GOP Oblivion; A Royal Mess; Hillaryland; Claus von Bulow Goes Home
In case all this veddy Briddish humor is making you gag, I should add that when I forwarded this e-mail to my American friend Cromwell Coulson, he added a 15th edict: "All dentists to report to coal mines for compulsory re-education."
One of the reasons we're so smug about all this is because we think it could never happen here. Our system can produce equally inconclusive election results, but the fact that our head of state is an hereditary monarch means we're protected from their destabilizing effects. In the absence of a clear winner emerging from a general election, our symbolic leader, Queen Elizabeth II, will still be sitting on her throne, acting as a caretaker until the mess is sorted out. In extreme cases, she can even intervene to resolve the crisis. The fact that she has no real power in the normal course of events means she remains above the political fray and is, therefore, capable of arbitrating in extreme circumstances.
The closest we've come to your situation was in 1974. In February of that year, the Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath decided to call a general election to resolve the issue of "who runs Britain." He was involved in a standoff with the then-powerful trade unions and wanted a clear mandate from the British people before going into battle. The election was held on Feb. 28 and the results were maddeningly inconclusive. The Conservative Party won 297 parliamentary seats with 37.9 percent of the popular vote, while the Labor Party won 301 with 37.2 percent.
Neither the Conservatives nor Labor had an overall majority in terms of parliamentary seats, so the issue turned on which leader could persuade members of the other parties to support him. In the end, Heath couldn't put together a workable coalition, so the Queen asked the Labor leader to form a government instead. This he was able to do, at least until October of that year, when another election was held.
It's been suggested by various crusty old Tories in the letters pages of The Daily Telegraph that America should invite the Queen to intervene in their current dispute. This isn't a serious proposal, but they did have a point. In a sense, your difficulties arose from the fact that America is too democratic. In a disputed election, there's no Solomon-like figure who can arbitrate between the two sides because, in a country as thoroughly democratic as America, everyone with any authority is tainted by association with one or other of the main political parties.
Exactly how you resolve the crisis may well have lasting consequences in the rest of the world, too. America is the poster child for democracy, and the fact that you got yourself into such a mess has given succor to democracy's enemies. On learning of your difficulties, President Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe mischievously offered to send "independent observers" to Florida to oversee the recount. No doubt other undemocratic leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, are chuckling away to themselves as well.
In Britain, it has a direct bearing on whether we should gradually phase out the House of Windsor and become a republic. David Steel, a former leader of the Liberal Party, famously came up with a two-word argument for keeping the present system: "President Thatcher." His point was that if Margaret Thatcher had been the symbolic leader of our country, as well as its actual leader, her authority would have been so great she might well have reigned longer than Queen Victoria. She was quite regal enough as it was.
However, thanks to the imbroglio in Florida, Britain's monarchists have been given very concrete evidence of exactly what can go wrong in a republic. It would be ironic indeed if, more than 200 years after the Declaration of Independence, a democratic election in the United States ended up prolonging the reign of a British monarch.
Last month I went on a tour of my very withered roots in Mecklenburg. This is a part of Germany that was the rich breadbasket for Berlin, so the architecture is often replete with all the bad taste that money can buy. It is also in the East, so the Communists confiscated every castle and with admirable esthetic sense allowed most of them to decay into romantic ruins, suitable subjects for that great painter Caspar David Friedrich, if only he were still alive.
The German branch of my family had, before the Reformation, made a successful business out of grabbing every bishopric in sight and, like in Rome, installing their nephews on valuable estates. Luther spoiled their game, so they switched to military or diplomatic service, which also proved profitable. A collateral, Count Bothmer, manipulated that fat Hanoverian George II onto the English throne, died in No. 10 Downing St., and his son, equally astutely, married the neighboring Bulow heiress. I found some splendid family tombs, including one mausoleum in a great Cistercian abbey containing a quintet of Bulow bishops. Though I am now in my mid-70s, I resisted the temptation to book space for myself.
Like a crazed addict I have managed to see 16 plays since my return to London. First the eulogies: Simon Russell Beale shines as Hamlet in an otherwise disappointing production. He is a very great actor, and in this role his physical bulk gives unwitting resonance to Hamlet's cry that "this too too solid flesh would melt/Thaw and resolve itself into a dew." The other splendid Simon (Callow) gives a mesmerizing solo performance in The Mystery of Charles Dickens, which deserves a tour of the States in the footsteps of Dickens' own triumphant tours. A young group of puppeteers from Atlanta introduced me to their art in three ghost stories, called Kwaidan, inspired by Lafcadio Hearn. Alan Ayckbourn has two plays at the National Theatre, one called House, the other Garden. I found House both hilarious and sad, its partner Garden a disappointment by comparison. The two plays can be seen independently, yet the characters are the same and (here comes Ayckbourn being too clever by half) are played by the same actors simultaneously on two separate stages in the National Theatre complex. Every time one actor in one of the plays goes "offstage," he runs upstairs and goes "onstage" in the other play.
David Hare also has two plays currently on the London stage. The Blue Room is a revival of his adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler's sexual daisy chain. I resisted the Hollywood hoopla of its first run with Nicole Kidman; I find the two young actors Camilla Power and Michael Higgs quite credible. It is hard to imagine Kidman playing a deserted victim of a one-night stand. Hare's My Zinc Bed is a deeply moving story of three addicts to drugs, booze and power, an analogy of how we all in an era of no faith and little ideology, fulfill our individual cravings for conviction. In Flame is another time-travel saga of three generations of women seduced, impregnated and deserted by a prototypical charmer. Charlotte Jones' play achieves heartbreaking pathos, yet hilarity. This is a new talent to be watched, and the actors are quite wonderful. John Webster's The White Devil and his Duchess of Malfi are another duo of rape, torture and murder, in 16th-century Renaissance Italy, the stories no different in sheer horror from today's films and tv programs, but with one difference: Webster, Marlowe, Shakespeare and indeed the authors of the Old Testament gave us some of the most beautiful poetry and prose of the English language, whereas today's scriptwriters just string together a dialogue of obscenity and expletives.
My praise of the London theater would not be credible if I did not include the occasional disaster. I found Yasmina Reza's Conversations After a Burial a disappointment in spite of its excellent cast. The Guardsman by the late Hungarian playwright Ferenc Molnar is the worst play I have seen in 50 years. Marvelous decor wasted, and Greta Scacchi is only inspiring whenever she silently turns her beautiful back to the audience.
Oh well, so what else is new? As Florida proved, Democrats believe in democracy as much as I believe Sid (the scumbag) Blumenthal. Hillary raised money with taxpayers' money, proving once and for all that playing fair is for losers. But she did work hard and won in a state that would elect a gorilla were the furry one running as a Democrat. (Yes, I know, I know, Al D'Amato was a Republican, as are Gov. Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, but all three represent the exception, and are not true-blue Republicans.)
What Hillary wants is very simple: to make the great mass of rural and small-town Middle America, virtually the whole continent from north to south, disfranchised and powerless. No more religious nuts, no more patriotic claptrap, no more flag-waving. The only thing left standing will be urban liberal political tastes and thoughts.
Mind you, if Americans were less distracted by tv and videocassettes, they might react a bit more forcefully when metropolitan interests run untrammeled over smaller local ones. Let's face it. Many blacks, Hispanics and recent immigrants live in urban areas such as L.A. and New York, which is precisely why people like Hillary are suggesting a rethink of the system. Gore used race as his ace in the hole during the campaign. And race turned out to be the most potent factor in the election, with 90 percent of black voters favoring Gore. George W. may have fervently reached out to minorities, but to no avail.
The recount in Florida was entirely due to blacks voting overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Just look at the figures. Whereas whites in Florida voted 57 percent to 40 percent for Bush, blacks went a stunning 93 percent to 7 percent for Gore. Nationwide, the Democrats owed their vote to working women, blacks and Hispanics; the Republicans led among white men and married couples.
Which brings me back to the Electoral College system. The metropolitan liberal-left hegemony is only too happy to write off the rest of America as hicks and rednecks. Disempowering whites has been the greatest Clinton achievement. Remember all those black church burnings and how Clinton hinted it was his white enemies who were behind them? The Oklahoma City bombing ditto. Divide and rule was the Clinton grand strategy from day one, disuniting the country by playing the race card throughout.
Gore has learned the lesson well, and also plays it to the hilt. Yet the Electoral College system is what true democracy is all about. It gives disproportionate weight to votes in less populated areas, ensuring that no populous center dominates the election. No wonder Hillary would like to do away with it.
Needless to say, because of political correctness, not many voices have been raised against the urban browning of America. The Wall Street Journal, by far the most respected newspaper in the country, went even further. Last summer it proclaimed that "North America Doesn't Need Borders." How was that again? Without borders, America will soon be overrun by poor, uneducated wretches from Central and South America, especially from Mexico, lowering America's cultural and civilizational standards. Yet demographers dare not point out that dangerous changes are taking place for fear of being accused of racism. Ninety-eight percent of the growth in the world's population will take place in the Third World. One hundred years ago, Europe had a quarter of the world's population, and three times that of Africa. By the year 2050, Europe will account for just 7 percent of the world's population, and only a third that of Africa.
But try to get a green card in, say, Los Angeles or New York, if you're from a European background. When my friend Peter Brimelow of Forbes wrote his brilliant Alien Nation five years ago, he was accused of everything under the sun. Yet it's a matter of pure arithmetic. If nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the United States. It will probably be the first time majority population has voluntarily become a minority in its homeland.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 opened the floodgates to Third World immigration, an act that has immeasurably weakened the civic unity of America. On Aug. 11, 2000, which happens to be my birthday, a further disaster took place. Bill Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13166. Next to nothing appeared in the press about it. The order required all federal programs using federal funds to guarantee that language barriers do not exclude non-English speakers from participating in all benefits and services. This applies also to the most obscure of languages where immigrants, living here legally or illegally, can petition the government.
Actually it's a joke. Floridians could not figure out how to put a hole next to the name of the person they wished to vote for. Then they cried foul.
Elections involving tens of millions of people must be governed by strict rules if they are not to be open to disputation. The great mass of rural and small-town America between the two coastal fringes has been targeted. I can imagine the scene. Some Blumenthal type whispers to Hillary that without the Electoral College she would be a shoo-in for the presidency. Her eyes grow large, her breath grows shorter, she can almost taste it. "Get Carville on the phone and tell him..."
Gore won 49 percent of the popular vote?same as Clinton in '96?while also fighting Nader off on the Left. He won more votes than Bush, who faced no serious challenge to his right.
Moreover, the long-term outlook for the Democrats is far brighter than it is for Republicans. The Democrats have proven themselves extremely adept at holding onto their voting base. Gore made serious inroads into traditional Republican constituencies, while Bush failed to make any headway with the Democratic voting blocs. Take the most secure Republican voters imaginable: the very rich. Those earning over $100,000 preferred Bush to Gore by 54 percent to 43 percent?a handy, but not an especially impressive, margin. In 1996 those earning over $100,000 went for Dole by 54 percent to 38 percent. In other words, the Republican vote remained the same, while the Democrats had made up some ground.
There are no comparable Republican breakthroughs among traditional Democratic voters. Despite all the inane and cheery talk of "diversity" and "inclusiveness" at the Republican Convention, this year the Republicans made their worst showing ever among blacks. Blacks went for Gore by 90 percent to 9 percent. This was worse than 1992 when Clinton beat Bush the Elder by 82 to 11 percent, and 1996 when he beat Dole by 84 to 12. Nixon in 1972 had managed to win 18 percent of the black vote. There was grim news as well on the Jewish front. Gore beat Bush 79 to 19 percent. Clinton had beaten Dole 78 to 16 in 1996. So W made some progress. But it's a far cry from 1988, when his father managed to win 35 percent of the Jewish vote.
This year the Republicans made a determined effort to make inroads among Hispanics. They took out ads on Spanish-speaking television. Young George P. Bush, W's nephew, spoke in Spanish at the convention and talked of "fight[ing] for our race." The upshot is that Gore still trounced Bush 62 to 35 percent among Hispanics. Gore even beat Bush among Hispanics in Texas 54 to 43 percent. To be sure, Bush did do better than Dole, who only managed a miserable 21 percent in 1996. Yet he did not do better than Nixon, who won 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in 1972. Even Reagan secured 37 percent in 1984.
This is a real problem for the Republicans. According to the website Hispanic Trends, foreign-born Hispanics today comprise 45 percent of Hispanic voters. "There is now little doubt that foreign-born Hispanics will become a clear majority of this electorate by the 2004 presidential election? Gore receives his strongest level of support from 'new immigrants'?foreign-born Hispanic voters who became citizens after 1994." The Census Bureau estimates that Hispanics will comprise 17 percent of the population by 2020. Blacks are estimated to be about 13 percent of the population. Therefore, almost a third of the electorate will be unshakably Democratic in every election.
So to whom should the Republicans appeal? Well, there are men. Bush beat Gore 53 to 42 percent among men. Yet Gore held his own. Clinton only won 43 percent of the male vote in '96. He did better than Carter in '80, who won only 36 percent; better than Dukakis in '88, who won 41 percent; better even than Clinton in '92, who also won 41 percent. Bush's 53 percent sounds impressive compared to Dole's feeble 44 percent. Yet it is far worse than the 57 percent won by his father in '88, or the 62 percent won by Reagan in '84. Moreover, the Republican advantage among men is offset by their disadvantage among women. Among women, Gore beat Bush 54 to 43 percent. Gore's 54 percent was the same as Clinton's in '96. But it was better than Clinton's 46 percent in '92; or Dukakis's 49 percent; or Carter's 50 percent in '76. Bush's 43 percent is certainly better than Dole's 38 percent, but it is worse than his father's 50 percent in '88, and even Gerald Ford's 48 percent in '76.
More troubling for the Republicans is their inability to win voters who should be their natural constituency. Fourteen percent of the population identify themselves as "white religious right." Eighteen percent of them voted for Gore. Thirteen percent of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal. Twenty-two percent of them voted for Gore. Twenty-seven percent believe that abortion should be "mostly illegal. Twenty-nine percent of them voted for Gore. Gore supports partial-birth abortions. Yet he beat Bush 50 to 47 percent among Catholics. Thirteen percent of American voters believe Bush is "too liberal." Yet 81 percent of them voted for Gore, 15 percent for Bush and only 1 percent for Buchanan. By contrast, of the 9 percent who believe Gore is "too conservative," 42 percent voted for Bush, 45 percent for Gore and 10 percent for Nader.
Whether Bush becomes president or not, the Republicans will have to come up with an agenda to inspire their natural voters, otherwise they are heading for oblivion.