Welcome to the blog created to enhance the American Studies Lectures and Seminars that I give at the University of Cergy Pontoise. You will find links to the google group where I have posted the material you need for the class and links to articles, videos and audio documents of interest.
Enjoy your visit and feel free to leave comments.
Aude de Mézerac
Happy New Year to all of you and thank you for visiting my blog.
With everyone waiting with bated breath for the inauguration and the festivities it will entail in Washington, DC ( the recommended means of transportation is walking, even for people living more than a few miles away!), it's time to find out what has been going on in the last couple weeks.
1. The Blagovich story is still alive and kicking or rather picking.
The governor of Illinois, despite being indicted for corruption in the 'pay to play' scheme for the nomination of President Elect Obama's successor, has nominated Rolland Burris to the Senate. On Meet the Press Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader had made clear that he would not seat Blagojevich's appointee, who ever s/he may be, because, regardless on the capacities on any appointee, the appointment process is tainted by the appointor.
But Roland Burris who was denied his credentials once and thrown out of the Capitol under the rain, is making his voice heard and basically daring Harry Reid not to seat him, with rather clear undertones of accusations of racism. So it now seems that the Senate Leader will have to give in and accept Blagojevich's appointee.
Meanwhile, the Illinois House has voted to impeach the governor with a majority of 114 to 1 ! However, Blagojevich was still operating as the governor for several weeks.
2. What happened to Bill Richardson, the humourous governor of New Mexico?
He had been nominated by the Obama administration to be commerce secretary but decided to step down because of a pending investigation into potential misconduct from administration; i.e. the awarding of a lucrative contract to a political donor. Without admitting any wrong doing, Bill Richardson decided not to seek confirmation since the inquiry could lenghthen the hearing process in the Senate and thus hinder the government's tackling of the economic crisis which should be highly prioritized. Obama did not encourage Richardson to drop out, nor did he try to stop him. Whether the incoming administration knew anything about this is uncertain. How good is President Obama's vetting process? ( more on that soon!)
3. The Minneasota Senatorial race reached an end with the election of the Democrat Al Franken, with a margin of only 200 votes and with criticism from the Republicans that the votes were not counted fairly, that is the ambiguous ballots were overwhelmingly counted in favour of Al Franken. If you want to see for yourself why the attribution of some ballots is difficult, check this out; you'll see you different American ballots are from their French counterparts. Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent has challenged the election through the State justice system we will see how this plays out : click here for fresh news ( February, 3).
I hope this prolonged break has not cost me all me readers, and I am looking forward to your questions to spur me on...
In most US States when a Senate seat becomes empty (for cause of death, resignation or election to another office), the governor gets to appoint someone to fill in until the next election.
By now I suppose every one has heard of the ugly scandal that is currently unfolding in Illinois. The Democratic goveror Rod Blagojevich was caught talking about exchanging the Senate seat vacated by Obama for something (preferably involving money for him, his wife or his campaign) on a wire-tap. This is referred to as the "pay to play" scheme.
What is most surprising is not that the governor should try to "trade" the Senate seat for fundraising (obviously that must be a common practice, how could it not be?) but that he should be so open about the personal benefits that he could obtain but most mind-boggling is the fact that he had the cheek to do this over the phone. He should have known better, all the more so since he knew he was under investigation byPatrick J Fitzgerald a federal prosecutor for other allegations of corruption !
A little time watching HBO's extraordinary TV series The Wire ( Sur Ecoute, in France) would have prevented great harm to the governor and his reputation. Bagojevich is constantly compared to Tony Soprano by the media, although the mobster was probably a bit more FBI wary than the politician.
Now how does all this affect President-elect Obama?
Although personally, there is no love lost between the two men and Obama would certainly not want to be involved in this corrupt business, there are several reasons to suspect that the President-elect (and/or his staff) might have known more than he claimed in recent declarations.
1. It is the Senate seat that he has just vacated : so although he has denied any wrongdoing and even any direct or staff-channelled contact with the governor or his staff, it seems a bit unlikely that Obama would know nothing at all about who was being considered to replace him and that he
2. Several of the candidates considered were close Obama aides or advisors. And Jesse Jackson Jr. formerly responsible for Obama's fundraising operation (remember how he repudiated his father's rude gaffe) was actually referred to as "candidate number 5" in telephone conversations and one of his aides had been approached with the deal. The content of these phonecalls seem to indicate that the congressman agreed to help with the governor's fundraising in exchange for the Senate position.
In the left leaning blog The Nation, John Nichols makes the case to defend Jesse Jackson Jr by arguing that the congressman has a history of defending reform and refusing to compromise politically, making him thus unlikely of trying to accept the governor's pay to play game. I can see the point but wonder whether it is really convincing : does being honest and ready to risk politial capital in many circumstances prove that you would never accept to raise money in exchange for a position to which you are unlikely of getting elected.
3. In some of the governor's dreamland scenarii, he would get appointed in the Obama administration in exchange for the Senate seat. How could Obama's staff be completely ignorant of this? Or we could also imagine and some have argued that the Obama staff may be the ones who blew the whistle on the governor's wheelings and dealings and warned the federal prosecutor of what was going on. In that case, they should have come clean about it as soon as possible.
4. The fourth and strongest connection between the Obama administration and Rod Blagojevich is the future chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel who worked very closely with the governor in the past. These two know each other very well and Emmanuel is certainly the person with whom the governor or his staff would have got in touch if they wanted to exchange favors. Click here for more on this : to read an article reporting that sources confirmed that Emmanuel had spoken to Blagojevich's chief of staff.
I don't want to argue that Obama and his staff knew about this but rather more modestly that it seems a bit unlikely that no one on the President elect's team knew anything about the governor's shennenigans.
A quick reminder, worth mentionning even if it is obvious to most of you.
In analytical terms the Republican base is composed of several different groups and thus the party is highly dependent the existence of this coalition, for no single group has the clout to make the GOP a viable party by itself ( of course some people adhere to all of these ideas)
The strength of the GOP in the past has relied on holding together (in no particular order) :
1. the deficit hawks or fiscal conservatives, these are often proponents of small government, eager to let the States, local governement and, even better, individuals themselves take control of their destinies ( they resemble a mild strain of libertarians).
2. the foreign policy hawks (aka "neocons" or neoconservatives), who were advocates of American intervention in foreign countries, as a way of maintaining American interests and domination in world affairs. Their position in the GOP is considerably less dominant than it was at the beginning of George W Bush's term.
3. the social conservatives, who promote traditional values; they will fight for the institution of mariage, against abortion.
All three groups were dissapointed by the Bush administration and it's proving harder than ever to hold them together in a coalition. The fiscal conservatives have gone ballistic over the cost of the Bush wars and over the biggest government expansion ever experienced under a Republican President (with the exception of Lincoln, perhaps... if you remember the exam I set in January 2008). The social conservatives are upset that Bush didn't/couldn't do more to implement their agenda on marriage and abortion. Each group accuses the others of having cost them the election : group 1 and 2 think that the Palin selection (which enthused group 3) is to blame for alienating independents voters. Group 1 and 3 feel that the war in Irak burnt up the party's capital and betrayed the Republican values. Group 1 resents group 2 and the national security wizz team of having endangered American liberties (Patriot Act, wiretapping...) And so forth...
Moreover, each section seems to be tugging in opposite directions and reconciliation of all these conflicting interests appears virtually impossible now.
Two main questions :
What direction will the party take and what will be the policy priorities of the GOP?
- Will the party focus back on small government, fiscal restraint and individual liberties. Is such a shift politically desirable in the context of an economic meltdown?
- How important will social issues be in the future of the GOP? The social conservatives themselves are starting to splinter : the younger generation is becoming more involved in environmental protection and less in fighting against gay marriage. Some evangelicals are willing to team with Obama to reduce the number of abortions and to tackle the challenges raised by climate change.
- Can a new GOP emerge with a platform more finely atunned to the challenges America is faced with : immigration and integration; financial turmoil due in part to reduced regulation; healthcare... For now the Democrats' answers to these questions have appealed to the voters, but the onus is now on the GOP to come up with viable policies that provide long term solutions that are congruent with the Republican ideals and values. Whether these values need to be refashioned is another question the party will have to grapple with.
I believe that there's nothing like a stint in the opposition to stimulate policy makers and political thinkers.
The subsidiary question which is related to the first is : Who will lead the Republican Party? To name but a few: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney (remember how he dropped out of the primary race for the good of party and country !), Newt Gingrich ( who led the opposition to President Clinton in Congress). But there are many others out there waiting for the chance to become the GOP standard bearer in 2012. Who do you think could take up the mantle of the party? What would it mean for the GOP?
After a long thanksgiving leave, during which, among other important things, a boysterous Sarah Palin was interviewed "while turkeys were slaughtered in the background", I'm back to tackle the best I can a momentous topic : what now for the GOP?
But before that I'd like to answer the question asked by one of you : what's with Georgia? And why the hype about the 60 strong Democratic majority in the Senate?
Remember that the US Constitution lets each State make provisions for the electoral rules they wish to apply, which made it possible for some States to disenfranchise certain citizens in the past.
A runoff is organised when no candidate has reached the 50% +1 vote margin required in certain States which have a two round system (as we do in France for most of our elections; the word runoff is thus translated into "deuxième tour"). In most States, a plurality system voting is the rule ( also called "first past the post" as it is referred to in England, for instance) and so there can be no runoffs. In Georgia, the vote was split between three candidates (Rep; Dem and Libertarian), neither of which won a majority, hence the runoff election between the incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) and Jim Martin (D). The runoff was won by the Republican candidate, as expected (NYT article). The GOP base was very excited about the runoff, much more than the Democratic base, and Chambliss described this election as the last ligne of defence protecting the US from Democratic Party tyranny.
Why ? Because if the Democrats have a majority of 60 in the Senate they will be able prevent an opposition Senator from filibustering.
Filibustering is a practice of legislative obstruction by which a Senator takes the floor during a debate on a bill and does not stop talking untill the session is adjourned, the practice is commonly started before a Congressional recess ( Christmas/Summer break). A successful filibuster thus prevents a bill from being voted.
For a fictional rendition of this practice watch in The West Wing, season 2, episode 17. There is also a great scene of filibustering in the classic Mr Smith goes to Washington (1939).
Filibustering is often used to block appointments to Cabinet positions than require Senatorial confirmation (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General...).
The only way to stop a filibuster is for a majority of 60 senators to cast a vote (called "cloture") ending a floor debate and thus precipitating the vote on the bill. If the Democrats had such a majority, the Republicans fear that they would rubberstamp any Obama appointments and crush all opposition. And obviously, a bigger the majority the easier it will be for the Dems to pass legislation.
How close are/were the Democrats to the magic number of 60 Senators? If we have a glance at the electoral map and the result of the 2008 election, what we see is that the Democrats have 56 seats, the Republicans 41 and there are 2 independent Senators, including the very controversial figure of Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who vocally supported McCain during the campaign and criticized Obama, for an up-date on his position in the Democratic caucus and his ability to keep his comittee chairmanship : read this.
Basically 3 seats were left undecided after the election and were proving critical for the Democrats to establish a complete hegemony in the Senate : Georgia (no longer an issue now), Alaska and Minnesota.
Alaska's incumbent Senator Ted Stevens (convicted on several counts of felony, days before the election) lost to his Democratic opponents by a very narow margin and the result was finally known on the 18th of November.
Whereas in Minnesota, the election was so close that an automatic recount was ordered, in compliance with the State electoral laws. The feud oppose former comedian Al Franken (D) to incumbent Norm Coleman (R), each has won 42% of the vote, with 15% going to Independent Dean Barkley. As I write the gap between the two candidates is about 225 votes! The election could really go either way; read about projection models in the NYTimes. The final results will be in around the 19th of December.
I'm creating a new post to talk about the future of the GOP, this one is long enough already.
One of the deep changes that this election year seems to have brought about is a shift in the geo-political balance of the country. After being the stronghold of the Democrats for a century, the South tipped to the Republicans thanks to Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968 and due to the committment of the Democrats to civil rights reform, racial integration and federal control of the implementation of these policies.
Since then, the South has been considered:
1. a bastion of Republicanism
2. a must-win for any presidential candidate
These two ideas may seem contradictory at first (since Democrats won 3 presidential elections since the 1970s), but remember that the two Democratic Presidents since the 1970s (and for that matter since Lyndon B. Johnson) were southerners and that was a contributing factor to their electoral victory : they managed to take the South (or chunks of it) away from the Republican Party.
Jimmy Carter, a former Senator and Governor from Georgia, won every single Southern State in 1976 (see electoral map). In 1992, the all Southern ticket, Clinton (Governor of Arkansas)+ Gore (Senator from Tennessee) made significant inroads in the South, taking Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas along with Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee ( see 1992 electoral map) ; in 1996, the incumbent President and VP won Florida and lost Georgia ( see 1996 electoral map).
The region’s absence from Mr. Obama’s winning formula means it “is becoming distinctly less important,” said Wayne Parent, a political scientist at Louisiana State University. “The South has moved from being the center of the political universe to being an outside player in presidential politics.”
The South is losing its make or break status in presidential politics because :
- this year NO Southerners were on the presidential tickets of either party.
- the South is breaking up as a voting block ( I'd qualify this: look at the Clinton electoral victories) : with peripheral, more suburban and educated states (NC, Va and Fl) falling out of step with the rest of the region.
- the Southern white male vote went emphatically to McCain and is no longer needed to win the election.
- the South is now the last bastion of Republicanism ( I'd say : have another look at the electoral map, the Mid West is solidly GOP as well!) and the country's political divide may well be a sectional one as well, i.e. geographical areas are split up between the parties. In this case, there are very few Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives elected by the North-East, which is solidly Democratic and it's the other way around in the South . I trust that my students remember what the sectional divide of the country build the grounds for in the 1840-60s.
I'd like to add that perhaps the South is changing and turning away from some of its core beliefs (opposition to federal/Northern interference, defence of small governement and low taxes; all of which can be summarized in the motto "States' Rights" with all the historical baggage that comes with it...) and rattled as it is by the crisis may well be opening up to some of the Democratic policy proposals. I still have in mind the uncanny homemade sign mentionned earlier : "Rednecks 4 Obama, cause even we're sick of this s#@*".
How true this general analysis will prove to be is difficult to assess.
Why? Because of the rather unsual circumstances of this electoral contest : an incumbent president with the lowest ratings ever, an embattled Republican party, a Black candidate, an unprecedented economic crisis. All the factors certainly distorted the political dynamics of the country. And whether some of the trends, initiated in 2008, will prove lasting is yet to be seen.
I was thinking of discussing the future of the Republican Party in one of my next posts, rather than President elect Obama's transition team. Does that sound good?
Pictures contributed by my special correspondant in Atlanta, Georgia
The British media had quite a laugh when they heard that the French president had spent a whole 30 minutes on the phone with the President elect. Gordon Brown reported a 10 minute conversation.
Listen to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions broadcast on Friday (if you listen to it on their website, the programme doesn't start immediately, to hear the joke go directly to : 13'30 to get the context of the discussion about the "special relationship").
From my special correspondant in Atlanta, Georgia two pictures I would like to share with you:
You'll have noticed the confederate flag's unexpected apparition in the O. How to explain this paradox? Let's ask them :
Do pardon my French, I'm sure they'd say. But this seem to show a momentous change happening in America, at least symbolically. More pictures and stories from Atlanta in a later post.
Now that the headlines are perhaps starting to settle down and turn to other issues than the American presidential election, it is perhaps time to take a step back, try and understand what has happened, what Obama's election means and how it was acheived.
1. The first Black President.
The media everywhere, and perhaps even more so in France and European countries have been prompt to hail Obama's victory as one for all African-Americans and people of colour. We've all read expressions as "racial barriers are breaking down". How true is this?
It's difficult to say, but what I do think needs reminding is that:
- Obama never ran as the/a Black candidate, making his bid very different from that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 and thus attracting some tough remarks from the latter. His was a "post-racial" campaign. When he called attention to his skin colour it was always in the context of heralding the possibilities of America, in which a man born of a woman from Kansas and a man from Kenya would become a presidential candidate. He doesn't not have the same background or experience of African-Americans whose collective identity was forged by the memory of slavery and segregation. Obama is from a different background and a different generation.
- The theme of "change" was broad enough to serve as a vehicle to each person's aspirations : so the Democrat's victory is different things to different people. Obviously for African-Americans and for many others the main "change" was the possibility to vote for a Black president for the first time. But the rhetoric of "change" certainly meant many other things.
In his speech Obama clearly emphasized that his election was not enough of a "change"; there was a lot more to be done to rebuild America, its self confidence and its international standing.
2. The historic nature of the election.
The word (beware of the difference between historic and historical) has been on every lip and at the tip of every pen or keypad for the last couple of weeks. It's always difficult to assess, as it is happening, how historic an election will prove to be.
At the very least, 2008 will be a historic election because people saw it as a unique moment in history and millions of Americans were eager to participate in it and "make history". I think that this is probably the most striking feature of the election, regardless of its real historic nature (which I do not doubt, don't get me wrong), its perceived historic nature is even more interesting. People truly believed they were making the American dream come true, revealing the true nature of American values. This will probably go down in history books as a great moment of self-definition and of nation-building.
Obama's wonderful talents as a speaker have also emphasized the theme of "history in the making". In his victory he uses the example of a Black woman from Selma, Alabama to paint the backdrop of his victory:
He goes through the important events of the last 106 years (the age of this voter) : slavery wasn't very far away, women couldn't vote, the Depression was followed by the New Deal, World War II was fought to defend democracy, the civil rights movement was also based on the extension of American values to all, regardless of skin colour. He mentions the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-6 sparked off by Rosa Parks, the Birmingham fight against segregation and the brutal use of force by the police chief "Bull" O'Connor, the preacher from Atlanta, Dr. Martin Luther King, whose rhetoric flows in Obama's speech : especially at the end when he echoes the last words of the pastor : that maybe not in one year or in one term but that "as a nation we will get there".
Many are inclined to see this election as the last step of the civil rights movement, as Obama himself suggests here. And his election certainly meant a lot to some people in Selma, as cleverly and touchingly presented in this video from the NYTimes.
The scale of the involvement of the grass-roots is unheard of; so perhaps even more significant than Obama's victory is how he won.
3. The how and the why.
The senator from Illinois won thanks to :
- an amazing locally based network of active supporters. These figures really blew my mind : 2/3 of the people who voted for Obama had been contacted by someone from his campaign ( phone or face to face, excluding robo-calls). For McCain the figure is 1/4. The outreach effort was huge. The voter registration drive was also unprecedented : 19% of Black voters were voting for the first time (and 8% of whites). Two important consituencies for Obama : women, the young and Blacks ( International Herald Tribune).
- new-technology and the internet, used to raise mind-boggling amounts of cash.
- a well organized campaign that never strayed from its plan. The team was focussed, disciplined and used his opponent's mistakes to his advantage : many now see McCain's "the fundementals of the economy are strong" remark in the midst of the financial meltdown as the tipping point in the campaign (mid-September).
- and last but not least (!) the candidate himself, a remarkable speaker, thinker and campaigner, with a much needed message of change, union and hope.
I should add to the factors explaining the Democratic win that John McCain was dogged by :
- a fledging economy
- president Bush's poor record
- the Republican brand, which was toxic.
- a poorly organized campaign team
- his VP choice : for the last two days I've been hearing alarming comments leaked by McCain advisers on her attitude and ignorance (it's appalling stuff and I'd hope that it's not true for the sake of Republicans)
4. Things seenand links
I've watched an interesting video on the perspective of Muslim students from NY on America, the election, how Obama's campaign reacted to Muslim supporters and how they decided not to advertise their support for fear of stoking the rumours that Obama was a Muslim ( always used to discredit his candidacy by some vile opponents).
For an emotional video overview of the last two years of campaigning : watch this, it will bring up memories.
