NUMBERS

Ernest Gellner was a philosopher turned ethnographer who caused a scandal in English philosophy with his first book, Words and Things, which was a devastating attack on English ordinary language philosophy. I got to know him in the middle 50s when he visited Harvard for a year (he briefly dated my sister Barbara.) 10 years later on my way back from a conference in Italy I stopped in England and spent the night at Gellner’s home south of London. It happened to be election day in England and we sat in his small cottage watching the results being reported on his little black-and-white television set. I was mesmerized by the reports even though I knew absolutely nothing about English philosophy and had not the slightest idea what the results meant. All my life I have been drawn in this way to the detailed reporting of election results. My favorite cable news reporter in the old days was Chuck Todd who was the numbers guy on MSNBC. When Todd was promoted beyond his level of competence the job fell to Steve Kornacki who became my new favorite along with the CNN numbers guy John King. I have no idea why I am so fascinated by detailed election results. Partly, I suppose, it is just because it is numbers but it is also because the numbers represent something that is actually happening, not somebody’s opinion or commentary or interpretation.

 

Yesterday evening I spent a long while watching the C-SPAN report of the House of Representatives vote to increase the support payments to $2000 a person. The rules of the House being what they are, the motion required two thirds to pass. As most of you I am sure know, C-SPAN gives you a picture of the House on which is superimposed the number of Democrats voting yes or no and not yet voted, the same for the Republicans and for Independents and the totals yea and nay. Because of the virus, the House permits members to vote remotely through the intermediation of a member who is on the floor. There is a little ritual statement that the present members must read out for each vote they are reporting of someone not present.

 

As things got going, I noticed that there were roughly twice as many yeas as nays although for a long time not quite twice and I wondered whether the measure would pass. After a while, I saw that although the reported votes were just barely enough to give two thirds to the yeas, there were roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans who had not yet voted and since it took two Democratic votes yea to balance one Republican vote nay I had doubts that the measure would pass. Finally, all the Democrats had voted – only two voting nay – and the count was 275 yea to 136 nay – just a tad over two thirds. But there were 21 Republicans who had not voted. After a while longer the member in the chair banged her gavel and announced that the measure had passed.

 

Neither on C-SPAN nor, so far as I could make out, in any of the cable news commentary was this interesting fact commented on but it seemed obvious to me what had happened. There were a number of Republicans who were opposed to the measure but did not want to be recorded as having voted against Trump, who of course had called for the $2000 payments, so the whole affair behind the scenes was stage-managed to allow the measure to pass, thereby placating Trump, while permitting these 21 not to be forced to vote contrary to their wishes.

 

We await the action of the Senate, which either will or will not take up the measure today. Trump has claimed that McConnell promised him a vote in the Senate and it will be very interesting to see what McConnell does. My fondest hope is that McConnell brings the measure up, Loeffler and Perdue vote no, and despite that fact it passes, so that the Americans desperately in need of help get the increased amount of money and Loeffler and Perdue are forced to defend their attempt to deny the money to Georgians, thereby causing them to lose a week from today.

 

I mean, it is not too much to ask for my birthday, is it?