December 28, 2016--Boys Will Be Boys

Yesterday's political flap was tripped off by Barack Obama.

In a podcast interview with his former senior advisor, David Axelrod, alpha-male Obama claimed that if the Constitution allowed it, he could have beaten alpha-male Donald Trump and been elected to a third term.

God help us. We don't need any more Syrias, not that Trump and his national security team make me feel nationally secure.

In Obama's somewhat tortured words, he said--

I'm confident that if I--if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could have mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it. I know that in conversations that I've had around the country, even some people who disagree with me, they would say the vision, the direction that you point towards is the right one.

Help me out here with what the meaning of "it" is. But I do get the larger boast--that he could have whopped Trump's ass.

Trump, never one for subtlety but with an unusual touch of class, couldn't resist and with his small hands took up the challenge in a quick tweeted response--

President Obama says that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY!--jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.

But one thing Obama did get right--he acknowledged to Axelrod that Democrats are not effectively addressing the needs of working people. They're not doing a good job of communicating "that we understand why they're frustrated."

We're not there on the ground communicating not only the policy aspects of this, but that we care about these communities, that we're bleeding for these communities. . . . It means caring about local races, state boards or school boards and city councils and state legislative races, and not thinking that somehow a great set of progressive policies, that we present to the New York Times editorial board, will win the day.

I've been attempting to make this point here now for nearly two years but never managed to say it half as well as President Obama.

                                       

August 27, 2015--TRUMP: Swimsuit Competition

Barack Obama's former senior political advisor, the savvy David Axelrod, posted a clever Tweet on Tuesday.

Attempting to sum up the TRUMP phenomenon, especially TRUMP's continued surge in national and local polls, knowing that The Donald has owned the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, Axelord said--

"In a parlance Trump would appreciate: We're still in the swimsuit competition. It gets harder in the talent rounds."

Now, I don't know if TRUMP knows how to play the harmonica or can pull off a hula hoop routine, but so far he is looking good and I think will continue to widen his lead over all the other candidates because his talent may be the swimsuit competition.

Not talent of the sort traditional political strategists such as Axelrod respect and feel is essential to a candidate who wants to be taken seriously as a potential commander in chief.

Ditto for James Carville and Mary Matalin. On Morning Joe yesterday, when asked why TRUMP is doing so well they both in effect agreed with Axelrod--TRUMP's electoral balloon will burst soon because of his lack of substance. They both said that once the public begins to pay attention they will want to know his specific policies about the Middle East, strengthening the US economy, fixing the education system, balancing the budget. His shtick will wear thin, they say, and the public will discover that the emperor has no hair.

Or, if you will, there's no there there. Or that there's sizzle but no beef.

They failed to note that the public they claim is not yet paying attention to the campaign is turning out in droves for his appearances and the largest TV audience in history, 24 million, tuned in to the first Republican debate. Four years ago, the initial GOP debate was watched by 3.2 million. Eight times fewer.

The next thing we'll hear from old-school political analysts is that these numbers have little to do with TRUMP but reflect voters' deep interest in Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Oh really?

They don't get the fact that in addition to liking TRUMP's tell-it-like-it-is style (a quality that huge numbers of potential voters like to think they have), his can-do enthusiasm and optimism (Make America Great Again! is his campaign slogan), and his track record as a business man, a large part of TRUMP's appeal is that he seems to have just stepped out of a reality show.

In fact he did.

But beyond starring in The Apprentice for 11 years, he and his glittering family share many characteristics of the Kardashians. They are beautiful, smart, successful, comfortable with themselves, exhibitionistic, quirky, titillating, and intriguing in a Modern Family sort of way.

If you doubt this, wait until bionic wife Melania, extraterrestrial-looking daughter Ivanka, his three perfect boys, his second Daughter Tiffany (named after the store), and I suspect his previous two wives, Ivana and Marla Maples join him on the campaign trail. There hasn't been as glamorous a political family since the Kennedys.

This mix is very powerful political medicine in our celebrity-sodden culture.

Melania Trump

April 9, 2015--Running Against Washington

It is tempting to do so. Pretty much everyone thinks that "Washington" is broken and that to run against it as a presidential aspirant is a smart political idea.

Ronald Reagan did so successfully ("Government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem") as did Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. And now we have Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other Republicans proclaiming that they are outsiders (though at least two thus far are government employees, U.S. senators) and will either get the government to work, get it off our backs, or promise to do a combination of both.

I was reminded of this when reading, in The New York Review of Books, about David Axelrod's political memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

In 2008, in a debate before the New Hampshire primary Axelrod recalls Hillary Clinton, by implication criticizing Barack Obama, declaring that she had been fighting for change all her life and "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Axelrod, and through him his candidate, seeing the political opening, jumped on her claim that it is difficult to bring about real change. He writes--

I recognized the opportunity that Hillary handed us. She was too much a part of the system in Washington ever to change it--and without changing the politics in Washington, real solutions to big problems would never come.

This may be a good way to win nominations and even get elected but it is a terrible approach to governing.

Like it or not, if we are to have a government (and even Tea Party people want some government--their Medicare, their Social Security, their military, their border police, their courts, their jails, their tax cuts) the only way for it to function is through various forms of bipartisan deal making. Deals between the President, his (or her) administration, and Congress, whichever party controls it.

Hillary was right--you have to be part of our system to get anything done. Forget changing it. And maybe she'll get a chance to try to function the old fashioned way. She may be boring, less than likable, and past her prime, but when she was a senator she did work this way and was able to get quite a lot accomplished.

The three presidents who got more of their agenda approved than any of their successors (whether or not you like their policies) were able to figure out ways to work with Congress. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan. Privately, very privately, for the most part they expressed little respect for specific members much less the system itself. But they held their noses and figured out ways to work with Congress, including, if they could, through intimidation.

To get things done, the lessons of history suggest, those willing and adept at working the system do better than those who claim to be outsiders. It's not sexy but it works.