US Mid-term Elections Latest Battle in Cultural War

by Larry Smith

There are witches, Nazi re-enactors and arch hypocrites running in this year's volatile mid-term elections in the United States. We are witnessing a cultural war.

Christine O'Donnell is the Republican nominee for the US Senate in Delaware. She is on record as being opposed to masturbation but partial to witchcraft. Her recent campaign ad began with a denial that she was a witch, and noted that she was just like regular folks. You know, those folks who have to deny that they are witches.

Richard Iott, a Republican congressional candidate in Ohio, was recently outed as someone who for years spent his weekends dressed up in Nazi SS uniform happily reliving the glories of the Third Reich. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, SS troops were used by Hitler for "criminal purposes" such as the persecution and extermination of Jews and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war.

Then there's David Vitter, the Lousiana Republican senator, who has made campaign claims that his opponent voted to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get taxpayer-funded benefits and welfare cheques - ignoring the fact that undocumented aliens can't get government aid in the first place. A strong proponent of conservative "family values", Vitter was earlier exposed for making calls to prostitutes from the Senate floor.

Of course, crazies and hypocrites are not limited to the Republican Party, but these examples are representative of many of Obama's harshest critics - those who like to paint him as a red-eyed radical.

Today's fringe candidates on the right have parallels with similar personalities on the left in other political eras. Rightwing Tea Party activists (many of whom are conservative libertarians) are comparable in some ways to the New Left radicals of the 1960s and 70s (many of whom were libertarian socialists).

The New Left pushed the Democratic Party to nominate many extreme candidates, which contributed to their 1972 presidential defeat, when the anti-Vietnam War standard bearer, George McGovern, won only a single state.

As someone who took part in those earlier generational wars, I believe the Tea Partiers of today are partly a last-ditch reaction to the cultural changes that we launched 40 or 50 years ago. Those changes are personified by the election of Barack Obama.

Former President Bill Clinton has said that - thanks to pressure from the Tea Partiers - the Republican Party is now far enough to the right to make George W. Bush appear liberal. And that is complicating what would be an otherwise predictable outcome for the US mid-term elections which take place on Tuesday, November 2.

Thirty seven of the 100 seats in the Senate are being contested along with all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The current make-up of the Senate is 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and two Independents. The current make-up of the House is 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans and two vacancies. Governors will also be elected in 36 states on November 2.

I use the term "otherwise predictable" because since 1950, the party of the incumbent president has consistently lost seats during mid-term elections. The exceptions to this rule were in 1998, after Republicans turned off voters by shutting down the government, and in 2002, when George W Bush enjoyed huge bipartisan support after 9/11.

Today, the Democrats control Congress during a major recession with high unemployment - and so it is they who have the most to lose.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan's job approval rating was 42 per cent, compared to 48 per cent for Obama today. And, like Obama, Reagan blamed his predecessor for leaving him with "the worst economic mess in half a century" The mid-term election that year saw the Republicans lose about 13 per cent of their House members and there was wide speculation about whether Reagan would decide not to run again in 1984.

The economic conditions of that time are instructive. Inflation was about 10 per cent during Reagan's first year in office, and he backed a contractionary monetary policy, which caused the prime rate to rise to 12.5 per cent and unemployment to top 10 per cent for the first time since the Depression. Although there were tax cuts and some spending reductions in 1981, Reagan also massively expanded military spending, and eventually instituted a $100 billion corporate tax hike—the largest since the Second World War.

Most economists agree that a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery. From a high of 10.8 per cent in December 1982, unemployment fell to 7.2 per cent by election day in 1984. Reagan's stimulus plan focused on huge military spending, and he was subsequently re-elected by a landslide.

So despite all the noise about a "radical transformation of the Republic", there is little substantive difference between the Reagan and Obama administrations' approach. Forty per cent of the Obama stimulus package was tax relief, and despite Reagan's tax increases in 1982 and 1984 (and eventually 1986), and limited cuts in spending, the US budget was not balanced until the 1990s under Bill Clinton - working with a Republican-led congress.

In 2001, as George W Bush took office, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had projected significant budget surpluses through 2011 and beyond, despite anticipated growth in entitlement programmes. The deficit for fiscal year 2009 (approved by Bush) was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research group, taxes are now at their lowest levels in 60 years, with close to 90 per cent of all US taxpayers getting a tax cut last year. And according to Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan adviser and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, "No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies."

This past August, Time Magazine summarised the $800 billion Obama stimulus plan like this: It "cut taxes for 95 per cent of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families, and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more.

"About one-sixth of the total cost is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the US."

The stimulus also included non-energy strategies, like a ten-fold increase in funding to expand access to broadband, $8 billion for a high-speed passenger rail network, and $4.3 billion in Race to the Top grants to promote accountability in public schools - perhaps the most significant US education initiative ever. Many economists and the Congressional Budget Office credit the stimulus with ending the recession last year. Some say the unemployment rate would have been 2 points higher without it.

I researched and wrote this column partly in response to a recent exchange with a relative of mine, who had sent me some anti-Obama propaganda. Here's an excerpt from that exchange:

Relative: As smart as people think he is, why is Obama not cutting spending? And he wants more.

Tough Call: I agree that spending needs to be cut. But you have to approach this from a balanced perspective.Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts, prescription drug entitlement, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain a lot of the deficit over the next 10 years.

Relative: What gives this jacko the right to take $50 from you to give to me? That is socialism and I am totally against that. Eventually you run out of people to tax to death and it all dries up. Ingraham is doing the same thing here.

Tough Call: Obama's stimulus includes tax cuts, and he is proposing to extend the Bush tax cuts. So what's the difference?

Relative: He does not want to extend them, and I just don't like the commie bastard.

Tough Call: But he is extending them. You are making a value judgement that has nothing to do with the facts.

Relative: He is not extending them to the rich and he should be. The rich are taxed the most now anyway, they pay the way for the majority as it is. Without them, it all crumbles and why should they be any different just because they worked their asses off to make it. We are talking about the land of the free, not Cuba.

Tough Call: Reagan taxed the rich too.

Relative: Reagan did not over-tax the rich, just because they were rich.

Tough Call: Obama's proposed tax rate for the rich (i.e after the expiration of the Bush cuts) is lower than Reagan's (39%). And Reagan's was lower than Carter's (70%), and Carter's was lower than Eisenhower's (90%). You can argue for a low tax rate, but you can't say that Obama is doing anything particularly outlandish. If so, then Eisenhower was a communist too.

Relative: Bull s--t!

In fact, Reagan's real achievement - like Margaret Thatcher's in Britain - was to change the terms of debate. The focus these days is on restraint in government spending and taxation, less government intervention rather than more, and recognition of the superiority of the free market over socialism.

What we are witnessing today in the US is more of a cultural war. It's not so much about changing the terms of the debate.

Obama was elected by a large majority of voters, not a plurality - like Clinton in his first term, and not by the Supreme Court - like George W Bush in his first term. If Obama were a middle-aged white man with an anglo-saxon name, I doubt whether anyone would accuse him of being an illegitimate foreigner out to destroy America.

Comments

[Rick Lowe]

If you and I were having that conversation Larry I would have had to mention Mr. Obama's other policies as reasons for the US to be involved in a "cultural war" as its put.
Seems they were involved in an "anti-cultural war" when they reacted to Mr. Bush's policies then?

[chris armaly]

I usually enjoy most of your articles and although your views are to the left, you usually bring other views and opinions into your writings. This morning, however, is a different story and unfortunately the piece is so biased it won't be taken seriously except by the hard party liners who don't listen to any other views regardless.

I am tired of being called a racist if I don't believe in a certain politician's views and won't tolerate the race card anymore. Please bear in mind that most Bahamians (both black and white) have only voted for a black PM all of our lives (that is all we know), so to endorse or disagree with a president because he is black is a rather weak argument.

Voters are more in tune with policies today, hence why the huge growth of independent voter, and why their vote is so crucial to both political parties (of which both parties are empty suits). I trust if a white man runs for PM of the Bahamas you will take the same stand as you are with the current President.

I would truly hope in the year 2010 voters would go far beyond race when making a choice at the voter's booth, or perhaps I'm just naïve.

[larry smith]

I find it surprising that you can focus on bias when the whole purpose of my piece was to show that Obama's policies are not that exceptional - and certainly not what they are made out to be by his extreme critics.

The whole idea was to bring some balance and perspective to the debate, which is raging in the Bahamas as well as in the US.

I have no doubt that extreme critics of the Obama administration are motivated by racial and cultural issues.

In the Bahamas, many whites were opposed to Pindling and the PLP from the break, many left the country as a result. Don't you think race played a part in that?

[chris armaly]

I agree with your points on the past. However, I think today is a different issue. People prefer to move on from the past and while we should remember, dwelling on it doesn't help. I don't hear racial tones today as in the past among my white Bahamian acquaintances/clients etc. as many whites were in the past.

All you have to do is look at the interracial couples/marriages etc., in families that would have never tolerated or accepted it 30 +/- years ago. I would say that among citizens aged 40 or less, 90% don't see colour in a person as many did generations ago.

Perhaps you don't agree or in your circles it is different, but today's times are certainly different than what you refer to. This is not to say there isn't a great-grandfather or great uncle etc. that has those views, but they are a dying breed.

[larry smith]

I think you're right in acknowledging that things have changed a lot in the Bahamas - where whites are in the minority.

In the US, however, the white majority is still coming to terms with racial issues.

As I said, my intention in this piece was to bring some balance and perspective to the argument over Obama, which is raging in the Bahamas as well as in the US.

[larry smith]

I'd also like to reinforce the point that this article was prompted by the receipt of some extreme anti-Obama propaganda sent to me by a white Bahamian. This material was offensive, and frankly I am surprised by some of the vitriolic and hateful anti-Obama material I have received from white Bahamians that I know. I thought they were better than the extreme rightwing elements in the US, but they have proved me wrong.

[Rick Lowe]

While some whites are simply racist, that is undeniable.
But to reduce the discussion about Obama's reelection chances to race is incorrect, at least in my view.
Maybe Bush or GW, whatever he was referred to as, and those are the kind names, was booted out of office and the majority of Americans did not vote "for" Obama?

[larry smith]

It is only the racists who reduce the argument to race.

It is my view that many of obama's EXTREME critics are motivated primarily by racial and cultural issues.

That does not mean there cannot be a valid discussion about his policies or re-election chances.

As the article attempted to show - you can have an argument about policy, but not by making ridiculous claims and factless slurs.

[Rick]

I must have missed the concerns raised about some of the Democratic or independent candidates and other policy issues. Sorry.
One minor disagreement, Reagan brought the tax rates down from very high levels and the congress spent like there was no tomorrow.
Also, combined (overall) tax rates Federal, State and Local are estimated to be around 30% now if I'm not mistaken.
That's quite high in the scheme of things. And will go higher as a result of the vast deficit spending, healthcare etc, if it is to be repaid.

[minor]

You make a lot of interesting and rational arguments, but this line

Richard Iott, a Republican congressional candidate in Ohio, was recently outed as someone who for years spent his weekends dressed up in Nazi SS uniform happily reliving the glories of the Third Reich.

seems more of the hyperbole you are trying to refute.
Dressing up as a reenactor does not mean you glorify the character you are playing. Do you have some facts that I am not aware of that he is sympathetic to Nazism?

[larry smith]

The short answer is 'yes'. All three individuals cited at the beginning of my article are examples of the hyperbole I was trying to refute. They are jokes.

Having said that, Nazi attire still carries a lot of meaning to most folks today. So the fact that anyone would want to re-enact as a Nazi, even if he's not a real Nazi, is concerning.

The Wiking re-enactment website makes this political statement: "the men who fought against the Bolshevik scourge...only had a desire to see an end to Soviet Communism."

Historians say they assisted the Einsatzgruppen in rounding up and executing Ukrainian Jews. The Institute for the History of Jews in Austria has documented several cases of war crimes committed by members of the 5 SS Division Wiking in the Spring of 1945. The notorious Dr. Josef Mengele, also served with the SS Division Wiking during its early campaigns before moving on to the concentration camps.

As one commentator said: "Whitewashing the history of the atrocities committed by the Nazis is a sin. It is a sin against the victims of those atrocities, it is a sin against the families of those victims, and it is a sin against the truth...even if it's a sin of ignorance."

The SS were Nazi Germany's true believers. But the Wiking re-enactment group says they were idealists who were fighting valiantly for a new free united Europe.

Is this the kind of "education" that US congressional candidates should be promoting?

[minor]

The Wiking group is quite nuts and his involvement in the group troubling, but he claims to have also played US soldiers from WW1 and WW2, no one has refuted this, so I think the the issue is more about the shock value of the picture than him being a Nazi lover, just my opinion.

[Jovan]

To minor, do you know what the Nazis did? Would you dress up as one? Do you think it reflects well on the judgement of an individual with political ambitions to do something like this?
Just a few questions that came to me when I saw the pictures.

[Stephen]

Watched a portion of 'Real Time with Bill Maher' last week, and a question was asked of Obama's critics on the show: 'What would have happened if Obama had let the banks fail, Chrysler fail, and simply cut spending, etc...'. The response was symptomatic of how many people in the US have lost their mind since Obama's election. They said, and without smiling, that Obama would have been Impeached...rational, indeed!

[minor]

Yes Jovan I know what the Nazis did, are you trying to insult my intelligence?
Yes I would dress up as one, Tom cruise and countless other actors have got paid good money for it, don't see anyone calling them out. The error in judgement by this fellow was to think that the whole story matters in today's world.
Shock value and fear sell, so both sides use them.