Wednesday 5 November 2008

Election Round-Up

Where to begin?

Well, it is interesting that pollsters are openly party-affiliated in America. Would that they were so frank over here. Also that people with only mobile phones cannot be polled (remember, most polling is now conducted by telephone - they know whom they are polling, and have selected them specifically, as known, and as known about, individuals). Very tellingly, David Dimbleby repeatedly referred to "results" and "projections" interchangeably, calling to mind the crude extrapolations after the local elections, presented by almost the entire media as if they were real totals of real votes. They were not.

As to the red meat, it was fascinating to see two evenly-matched parties (McCain took nearly half the popular vote) slugging it out. We haven't had that here since 1992, and we are still a very long way from it. It will not come back while the Tories still exist, the continuation of that existence being, in turn, the only reason why the Labour Party still exists.

At the same time as they voted heavily for Obama in California, and comfortably for him in Florida, they also voted (very strongly in Florida, at least) to define marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman. That is one of several illustrations of the fact that this is a victory for morally and socially conservative foreign policy realists (as far from pacifism as from neoconservatism). If Democrats, whether permanently or even for the purposes of a single election, they are only ever and by definition Democrats for economically populist reasons. Which are, of course, the right reasons.

Those are the people who have put Obama in. And those are the people who could and should put him right back out again in 2012 if he does not deliver the goods on all three of economic populism, moral and social conservatism (at the very least, don't make matters any worse), and foreign policy realism. Yes, of course he is going to beat Sarah Palin anyway. But he has no absolute right to be the Democratic nominee at all. Look at the huge numbers now registering as Democrats. They cannot be Hard Leftists, diehard liberals or peaceniks, since people like that were already registered Democrats. And they might not always have nowhere else to go.

Perhaps the treason of Randy Scheunemann, who would have been McCain's National Security Advisor, will now be investigated and prosecuted?

Meanwhile, I know (well, more "know of") just the man to take over Obama's Senate seat in Illinois, even if he is a little mature these days. He is black, but he is not Jesse Jackson. (Jesse for Ambassador to London? Better than Oprah, I suppose. And it would really set them off over on things like Harry's Place.) There must be an old Catholic old Democrat capable of it in Delaware.

Hillary Clinton is on course for the Supreme Court (where she cannot make abortion any worse, because it could not possibly be any worse), and since 1974 no Republican has won statewide office in New York without the endorsement of the Buckley-founded Conservative Party of New York State. So the Democrats should be looking for someone who can win that endorsement on family values, on strictly limited and strictly legal immigration, on fair trade, on constitutional checks and balances, on national security, on energy independence, on Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, on America as an English-speaking country, and (one trusts, now that Bush is out of the way) on foreign policy realism, as surely as winning the endorsement of the Working Families Party on the protection of workers and consumers, on fair tax, on constitutional checks and balances, on universal health care, on Social Security, on environmental responsibility, on Civil Rights, and on foreign policy realism.

Nothing could better befit a state named after the last Catholic King of England, Scotland and Ireland (indeed, the only ever Catholic King of all three, unless you count his brother's very final moments).

And what of Cabinet positions? There are many reasons to hope for one for Jim Webb. Not the least is that I know just the man to take over in Virginia...

18 comments:

  1. Would you agree with me that the enthusiasm manifested in the election of Barack Obama is very likely to see its British parallel in forthcoming electoral success for the British People's Alliance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, "forthcoming" is the word...

    The British equivalents of the people who have put Obama in, and who could just as easily put him back out, are exactly our people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The British People's Alliance.

    Yes we can.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why ever not?

    We speak for the sort of people in Britain whose American equivalents decided this election: the people who voted both for Obama's economic and foreign policies, and to affirm traditional marriage.

    In which Western country are people like that NOT the mainstream?

    ReplyDelete
  5. All you need to do now is to find a way of communicating with "people like that".

    ReplyDelete
  6. You don't just do. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Indeed I am.

    The people like that are the people like us, the people like me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "the last Catholic King of England, Scotland and Ireland"

    Cardinal York.

    But his brother and predecessor was a cradle Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very good.

    York is the birthplace of Christendom, with the nave of York Minster standing over the spot where Constantine was proclaimed Emperor.

    The state that bears its name deserves a Senator worthy of that inheritance and identity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Surely Cardinal York was named after the place, not the other way around?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whoever made the Cardinal York remark was having a laugh (I hope...). New York is named after his grandfather, James, Duke of York, subsequently James VII and II.

    Of course, Cardinal York's name wasn't York at all, just as "Beatrice York's" name is not York at all. His name was Stuart, but his father's supporters styled him Duke of York from birth.

    Although he never visited these islands, he always thought of himself as British, and used to address visitors in what he thought was English, since no one had the heart to tell him that it was incomprehensible.

    Interesting, after his brother's death, he always used the title "Henry IX", without any reference to Scotland.

    And he called himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland" (that is, "Henry IX of Great Britain and Ireland", just like that), even though the United Kingdom of Great Britain had been brought into being by those whom he regarded as usurpers and by their supporters, not least for the specific purpose of keeping his House from the throne of either England or Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "and used to address visitors in what he thought was English, since no one had the heart to tell him that it was incomprehensible."

    How do they know?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think they were forewarned by his staff.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How did his staff know?

    ReplyDelete
  15. He had probably told them in advance in Italian that was going to be speaking in English. And they had doubtless been asked many times by visitors what on earth he had been saying when he did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Meanwhile, I know (well, more "know of") just the man to take over Obama's Senate seat in Illinois, even if he is a little mature these days. He is black, but he is not Jesse Jackson."

    I know who you mean.

    His Wikipedia entry has just been taken down because people were vandalizing it. So we are obviously not the only people thinking this way.

    Now that really would be a battle against Alan Keyes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The emails have gone to Chicago.

    ReplyDelete