After The Debate
By Jerome Grossman
At the third debate, John McCain accused Barack Obama of promoting "single-payer" national health insurance, a system that puts every American on the equivalent of Medicare, the efficient low cost system that keeps retirees alive. Barack's response was a grin and "who me?" Then he and McCain outlined their complex health insurance plans that few could understand in detail, plans that would cross a rabbi's eyes.
Neither candidate told us how to revive the crashing economy, joining the professional economists and Nobel Laureates who are also lost. Both candidates support the quick rescue of banks and bankers from their derivative mistakes, but are slow to restore the purchasing power of the American masses by building roads, schools, hospitals etc.
They agree that America is spending beyond its means resulting in enormous deficits. Yet they support expensive military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the largest military establishment in the world including 737 US military bases in 130 countries.
The winner of the debate was the most handsome, the most likable, the most articulate, the smoothest and the youngest performer who overcame an irascible old man, the representative of a collapsing political party facing abject domestic and foreign failure. Obama could have clarified the differences between the parties by asking McCain a simple question: “Is this a good time to talk to you about your plan to privatize Social Security?” But the debate revealed no solutions to the overwhelming problems. If they arrive at all they will come after the Obama inauguration, after the celebration, in the glorious first 100 days - we hope.
And hope will be needed, for the future is a mystery. As pundit David Broder wrote in the Washington Post. “Something strange is happening in this strangest of all presidential contests. The longer it goes on, the less we know about what either of these men would do if he were in the Oval Office next year.”
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
McCain's Last Gasp
McCain's Last Gasp
By Jerome Grossman
William Kristol, the neo-con columnist at the New York Times, has surrendered the campaign of John McCain. “His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's........ McCain is doomed.”
Obama's lead in the polls is lengthening. He is far ahead on domestic issues although today’s stock market rally will help McCain by modifying the wave of bad financial news. Public concern about foreign and military policy, issues on which McCain is strong, continues to slide.
Look for a shift in the McCain strategy, away from issues of public policy, away from attacks on Obama's associations, away from Obama's inexperience.
The McCain focus in the last two weeks of the campaign will be his life story, his ancestors, his military service, his five year imprisonment in Hanoi, his bi-partisan initiatives in Congress, his embodiment of the American Hero and American values, making him the person who "deserves to be President."
This story, this strategy, may not work but it appears to be all that McCain has left.
Sic transit gloria mundi
By Jerome Grossman
William Kristol, the neo-con columnist at the New York Times, has surrendered the campaign of John McCain. “His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama's........ McCain is doomed.”
Obama's lead in the polls is lengthening. He is far ahead on domestic issues although today’s stock market rally will help McCain by modifying the wave of bad financial news. Public concern about foreign and military policy, issues on which McCain is strong, continues to slide.
Look for a shift in the McCain strategy, away from issues of public policy, away from attacks on Obama's associations, away from Obama's inexperience.
The McCain focus in the last two weeks of the campaign will be his life story, his ancestors, his military service, his five year imprisonment in Hanoi, his bi-partisan initiatives in Congress, his embodiment of the American Hero and American values, making him the person who "deserves to be President."
This story, this strategy, may not work but it appears to be all that McCain has left.
Sic transit gloria mundi
Monday, September 8, 2008
Race Will Decide
Race Will Decide
By Jerome Grossman
If Barack Obama had selected Hillary Clinton as his vice president, he would have unified the Democratic Party, obtained the allegiance of her 18 million voters and put the ticket on the road to a landslide victory in November. Sarah Palin would have remained an obscure Governor and John McCain would have insisted on nominating his pal, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate.
The Republican political base would still be depressed, distrustful of McCain and hostile to Lieberman as that team ran to prove they were mavericks, rebels within their parties, hoping for a miracle.
Now we have a presidential campaign fought on personality and abortion and religion. Obama may complain about the personality factor, but he should remember that he defeated Hillary Clinton because he was more likable, not because of his issue positions.
As recently as the 2000 election, McCain stood against the ideologues and moneyed interests of the GOP. His transformation in this election was intended to win the nomination and his selection of Palin was primarily to use her to attack Obama's character. Watch her target: it won't be Joe Biden. Palin will indeed rally the party base, but will that be enough?
Palin's convention speech featured biting and sarcastic partisanship in the style of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, focusing on Obama personally in an attack-dog mode. Instead of presenting herself as a trustworthy leader, she told whom she hates and why. She kept away from the bread and butter concerns of the average voter. In the GOP division of political labor that will be McCain's responsibility taking the high road, while Palin does the attacking on the low road.
The Republican plan should not work. The McCain connection with President Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq, the price of gasoline, the housing crisis, the rising unemployment, the poor economy, should lead to a Democratic victory. Transforming the election into a plebiscite on abortion and religion and race may give the GOP a chance. However, at this time the Democrats appear to have the advantage in money, intensity and organization. Republican efforts are limited by very weak forces on the ground and it will be very difficult to rebuild in less than two months. They will have to motivate supporters through the media.
Race, of course, is the prime factor in this election. Yes, America has made great strides in improving the status of African-Americans. Yes, more blacks have attained middle-class status and good jobs in business and the professions. But a form of tribalism exist in our country that affects virtually all relationships including voting. The electorate is predominantly white and some will vote accordingly. Obstacles to black voting have lessened but still exist. Polling of likely voters does not always reveal true voting intentions.
To win, Barack Obama will need to build multiracial coalitions and that is already in progress. In some ways, that effort is really a test of our society, under improving racial conditions, in support of a candidate with the personality, appearance, education, life history and ability to which most Americans aspire.
The day before the election, Obama will be ahead in the public opinion polls by seven to 10% but that will translate into a very close election as some white voters will change their minds and their votes on Election Day as they have in the recent past. Every vote will be important.
By Jerome Grossman
If Barack Obama had selected Hillary Clinton as his vice president, he would have unified the Democratic Party, obtained the allegiance of her 18 million voters and put the ticket on the road to a landslide victory in November. Sarah Palin would have remained an obscure Governor and John McCain would have insisted on nominating his pal, Joe Lieberman, as his running mate.
The Republican political base would still be depressed, distrustful of McCain and hostile to Lieberman as that team ran to prove they were mavericks, rebels within their parties, hoping for a miracle.
Now we have a presidential campaign fought on personality and abortion and religion. Obama may complain about the personality factor, but he should remember that he defeated Hillary Clinton because he was more likable, not because of his issue positions.
As recently as the 2000 election, McCain stood against the ideologues and moneyed interests of the GOP. His transformation in this election was intended to win the nomination and his selection of Palin was primarily to use her to attack Obama's character. Watch her target: it won't be Joe Biden. Palin will indeed rally the party base, but will that be enough?
Palin's convention speech featured biting and sarcastic partisanship in the style of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, focusing on Obama personally in an attack-dog mode. Instead of presenting herself as a trustworthy leader, she told whom she hates and why. She kept away from the bread and butter concerns of the average voter. In the GOP division of political labor that will be McCain's responsibility taking the high road, while Palin does the attacking on the low road.
The Republican plan should not work. The McCain connection with President Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq, the price of gasoline, the housing crisis, the rising unemployment, the poor economy, should lead to a Democratic victory. Transforming the election into a plebiscite on abortion and religion and race may give the GOP a chance. However, at this time the Democrats appear to have the advantage in money, intensity and organization. Republican efforts are limited by very weak forces on the ground and it will be very difficult to rebuild in less than two months. They will have to motivate supporters through the media.
Race, of course, is the prime factor in this election. Yes, America has made great strides in improving the status of African-Americans. Yes, more blacks have attained middle-class status and good jobs in business and the professions. But a form of tribalism exist in our country that affects virtually all relationships including voting. The electorate is predominantly white and some will vote accordingly. Obstacles to black voting have lessened but still exist. Polling of likely voters does not always reveal true voting intentions.
To win, Barack Obama will need to build multiracial coalitions and that is already in progress. In some ways, that effort is really a test of our society, under improving racial conditions, in support of a candidate with the personality, appearance, education, life history and ability to which most Americans aspire.
The day before the election, Obama will be ahead in the public opinion polls by seven to 10% but that will translate into a very close election as some white voters will change their minds and their votes on Election Day as they have in the recent past. Every vote will be important.
Monday, April 7, 2008
John McCain, War Hero
John McCain, War Hero
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
By Jerome Grossman
Up to this point in the race for president of the United States, the uncrowned but virtually certain nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, is doing remarkably well in the public opinion polls. McCain is holding his own against both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. According to all the polls, if the election were held today, he would have an even chance of victory.
This is surprising because of the political difficulties of the Republican Party; short of money, besieged by factional quarrels, a support base with less than customary enthusiasm, an unpopular president presiding over an economy in recession and two unresolved wars.
Yet, McCain is competitive in spite of these overwhelming negatives. One explanation offered is his life history, especially his military service in the Vietnam War. As squadron leader in combat flying, he was shot down, gravely wounded, captured by the enemy, held prisoner for five years, and tortured by his Vietnamese captors. Obama and Clinton have no military experience.
Could this heroic experience be the basis for his political popularity? The American voters have often rewarded their military heroes with the presidency, among them George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush (the father).
However, in the last four elections, authentic war heroes were defeated by rivals who not only did not serve but appeared to have made special efforts not to serve. In 1992, war hero George H. W. Bush (the father) lost to Bill Clinton. In 1996 war hero Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. In 2000, war hero Al Gore lost to George W. Bush (the son). In 2004, war hero John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. It is difficult to explain the political rejection of these war heroes, while most Americans intensely “support the troops,” wherever they are, whatever they do.
On Election Day, 2008, the United States will be engaged in at least two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time it will have the largest military budget in the history of the world plus 737 military bases in 130 countries on every continent. McCain is gung-ho for the two wars and very supportive of the military program. Will the election of war hero John McCain be regarded as another ratification of US military policy by the American public, a policy which includes the entire planet as its sphere of influence and operation? Will President McCain rely on his military experience and U.S. military dominance to solve the inevitable problems posed by American hegemony?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Generalities Without Content
Generalities Without Content
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
By Jerome Grossman
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the voters the same agenda: their positions on issues are quite similar and match the Democratic Congressional stands. As long as their centrist positions differ from the right wing conservative positions of the discredited Bush administration, they can rally enough Democrats and Independents for victory in November.
This situation gives a significant edge to Obama, whose personality, charisma and oratorical skills completely overshadow Clinton. Hillary compensates by producing details of the issues, acting as the smartest girl in the class, but not offering new approaches to old problems. For example, she could break the impasse on health care by offering a single-payer government-run system including every American, a system used by virtually every industrial nation. But Hillary would rather offer an improved version of the current system, staying within the Democratic consensus.
Supporters of Barack Obama praise him for his foreign policy. In The American Prospect magazine, April 2008, the entire front cover blazes in multicolor with the message, "The Obama Doctrine, Barack Obama's challenge to the foreign policy establishment."
Some challenge. The article offers "the most sweeping liberal critique in decades." Examples offered: dignity promotion, enlightened global leadership, freedom from want, freedom from fear, elimination of misery, promotion of liberty, justice, and prosperity. The only specific policy listed is the destruction of Al Qaeda as though that is all that is necessary to achieve these worthy objectives.
Across the 50 states, more than 100 candidates ran for president although only 18 of them were selected by the presidential commission to appear on the televised debates. They represented a wide spectrum of parties and views. It is fair to say that virtually every candidate would agree with the generalities, the bromides attributed to the Obama campaign. Do these motherhood goals constitute a foreign policy challenging the establishment?
An authentic challenge to the foreign policy establishment would be to advocate specific changes to accomplish the stated objectives. The devil is in the details. The credibility of any program is in the “how to.” Please, beloved candidates, tell the American voters what you will actually do. The people are fed up with generalities without content.
Offering bromides without policy is an insult to the voters and a failure of democracy, one of the reasons why 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. One of the candidates should break this logjam by offering credible specifics. From the history of politics, we know that person will be the one running behind the others. But if that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the media to stir the pot, to demand relevant answers. Where are they?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Origin of SuperDelegates
The Origin of SuperDelegates
The peace movement in Massachusetts was determined to have a role in the 1972 presidential election by getting behind a single antiwar candidate early, as we had done in the Drinan race. We decided to let the activists choose the candidate and unite behind him.
The preparations were easy, since we already had rules and methods. For this caucus, unlike Drinan’s, we didn't care if the candidates made their pitches in person. We thought it might actually be better if they didn't show up and work their charisma on the participants. We were selecting the candidate behind whom we could unite. It was our party, not theirs. We added two more objectives: we wanted to persuade similar groups around the country to imitate our course of action, and we wanted to be the first such mini-convention, so our result would influence any others. If other groups shared our objective of choosing only one, there would be great pressure on liberals in other states to echo our choice.
We succeeded. We were first on line, in January 1972, and six other states held similar meetings.
Senator George McGovern had been extremely active since the 1968 election, reforming the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party so the rank-and-file had greater power, leading the debates in the Senate on Vietnam and other war and peace issues, and speaking around the country as he did to the Massachusetts Moratorium Rally. McGovern overcame the suspicion generated at the 1968 Democratic convention when he allowed Robert Kennedy delegates to nominate him while the McCarthy delegates were trying to combine the two groups.
When the Massachusetts Liberal Caucus selected McGovern, he had less than 1% voter support in the public opinion polls. That evening, McGovern called to thank the group through me as one of the prime organizers. He said that Ted Kennedy had phoned him and told him, “You're on your way now. That group is hard-working and effective. They will kill themselves for you.”
Nevertheless, everybody who was anybody in Massachusetts remain committed to the “sure” nominee, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, who’d been on the Democratic ticket with Humphrey in 1968. Virtually every Democratic officeholder and big contributor was working for Big Ed, from Tip O’Neill to Mike Dukakis to Barney Frank. As McGovern's man in Massachusetts, I put together the delegation to represent him on the Massachusetts primary ballot. It was the broadest delegation the party had ever assembled. It was 50% women and included black neighborhood leaders, Hispanics, radicals, liberals, professors like John Kenneth Galbraith, a few officeholders like Drinan, and people who had been handing out leaflets for years without ever receiving any goodies.
I was tickled at my handiwork, especially when McGovern shocked the party and swept the primary. When the time came for the convention, the idea that the political bosses of Massachusetts were home and a hundred “just folks” were in Miami deciding the fate of the party gave me the greatest kick.. And the “just folks” worked very hard. Every decision was carefully studied and discussed and voted on. When the McGovern whips came to instruct the delegation, sometimes we accepted their instructions and sometimes we didn't. For example, there were two delegations from Illinois competing for seating, one led by Mayor Richard Daley, the other by insurgents who claimed Daley had used unfair tactics. The McGovern organization begged us to seat Daley and his people because we needed him to carry Illinois but there was no way we were going to reward “His Honor” after the police riot at the Chicago convention. The delegation voted for the insurgents, who carried the day. But on the key California challenge that could have cost McGovern the nomination we voted solidly as recommended.
One convention day a rumor swept the delegation that Mayor Kevin white of Boston was about to be offered the nomination for Vice President. At first, nobody took it very seriously, but when we did, Galbraith, Drinan and I got word to McGovern that he should reconsider, reminding him of how White had attacked the moratorium arguing that such a hawk should not be on the ticket. The real damage was done by Ted Kennedy, who is reported to have said that, for other reasons, he would not campaign for the ticket if White was on it.
The professional politicians resented the new kind of delegates. Tip O’Neill, known for his tolerance and good humor and a self-styled liberal, did not contain himself: In his book “Man of the House,” published in 1987, he wrote, “Flying back from the 1972 convention I had a long talk with Bob Strauss the treasurer and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. All of us were bitter at what we had just witnessed. The convention was filled with first-time delegates, mostly women and minorities who spent the bulk of their time fighting over the various planks of the party platform.”
I thought the convention was an exhilarating experience. The delegates talked issues virtually 24 hours a day instead of drinking whiskey and buttering up big contributors. It was an authentic peoples convention that pushed aside the pros for a glorious week.
In six months, McGovern had gone from less than 1% in the polls to being a heavy favorite for Democratic nomination. It was a political revolution propelled by dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War abroad and domestic turmoil at home. McGovern's rise to power in the party came against the wishes of the party professionals and the big money givers. The McGovern campaign workers in the field were left- liberal amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly. And the money poured in in small contributions from all over the country. There were no financial angel's.
But as soon as nomination was assured, McGovern and his advisers began to eye the center to broaden the base of the movement. One day in June, 1972, a friend of mine overheard McGovern and his campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, discuss strategy in Massachusetts. The first thing they had to do they decided, was make sure Jerry Grossman didn't get on the DNC. I knew nothing about the DNC. I had to go to the library to learn about its duties and processes. It was certainly outside the range of my ambition. My role has always been to be an organizer for avant-garde ideas. I am a natural contrarian of the left.
However, the story made me angry, and I decided to run for the DNC just for the hell of it. The McGovern people spread the word that David Harrison, former chair of the Massachusetts Democratic State committee and now a lawyer lobbyist, was McGovern's choice. If they had taken up the matter with me and appealed to me on practical political grounds, I probably would have gone along, but they didn't.
For decades, DNC members in Massachusetts, one man and one woman, had been chosen by the convention delegation, a safe process because the delegation had always been dominated by professional officeholders, with a sprinkling of big contributors. In 1972, however, virtually every delegate had been asked on to the slate by me as chief organizer for McGovern and a few who hadn’t knew I was the soul of the McGovern effort in Massachusetts. I easily polished off Harrison on the first ballot, but I had more of a contest with my liberal friends.
Nixon won 49 states in November; McGovern carried Massachusetts. It wasn't long before Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and bumper stickers with the message: “Don't blame me,I'm from Massachusetts” appeared on cars throughout the state.
This anecdote is reprinted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman Vantage Press New York1996
Robert F. Drinan, S.J.was a Roman Catholic priest, Dean of the Boston College Law School, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 defeating an entrenched incumbent in a campaign organized by grassroots peace activists opposed to the Vietnam War. This election began the political process that transformed Massachusetts into the ultra liberal state. Father Drinan served in Congress for 10 years.
Thomas P. O'Neill (Tip) was a professional politician whose unbroken string of election victories culminated in his terms as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives He was the most powerful politician in Massachusetts with great national influence.
The peace movement in Massachusetts was determined to have a role in the 1972 presidential election by getting behind a single antiwar candidate early, as we had done in the Drinan race. We decided to let the activists choose the candidate and unite behind him.
The preparations were easy, since we already had rules and methods. For this caucus, unlike Drinan’s, we didn't care if the candidates made their pitches in person. We thought it might actually be better if they didn't show up and work their charisma on the participants. We were selecting the candidate behind whom we could unite. It was our party, not theirs. We added two more objectives: we wanted to persuade similar groups around the country to imitate our course of action, and we wanted to be the first such mini-convention, so our result would influence any others. If other groups shared our objective of choosing only one, there would be great pressure on liberals in other states to echo our choice.
We succeeded. We were first on line, in January 1972, and six other states held similar meetings.
Senator George McGovern had been extremely active since the 1968 election, reforming the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party so the rank-and-file had greater power, leading the debates in the Senate on Vietnam and other war and peace issues, and speaking around the country as he did to the Massachusetts Moratorium Rally. McGovern overcame the suspicion generated at the 1968 Democratic convention when he allowed Robert Kennedy delegates to nominate him while the McCarthy delegates were trying to combine the two groups.
When the Massachusetts Liberal Caucus selected McGovern, he had less than 1% voter support in the public opinion polls. That evening, McGovern called to thank the group through me as one of the prime organizers. He said that Ted Kennedy had phoned him and told him, “You're on your way now. That group is hard-working and effective. They will kill themselves for you.”
Nevertheless, everybody who was anybody in Massachusetts remain committed to the “sure” nominee, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, who’d been on the Democratic ticket with Humphrey in 1968. Virtually every Democratic officeholder and big contributor was working for Big Ed, from Tip O’Neill to Mike Dukakis to Barney Frank. As McGovern's man in Massachusetts, I put together the delegation to represent him on the Massachusetts primary ballot. It was the broadest delegation the party had ever assembled. It was 50% women and included black neighborhood leaders, Hispanics, radicals, liberals, professors like John Kenneth Galbraith, a few officeholders like Drinan, and people who had been handing out leaflets for years without ever receiving any goodies.
I was tickled at my handiwork, especially when McGovern shocked the party and swept the primary. When the time came for the convention, the idea that the political bosses of Massachusetts were home and a hundred “just folks” were in Miami deciding the fate of the party gave me the greatest kick.. And the “just folks” worked very hard. Every decision was carefully studied and discussed and voted on. When the McGovern whips came to instruct the delegation, sometimes we accepted their instructions and sometimes we didn't. For example, there were two delegations from Illinois competing for seating, one led by Mayor Richard Daley, the other by insurgents who claimed Daley had used unfair tactics. The McGovern organization begged us to seat Daley and his people because we needed him to carry Illinois but there was no way we were going to reward “His Honor” after the police riot at the Chicago convention. The delegation voted for the insurgents, who carried the day. But on the key California challenge that could have cost McGovern the nomination we voted solidly as recommended.
One convention day a rumor swept the delegation that Mayor Kevin white of Boston was about to be offered the nomination for Vice President. At first, nobody took it very seriously, but when we did, Galbraith, Drinan and I got word to McGovern that he should reconsider, reminding him of how White had attacked the moratorium arguing that such a hawk should not be on the ticket. The real damage was done by Ted Kennedy, who is reported to have said that, for other reasons, he would not campaign for the ticket if White was on it.
The professional politicians resented the new kind of delegates. Tip O’Neill, known for his tolerance and good humor and a self-styled liberal, did not contain himself: In his book “Man of the House,” published in 1987, he wrote, “Flying back from the 1972 convention I had a long talk with Bob Strauss the treasurer and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. All of us were bitter at what we had just witnessed. The convention was filled with first-time delegates, mostly women and minorities who spent the bulk of their time fighting over the various planks of the party platform.”
I thought the convention was an exhilarating experience. The delegates talked issues virtually 24 hours a day instead of drinking whiskey and buttering up big contributors. It was an authentic peoples convention that pushed aside the pros for a glorious week.
In six months, McGovern had gone from less than 1% in the polls to being a heavy favorite for Democratic nomination. It was a political revolution propelled by dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War abroad and domestic turmoil at home. McGovern's rise to power in the party came against the wishes of the party professionals and the big money givers. The McGovern campaign workers in the field were left- liberal amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly. And the money poured in in small contributions from all over the country. There were no financial angel's.
But as soon as nomination was assured, McGovern and his advisers began to eye the center to broaden the base of the movement. One day in June, 1972, a friend of mine overheard McGovern and his campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, discuss strategy in Massachusetts. The first thing they had to do they decided, was make sure Jerry Grossman didn't get on the DNC. I knew nothing about the DNC. I had to go to the library to learn about its duties and processes. It was certainly outside the range of my ambition. My role has always been to be an organizer for avant-garde ideas. I am a natural contrarian of the left.
However, the story made me angry, and I decided to run for the DNC just for the hell of it. The McGovern people spread the word that David Harrison, former chair of the Massachusetts Democratic State committee and now a lawyer lobbyist, was McGovern's choice. If they had taken up the matter with me and appealed to me on practical political grounds, I probably would have gone along, but they didn't.
For decades, DNC members in Massachusetts, one man and one woman, had been chosen by the convention delegation, a safe process because the delegation had always been dominated by professional officeholders, with a sprinkling of big contributors. In 1972, however, virtually every delegate had been asked on to the slate by me as chief organizer for McGovern and a few who hadn’t knew I was the soul of the McGovern effort in Massachusetts. I easily polished off Harrison on the first ballot, but I had more of a contest with my liberal friends.
Nixon won 49 states in November; McGovern carried Massachusetts. It wasn't long before Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and bumper stickers with the message: “Don't blame me,I'm from Massachusetts” appeared on cars throughout the state.
This anecdote is reprinted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman Vantage Press New York1996
Robert F. Drinan, S.J.was a Roman Catholic priest, Dean of the Boston College Law School, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 defeating an entrenched incumbent in a campaign organized by grassroots peace activists opposed to the Vietnam War. This election began the political process that transformed Massachusetts into the ultra liberal state. Father Drinan served in Congress for 10 years.
Thomas P. O'Neill (Tip) was a professional politician whose unbroken string of election victories culminated in his terms as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives He was the most powerful politician in Massachusetts with great national influence.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Race and Gender Matter
Race and Gender Matter
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats have a number of core constituencies: women, organized labor, African-Americans, liberals and Hispanics. Ideally, to satisfy all power centers in the party, a Democratic president would like to have five vice-presidents to represent the interests of each group but the Constitution is in the way so they are usually placed in the president's cabinet.
In the talent pool for the current campaign, the Democrats have produced two superior candidates, an African-American and a woman, both trying to break the historic monopoly enjoyed by white men. Their rise to leadership seems to signal a change in American attitudes toward women and people of color. Have we transcended race and gender in America? Is that why the Democrats have brought twice as many voters to the polls as the GOP and raised far more money?
The Republicans will have a problem remaining competitive whether the Democrats nominate Obama or Clinton. They already have a 71-year-old white man, who looks the part, at the top of the ticket. The American fetish with youth and especially with the celebrity culture requires a stunningly original choice to confuse the opposition as well as the voters.
If a woman and a black are capturing all those primary votes in every state and raising so many millions of dollars, the GOP can get into the act by presenting to the nation a candidate for vice- president who is a twofer, both a woman and an African-American - Condoleezza Rice. As Secretary of State, the former national security adviser, professor and concert pianist has the experience and savoir faire to attract the celebrity conscious U.S. public. Her link with unpopular President Bush is a negative she already shares with John McCain. She would bring an unusual combination of youth and experience to the GOP ticket and could become a star if she told us what went wrong with U.S. foreign policy and how she would repair it. And from an insider’s perspective, it might be sensational and irresistible.
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats have a number of core constituencies: women, organized labor, African-Americans, liberals and Hispanics. Ideally, to satisfy all power centers in the party, a Democratic president would like to have five vice-presidents to represent the interests of each group but the Constitution is in the way so they are usually placed in the president's cabinet.
In the talent pool for the current campaign, the Democrats have produced two superior candidates, an African-American and a woman, both trying to break the historic monopoly enjoyed by white men. Their rise to leadership seems to signal a change in American attitudes toward women and people of color. Have we transcended race and gender in America? Is that why the Democrats have brought twice as many voters to the polls as the GOP and raised far more money?
The Republicans will have a problem remaining competitive whether the Democrats nominate Obama or Clinton. They already have a 71-year-old white man, who looks the part, at the top of the ticket. The American fetish with youth and especially with the celebrity culture requires a stunningly original choice to confuse the opposition as well as the voters.
If a woman and a black are capturing all those primary votes in every state and raising so many millions of dollars, the GOP can get into the act by presenting to the nation a candidate for vice- president who is a twofer, both a woman and an African-American - Condoleezza Rice. As Secretary of State, the former national security adviser, professor and concert pianist has the experience and savoir faire to attract the celebrity conscious U.S. public. Her link with unpopular President Bush is a negative she already shares with John McCain. She would bring an unusual combination of youth and experience to the GOP ticket and could become a star if she told us what went wrong with U.S. foreign policy and how she would repair it. And from an insider’s perspective, it might be sensational and irresistible.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Revisiting John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Revisiting John Fitzgerald Kennedy
By Jerome Grossman
President John F. Kennedy has a special place in the hearts of Americans for many positive reasons but especially because he was assassinated in the middle of his term of office on November 22, 1963. A handsome and charismatic leader, he was a gifted orator whose speeches regularly focused on inspirational themes. He arrived at the White House with no executive experience, a factor that led him into serious difficulties early in his term.
In his campaign for election in 1960, Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower - Nixon administration from the right, accusing it of weakening American security by building too few planes, missiles and other military supplies. After taking power, Kennedy significantly increased U.S. military strength and began using it in Vietnam, increasing the number of US soldiers there from 665 to 16, 000, and sending them into combat in Vietnam for the first time.
Early in his term, Kennedy suffered a serious defeat when he allowed the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that failed. Then he met in Vienna with Soviet Premier Khrushchev to negotiate rights to Berlin. That also failed, brought the two countries to the brink of war, and inaugurated a period of great tension and confrontation marked by the Soviet erection of the Berlin Wall.
Kennedy did have some minor successes in foreign-policy: establishing the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, and the Treaty Banning Nuclear Testing in the Atmosphere. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 received mixed reviews: some praised the result that avoided nuclear war, others criticized Kennedy for "brinkmanship."
On domestic matters, Kennedy offered programs for significant reform in many areas, but he was unable to negotiate them through the Democratic Congress. They were either killed or not acted upon. On the civil rights crisis, Kennedy initially asked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to cancel the 1963 March on Washington but acquiesced when it became inevitable. The Kennedy agenda was adopted by Congress under the leadership of his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who was an experienced manager and negotiator, who knew how to promote, threaten, swap and deal.
Now the powerful Kennedy family has endorsed Barack Obama for president because of his similarity in person, style, and the level of experience to the martyred president. Caroline Kennedy has written that "Obama would be a president like my father." Edward M. Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, and Ted Sorensen agree with her.
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would hope for his success in managing this complicated country of 300 million people with so many competing interests and negotiating with other nations to protect U.S. interests. In so many ways, Obama does remind of Kennedy; appearance, charisma, eloquence, poise and the emphasis on inspiration, but especially in his lack of executive experience. There is no guarantee that any of the presidential candidates of either party will be able to inspire, lead and manage. Of these abilities the most important is to manage and the career of charismatic John F. Kennedy proves the point.
By Jerome Grossman
President John F. Kennedy has a special place in the hearts of Americans for many positive reasons but especially because he was assassinated in the middle of his term of office on November 22, 1963. A handsome and charismatic leader, he was a gifted orator whose speeches regularly focused on inspirational themes. He arrived at the White House with no executive experience, a factor that led him into serious difficulties early in his term.
In his campaign for election in 1960, Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower - Nixon administration from the right, accusing it of weakening American security by building too few planes, missiles and other military supplies. After taking power, Kennedy significantly increased U.S. military strength and began using it in Vietnam, increasing the number of US soldiers there from 665 to 16, 000, and sending them into combat in Vietnam for the first time.
Early in his term, Kennedy suffered a serious defeat when he allowed the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that failed. Then he met in Vienna with Soviet Premier Khrushchev to negotiate rights to Berlin. That also failed, brought the two countries to the brink of war, and inaugurated a period of great tension and confrontation marked by the Soviet erection of the Berlin Wall.
Kennedy did have some minor successes in foreign-policy: establishing the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, and the Treaty Banning Nuclear Testing in the Atmosphere. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 received mixed reviews: some praised the result that avoided nuclear war, others criticized Kennedy for "brinkmanship."
On domestic matters, Kennedy offered programs for significant reform in many areas, but he was unable to negotiate them through the Democratic Congress. They were either killed or not acted upon. On the civil rights crisis, Kennedy initially asked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to cancel the 1963 March on Washington but acquiesced when it became inevitable. The Kennedy agenda was adopted by Congress under the leadership of his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who was an experienced manager and negotiator, who knew how to promote, threaten, swap and deal.
Now the powerful Kennedy family has endorsed Barack Obama for president because of his similarity in person, style, and the level of experience to the martyred president. Caroline Kennedy has written that "Obama would be a president like my father." Edward M. Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, and Ted Sorensen agree with her.
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would hope for his success in managing this complicated country of 300 million people with so many competing interests and negotiating with other nations to protect U.S. interests. In so many ways, Obama does remind of Kennedy; appearance, charisma, eloquence, poise and the emphasis on inspiration, but especially in his lack of executive experience. There is no guarantee that any of the presidential candidates of either party will be able to inspire, lead and manage. Of these abilities the most important is to manage and the career of charismatic John F. Kennedy proves the point.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Revisiting Ronald Reagan
Revisiting Ronald Reagan
By Jerome Grossman
All of the current Republican candidates for president regularly and repeatedly invoke the name and the spirit of Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of the party, hoping to bless themselves by adoration of his life and work. Even one Democrat, Barack Obama has used the spirit of Reagan as an endorsement of change saying to a Nevada newspaper that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Reagan did change American politics by assembling a coalition composed of social conservatives, national security hawks, pro-business advocates, anti-tax activists, and religious fundamentalists. To the social conservatives, Reagan attacked the federal welfare system using manufactured stories of welfare mothers driving in pink Cadillacs to pick up their checks. To the national security hawks, he got tough with the Soviet Union, threatening the “evil empire” with nuclear annihilation. To the pro-business advocates, he relaxed antitrust enforcement and listened to corporate lobbyists. To anti-tax activists, he dramatically reduced the tax rate, demeaned the Internal Revenue Service; Eisenhower's top rate was 91%, Kennedy reduced it to 70%, Reagan and GOP successors cut it again by half.
But Reagan's unique contribution was to motivate the religious fundamentalists into serious political activity. At a political function in 1971, for example, he revealed a belief and familiarity in religious millennialism: “Everything is falling into place. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons. They exist now and they never did in the past.” Then Reagan pointed out that Gog, the enemy of God and Israel is Russia, which “has set itself against God.” This echoes what the Rev Pat Robertson had been preaching and writing, that the invention of nuclear weapons should be welcomed as a sign of the immediacy of the Second Coming.
Reagan's notoriety and popularity increased as an icon of entertainment, bolstered by his acting career, his hosting of television programs, his work as spokesman for General Electric, and most importantly his electoral success in California. Some regarded him, however, as a washed up actor, an ignoramus and a tool of the rabid right. He suffered much of the same criticism of his intellectual capacity as George W. Bush.
Reagan did change America, as Bill Clinton said in 1991, while running for president,by exalting “private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family.” The great failure of the Clinton administration was that it failed to change the Reagan scenario. Now, the Democrats will have another opportunity but the campaigns so far have not spelled out the changes in foreign and domestic policy that will steer the nation away from Reaganism.
By Jerome Grossman
All of the current Republican candidates for president regularly and repeatedly invoke the name and the spirit of Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of the party, hoping to bless themselves by adoration of his life and work. Even one Democrat, Barack Obama has used the spirit of Reagan as an endorsement of change saying to a Nevada newspaper that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Reagan did change American politics by assembling a coalition composed of social conservatives, national security hawks, pro-business advocates, anti-tax activists, and religious fundamentalists. To the social conservatives, Reagan attacked the federal welfare system using manufactured stories of welfare mothers driving in pink Cadillacs to pick up their checks. To the national security hawks, he got tough with the Soviet Union, threatening the “evil empire” with nuclear annihilation. To the pro-business advocates, he relaxed antitrust enforcement and listened to corporate lobbyists. To anti-tax activists, he dramatically reduced the tax rate, demeaned the Internal Revenue Service; Eisenhower's top rate was 91%, Kennedy reduced it to 70%, Reagan and GOP successors cut it again by half.
But Reagan's unique contribution was to motivate the religious fundamentalists into serious political activity. At a political function in 1971, for example, he revealed a belief and familiarity in religious millennialism: “Everything is falling into place. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons. They exist now and they never did in the past.” Then Reagan pointed out that Gog, the enemy of God and Israel is Russia, which “has set itself against God.” This echoes what the Rev Pat Robertson had been preaching and writing, that the invention of nuclear weapons should be welcomed as a sign of the immediacy of the Second Coming.
Reagan's notoriety and popularity increased as an icon of entertainment, bolstered by his acting career, his hosting of television programs, his work as spokesman for General Electric, and most importantly his electoral success in California. Some regarded him, however, as a washed up actor, an ignoramus and a tool of the rabid right. He suffered much of the same criticism of his intellectual capacity as George W. Bush.
Reagan did change America, as Bill Clinton said in 1991, while running for president,by exalting “private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family.” The great failure of the Clinton administration was that it failed to change the Reagan scenario. Now, the Democrats will have another opportunity but the campaigns so far have not spelled out the changes in foreign and domestic policy that will steer the nation away from Reaganism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
