Politics: The Ugly Right

TORONTO, ONTARIO - A friend in Port Orford, Oregon sent me this story yesterday:

On Day One of president-elect Obama's "era," I strolled into the Port Orford post office, past two guys I do not know dressed as lumberjacks (around here, that is probably what they are), walking toward my box. It is a blustery, rainy day, so I had on my Irish walking hat (with two big Obama buttons adorning it) and, showing beneath the front flaps of my rain jacket, an Obama-Biden t-shirt.

I was lost in thought until one of the men said, in a falsetto voice, "I bet you're pretty much walking on air today, huh?"

Huh? I said to myself. "We shall see," I said aloud. "We shall see."

"Communist," said the other man.

"Wonder what the Good Tooth Fairy has in mind for us," said the first man as I, having emptied my mail box, walked back past them to the door, not saying a word and trying to contain my temper.

The looks on their two sneering, mocking faces -- working men in their '30s, in a little Oregon seaside town which went 349-163 for Obama -- were not pretty. They laughed derisively as I left the building.

Likely, these two men were of the same mentality that yelled "kill him" when Barack Obama was discussed by Republican Sarah Palin during the campaign. Likely, they booed at John McCain as he told them not to fear Obama during the campaign. Likely, they cheered as Sarah Plain claimed that Barack Obama did not represent "real America." Likely, they again booed John McCain during his concession speech when he called for the country to come together and referred to Obama as "my president."

An ugly characteristic of right-leaning people that make up the "base" of the Republican Party is that they do not respect people with different viewpoints. Too often, it goes beyond name-calling to direct calls for the eradication of opposition. Take this thread on the radio blog BlatherWatch, a site that often becomes political. Poster Obango included this:

A plurality of Obama supporters dislike, but don't disdain, McCain.

A plurality of McCain supporters disdain Obama.

I consider Barack Obama human slime and, frankly, a threat to national stability - I use the term "stability" vs. "security" with intent. I truly, honestly, have real hope that the brave men and women of the American armed forces will do what is necessary when it becomes necessary, as politically unpopular as it might seem at the time.

On other blogs, far more harsh words have been written, many threatening Obama's life. Had McCain been elected, I doubt a single serious threat would have been made against him. When liberals lose, they tend to pity the opposition for not understanding their viewpoint--often leaving them coming off as elitist and condescending to their opponents, but hardly a real threat.

I have personally been told by people of the mentality of the Republican "base" that I "had no right to live in the United States" and that I "was a greater threat to the future of the nation than a fundamentalist Muslim" because I claimed to be an atheist. Apparently they haven't even read the Constitution that they claim to hold so dearly.

Each of the major parties in the United States attracts votes from fringe groups with opinions that most of the rest of the country finds abhorrent. The difference right now is that the Republicans count people with the ugly attitude described in this post as their "base"--the people that volunteer for them--whereas the Democratic base at worst threatens a portion of the opposition's pocketbook (and even that's debatable). In this election, the Republicans nominated someone in John McCain who was not comfortable with the party's base. It showed in the tension between McCain and the crowds at his rallies, and, in the end, it raised enough questions about McCain for the general populace that he lost the election.

Yet, 46% of US voters, whether they voted for the same reasons as "the base" or not, voted the same way as the Republican base. For the rest of us, that's downright scary. For Barack Obama, as my friend in Port Orford put it:

That is a huge weight to carry, in addition to trying to pick up the pieces of what Bush has wrought.

Politics: Most Important Number is 46%

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The United States is wading through a tremendous amount of electoral data this morning. Some things are clear, such as Barack Obama being the president-elect, while others are extremely unclear, such as the Oregon and Minnesota senate races. Of all the numbers floating around, the one with the most significance may be the percentage of the popular vote won by John McCain--46%.

Much is being made of Barack Obama's percentage of the vote nationwide. Not since Lyndon Johnson in 1964--before the civil rights movement--has a Democrat gotten more than the 50.1% earned by Jimmy Carter in 1976; Bill Clinton only received 43% and 49% in his two victories. The election in a very real sense "feels" like a near-landslide, with Obama earning at least 349 electoral votes, probably 364 (if his current lead North Carolina result is certified), and the landslide line generally regarded as 375. However, the electoral college--for better or for worse--almost always amplifies a result to make it look it like the winner has more of a mandate than the vote total would suggest. That has happened in 2008, to a greater extent than some pundits had expected.

However, that underscores the problem with such analysis. Expectations are not relevant. The electoral college does elect the president, but it doesn't directly describe the decision made by voters for the purpose of understanding the national mood. The final vote totals do mean something. Barack Obama won with about 52% of the popular vote. That's a clear victory, but it pales compared with the 60% earned by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 or the 58% earned by Ronald Reagan in 1984.

John McCain won about 46% of the vote. Over 55 million people preferred him to Barack Obama. Despite the solid campaign run by Obama and the lackluster campaign run by McCain, despite the overwhelming anti-Republican mood of the electorate because of the economy, unpopular wars and an unpopular incumbent, despite a relatively-high 64% turnout, despite just about every factor favoring the Democrats, John McCain still made this a competitive contest. He lost, but he didn't lose by much--just like John Kerry didn't lose by much in 2004, and Al Gore didn't lose the popular vote in 2000.

So what? The Democrats in general and President-Elect Obama in particular need to understand that nearly half the country still doesn't trust them. All that rhetoric about reaching out to the other side needs to be followed up with action. Obama can't govern as if he had a mandate--the way George W. Bush did after 2000 and 2004--and expect to "bring the nation together" and gain further electoral success. Likely, Obama himself knows this, and his biggest problem will be convincing his congressional colleagues to be more centrist. Obama cannot govern from the left and expect to be a popular or great president. The country is still centrist, arguably still center-right, and he needs to demonstrate that that's where he's coming from--perhaps most urgently not to the public, but to the Democratic leadership in Congress.

One way that Obama undoubtedly will make such overtures is by appointing Republicans to his cabinet--maybe even more than the token amount selected by recent presidents. I would suggest that Obama make an especially bold move and talk to John McCain himself about being the Secretary of Defense.

For all the ugliness of the campaign, John McCain has tried to rise above it at times. Despite the negative response he received from his supporters, he has repeatedly stated that Barack Obama is an honorable American, a worthy opponent. The epitome of this side of McCain came last night in his concession speech, in which he directly addressed the historic nature of the election and called on his supporters to offer "our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited."

After that speech, many left-wing commentators on blogs asked the question "Where was that McCain during the campaign?" It was there the whole time, in moments like the ones in which he excoriated his supporters for disparaging Obama. Recall that McCain's personality type makes him inclined to get angry, and then get over it quickly. So, while he could go through periods where he seemed angry at Obama and referred to him as "that one," this was not inconsistent with his more conciliatory moments. Both are the real McCain, but the anger can always be counted on to pass.

Obama could demonstrate an understanding of McCain's strength of life experience, in particular in military matters, by reaching out to McCain about the position of Secretary of Defense. For a president who is clearly weak in military matters, it would drastically improve his credibility. It would be a very significant symbolic act of entering a period of "new politics," and it would reassure the 46% of Americans that voted for McCain that Obama wasn't going to ignore them. Some might say that Obama and McCain have positions that are too different to ever be working toward the same goals--but considering that President Bush and President-Elect Obama seem to have essentially the same policy about withdrawing from Iraq, and that Obama and McCain's positions on Afghanistan aren't that different, is the gap really that large? Furthermore, even if McCain himself wasn't interested, asking McCain to recommend a Secretary of Defense could serve a very similar purpose.

I doubt Barack Obama will take my advice and reach out to John McCain, and I doubt John McCain would accept the position if it was offered to him. McCain will likely serve until he retires as a Republican senator from Arizona with significant national standing, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, while we're still in a dream state after the election, before the "honeymoon period" disappears, why not imagine it for a moment? An African-American as president once seemed just as unlikely.

Margin Notes: Campaign, Travel

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I doubt it means much, and of course Nate Silver has a statistical explanation on fivethirtyeight.com why it doesn't mean anything, but I sure would not have predicted that Dixville Notch, New Hampshire would vote 15-6 for Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in the US presidential race. Dixville Notch hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1968, and John McCain has been popular in the Granite State--indeed the state has been instrumental in every McCain presidential comeback, most notably in the 2000 and 2008 primaries. Don't want Dixville Notch to be predictive? Get out and vote!

* * * * * *


A McCain sign had been nearly blown over by the wind in Red Bluff, California on 3-November-2008

If Dixville Notch does turn out to be predictive, the above image may be symbolic of this election day. Noted in a residential area of Red Bluff, California on Monday, this McCain-Palin sign was barely vertical at all. Wind and rain had battered it nearly level with the ground--much as the McCain campaign may be blown away by votes for Barack Obama.

* * * * * *


Yes, that's a cat walking with a guardian and two canine companions in Montague, Jefferson State on 1-November-2008

Then again, if John McCain pulls off an upset today, I will be saying that the above scene was a sign. A cat was noted walking with a pair of dogs and their guardian (pets don't have "owners" in California) through the streets of the small town of Montague in Jefferson State on 1-November-2008. When cats go for walks with dogs, anything can happen.

* * * * * *


This barn next to Interstate 5 south of Yreka, California claimed to be in Jefferson State on 1-November-2008

Jefferson State, you ask? Much of northern California and southern Oregon would like to be a separate state of Jefferson. The article on Wikipedia does a nice job of explaining the movement, and I was reminded of it every time I tuned in Jefferson Public Radio over the weekend.

* * * * * *

Artists in Quebec may be one of the most potent political forces in North America. A YouTube video criticizing arts funding began the Conservative Party's decline in Quebec in Canada's recent federal election, and now a pair known as the "Masked Avengers" at Montreal's CKOI 96.9 FM have added to questions about Sarah Palin's competence. In a prank interview that Sébastien Trudel and Marc-Antoine Audette took four days to line up, Audette pretended to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy. A video of the prank call has been posted to YouTube, and it rather speaks for itself. Americans may legitimately miss falsehoods about Canada thrown in by the "Masked Avengers," but there were still plenty of clues that it wasn't for real that Palin seemed to miss entirely. If only Sarah Palin were as funny as Monty Python cast member Michael Palin.

* * * * * *

It's now official. Ontario is a "have-not" province, set to receive $347 million in equalization payments. It's more symbolic than economically significant, amounting to less than $40 per capita, but a huge continuous swath of Canada with 71% of its population, from Manitoba to Prince Edward Island, now has "have-not" status. One might think this would be a big deal to the government, but with its power base in "have" Alberta and the opposition's base in Ontario, nothing is likely to happen.

* * * * * *

Don't ask me to explain gas prices. I couldn't find a price below $2.95 a gallon anywhere in Siskiyou County, California on Saturday and Sunday, so I drove back to Red Bluff, California before filling up. There, I found multiple gas stations offering up 87 unleaded at $2.28 a gallon. For Canadians, at today's exchange rate that's about C$0.70 per liter. If this makes sense to anyone else, please post a comment. Is demand that low in Red Bluff?

* * * * * *

I am publicly calling on Air Canada to switch their US code share partnership with United Airlines to fellow Star Alliance member US Airways. I have avoided United Airlines for several years because of exceptionally poor customer service on several trips culminating with having to sleep at Chicago's O'Hare Airport with no compensation after a pilot arbitrarily diverted a flight to Milwaukee. There was no way to fly out of Sacramento on Air Canada without having a United codeshare flight so I decided to take a risk. That was a horrible idea. About two-thirds of United flights in and out of Sacramento on Monday were delayed (compared with no delays on any other airline in the terminal), and my original itinerary had to be changed since there was no way I would make my connection. I ended up on a three-hour delayed flight into United's San Francisco hub, then had a seven-hour wait for a red-eye to Toronto. Furthermore, my suitcase was damaged beyond repair on the trip--after I paid $15 for the privilege of having it transported. US Airways is hardly one of the world's premier airlines, but my experience--especially but not exclusively on the former America West part of its system--is that they at least seem to be trying and actually follow through with customer service. US Airways employees usually smile at me, unlike United employees that almost never do. Until Air Canada switches codeshare partners, I will be taking Southwest/WestJet itineraries to places like Sacramento.

* * * * * *

I expected that the leaves would substantially be off the trees upon my return to Toronto, but this morning, I found a reasonable amount of color remaining on the trees. That was a pleasant surprise!

Politics: Voting for Women

RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA - Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Gold Bug Quilters Guild in Diamond Springs, California (near Placerville). The unusual thing about it was that of the about fifty people in attendance, I was the only male. Invited by my great aunt and her daughter, I was able to contrast how the meeting was different than historical society meetings, which tend to be gender balanced, and railroad club meetings, which tend to be male dominated. Had I planned to study such a contrast, I couldn't have picked a better night.

The group's main annual event, a quilt show, was in upheaval because of a volunteer shortage and the President's handling of this announcement was infused with humor, persuasion, and appeals for everyone's suggestions and opinions. I simply can't imagine a male-run organization being so concerned with getting everyone's position even on a major topic--at most, perhaps there would be a vote on which the majority would rule. The bulk of the meeting was actually an auction to raise money for the group. On more than one occasion, I observed people talking to each other to find out what each wanted in a multi-item lot and various deals cut to not out-bid one another and still get what each really wanted. Any such cooperation amongst a group of men would be the exception, rather than the rule it seemed to be in this group.

I don't like to draw gender stereotypes as I know plenty of women that would fit in culturally just fine at a railroad group meeting and, despite being a male, I rather liked how the Gold Bug Quilters Guild operated; if I were a quilter, I would fit in just fine. But, on this eve of Election Day, the experience underscored why I have a bias toward female candidates in any election.

All other things being equal--which they never are--I would rather have the focus on cooperation and inclusion of everyone's opinion in our legislative bodies which was observed at the Quilters' Guild. Instead, we usually get political brinksmanship, power plays, and punitive measures--stereotypical male behaviors. In a time when the US congress is so ideologically divided, it desperately needs the stereotypically female behaviors.

I end up voting for plenty of men in races which are a male candidate against a female candidate, but I admit that largely because of the above factor, I am biased toward female candidates. When I start reading a voter's guide on a race with which I am not completely familiar, I look for reasons that I shouldn't be voting for a woman (which are sometimes found), whereas I generally look for reasons to vote for a man in the first place.

The United States is still pathetic in female representation, with less than 15% of either the house or the senate made up of women. Even in the so-called Year of the Woman (1992), only four women were elected to move the overall Senate makeup to 6% female.

It's something to think about when going to polls tomorrow.

Politics: Neoconservatives Should Want to Lose

DUNSMUIR, CALIFORNIA - I'm not saying that John McCain or Sarah Palin have given up. I'm not saying that the Republican Party should just yield this election. But it is rather hard not to escape the conclusion that the neoconservatives have come so close to achieving their goals that it is actually better for their objectives to have John McCain lose this election.

On the surface, it might appear that conservative ideas have been repudiated soundly by the current financial crisis and that this election will confirm that by sending them to the proverbial woodshed. But, take a closer look at what some of the neoconservatives wanted to do, at least on the domestic front. Grover Norquist famously stated that he wanted government so small that it could be "drowned in a bathtub," that it would be impossible for it to do anything to control people's lives. They basically wanted government to be impotent.

Thanks to the financial crisis, it likely will be no matter what an Obama administration tries to do. Even with increased taxes on the rich, there simply isn't the money to try to expand government programs in the way that Obama has promised during the campaign. Moderator Jim Lehrer tried to point this out during the very first debate, asking each candidate how their priorities or timelines might have to change as a result of economic conditions. Neither candidate offered much of an answer, but this was a more serious problem for Obama, since he had more promises placed in jeopardy, not the least of which was his health care proposal.

If an Obama administration can't live up to its promises--or worse yet lives up to the stereotype of being a tax-and-spend administration without an unquestionable economic turnaround--then the Republicans can simply run against that record in two and four years. People will have forgotten their anger at the Republicans if they have much more recent anger with the Democrats.

Furthermore, it appears that the Democrats will have no excuse. If the Democrats control the White House and both branches of Congress, as currently appears likely, anything that does or does not happen will be their fault. The Republicans will be perceived to have no responsibility whatsoever, no matter if the root of the problem came during the early Bush administration when the Republicans themselves controlled Congress. All voter dissatisfaction will be taken out on the Democrats--a scenario seen before in 1994.

Even on the foreign policy front, where the empire-oriented, go-it-alone attitude of the neoconservatives might well be coming to an end for at least four years, the neoconservatives may have actually won. Polls still show that while a majority of US voters may want to withdraw from Iraq, those same polls show that John McCain's calls to win first are preferred to the controlled Obama withdrawal. McCain simply hasn't been able to make this issue rise to the top of things that voters are thinking about as they make a decision in the presidential race. That's very different than rejecting neoconservative principles. In a different political environment in future elections, it is entirely possible that a candidate might be able to campaign on a neoconservative foreign policy platform and attract voters.

Indeed, there seems almost no downside to the neoconservative cause for the Republicans to lose this election. They get no further blame for the aftermath of their own mess, and they will get the future benefit of all anger with what may be coming. The number of people that believe in neoconservative principles may actually have a chance to grow.

The Republicans may suffer a significant loss on Tuesday. I'm not so certain that the neoconservative cause will.

Radio Pick: Dr. Dean Edell on Halloween

DUNSMUIR, CALIFORNIA - This week's weekly radio pick comes from the Dr. Dean Edell Show.

While heading in to the Bay Area on Friday, I had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Dean Edell live on his flagship station, KGO Newstalk 810. While his affiliate list may be bolstered by being in a package with Rush Limbaugh, there is no question that Edell stands on his own as a very listenable host who handles callers well. Friday's show demonstrated how Edell can build topical interest to medicine through tie-ins with Halloween, and how he can handle esoteric questions from a caller in his 53-minute program. Dr. Dean Edell represents the best of specialized-topic commercial talk radio.

Listen to streaming MP3 of Dr. Dean Edell "Halloween"

Margin Notes: Changes, Gas, FM, Obama

DUNSMUIR, CALIFORNIA - Don't try to tell me that the world is getting better. This week, there were announcements of the end of the daily edition of the Christian Science Monitor newspaper, the complete closing of the Mervyn's department store chain, and the merger of Northwest Airlines into Delta Airlines. I will miss each of them.

* * * * *

Once upon a time in the 1990's, I seem to recall that Arco stations generally had the lowest gas prices in California. Not anymore. At least where I looked in Placerville and Willows, the Chevron station had the cheapest gas, and prices clearly continue to fall as I have yet to pay more than $2.73 per gallon. For Canadians, that's currently about C$0.88 per liter.

* * * * *

The move from the AM band to the FM band has now started amongst CBS newsradio stations. I discovered today that San Francisco's KCBS All-News 740, in my opinion the best commercial newsradio station in the English-speaking world, is now simulcast on 106.9 FM, the one-time classic hits KFRC-FM. The simulcast apparently started on Monday.

* * * * *

I had never driven on I-5 in California north of Gerber before today, but I had been in the back seat on it so many times in the past that it was rather nostalgic to head for the old railroad town of Dunsmuir today. Passing such places as Arbuckle--which inspired a middle school-era essay on how to approach train spotting--and exit signs with unique names like "Auction Yard Road" and "Turntable Bay Road" brought back memories of past trips between California and the Pacific Northwest.

* * * * *

I would like to provide a type feature on Barack Obama to parallel the piece on John McCain yesterday. However, there is controversy about what Obama's type actually is. Everyone seems to agree that he displays both "emotional" world and "thinking" world traits. So, regardless of why he shows these behaviors, it's not hard to see why he seems more attractive than someone from the comparatively-foreign "physical" world. In an "emotional"-world United States, the "emotional" traits would be familiar, and the "thinking"-world traits would generally balance the "emotional" traits and thus be attractive.

* * * * *

Would you rather vote for an animal than any of the candidates on your ballot? It's too bad you probably don't live in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky, where a dog was elected mayor. As a fund raiser for their local historical society, it's actually possible to donate on-line and vote for a successor, with the majority of the candidates being canines, but there's a cat and a donkey listed as well as a human. Funny, Tim Eyman seems to be missing from the list--I guess animal body parts aren't allowed.