TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2024
But what about Candidate Harris? Yesterday morning, deep in despair, we listed the names of the four candidates in the presidential election which took place at the dawn of the modern political era.
Our call of the roll was flawless. As you may recall, the hopefuls in question were these:
The candidates in 1960:
John F. Kennedy: United States Senator from Massachusetts
Richard M. Nixon: Vice President of the United States
Lyndon B. Johnson: Senate majority leader; "Master of the Senate"
Henry Cabot Lodge: Former United States Senator from Massachusetts; United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 1953-1960
Three of the four ended up in the White House. Only Lodge, the Republican vice presidential nominee, managed to escape that high honor, though even he gave it a try.
Lodge was a genuine Boston Brahmin. A quick overview goes like this:
Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.
Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (1902 – 1985) was an American diplomat and politician who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate and served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations in the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1960, he was the Republican nominee for Vice President on a ticket with Richard Nixon, who had served two terms as Eisenhower's vice president. The Republican ticket narrowly lost to Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson...
Born in Nahant, Massachusetts, Lodge was the grandson of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the great-grandson of Secretary of State Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen. After graduating from Harvard University, Lodge won election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He defeated Democratic governor James Michael Curley in 1936 to represent Massachusetts in the United States Senate. He resigned from the Senate in 1944 to serve in Italy and France during World War II. In 1946, Lodge defeated incumbent Democratic Senator David I. Walsh to return to the Senate.
He led the Draft Eisenhower movement before the 1952 election and managed Eisenhower's successful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination at the 1952 Republican National Convention. Eisenhower defeated Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson II in the general election, but Lodge lost his own re-election campaign to then-Congressman Kennedy. Lodge was named as ambassador to the United Nations in 1953 and became a member of Eisenhower's Cabinet. Vice President Nixon chose Lodge as his running mate in the 1960 presidential election, but the Republican ticket lost the close election.
In 1963, the now-President Kennedy appointed Lodge to the position of Ambassador to South Vietnam, where Lodge supported the 1963 South Vietnamese coup. In 1964, Lodge won by a plurality a number of that year's party presidential primaries and caucuses on the strength of his name, reputation, and respect among many voters, though the nomination went to Barry Goldwater...
Within the demographics of Massachusetts politics, Lodge defeated We Irish in 1936. He then lost to us (indeed, to Rep. Kennedy himself!) in 1952.
As for the three who did reach the White House, none of the three left that position of his own full free will.
President Kennedy was murdered in 1963. His successor, President Johnson, decided not to seek re-election in 1968 as the society was collapsing around him.
President Nixon resigned from office in 1974. He wanted to spend more time with his family at the San Clemente residence he so loved.
Yesterday, lost in despair about the quality of this year's hopefuls, we glanced back through Theodore White's portrait of another candidate from 1960—his portrait of another candidate who almost reached the White House.
This candidate was defeated by Candidate Kennedy in the 1960 primaries. Plainly, White admired his vast intelligence and his devotion to the regular American people:
WHITE (page 88): What is amazing about [Hubert] Humphrey is the wealth, the diversity, the detail of his knowledge, which runs from internal labor-union politics to the price of milk to the support price on peanuts to the tonnage on the St. Lawrence Seaway to his favorite Food for Peace plan to nuclear disarmament. Name a subject and somewhere, from his reading, Humphrey has picked up an expertise that he has digested and can now deliver, fused with intensity and passion within the frame of his own philosophy: that this is a nation of individuals, of yeoman and country merchants, and government’s job is to keep the big man from crushing the little man.
[...]
What spoiled the Humphrey campaign—apart from the underlying fact that this country, Democrats and Republicans alike, was unwilling to be evangelized in 1960—was the very simplicity, the clarity, the homely sparkle he could bring to any issue. He could talk on almost any subject under the sun—to farmers, to workers, to university intellectuals. And when he finished there were no mysteries left; nor was he a mystery either. He was someone just like the listeners. There was no distance about him, no separation of intrigue, none of the majesty that must surround a king. Humphrey in a druggist’s jacket explaining the problems of druggists in small towns and their inventories (which he could, spectacularly), or Humphrey, joining a picket line to sing “Solidarity Forever,” was just like everyone else; and a President, unfortunately for Humphrey, must be different from everyone else. Humphrey yearned for the attention of the national press; yet the national press, which bore him so deep an affection, considered him almost too easy a friend...
There's much more in White's book about Humphrey's early progressive career, which started in 1945 with his election as the mayor of Minneapolis at the age of 34.
In 1968, he became the latest sitting vice president to be caught in the vortex surrounding the president under whom he had served. After finally breaking with Johnson late in that year's general election, he narrowly lost to Candidate Nixon, who eventually abandoned the Oval under personal stress of some undisclosed kind.
At any rate, three of The 1960 Four eventually reached the White House. That said, they weren't perfect people.
President Kennedy conducted an affair with a 19-year-old intern who actually was 19 years old and who actually was an intern. The extremely unattractive story has been cleaned up a bit in this Wikipedia profile.
(Because President Kennedy is also Dear Jack, our contemporary press corps has rarely mentioned this matter, even as they've endlessly worked to embellish the facts in another.)
Later, Presidents Johnson and Nixon had to abandon their posts. In each case, inevitable human imperfections are believed to have been involved.
With his devotion to ordinary people and with his vast array of knowledge, Candidate Humphrey may have been the most admirable candidate of them all in that watershed year. For ourselves, we've been thinking of those candidates in a state of mild despair as we consider the state of play within "our [flailing] democracy" in this presidential year.
Yesterday, we also listed this year's four candidates. In any perspicacious reckoning of this year's campaign, former candidate Joseph R. Biden plainly makes it five.
Over on the Republican side, the moral and intellectual squalor seem quite apparent this year. We've long assumed that there's "something wrong" with the presidential nominee.
Tribunes of the upper-end press have agreed, right down to the end, that this apparent state of affairs must not be reported or discussed, except through the use of high euphemism. Everyone knows that "something is wrong," but our tribunes continue to be shocked, shocked with each new manifestation which appears.
In yesterday's report, we described the GOP's young vice presidential pick reaching the bottom of the moral barrel. Later yesterday, he managed to take things even further, as reported at Mediate:
Vance Lays Into the Media for ‘Debunking’ Springfield Migrant Claims Instead of Listening to ‘People Speak Their Truth’
Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance laid into the media for “debunking a story that comes from the residents of Springfield” on Monday, and urged journalists to listen “to people speak their truth" after he was criticized for promoting unfounded allegations about Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio.
“I wish the American media was half as interested in the stress on the local schools, the stress on the hospitals, and unaffordable housing as they are in debunking a story that comes from the residents of Springfield,” said Vance at a campaign rally in North Carolina, Monday.
He then questioned, “Did you ever think about listening to people speak their truth instead of listening to some bureaucrat and assuming that everything they tell you is true?”
Sad! Adopting a braindead formulation which largely comes from within Blue America's tribe, the candidate said that the people of Springfield have been "stating their truth" about the eating of their city's cats and dogs. Even Pilate didn't stoop to that level when he posed his famous question, "What is truth?"
The people of Springfield have been "stating their truth" about the eating of cats and dogs! So said this apparently damaged young man, formerly a vastly mistreated child.
In fact, as the two people who triggered this frenzy have continued to speak their truth, they've apologized for misstating "the" truth in their original claims. But it seems that nothing is going to stop the very young man who was apparently damaged by the highly disordered upbringing he described in a best-selling book.
Meanwhile, Candidate Trump explained himself further yesterday. It isn't just the Jews, he has now said. Catholics also have to be crazy to vote for "Comrade Kamala," this unusual hopeful has now declared.
Say what you will about Candidates Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson—none of the three was capable of this sort of gong-show, end-days campaign conduct. As for us the regular people in whom Candidate Humphrey had such faith, we the people are proving ourselves to be capable of believing almost anything during such highly fraught times as these—and we'd say that there are signs of this human proclivity among Red and Blue tribunes alike.
Inevitably, there are also the two Democratic candidates—Candidates Harris and Vance. At present, they're being slimed as obvious Commies and China symps all over the Fox News Channel.
As this happens, Blue America's great news orgs avert their gaze, choosing instead to focus all day on the latest largely useless polls.
In the last two days, Joe Scarborough has turned from Morning Joe into Shouting Joe as he has ranted about the fact that some people don't precisely agree with his every stance concerning the current race. In truth, there are shortcomings on display with our candidates too, and some people have noticed this fact.
As we've noted, we're going to vote for Candidate Harris, who has been sensational in some aspects of this campaign. As with the previous Candidate Humphrey, she is significantly hobbled by her association with the horrors of the previous Candidate Biden.
That strikes us as largely dumb and unfair. But that is the expected norm in all human reasoning.
That said, she too seems to be a limited person, as has always been true of everyone else.
No candidate was ever perfect. As these end days glide along, we'll review our own hopefuls tomorrow.
Tomorrow: Jonathan plays the card
"with the horrors of the previous Candidate Biden."
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone here imagine Somerby forgiving Joe Biden for the lowest unemployment rate in over half a century?
Why would an historically low unemployment rate be something for which a candidate should be forgiven?
DeleteOh, wait. You were being ironic. I wonder if other writers ever use irony? Perhaps even Somerby himself?
A mind-blowing thought.
When there is a nation full of people deciding how to vote, what is the point of using "irony" that readers cannot confidently detect as ironic?
DeleteSomerby never defended Biden, so why should anyone think he respects the achievements of our current Democratic president? Somerby doesn't even like the person he says he is voting for. She is far too imperfect for him to ever say anything nice about her, aside from that wonderful smile (women should be attractive, right?).
Irony only works when the reader is sure of the author's actual intentions. Somerby never says anything clearly, so who knows what he intends with this so-called irony. Somerby wanted Biden gone; that is his context of prior statements. It makes more sense to believe he meant the word "horrors" as a criticism of Biden, perhaps an exaggeration of right-wing criticism of Biden, but not irony.
Here is a quote:
Delete“In our view, Candidate Biden is a terrible candidate; Candidate Warren is too. They're terrible in different ways, but they're terrible candidates both.”
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2019/11/candidate-biden-calls-warren-schoolmarm.html?
m=1#comment-form
Doesn’t seem ironic to me.
"She is far too imperfect for him to ever say anything nice about her"
DeleteOne would inded have to search far and wide, all the way up to today's post, to find Somerby saying something nice about Harris:
"...Candidate Harris, who has been sensational in some aspects of this campaign."
Yes, Somerby DID say that Harris has a great smile. That is the ONLY thing he has called sensational about her campaigning. He has otherwise joined those blaming her for not giving enough interviews and sharing her views with voters. We call the people saying that "Republicans" and the press that normalizes Trump.
Delete"As for the three who did reach the White House, none of the three left that position of his own full free will. "
ReplyDeleteIgnore the facts. Only JFK left office involuntarily by dying. LBJ decided not to seek another term and Nixon resigned. That is voluntary, even if there were factors affecting their decisions. When you bend the facts, as Somerby is doing, you lose track of reality. Keeping touch with reality requires being faithful to truth in your own thinking. Somerby doesn't do that much, based on his writing here.
Somerby's headline today is vague but suggestive. He says: "Two candidates continue their fall!" Then he recaps four presidential candidates from the past, who cannot be the two in question because there are too many of them. Then Somerby spends some time recapping Vance and Trump's latest disasters. Are they the two candidates in fall? Could be, but Somerby doesn't say so. Then he gets to Joe Scarborough, who is blamed for holding opinions on his own show. And then Somerby winds up saying this about Harris:
"As we've noted, we're going to vote for Candidate Harris, who has been sensational in some aspects of this campaign. As with the previous Candidate Humphrey, she is significantly hobbled by her association with the horrors of the previous Candidate Biden.
That strikes us as largely dumb and unfair. But that is the expected norm in all human reasoning.
That said, she too seems to be a limited person, as has always been true of everyone else.
No candidate was ever perfect. As these end days glide along, we'll review our own hopefuls tomorrow."
So perhaps the two candidates in "fall" are Harris and Walz, but that doesn't fit Somerby's description either, because despite his admonition to ignore useless polls, Harris and Walz are pulling ahead in the polls, rising in stature as people discover more about Harris and as Trump/Vance self-destruct. So, is the word "fall" really appropriate? Does it describe anything about Harris/Walz? Not in terms of reality, polling data, or any other measure. So, why the negative label? Does Somerby wish to see Harris fall? You'd almost think so, given that he can barely say anything positive about the candidate he says he supports.
This is how Somerby plays his word games. But when you play word games, you come across as confused. You longer someone pretends to be something else, the less sure he will be of who he really is. But perhaps Somerby has taken to shilling for the right because he lost track of his own values back in 2015. If he no longer knows what he believes, he has nothing to lose by being what others want him to be.
It seems as though Somerby is judging Harris based on her show-biz performance as a candidate and not based on her accomplishments, policies, values or plans as president. He says "she has been sensational in some aspects of this campaign," as if the ability to campaign were a qualification for doing the work of president, when it is far from it. This is the same mistaken argument Somerby (and others) made when they demanded Biden not run because of his lack of vigor as a campaigner.
DeleteWhen did campaigning become theater, a reality show, instead of a means for voters to find out about the candidates? Somerby's focus on the advent of TV, suggests it may have been back when voters started to get a good look at their candidates. Instead of analyzing whether this change has been a good way to select the president, Somerby joins the crowd by suggesting the arm-waving abilities matter to the job after the election. If that were true, Trump might have been a good president instead of the worst ever.
"...when they demanded Biden not run because of his lack of vigor as a campaigner."
DeleteThe argument for Biden to withdraw did focus primarily on his weakness as a campaigner, which may not be much of a predictor as to how you'll govern, but is an excellent predictor of whether you'll govern.
Was it a good predictor of whether Trump would serve well in the job in 2016? It seems to me that Trump was very energetic at his rallies and then spent his presidency playing golf and engaging in "executive time" which consisted of naps and TV watching, while refusing to do traditional aspects of the job itself, including listening to morning briefings (since he refused to read anything).
Delete“ latest largely useless polls”
ReplyDeleteNOW the polls are useless.
Somerby was reporting daily on polls when Biden was being drummed out of office.
How can Harris be hobbled by a successful presidency, like that of Biden? Humphrey was supposedly hobbled by LBJ's presidency, but it was more that he was hobbled by the Vietnam war, and racist backlash to the Civil Rights Act, and an unhelpful VP choice. LBJ did not start the war and he didn't cause the youth movement that supported the push for civil rights emerging in the 1960s and continuing through the 70s until the "greed is good" 80s.
ReplyDeleteSomerby makes a historical analysis mistake when he reduces social and economic factors to personality flaws in candidates. But Somerby has expressed his idea that charisma overcomes such factors before. He complained about Biden's lack of charisma, but look how Biden transcended his lack of Trumpian arm-waving to do a stellar (not horrible) job as president! (no irony intended by this exclamation point, just emphasis and enthusiasm)
Whatever Somerby is looking for in a "perfect" candidate, perhaps he is seeking the wrong things. And does anyone need to be reminded of Gore's lack of charisma? Gore too might have been one of those men who would achieve well in the job, even if he was lacking charm as a circus performer.
"That strikes us as largely dumb and unfair. But that is the expected norm in all human reasoning."
ReplyDeleteI think it is dumb and unfair of Somerby to characterize human reasoning this way. Human reasoning evolved to enable the survival of our species. Judging by population data, we have done an excellent job at that. Individual people might reach an occasional dumb and unfair judgment, but if we did that regularly as a species, we wouldn't be doing as well as we are.
This is more of the doom and gloom thinking that embodies Trump's approach to politics, instills fear for the future and drives people to vote Republican. Somerby's ongoing lack of optimism and his depressive tone are additional reasons why I believe he is not liberal but is shilling for the right wing.
He seems to be pretending that he just must damn Harris with faint praise (no praise) because he has high standards and demands perfection in candidates for office, and indeed, in all of humanity. But that is hogwash. Accepting the imperfections of the world doesn't require that a person go to the other extreme, calling all the Democrats terrible candidates, ignoring the good done by Biden (with Harris), never acknowledging what Harris does right (which is considerable not occasional), and noticing that the world has gotten better over time, by applying human reasoning to solve our shared problems and make this a better place for everyone to live (worldwide). Those things are true too, while Somerby spins a Trumpian tale of dysfunction that requires a strongman leader because democracy has failed and it is time for the neo-Nazis to take over (because this where Somerby's reasoning leads him).
"Sad! Adopting a braindead formulation which largely comes from within Blue America's tribe, the candidate said that the people of Springfield have been "stating their truth" about the eating of their city's cats and dogs. Even Pilate didn't stoop to that level when he posed his famous question, "What is truth?""
ReplyDeleteSomerby calls listening to what the people are saying a "braindead formulation" and claims it arises on the left, even though Vance uses it here to justify the anecdote he has admitted "creating" to keep the focus on immigration issues.
What kind of liberal calls the values of his own side "braindead"? Politicians are supposed to listen to the needs of their constituents because that is how democracy works. It is not braindead to insist that happen, nor is it braindead to champion the interests of the people (as Harris does when she supports the middle class against corporate abuses, as she has done her entire career).
Vance stole that idea and advanced it as a justification for his lie, but instead of pointing out that Vance is lying and blaming non-existent people in Springfield for that lie, Somerby agrees with Vance and disavows the lefty view that the needs of the people matter.
The idea of immigrants eating pets is an anti-immigrant slur applied to stigmatized people from early days. Somerby should have recognized that and called that out in Vance's braindead defense of his lies about Haitians. Somerby is more likely to agree with the attacks on immigrants and Biden's horrible immigration policy (adopted from Trump) instead. Somerby buys into Trump's hate-mongering and holds that against Harris and Biden (and by extension Democrats, who favor humane treatment and rational immigration policies).
So, Somerby defends Vance when he wraps himself in lefty rhetoric in order to excuse his lie about Haitians eating pets, by attacking left-wing views about listening to the complaints of the people. Even though Vance didn't actually do that, in this situation.
Maybe Somerby was being ironic again?
DeleteSomerby says: "Inevitably, there are also the two Democratic candidates—Candidates Harris and Vance. At present, they're being slimed as obvious Commies and China symps all over the Fox News Channel."
ReplyDeleteAnd in the paragraph above by Somerby, Vance is also being slimed as being a Democrat, when he is Trump's VP and Somerby obviously meant to slime Walz instead.
Meanwhile Somerby repeats Vance's canard about being raised in Appalachia when Vance grew up in a middle class suburb in Ohio. His grandparents also lived in Ohio, not Kentucky, while Vance was growing up. None of them is a hillbilly, unless you want to apply that term to all middle class midwesterners.
Vance told lies in his book Hillbilly Elegy. These are catalogued by several reviewers and there has been some outrage in Kentucky about them too. Why can't Somerby take the time to investigate the things Vance says before repeating them?
And if he is going to repeat a slur against Harris about being Communist and supporting China, can't he spend a sentence debunking those slurs? Or does he want them to stand?
“ Inevitably, there are also the two Democratic candidates—Candidates Harris and Vance.”
ReplyDeleteOops. Vance?