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.