berlusconi wins italian elections

The election of Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister for the third time in fifteen years is good news for American foreign policy but may or may not be good news for the Italian people. "Berlusca," as he is sometimes known, has many of the right economic ideas--lower taxes, less regulation--but also a history of corruption and personal foibles that are rather less inspiring for Italy's future. The return of a familiar figure, which in steadier times might be reassuring, is less so at a time when many Italians remain depressed about the country's economic, political, and even demographic prospects.

On the brighter side, the election provides evidence Italy's political system is transitioning, slowly but surely, toward a stable, bipolar system. The two principal parties, Berlusconi's Popolo della Liberta' (roughly, People's Freedom Party) and the new Democratic Party, a coalition of former communists and other left-leaning or reformist groups, together received more than 70 percent of the aggregate vote--more than 80 percent if allied parties are included--with the largest remaining total going to an essentially regional bloc. In the long run this bipolar system, and the alternation of power that it suggests, are likely to provide a better future than the morass of small parties and shifting coalitions that have typically characterized postwar Italy.

eliot spitzer

I have a passing acquaintance with Eliot Spitzer, who is a friend of a portion of my family, although I have never been a political admirer. Certainly I don't condone his behavior, and it may well be that he will have to resign. But there is something unseemly about the glee many are expressing over his fall, including some who probably voted for him before (he was elected overwhelmingly two years ago).

One has to wonder about the effect of these scandals, as well. One effect is that New York State will likely be handed over to a Lieutenant Governor (David Paterson) who, while able and admirable, was not elected Governor and has no obvious political constituency. It must be remembered that, while the country was occupied with the similar Clinton scandals, Al Qaeda was plotting the Twin Towers attacks.

One has to wonder also about the fickleness of popular opinion. In medieval Rome, the bodies of dead Popes were dragged through the streets by mobs, who reveled at the chance to disgrace that which was no longer holy. We like to think of ourselves as more civilized, decent . . . and, most of all, forgiving. But are we?

and if you want to hear more . . .

I will likely be switching a portion of my blogging, or at least my political blogging, over to my campaign website

www.livingstonforcongress.com

for the next 6-8 months. I'll continue to blog here about Italy, law schools, and other items that the voters in my district may care less about. Those of you who want to follow my thinking, about the Pennsylvania primary and other matters, may wish to tune in to both sites.

A presto [until the next time.]

Michael

obama, clinton, pennsylvania

The newspapers, which until recently left Clinton for dead, have announced her latest comeback, and (as predicted here) gotten tougher about Obama and his limitations. Many believe that she is now an equally or more likely nominee. Maybe, but let's consider a few facts:

1. Obama has a 100-150 delegate lead which will probably grow with the Mississippi primary later this week. There are only 300-400 undecided superdelegates together with remaining primaries which will likely split on a close to 50-50 basis. To make up even a 100 delegate disadvantage, Clinton would have to win the remaining superdelegates by about a 2:1 margin, or convince previously decided delegates to switch. Neither appears especially likely.

2. Most of the "secondary" factors--polling results, fundraising capacity, and the personal attractiveness of the candidates--actually favor Obama. Thus, the situation is different from (say) the 1976 Republican contest, where Ford clung to a slight delegate lead but Reagan commanded more enthusiasm and won most of the later primaries. In the caucus states, which are the best indicator of commitment and enthusiasm, Obama actually does better.

3. It is very common for a frontrunner to stumble in later primaries as voters suffer a degree of buyer's remorse and, perhaps, a subconscious desire to prolong the contest. Thus, Reagan lost several late primaries to George H.W. Bush in 1980, Carter to Kennedy, and so forth. Both of them were nominated.

There is a very good piece by Chris Satullo in today's Inquirer about Pennsylvania and its differences from other states. Satullo concludes that many of these favor Clinton. I am somewhat less sure. While portions of the State (notably the western half) resemble Ohio, there are more suburban yuppies together with a larger and more concentrated Black vote, notably here in Philadelphia, which will unquestionably break heavily in Obama's direction. Moreover, people will have a longer time to get to know the candidates, which usually helps Obama more than Clinton, whom they already know. I would rate it a tossup: although as the comedian said, it's not my problem.

bowling (cafe-ing) alone?

I found myself recently with an hour between appointments in Center City Philadelphia and so retired to my favorite Italian caffe for a a bit of newspaper reading. I sat down at my table and after a few moments noticed something strange. It wasn't the coffee, a particularly well-brewed Italian espresso (that's why I go there), or the newspaper--though I was surprised to learn that the Tribune, an African-American daily, covers local politics much better than the Inquirer, a supposedly national daily. Rather it was the sound, or lack of it, that surrounded me.

Every spot in the caffe was taken, but no one was talking. Instead, each table was occupied by a single twenty- or thirty-something person and their laptop, the click-clack of the keys being interrupted occasionally by a private laugh or a furtive cellphone conversation, generally to confirm an appointment, and then back to the keyboard. As if feeling the need to reaffirm their humanity, one male and female, who happened to be seated next to each other, began ever so slightly to flirt with one another and trade notes about their respective on-line experiences. Otherwise, one could have been in a law school library, except that the library is usually a little bit more social. Every fifteen minutes or so, someone got up to refill their coffee.

I have been puzzled, all election year, by talk of "community" and "sacrifice" by young people who seem to actually experience little of either. But maybe that's the point. People who have grown up behind their keyboards, so much so that even an Italian caffe--the entire purpose of which is to socialize--becomes an isolating experience, are desperate for a politics that will provide what is otherwise missing to them. Whoever provides it is going to be in good shape for a long time to come. Whoever doesn't, watch out.

clinton, obama, and . . . mcgovern?

Hilary Clinton's campaign seems to be winding down, courtesy of her husband and a bizarre set of rules under which a candidate can win virtually every big state primary and still lose. The hero of the hour is now Barack Obama, who it is said will sweep everything before him in the name of youth, optimism, and a slippery but appealing concept of change. Obama is variously compared to Jack or Bobby Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, or even the younger Bill Clinton, who was elected in 1992 at the same age (46) and with much the same freshness Obama has now. But there is another precedent that is somewhat less encouraging.

In 1972 George McGovern overwhelmed the Democratic party machine and was nominated for President against the largely unpopular, if respected, incumbent Richard Nixon. Like Obama, McGovern deployed armies of youthful volunteers--Bill and Hillary among them--who swept past or ignored the party establishment in state after state, leaving more traditional candidates, like E Muskie and Hubert Humphrey, in the political dusk. Like Obama, the McGovern forces exploited the party's rules to outflank their opposition, although in that case it was the prevalence of winner-take-all contests (McGovern won all the California delegates despite an unimpressive percentage victory) rather than their current absence. Like Obama, McGovern built a coalition emphasizing minorities, intellectuals, and upper income "new left" voters at the expense of more traditional Democratic constituencies. Those who noted the obvious problems with this strategy were derided--much like Obama's critics--as old-fashioned reactionaries who lacked the requisite imagination, courage and hope.

Thirty-six years is a long time, and it is far from clear that Obama will suffer McGovern's fate. Yet the glib detachment of the Obama forces is eerily reminiscent of that earlier epoch. Here is a candidate with virtually no experience or record of legislative accomplishment, who lost most of his own party's core constituencies until his nomination was essentially assured. His proposal for dealing with terrorists is to sit down and talk with them while taking the military option, which is our chief negotiating prod, essentially off the table. His wife suggests she will only be proud of her country if it elects her husband. All this is before one even gets to his Third World origins and shadowy personal history, which reporters will inevitably unearth if only to demonstrate their lack of political bias. And this man is going to cruise to a forty-state victory over a popular war hero who is one of the best campaigners in recent history? It could be an interesting summer.

milan to mumbai runs for congress

As you probably noticed, I haven't posted for several months, not because I have nothing to say but because I have been preoccupied with other things. As many of you know, I was ultimately unsuccessful in my Cheltenham School Board race despite pulling a higher number of votes (just over 3,300) and percentage (35-40 percent) of any Republican in recent memory. (3,300 votes may not sound like a lot, but remember, it's only one Township, Rudy Giuliani didn't get much more in some States, and he spent a lot more than I did.)

Rather than sulking, I took my defeat as a sign to do the obvious thing: run for higher office. Consistent with this principle, I am now the Republican candidate for Congress in the 2nd District of Pennsylvania, a seat occupied for fourteen years by a Democrat, Chaka Fattah. Those who want to know more about my candidacy, or (heaven forbid) contribute to it, are welcomed to tune in to my campaign website, www.livingstonforcongress.com, which contains all necessary information and then some. I'll continue to write here, periodically, about politics and other matters, with the proviso that Mike Livingston the candidate is in no way responsible for anything that Milan to Mumbai, the blogger, might have to say and vice-versa. Unless of course it helps me: in which case I, like any politician, not only take but demand full credit.

the craig resignation: principle or hypocrisy?

I don't have tremendous sympathy for Larry Craig, who was forced out as Idaho Senator he plead guilty to disorderly conduct following a sting operation in a Minnesota bathroom. But the affair leaves me troubled on several levels. Here goes:

1. What exactly was the offense that forced Craig to resign? It is surely not the case that anyone with a misdemeanor conviction is unfit for public office, and many in similar situations were in fact not removed. If the crime was being gay, as appears to be the case, then literally hundreds of public officeholders--including many of Craig's liberal critics--would have to leave office, as well. By contrast, if there's nothing wrong with being gay, what exactly is the basis for the resignation?

2. Some observers have tried to resolve the contradiction above by asserting that the problems was Craig's hypocrisy, since he opposed gay rights while appearing to practice the very behavior that he condemned. By extension of this logic, any liberal Democrat could practice gay, premarital, or even adulterous sex so long as they supported others who did so too; only conservative Republicans could be held accountable for personal scandals, which is indeed close to what is actually happening in Washington today. The arguments also misses the main point of the religious right, which is not that they are more moral than other people, but that they need religion precisely because they are not; although in fairness many conservative politicians tend to forget this, also.

3. The Republican Party's successful effort to throw Craig to the wolves, which is designed to demonstrate the party's new clean image, is in fact more likely to demonstrate its weakness, with voters drawing the appropriate conclusions.

I have been reading lately about the purges in Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, which I had thought to be far from our experience here. It is useful remembering that the great majority of people in Russia and China thought the victims had it coming. We may come to regret events of this nature in the future, as well.

1972 + 35 = 2007

I recently returned from the 35th reunion of my division at a Jewish camp (what else?) in the wilds of New York State. Well, actually, it wasn't really my division, since I had left camp a couple of years earlier and remembered most of the people, if at all, from an ill-fated years as a counselor (1974) rather than camp days. And it wasn't officially a "reunion," since the camp doesn't really arrange them, or even keep accurate records of alumni, a surprising omission for an ethnic group supposedly bent on world domination. (The work was done by one alumna, from North Carolina via Philadelphia, who seems to embody Southern hospitality despite hear adopted surroundings). Despite, or perhaps because, of this haphazardness I found it one of the most moving experiences I have had in years.

What was particularly fascinating to me was what I remembered. Details of bunks, activities, classes, and so forth were lost in a haze of half-truths and outright inaccuracies. Instead I remembered details of people's, which is to say women's, physical features with uncanny perfection. There was Sandy, with her slightly frizzy hair cut shorter than 30-odd years ago but instantly recognizable just the same; Judith, in an old video, with her trademark pigtails; and most striking of all Sarah, a film producer, whose long, wavy hair was half the length but otherwise indistinguishable from the last time I saw her, when she was seventeen years old and we had to ban her previous summer's boyfriend from talking further about her for fear of a generic mental health crisis. Communism collapses, China reawakens, but Sarah's hair remains the same: a constant in a changing world. No wonder I left reassured.

An interesting question, though beyond my capacity to answer, is what exactly we are remembering in situations like this. Did I really remember that accurately the features of these people, some of whom I had barely talked to, let alone touched, all these years earlier? More likely I was remembering my own thoughts: the hopes, longings, fantasies or an earlier era that had been emblazoned in my consciousness long after the real people had disappeared, at least until this weekend. And yet these thoughts, in their own way, were more real than the events that inspired them.

The reunion also provided an important insight into why camps of this type are so effective. I forgot virtually all the Hebrew I studied at camp and had to relearn it in public schools or trips to Israel. But my association of the really important childhood memories--love, friendship, sheer adolescent terror-- with a Jewish institution virtually ensured that I would marry someone Jewish and raise a (so far) Jewish family. My oldest son is now 16 years old, the precise age of this group in 1972, and in the same division at the Pennsylvania branch of the very same camp right now. I hope it works for him, too.