7 Nov 2006

Elections, elections...

I know everybody and his brother is blogging something on the upcoming US elections. Why, the BBC alone has a team of bloggers chugging away on the topic! And them's furriners! Something comes to mind with Shakespeare, monkeys, typewriters and infinite time...

Still, I wanted to make at least one statement. Perhaps it will not mean much, perhaps it will look foolish, perhaps prescient. However, I wanted to use the opportunity, Election Day -1, to state that I have a feeling that 2006 will not be the political sea-change that the media would like to make it out to be. I have a respect for the genius of Karl Rove, and I have a strong feeling that the Republicans will do much better tomorrow that one might think. Will this mean that they will retain all their political spoils? Doubtful. However, I can see them making it as difficult as possible for any races to be settled against their interests. I can even see them keeping control of the House, or even better/worse (depending on your political persuasion) giving up control, but only enough to make the Democrats look more incompetent.

However, ultimately nothing will change, at least not this time. I must admit, that one reason I grow tired of politics (as opposed to policy) is because one senses that it is all the more a hewing to the status quo, an inadventurousness and a true fear for change. I am sure politicians have always been so, but then that was why there were statesmen above them. Now, however, even such allegedly venerable offices as senator and president are mere political hacks in a 24/7 popularity contest, and the closest thing to statesmen (like, believe it or not, Dick Cheney), are shadowy figures. To paraphrase Churchill, politics has gone to the modest men who have much to be modest about. (This was spoken about Clement Attlee, and the statement itself is a misleading political quip, as history showed Attlee to be a better statesman than his contemporary political rival allowed).

It is interesting in other respects how so little changes in politics. Nicaragua went to the ballot boxes yesterday to vote for a new president, and the likely winner (thanks to some jimmying of electoral laws) looks to be former Sandinista Daniel Ortega. The State Department has engaged in some undue meddling, stating their disproval over the possible presidency of this former foe. However, Mr. Ortega seems to have gone far from Marxism (what with there being no Soviet Union and a geriatric regime in Cuba these days) and is more of a populist than a threat to strategic balances of power. His very existence and political survival, in my mind, is a perfect example of how conflicts arise as a result of rivalries between Great Powers than from anything else, democracy, the UN, or whatever. There will be no new contra war, I think we can rest assured, although the US risks looking a little foolish not letting go of Cold War ghosts. And I will not even begin on Oliver North's campaigning against Ortega...perhaps a little jealous that this former foe of his has found a better career than part-time conservative politician and commentator on Fox News?


So, go vote (the city Somerville reneged on their promise to mail me directions to the nearest polling station!), and then get on with your life, because things will be as they have pretty much always been. It's amazing how much money gets spent on these campaigns, when ultimately very little changes.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mark, check out this 'sky is falling' editorial from the French scholar Bernard Henri-Levy
article
"A victory of pro-choice partisans in South Dakota or adversaries of unregulated gun sales in Ohio will oblige the White House — without losing too much face or explicitly agreeing with the arguments of the former future president, Al Gore — to reconsider its irresponsible positions over the Kyoto Protocol and the US contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."

HUH?

Kochevnik said...

Wow, I read Henri-Levy's articles on travelling in America in The Atlantic Monthly, and he wrote fairly cogently there. I had no idea he was so out of it...it appears yet another Frenchman who loves and hates and misunderstands America all at the same time.

He fails to notice that the American government was opposed to the Kyoto Protocols even while Clinton was President, and a Democratically-run Senate in 2001 did not help much either.

If anything The Economist and Greater Boston, to name two decent if distinct sources, have been saying how if anything this election shows that Democrats are beginning to move more towards the political center, rather than this race being some sort of electoral liberation by the American masses. I can easily see Henri-Levy imagining the end to the film Return of the King, with Bush falling from a tower and the orcish Republicans falling into the abyss in their "rearguard actions" before the forces of "light" (I am a social libertarian, but still not so sure why the loosening of morals is such a glorious event...the Civil Rights leaders, juxtaposed against that statement, were theologians who would not have approved).

And no, this election won't change the world, and will certainly not change attitudes and opinions in Europe. American politics will be the same. And if Henri-Levy cares so much, he should be more concerned with choosing Sarko or Sego...that might make a bigger difference to France than midterm US elections will make to anyone.

Anonymous said...

you know I'm pulling for Webb in VA. Check out this excellent post on an excellent blog post

Anonymous said...

I think people have so many misconceptions about the way that the US works. The Soviets were notorious for that. The prof. of my course was a Sovietologist and he said he once spoke to a NYT reporter who was in Moscow in the 70's. It was around the time when Nixon resigned and a fairly senior official asked the reporter if he would have to return to the US once Nixon resigned. I guess that even high ranking officials never got the idea that the NYT was not Pravda.