Chris Christie is no Abe Lincoln

One day last week my boss asks:  "What do you think of Chris Christie?"  Because I like my boss and my job, I decided this was no time for radical honesty.
"I saw him on The Daily Show," I replied.  "Though he is known for his temper, he can be funny."  I left it at that.
It was his angry outburst about Congressional Republicans that caused my boss to ask the question.  And one of my co-workers who was with us said, "he has my vote in 2016."
While we are all angry at Congress (and most of the folks who read this understand that the conservatives in Congress are the problem), it seems that Christie's much-publicized rant made him appealing to many.
I can only hope it is the same popularity that Sarah Palin and Herman Cain experienced;  that is is based on surface appearances and will be fleeting.
Because, while Republicans have acted disgracefully regarding Hurricane Sandy relief, it is no more disgraceful than their actions were during the health care debate--and not nearly as disgraceful as their actions have been and continue to be around the debt ceiling and possible default.
Of course Governor Christie has not chastised them for their willingness to trigger a global economic meltdown.  Nope.  The government is profligate when it comes to keeping promises to the elderly, retired public servants, and maintaining our national parks.
I tried to think why the selective outrage by Christie bothers me.  The effort made me think of the way "Lincoln" portrayed our 16th president.  He was genial, sometimes almost corny at a time of immense frustration with Congress.  In the movie, his outrage flashed only when he realized that Congress was opposed to formal recognition of basic protections for the nation's most vulnerable citizens.
That should produce outrage.  But Governor Christie and his entire party were not only not outraged but actively pursued a position parallel to that which caused Lincoln's anger: voter suppression during the last election.  So while many see Christie sharing their anger at our dysfunctional legislative branch, I have a different answer for "what do you think of Chris Christie?"
The governor of New Jersey is angry for the wrong reasons.  His anger is too selective.  He may be the GOP nominee in 2016, but he is definitely no Abe Lincoln.

Has Obama changed the course of history?

I  just started reading Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland."  He ends the second chapter by stating that Nixon has shaped almost everything about the politics of the past 50 years. Perlstein argues we all live in Nixonland and to understand our current politics we must:

(s)tudy well the man at Nixonland's center, the man from Yorba Linda.  Study well those he opposed.  The history that follows is their political war.

I agree with this reading of U.S. political history.  In fact, my wife jokingly says that I believe that the answer to any current problem in the U.S. (and sometimes global problems) is: It is all Nixon's fault.

At least at the level of presidential politics, I do think what happened during Nixon's administration has determined who we have elected.  Everything from voting blocs to hot button issues changed due to Richard Nixon.

My shorthand way to make this point is this:

Without Nixon and his resignation, Gerald Ford never gets anywhere near the presidency.  And without the shadow of Watergate, Jimmy Carter is too much of an outsider to become president. Ronald Reagan becomes president due to the combination of Carter's nuanced view of problems and the southern strategy (in my opinion Reagan's appeal was his unique ability to be both superficially optimistic and subtly bigoted.)  The first George Bush doesn't fit the pattern as he definitely is an establishment candidate.  But both his candidacy and governing style are influenced by post-Nixon cynicism as well as the so-called Reagan revolution.

Bill Clinton is a relative unknown who succeeds by being the first Democrat who can combine the policy position of formerly moderate Republicans with some appeal in the South--a combination necessary in Nixonland.  Finally, George W. Bush is in many ways the culmination of the Nixon changes.  He is both "misunderestimated" and surrounded by cynical politicos--a 21st century reincarnation of Nixon and his White House staff.

No doubt, this is an oversimplification of the past 50 years of presidential elections.  However, it is obvious that the politics that Nixon epitomized--an us-against-them view of middle America--has been the dominant narrative since his election in 1968.

As the title to this post suggests, I think Barack Obama's election and re-election have ended Nixonland.  The combination of demographics, the disastrous impact of George W Bush's policies, and Obama's political talents have created a new dominant narrative.  This narrative is inclusive where Nixonland was divisive. It may not be as long-lasting as the New Deal consensus or Nixonland, but the landscape of presidential politics has changed.

If Romney and Ryan ran 7-Eleven

I agree with Paul Krugman that Romney/Ryan and the Republican party want to end Medicare.  Some people, including some reputable journalism organizations, say that is a lie.  But the plan they are putting forward for premium support (vouchers) will turn Medicare, which takes care of millions of seniors, into something that burdens all but the most wealthy seniors.   Of course, this is consistent with most of Romney's ideas.

The plan is equivalent to 7-Eleven giving you a 24-ounce cup filled only with 9 ounces of ice and saying it is a Big Gulp.

Money and meaning

There is a fascinating essay that appeared recently at the Harvard Business Review.   It asks what many of us often wonder--how do we keep our society's obsession with money from ruining the things we value.  And more importantly, how can those people who really add value to our lives be more fairly compensated so that we stop this mad rush to a winner-take-all economy.

Now I am a sports fan.  And I think Derek Jeter should make as much or more than a Wall Street CEO.  I know that very few people can hit a 95-mile-per-hour fastball 400 feet.  Almost any of us could ruin the economy.

Seriously, I understand that high-paid athletes are the best at what they do, have a small window to earn money from their talents, and compete in what is an almost truly free market.  So if billionaire owners want to pay them tens of millions of dollars a year, good for them.

However, we as tax payers should not participate in a broken market that values winning at sports more than making the world a better place.  I am thinking about this because the Nobel prizes are being announced this week.  So here is my simple proposal:

No single member of a coaching staff at a public university can earn more than the award for a Nobel Prize.  

Now I know that the money is not the important part of winning a Nobel.  Still, we are sending the wrong message to our students when we say we "value" a winning season more than an advance in physics or chemistry that will make all our lives better.

As citizens of a state (and some of my readers will, I hope, be legislators) we can demand this.  It won't solve the huge problem of trading money for meaning, but it is a start.

My mom is not a victim

One-third of the adults in my household don’t pay any federal income tax.

As those of you who heard me last year when I first entered the 5th District race may recall, my mom has an apartment in my wife’s and my home.  She is 78 and lives off Social Security.  I think she earned every penny of it.  

When I was in elementary school, my father lost his job and it took him several months to find a new one.  So my mom went to work.  She worked from 6 pm until 2 am.  She chose those hours so she would be home when my brother and I returned from school and could also sleep a few hours before seeing us off in the morning.  It couldn’t have been easy.  

Now, however, she doesn’t pay any federal income tax.  She is “dependent” on the government.  Or so we are told.  Well I say this not only because I love my mom but because I respect how she took responsibility for herself and her family 45 years ago:

Mitt Romney can take his candidacy and shove it.

Mose knows the 5th

When I read about the endorsement from former President Clinton, I heard yet another Mose Allison song playing in my head.

"Do you ever get the feeling you've been taken for a ride?
The bigs ones eat the little ones and there's no place left to hide.
Just don't drink the water, try not to breathe the air.
I'm not discouraged, I am not discouraged, but I'm getting there."

While still in the race I received some unsolicited feedback after the Cornwall debate from two women visiting from New York.  "We can't vote because we don't live here--but you were by far the best candidate during the debate."  Which made me think of what Mose sings:

"The best is supposed to come in first, but they're at the mercy of the worst."

So no matter who wins the Democratic primary tomorrow, I will be listening to the great philospher from Tippo:

"Stop this world, let me off.  There's just too many pigs in the same trough.  Too many buzzards sitting on the fence.  Stop this world, it ain't making sense."

My endorsement

Since there is only one week until the primary in the 5th district and I know quite a bit about the three Democratic candidates, it is time for me to provide some direction to all the folks who supported me at the convention.

Here is my take on the candidates (in alphabetic order to be fair).

Chris Donovan

1. He seems to be the most progressive/liberal candidate, though not as progressive as I am, so that is in his favor.  
2. However, there is no realistic way for him to escape the taint of the alleged corruption among his top staffers.  Any indication that he was involved will not only damage Mr. Donovan but the Democratic party.   
3. Also, while he is progressive, his campaign has not been nearly bold enough in its positions. 

Elizabeth Esty

1. She has many admirable traits--sincere, hard-working, thoughtful.
2. My main issue with Ms. Esty is that winning seems more important to her than making a difference.  It was a huge mistake not to commit to the "positive campaign" pledge that was proposed at the first debate.  People who served on multiple town committees, the first people each candidate had a chance to represent, asked for a positive campaign.  (Now I know that the campaign has been a study in hypocrisy.)  If a politician is not willing to take a position proposed by the people doing the hard work at the grass roots level, then that says something about how she will "represent" the district.  To me it says that political expediency is more important than listening to constituents.  
3. The fact that will be hardest for her to overcome--taking money from businesspeople her husband regulates--is reflective of the same mindset.  It would have been harder for her campaign to get a strong start with less money, but it would have been the right thing to do do refuse the money that caused the appearance of conflicted interests.  

Dan Roberti

1. I don't know where to start.
2. OK. Saying you wish a Super-Pac would not attack your opponents is laughable.  Especially when its donors number fewer than 10 folks all of whom you surely know.
3. Running a highly negative campaign after pledging to remain positive is what Repbulicans do.
4. Using "different" as a campaign theme for a campaign based on raising money and attacking fellow Democrats is the height of cynicism.  

All that being said, I want a Democrat to win this election.  And I want all Democrats to stop the madness that has caused three good people to do questionable things and try their best to diminish each other.  

While none of the candidates can change how they have raised money, any of them can commit to shut the revolving door.  

I will endorse whichever candidate pledges: "I will not, nor will any member of my staff, accept a job as a lobbyist or working with a lobbying firm for five years after the last day on the taxpayers' payroll."