a question, “why did the World Wars occur?” As an historian, I’m meant to have some of the answers. So, I replied, starting with World War 1. “When the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia with very severe demands. Germany supported Austria’s position. Although the Serbs capitulated to most of the demands, Russia started to mobilize its forces to aid and defend the Serbs. Austria refused to accept the Serbian offer and declared war. As a result of a series of Treaties, Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain were drawn into the conflict.”

As for World War 2, I answered, “Western Europe ignored Hitler’s re-armament of Germany until it was too late to take action and stop it. Japan, bent on empire-building, invaded Manchuria without any real challenge. When America denied Japan access to raw materials, Japan took action by declaring war on America.

Next, I analysed the similarities between the two world wars. Both wars started because the aggressors anticipated no challenge and leadership was weak. In 1914, none of the major powers really expected to fight, despite the nationalistic and jingoistic mood of the countries involved. None of the political leaders were strong enough to prevent mobilization of the Russian and German armed forces. By 1939, the West’s policy of appeasement, as well as the Non-Intervention Pact in Spain, convinced Hitler he would be unchallenged when he swallowed up one country after another. The allies believed his appetite for annexation would be sated but when the Germans occupied Poland in 1939, it was a step too far for Great Britain and France. Just like the run-up to WW1, political leadership was weak.

In both world wars, the Americans stayed out of a perceived local difficulty, not understanding the threat which Germany posed in global terms. Eventually, two strong Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, recognised the dangers if America did not take part and seek to defeat the aggressors. The sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbour were the catalysts for America’s intervention which was crucial to the allied victories. 

Today, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine could be viewed as “a local difficulty.” There is no apparent strategic interest for intervention by the West, nor is the humanitarian crisis equating the scale of Iraq or Syria. However, where will a power-hungry Russia stop? What does it have to do before the West takes military action?

Is it imaginable that Ronald Reagan would have ignored Russia’s incursions? I have no doubt he would have threatened the Russians with all the considerable armed forces available to him. Since Reagan, the Cold War has ended and the world has moved on. America has fought harsh wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American public has no appetite these days for body bags. Therefore the easiest route for the current administration and President Obama is to utter words of condemnation and impose sanctions. Will this halt Russia or bring it to the negotiating table? So far, the answer is strongly negative. This week’s cease fire agreement failed within 24 hours!

One solution is to make the Ukraine a temporary member of NATO, enjoying the same privileges as America, Western Europe, Scandinavia and its other members. NATO forces, albeit depleted since the 1990s, are still formidable. A real show of force might deter Mr Putin from further aggression and bring him to the negotiating table.

Will this happen? I am an admirer of President Obama but his administration’s foreign policy over recent months has left me scratching my head. He does not seem to understand the meaning of alliances and the need for a Western coalition, led by America, to stand up to the Russians.

I do not want to see another Cold War, nor a hot one for that matter but bullies need to be stopped. Mr Putin and his government are undoubtedly bullies and must be dealt with accordingly. Sanctions won’t work. So, come on, Mr Obama, spend some time thinking about history and accept that aggression is needed. Don’t get side-tracked by ISIS. If you ignore the current situation in Ukraine, you may be forced to repeat the past with awful consequences.