30 October 2020

Sons of Their Fathers

The lives of the last four presidents make an interesting contrast.  The two Rs were both sons of already very rich and powerful fathers, and the sons had numerous catastrophes of their own making, several of which would have put them into prison and would have ruined anyone without a father who was fabulously wealthy and powerful.

On the other hand the last two D presidents lost their fathers early and were raised mainly by their mother, impressive women both, and both had stepfathers that were completely out of their lives by the time they went to college.  Neither had much money and both got into and through the Ivy League entirely on their own merit.

Bill Clinton's father and stepfather were both salesmen.  His father died in an auto accident before Bill was born and his mother remarried a few years later--this time to a car dealer.   His mother was a waitress when Bill was born but became a nurse.  Bill did very well in school and got into Georgetown, became a Rhodes Scholar and went to Oxford, and Yale Law School, where he met Hillary Rodham.  Clinton opposed the Vietnam war and did not enlist, and due to a lucky high lottery number (311) was not drafted.  He went into politics almost immediately after graduating from law school.

George W Bush's father was George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st president and himself the son of an important politician, Prescott Bush.  His mother Barbara was descended from the brother of Franklin Pierce, 14th president.  The Bushes had strong connections to the oil business.  His father's connections got him enrolled in the Texas Air National Guard, where he learned to fly jets.  He received low ratings as a pilot, and went AWOL in 1972 until he was discharged in 1974, but apparently due to his connections, was honorably discharged.  He failed to get into law school, but did get into Yale business school, again, apparently because of his father.  His grades were mediocre and he was a heavy drinker.  Friends of his father set him up with an oil drilling company, which would never succeed but eventually would be bought out by another company, and George sold his shares and bought into the Texas Rangers baseball team.  He would sell these shares for a 3000% profit while he was governor.  His first political office was governor of Texas, and when he ran for president, he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes, but won just barely enough electoral votes to get in, with a boost from Florida, where his margin was 500 votes, his brother was governor, and the secretary of state was his campaign manager, and there were tens of thousands of democratic votes suppressed.

Barack Obama's father was a talented student from Kenya who divorced his mother when he was 3.  The last time young Barack saw his father was when he was ten.  Obama Sr died a few years later.  Obama Jr's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was an anthropology student from Kansas who would earn a masters degree while Barack was still young and a PhD while he was in college.  Barack got into Columbia with a full scholarship and Harvard Law, where he was president of the Law Review.  He would work as a law professor for a while before going into politics.

Donald Trump's father Fred was a very wealthy real estate tycoon in Queens, NY, who inherited the core of his business from his father.  It seems that the brains of the outfit was actually Fred's mother.  Fred was known to be ruthless and terribly racist and left in his wake mostly slums.  Donald was big and strong and pretty wild , repeatedly beating up other kids to steal their lunch money.  Trying to get him to behave, Fred would send him to military school, where Donald finally thrived, apparently because he was pretty good at running scams to get others to do things for him.  A big, strong kid, he enjoyed baseball and other sports.  He got into college, apparently, because he paid a smarter kid to take the SAT for him, and eventually got into UPenn and obtained an undergraduate degree in Economics, which he clearly knows almost nothing about.   It's not clear he actually did much of the work for himself as he was absent for most of his senior year.   He was a millionaire before he was 5 and his father gave him $5 million to start his own real estate business while he was still in college, and would eventually inherit his father's business.   He had a small number of successes, but many, many failures.   His father bailed him out many times, yet he went bankrupt at least 6 times.  He also seems to have been further bailed out by money given to him by a division of Deutsche Bank which mainly deals with Russia, and many deals more directly with Russian oligarchs.   His main source of income since his father died in 1999 seems to have been money laundering for Russians and his salary from his TV career and a series of frauds and cons.   Don, born the same year as Clinton and Bush, got out of Vietnam service when a doctor said he had bone spurs in his feet.  In his very first political election, Don lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million but won a narrow victory in the electoral college, strongly boosted by smears to his opponent that came from Russia and one from the FBI.

18 October 2020

Antifa?

 I'm pretty sure "Antifa" is just a placeholder for right wingers to aim attacks.  There are obviously lots of people people who are anti-fascist--I certainly am--but the number who are likely to do violent or destructive things is almost certainly minuscule. 


Here are some categories:

Peaceful Demonstrator:   These can be from any issue and with only a few very narrow exceptions, their activities are protected free speech.  I have participated in many, many peaceful demonstrations, such as the Women's marches, Anti-War demonstrations in the 1960s and early 70s and 2003 and have never once seen any sort of violence.

Rioter:  There has been some rioting in a tiny number of this years demonstrations.  I haven't actually seen any in person but I've seen a little on TV.  Rioting nearly always is counterproductive to any cause being peacefully demonstrated for.

Provocateur.  Nearly always, these are people who show up to undermine a peaceful protest.  Many strategies are used, such as starting fights, throwing rocks or other things, especially at police or windows.  They fall into two classes:

Opponents of the cause:  e.g. a right wing provocateur will infiltrate a left wing crowd and stir up trouble.  There were a lot of these in the protests this summer.

Nihilists.  Incorrectly called "anarchists", these are people who find pleasure in violence and mayhem.  They generally have little or no ideology.

The Cops:  Many cops actively oppose progressive causes and in the case of Black Lives Matter, they are representatives of the problematic group.  When they commit acts of violence against previously peaceful protesters, it is not the fault of the protesters that they get angry.   I think it's very significant that the violence in the BLM protests almost completely evaporated when the cops stopped enforcing curfew.

Looter:  like provocateurs, they are at the protest for a reason which is not aligned with the protest itself.  Some of them are there because they agree, but once there is a little broken glass, their main objective is to take advantage.

Anarchist:  There is a legitimate political strategy called anarchism, most conspicuously described by Kropotkin, but it has rarely gotten very far in practice. Kropotkin's idea was to antagonize the ruling class so they would crack down and make support for their uprising nearly universal.   Unfortunately for the strategy, there's an easy way to undermine this: punish the criminal and make a point of not cracking down.   The Portland/Eugene area seems to be a hotbed of people who call themselves anarchists.  They are not.  They are nihilists, who show up at riots wearing black with their identities obscured, and just there to make trouble.

White Supremacists:  This is by far the largest source of terrorism and organized violence in America.  Before Trump was elected, they were active but understood most people were against them, although the vast majority of mass bombings and shootings were done by them.  The vast majority of people arrested for doing violence in Black Lives Matters protests this summer were White Supremacists, trying to undermine the cause.

Religious Extremists:  This is #2 to the racists and they are often the same people, shooting up abortion clinics and so forth.

Antifa:  Appears to be a fictional group made up to be a stalking horse.   Every sane person is anti-fascists, although many Racists and Religious extremists are pro-fascist.  Not all, but enough to be a problem.   Nobody has been able to identify any actual antifa group although occasional a person arrested will admit that they are antifa.  I'll be interested to learn more about the person who was killed by the cops last week who apparently fits this category.




I live less than 10 blocks from virtually all of the protests that occurred in Seattle this summer.  Without the curfew announcements, the news reporting and the occasional news helicopter overhead, I would have had no idea it was happening. 



Worst Second Term Defeats

The incumbent president enjoys such an enormous political advantage, that he has usually won re-election.   There are a few exceptions, mainly when the incumbent is so unpopular it overcomes his structural advantages.  Here are all the failures to be re-elected, ordered by date.   All of them are interesting in some way.

1800 Thomas Jefferson v John Adams
    41,330 to 25,952  (15,378 difference)
    61.4% to 38.6% (22.8% difference)
    73 to 65 electors

1828 Andrew Jackson v John Quincy Adams
     642.553 to 500,897 (141,656 difference)
     56.4% to 43.3% (13.1% difference)
     178 to 83 electors.
     Jackson had a plurality of votes in 1824 but Adams and Clay had made what Jackson called a "corrupt bargain" to win the presidency.   Jackson started running again immediately and won decisively.

1840 William Henry Harrison vs Martin van Buren
   1,275,390 to 1,128,854      (146,536 difference)
   52.9% to 46.8% (6.1% difference)
   234 to 60 electors

1888 Benjamin Harrison v Grover Cleveland
   5,433,892 to 5,534,438 (-100,546 difference)
   47.8% to 48.6% (-0.8% difference)
   233 to 168 electors
   one of the 5 times the popular vote loser won the electoral college.

1892 Grover Cleveland v Benjamin Harrison v James B Weaver
    5,556,918 to 5,176,108 to 1,041,028 (380,480 difference)
    46% to 43% to 8.5% (3% difference)
    277 to 145 to 22 electors.
    Cleveland won the popular vote 3 times in a row but lost the electoral college in the middle.

1912 Woodrow Wilson v William H Taft v Theodore Roosevelt v Eugene Debs
     6,296,284 to 3,486,242 to 4,122,721 to 901,551
     41.8% to 23.2% to 27.4% to 6%.
     435 to 8 to 88 electors
     TR's selection to replace him, Taft, proved to be a normal republican and reversed many of his progressive policies, incensing TR, so he ran against him and beat him soundly.  Unfortunately for him, this split the R vote and gave the election to Wilson. 

1932: FDR & John Nance Garner vs Herbert Hoover & Charles Curtis
       22,821,277 to 15,761,254 (7,060,023 difference)
       57.4% to 39.7% (17.7%)
       472 to 59 electors
      Hoover presided over the start of the Great Depression and exacerbated it immensely with his misguided policies.
       
1976 Jimmy Carter v Gerald Ford
    40,831,881 to 39,148,634 (1,683,247 difference)
    50.1% to 48.0% (2.1% difference)
    297 to 240 electors
    Ford is the only president to have never won a national election: he was appointed to replace Agnew when he was forced to resign, and had pardoned Nixon.   He proved fairly feckless as president.

1980 Ronald Reagan v Jimmy Carter v John Anderson
    43,903,230 to 35,480,115 to 5,719,850 (8,423,115 difference)
    50.7% to 41% to 6.6%  (9.7% or 2.1% if all Anderson votes went to Carter)
    489 to 49 electors
    Anderson was a liberal republican, running as independent and far to the left of his historical positions.  He was obviously running as a spoiler.  It looks like a bigger landslide than it really was.

1992 Bill Clinton v GHW Bush v H Ross Perot
     44,909,889 to 39,104,550 to 19,743,821 (5,805,339 difference)
     43.0% to 37.4% to 18.9%  (5.6% difference)
     370 to 168 to 0 electors
     Perot probably took more votes from Bush than from Clinton, but not enough to swing the election.  Most of the states where Perot did well were won by Bush despite him, so there wouldn't have been much change in the electoral college.  Bush was the inheritor of Reagan's legacy (and dirty tricks) but did not have the personal charm to carry it off.

2020 Joe Biden v Donald Trump
    79,787,724 to 73,767,408 (6,020,316 difference)   (as of 21 Nov 2020)
    51.0% to 47.2%  (3.8% difference)
    306 to 232 electors
    By far our most incompetent and corrupt president.
    


The biggest defeat to an incumbent was Jefferson v Adams, 22.8%.  There were only 65,000 voters so a swing this large is not too unlikely.   This was an incredibly dirty campaign and the two former friends were alienated for years.

The largest defeat with a statistically significant number of voters was FDR v Hoover in 1932, 17.7%.