john's thoughts

Although the coverage has been extreme in amount, it has overlooked a couple of points, so far as I am able to tell, that should be covered regarding the passing of Elizabeth II. As to the lady herself, I am not really ready to write about her. Her loss is one of those events that manages to be greatly anticipated and yet shocking at the same time, and I have not yet worked through my thoughts and emotions regarding this enough to distill them into coherent thought. Perhaps later—

One thing hardly touched upon by the media, though mentioned from time to time, is the one obvious comparison(other than being an English King)between Edward VII and Charles III. The similarity, of course, is that each spent most or all of his Middle Age as Prince of Wales. One could, of course, add that each of them followed a spectacular and revered mother, and was likely to look lacking in comparison.

Victoria(niece of William IV) came to the throne in 1837 at the age of 18 and seems immediately to have changed from being an inhibited, shy and bullied(by her mother)girl to a determined, dignified young woman, still inhibited, perhaps, but not ready to take dictation from Mom or anyone else, and determined to put her mark on the kingdom as fully as possible.

Of course, this was not really so possible as it had once been. Thanks to a toxic mix of Stuart ruler foolishness and Puritan/Parliamentary stubbornness, the days of “real” (that is literal)royal political leadership had been thoroughly leashed to the past and ended in 1689. Real royal political power had declined fairly steadily ever since. The King/Queen still had some power but the balance had clearly shifted to Parliament, mostly the House of Commons.

This had been capped off by the long and no doubt to many emotionally exhausting rule of George III who was literally not in his right mind for roughly half of his reign(1760-1820) His son, the long time “Prince Regent” became George IV and apparently had learned very little of benefit to himself or the country. His successor, William IV was something of an improvement but not a great one and not a bringer of great reform to society.(He did preside over the Great Reform Bill of 1832 but the work was, of course, nearly all done by Parliament). He did not bring the monarchy’s reputation to a lower level, but he restored it, if at all, only to a small extent. So it could be argued that Victoria had a great deal to do by way of reform and restoration of the Crown’s prestige.

It had a great deal to recover from. Late 18th century England was likely one of the more debauched societies in human history. Excessive gambling, political corruption, prostitution and their adherents were all over the place. Mistress keeping was unashamedly practiced by many if not most men of the upper and upper middle class, and heavy drinking to the point of alcoholism was common more or less across the society.

This all created an understandable desire on the part of many people for a return to what they considered to be(or at least hoped were)the standards of a previous generation. Some might have said the hypocrisies of a previous generation, but regardless, some change was clearly in order.

The reaction to the late 18th century ways had likely already begun by the time of Victoria’s ascension and the loose collection of ideas and opinions usually called “Victorianism” may have started before the lady’s reign did. In any event, it came to be identified with the Queen and there is little doubt that it would have been there to some extent, anyway. But there is also little doubt(or none)that without Victoria and Albert it would have been different and less influential. Very broadly speaking, Victorianism included(but was not limited to)an effort to make the world conform, or appear to conform to British middle class values. At its best this included some genuine high mindedness such as opposition to slavery and the slave trade. At its worst it included simple ignoring of reality–not recognizing the harshness of the early industrial revolution, for example, and a refusal to accept some of its social/moral effects. We think of it today as having to do mostly with sex and (as with the Hays Code)this is vaguely correct, but only vaguely. A lot of other things were concerned here too. I guess I’d say it was basically an attempt to make the world be or appear “nice” from a middle class UK point of view and(again like the Hays code) this had some reason and judgement behind it, but went so far as eventually to bring itself into disrepute.

But there were other aspects of Victoria’s reign to be considered, and the most important was the expansion and celebration of the British Empire. I am not now going to deal with the morality or lack of it with which the Brits ran the empire. I do have some opinions on it but I wish to save them for later. For now, let’s just say it made them the most powerful country in the world when you considered financial and military power combined with cultural prestige and overall domination.

All of this, moral, social, imperial etc was part of Edward’s heritage. He was 59 when he became King and therefore approaching being “old” for his time. He is largely remembered by history as a party-boy in his youth and as a rather dissolute middle-aged man who frequently cheated on his lovely and patient wife, Princess/Queen Alexandria. Like a lot of playboy types he also had an unfortunate tendency to get into debt, mostly gambling debt.

But to understand this about Edward is to understand, oh, I guess about half of him. Hidden behind that behavior there was a keen mind, a genuine interest in his family and his civilization, and a desire to do good and keep the peace. At a time when the British crown had declined in power to the point where the Prime Minister and his cabinet were just about (not quite, perhaps)everything in government policy, Edward used his personality and interpersonal skills in a way which gave him influence way out of proportion to his constitutional power. This may have been true in both domestic and foreign affairs, but the emphasis was the latter.

Edward was a natural diplomat, inclined to try to settle disputes rather than encourage them. He was intelligent and discreet enough to have a good understanding of how to do this and he had a genuine desire to do so. In addition to these personal qualities, he had one big situational advantage. His mother had married off her large family to almost every imaginable royal family in Europe. The meant that the nickname often given to Edward, “Uncle of Europe,” was true in almost as many ways literally as metaphorically. He was related to practically everybody in European royalty(and when he wasn’t he could look to his wife who was related to a lot of them too). Both the Kaiser and the Tsar referred to him as “Uncle Bertie.” “I shall write to Uncle Bertie about this,” Tsar Nicholas stated regarding a confrontation between Russian and German power.

During his reign the great powers of Europe were drifting slowly, not inevitably perhaps, but definitely into armed camps. These two camps became the Triple Alliance(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) and the Triple Entente(Britain, France, Russia). Edward’s role in all of this is not entirely clear and there is some debate over how much of a role he played in soothing occasional bruised feelings and offering constructive examples of how to keep the peace. But there is wide-spread agreement among historians that his diplomatic skills were considerable and that he used them in the interests of peace

At the time of his death war was not inevitable and there was still a little bit of flexibility in some of the leading players. France and Italy, belonging to opposing alliances, nonetheless did a “secret” deal by which they agreed not to attack each other. And there were some in Germany and Britain who hoped their common racial and religious history and royal families would help them avoid becoming total enemies.

So Edward was largely respected around Europe, at least among the royals(who often still had some power)and perhaps among the entire leadership class mixture. His efforts had been all on the side of keeping the peace, whatever their effectiveness. and it appears he commanded enough respect that in a crisis he might have calmed extreme feelings. Though no one can say for sure, it seems to me a great pity he was not still on the throne in that desperate summer of 1914. It might not have made a difference in the long run, but if it had it would have almost certainly been in the interests of peace–and the world would be much different now.

It is well to keep in mind that he did this against the background of a long reign by a mother who won the respect(and usually the support and affection)of nearly everyone. He may have lived and reigned in her shadow in some respects, but he was his own man and his own inspiration in some ways and left a place in history not as remarkable as Victoria’s, but close to equal in honor.

Charles has a similar situation, thought by no means exactly so. Whereas Victoria presided over the rise of an Empire, Elizabeth presided over the dissolution of one. Victoria’s reign saw an uneven and to some extent overall impossible effort to “restore” values relating to family and religious matters. But while only partially successful, she left a truly enormous and long-lasting influence and set of standards, many of which would eventually go but not without a long resistance.

Elizabeth’s reign saw more or less what many would refer to as the collapse of such. It is to her credit that she may have been somewhat bemused by these social/moral/taste changes, but never seemed confused or hysterical about them. She seemed to me to treat these not always welcome changes with a sort of world weary resignation, and an attempt to garner support for and to preserve what she could of the past. She knew that to preserve some of that past one would have to give up a part of it. “Things must change in order to remain the same.” (See “The Leopard.” a historical novel by Giuseppe di Lampedusa–there was a Burt Lancaster film based on it about 1963)

Charles must now step into all of this and make a place and a series of accomplishments for himself. The only way to do this will be to accomplish something for the UK and for what is left of the Commonwealth of Nations, and, of course, for the world beyond these. I have no serious grasp at this point of specifics, but he needs to keep certain things in mind and give his attention to a few important issues.

Brexit is likely here to stay. I never thought it was a very good idea and one of my few policy criticisms of Boris Johnson(a careless and foolish man in some ways, but not without political talent)was that he was a “leaver” while I would have been a “remainer.” But now it’s here and the UK has to deal with it. This is mainly a matter for the new PM and her cabinet, of course, but Charles could help. He looks to have gotten off on the right foot with Ireland by making a careful and well considered speech there, and that is all to the good. One of the real issues for the government now is Brexit and a real mess over what it means for trade concerning both the Ulster part of the UK and the Republic of Ireland to the south. (If you want to immerse yourself in this complex issue go to the BBC article on Brexit and Ireland posted on on the Internet Jun 27–just google “Brexit & Ireland) The new King could be helpful here just by his presence and, so far admirable calmness.

We know that Charles has been vocal in the past about certain issues. He needs to be careful now and try to help negotiate some changes almost without seeming to do so and certainly without “taking sides” in politics. This does not mean he has to maintain total silence on everything, but rather that he needs to be discreet and balanced, something his mother seemed to come to naturally.

One of his disadvantages is that he divorced one of the most popular and best loved royals in history. Whether this still is a strong mark against him in the mind of most people I don’t know, but surely there must be a residue of that feeling. There are some things you can’t do much about and this may be an example. I think his best bet there is to keep on being a good husband to his lady, now the Queen Consort, and to let the other go and hope others will do the same.

Edward was King at a time when the UK was fighting to remain at the absolute top of the world in power, wealth and national pride. Charles takes office at a time when it is still one of the leading world powers, but closer to the bottom of the list than at the top. I think it will be Charles’s duty and, one hopes, his eventual accomplishment, to help keep it there. Of course, again, the main responsibility will be with the PM and the Cabinet, but the monarch usually plays some role, perhaps perceived by outsiders, perhaps not. But the role has to be at least mostly from behind the scenes.

Since I doubt he will ask for my advice, I will offer it now to whomever will listen. I disliked Brexit not because I wanted to see the UK become less, but because I wanted it to remain as close to the top as possible. A century ago it was at least arguable that it could stay in the top 2 or 3 powers in the world. Today I doubt that is true. Because it is still wealthy(comparatively, anyway)and powerful and because the world consciousness has gotten used to having it heard from, and because of the world-wide influence of British culture and particularly the immense influence of the English language. it has a good chance of staying there.

But the way to stay there is to assume a lot, but not too much. Demand respect, well, of course. But do not claim priority of everything. When there is trouble in Europe, or the Commonwealth or wherever, offer help and if asked take pride in providing leadership.(Johnson did well with Ukraine) But don’t assume. In short be a good, restrained power, sober, dignified and reformed, shorn of its excessive power of the past and ready to offer its huge supply of experience and common sense. If the King will follow this sort of plan and most of all, prevail upon his political leaders to make it reality, well–the sun has already set on the Empire and the days at the very top–but it might keep shining on the residual influence, the result of the wisdom which comes from experience, pride and pain and a mature philosophy that includes them all.

w

There are a lot of books and articles regarding Hollywood and censorship, including a fair number about, more spefically the Hays Code itself. Here are a few varying samples and suggestions

Gilbert, Nora, “Better Left Unsaid: Victorian Novels, Hays Code Films and the Benefits of Censorship”

Bernstein, Matthew, editor, “Controling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era.”

Leff, Leonard and Jerold L Simmons, “The Dame in the Kimono–Hollywood, censorship and the Production Code”

Cook, Sophie, “The Pre-code Films: Hays Code Censorship and Ever Chaning Hollywood”

Viera, Mark A, “Forbidden Hollywood–“The Pre-code Era”

Vizzard, Jack, “See No Evil-Life Inside a Hollywood Censor”

Mondello, Bob, “Remembering Hollywood’s Hays Code 40 Years On”(on-line article)

Denby, David, “Sex and Sexism-The Hays Code Wasn’t All Bad”–New Yorker article availabe on line

It appears to me that we have reached the turning point in our quest. Though one could make arguments for earlier or later depending upon the criteria and the interpretation, I will stick with my original idea that the 1976 election was the election where the primaries importance became truly “Primary,” though not exclusive.

Jimmy Carter was a brilliant man and a disciplined worker. But he arrived at the White House door inexperienced in the ways of Washington and made a number of early mistakes. The worst was not to be careful to cement a good, cooperative relationship with his presumed Congressional ally, House Speaker Tip O’Neil, or other leading Democrats. He also faced severe inflation, the roots of which lay before his administration began. So he was stuck dealing with inflation or “stagflation”(rising prices and rising unemployment.). Additionally came the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet Olympics where Carter made a huge mistake; and worst of all the Iran Hostage Crisis which might be considered a bigger one.

As the 1980 election approached the President seemed in deep trouble. He had responded to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by announcing a total boycott of the Moscow Olympics which meant no Americans would be allowed to participate. This unwise decision was a deep disappointment to many Americans, particularly sports fans, and to the athletes and their families.

Another crisis had erupted, more or less simultaneously with the Olympics. In Novemeber, 1979, exactly one year to the day before the next Presidential election, a group of radical Iranian students had stormed and taken over the US Embassy in Tehran, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, the effective power in Iran, backed them. This led to a real international crisis. Carter made a couple of speeches in which he was tough on Iran and Khomeini and his slagging popularity soared–for awhile. But these two issues–particularly the hostages–would dog Carter throughout the campaign and eventually, I believe, cost him re-election.

Late in 1979, Sen Ted Kennedy of MA, the surviving Kennedy brother, announced he would challenge Carter for the nomination. Surprisingly the usually poised Kennedy got off to a bad start with a clumsy interview with CBS newsman Roger Mudd. For once Kennedy appeared indecisive and lacking in self-confidence. He did better later, but never quite made up for his bad start. He did, however, succeed in reducing Carter’s chances of getting re-elected.

Kennedy won a moderately impressive series of primaries against the President, including vote-rich NY, which was enough to make the Carter people squirm a bit. Unsurprisingly Carter got the nomination, but with about the same amount of optimism and hope that Ford had.

On the Republican side, Reagan tried again, this time successfully .After a spirited spring campaign he beat out of number of other primary contestants, the most prominent of whom was George H W Bush of TX, son of one time Senator Prescott Bush of CT. The most interesting of the others was Rep John Anderson of IL an intelligent and fairly charismatic moderate/liberal Republican who made no bones about his opposition to Reagan’s apparent conservatism. But the center of gravity for the party had now shifted to the right enough that Bush’s chances would flame out early and Anderson would not really have any chances within the party. Bush had won two big northern primaries, PA and MI and perhaps partly in recognition of his vote getting in non-conservative states he got the VP nomination. Anderson would run as an independent. I think it could be said that RR’s victory for the nomination came as a result of his obvious actor’s ability to communicate, pretty strong support among the bosses and an undeniable record of primary victories. Nearly from the beginning he won a large majority of delegates.

During the campaign hopes for a hostage release rose and fell frequently. Less than two weeks before the election they were dashed again by a lack of US-Iranian agreement and whatever hopes Carter had were gone. Some early gaffe’s by RR and his staff had made things closer than some had expected, but in the end the result was no different. Whatever foolish things some of the Reaganites had said, Carter could not shake off the hostage crisis and RR won an electoral landslide taking 44 states(Carter won GA, his home state, MN, his running mate’s home state, WV,MD, DE and RI, also taking DC. Carter got only 41% of the popular vote, but RR’s 51% was really not that impressive. This almost-not-a-majority percentage, however, was largely eclipsed by the overwhelming victory of RR in the Electoral College. Anderson carried no states but got about 6 1/2% of the popular vote, slightly better than average for a third party candidate. Clearly the primaries played a large role here, boosting RR and helping to ruin Carter. The day of the primaries had finally arrived.

In 1984 there was great activity in one party re :the nomination and just about none in the other. RR was perceived by nearly all Republicans as a charismatic and successful President. This was to some degree true, though there were soft spots in the economy when it came to the disadvantaged, never a favored group by the Reaganites. Most Americans seemed to feel optimistic, however, and no one seriously questioned Reagan’s re-nomination, certainly not from within the Party

On the Dem side there was considerable anger about what they considered the Administration’s callous attitude toward the poor, plus doubts about US foreign policy. There was also some liberal contempt for what they considered a low-brow and anti-intellectual administration, a view which was somewhat snarky and not a popular one, but also not one completely without reason. There were a number of willing contenders to take on Reagan, but fairly early it came down to a two-man race. The favorite was former Vice-President and long time Sen Walter Mondale of MN. His main challenger was Sen Gary Hart of CO, who seemed a whole new and different kind of candidate. Hart was hard to define as more conservative or liberal than Mondale. What many voters thought, particularly younger ones, was that he was certainly “cooler”‘ a position easier to define according to sociology than to traditional politics. Hart was highly intelligent and a good speaker and he was willing to fight the former VP every step of the way.

In June, on the day of the last two significant primaries, Mondale won a solid victory in old-fashioned, working class NJ, as expected. But Hart scored a big victory in less orthodox, quixotic California. Mondale had expected to have the nomination bagged now, but instead(though still the overwhelming favorite), he was a few votes short. He spent the next few weeks largely on the phone, exerting pressure, reminding people of political debts owed, and asking for their support at the convention. By the time of the convention he appeared to have it nailed down, and in fact he did. It would be the last “old-fashioned:” convention(albeit with a definitely new fashioned candidate in Gary Hart) in which there was still a smidgen of doubt about what would happen when the clerk called the roll. Mondale won amid underwhelming suspense, and Hart bowed out fairly gracefully. Mondale caused a great stir by choosing a woman, Rep Geraldine Ferraro of NY as his running mate, the first female VP candidate for one of our two main parties. A feisty, articulate and likeable NYC blonde, she was, if anything, an asset to the Dem campaign, but VP nominees seldom make much of a difference and Mondale took a shellacking, winning only 1 state, his own MN(point of interest, but not of great importance–in the twenty years, 1964-1984, there was a Minnesotan on the Democratic Presidential ticket every election but one–name, always, Humphrey or Mondale).

The 1988 election was a much different situation. In would be another no incumbent running election, so the voters would be electing a new President. On the Republican side the leading candidate was VP George HW Bush. After two terms of serving the Reagan Administration, he was in a sense the Administration candidate, thought RR carefully refrained from getting involved in the race most of the time. Bush had a number of rivals, the most serious being Kansas Sen and former VP candidate Bob Dole, and Televangelist Pat Robertson. Both had some popular support, but so did Bush because, for one thing, he was Reagan’s VP and presumably RR’s man. He also had the Republican establishment behind him and this was important.

Bush began badly by losing both IA and NH. But his better experienced and competent team managed to pull together a well organized campaign while Dole failed to shine as hoped(by his supporters) and Robertson got caught in a mini-scandal from his military service–he appeared to have claimed combat service when he had not so served. By persistence and organization, Bush outflanked the others and won enough delegates that well before the convention he was the assumed candidate. Inexplicably, he chose IN Sen Dan Quayle, hardly a national figure, as his running mate.

The early favorite in the Democratic race was Gov Michael Dukakis of MA. The son of Greek immigrants, he could play heavily on his immigrant background and his rise to success. He had several challengers, most importantly Sen Paul Simon of IL, Rep Richard Gephart of MO and Black leader Jesse Jackson(Jesse had tried once before, a brief, unsuccessful campaign four years earlier). It was a free for all for awhile and all had at least some small victories to claim, but it came down to Dukakis and Jackson. It was fairly obvious that the Democratic Party was not yet ready for a Black candidate(nor was the US for that matter)and Dukakis’s wins in some important states, mainly NY, iced the nomination for him. It was another race in which the primaries played a serious role, this time for both parties.

At the Democratic convention there was a sense of excitement as the delegates waited to be addressed by their immigrant oriented candidate, who had quickly chosen Sen Lloyd Bentsen of TX to run with him. Someone got the idea of playing Neil Diamond’s rousing “Come to America” as Dukakis took the stage to make his acceptance speech. It was a moment of almost magical joy, but it was rarely, if ever, matched in the campaign again. Dukakis failed to expand his original base very much, or to take many voters from the Republicans, and Bush won a startling victory, about 54% of the popular vote and a 426-112 edge in the Electoral College(One of Dukakis’s electors deserted him and the final vote was 426-111. I believe this is the last time to date that an elector did not vote for the candidate he or she was pledged to support).

In 1992 on the Republican side it was literally no contest. The Gulf War was over and won, the economy a bit sluggish, but not bad and there was no immediate serious threat at the door(or so it seemed anyway). Just about no one in the GOP was interested in possibly ruining the Party’s chances of another 2 term presidency. .Nor did many–if any-feel motivation to do so.

The Democrats, however, had other ideas. They had a feeling that despite HW’s high poll ratings, there was discontent in the background and they were not comfortable with the direction they felt things were going, domestically or in foreign policy. They also had an open, large field with a number of seriously qualified candidates in it, and they felt that HW’s rather bland personality might be exploitable. There were several more or less serious candidates in the Democratic race. Fairly early it appeared that the one most to be reckoned with–if he didn’t destroy himself first–was the youthful and charismatic Governor of AR, Bill Clinton. He did not begin as a winner and for awhile he looked like a loser due to the revelation of his number of affairs, particularly one with the strait forward and willing-to-talk Gennifer Flowers. This wound up putting Bill and Hillary Clinton on 60 minutes(right after the Super Bowl) for an interview. The Governor handled himself well, and began to refer to himself as “the Comeback Kid.” The name stuck and so did the change of image as he looked a winner again. Handsome and polished and with an easy going sense of humor he charmed audiences and began to win delegates.

But he was not without opposition, both from those who decried his lifestyle and those who (at least claimed)that he simply couldn’t win. His most serious opponnet was, ironically, a man many refused to take seriously, Jerry Brown, the unpredictable and flashy Governor of California. Brown won some delegates himself and particularly took the CT primary, leading some to think he would trash the Clinton campaign. But Clinton rallied, and, helped by a gaffe or two from Brown, won primary after primary, following his loss in CT .Well before the convention he had the nomination secured. He chose TN Senator Al Gore as his running mate. No attempt at geographical or political balance was noticeable in this choice. But it did provide the Dems with a ticket of two smart, photogenic, young southern moderate-liberals who would be hard to take down in debate(or news conferences).

The campaign was complicated by the third party candidacy of TX millionaire Ross Perot, who admitted being an amateur at politics and frequently showed it. But his opposition to the tax structure and the whole way the US taxed its citizens resonated with many. It is difficult to say what, if any, effect he had on the outcome of the election. It appears he took votes from both Bush and Clinton, Bush likely losing a few more. Clinton sounded better than Bush in the debates(Bush was memorably caught on camera glancing nervously at his wristwatch).

On election night Clinton emerged with a solid if not spectacular victory. He got 43% of the popular vote which is not bad in a three way race in which the third party candidate actually swings some weight. Perot did, getting about 20%.

In 1996 there was no question of a Democratic race. After a lot of “rookie” mistakes had damaged his popularity, Clinton had begun to connect with citizens and to offer ideas they liked. No Democrat was about to challenge his re-nomination.

The ‘Republicans had a large field led by KS Senator Bob Dole who had sought the nomination before and twenty years earlier had been the VP candidate. He was well known around the country and party, perhaps a bit too well known, and perhaps a few considered that he’d already been around the track too often. He had a number of challengers, most of them not extremely serious threats. One who was a serious threat was conservative columnist and commentator Pat Buchanan, a one-time Nixon speechwriter and favorite of many in the Goldwater wing of the party.

Early on Dole did not do well, with Buchanan and others sniping at him and his Primary victory record was unimpressive for awhile. But after this temporary floundering he began to win primaries in the late spring and soon he was the assumed candidate. His nomination at the convention was assured but not very exciting. Dole was not a match for Clinton’s stylish and witty campaigning and besides ,Clinton now had a strong economy, falling unemployment, and a fairly peaceful world, at least for the US, on his side. Perot tried again to less effect this time(a common pattern with third party candidates who insist on doing it a second time) To almost no one’s surprise Clinton was re-elected by about the same margin as before. The primaries were characteristically unimportant in incumbent Clinton’s re-nomination. They were very important with the Republicans and it was not until Dole showed the ability to win consistently in the primaries that he wrapped up the nomination.

By the time of the 2000 campaign things had changed a bit. The country had had four years of prosperity, despite the collapse of the dotcom bubble on Wall Street. Unemployment was low and investments and stocks were high. There was an overall good feeling about the economy and there seemed to be more peace both within the US and abroad.(little did we know then). The Democrats should have been a shoo-in for at least one more term, but they had one big issue against them. Bill Clinton, though widely admired and liked, had a penchant for getting into trouble with women, something that had, we remember, been an issue eight years earlier. His affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, led to a huge public scandal made worse by the fact the the President publicly lied about it. Though the Dems surprisingly won a slight victory in the 1998 midterms, the Lewinsky thing led to an impeachment vote against Clinton. He was acquitted fairly easily but the clamor and stench lasted and seemed to affect the national political atmosphere as the campaign for the nominations began.

On the Democratic side the obvious candidate, with at least tacit White House support and a slew of political IOU.s, was VP Al Gore. He was bright and educated, he understood the rising internet and the loudly debated issue of global warming, and he seemed loyal to Clinton and yet independent in his thinking. Although there were several possible challengers, only NJ Sen Bill Bradley had the prestige and political presence to be a real threat. Intelligent and highly principled, Bradley managed to create an understanding that he was somewhat more liberal than Gore and would be somewhat more generous with public money for good causes. He did this without being extremely confrontational, though it led to at least one nasty exchange between the two men in a debate. Bradley may have come off as too moralistic and his message, while exciting to some, never got through to enough. He generated some enthusiasm and ran up a fair number of primary votes, but he never beat Gore in any primary and in the spring he dropped out Gore chose another man of upstanding reputation, Sen Joseph Lieberman of CT, as his running mate.

On the Republican side there were several willing candidates, but only two who generated much support and/or enthusiasm. TX Governor George W Bush(“W” to many), son of HW, had the experience, both in his family and in being a two-term Gov of TX. Some early doubts were raised about his character and capabilities, but he largely overcame them. His real competition was John McCain, US Senator from AZ, a sort of maverick Republican in that in that he sometimes refused to toe the party line or pay the mostly expected homage to party leaders. A Vietnam vet, he had spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp and was popular among the military. Unusually for a military hero, he had a large number of moderate followers too, many of whom were impressed with his independence.

He turned out to be an effective campaigner in the Northeast, but his campaign foundered in SC where he lost badly after some clearly nasty and unethical lies were told about him. The Bush campaign denied complicity in this, but it sapped the energy from McCain’s campaign. Bush rallied to run up a number of Primary victories in the South and Midwest. McCain’s people saw the writing and so did the candidate. By early summer it was all over and Bush was the nominee apparent. He chose former Rep Dick Cheney, a long time party loyalist who had been Secretary of Defense for his father, as his running mate.

The campaign was a curious one with Bush emphasizing Democratic scandals even though there were few significant ones other than the question of Bill Clinton’s sex life. There were three televised debates and Bush seemed better at these than many had expected. Gore, at the same time, seemed off balance in the first two, once moving over near Bush who was answering a question and appearing to invade his space. He finally got back on track in the third debate in which it appeared to me he was the clear winner. Election night came down to a long count and the crisis over who had really won FL. This eventually wound up as a Supreme Court case, Bush v Gore, and until it was settled there was a wait of nearly a month to decide for certain who would be the next President. Most Americans found this weird, which it was, and assumed nothing like it would ever happen again in their generation. Twenty Years later they would be proven wrong. Meanwhile, Bush became the 43rd President of the US(He and his father referred to each other after this as “41” and “43”)

In 2004 there was no contest for the Republican nomination. George W Bush was clearly going to be re-nominated after successfully leading the response to 9/11. Part of this included the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which turned out to be a disaster, but this was not yet plain during the campaign.

The Iraq war and a rather stagnant but overall not too bad economy were the main issues and the Dems had a stable of candidates willing to go. The early leader, before the Primaries began, was Gov Howard Dean of NH. Dean was a poised speaker with a sort of introverted but engaging personality and what appeared to be an unusually honest approach. He led the polls through most of 2003 and entered the new year clearly the most popular candidate in the party. Among Dean’s challengers were three formidable Senators, John Kerry of MA, John Edwards of NC, and Joe Lieberman of CT, the VP candidate from the previous election. Lieberman’s candidacy did not take hold much, but the other two did. There was also Rep Richard Gephardt of MO a man of apparently unimpeachable character and a skilled political tactician, but without the public personality charisma of most of the others. Another possibility(still seen on CNN commentating) was Gen Wesley Clark, a liberal-oriented military leader who was an opponent of Bush’s policies.

Early on there was a veritible logjam of candidates in which Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Gephart all appeared to have a chance. The polls were close and Dean, whom many still considered the favorite, made a serious if odd mistake campaigning in IA. He made a concession speech which was quite optimistic and engaging but finished with a loud, enthusiastic shout which appeared to irritate many in the media and perhaps some others. One network pointed out that Dean’s mic was specially programmed for his special situation(in the midst of an enthusiastic crowd)and that if this had not been done the shout would have sounded more or less normal and/or gone unnoticed. But, rationally or not, noticed it was and after a media frenzy about it Dean’s campaign went into a sort of snit from which it never recovered. In my opinion this was one of the most stupid and irrational of reasons to lose a campaign, but once the speculation started there seemed nothing that the campaign could do to stop it.

The primaries were a back and forth affair in which John Kerry made the best showing and certainly seemed the leader in Gravitas. He received the nomination and went not too far from the mainstream in choosing the handsome and charismatic Edwards as his running mate. They made an attractive and well-spoken team and “W”‘s tendency to gaffes gave them some targets, but it didn’t work. It had all come down to FL in 2000 and now it was all OH. The day after the election Kerry conceded that OH was beyond his grasp and so was the election.

In 2008 both parties had high hopes in that the incumbent was not eligibal to run and it would be new tickets for both sides.

On the Republican side there were several candidates, but it came down pretty much to AZ Sen John McCain, already a veteran of one try for the WH, and AR Gov Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, not previously a national figure, had a pleasing and common touch on TV that won over many as did his straight forward appeal to a sort of old-fashioned conservatism based on faith and individual integrity. McCain, always a complicated person and candidate, was the conscience of some more sensitive Republicans who wanted their party to appeal to a wider set of voters, partly out of a belief in justice and equality and partly because they saw it was the winning way.

The campaign could have been complicated and long lasting. Huckabee started out strongly winning the IA caucuses and setting McCain’s and other campaigns back on their heels. But his appeal did not hold up nationwide, and as he was fading McCain was rising, bouncing back quickly with a victory in the NH primary and then taking a number of others shortly thereafter. By late March he had an apparently unshakeable grasp on the nomination, earlier than expected.

Among the Dems there were two serious contenders. It had been assumed for some time that former former First Lady(and Senator) Hillary Clinton would be a leading contender and would get the nomination becoming the first female candidate to have a real chance of becoming President. This changed when IL Sen Barack Obama announced in 2007 that he was running., Obama, 40ish, sleek and sophisticated, had become an instant national figure after a rousing keynote address at the 2004 convention. Many assumed he would be the first black Presidential candidate with a real chance of winning–sometime later.

Obama did well in the very early campaigning, before the primaries and caucuses, and demoralized Clinton and her campaign with a victory in IA. He was about to take on front runner status when the surprise was returned as Clinton won the NH Primary. After that it became a fairly(not always)polite two person race with Obama winning many delegates in the South where the party was now strongly Black influenced if not dominated, and in the East. Hillary held up her hopes by winning some big ones, including PA, OH and TX. But her margins of victory were small and while giving her and her supporters bragging rights, these did little for her delegate count.

The Republicans, in some cases at least, still used the old winner-take-all rule (remember that Goldwater won the California primary by a smidgen but got all of the delegates), but the Dems had reformed their primlary voting in a number of ways. One of these was to make the delegate counts more accurately reflect the percentage won in the primary votes. This was doubtless more democratic and I would not advocate that it be changed. But it was a cause of great frustration for Clinton and Clinton supporters to see her win several important states by small margins and barely inch closer to Obama’s delegate count. In the early summer his number of delegates began to close in on the majority needed for the nomination. Clinton, seeing the writing on the wall, and not wishing to be the cause of a bitterly divided convention and party suspended her campaign. The Primaries were obviously very important this time.

The VP choices are worth noting. Obama picked former Presidential aspirant and veteran DE Sen Joe Biden and in doing so created a future President. McCain, apparently taken with a desire to do something extraordinary picked Gov Sarah Palin of AK, largely unknown and unheard of outside that State. A photogenic woman with some speaking ability and charm, but almost no noticeable knowledge of anything outside that State, she also seemed to have few coherent opinions on much of anything relevant to governing. For an aging candidate with a dicey health history, she seemed a wildly chancy and to many, inappropriate choice.

Obama won with 52%-53% of the popular vote, a fairly substantial,though not landslide-type advantage. In the Electoral Contest he was much stronger, winning 345-126.

In 2012 there was no contest for the Dems–it was a virtual certainty President Obama would be re-nominated without resistence from within his party. For the Republicans the leader as the campaign began was former MA Gov Mitt Romney, whose father, George Romney, Governor of MI, had tried for the nomination in the 1960’s.(He pretty much sunk his own chances when he complained that he had been “brainwashed” but the US military in Vietnam). Romney had been a moderate Republican MA Governor and had helped to establish “Romneycare,” a somewhat government oriented health care system that to many conservatives smacked of socialism and to many liberals didn’t go far enough but was a least a beginning.

Having finished a surprising second in the 2008 contest, Romney had more or less spent the next three years campaigning and had a substantial but not huge lead when things got started. He had two serious challengers and one semi-serious one. The serous ones were PA Senator Rick Santorum, a somewhat moralistic sounding conservative and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the loudest of the right wing Republican voices. The semi-serious one was TX Rep Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican who could wow many on the right and, because of his anti war rhetoric, some on the left .He was good at raising enthusiasm but not at gathering a lot of voters.

The early part of the race looked close and possibly leading to a long run for the nomination. Santorum barely won the IA caucuses, Romney the NH primary and Gingrich the important SC Primary. Romey’s victory in Fl gave him a lead but not a clear one and the race went on through March. Each candidate had victories and defeats, but Romney hung onto his delegate lead and began winning Primaries with something approaching consistency. By sometime in April he had an apparently insurmountable lead and Gingrich and Santorum both quit campaigning. Paul’s effort was not a serious challenge. Romney chose Rep Paul Ryan of WI as his running mate; he had made taxes his long time concern, not to say obsession.

Romney ran a closer race that his party had four years earlier, but still lost the popular vote by more than 3%. Obama had a fairly comfortable 332-206 edge in the Electoral College.

2016 was very different, perhaps genuinely unique in some ways. This was partly because there was a serious female candidate who had a real chance of becoming President and because there was also a very unorthodox candidate and a campaign that was strange itself and led to a bizarre outcome.

On the Democratic side there were orginally six serious contenders, but the only ones who would stay that way long term were Hillary Clinton, representing more or less the moderate wing of the party, and NH Sen Bernie Sanders, a self-styled socialist representing the “progressive” wing.(I have never felt Bernie is really socialist in any sensible meaning of the word. “Liberal Democrat” would be my description.)

At the beginning the results were mixed as Clinton won a close victory in IA and Sanders a strong one in NH. He won more states after that, but Clinton scored in ( the newly recognized as diverse) NV. Especially, she won with a large victory margin in SC showing both her appeal extending to the South and, more importantly, to Black Americans. Sanders continued to campaign hard and won some delegates, but by June Clinton was uncatchable and Sanders suspended his campaign. Later, Clinton chose Tim Kaine, a somewhat obscure US Senator from VA, as her running mate.

Despite the mark Clinton made regarding women in American politics, the bigger story lay with the Republicans. NY millionaire and entrepreneur Donald Trump was the leader in polls of Republican voters from his announcement he wa running, about a year before the convention. He was a very unusual candidate in that he eschewed ordinary behavior and caution, and often used language which in vulgarity or degree of extremism had heretofore been unheard in US politics. But he touched a deep feeling of dissatisfaction running through Middle America, particularly the Midwest and the South, but by no means entirely absent elsewhere. He also appealed to Whites of a Protestant background, but pulled in a fair number of people from other backgrounds. Many people, some of whom did not necessarily like Trump’s personality or style, felt he was speaking for them and that no other politicians understood them. Others, both ordinary people and politicians, were outraged by Trump’s flirting with bigotry, his vulgarity, his condescending attitudes toward women and his overall lack of what they considered correct behavior.(To be fair, most of the attitude toward women quotations came from earlier , before the campaign, speeches and sound bites.)

Trump appears to have appealed mostly to people form the right wing of the Republican Party or people who were not party members but who identified with a certain brand of conservatism. He started his run for the nomination with more than a dozen opponents, but by early 2016 the field had been largely narrowed down to Trump and three others–Sen Ted Cruz of TX, Sen Marco Rubio of FL and Gov John Kasich of OH.

At first it looked close as Cruz, who came off as about as conservative as Trump but slightly more normal, won in NH. Trump won in SC and several other states, but Cruz stayed competitive with a big WI win. After that, however, Trump’s apparently almost perfect communication with certain portions of the white middle class took over and he reeled off a string of Primary victories. Eventually the others dropped out, Kasich being the last to do so. Kasich had begun to finish fairly consistently second in later Primaries, and if this had started earlier it might have made a difference. I do not mean that Kasich would have stopped Trump becoming the nominee, but he might have roughed him up badly with only the two of them on the stage. The smart and sincere Ohioan might have made a difficult opponent in such circumstances and might have sent Trump into the fall campaign with diminished confidence.

As it turned out, however, by late Spring Trump had pocketed the nomination. At the Cleveland convention his opponents made one loud but totally unsuccessful attempt to establish themselves as a serious group, and when they failed, faded quickly into obscurity. Trump chose Gov Mike Pence of IN(and largely unknown in other states)as his running mate. A restrained, morally and politically conservative man, he may have steadied Trump’s support with some more traditional Republicans. Trump may have regretted his choice in 2020-2021 when Pence honorably refused to take part in the plethora of odd actions by Trump and others , trying to find a way to overturn his 2020 loss.

Clinton seemed to win the debates, She was clearly Trump’s superior in knowledge and understanding and mentally ready to deal with the Presidency. Trump sometimes behaved boorishly, once walking around behind her as she was speaking. This apparently made no difference in the end; On election night it soon became apparent Trump was running better than the polls had predicted. In fact, he did lose the popular vote by a lot, about 2%. But his geographical distribution of votes was such that for only the second time in over a century(but also the second time in less than 20 years)the Presidential victory went to the candidate who won fewer popular votes. Trump bested Clinton by about 20 Electoral Votes and was duly and officially elected the following month.

The 2020 campaign was unique in that it was the first (and we may hope and pray the only)campaign waged against the ever-present background of the covid virus. For the Republicans it was an easy choice. Nearly all Republicans thought President Trump had done a good job. Many, though I think a smaller number, admired him as a person. Both parties dispensed with the large gathering type of convention because of covid and did everything connected to the conventions on television. The Republicans announced that Trump himself was their platform and didn’t bother to write one. This was considered weird by a number of people then but seems more or less forgotten now.

The Dems began with at least 29 theoretical candidates, a ridiculously large number which dropped to 11 by the time the Primaries began. The only serious ones were Sen Elizabeth Warren of MA, Sen Bernie Sanders of CT, trying it again, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend IN and former VP Joe Biden. Biden had led the polls almost consistently in 2019 but things did not go well for him early in the Primary season. The IA caucuses led to a split decision with Sanders winning the largest number of votes, but Buttigieg winning the highest delegate count. Sanders also won by a slight margin over Buttigieg in NH and a larger one in NV thus acquiring the front runner mantle. Biden ran behind in the early Primaries and seemed to be dropping as Bernie ascended. But Rep Jim Clyburn of SC, one of the South’s most respected Black leaders, announced his support for the former VP and his influence was enough to make a huge difference. Biden won a big victory in SC, slowing down the Sanders bandwagon and re-establishing himself as a formidable candidate. He already had name recognition and experience and now could add the all important factor of momentum which so often determines a candidate’s fate in Primaries. After SC his campaign clearly gathered steam and he won about 2/3 of the remaining primaries. By April he was obviously the presumed Dem candidate for President and the rest dropped out or at least stopped, the feisty Sanders being the last to give up.

Biden chose Sen Kamala Harris of California as his running mate. making her the second woman and the first Black person ever chosen for the second spot on the ticket. Biden won the election after a bitter campaign. He won by about 4 1/2% of the popular vote and took the Electoral College by 306-232. This led to weeks of controversy, arguing, false claims by Trump and his people and eventually the terrible riot of Jan 6. But this is, fortunately from my point of view, beyond the purview of our inquiry. It is, rather, time to stop and reflect.

So, what lessons, if any, are to be gleaned from the past century plus of Primaires and politics? I suggest that the way to approach this is to review the Presidents both the old system and the new Primary-oriented one gave to the US. It occurs to me that the old system produced three Presidents who could be considered “great.” Nearly all historians agree that FDR belongs in the top three of all time along with Washington and Lincoln. His cousin, Theodore, used to be one of the “near greats” and I think still should be(or higher) by any rational judgement. I disapprove of some of his foreign policy, but he was a very unusual and I think, great, leader. The one doubtful choice of this trio is Lyndon B Johnson. Because of his foreign policy troubles, mostly the unpopular Vietnam War which tore the country apart, some consider him a failure. But his domestic accomplishments, Civil Rights, Medicare and the rest of the “Great Society” legislation could have been done by no other 20th century President in my opinion(and perhaps at no other time). Richard Nixon who, if nothing else, was a sort of expert in Presidential power, once said that only the 2 Roosevelts and LBJ dominated the Presidency in the 20th century and I think he was right.

Some others deserve mention. Both HST and Ike I think could be considered “near great” for their judicious handling of foreign policy security issues and for their personal honor and integrity. They also both pursued basically sane and attainable(if not attained)domestic policies. Neither was without error, but they stand high in comparison to the rest.

More than half a century later, JFK remains an enigma and maybe always will. The glamour and the glitz often dominates , but it is difficult to get to close to his history without realizing the presence of a remarkable mind. His soaring rhetoric was certainly the best(and remains so)of any President since recording was invented. Whether future generations will think him great or near great or whatever I do not know, but I am willing to leave him and his tragically and violently cut short time in the WH with at least the benefit of the doubt. The one thing we can say about his tenure in office is that he guided the country through the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War and, face to face with Khrushchev he pulled it off, saving world peace and the reputation of the leaders on both sides.

Very well, what then of the Presidents who came from the other system, the Primaries dominated one that gave the voters more direct choice of who got the nomination? This is difficult to say, but I searched the records of Presidents of this later era in vain for anyone to match the two Roosevelts and LBJ. If anyone had told me 30 years ago I would one day write this, I would have been very surprised, but I think that only one who can match(or come close to it) the qualifications of great Presidents of the past is Ronald Reagan. No, I didn’t like his Presidency. I voted against him twice and likely would do so again if given the opportunity. He represented the wing of the Republican party I have never liked(even when I was a Republican). I thought his domestic policies though, strongly approved by conservative pundits and commentators, did not take into account the many people left out or at least left behind in our country and who clearly needed more help. I haven’t changed my mind on these things, but I do consider now some other things about him—

First of all, though not a great intellect, he had the ability to influence and lead thinking and opinion in many cases. I was not among those who responded to this part of him, but it is clearly true. Furthermore, one writer once said the first test to tell if a leader is great is, “Does he fill up the space around him?” Reagan did. To many Americans, myself not included, he provided a symbol of the American past that they thought should and could be nourished into the future without changes. I doubt this was so, but it comforted many and he served another role of a leader, he was for many a symbol of the nation.

I was appalled and to some extent still am by his early years in which he succeeded in slowing down and sometimes reversing the “intrusion” of the welfare state. I thought most of these “intrusions” were good and not harmful and should go on. He did not agree and his political victories in his first term were remarkable and he seemed to be turning a society around(In the end this was, fortunately in my opinion, only partly true). But he did dominate the political scene and show leadership ability that had not been seen in the White House since LBJ and which is rarely seen.

Looking at his successors, I think that only two stand out and should be considered–Bill Clinton and Barack Obama(not coincidentally, perhaps, two of the most intelligent Presidents in American History.) But I cannot quite say either one was “great.” Clinton, slow to start, but a fast learner, turned out to be the most capable Dem Party leader of the era and the only one who, in sheer political skills, could match Reagan. Despite enormously bitter Republican opposition he guided the country on its journey into the digital age, ably helped by VP Al Gore. They appear to have been the first two significant US political leaders to grasp the internet’s importance, particularly its economic implications. Clinton gave the nation two terms of a rising economy, particularly in the second term when the unemployment rate dropped to 3.8%. He had no disastrous encounters as a foreign policy President and helped lead the NATO air war on Serbia at a time when many were at risk over the break up of what had once been Yugoslavia.

But with Clinton you must considered his lackings, particularly with truth telling, most particularly in the Lewinski case. The lying about what had happened was about as bad as the event itself and it left behind a reek of bitterness. This limited what Clinton could do in office(though he did a lot), and particularly his ability to lead a united party to a victory in 2000. (An interesting sidelight here is that LBJ and Clinton were largely successful as domestic Presidents. Each spent the final months of his Presidency vigorously pursuing peace, LBJ in Vietnam, Clinton in the Middle East where he nearly pulled of a deal between Israel and the PLO, but which was thwarted by the stubbornness of Yasar Arafat. Clinton had already helped Tony Blair to bring something approaching a reasonable settlement to Northern Ireland.) I continue to admire Bill Clinton who I think was a very good President, but not quite a great one.

Obama is in a way harder to explain. He has to stand with Jimmy Carter as one of the most morally upstanding and honest men ever to be President. In the face of mostly subdued but nonetheless noticeable vicious hatred because of his race, he pursued his goals with courage and precision. He turned the US government to the most of the serious of the problems the country faced. Among a number of victories, his greatest was the passage and maintenance of “Obamacare” which is now the most popular of his actions.

Absolutely unflappable in public, he stayed at the helm for eight years with sharks gathering around him in the various international terrorist groups. He also fended off many irrational and gross attacks from his domestic rivals.

His weakness is foreign policy and he was not terribly weak, but left a record that could have been better. Most obvious among the mistakes was Syria and its terrible civil war in which he threatened to intervene with American troops. He drew a line in the sand and when the line was crossed he did not respond. Possibly this, non-intervention, was the right action, but if so, the line should not have been drawn in the first place. Likewise, the situation on our southern border was not much better when the left office than when he arrived. This is a hideous issue for our country and perhaps no one could have solved it, but it would have been another great credit to him if he had pulled it off. I rate him more than a good President and would give him a B+, maybe an A-. But I cannot quite say he was great.

So, may we reach a conclusion? Well, no, not a certain one in my opinion. It does appear that the old, presumably less democratic and less honest system gave us 3 great Presidents out of 14, a considerably higher percentage than the newer system’s 1 of 7. This is a strong point but not the only point. It is also necessary to consider the times. Though leaders do make the history(usually, in my own opinion)the times of their power also makes leaders. It has been pointed out that most of our great or near great Presidents(those so considered in the past, anyway)held the office at times of crisis, national, international or both. In fact, it has been pointed out that among the 11 Presidents considered “great” or “near great” in the past, only Theodore Roosevelt did not serve at a time of something that might be considered crisis. We must at least take this into account, when we think about our past.

I would like to have some piece of existential wisdom to leave with you on this subject, but unfortunately I have none. I have laid out my thinking and there is little left to interpret. I will merely say that both systems produced winners and losers and the difference in number and quality, though not negligible, is not so large as to be overwhelming. I suggest no change to make the process of becoming President less democratic. I suggest, really, nothing except honesty and clarity of thought.

I do have some thoughts on the Electoral College which I may share sometime. In the meantime, reflect and express your opinions. But when trying to make final judgements on our country, be cautious as Steven Vincent Benet was as he wrapped up “John Brown’s Body,” his great American narrative poem. “Say not ‘ it is blessed’ or ‘it is cursed’ –say only, it is here.”