Sunday, October 9, 2022

The 2022 Election Part XII. The General Election Race, Edition 1.

August 20, 2022

Hard to believe that we're up to the 12th installment of this thread.


And for many, it's hard to believe that this is a "race".  Indeed, for many, for that matter most, of the elected positions in the state, the race is over, with the Republican Primary having determined the winner.

Which is a tragedy for multiple reasons.  

Democracy can't really survive in a one party state atmosphere is the primary one, and that's sort of what we have right now.  Indeed, rather than one party, which is what we at least facially have, we'd be better off, in terms of elections to have no parties at all, which would be simple enough to do.  I've noted it before, but there's really no good reason for party affiliation to take on a semi governmental function, as it has.  A case can even be made that it's unconstitutional.  Rather, the primary could, and in my view should, simply weed out the lesser candidates so the contest goes on in the fall.  If we did that, for example, quite a few of the legislative races that were seemingly decided would be going on to the Fall election, and some of the big statewide races, such as that for Secretary of State, would be down to two candidates.  

Another reason it's bad, however, is that it creates the oddity of polarization within the parties themselves, which is occurring in a major way inside the GOP, but which gets sorted out, at least partially, in a non-democratic way. The GOP's central leadership right now, for instance, has been heavily at odds with the leadership in Natrona and Laramie County, with the result being that those two counties, the most populous in the state, have been pretty much sidelined.

This latter feature, I'd note, is a common one for one party systems.  Mexico's PRI, for instance, had very conservative and very radically left elements, all within one party.  The Soviet Union's Communist party had factions within it.  Other examples abound, but the point is that in such systems factions, as George Washington termed them, develop anyhow, but the means of determining who comes out on top is not decided at the ballot box.  As we are, of course, a democratic system, they do still get partially sorted out by the voters, but only partially.  Most voters have little participation at all with party organizations, if they are in a party at all.

Let's now look at the "races"

United States House of Representatives

Republican Party

As everyone on the entire globe knows, former Cheney supporter Harriet Hageman played Brutus to Cheney's Caesar in the general election.

Et tu, Harriet?

She now goes on to the general election as the overwhelmingly favored candidate.  So much so, that she's basically being treated as though she is already elected, which she is not.

We'll address this below, but in order to leap over the top of her former political friend, Hageman boarded the "Trump Train" and acted as his stalking horse. While this seems likely to propel her into the halls of Congress, it also means that Wyoming is going to the bottom of the barrel in the upcoming Congress.  If the Republicans regain the House, it means that Hageman will be part of a right wing crowd that will basically be directed by Trump, through Kevin McCarthy.  If the Democrats retain control, which is becoming an increasing likelihood, Hageman will have no voice at all.

Not that this seems to matter in the contemporary Congress.  The GOP has marginalized itself in this session in hopes of regaining power via Trump.  The problem they'll face with that, rather obviously, is they'll be completely indebted to him.

This is raising the issue of whether the GOP of earlier decades is essentially dead, and is now a new type of party, and indeed not the old party at all.  Increasingly, this looks like it is in fact the case.1

Democratic Party.

Lynette Gray Bull, who pulled in an impressive performance in the 2020 general election when she ran against Cheney, when put in context (25%) comes back for a second crack at the bat.

Gray Bull, is of Sioux and Arapaho lineage and a resident of the Wind River Indian Reservation, faces long odds, but frankly they may be better this year than last, even though she's a dark horse candidate.  Horrified Democrats and Independents, many of whom switched to the GOP to vote for Cheney, will likely roll back to the Democratic Party and vote for Gray Bull. Self-satisfied Republicans, feeling their work is done in the election, may not bother to go to the polls in November.  Added to that, horrified Republicans, of which there is a fair number, may go over to Gray Bull on democratic principles, seeing as Hageman is fully invested at the present time as an anti-democratic Christian Nationalist candidate.2 

It's been noted that Hageman is really an establishment Republican, but a legitimate question at this point is whether she used to be an establishment Republican and no longer is, or whether the establishment Republicans, including Hageman, have been so duped that there's really no escaping for them.  Either situation is more likely that Hageman and the GOP reemerging the party that it once was.  I'm not as optimistic as former legislator Tim Stubson is on this score.

Anyhow, some Republicans will vote for Gray Bull as a protest.  Some will vote for her on democratic principles.  If she took 25% of the vote in 2020, which she did, and Democrats and Independents come out in strength this go around, that alone ought to take her to 30%, which is far below what she would need to win, of course.

However, the gap to winning, an added 20%, isn't really all that much.  Hageman, this year, took about 70% of the vote.  Of the 30% that voted against her, the question is how many are really upset Republicans.

Operating against this is that Gray Bull is very liberal on social issues, which may cause Republicans to hold their noses and vote for Hageman in spite of their disgust, or to just not vote at all.

Governor

Republican

This race really is over.  Mark Gordon won.

Democrat

Theresa Livingston, a former employee of the BLM from Worland won the Democratic primary, but it really doesn't matter.

Secretary of State

Republican

In an upset, Chuck Gray, who has only been in the state for a decade, and who has plenty of strikes against him as a candidate for this office, won due to being the Trump backed far right Christian Nationalist candidate.

Gray, who wasn't universally popular in the legislature, focused on bogus election concerns in his campaign.  It's deuce difficult to figure out how the voters thought he was qualified for this office, but he has it.

Democrat

631 Democratic write in votes were cast in the primary for Secretary of State, but that doesn't mean that any of the people written in will advance to the general.  If any of them did, unless they're a very surprising candidate, they're going nowhere.

State Treasurer

Republican

Curt Meier won the GOP nomination for a second term.

Democrat

Nobody ran in the Democratic primary.  A little over 400 write votes were cast, but once again, it's highly unlikely that any of the write-ins will run, and even more unlikely they would win if they did.

State Auditor

Kristi Racines took this race in the Republican primary, and she seems to be the only candidate in the state that everyone likes.

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Republican

This race saw Delgenfelder beat out recently appointed Schroeder, who was not a popular choice, for this position.  This race bucked the hard right trend.

Democrat

Sergio Maldonado advances to the primary as the Democratic candidate, where he was running unopposed.  Maldonado is a member of the Northern Arapaho tribe as well as being a Hispanic, so he joins Gray Bull in being in the category of the rare minority running for office.  He has a long career in education and has been endorsed by the Wyoming Education Association, one of the few powerful unions in Wyoming.

Other Races

I don't try to cover all the legislative and county races, as I don't know a lot about them as a rule.  I'll cover a few here, just as they're of some interest.  I'm going to do that, however, in summary form.

The Natrona County Assessors race has proven interesting as incumbent assessor, serving his first term, Matt Keating, lost to Linda Saulsbury. Saulsbury had been an appointed assessor who filled out her popular predecessor's term, but ran into trouble with the staff she inherited.  Keating took advantage of that in his race, but Keating has proven to be an unpopular assessor in the county, and Saulsbury took advantage of that.

What probably wasn't obvious to county residents was that assessors statewide ran into a state mandate to correct their undervalued assessments, which was part of a state drive to address budget shortfalls statewide.  Be that as it may, Keating's bedside manner on the topic was awful, and this was far from apparent.  Late in the race he began to try to point this out, and also took the position that the elevated tax levels could be dropped by municipalities choosing not to impose their full mill levies, a position that would be untenable for the municipalities as it would disqualify them for Federal grants.  Three years running of tax challenges due to sometimes bizarrely changed assessments caused people to have enough, and it's been obvious for months that Keating was going to go down in the primary.

What might not have been expected, however, is that he'd take county commissioners out with him as collateral damage.  Several challengers campaigned on the commissioners not being able to address this situation, which legally they really can't.  Nonetheless, one long serving commissioner fell for the two-year seat and another for the four-year seat.  One previously elected commissioners survived to run in November, but he polled the lowest among the survivors and will be joined in the race by a Democratic challenger.  It's very far from obvious that he will survive the challenge.

An interesting aspect of this is that, while it was not obvious at the time, the Natrona County Commission was one of the first local bodies in the county to show the rightward tilt of the GOP, having elected a couple of right leaning commissioners in prior years and having one who was able to tilt that way at least in appearance.  Now two of them are gone, and a third who was previously a City of Casper Councilman who had fallen in a city election is gone as well.  Chances are good that a third will fall. This will leave with the council with new members who are bucking the rightward drift (rush?) trend and should cause the remaining right wing member some concern.  At the broken edge of the bottle, the same voters who voted in the county for Gray and Hageman have basically rejected a hands-off approach and voted for a sharply more activist, and indeed activist that will disregard the law, approach.  This is interesting in that in the end, Wyoming elections slowly drift towards being like Canadian ones to some degree, with people voting their pocket books.

If all the "less government", "no Federal money" Republicans get their way in the legislature, Wyoming would actually be looking at sharply reduced Federal funds and such grim tasks as paying for our own highways, something we can't do and don't want to try.

August 22, 2022

According to Fremont County Senator Cale Case, a traditional Wyoming Republican conservative, there's an effort being made to find an independent to mount a write-in campaign against Republican Secretary of State nominee Chuck Gray.  Nobody has yet been identified to make the attempt.

In order to run on the general ballot as an independent a little over 5,000 signatures would have to be filed with the Secretary of State's office by August 31. That seems rather unlikely.

That wouldn't keep anyone from running a write in campaign, but that's an even more difficult proposition.

Independents do not have a history of electoral success in Wyoming and while Gray is controversial, such a person would face long odds.

August 23, 2022

A press report indicates that a lot of Republicans in the recent race did not vote down ballot.

For instance, 14,000 Republicans did not cast a Secretary of State vote.

This likely explains the hard right turn to some degree.  Voters turning out to vote against Cheney out of Trump loyalty likely amounted to a disproportionate percentage of primary voters.

August 23, cont.

In a really unusual turn of events, Cale Case was mounting an effort to draft former legislator Nathan Winters for a run at the Secretary of State's office even though Winter didn't consent.  Today the current Secretary of State determined that a potential candidate had to sign off on the effort, which ended this draft campaign.

At the same time, according to the Trib, Republicans are urging Tim or Susan Stubson to run as an independant.

August 28, 2022

The director of communications and policy at the Secretary of State's office has resigned as she does not wish to work for Chuck Gray, who has called into question the work of the office through his assertions that something was wrong with the Wyoming election.

It's beyond question that the Wyoming election was well run and there was no fraud, none of which has kept Gray from running around pretending like something needs to be done to shore up Wyoming's elections.  In the words of the resigning individual:

He’s called into question the integrity of this office and now he’s going to run it, and yuck.

He has called into question the integrity of the office through his suggestions.

According to a post on Reddit, which therefore may be wild innuendo and dubious, rumors were circulating prior to the election that there'd be widespread resignations in the office if Gray was elected.  That is, we'd note, purely a rumor.  But now at least one person has resigned.  Even if the rumor was true, however, people generally need their jobs and large scale registrations would be phenomenal.

Having said this, Gray himself may have had an inkling of this, as he said in an earlier PBS debate:

The insiders down there at the Capital, a lot of them don’t want things to improve, I’ve seen the Secretary of State staff work, and I do believe I can work with them towards getting this election integrity vision.

While not greatly familiar with the workings of the office itself, it is more likely than not is nearly self operating with professionals no matter who is in office which means that more likely than not, the only thing the Secretary of State really needs to do is set wider policy.  If Gray doesn't lose most of the staff, he can likely spend four years on his "election integrity vision" and not really mess up the work of the office.  That would leave him, as he likely knows, a springboard to attempt to become Governor if Gordon does not run for a third term, which he may well do knowing that if he doesn't, the office may fall to the hard right, assuming, which is not a safe assumption, that politics hasn't moved on in the meantime.

If, and it's only an if, and not very likely, Gray faced a large-scale office revolt, however, he may find himself in the same position as Cindy Hill was, who at some point really wasn't able to deal with an office that was in open revolt against her.

August 30, 2022

The write-in deadline fell yesterday, with nobody filing with signatures to run against Chuck Gray, as some had hoped.  There were write in candidates certified, however, for several of the legislative races.

August 31, 2022

Secretary of State Ed Buchanan will assume the judgeship he was appointed to in mid-September, and step 

down from his current position at that time.  This means an interim Secretary of State will be appointed to oversee this year's election.

September 1, 2022


In Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola defeated a slate of candidates in a special election for Congressman from that state.  Sarah Palin was one of the contestants.

The race was to fill the seat of the deceased Don Young, so the position is, obviously, pretty temporary, but presumably gives Peltola an edge as the incumbent in November.

The race was notable for several reasons, including that Peltola, who is Yup’ik, will become the first Native Alaskan Congressman.  But more than that, it's the first ranked choice election in Alaska's history, the system, which disregards party, having just been adopted by Alaska's voters.

A bill in a Wyoming legislative committee proposes to adopt the same system, which is more democratic than the party primary system the state now has.  This result would suggest that when unrestrained by party, voters will in fact cast a a wider net.

Defeated Sarah Palin complained about the new system in the election itself, and railed against it after being defeated.

September 6, 2022

The Wyoming GOP, noting that if he leaves on September 15 as he has indicated that he will it will mean that his appointed successor shall have mere weeks to prepare for administering the General Election, has asked Ed Buchanan to remain in office to the end of his term.

In this context, that is not an unreasonable request and, indeed, this should have been taken into account as soon as he indicated that he was pursuing a judgeship.

September 7, 2022

Secretary of State Buchanan declined the GOP's request.

I'm frankly surprised, and I also frankly think this entire episode has not been well thought out.

September 10, 2022

The Tribune reports that November's general election shall have the highest number of unaffiliated and third party candidates on the ballot since 1998.  

House District 8, in which the notable mainstream Republican Dave Zwonitzer is running for reelection, but in a newly formed district in Laramie County, is one of them.  In that district, Independent Brenda Lyttle is his only opponent.  The increasing discord in the mostly Republican legislature, which has split into two branches, motivated her run as an Independent, although Zwonitzer has one of the most dignified presentations in the legislature  Medicare expansion and education funding are her issues, so she's basically ironically running with what would normally be moderate Republican or Democratic stance.

Here I hope that Zwonitzer, who has been an influential intelligent voice in the legislature, wins reelection.

Bob Strobel is running in northwest Wyoming's House District 22. Stroble represents himself as a lifelong Republcan, but he's unyielding on the public lands remaining in Federal hands.  I don't know anything about that district, but on that basis alone, I hope that Strobel wins.

Three Constitution Party candidates are running.  The Constitution Party, at least in my view, tends to have a reading of the Constitution that uniquely interprets it by disregarding what it actually says, in support of a far right Quasi Christian Nationalist position.  I'd thought they'd gone away, but they're running more candidates this year than ever.

A record number of Libertarians are also running for state solon positions.

Which takes us to the Governor's and House races.  We haven't covered the third parties at all, and we now should.  The Trib reports the third parties as having candidates for both, but we're only seeing that for the House of Representatives.  Having said that, the Trib is probably right, but the candidates probably haven't secured sufficient signatures yet to appear on the general ballot.

United States House of Representatives

Republican Party

Harriet Hageman.  Hageman is the Trump endorsed flag bearer for the those who felt that Cheney betrayed the state by not getting on the Trump train.  She'll go into the race with more wild far right GOP populist enthusiasm, more moderate GOP contempt and more inflated expectations of any candidate in the state's history.

Democratic Party.

Lynette Gray Bull, who pulled in an impressive performance in the 2020 general election when she ran against Cheney, when put in context (25%) comes back for a second crack at the bat, as a darkhorse candidate, but with better odds this time than previously as she'll secure a fair number of disgruntled Republicans and horrified independents.

Constitution Party

Melissa Selvig, who ran on the Republican ticket to the far right before correctly assessing her ticket as doomed, has signed up for a doomed effort as the Constitution Party's candidate for the House.

Independent

Casey Hardison is a gadfly candidate who is also running for the President of the United States in 2024 for the Democratic Republican Party.  A chemist, he has a series of drug convictions.

September 13, 2022

Senator Cale Case will be the subject of a censure vote by the Republican Central Committee, which will also ask him to drop his Republican affiliation.

This is the second time Case has faced a censure vote for being true to his values.  He earlier this year was censured by the Fremont County GOP before going on to win reelection with a 10 point margin.

This time it's because of his open opposition to Chuck Gray and the election stolen lie that Gray espoused in the primary election.  Case, a longtime legislator and formally one of the most conservative members of the body, has openly been backing the bill to remove election certification from the Secretary of State on the basis that Gray is an election denier.  The Republican Party censure resolution refers to this as an abuse of power, which is somewhat ironic given the putative threat Gray represents in his role.  Case also sought to have an independent run against Gray.  Case has indicated that, having been through this process once already, he isn't really worried about what the GOP Central Committee does.

September 14, 2022

GOP Congressional candidate Harriet Hageman has refused a PBS offer to host a debate with her opponent, Lynette Grey Bull.

Boo hiss.

The refusal comes across as chicken, chickenshit, and disrepectful.

Grey Bull took about 25% of the vote in the last election against Cheney, at which point most of the people who now hate Cheney with the red hot passion of a thousand burning suns swooned at her inherited GOP presence.  If she too 25% under those circumstances she likely holds to take more now.  The question is whether Hageman figures that she's already been crowned and need not lower herself to debate her Democratic candidate, or whether she fears debating a candidate who isn't welded to Donald Trump might increase that candidates odds.

Anyway a person looks at it, this is already a symbol of how those Wyomingites who haven't agreed to work towards the leader are likely to be treated in some quarters.

Park County's GOP  has passed a resolution supporting Chuck Gray and denouncing efforts to restrict the Secretary of State's authority over elections.

On Gray, as readers here know, there is a bill in the legislature to remove election supervision from the Secretar of State's office and vest it in a new non partisan commission.  Gray released a statement condemning the bill, not surprisingly, aiming it as he tends to do at imaginary "big government" insiders.  More specifically, he stated:
Republicans across Wyoming correctly see Zwonitzer’s and (Case’s) effort for what it is — a couple of big-government insiders who are shamelessly ignoring the will of voters and our right to have our elected officials represent us.
There might be some merit to that, although Zwonitzer had a good reply, but it raises the question of why on earth the Secretary of State's office is an elected office.  Indeed, the same question applies to the State Auditor's office and the State Treasurer's office. Whatever the original reason is, it's long since become obsolete and most years a high percentage of voters, if asked, don't have any idea who any of these candidates actually are.  More on that in a seperate post.

Gray, of course, was elected because he was Trump backed and he ran around in his campaign spreading the election lie myth, so he was in fact elected in the primary as a contestant, the only one, to prevent a myth that didn't happen from reoccuring.  That, however, brings up the interesting point that if Gray is really worried about this, he ought to support the law, as it would make our already really secure election super safe.

September 23, 2022

The news reports (but not the Edition of the Trib, which was replaced today with the E-edition of Beatrice Nebraska's newspaper) that a group of Wyoming lawyers, including some very prominent ones (the outgoing and elect State Bar Presidents, at least one prominent retired judge, a former Attorney General of the State of Wyoming) wrote to Harriet Hageman complaining of her misrepresenting the election as stolen and pointing out what they state is her ethical obligations as a lawyer to tell the truth.

Hageman's reaction has been to publically publish a counter to their letter which might best be characterized as absurd, asserting the lawyers are part of a left wing national movement to attack conservative candidates.  Her reaction, therefore, to be told not to lie, was to lie.

Hageman, as a politician, is now past the State Bar as a concern and into the hall of Congress where lying is a long practiced tradition. But the evolution of the candidate, from a quiet Cheney supporter, to a Cheney challenger who at first wouldn't call the election stolen, to one who now heavily leans into having "questions" and implies the election is stolen, to one who won't debate her opponent and who reacts to her fellow bar members private letter with a public assertion of wild conspiracy has been remarkable.

The writing lawyers who were in turn interviewed by the Trib were measured in their response, simply siting their obligation to uphold the truth, with only the former AG signatory showing some real ire, in which he also noted the lies more directly advanced by Chuck Gray.

September 26, 2022

All three of the names forewarded to Governor Gordon for interim Secretary of State are far right figures aligned with the views of Chuck Gray.

September 28, 2022

Lynette Gray Bull, Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in Wyoming, publicly asked for Liz Cheney's endorsement via Twitter.

The request was based on Cheney's open statement that she's help anti Trump candidates even if they are Democrats.

September 30, 2022

Karl Allred, who is a gas plant manager who unsuccessfully ran for the legislature with a Harriet Hageman endorsement, will be the interim Secretary of State.

Applicants for the office included some who had direct experience with it, but they were not appointed to be finalists.  The office deals principally with business matters and has been highly respected.  It has a very professional staff who can likely carry that forward, but there have been rumors that they'll largely resign rather than work under Chuck Gray.

Allred enters the office an unknown, but one who is likely less extreme than the other two finalists.  He fits into the mold right now, however, of the GOP sending individuals who are fully bought into the populist Trump wing of the party.  It's remarkable that individuals who were clearly more qualified were passed over.  The state has reason to worry about this trend, which it has now endured a second time, although the last one, with the Superintendent of Education seems to hae worked out.  Notably, the voters did not choose that person for reelection.

October 1, 2022

Following up on yesterday's entry, Allred it turns out has a string of failed legislative bids.  He was one of the inidividuals who sued Governor Matt Mead over the capitol improvement contract and he was one of the conservative candidates who violated the University of Wyoming's open carry prohibition in an attempt to challenge its constitutionality.  Indeed, a recent photo of him addressing the Central Committee depicts him carrying a sidearm at that event.

The Governor's announcement, which I cannot find, was "pointedly" short, according to the press.

Representative Mike Yin, D Jackson, emailed to the Tribune that none of the choices presented to the Governor were reasonable ones, which seems to be borne out by the names of applicants the Central Committee passed over who had experience relevant to the job.  Allred was seeingly the least extreme of the three.  On September 17, prior to his selection, Allred had called Yin a "flippin idiot" who needed to be gotten rid of.

October 2, 2022

The lawyers castigated by Harriet Hageman after they wrote her letter about truthful representations replied to her public reply to their private letter, once again pointing out that lawyers have a duty to respect the decisin of courts.  More signed the second letter, than the first.

Somewhat missed in the story on the first letter is that it was a private letter, not a public one.  Hageman published it, associating it with a conspiracy theory.

October 3, 2022

Both China and Russia appear set to try to interfere in the elections, Russia by trying to cast doubt on US election integrity.

It can't help but be noted that the GOP has done a fine job of doing that itself without Russian help, although some of the prinicpal figures in that, such as Donald Trump and Tucker Carson, have very odd affinities with Putin.

The FEC has notified the Hageman campaign that it has failed to meet reporting regulations.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Ogden Driscoll faces a write in campaign now from his right for a defeated candidate from the primary.  The challenger, Roger Connet, hasn't endorsed or discouraged the campaign.

October 7, 2022

In a development showing just how odd this election year really is, the Uinta County GOP is endorsing a write-in candidate, and "enthusiastically" over their own primary candidate victor for House District 19.

The move by the county's GOP committee was not received with universal welcome.

October 9, 2022

Lynette Grey Bull forcefully campaigned for Liz Cheney's endorsement in a rally in Casper yesterday.

Footnotes:

1.  See:

Fromer legislator Stubson's position on this is very admirable and he's been an outspoken champion of Cheney this election cycle, but he supported Ted Cruz in the Cruz campaign, which is some ways was a portent of things to come.  As a legislator, he also supported the study bill that was to look at trying to get the Federal lands transferred to Wyoming, which also fits in to the far right list of ticket items.  He is not in that camp, but this illustrates in a way how we slid down this slippery slope.

Former Speaker of the House in Wyoming Tom Lubnau very much saw this coming and tried to warn everyone to no avail.

2. It can certainly be debated whether or not Hageman really is a Christian Nationalist, which is not the same thing, we'd note, as being a Christian or observant Christian.  Rather, it's the theme that the GOP is leaning heavily into.

We dealt with the rising phenomenon of Christian Nationalism recently, but the definition of the movement is becoming much clearer.  We'll expand on that shortly.

Last Prior Edition

The 2022 Election Part XI. Primary Election Day.


Related Threads:

Sister Rosetta Tharpe - This Train

Saturday, October 8, 2022

Best Posts of the Week of October 2, 2022.

The best posts of the week of October 2, 2022

Tuesday, October 3, 1922. Aftermaths



A popular post, we'd note, but one in which we regret reposting Ms. Meloni playing on her name.









Pulp Fiction - Dance Scene . . . and the Madison Dance.


This scene, we should note, is based on the classic dance scene from the 1964 French film Band a Part, which itself is an example of The Madison Dance,


Which, those attune to the blues, will recognize from the famous Elmore James song The Madison Blues.


Well, Shake Your Money Maker.


O'Connor's Pub, Doolin - Irish trad. Music and Dance

Michael 1996 John Travolta Dance scene

Pulp Fiction - Dance Scene . . . and the Madison Dance.


This scene, we should note, is based on the classic dance scene from the 1964 French film Band a Part, which itself is an example of The Madison Dance,


Which, those attune to the blues, will recognize from the famous Elmore James song The Madison Blues.


Well, Shake Your Money Maker.

Sunday, October 8, 1922. The Giants win the World Series.

 It was game four, the score was 5 to 3.  It was their second consecutive World Series victory.


The prior days' win hit the front page of newspapers across the nation, including the Casper Daily Tribune.

Lillian Gatlin became the first woman to cross the United States, although she was a passenger.

Blog Mirror: HIKING PUBLIC LANDS SHOULDN’T REQUIRE A LADDER

 

HIKING PUBLIC LANDS SHOULDN’T REQUIRE A LADDER

Going Feral: Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources to receive $1,000,000 Grant.

Going Feral: Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources t...

Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources to receive $1,000,000 Grant.

Wyoming's Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources received an $1,000,000 to establish an Intentional Wildlife Conservation Chair.  The purpose is to boost the pursuit of careers in that area.

The fund will be named for John L. Koprowski , Dean of the school, following his retirement.

Friday, October 7, 2022


 

Declined Sartorial Standards. Have we gone too informal?

This post dates back to the first January 6 hearing, which was broadcast in the evening.  

That's quite awhile back, I'll admit.  This has been a lingering thread. But, given some recent observations, it's expanded out.  

Indeed, this is sort of a collision of three influencing items coming together; one the January 6 hearings, one an advertising item, and one being an older (2016?) First Things podcast episode, which I only recently discovered.

In the overall scheme of things, clothing worn in a hearing don't matter much, we think.  We actually had a quote about this just recently from an old work, The Velveteen Rabbit:

When you’re real, shabbiness doesn’t matter.

The Velveteen Rabbit



That's probably the way things ought to be, but . . . well maybe they do.

For some gravitas, let's be blunt.  We're in the midst of a crisis which involves slipped standards.  That slippage includes one group of people who seem to take their oath to the Constitution lightly (which ironically involves a group of people styling themselves "Oath Keepers" who are, in fact, Oath Breakers), and a general decline in civility that reaches up to the highest levels of our society.

It's sad.

The January 6 crisis, that is.

It's disgusting.

And it sort of involves poor dress.

Okay, that's a stretch, but bear with me.

On the first day of the hearings in the audience was a police officer, off duty (or perhaps now retired) who was at the event.  He was there, in the Congressional committee room, wearing a t-shirt.  Another testifying retired policeman was wearing a sports coat and dress shirt, but was there sans tie, a massive tattoo that ran up to his neck clearly visible.  Since then, in these hearings, such dress has been common.  A documentary filmmaker, for example, appeared in a rumpled shirt that looked like it had been slept in the night before.  A former spokesman for the Oath Breakers, who take their name from their massively misconstrued oath to uphold the Constitution which is taken when a person joins the military or a police force, appeared in a jean jacket.

There were exceptions, to be sure, particularly with former members of the government and lawyers, but beyond casual dress was in evidence.  Frankly, not even a decade ago, appearing in Congress dressed like that would have been unthinkable.

And it's not just there.

At one time, if I entered a law office thirty years ago, when I first was practicing, every man in the office would have been dressed appropriately for the season and at least in semiformal clothing.  It would have been impossible to enter a law office of any substantial size and not find at least one man wearing a tie.  Indeed, in a much earlier post on this blog, I noted a quote from The Wyoming Lawyer:
This is certainly no longer the case.  I can enter almost any law office now, any day of the week, and find quite a few male lawyers wearing extremely informal clothing.1 Indeed, the change in standards is, as noted, one of the topics of one of the very early posts on this blog, going back to at least 2011, which is the first year that this blog became really active.  And as the related threads below show, it's come up a lot.

Anyhow, on slipping standards, as recently as about fifteen years ago or so, a person I worked with took enormous offense at a lawyer who appeared in his office wearing shorts and no socks.  It made a permanent impression with him (he was not a lawyer).   And in my own case, I can recall a client, more recently than that, objecting to my wearing boat shoes.

Note that I have distinguished this to male lawyers.  Female lawyers still dress fairly formally, interestingly enough.

The other day I went to a meeting wearing a tie, as it was a meeting between four lawyers and their staffs. Two were dressed informally, one very informally, the other in business casual.  One was dressed relatively formally, but sans tie.

Or, by example, up until recently I always wore a tie at a deposition.  I just started to suspend with them in some instances, as I was definitely the only one wearing one.

To give yet another example, in another context, I went to a funeral just recently.  It was very small.  I came right from work, and as I had the aforementioned meeting, I was wearing a tie, but I had no coat (it was about 100F outside).  At the funeral, there were a few people in rural semi dress, common for rural people, but other people were simply wearing very informal clothing.  I was, once again, the only one with a tie.

Clearly things have changed in the past thirty years.

And not only have they changed, COVID-19, accelerated a change that was already ongoing.  People stayed home, stayed in their jammies, and they haven't dressed back up.  But the change itself was already going on.

Why?

I'm not really sure.  I've seen some written commentary on it, but that commentary tends to fall flat.  One person, for example, related the formality of prior eras to the cost of clothing, but that makes no sense whatsoever, as quite frankly up until the 1950s, clothing was really expensive.

Or, actually, maybe it does.

This is where the second influences for this thread comes in, which was a First Things podcast episode that amounted to simply reading an article for the podcast, with the voice provided by a woman who, if not upper class, certainly had that upper class accent we all used to know, before our Presidents tried to start sounding like extras from Goodfellas.2

Clothing has always served to make distinctions between people, as well as to serve practical functions.  Romans who worse purple did it not simply because they liked the color, but because the dye was expensive, and it showed they were in the elite. 

When clothing was more expensive, middle class Americans, and the middle class everywhere in the Western World, tried to have at least one set of formal clothes that roughly emulated that of the wealthy, as well as those who approached being wealthy and worked indoors.  This showed that they weren't poor.

John Hancock.

And if you couldn't do that, that was probably because you were in fact poor.

And this essentially set the standards for what was worn in certain places.

Now, this doesn't mean that everyone would be dressed as fancifully as John Hancock, in the photograph above.  Indeed, clothing varied quite a bit by status, occupation and region.  But you can take this to mean that a farmer who lived in Maine, let's say, who did well enough, would also have a coat, vest and breeches.

But probably only one set.

And that gets us part of the way to the explanation.  Up until the 1950s, with clothing being expensive, people tended not to have a lot of clothing.  This too set the standard.  Clothing has become so cheap that people now have lots of clothing, and can dispense with concern over what it means to have hardly any at all.

The added part of this is that up until the second half of the 20th Century, most people in the Western world worked in some sort of manual labor.  That didn't mean that they weren't middle class.  Particularly in North America, a person could work in an industrial job as a skilled laborer, or in agriculture, and be solidly middle class.  But people were conscious of their standard.  They wanted to appear as part of the mainstream of society, if they could afford to do so, and most could.

That trend really began to amplify in the early 20th Century, that period in which we recently saw a post regarding whether a young woman would be willing to be escorted by a young man if he omitted tie and vest.


First Things did a nice job of picking this all up, and indeed going back just as far as I did.  What it noted is that seemingly average people, but which we mean in this context people living on the edge of poverty, didn't begrudge the more wealthy wearing finer clothes on formal and even informal occasions, and even sort of expected it.  Be that as it may, at some point, let's say loosely the late 18th Century, the clothing style of the rich and at least middle class began to merge with less distinction between them, at least in so far as daily clothing was concerned.3  Nonetheless, distinctions between the clothing of those who worked with their hands, and those who did not, and based on occasion, remained.  

So, put another way, if you showed up at Church dressed like you had just plowed a field in 1890, it's probably because; 1) you had in fact just plowed a field and 2) you were too poor to get another set of clothes, or 3) if you were Catholic, it was your last chance not to miss Mass.

This same basic set of rules applied to everything. Consider this photograph of Tom Horn's 1902 jury in Wyoming.


Now, there are two things you ought to notice about this photograph of these twelve men.

Everyone is dressed as well as he could be, and better than the average juror today.

And one, in 1902, is black.

Who were they and what did they do:

H. W. Yoder, Ranchman, Goshen Hole
O.V. Seeburn, Ranchman, Goshen Hole
Charles Stamm, Ranchman, Wheatland Flats
T. R. Babbit, Ranchman, LaGrange
H. W. Thomas, Ranchman, LaGrange
G. W. Whiteman, Ranchman, Uva
Amos Sarbaugh, Foreman, Swan Land and Cattle Company
Homer Payne, Cowboy, Swan Land and Cattle Company
Frank F. Sinon, Foreman, White Ranch, Little Horse Creek
E. C. Metcalf, Blacksmith, Wheatland
Charles H. Tolson, Porter, Cheyenne
J. E. Barnes, Butcher, Cheyenne

Mr. Tolson was probably the black juror4 

Now, the last jury I drew, I drew in Denver, Colorado.  More specifically, Denver County, Denver, Colorado. This jury in 1902 makes that jury look. . . well. . . .slovenly.

More on that to follow.

What happened?

According to First Things, the clothing distinction carried on right into the 1960s, but then crashed into 1967's Summer of Love.

Mounted Policeman in San Francisco at an anti-war demonstration in 1967.5   By BeenAroundAWhile at en.wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47396940

Pinning a huge clothing shift on a single year is probably a bit much, but there's some evidence to suggest it's at least true in a larger sense.  Maybe not 1967, but maybe 1966 to 1980, with steady erosion the entire time.

So why?

Let's talk about the GI Bill again.

But before we do that, let's talk about the mid 20th Century standard of dress a bit more carefully.  And in doing that, let's look at a current attempted commercial revival of that standard, but none other than Ralph Lauren.

We see that here.


Now, what exactly are we seeing here? 

These are uploaded and linked in photographs from the Ralph Lauren collection recalling Morehouse and Spillman colleges in the mid 20th Century. They still exist, and donations from the sale of this clothing goes to those traditionally black colleges.


And not just that, here's another Lauren collegic collection.


This no doubt takes us all back to those heady youthful college days, right?

Ummm. . . well probably not if you graduated any time in the last several decades.

But Lauren actually isn't that far off in how college students of the mid 20th Century actually dressed.


And those Morehouse and Spillman students of that era, they weren't merely complying with the standard of dress of the era, they were engaged in a radical act by dressing that way.  I.e, by dressing to the Middle Class standard, they were proclaiming that they were not, and had no intention of being, somebody's second class hired hand.

Okay, let's deep dive on this a little deeper.

The First Things article points out that while, over a long stretch of time, dress became more informal, it still retained formal elements in an unchallenged fashion up until the 1960s, when this really began to erode.  Indeed, just recently, and coincidentally, this was illustrated in something I happened to watch on television, that being an older documentary, narrated by a very young Jeff Bridges, regarding a Creedance Clearwater Revival tour of Europe.  The documentary went into the history of the band, which was at that time fairly short.  The group originated in El Cerrito California, a Bay Area city, and performed under the name The Blue Velvets, Vision, and then the Golliwogs, before changing its name to the final variant. As early as 1964 they had a record contract.

The band basically had a mid 1960s hiatus due to the military service of three of its members. The remarkable thing about this is that in 1964 photos of the members show them all turned out with short hair, sports jackets, and ties. They look like, well. . . a collection of young college men of that era.  By the late 1960s, however, they had their familiar appearance.

Creedance Clearwater Revival in 1968.

The clothing standards had changed.

But why?

They'd actually begun to change in the 1950s, but that didn't create a switch overnight. And in fairness, the change of the 1960s didn't change everything overnight, either.

In the 50s, the challenge to the existing clothing standards started with certain sections of "rebellious" youth sporting leather jackets and Levis.  At the time, that identified them, intentionally, with the working class, the only class that had worn blue jeans routinely, and also with the post Second World War motorcycle gangs.  It caused a spike in popularity of blue jeans, however, which rapidly entered general wear among teenagers and younger adults.  This carried over into the late 1960s, when widespread youth protests movements broke out everywhere. But that time, as a symbol of uniform rejection of their parents' generation, a section of the Boomers adopted really outlandish styles, while others simply adopted styles that, once again, reflected working men's clothing to some extent.  The rebellion became wide enough that the dress code was basically cracked, and formal clothing attempted to mimic it, modifying the style of suits and semiformal clothing of the era.

While the fashion industry did attempt to retain the suit, and successfully for a while, the reaction was with designs so hideous that they would ultimately be self-defeating. And by that time, the damage had been done.  It had particularly been done among the younger demographic, which would basically grow up suitless.

I'm an example of that.  From photographs, I know that my father frequently wore suits in the 1950s. although annual photos from the 40s show that not occuring at all in high school.  No ties either.  I recall him having a pretty nice suit in the 1960s and early 1970s, although I don't recall him wearing it often.  In the 1970s, when he left for his office, he normally wore a sports coat and tie, and I very much remember that.  Indeed, he worse wingtip shoes nearly every day.  But as a kid in school, at no time did I ever have clothing that required a tie or even a dress shirt.  I recall a blue button down shirt being bought for me when I was in grade school for some reason, and a double-breasted blue blazer.  It was probably for a wedding, but I can barely remember ever wearing it.

By junior high, I lacked any such formal clothing at all, and that's significant.  I went into high school the same way.  The only time you ever saw any kid wearing a tie, for anything, in high school, was when the JrROTC cadets had to wear their uniforms, which was once a week.  I got all the way through high school without ever wearing a tie to anything, including by my recollection my high school graduation, at which point my parents tried to by me some dress pants. Those pants were horrible powder blue polyester pants, the only thing readily available, and I only wore them once.

Dancing Zoot Suiters. Apparently the photographer was so fascinated he forgot to include the heads of the dancers in the photograph.

The first time I can recall wearing a tie, post high school, was in basic training. The Army dress uniform at that time was the Green Pickle Suit, and it had a black regular tie you had to learn how to tie.  The current Army dress uniform still does.  As a college undergrad, I took the position that I was "never going to have a job that required wearing a tie", which means that there were still those who did that every day.  Indeed, college professors often did at that time, and that was common, I'll note, all the way through to my law school graduation in 1990.

Still, I didn't wear ties very often.  Probably the only time in my undergrad years that I did was when I was attending weddings or funerals.  The first suit I owned was one that I bought, I think, in 1986 for a friend's wedding.  

All of this is somewhat significant, by way of an illustration, as during this time I would have done things that only twenty years prior would have required coat and tie, although I never thought of it in that fashion.  Simply going to university would have.  Going out on dates would have.  When I was an undergrad, however, the only thing that really did were attending weddings and funerals.

For some of that time, the reason for this was that I was a geology major, and as a geology major I hung out mostly with other geology majors.  Everyone I knew was outdoorsy, and the clothing we had was outdoorsy.  But by the late 1980s the expectation that a young man (it was less true for young women) would have any sort of "dress up" clothing had simply evaporated.

When I was first practicing law it remained, however, ad we were expected to wear ties most days, unless we were only going to be in the office, or it was summer during which summertime office rules allowed for polo shirts, although they were tolerated only with the greatest expressed reluctance by the office manager.  In court, in the summer, we could dispense with the jacket, but never the tie.  But this was the office.  When I started dating my wife, I never wore formal clothes, and as far as I can tell, she never expected me to.

Now, due to this evolution, a lot of people don't even have formal clothing. And it's eroded enormously even in the law.  People go to depositions, for example, dressed in jeans and button down shirts, and by people, I mean the lawyers.  At an administrative hearing I was at the other day, at least a couple of lawyers were there without ties, something that up until very recently would never have occurred.

During the January 6 hearings, mentioned way above, some of the witnesses were in t-shirts, disheveled button downs, and very few of the men wore ties.  Up until very recently, it's simply impossible to imagine somebody appearing in front of Congress in a t-shirt, let alone without a tie.  It would have been regarded as rude and disrespectful, which is frankly just how it struck me.

I mentioned the Denver County jury above, and this provides an interesting example.  Denver County is downtown Denver, and it's the heart of the city's financial and business district.  If a jury had been drawn from there as late as the 1960s, the men would have largely showed up in at least coat and tie and the women in something relatively formal.  By the 70s, this wouldn't have been true, but their dress would have still been fairly clean and not extraordinarily casual. [1]

In the 2020s, however, jurors show up in shots and t-shirts, to a large degree.

So the question becomes, does all of this matter?

I think that it does.  Here's why.

We've gone over it before, but something deep inside of human beings causes there to be an instinct in regard to dress and message.  All peoples, everywhere, exhibit this behavior.  Even societies that have a large scale lack of clothing do this, even it comes down to wearing something ornamental.  Men dress differently than women, everywhere, and everywhere people dress differently based on their status and occupation in life.

Some societies have attempted to purposely destroy this from time to time, the Red Chinese following the Revolution providing a particularly notable example.  Everyone dressed in a suit like Mao, men and women, assuming that they weren't working in a field.  The idea was to wipe out class distinction.

It didn't work, and ultimately the Chinese gave up on it.  Now, the Chinese elite wear suits.

As part of the distinctions that this brings, it also singles out those of particularly special distinction.  And beyond that, it signals when certain events are particularly significant.

We've really lost that.

And in losing it, oddly enough, we've separated society at large all the more from people whom still retain the standard for some distinct reason.  Clerics, for example, continue to wear black suits and Roman collars, as they have for eons. But if you see a photograph of, let's say, a Catholic Priest in the 1940s, except when in his vestments, the distinction between him and his flock, while real, isn't all that great as a rule.  Now he's singled out like no other.

And that quite frank is something that's overlooked in this area.  It's common to hear that the collapse of the dress code leveled things out as now everybody looks the same, more or less, even though that's not really true.  Indeed, those who work in heavy industry don't look the same, as their clothing remains highly specialized, and that's true of others as well. But what isn't noticed as much is that as some people remain in occupations which, for various reasons, a formal code appears in some setting, those who could have claimed some portion of that status have lost it, at least a little.  Now those who must wear it are set out as truly separate and apart, as if they're truly above everyone else.

And the loss of the standard has contributed, a bit, to the concept that nothing is really specialized, or special, to some degree.

Court provides a good example of both.  A small businessman appearing in court with a lawyer, or a mechanic, may not have had a suit that was as nice as the lawyers, but if he had one, it said that he was a professional too, just of a different type.  The lack of one suggests he's not.  And court is a special setting, which deserves acknowledgement of its status, just as Congress, or a legislature, or perhaps numerous other settings are, or should be.

But is there any going back, at least in part?

If there is, it isn't obvious.

Footnotes:

1.  This is much less true of female lawyers, for some reason. They largley continue to adhere to a higher dress code.

2.  I've written about this before, but its intersting how this applies so much to New Yorkers.  In the early 20th Century the United States had two Presidents from New York, both Roosevelts, who had very distinct upper class New York accents.  Their speech was distinct and polished.  In contrast, we just had President Trump who has affected the odd Goodfella style of speech mixed in with a personal style of speaking that's odd and sometimes oddly childish.

3.  Distinctions remained with very formal clothing, which was the province of the well to do.  If you look at wedding photographs, for instance, taken up until the 1970s, average middle class men tended to wear a suit that they already had, as did the male wedding party.  Women's clothing was different, but men came in a suit that they othewise wore to other things, including work.  If you see tuxedos in evidence, it's an indication of wealth.

4.  Porters were often African American, and all Pullman Porters were.  The reason for the latter has been explained to me by a person who remembered them by way of "people liked to be served by black people", so it was racist in nature, but in a very odd fashion in that the job paid fairly well.   The Pullman company's porters actualy contributed to the rise of the black middle class both through their pay, but also because they traveled widely and were a source of information to African Ameican communities.  They also interacted with European Americans routinely and becuse of their sharp appearance generally left a good impression. They remained an all black institution up until the Pullman company went out of business in 1969.

5. This photograph is also intersting in that it shows how much police uniforms have changed since the 1960s.  These mounted policemen are all wearing leather jackets, something that became very common with policement starting in the 1920s, depending upon their roles.  At first heavily associated with motorcycle policemen, by the post World War Two period some departments issued leather jackets to every patrolman.  Chicago actually issued a fur collared leather jacket up until 1965, at which time they went to another one that was more like a Second World War flight jacket which was issued until 2013.  Current mounted policemen would wear a helmet, rather than a peaked cap, something that came into mounted police use following World War Two.

Related threads:

































Saturday, October 7, 1922. Accidents and Incidents.


On this day in 1922, an Allied Commission agreed that East Thrace would become Turkish territory, although the Greeks would have thirty days in which to withdraw from the territory.

An automobile accident happened at 13th and S in Washington, D.C.


U.S. troops engaged in a mock battle for an audience.





The New York Giants won the fourth game of the 1922 World Series, 4 to 3, in a game taking under two hours.



Oh no. .

Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse to resign his Senate seat to become University of Florida president, source tells CNN


Don't do it, Senator Sasse.

A pardon isn't an endorsement, or shouldn't be.

Probably the right thing to do.

Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform

OCTOBER 06, 2022

STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

As I often said during my campaign for President, no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana.  Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit. Criminal records for marijuana possession have also imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities.  And while white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.

Today, I am announcing three steps that I am taking to end this failed approach.

First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana.  I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals.  There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.  My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions.

Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses.  Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.  Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances.  This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic. 

Finally, even as federal and state regulation of marijuana changes, important limitations on trafficking, marketing, and under-age sales should stay in place.

Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana.  It’s time that we right these wrongs. 

Be that as it may, this nation doesn't need to be any more stoned than it already is.  It says that something is deeply wrong with things.

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Friday, October 6, 1922. Expanding Prohibition on the Sea and Setting Records in the Air.

The United States issued an order requiring all American flagged ships to be free of alcohol, and all foreign ships entering U.S. waters to be alcohol-free as well.  The order went into effect on October 14.

These photos of a confiscated still were taken on the same day.



Two U.S. Army pilots set a new record by remaining in the air for two days in a Fokker T-2. The endurance feat took place at Rockwell Field, California.

Fokker T-2.

The plane had been modified to allow for dual controls and extra fuel.  When it took off, its weight exceeded its maximum normal payload.  Only two T-2s were made, and both were acquired by the U.S. Army.