1) Keith Olbermann's impassioned, yet admirably composed, special comment on Geraldine Ferraro's remarks.
2) Code Pink and Rep. Nita Lowey ensuring that free speech prevails over fascism in our most public of forums.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Today's Highlights
With all the media abuzz about the Spitzer scandal, just a couple things I wanted to make sure you didn't miss...
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Geraldine Ferraro's Remarks
Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. But, the comment did pique my interest about the relative successes of women and African Americans in politics. For some fast facts, see the following Washinton Post article, data from the Women in Congress website, and list of African Americans in Congress from Wikipedia (plus a little reflection on the fact that there have only been three post-Reconstruction black Senators.)
Monday, March 10, 2008
On Fish's "When Identity Politics Is Rational"
Stanley Fish's essay on identity politics, he asks "Is it so irrational and retrograde to base one’s vote on the gender or race of [sic] religion or ethnicity of a candidate?" Here is Fish's example of when identity politics is rational:
-- (Premise 1) Identity group members share unique experiences
-- (Sub-conc from P1) Group members share a unique viewpoint on the issues
-- (Premise 2) Non-group members are less likely to have had he same experiences as in-group members
-- (Sub-conc from P2) Non-group members are less likely to share the group's viewpoint on the issues, or even less likely to recognize the issues as issues at all
-- (Conclusion) Group members are more likely and more able to fight on the issues important to members of the group
Unfortunately for Fish, this example makes identity politics "rational" only in the most trivial sense. (I'm picking up here on a comment on Fish's essay, that Fish himself points out in a follow-up to his essay. Unlike blogger Nathan Nahm, though, I will not try to push Fish into the ethical realm. I will merely try to push him into a more substantive look at the "rationality" he has purported to establish.) It seems to me that the only rationality Fish has proven with his example is that peolpe have reasons for practicing identity politics (or more accurately, reasons for practicing the subset of 'interest' identity politics that Fish defines). But this standard is truly trivial. People have reasons to support any number of bad arguments. People have reasons for believing we never landed on the moon, reasons for killing other people, reasons for voting Republican. Plenty of arguments are supported by reasons, but are nonetheless incoherent arguments.
Yet every African American – conservative or liberal, rich or poor, barely educated or highly educated – meets with obstacles to his or success and mobility that are all the more frustrating because they are structural (built into the culture’s ways of perceiving) rather than official. To the non- African American these obstacles will be more or less invisible, especially in a country where access to opportunity is guaranteed by law. It makes sense, therefore, that an African American voter could come to the conclusion that an African American candidate would be likely to fight for changes that could remove barriers a white candidate might not even see.Here's how I see this argument breaking down, in simplified parts:
-- (Premise 1) Identity group members share unique experiences
-- (Sub-conc from P1) Group members share a unique viewpoint on the issues
-- (Premise 2) Non-group members are less likely to have had he same experiences as in-group members
-- (Sub-conc from P2) Non-group members are less likely to share the group's viewpoint on the issues, or even less likely to recognize the issues as issues at all
-- (Conclusion) Group members are more likely and more able to fight on the issues important to members of the group
Unfortunately for Fish, this example makes identity politics "rational" only in the most trivial sense. (I'm picking up here on a comment on Fish's essay, that Fish himself points out in a follow-up to his essay. Unlike blogger Nathan Nahm, though, I will not try to push Fish into the ethical realm. I will merely try to push him into a more substantive look at the "rationality" he has purported to establish.) It seems to me that the only rationality Fish has proven with his example is that peolpe have reasons for practicing identity politics (or more accurately, reasons for practicing the subset of 'interest' identity politics that Fish defines). But this standard is truly trivial. People have reasons to support any number of bad arguments. People have reasons for believing we never landed on the moon, reasons for killing other people, reasons for voting Republican. Plenty of arguments are supported by reasons, but are nonetheless incoherent arguments.
I don't mean to insult Prof. Fish. He is obviously well aware of the distinction between reasons and good/relevant reasons. He draws this distinction himself when criticizing 'tribal' interest politics ("'Because she is a woman as I am' is of course a reason, but it is not a reason of the relevant kind, a reason that cites goals and programs, and argues for them"). So what is the difference in the reasons given for 'tribal' indentity politics and 'interest' indentity politics? It appears Fish tries to establish that the reasons grounding 'interest' identity politics are tied to the issues -- they are just like any other interest. But if we look more closely at the argument, we see that the connection between the issues and 'interest' identity politics is tenuous at best.
I'll concede that the sample argument is valid -- the main conclusion certainly follows from the premises and inferences. If that's all Fish was going for, then kudos to him. But I'll reiterate, I find this accomplishment fairly trivial. I could argue: "All pigs have wings; all things with wings can fly; therefore, pigs can fly." I just provided a valid argument. So apparenlty, by Fish's standard in this article, people who think pigs can fly are completely rational. The question everyone actually cares about is whether the argument is sound. Fish seems like he might not actually be interested in this question. He doesn't hold against 'interest' identity politics that "the calculation [to favor a candidate based on identity] may or may not pan out (successful candidates both disappoint and surprise), but it is a calculation of the right kind." But I'd don't think we'd be as sympathetic to the man left with a dead pig after throwing it from his roof as Fish is being towards practictioners of identity politics. And I don't mean that in a normativity-laden way. I'm not asking Fish to step into the moral/ethical/social realm to answer this question. I'm asking him to critique the premises, inferences, and soundness of the argument with the same rigor he defended its validity. If we know the premises to be false, or the inferences along the way to be invalid, then we shouldn't be surprised when the pig can't fly. (More true to the analogy -- we have no good reason to throw the pig off the roof and believe it will fly.)
So, here are the two main problems I see in the argumentative structure of 'interest' identity politics. They are, in some ways, a re-focused reiteration of the problems with identity politics that Fish sought to show do not make identity politics irrational in the first place. My point is to show that he hasn't explained these problems away. Rather, they are the very problems standing in the way of the substantive ethical-netural/value-netural rationality of 'interest' identity politics.
1) The premises are false. A coherent notion of identity politics relies upon a coherent notion of identity. Fish dismisses the disparate ideas and experiences within various groups as irrelevant to the question of identity politics. At the same time, he ignores the possibility of strikingly similar ideas and experiences among widely disparate identity groups. But the sample rational argument from an interest identity voter is premised on the fact that identity groups share something exclusive and unique. For a counterexample to this premise, look no further than Toni Morrison's oft-quoted article on Bill Clinton as the first black president. She says, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." This might seem like a small and insignificant step away from Fish's point. What's the difference between African Americans practicing 'interest' identity politics with another African American and practicing 'interest' identity politics with someone with African American-like experiences? Is it really any different, any more rational? Absolutely. That difference is at the core of this debate. Fish might be right that some "identity" voting is rational. But it is not along the hard and fast lines of identity that Fish thinks define indentity voting ("when you vote for or against someone because of his or her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation"). Even if an identity group votes on the premise that the politician's experience gives that politician a unique understanding of the issues important to the group, that experience (and thus that understanding) demonstrably does not break down along distinctions of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. To work under such an assumption would be no better than working under the assumption that pigs have wings.2) The sub-conclusions are not justified. This second point is empirically testable. One could conduct a survey of any given identity group, scoring the issues most important to that group. Then, one could look at how well the proposed and enacted legislation of a politician of that identity group correlates to the needs and ideas of the group, compared to other non-group politicians. I obviously don't have such statistics. I would bet the expected identity match up would sometimes come out on top. Sometimes there would be a tie. Sometimes the non-identity politician might come out on top. The high likelihodd that there would be such a diversity of outcomes is enough to show that this is not a "calculation of the right kind." This point is also linked directly to my points in (1). A man who has spent years in the Hanoi Hilton might have a better understanding of the deep importance of control over one's own body than a wealthy girl from a liberal family whose freedom of choice was never challenged. And no, I'm not saying McCain is stronger on women's rights than Hillary -- it's just a hypothetical -- I have enormous respect for Hillary's great escape from her conservative family. But a more important indicator than man, woman, P-O-W, or P-O-GOP, is a critical look at a candidate's background and voting record.
As a final point, with a little twist of irony, it seems to me that the 'tribal' indentity politics, which Fish seems to dismiss offhand, actually might be the most rational type of identity politics. Fish cursorily brushes past the idea that "it is possible to argue that the election of a black or female president, no matter what his or positions happen to be, will be more than a symbolic correction of the errors that have marred the country’s history, and an important international statement as well." Like Fish, I'll avoid making a firm value judgment about this kind of argument. But as much as we strive to be race-blind, color-bling, sexuality-blind, etc, these distinctions are obviously very much at play in our discourse and in our lives. Perception of the group by other groups, and self-perception of the group from within will undoubtedly be altered by the election of a marginalized figure to the highest office in the land. It then becomes a balancing act, a value judgment, whether any merits derived from the election would outweigh / complement various policy proposals. While I don't think such an argument about women and blacks can tip the scales when both a woman and an African American are in the race (OK, so maybe just a little value judgment!), the rudimentary 'tribal' version may be the most sound and coherent way in which identity politics can function.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Get Me to the Caucus on Time!
There has been a lot of noise from the Clinton campaign over the legitimacy of caucuses. After her disappointing performance in Iowa and with things looking grim in Nevada, Hillary claimed that caucuses "disenfranchise" voters from the process. A few days later, Hillary seemed fairly content with disenfranchisement, heralding it as "how the West was won!" And if Hillary really thought caucuses were undemocratic, wouldn't she have made an effort to change the process at some point in her vast 35 years of experience? Even just from this simple example, I think it's clear that most of the debate about caucusing has been mere political maneuvering to belittle Obama's many caucus victories.
But putting hypocrisy aside for a moment, I am sympathetic to the worry about caucuses. Why does 1-2% of a state's population determine the entire state's delegation? How undemocratic! If we look a little closer, though, I think we can see how caucusing really is a manifestation of democracy at its best.
1) Turnout. 1.3% of Idahoans voted in the state's Democratic caucus. About the same percentage of Kansans went out to vote. A whopping 2.3% of Nebraskans caucused. But I say "whopping" only somewhat facetiously. Look at the percentage of voters that voted in Hillary's heralded "big states." 12% of Californians and 9.5% of New Yorkers voted on Super Tuesday. The difference is not unsubstantial, obviously, but it is not very impressive either. Wouldn't you hope that these big states, the heart and soul of the Democratic party with huge percentages of registered Democrats, would draw a bit more of a crowd? Now, I don't intend to present these figures as a knock-down argument in favor of caucuses. They are, however, a reminder that we should reserve any pretentions about primaries being instances of ideal democracy and universal participation as opposed to the horridly undemocratic leave-voters-in-the-cold caucuses.
The real problem is not that voters are left out in the cold. The real problem is that so many people aren't motivated to go out and vote at all. It isn't caucuses that have disenfranchised voters. Politics-as-usual, breeding distrust and apathy toward government, has disenfranchised voters. So isn't it at least somewhat impressive that, in stalwart Republican states like Kansas, voting increased by up to 28 times what it was in 2004? (Yes, really, 28x. 1,300 Kansans caucused in 2004 compared to 37,000 in 2008). With overhwleming majorities of the voters in states like these going to Obama, he deserves most of the credit for these impressive increases. Obama's enormous influence on increased voter turnout, new voter turnout, and voter party-crossover is consistent across all states -- primary or caucus. Just one indication that small caucuses really might be representative of larger trends -- and at the very least no less so than primaries.
2) Accountability. I mentioned in my first post that the creation of this blog was motivated by several instances of people refusing to actually talk about the election. Several young, intelligent, well-educated friends (literally some of the intellectual elite of our country) have refused to have any kind of debate about the candidates. Some told me it is "private," others told me they had "done their research and made up their mind." I find both of these excuses unacceptable. We don't live in Jim Crow America anymore. Noone is being physically coerced or threatened into voting a certain way. But, as a fundamental principle of democracy, our ideas must be challenged. I am an adamant believer in the marketplace of ideas (one of the few places I'm comfortable just letting the market work its magic!). I subscribe to Louis Brandeis' famous saying that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." It is our responsibility as citizens not only to know about the issues facing our country and our elected leaders, but also to engage in the conversation about those issues with our fellow citizens. If we are to acheive any sort of solidarity, any true sense of a democracy -- a nation governed by the popular will -- then we cannot merely understand the issues from the cold flourescent lights of our own rooms. We need to see them in the light of day, we need to see the way our fellow Americans see them. The "issues" are not just questions of logic to be sorted out in a bubble. They are the forces acting in the lives of every American. So, in order to understand the issues, we need to understand each other.
This year's Iowa caucus was the first time I ever gave caucusing much attention. I hosted a caucus night watch party. But because of that, I have a room full of people who can attest to the fact that I was somewhat enamored with caucuses before I had any idea that they would end in such favorable results for Obama. As I watched Iowans caucus in Des Moines, articulating their positions on the candidates as well as, if not better than, most of my Ivy educated friends (including, perhaps, even myself!), I felt such an overwhelming pride in our political process. Caucuses are a beautiful display of democracy in action.
Looking at a caucus in this way makes one much more skeptical of downplaying the 1-2% of citizens who participate in caucuses. I am absolutely more comfortable allowing 2% of people to choose our future leaders than 10% people if I know, as I do about caucus states, that the 2% that have had the opportunity talk out the issues with their friends, neighbors, and complete strangers, while the 10% might be walking into the voting booth with nothing more than punditry and political spin -- having had no real opportunity to shed some sunlight on their ideas. But when the sunlight is shed on the roots of democracy inherent in caucusing, I find it unsurprising that Obama has fared so well in caucus states.
3) Participation & Activisim. As a final piece of the puzzle, I think it is important to highlight that any discrepancy between how Hillary and Barack have run in primaries and caucuses is not an indication of who is more electable (see my recent post on the new SurveyUSA polls -- both are electable). Additionally, Barack has not run as poorly in the primaries as people have tried to suggest. If he were merely winning big in caucuses and flopping in primaries, he wouldn't still be ahead in the popular vote (even if you count Florida!).
Rather, the primary/caucus discrepancy is a clear indication of how our government would operate under each administration. Voting in primaries is an exercise in passive participation in government. Caucusing is an exercise in grassroots organization and activism. The power people have exercised in caucusing is exactly the kind of participation and activism that Obama will use to deliver the change he promises. In fact, such participation and activism is an essential piece of the change itself. Everyone admits that Hillary and Obama are 97% the same on policy proposals. So, people ask, where is the "Change?" The Change is not just a change in ideas. It is a fundamental change in the way our government functions. No more politicians in their ivory tower in Washington with apathetic citizens who have no desire to participate, or merely to participate nominally. Change comes from people who are willing to go to their public schools, their gyms, their street corners, the doors of their Representatives' offices and demand that their ideas be heard. This is why Obama's ability to inspire is not to be downplayed. Thanks to Obama, vastly more people are motivated to be active, engaged, sunlight-oriented citizens. That's what we've seen in the caucuses. And that's what we'll see for years when Obama is president.
ADDENDUM
As I was gathering some notes yesterday, this post felt a little bit like a leftover from January. Leftover, that is, until recent reporting about a new Michigan caucus to re-seat the delegates, and Hillary's statement that she will not accept a caucus. I hope some of my comments here will work their way into the public debate, before just assume that a caucus is an automatic and/or meaningless win for Obama.
But putting hypocrisy aside for a moment, I am sympathetic to the worry about caucuses. Why does 1-2% of a state's population determine the entire state's delegation? How undemocratic! If we look a little closer, though, I think we can see how caucusing really is a manifestation of democracy at its best.
1) Turnout. 1.3% of Idahoans voted in the state's Democratic caucus. About the same percentage of Kansans went out to vote. A whopping 2.3% of Nebraskans caucused. But I say "whopping" only somewhat facetiously. Look at the percentage of voters that voted in Hillary's heralded "big states." 12% of Californians and 9.5% of New Yorkers voted on Super Tuesday. The difference is not unsubstantial, obviously, but it is not very impressive either. Wouldn't you hope that these big states, the heart and soul of the Democratic party with huge percentages of registered Democrats, would draw a bit more of a crowd? Now, I don't intend to present these figures as a knock-down argument in favor of caucuses. They are, however, a reminder that we should reserve any pretentions about primaries being instances of ideal democracy and universal participation as opposed to the horridly undemocratic leave-voters-in-the-cold caucuses.
The real problem is not that voters are left out in the cold. The real problem is that so many people aren't motivated to go out and vote at all. It isn't caucuses that have disenfranchised voters. Politics-as-usual, breeding distrust and apathy toward government, has disenfranchised voters. So isn't it at least somewhat impressive that, in stalwart Republican states like Kansas, voting increased by up to 28 times what it was in 2004? (Yes, really, 28x. 1,300 Kansans caucused in 2004 compared to 37,000 in 2008). With overhwleming majorities of the voters in states like these going to Obama, he deserves most of the credit for these impressive increases. Obama's enormous influence on increased voter turnout, new voter turnout, and voter party-crossover is consistent across all states -- primary or caucus. Just one indication that small caucuses really might be representative of larger trends -- and at the very least no less so than primaries.
2) Accountability. I mentioned in my first post that the creation of this blog was motivated by several instances of people refusing to actually talk about the election. Several young, intelligent, well-educated friends (literally some of the intellectual elite of our country) have refused to have any kind of debate about the candidates. Some told me it is "private," others told me they had "done their research and made up their mind." I find both of these excuses unacceptable. We don't live in Jim Crow America anymore. Noone is being physically coerced or threatened into voting a certain way. But, as a fundamental principle of democracy, our ideas must be challenged. I am an adamant believer in the marketplace of ideas (one of the few places I'm comfortable just letting the market work its magic!). I subscribe to Louis Brandeis' famous saying that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." It is our responsibility as citizens not only to know about the issues facing our country and our elected leaders, but also to engage in the conversation about those issues with our fellow citizens. If we are to acheive any sort of solidarity, any true sense of a democracy -- a nation governed by the popular will -- then we cannot merely understand the issues from the cold flourescent lights of our own rooms. We need to see them in the light of day, we need to see the way our fellow Americans see them. The "issues" are not just questions of logic to be sorted out in a bubble. They are the forces acting in the lives of every American. So, in order to understand the issues, we need to understand each other.
This year's Iowa caucus was the first time I ever gave caucusing much attention. I hosted a caucus night watch party. But because of that, I have a room full of people who can attest to the fact that I was somewhat enamored with caucuses before I had any idea that they would end in such favorable results for Obama. As I watched Iowans caucus in Des Moines, articulating their positions on the candidates as well as, if not better than, most of my Ivy educated friends (including, perhaps, even myself!), I felt such an overwhelming pride in our political process. Caucuses are a beautiful display of democracy in action.
Looking at a caucus in this way makes one much more skeptical of downplaying the 1-2% of citizens who participate in caucuses. I am absolutely more comfortable allowing 2% of people to choose our future leaders than 10% people if I know, as I do about caucus states, that the 2% that have had the opportunity talk out the issues with their friends, neighbors, and complete strangers, while the 10% might be walking into the voting booth with nothing more than punditry and political spin -- having had no real opportunity to shed some sunlight on their ideas. But when the sunlight is shed on the roots of democracy inherent in caucusing, I find it unsurprising that Obama has fared so well in caucus states.
3) Participation & Activisim. As a final piece of the puzzle, I think it is important to highlight that any discrepancy between how Hillary and Barack have run in primaries and caucuses is not an indication of who is more electable (see my recent post on the new SurveyUSA polls -- both are electable). Additionally, Barack has not run as poorly in the primaries as people have tried to suggest. If he were merely winning big in caucuses and flopping in primaries, he wouldn't still be ahead in the popular vote (even if you count Florida!).
Rather, the primary/caucus discrepancy is a clear indication of how our government would operate under each administration. Voting in primaries is an exercise in passive participation in government. Caucusing is an exercise in grassroots organization and activism. The power people have exercised in caucusing is exactly the kind of participation and activism that Obama will use to deliver the change he promises. In fact, such participation and activism is an essential piece of the change itself. Everyone admits that Hillary and Obama are 97% the same on policy proposals. So, people ask, where is the "Change?" The Change is not just a change in ideas. It is a fundamental change in the way our government functions. No more politicians in their ivory tower in Washington with apathetic citizens who have no desire to participate, or merely to participate nominally. Change comes from people who are willing to go to their public schools, their gyms, their street corners, the doors of their Representatives' offices and demand that their ideas be heard. This is why Obama's ability to inspire is not to be downplayed. Thanks to Obama, vastly more people are motivated to be active, engaged, sunlight-oriented citizens. That's what we've seen in the caucuses. And that's what we'll see for years when Obama is president.
ADDENDUM
As I was gathering some notes yesterday, this post felt a little bit like a leftover from January. Leftover, that is, until recent reporting about a new Michigan caucus to re-seat the delegates, and Hillary's statement that she will not accept a caucus. I hope some of my comments here will work their way into the public debate, before just assume that a caucus is an automatic and/or meaningless win for Obama.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Electability
Despite the contradiction of popular knowledge that has dominated this election season, it's fun to take a look at SurveyUSA's latest state-by-state survey, which adds up electoral college allocations. It puts both Obama and Clinton on top, though some of the margins in both races are perilous.
Nonetheless, my takeaway: Obama adds blue states to the map Democrats could never have imagined in 2000 or 2004. Clinton puts Democrats in a too-close-for-comfort race in Michigan, and the same do or die battle for Florida that hasn't worked out so well in the past two elections...
Nonetheless, my takeaway: Obama adds blue states to the map Democrats could never have imagined in 2000 or 2004. Clinton puts Democrats in a too-close-for-comfort race in Michigan, and the same do or die battle for Florida that hasn't worked out so well in the past two elections...
Silly Season Scorecard
After the latest ridiculous statement from Howard Wolfson, I can't continue to stomach the fact that Hillary has owned the "victim" rhetoric. Who has really been attacking whom unfairly? Who is really engaging in Ken Starr / Karl Rove politics? Well, to be fair, neither of the Democratic candidates are that low. But my intuition tells me that one side is launching more petty political attacks than it is debating real substantive differences.
So...let's tally it up. Here is a list of the major "attacks" launched by both campaigns, on a scale of utterly petty, frivolous and misleading (10) to wholly substantive and dealing with the issues (1).
Clinton Camp - Total Silly Scale Points = 61 / Silly Scale Average = 6.78
- Obama has wanted to be president since Kindergarten. Who's the over-ambitious, entitlement-complex candidate now? Do we even have to address this one. Silly scale says: 10.
- Obama plagiarized from (his national co-chairman) Deval Patrick. I think Clinton's swan song remarks at the Texas debate that "plagiarized" both John Edwards and good ol' Bill were enough to put a nail in this one. Will give her points just because any possibility of plagiarism should be taken seriously. Silly scale says: 7.
- Obama's denunciation of NAFTA was mere political positioning. Points here for actually dealing with an issue whatsoever. Though, once again, the nature of the criticism was frivolous and unsubstantiated. Silly scale says: 5.
- Obama is all speech and no substance. This attack really really wants to be a substantive critique, but falls far short. If Clinton wanted to have debates on actual pieces of Obama's record, or the missing pieces of Obama's record, then maybe there would be some actual substantive critique. But a substanceless attack on substanceless is about as substanceless as it gets. Here are some cliffsnotes on the candidates' legislative records. Hillary, take a look. Then let's talk. (And while we're at it, a quick interlude about speeches and inspiration). Silly scale says: 7.
- The "Dressed" Obama Photo. No real confirmation that this came out of the Clinton camp, so we have to give her some benefit of the doubt. But taken in tandem with Hillary's bizarrely evasive response to whether Obama is a muslim, this seems like a pretty insidious attempt to drive people apart because of their religion, and to perpetuate internet rumors about Obama's secret Islamic extremist plan to destroy the country (Good thing we'll have John McCain to protect us if these attacks work and Hillary is the nominee!). Silly scale says: 7.
- Obama's health care plan leaves out $15 million people. Aside from the distortion that Hillary's plan, unlike Obama's, is "truly universal" there is real substantive debate here. While I may not agree, there is a legitimate question about the best/most efficient way to cover the most people. Silly scale says: 2.
- Obama is like Karl Rove for criticizing Hillary's mandates. Hillary finally seemed like she was talking substance on health care, until she couldn't actually have the debate without making the ridiculous comparison of Obama to Karl Rove. If anything, Hillary's attempt to pretend that Obama's plan is not true to core Democratic values is the more insidious attack. Silly scale says: 8.
- Obama is like Ken Starr for asking for the Clinton tax returns. Hmm...you're right Hillary, lack of disclosure and accountability has never been a problem in Washington. Guess we should let this one slide. Silly scale says: 8.
- Obama needs to come clean about Rezko. Two words: Peter Paul. Silly scale says: 7.
Obama Camp - Total Silly Scale Points = 12 / Silly Scale Average = 3
- Hillary's health care plan forces people to buy health care. This is just fact, and on topic. Hillary made mandates the centerpiece of the distinction between her an Barack's plan. Now she's dealing with the consequences and re-living one of the reasons she couldn't make health care reform happen in 1993. A point off for Obama using the language of "coercion" -- not inaccurate, but slightly inappropriate for such an advocate of the welfare state. Silly scale says: 2
- Hillary supported NAFTA. Again, just fact, and on topic. Hillary's record on NAFTA might have been more nuanced than Obama cared to put in a flier, but her support of NAFTA is undeniable. Silly scale says: 2.
- Hillary needs to release her tax returns. See Obama is like Ken Starr for asking for the Clinton tax returns. To be fair, if the tax returns show no abnormalities Obama's pressure will seem sillier than it does at the time of this post. Though I maintain, it does not make him Ken Starr. We'll leave this one as neutral for now. Silly scale says: 5.
- Hillary is part of the old-breed of politics that invented Silly Season. I have trouble sometimes with Obama's complete dismissal of the old when Ted Kennedy is one of his banner supporters. But if my silly scale is even remotely close to accurate, to Hillary, Silly Seaon is the most wonderful time of the year. Silly scale says: 3.
A few other Silly Season highlights...
Double Team
- John McCain will keep us in Iraq for 100 years. I know McCain is a hawk. So does most of the country. But peolpe must hear the "100 years in Iraq" comments and realize Hillary and Obama are spinning McCain's words. They both look like foolish politicians, and they should stop before it backfires. Silly scale says: 8.
The New York Times
- Vicki Iseman. The speculative reporting of John McCain's relationship with Cindy-McCain-doppleganger lobbyist Vicki Iseman made it nowhere near the 'news that's fit to print.' Again, a silly ploy that just makes liberals everywhere look desperate and foolish. Silly scale says: 9.
Alright, I'm throwing this list together somewhat haphazardly in response to Wolfson's comments. Please add your own, and comment on my ratings.
Happy Silly Season!
So...let's tally it up. Here is a list of the major "attacks" launched by both campaigns, on a scale of utterly petty, frivolous and misleading (10) to wholly substantive and dealing with the issues (1).
Clinton Camp - Total Silly Scale Points = 61 / Silly Scale Average = 6.78
- Obama has wanted to be president since Kindergarten. Who's the over-ambitious, entitlement-complex candidate now? Do we even have to address this one. Silly scale says: 10.
- Obama plagiarized from (his national co-chairman) Deval Patrick. I think Clinton's swan song remarks at the Texas debate that "plagiarized" both John Edwards and good ol' Bill were enough to put a nail in this one. Will give her points just because any possibility of plagiarism should be taken seriously. Silly scale says: 7.
- Obama's denunciation of NAFTA was mere political positioning. Points here for actually dealing with an issue whatsoever. Though, once again, the nature of the criticism was frivolous and unsubstantiated. Silly scale says: 5.
- Obama is all speech and no substance. This attack really really wants to be a substantive critique, but falls far short. If Clinton wanted to have debates on actual pieces of Obama's record, or the missing pieces of Obama's record, then maybe there would be some actual substantive critique. But a substanceless attack on substanceless is about as substanceless as it gets. Here are some cliffsnotes on the candidates' legislative records. Hillary, take a look. Then let's talk. (And while we're at it, a quick interlude about speeches and inspiration). Silly scale says: 7.
- The "Dressed" Obama Photo. No real confirmation that this came out of the Clinton camp, so we have to give her some benefit of the doubt. But taken in tandem with Hillary's bizarrely evasive response to whether Obama is a muslim, this seems like a pretty insidious attempt to drive people apart because of their religion, and to perpetuate internet rumors about Obama's secret Islamic extremist plan to destroy the country (Good thing we'll have John McCain to protect us if these attacks work and Hillary is the nominee!). Silly scale says: 7.
- Obama's health care plan leaves out $15 million people. Aside from the distortion that Hillary's plan, unlike Obama's, is "truly universal" there is real substantive debate here. While I may not agree, there is a legitimate question about the best/most efficient way to cover the most people. Silly scale says: 2.
- Obama is like Karl Rove for criticizing Hillary's mandates. Hillary finally seemed like she was talking substance on health care, until she couldn't actually have the debate without making the ridiculous comparison of Obama to Karl Rove. If anything, Hillary's attempt to pretend that Obama's plan is not true to core Democratic values is the more insidious attack. Silly scale says: 8.
- Obama is like Ken Starr for asking for the Clinton tax returns. Hmm...you're right Hillary, lack of disclosure and accountability has never been a problem in Washington. Guess we should let this one slide. Silly scale says: 8.
- Obama needs to come clean about Rezko. Two words: Peter Paul. Silly scale says: 7.
Obama Camp - Total Silly Scale Points = 12 / Silly Scale Average = 3
- Hillary's health care plan forces people to buy health care. This is just fact, and on topic. Hillary made mandates the centerpiece of the distinction between her an Barack's plan. Now she's dealing with the consequences and re-living one of the reasons she couldn't make health care reform happen in 1993. A point off for Obama using the language of "coercion" -- not inaccurate, but slightly inappropriate for such an advocate of the welfare state. Silly scale says: 2
- Hillary supported NAFTA. Again, just fact, and on topic. Hillary's record on NAFTA might have been more nuanced than Obama cared to put in a flier, but her support of NAFTA is undeniable. Silly scale says: 2.
- Hillary needs to release her tax returns. See Obama is like Ken Starr for asking for the Clinton tax returns. To be fair, if the tax returns show no abnormalities Obama's pressure will seem sillier than it does at the time of this post. Though I maintain, it does not make him Ken Starr. We'll leave this one as neutral for now. Silly scale says: 5.
- Hillary is part of the old-breed of politics that invented Silly Season. I have trouble sometimes with Obama's complete dismissal of the old when Ted Kennedy is one of his banner supporters. But if my silly scale is even remotely close to accurate, to Hillary, Silly Seaon is the most wonderful time of the year. Silly scale says: 3.
A few other Silly Season highlights...
Double Team
- John McCain will keep us in Iraq for 100 years. I know McCain is a hawk. So does most of the country. But peolpe must hear the "100 years in Iraq" comments and realize Hillary and Obama are spinning McCain's words. They both look like foolish politicians, and they should stop before it backfires. Silly scale says: 8.
The New York Times
- Vicki Iseman. The speculative reporting of John McCain's relationship with Cindy-McCain-doppleganger lobbyist Vicki Iseman made it nowhere near the 'news that's fit to print.' Again, a silly ploy that just makes liberals everywhere look desperate and foolish. Silly scale says: 9.
Alright, I'm throwing this list together somewhat haphazardly in response to Wolfson's comments. Please add your own, and comment on my ratings.
Happy Silly Season!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
If It's Sunday...
Everyone loves Sundays. For traditional Italian families like mine, Sundays are defined by three events: (1) a trip to church, (2) gorging yourself at a mid-afternoon, extended-family-wide carbo-loaded meal, and (3) a late-afternoon nap induced by said carbo-loaded meal. Sunday is the day we escape from the stress and worry of the rest of the week. Sunday is the day we stop thinking about all our problems. Sunday is the day of rest.
Somehow my parents missed the memo. At 10:30AM every Sunday, snuck in between the quiet reposes of church and food, an overdramatic fanfare filled the living room and kitchen. "If it's Sunday, it's..." -- too late. Howard Reig couldn't even get out those infamous lines before the bloodbath began. Literally. Dad was often too busy insisting that Mom put down the "pinko commie rag" (which others of us know endearingly as the New York Times) to notice as he cut onions, peppers, and little chunks of his thumb into his omelette. Realizing what he'd done, his stiff demeanor would break down into a pathetic plea for a band aid. The James Carville to his Mary Matlin, Mom would make a snide comment about Newt Gingrich in response. Too easy, right?
Breakfast seamlessly transitioned into an intimate brunch with Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan. Translation: things only got worse. While Captain Russert managed to, on some level, keep the peace (role reversal, I know), the rambling bickering of the Group only lent itself to a gloves-off brawl in my living room (luckily the dishes had usually been washed at this point, or I'd probably still be discovering the shards of glass in my feet).
Mom would spout moral imperatives, and Dad would counter with pragmatic cynicism. (I always like to say that only Mom had all the right ideas, but only Dad could make really good arguments to support ideas. Egotist that I am, I like to think that I emerged from the fray with the best of both worlds.) They got thick in mid-to-late 90s debates about health care, immigration, ethics, and isolationism; and they tackled the truly deep questions like "how much is Slick Willy really responsible for the economic boom if he's just fooling around in the Oval Office?" or "just how sleazy is Kenneth Starr?" Yet miraculously, without fail, my parents heard when the fight bell rang. "Bye, bye!" Silent pause. "I love you."
After hundreds of those Sunday mornings, you might think it's a little sick and twisted that I love talking about politics. But personally, I think it makes a lot of sense. Whether they knew it or not, my parents were raising an active and interested little guy -- who would never be afraid to speak his mind. Why? Because the fight was the ideal Sunday. It was the trip to church, the meal, and the nap all in one. If you could graph the happiness and affection between my parents during their thirty plus years of marriage, I know you'd see huge spikes every 12PM on Sunday. Not because the fight was over, but because the fight had been fought.
Now, there's only one thing my parents got wrong. If 12PM on Sunday is so good, why limit it to Sunday? I'm starting this blog so the doors to thought, conversation, debate, and argument are open all the time. I'm starting this blog because I've been faced with several instances over the past several months in which people are hesitant (afraid?) to have a good old-fashioned Sunday brawl. I don't know if it's out of some sense of propriety, or ignorance, or apathy, or something else entirely. Whatever the cause, I'm claiming this blog as my place to duke it out with whomever will join me.
That's right, I'm bringing Sunday back.
Somehow my parents missed the memo. At 10:30AM every Sunday, snuck in between the quiet reposes of church and food, an overdramatic fanfare filled the living room and kitchen. "If it's Sunday, it's..." -- too late. Howard Reig couldn't even get out those infamous lines before the bloodbath began. Literally. Dad was often too busy insisting that Mom put down the "pinko commie rag" (which others of us know endearingly as the New York Times) to notice as he cut onions, peppers, and little chunks of his thumb into his omelette. Realizing what he'd done, his stiff demeanor would break down into a pathetic plea for a band aid. The James Carville to his Mary Matlin, Mom would make a snide comment about Newt Gingrich in response. Too easy, right?
Breakfast seamlessly transitioned into an intimate brunch with Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan. Translation: things only got worse. While Captain Russert managed to, on some level, keep the peace (role reversal, I know), the rambling bickering of the Group only lent itself to a gloves-off brawl in my living room (luckily the dishes had usually been washed at this point, or I'd probably still be discovering the shards of glass in my feet).
Mom would spout moral imperatives, and Dad would counter with pragmatic cynicism. (I always like to say that only Mom had all the right ideas, but only Dad could make really good arguments to support ideas. Egotist that I am, I like to think that I emerged from the fray with the best of both worlds.) They got thick in mid-to-late 90s debates about health care, immigration, ethics, and isolationism; and they tackled the truly deep questions like "how much is Slick Willy really responsible for the economic boom if he's just fooling around in the Oval Office?" or "just how sleazy is Kenneth Starr?" Yet miraculously, without fail, my parents heard when the fight bell rang. "Bye, bye!" Silent pause. "I love you."
After hundreds of those Sunday mornings, you might think it's a little sick and twisted that I love talking about politics. But personally, I think it makes a lot of sense. Whether they knew it or not, my parents were raising an active and interested little guy -- who would never be afraid to speak his mind. Why? Because the fight was the ideal Sunday. It was the trip to church, the meal, and the nap all in one. If you could graph the happiness and affection between my parents during their thirty plus years of marriage, I know you'd see huge spikes every 12PM on Sunday. Not because the fight was over, but because the fight had been fought.
Now, there's only one thing my parents got wrong. If 12PM on Sunday is so good, why limit it to Sunday? I'm starting this blog so the doors to thought, conversation, debate, and argument are open all the time. I'm starting this blog because I've been faced with several instances over the past several months in which people are hesitant (afraid?) to have a good old-fashioned Sunday brawl. I don't know if it's out of some sense of propriety, or ignorance, or apathy, or something else entirely. Whatever the cause, I'm claiming this blog as my place to duke it out with whomever will join me.
That's right, I'm bringing Sunday back.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)