Summary: having been shellacked on November 6, the Republican Party has been wailing and gnashing its collective teeth, not only over Barack Obama’s triumphant re-election, but also over the way in which a whole series of Republican incumbents and office seekers were either turned out or turned back by turned off voters. Democrats presented voters with a blueprint for more perfect union; the Republican blueprint was for a doomsday machine. The election had less to do with the demographics of gender, sexuality, or color than it did about the fact that millions of American voters had the bejeesus scared out of them by the harsh and extreme rhetoric of the Republican Party. Turned off by a party modeling the crazy old guy yelling “you kids get off my lawn,” voters turned to the Democrats, gravitating toward the Party that seemed more rational and able to get along with its neighbors in the community.
By: Paul S. Marchand
“...there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” St. Matt. 13:42
The Democratic Party’s comeback from the disastrous midterm elections of 2010 seems to have left the Republicans chasing their metaphorical tails. A whole series of Republican incumbents (including the Desert’s own Mary Whitaker Bono Baxley McGillicuddy) were turned out, and a whole series of Republican hopefuls (including the Hoosier state’s Richard “rape children are what God intended” Mourdock) were turned away by an electorate that had been thoroughly turned off by what the GOP had said and done.
Those People In That Other Party have been wailing and gnashing teeth since even before Mitt Romney conceded the election early on Wednesday morning, November 7.
Now the GOP is struggling to make sense of the shellacking it sustained. Having gone to great lengths to insulate themselves from reality, many high-ranking GOP operatives seem to have been absolutely convinced that Mr. Romney would not only be victorious, but that he would win in a landslide.
With President Obama on his way back to the White House with 332 electoral votes in his pocket, Those People in That Other Party are now asking “why?”
We can essay all manner of theories to explain the dismal defeat the GOP sustained eleven days ago. We can talk about changing demographics, or how the Republicans have become “too old, too white, and too male,” or we can apply Occam’s razor, which in plain English postulates that the simplest hypothesis that fits the data is probably the correct one.
When we apply Occam’s razor to the most recent presidential election, the simplest hypothesis that fits the data is not an hypothesis of gender or demographics. Women, queerfolk, Latinos, African-Americans, and other communities of color don’t vote monolithically. What seems to fit the data is what I call the “scared shitless” hypothesis: American voters heard what Republicans had to say and a majority of them found Republican rhetoric harsh, extreme, and deeply frightening.
Both Democrats and Republicans presented American voters with two competing blueprints for America’s future. The Democratic blueprint was for a more perfect union; the Republican blueprint was for a doomsday machine.
The retrograde rhetoric of the Republicans, with its implicit calls to restore in their fullest form the social and economic dispensations of 1912, struck voters in 2012 as so grossly out of touch with reality as to be beyond scary. A Republican acquaintance of mine, admitting sotto voce to me that he had “crossed over to the “Dark Side” and voted for President Obama, opined that the rhetoric and talking points of his own party had “scared the bejeesus” out of him.
It seems safe to conclude that the GOP appeal to voters simply divided the electorate into those seeking to undo Barack Obama and all his works --- and presumably to make liberalism a crime in this country --- and those who had the bejeesus scared out of them by what they saw and heard from Mitt Romney and other GOP wannabes during the campaign.
It is an open question whether the Republican Party will moderate its transports or seek to reinforce its own ideological purity and look for a “true conservative”, anti-Mitt Romney candidate to run against Hillary Clinton/Martin O’Malley/Andrew Cuomo/Elizabeth Warren/whoever emerges as the Democratic standardbearer in 2016.
If the GOP attempts to retreat into a posture of so-called true conservativism for 2016, it will -- even more than Mitt Romney’s unguarded gaffes -- constitute a gift for Democrats that will keep on giving.
How many of us in the middle class did not take the quondam Massachusetts governor’s remarks about the so-called 47 percent as a declaration of war upon us?
How many women in America did not feel a frisson of fear when Romney spoke of getting rid of Planned Parenthood?
How many queer people in America didn’t feel slapped in the face by the Republican platform and its out and out hatred for queerfolk?
As and to the extent that Mitt Romney has continued to whine and complain and gnash his teeth about the outcome of the election, complaining, in effect, that the president “bribed” the electorate with a variety of “gifts,” he has set a tone for more and worse angry posturing from the American right. Certainly, the GOP seems to be recapitulating Elizabeth Kübler-Ross’s classic five stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
We saw the denial phase in Karl Rove’s refusal to agree with the outcome when Fox News called the state of Ohio for the president on election night. Over the last few days, we’ve seen Mitt Romney acting out the anger phase of his party’s grieving over their loss. Soon enough, we may start to see the bargaining process emerge.
Nonetheless, there is something more than a little worrisome about a party that seems to model institutionally the “angry, crazy old man” stereotype Clint Eastwood embodied so perfectly in his harangue to the empty chair at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this summer. Does anyone really want to vote for the crazy old man standing on his porch waving a shotgun and yelling “you kids get off my lawn”?
What we saw this fall was a contest between rational people who know how to get along with their neighbors and crazies brandishing that metaphorical shotgun yelling “you kids get off my lawn!” For the more than 50 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama, the choice could not have been simpler.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City, California. He serves as vice chair representing California’s 56th Assembly District on the Riverside County Democratic Central Committee. The views expressed herein are his own, and not necessarily those of the Democratic Party or of any other organization with which Mr. Marchand is affiliated. They are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
IN THE NAME OF GOD, GO!
Summary: Outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen DeRosa’s resistance to facts and her refusal to concede the mayoral election to her challenger Chip Yarborough shows a dangerously monarchical conceit, to say nothing of demonstrating the potential existence of a diagnosable psychopathology. Certainly, DeRosa’s conduct has managed to make her and the city into local laughingstocks. She should stop fighting facts and concede the election with such small scraps of dignity are now left to her. Her bad behavior has certainly pounded the last nail into the tawdry coffin of her political ambitions.
Yesterday, I blogged about outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa’s tasteless and inappropriate behavior in opining that under her successor, Chip Yarbrough, Cathedral City would change for the worse.
In this morning’s Desert Sun, there is an article to the effect that DeRosa is refusing to concede the mayoral election in Cathedral City. DeRosa seems to have forgotten John Adams’ immortal observation in the trial of the British troops accused of conducting the Boston Massacre: “facts are stubborn things.”
Facts are stubborn things. They don’t truckle to mobs or monarchs, but demand obeisance from both mobs and monarchs. Certainly, Kathleen Joan DeRosa has entertained a significantly monarchical conceit of herself as mayor of Cathedral City, but now it is time for DeRosa to adult up and face facts.
Given the unattractive personality traits DeRosa has displayed in such abundance over the last few days, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize the existence of some kind of diagnosable psychopathology or personality disorder. The implications for Cathedral City’s body politic are sobering. Once again, DeRosa has managed to make both herself and her city local laughingstocks.
What is more worrisome, as a number of observers on social media have noted, is the flagrant disrespect DeRosa displays for democracy. One is forced to ask whether, in the face of bad electoral news --- had she been able to get away with it --- DeRosa would have simply done what dictators around the world have often tried to do. Would she have simply annulled the results of the mayoral election and had her opponent arrested? Would she have run some kind of municipal self coup?
DeRosa’s conduct raises disturbing questions, both about her commitment to democracy, and whether she entertained secret mental reservations and purposes of evasion when she took the oath of office required by Article XX of the State Constitution. She should remember, if she took the oath falsely, that lying under oath is a crime.
Many DeRosa supporters, repulsed by her churlish conduct, have begun to turn away in disgust. They have been able to accept the verdict of the voters. It is a pity that the women they support, the woman who sought to fabricate a cult of personality, appears to think that democracy is beneath her. It is also a pity that for so long she enjoyed the uncritical support of the Desert Sun and of so many so-called community leaders in the Coachella Valley. Sadly, Kathleen Joan DeRosa has left behind a legacy of embittered division in Cathedral City.
By refusing to concede and depart with such minute shreds of dignity as might be left to her, DeRosa has tried to pull a Mitch McConnell, instilling in voters lingering questions about the legitimacy of Chip Yarborough’s mayoralty. We may hope that Cathedral City’s body politic rejects the poison pill DeRosa hopes to administer.
At all events, DeRosa’s unbelievably churlish performance should spell the end of her political career, pounding the last nail into the tawdry coffin of her ambitions. She has sat too long for any good she has been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with her.
In the name of God, go!
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City. The views expressed herein are his own, and not necessarily those of any entity with which he is associated. They are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
-Oliver Cromwell, dissolving the Rump Parliament, April, 1653
Yesterday, I blogged about outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa’s tasteless and inappropriate behavior in opining that under her successor, Chip Yarbrough, Cathedral City would change for the worse.
In this morning’s Desert Sun, there is an article to the effect that DeRosa is refusing to concede the mayoral election in Cathedral City. DeRosa seems to have forgotten John Adams’ immortal observation in the trial of the British troops accused of conducting the Boston Massacre: “facts are stubborn things.”
Facts are stubborn things. They don’t truckle to mobs or monarchs, but demand obeisance from both mobs and monarchs. Certainly, Kathleen Joan DeRosa has entertained a significantly monarchical conceit of herself as mayor of Cathedral City, but now it is time for DeRosa to adult up and face facts.
Given the unattractive personality traits DeRosa has displayed in such abundance over the last few days, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize the existence of some kind of diagnosable psychopathology or personality disorder. The implications for Cathedral City’s body politic are sobering. Once again, DeRosa has managed to make both herself and her city local laughingstocks.
What is more worrisome, as a number of observers on social media have noted, is the flagrant disrespect DeRosa displays for democracy. One is forced to ask whether, in the face of bad electoral news --- had she been able to get away with it --- DeRosa would have simply done what dictators around the world have often tried to do. Would she have simply annulled the results of the mayoral election and had her opponent arrested? Would she have run some kind of municipal self coup?
DeRosa’s conduct raises disturbing questions, both about her commitment to democracy, and whether she entertained secret mental reservations and purposes of evasion when she took the oath of office required by Article XX of the State Constitution. She should remember, if she took the oath falsely, that lying under oath is a crime.
Many DeRosa supporters, repulsed by her churlish conduct, have begun to turn away in disgust. They have been able to accept the verdict of the voters. It is a pity that the women they support, the woman who sought to fabricate a cult of personality, appears to think that democracy is beneath her. It is also a pity that for so long she enjoyed the uncritical support of the Desert Sun and of so many so-called community leaders in the Coachella Valley. Sadly, Kathleen Joan DeRosa has left behind a legacy of embittered division in Cathedral City.
By refusing to concede and depart with such minute shreds of dignity as might be left to her, DeRosa has tried to pull a Mitch McConnell, instilling in voters lingering questions about the legitimacy of Chip Yarborough’s mayoralty. We may hope that Cathedral City’s body politic rejects the poison pill DeRosa hopes to administer.
At all events, DeRosa’s unbelievably churlish performance should spell the end of her political career, pounding the last nail into the tawdry coffin of her ambitions. She has sat too long for any good she has been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with her.
In the name of God, go!
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City. The views expressed herein are his own, and not necessarily those of any entity with which he is associated. They are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.
Monday, November 12, 2012
NOT CLASSY, KATHY: Defeated Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa's Petulant Post and the Challenges Facing Incoming Mayor Chip Yarborough
Summary: yesterday, defeated soon-to-be-former Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa posted on Facebook an implied concession of the mayoral election in Cathedral city. She posted that she was “sad because the face of our struggling city will change dramatically and in [her] opinion not for the better.” (emphasis added) Not only was such a post a classless departure from well-established political norms of behavior for defeated candidates, but also was sadly in character for a mayor known throughout the Valley for her abrasive, confrontational personality. There appears to be a psychopathology at work. Incoming mayor Chip Yarborough stands challenged to avoid aping the worst aspects of the outgoing mayor’s personality; he will need to avoid score-settling, vindictiveness, and defensiveness, growing a thick skin as he deals with the slings and arrows that will come his way as mayor, and taking DeRosa’s record as a vade mecum or handbook of how not to govern. As residents/voters, we must avoid projecting unsustainable expectations onto the incoming mayor; we won’t get utopia in a day, and we must give incoming mayor time to accomplish the work he has set himself to do.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Way to stay classy, Kathleen. Way to stay classy. Not.
Yesterday morning, defeated and outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa posted the following on Facebook:
To say that the outgoing mayor’s performance and conduct were disappointing, would almost be to understate the case. Facebook comments on DeRosa’s post were uniformly negative, and the post itself only reinforced the outgoing mayor’s reputation for having an abrasive, confrontational, in-your-face, “New York” personality, as well as having a thin-skinned, monarchical conceit of her own position and role in Cathedral City. Clearly,there is a psychopathology at work here.
Indeed, the manner of DeRosa's apparently intended departure raises a series of challenges for incoming mayor Chip Yarborough. The new mayor will be challenged to avoid the excesses of egotism, score-settling/vindictiveness, defensiveness, and sheer thin-skinned stubbornness that were so much a part of the outgoing mayor’s public persona. Hurling F-bombs at a local businessman is, pace Dale Carnegie, not the right way to win friends and influence people.
After eight long, confrontational, winters of DeRosa’s mayoralty, Cathedral City residents and voters will be expecting much from a new mayor whose implicit campaign theme was to restore correct and honorable government to Cathedral City. Chip Yarborough will need to develop a very thick skin to avoid the slings and arrows that will invariably come his way as mayor. He will need to avoid the temptation to indulge in the kind of cronyism that so marked DeRosa’s tenure, and he will need to avoid becoming shrill and defensive when confronted by constituents with issues. In short, Mr. Yarborough should look at the outgoing mayor’s performance as a vade mecum or handbook of how not to govern..
For, when all the sound and the fury are over, Mr. Yarborough will find himself working with a Council and an electorate that chose him precisely because he was not Kathleen Joan DeRosa, and because he offered the hope of something better, of a restoration of correct and honorable government in Cathedral City.
Of course, we who supported Chip must avoid the temptation to project onto him unsustainable expectations. We will not obtain utopia in a day, and Cathedral City will not magically overcome all of her structural issues and challenges the instant he takes the constitutional oath as mayor. He will need time and the benefit of the doubt, and he will certainly deserve better than to be sniped at by irreconcilable supporters of the defeated former mayor.
Still, having elected the anti-Kathy, we may dare to envision a better future for Cathedral City, in which our city council pursues a more progressive and inclusive politics than had been the case during the eight long winters of Kathleen DeRosa’s monarchical mayoralty.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City. He supported Chip Yarborough for mayor, and congratulates him on his victory. The views set forth herein are entirely his own. They are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Way to stay classy, Kathleen. Way to stay classy. Not.
Yesterday morning, defeated and outgoing Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa posted the following on Facebook:
“Good morning, good morning and thank you for your love and support. God has been very good to me allowing me the opportunity to serve the great people of Cathedral City for 8 years. I lost a title, not who I am nor the friends and family that are a significant part of my life. I'm sad because the face of our struggling city will change dramatically and in my opinion not for the better.” (Emphasis added)The outgoing mayor likes to talk about so-called norms for council behavior. To the extent that she was fond of doing so, DeRosa should have recognized and honored a time-tested norm in American politics that if you have been voted out of office, it is incumbent upon you to congratulate your incoming successor and to wish him or her well. Apparently, that was too much for DeRosa. Instead, we can probably expect a revisionist narrative in which her loss was not DeRosa’s fault, but the result of her victimization by dark forces out to “get her."
To say that the outgoing mayor’s performance and conduct were disappointing, would almost be to understate the case. Facebook comments on DeRosa’s post were uniformly negative, and the post itself only reinforced the outgoing mayor’s reputation for having an abrasive, confrontational, in-your-face, “New York” personality, as well as having a thin-skinned, monarchical conceit of her own position and role in Cathedral City. Clearly,there is a psychopathology at work here.
Indeed, the manner of DeRosa's apparently intended departure raises a series of challenges for incoming mayor Chip Yarborough. The new mayor will be challenged to avoid the excesses of egotism, score-settling/vindictiveness, defensiveness, and sheer thin-skinned stubbornness that were so much a part of the outgoing mayor’s public persona. Hurling F-bombs at a local businessman is, pace Dale Carnegie, not the right way to win friends and influence people.
After eight long, confrontational, winters of DeRosa’s mayoralty, Cathedral City residents and voters will be expecting much from a new mayor whose implicit campaign theme was to restore correct and honorable government to Cathedral City. Chip Yarborough will need to develop a very thick skin to avoid the slings and arrows that will invariably come his way as mayor. He will need to avoid the temptation to indulge in the kind of cronyism that so marked DeRosa’s tenure, and he will need to avoid becoming shrill and defensive when confronted by constituents with issues. In short, Mr. Yarborough should look at the outgoing mayor’s performance as a vade mecum or handbook of how not to govern..
For, when all the sound and the fury are over, Mr. Yarborough will find himself working with a Council and an electorate that chose him precisely because he was not Kathleen Joan DeRosa, and because he offered the hope of something better, of a restoration of correct and honorable government in Cathedral City.
Of course, we who supported Chip must avoid the temptation to project onto him unsustainable expectations. We will not obtain utopia in a day, and Cathedral City will not magically overcome all of her structural issues and challenges the instant he takes the constitutional oath as mayor. He will need time and the benefit of the doubt, and he will certainly deserve better than to be sniped at by irreconcilable supporters of the defeated former mayor.
Still, having elected the anti-Kathy, we may dare to envision a better future for Cathedral City, in which our city council pursues a more progressive and inclusive politics than had been the case during the eight long winters of Kathleen DeRosa’s monarchical mayoralty.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City. He supported Chip Yarborough for mayor, and congratulates him on his victory. The views set forth herein are entirely his own. They are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)