It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Three

"The 1992 Campaign and Election" Part One

The 1992 nominating process brought hard line conservative Pat Buchanan into the Republican primaries against President George Bush. He challenged Bush about breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and about the President making deals with Democrats, with Buchanan "essentially saying" the country didn't need two liberal parties, thus moving elements of the Republican coalition to advocate standing firm in beliefs, and making compromise seem like weakness. Buchanan made a strong showing in New Hampshire, but Bush won and he continued on to a relatively easy renomination, but the attacks from Buchanan took a toll, as a part of the conservative base of the Republican Party remained unenthusiastic about George Bush. Buchanan's challenge and his standing with many conservatives led Bush to give Buchanan the keynote address spot at the Republican Convention. Buchanan's address was a full throttle assault on the Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary, and Democrats in general, who, he said, were in a fight to take over the soul of the country by advocating abortion, gay rights, and a diverse society. The speech energized conservatives to some degree, but the venom dripping words undoubtedly shocked many truly independent voters.

Meanwhile, Texas businessman Ross Perot had entered the national spotlight by focusing on the federal budget deficit, an issue on the minds of many Americans, regardless of party affiliation, although especially so for fiscal conservatives. Like Buchanan, he indicated that the existing politicians were not truly responsive to the public. Unlike Buchanan, Perot was not wedded to many of the socially conservative ideas laid out by Buchanan and some elements of the Religious Right, and he was more libertarian on many issues. A large number of Americans flocked to Perot, who seemed to fill a niche at that time, and he said he would run for president, "if" enough people showed interest in his candidacy by getting his name placed on the ballots in all fifty states, a condition which was fulfilled. A billionaire, Perot didn't have to rely on donations from special interest groups, with such money raising being another growing concern among Americans. In the spring of 1992 Perot led in many national polls, which only increased his appeal to Americans tired of party politics. For George Bush, Perot's candidacy was a plague, as the President had tackled the deficit issue, even breaking his no tax pledge to do so, and by working across party lines, now only to have Perot say not enough had been done to deal with the national debt and that deals between members of the two parties were sort of tainted. So Bush had hard line conservatives furious with him for tax increases to reduce the deficit AND Perot angry with him for not having done enough to deal with the debt. No good deed goes unpunished and Bush's accomplishment ended up being largely negated. Again, many of the people who claimed to be so concerned about the deficit and tax increases under George Bush never held Ronald Reagan to the same standard, although deficits under Reagan were horrible and Reagan increased taxes in several ways, but Bush was not a showman or a "great communicator," and he suffered accordingly. The '92 election also showed how many Americans disregarded facts in favor of showmanship. Hey, we're the country of Hollywood and slick ads telling us why dish detergent "A" is better than dish detergents "B" and "C," even though they're all essentially the same thing.

Next, in "The 1992 Campaign and Election, Part Two," Perot implodes, Clinton surges, and the Republican coalition melts down.

WORD HISTORY:
Cloth-Like its close relatives "clot," "clod" and "clout," this word goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings.This then produced Old Germanic "klutaz," which had the notion of  "piece of material," and also, "material used to cover something." This then gave Old Germanic the variant "klaithan," with the "material used to cover something," meaning; thus "cloth," and by extension "garment," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "clath," likely with a long "a" sound, and this later became "cloth." Old English "clath" also had the additional meaning "sail," obviously from the notion of the material used for such, but it was not the primary word for "sail," which indeed was the ancestor of the modern word "sail" (I'll cover 'sail' soon). The original Old English plural form was "clathas," which became "clothes," "wearing apparel, clothing." The other Germanic languages have forms all having meanings to do with "clothes" or "cloth": standard German "Kleid" (garment, dress), Low German Saxon "kleed" (clothing, garment), West Frisian "kleed" (piece of clothing, garment), Dutch "kleed" (garment, carpet), Danish has "klaede" (cloth) and "klaeder" (clothes), Icelandic has "klaethi" (clothes), Norwegian has "klut(en)" (cloth), and Swedish has "kläder" (clothes) and "kläde" (cloth).

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Two

This was first published in November 2012


 "Bush's Poll Numbers Plummet"

President Bush wanted to deal with the huge federal budget deficit and he had to work with Democratic majorities in both houses to accomplish that. Democrats wanted some tax increases as a part of any deal and Republicans, especially hard line conservatives, wanted only budget cuts. For Bush, his campaign pledge, "Read my lips, no new taxes," was a major obstacle for him, but the President made the commitment to keep tax increases as part of the negotiations. The deal reached cut spending by more than $300 billion and raised revenues by a little more than $150 billion over a five year period. The deal had a provision for any new spending or tax cuts to be offset by some form of spending cuts and/or tax increases elsewhere. The bill passed the Senate with 35 Democrats and 20 Republicans voting FOR the bill and 19 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting AGAINST the measure, and it passed the House with 217 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting FOR and 40 Democrats and 163 Republicans voting AGAINST the bill. President Bush deserves credit for putting the country first and his political party, and his own ego, second. It takes a big person to go against "Read my lips, no new taxes," and his party's increasingly venomous right wing, which attacked him for supporting and signing the legislation. Bush and congressional leaders formed a coalition to get the legislation passed, based upon compromise for the good of the nation. George Bush also drew the wrath of the NRA (National Rifle Association), which had essentially become part of the Republican coalition (with some exceptions), when he supported a ban on the import of some semi-automatic weapons.

Another major event during Bush's presidency was his nomination of Clarence Thomas for a seat on the Supreme Court. Thomas was a black conservative Republican judge chosen by Bush to replace retiring black progressive judge, Thurgood Marshall. Interest groups from both sides of the political spectrum mobilized over the Thomas nomination. The nomination hearings reached fever pitch, with millions of Americans tuned in, when Anita Hill, a lawyer who had worked with Thomas when he was her supervisor, testified that he had made inappropriate sexual remarks to her, perhaps constituting sexual harassment. President Bush, pressed by conservatives to stick with, and to fight for, the nomination, did so. The bitter process ended with Thomas winning confirmation by a narrow margin, as eleven Democrats voted for his confirmation, while only two Republicans opposed it.

The Bush bashing by many conservatives and the slipping economy brought Bush's popularity plummeting back to earth from the stratosphere, where he once had 85-90% approval. The blood was in the water and the political sharks began circling the figure struggling to stay afloat, George Bush, who now looked more and more vulnerable in the upcoming election.

Next, the 1992 Election  

WORD HISTORY:
Clout-Like its close relatives "clot" and "clod,"^ this word goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings.This then produced Old Germanic "klutaz," which had the notion of  "piece of material" ("something put together"), and also, "material used to cover something." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "clut," meaning "piece of cloth or other material used to cover something." This of course carries the original notion of "fixing or having something adhere to." Later, the meaning "hit" developed, and the Oxford Dictionary makes a good point about the possible origin of this change in meaning, as it notes that a target long ago was likely a piece of cloth or some other object fixed to a tree or post, and that the idea of hitting that target transferred the meaning to "clout," likely first through a verb form, and with the noun then meaning "a hit, a blow." In American English the "hit" idea then developed into the figurative "political power; strong influence" as in, "The mayor has clout with the city council." Its use in English for a "piece of cloth," and a "handkerchief" is now archaic. Of the other Germanic languages still retaining the meaning "cloth" in some form: Danish still has "klud," with the meaning "rag" or "piece of cloth," Icelandic has "klútur," meaning "handkerchief," Norwegian has "klut," meaning "rag." If you have been following this progression so far, from "clot" and "clod" to "clout," you may be able to guess what the next word will be. 

^ See the "Word History" in "It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part 21" for "clot/clod."
 http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/11/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_9286.html
   

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Fifteen

This was first published in May 2012


"Battle Over Budgets" Part Two/Austerity 

The huge deficits of the 2000s added trillions to the collective national debt by the time of the 2008 crisis. When voters elected Democrat Barack Obama as President, his economic team wanted a major stimulus bill passed by Congress to counter the economic decline. This was in contrast to many Republicans who wanted more tax cuts, naturally with much of the money going to the wealthiest Americans, and to their basic hands off of the economy beliefs. For the administration, with no money, there was only one way to get that money, DEBT. In the end a combination of spending proposals and tax cuts were enacted. Gradually, although faster than I thought possible, the economic plunge halted and the economy stabilized. The problem ever since has been, now what?* (See Part 14 for the headwinds that have also limited the recovery.)

Conservatives in America and the world over have been arguing that budget deficits are keeping the economy from expanding and that the tremendous debts will bring a day of reckoning.** Conservative governments in Europe have implemented "austere budgets" to cope with their respective debts, with much of the pain falling on those less then wealthy individuals and families. These policies have been especially implemented in Greece, Spain, and to some degree, in France and Britain. If you're an American and this all sounds familiar, it should, as Republicans, led by conservative Congressman Paul Ryan, have laid out plans to deal with the deficits, largely at the expense of everyone, but the wealthy, to whom he wants to give MORE tax cuts! These folks have used their policy ideas as an almost slogan of  "don't punish the job creators." They have attacked unions, attempting to destroy or to limit the labor movement. They have tried to "fix" unbroken election laws, thus limiting potential Democratic turnout. Not only that, but they want to remove all inheritance taxes*** so that huge estates can be passed on to the chosen few who may or may not have ever worked to earn any of it. So much for a meritocracy, and the creation of a true aristocracy. It seems to the world's conservatives that "austerity" is for everyone else, not for the wealthy or their corporate entities. Sacrifice is for everyone else, not for them, or perhaps better said in another slogan like, "Everyone else sacrifice for us."

The Occupy Wall Street movement has brought increased attention to the income disparity in America, and spinoffs in Europe and elsewhere ("Blockupy") have taken the ball and run with it, often to the cries of "We are the 99%." Protests in Europe have been large and frequent, with occasional outbreaks of violence. Recent elections in Greece and France have produced dramatic results, especially in France, where a socialist was elected president. In Greece the situation has been much more polarized, with a new government being in limbo. New elections have been called. In local elections in Germany, conservatives have lost ground, making the next national election suspenseful. The common thread seems to be that less than wealthy people aren't just rolling over for the wealthy interests, but they are taking to the streets, often led by the younger generations, and, when elections come, they are voting their own self interests. You have to start some place, and this is the signal "We aren't going to take it anymore!" Will it work? Now the discouraging part; probably not; at least not in the way some want it to work. Some countries have unrealistic spending levels, but the necessary changes will have input from those to be affected the most, and that's all we can expect in true democracies. People will not allow the wealthy and their allies to dictate how much they will cut others, while taking more money in tax cuts for themselves; money they don't need.

These movements have a chance to get this country and other nations of the world back from wealthy and corporate interests, but they must court the middle classes. Anarchists and extremism will only scare the very people who are needed to enact positive change.
       
 * Federal Reserve policy has also been very involved in the economy, but I'll try to keep this already complex subject limited.

** Just an observation here, as American conservatives didn't say much about all of the debt accumulated during the Reagan years; for instance, when the "Gipper's" economic team said "deficits don't matter." Nor did they rave or rant when George W. Bush was in office and debts climbed into the trillions.

*** Republicans are working at both the federal and state levels to remove estate taxes, as there are separate taxes at these levels.

WORD HISTORY:
Austere-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear, although some believe it to be Indo European, but it traces back to Greek "austeros,"^ which had the notion of "harsh," which seems to have also been applied food and drink that were bitter; that is, "harsh tasting." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "austerus," with the same basic meaning. Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "austere," and English borrowed the word from French in the early 1300s. The modern meaning still retains the notion of "harsh, severe," but it can also mean "plain, simple," usually in terms of "showiness," but this retains the "harsh" notion, as in "deprived of, restricted in adornment." 

^ Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree.

The Ant In The Room

For the last few years there has been great chatter in the political world about congressional "earmarks." Many a politician has appeared before a television camera and a microphone, thumped his chest, and delivered a message about how he opposes the use of earmarks, and telling us just how dastardly these little buggers are. The interesting thing is, often, but not always, when that same politician's record is examined, it is found that he/she has used earmarks more than some people shower. (Sniff, sniff......ahh, I'll be right back.) In fact, it has not been out of the question for that person to have earmarks in legislation at the same time they are appearing before the television cameras, telling Americans how much they oppose them. The other day, a Republican senator was doing a television interview. He said how bad earmarks are and that funding the government would not go forward until earmarks were removed from any appropriations. The interviewer than asked him, "If earmarks are so bad, why do you have one in the current bill before Congress?" He didn't know what to say, so he did the "Washington Shuffle," and said as little as possible, but came back to his point about how bad earmarks are. That brought the questioner back to why he had an earmark in the current bill. He then at least tried to justify the earmark (I don't remember the actual item he had inserted into the bill). You can't have this stuff both ways; "I'm against these terrible things, except when they're for my constituents." He got caught!

How many of you know what an earmark is? I'll bet not many can answer that, except that for all of the "noise" about them in recent years, you are supposed to be against them. While a true definition has not be agreed upon, essentially earmarks are specific items inserted into appropriations legislation that are not debated or even given scrutiny during the legislative process. Okay, what the hell does that mean? (Just an example) Your congressperson wants to get money allocated for a new (federal) courthouse in his/her district. He/she gets with your state's two senators* to get their support for the project. The money for the new courthouse is inserted into an appropriation bill, and if the legislation passes, that money is now specifically designated to go to the building of that new courthouse. The merits of the new courthouse are not debated.**

The thing about "earmarks" is, the individual projects are not all necessarily wrong or wasteful spending, as has often been portrayed by some politicians or some commentators. Perhaps the existing courthouse is in such bad repair, that a new courthouse is really needed. The problem with earmarks is, they do not face the light of day during the legislative process. On the other side of the coin, that courthouse may not really be needed, and the representative (and senator or senators) are just trying to help their re-election chances, or help building contractors and building trades in their district, maybe even as sort of a "payoff" for campaign contributions.***

Now, another thing: Just this past week, there was an appropriations bill before Congress totaling well over a trillion dollars (it was to fund several departments). Of that amount, eight billion was in earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans (including by the Republican senator mentioned above). Now, I'm not here to defend "earmarks," as I believe they should be publicly debated, but with the clamor raised by Republicans over this bill, one might have thought this would all wipe out the federal budget deficit. While all projects need the light of day, the hub bub over the eight billion out of more than a trillion is pure political theater by the Republicans, some of whom had earmarks in THIS VERY BILL! Throughout this past election campaign, Republican candidates had every chance to be specific about the things they would cut in order to reduce the federal deficit. Few took that challenge, preferring to rely upon the standard "Waste, fraud, and abuse," and of course, "earmarks!" So "earmarks" have been used to build a mountain out of a molehill. (To be fair, Democrats weren't much better.) Imagine this: There are a million killer bees in your house, but Randy shouts, "Look...an ant!" (A Word History is below the notes)

* As I noted, this is just an example, and both senators may not even agree to insertion of the earmark into the legislation, but it sure helps to have at least one of the state's senators on board.

** Typically, Congress appropriates money to the various departments of the government and those departments and their lower level departments decide how the money will be spent. With earmarks, that whole process is circumvented, since the earmarked project is specifically mentioned in the enacted legislation, it is the law that the specific amount go to that project.

*** New projects obviously mean jobs for workers and money for business people, but that isn't necessarily bad either, it all depends upon the validity of the project.

WORD HISTORY:
Ear-This word for a common body part (the "ear" as in "ear of corn" does not have the same origin, so while spelled the same in modern times, it is not the same word) goes back to the Indo European root "aus/ous," which may have had the notion of "perception," rather than specifically "ear," as some Indo European languages related to English further down the family tree have words derived from this root that pertain to "perception," although one source says it meant "ear." This root gave Old Germanic "auzon," which then gave Anglo-Saxon "eare," which later became "ere," before the modern spelling. Relatives of "ear" are widespread in the Germanic languages: German has "Ohr," Low Saxon German has "Ohr," Dutch has "oor," Frisian has "ear," Norwegian and Danish have "øre," Swedish has "öra," and Icelandic has "eyra." At this time, I am not exactly sure why the Germanic languages all have an "r" in them, although Gothic, an old Germanic dialect/language that has now died out, had "auso," which is close to the original Old Germanic "auzon."