Nixonland- Master of Division.

Posted on January 4, 2015 by billmanzi

Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-72Nixonland: America’s Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-72 by Rick Perlstein
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Perlstein brings us back to Nixonland, and it is not a pretty picture. I had read the earlier book “Before the Storm” by Perlstein, and “Nixonland” brings us from Goldwater to Nixon, positing that Nixon planted the seeds that grew into the current huge divide in American political life. Perlstein had shown us the the rise of the right wing dominance of GOP politics in “Before the Storm”and the comfort that the American left took in the drubbing of Barry Goldwater by LBJ in 1964. Despite Perlstein coming from the left he shows how that “comfort” on the left after the LBJ landslide masked the deep divide that was about to become evident in American political life. And Perlstein is not afraid to show how the left so badly misunderstood some of the currents running through the country that brought us the Presidency of Richard Nixon.

This book is not a biography of Richard Nixon but rather a snapshot of a crazy time in American life and politics. It is very detailed, and covers lots of ground. We see how Richard Nixon began his comeback from the political abyss, doing the nitty gritty of hard work in the 1966 mid-terms, traveling the country for the GOP, and being in a position to take some credit (and gather some chits) for a gain of 47 Republican seats in the House, and 3 in the US Senate. Perlstein shows how the Republicans (and Nixon in particular) came to exploit the deep divide over Vietnam as well as the fears and prejudices of race in America. Race divisions are a large part of this book, and I think Perlstein is on mark there. I have read some reviews of the book that claim Perlstein has overstated the impact of this era and Nixon on our current divisions. On race I would have to disagree with that assessment. With the Democratic Party embracing Civil Rights, and Democratic majorities (driven by LBJ and the Movement itself) in Congress enacting major legislation and leaving behind its segregationist (racist) wing Nixon and the GOP saw opportunity and votes in the South, which brought us the Nixon “Southern Strategy”, frankly embracing the racist element and trying to dress it up as a “states right” movement. That determination by Nixon and the GOP drove African-Americans to the Democratic Party, and has led to a GOP dominance with white voters, especially white males. I would have to say that Perlstein has that part of Nixon’s legacy exactly right.

Perlstein does have plenty of criticism of the left as well. We see how the outrages of 1968, where Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without winning a primary, led to the reforms of 1972, which badly split the Democratic Party. Perlstein shows Nixon (“the Master”) not only ruthlessly exploiting these divisions but through a myriad of dirty tricks helping to create them. (Yes we get another look at Donald Segretti and Dwight Chapin). We get another look at the Democratic Convention of 1968 in Chicago, and how the Yippies and assorted other youth groups created street chaos, and how that chaos was exploited by Nixon. That street violence and the divide between police and demonstrators brought the type of divisions we are seeing today, with Nixon appealing to the “Silent Majority” against “scrubby and dirty” demonstrators.”And let me also say, ladies and gentlemen, I can assure them that they are a very loud minority in this country, but they are a minority, and it’s time for the majority to stand up and be counted.” Nixon, responding to demonstrators at a campaign stop. Seems to have some applicability today.

Watergate of course leads us to the end of Nixon’s Presidency, but for me the biggest indictment Perlstein makes is relative to Nixon’s conduct (as a candidate) in undercutting the LBJ opportunity to make gains in peace talks with North Vietnam, and the utter mess that became Nixon’s Vietnam policy (as President), colored by cynical political calculation and a willingness to be absolutely brutal in his conduct of the war.

I must concur with the evaluation of Richard Nixon, love him or hate him, as one of the most influential Presidents of the 20th Century. This book does not paint RMN in a very positive light, but I think it hits the mark much of the time. On “the more things change the more they stay the same” front Perlstein highlights a Nixon ad attacking the George McGovern proposal for a guaranteed income for every American: “According to an analysis by the Senate Finance Committee, the McGovern bill would make forty-seven percent of the people in the United States eligible for welfare.’ Slowly, angrily:’Forty-seven percent. Almost every other person in the country would be on welfare. The camera moves on the bustling, blaring street below- the 53 percent.” Maybe Mitt Romney read the book. The GOP playbook still has many pages written by “The Master”, Richard M. Nixon.

View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

First Aid Kit- Music from Krugman????

Posted on December 28, 2014 by billmanzi

Much to the chagrin of my more conservative friends I not only read Paul Krugman’s New York Times column but his blog as well. Krugman, on his blog, highlights some musical selections that he enjoys on Friday nights. I must say that one of those musical selections, from a group called “First Aid Kit”, piqued my interest. When listening to some radio over the holiday I heard them again, and I am hooked. A Swedish folk duo consisting of two sisters Johanna and Klara Söderberg, the music is entrancing. So will I now be accused of having socialistic musical tastes? Enjoy the music!

Posted in Music, Song of the Week | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Above the Fray- Dukakis on the 1988 Campaign

Posted on December 27, 2014 by billmanzi

The 1988 Presidential campaign keeps crossing my path lately. I finished reading “What it Takes” by Richard Ben Cramer, reviewed below, that was a terrific book about that campaign, looked at through the eyes of several of the candidates. NBC-Learn has just put out a great video that gives a view from Michael Dukakis himself. The Duke talks about several things that were central to the campaign, including the Dukakis campaign release to the media of the plagiarism charge against then Senator Biden (done through John Sasso, who lost his job with Dukakis over it), the return of Sasso during the general election campaign against George H.W. Bush, the Dukakis in the tank episode (which was omitted from the Cramer book), the Willie Horton furlough issue, and Dukakis talking about his debate response to the “rape of Kitty Dukakis” question. In todays busy world it is difficult to find the time to watch a 37 minute video but if you like politics this one is worth the watch.

One of the things that is crystal clear is that Michael Dukakis steps up repeatedly and points the finger of blame at himself for this loss. Throughout the film he identifies himself as the player making key decisions that he admits in retrospect were incorrect. He allows himself one small indulgence, when talking about the return of John Sasso to the campaign, which he said was “floundering” and needed Sasso’s expertise. But in the end Sasso “didn’t win the campaign for me”, which might be the only time the Duke expresses some doubt about the campaign team he assembled. Dukakis realizes that his determination to run a “clean” campaign, which had proved to be a successful formula in the primaries (with the Biden exception)just did not serve him well against the H.W. Bush onslaught of negativity.

The media masterminds for Bush were Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater, and they hit Dukakis with everything but the kitchen sink. The Duke does not express regret over the tank episode itself, pointing out that Bush had been photographed riding in a tank as well. But in the hands of Ailes and Atwater the image of Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank while George H.W. Bush is saying that “Dukakis has opposed every new weapons system since the slingshot” made Dukakis the object of ridicule. Dukakis acknowledges the impact of the ads, candidly admitting that he and his team were not prepared with the proper responses.

The one huge takeaway from this campaign was the impact of the Willie Horton ads, which Ailes and Atwater rolled out to tremendous effect. Dukakis accepts responsibility for the campaign non-response: “Shame on me for not effectively dealing with it. And I didn’t.” So much ugliness in that ad campaign by the Bush team, with the documentary showing Bryant Gumbel asking George H.W. Bush “Can you deny that the Willie Horton ad tapped a rather rich vein of American racism?”, and Bush denying any such thing. The Duke ruminates over some responses that might have been given, including comparisons of the Houston and Boston homicide rates, and the fact that the federal government (run by Reagan-Bush) actually had a prison furlough system. The Bush onslaught on this issue is detailed, showing some of the over the top campaign literature that was deployed by the GOP (“Dukakis to Rapist: ‘Have a Nice Weekend'”)

The early GOP attacks even tried to exploit rumors of Dukakis being in bad health, with President Reagan, at a press conference responding to a question on the release of medical records, saying “Look, I’m not going to pick on an invalid,” in reference to Dukakis. In response Dukakis challenged the press corps to a power walking exercise jaunt in Denver, which is highlighted. The Duke was in great shape.

The Dukakis failure to respond was borne out of an admittedly stubborn personality, and a self evaluation as a “different” type of politician.That self image, and his core conviction that people were looking for effective, competent government and not mudslinging, brought him the nomination, but failed him in the end. It also taught Bill Clinton an important lesson for 1992: rapid response to attacks must be made. The Clinton rapid response team (the war room) was a key component in his victory over George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Finally I think that Governor Dukakis is a thoughtful and exceedingly brilliant individual who should have had a larger role to play in national politics after his loss. I do believe he is a little bit too tough on himself relative to the campaign, but that points to his core decency. The Duke ran a clean shop, as Governor and as a candidate. I believe that served the public well, but it didn’t always help him. (See Duke I).

http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_hardball_dukakisdoc_141220

Posted in National News | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Review of "Thirteen Days in September" by Lawrence Wright

Posted on December 14, 2014 by billmanzi

Thirteen Days in September: Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp DavidThirteen Days in September: Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp David by Lawrence Wright
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A pretty good accounting of the Camp David Agreement forged by President Jimmy Carter. Lawrence Wright manages to weave in some history of the Arab-Israeli conflict to go along with the very good accounting he gives us of the Camp David summit. After the historical trip to Jerusalem by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt President Jimmy Carter undertook an effort to translate that trip into a tangible peace. Carter’s efforts led to the Camp David summit, where Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his team were essentially locked down with Sadat and his team for thirteen long days. Wright shows us what a difficult process that was, and how an accord was reached in spite of the vast gulf between the Israeli and Egyptian positions.

Sadat comes off as the greater risk taker for peace in this book, and I think Wright has given us a fair evaluation of the main players, their motivations, and especially their limitations. Sadat, a Vice President under Egyptian strongman Gamel Abdel Nasser, had always been underestimated by the international community until he made some rather stunning political and diplomatic moves that opened the eyes of that community. Wright gives us an overview of how the multiple wars between Egypt and Israel impacted the diplomatic views of the two delegations, and the real animus that existed between the parties. While Wright does engage in some psycho-analysis it is very apparent that the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, launched by Sadat, left indelible marks on all of the participants, weighing heavily on them as they tried to bridge the enormous gulf that separated them.

Wright is less charitable towards the Israeli Prime Minister Begin, but I do believe he tries to treat the subject matter in an even handed way. We manage to catch glimpses (and some good history) of some of the very large names involved in this process. Vance, Brzezinski, Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon,Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and many others.

President Carter deserves much praise for his efforts. Without his determined resolve the Camp David process would have collapsed, as it very nearly did on several occasions. Carter was not perfect in this effort, but few are when dealing with the intractable issues that separate the parties in the Middle East. The Accord itself was rescued by Carter putting his and American prestige on the line at key times, making clear that American “friendship” and all that implies would be at risk to the party that ended the discussion without agreement. Carter used the Kissinger tactic of trying to bridge difficult issues with strategically imprecise language that could be construed different ways, and sold to domestic constituencies in ways that were less damaging politically. The notable failure was the inability to solve the “Palestinian” issue, essentially concentrating on an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai in return for a bilateral peace with Egypt. President Clinton ventured down that road in 2000 by bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians back to Camp David to try to hammer out a deal that would have addressed those issues punted by Carter, Begin and Sadat. The Clinton failure at the 2000 summit shows me how monumental Carter’s efforts were here.

Sadat ended up paying for his efforts by being assassinated by extremists opposed to his efforts. Carter lost his bid for re-election, and Begin continued on until he retired and became a recluse. I doubt whether any effort like this would even be possible anymore, as having the heads of three countries locked down for thirteen days likely could not happen. If you want a good accounting of a key part of the history of Israel and the Middle East I would recommend this book.

View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Review of Richard Ben Cramer's "What it Takes"

Posted on December 6, 2014 by billmanzi

What It Takes: The Way to the White HouseWhat It Takes: The Way to the White House by Richard Ben Cramer
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A tour de force by Richard Ben Cramer. At over a thousand pages this look at the 1988 Presidential campaign may seem daunting but if you are a fan of politics it is a must read. Even though the book was written some time ago I had not run across it until I started to look at the new Matt Bai book “All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid”. Bai heaped high praise on Cramer and the book, and highlighted a visit he had made to Cramer (now deceased) to talk about the subject matter for his prospective new book, which would focus on Gary Hart, and how his imploded candidacy changed the way politics is reported in this country. Bai called the Cramer book “…arguably the greatest and most ambitious work of political journalism in American history.” Bai was not wrong. When I looked it up on Amazon the Cramer book was selling for $3.99. I bought the Cramer book, and saved the Bai book for later.

Cramer looks at the 1988 Presidential race from the perspective of six candidates: Republicans Bob Dole and George HW Bush, and Democrats Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden, Gary Hart, and Michael Dukakis. The book offers so much more than reporting on the ins and outs of the campaigns. He gives readable and insightful biographical information on each candidate, carefully weaving his narrative together while dealing with six complex individuals and what had come to make them into the candidates they were. I was fascinated by all, but the Bob Dole story, with the horrific injuries he suffered serving in the military, and his ferocious will to overcome, was especially compelling. Cramer’s candidate backgrounds include some of each man’s electoral history, and how that political history had contributed to how they handled the race for the big prize. Being from Massachusetts I have to say that Cramer’s description of Michael Dukakis is spot on. The Dukakis “clean Mike” persona could not have been more accurate. Cramer’s insights on the Dukakis personality, and how that personality ultimately doomed his candidacy, from my perspective, is some of the best writing on Dukakis that I have ever read. Without being judgemental Cramer shows us the strengths, and flaws, of the individual candidates. Of course Cramer covers the Gary Hart candidacy, but not in the way that everyone else did. Like the Dukakis writing Cramer gives us so much more than a standard slash and burn on a flawed candidate. We have family perspective, and from that family perspective we get a real sense of what it was like to be under the media crush that the Hart revelations brought. It is truly extraordinary writing.

The 1988 election brought us President George H.W. Bush, and although the Bush name is still very much alive in American politics I see the 1988 election as the last one of an older era. Waiting right around the corner was Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,ready to usher in a new era of politics. Without having read the Bai book I get the sense that he may feel that way too. I do not give five stars to very many books. This one, in my opinion, is right in there with the Caro masterpiece “The Power Broker” and his LBJ series. That is high praise, and richly deserved. Matt Bai had it right. if you love politics pick this book up and get a real sense of what it takes to run for President.

View all my reviews

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Review of "Kissinger" by Walter Isaacson

Posted on November 29, 2014 by billmanzi

A recent book that I reviewed over at Goodreads. Well worth your time if you are interested in this very interesting time and very complex man who elicits such broad emotions even today.

<a href="KissingerKissinger by Walter Isaacson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

After reading the Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs I thought this might be a good read. I was right. Isaacson gives a balanced accounting of Kissinger without delving too far into the weeds of policy. But there is enough policy to satisfy, including a fair evaluation of the Kissinger philosophy of realpolitik, and how that may have influenced him to be less than honest in explaining key foreign policy decisions to the American people. (As well as Secretary of State William Rogers.)Kissinger’s brilliance is never in doubt throughout this book, but that brilliance and ego brought an operating style that created some measure of difficulty that even Kissinger acknowledges to have been unnecessary. Some terrific anecdotes, including Kissinger “criticizing” a staff report by placing it on the floor and stomping on it. The examination of his relationship with Nixon is fascinating as well. All in all another great book by Isaacson. Of course Bismark and Metternich are next on the read list.

View all my reviews” title=”Kissinger”>I gave five stars on Goodreads

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Seabrook Tree Lighting

Posted on November 28, 2014 by billmanzi

Seabrook Tree Lighting

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend

Posted on November 28, 2014 by billmanzi

A very happy Thanksgiving weekend to all of you. I will hopefully begin to have a bit more time to post on subjects of interest to get the blog moving again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Crisis in Housing Market: Renters Under Siege, and the Minimum Wage

Posted on January 3, 2014 by billmanzi

The economy continues to show signs of improvement, but not all are able to benefit from some of the positives. One area that shows the real problems that many Americans are having is in the area of housing, where stagnant wages and rising housing costs are spiking homelessness or causing people to go without food, medicine, and other vital supplies in order to pay rents that are eating up a large part of their base incomes.

The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies has just released a study that highlights how severe this problem has become. The Providence Journal (via the Eagle Tribune) wrote about the study, pointing to both local and national problems.

The squeeze has forced more people into homelessness. Both Rhode Island and Massachusetts have been feeling the effects, with greater numbers flocking to homeless shelters rather than face rents of $1,000 or more.

In Massachusetts, one of the few states to offer emergency shelter to anyone who qualifies, spending on motels has soared, costing taxpayers more than $46 million over the past five years, The Boston Globe reports. The number of homeless people in the state shot up by nearly 14 percent between 2010 and last January, to 20,000.

The financial squeeze shows up nationally in pretty stark terms as well.

Nationally, more than one in four renters spend more than half their income on housing. To be considered affordable, housing should typically consume no more than 30 percent of a household’s pretax income.

The causes of the problem are not hard to figure out. More homeowners have entered the rental market with the rising tide of foreclosures joining the traditional “rental demographic”, while supply has not come close to keeping up with the increased demand. That has helped to keep rental prices high, while wages are stagnant. From the Harvard study:

Since renting is more financially feasible for households of modest means, renters’ incomes are disproportionately low. Nearly a quarter of renters have annual incomes under $15,000 (roughly equivalent to earnings from full-time work at the minimum wage),while only 13 percent of all households fall into this income category. A similar share of renters takes home between $15,000 and $30,000 a year,again much higher than this group’s share of all households. Still, people at all income levels rent. More than a third of renters have moderate incomes (between $30,000 and $75,000), roughly matching their share of all households. The most underrepresented income group, earning $75,000 or more a year,still accounts for 17 percent of renters.

And so we arrive at a large number of people paying a very hefty percentage of their income to remain housed.

Against the backdrop of the rental market recovery, declining renter incomes continue to add to longstanding affordability pressures. Already up sharply before the recession began, the share of cost-burdened renters took a turn for the worse after 2007. As a result, the share of renters paying more than 30 percent of income for housing, the traditional measure of affordability, rose 12 percentage points over the decade,reaching 50 percent in 2010. Much of the increase was among renters facing severe burdens (paying more than half of income for rent)boosting their share nearly 8 percentage points to 27 percent. These levels were unimaginable just a decade ago,when the fact that the severely cost burdened share was nearly 20 percent was already cause for serious concern.

The Harvard study talks about changes that could bring increased inventory of affordable rentals, and offer a lifeline to those being forced to choose between rent and food or medicine. One thing not mentioned was the potential benefit to many who rent from an increase in the minimum wage. The study makes it clear that today’s housing market cannot provide the most basic of accommodations for those on the minimum wage. We all know wages have stagnated, but the extent of the problem for so many working people is shown clearly through this study. They just cannot keep pace with the acceleration in costs of housing at the current minimum wage, and the results are a big spike in the numbers of homeless, as well as those who are “severely burdened” by the percentage of income going to rent. The purpose of the study was not to push an increase in the minimum wage, but to talk about reforms in the housing market that would increase supply and affordability. But the wage issue sort of slaps you right in the face, and shows the real need for an increase in the minimum wage.

I am not looking to get into the weeds of housing policy here, but for those interested the report is well worth reading. For another good look at housing policy the Housing Partnership’s “Towards a Housing Policy Reform Agenda” is worth a look as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cocoon Politics

Posted on December 29, 2013 by billmanzi

I am back, and with plenty happening to write about. Congratulations to the newly elected Mayor of Lawrence, Dan Rivera, who worked as hard as a candidate could to win that race.

In Lawrence one term Mayor William Lantigua had built up a mystique of electoral invincibility after years of success in winning Lawrence elections, for himself, and for others. But since taking over as Mayor four years ago Mayor Lantigua has been buffeted by a relentless stream of bad media, with early political enemies joined on the front lines by the Eagle Tribune, which produced exceedingly negative coverage of the Lantigua Administration. No need to rehash all of the controversies, but suffice to say that much of the negative coverage was warranted, and for all of his political acumen the Lantigua response to the ongoing media issues was to retreat into the safety of his strong cocoon of support among a hard core of loyalists. This retreat was evidenced by his embargo of “traditional” media, where he allowed the negativity to pile up unanswered. That is always an error in politics, but Mayor Lantigua made the political determination that he could ride out the storm by withdrawing to comfortable terrain. The primary results appeared to validate his strategy, with Lantigua simply crushing the field. (Lantigua 5725 to Rivera 2799). In advance of that primary, when asked my view on WCAP, I said Lantigua could finish first, or last. Without question the public battering he had taken would have meant defeat for any standard candidate. But Lantigua is no standard candidate, and his primary victory fueled the aura of invincibility, and really took the air out of the tires of the anti-Lantigua forces.

When I looked at the numbers I failed to see a plausible road to victory for Dan Rivera. But Dan Rivera, from day one, saw what I and others could not see. He took the primary numbers, and pointed to the fact that all opponents combined had gotten more votes than Lantigua. (6234 combined to 5725 Lantigua) I looked at those numbers as well, but thought that Lantigua would grow sufficiently in the general election to hold off Rivera. Rivera, despite the big primary deficit, began to seal Lantigua into a corner, picking up the endorsement of every one of the unsuccessful primary candidates, including State Rep. Marcos Devers. Lantigua, looking at the numbers in the same way I did, made a fatal error in not trying to divide his opposition. Instead of concentrating 100% on the election Lantigua, in my opinion, began to think about mopping up the opposition after the victory that never came. In particular he truly gave Rep. Devers some strong incentive to not only endorse Rivera, but to work hard for him as well. Could Lantigua have secured Devers neutrality? The Willie Lantigua of four years ago would have made every effort. Mayor Lantigua made none.

Mayor Lantigua also had the misfortune of running against a candidate who is schooled in the science of politics, and willing to work just as hard as he does on campaigns. Candidate Rivera also has great relationships that he used to give his campaign status and credibility. Having the endorsements of Elizabeth Warren and Niki Tsongas brought, in my view, a very strong sense of campaign momentum when Dan needed it most. In the end a candidates success or failure usually rests with the candidate, and Dan Rivera deserves the credit for winning a tough campaign. But it is always nice to get a little help from your friends.

Mayor Lantigua squandered what was a unique opportunity. Was everything he did wrong? Absolutely not. Was some of the opposition rooted in reflexive negativity to anything he was going to do? No doubt. But he brought a perceived arrogance, and simply thought that he could survive inside a cocoon, and ignore ALL of the basic rules of politics. His skill set almost pulled it off, but Mayor Dan Rivera is now poised to bring good government principles to a City that so badly needs them. Mayor Dan Rivera has an entire State pulling for his success.

Posted in Merrimack Valley Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment