- Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be satisfied with the results. The Republicans’ failure to keep control of the House despite a booming economy, low unemployment and the lack of an unpopular war doesn’t bode well for them if things get worse. Equally, the Democrats’ losses in the Senate expose the party’s weakness in rural and small-town America. Indiana and Missouri are fairly representative of the nation as a whole; Democrat incumbents losing their seats there is not a good sign. Democrats made the mistake of raising expectations, especially regarding Beto O’Rourke’s chances in Texas. Having failed to meet those expectations, the results look like a Democratic loss.
- Trump’s re-election prospects just got better. In terms of the Electoral College, Trump’s 2016 map still looks pretty intact. Republican victories for governorships in Ohio, Iowa and Florida show the president’s persistent popularity in key swing states. Of course there were some losses, but nothing beyond what you would expect against a normal incumbent. The so-called ‘Democratic wave’ failed to materialise, so the usual rule of incumbency advantage will still apply in 2020.
- In the post-Obama era, Democrats are finally taking state and local government seriously. Under Obama’s presidency, Democrats suffered huge losses at the state and local level. The number of governorships and state legislatures under Republican control rose to record levels. Democrats were so focused on the presidency, they forgot that political power in America is decentralised and dispersed, allowing Republicans to redraw congressional districts in their favour, repeal environmental protections and restrict abortions. Since the party no longer has a charismatic, unifying figure, they are reemphasising local government once again. A gain of seven governorships is something to be proud of.
- Urban-rural polarisation still hasn’t hit its peak. The House results show Democrats making most of their gains in urban and suburban seats. Rural areas stayed solidly Republican, increasing the division between city and country. This doesn’t bode well for Democrats, since the electoral college and Senate give rural voters a disproportionate degree of influence on election results.
- Expect the next two years to be even more unpleasant than the last two. Continued Republican control of the Senate means Trump is almost certainly safe from impeachment and can continue to make favourable judicial appointments. At the same time, Democratic control of the House will frustrate what remains of Trump’s legislative agenda. As a result, there will be yet more constant arguing, blaming the other side for everything and not taking responsibility. More importantly, these elections do nothing to resolve the Democrats’ divisions as to how to respond to Trump, nor do they provide a clear Democratic frontrunner for the 2020 presidential election. Neither the progressives nor the moderates in the Democratic Party have a convincing narrative to make from the results. Watching the Democrats squabble and provide feeble, incoherent opposition to Trump may be the most excruciating thing of all.
Triumph of the extroverts
(I am deliberately ignoring the American election and leaving it to my colleague, Owen, to write about it tomorrow, offering his take on it from Britain. Robert)
“Does anyone live a life of quiet despair these days? The question struck me with some force, one Sunday evening last summer, when I found myself on the Leatherhead bypass. These proud detached villas, still with their net curtains and tidy front gardens, were exactly the sort of houses where people sighed in Betjeman’s poems over missing the fun. Brief Encounter territory.
But our modern world is one of clamour and din. Everyone is busy shouting into their mobile phones, or chanting the name of Jeremy Corbyn, or sobbing on telly because their cake didn’t rise. Extroverts have taken over. Quiet despair has been all but forgotten, like headscarves or sardine-and-tomato paste.”(Cressida Connolly in The Oldie)
Ms. Connolly is joking, of course, a very English thing to do, and something disappearing in America, except for Saturday Night Live. Actually, despair is alive and well in America, and it concerns the vulgarity, coarseness and disagreeable-ness (is there such a word?) of modern life now the country is “Great” again. Actually, they would rather it wasn’t so “Great”. Rather, they wish it would stop multiple wars it isn’t winning, reduce the “defense” budget, tax the rich, introduce a rational health service, and do other nice, epicurean things for real, flesh and blood people.
But all that’s a bit threatening to conservatives, who are never happier than when they are learning that so-and-so earns fifty thousand times what they earn and pays ten per cent tax on it. John Betjeman should have written a poem about illogical and irrational thought, not extroversion.
Are you part of the 1%?
According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from the Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of US$871,320 to be in the top 1% in the world. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”
More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide, far more than from any other country. China is now in second place in the world wealth hierarchy, with 4.2 million citizens (scary, eh?)
The fact is that to be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don’t even need six figures – a net worth of $93,170 will do it. And even if you have just $4,210 to your name, you’re still richer than half of the world’s residents.
These numbers reflect the extreme level of persistent wealth inequality. As Credit Suisse reports: “While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1 percent of total wealth, the richest 10 percent of adults owns 85 percent of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for 47 percent of all household wealth .
The good news is that share of financial assets among many of the richest people and richest countries peaked in 2015 and has been declining since then. The share of the top decile and the top 5 percent remains at the same level as in 2016, while the share of the top 1 percent has edged down a bit from 47.5 percent to 47.2 percent, according to our best estimate.
It’s too early to conclude that wealth inequality is on a downward trend, Credit Suisse reports, but “the prevailing evidence suggests wealth inequality may well have leveled out, albeit at a very high level”.
The ridiculous thing is that, if you had bought, say, an apartment in Central London for £300.000 in, say, 1990, all you had to do is to live in it till now and you would be part of the current worldwide 1%, without having to lift a finger (I realise you would have had to have taken out a huge mortgage, and just to have qualified and repaid one would have meant you were well off. But to those who have shall be given!)
Actually, an Epicurean wouldn’t care a toss whether he was part of the 1% anyway. Do you feel more happy, proud or secure to know you are a member? Doubt it.
“The end of the Trump era may be in sight”. (The New Yorker)
Cheer up, liberal America and all Epicureans, wherever you may be! It may feel like Trump will be around for ever, but the announcement by Nikki Haley that she is standing down as US representative at the UN is a clear sign that his days are indeed numbered. Haley is one of the most astute political operators on the scene today, and she wants to get out “while the getting is good”.
If the polls are correct, the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives. This will enable them to block legislation and “torment the White House with subpoenas demanding the release of Trump’s financial records, including his tax returns”. Add the prospect of Robert Mueller filing his report on the Russian investigation, and signs that America’s booming economy may be on the turn, and the administration’s prospects do not look rosy. “Rather than languishing in depression, people opposed to Trump should follow Haley’s example and look forward. (John Cassidy, The New Yorker).
Personally, I am not counting any chickens. So many constituencies have been gerrymandered, so many shameless untruths have been told. so much power has been handed to rich elites, so much good for the common man undone (and half the common men actually applaud!), that nothing would surprise me. Take me back to ancient Greece! At least the water was pure and the air clean, and ordinary people (men, anyway) could meaningfully take a role in affairs of the polis and be listened to. There must have been corruption, but not on a modern scale.
Making advances
To The Times
In your report “Ex-director goes on sex offender register for making pass at friend”, you write that the judge told the defendant: “You do not make advances towards women who don’t want you to.” In other words, a woman must first indicate that an advance is welcome before a man can make one. But the act of indicating to a man that an advance is welcome is in itself an advance, and what if he finds it unwelcome?
Richard Hayes, Oxford
(The Week, April 20,2018)
What he should say to the (rare) lady making the advance is, “Thank you, I am flattered. I have to say you are very attractive and charming, but I am happily married, thank you.” Cue for a big, friendly smile.
As for the man making a pass at a woman: Epicurus, were he alive today, might well comment that all too many men fail to employ subtlety, humour, relaxedness, and charm. A perceptive, sensitive man should be able to assess the attitude of the lady, her behaviour, her demeanor. And behave accordingly. Just wading in without interpreting the body language, the look in the eyes, the smile, or lack of a smile is boorish. He deserves her opprobrium if he does so. A man should have learned the finer points of courting by the time he is an adult. (Yes, I know………!)