The Broad Mandate, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #300 | @MDWorld
November 12, 2012 Mike Gold 13 Comments
The popular vote was very close, but these days that’s standard operating procedure. The tally in the electoral college was far more substantial: Obama’s 332 to Romney’s 206 and, while I like both the outcome and the margin, the fact remains the electoral college is and always was a stupid idea. “States rights” is a concept that is always in conflict with a truly united United States of America.
But I maintain Barack Obama won reelection with a very broad mandate, one better reflected in the electoral count than in the popular vote. Obama took the following groups by substantial margins:
The black vote
The Latino vote
The Asian vote
The women’s vote
The college-pedigreed vote
The Catholic vote
The Jewish vote
The Muslim vote
The atheist vote
So what did that leave Romney? The day-traders. The rich who think they are above paying taxes. Those beholden to the oil racketeers. And the large stupid white guy vote.
This latter group has fallen under severe inspection, but really it’s a no-brainer. If you think the entire weight of preserving your family, your future, and the way of life to which you have been accustomed rests on your shoulders, then you are highly susceptible to the politics of fear. The Republicans lost their best fear-provoking tactics: the homosexual assault on marriage argument, the Democrats-are-soft-on-blowing-bad-guys-heads-off argument, the “only the rich can create jobs” argument, and the “Democrats want to kill your grandmother” argument.
It was a very, very bad day for the current crop of self-defined conservative Republicans. Obama got most of the vote he received four years ago, and presidential reelections are always a plebiscite on past performance. He almost ran the board on the valued swing states, losing only North Carolina. Winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida was quite an achievement.
Why did this happen? There are a million reasons; here are the three most important.
One. People like Obama and after they washed aside the rhetoric they trusted him more than Romney. He didn’t fulfill all his promises but he delivered a hell of a lot and most of the rest he couldn’t get through the Republican congress. I think a lot of people understood this.
Two. The Republicans have managed to create a nominating system that selects not the best candidate or even the most electable candidate, but the one who is most bland and least loony. If in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king, then compared to Gingrich, Santorum, Cain and Bachmann, Romney came off like Adlai Stevenson – who also didn’t win. Romney was an empty suit selling chameleon lizard oil, a drunken sailor incapable of getting his sea legs firm on his own constantly shifting sands. The electorate who might have voted against Obama didn’t have a clue what they would be voting for in Romney.
Three. Donald Trump is a complete asshole. This wasn’t particularly important to the race, but it can’t be said enough.
Shoring all this up were the actions in a handful of states regarding gay marriage and decriminalization of marijuana. In the past all state measures to ban same-sex marriage passed – 38 out of 38. Last week, they all failed. At the same time two states decriminalized possession and use of marijuana. Both actions were akin to taking a crap in the face of the Religious Right; both actions were long overdue.
All this fed into the general feeling of hypocrisy that overwhelms the contemporary Republican party. After all, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln were all marijuana smokers, as were Republican heroes James Madison, James Monroe, Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor and George Washington. And, as it turns out, the children of famous Republicans tend to be at least just as likely to be homosexual as those of the rest of us.
The winner of last week’s election was sanity. It wasn’t change: with the Senate supermajority protected by both parties and the Republicans running the Congress like a gaggle of spoiled, petulant children, Barack Obama is going to have to show much more of a kick-ass attitude during the next four years than he did the past four. The difference is, now Barack’s got nothing to lose. Now is the time, to quote a famous Republican rock-and-roller, for “No More Mister Nice Guy.”
At the same time, the old school Republicans have a great opportunity to take their party back from the rabble of the tea party and the obnoxiously impotent neocons. They can restore their genuinely conservative concepts by acknowledging the fact that separation of church and state is not only best for state but for church as well.
Yeah. Good luck with all that.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place. That same venue offers us the weekly Great American Popcast, co-hosted with Mike Raub. Gold also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rene
November 12, 2012 - 2:00 pm
Obama said it himself in one of the debates.
The GOP today takes its economic policy from the 1920s, its social policy from the 1950s, and its foreign policy from the 1980s.
They can’t be surprised when ALL the groups that were disenfranchised in those past decades aren’t anxious to return to them.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 12, 2012 - 2:04 pm
I’m one of those who hope that this was a sufficiently embarassing loss on so many levels that the party will realize that they are out of phase with not only the country, but their own party. Romney got three million votes less than McCain did, yet Obama did not get three million more. That means three million Republicans sat home. And odds are it’s because they didn’t like/trust/believe Romney, but couldn’t quite bring themselves to vote Democrat. That doesn’t count the ones like me, who could.
It would please me greatly if the party ascted like it suggested it would the day after the election. But two days later, Boehner pulled that hand away from the other side of the aisle, presubambly for fear someone might try and shake it.
Every single thing the republicans cross their arms and vote down, it needs to be made clear to the American people. Not in two years near the mid-terms, right at the time, and unceasingly UNTIL the mid-terms, and if needs be, afterwards. It needs to be shown to the people exactly what COULD have been achieved had they chosen to work in favor of the nation, and not their own wants and desires.
I want these things to change. I fear they will not.
Rick Oliver
November 12, 2012 - 2:31 pm
Conservatives agree that Romney lost the election because he was too intransigent on social issues…or not intransigent enough.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/11/romneys-hispanic-chairman-says-candidate-made-mistakes/
I’m pretty sure Romney lost because one of those sciences that the Republicans reject is demography.
Neil C.
November 12, 2012 - 2:31 pm
It seems like nothing has been learned from this.
Pennie
November 12, 2012 - 4:26 pm
The true believers among the elephants cling to the belief they got submarines by ignorant non-Caucasians, radical feminists, wild-eyed queers, rabid heathens, strung out dopers, and the clinically insane…They might be partly right.
Mike Gold
November 12, 2012 - 5:54 pm
The idea of the Republican Party learning from their experiences and moving back towards the party of Taft, Dirksen, and Rockefeller is a seductive fantasy, but like many fantasies it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Conservatism has been totally redefined by Moe O’Reilly, Larry Malkin and Curly Limbaugh. That is what it is today and what it has been for 30 years, and it won’t change until Christ comes back and turns these Stooges into pillars of salt.
(And, yes, there’s also Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe out there and even Vernon Dent and Milton Frome and, of course, Ted Healy as Ann Coulter… but I’ve already stretched this lousy metaphor past the breaking point.)
The Republicans will change, but they won’t change much. They won’t become reasonable. They won’t negotiate, they’ll just continue to bitch about how the other side doesn’t negotiate by caving in. They’ll change their attitudes on a few issues — probably immigration, as if changing the policy against immigrants actually addresses the needs of immigrant voters. But they can’t on social issues such as abortion, women’s rights, health care and gay rights. Not in this election cycle.
Mike Gold
November 12, 2012 - 5:55 pm
Oh, Pennie my love: there’s a hell of a lot of overlap on that list of yours!
Rabid heathen. Hmmm. Time to whip out that Barnabas Collins get-up…
Pennie
November 12, 2012 - 7:03 pm
Hi guy! Mike, I have the cure for the elephants! Not Bill. Not Hillary. It’s George Clinton and the band. Let them in!
Ok, this is as far fetched as the elephants dealing with a different America than the one they fantasize can return. Yeah, Parliment Pyscho serenading the elephants has as much chance as the Re-pubs born again as a viable option for, oh, most of the folks I know. But, then, as Mary Wells sang….
Pennie
November 12, 2012 - 7:06 pm
Rabid heathen…while I was dozing, this cult of zombies awoke. Now there’s a voting bloc the elephants can adopt.
Werewolves of London!
Rick Oliver
November 12, 2012 - 9:47 pm
The Republicans tied their future to the religious right back when Bush Senior actively courted their votes. The GOP thought they could get away with a lot of empty posturing toward their new best friends, but it didn’t work out that way. Every election cycle, the Republicans have had to move further and further to the right to appease the erstwhile fringe that has now become their indispensable base. It’s a little ironic. The Religious Right took over the Republican Party the same way Wal-Mart used to take over suppliers (before they outsourced that whole messy business to China): Slowly but steadily increase your orders until the supplier has no capacity left to meet the needs of other customers. Then when the supplier has no other customers, start dictating terms.
R. Maheras
November 12, 2012 - 10:25 pm
Mike wrote: “So what did that leave Romney? The day-traders. The rich who think they are above paying taxes. Those beholden to the oil racketeers. And the large stupid white guy vote.”
Do you REALLY believe this statement, or are you just being sarcastic? If you do believe it, then you have a poor understanding of about half the electorate in the country.
And I think it’s pretty hilarious how you try and bury the Republicans because, in the last two elections, they had a weak slate of potential presidential candidates. As I recall, the Democrats had a crummy slate of candidates in the two presidential elections immediately preceding these last two.
Looking into the future, the Democrats may be the ones scurrying around for a suitable candidate who can win it all in 2016. I predict right now it probably won’t be Hillary, and if it is, the Democrats will lose.
Rene
November 13, 2012 - 1:43 am
I dunno, Russ. The Democrats won twice with a black dude with a name that looks like “Osama”, the second of those in the throes of an economic crisis. Maybe next time they will choose a gay guy with a name that looks like Saddam, and they may still eke out a narrow win.
John McCain and Mitt Romney were both reasonable candidates, if they had been allowed to run with reasonable platforms, maybe they could have won.
Martha Thomases
November 13, 2012 - 8:24 am
Russ, there was no reason to think that the list of candidates the Republicans ran was weak, unless one thinks that every member of the Republican party is weak. Two years ago, the conventional wisdom had it that Obama would never get reelected. That this was the chance for the best Republican to run, because his (sic) election would be assured.
The policies put forward by the current version of the GOP were soundly rejected by the American people. They went way to the right, and it cost them. They will have to decide whether it is more important to be pure, or more important to win.
Personally, I chose winning a long time ago. The Democrats I’ve supported are not perfect, but I believe their policies improve more lives than they harm.
I agree that Hillary will be vilified to an extent that will match, or even exceed what Obama has faced.
Rick Oliver
November 13, 2012 - 8:44 am
Russ: Fox News called Ohio when the two candidates were practically tied because the demographics in the remaining areas did not favor Romney. The demographic trends in this country to do not favor the current set of “values” that are front and center for the Republican party. They could win back the “values” Latino voters by changing their stance on immigration, but then they’d likely lose a lot of the poor southern white vote that is to some degree propping them up. Those folks won’t vote Democratic; they just won’t vote. They could woo the youth and female vote by changing their stance on “values” issues, but then they’d lose the “values” voters. They have tied themselves to a reactionary base that represents a dwindling demographic. It’s difficult for them to win while continuing to appease that base and impossible for them to win if they don’t.
Mike Gold
November 13, 2012 - 9:06 am
Russ, the problems the Republican Party faces right now — be it today, or two weeks before the election — are fundamental. They surrendered (some might say whored out) their party to the Tea Baggers. They remain obstinately remote from non-white male voters while whining about how the white vote is now the minority while, at the same time, misunderstanding the non-white vote as a monolithic force.
These are mistakes. The Democrats may or may not have a candidate prepped for 2016 (I agree that Mrs. Clinton is a dubious possibility), but the Republicans don’t have a viable party that represents the spectrum of American citizens. Instead, they try to invalidate their voting rights.
I’m not certain what phrase of mind you regard as sarcastic. If it’s “stupid white male vote,” well, no, I’m not being sarcastic. The phrase isn’t mine and it has become rather commonplace in many circles, but the “defense” of the term equates stupidity with voting against one’s best interests out of provoked fear and bigotry.
Yes, bigotry. The Republicans freaked — absolutely freaked — when they lost last week. They didn’t see it coming, while everybody else saw it as a solid probability since the middle of October at the latest. That’s another definition of stupid. The Republicans have been motivating the while male vote with fears of Communism (Obamacare), homosexual equality (same sex marriage and the repeal of DADT), the black revolution (Kenya, college transcripts, and the astonishingly bullshit New Black Panther who worked as a Pennsylvania poll-watcher), and anti-Christian takeover (abortion, rape pregnancy), the Latino vote (conflating this legal vote with immigration and, specifically, illegal immigration).
These are stupid, stupid mistakes — and the proof of that is in the pudding. They are mistakes that severely marginalize what is today’s Republican Party. They are mistakes being made by stupid white guys.
And the Republicans have purged most of the people who could save their party. If that ain’t stupid, it certainly ain’t smart.
Rene
November 13, 2012 - 10:16 am
The GOP will keep losing Presidential elections until they get rid of the Tea Party. Because the Tea Party will never be embraced by more than 30% of Americans. But they will only get it rid of it in one of two outcomes:
They finally nominate a “true” Tea Party candidate. Some madman like Santorum or Ryan or Bachmann. And then they suffer a very humiliating defeat, a record-setting defeat. So they won’t have the excuse anymore that they lose because they don’t nominate someone “pure” enough.
Outcome two is scarier. Some fluke happens and one of the above mentioned madmen actually wins the White House. And then we get the Tea Party calling the shots for 4 years with their mix of extreme libertarian economics and extreme white Christian agenda. And then just see what happens. It may cause America to shift Left harder than ever before.
Mike Gold
November 13, 2012 - 10:42 am
I agree with your second outcome, Rene. Dialectical materialism is a force akin to gravity: both can be overcome, but it takes a lot of effort.
If it were possible to elect a Tea Party candidate to the White House, one would think they would have defeated at least one single Democrat who was up for reelection. The TP is not in a good position: most political movements would reorient themselves after such a defeat, but such “compromise” is beyond the mission — beyond the ken — of the TPers.
Nationally, Santorum and Bachmann are toast; the former even on a local level. Ryan doesn’t have a plan that is approved by most Americans (seniors, women, blacks, Latinos, Asians (look at the exit polls), gays, Catholics (look at the exit polls), Jews. Trickle down didn’t do very well last week and conflating small tax increases for the very wealthiest Americans with job growth has been proven to be the biggest lie since “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Ask Chris Christie about that one.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2012 - 10:47 am
Martha — In 2008, didn’t thing McCain was qualified; or Palin; or Obama; or Biden. It was a weak slate across the board, but Obama had better organization and was more likeable. Just because he won did not mean he was qualified and/or ready for the job.
In 2012, despite the fact the economy is, by far, the country’s biggest problem and Romney should have had an advantage (probably his ONLY advantage), he was getting killed by a Chicago-style attack campaign that he and his team were woefully prepared to handle. As a matter of fact, if Obama hadn’t stumbled badly and tried to mail in his first debate appearance, Romney’s campaign would have been dead on arrival on election day. Such are the advantages of being a sitting president running for re-election.
I still think Obama is in way over his head regarding the economy — especially since, up to this point, he regularly refuses to take advice (even from his own experts). That said, for the sake of all of us, I just hope I’m absolutely wrong.
As far as “winning” goes, since I’ve never been party-affilliated, those are strange words to me. I want a candidate who knows what he/she is doing, and more often than not, I have to settle for partisan pretenders, goofballs, and party hacks.
Thanks for nothing, Repubs/Dems.
Martha Thomases
November 13, 2012 - 10:53 am
Russ, Newt Gingrinch started the attacks on Romney, with Sheldon Adelson’s money. If Romney was unprepared for the Obama attacks, he was too naive to be president.
The rest of what you say is speculation.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2012 - 10:58 am
Rick — I know what kind of demographic problems the Republicans have, and they can’t figure it out, then shame on them. I wish they would for the simple fact that when the Democrats screw things up, they need to fear losing their jobs to get their act together. But if the Republicans are no threat, they’ll just stay the course. Democrats have traitionally been much better at pandering and making promises, and the Republicans need to learn from that.
In Chicago, pandering is almost a game. When running for office, the alderman/alderwoman promises whatever constituents ask for. When elected, there are cursory nods towards problem areas, but there are always scapegoats preventing “real change.” The dance starts again come election time, and the process starts all over again. But in places like my old neighborhood, nothing ever really changes. People there are as miserable and hopeless now as they were 30 years ago.
It’s sad.
Rick Oliver
November 13, 2012 - 12:20 pm
Russ: I don’t consider supporting gay marriage or women’s reproductive rights or affordable healthcare to be “pandering”. If you they they are, I find that sad. I also think you have to be wearing an extraordinary pair of blinders to think that Romney lost because he was the “victim” of a “Chicago-style” attack campaign. Conservative super PACs outspent liberal super PACs almost 2-to-1, and almost all of that was on negative advertising. The Republican party is no stranger to negative campaign tactics; they even employ them against their own in primary battles.
R. Maheras
November 13, 2012 - 12:59 pm
Rick — So, despite 75+ years of Democratic politicians pandering to them in Chicago, what have the poor — particular minorities — gotten in return?
They can get abortions, and instead of going to emergency rooms for their primary healthcare, they’ll soon be visiting exchanges.
That’s it.
The minority neighborhoods are still largely segregated, and crime, education and job opportunities are far worse than ever — and among the very worst in the United States — despite the fact that state and local taxes are higher than almost everywhere else in the country. The mayor has traditionally been white in a city where minorities make up more than 60 percent of the population, and the black president who calls Chicago home hasn’t made a lick of difference.
And yet, despite the fact that Democrats have consistently failed the poor they allegedly champion, there is not one Republican Chicago politician that I know of in the city limits. In fact, I can’t ever remember there ever being so much as a Republican alderman in my entire lifetime.
That, despite your protestations, is due to pandering at its finest.
Rick Oliver
November 13, 2012 - 3:01 pm
Russ: I can’t help but notice that you didn’t actually address any of the points I mentioned. And I’m tired of people treating Obama — or Democratic policies in general — with the Chicago “machine”. It’s a false equivalency. As for the poor in Chicago being worse off than they wore 75 years ago, I’m sure they’d be much better off if we removed all forms of public aid. Or was there some other obscure point you were trying to make?
R. Maheras
November 13, 2012 - 3:20 pm
Rick — Well, I didn’t mention gay marriage because that Democratic bastion in Chicago which you say doesn’t pander still hasn’t passed it. As for women’s healthcare, I most certainly did mention it. If you are a woman in Chicago, you may not be educated, and you may not have a job, and you may have to dodge bullets on the way to the covenience store (because odds are pretty good you won’t be going to any full-sized grocery store, because large swaths of Chicago’s “food deserts” have none), but you can sure get that free abortion. And I also mentioned affordable healthcare exchanges, which no one is sure how effective they will be.
As far as the other stuff about super PACs, the 2-to-1 ratio was a moot point since Obama’s fundraising in other areas (like his endless trips to Hollywood) wiped out that advantage.
Frankly, I hate PACs, and private donations (bribes) of any type, and I think no candidate should be allowed to spend more than they get from the federal income tax donation pool. If spending a billion dollars to get a job that pays $400,000 a year doesn’t turn your stomach, you are part of the problem.
Mike Gold
November 13, 2012 - 4:34 pm
The candidate with the most money does not necessarily win — if each candidate has enough money. At the highest levels, this usually is the case. I also dislike PACs and much of the election financing system… although that would be a hell of a lot worse if we do away with the electoral college.
As for the poor in Chicago since the beginning of World War II, well, they’ve gotten a lot. The question is, have they gotten enough? Certainly, they got enough to continue to vote for the Democratic candidates through out this period, and with quite sizable pluralities as well.
The system has afforded the poor an increasingly adequate education and a good public college system, jobs programs that include opportunities to become part of the political system itself (thanks to the efforts of the dreaded Richard J. Daley), some health coverage, a city hospital that at times is very good, a decent unemployment compensation system, a decent food stamp program (the latter two are state-administered), a very good public transportation system compared to those of most other major American cities at the same moment in time (public transit isn’t as good today as it was a generation ago, but Chicago built an entirely new lengthy L-line and has started working on a massive extension of another, and they opened up a half-dozen new L stations throughout the city), a public parks system that is second to none, a solid community-driven public arts program… Public housing seemed like a good idea at the time; it didn’t work out so swell.
Very little that’s actually spectacular, but a lot more than nothing. Particularly in the aggregate.
R. Maheras
November 14, 2012 - 8:48 am
Mike — everything you cite as a positive for Chicago’s minorities has been true for ALL Chicagoans for decades. What I’m saying is that things have not improved in many areas and have actually gotten worse — despite total control by Democrats. “increasingly adequate” education? Oh, c’mon. You know as well as I do that minorities in Chicago received a much better education in the past — even when class sizes were much larger and budgets were much smaller overall. Although since I’m a total product of the Chicago Board of Education, you and others here may disagree.
Mike Gold
November 14, 2012 - 9:19 am
Yep, they’ve been accessible to all citizenry. Or, to put it another way, ALL citizenry. In addition to the fact that the poor need those resources more than the non-poor, I rather like the egalitarian nature of it all.
Things have gotten worse in Englewood and Lawndale as people who are not involved in the drug trade have moved out. Large, vast wastelands of largely abandoned buildings with a smattering of people too old, too poor and/or too obstinant to move out. Absolutely. The people in those neighborhoods took control by leaving. Chicago hasn’t learned how to export the drug trade to the suburbs like they have in most other large cities, and that’s because a handful of very poorly organized gangs who seem incapable of learning from the wisdom of Johnny Torrio are making money hand over fist the way things are. I don’t know what it takes to fix that: jailing the leaders hasn’t worked and we’ve got a thing against shooting 14 year old drug dealers on sight. If Englewood were New York City, the cops would simply come in, shoot whomever they like and shove toilet plungers up the asses of the rest. Statistically, this has proven to be quite effective. But would the honky liberals of Chicago permit a shoot to kill order? Probably not; they didn’t like it back in 1968 during the King riots.
No, I totally disagree about minorities having received a better education in the past. The Chicago school system was a horrible, pathetic and disgusting kleptocracy plundered by the politicians, the unions, and the vendors alike. It has improved dramatically in the past decade or so (our current Secretary of Education is the guy who did that), all the way up to near-adequacy.
I’m not a total product of the system. My parents worked exceptionally hard to move two blocks away from the Chicago boarder in order to get my sister and me into decent schools. Today, they would not have made that decision, at least not for that reason.
R. Maheras
November 14, 2012 - 9:49 am
We’ll have to disagree with the education part, for while I agree with the Chicago Board of Education’s history part, the improvements made in the past 10 years still haven’t raised the education bar to where it once was during the 1960s when class size was routinely in the mid-30s or even higher.
The fact is, while Democrats historically have chided the Republicans’ “trickle down economics” theory, in Chicago at least, that’s exactly how the leadership there has addressed the problems in poor, mostly minority neighborhoods over the years. I call it “trickle down equality” — because that’s exactly what it is.
Rene
November 14, 2012 - 10:13 am
The problem with “trickle down economics” isn’t that it’s slow in helping the poor, it’s that it almost never helps the poor in substantial ways. The claims that it just takes a little while and in the long run it will be great for the poor are like “I’ll have your money by next week, I swear.”
It’s a con game, and the only redeeming feature is that usually people will get tired of it and elect a leftist that will build upon the basis of economic prosperity affecting only the rich and will spread the prosperity a little more.
It was a FDR aide that said “people don’t eat in the long run, they must eat everyday.” I suppose that applies both to the Right’s Trickle Down Economics and to the Left’s disappointingly slow reforms. But I still would pick “slow” over “not happening”.
Rick Oliver
November 14, 2012 - 10:17 am
Quality of educational institutions is partly a function of educational funding and partly a function of the quality of the local population. In Illinois, public schools are funded primarily at the local level, based on the local district property tax base. If Chicago is one megalithic school district, then I guess the funding should be roughly the same for each school regardless of location (I don’t know if this is true.) Regardless of how much money you pour into the schools, if your parents aren’t involved in your education and your peers denigrate the importance of a good education, then you’re probably going to get a crappy education.
Some of this could be ameliorated by programs that attempt to engage both parents and students in the educational process from a very early age. Federally funded programs, such as Head Start, designed to address these issues are not particularly popular with Republicans. And “No Child Left Behind” is a joke.
R. Maheras
November 14, 2012 - 10:26 am
Mike — After thinking about it a bit, I remembered some education-related anecdotes I heard from USAF recruiters in Chicago during the 1990s and 2000s. I worked with recruiters a lot while assigned to the USAF’s Chicago field office (now closed), so I got to know them pretty well.
As you may or may not know, about 85-90 percent of the people who walk in the door at a USAF recruiting office are rejected for one reason or another.
A big part of what disqualifies applicants is educational-related. I often heard recruiters lamenting how far too many bona fide high school graduates in Chicago had grade-school reading levels — and some bordered on illiteracy.
Back in, I believe, the mid-1990s, one recruiter told me of a Chicago-area high school graduate applicant who called him after she received her Armed Forces Qualification Test score and asked him what the “two 1s” meant. Confused at first, he realized that was her percentile number, 11, which was almost 30 points below the absolute minimum.
Mike Gold
November 14, 2012 - 10:39 am
Russ, that math works. If USAF recruiters in, say, 2000 had such a high rejection rate (and I don’t doubt that), then those kids entered the school system in around 1985 — 27 years ago. I’d reject ’em, too.
The fact is, outside of wartime (this includes 9-11) the better students tend to go on to college, and the ones who outgrew public school take what they can get. The armed services has always been there as a court of last employment. One can argue that that was always a bad idea, but today it’s a truly rotten idea: we need fewer grunts and more nerds in service.
And, of course, the USAF has always been a comparatively elite group. Something about working on all those airplanes that cost seven or eight figures a piece. Goober Ryle simply wasn’t qualified.
Why did they close the Chicago USAF field office? Geez, with Boeing now headquartered in Chicago you’d think they’d have a lot to talk about.
George Haberberger
November 14, 2012 - 11:52 am
Republicans were surprised by the elections results and many pundits have admitted to living in a bubble. I personally was never so optimistic about a Romney win because in addition to reading Breitbart and PJ Media I also checked out the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.
As is turned out Romney got around 57 million votes and while that was 3 million less than McCain got in 2008, Obama got about 8 million less. Clearly enthusiasm was reduced for both parties.
Rene’s second option in which he postulates a true Tea Party candidate winning the White House, (he maintains it would have to be a fluke, but I’m not so sure), and that then the US would shift harder left than ever before is similar “bubble thinking” predicated on the idea that things would not be better. It is entirely possible such a Tea Party president could be successful.
Rene
November 14, 2012 - 12:21 pm
George –
The thing about politics, is that the bubbles sometimes never burst. I think George W. Bush was a horrible President that wrecked the economy, divided the country, and made the world less safe with one unnecessary war. But a lot of conservatives still think he was the best President ever. Or what about “FDR: saviour or state facist”?
So “successful” is a very relative term when talking politics. It may be possible for a Rick Santorum Administration to get unemployment and debt to record levels, the poor even poorer, new wars with Iran or Syria, evolution banned in all schools, and I have no doubt that some Conservatives would consider him “successful”.
I wonder if there will come a point when dialogue is impossible between people of different political persuasions?
But enough philosophing and whining. What I meant by sucessful was that I think it impossible for a Tea Party candidate to stay in the White House for more than two years without getting record levels of disapproval by the majority of the American public.
There is the slight possibility of a Tea Party man realizing, when getting inside the White House, that it’s impossible to rule the US with a Tea Party platform, and then adopting a much more moderate stance, to the horror of his followers. But I don’t believe any of the wild eyed crazies like Santorum or Bachmann could do that. Perhaps Newt could. Or Rick Perry. But I don’t think Gingrich and Perry are crazy. Gingrich is a corrupt ass, but not crazy like Santorum.
R. Maheras
November 14, 2012 - 12:40 pm
Mike — “Why did they close the Chicago USAF field office? Geez, with Boeing now headquartered in Chicago you’d think they’d have a lot to talk about.”
Boeing was a minor consideration, at best. The office was the Air Force’s National Civic Outreach Office, which was responsible for civic engagement throughout the United States. The office was also responsible for host city civic outreach (Chicago Air and Water Show, Memorial Day Parade, flyovers during patriotic holidays, school visits, etc.).
The very small office (four people) had an important mission, but was closed in 2009 for reorganization and, to a lesser extent, budgetary reasons, and the mission was moved to an office at the Pentagon.
But you know the old saying, out of sight, out of mind. And with the exception of area recruiters, the USAF now has virtually no presence in the third-largest market in the United States. But that’s life in the big city…
Doug Abramson
November 14, 2012 - 8:31 pm
Russ,
With Great Lakes NTC nearby, isn’t Chicago more of a Navy town, recruitment wise?
Mike Gold
November 14, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Great Lakes is pretty far north, and you rarely see much Navy presence — in relation to the other branches. GLNTC is mammoth, a city onto itself. Most of the civilians who work there live in the neighboring communities, all pretty far from Chicago. Might even be closer to Milwaukee.
Doug Abramson
November 15, 2012 - 2:28 am
I knew it was big. My idiot ex-brother-in-law went there for basic. Unfortunately he got through it alive and intact. Its interesting that it has a negligible impact on Chicago. I’m used to the impact the various Navy and Marine bases in Southern California has on recruitment. The only volunteer that I know that didn’t wind up with the Department of the Navy was my Uncle. He volunteered for the Air Force during Vietnam. He figured that he would need to put in less effort and avoid getting shot at, in that branch. Not exactly one of the motivated volunteers that they look for these days.
George Haberberger
November 15, 2012 - 6:37 am
Rene,
The list of “accomplishments” that you presume would occur in a Santorum administration are hardly anything anyone would consider successful. To presume the result would be higher unemployment and higher debt is just more “bubble thinking.” Maybe the Tea Party approach would result in high employment and debt reduction. To dismiss that possibility out of hand is just as closed-minded as the inverse.
Mike Gold
November 15, 2012 - 8:16 am
Doug, Great Lakes Naval and the nearby Fort Sheridan used to have a major impact on the city of Chicago, but in a negative way. Back before JFK was president there used to be a commuter train that went from Milwaukee to Chicago using the fabled “L” tracks once they hit the connection in Wilmette (immediately north of Evanston, which is immediately north of Chicago). This line made express stops at the Chicago/Evanston border at Howard Street and in the Uptown neighborhood on the mid-north side before going downtown, around the Loop, and back.
The problem is, for over 50 years lots and lots of soldiers and sailors got off, literally, at Howard Street or in Uptown. An astonishing number of cathouses and gamboling locations were kept quite busy. All this had an extremely negative impact on those neighborhoods — “respectable” establishments (outside of movie theaters) wouldn’t build there.
During Prohibition a trillion speakeasies popped up, exacerbating the situation. The fabled Green Mill Lounge — which is still there — is located in Uptown, home to Al Jolson, Eddie Cantor, Sophie Tucker and such. It was a hangout for the performers at the nearby Essanay movie studio (Charlie Chaplin, Wallace Berry, Tom Mix, Ben Turpin). Amusingly, Essanay is still in business but no longer in the movie-making racket and they moved to the downtown area. I’ve toured the original studio; pretty cool.
Somehow, when Prohibition rolled around the Green Mill found itself suddenly owned by the Johnny Torrio / Al Capone business interests.
To this very day, both neighborhoods are, let me politely say, in arrested development. Uptown is only now beginning to succumb to gentrification — it’s got miles of beautiful buildings that would have been perfect for the condo craze of the 70s and remain perfect for the rich little bastards who overwhelm such areas for personal gain.
R. Maheras
November 15, 2012 - 10:21 am
Mike and Doug — Actually, the recruits from Great Lakes Naval Training Center (GLNTC) regularly take the north shore Metra commuter train into Chicago — especially on holidays and weekends. I used to see them all the time. Some were obviously with their visiting parents (post graduation celebration?) or in small groups of sailors. As far as official functions go, GLNTC is tapped regularly to support patriotic functions hosted by the City of Chicago or Chicago’s professional sporting venues.
The whole bar thing is mostly from a different era, and things outside the gates of most military installations are but a hollow shell of what they were like 40-50 years ago.
R. Maheras
November 15, 2012 - 10:32 am
Hey Mike — I just found out I’ll be leaving sunny LA and going east to the DC-area. Although I have some great friends here, I was never an LA kind of guy.
Last night, when I told one of my daughters about the move, she laughed and said it was probably the best for all involved, since me trying to adjust to life in LA and Hollywood these past three years was the fodder from which SITCOMS are made. And she was right. The weird stuff I’ve seen here, almost on a daily basis, was truly something else — especially during my daily treks on public transportation.
Rick Oliver
November 15, 2012 - 12:02 pm
Wait. LA has public transportation?
R. Maheras
November 15, 2012 - 12:10 pm
Rick — Haha. You’re so right about the attitude here. I remember talking to a local 70s-something guy (a former actor, of course) who’d lived here most of his life, and when I happened to mention one of my many odd-encounter anecdotes about the LA subway, he got this quizzical look on his face and said something to the effect, “LA still has a subway?”
I thought it was pretty hilarious, and summed the local attitude up pretty well.
Mike Gold
November 15, 2012 - 5:10 pm
Los Angeles had public transportation right up to the time Roger Rabbit started screwing around.
Yeah, I’m not an LA kinda guy either. There’s no real CITY there, not in the sense that Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, Kansas City, Chicago and others have a real, unmistakable feel to ’em. L.A.’s also too much of a company town, and their trade is just too wacky.
I like Washington for historical reasons. I could probably spend the rest of this life and all of the next in the various Smithsonian buildings alone. The only negative — too many politicians. I mean, I enjoy comic books but I’m not interested in moving to Krypton.
R. Maheras
November 15, 2012 - 5:22 pm
Mike wrote: “I could probably spend the rest of this life and all of the next in the various Smithsonian buildings alone.”
Man, you read my mind!!!
Doug Abramson
November 15, 2012 - 8:33 pm
I HATE LA, but they’ve built one hell of a subway/light rail/commuter rail system. If I do venture up there, I use the trains as much as possible.
Doug Abramson
November 15, 2012 - 8:37 pm
Russ,
Glad to hear that the Navy bar thing is mostly a thing of the past around Lake Michigan too. I can remember as a kid and up to about twenty years ago, 5th Ave in San Diego and National City Blvd being nothing but dive bars, tattoo parlors and porn. There are times during Comic Con and Padre games when I still can’t believe the change.
Mike Gold
November 15, 2012 - 10:09 pm
Doug, as a very longtime SDCC attendee I can attest to what you say. But, to be completely honest, I did wonder what happened at Hypnosex. Now sadly long gone.
Doug Abramson
November 16, 2012 - 12:55 am
Mike, I don’t know and I don’t think I want to.