Galacticat

The oddest election in American history

2004-10-21T20:18:00.000-07:00

It's a sucker's game of course to handicap by polls, but the Radiator is hissing at the latest action. We're seeing evident stabilization for Bush in the wake of the debates. Most national horse-race polls show him with a multi-point lead (discount appropriately for methodology and bias). But here's the weird part: Kerry seems to be solidifying or pulling away in key battleground states, particularly Florida and Ohio. And this makes sense, as Bush's core support among solid red-state voters reverts to the pre-debate numbers. But the movement is taking place in the states where the fighting is being done, and the trends favor Kerry.

So let's play a little game. Let's discount what everyone is saying about how the national polls are undercounting Kerry's support among the newly-registered, or among people who talk mostly on cellphones. (Those groups will break evenly, to the surprise of many.) Let's accept that undecideds break largely for the challenger. And let's assume Nader will make a one-point difference in a few places (but not Ohio or Pennsylvania!). Bottom line: we may see a solid Electoral College victory for Kerry, but a 1 or 1.5 percent popular vote plurality for the President. STRANGE! Such a popular-vote outcome usually presages an electoral landslide. It would be the oddest election in our history.

Could it happen? Or am I just getting all steamy?

The Supreme Court

2004-10-18T17:11:00.000-07:00

Ok, let's see if I can stir up some righteous anger with this one...

Much would appear to depend on the composition of the Senate, in the matter of judicial appointments in a Kerry Presidency. And so it shall, but less than meets the eye. There are no right-wing equivalents to Vermont's Patrick Leahy and New York's Chuck Schumer.

The conventional wisdom calls for the retirements of Rehnquist, Stevens and possibly O'Connor in the next Presidential term. Replacing these three with young, liberal judges (Chief Justice Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton?), together with a substantial portion of the Federal bench, will give the Federal judiciary a decisive left-wing character for at least the coming generation. What can we expect?

The Supreme Court has long been the legislative venue of choice for those whose programs do not command broad popular support. This is largely true for much of the progressive agenda, so it's superficially reasonable to expect significant victories in the coming generation.

Obviously the abortion license is safe. This is a status-quo outcome which, counter-expectation, will not have an appreciable impact on our national life. The substantial majority of Americans who consider themselves pro-life will have no decisive way to express their views in a political context. It's a wild card as to whether this will result in serious division in American life.

Challenges to gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research will fail. Those who oppose them on moral grounds will be encouraged to be "pragmatic" and to recognize the sanctity of individual liberty and tolerance of others. As in Europe, it will be considered louche to apply moral categories to political decision-making in all areas but national defense.

Affirmative action, including quota systems for hiring and higher education will be upheld decisively. The question of reparations for black slavery will receive a receptive hearing.

The Second Amendment will be abrograted de facto.

So far so good, no surprises. What will be the less obvious effects of a judicial turn to the left? Since a liberal court will be in broad sympathy with the intellectual and academic currents of our time, the result will be a continuation of current trends, but perhaps in surprising ways.

States' rights will be finally attenuated, and the brief vogue in Tenth Amendment jurisprudence of the mid-Nineties will dissipate. We can expect a push to end the antiquated Electoral College, and the role of state legislatures will become even more marginal. Electoral change will be bitterly resisted by the smaller states but if accomplished, it will remove the last vestigial barriers to an increase in Federal power. It will also shift the center of gravity in future election campaigns to large urban population centers.

Personal liberties will be an unexpected casualty. A liberal court will be surprisingly unwilling to sustain Bill of Rights guarantees in the face of ever-increasing security requirements. The Fourth Amendment will be rendered all but meaningless by new communications and surveillance technologies. The insistence on a right to privacy in one's person and one's effects will be considered quaint and old-fashioned, except of course as it relates to the protection of journalistic sources.

Policing and criminal justice. The kneejerk response is to expect a return to something like the Warren court, with greater constraints on the power of local police organizations. But the Federal security apparatus (starting with the inept TSA) will be untouched and even confirmed in its power. The result will be more protection for criminal behavior and ultimately less personal liberty.

The turn to extra-American sources for foundational jurisprudence is a surprising feature of recent decisions, extending even to none other than Justice O'Connor. We can certainly expect this trend to continue with unexpected and perhaps bizarre results, as United Nations resolutions and such things are taken as the basis for Supreme Court decisions.

What did we miss? Add a comment and speak out.

So who the hell is John Kerry anyway?

2004-10-17T16:41:00.000-07:00

Is he Boston-Irish, or German-Jewish? Does anybody out there have solid evidence one way or the other?

Handicapping the Cabinet

2004-10-17T16:13:00.000-07:00

Ok, we have to get this going, but it will take a lot of updating as the weeks go by, and we need your help. Thanks RWE for your comments re Clinton's best and brightest. Let's identify them.

SecState: Holbrooke (yeah), Biden (maybe), Albright (God help us)
SecDef: ?
Justice: ?
Treasury: Rohatyn?
National Security Advisor: ???
HHS: ?

Undersecretaries and assistants: ???

Key foreign postings: ?

Galacticat needs your comments and your wisdom!

The Interregnum

2004-10-17T15:15:00.000-07:00

The key event taking place in the period between Kerry's election and inauguration will be the January elections in Iraq. We can expect that the outgoing administration will do everything in their power (overtly and covertly) to ensure a smooth outcome. This includes stepping up military operations in the contested regions of Iraq.
The terrorist elements operating in the Sunni Triangle and elsewhere in the Middle East will also step up the tempo. Kerry's ascendancy is seen by these groups as a great victory, America's Madrid as it were. They will be emboldened in their efforts to disrupt or delegitimize the Iraqi election.
The new Administration will not have time to significantly change the conduct of our diplomacy or military operations in Iraq before the elections are scheduled to take place. The outgoing Bush Administration will coordinate our activities with Kerry's Secretary of State-designate (Holbrooke? Biden?) and senior staff, but relatively little will change.
A postponement or disruption of the elections in Iraq will be a bitter defeat for those who have faith that a free society can develop in Iraq. We don't yet know whether, in his heart of hearts, Kerry is one of these.
Afghanistan recently achieved a relatively peaceful and legitimate election, a beautiful and outlandish result for a Muslim land, particularly for the 5 million women who against all history are now enfranchised. Whether Iraq can claim a similar achievement next January will depend on our continued efforts on their behalf, as well as on the pride and courage of the Iraqi people. It will be a close-fought thing.

The Left Rises Again?

2004-10-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

As in 1993, the amorphous Progressive wing of the Democratic Party will be marching into Washington with hopes and banners high. They probably stand a better chance of moving the national agenda since Kerry needs them in his power base. His sympathies evidently lie with them, but more to the point, he doesn't really know what he wants to do with the country, so they will fill the void.
Who are these people? Do you love them? Do you hate them? Are you one of them? Tell us what they're going to do and get a hat tip!
What does it all mean? Keep reading...
Coming soon: The Supreme Court, and more...

Here's how our game is played

2004-10-17T11:59:00.000-07:00

We'll shortly start publishing our forward-looks in a variety of different areas, covering foreign policy, world and domestic affairs, and national politics.
Bookmark and check back frequently, as there is a LOT to cover. We'll edit the archives as we hear from commentators and linkers who have cogent things to add and subtract to the analysis. If you know something about the subject matter, the world wants to read about it here! Eventually we'll organize all the commentary by subject area and provide a chronology so everyone will know how right we were. (And how wrong...)

"I don't know what I'm gonna find on January 21, might be Lebanon. BUT, I have a plan..."

2004-10-17T11:44:00.000-07:00

This line from the second debate tells you what you need to know about the early months of the Kerry Presidency. Fortunately, no one has ever challenged him to clearly articulate his plans, so he won't need to waste any time repudiating them. The situation is far worse and far more complicated than he expected or was led to believe (no surprise there). So drastic new thinking will be required to address the nation's problems. And believe him, there will be problems.

The Aftermath

2004-10-16T14:47:00.000-07:00

Let's assume a minimal popular-vote plurality for Kerry and a razor-thin Electoral College victory, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and perhaps New Mexico providing the crucial margin. The National Review will fume for months about evident massive fraud in several states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, and Colorado. But there will be no sustained legal challenge to the election from the Republican Party because critical support will be lacking from the national media, who will view the result as payback for Gore's narrow loss in 2000. In a famous phrase, the nation will be urged to “get over it and move on.” And the Democrats will whisper, with silent assent from the Kerry camp, that millions of black and immigrant voters were disenfranchised anyway, so the Republicans should shut up and deal with it.

Kerry Wins... What happens next?

2004-10-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

It's mid-October. We stand among falling leaves and fading light, shortly after the third presidential debate, and amid tightening polls in key battleground states.

The challenger from Massachusetts appears poised for a post-debate pulse of momentum and a final, decisive trend in his favor.

We may never feel comfortable calling a race this full of twists and turns until the final votes are counted (and the lawsuits decided). But it's not too early to look at the leaves on the ground and the changes on the breeze, and ask: What happens next?

John Forbes Kerry is a man of contradictions, at war within himself, who has demonstrated a talent for saying, and being, all things to all people. And his record of achievement on the national stage is too small to gives us a sense of how and where he actually will lead our nation and our world.

His partisans, and his opponents' partisans, think they know everything they need to know about what this man will do as President. That is, respectively, everything they wish for, and everything they fear. In other words, they are projecting their hopes and fears onto a blank canvas.

Yet Kerry is a cipher. Given enough time he will take every side of every issue, seldom deciding and never charting a clear course forward.

And yet he is consumed with personal ambition. So something will happen with this man as our 44th President. It's just hard to guess what it will be.

We'll let other scribes recall the fascinating history of American elections held in times of discontent and division, when the opposition is motivated primarily by a burning desire for “ANYONE BUT (blank)!”

But that's what we have in this pivotal year of 2004, when everyone has a clear idea (in her own mind) what this election is all about, and no one (if she's honest) really knows for sure what we're getting in the person of John Forbes Kerry.

So we're going to take a cold look at the stage upon which the gifted actor will play, and play a game of reverse counterfactual-history. We'll take the little we know of Mr. Kerry and the circumstances in which he will find himself, and project forward in small steps. And we'll connect a few dots. And maybe generate some light. And hopefully some heat!

We'll be posting regularly about particular topics and how they will be affected by the new Kerry presidency. If you want to join the game, send us your comments, but keep it NONPARTISAN.

Hello, New World

2004-10-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, so there's a good chance that a new administration will take power in Washington come January. What happens next? GALACTICAT will tell you! We're going to take a STRICTLY non-partisan view of current trends and project them into the future. And YOU get the chance to talk back and tell us how wrong we are! Stay tuned for our first set of posts.