Whatever happened to the G.O.P.?

 

The crisis is averted ...for the moment, but it's been a disastrous time for the USA - and Congress has had its reputation shredded. How did it come to this?

There are many reasons why Congress has got itself into such a mess. Bipartisanship has become rare - the parties getting further apart; civility has flown out of the window and a new "macho" politics has taken hold. The same 'win at all costs', aggressive attitude which brought the banking industry to ruin has infected politics. Who would have imagined that so many members of Congress would be prepared to allow the US to default on its debts?

Even at the 11th hour and 59th minute - 18 Senators and 144 Members of Congress (that's 30% of its membership) voted against the last deal to avoid a default!

I listened to Senator's Cruz's speech in the debate (thanks to the miracles that are C-SPAN and wifi-enabled iPads) - it was full of slogans and a complete blindness to the impact that his advocacy, if successful, would have on the rest of the world - let alone ordinary Americans.

Newt Gingrich has always been of interest to me - he's had a big impact on the Republican Party and Congress. He has a good understanding of how powerful the use of language can be - and was adept at using congressional procedures to advance his ends. But he was a bomb thrower. His tactics poisoned Congress. His successors are worse - what we saw in recent days and weeks was a host of political suicide bombers - prepared to destroy everything - and hurt lots of people - in order to advance their ideology.

Legislatures need to be about "deliberation" and negotiation. Different views and interests have to be accommodated with 'give and take'. The alternative is violence. It's time to call a halt on the destructive politics which has paralysed a great institution and a great country. Some older people will remember the Republican leaders of old - they fought their corner, certainly - but did so with respect for other people and theirm points of view. They are sorely missed.

Please do send me your comments.

The Most Politically Controversial Statements on Education

Education - as you might imagine of a University lecturer with a family which has been involved in education for three generations - is close to my heart. Online Colleges have produced a list of the ten most controversial statements about Education made by politicians. Of course it is US based - but values are shared across the Atlantic. (And worrying Michael Gove, the current Secretary of State for Education - a journalist not an academic or a teacher - is very much influenced by some of the right wing ideas emanating from the USA).

The article starts -

"No one argues that the American public education system is in crisis. But the question of how to revive it is a difficult and increasingly partisan one. Many politicians, no strangers to rhetoric, have grown fond of using public education as their whipping boy, giving favorable crowds what they want to hear but often stirring controversy in the process. Here are 10 of the most buzz-worthy quotes that stirred up a hornet’s nest.


“President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.”

The campaign trail has historically been a place where reason and common sense go to die, and in the 2012 election that seems to be holding true. GOP candidate Rick Santorum recently made headlines by calling President Obama a “snob” for supposedly saying every American should go to college so that he could “remake people in his image.” Apart from the fact that the president never said that, Mr. Santorum happens to hold three degrees — one more than President Obama.

“Like his colleagues in the faculty lounge who think they know better, President Obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy.”

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would like you to note that he was making odd jabs at education well before Rick Santorum. In September 2011, Romney attempted to paint a picture of the president drinking brandy with east coast intellectuals while mocking blue-collar workers. The “faculty lounge” in question was apparently another reference to Harvard’s faculty lounge, the first coming in August. Romney told veterans Obama’s foreign policy is weak, saying, “That may be what they think in that Harvard faculty lounge, but it’s not what they know on the battlefield.” There’s just one problem, Mitt old chap: you went to Harvard and Harvard people donate money to your campaign.

“Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school.”

Your 9-year-old doesn’t have enough money, you say? Well has he thought about being a janitor at his school? Thus proposed candidate Newt Gingrich at a Harvard (big surprise) speech in November 2011. Newt Gingrich was born 70-years-old with white hair and a tie, which explains why he had no idea it would be excruciatingly embarrassing to be a janitor at your own school. Or that the suggestion was pretty darn offensive.

......

The full article is available at http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/03/20/most-politically-controversial-statements-on-education/

Perhaps one day I will post some of the comments of Michael Gove and his sidekick, Nick Gibb - but while you might think the comments are funny, I could weep!!!!

The attempted coup against the Speaker

In the run up to the Florida primary, there were many references to the attempt to remove the then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in July 1997. Bob Cusack of The Hill explains the background in the video below.



The Hill article is available here. The Conspirators were an interesting bunch. A key player was Tom DeLay the Majority Whip. John Boehner, now the Speaker himself was involved (his role is the subject of some dispute). Others were Dick Armey (now they key player in the influential "Freedom Works"), but then House Majority Leader - Deputy to the Speaker; Bill Paxon; Steve Largent; Mark Souder; Lindsey Graham (now Senator for South Carolina). Armey is believed to have told his Chief of Staff to warn Gingrich.

An article by then Time Reporter, now White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney is accessible here.

Why Newt is scary...

It's been an interesting few days in US politics (and apologies for Washminster's absence - a mixture of a trip to Norfolk; parties in Northampton; family visits to my home - and filing returns to the taxman!). With the Florida primary a few days away - some who want a Republican victory in November's presidential election have been panicked by the thought that Newt Gingrich might be gathering enough momentum to seize the nomination. So what are they worried about?

Newt is a former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Significantly he was the FIRST Republican Speaker for 40 years (Trivia Question - who was the previous Republican Speaker? - I will publish the answer just after 5am GMT tomorrow morning). That amazing victory owed much to the work of Newt. He changed the mindset - and the tactics of House Republicans. So why are many Republicans so ungrateful?

David Frum wrote this week "It's striking that almost none of Gingrich's former colleagues in the House has endorsed him for president. Striking that nobody associated with a past Republican presidential association has done so. He is a candidate of talk-show hosts and local activists -- and of course of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin -- but not of those who know him best and have worked with him most closely. Gingrich may raise more money after his South Carolina win. But prediction: Romney will raise even more, among the great national network of Republicans who recognize that to nominate Gingrich is to commit party suicide."
I have to admit that I think Newt is brilliant - he has an understanding (partly academic - but also an amazing instinctive feel) for what works in MASS seduction. He has learned & deploys all the tricks and techniques to motivate and mobilise people for his agenda. A word of warning - admiring someone for their brillance is NOT the same as endorsing that person or finding his actions at all acceptable. I am also in awe of Hitler for a similarly high level of brillance in the same area. I wholly reject his philosophy and his actions. [by the way today is Holocaust Memorial Day]

Anyone interested in political communication should study Newt - and citizens need to protect themselves by studying the techniques he uses. He puts a lot of emphasis on the use of language - his memo to Republican candidates (the 1996 GOPAC) on Language as a key mechanism of control is very important.
It can be read here. His use of C-SPAN (unwitting collaborators) to frame viewers impressions of Congress and his opponents was masterful. As Newt himself is reported to have said "My ability to organize and orchestrate things would be vastly greater than a normal politician."-- (CBN News). Gingrich understands (and many politicians don't) that you can't persuade everyone to love you. Gingrich will never win the support of committed lerals and progressives. He has his "targets" and seeks to mobilise them.
Jon Meacham wrote this week in an article 'Why Newt is Like Nixon' "The analogous elements are obvious. Like Nixon, Gingrich is smart, with a wide-ranging and entrepreneurial mind. Like Nixon, Gingrich is a striver who seems insecure around traditional establishment figures even though he has achieved much more than nearly all of the politicians, editors and reporters he seems to at once loathe and fear. Like Nixon, Gingrich is fluent in the vernacular of cultural populism, brilliantly casting contemporary American life in terms of an overarching conflict between 'real' people and distant 'elites' bent on the destruction of all that is good and noble about the United States."

As Frum highlighted, the fear amongst some Republicans is that he could win the nomination - and while he has a strong following - he also will provoke an angry reaction. Like Goldwater (1964) and McGovern (1972) the party may suffer a humiliating loss in the Presidential election. Worse still for the Republicans, his candidacy could sink GOP congressional candidates - Bob Dole (Republican Presidential Candidate in 1996) issued a statement this week saying - "I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway." He added: "In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand -- that was a symbol of some sort for him -- and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I'm not certain he knew either."

So should supporters of Obama be backing Gingrich in Florida? A few months ago no one thought he could ever be the most popular candidate amongst Republican voters (A Gallup tracking poll this week shows Gingrich six points ahead on the rest of the Republican field!) - is Newt clever enough to win a national race? (remember his achievement in the 1994 congressional elections).

Newt Gingrich

Press reports this weekend say that former House of Representatives Speaker, Newt Gingrich may be moving closer to running for the presidency in 2012. Whatever you may think of him - and he provokes strong feelings either way - he is an interesting character.

His intial career was as a History Professor - but was keen to be active in politics. He unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives twice, before being elected in November 1978. He founded the Conservative Opportunity Society in 1983 - this brought together a number of (then) young, conservative Republican congressmen to attack the majority Democrats in the House. Their tactics were aggressive, controversial - and very effective. I have to admit that I do not share his ideology, but cannot help admire his tactical genius at that time. He has highlighted the importance of the language used.

He rose quickly to leadership of the House Republicans (a fascinating story in itself) - and led them to victory in 1994. It was the first time that the Republicans took the House in forty years. As Speaker he was the leading spokesman for opposition to President Clinton.

His skills in "bomb throwing" were less useful whilst Speaker - and he made a number of strategic mistakes which helped Clinton retain the presidency in 1996 - and led to Gingrich's own fall in 1998.

The editor of Time Magazine, James Gaines, wrote "For better or worse, he has changed the language and substance of American politics perhaps like no other politician in recent history,"

He continues to be controversial - it will certainly be interesting if he does run!

Rule V House of Representatives

The current Rule V deals with broadcasting of the House. Responsibility for a system of "closed circuit viewing of floor proceedings" available throughout offices and rooms in the Capitol and the House Office Buildings - and for a system of "complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of the House" rests with the Speaker.

As was forcefully pointed out on a recent programme - the cameras in the House are not C-SPAN's, but those of the House. C-SPAN takes the feed and broadcasts it, but has no control over the cameras.

In May 1984 a row over the cameras became known as "Camscam". Tip O'Neill was angered when Newt Gingrich used a "special order speech" (equivalent to the British 'adjournment debates at the end of the day's business) to attack some Democrats and his suggestion that they didn't have the courage to rise and defend themselves. Of course they weren't there - as is usual during "special order speeches" only those making them were actually in the House. But the public couldn't see that - as the camera only showed the person speaking. It was a trick Gingrich had often used. On this occasion Speaker O'Neill was so incensed that he called the Chair of the committee which administered the television system and told him to have a caption written to inform the audience that the House had completed its legislative work and was in special order time. He also told the Chair to have the cameras pan the chamber and show the empty House.

It was held that under the Rule, the Speaker had the authority to do this. But O'Neill failed to tell the Republicans what he was doing. Two days later O'Neill's instruction was put into action during a special order speech. It was spotted on the monitors in the Republican Cloakroom and a note was passed to the Republican then speaking, Bob Walker, once of Gingrich's group - who attacked the Speaker's actions live on air.  A massive row broke out when the House next met and Speaker O'Neill said he took the action because Gingrich had misled viewers by "stepping aside, debating and pointing - as if there were people on the floor - asking. 'why don't you get up and answer?' He added 'a more low thing I have never seen'.

This last remark played in Gingrich's hands. He demanded a 'point of personal privilege' on the following day to respond. In the midst of that statement tempers flared and then, in the words of John A Farrell, "O'Neill lost it. "My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress." This was a personal insult - and Trent Lott, the Minority Whip rose and demanded "that the Speaker's words be taken down." In Lott's words ['Herding Cats'] "with that, all action on the floor of the House stops automatically. The words were taken down and handed to the Parliamentarian. I knew we had O'Neill. The chamber grew as quiet as a church. Mobley (in the Chair) had to rule that his colleague, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was out of order. That ruling brought a swift and difficult punishment: O'Neill was immediately barred from the floor for the rest of the day. He couldn't utter another word.

I let the Democrats stew for a couple of minutes, then moved that the speaker's words be expunged and that the House resume its normal business' (Farrell described it thus 'Lott, with gleeful magnanimity, asked that the Speaker be absolved of that humiliating punishment' [of being banned from speaking for the rest of the day])

- - - - - - - - - -

According to Rule V broadcasts made available under the rule may not be used for political or commercial purposes