He'll Be Back

When a high profile politician does something that unites in opposition the party bosses from one end of the political spectrum to the other, it's a safe bet he's looking after the people's interests.  Who can claim this rare accolade?  Step forward California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger was one of the moving forces behind a California ballot referendum proposal,  Proposition 14, that was approved in that state's primary election last  week by a majority of 54% to 46%.  Although the political pundits focused on the outcome of a few specific primary contests,  Proposition 14 will likely have a more profound long-term impact on U.S. politics than any individual race, especially if other states follow California's lead.  

Proposition 14 changes the way in which Californians will elect candidates to statewide and Congressional office by replacing the traditional "primary" system with a two-stage general election.  The function of the primary election is to pick the candidates that will represent each party in the general election.   Rules differ from state to state, but the general principle is that a voter has to chose which party primary to vote in, and in many cases must register his or her affiliation with that party on or prior to the primary day.  In many states  a party affiliation,  one registered, can be changed only if the voter complies with certain bureaucratic formalities some time prior to the primary election date.  In place of this system, California will now have a two-stage open election in which anyone that meets the applicable eligibility criteria could stand as a candidate.  The candidates with the highest and second highest votes in the first round would then advance to the second round of voting - even if both were from the same party (or, indeed, from no party at all).

Supporters of the measure claim it will makes politics less partisan and allow voters to focus on the qualifications of the individual candidates.  It will empower individual voters at the expense of party bosses, increase voter turnout at elections and sharply reduce the need for candidates to pander to extremist fringe groups in order to get elected.  It will help open up the system to candidates who are not lifelong professional politicians and aren't beholden to others once they get elected.  I agree, and so apparently do the party bosses - that's why they opposed it, with dire warnings that Proposition 14 will not only increase the costs of elections but will also eliminate freedom of choice and abridge the freedom of speech!  Such threats could only be made in the Kafkaesque world of American politics, where the  "freedom" political parties value most is the freedom they currently enjoy to control the outcome of elections.

To understand the absurdity of the primary system the bosses want to retain, consider the primary election in which I had the opportunity to "vote"last week.  In my electoral district there were seven positions on the primary ballot, ranging from township government to the U.S. House of Representatives (neither of New Jersey's U.S. Senators face re-election this year).  One the Democratic side of the ballot, all seven positions were uncontested - i.e., there was no choice for the voters to exercise.  It was a ballot Joe Stalin would have been proud of.  It was almost as bad on the Republican side; only one position was contested.  The situation was similar throughout the state - which is why the turnout was dismal - only 7 percent in the county I live in.  Although voters seem to be sick and tired of politicians in general, the re-election rate for Congressional incumbents is over 90 percent.  Blame that on the grip that the party machine exercises over the primary process. 

Even where there is a genuine primary contest, primary elections tend to attract a lower voter turnout, and thus the party activists exercise disproportionate influence over who runs in the general election.   True, a politician who loses a primary can run as an independent in the general election;  Joe Lieberman did, and won.  But it rarely happens - challenging the official party candidate in a general election usually signals the end of a political career.  And because middle-of-the-road and unaffiliated voters are less likely to vote in a primary, the major party candidates tend to favor the extreme wing of their party.

This is particularly true in the case of the Republicans, where the party organization has hijacked in recent years by extremist fringe groups like the so-called "Moral Majority" and more recently the Tea Party crowd.  Such is the new found influence of the Tea Party that Republicans are finding it increasingly difficult to pick candidates that appeal to the key swing voters who often decide the outcome of general elections.   Rand Paul's recent victory in the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky is a case in point.  A self-defined libertarian (albeit one now officially disowned by the Libertarian Party), Rand won the primary with the strong backing of the Tea Partiers.  He's an interesting character; in the warm afterglow of his primary victory, he confided to interviewers his view that private business owners should be free to discriminate against minorities because, after all, it's their business.  Following the predictable public outcry, the Republican party dispatched its spin doctors to muzzle Mr. Paul, who has since wisely confined his media appearances to the likes of Fox News, where sympathetic hosts have given him the opportunity to explain how his comments were "misunderstood", "taken out of context" and misrepresented by the "liberal media".  Republican  party bosses may wishing they'd had a Proposition 14-style system in place in Kentucky.  They are now stuck with Rand Paul and Kentucky Democrats must be licking their lips in anticipation of the fall general election.

Democratic bosses in Pennsylvania dodged a bullet when their efforts to clear the way for aging political turncoat Arlen Specter came up short and primary voters opted instead for Rep. Joe Sestak.  The Democratic "leadership" tried everything to keep Sestak out of the race - Obama even offered him a cushy post in the Administration if he would stand aside - but he stood his ground, and the party, despite itself, will have an engaging and well-qualified candidate on the ballot in the fall, someone who represents the Democratic Party's future, not the Republican Party's past.  Sestak's case, unfortunately, is the exception not the rule.

But back to California and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It's rare for politicians to put the electorate's interests ahead of their own, and cynics may see more than a hint of self-interest in Schwarzenegger's support for Proposition 14.  Now in his second term as California's governor he is ineligible to run again for re-election in November, and will be looking for future employment opportunities.  He may fancy his chances against incumbent U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has to face the voters in 2012.  Schwarzenegger knows he likely could not win the Republican nomination in a conventional primary system - he's said as much.  He's viewed as too liberal by many of the party activists and in particular is no friend of the nut jobs in the Tea Party.  But he does have appeal among moderate democrats, especially of the well-heeled variety, among whom his marriage to a member of the Kennedy family and his status as one of the "Hollywood elite" are seen as positive credentials.  Those moderate democrats wouldn't be eligible to vote in a Republican primary, but in a two stage general election, with a higher turnout, and no voting restrictions based on registered party affiliation, my money would be on Schwarzenegger to advance comfortably, not just to the second stage of the election, but on to Washington D.C.  

It's early days yet, but don't be surprised to hear Arnold reprise his famous catch phrase as he leaves the governor's office early next year.   "I'll be back".

Looking for British Ass (to Kick)

If you still need evidence of the demise of the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States, look no further than the irrational torrent of invective now emanating from the Obama Administration over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Let's be clear.  The spill is a major ecological disaster that continues to get worse, rather than better, by the day.  It threatens the livelihood and way of life of thousands of Gulf Coast residents.  But for Barack Obama, it is now also becoming a major political disaster, as more questions are raised about the government's response to the spill, and the lax regulatory oversight that may have contributed to the disaster. It's worth remembering that only days before the explosion occurred, Obama had announced major reductions in the restrictions on offshore drilling.  This change in policy, which shocked many rank-and-file Democrats and delighted and surprised the oil industry, purportedly followed an exhaustive review of safety and regulatory issues.  Subsequent events suggest this review was not nearly exhaustive enough.

Recognizing the mounting public dissatisfaction with his own performance, Obama is attempting to jump on the growing anti-British bandwagon and has ratcheted up the rhetoric against BP and its embattled CEO Tony Hayward.  In an interview this week he laid into Hayward personally, advocated his dismissal, suggested that BP had "cut corners" on safety and added that he wanted to know "whose ass to kick".

It's too bad Obama didn't put on his tough guy act when health care legislation was being debated.  Had he "kicked ass" then, we might have ended up with something better than the insurance industry bailout that was cynically packaged up as a "historic" reform.  But the recent attack on BP was a crude and self-serving performance; it displayed a tone unworthy of a President of the United States, and betrayed the mentality of a politician more interested in popularity ratings than the facts.  This kind of language does nothing to contribute to cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico; but more important, it also assumes that BP is the sole culprit, a fact that is, as yet, far from clear.  So let's start by getting some facts straight.

First, we know that the blowout occurred as workers were finishing the process of pouring cement into the cavity between the side of the well and the pipe, a process known as "cementing".  For reasons not yet clear, the cement ruptured or did not set properly, causing a highly combustible mixture of oil and gas to shoot to the surface.  The cementing was the responsibility of oilfield services company Halliburton, a U.S. public company based in Houston, Texas.  The recent disaster bears more than a passing similarity to a blowout in the Timor Sea in August of 2009, in which tens of thousands of barrels of oil escaped over a ten-week period.  Haliburton was also responsible for cementing that well.  An investigation has not yet determined fault and Halliburton has refused comment.

Second, when the rig crew attempted to activate the blowout valve that is supposed to prevent this type of disaster from happening, the valve failed.  Again, the reasons for the failure are not known, but we do know that the valve was manufactured by Cameron International, another U.S. public company, also based in Houston. 

Third, the rig involved in the the accident, the Deepwater Horizon, was owned not by BP but by a company called Transocean Ltd.  Transocean is also a U.S. company, or at least it was until  December 2008, when it entered into a series of corporate transactions the effect of which was to reconstitute it as a Swiss entity, presumably to benefit from a more lenient tax regime.   However, Transocean maintains its operational office in Houston, and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Transocean had flagged the Deepwater Horizon in the Marshall Islands, a "flag of convenience" state where regulatory requirements are less onerous.  Of the 126 workers on the rig at the time of the explosion, only 8 were BP employees.  Questions have been raised as to whether Transocean had crewed the vessel adequately at the time of the accident.

Fourth, BP is not even the sole owner of the drilling concession in question; a 35% share is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, another U.S. publicly traded company also based in Texas.

As the concessionaire, BP is legally responsible for damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon disaster and it has maintained from the very outset that it will honor all legitimate claims.  But liability and culpability are different things, and we may not know for many months who was to blame for the disaster.  It may well be that the accident was the combination of a series of unrelated events, and that all parties bear at least some responsibility.  So why is the Obama administration beating up on British Petroleum, and ignoring the other companies involved?  It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama feels a lot braver playing the role of tough guy when taking on a foreign oil company than he would one of its U.S. counterparts.  He's ready to "kick ass" at BP, but apparently afraid to ruffle too many feathers in the executive suites at Halliburton.

Administration flunkies are marching to the same tune.  Influential Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener asserted that  anyone speaking on behalf of BP with a British accent is lying to the American people.  Lackluster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposed that BP be prohibited from paying a dividend that has already been declared, and which it is legally obligated to pay, in order to compensate U.S. oil industry workers who have been furloughed as a result of the Administration's moratorium on offshore drilling imposed following the recent blowout.  That'll show those goddamn Brits, right?  Hardly.  It is in fact an astonishingly stupid and irresponsible suggestion, but one that nonetheless caused a further sharp decline in BP's share price this week.  Salazar and his boss should bear in mind that roughly 40 percent of BP's stock is owned by Americans; it has always been seen a "blue chip" investment, so it's safe to assume that many pension funds - American pension funds - own it.  Many individual investors - American investors - rely on the regular and healthy dividends that BP pays. Of BP's 80,000 employees worldwide, 29,000 are in the U.S., almost three times as many as in the U.K.  Punitive confiscatory sanctions against BP would harm American workers and investors as much if not more than the British.  And as to the moratorium itself, the Deepwater Horizon disaster didn't make future accidents more likely - but it did raise legitimate concerns as to the effectiveness of  regulatory oversight of the oil industry, all of which is the responsibility of - you guessed it - Ken Salazar.

The tragedy in the Gulf raises many questions, not least of which is why there was no contingency plan for such a disaster.  The various containment apparatus used in an effort to stem the flow of oil had to be designed and built after the blow-out occurred.  BP 's Tony Hayward has been his own worst enemy - some foolish comments in the aftermath of the the explosion created the impression that he failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem. But to his credit he hasn't hidden away in his London office leaving U.S. underlings to take the heat.  He has been "front and center" in the disaster response and next week faces the daunting task of testifying before the U.S. Congress.  One can criticize BP's effectiveness in response to the explosion, but I am not convinced any other company would have done better.  If found to have acted illegally or negligently, BP should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. But culpability must be determined by legal process, not Presidential finger-pointing. Obama's recent performance creates grounds for concern that BP may unfairly singled out in the criminal investigation and prosecution that the Administration is apparently already planning.

His public statements suggest that David Cameron is more intent on currying favor with the administration in Washington than in defending a British company against possible punitive and illegitimate sanctions. A performance Tony Blair would surely be proud of.  One can only hope that, in private conversations with the President, Mr Cameron will point out that the same rationale underlying the threatened U.S. measures against BP would justify similar European sanctions against the U.S. financial institutions whose reckless and fraudulent lending practices triggered an economic disaster that will cost many times more to clean up than the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico.  And as to Obama's threat to "kick ass", Cameron would do well to suggest to the President that the current crisis is better addressed with the brain than with the foot.

Keep the Change

Everywhere you look these days, there are politicians promising you "change".  In the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary campaign, Hilary Clinton was "Working for Change", then "Ready for Change".  I guess she didn't work quite hard enough, or possibly she just wasn't ready, because she lost  to Barack Obama.   Obama in turn offered Americans "Change We Can Believe In".  He must have realized that nobody actually did believe in it, because the slogan itself was the first thing he changed; first it was "Change We Need", then "Change can Happen".  Many things happen, of course, including some you wouldn't want to have likened to your candidacy,  so Obama then offered us "Change that Works for You".

Congressional Republicans weren't to be outdone.  They countered with "The Change You Deserve."  It was an odd slogan for a party that had controlled the White House for 8 years, all the more so when it was revealed that the slogan was already in use - appropriately enough, some may say - in marketing a powerful anti-depressant drug.  At least in the ensuing election Americans did get "the change they deserved".  The Republican were overwhelmingly defeated and Democrats regained control of both the White House and Congress.

Across the pond, David Cameron and the Tories pronounced 2010 as "The Year for Change",  assured voters they were "Ready for Change" and exhorted them to "Vote for Change".  The Lib-Dems also jumped on the "change" bandwagon.  But rather than waste time and money  to come up a novel twist on the old theme Clegg at al shamelessly lifted Obama's "Change that Works for You" and tacked on the clumsy non-sequitur "Building a Fairer Britain.  I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when politicians promising "change" can't even come up with an original slogan.

In the event, fewer voters than they hoped took them up on the offer, but the failure of either major party to gain an outright majority propelled the Lib-Dems into a coalition with the Tories.  "Change that Works for Us" might have been a more appropriate slogan.

But with the formation of the coalition, all that talk about "change" took on a new dimension.  The Tories and Lib-Dems, we were told, represented not just a new government but a "new kind of politics".  Does anyone seriously believe this nonsense?  The coalition is not a new kind of politics, at least not one that has any merit or longevity.  It is an interim arrangement borne of necessity that will last only as the Tories determine that it's in their interests to keep it going.  And regardless how long it does last, you can bet that the Tories won't be fighting the next election asking voters to return the coalition to power, new politics or no new politics.

The talk about "a new kind of politics" is intended to evoke images of greater transparency, less partisanship, greater accountability. Nick Clegg may be naive enough to believe in this, but his boss David Cameron certainly doesn't.  Although these are still early days, two recent incidents show that, for Cameron, it's strictly politics as usual - and politics of the worst conceivable kind.  Politics Tony Blair style.

The first example was Cameron's clumsy effort to rig the election for Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the committee of Tory back bench MPs that acts as a conduit between the leadership and rank-and-file MPs.   Cameron demanded that Ministers, contrary to tradition, be allowed to vote in the election.  His assumption presumably was that ministers would show their loyalty to the man who had given them their jobs by supporting his favored candidate.   But his high-handedness provoked anger from many back benchers already dissatisfied over policy concessions (albeit few in number) that Clegg had been able to extract in negotiating the coalition agreement. One MP described Cameron's tactics as a "mafia stitch-up"; another likened him to Robert Mugabe.  Cameron was forced to back down, and his candidate for Chairman was handily beaten by right-winger Graham Brady.  It was the worst possible outcome for Cameron.   It strengthened opposition to him in the parliamentary party and virtually assured defeat for his candidate.

They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; the 1922 Committee fiasco was reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempt, shortly after taking office, to oust popular Labour backbench MPs Donald Anderson and Gwyneth Dunwoody as chairmen of two Commons select committees.  It triggered a revolt within the parliamentary party, and Blair was forced to back down.  Cameron, like Blair, appears to be afraid of dissent and intent on stifling potential opposition from within his own ranks, but hasn't figured our that respect, even from his own rank and file, has to be earned.  Or perhaps he just shares Blair's view that a "parliamentary democracy" is one in which parliament has to account to the government, rather than vice versa.

The second, even more baffling example occurred this week, when Cameron refused to allow a government minister to appear on the long-running weekly BBC discussion programme "Question Time".  The BBC is scrupulously careful in ensuring each panel includes a representative from each of the major parties.  On this occasion, Labour were to be represented by former Blair spin doctor Alastair Campbell.  When this came to Cameron's attention, the BBC were informed that unless the BBC replaced Campbell with a member of the shadow cabinet, the government would not allow any of its ministers to appear.  The BBC rightly refused to withdraw Campbell's invitation and the government boycotted the show.  The BBC then arranged, independent of Downing Street, for a Tory MP to participate.  Again, the worst possible outcome for Cameron.  After attempting unsuccessfully to bully the 1922 Committee he is now exposed as having attempted to bully, equally unsuccessfully the BBC. 

So this is the "new kind of politics"?  The "Change that Works for Us"?  The fact of the matter is that politicians who promise "change" insult the intelligence of the electorate.  Some change is good, but change for its own sake rarely is.  It's also a disingenuous tactic; it invites voters to make assumptions about what the party or candidate will do, without really promising anything.  A campaign slogan should say something about the party's underlying philosophy. It should tell voters what the party fundamentally stands for. "Change" is not a philosophy, and a party or politician that has to fall back on empty slogans like this either has no real philosophy (put Obama's name in that column) or just doesn't want the voters to know what it is.  Labour's slogan, "A Future Fair For All", may not have been the most artful, but at least it said something about the party.

I hope we've seen the last of this obsession with "change".   The next time one of these meaningless, tired and vacuous slogan is dragged out I hope the voters tell whoever's using it, in no uncertain terms, "Please - Keep the Change."

POSTSCRIPT - Shortly after this was posted, the Daily Telegraph reported that the second-ranking Lib-Dem Cabinet minister, David Laws, has announced his intention to repay $60,000 in "expenses" that he claimed in violation of parliamentary rules.  The improper claims were for rental accommodation in London.  In fact, Mr. Laws was residing with, and purportedly paying "rent" to. his long-term male partner.  Members are not entitled to claim as expenses rental paid to families and partners.  Mr. Laws apparently also failed initially to document claims for utilities and maintenance.  Mr Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, denies being motivated by financial gain and claims he was simply trying to keep his relationship with the man secret.  So why did he claim the expenses in the first place?  Interestingly, David Laws was the minister penciled in to appear on Question Time before Cameron's decision to boycott the show.  Could it be that the Tory-friendly Daily Telegraph had tipped off Cameron's office that the Laws story was about to break and Cameron was more concerned that Laws would be ambushed by a question about his expenses than he was about the appearance of Alastair Campbell?  Nobody caught with his hand in the public till should be permitted to occupy any public post,  let alone as a senior Treasury Minister.  Laws needs to go - today. 

Hypocrite of the Week

Kudos to former Bush White House operative Karl Rove.  By Tuesday he had already comfortably locked up the Hypocrite of the Week Award.

The Republican hatchet-man turned Fox"News" commentator (is there actually any difference?) took to the airwaves yesterday demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Republican allegations that President Obama violated Federal anti-bribery laws by offering Congressman Joe Sestak an administration post so he would not challenge incumbent Arlen Specter in the recent Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary.  Sestak declined the offer and went on to beat the 80-year old Specter, a long-time professional politician, who had switched parties barely a year earlier to run as a Democrat after it became apparent he would be challenged in, and likely lose, the Republican primary. There's a man of principle for you.

When he switched parties, Specter extracted the agreement of Obama and the state party apparatus to support his re-election bid.  It was Sestak himself who revealed that the Obama administration had offered him an unspecified position to clear the way for Specter in the primary.  Obama's support for Specter turned out (predictably) to be less than fulsome, at least when he saw the opinion polls moving in Sestak's favor.  Sestak's victory is great news for the Democratic rank and file; they should be able to select their party's candidate in a free and fair election; they shouldn't have to settle for an aging political turncoat foisted on them by the party brass.  And Sestak, 20 years Specter's junior,  is exactly the kind of Senatorial candidate the Democrats should be looking for.  He is a former 3-star Navy admiral and Director of Defense Policy on Bill Clinton's National Security Council,  a compelling resume for the candidate of a party that the chicken-hawk Republicans like to smear as being "weak on defense". 

Obama's attempt to fix the primary doesn't look good - although he would justify it on the basis that he needed every Senate vote he could muster to pass health insurance legislation.  But the assertion that Obama violated criminal anti-bribery statutes is ludicrous even had it come from someone who understands what ethics is and knows the difference between politics and criminality, i.e., someone other than Karl Rove.  It is well accepted that the President has a broad discretion in picking senior administration staff.  We don't know what job Sestak was offered, but he would have been a first rate candidate for a top job at Defense, or a position on the National Security Council.  But where was Rove's concern about the anti-bribery statute when the Bush Administration was handing out public jobs, including plum ambassadorial posts, to political cronies and deep-pocket contributors who had little or no qualifications?  And Rove himself was the central figure in a series of Bush era ethics violations and scandals.  He was one of those involving in leaking, in violation of U.S. law, the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, apparently in a mean-spirited act of retaliation attack after her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson publicly debunked Administration lies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Niger.  Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was sentenced to jail after being convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.  (His buddy Bush commuted the sentence.  All criminals should have friends in such high places.)  Rove himself was  investigated for perjury after e-mail evidence indicated that he had "forgotten" to disclose key information to a grand jury investigating the affair.  Rove was also linked with the Bush Administration's decision to fire seven U.S. Attorneys for no reason other than their perceived lack of loyalty to the Bush crowd, an unprecedented political interference by the White House in the Federal justice system.

Karl Rove epitomizes everything that is bad about American politics; he is a cynical political operative apparently lacking any moral or ethical compass; a shadowy character, never elected to office, who nonetheless exercised enormous power and did so for purely partisan political purposes; someone who believes that might makes right and that the ends always justify the means.  A man with no respect for, and little apparent understanding of, the Constitution.   He's right at home on Fox News where, as in war, truth is always the first casualty.

If Barack Obama were ever in need of refresher course in ethics-in-government, Karl Rove would be the last person he should turn to.

The Sound of Silence

A couple of weeks ago I did something I hadn't done in a quarter of a century, and to be honest never thought I would do again. I bought a vinyl LP, or "record" as we used to call them.

In my youth, that would have been an inconsequential event, certainly nothing worth writing about.  But in this case it was one small step in what became an unexpectedly complicated and time consuming process, but one that brought back many memories. 

It all began when I was reunited with the turntable I had bought some thirty years back.  It's a venerable Pioneer PL-518 direct drive unit, which still seems to command quite a decent price on eBay.  Direct drive turntables were revolutionary in their day; because the motor drives the platen directly, no belts were required and this in theory eliminated the speed fluctuation that could occur with a belt drive turntable, especially as the belt became worn. 

But there were problems.  The first was that I needed to replace the spring loaded feet, because the rubber housings that attached to feet to the underside of the deck and held the springs in place had torn.  Finding a solution required several hours of Internet research.  But in the process, the memories started to return; it's essential to ensure that a turntable is acoustically isolated from any vibration (hence the original spring loaded feet).  For a few dollars I was able to buy some silicone rubber feet designed for just this purpose ("Vibrapods", they're called) and attached them to the original feet to replicate the effect of the springs.  I have to admit, I was pretty pleased with myself.

So now I'm ready to rediscover the sound that music buffs (and I make no pretense to be one) claim is "warmer" that the digital recordings of today.  But then came the next, and rather fundamental, problem.  Although I have been reunited with my turntable, I still don't have my old vinyl collection back.  Rather than wait, I decided a trip to the Princeton Record Exchange was in order.  It's a local institution that specializes in used albums and CDs, and it's a great place to pick up used vinyls for a few dollars.  As I browsed the shelves, I noticed several things that hadn't struck me on prior visits.  First, the vast majority of people in the store were looking exclusively at the vinyl racks.  Second, among the well worn album covers was a decent selection of brand new items - new releases, re-releases - selling in many cases at a premium over the price of a CD.  There were some bargains though. I was able to pick up a new re-release of a Coltrane collection for only $10 and headed home to try it out.

But then I began to have  doubts.  I had no idea what condition the stylus was in.  It had last been replaced about 20 years ago, and I hesitated to risk my brand new LP on a bad stylus.  I decided it prudent to invest in a new one.  But further Internet research revealed that my cartridge (the housing into which the stylus fits, and which transforms the vibrations from the stylus into an electro-magnetic signal) had long since been discontinued.  I found a company in Japan that made a replacement, but it was expensive and I wasn't sure about the quality.  Reluctantly, I decided I would have to get a new cartridge.  Well, I say "reluctantly", but truth to tell I was starting to enjoy what had become a voyage of re-discovery.  And then my luck turned.  I found a website specializing in everything to do with LP technology.  They were offering a "special" on a Shure cartridge (the same brand as the old one); the cost, including stylus, was less than the price of the Japanese stylus.  In addition, it had something called  a "dynamic stabilizer".  I have no idea what that a dynamic stabilizer is - my old cartridge didn't have it - but it sounded pretty nifty.  How could I resist?

Because I didn't spring for the express shipping, it took over 2 weeks for the new cartridge to arrive, but it was worth the wait.  Beautifully packaged in a metal case, with its toolkit of miniature screwdriver and brush, it bespoke quality, craftsmanship, even  (ironically) high tech.  So I set about installing it.  I changed a good many cartridges in my youth, but in my youth my eyesight was much better and my hand a lot steadier.  Mounting the cartridge in the head shell with the tiny mounting screws and nuts took me a long while, but eventually it was done.  Then I noticed something in the box I had previously missed - a small rectangular piece of cardboard covered with grid lines and a hole in one end.  It was the "cartridge alignment protractor".  This was a new one on me, and I searched the instructions in vain for any reference to it.  Again, I turned to the Internet and ascertained that the "cartridge alignment protractor" is designed to help align the cartridge head precisely with the groove in the record.  It seemed close enough.

Having mounted the new cartridge I had to re-set the tracking weight to comply with the specifications for the cartridge - I remembered how to do that  - and the anti-skate force.  I switched the turntable on, and with the aid of the stroboscope (see pic) I adjusted the speed to exactly (OK, more or less) 33.3 RPM.  Finally the PL-518 was ready to resume service.

Attaching the turntable to my entertainment system was no easy matter - it involved moving the unit all of the equipment is mounted on to access the rear of the receiver and untangling the spaghetti-like cables that connect all the components together.  My amplifier/receiver isn't exactly new - 20 years old maybe, but still functioning perfectly - but even a unit of that vintage was built for the post-LP era and it doesn't have a "Phono" jack.  No problem, I thought.  There were a couple of empty inputs, so I connected the turntable to one of those.  I then carefully placed the LP on the platen, delicately lowered the stylus onto the LP, sat back and began to enjoy . . . silence.

The sense of disappointment was almost overwhelming. Then I began to think logically about it and more memories began to emerge from the mists of time.  I recalled that a turntable using a magnetic cartridge transmits a lower signal than a CD player, tape deck or other audio device.  A "Phono" input amplifies the signal to levels comparable to that of the other devices, but if you connect a turntable directly to a standard input the signal is virtually inaudible.  In order to use a non-amplified input I needed to get a "pre-amp".  After a consultation with my son, who happens to be a sound engineer and musician as well as a vinyl aficionado, I returned to the Internet to check out the available equipment.  I was momentarily disconcerted to find that some pre-amps cost upwards of $2,000, but I was able to find something that seems to do exactly what I want for the more modest sum of $30.   I placed the order.   And that's where the story ends, at least for now.  I am waiting for the pre-amp to arrive, but with every confidence that it is the final piece in the jigsaw.

But that really isn't the point of the article.  This process (on one of those TV reality shows, they would probably call it a "journey") made me wonder why they're still even making vinyl recordings.   Apparently sales of LPs are actually increasing, whereas CDs are declining.  I find this encouraging because it's is an entirely consumer-driven trend.  When did you last see an add on TV for vinyl LPs or turntables?  (Turntables are still made, of course, though surprisingly some manufacturers have reverted to belt-driven technology.)  So what is the enduring appeal?  Many will say that vinyls just sound better - warmer, and truer to the original.  For the same reason, the true "high end" amplifiers these days seem to be "tube amps", which most of us thought had be rendered obsolete by the transistor.

But I think in a perverse way the enduring appeal of the vinyl medium lies in part in its sheer inconvenience.

I made the transition to CDs at an early stage and for a good many years enjoyed their convenience and durability, as well as the greater dynamic range that digital music provides. But, let's face it:  at the end of the day CDs are also a real hassle.  First, to obtain a CD you have to schlep over to the record store and buy it, which could take an hour or more, and that's assuming they actually have it in stock.  Alternatively, you could order on line but then you have to wait for 3 days, maybe longer, to get it.  When you want to play it you have to locate the correct plastic case, hope the CD is actually in it (rather than in the entertainment system in the car or a different case), then bend down to put it in the player, which in my case is at ankle height.   It's just too much trouble.  I now keep all my music in digital form on my computer and when I want something new I download it from the iTunes store.  They have my credit card information on file - it couldn't be simpler.  With a couple of taps on my laptop keypad I can send music from any computer in the house streaming wirelessly to my stereo system.  If I can't be bothered to think about which songs to play or in what order, no problem; the Mac will decide for me.  And if I can't be bothered to walk across the room to get my computer, I can open the app on my iPhone and accomplish the same thing.  Yes, it's all so easy; maybe too easy.  We tap the keyboard and forget about it.  Sometimes I don't even notice when the music has finished, or when Mac has moved on from Bowie to Beethoven.

Vinyl technology engages the listener from start to finish;  placing records on the turntable; lowering the stylus, flipping the record at the end of Side 1 and making sure the tone arm retracts properly at the end.  The fragility of the vinyl form demands that it be handled with care, even reference.  We can take pleasure not only in the music itself but also in the artistry of the album cover, the detail of the liner notes; even the sight of the LP rotating slowly on the turntable.  For me, tinkering with my old turntable also brought back memories of events long ago; like those earnest late-night discussions about which speakers or cartridge produced the best sound; or searching the racks at the cramped back-street record shop in Cambridge that sold wonderful and hard to find Supraphon recordings from Czechoslovakia.

The worst - or was it maybe the best? - thing about the old-fashioned "stereo system", as we called it in those days, was that it was only as good as its weakest link, whether it was the turntable, the cartridge, the amp or the speakers.  There was always a piece that had to be upgraded (which in turn created a new weakest link).  So there was always a reason to stay in touch with the the new products. That was part of the fun. I certainly wasn't an expert in he technology,  but I grasped the concepts.  I enjoyed that part of it.  But looking back, I realize that my interest in the technology ended with the purchase of my first CD player.  I never really figured out how shining a bright light at a plastic disk could produce sound, and the fact that it was all "digital" led me to conclude that a CD player was a CD player - period. It was much the same when I bought my first digital camera.

For those who want the convenience of digital music, downloads are the way to go.  MP3 is a better medium for storing digital music and if you ever need to have it on a disk, you can always "burn" one from the computer.  The medium really at risk is the CD.   My layman's prediction is that vinyl will live on, as a niche market for audiophiles and those who just appreciate all the "stuff" that goes with it, long after the last commercial CD has been pressed.  Twenty five years ago, who could ever have imagined it?

Class Act

Surprise, surprise. The royals are in the headlines again, and as usual for the wrong reasons.

This time it's Sarah Ferguson, a/k/a the Duchess of York, caught on tape accepting cash from a tabloid reporter posing as a foreign businessman.  She thought that the $40,000 she greedily stuffed into her purse was an advance on a $500,000 grease payment for introducing the "businessman" to her former husband Prince Andrew, Britain's roving trade ambassador  - and better known to readers of the tablloid press as "AirMiles Andy".  "Take care of me", she assured the News of the World journalist, "and Andrew will take care of you." 

After the news of the scandal broke, Ferguson promptly issued a statement stressing how "devastated" she was.  And I'll bet she was devastated.  The avaricious Duchess had just seen $500,000 slip through her fingers. The royal spin machine immediately cranked into action assuring the world that Prince Andrew had absolutely no knowledge of his former wife's attempt to sell access, while friends of the Duchess rushed to her defense, complaining she had been entrapped by a sleazy journalist.  Some even justified her attempt to cash in on her royal connections, reminding us that, to quote the vulgar Duchess herself, she "doesn't have a pot to piss in". How else can she be expected to make ends meet?

This certainly isn't the first time the classless Ferguson has provided fodder for the British tabloids.  After all, who can forget the occasion when - while still married to Prince Andrew - she was photographed sunbathing topless while an individual she later identified as her "financial adviser" sucked on her toes?  Maybe her financial advisers should have paid more attention to her financial, as opposed to her physical, assets over the years, because  the free-spending Duchess has apparently now fallen on hard  times.    She  has a liking for the finer things in life that far exceeds her ability to pay for them.  She reportedly resents the failure of the royal family to support the lavish lifestyle she aspires to and seems to believe her royal connections are just another thing she is entitled to peddle to the highest bidder.  It's hard to say what aspect of this tawdry episode is the most appalling.  Is it her bewildering sense of entitlement, her naked greed, her brazen lack of morality, or just her plain, utter and unimaginable stupidity?  But one thing is clear. It is time to call a halt to this once and for all.

First, there needs to be a full public investigation.  If laws were broken, the Dodgy Duchess should face prosecution.  The British people, whose taxes support the royal family, also have a right to know whether the money-grubbing Ferguson has tried to peddle access for cash in the past.  If so, from whom did she take cash and how much did she pocket?  Did she pay taxes on it?  And, most important, what  favors did the money buy?

It's also time for AirMiles Andy to be relieved of his so-called ambassadorial role.  If George Osborne is serious about cutting wasteful public spending, Andrew's lavish expense account should be at the top of his hit list.  The Prince may indeed have known nothing about the conniving of his former wife, with whom he reportedly maintains a close friendship, but the cash for access scandal has at best compromised whatever effectiveness he may have had (I personally think he had none) and at worst reduced him to an international laughing stock.  His removal would also send a long-overdue signal that Britain has reluctantly dragged itself into the second half of the 20th century and recognized that diplomatic skills and knowledge of international business are acquired through study and experience - they don't pass by heredity.

A Faustian Bargain

After five days of post-election wrangling, Britain has a new government and, as predicted here, the Liberal Democrats have thrown in their lot with the Tories in a coalition of ideological opposites that has already drawn rumblings of discontent from the rank-and-file of both parties.

Gordon Brown surrendered office on Monday evening with consummate dignity.  It's easy to take cheap shots at a Prime Minister removed from office in the midst of a grave fiscal crisis, but he served his party and the country well, and I think in time history will judge him kindly.  He occupied the Treasury for ten years - more than any other Chancellor in modern history - and presided over a period of sustained economic growth and economic policy reform.  But he became Prime Minister at a difficult time.  Tony Blair's inexplicable obeisance to the Bush administration, and Britain's consequent participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, had left the country divided internally and isolated internationally.  Brown's low-key and austere manner came as a welcome contrast to that of his flashy, self-righteous and self-serving predecessor, but he inherited the baggage nonetheless.

Pundits can debate why Brown lost the election, but at the end of the day Britain was simply ready for change, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with Labour, but rather because it had been in office for too long.  British voters have traditionally seen to it that no one party becomes entrenched in office, and it was time for Labour to go.  Nonetheless, after the votes were in, I was amused to hear David Cameron proclaim that the country needed a change "after thirteen years of Labour misrule".   Possibly he used the phrase during the election too.   I am old enough (though Cameron is not) to remember first hand where the phrase came from; it was Harold Wilson, in the 1964 general election, who persuaded voters that "thirteen years of Tory misrule" was enough.  How ironic that in his moment of triumph the suave and smooth-talking Cameron had to turn to a former Labour standard-bearer for a good soundbite!

Details about the coalition negotiations are still emerging, but it seems that Labour didn't bend over backwards to try to cut a deal with the LibDems.  Gordon Brown stood down as party leader in large measure because he perceived his continued presence as a potential stumbling block to a Labour-led coalition, and in so doing he acted as one would have expected - honourably.  But many party activists opposed any deal with LibDems and,  for reasons discussed in an earlier post,  that is probably the best course for the Labour party.  Their challenge now is not just to unite around a new leader and re-tune their message, but also to rethink their fundamental values after the corrosive influence of Tony Blair.  Civil liberties would be a good place to start, but overall I think "New Labour" needs to be a little less "New" and a little more "Labour".  It will enjoy the luxury enjoyed by any opposition party during difficult times - the freedom to criticize tough decisions, without the responsibility to take them.  I hope they exercise the freedom responsibly and in the public interest, but Conservative plans to slash public spending while the country is still emerging from a severe recession provide Labour a continuing opportunity to highlight some basic policy differences between left and right.

The LibDems will have some seats at the Cabinet table for the first time in generations, and a good portion of its parliamentary party will likely land jobs in the lower tiers of government.  Leader Nick Clegg will be the "Deputy Prime Minister".  It sounds very important, but the position is an extra-constitutional one without formal responsibilities.  He will presumably also enjoy the title of  First Secretary of State, which, like the Deputy Prime Minister position, has no specific responsibilities but at least commands a salary.  As Michael Heseltine commented recently, the role of Deputy Prime Minister is whatever the Prime Minister wants it to be.  Heseltine should know; he occupied the office in John Major's government, and boasts that he was the person "through whom Major exercised power."  John Prescott, his counterpart under Blair, would doubtless tell a different story.  Cameron will need show appropriate deference to Clegg for as long as he needs to keep the coalition intact, but I believe Clegg's role will be largely symbolic.   Other LibDems will be appointed to the Cabinet, the most important portfolio going to the LibDem finance spokesman Vince Cable, who reportedly will serve as Trade and Industry Secretary.  He represents the Lib-Dems best hope to advance Lib-Dem policies from a ministerial position.

Events appear to have unfolded as Cameron had hoped.  Admittedly he has had to make some concessions on policy.  The details are still emerging, but aside from his agreement to hold a referendum on electoral reform (which he will campaign against), the most visible concession may be the shelving of plans to increase the inheritance tax threshold.  But Cameron comes out a winner there too. His administration will reap the benefit of maintaining inheritance tax revenues, but he can blame the Lib-Dems for his failure to follow through on a key campaign promise.  The Lib-Dems have signed on to the Tories' plans to slash $6 billion in public spending and appear to have abandoned the pro-Europe stance that has been a hallmark of their policy since the party's inception.

Having signed up to the pact, the Lib-Dems have struck their Faustian bargain.  Today Cameron and Clegg were the toast of the town; both proclaimed the emergence of a "new kind of politics" at a Downing Street event one pundit likened to a gay wedding.  However, it won't be long before the new politics gives way to politics as usual.  If they stick with the Tories for a full five years, as the coalition agreement reportedly envisages, the LibDems will lose all credibility as a progressive party and will share the blame for whatever unpopular measures Cameron takes to reduce the deficit.  If they withdraw from the coalition, they lose what little real influence they have, and face the unenviable choice of either precipitating an early general election by joining opposition parties to oppose major legislation (for which they would be blamed) or continuing to prop up Cameron for the duration of his mandate (for which they would also be blamed).

One can only wish Clegg the best of luck.

The Mother of All Elections

The election took place four days ago, but the people still don’t know which party (or parties) will form their next government.  There are reports of citizens being denied the right to vote, either because there were insufficient ballot papers or because the doors of polling stations were slammed shut in their faces after they’d waited for hours in line.  Legal challenges are threatened.  The results of the election are inconclusive and talks drag on behind closed doors about potential coalitions.  Secret deals are being cut.  The knives are out for the party leaders.  There are renewed demands to reform an electoral system that benefits entrenched political interests.

It sounds like a scenario from what we in the West condescendingly refer to as a “third-world country”.  Zimbabwe maybe?  But it’s not. It’s Britain, the so-called mother of democracy.

Each of the three major parties can spin last week’s election as a triumph of sorts.  Yet equally each emerges a loser.  The election will likely bring down the curtain on Labour’s 13 years in office and the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his intention to step down as party leader.  Yet it is no small measure of its political resiliency that in the midst of a severe recession, continuing opposition to Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan, and Gordon Brown’s personal unpopularity (exacerbated when a live microphone recorded him referring to a lifelong Labour voter with whom he had just met as a “bigoted woman”), Labor did well enough to prevent an outright Tory majority.  The electorate may not have liked Gordon Brown, but they certainly didn't embrace either of his rivals.  Many potential Labour defectors presumably felt that the austere and dour PM was better equipped than David Cameron and his lightweight shadow Chancellor to steer the country out of its worst economic crisis in decades.  In watching the closing stages of the contest I was reminded that in his final campaign some decades ago, the late Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo unveiled a novel campaign slogan  – “You Don’t Have to Like Frank Rizzo to Vote for Him.”  One sensed much the same message from Gordon Brown.

For their part the Tories have declared victory, and indeed they did garner more popular votes and a greater number of seats than any other party.  But they also saw a double-digit lead in the opinion polls evaporate in the weeks leading up to the election, and with it their hopes of an outright parliamentary majority.  Party activists blame leader David Cameron, whose days also look numbered unless he is able to cobble together a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and form a government.  Cameron is a smooth character.  Thanks to his efforts at reforming the Conservative Party, some him likened to Tony Blair, but that comparison serves him poorly in times that demand tough measures and straight talk.

The LibDems find themselves in perhaps the greatest quandary of all.  Leader Nick Clegg’s credible performance in the televised leaders’ debates (a first in British electoral history) saw their poll ratings soar.  They briefly entertained hopes of beating Labour into second place in the popular vote and pollsters predicted they could increase their tally of parliamentary seats from 62 to 90 or more.  But it was not to be, and the LibDems actually lost 5 seats.  Clearly, when the time came to mark their ballot papers, many voters who felt ideologically most comfortable with the LibDems chose instead to support either of the “two old parties”, as Clegg had dismissively branded them.  The belief that a vote for the LibDems is a “wasted vote” is, apparently, alive and well among the British electorate.

Ironically, despite his party’s disappointing performance at the polls, Clegg now finds himself in the role of kingmaker – currently negotiating a coalition with the Tories, but with the possible option of joining in a “Progressive Alliance” (or a “Coalition of Losers”, depending on one’s political perspective) with Labour and assorted other parties, that could, albeit barely, command a parliamentary majority.

But the role of kingmaker has its risks.  The LibDems have long advocated electoral reform and the introduction of proportional representation, something hard-core Tories adamantly oppose.  Clegg’s future as party leader will depend on the the assurances he is able to extract on electoral reform from whichever party be eventually gets into bed with, and how those assurances translate into legislation.  But the biggest concession Cameron is likely to make (or indeed could make without facing a major backbench revolt) is the creation of a commission to study the issue (something LibDems activists would rightly regard as a meaningless gesture) and/or a referendum, albiet one in which the Tories would campaign vigorously to maintain the status quo.  And if the LibDems throw in their lot with the Tories, Clegg needn't look to Labour for any support in a referendum.

But the problem for Clegg goes much further. If the LibDems join in a coalition with the Conservatives they may enjoy a brief taste of power – perhaps a couple of members in Cabinet, though none, doubtless, holding any of the major offices of State.  But it would be the beginning of the end of the LibDems as a viable progressive party in Britain.  Thanks largely to the Blair legacy, the LibDem agenda is, if anything, more progressive than that of so-called “New Labor”.  I would venture to suggest that few people who voted LibDem last week did so in the hope that it would help get the Tories back into office.  But whatever the outcome of the current political wheeling and dealing, another election seems likely within the next two years.  It is safe to say there will be no genuine electoral reform under a Cameron-led coalition and the LibDems would remain at an electoral disadvantage next time around.  But it won’t matter, because LibDem voters, disenchanted with their party’s support for the coalition and the measures it will enact, will defect en masse to Labour anyway.   "New Labour" would portray the LibDems as the "New Tories" and I predict (admittedly with no scientific basis) that the LibDems would lose 20 or more seats.  

And therein lies the ultimate irony.  For Labour, the best outcome could well be a Tory-LibDem alliance.  Given those two parties’ philosophical differences, especially at the grass roots level, the alliance would probably last just long enough for the new Labour leader to stamp his or her mark on the party and get geared up for an election with fresh faces and – maybe – some fresh ideas.  The economy certainly won’t get better quickly, and any government will have no choice but to make significant cuts in public services.  They will doubtless face the wrath of the voters for their efforts. 

So what then should Clegg do?  In my view, he should discontinue talks with Cameron and pursue the Progressive Alliance alternative. A Tory-LibDem alliance is probably doomed to failure anyway because of the policy differences that will inevitably arise, or due to the failure to make progress on electoral reform.  The LibDems could pull out of the coalition, leaving Cameron to lead a minority government.  But that simply presents Clegg with a fresh dilemma – join opposition parties in a no-confidence vote that would bring down the Cameron government but in so doing precipitate an early election that the LibDems couldn’t afford to fight, or sit on his hands and be accused of propping Cameron up.  The arguments would be re-hashed  before every major vote, and the longer it went on the more irrelevant and compromised the LibDems would seem to become.   In a Progressive Alliance, the support of the LibDems would be critical; that would translate into greater influence in policymaking – including on the key issue of electoral reform.

A brief digression on that topic. The existing system, under which the candidate with the most votes wins, is commonly referred to as “First Past the Post”.  But it’s really nothing of the kind, at least if the “post” is fifty percent of the votes cast.  It is not uncommon for a candidate to win with a plurality of votes, but not an overall majority.  A candidate who wins with, say, 40 percent of the votes has not even reached the post, let alone been first past it.

The most attractive alternative is the system known as “Single Transferable Vote”.  Under STV, voters rank the candidates in order of choice.  If no candidate achieves a majority of first preference votes, the bottom candidate is eliminated, and his or her votes redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the preference on the ballots, and the process continues until one candidate has an absolute majority.  The Electoral Reform Society, quoted in the New Statesman magazine, estimates based on polling research that if STV been in effect in the recent election, the Conservatives would have won 246 seats (as opposed to 306, a loss of 60), Labour 207 (as opposed to 258, a loss of 51) and the LibDems 162 (as opposed to 57, a gain of 105).  While no party would have had a majority, the principal progressive parties, Labour and LibDem, would have collectively 369 seats, a comfortable working majority.

It is unfortunate that debate on the issue of electoral reform is confused by the terminology.  The existing system of “First Past the Post” in many cases is not that at all, for the reasons explained above.  And I view STV not as “proportional representation” as many people understand it, but a better form of “First Past the Post”.  Because it is a constituency-based system, STV - unlike other forms of proportional representation - would not destroy the direct relationship between members of Parliament and the people that vote for them. And it would not give extremist parties, such as the ultra-right wing BNP, a seat at the table.  The argument against STV is that it would lead to more coalition governments,  but there is no evidence that this would result in weak or indecisive government, as opponents allege.  Aside from naked political self-interest, I don’t understand why anyone would oppose STV.  But one thing is clear:  there is something fundamentally unfair about a system under which, in the recent election, the Labour and the Conservative vote totals each translated into under 35,000 votes per seat in Westminster, whereas the LibDems total exceeded 338,000 per seat.

Fate has provided Nick Clegg a potentially unique opportunity to help secure for his party and the British people the electoral reform the LibDems and before it the Liberal Party have sought unsuccessfully for years.  It won’t be easy constructing a “Progressive Alliance” but it is worth the effort.   The country would benefit not only from a fairer electoral system, but also from a continuation of financial policies that, in large measure, have served the country well during difficult times.  Or Mr. Clegg can take what at first instance may appear the easier course, throw in his lot with the Tories, accept a meaningless post in the Cabinet, and watch as his party sinks into irrelevancy and oblivion.  Sadly, I suspect he will chose the latter.

The King of Topsy-Turvydom

There is little good to say about the current state of American politics, but were he alive today William S. Gilbert might appreciate and even draw inspiration from it.

W. S. Gilbert was the British dramatist who, along with composer Sir Arthur Sullivan, created the series of light operas that became a staple of theatrical entertainment in nineteenth century London. A newspaper critic once uncharitably dubbed Gilbert as the “King of Topsy-Turvydom”, a reference to the characteristic Gilbertian storyline in which nothing is as it seems, reality is temporarily turned upside down, but everything seems to work out at the end. The monicker stuck, and “topsy-turvy” later lent its name to Mike Leigh’s excellent 1999 movie about the making of Gilbert & Sullivan’s classic piece, The Mikado.

I was reminded of Gilbert and his world of topsy-turvy the other day as Jim Bunning, the mean-spirited and odious Republican Senator from Kentucky, single-handedly held up the passage of emergency legislation extending unemployment and COBRA health insurance benefits for millions of Americans without work, and preventing cuts in fees to physicians treating Medicare patients. Bunning, who invoked a procedural objection to prevent the resolution passing by unanimous consent, objected to the measure on the grounds that it violated the “pay-as-you-go” law, which requires Congress to match new spending either with corresponding cuts in other programs, or with increases in revenue. The legislation does not apply to emergency appropriation measures and has been waived on numerous occasions. Bunning finally relented, amid a flurry of finger-pointing press releases accusing the Democrats of “hypocrisy” and “continuing the irresponsible spending that has plagued Washington for too long.”

Listening to him pontificate on the Senate floor, the casual observer might have well have mistaken Senator Bunning for an austere yet principled man - one who believes so strongly in fiscal discipline that he is prepared to set it above the needs of the many Americans who, in times of need and crisis, have nowhere else to turn for assistance but the Federal government. But, as in the world of topsy-turvydom, all is not what it seems. To begin with, Mr. Bunning didn’t even support the pay-as-you legislation when it was voted on; along with many of his Republican colleagues, he voted against it. Second, Mr. Bunning raised no objection when the prior administration enacted tax cuts for the rich, and appropriated billions of Dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, without even a hint of where the money would come from.

Although Bunning’s recent disgraceful antics embarrassed even some of his Republican colleagues, his criticism of the years of “irresponsible spending” comes straight from current GOP talking points. Republicans even cite the ballooning Federal deficit as an excuse for not to passing health care reform legislation that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would actually reduce the deficit. In the topsy-turvy world of Republican spin doctors, Democrats are somehow to blame for the $4.9 trillion of debt that piled up between the day George W. Bush took office and the day he relinquished it, and now it is up to the Republicans to straighten things out.

But the kingdom of topsy-turvy is not  inhabited solely by Republicans.  President Barack Obama is now once again Candidate Obama, barnstorming the country, addressing townhall meetings (minus jacket, tie loosened and sleeves rolled up by exactly the right amount to suggest a man hard at work), railing against health insurance companies and demanding that Congress pass “his” health care reform program. What we see on stage is the “change we can believe in”, the man driving the process of  health care reform, the “yes we can”.  But what we see is not the reality; it is topsy-turvy, and on a grand scale.  Because the reason we do not yet have health care reform (and are unlikely to get meaningful health care reform in this session of Congress) is precisely because Barack Obama failed to provide leadership early enough in the process to make a difference. For too long, rather than take on the corporate interests, Obama sought to cut back-room deals with them. And the final bill will likely not include the public option that progressives wanted and expected, that the U.S. needs, but which Obama never really seemed to support.

So the “reform” that Obama now seems ready to take ownership of is not real reform and owes little to his efforts. He has simply concluded that the political calculus suggests that passage is now sufficiently likely that he is not risking major political capital by belatedly putting on his captain’s armband. He has also concluded that public expectations are so diminished that the watered-down proposals he is championing will indeed be accepted as true “reform” and that he will be given credit for it. Barack Obama has become the W.S. Gilbert of his day – the King of Topsy-Yurvydom. And as in a Gilbert & Sullivan drama, the absurdities and contradictions are accepted and taken for granted.

Gilbert liked to poke fun at the arrogance and ineptitude of the political establishment. That’s why I think he would appreciate today’s goings-in in Washington. But there is a big difference between Gilbert’s world of topsy-turvy and the topsy-turvydom that is U.S. politics. Gilbert’s is a temporary state, an amusing and pleasant interlude in which, after two hours, the absurdities and contradictions are neatly (however improbably) resolved and from which we re-emerge into the real world feeling better for the experience. The topsy-turvydom of current U.S. politics is a frustrating and demoralizing nightmare in which the absurdities and contradictions are never resolved and from which, it sometimes seems, we may never emerge.

The Blair House Project

Be careful what you wish for . . .

For months, Congressional Republicans have been moaning about how Democrats have excluded them from the process of drafting health care reform legislation.  Anyone who gets their information from a source other than FoxNews knows it's a preposterous charge.  President Obama and Senate Democrats bent over backwards to give Republicans a role, in the naive hope of passing bipartisan reform legislation.  But despite concession after concession, not a single Republican signed on to the bill that passed the Senate in December.  This week, at the televised "Blair House Summit", Republicans were given yet another - and likely final - opportunity to demonstrate they have something of value to contribute to the debate.  They blew it.

I doubt that many people watched the so-called summit live, but thanks to C-SPAN's video archive it offered a palatable alternative to the interminable evening Olympic coverage.  In reality, it had little to do with health care and everything to do with the November midterm elections.  Republicans simply don't want to pass health care reform - that has been clear almost from the start - but equally they don't want to emerge as the party of "no" or, worse yet, the party of "bought and paid for".  Hence the morally and intellectually bankrupt rhetoric about "death panels", "government takeovers", "socialized medicine", "Obamacare", etc., all intended to scare and inflame the electorate, rather than create a measured and constructive debate.  Republicans are now demanding that Democrats throw out the bills passed by the House and Senate last year and start afresh.  But to what purpose?  Presumably so they can yet again delay and obstruct legislation, then blame the Democrats for the failure to deliver the reform most Americans want and need. 

By convening the summit, Obama called the Republicans' bluff.   He sprung a trap and the Republicans walked right in.  After suffering a major public relations debacle when they invited Obama to answer questions from their House delegation on live television, the Republican leadership should have been better prepared this time around.  This was their chance to show that they actually do believe in the concept of health care reform and have a plan that accomplishes the goal better than the much-maligned Senate bill.  But they arrived at Blair House armed not with facts and policy points, but with more empty rhetoric and tired talking points.  One Republican speaker after another repeated - with almost comical regularity - the phrases scripted by their spindoctors. "Let's scrap this Bill." "Let's start over." "Let's take a clean sheet of paper."  "Let's go step-by-step."  In other words, "let's do nothing".
 
Congressional Democrats were also in attendance and they had their prepared scripts too, but this was Obama's show and he gave a masterful performance.  He spoke at length and with consummate authority.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's complaint that the Democrats were consuming a disproportionate amount of time drew the polite but pointed response that Barack Obama is the President and his time didn't count against the Democratic allotment - in other words, he would take as much time as he wanted.  Obama appeared thoughtfully receptive to the few "policy" positions the Republicans actually raised (the usual litany of tort reform, combating insurance fraud and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines).  But as the President listened to Republicans recite the same old objections to the Senate bill, his responses were duly polite but his body language showed thinly disguised impatience, at times verging even on contempt.  I suspect this was the product of extensive rehearsal, but it was effective and made for good political theatre.

The tone was set early on when Sen. Lamar Alexander foolishly chose to misrepresent the findings of the Congressional Budget Office report on the proposed national health insurance exchange, claiming it showed that health insurance premiums would rise if the plan were implemented.  Obama cut him off in mid-sentence to point out that he was wrong - what the CBO report actually said was that premiums for existing policies would fall; however, the average premium would increase, but only because increased competition would expand choice and improve value, thereby encouraging some people to trade up to a better policy.  That was but one example.  Throughout the day-long discussion Obama appeared consummately in command of the facts; the Republicans appeared utterly oblivious to them.

There were some exchanges on points of substance, but they were few and far between.  After House Minority Leader John Boehner delivered a rambling attack on the Senate Bill, calling it a "dangerous experiment" that would "bankrupt America" (fact check - according to the CBO the Senate Bill would reduce the deficit), Obama took him to task for interrupting a substantive policy discussion on deficit reduction by rehashing "the standard talking points".  The tone resembled that of a weary schoolteacher addressing a child who once again hadn't finished his homework assignment.  And as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor began to speak, with piles of paper stacked up in from him for the benefit of the cameras, Obama, with exactly the right trace of sarcasm, cut in: "Let me just guess; that's the 2,400 page health care bill; is that right?"  And after listening to Cantor pontificate about the complexity of the legislation he responded:  "When we do props like this, stack it up, repeat 2,400 pages, etc., the truth of the matter is that health care's very complicated.  We can try to pretend that it's not, but it is.  These are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from having a conversation."  And so it continued.  Throughout the day the tone was polite, the atmosphere chilly, the accomplishment nil.

The Democrats emerged from the meeting appearing newly-emboldened, the Republicans newly embittered and threatening dire consequences if the Democrats try to enact health care reform using the "reconciliation" process - that novel concept of majority rule.  The meeting may not have advanced the cause of bipartisan legislation but it did expose the fundamental philosophical difference between the parties.  Republicans regard health care as a privilege not a right and favor corporate interests over the public welfare.  Their failure to engage in constructive discussion will be used against them - and rightfully so - in November.  It remains to be seen what kind of bill finally becomes law; it will at the very best fall far short of what progressives expected from Obama, but ironically it may go further than the what would have emerged had Republicans engaged in the legislative process rather than attempted to thwart it.  Perhaps the Republicans have now finally learned that no matter how much they may dislike Barack Obama, they underestimate him at their own peril.

The Terrorists Among Us

When an extremist with a violent and irrational grudge against the U.S. government decides to crash a plane into an office building housing Federal agencies, killing a Federal official in the process, there is only one permissible response - immediate, outright and unequivocal condemnation.

Consider, then, the response of former nude model turned Republican Senator Scott Brown, recently elected to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy.  Interviewed on Fox News the afternoon of the recent incident in Austin, Texas, he had this to say:

"Well, it's certainly tragic and I feel for the families, obviously, that are being affected by it.  And I don't know if it's related, but I can just sense, not only in my own election but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated."  As his Fox host nodded sympathetically, Brown continued, "Certainly, no one likes paying taxes."

This is about as close as anyone in officialdom can appear to come, without saying so expressly, to endorsing a suicide bombing against an agency of the government they are sworn to uphold.  Others don't bother to mince their words.  White supremacist web forums are reportedly inundated with comments praising the attack and its perpetrator and a FaceBook page has been created in his honor.

So why are the Republicans, who have been all too quick to criticize the Obama Administration on the issue of homeland security, not at the forefront in condemning this latest act of terrorism?  Sadly, it's simple enough.  If the terrorist had been Muslim, dark-skinned and with one of those foreign-sounding names, Republicans would be berating the Administration for its failure to prevent the attack, demanding that those expressing sympathy with it be wire-tapped, or better yet arrested and waterboarded to find out whether they're planning anything similar.  But of course this wasn't a Muslim, a dark-skinned guy with a foreign-sounding name.  It was white, middle-aged Joe Stack from Texas.

And there are plenty more potential Joe Stacks out there.  We've all seen them on the news - demonstrating their "constitutional rights" by showing up to Presidential events with automatic weapons; parading around at the so-called Tea Party rallies with their virulent anti-Obama banners while pandering, vote-hungry Republicans like Senator Brown tell them they have a right to be frustrated, that Obama is destroying their America, that big government is taking away their freedoms and, darn it, we need to put a stop to it.

Some Republicans apparently can't resist the temptation to turn terrorism, and the deaths of innocent people, to their tawdry political advantage.  They repeatedly tell us that while Bush and Cheney's policies (torture, illegal wiretaps and the like) kept the country safe for eight years, Obama's "weakness" invites attacks.  (That should, of course, be eight years minus one day, but some Republicans, including the entire Cheney family, seem to have forgotten who was in charge on 9/11.)  That is contemptuous enough.  But when the Republican response to an act of domestic terrorism is to blame the Obama Administration for creating the climate of "frustration" that they insinuate gave rise to it, then they appear to be legitimizing and excusing terror.  That is beneath contempt, even by the grossly debased standards that govern political discourse in America these days.

I don't think for a moment that Senator Brown intended to condone terrorism.  He seems like a decent-enough type.  He simply isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.  He apparently has yet to grasp that leadership requires he occasionally put down his Republican talking points, even when appearing on Fox News.

Brown has gone from Republican rising star to empty suit in a few brief weeks.  But for Republicans generally, the Austin suicide bombing should serve as a reminder that the threat of terror is not solely from Muslim extremists, and if they really believe in their so-called war on terror, they can make a very useful contribution to it by toning down their own provocative anti-Obama rhetoric and denouncing the extremist views of those on the fringes of the right-to-bear-arms and Tea Party crowd - even if it costs them a handful of votes this November.

Back Again . . .

. . . after a brief hiatus and with a new name.  In the interim I discovered that someone else, who apparently is equally uninspired in naming blogs, came up with the "No Right Turn" idea before I did.  So we're back, as "Keep Left".  I am sure there are already many other "Keep Lefts" out there in the blogosphere too, so if anyone has any alternative ideas for a name, please let me know.  Meanwhile, back to business . . .