Failure of Primaries

One thing the last elections have shown us is the failure of political parties.  In retrospect the old smoke-filled room method of selecting candidates by party insiders worked better than the new open primary system.  Primaries have pushed both the left and the right to choose more extreme candidates.  Since only one-party votes in primaries, the extremists choose candidates that do not appeal to moderates, but when the election comes, you have two extreme candidates, one on the left and one on the right, with no moderate for independent centrists to vote for.  The biggest threat that any politician can make against another of the same party is “We’re going to primary you.”

This split occurs in almost every election from county commissioner to President.  The country is certainly divided between almost irreconcilable Republican and Democratic electorates, but when each party send Congressmen or Senators from its extreme wings to Congress, the split in Washington becomes even worse. 

The biggest failure was in the 2016 presidential primaries.  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were two terrible candidates.  Hillary had deep contempt for ordinary Americans.  Her Democratic party believe that ordinary Americans were too stupid, lazy, and uneducated to help themselves, and the Democratic Party had to take care of them.  Her contempt for ordinary Americans was evident in everything she said and did.  Trump on the other hand appealed to ordinary Americans because they were stupid, lazy, and uneducated.  They loved him because he didn’t talk down to them or disrespect them like Hillary did. 

The primary in 2020 made Biden in effect the second black President.  He is not as elitist as Hillary, but more important the black community united to support him over Trump.  Trump did not lose the election because of fraud, but because the black community in the US voted as a block from Biden.  Biden was doing poorly in the primaries until Jim Clyburn helped him win South Carolina, by whipping up the black vote in the South Carolina primary behind Biden.  It’s another example of how small, extremist primaries decide huge national elections.  Sometimes, Iowa or New Hampshire primaries decide elections; in 2020 South Carolina did. 

Trump complained that he was defeated by fraud in the elections, but in fact by legal standards there was not enough fraud to justify reopening the elections.  The problem was that blacks voted as a block, with 90% or more voting for Biden.  I think the mail-in ballots issue did work against Trump.  Blacks who might not have voted ordinarily voted by mail because it was easy.  If there were no mail-in ballots, Trump might have won, but the mail-in ballots were legal. 

If the US is to calm down the extremist rhetoric around politics, an important step is to reform the political parties and the primary system.  I think we might be better going back to the old, smoke-filled room method of having party leaders choose candidates, if only because it looks like nothing could be worse than the current system.  But this would only work if the party leaders were decent men who would choose candidates who they thought would be good for the country. 

Of course, another big problem is money in elections, no matter who gets nominated.  The Citizens United case allowing unlimited spending by corporations in campaigns.  This has made money the be all and the end all of campaigning.  The nominees may be awful, but everybody wants to be on record as financially supporting whoever wins in order to get favorable treatment for their pet issues. 

 

Returning from Vietnam

The media focus on current and former military members’ involvement in the January 6 assault on the Capitol makes me wonder how much longer Americans will honor those who serve in the military.  The press reported that the FBI was investigating the backgrounds of the thousands of National Guardsmen who were called to protect the Capitol during Biden’s inauguration, and that several were told to leave because of detrimental information found about them.  

It reminds me of the horrible way that Vietnam veterans were treated by their fellow Americans when they returned from Vietnam.  I was not actually spit on, and I don’t know anybody who was, but there was a lot of contempt for veterans, even to the point of calling them baby-killing war criminals.  On one hand it is good that there is a Vietnam memorial to remember those killed in Vietnam; on the other, the memorial is anything but heroic.  It could be interpreted as a dark slash in the ground, a stark recognition of those who tragically wasted their lives by dying in Vietnam.   

It is interesting that the Vietnam memorial was built before the World War II memorial.  World War II veterans were widely respected for their service, although the movie “The Best Years of Our Lives” shows that many WW II veterans faced the same kinds of problems that Vietnam veterans faced.  Nevertheless, no one felt when they returned that they needed a memorial.  Their service was memorial enough. 

The World War II memorial and the various Confederate memorials that are being torn down followed similar paths.  Neither set of veterans felt that they needed a memorial, but as they began to die off in greater and greater numbers, the people left behind, often wives and daughters, worked to build them memorials to preserve their memory. 

I fear that after a generation of honoring veterans, mainly starting after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, we are moving back to suspicion of veterans.  Now, instead of being war criminals returning from Vietnam, they are pictured as traitors, insurrectionists, white supremacists who are dangers to the nation.  Now the proportion of the populations serving in the military is even smaller than it was during Vietnam, meaning that less and less of the population has any personal understanding of what military service is like.  No recent President has served in the military, and few senior political or other public officials have.  How many of the “talking heads” pontificating about American politics on TV have served?  Not many.  There is a group of veterans in the Congress, mostly because of 9/11, but it will probably shrink as time goes on. 

I worry that people will more and more view the military as something subversive, a hotbed of Nazi sympathizers and white supremacists, and thus military service will become less and less respected and more and more suspected. 

Ancient Rome and the US

 I have been reading some history of Rome to see if it had any lessons for today.  In the description of Rome around 133 BC, I found Mary Beard’s description apposite.  She writes: 

Looking back over the period, Roman historians regretted the gradual destruction of peaceful politics. Violence was increasingly taken for granted as a political tool. Traditional restraints and conventions broke down, one by one, until swords, clubs and rioting more or less replaced the ballot box. At the same time, to follow Sallust, a very few individuals of enormous power, wealth and military backing came to dominate the state – until Julius Caesar was officially made ‘dictator for life’ and then within weeks was assassinated in the name of liberty. When the story is stripped down to its barest and brutal essentials, it consists of a series of key moments and conflicts that led to the dissolution of the free state, a sequence of tipping points that marked the stages in the progressive degeneration of the political process, and a succession of atrocities that lingered in the Roman imagination for centuries. 

Beard, Mary. SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (p. 216). Liveright. Kindle Edition.

 Her subsequent, more detailed, discussions brought out more similarities, the growth of parties divided by bitter animosities and points of view, increasing disparities between the wealthy and poor.  Violence and murder was much more common in ancient Rome than in the US today.  But it does make one wonder about where the US is heading, for if history does not repeat itself, it often rhymes.  

High School Social Media and Free Speech

I thought these two New York Times articles were about the same incident. They are similar but not identical.  The first one, “A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning,” was about a high school cheerleader who used the N-word on social media referring to a classmate when she was 15.  The second story, “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown,” was about a ninth grade girl who failed to make the cheerleading squad and expressed her dissatisfaction with the school in four letter words on Snapchat. 

Since both of these stories seem to involve pretty cheerleaders, they might the basis for an episode of “Mean Girls.”  Both illustrate the increasing coarseness of conversation on social media, and often in person, in the United States.  But beyond the question of what is polite and decent is the question of what is legal?  The N-word has been part of the English language for hundreds of years, as have four-letter words.  Whatever happened to the old adage that “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”  Before social media, these words and actions would have evaporated into thin air.  Today they are preserved forever. 

Does the fact that are not preserved in black and white mean that they are legally different from the same sentiments expressed verbally?  If Facebook has liability protection under section 230, why don’t these cheerleaders? 

In the first case, the thought-police who run the University of Tennessee thought it was more important to recruit black athletes than white cheerleaders, and thus denied admission to the cheerleader in the first story in order to help them recruit black football and basketball players. 

The family in the first case involving the University of Tennessee probably doesn’t have the millions of dollars necessary to pursue a case to the Supreme Court, or maybe they would just like to go about their lives without fighting the though-police at every turn.  They may not want to repay their accuser, Jimmy Gilligan, with the unbelievable hatred and vindictiveness he displayed in getting the girl refused admission to the University of Tennessee. 

To me, these are not hard cases for the Supreme Court, I think they should come down on the side of free speech except in the oft-cited example of crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater.  Actions that may follow disliked words are another matter, but the words should be protected. 

Fox News reported on the story in an article entitled, “New York Times accused of 'glorifying' cancel culture, 'celebrating teenage revenge narratives.' “The subtitle said, “’The tone of the NYT piece wasn't skeptical or unnerved; it was nearly celebratory,' one critic noted.” The Fox News piece concluded:

The framing of the story was ridiculed on social media as readers felt the Times was glorifying cancel culture. 

"It's interesting that the NY Times uses the word *reckoning* in their story on the revocation of a college admission, three years after the teenage girl used a racial slur in a video. *Reckoning* implies that the cancelation was deserved, rather than an outrageous overreaction," one critic observed.

 

"The tone of the NYT piece wasn't skeptical or unnerved; it was nearly celebratory. It was also filled with scattered accusations of racism to make the behavior of the student who sat on it and released it *three years later* seem more reasonable," another reader added.