Mary Edwards Walker

Mary Edwards Walker - Medal of HonorOn this day in 1832, the great feminist Mary Edwards Walker was born. It is wrong to call her simply a feminist. She was many things, including a surgeon. She worked for the Union Army during the Civil War. In fact, while treating Confederate soldiers across enemy lines, she was captured by the traitors and accused of spying. She was later released in a prisoner exchange. After the war, she was given the Medal of Honor — the only woman to ever be given one.

There is a strange story about it, though. In 1917, Congress passed a law giving pensions to Medal of Honor recipients. The Army took the opportunity to re-evaluate the recipients (the Navy did not). They decided to knock 911 names off the list — one of which was Walker’s. She still wore the medal for her two remaining years of life. But you just have to wonder what the army thought it was doing removing those names. Regardless, Walker’s medal was restored by President Carter in 1977.

Mary Edwards Walker - Top Hat (1911)Walker was prominent in the women’s suffrage movement. She pushed the idea that woman already had the right to vote and there was no need to alter the Constitution. When this approach did not work, the movement transitioned to calling for a Constitutional amendment. But Walker never changed. This marginalized her in the movement. She was further marginalized by her opinions about dress. She felt that women should be allowed to dress as men if they thought it proper. She normally wore men’s clothing, including a trademark top hat.

Happy birthday Mary Edwards Walker!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Birthdays, Politics

Radicals, Liberals, and Eric Alterman

Eric AltermanEric Alterman wrote a thought provoking article at Democracy, Why Liberals Need Radicals — and Vice Versa. He has divided the political left into the liberals and the radicals. Basically, they are the pragmatists and the idealists. It’s a good breakdown. And he noted that the liberals need the radicals to show them what they are fighting for. And the radicals need the liberals in order to get things done, because this is America and there ain’t gonna be no stinking revolution. I’m with him on this.

What’s more interesting is an implicit point in his article: there isn’t much remaining of radicalism on the left of the political spectrum. For example, I generally find myself on the left left edge of American politics — and often I find myself quite far to the left of that “respectable” edge. Yet I am incredibly practical. I think that income inequality is the biggest problem that we face. The solutions I propose, however, are things like increased estate taxes and a higher inflation target. These have traditionally been extremely mainstream ideas. It does not speak well of our country that they are considered radical.

But the reason that such vanilla economic remedies have come to be seen as “Socialism! Socialism, I tell you!” is because the conservative radicals, the ideologues, have been so successful at moving the playing field. That isn’t just due to their brilliance, although I will give them high marks on that front. Whereas liberal radicals have to push ideas mostly through force of will, conservatives get billions of dollars to develop and push their ideas. But I still maintain that the biggest reason that conservatives have recently been so successful has nothing to do with leftist radicals. It is rather that conservatives managed to take over the Democratic Party. They had a brilliant idea: they could redefine liberalism as social liberalism. And hence you get people like Clinton (pick one), Obama, and Andrew Cuomo.

Alterman went wrong, I think, in trying to distinguish between constructive radicalism and destructive radicalism. According to him, constructive radicalism is when people on the left start a conversation that moves liberals in a positive direction. And as an example of this, he mentioned Ta-Nehisi Coates’s excellent article, The Case for Reparations. Destructive radicalism is embodied in Ralph Nader’s failed 2000 presidential run. But is this distinction really valid a priori? Isn’t Alterman just looking at the negative effects of Nader’s campaign and saying it was an example of destructive radicalism?

I assume that Nader’s campaign was always meant to push Gore more to the left. I find it hard to believe that Nader thought he might win the election, along with a Congress of like minded people. I think what Alterman is getting at is found even more clearly in his second example, “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement directed against Israel.” Again, his argument is basically that it can’t work. But I have never seen the BDS movement as anything but a way to get a message out and to highlight the apartheid nature of the situation in Israel-Palestine. I don’t know how I feel about the issue, but it is clear that Alterman thinks it is destructive radicalism simply because he disagrees with it.

I like the prism through which Alterman sees the political left. But breaking down radicals into constructive and destructive is just a way of silencing them. If radicals are not making liberals uncomfortable, they have no purpose. Alterman understands this. But he’s applying an irrational theoretical construct to it. All radical proposals are impossible. Until they aren’t. Each liberal has to decide what radical ideas are useful to them. That’s going to depend on each specific liberal and each specific radical idea. I get it: Alterman doesn’t like the BDS movement. But he is wrong to generalize based upon that.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Obama’s Actions Won’t Change Rep Reactions

Obama CopeOn Friday, Andrew Prokop wrote a great article over at Vox, What Could a Republican President Do With Obama’s Executive Power Theories? It deals with the argument that many people have made to the effect that if Obama can prioritize immigration then a Republican president can decide that he isn’t going to enforce the tax law. This is an argument that Jonathan Chait has made, and Prokop even quoted him, “What if a Republican president announced that he would stop enforcing the payment of estate taxes?” It’s a very frightening idea.

But I have a counter to it: norms are restrained by public opinion when it comes to the president. The reason the Republicans have gotten away with so much norm destruction is that the people (even the media to a large extent) don’t pay attention to Congress. It is all thought to be too technical and not of direct influence on policy — even though it most definitely is. And we see this very clearly in Obama’s decision. Why didn’t he just stop deportations of all 11.4 million undocumented residents? Because there are limits to this power.

Prokop discussed three areas where we liberals might be concerned about what President Ted Cruz would do: taxes, environmental law, and Obamacare. I was most impressed with the issue of taxes. So what would stop Cruz from prioritizing enforcement of tax law to incomes less than $20,000 per year? Apart from norms, nothing. The problem is that all those taxes not paid by people making above $20,000 per year would still be owed. When a Democrat (Or simply a reasonable Republican; oh, I crack myself up!) got back in the White House, all those taxes would be due — with interest and penalties.

And then there is the issue that Republican presidents have already done this sort of thing. Ezra Klein pointed out two important ones in a recent article, The Best Arguments for, and Against, Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration. Take special note of the last clause:

President George W Bush cut the number of IRS agents auditing estate tax abuses. One estate tax lawyer described the action to The New York Times as a “back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax.” At another point, the Bush administration evaded responsibility for regulating carbon emissions by refusing to open a legally important e-mail. That’s not to say future Republicans presidents can’t be more brazen, or come up with ways to go further — but who’s to say they won’t do it anyway?

That’s actually the crux of the matter, which I haven’t paid nearly enough attention to. Given the the Republicans are absolutely certain that Obama brought National Socialism to the United States, they are going to push every advantage once they have the White House. Obama doesn’t need to actually do anything; the Republicans have known before he was elected that he was doing things that were totally unconstitutional.

Prokop noted that the problem of later enforcement would apply to environmental regulations. And that Mitt Romney was planning to not enforce the individual mandate if elected in 2012 regardless. I would add to this. The individual mandate is not some liberal conspiracy. It is the most conservative part of the law. It protects insurance companies, not individuals. So if the Republicans want to harm their biggest constituency:

Matthew Dickinson wrote another interesting article over at his blog, No, Obama’s Executive Action Did Not Violate Governing Norms. He started by noting that even people on the right say they like the results of Obama’s executive action, “Instead, they direct their ire at Obama’s apparent willingness to violate some unspoken ‘norm’ that apparently constrained previous presidents from making significant policy change of this magnitude absent an overarching emergency.” Before I get to his argument, I think this is interesting because of course conservatives will not want to admit that they just hate undocumented kids and their families. As discussed in Winner-Take-All Politics, conservatives always resort to process arguments when the policy arguments are too obviously vile.

Dickinson goes on to argue that presidential norms are kind of mythical anyway. The main thing that keeps presidents in check is that other branches of government push back — as they were designed to. As far as I can tell, Dickinson is somewhat conservative. Fundamentally, his argument is the same one made by John Boehner that the executive action will make the Republicans less likely to get along. But I think Dickinson in wrong about this. I suspect that Republicans won’t do much but bluster. They don’t actually care about the issue, but it does give them a lot of political ammunition. And in 2016, the executive action could be a difficult issue with the Democratic nominee having to finesse the question, “Will you reverse the executive action on immigration?”

Ultimately, politics continues on as it always has. And I don’t see any reason to think that what Obama has done is unprecedented. I discussed the biggest issue last week, Obama’s Executive Action Is a Double Win. When Republicans are already certain Obama is Stalin reincarnated, nothing he actually does will affect how the Republican Party acts.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

American Policing as Occupying Power

Charles PierceThere is something gone badly wrong in the way police are taught to look at civilians these days. This is the logic of an occupying power being employed on American citizens. Ever since 9/11, when we all began to be told that we were going to have to bend a little bit, and then a little bit more, to authority or else we’d all die, the police in this country have been militarized in their tactics and in their equipment, which is bad enough, but in their attitudes and their mentality, which is far, far worse. Suspicion has bled into weaponized paranoia, especially in the case of black and brown people, especially in the case of young men who are black or brown, but this is not About Race because nothing ever is About Race. Even the potential of a threat requires a deadly response, Dick Cheney’s one-percent idea brought to American cities and towns until Salt Lake City, of all places, winds up with cops who are deadlier on the streets than drug dealers. This is how you wind up with Darren Wilson. This is how you wind up with Michael Brown, dead in the middle of the road. This is how Darren Wilson walks, tonight, for the killing of Michael Brown. This is how you end up with an American horror story.

—Charlie Pierce
Dead of Night: the Ferguson Decision

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, Quotations

Don’t Stop at Michael Brown, Kill the Poor!

Michael BrownI don’t have much to add on the grand jury decision in Ferguson. It went exactly as I expected. This isn’t because I thought the process was corrupt, although it certainly might have been exactly that. It was just that police offers are only indicted in the absolutely most egregious cases. So unless there was a photograph of Michael Brown on his knees with Darren Wilson putting a bullet into his head, I would not expect an indictment.

Regardless, none of this is about Michael Brown or Darren Wilson. This is about a “justice” system in the United States that is totally out of control. The police literally have a license to kill. I just saw a couple of minutes of MSNBC and one of their commentators said one of the standard things, “When police go to work in the morning, they don’t know if they are coming home that evening.” That’s even more true of truck drivers and cabbies. But no one holds that up as a reason we should apologize for them acting like Bernhard Goetz. The “police have a dangerous job” is not really true and is no excuse for bad behavior.

So what are we going to do about this? Nothing. We didn’t need the death of Michael Brown to point out that we have a broken system. And that broken system goes far beyond what police and prosecutors do. An arguably even bigger issue is inequality and racism. But in general, we won’t talk about them either. It is considered “class warfare” to do so. Mitt Romney claimed that we should talk about these issues in “quiet rooms,” which is just another way of saying that we should never talk about it.

Meanwhile, people are born into hopeless situations because of their “race” and the economic situation of their parents. But this supposedly is not about class warfare. We have a society in which actual class warfare is defined as just the way things are. There is neither racism nor a lack of opportunity because Daymond John! But bringing up these issues supposedly is class warfare. And the people of the United States — most especially minority groups and the poor more generally — are so beaten down that they just accept it.

And now it has been decades that we’ve been sold a kind of social Darwinian lie. And it all sounds very noble: we must reward the winners! But if you dig down just a little way, you will find fascist dogma: the weak are dragging down the nation so we must let them fail (that is: die). And we must worship the powerful because they are great. Of course, evolutionarily, this is nonsense. What a species needs is diversity. And what is unsuccessful in the current environment might be amazingly successful in a later environment. It isn’t hard to imagine a future where people who are good at trading stocks are useless and people who can predict the tides are priceless.

But fine, let’s kill the weak and worship the the powerful. Because: freedom!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Lope de Vega

Lope de VegaOn this day in 1562, the greatest playwright of all time, Lope de Vega, was born. Of course, most people wouldn’t think that because Lope didn’t write in English and he was not used as the cultural sword of the expansion of a major empire the way that Shakespeare was. But Lope did not only write great plays, he wrote a lot of plays. As Shakespeare scholar Gary Taylor wrote, “We assume that Shakespeare’s thirty-odd plays contain more of humanity than the five hundred plays of Lope de Vega we have not read.” That’s right: 500 plays. In fact, it might be more than that.

The Shakespeare apologists, of course, will claim that this is why Shakespeare is so great. He took his time. He didn’t write so many plays. But this is always the way it is with Shakespeare. However he did something is the best. For example, scholars have claimed that Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors is better than Plautus’ Menaechmi. Why? Because Shakespeare has two sets of identical twins. Of course, if the situation were reversed, these scholars would argue the opposite: that two sets of twins is needlessly silly. So just the same, if a playwright wrote fewer plays than Shakespeare or more plays, it just goes to show that Shakespeare is the greatest playwright ever. Because everything shows that.

Lope de Vega is the literary equivalent to Mozart. Although born into a working class family (his father was an embroiderer), Lope was writing plays by the time he was 12-years-old. Many people helped him out during his teen years, because his genius was so clear to everyone. But for most of his 20s and early 30s, he was focused on chasing after women. This is an avocation that got him into some trouble: jail, exile, and eventually an assignment with the Spanish Armada, which he was quite lucky to survive.

And then he started to write in earnest. By his count, he had written over 200 plays by the age of 40. By the age of 60, he had written a thousand. There is no doubt that Lope was something of a hack. People wanted a play about X and Lope would spit one back at them in a couple of days. But they weren’t fluff. The average Shakespeare play is about 20,000 words. His comedies are shorter: about 17,000 words. The only play of Lope’s I’ve been able to read, Fuenteovejuna, is roughly 12,000 words. It runs roughly two hours. So it’s shorter, but not terribly so.

In addition to this, Lope wasn’t slavishly committed to holding up the ruling class as the savior of the world. Let me just present three synopses taken from Melveena McKendrick’s excellent Theatre in Spain 1490-1700:

Peribáñez y el Comendador de Ocaña (Peribáñez and the Commander of Ocaña)

[S]et in the fifteenth century, [it] portrays the idyllic marriage and life together of the prosperous and ambitious young peasant Peribáñez and his lovely bride Casilda, and the attempts made by their overlord to seduce her. When Casilda remains impervious to his blandishments, the Commander makes Peribáñez a captain and sends him off to fight the king’s war. He enters his house at night intending to take Casilda by force if necessary, but aware by now of his intentions Peribáñez returns in time to prevent the rape of Casilda and the destruction of their lives by killing his lord. His action is subsequently pardoned though not condoned by the King, he is given a full captaincy and sent off to fight in the Granada campaign…

Fuenteovejuna

Like Peribáñez, Fuenteovejuna also deals with the relationship between honour and noble birth by presenting sexual aggression in the context of class relationships. Here, however, the conflict is not the cat and mouse game played by the Commander in Peribáñez, but open confrontation from the start between a brutally predatory overlord and the entire village of Fuenteovejuna which he tyrannizes in the name of his seigneurial rights; the tension is created not so much by how he will be stopped but by whom. The village’s sense of impotence and fear is encapsulated in its name, Fountain of the sheep: the men are emasculated, almost dehumanized, by their overlord’s grotesque abuse of power and privilege and it is a woman, Laurencia, who eventually shames them into action in the play’s major speech. In the name of their communal self-respect the men and women of Fuenteovejuna kill the Commander and, when tortured for the truth by the King’s men, answer only “Fuenteovejuna did it”…

El Mejor Alcalde, el Rey (No Greater Judge Than the King Himself)

The Galician peasant hero, Sancho, does not take the law into his own hands but invokes the law’s majesty by appealing to the King himself for aid. The noble, for his part, don Tello, not only transgresses against the principles of duty and responsibility on which the social contract is founded but defies the King himself, refusing to accept his monarch as ultimate arbiter of law and justice on earth. The play is set in the twelfth century, when seigneurial rights were only just beginning to yield before monarchical power and this gives credibility to don Tello’s reckless anarchy. The King in the guise of a judge travels to the village and hears for himself don Tello’s defiance. Revealing his identity he marries don Tello to Sancho’s bridge-to-be, whom he has raped, and then executes him so that Elvira, now a rich widow, can marry the man who loves her. Justice is done not by meeting force with force but by recourse to the processes of law. The play, therefore, marks in a sense a more mature and a more serene state in Lope’s exploration of the theme of power and its relationship to justice.

Lope de Vega is a writer that everyone should know a whole lot more about. I think we have all seen enough Shakespeare for the rest of our lives. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of plays of Lope’s that have never even been translated into English. It is a shame.

Happy birthday Lope de Vega!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Birthdays, Film, TV & Theater

Everyone Has Opinions. Who Can Know?

Merchants of DoubtOur founding fathers placed freedom of the press in the first amendment of the US Constitution, because democracy requires it. Citizens need information to make decisions, and a free press is crucial to its flow. Two centuries later the Fairness Doctrine was established in law, and although the legal doctrine was dismantled in the Reagan years, the notion of “equal time” remains enshrined in Americans’ sense of justice and fair play.

But not every “side” is right or true; opinions sometimes express ill-informed beliefs, not reliable knowledge. As we’ve seen throughout this book, some “sides” represent deliberate disinformation spread by well-organized and well-funded vested interests, or ideologically driven denial of the facts. Even honest people with good intentions may be confused or mistaken about an issue. When every voice is given equal time — and equal weight — the result does not necessarily serve us well. Writing in Democracy in American long ago, Alexis de Tocqueville lamented the cacophony that passed for serious debate in the young republic: “A confused clamor rises on every side, and a thousand voices are heard at once.”

That was two hundred years ago; today the problem is much worse. With the rise of radio, television, and now the internet, it sometimes seems that anyone can have their opinion heard, quoted, and repeated, whether it is true or false, sensible or ridiculous, fair-minded or malicious. The internet has created an information hall of mirrors, where any claim, no matter how preposterous, can be multiplied indefinitely. And on the internet, disinformation never dies. “Electronic barbarism” one commentator has call it — an environment that is all sail and no anchor. Pluralism run amok.

The result is plain to see. A third of all Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks on September 11. Nearly a quarter still think that there’s no solid evidence that smoking kills. And as recently as 2007, 40 percent of Americans believed that scientific experts were still arguing about the reality of global warming. Who can blame us? Everywhere we turn someone is questioning something, and many of the important issues of our day are reduced to he said/she said/who knows? Any person could be forgiven for being confused.

—Naomi Oreskes & Eric M Conway
Merchants of Doubt

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Quotations

Increased Storms Sign of… End Times

Polar BearsOver the weekend, I discussed the way that atheists often fetishize science and overstate its power. But better that than the total disregard for any inconvenient science that gets in the way of the religious fundamentalists’ Iron Age dogma. And pity the once great empire that relies on such nonsense to govern itself. It will find itself needing to relearn how to smelt metal. Good people of America, I offer for your consideration and concern: Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Inhofe is known for his highly publicized claims that global warming is a hoax. Does he actually know any science? Of course not! But it doesn’t take much to go to The Heartland Institute website and grab a bunch of cherry-picked data and argue that global warming is just a communist plot to trick people into believing collective action is sometimes necessary. (Funny how conservatives never have a problem with the draft!) But Inhofe’s interest is not in the modern science but in the “science” of the 6th century BC.

Earlier this month, Right Wing Watch caught Inhofe on Crosstalk, a show on Voice of Christian Youth America. He explained that climate change just couldn’t be happening because God wouldn’t allow it. Again, this is because an Iron Age book, put together by countless writers, tells him so:

Genesis 8:22… is that “as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,” my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Three thousand years ago, people told stories around the fire at night. Someone wrote them down after hundreds of years. And James Inhore is now using those stories to explain that science is just a great big hoax. It’s an entirely typical game that he is playing. The fundamentalists know that they can’t be honest and just admit that they believe what they believe because they learned it in Sunday school when they were six. Instead, they pretend to do science. It is despicable.

If this isn’t depressing enough, Digby brought my attention to a recent Public Religion Research Institute poll. It asked what they thought the reason was for increased storms. Among white evangelicals, 49% said that they thought it was due to global warming. That’s actually pretty good. But here’s the freaky part: 77% thought that it was a sign of the End Times. This would not be a problem if these people were living in a cave somewhere. But they probably vote more consistently than readers of this blog. I think I might make a bumper sticker, “I’m a religious freak: And I vote!

I’m sure if you asked Joni Ernst, the new Iowa Senator-elect, she would provide the same answer. But for the media to report on her extremist views during the campaign would have been rude. So the media do what they always do: error on the ride of allowing right wing extremists to get away with everything. After all, there was reporting to be done on her challenger’s fight with his neighbors over chickens. We’ve got to stay focused on what’s important. And the fourth estate knows what’s important: total nonsense. But don’t worry: it will all work out fine. If you’re super rich.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, Science & Data

How About a Democratic Defense Secretary?

Chuck HagelNow that Chuck Hagel is on his way out as Defense Secretary, maybe we can revisit the whole question of why our New Democratic heroes are so fond of appointing Republicans to this post. It’s a really bad idea from a political standpoint. It implies that Republicans are better when it comes to the art of war. This is totally refuted by looking at how Republicans actually do manage our wars. But the people can be forgiven if they think, “Well even Democratic presidents think Republicans are best for the job; Republicans must really be better than Democrats!”

This has been going on for a while. The Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton’s entire second term was a Republican, William Cohen. And then when Obama came into office, he just couldn’t find a capable Democrat, so he stuck with Bush’s choice, Robert Gates. (Sadly, that was not the only way that Obama followed the lead of Bush.) After leaving office, he used the opportunity to snipe at the administration. Then Obama picked conservative Democrat Leon Panetta for the job. He stayed a short period of time before leaving office so he too could snipe at the administration. So Obama put Hagel in the position, again, saying to the world that Democrats know nothing about war and must depend upon Republicans. I can’t wait for Hagel’s book where he snipes at the administration.

Obama NopeAs I wrote at the time of Hagel’s nomination, “Obama cares more about his legacy than he does the legacy of his party.” It’s always the same with the New Democrats. Their constituencies are not, you know, the people who voted for them. Those silly people probably think that electing a Democrat means they would get a Democratic cabinet and liberal governance. But instead, Obama and company care about the kind of Very Serious People that brought us the DLC of the 1990s and “third way” today. Obama explicitly wanted a “team of rivals” like Lincoln had. (Apparently, Obama had read a book.) In his immature way, Obama seemed to think that this is what made Lincoln great. Forget all the Civil War and slavery stuff. People remember Lincoln because he made William Seward his Secretary of State.

So the question is naturally raised, “Could we have a Democratic Defense Secretary now?” And I really don’t know. Will the Senate be willing to confirm any Obama appointment? I’m really not sure. But it would be nice if Obama at least was willing to nominate a Democrat. But he might try to nominate another Republican, hoping to woo Republican support. But that didn’t go all that well last time. Not that it would stop Obama. Constantly hoping that the Republicans will behave is one of his main strategies.

If the people choose a Republican President in 2016, maybe it won’t be that bad. There is, at least, a kind of truth in advertising. We can depend that at least his cabinet will be filled with Republicans. And if there is any exception, it will be something low-profile like the Secretary of Transportation. Maybe after a few elections like that the New Democrats will learn that their economic conservatism, with its “split the difference” on everything else, is not popular. Regardless, in the distant future, historians will not write Team of Rivals about Obama; they will write, “Opportunity Squandered.”

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Chris Christie’s “Tough Guy” Shtick

Chris ChristieThe thing that impresses me about Chris Christie is how he manages to have the reputation of an brave truth-teller while being as craven a politician as there is. I still remember his big Bridgegate press conference where he was gentle as a lamb. What’s really going on with him is just the manipulation of power. He knows better than other politicians what power he has and just what he can get away with. As such, it speaks poorly of people and people in New Jersey specifically that they buy his act. When I call him a bully, I don’t say it lightly. I call him that because he attacks the powerless. He’s never stood up to a powerful person or institution in his life.

It’s interesting that New Jersey should be so associated with The Sopranos. It is a relatively accurate presentation of the mob as a bunch of thugs who feed on the weak. And that is what Christie is all about. The fact that he wears a nice suit and has a law degree doesn’t change anything. In fact, that is the traditional form that thugs take. Christie just adds the yelling and the tough guy act and the people eat it up. But we all know that if Christie were around real tough guys he’d be groveling and asking if he could polish their shoes.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo provided an update on one of Christie’s most recent acts of “tough guy” politics, More on Christie’s Ditched Ebola Policy. You may remember earlier this month when Christie quarantined nurse Kaci Hickox. It was hugely popular, because once again, the people of New Jersey believed his brave truth-teller act even though the decision was pure demagoguery.

Along with locking Hickox in a cage for three days, Christie came up with a whole plan to deal with the Ebola crisis that wasn’t happening. Big plans were made. But once Christie got credit for “being tough” the whole project was abandoned. Susan Livio at NJ explained, NJ Police Force Earned 500-Plus Hours of Overtime Guarding Empty Hospital for Ebola Quarantine. It was all a political stunt, which is pretty much all that Christie does:

[PBA Local 113 Attorney Stuart] Alterman called the Hagedorn assignment “an impulsive way to deal with an acute situation that was neither planned very well or executed very well.” He said officers in the 94-member police force were concerned and frustrated they were provided no training to respond in the event a quarantined person become ill.

This morning, Jim Newell wrote an appropriate article over at Salon, No, Chris Christie Isn’t “Back”: Why He May Be Confident, but His Moment Has Passed. It discusses a front page profile by Mark Leibovich in The New York Times magazine:

What Leibovich’s piece omits all mention of is a useful metric for determining whether people do get tired of Christie’s schtick after it loses its novelty. Perhaps — a look at the public opinion polls of New Jersey residents? A late-October survey registered Christie’s statewide approval at 41 percent. That’s low.

It’s nice to think that the people of New Jersey are waking up to Christie’s shtick. I’m not convinced. The people of New Jersey seem to be deluded about who they are, and Christie is very good at using that. Just the same, I’ve never felt that Christie’s act would play in Iowa where it would just be seen as nasty (which it is). Still, given a bad economy in 2016, Christie could easily become president. That would be bad from a policy standpoint, and you can well imagine him turning the White House into a Nixon-like crime headquarters. But more than that, I don’t think I could take years of Christie’s act on the national stage.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics