Senate page     Dec. 30


Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

---

House Republicans Have a Couple of Weeks to Figure Things Out

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is still working feverishly to become Speaker Kevin McCarthy. And although the House is not really in session right now (excepting 3-5 minute pro forma sessions), there were a couple of pieces of news on that front on Thursday.

To start, a sorta deadline has presented itself. If there is no speaker in place, then there can be no committees. And if there are no committees, then committee staffers cannot be paid. The first payday under the new Congress is Monday, Jan. 16. That means that if House Republicans don't get things settled by Friday, Jan. 13, payroll cannot be submitted on time and many congressional employees will not get a paycheck. Given the House Republican Conference's historical willingness to shut down the government, this may not be much of a concern for them. On the other hand, it would be bad PR, and there's a difference between sticking it to some paper pusher in Poughkeepsie versus sticking it to someone you have to work with every day. So, maybe the Republicans will indeed circle Jan. 13 on their calendars, if it comes to that.

The other bit of news is that McCarthy made his latest counteroffer on motions to vacate the chair (in other words, "let's have a vote to get rid of the speaker"). The new offer is that a motion to vacate would require 5 members. According to the moderates, this is unacceptable; the lowest they are willing to go is 50. And according to the MAGA Militia, this is unacceptable; the highest they are willing to go is 1. It can be the sign of a good compromise that nobody is happy. On the other hand, that can also be the sign of a compromise that is doomed to fail. We'll see very soon which it is.

And on that note, now that the rubber is meeting the road, we thought we'd do a rundown of unusual and/or contentious speakership elections in U.S. history, in chronological order:

• John W. Taylor, 1820 (elected after 3 days, on the 22nd ballot): Although it took place more than 200 years ago, this speakership contest may be the closest historical parallel to what's going on today. An unusually powerful and effective speaker (Henry Clay) had just stepped down, and the majority Democratic-Republican Party was divided between more moderate (mostly Northern) members and more radical (mostly Southern) members. New Yorker John Taylor (D-R) was the leader in balloting, wire-to-wire, because there were more Northerners than there were Southerners. However, what put him over the finish line was that supporters of minor candidates eventually fell in behind him. The Southern candidate, William Lowndes (D-R) of South Carolina, retained significant support to the bitter end.
  
  
• Philip P. Barbour, 1821 (elected after 2 days, on the 12th ballot): The empire struck back here, as it were. Recalling that new congresses took their seats in the next December after the election back then (in other words, 13 months), as opposed to the next January, as is the case today (in other words, 2 months), the members of the 17th Congress tossed John W. Taylor overboard in favor of a Southerner, Philip P. Barbour (D-R). Barbour was a moderate and a compromise candidate, one who received zero votes in the first round of balloting.
  
  
• John Bell, 1834 (elected after 1 day, on the 10th ballot): This was smack-dab in the middle of the transition to the second party system (Democrats vs. Whigs), following the 1810s/20s collapse of the first party system (Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans). When the speakership election took place, all of the leading contenders were calling themselves "Jacksonians," but we're going to call them Democrats, because that is what they were. The initial leader in 1834 was someone from the Deep South, namely Richard H. Wilde (D) of Georgia. Eventually, the House decided on John Bell (D) of Tennessee, who was about as centrist as it gets.
  
  
• Robert M.T. Hunter, 1839 (elected after 3 days, on the 11th ballot): By this time, the new party alignment had largely shaken out, such that it was the majority Democratic Party vs. the minority Whig Party (joined by the even-more-minority Anti-Masonic Party). None of the folks who got votes in the first round of balloting was acceptable, and so the members eventually worked out the sort of compromise that was characteristic of the antebellum era. Robert M.T. Hunter (W) was a Southerner, but a moderate, and—interestingly—a member of tne minority party (the House was 123 D, 106 W, 11 others). There were a number of Northern Democrats who preferred a moderate from the other party over a fire-breather from their own party.
  
  
• Howell Cobb, 1849 (elected after 20 days, on the 63rd ballot): This is the scenario that Kevin McCarthy might eventually have to start hoping for. Cobb (D), of Georgia, was unacceptable to a majority of his colleagues in a closely divided Congress (113 D, 107 W, 1 other). However, there was no alternative candidate who could overcome Cobb. And so, the Georgian led on every ballot. What allowed him to be elected is that a weary House eventually agreed that a plurality of the vote was enough for victory, as opposed to a majority. Indeed, in the first round of balloting, Cobb got 103 votes, whereas in the final round, he got... 102.
  
  
• Nathaniel P. Banks, 1855 (elected after 62 days, on the 133rd ballot): This is the nightmare scenario, albeit the one that many Democrats are probably rooting for. The 1855 speakership election took place right in the midst of the transition from the second party system (again, Democrats vs. Whigs) to the third party system (Republicans vs. Democrats). And so, the 34th Congress featured three major partisan delegations: Democrats (82), Opposition (100) and Know-Nothing (51). The folks calling themselves Opposition would largely, although not universally, end up as Republicans. But that was in the future; the Republican Party had only existed for a little over a year, and the House would not have its first official Republican member until Dec. 1, 1856. Anyhow, the Opposition was the largest faction, but was not a majority and , in any case, struggled to settle on a single candidate. The Democrats, as was so commonly the case in this era, were divided between their Northern and Southern wings. The Know-Nothings refused to throw in with either side, thinking that their candidate might ultimately triumph as the "compromise" option. That was good thinking, because Nathaniel P. Banks (K-N) was indeed a member of that faction. Still, this was the second time the House had to agree to suspend the normal rules, and to allow the speaker to be elected by a plurality rather than a majority.
  
  
• William Pennington, 1859 (elected after 58 days, on the 44th ballot): Another speakership election that was caught up in the antebellum sectional strife. The leader on the first ballot was a moderate Southern Democrat, Thomas S. Bocock of Virginia. That was unacceptable to many members, including most Northern Democrats and many fire-breathing Southern Democrats. William Pennington (R), of New Jersey, was a conservative Northern Republican. After 2 months, that was good enough for a bare majority of members; he needed 117 votes and he got 117 votes.
  
  
• Champ Clark, 1917 (elected after 1 day, on the 1st ballot): The Republicans had a plurality of House seats (216), but not a majority. And so, incumbent Champ Clark (D) kept his post based on votes from 212 of the 213 Democrats in the House, plus the three Progressives, one of the two Socialists, and the one Prohibitionist.
  
  
• Frederick H. Gillett, 1923 (elected after 3 days, on the 9th ballot): Once the Civil War was over, and the Republicans vs. Democrats party alignment firmly in place, the drama of the pre-war years effectively disappeared. It may be hard to believe, but the 1923 speakership election was the only one between the Civil War and the present day to require more than one ballot. Since the 1860s, the majority party puts up its candidate, the minority party puts up its candidate, and the majority party candidate gets the job (with a couple of exceptions, see immediately above and below). In 1923, the Republicans had an overwhelming majority in the House (296 R, 130 D, 1 Socialist), and Frederick W. Gillett (R), who was the incumbent speaker, was the only plausible candidate. However, the progressive Republicans frowned on Gillett's moderate-to-conservative politics, and withheld their support until he gave in on certain concessions, particularly as regards House rules and committee seats. Along with 1820, this is the other speakership contest most likely to find a parallel in 2023.
  
  
• John Nance Garner, 1931 (elected after 1 day, on the 1st ballot): Technically, this is the last time that a party won a majority in the House, and yet did not seat a member as Speaker. However, that comes with a huge asterisk. This was at the tail end of the period in which new Congresses did not take their seats for 13 months. And in this case, during that 13 months, members were dropping like flies—a total of 14 of them died. And so, after the elections, the House was 217 R, 216 D. However, thanks to all the deaths and special elections, it was 219 D, 214 R by the time Congress convened (there were only 433 seats at that time). And all but one of the 219 Democrats voted for John Nance Garner (D) of Texas, who spent 2 years in the job before becoming Vice President of the United States. That, incidentally, makes him only one of two people to have been both Speaker of the House and President of the Senate (along with Schuyler Colfax).
  
  
• John Boehner, 2013 (elected after 1 day, on the 1st ballot): We include this one because, after 150+ years of largely uncontentious speaker elections, it could end up being the first major sign of a breakdown in party discipline. John Boehner (R) won, of course, but numerous unhappy members of his conference gave their votes to alternative candidates, including Eric Cantor, Allen West, Justin Amash, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Colin Powell. The same thing happened to Boehner again in 2015, when 10 different "alternate" Republicans got votes, and it happened to a lesser extent with Paul Ryan's (R) two speaker elections (when the Republican opposition largely coalesced around Rep. Dan Webster of Florida). It also happened with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) last two elections; in 2019 votes went to Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Stacey Abrams, Joe Biden, John Lewis and others; and in 2021 there were votes for Duckworth and House Minority Leader-elect Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). In any event, once someone gets one or two or three votes, they enter the conversation. And if the conversation lingers for days or weeks, then that person might all of a sudden become a contender. It hasn't happened recently, but it has happened.

The lesson here, which McCarthy is certainly aware of, is that he really needs to wrap this thing up on the first ballot. If he doesn't have enough votes to put himself over the top immediately, then he'd already be in nearly uncharted territory. Again, a speakership election has only lingered past the first ballot one time in the era of Democrats vs. Republicans, and that was 100 years ago, and in a circumstance where the majority party was dominant and was sure to keep its hands on the job. So, the squabbling was really only about the relative power of the various factions within the Republican majority.

In this case, the squabbling is also about the relative power of the various factions within the Republican majority. In contrast to 1923, however, the position of the Democratic minority is not hopeless. If they can peel off just a handful of Republican votes, then they might elect a compromise candidate, as happened many times before the Civil War (and as the less-disciplined speaker elections of the past decade might presage). We remain convinced that the compromise candidate, should that come to pass, is not going to be a non-member of the House, and that it's certainly not going to be a radioactive non-member of the House, like soon-to-be-ex-representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) or Donald Trump. But a moderate Republican? Certainly possible. Note that there are no independent or third-party members of the incoming Congress so, barring a sudden change in registration (which would smell as fishy as the Santa Monica pier in summer), there is no candidate available that allows Ds to vote for a non-D without voting for an R, and that allows Rs to vote for a non-R without voting for a D. Nope, if there's going to be a compromise candidate, some members are going to have to reach across the aisle. More probably, hundreds of members. (Z)

DeSantis Aide Used Fake Name when Arranging Migrant Flights

As long as we are on the subject of modern Republican politics, some new information has come to light in regards to the flights of migrants arranged by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). As readers will recall, the Governor picked up a bunch of migrants from Venezuela (which, according to the staff geographer, is not a part of Florida) who had congregated in Texas (also not a part of Florida, says the geographer) and transported them to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts (still not Florida, per the geographer). The point of this stunt was to show how serious DeSantis is about combating Florida's immigration problem, a problem so severe he couldn't even round up enough local, undocumented immigrants to fill a medium-sized plane.

The new information is that DeSantis' point person for the scheme was Trump-era U.S. Attorney Larry Keefe. And as Keefe made the arrangements, he used encryption software for all of his communications. Also, as his primary point of contact, he used the e-mail account heat19.heat19@gmail.com, and chose the screen name "Clarice Starling." Clarice Starling, for those who haven't seen the movie, is the protagonist of Silence of the Lambs (and, later, the movie Hannibal and the TV show Clarice). And Heat19 was a code name given to Keefe by Lt. Gen. Donald Wurster (ret.), who was also party to the scheme. In other words, Keefe apparently sees himself as some combination of James Bond, Lara Croft and Batman. And he regards either the Democrats or the undocumented immigrants or both as some combination of psychopathic murderers, the staff of Spectre and the Viet Cong.

In any case, gmail is a private e-mail service. And as we learned from the 47 different investigations of Hillary Clinton, it is very, very wrong for public officials to use private e-mail addresses. More significantly, a person engaging in legitimate public business does not customarily use a non-identifiable e-mail address, a phony screen name, and enough encryption software to make even the GRU sweat. One is left with the firm impression that Keefe and, by extension, DeSantis knew they were up to no good.

When and if DeSantis runs for president, this situation is likely to be an anchor around his neck. Reporters, debate moderators, etc. are going to ask "Why was it your job to relocate migrants who are in Texas? And if this was a legitimate exercise of your powers, why were so many steps taken to cover your tracks?" These will not be easy questions to answer. We would also suggest the Governor is not helping himself with his reluctance to release information about the scheme. Yesterday's revelations came after the Florida government lost a Freedom of Information Act case in court. However, there are other key documents, such as the dubious way-above-market-prices contract awarded to the airplane operator, that the DeSantis administration has thus far refused to release. That serves to drag the story out, and to give it more and more oxygen. If those documents are going to be made public anyhow (which is a near certainty), better to do it all at once, and as far before the 2024 election as is possible. It's not surprising, though—Nixonian types, of which DeSantis certainly is one, just don't think that way. They are too paranoid about even the slightest bit of damage to their public image.

And speaking of Nixon, DeSantis is only a governor, and we're already seeing clear abuses of power worthy of Tricky Dick. It there really any question that if he's given the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Governor will absolutely go to town when it comes to using his power to benefit himself, punish enemies, own the libs, etc.? Undoubtedly, there is a segment of the electorate that would be delighted by that. But it's not clear to us that the country could survive two presidents like that in the span of less than a decade. (Z)

Feds Are Taking a Look at Santos' Finances

Speaking of Republicans with a reputation for shady behavior, Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) is still dominating the headlines. We thought that someone like Elim Garak, the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "tailor" who constantly lied about his backstory, and who said "The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination," could only exist in the world of fiction. But Santos has proven that we were quite wrong.

At this point, if a reporter looks into anything that Santos said about himself during his two campaigns for the House, they are almost certain to catch him in an apparent lie. CNN, for example, uncovered a whole bunch more of them, including Santos' story that he went to a prominent prep school and then had to leave when his family's business suffered a downturn (there's no record of him attending the school, Horace Mann); his claim that his family name was once Zabrovsky (this was when he was claiming to be Jewish; Santos fundraised with that name, targeting mostly Jewish donors); and his account of his mother "fleeing socialism" in Belgium in order to settle in Brazil (she was born in Brazil).

Santos' mother is also the focal point of what is probably the sleaziest new lie to come to light yesterday. In an obvious play for sympathy votes from New Yorkers, he said that his mother worked at the World Trade Center, was present for the 9/11 attacks, and ultimately got and died from cancer due to inhaling carcinogens on that day. There are many problems with this story, as it turns out. First, there is no record of his mother working for anyone after 1994. Second, when she was working, it was as a nurse and a domestic, not exactly professions that are in high demand in financial sector buildings. Third, nobody with the last name Devolder has ever applied for victim compensation or has participated in any of the class-action lawsuits related to 9/11 injuries.

With all of this said, the big news isn't that another bunch of Santos lies has been exposed. We only mention the latest on that front because we're writing about him anyhow. In truth, the big news is that the story has attracted the attention of federal prosecutors, who are looking into his finances. Specifically, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which is interested in the source of the more than $700,000 that Santos donated to his campaign.

This is a double-whammy for Santos. First, because while it's reprehensible to leverage one's dead mother for votes, particularly based on a tissue of lies, that is not illegal. On the other hand, financial crimes most certainly are illegal. And they leave a paper trail, so they tend to be easy to prove. If Santos cannot show a legitimate source for that money, and quickly, that's going to be a real problem. Oh, and nothing we've seen from him suggests he's clever enough to conjure up a fake paper trail; certainly not one convincing enough to fool the feds.

The second problem is that while New York authorities had already announced an investigation, their powers are somewhat limited. Recall, for example, that Donald Trump and his company have already been popped for financial shadiness, but that AG Letitia James has had to pursue civil charges rather than criminal ones. It is much, much harder under New York state law to be criminally convicted of financial crimes. By contrast, the feds have much broader legal authority to pursue criminal charges, and more powerful legal tools for doing so. You do not want to be on their bad side, and Santos now is. (Z)

Kris Mayes Wins Arizona AG Recount

When the dust had settled, and all the returns were in from November's elections, Kris Mayes (D) had been chosen state AG-elect over Abraham Hamadeh (R) by the very narrow margin of 511 votes. That was close enough to trigger an automatic recount, and yesterday the results of the recount were announced. Mayes is still your winner, this time by a margin of 280 votes.

As a member of the Trumpy wing of the Republican Party, Hamadeh might still try to resist this result, but he really doesn't have anywhere to go with his complaints. His challenge of the results was already rejected by a judge, and yesterday's announcement only came after a second judge took a long look and said there was no reason left to keep the results under lock and key. In other words, the would-be AG has lost in two ballot counts and two court rulings. And if he keeps fighting, Hamadeh might find himself stuck with a five-figure or six-figure tab for his trouble, as has already happened with would-be governor Kari Lake (R), who not only had to pay her lawyers, but also those of Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs (D). The decision to tilt at windmills is not as easy to make when it's your dime (or your $100,000) that's on the line).

This story also serves as a useful illustration of something we have written many times, namely that recounts rarely shift all that many votes, excepting some externality like the wonky butterfly ballot in West Palm Beach, FL, in 2000. In this case, Hamadeh picked up a total of 231 votes out of 2,509,338 cast—in other words, a change of about .009%. And his entire gain (plus some) can be attributed to a single, malfunctioning tabulation machine in Pinal County, where under-trained poll workers misunderstood the error messages they were receiving. Once Pinal re-ran its ballots, Hamadeh picked up 392 votes as compared to 115 for Mayes, a net gain of 277 for the Republican. In nearly every other county, the net change in vote totals was in the single digits.

Anyhow, the 2022 election isn't quite in the rear-view mirror yet—there's the mess in the Pennsylvania state house to be resolved, for example—but it's getting close. (Z)

Foreign Affairs Desk, Part I: Netanyahu Sworn In

A week ago, we noted that Benjamin Netanyahu had managed, just before the deadline for yet another new election, to piece together a governing coalition. There was still a little bit of red tape for him to overcome, but he pulled it off, and so was sworn in yesterday for his sixth term as prime minister, about a year and a half after he was shown the door.

As he tried to regain his former job, Netanyahu was in the same position as Kevin McCarthy now is—he needed the votes of far-right members of the legislature. And with the clock ticking, the once-and-current PM gave some rather significant concessions. In particular, he promised to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank, to pass legislation making it easier to discriminate against LGBTQ+ Israelis, and to give the Knesset the power to overturn decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court.

There is little question that Netanyahu is a very skilled political operator, but he's surely never been wedged as firmly between a rock and a hard place as he is now. Imagine that he manages to implement his promised agenda. The list of the pissed off will potentially include: moderate and liberal Israelis, secular Israeli Jews, the U.S. government, American Jews, the international community and the Palestinians. This could set the stage for increased violence in the West Bank and elsewhere, for reduced financial or other aid from the U.S. and the West, and/or for another election this year or next in which the right-wing elements are swept out of power. It is worth noting that even some members of Netanyahu's Likud Party are unhappy with the choices he's made. And with a governing coalition of just 61 people (a.k.a., zero votes to spare), it potentially takes only one unhappy Likud member to put the kibosh on legislation.

Meanwhile, if Netanyahu does not deliver on his promises, then the right-wing elements will be angry. It also takes only one of them to put the kibosh on legislation. And it should be noted that this is, at least in part, personal for the PM. As part of the negotiations that put him back into power, the right-wing elements agreed to support legislation that would, in effect, pardon him for any crimes he's committed and that would make his ongoing court battles go away.

We are hardly experts in Israeli politics, of course. In general, the correct path in a situation like this is to give both sides some of what they want, but neither side everything they want. Is that a possibility here? Looking at the issues involved, and how fraught they are, we are inclined to doubt it. (Z)

Foreign Affairs Desk, Part II: The South African Election

On the same day we wrote about the situation in Israel (see above), we also wrote about the election in South Africa where, in a nutshell, it was decided to retain the crook who is already in power as opposed to replacing him with the crook who used to part of the government. That said, we know even less about South African politics than we do about Israeli politics, as indicated by the fact that we gave President Cyril Ramaphosa the wrong title (we called him "prime minister," even though we really should have known that was not correct, since we've only heard the phrase "President Nelson Mandela" a million times).

Fortunately, we have readers around the globe, including in South Africa. And reader G.G. in Johannesburg has kindly sent in a report that clears up any misstatements we might have made, and also expands on events in that nation:

Daily reader, U.S. citizen and South African permanent resident here. Having seen some of the great commentary you get from other readers abroad, I feel a sense of duty to point out some errors in your item "...And so Does South Africa," as well as providing some larger background.

First, Cyril Ramaphosa is the president, not the prime minister. South Africa has a governmental structure which is a hybrid between a parliamentary system and separation-of-powers system. Like a parliamentary system, parties nominate their leaders, but voters cast ballots only for their members of parliament (MPs); parliament then elects the president. However, unlike a parliamentary system, the president is not himself a member of parliament; he does not participate directly in parliamentary proceedings (other than an annual State of the Nation address), he nominates his cabinet from people who are not MPs, and he runs an independent executive branch. The latter part of that description will sound familiar to American readers.

Second, South Africa is not a "one-party state," unless you also consider the U.S. to have been a one party state for the last 2 years. From the standpoint of democratic choice, it is actually a much healthier democracy than the U.S.; There are currently 14 political parties represented in parliament, although the ANC holds 57.5% of the seats, the two largest opposition parties combined hold 32% of the seats, and a Zulu separatist party that is only viable in one province holds 3.5% of the seats, so the other 10 parties are just white noise. One of the reasons the ANC has been so dominant for so long is that the main opposition party—the Democratic Alliance (DA)—is generally centrist or center-right, but has no unifying platform (imagine Mit Romney and Hillary Clinton in the same party), and the second largest opposition party—the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)—are left-wing fringe with somewhat violent rhetoric, gumming up the works but rarely offering anything remotely realistic as a solution (think: Venezuelan-style socialism meets Tea Party/MAGA political stunts). Anyway, it is definitely not a one party state: the DA has always controlled Cape Town and the Western Cape province, and other big cities are electorally competitive, and often have coalition governments. Now imagine Mit Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Nicoals Maduro all in the same coalition, and you'll get a sense of how well that functions.

Now, about "Farmgate." The cash found stashed in Ramaphosa's sofa is only half the story; there are two issues which make it worse than just "cash in sofa." One is that Ramphosa claims the money was payment for the sale of buffalo at his game farm, but 3 years later, all the buffalo supposedly sold are still at the farm, and the receipt for the sale has only the name of a buyer, without any other identifying info. The second is that all of this was only brought to light because the money was stolen from his farm, but he never reported the theft of cash at the time. One imagines that "someone stole the half million dollars stashed in my sofa" might have raised some additional questions. Well, now it has.

Some larger background helps to understand the situation. Politically, Ramaphosa had always been in a position somewhat akin to Joe Biden during the 2020 primaries: hardly anyone's first choice for leadership, but tolerable to enough of the different factions within his party to gain votes from people afraid of one of the other factions. Like Biden, he's put in his time in governmental ranks, is generally considered to be a skilled negotiator, is pretty boring, and is a terrible public speaker (actually, much worse than Biden on that front). Of course, it is unlikely Biden has $600,000 in cash stashed in the Oval Office sofa, so take Biden's politics but combine it with, say, Jared Kushner's level of transparency and trustworthiness, and you start to get the picture. Then put that person in a political party in which half the influencers make Ryan Zinke-level corruption look pedestrian, and you get the bigger picture.

Ramaphosa's party—the ANC—ousted their former president, Jacob Zuma, when the stench emanating from his rule became politically untenable, but they enabled him for 9 years prior to that, not only electing him as president even after he was credibly accused of rape (does that sound familiar?), and prosecuted for it (he was acquitted), but also keeping him there while the state rotted from within under his direction. Since Zuma's rise, the ANC has been running on a "platform" that is basically "we're the party that ended apartheid." That's true, and was no small feat, but it was also 30 years ago. One of their 2019 campaign slogans was "we've got a great story to tell," which shows you how much they're living on past glory—even the professional spinsters couldn't think of anything current to put on a sign. In the meantime, they've overseen a state that was a beacon of hope for human rights but has become functionally decrepit. Apartheid was specifically engineered to perpetuate wealth inequality, but since apartheid was condemned to the ashes of history, wealth inequality in South Africa has actually increased (let that sink in for a moment). It's just that being super-rich is no longer a whites-only club.

The factions within the ANC are not as simple as pro-Ramaphosa and anti-Ramaphosa. There's a left-wing faction, which is generally serious about governance and finds Ramaphosa a bit too pokey, but usually sticks with him to avoid splitting the party. There's what I can best describe as a power-hungry faction which has no real policy platform, but just wants power; they stick with Ramaphosa only because they don't have the numbers to take over if he is ousted. They'd dump him in a heartbeat if they thought someone else would give them greater power. There's a somewhat laissez-faire neoliberal faction, which sometimes overlaps with the power-hungry faction, but is more like a Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) kind of Democrat, and is the faction that Ramaphosa initially came from, though they aren't always in his pocket now. Then there's a pro-Zuma faction, which is the largest one. This is made up of people whose hands were likely in the cookie jar under Zuma and are unhappy with the cookie crumbs they get under Ramaphosa. This was Zuma's way of holding on to power—if he knew everyone's chicanery, his own chicanery could remain under wraps. The Zuma acolytes are champing at the bit now, looking to be let back in.

I give that background because it is relevant to the current state of affairs, independent of "Farmgate." The energy crisis in South Africa, which gets all the attention, is just the beginning. It is a full-blown infrastructure and service delivery crisis on all fronts. Even when there isn't "load shedding" (the euphemism for rolling blackouts), electrical substations just break down from time to time, and sometimes take days to repair. Entire areas of Johannesburg were without a water supply for over 3 weeks in October. Sewers back up with trash from time to time. Water pipes leak all over the place, and even when they get repaired, the holes they had to dig in the roads to get to the pipes remain unrepaired for months or even years. The post office is so useless that anything sent through it has roughly a 50/50 chance of ever arriving. Just about every middle- and upper-class home in the country subscribes to a private, armed security service, because no one trusts the police to show up in less than half an hour, or to do much more than file a report once they arrive. All of this is at least partially a result of a crumbling civil service. Zuma's legacy is one of normalizing corruption and creating a culture of politicians and senior-level civil servants who think they are untouchable, which is generally not a good recipe for competent governance.

Prior to COVID, there was still a sense of optimism among most South Africans. The economy was sluggish, but crime rates were dropping and people saw possibilities. COVID revealed how thin the veneer of economic health was, as crime rates have spiked, and now the infrastructure crisis is revealing how deep the rot has gotten. A brain drain is rapidly developing, as many well-educated people and entrepreneurs are looking for opportunities abroad. Ramaphosa was commandeering a ship that was riddled with holes and taking on water, but was generally seen as a steady captain. Now that good will is gone, and due to the overall situation, a lot of South Africans have basically resigned to living in a crumbling society for the foreseeable future. The ANC will certainly suffer at the polls in 2024, but without a unified opposition, they are all but certain to still hold a plurality, even if they lose an outright majority.

Thanks for the education, G.G.!

Note that we are still planning a rundown of the major foreign elections of 2023. However, this post is already quite long and already has two "list" items. So, we're going to push it to next week. (Z)

A December to Rhymember, Part XVII: Grab Bag

As with everyone's menorahs, artificial Christmas trees, and Festivus poles, this feature is about to return to mothballs for 11 months. And so, instead of a theme today, we're going with a hodgepodge of submissions.

To start, we really wanted to do something about the death of Pelé, a global sports icon on par with Jesse Owens, Don Bradman, Muhammad Ali, Wayne Gretzky and Michael Jordan, but we couldn't quite find a politics angle. Fortunately, M.L. in Encino, CA solved our problem for us:

The world is rocked by
death of soccer great Pelé —
Heaven reverbs "Gooooooaaaaaaal!"

Thanks for the assist, M.L., and vá com Deus, Pelé.

Moving on, S.C. in Mountain View, CA sent us this timely, Ogden Nash-inspired bit of verse:

He told so many lies, did George Santos,
That into the water he should his pants toss.

Meanwhile, if you had asked us what song was the ripest target for political parody, we might have guessed "Hey Jude," or "Thriller," or "Stairway to Heaven," or "American Pie," or "Satisfaction," or "Smells Like Teen Spirit." We could have gotten many hundreds, or even thousands, of guesses in and we probably still wouldn't have hit on what is apparently the correct answer, namely the almost-150-year-old "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance. Here's J.M. in Stamford, CT, targeting the Democrats:

I am the very model of a Democratic liberal
I have correct opinions both the social and political
I am very well acquainted with all kinds of modern Wokery
It really hurts my Pride to hear it called the merest hokery

For LGBTQA+ I know just what they mean by Plus
The pronoun 'me' I never use, it's what we always mean by 'us'
To compliment another I must first be an inquirer
About the hurt they may endure on meeting an admirer

I feel the pain of everyone whose gendered self-identity
Has been denied by bakers or some other biased entity
In short, in my opinions both the social and political
I am the very model of a Democratic liberal

And B.G. in Oakton, VA, with the same song, but the other side of the aisle:

I am the very model of a toddler U.S. President
Of facts and truth and science I am very surely reticent
I met the Queen of England and I did cut right in front of her
It could have been much worse because I am a known philanderer.

I'm very well acquainted too with matters of diplomacy
I trashed Trudeau and Merkel and Theresa May so boastfully
I've palled with autocratic leaders, acted like a great big ape
And worried that Bob Mueller will soon show the world the pee-pee tape.

Reader D.D. in Portland, OR lets us know it even works for third parties:

I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I've nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).

You see, I've just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!

I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market's hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Two of these three submissions actually covered the whole song, but we trimmed them to be able to fit multiples. Our apologies to the parodists.

As noted, on Monday of next week, we'll wrap it up with some New Year's themed verse. Here is the address, if you have a submission. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Check Your Calendar, Jim

It is a common culture wars formula to put together [bad behavior] + [prominent Democratic politician]. Such things can be hard to counteract, since many culture-warrior voters don't require much (or anything) in the way of proof, and for those so-accused, it can be difficult or impossible to prove a negative.

That said, sometimes these claims are falsifiable because the timeline simply does not work. To take an example, recall that we regularly peruse far-right websites and media outlets, just to see what the talking points are. And one popular far-right talking point these days—a case of bothsidesism meant to excuse Donald Trump's draft-dodging—is to wonder why Barack Obama did not serve in the Vietnam War. We are not making this up. Obama, of course, was 12 years old when major fighting ceased, and was 14 when the last American soldiers were withdrawn. So, he has a pretty good excuse for not serving. Certainly a better excuse than bone spurs in his left ankle. Or was it the right ankle?

We recount this as background to the visit that Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY) paid to Fox & Friends this week. The Twitter Files remain an obsession on the right; the latest report from "journalist" Matt Taibbi focused on communications between the FBI and the social media platform regarding various cases of misinformation being propagated by high-profile users.

Comer, playing the role that the situation would have him play, was appropriately outraged by this revelation. He said:

This is very concerning. No government agency has been the authority to censor free speech. I want to know: is this a direct result of President Biden's orders or is this a result of the deep state government agencies acting on their own as a result of a weak president? Either way, this needs to be stopped and people need to be held accountable.

Presumably, this is the kind of bluster Fox was counting on. That's what brings in the viewers, after all.

There are a couple of problems, though. The first is that there was no censorship. The FBI contacted Twitter management and requested the removals, but did not demand them, and certainly did not get a court order. The second is that nobody involved in this story apparently paid close enough attention to Taibbi's report, since the Twitter Files in question were from 2020. In other words, Joe Biden had nothing to do with it. If there was indeed a corrupt president engaging in censorship, or a weak president allowing the "deep state" to run willy-nilly, then that president is one Donald J. Trump.

When a Republican congresscritter sticks their foot in their mouth like this, and on live national TV no less, there's really only one thing to say: "Thanks, Obama." (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: What a Year!

We're going to do something a little different this week. Instead of focusing on one bit of positive news, we thought we'd run down 10 things from the past year that afford a bit of hope and/or sunshine. Without further ado:

1. Ukraine: Despite Vladimir Putin's plans for a quick and easy victory, Ukraine is holding firm, and appears to have the upper hand in the Russia-Ukraine War. The economic impacts of the war have been managed fairly well, worldwide, and more importantly, the world's wealthiest countries have pitched in with their wheat and other foodstuffs to forestall potential famines in the poorest countries of the world.
   
   
2. Just Say No... To Extremism: In November's elections, the Republican Party put up a parade of far-right nutters. And nearly all of them, particularly the high-profile ones, were sent to defeat. Yes, there's Sen.-elect J.D. Vance (R-OH), but he's a faux nutter who is just playing to the base. And there are a few new members of the House who are a few bricks shy of a load. But generally speaking, Democrats, independents and normal Republicans stood together to make clear that they are not buying what the MAGA maniacs are selling.
   
   
3. Vaccination: The disease of the hour (and the day, the month, and the year) is COVID-19, of course. And for all the anti-vaxx activism, a staggering number of people have gotten jabbed, at least once. In the U.S., 268,507,100 people (80.9%) have gotten at least one shot, and 229,011,000 (69%) are fully vaccinated. Worldwide, thanks in substantial part to 1 billion-plus shots administered by the U.N.'s COVAX global vaccination program, 5.47 billion people (71%) have received at least one shot, while 5.06 billion (66%) are fully vaccinated.
   
   Meanwhile, Moderna is currently testing an HIV vaccine; the first time such a vaccine has reached the human trial phase, Pfizer is getting close to a workable Lyme disease vaccine, and Afrigen has become the first major vaccine research and production facility to be located in Africa.
   
   
4. Health Insurance: At the moment, thanks primarily to gains among communities of color, approximately 92% of Americans have health insurance. That number needs to get to 100%, obviously, but for now, it's a record; the highest-ever proportion of U.S. citizens with health insurance. Thanks, Obama (and this time we mean that unironically).
   
   
5. Bipartisanship Is Not Dead: This one might not age well, given what's about to happen in the House of Representatives, but you never know. In any event, Joe Biden's faith in bipartisanship was not totally misplaced, as he had the opportunity this year to sign significant bipartisan bills on gun control, combating climate change, fixing the presidential election process, and other matters.
   
   
6. Representation: 2022 saw the U.S. get its first Black woman Supreme Court justice (Ketanji Brown Jackson), its first Black president of Harvard (Claudine Gay), its first Black woman on a U.S. quarter (Maya Angelou), its first Native American woman on a U.S. quarter (Wilma Mankiller), its first Asian-American woman on a U.S. quarter (Anna May Wong), its first openly lesbian governors (Tina Kotek, D-OR and Maura Healey, D-MA), its first trans male state representative (James Roesener, D-NH), its first trans NFL cheerleader (Justine Lindsay), its first trans Jeopardy! grand champion (Amy Schneider), its first Native Alaskan member of Congress (Mary Peltola, D-AK), its first LGBTQ immigrant member of Congress (Robert Garcia, D-CA), its first Gen Z member of Congress (Maxwell Alejandro Frost, D-FL) and its first Gen Z Academy Award winner (Billie Eilish). Meanwhile, Vermont elected a woman (Becca Balint, D) to the U.S. House, thus becoming the last U.S. state to break that particular glass ceiling.
   
   
7. Animal House: We know there are many animal lovers among the readership. Betty White, before her passing, was one of the country's most prominent animalophiles, and when she passed away at age 99, her fellow animal lovers staged the #BettyWhiteChallenge, raising tens of millions of dollars for animal charities on what would have been her 100th birthday. Meanwhile, the ASPCA's relocation program, in which animals in states with overcrowded shelters are relocated to states without enough pets to satisfy demand, has continued to grow and prosper. Thanks to efforts like these, and others, the number of dogs and cats euthanized annually has dropped precipitously. A decade ago, it was 2.6 million dogs and cats each year. In 2022, the number was down to 390,000. That's nowhere near as good as zero, but it's a damn sight better than over 2 million.
   
   
8. Solar Energy: We could talk about many positive steps forward as regards the environment, but we're just going to focus on solar energy as an exemplar for the larger trends. To start, in 2022, the world surpassed 1 terawatt in solar capacity for the first time. That's still a drop in the bucket (worldwide demand is over 20,000 TW), but it's a step in the right direction, and one major report said that the world is now on pace to meet its global climate goals if it keeps expanding solar and wind capacity at the current pace. Meanwhile, a team of engineers at Stanford have developed solar panels that can generate electricity at night, while a company founded by scientists from MIT and Michigan State has nearly perfected windows that double as solar energy collectors. The Ukraine is able to keep its hospitals running thanks to solar microgrids, while in the U.S., a remarkable 40% of energy is now coming from renewable sources, with solar leading the way. In commie pinko California, in an experiment, the state was able to satisfy all of its energy demands for about half an hour with renewable sources of power, with solar again leading the way.
   
   
9. Fusion: Speaking of scientists, and California, a group at the at the U.S. government's National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved the first ever fusion reaction that produced more power than it required. This comes with a bunch of caveats, such that it will be a long time before you can power your DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion generator. Still, it's a big step forward, and may one day be seen as a key moment in the annals of science.
   
   
10. High Times: Tobacco is very bad from a public health perspective, as it kills and maims many people, while also placing enormous burdens on the healthcare system. It's also bad from a governance perspective, given that tobacco companies are as good at lobbying as anyone outside of the petroleum companies. And for these reasons, we take it as excellent news that in 2022, for the first time, the U.S. has more marijuana smokers (16% of the population) than tobacco smokers (15%). Perhaps we've been smoking something, but from where we sit, the munchies are considerably less harmful than lung cancer.

And there you have it. A good weekend and a happy new year to all, and here's hoping that 2023 brings this much good news and more. (Z)

Previous | Next


Back to the main page