If there is one area of total agreement among political thumb-suckers of every stripe, it is that this year's presidential election will be won or lost in the battleground states.
California and New York? Fuhgeddaboutem. They go in the blue-state column. Texas and South Carolina? Sure-thing red states.
"What they did in Florida in 2000," John Kerry warned the Congressional Black Caucus, "they may be planning to do in battleground states all across this country this year." Dick Cheney told a town hall meeting in Milwaukee: "Wisconsin is an extraordinarily important state. It's a battleground state." Those are two of the 10 or so states in which the majority of advertising money of both campaigns is being spent.
These are the swing states, their electoral votes to be determined by the mysterious swing voter -- that person pollsters count upon not to be counted upon. Although Kerry said with some gallantry, "We're not dividing this country into red states and blue states," he may be the only one who's not. Let us now delve into the etymology of these recent additions to the American language.
For red state/blue state, I have in hand Hatchet Jobs and Hardball (Oxford, US$25), a new dictionary of political slang. Though the editor, Grant Barrett, provides no context for his entries, the citations often define themselves. Perhaps because color television was not universal until a generation ago, electoral maps were not consistent until the campaign of the president George Bush against Bill Clinton.
But on Oct. 15, 1992, a Boston Globe writer noted, "But when the anchormen turn to their electronic tote boards election night and the red states for Clinton start swamping the blue states for Bush, this will be a strange night for me." (By digging further on the Web, the reader can find that the coiner, or at least an early user, was David Nyhan, then of the Globe staff.)
On Nov. 5 of that year, after the results were in, USA Today reported someone (I'm not going to keep looking up these citations) saying, "I think it shows the lack of historical memory pundits have ... They're a lot more excited because they see a lot more blue states than red states."
That poses (not begs) the question: Why are Republicans red and Democrats blue? In France in the 1780s, revolutionaries sported a red cockade; in the European revolutions of 1848, "Red Republicans" advocated the use of force to overthrow governments and red became the color of communism. The Times of London wrote in 1848 about the battle in France "of the red Republic, as the Ultras there call themselves, against the blue -- colours being used to designate the parties as much in provincial France as in our counties in England." (A nice find, but somehow that doesn't strike me as the reason that solidly GOP states in the US are colored red on maps. Sometimes, as Sigmund Freud is said to have said, a cigar is just a cigar.)
But what about the battleground states -- where does that come from? Unfortunately, that is not covered in Barrett's dictionary, nor can it be found in the much more exhaustive 1993 edition of Safire's Political Dictionary, which I'm too busy to update. I first heard the phrase uttered by John Mitchell, the Nixon campaign manager in 1968, regarding the states in the upper Midwest, but I didn't make a note of it then, so that's not a solid citation. But thanks to my intrepid researcher, Elizabeth Phillips -- and the Library of Congress' American Memory database (www.memory.loc.gov) -- we have a coinage that will be hard for any lexicographer to antedate.
Schuyler Colfax was an Indiana congressman, later House speaker and vice president under Ulysses S. Grant. On May 18, 1860, he wrote to Abraham Lincoln of neighboring Illinois -- then a candidate for the Republican nomination for president -- that although he preferred Edward Bates, "I have had no doubt that your name was the most hopeful, around which to rally in the doubtful battleground states. Your being born in Kentucky is, of itself, a great point in your favor."
Colfax was later implicated in the Credit Mobilier scandal but should now be remembered by historians as the coiner of battleground states.
In those states, you will recall, resides the swing voter, which came before swing state. Lexicographer Barrett tracks this description of an undecided voter to an Oct. 11, 1958, observation in The New York Times: "The Republican problem in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia is to capture Democratic and swing voters to add to the usual Republican minorities." Checking the New York Times archives reveals the author -- my old Op-Ed colleague the columnist Russell Baker -- whose observation remains pertinent today. (Swing voters, it should be noted, are never called swingers; those are people who can do wild things in voting booths.)
While splashing about in the archives, I found an earlier use of swing voter, equally apt. The Washington Post reported in 1956 that the GOP candidate running for re-election as vice president said in Ohio that he was trying to "appeal to swing voters, whom we must have to win not only the presidency, which I am sure we will win, but also to elect congressmen and senators." To do that, Richard Nixon was certain "it is essential to have a type of campaign persuasive to independents and Democrats."
Since we have achieved color conformity among the mapmakers regarding sure-thing red and blue states, can we now agree upon a color for swing voters in battleground states? My recommendation: No color at all. In that way, we would have red, white and blue states.
Just a thought.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with