Political rhetoric

Campaign for the Unemployed

With unemployment at 9%, we should take two lessons. First, this is untenable long term. And second, Democrats should make every effort to win the trust (and the votes) of this unfortunately large demographic.

Unemployed Americans are a natural Democratic constituency. They’ve been wronged by corporate interests, and feel the system — the unrestrained free market, so belovéd lately by the right — has left them behind. And as they partially dependent on public support, unemployed Americans are less likely to be taken in by the right’s anti-”big government” shills (the tea party). The unemployed understand the value of the social safety net, and should (absent some bizarre cognitive dissonance) wish to see it continue. And when you’re out of work, it’s the first thing on your mind: a worker’s identity, as one of the unemployed, cuts across other divisive sociopolitical cleavages. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or a fundamentalist: if you’re looking for a job, providing for your family is priority #1.

More, Republicans seem to be doing everything they possibly can to alienate this bloc of voters. Herman Cain essentially told everyone without a job that it’s their fault they’re out of work — when in this economy, we know that’s not the case. How easy is it to be excellent at your job, but become part of a random downsizing initiative that takes no account of your individual value? (Granted that Cain explained away his callousness at the last debate — but why should that matter? The sound bite’s on record. Run with it.) And the Republican wing of the Senate, helped along by two Democratic defectors, refused to even open debate on the only job-creating bill that any party has even proposed in months. While Republicans debate whether Cain’s “9-9-9″ plan is a secret tool of Satan, and muse poetically about how ending gay marriage and other “threats to the family” would magically restore the economy to its previous grandeur, the candidates’ Senate colleagues aggressively block any attempt to provide necessary relief to this neglected set of voters. Why should we let them get away with it?

A bizarre quirk of campaigning for the unemployed is that your goal is, naturally, to eradicate your supporters as a distinct bloc. So be it. When your voters return to the rolls of the middle class, they’ll remember whose policies helped them to get there.

The Jerry Bruckheimer Ad

Rick Perry drops one, titled “President Zero”:

It’s the rare campaign that goes negative in its first public offering. Perry’s is also the first experiment with this type of ad, post-Tim Pawlenty, and outside of Sarah Palin’s odd “remember-that-I-still-exist” variants. What I’m getting at is, this is an affirmatively new way to campaign, and one that attracted nothing but negative attention in its last, limited engagement. The lesson I would draw is that the country doesn’t respond to true negative ads, which is what this is, aside from a few dog whistles to the radical right (“who doesn’t apologize for America…”).

Early negativity also feels “off” for a primary election: Republicans are entitled to bet, at the general phase, that voters want “anyone but Obama.” But since the Republican candidate will be, by his* very definition, not Obama, I would expect the players to attempt to state a positive case explaining their ideas for the country — not try to simply distinguish themselves from the President in as strident and offensive a manner as possible.

But, then again, expecting anything but the absolute worst from Republicans really is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Rick Perry Confuses “Socialism” with “Federalism”

In an interview with Time, Governor Perry offers the following:

No, I still believe [officials in the Obama administration] are socialist. Their policies prove that almost daily. Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s healthcare policy, that is, on its face, socialism.

The problem here may not be immediately obvious. Over the past three years, we’ve heard the term “socialism” bandied about with such frequency that it’s probably lost all meaning. But in case you’ve forgotten, “socialism” has a defined meaning:

Noun: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

(1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Centralized authority may suggest socialism — when it collapses into centralized ownership of industry — but the two are not identical. What Perry is actually criticizing could, at most, be described as a potential imbalance in the federal system, or disrespect for states’ rights, or (to the constitutionally ignorant, to wit, the tea party) a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Now here’s the question. Did Perry misspeak, or does he know what he’s doing? With apologies to my Aggie readers, it’s not clear to me that Perry does actually know better, although he certainly should. Still, we should confront the possibility that the Republican frontrunner and likely nominee (see, e.g., this) has chosen to frame his recidivist, anti-federalist views in terms of America’s struggle with Communism, imbuing a battle as old as the republic with the moral force of that rivalry. And comparing something as blasé as the centralization of education policy to a conflict that almost brought the world to a nuclear end both does violence to language, and suggests violence in fact. Does the country actually benefit, when we elevate every political debate to the eschatalogical level, making it an issue of life or death? I expect not — but it increasingly sounds like we should prepare ourselves for that kind of campaign.

“Leo, There Are Times When We Are Absolutely Nowhere”

The strident Republican backlash to Obama’s new fact-checking site, AttackWatch.com — a follow up to “Fight the Smears!” from 2008 — feels like nothing so much as the playground bully falling back in raucous laughter as he watches the class nerd ineffectually strike some semblance of a “fighting” stance. Take this as as much an indictment of the bully as the target because, at the end of the day, we still just don’t know how to fight back. And by now, we really, really should.

For all the merit to the general idea, AttackWatch somehow manages to appear unstatesmanlike, petty, ineffective, timid, and overly aggressive — all at once. For one, this type of political warblogging should never be done under the direct auspices of the party, the campaign, or the president. Though Fox News and the Republican Party do, for all intents and purposes, merge into a single partisan entity, Republicans correctly maintain some semblance of formal separation.

Democrats should too, perhaps especially so. Our (putative) advantage with some swing voters is our even-tempered, statesmanly presentation of ideas — even at its worst, this White House never engages in the kind of histrionics you see on the right. We don’t screech about socialism or stoop to the historic depths plumbed by Palin during the “death panel” fracas. And we compromise. Perhaps we need a party platform to attempt to set the world straight about what Obama’s policies are — and what they aren’t. AttackWatch accomplishes that goal rather well, but an even-keeled site addressed to rumors as positive points — not “Obama does not hate Israel,” but “Obama supports the unique U.S./Israel relationship” — would accomplish it better. Especially if the grisly, alarmist black-and-red scheme could be traded instead for something hopeful and inspiring — something we expect of the American president, addressed to preserving (and rebuilding) our moderate image.

This is not to say we shouldn’t treat the Republican Party’s continued and false attacks on Obama as creating the state of total war that they, in fact, have. But an aggressive, full-throated partisan defense of the President’s agenda is what party functionaries and surrogates are for. What we need from the President is measured calm; what we need elsewhere is a unified, partisan and unofficial messaging system — a talking points memo, but one read by middle America, not a site by and for college-educated young liberals – and a platform from which to read it. Not a fact-check site that those being fed rumors will, after all, be disinclined to believe.

On Gratuitous Invocations of “Terrorists”: Or, How Joe Biden Broke Jonah Goldberg’s Brain

…such as it is.

Goldberg, the boy who cried “Nazi,” flies into a rage over Democratic lawmakers’ reference to congressional Republicans as “hostage-takers,” budgetary “terrorists,” etc., and the media’s relative silence, compared to their heightened interest in recent overwrought Republican zealotry. Why the double standard, he asks?

Because Republicans call Democrats “terrorists” all the damn time. Biden’s quip hasn’t gotten coverage because we’re just used to it from the other side of the aisle. That’s sad, and feels true. But: examples, please?

*     *     *     *     *

A fair request. I set out to write this post wondering how hard it would be to dredge up quotes of Republicans calling their fellow citizens — especially Democrats — terrorists, disloyal, un-American, etcetera, based only on those citizens’ failure to subscribe to the GOP’s vision of a white, straight, upper-class Christian America. Probably pretty hard. I mean, we can start with Michael Savage (“The Enemy Within,” which casts all liberals as traitors) and Ann Coulter (“Treason,” same). Then there’s always Glenn Beck (who says Obama is “sympathetic” to terrorist causes) and Rush Limbaugh. The latter, of course, claims that Democrats actually are terrorists! But after that, where would I look?

Well, there’s also President Bush. Who made a large part of his regular stump speech the claim that any Democratic electoral victories would mean that “the terrorists win.” And Karl Rove, who equated habeas corpus, which is apparently now a liberal part of the Constitution, with terrorist “hand-holding.”

That’s probably it, right? Too bad. If only there was one more example of Republicans regularly debasing their political opponents, preferably from a party operative who commands media attention like none other, ran on a mainline ticket, and may again. But who!?

Well, thank God for Sarah Palin. She just went ahead and gathered up all those little tropes, rolled ‘em into a nice, tight little sound clip, and positively ran to Fox News to deliver it, making my job so much easier.

It’s really quite offensive. And remarkable, in that Palin’s larger point is actually tone deaf to itself. She gets to the undoubtedly correct argument, that it’s not nice to call fellow citizens “terrorists” based exclusively on their nonviolent political advocacy, but runs right past it to remind us of the official Republican position, that “liberals” are, actually, no better than terrorists. Or want the terrorists to win. Or hate America. Or aren’t even American in the first place.

*     *     *     *     *

So let’s return to the original question. Why hasn’t Biden’s admittedly offensive quip gotten more coverage? Because it’s boring. Thanks to a steady stream of abuse from the right, it’s now acceptable to refer to one’s political opponent as a “terrorist.” Biden chose not to try to change that tone. And Palin, in response, affirmatively perpetuated it, while feigning offense, and giving the obligatory nod to decency. I’ll be the first to admit, both sides need to cut it out. Us and them. But I’d like to see the party that started this trope make the first move. Even if the box can never be closed, Pandora is in the best position to try.

Internet Culture: Popularity, Conspiracies, and Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Last week, Conor Friedsdorf of The Atlantic wrote what I thought was a fairly charming vignette, of obviously limited factual value, about how he, along with two girls denied Harry Potter tickets, were the only attendees at the Orange County premiere of Sarah Palin’s comically titled new biopic, The Undefeated.

Seriously, she lost in 2008. We all remember that, right?

Anyways, this puff-piece, dashed off at 3 AM PST, has since become the most popular (and controversial) piece of Conor’s short career at The Atlantic. In a post yesterday, he chronicles his shock, responds to his detractors, and in the process, pens an abnormally all-encompassing story of life, culture, and writing in the internet age. Let’s investigate.

Popularity: as American magazines go, The Atlantic is fairly highbrow — exceedingly, even– and Conor’s writing is no exception. As he notes, he’s written a number of pieces sharply critical of the left, of the right, and several excruciatingly well-researched pieces, some of which took months, and one of which — on the best long-form journalism of 2010 — I will certainly now read. Yet he’s become “famous” for a hastily penned gag post that, while very clever, bears little relationship to the reason we value publications like The Atlantic, and writers like him. Why?

Because we read for sensationalism, not for substance, and the internet rewards writers who understand this.

My experience is similar (though on a lesser scale). As of this writing, this site’s most widely read post, at 28,1256 page views, questions whether Birther queen Orly Taitz is, or was likely to remain, a lawyer. And the premise of that post was ultimately disproved! She was properly admitted to the Supreme Court’s bar, though I still maintain that she fairly clearly committed several grave violations of the rules of professional conduct. My favorite post, on Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, actually took a long time to write, holds up well, but clocks in at the #3 slot, with a comparably dismal 12,158 views. (My second favorite, on science fiction’s moral authority, comes in at #12). If we construe exposure as a “payoff” in blogging, the effort-to-payoff model this sampling suggests discourages talent, insight, and substance, to instead reward well-timed hackery and snark.

Some blogs defy the odds. Andrew Sullivan supplies consistent quality content and, by all estimates, is widely read for it. But he’s the exception, and his stats probably admit of similarly disturbing trends. This is a serious Problem For The Internet, probably compelled by the breadth of available content, and the frequency/necessity of on-the-go reading. Both pressures combine to create the internet as a medium exclusively designed for rapid consumption.   I’m as guilty as the next man, but it’s something we need to confront, because the alternative, of an internet where information is sought only for entertainment, feels disastrous.

Conspiracies: call it a corollary of the last point. Any world where sensationalism rules becomes, naturally, a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Just so, Conor’s critics latched onto a provably false fact pattern where Conor didn’t just invent the whole story of the empty theater — no. He made it a reality by conspiring with theaters, newspapers… everyone… to bring about the downfall of Sarah Palin, by underreporting attendance at a fictitious theater. Naturally, the theory was picked up, and run into the ground, by Andrew Breitbart, who us did the favor of even reporting the lie incorrectly.

From “death panels” to birthers, here, too, is a poignant representation of political discourse in the internet age. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on” and, because it sounds better, is more widely read, sits more prominently in the public consciousness, and controls the conversation moving forwards.

Numbers, numbers, numbers: Finally, Conor flags one of the stranger points about this entire exchange. How many people attended Palin’s little panegyric is, literally, irrelevant. He says:

But what is ultimately at stake? Say it earns billions. Is that going to shrink the federal government? Or reform entitlements? Or affect the foreign policy America adopts? Why would an ideological movement that insists the country is going down the tubes waste so much time and energy complaining about their perception that a movie is doing better than the MSM says?

A good question, which becomes better when you realize that this isn’t an isolated incident. Time and again the conservative media have instigated, or suborned, attempts to artificially inflate attendance numbers at rallies, and general caucus strength. The movement seems more obsessed with proving its relevance, rather than earning it with policy victories. The tea party has always been more heat than light, and based on the battles they pick — like this one — that’s how they like it.

*     *     *     *     *

Sensationalism, conspiracy, and an obsession with status. Such is the state of political discourse on the internet, and therefore, the go-to style of the conservative grassroots. It’s strange to see these three ills so close together, and in a situation where they’re so clearly problematic, but we have Conor, and the Palin camp’s reflexive need to overreact to damn everything, to thank for this rare opportunity. Now, what can be done about it?

Glimmers of Intellect from Mitt Romney

It’s intensely interesting that candidates have to play dumb to get votes in the Republican what-passes-for-a-primary-so-far. But read this statement by Mitt Romney, on why he won’t sign a “pro-life pledge”:

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

Emphasis mine. “Undue burden” is the rubric used by the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion ever since Casey. And, that decision came out well after Mitt graduated law school in 1975. We talk about dog whistle racism, but what about dog whistle intellectualism? Mitt’s a smart guy, we know; maybe this is his nod to supporters that, even though he can’t act smart, he actually knows what he’s talking about. Whether he’d act that way as President, well…

President Obama’s Origin Story, and the Power of the Personal Narrative

When John McCain’s presidential campaign released the “Celebrity” ad — which attempted to equate candidate Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, by dint of nothing more than the Senator’s popularity — we knew that the rational, bipartisan John McCain, the one who truly would put “country first” and in some part deserved the presidency, was dead and gone. In his place stood a shrilly partisan operation, convinced that victory could be won by stacking gimmick upon gimmick in a vain attempt to distract the electorate from the obvious failures of Republican policies. (This trend, naturally, would culminate in Sarah Palin.)

Now, the same charge is back, but as an excuse for the lackluster Republican field, and an explanation for Obama’s likely re-election. Per The Wall Street Journal, if Obama wins, it’s because of the myth — and celebrity — but not the man.

I don’t dispute that President Obama’s personal life presents a compelling, relatable, important, and quintessentially American story. But what’s most important is that Obama uses his past to inform his politics. Other candidates, like Tim Pawlenty, actually have similar rags-to-riches upbringings, but make no attempt to relate their rags-to-riches tale to their policies. Instead, Pawlenty’s past seems to contradict his present and future, and denies the very “social exceptionalism” that the author admits her party needs. Here is a party that “believes in you,” as we hear, but leverages the same as an excuse to let you go your own way, pull out the social safety net, and rely on lines discredited by Bruce Hornsby songs should you fail (“Just for fun he says… get a job!”).

Oh, but don’t you believe them. What works for President Obama is that his story matches with a compelling vision for you. Here’s a man who emerged from a tough beginning against all odds, and doesn’t believe you need to face the same odds. That’s a powerful message, because it results from the knowledge that living the American dream is very, very hard, unless we look out for each other. Not to over-indulge in music this post, but we must bear our neighbors’ burdens within reason, and our labors will be borne when all is done. Don’t carry it all!

Obama’s struggles taught him that compassion, and it comes through. Pawlenty’s life taught him… what, exactly? When a Republican can answer that question, he’ll do well. Until then, we can suffer through the Wall Street Journal’s overwrought explanations of the party’s failures, but this will be the extent of the Republican Party’s relevance. This I swear to all.

*     *     *

Oh, and you know what? The author’s treatment of McCain’s decision to ignore the President’s middle name goes completely amiss. It wasn’t cowardice, and it wasn’t political correctness. It was class, a word we may have forgotten. But what would you expect from an author who, in the very next breath, attributes Trump’s meteoric rise, and meteoric fall, to his insightfulness?

A Note on Internet Decorum: “Fascism”

Consider this post an investment in the future, for the next time Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin say something particularly absurd.

There’s a special election today in New York’s 26th district, for the seat vacated by the “Craigslist Congressman” — and the Democrats look likely to win. Query whether this can be a referendum on the Republican Party’s increasingly unpopular plan to replace Medicare with bulk grants to the states. But more importantly, the entire ordeal spawned a pretty funny parody site, made to mirror Republican Jane Corwin’s campaign site, with the text changed… just a little bit (“Together we can make delicious soup from the bones of the poor.”)

Detracting from the site, though, is its selective indulgence in the “all Republicans are fascists” trope (“Heil Corwin!”). That part is neither funny, nor smart, and detracts from the rhetorical high ground the Republicans have largely ceded to us since January of 2008. We can be funny, incisive, and compelling without dredging up tired slurs. Most of the time, we do just that, but we should in all cases.

This American Life Questions the Premise of “Job Creation”

Can a Governor — or a President — “create” a job? After speaking with more than a few economists and subject matter experts, the celebrated radio program’s conclusion seems to be… no. Except over the long term, in which case infrastructure, in the form of public universities, etcetera, matters much more.

Why don’t we hear this argument a lot? Well, think about it: if you’re perceived as “successful” in job creation, you’ll stay way the Hell away from anything that threatens to question your “achievement.” And if you’re perceived as “unsuccessful,” it sounds like an overthought and convenient excuse. If campaigns require selective indulgence in myths, this is certainly one to cultivate.