Book Review: America and The Missing Moderate Voter

If ever an author missed a golden opportunity to explain Donald Trump and the American voter, it might be David Brown, a history professor at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, with his new book, Moderates:  The Vital Center of American Politics, from the Founding to Today.

The title alone makes you think he’s written about voters.  But you soon discover he focused on a few presidents, their moderate views and how that helped them win the White House.  

In a time when people are taking to the streets against Trump, yelling at Congressional representatives during town meetings, or venting anger on social media – in other words, in an era marked by high tension, distrust and vitriol as people attempt to figure out where the United States is headed – this book stands out as a total miss for these turbulent times.

Had he showed how Americans size up issues and candidates as they determine their voting preferences, this book would be a worthwhile read.  Comparing recent American voting habits to the most recent election, it’s hard to believe a candidate as disruptive as Trump will be seen again, from either major political party, and it’s unfortunate he didn’t explore this issue.

Another problem with this book is the history presented about President Carter.  If all you knew about Carter was what you read from Professor Brown, you might think his downfall was due to two challengers from within his own party, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and California Gov. Jerry Brown.  The U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran – which made him vulnerable to those challengers and destroyed his presidency – is never mentioned.

The next faux pas Brown makes is to repeat a tired criticism of the Republican Party – that unless it includes more minorities and women in its ranks, it’s likely to die off, a critique that circulated after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney failed to knock out Barack Obama from the White House in 2012, something that didn’t matter in 2016.

If there’s any take away from this book it might be that last November’s election was an aberration.  Over the last 40 years, Americans chose presidential candidates not too wedded to their political party.  Presidents Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama are cited as examples.

Indeed, a Gallup Poll, released in January 2016, about political affiliation suggests moderates should continue to win the White House because 42 percent of American voters identify as independents while 29 percent identify as Democrats and 26 percent identify as Republicans.  

If you're going to write about moderates, shouldn't this detail be in the book?  Perhaps the professor should take a class on research.  

“The rise in political independence is likely related to Americans’ frustration with party gridlock in the federal government,” Gallup reported.

But Gallup also pointed out a contradiction:  Sixteen percent of independents lean toward the Democrats and the same percentage leans Republican, giving each party more than 40 percent of all voters, meaning there are far fewer independents out there.  These numbers also provide a warning – politicians, at the national level, cannot stray too far left or too far right. 

They also say there’s not a shred of evidence the Republican Party will implode; that the Democrats will easily waltz back into the White House – because of the Electoral College just might stop them again in 2020 – or that they’ll dominate Congress after next year’s midterm elections because more voters find Democratic Party positions acceptable.  In other words, there are no guarantees about future elections.

The problem with this book is that the author was lazy.  He doesn’t offer a shred of new scholarship nor does he take a chance to explain why Americans tend to prefer moderates at the helm.  Instead, he parrots what others have written.  That said, his conclusion appears accurate:  A successful presidential candidate tends to be a centrist, someone independent voters and the party faithful find suitable.  

But had he done the work a book like this requires -- examining Americans’ tendency to skew a hue of purple instead of bright red or deep blue, checked his history, perhaps even accompanied reporters during last year’s primary and election seasons as they interviewed voters, it would stand out for offering great discovery about the American citizen.  As it stands, however, it isn’t worth the money.

Publishing Information:

Moderates:  The Vital Center of American Politics, From the Founding to Today, by David S. Brown.  Chapel Hill, NC:  The University of North Carolina Press, 2016.  Available at barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com for $34.95

Gallup Poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

No Coupons Required

As goes Wal-Mart, so goes the United States.

Perhaps that’s the best sum-up of last week’s mid-term and gubernatorial elections. 

How do I know?

Wal-Mart stock is trading at nearly $80 a share and its revenues increased more than 16 percent from 2010 to 2014 to just over $476 billion.[i] 

Who knows, maybe they’ll cross the $500 billion mark this year, which is another way of saying half a trillion dollars if you're suffering from innumeracy.

That might not be too surprising because, according to the company’s latest annual report, its nearly 5,000 U.S. stores serve about 140 million customers every week,[ii] nearly half of the country’s population.  More than 70 percent of the company’s revenues – about $279 billion – is made right here, in the good ole’ USA.

If you bought Wal-Mart stock when President Obama was first inaugurated, in January 2009, and you still own it, you’re doing okay.  It’s up about $30 a share since then.[iii] 

So for all of Friday’s news about how the unemployment rate is below 6 percent – another way of saying Americans were so stupid they traded in the Democrats for the Republicans – Wal-Mart’s numbers tell a very different story.

Americans are worried!

They’re shopping Wal-Mart because they fear the paycheck they received last week won't be there next week, next month, even next year.

Even if they’re aware of Wal-Mart’s negative stories, their immediate anxiety is they’ll be nickel and dimed – by their employer.

Plus, as Barron’s Gene Epstein reports, there’s been little wage growth in the United States and there remains a dearth of men working, especially those between the ages of 25 – 54.[iv]

I’m no Wal-Mart fan.  But my travels with Tribune Media Services, peddling comics, columns, crossword puzzles and news services, over the course of 13 years, taking me to 40-odd states and a lot of small towns, showed me its power:  Wal-Mart changes the economic fabric of small towns and cities.[v]

But, you know, I’m not so proud to say I’ve never shopped Wal-Mart either.

It’s had products our household needed that no one else offered, from a particular size drip pan for our stove to diapers that fit my sons when they were babies.

 

I didn’t like going there.  The place gave me the heebe jeebes.  But I always noted the parking lot was full.

So for all the whining from the liberals, whether they’re friends or commentators in the press, about last Tuesday’s results  – and for all of the celebrations from the conservative ones – everyone missed the boat.

Wal-Mart won the election.

I’m worried.

---

[i] http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/WMT/financials

[ii] http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/66/e5/9ff9a87445949173fde56316ac5f/2014-annual-report.pdf

http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/our-business/locations/#/united-states

[iii] http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:WMT&ei=uQReVKiQEouMqQHDmYDoCg&client=news

[iv] http://online.barrons.com/articles/the-u-s-jobs-machine-chugs-on-1415436001

[v] http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2405-real-cost-walmart.html

Politics of You, Me and Us

My 12-year-old precocious son asked me about last night’s election results, just before he went off to school today.

In particular, he asked about my party affiliation.  When I was 18, I said, I registered with the Democrats but soon, thereafter, realized that was a mistake. 

“Because you thought they were a little nutty,” he asked.

“Maybe,” I replied. “But it didn’t make me run into the arms of the Republican Party either.”

Then I said I’m with the Democrats when they talk about civil and human rights but I’m with the Republicans when they talk about money.

“So, really, I’m more Libertarian,” I said.  

What I didn’t tell him – because time was running short – was that I also support same-gender marriage and women’s reproductive rights. 

Elections are pictures of a moment in time.  People vote for whom they vote for many reasons.

Part of it might be because they read up on the issues, deciding one candidate fits their views better than another.  Some of it, as Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist Joseph Epstein[i] suggests, might be due to circumstances few consider – family, parents, siblings, how they were brought up, where they live, what they do, the education they received.

So we might consider – outrageous as it might seem – that we’re all brainwashed or, if you prefer in this digital age, hardwired, for certain beliefs long before we leave the confines of where we grew up.

Matt Miller, a columnist I once syndicated, and a candidate himself recently for U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman’s seat, taught me one of the best lessons about why one politician is elected over another:  It’s all in the looks.

Turn down the television’s volume when they’re debating or when their ads appear, he said, and it’ll allow you to better study their facial features and expressions, telling you whether they’re happy or angry.

As I recall, he said, the happy ones tend to hold an advantage.  Not always, of course.  But often.

So perhaps it was Martha Coakley’s face that led to her second significant defeat in a statewide contest.  It’s narrow and constricted, not warm enough to win. 

And while you might think that’s sexist, Coakley’s facial disadvantage was the same one that hindered Charlie Baker four years ago when he tried to unseat Gov. Deval Patrick. 

I hope the politicians assembling in Washington and the country’s state capitals in January follow the lesson my mother taught me:  Hold any political view you want, but, remember, life’s solutions are found in the middle.

As for Matt Miller, unfortunately, he didn’t secure his party’s nomination for Waxman’s seat.

I came to know Matt during my time at Tribune Media Services and always found him to be one of the smartest commentators we syndicated.  He’s a centrist Democrat, a former Clinton White House staffer and would have been a solid operator not only for his party but also when it came to working with Republicans. 

His defeat sheds light on the kind of politics those elected must hold.  It illuminates us.

---

[i] http://online.wsj.com/articles/joseph-epstein-after-the-midterms-virtucrats-still-rule-1415145309

Memo to Hillary Clinton

To:              The Honorable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

From:           Doug Page, freelance writer, blogger, registered
independent

Date:            June 18, 2014

Re:              Iraq

Dear Madam Secretary:

You better be texting POTUS about this situation, telling him to

make damn sure he doesn’t lose Baghdad to those crazed ISIS

terrorists. If you're not, you’re hardly a serious contender for

becoming the next president of the United States – book

or no book!

Sure, the Iraq War under President George W. Bush wasn’t popular

but if Baghdad falls on President Obama’s watch, the former president

will look like the best commander in chief since Ronald Reagan.

The average American voter will see in the Democrats exactly what

you don’t want them to perceive – a political party so run by its

peaceniks that it’s prepared to surrender any ally, even questionable

ones, to anyone, including to a band of renegades who, according to

The Economist, make al-Qaida look reasonable.[i]

Anyone associated with the Democratic Party, regardless of what

office they’re running for this year or two years from now, will be

considered suspicious on national security.

Including you if you’re the Democratic presidential nominee!

Say what you want about national security – that it’s only near and

dear to the Tea Party and other assorted right-wing extremists – but

if ISIS wins in Iraq, enough Americans will feel threatened to

prevent you from winning a key state, like Ohio or Michigan, and, thus, 

sending the Republican presidential nominee into the White House.

In fact, the next time you speak with President Obama, you might tell

him that if he doesn’t save Baghdad, Jeb Bush may be the biggest

beneficiary. Not only will it elevate his candidacy for his party’s

presidential nomination it will also improve his chances of winning

the general election in November 2016.

And if Baghdad goes down, it could put you in a very uncomfortable

position, one likely not seen since Hubert Humphrey ran for president

in 1968.  You’ll be forced to distance yourself from the White House.

Like Humphrey, it's highly unlikely you'll be considered believable

since you worked for President Obama.  Most American voters won’t
be able to separate you from him.

Don’t forget Benghazi. Any fall of Baghdad piles onto that situation,

making you look even less credible on national defense.

Finally, you need to control the far left in your party, reminding

them the world is filled with danger.

As British historian Jeremy Black reminds us in his book, War and

The New Disorder in the 21^st Century, “One prediction seems safe:

talk of obsolescence, even end, of war will prove misplaced, and will

be mocked by the rictus on the face of the dead.”[ii]

---

[i] “Terror’s New Headquarters,” The Economist, June 14, 2014:  http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21604160-iraqs-second-city-has-fallen-group-wants-create-state-which-wage-jihad

[ii] Jeremy Black, War and The Disorder in the 21^st Century, London: Continuum, 2004, page 173.

Ich bin ein Berliner

The tragedy of watching President Kennedy’s inspirational 1963 speech in West Berlin, and hearing his now famous phrase, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” met with cheers from the city’s citizens, is that too many people can’t put his words into historical context. 

What they don’t see is what it took for JFK to earn the crowd’s adoration.  It was coming from a people experienced in living under a totalitarian regime, Hitler and his Nazis, who, very suddenly, found themselves at the epicenter of the next greatest political stand off – the fight between freedom and Soviet-style oppression.

Having received the news about the Berlin Wall in August 1961, President Kennedy could have written off West Berlin, letting it fall into the hands of the Soviets and East Germans.  He could have stated there was no strategic consequence to ceding the city.

But instead of taking the easy way out, President Kennedy made a difficult decision, ordering what would become known as the “Berlin Brigade,” a 1,500 strong contingent of U.S. troops, into West Berlin, demonstrating that the United States wasn’t about to allow the Soviet Union and East Germany to occupy the entire city – at least not without a fight.

By doing so, Kennedy was challenging Moscow to a dare – to find out how serious they were about taking West Berlin, since only days earlier they started building the Berlin Wall.

Today, we’re at the same point with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the issue of Ukraine’s sovereignty.  If ever there were an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment for President Barack Obama, this is it.

This isn’t the fight the United States and its allies want.  Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula likely come with more problems than we would prefer to solve.

But the issue isn’t Ukraine alone.  It’s what happens next if we don’t stop Putin now.

Are a country’s borders for real?  Or can they simply be shifted back and moved around at will, depending on which army invades?

When does Putin look at a map of the United States, to see where Russian émigrés are living, and do the unthinkable:  Decide his fellow citizens, inhabiting towns like Ashland, Brookline, Newton, Millers Falls and Sharon Massachusetts; Sharon Springs, New York; Mountain View, California, and various suburbs around Chicago, like Northbrook and Wheeling, Illinois, and think they, too, need to be protected.[i]

In fact, according to the source for that information, there are 101 cities and towns in the United States where many Russian immigrants are living.

Do they require the services of the Russian Armed Forces?

President Obama needs to make the hard decision.  He needs to put a contingent of troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the Crimea, showing Putin that he better withdraw his ground forces.

If he does so, he might just get the “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment he so very much wants.

If he cedes so much as an inch of ground to Russia in this latest international standoff, he looks no better than Jimmy Carter or, worse, Neville Chamberlin.

---

[i] http://www.city-data.com/top2/h64.html