Who Will Win the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination?

David Moskowitz

Predictions like this, made nearly four years out, are by nature fraught. However, even at this stage, the most likely contenders are becoming clear. The names most often bandied about are Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush; however, I think that the two most likely nominees are Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum. Paul Ryan is a conventional choice, but Rick Santorum has been largely discounted. However, I think that most pundits have under-rated Santorum's chances. Republicans usually choose the candidate who is "next-in-line" as their nominee. In 2008, it was John McCain, who won the most primaries after Bush in 2000, and in 2012 it was Romney, who came second to McCain in 2008. This time around, that status is generally being given to Paul Ryan, who was Romney's V.P. candidate, or Jeb Bush, who is the last member of the Bush dynasty eligible to run for president. However, Santorum has more of a claim to this status than any of these other candidates. Bush, despite his seniority in age, has never run for national office, and Ryan's status as a failed V.P. candidate doesn't confer the status one might expect. The fact is, Republicans have only nominated the V.P. on a losing ticket once in the era of modern primaries - Bob Dole, V.P. to Gerald Ford - and that was several elections later, after he became Speaker of the House. Santorum, on the other hand, is the person who won the second highest amount of delegates in the 2012 primaries - including the coveted Iowa primary.

Another reason that Santorum will be in a better position than people think is for organizational reasons. Republican primaries are often cast as a struggle between moderates and radicals, but a more accurate description would probably be establishment vs. activists. Establishment candidates have won the last two primaries because of superior organization. The Republican establishment had decided on their next candidate almost as soon as the last primary was over. Activists, on the other hand, didn't coalesce around a candidate until after several primaries had already passed. The establishment and their supporters were able to direct all of their efforts towards one candidate, while activists and their supporters split their funds and resources between several different candidates. This year, however, the activists have a clear candidate to rally around in Santorum, but the establishment has three frontrunners (Ryan, Bush, and Rubio). 

 I do think that Paul Ryan will eventually beat Bush and Rubio, however. Rubio, despite his political gifts, is just not ready for a national race in my opinion. He looked like an unprepared novice in his response to the State of the Union, and – like Paul Ryan in 2012 – I think that Rubio will end up not being ready for the type of scrutiny he’ll be exposed to when running for VP. Jeb Bush, though, is a much different story. On paper, he looks like the most formidable of all the candidates. He hasn't run for national office yet, but he still has far more experience than anyone else on the ballot. Furthermore, his last name gives him access to a storied political machine and piles of money. Last but not least, as the long-time governor of an important swing state, he has bipartisan cred, managerial experience, and Washington-outsider status. However, I think that Bush is just too moderate for the current Republican Party. Outside of immigration, I feel that his concessions are mostly cosmetic, but they're still far more than Republicans are willing to give up. Outside the Democrats somehow retaking the house in 2014, I think that Republicans will be able to convince themselves that 2008 and 2012 were flukes, the triumphs of a machiavellian operator with a genius for politicking against two overmatched candidates who ran scattered, ineffective campaigns.

Thus I think that Paul Ryan will end up beating out Rubio and Bush. I event think that he will end up winning the nomination itself over Santorum. However much the activists may boast about their grassroots support, I don't think they know how to actually win elections. I don't think they really know how to get their supporters to do the work that actually wins elections (canvassing, canvassing, and more canvassing). I think Santorum is also especially bad at campaigning. He has a really bad case of diarrhea of the mouth in the worst way possible (Clinton had this problem too; but in him it seemed charming and genuine, while Santorum just seems self-righteous). I also think Santorum doesn't trust the right people - or perhaps he doesn't even know them. According to what I have read, his 2012 campaign was unorganized and amateurish, and he'll end up losing again if he can't put together a more professional outfit.

             The Marriage Plot

   I just finished reading The Marriage Plot, by Jeffrey Eugenides. I enjoyed it immensely; I don’t think it’s an instant classic, but I think it did everything it set out to do. The novel focuses on three recent graduates: Melissa Hanna, Leonard Bankhead, and Mitchell Grammaticus. Melissa, the main character, is an English major, interested in Austen and Victorian literature (the marriage plot in particular). She falls in love with Leonard. Leonard Bankhead is a biology student and manic depressive. He is charming and outgoing when he is teetering on the edge of his manic phases; but throughout the book he keeps falling into a full blown mania or into an almost catatonic state when he is depressed. Hanna falls in love with his borderline manic self, but his disease continually puts great strain on their relationship. Mitchell Grammaticus is a religion student, and one of the first friends Madeline makes in college. He nurses an unrequited love for her throughout the novel, which she consistently fails to return.

                The novel begins with the trio’s graduation from college; they all attend brown university. The novel follows them through the first year or so through their post-graduate life. Leonard has broken up with Madeline at the beginning of the novel, and she and Mitchell are no longer talking. Unbeknownst to Madeline, Mitchell is secretly in love with her, and Leonard has had a mental breakdown. We don’t quite like any of the main characters at the beginning of the novel. Madeline seems flighty and somewhat shallow; Mitchell seems intellectually snobbish and slightly misogynistic (one could easily imagine him as one of those men who constantly complain about being “friend-zoned”). Leonard , with his infinite capacity to observe and listen to those around him,  appears to be the most positive character, but the emotional distance he puts between himself and Madeline appears off-putting.

                As the novel progresses, we become more sympathetic towards Mitchell, and Leonard’s unsuitability becomes clearer and clearer. As Mitchell becomes less self-centered and self-pitying we start rooting wholeheartedly for him to win Madeline over. Leonard leaves Madeline for good, and it seems that Mitchell’s time has arrived. The two of them finally sleep with one another, but then Eugenides throws us a final curveball at the end; Mitchell realizes that she doesn’t love him – he is simply her “bachelorette survival kit.” Instead of asking her to marry him, Mitchell tells her that he now knows a marriage isn’t really what she needs.

                I’m not sure how true Mitchell’s epiphany is. I have a suspicion that his newfound insight into Madeline’s psyche is more of a defense mechanism. Part of me thinks that the sense of unreality he had when sleeping with Madeline was a result of the fact that he had fallen in love with an image of Madeline, and now he is confronted with the naked reality of her body . To me, it almost seems that Mitchell’s decision that it’s Madeline that doesn’t need him is simply the easiest way to avoid the dissonance between his ideal and a disappointing reality. 

In 2009, Lev Grossman wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Good Novels Don't Have to be Hard." The basic thesis of the article was that, starting in the early 20th century, modernist writers upended literary convention, excoriating plot and prioritizing other aspects of writing; but plot is now making a comeback, and in the future plot will become the centerpiece of literature.

I feel like Grossman's argument is problematic in the same way that most literary revolutonaries' arguments are: instead of destroying an old prejudice they merely reverse it. Grossman sees a prejudice for what he calls "lyricism" over plotting, and, instead of arguing that this prejudice is silly, seems to argue that plot is more important than lyricism. I'm getting somewhat tired of seeing writers gleefully tearing down our old literary shibboleths just to turn around and - with equal gusto - inaugurate new ones of their own. It's an especial shame in this case,  because I don't think lyricism and plot operate all that differently. A good plot operates by taking our expectations over cause and effect, which event will happen next, and upends them in a way that is new but nevertheless seems completely right. The outcome, in a great plot, isn't really what you expected or you didn't get there in the way you expected, but at the end you can't think of a more right way that the plot could have unfolded. Similarly, great lyricism, by which I think Grossman merely means an author's prose, operates by taking our expectations about how language works and subverting them in a way that nevertheless seems eminently right.

I also don't think that the modernists really conformed to this dichotomy - even in the way it was constructed by Grossman. In a later article, he admits that Hemingway and Fitzgerald sometimes constructed plots just as attentively as any genre writer, but  even someone like Woolf - a high modernist if there ever was one - wrote a relatively conventionally plotted novel with Orlando.

Many of these issues derive from the fact that the categories Grossman uses, like "plotting" and "lyricism," don't seem especially well-defined. Sometimes I'm not sure whether he's really talking about plot or narrative - plot being the events that happen in the book and narrative being the way these events are related to us. Grossman argues that the modernists "broke the clear straight lines of causality and perception ad chronological sequence." To Grossman, this means the modernists "broke" plot, but it seems that what they actually broke was conventional narrative. Grossman's mistake is that he thinks that the modernists are interested in plot effects when they are really interested in narrative effects. Modernists didn't take issue with the idea that events follow linear cause and effect relationships as much as they did with the idea that there was this omniscient, unitary perspective that could unify and present these sequences of events in such a tidy fashion. For the modernists, the problem was that the standard omniscient narrator related events in a way that was untrue to lived experience.

I'm kind of sad that I have to be so critical of Grossman; I think that I agree with his general aims. Grossman is a fantasy novelist, and these questions about plot are ones that tend to come up in discussions of "genre" fiction and are often used to belittle such work. I feel like what Grossman is really trying to do is rescue works of sci-fi and fantasy from the genre dustbin they've been assigned. I certainly agree that divvying fiction up into separate genres is somewhat counterproductive, especially since one - rather ironic - side effect has been the emergence of literary fiction as its own discreet genre. This "genrefication" of fiction seems, to have only made literature less diverse, less surprising, and less interesting; it has turned the creation of literature into an exercise in filling certain genre requirements.

              

Skye Ferreira's "Everything is Embarassing"

  Skye Ferreira's new EP, Ghost, came out this October. The record is somewhat chameleonic, its songs shuttling from morose acoustic ballads, like “Sad Dream” and the titular “Ghost,” to electronica, like "Lost in my Bedroom," and punk, like "Red Lips." Many critics find the generic diversity of the EP to be somewhat random and distracting. I, on the other hand, find that the thematic continuity holds the whole thing together, and I generally find the ability to shuffle through genres so effortlessly to be edifying rather than distracting. However, like most critics I find that the last song, “Everything is Embarrassing,” is undeniably the highlight of the record.

                The song is one in which everything fits together seamlessly; the beat is perfectly fitted to the song, the synthesizer comes in at exactly the right moment, there’s the perfect amount of guitar, etc. I’m not sure if  the song is especially innovative or if any of its pieces are all that interesting. For instance, the beat could certainly be spiced up a bit, and the guitar or synthesizer could run away with us a bit more – instead of being used so minimally. However, these changes feel like they would somehow lessen the song. I’m tempted to invoke that old Romantic dictum that art should seem inevitable, inevitable is such a heavy word and it's the song's airiness that makes it so wonderful. Anyway, I'm somewhat obsessed with this song right now, and I'm looking forward to her first album:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jtTeMgWNhA

On Syrian Chemical Weapons

                Recently, reports have come out indicating that regime forces may be planning to put sarin gas in the bombs they drop on rebel troops (and – possibly – rebel held cities). While such an event would undoubtedly lead to tragedy, some commentators seem unsure as to why countries like the United Sates would draw the line at chemical weapons when the Syrian forces have already been so indiscriminate in their attacks on Syrian citizens. After all, it seems somewhat obtuse to worry so much about the means by which Syrian citizens are murdered instead of the fact that they are being murdered. Thus the question becomes why the United States and other Western nations are so up in arms over the question of chemical weapons.

                The most straightforward answer is that the Obama really does believe that the use of chemical weapons is qualitatively different than the use of conventional weapons. This view is far from unreasonable; chemical weapons are banned by international law while weapons like machine guns and conventional bombs are not. The regime’s forces have hardly been circumspect about civilian casualties, but the use of chemical weapons – especially in one of Syria’s densely populated, urban battlegrounds – would likely cause far greater loss of life than has been seen up to this point.

                Another reason that Obama is protesting so much may be as a run up to an intervention. It’s likely Obama has given serious thought to some sort of military intervention in Syria, but most observers have concluded that is reluctant to intervene because any military operation in Syria would present myriad difficulties in its execution. However, it’s possible that the Obama team has decided that the logistical and military difficulties could be overcome, but that it would be politically impossible to get the security council to authorize any sort of intervention. This newest development might change this calculus because, again, the use of chemical weapons is a clear and established violation of international law. Before, Syria excuse its actions as necessary to maintain control over its territory, but now Syria seems to be in the position of taking action that would clearly override its sovereign rights. Western diplomats may be trying to make it as politically difficult as possible for Russia and China to keep blocking a security council approved intervention in the event of a chemical attack.

                Alternatively, Washington may think that the rebels are already winning in Syria, and that it will only be a matter of time until Assad is deposed. This would certainly be the ideal result from the perspective of the United States. Any military operation in Syria would be quite risky, and Washington would certainly prefer to do nothing while still accomplishing its goals. However, the use of chemical weapons might be able to turn the tide against the rebels, and bolster Syria’s faltering government.

                One more factor that should not be forgotten is the effect this issue might have on Iran. If the Assad regime is able to use WMD on its own population, without any significant retaliation from the international community, then the Iranians might begin to discount Obama’s threats of war if they pursue their own WMD as a bluff. It’s possible that the Obama administration is trying desperately to ensure that Syria doesn’t use chemical weapons because they would then be faced with the choice of either starting a war they don’t really want or their threats against Iran losing credibility. 

Why "Don't Pull Your Love" by Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Reynolds Is a Great Song

Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Reynold's is a minor band from the seventies, the next best thing to a one hit wonder. However, I still think their first hit Don't Pull your Love" is a great song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_3QqzI23sE

This doesn't seem like a likely candidate for several reasons. First off it's pretty standard, especially in the lyrics department. We've all heard lyrics like "big white bird" (as a metaphor for airplane) before. other examples include "What about that brand new ring doesn't that mean love to you" and "if I threw away my pride and I got down on my knees". Hundreds of songs probably include lyrics extremely similar to these. However, I still really like this song.

The reason I think this song is great is because of the chorus. The chorus carries the song, which isn't surprising since most of the song is the chorus. However, the chorus is really well done in this song. Choruses, by the way, are often a problem for artists. Many an otherwise beautiful song is marred by its chorus. A recent example of this which I've found is the song "Animal" by Neon Trees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chJgaksG4sg

I was really taken in by this song up until the chorus, which I found a huge let-down. Another, more classic example, is the song "Sister Golden Hair" by America, an absolutely gorgeous song except for the chorus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rxgGVIrDqY

The point of a chorus is to hold a song together, it takes the disparate elements of a given song and binds them together into a cohesive whole. However, in these two songs the choruses seem more like obligatory gestures that the artists didn't have the imagination to do away with rather than an integral part of the song. For instance, "Sister Golden Hair" begins slow, melancholy, and lilting but then runs into the chorus which is upbeat and sing-songy. The chorus throws off the melancholy feel of the beginning and the song never quite recovers, failing to decide what it wants to be. The problem is the change in tone seems out of place and thus the chorus throws the whole song off. In "Don't Pull Your Love", on the other hand, the song starts off with the chorus and it infuses its energy into the song. In "Don't Pull Your Love", the chorus fulfills its function of holding the song together.

However, the real reason I like this song has to do with a quality that is harder to explain. I feel like in some songs there is a quality of pacing that lends it a quality of perpetual motion. I actually have a list of some other songs that have this quality: "Doctor My Eyes", "Hit the Road Jack", "Lisztomania" by Phoenix, "My Boy Builds Coffins" by Florence and the Machine, and "Cold War" by Janelle Monae (I could probably think of several other songs that have this). Anyway, in my head this quality is connected to the feeling one gets sometimes when running, more often when young and usually briefly, that the movement has become effortless, that one could keep running in the same fashion forever. In music, I feel like this quality is a result of a certain proportion between the beat, the pace of the instruments, and the pace of the singer's voice. I can't exactly set down a sort of golden ratio that it adheres to (hell, maybe it is the golden ratio that describes this quality). However, it strikes me sometimes when I'm listening to a song, and I feel that any song it occurs in becomes, to some extent, perfect (although I don't think that the "best" songs necessarily have this quality). The fact that the list of song which possess this quality is so short should hint that its occurrence is somewhat rare, and, while some songs possess this quality more deeply and consistently, the fact that it occurs in "Don't Pull Your Love" makes it a special song.