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.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Saturday, January 5, 2013
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)