Politics: Greenwald Portends the Right

TORONTO, ONTARIO - On the busiest travel day of the year, pretty much every program that I listen to, short form or long form, news, talk, or entertainment, American, Canadian or British, brings up the topic of the new invasive security procedures at airports in the United States. If I hear one more comment using the word "junk" I think I will go crazier than those personally assaulted by the procedures.

The media boom surrounding this story is remarkable. At the beginning of the month, right after the election, Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald seemed like a lone voice on the topic. In a speech in Madison, Wisconsin (available on-line), Greenwald framed the civil liberties debate somewhat differently than I had heard before. He made the case that civil liberties were a well-defined thing that it doesn't take a lawyer to explain. On the other hand, terrorism is fundamentally an undefinable thing to the point that just about anyone can be considered a terrorist from some warped frame of mind, and pretty much any terrorist could be considered a patriot from a different warped perspective. Greenwald's point was that it is insane to give up a definable quantity, civil liberties, in order to prevent an undefinable quantity, terrorism.

While that expression of the idea resonated with me, it didn't attract much media attention--a friend who reads the on-line magazine had to point me to Greenwald's speech. Instead, what resonated with the media was the video taken of a libertarian's encounter with the Transportation Security Administration in San Diego, in which he ends up accusing them of sexually assaulting him. Everybody has seen that now, along with even more offensive tales of stripped seven year-olds, punctured urine bags, and removed prosthetic breasts.

All of the sudden, instead of the far-left like Greenwald talking about the topic, the same anger that fueled the fiscal-oriented TEA parties is leading the charge from the right. Dave Ross of CBS has even suggested that TEA now stands for "Touched Enough Already" instead of "Taxed Enough Already." The rational amongst us are asking why Israeli-style security has not been implemented, and the irrational are calling for protests to slow down security lines.

Sometimes, the far left and far right both go so far that they meet. In this case, though, the discontent is pretty much universal across the political spectrum. It's only a matter of time before these security measures are dropped, or the Obama administration can forget about ever being re-elected.

Politics: Brilliant Branding

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the early months of 2010, political pundits really didn't know what to make of the TEA party. While the basic ideas underlying the movement were clear, it wasn't clear how much money would be involved, what kind of candidates they would back, or if they would have any actual electoral impact at all in a country that has had a two-party system for essentially its entire existence. There seemed only two long-term possibilities, (1) having its ideas subsumed by the Republican Party (as suggested on this blog), the only major party that it had anything in common with, or (2) replacing the Republican Party as the second party with the Democrats remaining the other party. There was plenty of precedent for the first (in my lifetime, most prominently both major parties taking deficit reduction seriously in the 1990's because of Ross Perot's Reform Party influence), and some precedent for the second possibility (the Whigs being replaced by the Republicans).

Now, it seems pretty clear what will happen, which could be described as a hybrid of the above possibilities. By mostly running as Republicans, using the Republican Party electoral apparatus, the TEA Party movement has not only changed the effective ideology of the Republican Party at large, but seems to be in the process of replacing it from within. The two party system has won again, and yet another "third party" possibility is no longer independent, but an integral part of one of the two parties. It may take an election cycle or more for the process to be complete, but the merger of the TEA party and the Republican party seems inevitable.

The electoral brilliance of the TEA Party is clear. Severe political damage was done by the George W. Bush administration to two brands: the political name "Bush" (nobody's talking about Jeb Bush running for anything for now), and the Republican Party. As badly as the Democratic Party is generically polling right now as the party in power during poor economic times, the Republican Party is still polling just as badly, little improved from 2008. (In fact, the latest Gallup Poll has them tied at 44% favorability, well under historical ratings.)

By re-branding conservative ideas as "TEA Party" ideas instead of "Republican Party" ideas, the baggage of the Republican brand is side-stepped, and people can get enthusiastic about it. Especially in a culture in which marketing is far more important than substance, even people that might think that "Republican" ideas didn't work can support "TEA Party" ideas, even when they are economically indistinguishable.

I would go so far as to say that the Republicans ought to seriously consider re-naming themselves formally, though it's too late to do so for the November elections. Even if in the future they ultimately tack back to the political center (which seems inevitable in the long-term), having a fresh brand will imply fresh ideas even when their ideas could otherwise be described as less than fresh. Furthermore, they could also set up a re-launch of the "classic Republican" brand at some point in the future, when they might need to distance themselves from the current era.

Somehow, I suspect the minds behind the right-wing are way ahead of me, just like they were on the TEA Party.

Politics: Didier, Perot, and the Tea Party

KENNEWICK, WASHINGTON - Media in Washington's largest city, Seattle, seemed surprised to find out last weekend that the passion in the Republican Senate race here is behind Clint Didier, not Dino Rossi. Rossi, who has performed strongly in two straight governor races (some say he actually won in 2004 and think the recount was fraudulent), entered the race against incumbent Democrat Patty Murray late, and is the only potential Republican nominee to poll competitively with Murray--some polls have even shown him ahead. Thus, the talking heads considered him a shoo-in for the nomination.

These people obviously haven't been east of the Cascade mountains lately. There are Clint Didier signs everywhere, and I haven't seen more than a handful of Rossi signs. The professional athlete-turned farmer-turned politician seems to be the darling of eastern Washington, and while I hardly take up politics with everyone I meet, I've yet to hear anyone have a bad word to say about him here. He claims Rossi is part of the establishment that needs to be removed from government. Former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has endorsed him, and he won't talk to the mainstream media, in particular Seattle media, though his web site leaves little doubt where he stands on issues--he is a classic Tea Party candidate.

I recognized some of the patterns of Didier's support from the time I last lived here in the Tri-Cities, in 1996. Then, during a presidential race ultimately resulting in the re-election of Bill Clinton, this area was a stronghold of support for independent candidate Ross Perot. I was amazed at the depth of feeling about Perot here; supporters felt even the Republican party stood for too much government, never mind the Democrats, and they wanted Ross Perot to change how government worked, to make it more like the businesses they knew. In many ways, the Tea Party movement had already started here as a big libertarian streak in the Perot movement.

The support for the Tea Party and Clint Didier is especially interesting in the Tri-Cities because incumbent Murray has basically single-handedly saved the local economy by ensuring funding for activities on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. A number of people here are in jobs that would not exist had Senator Murray not secured funding.

Of course, with Washington's "top two" primary system, only two candiates will advance to the general election, regardless of party. Senator Murray seems a shoo-in to earn one of those slots. Whether the Tea Party enthusiasm for Clint Didier will prevail over the conventional wisdom and electability in the form of Dino Rossi remains to be seen. However, that electability concern seems large in this race--while Rossi has a clear chance to unseat Murray, I have yet to see a poll in which Didier even comes close. Washington state may be another state where a Tea Party-supported candidate costs the Republians a chance to defeat an incumbent Democrat.

Culture: Watch for Rising Violent Crime

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The "TEA" (standing for "Taxed Enough Already?") party movement in the United States is largely seen as having political consequences. It may elect specific candidates (some would say Scott Brown in Massachusetts), it may push the Republican Party to the right (remember the Congressional election in New York's 23rd District?), and it may lead to a radical shift in Congressional makeup this fall. What may be even more relevant to the average person is that it likely portends an increase in violent crime.

Some analysts were quite surprised when the murder rate in the United States did not appreciably rise when the recession took hold. Violent crime rates were thought by some to be mostly correlated to economic status; the more people seemed to have invested in a job and their general economic situation, the less likely they would be to resort to violence. However, that correlation doesn't seem to hold up, including in the recent period when unemployment and insecurity went up, and the murder rate and other violent crime statistics did not.

In researching his recent book, American Homicide, Ohio State professor Randolph Roth found instead that the correlation was with belief in government and trust of fellow citizens. As long as those two elements are in place, poverty and unemployment don't seem to matter, and neither do incarceration rates or tough-on-crime policies. If people trust the people around them and trust their government to act in their best interests, they don't seem to resort to violence.

In a recent CBC interview I've mentioned before, Roth pointed out that the effect might explain why the United States is so much more violent than its northern neighbour, with more than double the murder rate. Canadians generally trust their government--and their fellow Canadians--while those south of the border do not.

So, when Barack Obama was being viewed positively and talked about entering a post-racial era, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators didn't matter so much, the murder rate still went down. Now that the "TEA" Party is raising ire at government, we can expect it will go back up again.

What I find interesting is that Roth has gotten so little media attention for research that is intellectually interesting, correlated with other researchers in Europe, and potentially has a clear lesson to learn. Why not? Because the media makes money from people getting mad at government. It's good business to keep things the way they are--and that may be the most disturbing thing about Roth's findings.

Politics: Lots of Anger All Around

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Using talk radio as a barometer never leads to an accurate view of the electorate, but I've been struck in recent weeks by the continued anger being expressed by callers to talk shows of all political persuasions in the United States. From KUOW's "The Conversation" (usually drawing left-wing Seattleite callers) to the syndicated Glenn Beck Program (usually drawing those far on the right), people are calling in expressing anger toward the Federal government. It may have peaked during the revelations about the bonuses paid to executives of AIG, but it hasn't subsided much.

On the left, there's anger that the Obama administration has sold out to corporations and isn't using government power enough, and that it isn't different enough from the Bush administration in foreign policy. While public figures on the left like columnist David Sirota and economist Paul Krugman have been pretty calm if clear in their criticisms, callers to talk shows have not. I've been surprised at the number of left-wing callers to talk shows saying that they wish they had not voted for Obama, and that they were already disappointed and--yes--angry with him, usually for his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, but also over the economy. Even a month ago, these callers were rare; they are rapidly becoming the left-wing mainstream.

On the right, the anger is all-encompassing. People are echoing the opinion of talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh that the nation is threatened by socialism as embodied by the Obama administration. Some actually fear the government, leading in part to a run on both weapons and ammunition sales that started the day Obama was elected and still continues to this day according to a report on NPR's All Things Considered today. Listening to right-wing callers to shows like Limbaugh's, the reaction is visceral to anything the Obama administration does, whether it is bailing out a financial institution, orchestrating the removal of the CEO of General Motors, or Obama himself giving a speech to a foreign audience--it's ruining the country.

The right-wing movement is coalescing into what are anticipated to be enormous rallies on Tax Day, April 15th, which according to their organizing web site will be taking place all over the country. One of the prominent Tea Party backers, talk show host Glenn Beck, has been so over-the-top that he has even drawn a brilliant parody from Stephen Colbert. Yet, listen to callers to the talk shows, and Beck seems like a downright moderate.

The promise of the Obama administration was that it would go beyond the "red state versus blue state" dynamic of the past decade. With the anger upwelling on both sides, either this is the first step toward achieving that goal as people express their emotions, or it's the beginning of the evidence that the endeavor is utterly impossible because they can't get over those emotions. As always, time will tell.