Reagan and Nixon. Speaking, as we were the other day, of distorting history, Michael Reagan, son of Ronald, a weird guy and no master of the written word, tweeted this, regarding Trump:
This most likely would be the 1st time if my father was alive that he would not support the nominee of the GOP
Along with the goofy use of “if my father was alive” (which way would he vote if he weren’t alive?) the remark is funny because until 1952 Ronald Reagan not only voted Democrat but also lent his prestige as a (fading) movie star to liberal Democratic candidates in California. In ’50, he worked especially hard for Helen Gahagan Douglas’s U.S. Senate campaign. Her winning opponent Richard Nixon dubbed her “the Pink Lady” to suggest she was a Communist fellow-traveler, and in ’52, when Reagan decided to cross party lines and vote for Ike, his main misgiving was the evident sleaziness and vapidity of Ike’s running mate Nixon.
That’s it. This item has no real point. Except Michael Reagan is a weird guy.
Superdelegates. A guy I follow on Twitter notes the irony of seeing an insurgent candidacy, beginning by criticizing the existence of superdelegacy as a component of unfair rigging, now floating the idea of turning superdelegates against the expressed will of a clear majority of voters based on polling purporting to show greater “electability” in the insurgent — electability, that quality so recently associated with voting out of fear, not hope. The irony doesn’t bother me. It’s politics, the ploy seems more narrative than real, and it shows brazenness and gumption, some sense of the game as a game. Intellectual honesty isn’t a quality I look for in these weird contests the parties have established for choosing nominees.
But the guy on Twitter also suggests that in addressing this irony, at least we might now begin to address the question of how to make the Dem nominating process more democratic. To which, in the mood I’m in today, I can only respond by noting that doing the same thing over and over (“reform”) and getting the same result (“rigging”) is the definition of insanity.
There’s another point of view on this, also not mine, expressed by the penetrating liberal journo Jamelle Bouie. He says that 2016 has shown that the mix of majoritarian and anti-majoritarian elements in the Dem contests are working fine.
Anyone saying things are more or less “fine” will get a raised eyebrow from me — just consider this post from from Laska, or this one — but Bouie nevertheless makes the interesting technical point, again involving an irony, that the less democratic form of contest, caucus, is actually more likely to benefit insurgency. So reforming things by moving, say, to a one-day, all-primary, blanket-majority system, though hyperdemocratic, will always simply crown the most mainstream nominee, according to him.
Reagan again. It’s recently become clear to me that at its 1968 convention, the GOP essentially anointed Reagan the future of the party. It took some twists and turns and some whack-a-mole, but GOP liberalism basically died there, when Reagan was not quite two years into his first term as governor — and that was the only elective office he’d ever held. He’d been an actor and a corporate and right-wing spokesman before that, and that’s it. Whoever before Reagan got anointed the future president with nearly zero experience in gaining and executing office? In making that revolutionary change, Reagan set up something that Trump may now be taking to a logical conclusion: Reagan brought the party together behind an image supported by nothing, but because he had effective people around him, and because he was a kind of political animal, he made the party dominant. Trump is ripping the party apart the same way, and because he has no effective people around him, and not one political bone in his body, he may be bringing it down, at least temporarily. So while the rise of Reagan and the rise of Trump are in historical opposition, the idea of who a presidential candidate can be changed for good with Reagan, as early as ’68, and Trump may now be serving as Ronnie’s funhouse-mirror reflection.
Whither In at the End of the World? As we emerge, finally, from the primary season, things simplify, horribly, in that in our system there must always be only two candidates in the end, with the occasional third-party spoiler — and this year one of the two will be Donald Trump, the other the first female to get anything like this far. This exchange began for me in bewilderment and interest in Sanders, horror at Cruz and Trump, amazement at the non-starter Jeb, potential GOP collapse, the class-and-race ironies of left-Dem insurgency, etc. It will be interesting to see what if anything we have to say now.
For my part, once more or less assured that Clinton will be the nominee, my cold eye for her many flaws will start to twitch. That’s what always happens to me. Not like it matters . . .
In at The End of The World 
Wow. A lot to think about here. I hadn’t realized how strange Michael Reagan’s tweet was. Poorly written and, as you note, also forgetting that his dad was a Democrat for a few decades. I’m kinda ambivalent about super delegates. I like the idea of party leaders having some say in the nominating process. I’m sure the Republicans were wishing for some super delegates a few months ago. But, supporters and apologists for the concept of super delegates are always quick to point out that they have always ratified the will of the voters. In which case, what’s the point?
Do you have a link to the Bouie article? My instinct is to agree that the Democrat’s primary system works fairly well. For the most part proportional delegate rewards instead of winner take all, for example. I would support doing away with caucuses. No one understands them and, boy, talk about voter suppression.
It is ironic to watch the Sanders’s delegates make undemocratic arguments to “fix” a “rigged” system that deprived their candidate of a victory. It’s hard to fight that hard, believe so much and then lose. Btw, for what it’s worth, I’ve downgraded (in my own mind) the possibility of Sanders being the VP. I’m not sure Hillary would offer, but even if she did, why would he take it? As VP, he would have to adhere to the Administration’s official line. He would have a boss, and at age 75, why would he want one? As a senator, he can continue to be the conscience of the Democratic Party, keep Hillary honest, and maintain (and rent out) his impressive donor list. Plus, if he becomes VP, his career is over in four years. It’s unlikely Hillary would run for reelection with a 79-year old running mate, but he could stay in the senate for another ten years.
As to what we might talk about now that the initial story-lines that prompted this blog have run their course, well, I still think it’s the most interesting and dangerous election cycle of my life. Trump (and the end of the republic) is still an active threat. He’s always only a few sane speeches or interviews away from being “normalized.” So, despite the disastrous last five days and wasted five weeks for his campaign, still be afraid, very afraid.
If he can’t get his act together, will he even make it to the convention as a functioning candidate? Can the GOP run a purely congressional election and concede the executive? Which generals lead the coup? How does Hillary possibly appear credible to Sanders voters? What does she run on? In order to build a mandate should the landslide occur? I can already hear the GOP saying, “so, she won 40 states, it wasn’t a mandate for her, it was against Trump.”
LikeLike
The Bouie stuff is from his Twitter feed.
I too really can’t see why Sanders would take a running-mate slot. History suggests it’s hard to resist, but he’s different, and that’s pretty much the opposite of the place from which to assert anything, let alone assert the goals of a social movement. I kind of assume he has better things to do, but once again I find myself clueless about the decision points of pols. Re Trump: I am sort of loving the spectacle of the GOP pros trying to condemn his racism while expressing passive support. The best is the “Trump will really need to settle down over the next few weeks” message they’re trying to send him. They’re literally, openly saying “stop expressing racism,” not “stop being a racist.” The idea that if Trump could just cease making such remarks, he’d be a viable candidate is just so painfully revealing of how the rest of the party thinks and has always thought … He’s exposing them, forcing them to form and speak sentences that actually say what they mean, and it’s just weird to watch.
On the other hand, a Cruz surrogate yesterday called for breaking the rules and having a delegate revolt at the convention: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282527-cruz-ally-calls-for-delegate-revolt.
LikeLike
I can’t see Warren or Sanders taking or even being offered the VP slot. On HRC’s side, they seem like a headache to try and manage. On their side, would they want to walk away from the platforms they’ve built and take orders on how to talk and think from the campaign? I’m sure it worked to Ryan’s advantage, but he must have been miserable.
LikeLike
I have a hunch based on no info that if offered it, Warren might take the gig, with all the downsides. But I too can’t see Clinton offering it.
LikeLike
Not sure why my previous comment is appearing all in bold type. I’m not that excited. Though worried again. Per my reference to Trump not being dead yet, apparently he made a “normal” speech tonight. I didn’t see it, but MSNBC.com mentions that he read from teleprompters and tried to look presidential. He’s only doing that because he’s realized that the last five days were abject failure. I doubt he has the self-control to do that for five months, but . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Catching up, but want to jump on the super-delegate irony. I have to believe that Sanders is too smart to think he can win this way or to have failed to anticipate the outcries of hypocrisy. I think he’s figuring out how to make the most of the pulpit he’s got before the Party punishes him for his lack of ideological discipline. Highlighting superdelegates is probably a short-hand for all the things that are weird and messy about the primary and the DNC.
LikeLike
I think he’s playing it really well. Politics is property as Norman Mailer said. And Sanders has a lot of it. Votes, delegates, and a big donor list. Asking for a meeting with Obama this week was smart. Images of him coming and going to and from the White House. A phone call is nice, but this is better because, see, I have all these votes and delegate. Meeting with Harry Reid. If the Dems take the senate. If he helps them take the senate. Which committee chair does he get? Rumors that he’s opposed to Sherrod Brown as a v.p choice since the younger Brown is certainly someone who could position himself to “succeed” Sanders. Though I think there’s no way that Brown is selected since Kasich would get to replace him in the senate. He’s staying focused on issues and not doing anything to hurt Hillary. And that’s kind of the best part of this. Since he really believes in what he advocates, he’s going to make sure that Hillary and the party stay true to what he’s advocating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the Mailer quote.
LikeLike
Yeah, I wasn’t saying I think Sanders thinks he can win that way, or that he’s a hypocrite — the irony is an irony of politics, really of the system as it’s developed to this point, which he’s been criticizing on many levels. I’m not always sure what he’s really saying or trying to do … which I guess is where I began … but he’s definitely done what they (and I) said couldn’t be done, so I continue to observe with interest …
LikeLike