2012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day One

Thanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which at one time appeared to be heading straight for Tampa, but instead is heading much farther west, the first day of the RNC was rather short. Nevertheless, in just about five minutes of time it already had me wondering if covering this Klassic Komedy Kavalcade* is a good idea.

Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.

At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.

Stay tuned for more as the day continues.

*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.

**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks when St. Gipper the Jellybean King Reagan and Bush 43 were loading up our deficits? Oh that's right, debt is bad only if a Democrat is President.

***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from Star Wars or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.

How we got here, Part 2: 1824

Remember how I said that 1796 was the beginning of two party politics in the United States? Well, it was, but only the first beginning. You see, after 1800, the Federalists, always little more than a minority party primarily centered around the elites of New England, started to wane in importance. Sure, they ran candidates for the Presidency up through the 1816 election, and a few held on even longer in Congress and the Supreme Court. However the party's power had diminished as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe each served two terms. By 1820, James Monroe ran virtually unopposed for his reelection, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams. It was the "Era of Good Feeling", and it appeared that our partisan divide had been eliminated.

Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.

Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.

As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.

Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.

With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.

Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832

The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.

UPDATED: Apologies in Advance to My Neighbors: August Prairie Covers the 2012 RNC

Assuming it isn't washed away by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac, August Prairie will be covering the Republican National Convention. No, not in Tampa, but from the comfort of our living room. We can't promise our coverage will be thorough, entertaining, or even coherent. Honestly, it may just be a string of profanities and drunk ramblings. However, we do promise to try to try and give meaningful coverage.

We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.

Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.

Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.

UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...

*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!

How we got here: A history of partisan politics in America

For about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties.

By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.

The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.

The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.

As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.

Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.

One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.

And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.

Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012

August Prairie, Round 2

This evening I watched one of my favorite movies, 1776. It is a musical from 1972 based on the Broadway show of the same name. As made somewhat obvious from the title, it is about the men who gathered together in Philadelphia in June and July, 1776 to debate whether or not to declare independence from Great Britain. Although many delegates have parts, the main characters are Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and especially John Adams. Of all the members of the 2nd Continental Congress, Adams has to be my favorite. Sure, everyone loves witty old Dr. Franklin, and as he was a tall intellectual, I can relate to Jefferson. Adams, of course, was known for being sarcastic, caustic, and absolutely committed to independence for the assembled colonies. For months on end, he kept trying to push the Congress to accept in law what had happened in practice: That we were a free and separate nation from the British Empire. Here is the opening scene of the movie which shows Adams berating the Congress for delaying a vote or even debate for independence.
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.

After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.

Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.

One final note: On my hiking blog I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.

*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.

**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.

Let the Tax Cuts Expire

Mr. President,

I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.

I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.

However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.

Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.

The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.

But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.

Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.

Where do We Go From Here?

You'd think tonight's address by the President about the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a reason to celebrate. After all, it is the result those of us who opposed this action since 2003 have been looking for. Even with 50,000 "advisers", plus thousands of contractors, left in Iraq, it should be a victory for us.

However, I can't take solace in this milestone. At best it is just a partial correction of one of our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, another step on the long road to atonement. At worst its just a way for us to escape the situation before it collapses like Saigon in 1975. This small piece of good news is dwarfed by the fears of another recession, an absolutely dreadful employment picture, and the toxic sludge of an overheated political environment. And oh yeah, we're still stuck in a dire situation in Afghanistan, the "good" war that we had supposedly won when we started the "adventure" in Iraq.

When Obama was elected in November 2008, I thought we had won a great victory. When Keith Olbermann announced Obama was projected to go above 270, the pop-culture romantic in me viewed the moment like it was the scene in Return of the King where Gandalf reacts to The One Ring being destroyed. It truly felt like the battle had been won.

Instead, it was a deceptive moment. The battle hadn't been won, but rather had just begun. Like it or not, the other side wasn't going to accept the inevitability of a new era of responsible governance tilted to the left. Nor were they going to reassess their party and return to the roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Instead, the GOP noise machine led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh amped up the crazy, and the inmates took over the asylum. Relatively sensible Republicans, such as Charlie Crist, were chased out of the party in favor of radicals such as Marco Rubio and Sharon Angle. Realizing they were fighting for survival of their cult of Reaganomics, they dug in and decided to gum up the Senate with petty politics.

The President and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot. They've passed bills, imperfect though they may be, that are trying to fix our nation's health care and financial messes. Roads and infrastructure across the country have benefited from a necessary, if too small, stimulus package. Things have been accomplished, despite the cries on DailyKos and firedoglake to the contrary.

Despite these victories, the Democrats are poised to get their asses kicked come November. Some of the most pessimistic predictions state that both the House and Senate will fall back into the hands of the Republicans. Personally, I think the Democrats will maintain their majorities, albeit with much smaller margins. Of course, some of those new Republicans may be folks like Sharon Angle.

Personally, I think this all goes back to the fact that Democrats in Congress seem almost apologetic that they are Democrats. They should be trumpeting the virtues of Health Care and Financial Regulation, instead of sheepishly admitting they voted for these. If they voted for these policies, they should own them. Its time to go on the offensive, and not just pointing out that your party is less dangerous than the other one. I know it seems counter-intuitive to champion that which is unpopular, but it is partially unpopular because the message was dictated by the opposition. The only way to cut through that cloud is to attack it.

I'm aware I haven't done as much as I should have. Sitting here writing blog posts does little to advance the cause. I've donated a few bucks here and there to some candidates and groups like Emily's List, but have yet to volunteer to help build on that 2008 victory. I intend to do something about that, and will let you know what that is.

We are stuck in a drop-down, drag-out battle for the soul of this country. If we don't want the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins and Marco Rubios running this country, we better get to work. Even if November results in a defeat for us, we must continue the fight. So to answer the question posed by the title of the article, we will walk through the fire, ever forward, tough though it may be.