Two major decisions by the U.S. supreme court, plus the almost
simultaneous announcement that a senior justice would now
retire, have put the final arbiter institution of U.S. constitutional
law front and center in the news from Washington, DC. A third
decision, not a landmark, but an important one, involves the
long-controversial issue of abortion, and so it is the fourth high
court flashpoint now introduced into the general conversation
of the 2018 national mid-term elections.
The only power voters have in regard to the supreme court is the
election of a president (who nominates each court justice) and
the election of U.S. senators (who must confirm any nomination).
Since this is not a presidential election year, the only political
recourse for voters are this year’s senate elections.
President Trump will nominate a replacement for Justice
Anthony Kennedy on or before July 9. GOP Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell will then oversee what is likely to be
a rigorous examination of the nominee’s background, and a
vote on confirmation, he says, will take place in late September
or early October --- at least a month before the election.
In spite of the importance of these flash points to some of the
most important special interest groups in both parties, their
occurrence and timing will likely have very little impact on the
state primary elections, many of which have already taken
place.
But will these supreme court flash points have notable impact
in November? That is a question more difficult to answer.
The groups most ardent on each side of the immigration,
abortion and labor issues, even before the recent decisions,
are already usually high-turnout voters. The nomination and
confirmation vote on the new justice will likely be done by
election day. Other issues, including the state of the economy,
might perhaps be more pressing in November.
But one question might play a decisive factor in several U.S.
senate races. President Trump has already signaled that he
will nominate a strong conservative to fill Justice Kennedy’s
seat. Mr. Kennedy was a conservative jurist much of the
time, but on certain social issues he sided with liberals on
the court. The new nominee is likely to be less of a swing vote.
This could put considerable pressure on senate candidates in
the autumn campaign. In those states, such as North Dakota,
West Virginia and Indiana, each of which Donald Trump
carried by big margins in 2016, Democratic incumbents will
be under pressure to declare they will break party ranks and
vote to confirm the Trump nominee. This is exactly what
Democratic Senators Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly of
those states did when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in 2017.
These three incumbents are each very vulnerable in 2018.
This could also be a GOP advantage in Montana and
Missouri. On the other hand, non-incumbent Republican
senate candidates in Nevada, Florida, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota --- each which have substantial numbers
of pro-choice voters --- might see their prospects slightly
dimmed by their pledge to vote to confirm.
President Trump did well with blue collar and union voters
in 2016, and in 2018 seems to be doing even better. But most
of those gains seem to have been among non-public
employees. Public union members, those directly affected by
the supreme court decision, seem as Democratic as ever,
and might be especially motivated to turn out in November
--- although the decision can’t be changed.
Pro-life voters might by November finally have a slim
majority on the court, but most observers think that an
outright court reversal on Roe v. Wade is unlikely. Since
pro-lifers are traditionally high-turnout voters, any major
increase by them on election day is also unlikely.
In spite of the significance and controversies in recent
U.S. supreme court decisions, their timing just before
a national mid-term election does not seem to have clear
and predictable impacts.
But the same might not be true in the 2020 presidential
election year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Time To Set Foot On Earth Again?
Since election night, 2016, many Democrats have been on a fantasy
flight at zero gravity somewhere in space. It’s time for them to
return to earth and set foot on solid ground again.
After a political baptism in controversy and congressional stalemate
throughout most of 2017, President Donald Trump and his
Republican colleagues are enjoying a remarkable series of political
victories, some of which were enabled by many Democrats
abandoning the fields of political battle for a chartered flight of
denial in the clouds.
Elections mean a lot more than just getting the most votes. They
give power to the winners. This had been true in 2008 when the
Democrats took back the White House. Republicans, of course,
were not happy, and some of them got sidetracked in an empty
controversy over a birth certificate. But after Obamacare was
pushed through the Congress, the GOP eschewed a flight into
denial space, and went to work. Capitalizing on the unpopularity
of Obamacare, they won mid-terms in 2010 and 2014, and almost
defeated a sitting president in 2012. Even the latter defeat did
not prevent an upset victory four years later by Mr. Trump.
The most current consequences of conservative election victories
come from the non-elected branch of government which the
elected branches have the power to appoint and confirm, the U.S.
supreme court.
Within only a few days, this court handed down historic decisions
on the president’s travel ban, the rights of pro-life clinics, and the
rights of non-union public employees not to be forced to pay
union dues. In spite of being heralded as a “swing” vote on the
nation’s highest court, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the
conservative majority on all three votes, and then announced his
retirement. His replacement, to be named by President Trump,
will almost certainly strengthen the conservative majority. There
will be a partisan battle over whomever the president nominates,
but even if the confirmation vote is delayed until after the
mid-term election, a credible conservative will take Justice
Kennedy’s place.
These developments, welcomed by most conservatives, are
equally and understandably disliked by most liberals. The
problem for the latter is that the Democratic Party seems, in
the current primary nominating season, to be moving strongly
and often to the left. This movement pleases some in the
Democratic base, but faces opposition from many in the
liberal mainstream. Most risky of all, it might well turn away
otherwise sympathetic independent voters, usually the key
group to winning competitive elections.
Republicans have only a narrow majority in the U.S senate, but
they have a clear advantage in the 2018 races, where so many
more Democratic incumbent senate seats are up for re-election.
U.S. house members do not confirm presidential appointments,
including supreme court nominees. U.S. senators do.
Wafts of socialistic and other radical programs are filling
reports from many primary contests in several states, egged on
by some of the most prominent potential 2020 Democratic
presidential nominees. These would seem to be cases of new
political flights into electoral denial.
The argument for a mid-term ‘blue wave” is now seemingly
evaporating. Is another kind of wave on the horizon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
flight at zero gravity somewhere in space. It’s time for them to
return to earth and set foot on solid ground again.
After a political baptism in controversy and congressional stalemate
throughout most of 2017, President Donald Trump and his
Republican colleagues are enjoying a remarkable series of political
victories, some of which were enabled by many Democrats
abandoning the fields of political battle for a chartered flight of
denial in the clouds.
Elections mean a lot more than just getting the most votes. They
give power to the winners. This had been true in 2008 when the
Democrats took back the White House. Republicans, of course,
were not happy, and some of them got sidetracked in an empty
controversy over a birth certificate. But after Obamacare was
pushed through the Congress, the GOP eschewed a flight into
denial space, and went to work. Capitalizing on the unpopularity
of Obamacare, they won mid-terms in 2010 and 2014, and almost
defeated a sitting president in 2012. Even the latter defeat did
not prevent an upset victory four years later by Mr. Trump.
The most current consequences of conservative election victories
come from the non-elected branch of government which the
elected branches have the power to appoint and confirm, the U.S.
supreme court.
Within only a few days, this court handed down historic decisions
on the president’s travel ban, the rights of pro-life clinics, and the
rights of non-union public employees not to be forced to pay
union dues. In spite of being heralded as a “swing” vote on the
nation’s highest court, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the
conservative majority on all three votes, and then announced his
retirement. His replacement, to be named by President Trump,
will almost certainly strengthen the conservative majority. There
will be a partisan battle over whomever the president nominates,
but even if the confirmation vote is delayed until after the
mid-term election, a credible conservative will take Justice
Kennedy’s place.
These developments, welcomed by most conservatives, are
equally and understandably disliked by most liberals. The
problem for the latter is that the Democratic Party seems, in
the current primary nominating season, to be moving strongly
and often to the left. This movement pleases some in the
Democratic base, but faces opposition from many in the
liberal mainstream. Most risky of all, it might well turn away
otherwise sympathetic independent voters, usually the key
group to winning competitive elections.
Republicans have only a narrow majority in the U.S senate, but
they have a clear advantage in the 2018 races, where so many
more Democratic incumbent senate seats are up for re-election.
U.S. house members do not confirm presidential appointments,
including supreme court nominees. U.S. senators do.
Wafts of socialistic and other radical programs are filling
reports from many primary contests in several states, egged on
by some of the most prominent potential 2020 Democratic
presidential nominees. These would seem to be cases of new
political flights into electoral denial.
The argument for a mid-term ‘blue wave” is now seemingly
evaporating. Is another kind of wave on the horizon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Primaries So Far
Trying to glean credible trends from the 2018 mid-term elections
cycle is a very daunting task. Of course, nearly every pundit and
political analyst is doing it, and many are throwing caution to the
winds.
My own take on 2018, as my readers already know, is to be very
cautious because of voter volatility, serious questions about the
usefulness of public polls so far, and yes, the phenomenon of
Donald Trump.
In fact, I think it is President Trump who is the primary motivator
for voter turnout for both major political parties --- obviously for
contrasting reasons.
But there are some emerging characteristics of this election that
I think are worth noting.
For one, both parties seem to be nominating their best or strongest
candidates, with a few exceptions, for the competitive U.S. house
and senate seats, and for governorships. Some further tests of this
remain in Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other primaries ahead,
but both party establishments seem determined to do well this year
--- Democrats to try to win back control of the U.S. house, and to
set up some momentum to block the re-election of Mr. Trump in
2020; Republicans to keep control of Congress while creating their
own momentum to re-elect the president.
There are many battlegrounds for 2018, and as almost always in
mid-term elections, local circumstances and the quality of
incumbent candidates, both incumbents and challengers, play a
larger role than they often do in a presidential election year.
Two cases in point, are the competitive senate races in Ohio and
Florida where veteran Democrats are running for re-election. In
Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, once thought very vulnerable, is
a strong campaigner -- and now is favored. (His original
challenger had to leave the race.) In Florida, aging Senator Bill
Nelson is facing the current GOP governor, Rick Scott, who is so
far running a strong race, and is favored to pick up this seat for
his party. Of course, by election day, matters could change.
GOP Ohio Congressman Jim Renacci, especially if there is a
Republican tide, could win an upset. If there is a Democratic
tide, Bill Nelson could surprise in Florida.
I think there is too much usage of the term “wave’ in the election
commentary so far. A real wave, especially one against the party
in power, would require a larger magnitude of incumbent defeats
than is now indicated. A wave election is always possible, but the
numbers from the primary season so far, I would contend, do not
signal a true wave.
On the other hand, there could be some significant outcomes in
November, including the GOP losing control of the U.S. house,
and/or making major gains against the Democrats in the U.S.
senate.
i have written extensively about the many competitive state and
federal elections this year in Minnesota because this battleground
state’s races are so emblematic of the complexity of this cycle
nationally.
Historically, more often than not, incumbent presidents handicap
their parties in the mid-term congressional elections, and clearly
this is the hope of Democrats in 2018. It could turn out that way,
but Mr. Trump’s recent political rallies, including a spectacular
one in Duluth, Minnesota, could presage an atypical cycle this
year.
In any event, the primaries so far this year are sending out some
very mixed and enigmatic clues to what voters will do at the
end of this fascinating campaign season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights resered.
cycle is a very daunting task. Of course, nearly every pundit and
political analyst is doing it, and many are throwing caution to the
winds.
My own take on 2018, as my readers already know, is to be very
cautious because of voter volatility, serious questions about the
usefulness of public polls so far, and yes, the phenomenon of
Donald Trump.
In fact, I think it is President Trump who is the primary motivator
for voter turnout for both major political parties --- obviously for
contrasting reasons.
But there are some emerging characteristics of this election that
I think are worth noting.
For one, both parties seem to be nominating their best or strongest
candidates, with a few exceptions, for the competitive U.S. house
and senate seats, and for governorships. Some further tests of this
remain in Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other primaries ahead,
but both party establishments seem determined to do well this year
--- Democrats to try to win back control of the U.S. house, and to
set up some momentum to block the re-election of Mr. Trump in
2020; Republicans to keep control of Congress while creating their
own momentum to re-elect the president.
There are many battlegrounds for 2018, and as almost always in
mid-term elections, local circumstances and the quality of
incumbent candidates, both incumbents and challengers, play a
larger role than they often do in a presidential election year.
Two cases in point, are the competitive senate races in Ohio and
Florida where veteran Democrats are running for re-election. In
Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, once thought very vulnerable, is
a strong campaigner -- and now is favored. (His original
challenger had to leave the race.) In Florida, aging Senator Bill
Nelson is facing the current GOP governor, Rick Scott, who is so
far running a strong race, and is favored to pick up this seat for
his party. Of course, by election day, matters could change.
GOP Ohio Congressman Jim Renacci, especially if there is a
Republican tide, could win an upset. If there is a Democratic
tide, Bill Nelson could surprise in Florida.
I think there is too much usage of the term “wave’ in the election
commentary so far. A real wave, especially one against the party
in power, would require a larger magnitude of incumbent defeats
than is now indicated. A wave election is always possible, but the
numbers from the primary season so far, I would contend, do not
signal a true wave.
On the other hand, there could be some significant outcomes in
November, including the GOP losing control of the U.S. house,
and/or making major gains against the Democrats in the U.S.
senate.
i have written extensively about the many competitive state and
federal elections this year in Minnesota because this battleground
state’s races are so emblematic of the complexity of this cycle
nationally.
Historically, more often than not, incumbent presidents handicap
their parties in the mid-term congressional elections, and clearly
this is the hope of Democrats in 2018. It could turn out that way,
but Mr. Trump’s recent political rallies, including a spectacular
one in Duluth, Minnesota, could presage an atypical cycle this
year.
In any event, the primaries so far this year are sending out some
very mixed and enigmatic clues to what voters will do at the
end of this fascinating campaign season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights resered.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: What Is A "Wave" Anyway?
I am pleased and honored to announce that the website Ballotpedia
has invited me to become a regular contributor for their coverage
of the 2018 national midterm elections. I will continue my opinion
journalism and election coverage at The Prairie Editor as well.
Describing itself as “the online encyclopedia of American politics,”
Ballotpedia is a uniquely comprehensive and non-partisan website
for accurate information about U.S. local, state and elections. I
know of no better site of its kind on the internet.
As an example of their fine work, Ballotpedia has just published an
excellent study entitled “Wave Elections 1918-2016” written by Rob
Oldham and Jacob Smith ( www.ballotpedia.org ). Although there is
no official definition of a wave election, this well-researched and
very thorough report is about as close as perhaps one can get to a
useful definition. Please go to their website to read it.
As my Prairie Editor readers know, I have been discussing the
many current allegations of a coming wave election in 2018 for
several months. I particularly have questioned those commentators
who have asserted that a so-called “blue (Democratic) wave” is
coming in November. I have suggested that the direction might even
be towards a “red (Republican) wave” --- or most likely, to no wave
at all, with each side make gains in some sector.
The Oldham-Smith report indicates that the latter is indeed the
most likely. Specifically, it defines a wave election against the
president’s party as the net pick-up of 48 seats in the U.S. house
7 seats in the U.S. senate, 7 governorships and 494 state legislative
seats. These numbers are based on all elections since Woodrow
Wilson’ second term as president.
Currently, Republicans have the lead in all these categories, and
are, with one exception, vulnerable to net mid-term losses ---
which is typical for a new president’s first mid-term election.
But the data from the individual state primaries so far are quite
mixed, including irrefutable evidence that Republican voters not
only continue to support Mr. Trump, but are turning out to vote.
Democrats are also motivated, mostly by their antipathy to the
president, but there are so far no clear signs of what will really
happen next November. In particular, Republicans are poised to
make significant gains from their current 51-49 advantage in the
U.S. senate because of the many more Democratic incumbent
seats up in this cycle -- many of which are vulnerable to GOP
takeover.
An interesting take-away from the Ballotpedia wave definition is
that Democrats could pick up 24 seats, only half those needed
for a true wave, and regain control of the U.S. house while, at the
same time, Republicans could pick up 7 or more U.S. senate seats.
Although President Trump is not on the ballot this November, he
remains a central force in the 2018 mid-terms. Nonetheless, the
common sense definition of a wave election, indicates that the
constant mention of “waves” is more a distraction than it is
useful. More illuminating, probably, will be the discussion of the
local circumstances, the individual candidates, and the issue
dynamics of each race --- as well as national trends.
That will be my emphasis in what I discuss in Ballotpedia, and
what I will, of course, continue to do in The Prairie Editor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
has invited me to become a regular contributor for their coverage
of the 2018 national midterm elections. I will continue my opinion
journalism and election coverage at The Prairie Editor as well.
Describing itself as “the online encyclopedia of American politics,”
Ballotpedia is a uniquely comprehensive and non-partisan website
for accurate information about U.S. local, state and elections. I
know of no better site of its kind on the internet.
As an example of their fine work, Ballotpedia has just published an
excellent study entitled “Wave Elections 1918-2016” written by Rob
Oldham and Jacob Smith ( www.ballotpedia.org ). Although there is
no official definition of a wave election, this well-researched and
very thorough report is about as close as perhaps one can get to a
useful definition. Please go to their website to read it.
As my Prairie Editor readers know, I have been discussing the
many current allegations of a coming wave election in 2018 for
several months. I particularly have questioned those commentators
who have asserted that a so-called “blue (Democratic) wave” is
coming in November. I have suggested that the direction might even
be towards a “red (Republican) wave” --- or most likely, to no wave
at all, with each side make gains in some sector.
The Oldham-Smith report indicates that the latter is indeed the
most likely. Specifically, it defines a wave election against the
president’s party as the net pick-up of 48 seats in the U.S. house
7 seats in the U.S. senate, 7 governorships and 494 state legislative
seats. These numbers are based on all elections since Woodrow
Wilson’ second term as president.
Currently, Republicans have the lead in all these categories, and
are, with one exception, vulnerable to net mid-term losses ---
which is typical for a new president’s first mid-term election.
But the data from the individual state primaries so far are quite
mixed, including irrefutable evidence that Republican voters not
only continue to support Mr. Trump, but are turning out to vote.
Democrats are also motivated, mostly by their antipathy to the
president, but there are so far no clear signs of what will really
happen next November. In particular, Republicans are poised to
make significant gains from their current 51-49 advantage in the
U.S. senate because of the many more Democratic incumbent
seats up in this cycle -- many of which are vulnerable to GOP
takeover.
An interesting take-away from the Ballotpedia wave definition is
that Democrats could pick up 24 seats, only half those needed
for a true wave, and regain control of the U.S. house while, at the
same time, Republicans could pick up 7 or more U.S. senate seats.
Although President Trump is not on the ballot this November, he
remains a central force in the 2018 mid-terms. Nonetheless, the
common sense definition of a wave election, indicates that the
constant mention of “waves” is more a distraction than it is
useful. More illuminating, probably, will be the discussion of the
local circumstances, the individual candidates, and the issue
dynamics of each race --- as well as national trends.
That will be my emphasis in what I discuss in Ballotpedia, and
what I will, of course, continue to do in The Prairie Editor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 18, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Even A Perfect Game Is Not Really Perfect
No thing or no one is truly perfect; the term is usually
misapplied when we write it or say it. It can be especially
inappropriate, for example, when it appears on a menu
as “cooked to perfection” --- a circumstance inevitably
misleading since everyone has a slightly different degree
of heating food which they prefer.
It’s often an exclamation in conversation meaning the
speaker is pleased, but it is even then far from its literal
meaning.
There is at least one context in which it is generally
accurate, that is, when applied to a baseball game in
which one side, always the losing side, does not get a
single batter on base in the sport’s normal nine innings
duration. (There are a very few examples of a team or
pitcher having a perfect game going into extra innings, and
then losing.) Of course, a truly “perfect” baseball game
would have all 27 batters strike out without a single “ball”
being called, that is, 81 consecutive strikes, but as far as I
know, that has never happened in the game’s history ---
and probably won’t ever happen.
The word “perfect” is derived from the Latin word for
“completed.” Perfect, as we usually use it however, is an
absolute term, and is rarely, if ever, found in nature and
real life. Perfection is really a term meant to apply to such
abstractions as religion or mathematics.
Yet the origin of “perfect” in Latin signals that when we
use the word as a verb, we use it most authentically, that is
for example, when we say someone “perfected” a device or
a process. It is that sense of “completion”or “fulfillment”
that makes the word useful --- instead of the way we most
often use it as a notion which is unrealizable.
I know the reader is probably asking at this point what is
the purpose of this seeming academic discussion.
The point is that language is so often misused today that it
creates cul-de-sacs or dead ends for us in our daily lives,
originating expectations, conscious or not, which cannot be
realized.
The real world, in truth, has no perfections. Instead, it has a
great bounty of wonderful and terrible imperfections. In our
tiny life spans, that is the game in which we all play.
__________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
misapplied when we write it or say it. It can be especially
inappropriate, for example, when it appears on a menu
as “cooked to perfection” --- a circumstance inevitably
misleading since everyone has a slightly different degree
of heating food which they prefer.
It’s often an exclamation in conversation meaning the
speaker is pleased, but it is even then far from its literal
meaning.
There is at least one context in which it is generally
accurate, that is, when applied to a baseball game in
which one side, always the losing side, does not get a
single batter on base in the sport’s normal nine innings
duration. (There are a very few examples of a team or
pitcher having a perfect game going into extra innings, and
then losing.) Of course, a truly “perfect” baseball game
would have all 27 batters strike out without a single “ball”
being called, that is, 81 consecutive strikes, but as far as I
know, that has never happened in the game’s history ---
and probably won’t ever happen.
The word “perfect” is derived from the Latin word for
“completed.” Perfect, as we usually use it however, is an
absolute term, and is rarely, if ever, found in nature and
real life. Perfection is really a term meant to apply to such
abstractions as religion or mathematics.
Yet the origin of “perfect” in Latin signals that when we
use the word as a verb, we use it most authentically, that is
for example, when we say someone “perfected” a device or
a process. It is that sense of “completion”or “fulfillment”
that makes the word useful --- instead of the way we most
often use it as a notion which is unrealizable.
I know the reader is probably asking at this point what is
the purpose of this seeming academic discussion.
The point is that language is so often misused today that it
creates cul-de-sacs or dead ends for us in our daily lives,
originating expectations, conscious or not, which cannot be
realized.
The real world, in truth, has no perfections. Instead, it has a
great bounty of wonderful and terrible imperfections. In our
tiny life spans, that is the game in which we all play.
__________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 15, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Necessary Book
As a literary author and national journalist for many decades,
I have come to know many writers. Many of the books I read
and enjoy most are by these acquaintances and friends, and
this presents me with an obvious dilemma in writing about or
reviewing their books.
Book reviews are an art form in their own right, especially
those about works of fiction and poetry. Reviews of non-fiction
books can serve as a starting point or foundation for the
reviewer’s own views on a subject. And then there are those
books which are so necessary they merit a straightforward
alert to readers.
Newt Gingrich’s newest book Trump’s America is just such a
work.
In full disclosure, Newt Gingrich has been a friend and. on
occasion, a collaborator, for more than three decades. I will
let my readers decide if what I now say about his new book
is fair and useful.
The former speaker of the U.S. house, himself a serious
presidential candidate in 2012, was among the earliest figures
to see the eventual 2016 electoral success of candidate Donald
Trump. I know that is so because of conversations with him
long before I realized it.
He unambiguously predicted Trump’s nomination and
subsequently his victory over Hillary Clinton in the November
election. Since President Trump took office, he has consistently
explained his actions and views in articles, TV appearances,
and books. Although clearly and constantly favorable to Mr.
Trump, he has always exercised his right to be critical of the
president when he disagreed with him.
Some might characterize Gingrich as a cheerleader or advocate
for Donald Trump, and I think it would be fair to do so. But that
does not diminish the value of Gingrich’s writing on the subject
because the whole phenomenon of Donald Trump’s candidacy
and subsequent presidency is so unprecedented and so often
misunderstood that lucid analysis and explanation is vitally
important for both his partisans and his opponents.
As in his previous book Understanding Trump, Newt Gingrich
continues to be the most incisive diagnostician of the Trump
phenomenon and the political environment which surrounds it.
Yes, his new Trump's America is a partisan account, but that
does not lessen its value, especially to the many Democrats,
and not a few Republicans, who dislike and/or disagree with
the president’s views and style.
For much of the Trump candidacy, and during all of his
presidency, I have been urging my readers, whether they are for
or against Mr. Trump, to put aside their stereotypes of him as
well as the biased media conventional wisdom about him, and
try to understand the underlying reality of his appeal to voters,
and what the president is saying or doing. His Democratic Party
opponents especially need to do this if they are to successfully
provide n credible alternative to him.
So Trump’s America is not only a must-read for the president’s
supporters, but also for his opponents. Mr. Gingrich has become
the most articulate diagnostician of contemporary American
politics. Unlike many of his colleagues on the right and the left,
he is open to new political and technological developments, and
bold enough to try to explain them.
You need not agree with Newt Gingrich, or with Donald Trump,
to gain much from reading Trump’s America. It is a necessary
and timely book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
I have come to know many writers. Many of the books I read
and enjoy most are by these acquaintances and friends, and
this presents me with an obvious dilemma in writing about or
reviewing their books.
Book reviews are an art form in their own right, especially
those about works of fiction and poetry. Reviews of non-fiction
books can serve as a starting point or foundation for the
reviewer’s own views on a subject. And then there are those
books which are so necessary they merit a straightforward
alert to readers.
Newt Gingrich’s newest book Trump’s America is just such a
work.
In full disclosure, Newt Gingrich has been a friend and. on
occasion, a collaborator, for more than three decades. I will
let my readers decide if what I now say about his new book
is fair and useful.
The former speaker of the U.S. house, himself a serious
presidential candidate in 2012, was among the earliest figures
to see the eventual 2016 electoral success of candidate Donald
Trump. I know that is so because of conversations with him
long before I realized it.
He unambiguously predicted Trump’s nomination and
subsequently his victory over Hillary Clinton in the November
election. Since President Trump took office, he has consistently
explained his actions and views in articles, TV appearances,
and books. Although clearly and constantly favorable to Mr.
Trump, he has always exercised his right to be critical of the
president when he disagreed with him.
Some might characterize Gingrich as a cheerleader or advocate
for Donald Trump, and I think it would be fair to do so. But that
does not diminish the value of Gingrich’s writing on the subject
because the whole phenomenon of Donald Trump’s candidacy
and subsequent presidency is so unprecedented and so often
misunderstood that lucid analysis and explanation is vitally
important for both his partisans and his opponents.
As in his previous book Understanding Trump, Newt Gingrich
continues to be the most incisive diagnostician of the Trump
phenomenon and the political environment which surrounds it.
Yes, his new Trump's America is a partisan account, but that
does not lessen its value, especially to the many Democrats,
and not a few Republicans, who dislike and/or disagree with
the president’s views and style.
For much of the Trump candidacy, and during all of his
presidency, I have been urging my readers, whether they are for
or against Mr. Trump, to put aside their stereotypes of him as
well as the biased media conventional wisdom about him, and
try to understand the underlying reality of his appeal to voters,
and what the president is saying or doing. His Democratic Party
opponents especially need to do this if they are to successfully
provide n credible alternative to him.
So Trump’s America is not only a must-read for the president’s
supporters, but also for his opponents. Mr. Gingrich has become
the most articulate diagnostician of contemporary American
politics. Unlike many of his colleagues on the right and the left,
he is open to new political and technological developments, and
bold enough to try to explain them.
You need not agree with Newt Gingrich, or with Donald Trump,
to gain much from reading Trump’s America. It is a necessary
and timely book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Old Order Is History
Global civilization goes from one order to another. The transitions
in times we now call “ancient” went slowly and violently. As times
went on, the transitions went more quickly, but alas, no less
violently. The peoples of the world used to be compartmentalized
geographically. There were unconnected. Some civilizations
considered themselves “advanced” --- those in north Africa, the
Middle East, Asia and Europe. In addition, there were aboriginal
civilizations in the rest of Africa, North and South America and
Australia and the Pacific Island. As the "advanced" peoples
discovered the lands of the aboriginal peoples, they occupied and
conquered them. After about 5000 years, the dappled settlements
of various peoples became a truly global civilization.
The first true world war was the Seven Years War (1756-1763), and
it involved all of the European great powers as well as their
empires and local allies on all the world’s major continents. In one
of history’s great ironies, it was set off one afternoon when a very
young British officer mistakenly ambushed a French parol near
Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. The name of that young
British major?
George Washington.
The Napoleonic wars in Europe followed. The 19th century order
after that was a European construction called the “chandelier
balance of power’ which lasted almost a century until a single
anarchist shot the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungary. Of course,
before this act in Sarajevo, events and politicians had put the
conflict on the calendar, and when this World War I was finally
suspended (but not really terminated), a Second World War
followed.
By 1945, the globe and its peoples were connected as never before,
and the appearance that year of a nuclear weapon, made the
prospects of worldwide violence much diminished. What followed
was a so-called Cold War which was primarily ideological, and
concluded with the survival of democratic capitalism and the
failure of totalitarian communism. Thereafter, a series of
regional and violent wars took place in Korea, Viet Nam, the
Balkans and the Middle East involving the remaining
superpower, the United States of America and its various
challengers and allies.
What was an incipient new order in 1914, and was transformed
first after 1945, and then after 1990, into an aging world order,
soon found the implacable forces of history creating a new world
order --- one now in its gestation.
This new world order involves peoples from the old order, and,
no surprise, peoples and cultures which are newly arriving to
positions of power in the world.
Interestingly, the new players are not entirely new, but come from
prominent civilizations of the past when the world was not so
interconnected. These include China, India and the Islamic
worlds which owe their re-emergence now to their sheer
population size --- each with more than a billion persons.
The old players include the United States and Europe although
these entities are clearly now on defense as the new players
emerge and grow in economic power.
I have set down this super-condensed and simplified survey of
global history with a specific purpose in mind. It is to try to
make more understandable events and personalities now
disrupting and occupying the global stage.
It will be difficult and unsettling to those immersed in the
catechisms of the old order to recognize and understand the
new order.
The central international political figure today, like him or not,
is U.S. President Donald Trump. He does not occupy that
position by some kind of default. His predecessor, Barack
Obama, could have been the central figure, but for reasons of
his own temperament and ideology, he chose to create a
vacuum of global power. No vacuum of diplomatic, military
and economic power lasts more than a nanosecond of political
time, and various figures, major and minor, from all over the
world quickly moved to take full advantage of the new global
circumstances.
It is not necessarily true that only Donald Trump inevitably
would become president, but I think it was inevitable that, if
he did not, someone like Mr. Trump would have emerged.
My European and American readers who are immersed in the
old order will disagree with this hypothesis because they
either consciously or unconsciously resist the coming of a
new global order.
Donald Trump’s strategies of adaption to the new global order
are not necessarily the only potentially successful ways for the
United States to make a transition between the old and the new,
but he is the only elected American politician who currently
has a strategy.
The recent G7 meeting in Canada is a case in point. Most of the
leaders present at that meeting subscribe to the tenets, issues
and circumstances of the old order. Even as they do so, the
leaders of Europe are witnessing the foundations of their own
nations, and the European Union (EU) specifically, crumbling
under their feet. They put on faces of outrage at President
Trump for not going along with their assumptions mired in the
past, but Mr. Trump’s popular support with voters is growing,
not declining.
Mr. Trump has been telling the world, to the contrary, that it’s
time for political and economic reality. The imbalances between
the U.S. and its allies, in military and economic terms, are no
longer viable. The Western establishments have been burying
their collective heads in some desert sand.
No one knows what forms the new world order will take. No one
knows what events, human-made or natural, lie ahead. How the
current negotiations on the Korean peninsula will turn out are
unknown. How the global economic structures, always in
transition themselves, will behave is unpredictable. Is the role
of the U,S, to preserve and grow democratic capitalism in the
new order?
But it won’t be mere words or pieces of paper that will determine
the new global order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
in times we now call “ancient” went slowly and violently. As times
went on, the transitions went more quickly, but alas, no less
violently. The peoples of the world used to be compartmentalized
geographically. There were unconnected. Some civilizations
considered themselves “advanced” --- those in north Africa, the
Middle East, Asia and Europe. In addition, there were aboriginal
civilizations in the rest of Africa, North and South America and
Australia and the Pacific Island. As the "advanced" peoples
discovered the lands of the aboriginal peoples, they occupied and
conquered them. After about 5000 years, the dappled settlements
of various peoples became a truly global civilization.
The first true world war was the Seven Years War (1756-1763), and
it involved all of the European great powers as well as their
empires and local allies on all the world’s major continents. In one
of history’s great ironies, it was set off one afternoon when a very
young British officer mistakenly ambushed a French parol near
Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. The name of that young
British major?
George Washington.
The Napoleonic wars in Europe followed. The 19th century order
after that was a European construction called the “chandelier
balance of power’ which lasted almost a century until a single
anarchist shot the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungary. Of course,
before this act in Sarajevo, events and politicians had put the
conflict on the calendar, and when this World War I was finally
suspended (but not really terminated), a Second World War
followed.
By 1945, the globe and its peoples were connected as never before,
and the appearance that year of a nuclear weapon, made the
prospects of worldwide violence much diminished. What followed
was a so-called Cold War which was primarily ideological, and
concluded with the survival of democratic capitalism and the
failure of totalitarian communism. Thereafter, a series of
regional and violent wars took place in Korea, Viet Nam, the
Balkans and the Middle East involving the remaining
superpower, the United States of America and its various
challengers and allies.
What was an incipient new order in 1914, and was transformed
first after 1945, and then after 1990, into an aging world order,
soon found the implacable forces of history creating a new world
order --- one now in its gestation.
This new world order involves peoples from the old order, and,
no surprise, peoples and cultures which are newly arriving to
positions of power in the world.
Interestingly, the new players are not entirely new, but come from
prominent civilizations of the past when the world was not so
interconnected. These include China, India and the Islamic
worlds which owe their re-emergence now to their sheer
population size --- each with more than a billion persons.
The old players include the United States and Europe although
these entities are clearly now on defense as the new players
emerge and grow in economic power.
I have set down this super-condensed and simplified survey of
global history with a specific purpose in mind. It is to try to
make more understandable events and personalities now
disrupting and occupying the global stage.
It will be difficult and unsettling to those immersed in the
catechisms of the old order to recognize and understand the
new order.
The central international political figure today, like him or not,
is U.S. President Donald Trump. He does not occupy that
position by some kind of default. His predecessor, Barack
Obama, could have been the central figure, but for reasons of
his own temperament and ideology, he chose to create a
vacuum of global power. No vacuum of diplomatic, military
and economic power lasts more than a nanosecond of political
time, and various figures, major and minor, from all over the
world quickly moved to take full advantage of the new global
circumstances.
It is not necessarily true that only Donald Trump inevitably
would become president, but I think it was inevitable that, if
he did not, someone like Mr. Trump would have emerged.
My European and American readers who are immersed in the
old order will disagree with this hypothesis because they
either consciously or unconsciously resist the coming of a
new global order.
Donald Trump’s strategies of adaption to the new global order
are not necessarily the only potentially successful ways for the
United States to make a transition between the old and the new,
but he is the only elected American politician who currently
has a strategy.
The recent G7 meeting in Canada is a case in point. Most of the
leaders present at that meeting subscribe to the tenets, issues
and circumstances of the old order. Even as they do so, the
leaders of Europe are witnessing the foundations of their own
nations, and the European Union (EU) specifically, crumbling
under their feet. They put on faces of outrage at President
Trump for not going along with their assumptions mired in the
past, but Mr. Trump’s popular support with voters is growing,
not declining.
Mr. Trump has been telling the world, to the contrary, that it’s
time for political and economic reality. The imbalances between
the U.S. and its allies, in military and economic terms, are no
longer viable. The Western establishments have been burying
their collective heads in some desert sand.
No one knows what forms the new world order will take. No one
knows what events, human-made or natural, lie ahead. How the
current negotiations on the Korean peninsula will turn out are
unknown. How the global economic structures, always in
transition themselves, will behave is unpredictable. Is the role
of the U,S, to preserve and grow democratic capitalism in the
new order?
But it won’t be mere words or pieces of paper that will determine
the new global order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)