POSTING #11

Some Thoughts on the US Presidential Election and on the Republican Convention

The weekend after the Republican Convention, our wives were at a dinner meeting of the University Women’s Club so the Guru and I decided to try Niagara-on-the-Lake’s newest restaurant, The Garrison House, just off Highway 55, south of the Old Town.

We had started with heirloom tomato soup (rich, creamy---superb!) and were looking forward to our entrees. The Guru had chosen the “Free range chicken and Cumbrae farms ham Pie with tavern chips” while I had selected “Ontario lamb shepherd’s pie with whipped Yukon gold potato, aged cheddar and local vegetable sauté”.

“What’s your theory about why Romney chose Ryan?”, I asked.

“Romney had no choice. It was a bad summer for him. If he had chosen a more moderate person, such as Portman or Palenty, the gap between him and Obama in electoral vote forecasts would have continued to widen. He knew that choosing Ryan would excite the base of the GOP and might win some support from independents.”

“But Ryan has baggage such as his budget that rewards the wealthy, his proposal to voucherize Medicare, and his extreme views on social issues. Do you think Romney saw this as a Hail Mary pass?”

“I think so, just as McCain saw the choice of Palin as a Hail Mary play. But I think there is more to it than that. I feel that Romney certainly hopes that Ryan will help him win the White House but if he loses in November---despite Paul---he has a backup plan that I call the Samson and Delilah Demolition Plan.”

“You are going to have to explain that Plan to me.”

“I think that deep down Romney is incensed at the GOP and what I call the Coalition of the Crazies that now runs it. I am sure he feels that if he could have run as a moderate Republican---as he did in Massachusetts in 2002 to win the governorship---he could have beaten Obama easily, given the severe economic problems that followed the 2007-2008 financial crisis. But to win the GOP primary he had to adopt extreme positions embraced by the Coalition of the Crazies---on taxes, deficits, debts, and a whole host of social/cultural issues--- positions that have made him unpopular with independents and other voters. He has continued to follow the dictates of the Coalition by, for example, choosing Ryan, and by endorsing and even repeating outright lies about Obama’s actions on Welfare and Medicare.”

“The lies have puzzled me” I cut in. “In the past candidates have kept their hands clean, letting surrogates spread lies like the allegations that McCain had fathered a black child in the 2000 GOP primary contest. Why would Romney and Ryan lie about things that can be fact-checked so easily?”

“Well”, the Guru responded, “Remember that the Coalition of the Crazies claimed that one of the reasons McCain lost to Obama in 2008 was because he wouldn’t lie about Obama’s birth and religion. So Romney has faithfully followed the dictates of the Crazies.”

“So, if I understand your analogy, you are saying that just as Delilah weakened Samson by cutting his hair, the Crazies have weakened Romney by forcing him into indefensible policy positions.”

“By god he’s got it! You are quick. And then what did Samson do? As soon as his hair had regrown he pulled down the temple killing his enemies, and (of course) himself. I believe that Romney’s thinks that if he is defeated even though he has done everything the Crazies demand, his failure will in effect demolish or at least weaken the Coalition of the Crazies. This will allow the adult Republicans to retake control of the Grand Old Party”

“And this sacrifice by Mitt”, I said, “will mean that future Republican candidates, perhaps even one of the Romney sons, will be able to run without having to subscribe to irrational and irresponsible policy positions.”

“Exactly! And it will mean that Washington will once again be able to work---that compromise won’t be a dirty word.”

“I think you make a good point, even though the Samson and Delilah analogy is a bit of a stretch but then as Aristotle said ‘All analogies break down at some point’.

“OK, perhaps I did stretch that analogy a bit. Let me try a bit of irony on you. Isn’t it ironic that it is the Greedoholics--- the people who like Romney belong to the 1%--- who have financed the Coalition of the Crazies? Romney is being defeated by the actions of some of the members of his own class. Now isn’t that a fine bit of irony?”

“It is indeed. By the way, is Romney a Greedoholic in your view?”

 “I think he is, even though some of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, such as Romneycare, are laudable. But, look, he has never seen a tax exception or dodge that he didn’t like---if he were elected he would be the first Tax-Avoider-in-Chief. And some of his decisions at Bain Capital were similar to those taken by Greedoholics in the coal, oil, gas and other industries that have pushed their own financial interests without any regard for the impact on the economic and financial health of the nation, or its effect on workers or the environment.”

The server slid our entrees in front of us and we spent the next few minutes enjoying the delicious food.

When we had finished, I said--- a little hesitantly, “You have been talking about the possibility of an Obama landside but here we are at the end of August and the national polls of voter intentions are showing that the two men are virtually tied. Are you worried that there may not be a landslide, and that instead Romney may be able to defeat Obama?”

“If presidents were elected by the popular vote, I would be a little worried but since they are chosen by the Electoral College, I am not. Nate Silver’s forecasts of the Electoral College votes in the New York Times show Obama with a good lead after the GOP Convention---around 307 votes to Romney’s 230, with 270 needed to win. The numbers will bounce around a bit but I still think a landslide of 330 is possible for Obama.”

“So you don’t think the GOP Convention helped Romney?’ I asked.

“As I watched it I kept thinking of Tennessee Williams’ line spoken by Big Daddy in ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’: ‘Didn't you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?’.  That described the auditorium in Tampa perfectly. Everyone was lying. Take Paul Ryan’s speech. He looked like an altar boy but he lied like those priests that denied molesting children. And all those lies that he and Romney have been telling about Welfare, Medicare, Obama’s view of small business etc. are going to come back to haunt Romney.”

“And then there are Ryan’s lies about marathons. Unbelievable!”

“It is clear”, the Guru said, “that the Obama team will focus on those lies during the Democratic convention and in speeches and advertising leading up to the debates, suggesting that persons who will lie about these important programs cannot be trusted with the White House. And then when we get to the debates, Romney will have to deal not just with the lies but with questions about the release of his tax returns, with his actions at Bain, and with his and Ryan’s budgets. I suppose it is possible that he will be so glib that some voters will believe that these are not important but I wouldn’t bet on it. I think he is hoist on his own petard. You know, I use that expression often but I am not sure of its origin. Can the Professor help me?”

“Any time”, I said. "You know of course that Shakespeare used the expression in Hamlet. The word ‘petard’ comes from the French verb ‘peter’, which means to break wind, or in good Anglo-Saxon, to fart. A petard was a 16th century bomb, a metal casing stuffed with 4 or 5 pounds of black powder. It was used to blow up gates and walls when one was trying to get into a castle or other fortification. The person lighting the bomb could be killed if the fuse burned too quickly, or if there were a blowback from the explosion. In that case, the bomber would be ‘hoist on his own petard’. Does that help you?”

“It is always good to have a professor around! No, but getting back to the presidential race, I would still bet that Obama is going to win, and handily.”

We then ordered our desserts---we both chose the summer berry pudding, and an excellent choice it was! --- and coffee.

Over the coffee, we had a discussion on the future of employment in the US and Canada.

The Guru knew I had been writing something on employment and he asked me to give him an outline of what’s in my paper.

 “Everyone knows that the job market is changing with mind-blowing speed. Unskilled, semi-skilled and even skilled jobs are being killed by mechanical and digital technology and by competition from abroad. Young people can no longer expect to spend a career at ‘the steel company’, ‘the car company’, ‘the bank’ or ‘the telephone company’ earning a good income and retiring with a generous pension. And young people are responding. I know a fellow who is a pipefitter at a refinery but is also a registered massage therapist and the owner of a lawn sprinkler company that employs a couple of people.”

“Wise fellow”, the Guru smiled, “he has a few parachutes that should protect him against whatever changes the future will bring.”

“But at the higher end of the job market”, I continued, “Job opportunities are better, at least for the moment. We both have friends whose children with good degrees in engineering, business, mathematics, the sciences that are doing well, some working in places like Dubai, Frankfurt and Singapore.”

“Those distances make it hard to enjoy the grandkids!”

“And through it all, despite the great increases in productivity, nations are growing more slowly. One of the reasons is that the 1% is being allowed to keep more for itself, depriving the 99% of income that they could use to spend on goods and services. And also robbing the ‘public goods’, such as health, education, police and fire security, a healthy environment with clean air and water, public transportation, affordable accommodation and so on. In many ways, the situation is worse, at least in the US, than in 1958 when Galbraith published his ‘The Affluent Society’ in which he decried the growing private wealth and public squalor.”

The Guru nodded, “As we expect the coming generations to be more flexible and more enterprising, it seems to me that it is essential that society focus more on the public goods that provide them with a launching pad into life and into the world of work. In that connection, can I just say that I hate ‘gated communities’ because they say that some people get to live in safe havens while the rest are left to try to survive in the midst of lawlessness. How can you raise and teach kids when the streets aren’t safe? We shouldn’t need ‘gated communities’, the whole community should be safe. And we shouldn’t need bottled water, and soon, if air pollution keeps up, bottled oxygen.”

“I couldn’t have said it better myself!”

“But at the same time”, the guru continued, “It is essential that these public goods are delivered with more and more efficiency. I know we can find more efficient and effective ways of teaching our children, policing our streets, of protecting our environment and so on. Governments have to work with employees and their unions to find ways that we can do more with less.”

“I agree. In connection with teaching, I’ve been hearing good things about the Kahn Academy that Bill Gates is funding in a big way.”

After we had paid our bills and asked the server to congratulate the chef for the superb food, the Guru smiled, “I think, if we know what’s good for us, we better come back here soon with our wives.”

“The sooner the better”, I said.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.

POSTING #10

More Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

The summer drought of 2012 has been hard on Niagara’s vineyards, and this has meant much more irrigation than normal.

A few evenings ago the Guru asked if I could give him a hand connecting pipes and hoses and setting up a giant sprinkler that would shoot a fire-hose-like stream of water high into the air over his rows of grapes.

After we had adjusted the flow and direction of the water, we sat in lawn chairs, drank coffee and chatted until it was time to move the sprinkler.

I asked him if he had had any second thoughts about his prediction of a possible landslide for President Obama in November.

“You said there was a 35% chance of a landslide. By the way, a reader who had read my Posting #9 wrote in to ask whether you meant a landslide in the popular vote or in the Electoral College vote. I assumed you meant the latter but I should clarify that in my next Posting.”

“No, you’re right. I was talking about the Electoral College vote. In 2008 Obama had a huge landslide in the College with 365 votes, well above the 277 required to elect a president. He did that with only 52.9% of the popular vote. Now, I don’t think he will have a landslide of that dimension this year but I still think there is a good chance for, say, 330 Electoral College votes. By the way, I did some calculations this morning and I now feel the likelihood of a landslide has gone up from 35% to 50%.

“So you’ve upped it to 50%! “, I gasped. “I’m sure you know that Nate Silver of the New York Times is currently forecasting an Obama victory, but he thinks that he will win by only about 290 Electoral College votes.”

“Nate Silver is a bright guy but it is hard for his models to weigh the likely impact of several factors that will play out in the next three months, factors that I think are really important.”

“Which are?”

“The first is the release of Romney’s tax returns for the last 10 years. Perhaps the GOP is using a Brer Rabbit strategy---remember how the rabbit begged the fox not to throw him into the briar patch. Is it possible that the campaign is trying to distract the media and the public from more damaging matters with talk of tax returns when they know there is no ‘there’ there? I suppose it is possible but I think it is highly unlikely. It looks as though the tax returns must contain some explosive information. All of that leaves Romney in a classic ‘damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t’ situation. I think it is going to hurt him badly with independent and swing voters, whether he releases the tax returns or not.”

“And the second factor?”

“That’s Romney’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center has pointed out in a scholarly and objective analysis that the tax plan clearly favours the wealthy. Obama’s people are already moving to use the main conclusions of the report in their TV advertising.”

“And, I suppose” I said, “that Romney’s support for the budget proposed by Paul Ryan is another one of your factors?”

“For sure! I think that after Labour Day, the White House will begin pointing out the dire consequences for middle class voters if Ryan’s budget were ever adopted, adopted primarily to allow for a further tax reduction for the 1%. That discussion about the impact on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other popular programs will continue into the October debates.”

“Is there another factor?”

“There is, and I think it may be the most dangerous one for Romney. I sense there is a growing feeling that he somehow lacks the maturity and personal morality to be an effective president. For my part, I feel he often acts like a young man meeting his girlfriend’s parents for the first time, trying awfully hard not to put a foot wrong but then blurting out inanities. Think of his disastrous visits to England, Israel and Poland. And then there is the bullying side of him. Romney has not denied the story that in prep school he shaved the head of an alleged gay student (he said he couldn’t remember the incident). We saw firsthand this bullying during the primary contest as he bludgeoned Rick Perry (‘I’ll bet you $10,000’), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum with his caustic comments during the debates and his flood of negative ads.”

I handed the Guru a fresh cup of coffee and said, “But in addition to his immaturity, you are also questioning his personal morality.”

“I am. Years ago when I was a CEO, a junior executive came to me and said he was having trouble making a choice among job candidates, all of whom surpassed the requirements for the position. I told him to ask himself this question: ‘Which one would you pick to go with you on a month-long trip into the North?’ He looked at me as though I had lost my marbles. I explained that asking that question gets at some critical, but non-quantifiable factors. For example, which one would best share the burden of portaging? Which one would be savvy enough to avoid stepping on snakes? And, most importantly, which one would still be there when you woke up in the morning---and which one might have taken off, leaving you in the wilds without a canoe or supplies? He came back later to tell me that my question had made the choice an easy one.”

“So”, I said, “you think that if American voters ask themselves that question they might prefer Obama over Romney for that trip into the North (or the mountains, the everglades the desert, or wherever the American regional equivalent might be)? That they might conclude that Obama would still be there in the morning but that Romney might not be?”

“Yes. There is a lot of hooey talked about people favouring a candidate with whom they would like to have a beer. I believe that as the election nears, more and more voters are going to be asking themselves, perhaps unconsciously, which of the two men they can really trust, which man has their best interests at heart.”

“In the end”, I asked, “those are the factors that make you think there may be a landslide?”

“Yes. And keeping to the same metaphor, I think that if a landslide appears to be taking shape we can expect an avalanche of money from the greedoholics. They will do everything they can to prevent Obama’s re-election because they know that the next four years will be much better economically for the US, the deficit and debt problems will be on their way to resolution, the health care plan will be in effect and people will see---as they did in Massachusetts---that it is a good program.  All of that sets the stage for an 8 year Hillary Clinton presidency starting in 2016. The greedoholics are going to be telling themselves that they have to stop the Democrats this year or they can expect to be out of the White House until 2024.”

“So”, I said, you think the greedoholics will be doing whatever they can to prevent the US moving into Herring’s Innovation phase that you talked about the last time we met?” [Editor's note: scroll down to Posting #9 for more information on Pendleton Herring's theory of Innovation and Conservatism.]

“Yes, they will be like King Canute, in reverse, sweeping madly to prevent the tide of Conservatism--- which has benefited the wealthy enormously---from ebbing away. The Conservatism phase has, of course, to give way. Income inequality has grown to such an extent that the middle class no longer has the money needed to buy the goods and services that will fuel economic growth. Remember that Henry Ford broke all the labour management rules of his time by paying his workers an unheard of $5 dollars a day, not because he was a philanthropist but because he wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy one of his Model T’s. Henry Ford’s son, Henry Ford II, seems to have lacked his father’s wisdom. He is supposed to have said to the union leader Walter Reuther that someday Ford’s auto workers would all be replaced by robots and then Ford wouldn’t have any problems with unions. Reuther replied, ‘And who will buy your cars, Henry’”?

All of which means”, I said, “that the attempts to limit the vote will continue, and that the smear campaigns against Obama will become more venomous than ever.”

“Yes, there is so much at stake for the greedoholics that this campaign will be the most vicious the US has ever seen.”

“But even if Obama wins---in a landslide or not---it looks as though the GOP will continue to control the House of Representatives and may well have a majority in the Senate. How will Obama cope with a hostile Congress?”

“If he wins with a solid majority, Obama will have a mandate to govern. The American people are fed up with Washington’s bickering. Obama will not have to worry about re-election and will be able to make full use of the considerable executive powers of the presidency. And, I think the GOP will go through an intense period of internal acrimony, anger and finger-pointing about how they could have lost the presidency. Think about it:

• The economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression with high deficits, debt, and unemployment.
• The President was unpopular among a portion of voters, particularly in the South, because he was bi-racial, and because the right-wing media had convinced them that he had not been born in the US, and was probably a Muslim.
• The President had introduced a major health care reform that had been misportrayed---successfully---by the right-wing media and the GOP as dangerous.
• The GOP had control of the House, and could and did hamstring the President’s attempts to boost the economy through, for example, an infrastructure program.
• The GOP had selected a candidate who was a very successful businessman, with an attractive family.
How, given all these ‘advantages’, had the GOP lost the presidential election? There’s going to be a nasty period of angry recrimination with the Ann Coulters, the Rush Limbaughs, the evangelicals, the Tea Partiers, the Sarah Palins etc. attacking each other.”

 “I remember, Guru, when you and I talked some months ago you argued that Obama had two goals for the campaign, one stated and one unstated. The stated one was, of course, to win re-election, while the unstated one was to help the adults in the GOP take back their party so that it could once again participate fully in governing the US.”

“That’s right. It will not be easy for the GOP to reign in their billionaire greedoholics, the people who are funding the extremist fringes in the Party. But that is the key to the re-emergence of an adult GOP that can mount a credible campaign in 2016. If the GOP can’t find a way to do that, the Party will likely be out of office until at least 2024 and perhaps beyond.”

“But”, I said, “let me play devil’s advocate. What if all the greedoholics’ money for negative ads works, and Romney wins in November?”

“I obviously don’t think that is going to happen, but if it did and Romney started to implement the Ryan austerity program, you will see Canadian companies, universities, research institutes and other organizations sending raiding teams to the US to ‘steal’ the best and brightest people. The Canadian Government would move to simplify and speed up immigration procedures for Americans---this would all be done quietly, of course, so as not to alienate Romney.”

“Perhaps”, I said, “we should have a discussion of the major initiatives Obama (assuming he wins re-election) should take in his second term”.

“Yes, let’s do that the next time we get together. I have lots of ideas and I am sure you do as well. But in the meantime I think the grapes have had a good drink. Let’s turn off the sprinkler”.

After we had done that, the Guru walked me back to my car, “We have got to have some rain soon---this irrigation is getting really expensive. Do you think you could do a Google search on ‘rain dances’? I can see you and me and our wives out in the middle of the vineyard dancing and chanting, at midnight under a full moon.”

I smiled and said I would check, but only if we could keep our clothes on.

He chuckled.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.

POSTING #9

FORECASTING THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The Guru and I were sitting on the patio of the Restaurant of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Golf Club, looking at the historic Fort Niagara just a few hundred yards away on our right, across the mouth of the Niagara River, and at the sail boats tacking back and forth on our left in Lake Ontario. We were in the midst of a heat wave but there was a pleasant breeze off the lake, and we had some cold beer and delicious sandwiches.

I should make it clear that the Guru and I are not golfers---we both subscribe to the Mark Twain view that ‘Golf is a good walk spoiled’---but the Club kindly lets the non-golfing public use its restaurant.

The Guru had lent me a copy of a book by Jim Kenney, “Thriving in the Crosscurrent: Clarity and Hope in a Time of Cultural Sea Change”. He said he had been impressed with the book and was thinking of discussing it in his monthly newsletter but he first wanted to get an historian’s view of it.

We had agreed to discuss the book over lunch but first I wanted to get the Guru’s latest assessment of the US presidential election.

“The first thing is that I was right that the Supreme Court would find Obamacare constitutional. The decision was closer than I had thought---5 to 4 instead of the 6 to 3 I had predicted---but a win is a win. And Obama should be pleased.”

“So, you still think he is going to win in November?”

“I do, but now I am wondering if he is going to have a landslide victory.”

“A landslide! I wonder if this heat wave is getting to you. No one’s predicting a landslide.”

“And that’s why the clients I consult for pay me the big bucks. To see things that others don’t see.”

“How long have you thought that a landslide might be possible?”

“A few months ago, I started to get these feelings of ‘déjà vu all over again’, to quote Yogi Berra. I lived through the unpredicted (by me and by other forecasters) landslides by Diefenbaker in 1958, Rene Levesque in 1976 and Mulroney in 1984 and I began to sense that something was happening in the US that was similar to what had happened before those victories. At first I dismissed the thoughts but part of my brain kept sending messages saying I was missing something. At first, I gave a landslide a probability of only 10% but now I think there is a 35% chance. It’s far from a sure thing but the point is that the likelihood is increasing.”

“This is astounding! What are the factors, trends, intuitions that make you think there might be a landslide?”

“Could we hold that until we have discussed Kenney’s ideas? This is really an important election, not just for the US but for Canada and the rest of the world, and it is easy to get angry or worried as you listen to the daily news reports. It pushes up my blood pressure---just ask Gloria, who keeps track of it. The best antidote I’ve found is to focus on the big trends that are shaping society. And that’s what I am going to be recommending to my newsletter readers. So, what did you think of Kenney’s analysis?”

“You know’, I started, “I’ve always been skeptical of writers who try to see patterns in history and then project from those patterns into the future. Whether it’s a Gibbon, a Marx or a Toynbee. But that said, I found myself agreeing with Kenney’s analysis of major cultural shifts, or waves as he calls them, throughout history: the shift from hunting and gathering, to farming, and then the shift to science, which is where we have been for the last few hundred years. I liked his description of the attempts to reject cultural changes, for example the Roman Catholic Church’s punishment of Galileo and Copernicus, and today the evangelical churches which reject evolution. I found his notion of eddies in which the people who can’t accept change go round and round in ever-decreasing circles until they gradually learn to accept the change.”

“Yes, I liked the idea of eddies, as well”, the Guru smiled.

“But then,” I continued, “we have to deal with his argument that a new wave is engulfing us with new values. First, there is ‘peace’---according to Kenney, nations will find it harder and harder in this new era to profit from war. And then there is ‘fairness’---human rights will become paramount, no more literal or metaphorical slavery in the treatment of different genders, races, sexual orientation and so on. Finally, there is ‘ecological sustainability’---humanity will have to end dumping poisons into the ground, sea or air in what he calls ‘ecocide’. It is an enticing picture but I wonder if it is a little too rosy, too optimistic.”

The Guru responded, “I understand what you are saying but when you look around it begins to made sense. Think of the US invasion of Iraq, which was ostensibly because of weapons of mass destruction but was really, in my view, engineered by Cheney and his pals to get oil reserves for American companies. Years ago, the war would have been wrapped up in a couple of weeks. Instead it took nearly a decade and almost bankrupted the US.”

“And I suppose Kenney would argue that the people today who deny climate change are twirling around in eddies, like the ‘flat-earthers’ in the 15th century.”

“Exactly!”

“Well”, I said, “I want to think about it some more, but it does seem that Kenney is on to something.”

“OK”, the Guru said, “let’s agree that Kenney seems to be describing a complex of trends that if valid must be factored into any forecasts we make about the future.”

I nodded.

“Well, let me outline some more trends and issues that need to be considered when we try to look ahead. One is that the way we have carved up the pie---the wealth of a nation--- no longer works. Nations continue to get wealthier and wealthier but thanks to technology, automation, globalization etc. there will not be enough traditional, living-wage jobs to absorb all the workers. We have to find new ways of sharing the wealth.”

“I can hear the wealthy, whirling around in their eddies, shouting that you are a socialist who is proposing ‘tax and spend policies’.”

“Sure”, the Guru agreed. “Let me finish with my final trend. An American political scientist, Pendleton Herring, argued 60 years ago that the US oscillates between periods of Innovation and Conservatism. For example, the social legislation of Kennedy and Johnson was followed by the conservative policies of Regan and the Bushes. It can be argued that the election of Obama may have ushered in a new period of Innovation with a turn away from war and a turn to policies like health care, the environment, and the rights of women, gays and minorities.”

“Kenney’s thesis and these other trends don’t seem to be very congenial to the Republican Party as it’s presently constituted”, I said.

The Guru beamed broadly, “My point exactly. Can you see any of today’s Republicans campaigning on a platform of ‘peace, fairness and ecological sustainability’, or of searching for new ways of sharing the nation’s wealth?’

“No, I can’t. So it is these ideas that make you think that a landslide could happen?”

“Remember I am not yet predicting a landslide, I am just saying that it is likely that Obama will be re-elected, but that there is a probability of around 35% that it could be a landslide.”

“Despite the massive amounts of money that the millionaires and billionaires can deploy for negative ads---the kinds of ads that destroyed Perry, Gingrich and Santorum?”

“That’s a fair point, and it needs an answer. Let’s shift from what has been a bit philosophical to the practical. The Republican Party is terribly fractured with its social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and assorted interest groups such as the National Rifle Association. It would take a political genius of the highest order to paper over all those cracks and present to the public a party that appears to have an agreed-upon and coherent platform that can address the problems the nation faces. And Mitt Romney is not a political genius.”

“I agree”, I said, “He is not even a ‘B’ grade politician. He has hidden himself away on Fox News until that disastrous interview with Bob Shieffer on CBS when he couldn’t come up with a response to Obama’s immigration policy on the children of undocumented immigrants. Newt Gingrich would have just confused Shieffer with bluster and bellicosity, leaving poor Bob speechless.”

“And he has tubs of baggage with his taxes and his off-shore and other investments that the media are only now starting to address.”

“I sometimes think”, I added, “that Romney must be counting on gaining the presidency through a catastrophic economic crash, coupled with latent racism.”

“Another telling point is the recent behavior of Rupert Murdoch. He now seems to be distancing himself from Romney, as though he expects that Obama will win and he and his News Corporation will have to deal with a Democratically-controlled Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service etc. Murdoch made that kind of calculation in Britain when he shifted support from the Conservatives to Tony Blair. Murdoch can’t openly support Obama, as he did Tony Blair, but he can hobble Romney.”

“And”, I joined in, “Murdoch’s statement that Romney needs to bring in a new team of advisers is like trying to prop up an inadequate quarterback with better cheerleaders.”

“So”, the Guru smiled as he lifted his glass of beer, “you can see why I think Obama is going to be re-elected and why it could be a big win, not a squeaker.”

“Could you let me know when you raise the probability of a landslide to more than 50%? I might want to place a little bet on one of those online betting websites.”

“Will do”, the Guru said as we paid our bills and prepared to leave the cooling breezes of Lake Ontario for our hot cars.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.



 

Guru #8

Talking  About Politics and Religion

After a spectacular meal at the Hillebrand Winery Restaurant in Virgil, the Guru and his wife Gloria, my wife Paula and I were settled in the Guru's living room enjoying a post-dinner glass of---what else---his latest icewine.

We had been talking about the US election and I asked the Guru whether he agreed with most of the pundits that the Supreme Court would strike down the Health Care Mandate.

"It's hard to say, but if I were a betting man I would wager that it won't. My guess is that Justice Kennedy will decide that the health care problem in the US is so great that the administration's attempt to fix it should be allowed to stand. He will, however, insist that the wording of the decision include a 'broccoli barricade'."

"A broccoli barricade?"

"That's what I call it. Scalia and Alito argued that by approving the Mandate the Court would open up the Commerce Clause of the Constitution so that one could drive the proverbial Mack Truck through it, forcing people to eat broccoli, own cell phones, get their hair cut, whatever. The arguments were nonsense, of course, but Kennedy could meet their concerns by suggesting that the wording of the decision should limit the use of the Commerce Clause in future to truly exceptional situations. I think the Chief Justice would then join him so the Court's decision would be 6 to 3."

"Interesting point. I hope you're right!"

Then Paula shifted the conversation to the role that the evangelical churches and the Catholic church have been playing in both the choice of a Republican presidential nominee and in the general election. She burst out, "I can't stand the way religion gets mixed up in politics, especially in matters like birth control."

Gloria, whose academic background was the sociology of religion, said, quietly, "It is not religion, it's theology."

"But aren't they the same?', Paula asked.

"Most people use the terms interchangeably  but when I was studying religions I gradually decided, in my own mind at least, that 'religion' and 'theology' were different. Let me go back a bit.  I grew up in a devout family in California and when I was a teenager I started to rebel against some of the rules and customs, especially those that I felt discriminated against females. When I got to university I was a mixed up kid, part of me clinging to my parents' faith and part of me rejecting it. I think that was why I ended up studying religion when my friends were going into mathematics, economics, art history, languages and so on.  I wanted to resolve the 'internal civil war' that was going on in my head."

"So", Paula said, "how did deciding that religion and theology were different help you bring peace to that civil war?"

"It didn't happen quickly but as I studied religions from around the world I realized that they almost all shared a common belief in what Christianity calls the Golden Rule---do under others as you would have them do unto you. The formulations were different but the meaning was the same. It occurred to me that successful cultures need a belief, a value, that restrains individuals from killing, robbing, raping each other. If a culture doesn't find a way to limit selfishness and aggression, it will die out. About the same time, I found an article that said that while the origin of the word 'religion' is unclear, some experts believe that it comes from Latin words that mean 'hold back' or 'restrain'. I decided that if that was what 'religion' meant I could subscribe to that, I could consider myself a 'religious' person.

"But", I joined in," you haven't told us what in your view distinguishes 'religion' from 'theology'?"

"I'll come to that, "Gloria replied, "but let me stick with my thoughts about 'religion' a bit. The more I thought about religion as the notion that we should treat each other as we would want to be treated, the more I questioned the need for all the rules, and customs that most religions---but not all---have built on that simple idea. If you believe in that idea then you don't need to be told that you shouldn't kill someone, steal from your neighbour, or bear false witness. Someone who had internalized that idea wouldn't think of treating others in that way. I started to call all that extraneous stuff that cluttered up that simple idea, 'theology'. I realized that my rebelling against 'religion' wasn't a rebellion against the idea of treating each other as we would want to be treated, but against the stuff that cluttered up the idea. And especially, as I said before, all the rules and customs that placed men on a pedestal, with women occupying an inferior place. But it wasn't just the gender discrimination, it was all the rules that I thought were unrelated to the core belief. What you can eat, what you can wear, what you have to believe about god, about the hereafter, heaven, hell and on and on."

"And all that 'stuff' is what you call 'theology'? What did your professors think of that distinction between religion and theology", asked Paula.

"The professors of divinity weren't happy with me at all. I'm afraid I was a bit brash. I told them that promoting the Golden Rule didn't need church hierarchies, or tenured professors of divinity. It just needed people who believed in it and lived by it. As far as I could see, theology, on the other hand, was all about certain people using---actually misusing---religion to gain status, power, influence or money."

I looked at the Guru who had remained silent during Gloria's comments but it was clear that he was listening carefully. " What do you think", I asked.

"This whole discussion reminds me of how Gloria and I met."

"You were giving a talk at UCLA, weren't you?"

"Yes, it was just a prosaic lecture on how to promote economic development in what we used to call under-developed countries. Then an intense young woman attacked me in the question period about not paying attention to the role of organized religion in keeping the countries poor. She argued that the church hierarchy made deals with the political and business leaders, deals that kept workers  quiet, docile---and poor."

"I was nasty to the Guru", Gloria said, "but then we went for a drink, and he agreed that I was probably right, and I decided that I liked his eyes and his hands."

"My eyes are fine but my hands are a bit arthritic", the Guru said, rubbing his hands together.

"You're just fine", Gloria smiled. "While we were having our drink after the lecture, the Guru argued that he had seen devoted church workers providing education and health care in poor countries. After some discussion, I convinced him that they were motivated by religion but the people at the top of the church weren't. They were into theology, not religion, and their deals with business and political leaders kept the poor, poor."

"So", I said, "Gloria, you would argue that the church leaders who oppose contraception are practising theology while the priests and nuns, who turn a blind eye to poor women who are using birth control because they can't afford any more children, are practising religion?"

"Yes", replied Gloria. "And I would argue that countries that treat the poor and disadvantaged well are religious even if most people don't go to a church, synagogue, mosque or whatever. So, this means that the Scandinavian countries are by my definition very religious even though few of their citizens attend places of worship."

"All this reminds me", Paula said, "of a visit I made recently to my granddaughter's daycare centre, which has children from every corner of the world and many religions. At the end of the morning, the children sat in a circle while the leader read to them and led them in songs. Before they broke up, the leader asked them to 'look after each other' until they met again---in effect she was asking them to practise the Golden Rule. Now, that's the kind of 'religion' one can teach in school and no one will object!"

"Exactly," Gloria said.

Thinking of the Posting (this one!) that I would have to write, I tried to summarize the discussion. "So, we started by saying that there was too much religion in politics but then we decided that one should make a distinction between 'religion' and 'theology'. We now seem to be saying that 'religion'---defined as treating others as we would like to be treated---is not a problem in politics, but should, in fact, be encouraged. On the other hand, "Theology'---defined as all the rules, customs, sacred texts, beliefs in a deity and so on that are part of an 'organized religion'---are personal and have no place in politics. Have I got that right?"

"That's it", Gloria said, and Paula and the Guru nodded agreement.

I couldn't help but bring up an historical allusion. "You know we have just agreed on something that the British accepted in the 18th century after spending a century  of bloody fighting over 'religion'. It seems that we have to keep re-learning the lesson that politics and theology don't mix."

"I hope and believe", the Guru said, "that we will see a sharp decline in the involvement of theologians in politics. The shrewder leaders are now realizing that they have been 'used' by the greedoholics and their minions like Karl Rove."

"And so say all of us!", Gloria, Paula and I joined in.


000

Gloria mentioned that when I was recording the discussion for this blog I might want to mention a poster that the Scarborough Missions has prepared showing how each of the main religions expresses the Golden Rule. Here is a copy of the poster:

This image is courtesy of the Scarborough Missions. To order a poster click here

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #7

  

Barack and Birth Control

The Guru had invited me to help him prepare a speech on the future of employment in the US and Canada, which he was to make to a prestigious American business group.

We were sitting in antique, maple rocking chairs in his large office/study/boardroom. Through the windows we could see rows of vines that had been stripped of their icewine grapes during a brief cold spell in early January.

Before starting on the employment speech, I asked him about the contraception issue in the US. "Did you see Michael Gerson's column in the Washington Post  in which he argues that the While House has committed an 'epic blunder'.  Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan claims in Newsweek that the controversy wasn't a fumble by Obama but a cleverly constructed trap for the Republicans? Which was it? A trap or an epic blunder?"

"The first thing to say is that it was intended, it wasn't an accident that the White House just happened to blunder into."

"So, it WAS a trap?"

"No", the Guru said, "I didn't say that. I prefer to think of it as an Obama Teaching Moment."

"You're going to have to explain that to me."

"Glad to. Let me set the stage a bit. Years ago, there was a rock group in Peterborough, Ontario---Reverend Ken and the Lost Followers---which put up posters advertising their concerts on the town's light poles. Peterborough charged them with an offense under a town bylaw that prevented the attaching of posters to light poles. The Reverend Ken appealed on the grounds of freedom of speech, and the case went all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. When the Court agreed with the Reverend Ken, journalists asked him what he thought of the town council. He said, 'It's too bad that ignorance isn't painful.'.

"Whoa", I said, "I'm not sure I see the connection between your Rev. Ken and contraception."

"Obama spent a lot of time in academia. He values reason and has always done his best to lead students from ignorance to understanding. He carried that goal into the White House where he hoped that he could have rational discussions with the Republicans about their policy differences. He hoped that working together they could come up with policy compromises that would best serve the needs of the country. But the Republicans stonewalled him, figuring they could make him a one-term president. He then moved to what I call his 'make-ignorance-painful' strategy. For example, remember the debate over his birth certificate? He could have released the long-form certificate at any time but waited and waited. When he finally released it, his critics faced laughter and ridicule. They suddenly understood that ignorance can indeed be painful."

"All except Donald Trump."

"As my grandfather used to say, 'No sense, no feeling.'!"

"So you're saying that Obama allowed the birth control issue to develop so it could become a teaching moment."

"Exactly. There were several health care examples in state legislation on how to treat religious organizations, examples that could have been used to defuse the issue. He chose not to bring forward a compromise until the Republicans and some rightwing Bishops had exposed their ignorance. Phone calls, letters, Facebook and Twitter messages from women across the country swamped the ignorant, and they felt the pain. And perhaps learned a thing or two."

"From the pleased look on your face, you seem to feel that the controversy in addition to inflicting some pain on the ignorant may have actually helped Obama politically?'

"Yes, the controversy will have important benefits for the White House. It gave a big boost to Obama's most precious initiative, his health care plan. Most voters, and especially women, didn't realize that the plan would mean free contraceptive care---no deductibles, no co-pays. So that's another attractive feature of the plan in addition to the ruling that children can stay on their parents' plan until age 26, plus insurance companies can't refuse people on the grounds of pre-existing condition, nor can they drop people who develop a major illness like cancer, and so on."

"Good point."

"And how can the Republicans promise to repeal Obamacare without trying to find some way to preserve these attractive features?"

"And", I commented, "continuing those benefits isn't possible without a mandate rule that requires everyone to be insured in order to pool the risk. The Republicans are going to have a tough time arguing against the mandate idea, which of course was theirs to begin with."

"And that", the Guru continued, " will make it hard for the Supreme Court to rule that the mandate feature of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Court is supposed to be above politics but legal scholars have always known that its decisions are influenced by public opinion."

"So you think that through allowing this controversy, Obama has sent a message to the Supreme Court?"

"Sure, but not just to the Court, he has sent a message to the Catholic hierarchy. While the US Catholic Bishops were opposing the White House compromise, Sister Carol Keehan, the head of the Catholic Health organization, immediately supported it. She is widely respected by Catholics and by other nuns for her dedication to helping the poor and disadvantaged."

"Another good point", I said. "You know, I haven't been able to understand why the Bishops rejected Obama's compromise. Trying to defend a medieval policy on contraception that is ignored by over 90 percent of your flock is bad enough, but why compound your problems by denouncing a compromise that your own health organizations and the majority of the population feels is fair?"

"Perhaps Obama isn't the only one sending messages. Is it possible that the Vatican reminded the bishops that the Pope is elderly and won't last forever, and that the next pope could be American (one of them, in fact) but only if the US bishops are seen as being 'more-Catholic-than-the-pope' in matters of contraception?"

"But surely," I added, "the bishops are going to pay a price for their 'ignorance'. The stereotype of plump, self-satisfied, out-of-touch MEN who flubbed the issue of sex abuse by paedophilic priests is not going to be enhanced by this fight against full coverage of contraception---especially among women."

"Yes, they'll feel some pain. Turning to the Republican Party, it is interesting that many of its leaders basically acquiesced in the Obama compromise although they issued some perfunctory comments about Obama's attack on religious freedom. But some of the Neanderthals in the party want to continue the fight by passing a law that would allow any employer to refuse health care coverage for any treatment that they are morally opposed to, thus gutting the health care program. I'm afraid that ignorance runs deep in parts of today's Republican party and there is a lot more pain to be felt before they come to their senses."

"So Obama's 'teaching moment' strategy has been successful?"

"In my view, yes, and the success of it was partly due to the clever tactics employed by the White House. For example, the President announced the compromise at noon on Friday, February 10th. That afternoon, Romney and Santorum made crucial speeches to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Guess what news was featured in the print and digital media that day? Obama's compromise."

"And some pundits seem to feel that the contraception issue gives Santorum an advantage over Romney among conservative Republicans."

The Guru grinned, "Surely you don't think the White House would do something that would make life more difficult for Romney, do you?"

"Look', I said, "you may call it a 'teaching moment strategy' but the more I think about it and the more I listen to you, the more I think Andrew Sullivan is right. That it was a trap."

"Perhaps it was both!", the Guru smiled. "A teaching moment, AND a trap---he is from the Chicago school of politics, after all."

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears every Sunday morning.

Guru #6

Year-End Thoughts from The Guru

The server at the Pie Plate Bakery and Cafe in Virgil set two coffees and two slices of pie in front of us---apple for the Guru and pumpkin for me. 

As I looked at the pieces of pie, I thought it was wrong to refer to the Pie Plate's pie as 'pie'. It is like referring to a filet mignon as a 'chunk of beef'. 'Pie' is what you get at a normal restaurant. The scratch-baked, flaky-crusted and deep-fruited creations of this restaurant deserve some better appellation.

Probably a French name starting with 'tarte'---something that conveys the ambrosial nature of the restaurant's desserts.

The Guru brought me back from my reverie by pulling a package from his pocket and carefully unwrapping it.

"What's that?", I asked.

"It's 6 year-old cheddar from  the Maple Dale cheese factory. When you have apple pie as great as this, you have to combine it with a cheddar that is equally great."

He  placed the cheese on the plate beside the apple pie, and then combined a small piece of cheese with a forkful of pie.

I said, "Looking at your obvious pleasure, I'm tempted to say to the server, 'I'll have what he's having' "

"That was a great movie!" 

My pie was delicious as well---the same crust with a smooth, creamy pumpkin filling, subtly seasoned, and topped with a generous mound of real whipped cream.

We were meeting after the Guru had emailed me a draft of his year-end newsletter to his subscribers and asked if we could discuss it over coffee and pie at the Pie Plate---his treat.

How could I refuse?

"What did you think of the draft newsletter?", he asked.

"I liked it a lot, but I have some comments and questions."

"OK, shoot".

"I thought the first part, on the events of 2011, was very strong. Your analysis of the Arab Spring was excellent---its causes and the reasons for its remarkable success. As were your forecasts for the Arab Spring's impact in other countries, for example the likely outcome of the events in Syria, the Occupy movements and the recent protests in Russia.

I carried on, "I also liked your section on the Republican primary campaign. Let me read part of it:

" 'Pundits are asking why the field of Republican candidates is so weak, when Obama continues to face terrible economic problems. Why aren't leaders like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or others running?

"I think there are three reasons. First, anyone in the While House has a built in advantage and Obama, as a powerful campaigner, is likely to use that advantage with great effect.

"Second, the four years from 2012 to 2016 are going to be tough, economically, as the country climbs out of George Bush's financial crisis. Why not let Obama slog through all that misery, and then run in 2016 when the economy is getting back to normal?

"The third is perhaps the most powerful. Strong Republicans understand that Obama is running not against the Republican Party, but against the greedoholics---whom I have written about before (see Posting #1). The greedoholics have controlled the GOP for the last couple of decades and have made it a party where---as Bill Clinton has joked---if you want to run for office you have to pretend to have an IQ in single digits. You have to deny or be sceptical about obvious truths such as climate change, evolution, and the income gap. The strong Republicans are sitting back hoping that Obama will defeat or at least weaken the greedoholics, and thus give them back their party.' "

I paused, took off my reading glasses, and said, "I thought your third point was really telling. Just think if Obama is able to restore a functioning two party system in which the parties can disagree on their philosophy of government but still be willing to compromise! No more ridiculous pledges to never raise taxes! No more filibusters based on irrational ideological arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!"

"Yes, if Obama can accomplish that he would deserve a place on Mount Rushmore. Other comments?"

"A couple. Your comments on the Republican attacks on Obama's so-called 'leadership deficiencies' were well done. You point out that leadership is not always about being in front of the troops, leading them into battle. Rather it is about carefully selecting the style of leadership that is appropriate for a particular situation. The Republicans are just frustrated at how skilful Obama has been in choosing the right leadership style, whether it is in the slaying of Osama bin Laden, the removal of Khadafy, or getting payroll tax changes through Congress."

The Guru nodded, "As I said in the draft, the Republican attacks on his leadership are just politics---they don't believe their own 'talking points'---but what bothers me is that media pundits get sucked into responding and into discussing 'What's wrong with Obama's leadership style?'; or, 'Is he a weak leader?'.

I agreed, "You know I have thought for some time that media commentators need some kind of accreditation so that readers or listeners can judge whether they know what they are talking about. My thought is that a bipartisan group would be set up to develop three tests: one on national politics; another on international affairs; and one on economics. Taking the tests would be voluntary and pundits who successfully passed would be able to display a symbol after their by-line on columns or blogs. On television, the symbol would appear after their name in that little box beneath their image."

"I like that idea, May I steal it for this newsletter?"

"Be my guest," I said. "My last comment was about your prediction for the 2012 Presidential race. I agree with you that at the moment it looks like Obama will be re-elected. I notice that Ladbrokes has him as the odds-on-favourite at 4/5, while Romney and Gingrich are both at 7/2 . I also agree with your newsletter that a lot can go wrong between now and November 2012. Could I just suggest that you consider changing the quote you use, 'A week is a lifetime in politics'? The quote is actually from Harold Wilson who said, 'A week is a long time in politics'.

"It doesn't have the same punch but let me think about that."

"A similar comment was made by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. When asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow his government off course he replied with that Etonian, upper class accent, 'Events, dear boy, events'."

"MacMillan was right---he was obviously thinking of the Profumo scandal---but who can know what impact 'events' will have on the 2012 race."

The server brought our bill.

After grabbing it, the Guru went back to scraping his plate with his fork, trying to get every smidgen of pie and cheese.

"Watch", I joked, "you'll take the glaze off that plate!"

He smiled, "It's so good!"

As we got up, he said, "Thank you for your help with the newsletter".

"Anytime."

We wished each other a Merry Christmas and promised to get back together in February, after he has finished picking and crushing his icewine grapes, and I have returned from a research visit overseas.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) normally appears every Sunday morning but will be on holiday until February 12, 2012.

Guru #5

 

Are Canadian Politics Dull?

(A political science professor liked to tell his first year students that there was a key question about politics that they would have to answer. Which is correct: "Politics is dirty", or "Politics are dirty"? Leaving aside the question of whether I agree with the premise that politicians are crooks, I opt, on grammatical grounds, for the plural, "Politics are dirty".)

The Guru and I were on the Go Train from Toronto to Burlington having spent the day at the Metro Centre where the Guru had been judging an icewine competition.

I had driven us from Virgil to Burlington early in the morning so we could catch the Go Train and avoid the hassle of Toronto traffic and parking.

A reader of the Icewine Guru blog had asked me why the Guru and I hadn't yet talked about Canadian politics. Did we find it too dull? Or was it beneath us? So, I had suggested to the Guru that on our way home, we should spend some time chatting about Harper, McGuinty, Charest et. al. He agreed.

But first, I wanted to get a little update on how he thought the US presidential race was going.

"Very well!", he beamed.

" So", I asked, "you think that Obama's secret plan that I agreed not to write about (see Posting #4) is unfolding as you expected?"

"It is, but one thing that has surprised me a little is how quickly public anger about the income gap has turned into a protest movement. We talked about the income gap in mid-August but it wasn't on the radar of the mainstream media back then."

"Are you worried about criticism that there is no clear leadership for the movement and no clear statement of demands?"

"No, not at all. Are you", he asked me.

"No, I'm not. I've studied the history of social movements, and the ones that ultimately have a major impact often start off the way the Occupy Wall Street has. Over time, leaders emerge, and the demands become clarified. It is interesting that often movements throw up two leaders, one with strong views and good organizational skills, and the other with strong presentational and negotiating skills. There is often a tension between the two leaders but in successful movements they learn to work together. I'm waiting to see who will emerge."

"Good points. I agree with you. What do you think about the Republican primary battle?"

"I'm enjoying it", I replied, "I love to see two groups of greedoholics---to use your term---throwing their money around, the Wall Street one supporting Romney and the Energy one supporting Perry or Cain or whomever."

"It's getting nasty", the Guru chuckled. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice effect that I talked about back in August is driving the adult Republicans crazy. Funding the Tea Party helped the Republicans win the House of Representatives in 2010, but now the Tea Party crazies won't let the adult Republicans do what they must do to counter Obama's re-election strategy.  Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and others can see what is happening and but their protests aren't having any effect, at least for the moment."

"Yes", I added, "the Republicans should be trying to engineer a discreet flip-flop on their no-increase-in-revenue policy (that would of course have to be presented as something other than a flip-flop) but instead the crazies are trotting out flat tax proposals that are going to make the income gap worse. It's truly bizarre!"

"Agreed. Perhaps in one of our future conversations, we should discuss how one would go about reducing the income gap. It is not going to be easy."

"A good thought", I said, " but can we change the subject, and talk about Canadian politics. We have a fan of our blog who believes that we have been short-changing 'our home and native land'.

"Well, politics that spring from a philosophy of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are almost certainly going to be more exciting than those that have their roots in 'peace, order and good government'. But we have had our moments, moments when Canadian politics were pretty damned exciting. Think of the War of 1812, the 1837 Rebellions, the Riel Rebellion, Conscription in both World Wars, the Quebec Separation movement."

"True, but at the moment there are no great issues dividing Canadians. The greedoholics tried to inject the virus of right-wing political philosophy into our discourse but I think the body politic is rejecting it. The Reform Party took over the Progressive Conservative Party but I sense that Harper's victory this year may be the high-water mark for the that mix of Ayn Rand, regional angst and evangelical religion. We are facing terrible international economic problems and challenging domestic problems such as the rising cost of health care and of other social programs. This is a time when the Canadian DNA calls for cooperation and negotiation, not my-way-or-the-highway."

"I agree", the Guru chimed in.

"What do you think of Harper?", I asked

"Well", the Guru responded, "I thought at one time that he had great potential but once he became Prime Minister I started to change my mind. I've now come to the conclusion that while he has some of the attributes of a successful Prime Minister he lacks some important qualities. He has ambition, stubbornness, a touch of paranoia and an authoritarian streak---it is tough to succeed in politics without those. But he doesn't, in my view, have a first class mind and the mind that he has is not well trained. He seems to have a disdain for facts, witness the stupid decision about the census forms, the decision to build more prisons despite statistics that show crime in Canada has been declining and that longer jail sentences have not worked in the States, and the decision to abolish the long gun registry, which the main users---the police---say has been working well."

"Yes", I added, "those decisions seem to have been made on ideological grounds, not on any analysis of the facts."

"In addition he appears to lack highly developed political antennae. How could a politician with any sense of what was going on in Toronto and Ontario publicly talk this summer about a likely 'trifecta' in which a Hudak victory would complete the sweep of elections by conservatives---Hudak, Rob Ford and himself? Rob Ford was so unpopular in the Greater Toronto Area, that Harper's remark helped re-elect Dalton McGuinty."

"Are you worried about the legislative changes he can make in the next four years with a majority government", I asked.

"A little bit, but the provinces will limit his actions in key areas like health care. But his biggest problem is that he is trying to run everything from the Prime Minister's Office, because he doesn't trust his ministers or the public service.  As I've said, a little bit of paranoia and a little touch of authoritarianism are necessary in a PM but he is showing too much of each. John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney suffered from the same problem and tried to run things from the PMO. Look what happened to them---huge majorities followed by humbling defeats. No one can run a modern government with all its complexities from the Prime Minister's office. Serious mistakes are inevitable. As his popularity polls drop, and as we get closer to the next election, enemies in his party will start to conspire against him."

"A Tory 'Night of the Long Knives'?"

"That's it, and Harper will either be deposed or badly wounded. The new Prime Minister will be from either the Liberal Party or the NDP, most likely from the former. I have no idea who the Prime Minister will be but someone will emerge."

"So, you're saying, Guru, that anyone who thinks that Canadian politics are dull should just wait until the knives come out?"

"Exactly!"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appears every Sunday morning.