Liberal College Kid

On the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, the media, the twenty-four hour news networks in particular, are putting on their thinking caps and really revving up the prediction game. With the help of copious amounts of polls and apparently knowledgeable pundits, they will spend most of today and likely all of tomorrow trying to determine who will win the majority of Keystone state votes among various demographics, geographic locations and age groups. In one breath, many of them will acknowledge the fact that they are very often wrong and that polls are notoriously inaccurate (not to mention the drastically different conclusions that each individual poll finds), while continuing to supply we humble citizens with their professional predictions anyway. God bless America.

Today MSNBC has been continuously referring to a poll that they conducted in an attempt to penetrate the minds of “blue collar” voters (a term which has been used so often in the last few months that it may soon lose its meaning). This enlightening poll breaks down Pennsylvania working class voters into four very insightful groups:

1. Hunters

2. Bowlers

3. Beer Drinkers

4. Gun Owners

Ignoring, for the moment, that many of these groups are not even close to being mutually exclusive (particularly groups 1 and 4, which, if we are to believe the ubiquitously referenced logic for pro-gun legislation, should be the same exact people), it is very interesting, in light of the recent charges of “elitism” being throw around so carelessly, that MSNBC would conduct and then relentlessly cite this poll. When Barack Obama remarked at a San Francisco fund raiser that rural Pennsylvanians have become bitter about the economic situation in the state and have been clinging to guns, religion and antipathy towards immigrants in response, there were loud cries accusing him of condescension and failure to understand the small town-mentality. These accusations were amplified and trumpeted gleefully by the media whose members are always happy to portray Democrats as Ivory Tower elitists.

But what was largely lost in the ensuing debate over Obama’s character was the truth that is inherent in his statement. There has been a great amount of speculation as to the true intentions behind it, but I believe that the generally accepted interpretation is wrong. Rather than insinuating that the only reason rural Pennsylvanians and other Americans like them are religious or live traditional lifestyles is because of their economic predicament (an assertion that I don’t totally disagree with), I believe that what the Senator meant, in this case at least, is that when a population is abandoned by their government on economic issues (as many Pennsylvanians have been over the last 30 years), their political involvement becomes focused on issues that they believe they can still have a significant effect on. Year after year, decade after decade, Pennsylvanians have become increasingly convinced that whether there is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent in office, the economy in their state will still be left out to dry. They have learned that despite all their rhetoric on stimulating job growth and preventing the outsourcing that has devastated much of the state, politicians will never follow up on these promises and that the situation may continue to get worse. In order to prevent a feeling of complete political innocuousness, they turn their attention to issues relating to their religion, to gun control, and to immigration, realms of the political dialogue in which they see they can still be an important factor. Under this line of thinking, faith, gun ownership and similar characteristics of rural Pennsylvania are an integrated part of the culture, which do not exist simply because of economic situations but become amplified and prioritized when a sense of abandonment takes hold of a community.

Now, this is certainly a debatable idea. The argument over the direction of causation between economics and culture/social structure goes back at least to Marx (economics determines social structure) and Weber (social characteristics determine economic activity). My point here is that I do not see Senator Obama’s remarks as revealing his inner elitism and disdain for rural Americans. Rather, I think he is truly trying to view Pennsylvania’s political culture through the eyes of a social scientist, a method that more politicians should probably utilize, regardless of whether or not the particular assertion Obama was making is entirely correct or not.

On the other hand, what I do find insulting and condescending, as a Pennsylvanian who has spent the majority of his time in the less urbanized middle ground of the state, are polls like the one MSNBC is using today and comments that are endlessly made by pundits that reflect that poll’s thinking. Even if you assume the most socially unacceptable interpretation of Obama’s remarks is the correct one (that the only reason why rural Americans are religious and traditional is because they are in poor economic health), to me, assuming that voters in the state are so moronic, so nonintellectual that they are unable to differentiate their participation in a bowling league or their love for Yuengling Lager from their political ideology is far more insulting. At least, under the harshest interpretation of the “bitter” statement, Obama was mapping out a somewhat identifiable process by which the phenomena of religion and nativism occur. The MSNBC poll, however, insinuates to the entire nation and anyone in the rest of the world who is closely following this election, that somehow, there is a direct correlation between a Pennsylvanian’s choice in alcoholic beverage and who he or she will vote for in a presidential election. Interestingly, in the beer drinking category, Obama and Clinton were tied. But the offense I take lies not in the answer, but in the formulation of the question in the first place. Imagine the phone call that Pennsylvania residents must have been subjected to: “Hello ma’am, may I ask you a few questions? Do you drink beer? Do you ever go bowling? For whom are you planning on voting?”

The pundits that subsequently take the information derived from polls such as these and attempt to formulate conclusions about voters only increase the idiocy of this game of prediction that they so love to play. One frequent MSNBC guest, Jonathan Alter, when asked why hunting, bowling and beer are relevant characteristics of PA voters, he responded, “Because there are a lot of them! Have you ever seen the movie Deer Hunter?” If a movie made thirty years ago is the source from which our media establishment “experts” are drawing their demographic information, we are all in trouble. And within his response lies the condescension of which I am speaking. It’s true that a good amount of Pennsylvanians love beer (myself included) and go bowling (myself not included), but for the vast majority of them, these activities have absolutely nothing to do with the way they make voting decisions or how their political ideology is shaped, and to assume that they do is true condescension. If Alter and the long line of pundits that MSNBC has been interviewing all day long really believe that these are significant factors in this race, then it reveals a deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the average and “blue collar” Americans on the behalf of which these experts supposedly speak. Next time, before they begin with the tirades about Senator Obama’s elitism and his disconnect from rural America, they should stop to contemplate whether or not they are truly in a position to attach these monikers to politicians, when they so obviously deserve them themselves. Oh, and Contessa Brewer, if you are reading this, call me sometime.

• Leave a comment... (1)

It’s March 27. The Democratic race is still stretching on, and apparently, no end is in sight. Every day, at nearly any given moment, the twenty-four hour news networks are covering and recovering the election. They are analyzing every detail of the campaign, ripping through the obfuscation to shed light on the inner thoughts, motivations, intentions and personalities of the candidates. Pundits can tell you why this candidate wore a red tie instead of a blue one. Seconds after the Obama speech dealing with race in America, a Fox news pundit turned to the camera and explained that the candidate was using a teleprompter, “and not very well,” he added. Through this and other similar, penetrating commentary, we can expect to be enlightened; to suddenly, with the help of acute television personalities, see through the façade of campaign politics and focus on the heart of the matter.

We are familiar enough with the following scenario. Two candidates stand (or sit) on a stage. Behind them is a radiant, three storied backdrop emanating red, white and blue, and a three or five letter acronym (CNN, MSNBC). In the studio, the networks are tracking public response in real-time. One candidate punches out a particularly catchy phrase and their ratings begin a rapid ascent, only to level off and fall when his or her opponent responds with an even wittier remark. Pundits wait in the wing, taking notes on the candidates’ postures, the tone of their voice. Did he get a little too angry with that last comment? Why does he keep blinking so much? They are listening closely, predicting with complete certainty that this line will go great with the Latino community, while that last one is really going to appeal to white single mothers.

The debate ends and the candidates shower each other with warm praises and smile for their photo-op; best friends even after two hours of vicious assaults. Coverage moves to the so called ‘spin room’ where each campaign knows for sure that their candidate, in fact, won the debate. There is not so much certainty back in the studio. A fresh debate emerges between warring factions of well groomed pundits, each of whom has detailed, factual reasons why they know who the real winner is. Polls flash onto the screen, showing that voters in this state are leaning towards one candidate, although their African American support could be greater. The moments deemed most significant are replayed, and panels begin anew, dissecting each syllable, each ebb and flow of diction and whether or not the crowd applauded vigorously enough.

The next day the campaigns are back on the trail. The pledges they made the night before vowing to keep the politics clean have faded into history, and all for the better. A candidate tells a group of citizens at a town hall meeting that they have more foreign policy experience than their opponent does. Across the state or country, the other fires back within minutes, redefining experience and sending thousands of emails detailing their record. The blogosphere explodes in outrage when a pivotal word is misused, because behind it lie treacherous intentions. New polls are taken.

The constant buzz of non-stop opinion, ceaseless commentary and back-and-forth campaign slights has marked this election cycle like none before it. That is not to say that there are any fundamental differences between the way these campaigns have been functioning and the way all campaigns have operated for the last few decades. But the level of noise has risen to its all time high.

Rigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. Without it, the public becomes lulled into a catatonic state of thoughtlessness, and the official, state sponsored position becomes the only position. But there is a difference between debate and overwhelming cacophony.

When you go to the symphony, dressed in your best attire and excited for the incredible music you are about to hear, you will be angered if the musicians take their seats and play imaginary instruments, filling the concert hall with silence. But you will be as equally dissatisfied if three separate orchestras crowd the stage, one plays Beethoven, another plays Bach and the third opts for Tchaikovsky, all simultaneously.

So it is with political campaigning in modern America. Insight is discouragingly rare because in order to be heard, everyone has to shout. Even the short lived moments filled with genuine vision and maybe even a touch of beauty, as many of us saw in the Obama speech, are quickly turned into sound bites. Those parts of the speech that seemed the most controversial are played in isolation, made to represent its entirety. This site posted the speech in full, with no meaningless commentary, the way it should be. Let the words speak for themselves.

Who is to blame for this mess? Is it the all day media, who, in search for ratings, have turned politics into day-time soap opera? Maybe. Is it the blogosphere and the internet in general, this humble site included, that has flooded the public consciousness with so much information, so much opinion that all facts become confused, all simple actions complicated? Possibly. Could it be the candidates themselves, who have, instead of digging deeper, made themselves comfortable with superficial attacks and subsequent retorts that play easily to a busy and sometimes fickle public? Perhaps.

More likely, it is the combination of all these factors. Advances in technology like cell phones, blackberries, RSS feeds and Wikipedia have trained us all to expect instant information, all the time, with no barriers. My generation, more so than those before it, is often uncomfortable if we are even momentarily cut off from the outside world, whether from events in the middle east or the Facebook status of our friends.

For the next few days, I am engaging myself in an experiment. Although I cannot promise to stay away from Facebook or AIM, I am not going to watch any twenty-four hour news reporting. I will stay away from the blogs I typically read a few times a week or even daily. The emails I get every single day from the three remaining candidacies shall go unopened. My only source of political information will be newspapers or their online equivalents. It will be an experiment in pre-television, pre-internet political thought. Who knows what revelations will descend unto me once the volume has been turned down, the shouting quieted? I will stifle the cacophony, and let the orchestra play as it was meant to be.

• Leave a comment... (0)

• Leave a comment... (6)

On Republican Presidential nominee John McCain:

He’s the true neocon. He does believe, in a way that George W. Bush never really did, in the use of power, military power above all, to change the world in America’s image. If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait till you see John McCain… He believes this. His advisers believe this. He’s surrounded himself with people who believe it. And I’ll take him at his word.

- Ivo Daadler, Brooking’s Institute  (quote found in “Hothead McCain,” by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, March 24, 2008 edition)

• Leave a comment... (1)

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the nomination race, I have stayed basically undecided between the remaining Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton. That is, until recently.

As I discussed yesterday, the mood of this campaign has taken a decidedly negative turn, driven almost entirely by the Clinton camp. She and her advisers have decided that resorting to fear-provoking tactics is the best way to blemish Obama’s image, scaring the public into voting for her and her long history of “experience.”

I noted yesterday that this strategy is myopic on all sides, that regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee, whether it be Clinton or Obama, it will do no good in the long run. The logical outcome of this sort of campaign is one that bolsters McCain and harms his opponent.

Today, however, Clinton has taken it to a new level. Before, with the “three a.m.” ads and the general attacks on Obama, she and her campaign were unintentionally helping John McCain (at least I assumed it was unintentional). Perhaps just insinuating the she and Senator McCain were better suited than Obama to become president was not enough, because today she said it, flat out:

Look, I have said Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002.

And:

I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.

I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that, and you’ll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

What, exactly, is she trying to do here? Am I the only one that thinks she sounds like McCain’s running mate? It was bad enough when she was satisfied just attempting to destroy Obama’s image. Now, she not only questions Obama’s ability to handle national security, but bewilderingly, unnecessarily, brings up John McCain and showers him with praise and attests to his preparedness. Please, someone explain to me how this strategy is supposed to pan out? How can it possibly benefit her OR Obama? All she is doing is taking on McCain’s work for him, taking cheap shots at her fellow party member and coming up with handy attacks for the McCain campaign to use in the general election.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek.com showed, using a delegate calculator, that even in the very best of circumstances (Clinton winning every single state from here on out; some, like Pennsylvania, by staggering margins), she will still be behind Obama in the overall delegate count. If events pan out, even as positively for Clinton as they do in the Alter experiment, then the only way Clinton could clinch the nomination is through the influence of the superdelegates. Unless her advisers are completely inept, they must know this as well. Why, then, resort to this strategy of tearing apart the other Democratic candidate and boosting the image of the Republican? I cannot assume to know how the superdelegates will interpret her statements, but if any of them are concerned about the cohesion and strength of the party, they should be appalled. If I were a superdelegate, and a Democratic candidate were speaking like this, there would be absolutely no way I would support them.

The McCain praise is not the only shocking statement the Clinton campaign has made in the last 24 hours. Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for her campaign, today compared Barack Obama to Kenneth Starr (you all remember that name), because Obama continues to ask that Senator Clinton releases her tax returns to the public. (An interesting side note: while she was running for the Senate in 2000, Clinton made a lot of noise about her then-opponent, Rich Lazio, not releasing his tax returns… exactly what she now keeps putting off herself). Again, I cannot see how comparing Obama to Starr helps her chances in getting the nomination. Not only is the comparison a complete and idiotic misnomer with no basis in reality, it brings up an uncomfortable time for the Democratic Party. The public does not want to go through that again, and by calling attention to Starr in any way, Wolfson simply reminds voters how much of a lightning rod for right-wing criticism the Clintons are. When asked to comment on Wolfson’s statement, Senator Clinton, for some reason, refused to comment.

Finally, this news came out of the Canadian press today:

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada’s prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton’s campaign - not Obama’s - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

Apparently, the story about Obama giving the Canadians the “ole’ wink wink” (Clinton’s words), got mixed up at some point. It was, in fact, the Clinton campaign that reassured the Canadian government there would be no major changes to the the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement if she became president. And why not? It was her husband’s administration that pushed NAFTA into existence, and she has made plenty of statements applauding the agreement in the past. When Obama and his campaign denied ever reaching out to our northern neighbors on this subject, he wasn’t lying.

Woops. While this story was being published and reported incorrectly in the United States, Clinton was quick to criticize Obama over it, insinuating, most importantly to voters in Ohio, that he could not be trusted to stick to his word and reform or repeal the agreement if he becomes president. There is nothing more sickening then finding out that the entire time, it was really the work of her own campaign that she was rallying so strongly against. Even more disheartening is that the story and Clinton’s response to it almost certainly had a significant impact on the March 4 primaries, especially in Ohio.

All of these things ad up to make Senator Clinton and her campaign look pretty ugly. If she insists on lavishing John McCain with warm accolades and denigrating Obama (beyond what is necessary for a primary election season), then I do not see how Democrats, both within the upper echelons of the party and its every day members, can continue to support her. All of her recent actions and statements have seemed to suggest that she would rather see John McCain become president than see Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee.

Many of the political pundits and Democratic strategists are saying that this long and drawn out race for the nomination will be good for the party: it will further clarify the stances of each candidate; it will energize the party base; it will focus media attention on the Democrats while McCain’s coverage gets muted in the background. But none of that will matter if, after a nominee has emerged, Obama looks like a weakling on national security and a traitor to America, and Clinton looks like best friends with John McCain, and has isolated Obama’s enormous base. If she somehow becomes the nominee, how can she possibly expect the millions of young, dedicated Obama supporters to suddenly change heart and embrace her candidacy? If the Democratic candidates are really concerned about putting a member of their party in the White House next year, they both need to stay away from viscous personality-based attacks, and Hillary Clinton, if nothing else, needs to stop the love-fest with John McCain.

• Leave a comment... (3)

The race for the Democratic nomination will continue on. With her wins in Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas last night, Hillary Clinton has narrowed Obama’s lead in delegates to 96 (according to cnn.com). MSNBC cited a poll showing that most Democratic voters actually want the primary elections to continue between Clinton and Obama. It seems their wish has been granted.

However, as the candidates move forward they should tread carefully. Prior to the latest round of primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton’s campaign began running the now-notorious “three a.m. phone call” television commercials, which insinuated that Barack Obama would not be capable of handling emergency situations prudently if he were to become president. They play off the already-held belief among some voters that Obama does not have the experience, and therefore does not have the judgment, to take on the country’s highest office, especially during a crisis. This, as we all know, has been the crux of Clinton’s self-marketing over the last few months; namely, that she is “ready to be president on day one” and that Obama is not. The entire ploy seems to be working, and the notion that Clinton has vast, tested experience in executive positions has taken root in many voters’ minds, despite the lack of proof (recently when a handful of her top campaign staffers were asked to name a specific moment in which she was tested in the way she claims to have been, none of them could come up with an answer). But setting aside the question of whether or not Clinton really does possess the experience shes touts, its obvious that she and her campaign have become comfortable with employing a more hostile and fear-based strategy. Last night will likely serve to reinforce their belief in the efficacy of this sort of campaign, and they will continue on to Pennsylvania under the premise that in order to siphon votes away from Obama, they need to scare the general electorate.

Scare tactics and ads playing to the fears of the country are an insult to the intelligence of Democrats and the public in general. They assume that whenever we are given the choice between voting based on an instinctual need for safety and voting based on thoughtful, coherent decisions, our animalistic tendencies will always win. They are saying to us, “we know that you, the common people, are too stupid to understand the intricacies of what we do; so, just trust that if you vote for that other guy, you might have to die, but if you vote for me, you’ll always be able to sleep like a baby.”

In 2004, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for John Kerry, said:

If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Sadly, his wife and her campaign managers have begged to differ with the former president. In their desperation to retake the lead, they have subjected the voters to the same kind of fear-mongering that Bill denounced just four years ago. And, if they do not back off from these tactics, they run the risk of doing serious damage to the Democratic Party and its presidential hopes this November.

If the Clinton campaign continues to demonize Obama in this way, they run the risk of significantly tarnishing his image in the event he becomes the nominee. There are seven weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, more than enough time to cement the irrational belief that Obama is weak on national security into the minds of millions of voters; not just those in PA and the other upcoming states, but throughout the country. If she does not win the nomination, she will have created a perfect target for McCain to exploit against Obama in the general election. She endlessly informs us that her number one priority is that a Democrat (be it her or Obama) is sworn into the Oval Office next year, but her actions seem to betray those claims.

On the other hand, if these tactics do work, and Clinton does eventually clench the nomination, they will hurt her as well. We hoped that this year, the election could finally move past mindless rhetoric and visions of nuclear holocaust, and instead concentrate on real substance. Inevitably, McCain and others on the right will use fear to win votes - I don’t think anyone doubts that. But because Hillary has descended into this filthy world as well, she will not be able to call them out and show the public why it is irrational to vote out of fear, why they should resist those candidates who replace dreams with nightmares, and why she offers an alternative to this nonsense - because she no longer does.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Ralph Nader is running for President again. As expected, the announcement of his candidacy has sparked a wave of angry criticism from the left. Those who are speaking out against Nader are concerned that, as it may have done in the 2000 election, his presence in the race will siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee and allow McCain (presumably) to narrowly pull out a win. They are calling for Nader to drop out of the election, accusing him of running more out of hubris than concern for the nation. But whatever fears Democrats may have about his influence this November, those demanding that he end his campaign should stop for a moment and think about the idea that they are subscribing to: namely, that because a third party candidate may prevent the outcome that they are hoping for, he has no right to run.

The danger in taking this position is obvious. If there is to be anything resembling a democracy in this country, any significant third party should have the right to enter a candidate into the presidential election, regardless of its effect on the outcome. As much as this pains Democrats, the alternative is far more dangerous. If you argue that Nader does not belong in this race, you are arguing that the only two positions that can ever be legitimately taken are those of the Democratic and Republican parties. The third parties, as seemingly irrelevant as they are now, are important to this country in their ability to highlight issues that are not even being discussed among the main party candidates. If we eliminate their capacity to do so, eventually ideas that huge numbers of Americans actually care about, ideas that are already in many cases largely ignored, will fade completely from the political discourse. Ralph Nader knows that he will not win this election, and that it’s very unlikely that he will win even one state. But he is talking about things that John McCain and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t dream of and Barack Obama seems increasingly hesitant to bring up. He deserves to be heard. And if he forces the Democratic nominee to be tougher and more articulate on certain issues, then we all benefit.

The videos below are from the Meet The Press interview during which Nader announced his candidacy. Speak up if you disagree, but I think its hard to argue with his logic.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Over the last decade of American politics, the term flip-flopping has become a ubiquitous insult and one of the ultimate undesirable characteristics for public officials. It seems like no one knows the first time that this particular expression, normally a name for a certain type of sandal, was used in reference to politics. Originally, as I understand it, this term was applied when a politician changed his rhetoric, policies or opinions from one side of an issue to another, while maintaining that the two positions are not necessarily in contradiction with each other. This accusation became especially vocal among critics of John Kerry in the run up to the 2004 elections. Specifically, his statement concerning Iraq funding, where he said that he “voted for it before voting against it,” was cited as proof that he was an unreliable man and could not be trusted to stick with his convictions. Recently, the term’s meaning has broadened to not only include someone who attempts to hold two contradictory positions, but anyone who changes their mind on anything, ever.

Throughout this election season, one of the most common justifications for supporting Barack Obama over candidates like Clinton and Edwards has been that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. That’s a reasonable position, but I would be willing to bet that many of those that defended Kerry when he was being demonized for altering his stance are now using that same tactic to promote Obama over his competitors. The flip-flopping card seems to emerge only when it is politically expedient.

Now, whether or not some members of the Democratic party have embraced the term “flip-flopping” after resisting it originally isn’t particularly important, because we can all agree that its usage has risen dramatically. The real question is, why has changing your mind become one of the cardinal sins of American politics?

When Kerry used the wrong choice of words to describe his votes on Iraq war funding (a mistake he has made more than once), the Bush campaign jumped all over it. They saw that it was an opportunity to make Kerry look weak and indecisive. It worked incredibly, probably even better than Rove and his compatriots could have imagined. It worked because it struck a chord with the American people, manipulating a human characteristic that all voters share in order to make Bush look strong in contrast. But it is important to differentiate strength from foolish thick headedness.

People like to know that their leaders are consistent, because people themselves like consistency. They want to believe that their leader has a well-thought out and strong opinion that will hold up under rigorous tests. But the truth is, many leaders make decisions without thinking them through as thoroughly as they should, and even the most informed decision has its limitations, as no human being in omniscient. Strict ideology and the resistance to anything that does not fit into tis worldview has been the Achilles heel of many governments, from both ends of the political spectrum. The utopian dream of the Bolshevik Revolution morphed into a bloodbath of tyranny because its leaders were unable to integrate any information into their decisions that did not adhere to their own personal interpretation of Marxist philosophy. When inconvenient information and dissenting viewpoints are ignored or stifled in order to maintain consistency, reason is thrown out the window and everyone pays the price.

Americans can see this same pattern emerging today. If there is one “negative” political characteristic that our current president does not embody, it is certaily flip-flopping. More than any other American leader that comes to mind, he truly does find his position and refuse to budge from it even in the slightest way, at least since he became president. I specifically remember him saying, during a debate in 2000, that he “just [didn’t] think it was the role of the United States to come into a country and say, ‘here’s how we do it, so should you.’” That is definitely a foreign policy outlook that he has not stuck by, and I’m sure if we were to go back and scrutinize everything he said in his first bid for the White House, we would find additional examples of this transformation. But since he has been in office (and especially since 9-11) he has been remarkably consistent in his worldview and the way that he approaches it. On every major issue, he has stuck to his guns, most poignantly demonstrated by his “stay the course” attitude with respect to Iraq. Every person who is critical of George W. Bush and is also vehemently opposed to flip-flopping should take a step back and see the contradiction between those two viewpoints.

Would any of us say that this quality of Bush’s has been a noble one? One that has helped the United States and the world? Wouldn’t it have been better if he and his administration could have seen the err of their ways and decided to change them? Obviously, those that still agree with him that a long term occupation of Iraq is the best choice see his steadfastness as a positive. But now that the majority of Americans are in favor of pulling American troops out, it seems that the country is desperately begging for Bush himself to become a flip-flopper, albeit without using that term specifically.

It is important to remember that there are different situations in which politicians opt to change their minds. If the shift in view is motivated by political expediency, than certainly we should criticize it and be wary of that politician in the future. But when a change of heart occurs because new information has become visible, unexpected results and challenges have presented themselves, or because he or she simply realizes that they were wrong, then it is to be applauded.

This phenomenon has even leaked into the non-political world. Anthony Flew, a long time leading figure of atheism, recently announced that he had changed his mind and now believes in God. Many high profile members of the atheist community have ridiculed him and attacked him aggressively. None of them have used the term “flip-flop,” but the parallels are glaring. Why can’t he change his mind, especially on an issue with such universal implications? They would rather he ignore any information that might change his mind, and, effectively stop thinking altogether, rather than betray them and their ideas. Politic discourse, a world that already seems to involve much less actual thought than academic disputes over the afterlife, is even more threatened by those that would rather our leaders permanently solidify their stances than constantly challenge themselves and have the courage to change their positions.

It is far more dangerous to choose a leader who makes up their mind and is unwilling to reconsider than one who is open to new viewpoints and doesn’t refuse to forego their own ideas and preconceived notions to pursue a more prudent course of action. The real world is full of mistakes, and every day people are forced to challenge everything that they hold to be true. Why do we believe that this does not apply to our leaders? If there is anything to be us afraid of, its the unrelenting ideologue, not the flip-flopper, regardless of what the Right has trained us to believe.

• Leave a comment... (2)

The last Democratic debate before Super Tuesday, and the first featuring solely Obama and Clinton, just ended. The most acute of us will have noticed an unusually frequent amount of shots of the crowd. Maybe it was because they were in an architecturally beautiful building, but the more likely explanation concerns the guests in attendance. Throughout most of the debate, my eyes were at the computer instead of the television screen, but it seemed as though every time I looked up, I had an equal chance of seeing Obama or Clinton as I did of seeing Stevie Wonder, Topher Grace, Diane Keaton or Rob Reiner. Of course, the debate was in Los Angeles, and celebrities are bound to show up in attendance. But the question I want to ask is, who cares?

 Why did CNN feel it necessary to be continuously flashing celebrity faces in the middle of an important and historic presidential debate? It could be that they wanted the audience at home to have an idea of how these celebrities were reacting to the stances of the candidates. If so, again, who cares? Why should the opinions of these people matter at all? How are they more qualified to make tricky political judgements?

The answer is: they shouldn’t matter, and they are not more qualified than the average citizen. At all. In fact, super-rich movie stars, living in the dream world of Hollywood, are the last people we should be looking towards for political opinion or advice. What do they know about the major issues facing Americans? They don’t have to worry about health care or being able to afford their kid’s education or pay their bills (well, it’s possible that they may have bill-paying problems, but we can all agree that its just a little different). Their children are not dying in Iraq. They make pretty speeches about energy conservation and global warming, written on coast-to-coast flights in their private jets.

USA Today pointed out that:

It’s fitting that tonight’s Democratic presidential debate will be held at Los Angeles’ Kodak Theatre, home of the Oscars and one of Hollywood’s most hallowed monuments to the stars.

Star power rocks on the campaign trail these days, with an unprecedented number of actors, entertainers and sports figures stumping for candidates

And it’s not only the phalanx of celebrities attempting to influence the primary races; it’s also what they’re doing. In years past, most stars have been content to endorse and bankroll candidates and make high-profile appearances. But this year, with the race still open and 22 states up for grabs on Super Tuesday next week, celebrities have been working in key states earlier, in greater numbers and more extensively than ever.

I know that most of these celebrities have pure and good intentions, and I do not mean to indict them: they are doing what they do best for the cause that they choose. There is nothing wrong with that. Their increasing participation could be a result of the celebrity-obsessed culture we live in, but maybe it’s just because people in general are getting involved in greater numbers this year, celebrities included. It can be hard to resist their influence. Anyone who has met a celebrity can tell you it can be exciting and make you act differently than you normally would. But when we let those star-struck feelings go unchecked, and assign more meaning to their presence at a debate or on the campaign trail than it truly has, it becomes a dangerous situation. We surrender our own powers of decision making and critical thought and allow our opinions to be swayed by which candidate people like Oprah or Tim Robbins think is the best choice for president.

Even endorsements from other politicians are being focused on too heavily. Now, compared to an endorsement by a celebrity, these make much better sense, since politicians are experts on these issues (or should be). But, it should still be largely irrelevant. Ted Kennedy has decided to back Barack Obama. Fine. But is Obama any different now than he was the day before Kennedy made that announcement? Has something epic changed in his stance on issues and his policy plans? Should the fact that a Kennedy endorsed a candidate really change our views on he or she? Polls, taken after the State of the Union address, show that, unfortunately, it very well may.

Ted Kennedy is one of the most respected members of the Democratic party, and I think most Democrats, rightly, value his opinion. But his endorsement should be noted, and then immediately discarded from our minds. The same goes for those celebrities that really are important parts of our culture and national identity (i.e. Toni Morrison, who has endorsed Obama, and Maya Angelou, who’s going for Clinton). If they have some well-thought out and insightful comments about their candidate as well, there is no harm in listening to them and considering their opinions carefully. But we must resist letting them have too strong of an effect on our own ideas. The American people are intelligent enough on their own without needing to be directed by larger than life personalities. We must think for ourselves, Oprah be damned.

• Leave a comment... (10)

Hey there, I’m just taking a quick break from reading all about the wonders of the Commerce Clause to say that I am THRILLED that Rudy only came in third in Florida tonight. Anyone who has the ego to assume that they can, for all intents and purposes, skip the first round of primaries and focus on states where they think they have a huge advantage and then assume that by winning in that state they’ll magically be propelled to the nomination is completely, totally, and unequivocally undeserving of the nomination of either party. The fact that this now sets the precedent for all politicians to come that you need to be the President of all the states and not just those that you feel comfortable with gives me joy enough to trudge though the intricacies of fringe benefit exemptions in my tax law class tomorrow.

So, thank you Rudy. Thank you for being such a pompous ass that you doomed your ill conceived and baseless run for the White House because you thought your balls were big enough to make everyone forget that you don’t care about what Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Michigan care about when it comes to the next President of this country.

Please Rudy, drop out now and stop embarrassing yourself and spitting on those who lost someone on 9/11 by using it as nothing more than a cheap shill tactic. You thought you could swing around a national tragedy as an advertising gimmick and no one is happier than I to see that your hubris blew up in your face.

• Leave a comment... (3)