THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Contests For The Soul Of Two Parties

The two major U.S. political parties are undergoing internal
competitions for their ideological bases, and these contests
are likely to continue for some time without full resolution.

The Democratic Party, after the campaign disaster of Hillary
Clinton’s candidacy, is being pulled to the left by those who
Mrs. Clinton defeated for her party’s nomination. The
Republican Party, after Donald Trump’s upset victory for the
presidency, has been divided by a new working class base and
its old elite establishment. Both of these parties face this
ideological division, and its disruption, with no “winner” in
sight.

Democrats generally were traumatized by Mr. Trump’s
unexpected victory, and understandably continue to oppose
the new president actions and initiatives. Conservative
opponents to Mr. Trump continue to be unnerved by his
electoral success, and remain relentless in their criticism of
him.

Underneath this political behavior, however, both parties are
undergoing transformational alterations that are likely to
change elections in the near, intermediate and long-term
campaigns ahead.

As I have pointed out numerous times, this kind of political
upheaval is happening throughout North and South America
and Europe. Brazil, the largest nation in its continent, is
moving rightward after a period of lurching to the left.
New polls in Germany, long the most powerful and most
stable European partner in the European Union (EU), indicate
that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s relatively centrist coalition
is breaking up as a new national election approaches. Mrs.
Merkel still leads, but a credible scenario for her possible
defeat (once unthinkable) has now appeared for the first time.
A similar phenomenon has occurred in France, whose
presidential election comes very soon. The third major power
in Europe, the United Kingdom, has already opted to leave the
EU, and the major opposition party to ruling UK Conservatives,
the Labour Party, has dramatically withered in national support
as it moved strongly leftward. In these countries, and in many
other Western nations, the major political parties are undergoing
protracted ideological “mitosis” (a term from biology describing
cell division).

The U.S. version calls to mind a similar transformation 150 years
earlier, and change so indelibly described by Abraham Lincoln in
remarks (in the form of a letter) to Boston Republicans in 1859:

“Your kind note inviting me to attend a Festival in Boston,
in honor of the birth-day of Thomas Jefferson, was duly
received, My engagements are such that I cannot attend.

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago, two
great political parties were first formed in this country,
that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them, and
Boston the head-quarters of the other, it is both curious
and interesting that those supposed to descend politically
from the party opposed to Jefferson should now be
celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of
empire, while those claiming political descent from him
have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

...... I remember once being much amused at seeing two
partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their
great-coats on, which fight, after a long and rather
harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself
out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two
leading parties of the day are really identical with the
two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have performed
the same feat as the two drunken men......”
(Mr. Lincoln’s remarks might be especially uncanny because, like
the pro-slavery Democrats of his time, the Democrats of 2017
have also recently tried to erase Mr. Jefferson, a one-time
slaveholder,  from their history.)

It took another seventy years for the Democratic Party to regain
its liberal character (while the Republican Party reverted to its
conservative character, abandoning the progressive Theodore
Roosevelt). And now, seventy years after that, it is the Republican
Party which is appealing to working class Americans while the
Democrats increasingly appeal to the ideological plutocrats.

But there are elements in both parties which are resisting these
trends, and openly competing for new voters. This complicated
competition, it would appear, will not be concluded soon.

It’s likely going to get noisier and more confrontational for much
time ahead. Representative democracy is not a quiet pastime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: 2017 Weekend News Update 1

FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION HICCUP
France will elect a new president in a few months, and the
French voters’ choice could have much to do with the future of
the European Union (EU). The political contest was proceeding
predictably until a few days ago when two surprise
developments took place. The race had been a showdown with
Francois Fillon emerging as the right-of-center candidate after
he defeated a former president and former prime minister;
socialist Benoit Hamon; and Marine Le Pen, the nominee of the
very conservative National Front. Mme. Le Pen was leading in
polls, but Fillon was expected to win the presidency after a
run-off with her (gaining most of the left wing votes). Then,
however, M. Fillon found himself in a major scandal over hiring
his wife when in office. His poll numbers have dropped, and
many in his party are pressuring him to drop out. Second,
former socialist minister Emmanuel Macron quit the leftist
party and formed a new maverick centrist party En Marche
(“On The Move”). A new poll shows M. Macron now in second
place, behind Mme. Le Pen, but slightly ahead of M. Fillon and
way ahead of M. Hamon. In an almost certain run-off, the
maverick Macron wins by an even larger margin than the now
fading Fillon. With four major parties,  France’s politics are
resembling those in neighboring Spain where, after decades of
a two party system, there are also now four major parties
dividing the votes and producing stalemate. Should nominee
Fillon drop out, it could bring back controversial former
French President Nicholas Sarkozy (who had retired after he
recently lost the nomination), a development that further would
confuse an already unexpectedly unpredictable Gallic
campaign. Although Mme. Le Pen has been claiming to be the
French “Trump” candidate. it might be Emmanuel Macron
who provides France with its biggest upset since World War II.

2018 U.S. SENATE RACES 
BEGIN TO FORM
The 2018 national mid-term elections, now less than two years
away, are already taking some shape, particularly because there
are so many vulnerable incumbent Democratic seats at stake.
In fact, 10-12 (or almost half of those running) liberal senators
could face serious GOP challengers. On the Republican side,
only 8 incumbent seats are up, and most of them are secure.
The reverse circumstances were true in 2016 (24 GOP incumbents
and only 10 Democrats), but conservatives held their net loss to
two seats, and maintained their majority. Of course, the outcome
next year will depend in large part on the performance of the
Trump administration, but a senate race these days usually
requires challengers to spend almost two years in assembling a
campaign organization, fundraising and establishing a critical
narrative about the incumbent. So far, most of those who have
either declared their candidacy, or are seriously considering it,
have been GOP members of the U.S. house. Exceptions to this
are Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel who is challenging
incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown for the second time, and
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke who might be the challenger to
incumbent Democrat Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin Several of
the vulnerable Democrats, including Brown and Baldwin,
represent states that were carried by Donald Trump in 2016.
The senate races will be the biggest political story next year.

2017 MAYORAL CONTESTS
There are only a few special congressional elections scheduled
for 2017, and two state governorships, but there are numerous
big city mayoral contests. This is one of the few geographic areas
where Democrats dominate the political market, and it is of interest
because, lacking currently a formidable national reservoir of
political leadership, big city mayors could now begin to supply
many of tomorrow’s liberal members of Congress, governors and
even presidents. Republicans, trailing badly in inner city precincts,
will need to improve their urban support over the long-term if they
intend to maintain current national majorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Unintended But Predictable Consequences

Democrats, during the Obama administration, initiated or
overused several legal tactics, especially in the Congress and
in presidential executive orders, to impose their will. I was
not alone in pointing out that, in the long term, they might
well rue the consequences of these tactics. Now, Republican
roosters have walked into the Capitol coop and asserted
themselves, employing some of these same tactics, many of
which they would not have otherwise used.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, especially the former, initiated
this state of affairs. Mr. Reid upset the proper deliberative
function of the senate using arcane and hitherto rarely used
rules to “close down the U.S. senate” to bipartisan debate not
just for a single issue, but totally for years.

Still reeling from the upset victory of Donald Trump last
November, congressional Democrats, particularly in the U.S.
senate, are trying to block not only many of President Trump’s
cabinet choices, but now his first choice for appointment to the
U.S. supreme court. After boycotting confirmation hearings,
the Democrats were treated to a suspension of the committee
rules by the Republican committee chairs, and the nominations
proceeded. The minority party now threatens to filibuster the
nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court, and by the
current rules could do so, but Mr. Reid established the means
and the precedent to cancel the filibuster. Seven (of the eight
needed) Democratic senators are already on the record
opposing the use of the filibuster --- although they could change
their minds in this case. If they do change their minds, and the
filibuster is then repealed, they will only have themselves to
blame.

The way to promote partisan ideas, and to employ individuals
who will implement them, is to win elections  From 2009
through 2011, Democrats controlled the executive and
legislative branches of government. In 2010, the GOP retook the
U.S. house, and in 2014, conservatives retook the U.S. senate. In
2016, A Republican was elected president. The way back for the
Democrats is to win elections in 2018, 2020 and beyond.

It’s that simple. What is complicated is how to do it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Catalonia And California

As a one-time resident and frequent visitor to the Spanish
region of Catalonia (its capital is Barcelona), and a frequent
visitor to the U.S. state of California, I observe that both
locations are enduring claims that they can secede from the
nation to which each belong. The “secession” movement is
not limited to these two areas, but also is taking place in
Scotland (United Kingdom), Venice (Italy), Belgium, The
Netherlands, the Basque region (also Spain), Quebec (Canada)
and other parts in the world.

Each case has to be judged on the merits of its own
circumstances of history, language, ethnicity and economics.
Several years ago, the nation of Czechoslovakia amicably
divided itself into two sovereign nations, the Czech Republic
and Slovakia. In the Balkans, various sovereign nations were
established within the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia,
and they exist today. And, of course, numerous former
colonial territories throughout the globe have achieved
independence and enjoy their sovereignty.

In the case of Catalonia and California, however, there appears
to be more complaint than justification for secession, and most
importantly, no legal basis for it.

As every American knows, a Civil War was fought 150 years
ago over the question of secession, and the matter was settled.
California urban voters recently chose Hillary Clinton over
Donald Trump by a wide margin (in fact, it exceeded the
national net popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee).
These urban voters also support the controversial issue of
sanctuary cities, and generally espouse very liberal views. It
must be noted, however, that outside the urban centers, and
especially in the northern part of the state, most voters are
conservative and Republican. Threats of secession in
California express a frustration of some voters, but the
formality of secession is legally baseless. In short, it’s just talk.

In the case of Catalonia, its residents speak two languages,
Catalan and Castilian (Spanish), and have done so for centuries.
Although Catalonia is a distinctive region, it has no history as
an independent nation. During the Spanish civil war (1936-39),
it sided with the existing government which was overthrown by
the fascist dictator Francisco Franco, and for the next four
decades its Catalan language and heritage were suppressed.
This legitimate grievance was put aside after Franco’s death,
and a Spanish democratic constitutional monarchy established.
Two of the seven authors of the new Spanish constitution were
Catalans. The Catalan region itself was given remarkable
autonomy by the central government in Madrid, and enjoys
that today with its own president and parliament. The new
Spanish constitution, like the U.S. constitution, does not allow
for secession. When the current democratic Spanish nation was
created in the 1970s, Catalan voters overwhelmingly approved it.

Since the time when I lived in both Madrid and Barcelona
(during the 1960s), Spain has become a vibrant and prosperous
democratic nation. It has rejected both its extreme left
populism of the 1930s and the far right of its Franco period.
While France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium,
Greece and other European nations are enduring a rise in
extremist politics today, the Spanish government is enjoying
relative stability. The constitutional monarchy recently went
through some controversy, but the new king, who has no
political power, seems to be restoring popularity.

Both California and Catalonia are remarkable places with
distinctive beauty, character and traditions. Each of them, as
do virtually every other region in the world, faces challenges,
grievances and problems.

Secession, however, is neither a legal nor a social economic
solution to their difficulties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A 21st Century Congress Of Vienna Coming?

The Congress of Vienna of 1814-15 was the Western world’s
first truly cooperative assembly of nations, and for a full
century preserved the general peace of Europe and in the
European global colonies. It was the model of two later
international organizations, the League of Nations (1922-38)
and the United Nations (1945-present) both of which have been
far less successful.

The Congress was called to Vienna in response to the havoc
created by French emperor-dictator Napoleon Buonaparte in
his conquest of most of Europe (1801-14). Napoleon had
overwhelmed Italy, Spain, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, and had
invaded Russia unsuccessfully. The major powers at the
Congress of Vienna were Great Britain, Prussia, Russia and
Austro-Hungary. France was represented by the representative
of the restored Bourbon monarchy. Virtually all the states of
Europe were also in attendance, most notably Sweden, the
papal and various other Italian peninsula states, and Spain.

Although Napoleon had made a dramatic 100-day return
during the Congress, his final defeat and exile to St. Helena
occurred as the Congress was concluding.

Under the leadership of Prince Metternich of Austria-Hungary,
the Congress eventually redrew the borders of Europe with the
intention that no major power would be strong enough to
threaten successfully any other power. The resulting “chandelier
balance of power” held together for almost exactly 100 years
until it was finally shattered by the outbreak of World War I.

This carefully constructed “chandelier” balance was formulated
by the conservative leaders of the major powers, and was
unsympathetic to the revolutionary and reform movements
which had been kindled by the failed French revolution of the
1790s (and more distantly, the successful American revolution of
the 1780s). Three decades after the Congress of Vienna, in 1848,
revolutionary movements reappeared, and three decades after
that, the Franco-Prussian War took place. European borders
throughout this period were redrawn, new nations appeared,
and monarchies fell, but the overall continental peace was
preserved until the Prussian emperor (now the monarch of a
united Germany) aggressively upset the balance in the early
1900s, leading to the tragic response to the assassination of the
Austro-Hungarian heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo
in 1914.

After Napoleon’s demise, Great Britain became the world’s
superpower, and the ultimate enforcer of the treaty of the
Congress of Vienna. Over time, the hereditary enemies  of
England and France became allies, and also allied with Russia,
while at the same time, Prussia (later Germany) and
Austro-Hungary were allied, and were joined by Turkey. As
these and other smaller alliances took place, the strength of
the bonds of the Congress of Vienna began to unravel. As the
various states of the Italian peninsula became united as the
kingdom of Italy, and allied itself with England, France and
Russia, Germany, under its paranoic kaiser, felt increasingly
surrounded, and as tensions mounted in the first decade of the
20th century, the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir
in Serbia, a Russian ally, provided the excuse for war.

As I have argued, the World War begun in 1914 has not really
ended, The Treaty of Versailles in 1921 also redrew borders
in Europe and, in effect, all over the world. This contrivance,
unlike the treaty made in Vienna in 1815, led to chronic
conflicts not only in Europe, but in colonial territories in
the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America that led to
World War II and the many conflicts which exist today.

Thus, the century of international peace produced by the
Congress of Vienna was followed by a “second hundred
years war” in the following century. With conflicts and
terrorism now global, it might be time for a new and more
enduring rearrangement of world powers, especially with
the inevitable emergence of the world’s two most populous
nations, China and India, as increasingly potent economic
global players.

Whether or not a clear intention of the new American
president is to specifically rearrange the international order,
his stated and promised re-set of U.S. international
relationships, now underway, might well lead to it. It is
perhaps worth noting that Mr. Trump is talking to Henry
Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state who decades ago
played a key role in the U.S. overture to China. Mr. Kissinger
is a well-known admirer of the Congress of Vienna and what
it accomplished.

The time is evidently also ripe for a re-set of the impact of
the new set of world powers. These powers include the United
States, Europe/Russia, China, India, and eventually some of
the emerging nations.

It is a tantalizing possibility, and not without those who will
strongly resist it. Even those who would benefit greatly from
it, and might become eventually its strongest advocates, will
no doubt hesitate and question it.

But politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and I think it is
becoming clearer and clearer after a century of unspeakable
violence and conflict that it’s time for a new international
balance of powers that actually works.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Establishment Is Dead; Long Live the Establishment!

What is really underlying the discontent, on both the left and
the right, with the recent election is an intuitive and bitter
understanding that the rules have changed.

Those who are pleased with the election outcome very much
wanted the rules to change --- although no one, including those
who are happy and those who are not, has a full understanding
of what the world will be like with new rules.

It was perhaps inevitable that those who will now lead the world
with new rules are among the least likely we might have
predicted to do so. Consider this: the new president is an aging
rich kid, who went to military school and an Ivy League
university, made billions of dollars in real estate deals, and talks
like dock worker. He has initially gathered around him military
generals, other billionaires and multi-millionaires, successful
business persons, and assorted political novices. All of them,
strong-minded and establishment figures in their own secular
worlds, will now enable the nation to replace a moribund
political establishment with a new one. None of them fits the
usual stereotype of a “revolutionary” --- yet revolutionaries
they are likely to be, at least for a while.

In time, of course, they will become the new establishment, and
if these new rules and new rulers have any longevity, they will
spawn an intractable political establishment of their own --- and
then be “overthrown” by still another voter mutiny.

That, of course, is getting way ahead of where we are now.  I
mention it because any political transition has an unknown but
definite time limit, and it is always useful to remember this
enduring long-term reality.

In the current version, the awareness of the scope of coming
changes is only dimly perceived. Liberals and the mainstream
media will act horrified by the Trump political re-set, but it
will be as much a theatrical performance as the one performed
by conservatives after 2009 when President Obama ushered in
his own re-set and transition.

Whereas the FDR transition lasted about 58 years under leaders
of both parties, and the Reagan transition lasted about 28 years
under leaders of both parties, the Obama transition appears to
have had a duration of only about 8 years --- and under only one
administration. The tenure of the Trump transition might last
only 4 years, or it might last decades. It will, as it always does,
depend on how successfully its policies work and become the
popular norm.

The new president in 2017, whomever it was to be, I wrote
repeatedly over the past two years, would face some very big
problems of public policy. In the previous establishment,
those on the left and the right, however different their solutions,
played by the same general rules. If the new opposition to Mr.
Trump and his administration of the government insists on
playing by the old rules, they are likely to fail, and fail badly.
That will be especially true if Mr. Trump’s and the Republicans’
policies succeed in bringing about the goals they promised and
the results they assured us would happen. On the other hand, if
a truly savvy and pragmatic liberal opposition develops (and
eventually it is very likely to do so), in time the political center
will turn back their way.

What we are witnessing now in the actions and rhetoric of those
who lost the election is blowing off disappointment steam ---
it’s understandable but it’s almost certain not to be very
productive, particularly with national mid-term elections now
only two years away. A turn too far left, however tempting it
might be, might well enable a new conservative establishment to
solidify itself with independent voters. This is what happened
in Great Britain and in France where the major left of center
parties are not, for the time being, viable in the immediate
future.

Meanwhile, the coming days will reveal the new rules of the
national political game, as well as who will be the most able and
agile players on the political stage. The old rules no longer apply,
and the sooner all of us realize this, the quicker and more fully
we will understand what is really happening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: President Trump

Every formal occasion that puts a new person in the position
of president of the United States brings with it an
accompanying and need-to-get used-to usage of juxtaposing
the person’s name with the title of office. In 2001, it was not
quite so because in spite of the closeness of the race, and the
delay in deciding who had won, the new president had the
same surname as his father who had been president only
eight years before.

It will take some time for many Americans to become
accustomed to “President Trump” --- especially so because
his election was so unexpected and controversial.

If anyone doubted that he would not arrive with such
surprising force as he did during his campaign for the
Republican Party nomination, and later in his campaign
against the Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton, they
were disabused of this by the new president’s bold and
clear inaugural remarks following his swearing-in.

His speech might have lacked the memorable eloquent
phrases of a Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy
opening address, but it was in its simplicity and directness as
notable a speech as most others.

The aforementioned presidents each ushered in a new political
era, and so does President Trump. What made his remarks
distinctive was their lack of traditional partisanship, and their
notice to the establishments on all sides, that a serious reform
approach was coming across the national board.

Nevertheless, any speech is just so many words, especially if
behind them in due course there is not a performance of change.
In the case of the new president, he creates high expectations for
his performance even if there has not yet been a high expectation
for ability to be a strong and effective president.

The hostile media which so unseemly opposed his candidacy, and
even more unseemly has attacked him before he took office, wished
for another speech --- a speech which in effect he confessed that his
campaign for president was not going to be like his actual service
in the office. His answer to them, and all others who wished for
something conventional, was to declare that his goals and concerns
expressed in running for president were the same as his program
for being president.

Many Americans do not agree with President Trump, just as many
Americans did not agree with Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt and
Kennedy. The burden of proof now shifts to the new president,
his administration and his party majorities in Congress, to justify
their words and the expectations those words created.

It is no small task to change the trend to over-centralization of
U.S. government in the nation’s capital, to reform a growing and
intrusive federal bureaucracy, and most of all, to revive a
sluggish economy in which so many vulnerable Americans are
unemployed. It will be no small challenge to navigate the vital
interests of the nation through a complex and dangerous maze of
global interests and forces.

President Trump has his strong supporters who are confident he
will deliver on his promises. He also has strong opponents who
are confident he will fail. But most importantly, there are even
more Americans who simply, and out of understandable
self-interest, wish him well, and the skills to succeed. Those
performances are now immediately ahead.

Let this new show on the national stage begin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.