Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Who Is Winning the Capitol Hill Game of 3-D Chess?
Given the clown car that is the House Republican Conference, we did not necessarily expect Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) & Co. to pass any bills during their first, oh, 6 months in power. After all, if you can't even agree on who should be speaker (something that House caucuses and conferences have had no issue resolving since the Civil War era), then can you agree on anything?
However, the red team has surprised us getting two bills through the House that either have passed, or probably will pass, the Senate. The first is the resolution overturning the new Department of Labor rule that would allow for the consideration of environmental factors in money managers' decisions. Not require, mind you, but allow. As we pointed out over the weekend, resolutions like this cannot be filibustered, and need just a bare majority to pass. House Republicans went first, and then Senate Republicans followed suit, with Sens. Jon Tester (D-Gas) and Joe Manchin (D-Coal) joining them. The bill is now headed to Joe Biden's desk, where he's already promised his first veto.
The second bill, which hasn't passed yet but is almost certainly going to, involves crime in Washington, DC. It's been quite a soap opera, so you'll have to bear with us. This one starts with the DC city council, which is quite lefty. They noticed that despite the United States' habit of throwing the book at criminals, and despite the fact that the country has the highest number of prisoners in the world (2,068,800, well ahead of #2 China at 1,690,000), and despite the fact that the country has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world (629 per 100,000, well ahead of #2 Rwanda at 580 per 100,000), the U.S. still has as much crime as any industrial nation. And so, the D.C. city council, which is predominantly Black, and which just might have noticed that incarcerated Americans are disproportionately Black, tried to reduce the penalties for certain violent crimes. The thinking that is if what the country is doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something else.
Republicans have had a field day with this, as you can imagine, as the GOP's plan for 2024 is to paint the Democrats as "soft on crime." And guess what? Congress has oversight authority over D.C., and is allowed to override decisions of the city council with a straight majority resolution—again no filibustering. So, Republicans in both chambers decided to force a vote on the matter, thinking that it would put the Democrats in a corner. Either the members of the blue team could back D.C. and open themselves up to "soft on crime" attacks, or they could stick it to D.C. and upset their base (especially Black voters).
What has happened since the resolution passed the House on a party-line vote has been... unusual. D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has flip-flopped on whether she wants the new rules sustained or overturned. The D.C. council has tried to withdraw the new rules. A number of Senate Democrats—like Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Manchin, and Tester, all of whom happen to be up for reelection next year—have said they will join the Republicans in helping to overrule the D.C. council. Joe Biden has said he will not veto the resolution and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said he's not going to whip votes. So, the Republican-sponsored resolution looks likely to succeed.
At a glance, then, it might appear that the Republicans are scoring some big victories here. That is to say, they are getting Republican-sponsored resolutions through both chambers of Congress, while at the same time managing to divide the Democrats on politically sensitive issues like fossil fuels and crime. Maybe McCarthy deserves more credit for political savvy than we've been giving him?
It's certainly possible that is the case. But there's also a very different way of looking at these events. To start, the Republicans aren't actually going to accomplish very much with their two resolutions. The Dept. of Labor rule is still going to take effect, thanks to Biden's veto pen. And the new D.C. rules were contentious enough that even the D.C. city council has now though better of them.
Meanwhile, and very importantly, in setting up these show votes, the Republicans are actually giving vulnerable Democrats some useful fodder for their messaging. Someone like Manchin or Tester, for example, can go back to their home states and say "I certainly support what my party does for working people. But when we're talking about the fossil fuels that are important to our state's economy, or the crime that put our children in danger, I'm not afraid to stand up to the other Democrats, even if it is the President himself." Other Democrats who are planning to vote to override D.C., a list that may even include some of the lefties like Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) will similarly be able to claim the mantle of "tough on crime." Again, our view is that "tough on crime" is pretty foolish, given how poorly it's worked out for the U.S. in the last 200 years, and given the disproportionate impact on non-white Americans. But "tough on crime" is what the great majority of voters want.
In short, we're not sure exactly who is winning the current rounds of 3-D chess. An interesting test is forthcoming, though; McCarthy is putting together an omnibus energy bill that will include a "greatest hits" of Republican ideas—resume work on the Keystone XL pipeline, make permitting easier, expand drilling on federal lands, and more than a dozen other initiatives along these lines.
The Speaker's first problem is getting the bill through his own chamber. If he doesn't get Democratic votes, and he probably won't, he has only a five-vote margin of error, of course, and there are some ideas that even members of his conference will not be thrilled about. For example, the two Montana Republicans may not be open to despoiling more federal lands. Well, OK, who are we kidding—Ryan Zinke never met so much as a single square inch of land he didn't want to despoil. But Matt Rosendale might feel differently.
The Speaker's second problem is getting the bill through the Senate. He is presumably counting on Manchin, Tester and some other mystery group of Democratic senators to climb on board. But unlike the DoE and D.C. resolutions, this one would be filibusterable. So, it's going to take a whole bunch of Democratic aisle-crossers. We doubt that the Republicans can pull it off, or that they can even get much political mileage out of the vote, since Democrats can say things like "You can't possibly expect me to support Keystone XL after what just happened in East Palestine, Ohio!" But if we are wrong about these guesses, then we will indeed have to go back and consider our assessment of McCarthy. (Z)
Let the Foxlighting Begin
As it turns out, the House Republican Conference did not give the 1/6 footage to Tucker Carlson willy-nilly. It would seem that they are concerned about political blowback, legal exposure, or both. So, Carlson's staff had to head over to the Capitol to view the footage, and then had to get clearance before using any of it. That process is underway, and last night, the Fox entertainer aired his first "report" based on the footage.
The content of the report was utterly predictable. Here is Carlson's main conclusion:
More than 44,000 hours of surveillance footage from in and around the Capitol have been withheld from the public, and once you see the video, you'll understand why. Taken as a whole, the video does not support the claim that Jan. 6 was an insurrection. In fact, it demolishes that claim.
Carlson then showed footage of people not rioting. Shocking that, among 44,000 hours of footage, he managed to find a few minutes of relatively innocuous stuff. Needless to say, you should just disregard what you saw with your own eyes on national television on January 6, 2021.
This farce will change no hearts and no minds, of course. Heck, we all know that even Carlson himself doesn't believe what he's saying. That said, for those already inclined to believe that the insurrection was no big deal, or even that it was some sort of glorious day for democracy, Carlson's propagandizing will serve to affirm their beliefs, thus driving an even deeper wedge between MAGA reality and everyone else's reality (more below). (Z)
The First Rule of the Insurrection...
...is that you don't talk about the insurrection. At least, that's the rule in the GOP presidential primaries. There was a time when people like Mike Pence and Nikki Haley lambasted the insurrectionists and blamed Donald Trump for the events of that day. But then January 7, 2021, arrived and the revisionism began. These days, the folks who dare to challenge Trump for his throne, even Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), are pretending 1/6 never happened and are refusing to go after the former president for encouraging his followers to attempt to overturn the election results.
For the moment, the "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" approach, while cowardly, is working for the various aspiring Republicans. That said, whether it will continue to work, especially once the campaign heats up, is an open question. The MAGA Militia knows full well how the non-Trump candidates really feel about 1/6, and are beginning to draw negative inferences from their general silence. The day may soon come when a DeSantis or a Pence or a Haley, if they want to butter up the base, have to screw on a smile and speak of the insurrection as a positive occurrence. Not helping things is that silence is being interpreted not only as a sign that a candidate is not MAGA enough, but also that they are in the bag for the business elite and/or the deep state.
Of course, once the general election arrives, the calculation becomes even more complex for an aspiring Republican president. Other members of the red team might be willing to be part of the conspiracy of silence, but certainly Joe Biden (or any other Democratic nominee) won't. If Trump somehow gets the nod again, then bumper stickers write themselves: "Vote Biden. He's Never Tried to Overthrow the Government." And if DeSantis or some other non-Trump Republican is the nominee, there are going to be constant, uncomfortable questions from reporters and debate moderators about 1/6. That non-Trump Republican can either choose to aggravate the base, or they can choose to aggravate the centrist and independent voters they will need. And note that refusing to answer questions is going to play right into Democratic messaging, so the strong, silent act is not a solution here. It really is a difficult time to be a Republican politician. (Z)
Republicans Are United on Their Views of Transgender People
While Republicans are increasingly split on the war in Ukraine, the party, led by Donald Trump, is also increasingly united on issues relating to transgender people. Even Trump is probably starting to realize that talking only about how he was robbed of victory in 2020 isn't going to be enough to get the GOP nomination and certainly not enough to win a general election. Now that conservatives got what they wanted on abortion, he and the Party need some new policy issue that they all agree on and which they believe will be popular with the voters. They think they have found one and Trump is leading the charge on it. Expect the other candidates to follow soon overtly.
Trump presumably knows that LGBQ rights are no longer a good issue, as most Americans have accepted the idea that gay people are around to stay and that who someone loves is really only a matter for the lover and lovee. And maybe their videographer, depending on how they swing. The government doesn't have to interfere other than getting rid of laws that, well, interfere. But going from LGBQ to LGBTQ is a whole other ballgame. Republicans can read polls. Here's one that asks whether society has gone too far accepting people who are transgender:
The main takeaway here is that Republicans, especially religious Republicans, think society has gone too far accepting trans people. That certainly means they don't want to go further and probably means that want to repeal some of the protections already in place. This is precisely the kind of culture-war issue that riles up the base and gets them to the polls. By talking about how much they support women's sports teams and safety in public restrooms, they are virtually forcing the Democrats to take positions that the blue team believes in but are not popular with a fair number of voters.
Anti-trans feeling among many different demographic groups is increasing over time. Here is another chart:
Republicans have long been looking for a way to lure Black voters. Maybe this issue is the way. The border wall never turned the Black folks on at all, but this might do the job, as many Black voters are religious and the Jesus never suggested that picking your gender was up to you.
Other polls confirm the findings above. One poll of American adults last summer showed that 60% oppose including options other than "male" and "female" on government documents. Another showed that 58% said people should not be allowed to compete on sports teams reserved for people of the sex not shown on their birth certificate.
Another sign that Republicans see being anti-trans as a winning strategy comes from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—and he isn't up for reelection until 2028! He is about to introduce a bill to bar trans people who have sought or obtained gender confirmation surgery from serving in the military, although there are some specific limitations to the ban. Rubio said: "Joe Biden has turned our military into a woke social experiment. We need to spend more time thinking about how to counter threats like China, Russia, and North Korea, and less time thinking about pronouns." Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), who is running for a vacant Senate seat in 2024, will introduce a companion bill.
Another Republican who is hopping on the anti-trans bandwagon is Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS). The state legislature just passed a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors and Reeves will sign it. He said: "Sterilizing and castrating children in the name of new gender ideology is wrong. That plain truth is somehow controversial in today's world. I called for us to stop these sick experimental treatments and I look forward to getting the bill."
Will this new strategy work? We don't know but given all the polling on the subject, it will certainly be a winner in Republican primaries and maybe in general elections as well. In any event, expect it to be a major issue in 2024. (V)
Why the Trans Hate?, Part I
About a month ago, we ran an item headlined "Trans Is The New Abortion?," which was basically a shorter version of the item above, noting that Donald Trump was getting ready to make anti-trans rhetoric a big part of his platform for 2024.
That weekend, we got a letter from P.R. in Arvada about the subject; that letter began thusly:
Your item "Trans Is The New Abortion" got me wondering why people hate trans people so much. One of the biggest changes I have made in myself was becoming an atheist (a very long time ago). One thing that forced me to do was to justify my feelings towards others. There was no longer a book or "pillar of the community" I could look towards to justify hating groups of people. The result of that was a quick realization that my previous negative opinions of other groups were not based on anything I truly believed, and so I went from dislike of other groups to a more apathetical—I don't care about the label you have been given, I either like you as a person or I don't.
After running through a few possibilites, all of them deemed unsatisfactory, P.R. concluded:
I can't figure out why anyone would truly be against trans people. Maybe someone can explain to me why they feel trans people should be discriminated against and how they justify it. The trans people I personally know are some of the nicest people I have the pleasure of knowing. They have had a lot of hate thrown at them and their journey has been far from easy. I may not truly understand what they went through or why they made the decisions they did but I do know it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing or to have a chance at winning a medal or some other petty reason. Just once it would be nice to see people on the right stand up and tell their representatives that they do not support this kind of baseless hatred of people. Of course, maybe it isn't baseless, and they can actually justify their position. Somehow I doubt it, though.
We actually got a sizable number of good and thoughtful responses, a bit too much for the mailbag, actually. And so, we're going to run some of 'em right now:
- R.L. in Alameda, CA: P.V. of Arvada wrote a very earnest inquiry into why people hate
trans people so much. It is so thorough that I actually am still not sure if this is a real inquiry or a bit of satire
to highlight how ridiculous the position of the haters is. My short answer to P.V.'s inability to figure this out is
that they are making the mistake of using logic. Because, based on logic, there is simply no reason to hate anyone. They
can't find an answer because, of course, there is no logic involved in the choice coming from the right to hate. In my
mind it is simply a knee-jerk reaction to people who are different or "other."
A deeper reason, in my mind, is that the right relies on fear to ignite their base. They have no policy positions, no desire to be public servants, and no inclination to make people's lives better. So they need a boogeyman. They need something to rile up their base and keep them donating and voting. In the past it has been gay people, people with AIDS, Jews, Black people, Brown people, immigrants, migrants (pouring over the border), gay people who want to get married, anyone not on their team who can be accused of being a pedophile, Disney (remember Black Little Mermaid), animated fictional characters that look like M&Ms, and so on. Right now, trans folks are their main target. As more Americans come to understand that no parent is transitioning their son into a daughter in order to win a state championship, that no man can claim that, "today I am a woman so I can go into the Ladies room to stalk children" (which is already illegal), and that they are not victims because someone else transitioned, the Right will find a new boogeyman. - R.L.S. in Portland, ME: I read with interest the letter of P.R. in Arvada
regarding hatred of trans people, which expressed the author's confusion trying to understand why people hate. It is a
good question, not only about the LGBTQ community, but Black people, Jews, and any culturally targeted group. Why does anyone
hate?
Currently I am working on the story of my family's experience during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and often ask the same question. How did Christians in my family's hometown in Bavaria, who had known my family for generations, turn against them with hatred?
Recently I came across this paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (lead author from UCLA!) which looked at the persistence of cultural traits. In it the authors correlate the prevalence and locations of pogroms in towns during the period of the Black Death in the 14th century with the rise of the Nazism in Germany in the early 20th century. The plague killed between one-third and one-half of the general population. Its cause was unknown, and many blamed the Jews for poisoning the wells. Cities all over Germany witnessed mass killings of their Jewish population.
They conclude: "At the time of the Black Death, Jews were burned in towns and cities all over Germany—but not in all. In this paper, we demonstrate that the same places that saw violent attacks on Jews during the plague also showed more anti-Semitic attitudes over half a millennium later: They engaged in more anti-Semitic violence in the 1920s, were more likely to vote for the Nazi Party before 1930, had more citizens writing letters to an anti-Semitic newspaper [Der Stuürmer], organized more deportations of Jews, and saw more attacks on synagogues during the 'Night of Broken Glass' [Kristallnacht] in 1938."
Apparently, cultural traits are deeply embedded and unfortunately persistent. That such deep-seated hatred could persist for more than a half millennium is totally disconcerting. Hatred of culturally targeted groups is difficult to understand and weed out, but measures can be taken.
After World War II, the Germans have made a point of addressing antisemitism and of working to take responsibility for the actions of the Nazis. The German penal code prohibits publicly denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda, including online. This includes sharing images such as swastikas, wearing an SS uniform and making statements in support of Hitler. (As an aside, there are no monuments or statues that celebrate Nazi generals or leaders, and no talk of a Nazi "Lost Cause").
Unfortunately, we seem to be living in a period where hatred of many culturally targeted groups is too easily being normalized in our society. Until this country owns up, takes responsibility, and addresses its own share of various cultural hatreds, this will unfortunately persist here, perhaps not everywhere, but definitely in some places.
- P.G. in Berkeley, CA: The letter from P.R. in Arvada left me thinking. P.R. wonders why
some people are so offended by, or are threatened by, or just hate, trans people. I think this has nothing to do with
trans. The Republican propaganda machine has for decades now refined the art of "punching down" as a way to maintain
control over their electorate. It used to be Black people (and certainly still is) but that isn't enough. Then add
"uppity women" (still is, of course, but not as helpful since those uppity women now have a lot more power). Then of
course just plain old vanilla gay people (also still is, but that has also become less useful). Trans is the latest
flavor. What all this has in common is the art of bullying, punching down. These are the words (and acts) of cowards.
It's a sad commentary on our country that socially, psychologically, and sometimes physically vulnerable people are used
for political target practice. Useless to ask if they have no shame. I suppose the next step will be a campaign to
vilify people with disabilities. Perhaps the spineless Speaker will introduce legislation to repeal the ADA. Disgusting
is what this is.
- J.H. in Boston, MA: P.R. in Arvada ponders at length why (some cis) people hate trans people
so much. They're right that it's not really in the Bible, and the sexual predator angle is not plausible. But I don't
think it's that mysterious. For nearly every human on earth, their gender identity is one of the deepest most core parts
of their identity, and it colors many aspects of how they view the world, including how they dress, work, what jobs they
can take, who they can love, what media they consume, what sports they follow, how they procreate and raise children.
Think how seriously people take their religion, nationality, or favorite sports team, and multiply that by 100.
Most people have probably never met a trans person, but they have heard the trans message that gender presentation is fluid, or optional, or not a core part of their identity, or not related to their hormones or genitals. It contradicts the most deeply held beliefs they have held about their own identities. - A.S.W. in Melrose, MA: I noticed that several of the letter-writers (notably
P.R. in Arvada, A.B. in Wendell, and R.S. in Milan) expressed bewilderment over the things that set conservatives off.
While I agree, I find it easier to understand if you remember that the core of conservatism is not religion or free
markets, but the unshakeable belief that the social world they know is natural, wise, and intrinsically fair. It's the
system that everyone labors under, so anyone who needs something else must be weak, crazy, or in pursuit of an unfair
advantage. Band-Aids are the natural color of Band-Aids, no need to change them; history is what was taught in our
grandparents' high school classes, and is unquestionably true. To suggest otherwise is to undermine this static, perfect
ideal of an American social order.
Given this, it's not a shock that trans people are seen as a particular threat. The male/female gender divide is seen as a bedrock characteristic of the social order, with connections between the two being carefully controlled by social rules. Trans people flaunt these essential roles and either masquerade (horrors!) or transform themselves unnaturally into the other gender, for reasons that make no sense to them. To be trans thus can only mean that one is horribly, perhaps even demonically, insane. The idea that trans folks might just be people, with legitimate human needs and no interest in harming others, is pure heresy to the conservative mindset.
None of this is new; what's new is the existence of an entire class of Tucker Carlsons, whose daily enterprise is to find new examples of evil liberals scheming to destroy their perfect social order. If that includes trivialities like Band-Aid color or the scant handful of trans athletes out there, so much the better—it demonstrates how deep the liberal treat must be.
Thanks, folks! We'll run some more tomorrow, which means there is still time for additional comments. (Z)
Johnson Who?
Yesterday, in an item about CPAC, we wrote: "As usual, CPAC took a straw poll. Trump won with 62%. DeSantis was second at 20%. In third place was Perry Johnson (who?) at 5% and then Nikki Haley at 3%."
We thought we had maybe better go back and explain exactly who Johnson is. If you've ever heard of him (particularly if you're not from Michigan), it is probably because of the mini-scandal in which he was enmeshed last year. Though he has spent his entire adult life as a businessman, he wanted to mount a challenge to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), and submitted about 22,000 signatures to that end. In theory, that is well north of the 15,000 required by state law. However, the state elections bureau deemed nearly 10,000 of the 22,000 to be fraudulent and they tossed Johnson off the ballot. He raised a stink but there was little he could do, since the signatures really were phony.
In short, what we have here is a millionaire with no experience in political office and with a moral compass that is rather lacking. You wouldn't think someone like that could mount a presidential bid, but you just never know. And indeed, with his gubernatorial dreams in tatters, Johnson threw his hat into the Republican presidential race last week. After all, you don't have to collect signatures if you're on a major-party ticket, so there's no risk of being disqualified in that manner.
The big question is how Johnson got more CPAC support than a bona fide politician in Nikki Haley (not to mention the Mikes and other seemingly more serious candidates). There are two possibilities here. The first is that he somehow managed to get his message across to the right people. His signature idea is that, if elected president, he will cut spending by 2% every year that he is in office. Why people become enamored of simplistic solutions like these, which somehow never actually come to pass, we do not know. But Johnson is good at self promotion; for example, he bought Super Bowl ad time on TV stations in Iowa. So, maybe word about his silly proposal got around.
The other possibility is that Johnson managed to cook the books. A member of another quixotic presidential campaign, namely that of Vivek Ramaswamy, told Politico yesterday that someone at CPAC called up and offered to arrange a good straw-poll showing for Ramaswamy in exchange for $100,000+. Ramaswamy declined, and ultimately tallied just 1% in the poll. There is some reasonable evidence that the Ramaswamy campaign is telling the truth here. And if so, it is entirely plausible that the wealthy and known-to-be-sleazy Johnson paid up.
Incidentally, as long as we're on the subject, CPAC also held a vice-presidential poll. And your winner there was... Kari Lake, with 20% of the vote. She outpaced second-place finisher DeSantis, who was at 14%, and third-place finisher Haley, who was at 10%. Lake said she was flattered, but that she will not be able to serve as VP. You see, she's already the duly elected governor of Arizona, and you can't hold two offices at the same time. We are not making this up, that is really what she said. If there's a better demonstration of Poe's law than the fact that we just had to explain that wasn't snark, we don't know what it is.
Anyhow, we don't expect to write about Johnson much, beyond this item. But given where the Republican Party is these days, we just can't be sure, so we thought we'd better introduce him. And even if his candidacy doesn't take off, it's at least possible his silly 2% idea could. (Z)
The Word Cup, Part XII: Group F (Presidential Campaigns, from World War II to the End of the 20th Century), Round Two
We've been bursting with content (and still have a ton of stuff on the back burner), but we really have to get this show on the road because the NCAA Tournament is around the corner and we want to do another 64-entry bracket this year.
Anyhow, here's the fifth set of results. Recall that since ties are relatively common in soccer, we've decided that any matchup decided by less than 5% of the vote will count as a tie (winners in bold):
| Slogan 1 | Pct. | Slogan 2 | Pct. |
| Give 'em Hell, Harry! | 48.7% | I Like Ike | 51.3% |
| Give 'em Hell, Harry! | 54.7% | In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts | 45.3% |
| Give 'em Hell, Harry! | 49.8% | Let's Make America Great Again | 50.2% |
| I Like Ike | 61.9% | In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts | 38.1% |
| I Like Ike | 55.9% | Let's Make America Great Again | 44.1% |
| In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts | 40.4% | Let's Make America Great Again | 59.6% |
That produces these results for Group F:
| Slogan | W | L | T |
| I Like Ike | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Let's Make America Great Again | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Give 'em Hell, Harry! | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts | 0 | 3 | 0 |
"Let's Make America Great Again" barely edges "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" by virtue of getting slightly more votes overall.
Here are reader comments on this round:
N.L. in Auston, TX: Your comment on how "I Like Ike" may not be the most effective of presidential campaign slogans, because it says absolutely nothing in practice about Eisenhower, made me think: While I had never heard of "Madly with Adlai" before (and now suspect I have pronounced his name wrong for years), I've read the Stevenson campaign's far more effective rebuttal to the slogan, even if it didn't actually save their candidate, was saying "But What Does Ike Like?"
E.G. in Lake Forest Park, MA: I had to vote for "I Like Ike," although "Let's Make America Great Again" obviously had a lot of impact with influencing 40 years of Republican talking points, as you point out. My dad was a young elementary school student in 1952 and has many times over the years recalled how the crossing guards (also elementary school students) would not allow anyone to cross the street unless they declared, "I like Ike!" first. Young children are usually not aware of or repeating presidential slogans. Also, even if Eisenhower was already popular, the repetition of this slogan likely reinforced positive feelings about him.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY: My political Science studies (known as Course XVII at the Institute) focused on American politics and media, including political advertising research I did with the MIT News Study Group. But even I had forgotten about "In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts." The LBJ slogan I remember was, "In Your Heart, You Know He Might"—that is, might start a nuclear war, reinforced by the (in)famous "Daisy" ad. It rhymed with the original slogan, too, which adds to the impact.
As for Reagan, "Let's Make America Great Again," was never in my consciousness, and I followed that election very closely.
J.M. in Stamford, CT: I like "I like Ike." I've always liked "I like Ike" and so has everyone else. Hands down winner on all counts. To criticize it strictly to make the contest seem like a contest, on the grounds that it "says nothing about governance or policy," makes one look around and wonder how any of the other three contestants do anything like that. To a man (and anti-man), they are about the candidate's personality, not his presidential platform.
Okay, "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" Is almost as good on euphony grounds, and on capturing Truman's ability to come off feisty and homespun when he needed to.
I accept your assurance that Reagan ran on the proto-MAGA slogan you illustrate with a button, but I remember that campaign and I don't remember that slogan at all. Not a contender in my book, therefore. But at least it's better than...
"In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts," which is a wonderful bit of American political humor, and pricks the smarmy and self-righteous balloon of "In Your Heart You Know He's Right" just about perfectly. However, it's an anti-presidential slogan, not a presidential slogan, contrary to the principle illustrated by the other three. Had you offered the correct one, "In Your Heart You Know He's Right," I would have put it above the Reagan mash-up, easily competitive with Truman's button that takes basically the same position: vulgar or extreme invective in a righteous cause is praiseworthy (and vote-worthy).
But I still like Ike. Three str-Ikes and the others are out.
C.J.A. in Tucson, AZ: This is the slogan that I remember the most: "Don't switch dicks in the middle of a screw, stick with Nixon in '72"!
A.G. in Plano, TX: Admittedly I've never heard "Dick Nixon before he Dicks you," which had me laughing for five solid minutes. It reminds me of the great Pat Paulsen's campaign slogan: "I've upped my standards, now up yours!"
There will be a new ballot tomorrow. For now, if you have suggestions as to what the subject of the NCAA Tournament-style bracket should be this year, let us know We did something rather negative last year (worst political figure in America), so we'd like something more positive (or at least neutral this year). It need not be people, incidentally. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers