this establishment –
this isn’t normal
Reading this week in the New York Times, two opinion pieces caught my eye.
The first was by David Brooks in his piece, “A 2024 Presidential Candidate Who Meets the Moment” where he commented that:
I’d like you to consider the possibility that the political changes that have rocked this country over the past six years will be nothing compared with the changes that will rock it over the next six. I’d like you to consider the possibility that we’re in some sort of prerevolutionary period — the kind of moment that often gives birth to something shocking and new.
If ever there was a moment ripe for a Ross Perot-like third candidate in the 2024 general election, this is that moment. There are efforts underway to prepare the way for a third candidate, and in this environment an outsider, with no ties to the status quo, who runs against the establishment and on the idea that we need to fundamentally fix the system — well, that person could wind up winning the presidency.
He commented that:
Democrats had a larger share of support among white college graduates than among nonwhite voters. These white voters are often motivated by social policy issues like abortion rights and gun regulation.
The Republicans used to be the party of business, but now they are emerging as a multiracial working-class party.
In other words, we now have an establishment progressive party and an anti-establishment conservative party. This isn’t normal.
So I gots to ask, what is normal.
When the Founding Fathers set all this out, they went to great lengths to protect the rights of the minority.
They did this, in my humble opinion, because they thought THERE would be a minority and a very generous MAJORITY.
I feel that what they thought would be normal would be a strong Executive of one Party and a strong Legislative of another party that would serve as a check and a balance on either (with an impartial Judicial keeping an eye on both.
Oh those Founding Fathers!
You silly fellows.
You have to admit that their plan worked out rather well when Mr. Nixon mis-behaved and a Congress of another party called him on it and a court with 4 Nixon appointee’s held to the law.
But in a time with hair splitting differences between leaders and losers in the Executive and the Legislative, normal does not seem to be working out too well.
One vote can control the Senate and that is because they messed with the 60 votes that used to be needed to approve stuff or nothing ever would have happened in the Senate.
In the house, political scientists can point to just 20 congressional districts out of 435 where the fate of the country will be decided.
This isn’t normal.
The other piece that caught my eye was Only Saudi Arabia and Israeli Arabs Can Save Israel as a Jewish Democracy by the ever popular, Thomas l. Friedman.
It is a very thoughtful account of the current state of affairs in Israel.
Mr. Friedman points out that Israel is going into their 5th leadership election in 4 years.
Israel has a Parliament style government where which party can put together a majority coalition gets to be in charge.
With 120 seats, you need 61 to set up a goverment.
Mr. Friedman writes, “Neither the Israeli center-left coalition nor the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition has enough votes alone to create a stable governing majority anymore. That’s why Israel keeps having elections.“
So if the Israeli center-left coalition or the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition wants to be in charge they have to make a deal.
There is another party with 12 seats.
If either the Israeli center-left coalition or the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition makes a deal with this group, they win.
And who, you ask, is this group?
Those 12 seats belong the members of parliament elected by registered to vote, Israeli citizen, Arabs that currently make up 21% of the population of Israel.
If you think it sounds simple say outloud:
The ruling Israeli center-left / Arab coalition.
The ruling Israeli right-wing religious nationalist / Arab coalition.
Maybe making a deal with that Joe Manchin doesn’t look so hard.
BTW, Mr. Brooks did find that person he thought might be the best candidate for 2024.