Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Articles
17

My old boss Governor Hunt should be proud. Forty years after he first took office and 16 years after he last left, he still drives Republicans nuts.

Governor-elect Roy Cooper should be proud. He hasn’t even taken office and he’s driving them nuts.

All Democrats should grab the Christmas gift the GOP has given us. Their Christmas Coup proves that, for them, it’s always politics first and people last.

This will be the battle in 2017 – in the media, in the courts, on the House and Senate floors, in the halls, in the streets and, ultimately, at the ballot box.

A session that supposedly was about helping storm and fire victims actually was about Republicans helping themselves.

Voters don’t care about the Governor and the legislature fighting over power and patronage. But they care a lot about whether their elected officials have the right priorities.

Voters also care if, as with House Bill 2, the Christmas Coup makes North Carolina a less attractive place to do business, build companies and create jobs.

That’s why Roy Cooper won in the first place. Republican legislators are too arrogant to realize they’ve made the same mistake again.

Who wants to come to a state that’s in constant chaos because of a small group of power-hungry, revenge-obsessed, small-minded men?

They tried to gut Cooper’s powers as Governor. But they also grew his power to take this fight to the people, maybe as soon as next November.

Cooper’s response to the coup shows that he gets it – and will seize the high ground. Namely: Is this good for education, the environment, the economy and the people of North Carolina?

If Republicans really wanted to copy Jim Hunt, they’d raise teacher pay to the national average, expand early childhood education, strengthen the universities and community colleges, expand health care, upgrade the transportation system and focus on growing the economy instead of shrinking it.

Fat chance. Which opens a big hole for Governor Cooper to run through.

(One historical note. If you’re obsessed, as the Republicans are, with the mythical “Christmas Massacre” of 1976, you also could look up their own “Helicopter Firings” of 1973. Even better, you could forget what happened 40 years ago and focus on what happens the next four years.)

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

14

There were a lot of folks patting themselves on the back in the newspaper the other morning: The head of the LGBT Human Rights Committee sat down with the editors of the News and Observer and told them, ‘HB2 doomed McCrory.’

However, the Reverend William Barber, head of the NAACP, didn’t see it the same way: Barber told the N&O his ‘Moral Monday protests planted the seeds of McCrory’s defeat.’

Both were saying, I did it. But neither asked why – if HB2 and Moral Monday protests sunk Pat McCrory – they didn’t also sink Republican legislators. Did voters vote against McCrory because of HB2 then turn around and vote for legislators who adamantly supported it?

The other day Rob Christensen wrote a column pointing out Pat McCrory’s poll numbers plummeted six months after he took office and stayed underwater for the next 39 months – long before HB2 walked onto the stage.

There’s also the fact that Roy Cooper raised $8 million more than Pat McCrory – but no one mentioned that. Instead Reverend Barber and the HRC’s President, like an dueling duet, sang:

“I did it.”

“No, I did it.”

“HB2 did it.”

“No, Moral Monday did it.”

There just wasn’t enough glory to go around.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

14

First Trump said he didn’t need to hear any intelligence. Then he named Rick Perry to head a Cabinet department that Perry once wanted to abolish, except he couldn’t remember the name of it.

To which a TAPster says, “Somebody get me a dumbrella – it’s raining stupid.”

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

13

A book about the 1950’s sounds like a bland and vanilla story but it turns out David Halberstam had two stories to tell – and one wasn’t about the 50’s.  

Back when Milton Berle and ‘I Love Lucy’ ruled the airwaves unemployment was nil, inflation was nil, incomes were rising and families were moving up.

William Levitt, a Navy veteran who served as a Seabee, came home and decided to use mass production techniques to build houses. Kemmons Wilson, another veteran who’d flown cargo planes over the Himalayas, did the same thing to build Holiday Inns. And when the two veterans were done almost every family could afford a new home in the suburbs and a vacation.

Consumerism erupted like a skyrocket. Betty Furness became a national heroine by appearing on TV in Westinghouse ads. Easy credit poured gas on the fires of consumerism. A new economy was born based on consumer spending, sounding the death knell for the old Capitalism and the even older Calvinist ethic of work and save.

Women had entered the workforce in waves during the Second World War. But in the 50’s did an about face, landing in the suburbs as housewives. But devilment never rests – and  ghosts appeared in the machine. By mid-decade the battle-lines were drawn with Father Knows Best on one side and the Rebels – Brando, Dean, Elvis – on the other. Peyton Place, Halberstam reports, sold 20 million copies not because it was a soap opera but because it was a story about unhappy women asking themselves, Is that all there is?

Face to face with the rebels, establishment icon Ed Sullivan declared he’d never have Elvis on his show. Elvis was obscene. Then Elvis performed on Steve Allen’s show, for the first-time Allen topped Sullivan in the Neilson ratings, and Sullivan did an about face.

The night Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan show the Old Order fractured and gave way to the New Order.  

A seamstress in a factory, who also worked part time as a domestic, climbed onto a bus tired and unhappy after working a long day and sat down in the section for African Americans beside three black men.

But there was a tricky fact about Montgomery buses. The line separating the black section and the white section was mobile. As the bus rolled from stop to stop, and the front of the bus filled up with white people, the line moved. One minute Rosa Parks was sitting in the black section and the next she was sitting in the white section. When the bus driver told her to move, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The Montgomery newspapers weren’t about to light the fuse that turned Rosa Park’s arrest into a social upheaval. But a new power – marching across the land hand in hand with consumerism – did.

In Little Rock, after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the first day of school a lone black girl, a student, walked toward a white high school and, suddenly, she was surrounded by a mob of protestors, faces contorted with anger. TV captured it all. And TV’s message was simple: This is wrong. Twenty million people saw it.

TV changed General Motors too. Ed Cole, the engineer who’d invented GM’s new 8-cylinder engine, walked into a meeting one day, sat down and listened surprised as GM’s new CEO announced, What matters now is the stock price –  before what had mattered was the quality of GM’s product. And the engineering. But to the new men in gray flannel suits what defined success wasn’t quality – it was salability. And the price of stock.

The Volkswagen Beetle was an engineer’s dream, the epitome of utilitarian engineering. But it was the opposite of salability while the Cadillacs in GMs’ TV ads, emblems of upward mobility, were a salesman’s dream.

In The Fifties David Halberstam’s telling one story about the New America being born, after millions of soldiers came home from war. Without TV there’s no Civil Rights Movement, without suburbs there’s no women’s movement, Brando, Dean, Elvis, and the birth control pill are all pieces of the same tapestry. 

The other story is about the roots of the America we live in today.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

12

Forget for now what Democrats will do in the Age of Trump. What will Republicans do?

They won their biggest election victories in many a year, thanks to a man who ran against their party establishment, ridiculed and routed their favored candidates, and has at best a tenuous commitment to their conservative orthodoxy.

He promises a big tax cut and huge cuts in regulations, which Republicans love. He also promises a trillion-dollar infrastructure spending program, which they love not so much. He hates trade deals; they love trade deals. And it’s not clear where Trump stands on the GOP establishment’s burning desire to attack Medicare, Social Security and Obamacare.

He embraces Taiwan and pokes China. He’s chummy with Putin. And he boasts that he’s far smarter than the nation’s intelligence establishment. Russian hacking of our election? “A problem,” GOP Senators McCain and Graham say. “Nothing to it,” Trump swears. Maybe he takes Putin’s word for it.

Maybe Democrats should just relax. Sit in front of the fire and enjoy some eggnog. Let all this play out and see where the pieces fall out.

Trump was great for Republicans this year. Now their fate is roped to his. Let’s see how great he is for them in 2018 and 2020.

In the spirit of the season, I pass on this quote sent by a TAPster, from H.L. Mencken in 1920:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron.”

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

12

At an ‘Open House’ years ago at our school I listened as Eric talked with a parent I barely knew – then as the parent walked away I said, He sounds like a reasonable man.

He mistreats his wife, Eric said.

Physically?

Eric nodded.

I looked back at the parent and saw a different man.

Pat McCrory, of course, had no untoward behavior like that. Even remotely. But in the aftermath of his election I think he did have a problem with how people saw him changing.

When Pat took office the only place most people had seen him or heard him speak was in his campaign’s TV ads – and in those ads Pat was attractive and reasonable. The story his campaign ads told about Pat was reassuring.

But a few months later, when two of Pat’s campaign aides were appointed to jobs in the Department of Health & Human Services after he was elected, the press began asking questions. At first Pat chose not to answer – but when the reporters kept asking he explained the aides were fine young men who were smart and qualified and the salaries were fair. The two aides were making $85,000 and $87,500 each. And they were each 24 years old.

At that moment I think the ‘old’ perception people had of Pat began to unravel and, watching him, they started to think, He’s not the man we thought he was.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

11

Masochist that I am, I’ve read a lot of second-guessing and score-settling about why the extraordinarily well-qualified Hillary Clinton lost to one of the most loathsome and unprincipled men ever in politics (and that covers a lot of scoundrels).

A fair, thoughtful and balanced analysis – one that is brutally honest, but also constructive rather than destructive – comes from my old friend Will Marshall (Hunt ’84 Senate campaign), president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist political think tank: “What Democrats Can Learn From Hillary Clinton’s Tragedy: The art of political persuasion matters more than the mechanics of mobilization.”

It’s worth reading in full. Highlights:

“As the populist tide rolls across the transatlantic world, it’s hard to feel anything but sympathy for Clinton. She’s an infinitely better person than Trump, who falsely and maliciously branded her a criminal. But she did not run a better campaign, and now progressives must come to grips with how she lost to the most unpopular nominee in modern times.

“There’s no point in whining about the Electoral College. Team Clinton knew the terrain on which the race would be decided. The question is why Trump was able to solve the Electoral College puzzle, and they weren’t.

“The answer lies in two strategic miscalculations. The first was the decision to devote more resources to making Trump anathema to voters than to articulating a compelling rationale for Clinton’s candidacy. She fell back on ‘experience,’ while he at least offered restive voters a theory of big change, however implausible the details. And while she succeeded in deepening public doubts about Trump, she failed to engage anxious white working class voters in a conversation about their economic and cultural discontents….

“Which brings us to Team Clinton’s second and related strategic failure: A message and electoral strategy tailored narrowly to the demands of identity politics. The Clinton campaign bet heavily on recreating Obama’s huge advantages with groups that are growing in the U.S. electorate: minorities, millennials, single women and secular voters. Obama’s success had convinced many Democrats they could count on this ‘Rising American majority’ to maintain their lock on the Electoral College.

“Such demographic determinism, however, proved unavailing as Clinton won smaller margins among these groups than Obama. That was not a problem in overwhelmingly Democratic states on the two coasts but it was devastating in the more thinly blue rustbelt states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And Clinton’s enthusiasm gap even extended to white voters, with whom she also underperformed Obama.”

He concludes:

“Despite these errors, Clinton won the popular vote comfortably. But while Trump won fewer votes, he won them in the right places. What lessons should progressives learn from such a tragic loss?

“One is that America’s changing demography doesn’t guarantee a progressive majority. Each nominee has to chart a unique course to the White House and build their own majority. This means that the art of political persuasion is still more important to winning presidential elections than the mechanics of mobilization. And if you want to play identity politics, it’s probably a bad idea to ignore whites, who still comprise nearly 70 percent of U.S. voters.”

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

10

Rob Christensen recently noted “a number of parallels” between Donald Trump and Jesse Helms. (“Trump, like Helms, rode populist streak as outsider”).

But another parallel deserves attention. Read on.

Rob wrote:

“Both Helms and Trump were plain-spoken populists who gained much of their support from blue-collar workers and from people living in rural areas.

“Both campaigned as outsiders….

“Both were accused by critics of exploiting racial divisions for political benefit.

“Both campaigned against the news media….”

“Both tapped into deep frustration with politics as usual,” (quoting Helms biographer William Link.)

Rob also quoted Carter: “(B)oth are sort of demagogues. The main difference is that Helms did have a pretty rigid set of conservative values. I don’t think Trump does, but we just won’t know until we see.”

One thing I grant Helms: he had principles. Trump just has impulses.

Rob said both “were political innovators” – Helms “pioneering in the use of TV advertising and direct-mail fundraising” while “Trump found a way to get out his campaign message without using paid commercials…in a way that was ‘revolutionary,’ according to Wrenn.” Namely Twitter.

There is one more important parallel, familiar to those of us who tried to defeat Helms: Both mastered the art of the political and personal destruction of their opponents.

Helms & Co. pioneered not just TV ads, but negative ads. Helms was never personally popular. He could only win by making his opponents more unpopular than he was. And he was good at it.

Likewise Trump in 2016. He won the Republican nomination by destroying his opponents, insulting them, demeaning them, mocking them – “Low Energy Jeb,” “Little Marco,” “Lying Ted.” Then he did the same to “Crooked Hillary.”

Both men zeroed in on ripe targets: Helms routinely attacked Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy and the “homosexual lobby.” For Trump, it’s Mexicans, Muslims, China, disabled people, women – you name it.

Trump, like Helms, is a bully. Like Helms, he’s good at it. It makes for good political strategy.

Whether it was – and is – good for America is another question altogether.

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

09

We Americans thrive on disagreeing and fighting among ourselves – it’s part of the fabric of our democracy. But, since the election, our natural crankiness seems to have deepened into paranoia.

Young people in colleges are demonstrating, afraid, after Donald Trump’s election, their freedom of speech is in peril. More than a few Internet websites are afraid Trump’s election means the return of the Klu Klux Klan. And gays fear that Trump – a New Yorker who favored gay marriage – is an ‘existential threat’ (don’t you loathe that phrase) to their way of life.

But wait a minute: No one’s rights were changed by the election. The laws are still the same. The Constitution is still in place. So why all this paranoia – is it more politics as usual? Or on Election Day did we, suddenly, lose faith in the strength of the Constitution and the traditions of our country?  

Paranoia’s a bother. Politics is a nuisance. But lost faith, now, that would be a real threat.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

09

Two Page One stories. Two men. Two very different Americans.

John Glenn was my hero when I was 12. He still is 55 years later.

Everything shut down at Martin Junior High School in Raleigh so we could watch Glenn’s flight, from launch to splashdown, including the anxiety about reentry.

All of us boys wanted to be John Glenn.

The other man in the news is Mike Adams, the UNCW professor who used his taxpayer-paid position and online platform to mock and deride a 19-year-old female student, who is Muslim, because she lacked “intellectual coherence.”

What intellectual courage he has!

His politics are immaterial. This is about character.

Bullying seems to be quite the thing in America now. After all, we have a President-elect who makes a regular thing of it.

America today needs more John Glenns and fewer Mike Adamses.

 

Posted in: General, Issues
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

Page 21 of 481« First...10...202122...3040...Last »
Carter & Gary
 
Carter Wrenn
 
 
Gary Pearce
 
 
The Charlotte Observer says: “Carter Wrenn and Gary Pearce don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But they both love North Carolina and know its politics inside and out.”
 
Carter is a Republican. 
Gary is a Democrat.
 
They met in 1984, during the epic U.S. Senate battle between Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt. Carter worked for Helms and Gary, for Hunt.
 
Years later, they became friends. They even worked together on some nonpolitical clients.
 
They enjoy talking about politics. So they started this blog in 2005. 
 
They’re still talking. And they invite you to join the conversation.
 
 
Follow Gary


Follow Carter

 


Order The Book


 

Carter's Book!

Purchase Carter's Book:

Spirits of the Air

Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement