Light On Dark Water

All the Lovely Candidates

My great-aunt Ann was a diehard Democrat who believed that in the realm of politics FDR was the Creator and JFK the Messiah. I don't think she lived to see the JFK myth put pretty thoroughly to rest (as much as it can ever be–the true believers seem to be pretty committed still). But she was somewhat disillusioned with their successors. She spent her last years in a nursing home, and I think it was on one of my visits there during the 1988 Democratic primaries that she asked me sourly "And how are all the lovely candidates doing?" 

I watched most of the Republican "debate" tonight. I'm slightly, but only slightly, embarrassed to say that I had not watched any of the thousand or so others, and had never seen any of these men except Gingrich speak on TV. I'm not a gambler, but I'm thinking of making a large bet that Obama will win the election this fall, so that when it happens I'll have a consolation prize.  I hope I'm wrong, because I think any of them would be preferable to a second Obama term. But I really have a hard time believing that any of them can beat him, vulnerable though he is.

If I knew nothing whatever about them except what I saw tonight, I'd be for Ginrich. He was certainly the most articulate, and the one who struck me as most likely to have the combination of vision and realism to move the government in a different direction without steering it onto the rocks. But of course I do know a number of other things about him, and he may be in fact the one most likely to steer it onto the rocks. And as for his notorious private life…well, if one believed he were truly repentant and humble…but that is one point on which his advocacy is unpersuasive.

Ron Paul has often been likened to a crazy uncle, and now I see why. He is absolutely right about some things, and probably his ideas do hew closer to the Founders' vision than anyone else's. But I can't imagine him being elected.

Rick Santorum was good on almost everything that was discussed tonight (war was hardly mentioned, unless it was in the first 20 minutes or so which I missed). And he could probably be persuasive to a lot of people. But he will seem lightweight compared to Obama–seem–it will not be fair, because Obama is a lightweight, but he's the kind of lightweight who appeals to opinion-makers. And his views on social issues are already being portrayed as deranged and dangerous; sadly, a pretty large proportion of the American people now view his beliefs, most of which would have seemed unobjectionable fifty years ago, as extremist.

And Romney: his good or bad qualities are almost irrelevant, because the Democrats are going to have a great time making him the symbol of everything that has gone wrong with the economy for the past several years, never mind the fact that Obama's government is full of people who were much closer to that action. It was miserable to watch him squirm when asked if and when he would reveal his tax returns. 

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. The bloom is certainly off the Obama rose, so maybe there will be more of an opening than I think. But that's how it looks to me now.

Maclin Horton

42 responses to “All the Lovely Candidates”

  1. Louise

    And his views on social issues are already being portrayed as deranged and dangerous; sadly, a pretty large proportion of the American people now view his beliefs, most of which would have seemed unobjectionable fifty years ago, as extremist.
    Can you share some examples?

    Reply
  2. Janet

    See, I knew there was a reason why I don’t watch TV.
    AMDG

    Reply
  3. Mac

    Just one example, then I have to start the nightly retirement ritual: that marriage is by definition happens between males and females.

    Reply
  4. Louise on the iPod

    I can’t say I’m surprised but I hadn’t realized that opposition to “gaymarriage” was already labelled “extremist.” good grief!

    Reply
  5. Mac

    Oh, definitely. I don’t think a majority of the country agrees with that, but plenty do, and the number seems to be growing. And Santorum has other material for those enemies, like criticizing contraception.
    I think a charge like that, repeated widely, has a way of sticking among people who don’t really pay much attention but end up with a vague impression. “Oh yeah, that Santorum guy, he’s sort of an extremist, isn’t he? Extremism is bad, better not vote for him.” I don’t know how many of those actually vote.

    Reply
  6. ex pat

    Louise I have not seen any of the debates, but my father sent me this email a while back
    Today’s best:
    Santorum cut her off and said “What about three men … If you think it’s ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three.”
    The New York Times reports that people booed specifically when Santorum said “If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?”

    Reply
  7. FrankB

    Yeah. That whole extremism thing is depressing. After all the ones who push this line are the most extreme. So many many haters telling other people what to think and chastising you for thinking otherwise.

    Reply
  8. Mac

    The left has succeeded hugely at equating homosexuality with race. If you don’t support gay marriage, you’re morally on the level of the Ku Klux Klan.

    Reply
  9. Janet

    They ridiculed Santorum so much for saying that, at yet, there are groups pushing for polygamy already.
    AMDG

    Reply
  10. Mac

    And one is tempted to say “more power to them.”
    Here‘s a typical framing of the question: not recognizing marriage between two men or two women is “discrimination,” period. And “discrimination” is a very highly charged word in the U.S., next door to “bigotry”–it almost always means “unjust discrimination.”
    And people think big corporations are right-wing…

    Reply
  11. Rob G

    “What about three men … If you think it’s ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three.”
    I’ve been following this issue for several years on the internet on various blogs, websites, etc., and I have yet to hear a liberal give a coherent answer to that question. Generally what you get in response is, “You’re mean!”

    Reply
  12. Art Deco

    Your great aunt’s judgment escapes me. Since when do septuagenarians turn politicians into icons?
    The Democratic candidates in 1988 included Bruce Babbitt and Michael Dukakis, two men with much more salient preparation for the office than John Kennedy. Also included were Paul Simon, a man Fred Barnes referred to as “one of the most honest people in politics” and the younger Albert Gore (when he had not yet gone to seed). Of course you opportunists (Richard Gephardt), harlequins (Jesse Jackson), buffoons (Joseph Biden), and promising prospects for the family therapy trade (Gary Hart). (Hart was a good wonk, though).
    John Kennedy was a capable public speaker and had shown considerable physical courage, but it was well known his employment history outside of electoral politics consisted of his military service and seven months as a wire service reporter and well known that he was an extension of his father’s imperious will. This was what your great aunt preferred.
    I’m not a gambler, but I’m thinking of making a large bet that Obama will win the election this fall,
    Your previously stated reasons for that did not make much sense.
    Ron Paul has often been likened to a crazy uncle, and now I see why. He is absolutely right about some things
    You’ve taken up gold buggery as a hobby?

    Reply
  13. ex pat

    Art Deco says, Your previously stated reasons for that did not make much sense.
    So why not bet me Mac is wrong?

    Reply
  14. Daniel Nichols

    An unpopular president with a sinking economy, and the Republicans are going to blow it. Whoever the candidate is will make Obama look good. Newt makes him look clean, wholesome and disciplined, Romney makes him look authentic, a man of the people, Santorum makes him look really smart, and Ron Paul makes him look young and fairly moderate.
    And no one is mentioning why Santorum, the big “social issues” candidate lost his Senate seat: he betrayed the prolifers of Pennsylvania by campaigning for Arlen Specter against a prolife challenger. The Democrats wisely ran a prolife Democrat against him and he lost badly.
    What a sorry lot…

    Reply
  15. Mac

    “An unpopular president with a sinking economy, and the Republicans are going to blow it.”
    Yeah, my view in a nutshell. Although I think both Obama’s popularity (as measured in polls) and the economy have ticked upward in recent weeks. Those who say the election will be determined by what happens with the economy in the preceding months may be right.

    Reply
  16. Mac

    Rob, I’ve followed a good many internet arguments on that subject, too, and have never yet heard a same-sex-marriage proponent seriously engage the deep problems it raises. All you get is superficial stuff based on a completely atomistic view of individual sovereignty. “How does it hurt your marriage if Tom and Joe get married?” Well, of course it doesn’t in any immediate tangible way.
    One thing you can bet on with social trends of the last 30-50 years is that last year’s reductio ad absurdum will be next year’s fundamental human right.

    Reply
  17. Mac

    Art, I never said I thought my great-aunt’s views of Kennedy et.al. were correct. However, I realized after I posted the remarks above that if my memory is correct and the exchange did happen in 1988, she would have been talking about Republican candidates as well, which makes what she said more understandable coming from a Democrat.
    As for whether my reasons for predicting an Obama win make sense or not, a protracted argument about whose conjectures about the future are more likely to be correct strikes me as a huge waste of time. With ex pat’s offer in mind, the old challenge for bettors fits: put your money where your mouth is.

    Reply
  18. Art Deco

    Gambling is not one of my hobbies.
    I am not giving you or expat contact information any more detailed than I have given you already. I comment pseudonymously for a reason: I discuss issues; I do not make diaries.
    You make categorical statements about political events nine months hence, not me. Obama being returned to office is an outcome within the realm of possibility. I merely point out to you that there is no discernable precedent for a candidate being returned to this office under circumstances such as he faces. No protracted argument is required. What is required is that you consult something other than your own gut.
    Whether or not you agreed with your great-aunt was not the subject of my remarks. What was of interest to me is what sort of criteria your great-aunt could have been employing. Admiring Roosevelt, I can imagine; admiring Kennedy is (or should be) confined to school girls. In 1960, it was a matter of public record that his non-political employment history was minimal, that he had missed 1/3 of the roll call votes held during his first six years in Congress, that he had held no leadership positions in either house and had generated no legislation of note, and that his father had purchased the Boston Post during his maiden Senate campaign. By the time you were talking to her in 1988, the rest of the dirt was public information (bar his dealings with Max (“Dr. Feelgood”) Jacobson and his roping the Secret Service into his sexual escapades).
    It was a commonplace in 1988 to hear the Democratic candidates referred to as ‘the seven dwarves’. Retrospectively, this seems strange, for reasons stated. As for the Republican candidates, why do three men quite accomplished outside of political life (Bush, Robertson, and Haig), a veteran legislator who had led his caucus (Dole), a wonkish and ideologically committed member of Congress (Kemp), and another fellow who had held both executive and legislative offices and and knew something of the business world (duPont) qualify as pygmies when compared to career pols with no executive experience (e.g. Kennedy and Johnson)?

    Reply
  19. janet

    I can’t for the life of me figure out, Art, why Maclin is required to do anything on his own blog other than what he wants, or why some anonymous person has the authority to lay down the law.
    AMDG

    Reply
  20. Mac

    I laughed at “required.”

    Reply
  21. Rob G

    no one is mentioning why Santorum, the big “social issues” candidate lost his Senate seat: he betrayed the prolifers of Pennsylvania by campaigning for Arlen Specter against a prolife challenger. The Democrats wisely ran a prolife Democrat against him and he lost badly
    As a Pa. resident who watched this race closely, I can say that this is partially true but it does not explain Santorum’s loss in toto. Fact is, the Dems were able to portray him as a “Bush-bot,” a kneejerk supporter of W, esp. when it came to issues related to the Iraq war and on economics. Santorum was tagged as a Bush clone — that’s what hurt him in the big picture.

    Reply
  22. Art Deco

    I can’t for the life of me figure out, Art, why Maclin is required to do anything on his own blog other than what he wants, or why some anonymous person has the authority to lay down the law.
    I challenged him to explain a position he had taken. No one outside your imagination has claimed any authority to lay down any law or required of him anything.

    Reply
  23. Mac

    I always figured that Santorum’s support for Specter (what a great name for him) was one of those realpolitik deals that in this case backfired. Wasn’t there a concern that Specter’s prolife challenger would lose to the Democrat? thus being a long-term strategic loss? Not that that’s necessarily true, but I thought that was part of the rationale.
    Or maybe it was just cronyism.
    Didn’t the supposedly pro-life Dem turn out to be a dud from that point of view?

    Reply
  24. ex pat

    I tried looking up Specter on Wiki after Dan made his comment, but this story remains too complicated for me to grasp.

    Reply
  25. Mac

    I think the broad outline goes like this: incumbent liberal Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was facing a primary challenge from a more conservative and strongly anti-abortion Republican, whose name I believe was Toomey. Santorum, the other incumbent, and much more conservative, Republican senator of Pennsylvania, supported Specter. This antagonized conservatives, especially anti-abortion people. A couple of years later when Santorum was up for re-election he lost to his Democratic opponent, who was at least nominally anti-abortion, and his support for Specter was considered partly responsible.
    Here’s a summary of the reasons for the loss from Santorum’s Wiki:
    ‘Despite then-President George W. Bush having a 38% approval rating in Pennsylvania, Santorum said in a debate that “I think he’s been a terrific president, absolutely.” Also problematic, however, was a Santorum endorsement that alienated conservatives: his 2004 endorsement of his Republican Senate colleague Arlen Specter over conservative Congressman Pat Toomey in the 2004 primary for Pennsylvania’s other senate seat. Many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans considered the Specter endorsement to be a betrayal of their cause. However, Santorum says he endorsed Specter to ensure that Bush’s judicial nominees would make it through the Senate, as Specter was then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and considered by some to be more electable than the more conservative Toomey.’

    Reply
  26. Peter Rosa

    If history is any guide, which granted can be a big “if,” the Republican nominee is likely to be the next president. In the last several decades three presidents have run for re-election while the unemployment rate was over 7.5% (Ford 1976, Carter 1980, Bush Sr. 1992), and all three of them have lost. Even if the unemployment rate continues its decline from the current 8.5% it’s not likely to fall below the crucial 7.5% level by Election Day. Obama had better hope that he can break with history.

    Reply
  27. Mac

    Heh. That’s pretty much the argument that Art Deco was making in another thread recently. Things may well turn out that way. And it’s still a long time till the election. Who knows what things will look like, either politically or economically, by September or so?

    Reply
  28. Peter

    Obama’s best hope is to be like Reagan in 1984. While the unemployment rate was below 7.5% it was just barely below. after having been above (often well above) that level for almost all of Reagan’s first term. What was more important was not the actual rate on Election Day, but the fact that it had been on a steady decline. It had come down two full percentage points from its peak a couple of years earlier.
    The current unemployment rate of 8.5% is down 1.6% from its 2009 peak, so Obama hasn’t yet benefited from a similar decline, but as you note there’s still quite a ways to go until the election. Should the rate be in the 7.5% to 8.1% range in November Obama’s chances may not be as slim as the Ford/Carter/Bush Sr. examples may indicate.
    On a harder-to-measure basis, Reagan also benefited from a general feeling in 1984 that the country was on the right track and things were getting better. There doesn’t yet seem to be much if any of that sentiment today, indeed the doom-and-gloom stories are as pervasive as ever. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

    Reply
  29. Art Deco

    That’s pretty much the argument that Art Deco was making in another thread recently
    Actually, my argument had three components, not just one.
    Obama’s best hope is to be like Reagan in 1984.
    Not likely. The economic recovery in the two years prior to the 1984 election was unusually vigorous, with real growth in production of 6.6% per annum. The administration also had an unexpected accomplishment to its name(restabilizing prices). Europe was not careering into a sovereign debt crisis either. Growth in production has averaged 1.9% per annum these last two years. Obama has not, as did Reagan (and Clinton, and Nixon, and Ford) experienced any sustained improvement in observable public approval in the last year either.

    Reply
  30. Louise on the iPod

    Deccers, I cannot help but think that the appropriate word for you is “chillax.” I mean, I know some people just love to argue and it does seem to be something of a national pastime for Americans but really Maclin is really only describing a gut instinct he has about the eventual outcome of this election. I don’t think he’s putting forward a real debating topic about Principles or anything.

    Reply
  31. Louise on the iPod

    Maybe we should have a real disputation: “whether Obama will lose the next election.”
    Or maybe “whether Maclin’s gut feelings about the outcome of the election are worth debating”

    Reply
  32. Rob G

    Yes, Toomey (who’s now our junior senator) was seen as somewhat extreme back in 2004, even further to the right than Santorum was. Because of that there were questions about his electability in the general election.
    When Toomey ran for senate in 2010 against the Obama-supported Joe Sestak, I sat that one out. Although Toomey is a strong pro-life Catholic, he was also president of the Club For Growth for a number of years, and I couldn’t bring myself to vote for someone who represents that sort of fiscal libertarianism.

    Reply
  33. Mac

    A bit more than a gut feeling, but certainly subjective: my appraisal of the appeal the Republican candidates will have (or not have) to voters. But definitely not worth debating in the sense that principles are. The question will be settled by the election. As they say of arguments over whose predictions about a football game are correct, that’s why they play the game.

    Reply
  34. Art Deco

    Deccers, I cannot help but think that the appropriate word for you is “chillax.”
    And you would be wrong.
    I mean, I know some people just love to argue and it does seem to be something of a national pastime for Americans but really Maclin is really only describing a gut instinct he has about the eventual outcome of this election
    The primary discussion concerned his report of his great-aunt’s views of the candidates 24 years ago juxtaposed to his view of the current crop.

    Reply
  35. Mac

    I don’t know much about the Club for Growth, Rob, but in general libertarian economic views are not a deal-breaker for me, although I don’t agree with them. Actually I would prefer a principled libertarian candidate to a crony-capitalist one.

    Reply
  36. ex pat

    The thing about the Republican field is that, to judge by the media, the conservative or Republican media doesn’t like them particularly. We saw the comment about from Jonah Goldberg which Mac posted, about ‘OK, that was the rehearsal, now will the real candidates take the field. A few weeks ago in the WSJ Peggy Noonan said something on the lines, ‘at this point one decides that one has to fight with the army one has’. If that’s the degree of enthusiasm of died in the wool Republicans for them, what will everyone else think?

    Reply
  37. Louise

    Sorry, Deccers, I just can’t see the point in having a ding-dong over Maclin’s prediction.
    A ding-dong over the actual politics or political philosophy involved, I can understand.

    Reply
  38. Louise

    So, ex pat, I guess that’s why Maclin’s prediction for this election is what it is. And fair enough.

    Reply
  39. Louise

    “If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?”
    btw, I thought that question was great!
    Any time I think about multiple spouses (which is rarely, thank Heaven) the thing which really puts me off is the stress on one’s time management.

    Reply
  40. Mac

    “the conservative or Republican media doesn’t like them particularly.”
    Right, and although one can’t judge voters at large by what the pundits say, all the candidates seem to have some major weakness which the Democrats will find it very easy to exploit. Also, a lot of more committed conservatives think Romney, who has been considered inevitable, would, if elected, likely be a disaster like the last Bush, who in eight years really didn’t do much to advance anything that they consider worthwhile.

    Reply
  41. Mac

    “…multiple spouses…the stress on one’s time management.”
    I am a happily married man, but still…whenever polygamy is mentioned, a variant of the opening of Arthur Hugh Clough’s “Latest Decalogue” passes through my mind:
    “Thou shalt have one God only; who
    Would be at the expense of two?”
    Not monetary expense especially, but, you know…marriage makes a lot of demands on one.

    Reply
  42. Rob G

    The Club for Growth is the sort of pro-globalization, pro-free trade, pro-corporate outfit that I find very problematic. They go beyond your regular garden variety libertarianism.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Janet Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress