Those of you who read Post Nos. 60 and 61, concerning the long term ramifications of Obama being elected President, will appreciate why we have chosen to re-post this article.
Earlier this evening, I attended a lecture by Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford neurobiologist and primate researcher, and author of Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, and A Primate's Memoir. I asked him point blank whether racism is biologically driven, and whether some of the venom directed at Obama can be explained within that context. You'll find his response interesting, upon viewing our next post. In the mean time, let's revisit some of our earlier thoughts.
http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Post No. 61: Further Thoughts about the Problems Associated with an Obama Victory
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thanks Issac and Caleb for placing comments on our blog, in response to our earlier Post No. 60, “Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-60-why-i-am-concerned-that.html). You both essentially are of the opinion that the candidate with the best credentials, regardless of gender or race, should be selected. I have chosen to respond to the two of you in the form of a new post.
I agree with you, in theory, that society should want the best person (from an objective perspective) for the job. However, that’s not the way societies do things. There are reasons why neither a woman, nor a black, has ever been elected as President of this country. The reasons go back hundreds of years. There is a substantial segment of the population that feels that no matter the woman or the black, or the Hispanic or Asian for that matter, who might be put forth to occupy that position, they are inherently unqualified and unacceptable.
If one believes that gender and racial attitudes have improved since the 1950s, then an argument can be made that the time for a woman or some other minority has arrived, and our society has evolved. On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that racial and gender attitudes have not really changed, then one can easily come to the conclusion that America is not ready to have a woman or minority President.
What have changed over time are the visibility of integration, and the comfort level of at least some people to disclose their true feelings. Integration was effectively forced on this nation, first by the Warren Supreme Court when the Congress did not see fit to do so, and later legislatively, but with an extreme amount of reluctance.
There were clearly many bigots during the 1950s, who did not have a problem identifying themselves as such. There were probably just as many folks who were not legitimate, honest bigots, but behaved as such due to peer pressure and socialization factors. (This is the group which I suspect is comfortable having blacks as friends and colleagues today.)
Not only were many merchants, schools, clubs, public accommodations, and other entities forced to accept folks into their world against their will, but later the whole concept of affirmative action further soured the soup. There has been a lot of whispering, and under the breath statements of discomfort, over the past 60 years.
I’m not sure whether racial attitudes can change, as dramatically as we profess, over such a short period of time. Make-up can be applied, and plastic surgery performed, but the basic pragmatic and functional reasons for racism have existed, somewhere on this earth, for thousands of years. (Just think about all of the ethnic cleansing that took place over the past 30 years internationally.)
We previously addressed racism in our Post No. 2, in April 2008, entitled, “Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html)
I suspect that the expression of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, and the comfort with which people feel to express them, is significantly dependent on the current economic status of the group affected. I submit that there are transient changes in generational attitudes depending on the economic status of the nation. It is unnecessary, and serves no useful function, to disclose one’s innermost prejudices, if one is doing fairly well. However, as soon as one, or the group of which the person is a member, feels that his interests are being adversely affected, and identifies, rightly or wrongly, another group as a causative factor, then civility and the exercise of self-restraint go right out the window. That we have folks at McCain / Palin rallies calling for Obama’s death should surprise no one during these economic times.
Now, getting back to the performance issue. Just for sake of argument, let’s assume that we could label the state of economic affairs in our country as poor, moderate, or good. If a substantial segment of the electorate feels that women and minorities are incapable of running the country and serving competently, and by whatever combination of forces, the country ended up with a woman or black president, I would just hope that individual would preside during a moderate or good economic period. Then at least the person would have a chance to disabuse the doubters of the inappropriateness of the selection, and the inherent inferiority of that individual’s group.
But when we thrust the first of any group into a situation which many deem perilous, he’ll either be viewed as a hero, should things turn around quickly, or an abysmal failure, should economic conditions continue to deteriorate.
I simply do not think that things are going to turn around sufficiently economically within the next 2 – 3 years, to give Obama a chance to even appear competent. I also believe that no one person, under our system of government, can quickly overcome, as George Will calls it, “the inertia that is Washington.” Furthermore, do you really have reason to believe that a Democratic controlled Congress will do a better job than what has been done over the past 20 years?
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the economy, and the apparent disinterest on the part of our elected federal officials, to place the interests of the nation, ahead of their personal interests.
I’m afraid that he will be a one term president, and we will not see another woman or minority elected for at least another 100 years thereafter.
We never allowed people to grow, respect, and value others on their own terms. We never allowed the concept of integration, fairness, and equal treatment to creep into the hearts and minds of people and evolve accordingly. Instead, we created awkward and artificial contrivances, and legal fictions, to achieve an admittedly lofty goal. However, we didn’t work on the hearts and minds of the core citizens of America. We just drove the bigots underground, and made unpopular the open expression of their views. (We also made employers financially responsible for discriminationatory acts of their employees which were developed years becoming arriving at that place of employment, as if an employer can really police the heart of an employee.) You couple those attitudes with some religious underpinnings, and nothing has really changed in the past 60 years. Their God supports their view of the world.
On the other hand, those closet liberals / potential race “minglers” who were afraid to disclose their true views during the 1950s, now feel free to do so.
The real question remains, deep down, have we really changed? If one believes that racism is primaily biologically and evolutionarily driven, and not a mere matter of choice, then it's going to take more than 60 years of artifical laws to change the DNA.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Post No. 60: Why I am Concerned that Obama Might Win
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Earlier this evening, I had a conversation with a friend, Lawrence, about the prospect that Obama might actually pull this thing off. Lawrence, an Obama supporter, participated in a neighborhood campaign drive several weeks ago.
He turned and looked at me with a slight tinge of amazement, when I said that I hoped that Obama did not win this election.
You see, it’s not that I have anything of real substance against Obama. However, I just do not honestly think that America is ready for a black president. Plain and simple. We’re not there yet.
Same goes for a woman president. Does that mean that I feel that the battle should not be fought? Of course not.
This has nothing to do with my personal views – just my thoughts watching the battle and the soldiers on both sides. Certain more optimistic or lofty-ideal commentators have spoken about how far our country has come, and the message which it will send to the world.
Let me provide an analogy which might better explain my concern.
There are many legal organizations, which advocate certain positions, and wait for years to pursue the appropriate “test case” to advance their positions. Timing is very important. The mood of the country, the facts of the case, the strength of the plaintiff, the financial resources available, and the judges on the bench, are all factors.
Such cases are not prosecuted carelessly, without considering the big picture / long term effects.
As much of an optimist as I portray myself, there are some practical issues about which I am very concerned.
First, I think that we are in for some very difficult economic times for several years to come.
Second, to the extent that any purported damage done by the current folks in power can be addressed, it will take a long time to perform any corrective action.
Third, this war thing is not going to be resolved as quickly and easily as we might argue, no matter which side is telling it.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t have the financial resources to do much of anything.
We all know, on a practical level, that when times are bad, fault and blame are placed on the executive in charge, and the party in control of Congress.
Imagine the discourse while Obama presides over all of these complications. I can tell you how soon the criticism of his policies is going to start.
I have a fear that should he win, within 2 years, the electorate will be calling for his head. And his opponents will undoubtedly demonize him and say, “I told you so.”
Economic hardship and pain have a way of quickly erasing all memory about the good times associated with the successful candidate’s election, and the good times that he anticipates down the road.
The patience of the electorate will get short. Real short.
And it is not just Obama about whom I am theoretically concerned. I would be just as concerned about the first woman to occupy the office. Or the first Hispanic.
Quite frankly, the first of any group, after years of conspicuous absence of similar individuals, should not be remembered for bad times. I’d almost have him lose this one and win the next one, when the economy is on the upswing. But then again, there may not be another time.
And so I told Lawrence, there is only so much that a president can do, and that the problems are global and deep rooted in nature. Lawrence looked at me and said, despite that, he wanted a president who inspired hope around the world. Is that a good enough reason to want to see Obama win?
You tell me.
P.S. In the end, Hillary may have been the victor.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Earlier this evening, I had a conversation with a friend, Lawrence, about the prospect that Obama might actually pull this thing off. Lawrence, an Obama supporter, participated in a neighborhood campaign drive several weeks ago.
He turned and looked at me with a slight tinge of amazement, when I said that I hoped that Obama did not win this election.
You see, it’s not that I have anything of real substance against Obama. However, I just do not honestly think that America is ready for a black president. Plain and simple. We’re not there yet.
Same goes for a woman president. Does that mean that I feel that the battle should not be fought? Of course not.
This has nothing to do with my personal views – just my thoughts watching the battle and the soldiers on both sides. Certain more optimistic or lofty-ideal commentators have spoken about how far our country has come, and the message which it will send to the world.
Let me provide an analogy which might better explain my concern.
There are many legal organizations, which advocate certain positions, and wait for years to pursue the appropriate “test case” to advance their positions. Timing is very important. The mood of the country, the facts of the case, the strength of the plaintiff, the financial resources available, and the judges on the bench, are all factors.
Such cases are not prosecuted carelessly, without considering the big picture / long term effects.
As much of an optimist as I portray myself, there are some practical issues about which I am very concerned.
First, I think that we are in for some very difficult economic times for several years to come.
Second, to the extent that any purported damage done by the current folks in power can be addressed, it will take a long time to perform any corrective action.
Third, this war thing is not going to be resolved as quickly and easily as we might argue, no matter which side is telling it.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t have the financial resources to do much of anything.
We all know, on a practical level, that when times are bad, fault and blame are placed on the executive in charge, and the party in control of Congress.
Imagine the discourse while Obama presides over all of these complications. I can tell you how soon the criticism of his policies is going to start.
I have a fear that should he win, within 2 years, the electorate will be calling for his head. And his opponents will undoubtedly demonize him and say, “I told you so.”
Economic hardship and pain have a way of quickly erasing all memory about the good times associated with the successful candidate’s election, and the good times that he anticipates down the road.
The patience of the electorate will get short. Real short.
And it is not just Obama about whom I am theoretically concerned. I would be just as concerned about the first woman to occupy the office. Or the first Hispanic.
Quite frankly, the first of any group, after years of conspicuous absence of similar individuals, should not be remembered for bad times. I’d almost have him lose this one and win the next one, when the economy is on the upswing. But then again, there may not be another time.
And so I told Lawrence, there is only so much that a president can do, and that the problems are global and deep rooted in nature. Lawrence looked at me and said, despite that, he wanted a president who inspired hope around the world. Is that a good enough reason to want to see Obama win?
You tell me.
P.S. In the end, Hillary may have been the victor.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, October 24, 2008
Post No. 59a: As If There was a Question that Folks are "Worked Up" about this Election
You may or may not have heard about the young lady, Ashley Todd, who was purportedly attacked yesterday, and the initial reports were that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter.
Well, check this out: http://cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Well, check this out: http://cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Post No. 59a: Now You Tell Me That Folks aren't Worked Up about this Election
You may or may not have heard about the young lady, Ashley Todd, who was purportedly attacked yesterday, and the initial reports were that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter.
Well, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Well, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/index.html
Daily Trifecta No. 3
Word of the Day:
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: (1) the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows, or believes, to be false; (2) the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed the rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion which it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence, but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
See references and sources at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
Quote of the Day:
Intellectual Honesty is more than what’s legislated; it is inherent in the best people, those who take a broader view of their action than simply, “What’s in it for me?”Fact of the Day: Top Three Highest and Top Three Lowest 3 Yr Avg Median Income by State (2005 – 2007):
Fact of the Day:
New Jersey $65,933
Maryland $65,124
New Hampshire $63,942
Louisiana $39,461
Arkansas $39,279
Mississippi $35,971
Figures acquired from U.S. Census Bureau Statistics Web Site
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Post No. 59: Art Imitates Political Life Again
© the Institute for Applied Common Sense
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
As this piece is being written, I am watching an old episode of The West Wing on Bravo. The “conversation” in the episode was so close to the current “conversation” in our presidential race, that I had to find out when the series ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing.) It turned out to be 2006.
Part of The West Wing conversation had to do with courting evangelical Christians, uniting the Republican party, affiliation with shady characters from one’s past, and associations with ministers. There was also a discussion about the public’s seeming demand for expressions of religious faith from politicians. However, those issues are not the focus of this piece.
This piece is about uniting America. In the West Wing episode, Alan Alda plays a member of Congress planning to run for the presidency when Martin Sheen’s character, President Bartlett, leaves office. A Karl Rove type political consultant, played by Ron Silver, is brought in by one of Alda’s aides to counsel Alda. One gets a sense that Alda does not respect Silver. Silver even goes so far as to question Alda as to whether Alda thinks that Silver is really a spy sent by the opposition.
At some point during the exchange, Silver essentially says the following: “Look, I’ve spent 20 years driving a wedge between people. By observing what drives people apart, I also observed what brings people together. How about this? How about becoming the candidate of unity – the candidate who is capable of defining those issues and goals on which we can all agree, and the methods used to achieve them. We can highlight those ways in which people are connected and have the same basic values. We can also play to their emotions in that during these times of uncertainty, it is more important for us to be united than divided. If you do what I say, you’ll be elected as the candidate of unity.”
I found it to be of interest that Obama originally painted himself as the candidate of unity. He claimed that he was able to cross political and cultural lines. Interestingly, it was the politics of division, from within and without his party, which ultimately caused him to respond in kind.
Do we as a nation have the capability and motivation to unite and get past our individual differences? It has generally been said that such unification, and looking past our selfish interests, occurs during periods of “stress.” These might include war (at least those in which the whole country is invested), natural disaster, and common threats (such as a poor economy or the attack on the World Trade Center). Are we as a nation sufficiently in trouble (or worried) to prompt us to find some unifying principles around which we can rally?
To some extent that’s what occurred when oil prices hit the roof. We finally started a serious conversation on alternative energy sources and energy independence. (By the way, Jimmy Carter first tried to doing something about energy during his term.)
I find it a tad ironic that we are facing some very serious problems in this country, and we are still focusing on our differences. I still say that the Laughingman had it right earlier this year. If only McCain had nominated Obama as his VP, and Obama had done the same with McCain. That would have been the shot heard around the world.
I recently heard an author speak on C-Span2 Book TV. (I was unable to locate the book for purposes of this article.) However, it was someone fairly well known, since Newt Gingrich trusted him enough to provide him with his records and notes. In the records, the author located a set of amazing documents.
As most of you are aware, there was no love lost between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Furthermore, they did not trust one another. However, at some point in Clinton’s second term, they both came to the conclusion that they both loved their country. They also both felt that partisanship was having a detrimental effect. Erskine Bowles was Clinton’s Chief of Staff (1997-1998) at the time, and fortunately, Gingrich trusted him.
The author actually found a document outlining the terms of the truce, and stating the goals of Clinton and Gingrich. The document further contained a pledge to work together. Just before it was about to go to the press, and announced to the American public, the Monica Lewinsky story broke 2 or 3 days before. Thereafter, the Congress and the President were absorbed by the Fellatio Investigation.
Can you imagine the direction in which our country might have been guided had that circus not occurred? In the grand scheme of things, was the President’s indiscretion and admittedly improper conduct of such importance as to justify the diversion?
Maybe we could use someone similar to the character played by Alda in the West Wing episode. I’m still wondering what would have happened if Obama, in his quest to be the candidate of inclusion and crossing of lines, simply ignored the questions raised about his citizenry, Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, Bill Ayers, Lewis Farrakan, Chicago Political Machine allegations, ACORN, and his purported devotion to Islam.
Here’s my final question. Who would you admire more? An honorable and noble loser, or a down and dirty winner?
When one stops to think about it, it is we who determine the nature of the discourse, by what we pay attention to, and how we respond.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Daily Trifecta No. 2
Quote of the Day:
“See! Even Colin is POWELLING around with Terrorists!! I Told You So! You Betcha!” Political Cartoonist John Darkow, October 20, 2008, © Columbia Daily Tribune, Cagle Cartoons.com (Unable to acquire rights to publish; if interested in viewing, go to http://www.politicalcartoons.com/archive/2008/10/20.html.
Fact of the Day:
During the Vietnam Era Conflict (1959 to April 30, 1975), the United States lost 58,159 soldiers, according to http://www.vietnamwar.com/.
Word of the Day:
MEME: “A unit of cultural information, e.g. a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, © Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
“A cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.” http://www.dictionary.com/ based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006.
“See! Even Colin is POWELLING around with Terrorists!! I Told You So! You Betcha!” Political Cartoonist John Darkow, October 20, 2008, © Columbia Daily Tribune, Cagle Cartoons.com (Unable to acquire rights to publish; if interested in viewing, go to http://www.politicalcartoons.com/archive/2008/10/20.html.
Fact of the Day:
During the Vietnam Era Conflict (1959 to April 30, 1975), the United States lost 58,159 soldiers, according to http://www.vietnamwar.com/.
Word of the Day:
MEME: “A unit of cultural information, e.g. a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, © Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
“A cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.” http://www.dictionary.com/ based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Daily Trifecta No. 1
Quote of the Day: “This crisis is serious enough to make you believe in God again.”
Second Quote: “We’re borrowing from China to buy oil from the Middle East and virtually throwing it up in the air.”
Fact of the Day: The Republicans and Dixicrats mounted a 57 day filibuster (before a substitute bill was introduced) in connection with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before it passed.
Word of the Day: Hubris: overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance; wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or passion
Second Quote: “We’re borrowing from China to buy oil from the Middle East and virtually throwing it up in the air.”
Fact of the Day: The Republicans and Dixicrats mounted a 57 day filibuster (before a substitute bill was introduced) in connection with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before it passed.
Word of the Day: Hubris: overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance; wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride or passion
Post No. 58: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions about the American Voting Public
When I was in undergraduate engineering school, one of the few non-engineering/science courses that I took was a political science course. The professor had us read one of the books then recently published (circa 1973) by well-known political scientists Dye and Ziegler.
The most significant thing that I can recall from that work is that most people do not make reasoned, analytical decisions about their political candidates. Instead, Dye and Ziegler concluded that people generally voted the way their parents voted – plain and simple.
I recently recalled this piece of research when a buddy generated a comment about the current presidential campaign. However, I acknowledged that new research might reveal other patterns, particularly in light of the massive amount of information available to us through the media and other sources, and the fact that our citizenry is generally better educated and more sophisticated. I just didn’t have the data or research to support my suspicion about the evolving mindset of the citizen voters.
Well, C-Span2 Book TV addressed the research issue yesterday, and again today. You can watch the presentation on your own schedule by clicking on this link. Andrew Gelman is a professor at Columbia University specializing in statistics and political science. He recently published his most recent book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. During the presentation, Gelman and several of his co-researchers present their findings.
The following introduction is taken from the C-Span2, Book TV page for the program, copyright 2008, by the National Cable Satellite Corporation:
“Andrew Gelman examines the common thinking about the American electorate and contends that several long held beliefs are incorrect. Mr. Gelman argues that the political fissure in the United States does not lie between Blue America and Red America but rather between affluent Republicans and Democrats. He also contends that religion is no more divisive in the United States than amongst European voters and that church attendance is a greater predictor of voting among the rich than the poor.”
The program is hosted by the Cato Institute. (It should be kept in mind that even according to its website, the Institute is dedicated to “promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Hmmmm. Oh well, they are still a respected entity, and all of us are free to stake a position and advocate for it.)
One of Gelman’s co-researchers argues that only a relatively small number of Americans are informed sufficiently to have an ideology, and thus the conflict in ideology only exists between the elite. Reference is frequently made to the works of Ronald Englehart, who tracked the cultural shifts that occur in societies internationally as they became more economically advanced in the post-modern era. To the extent that there is a counter-culture revolution, it invariably creates a backlash, or counter-counter-culture revolution, and in the case of the US, it was the rise of the evangelical Christians, otherwise known as the Moral Majority.
The results of the research are interesting, and will cause one to think. Enjoy it – it’s thought provoking.
The most significant thing that I can recall from that work is that most people do not make reasoned, analytical decisions about their political candidates. Instead, Dye and Ziegler concluded that people generally voted the way their parents voted – plain and simple.
I recently recalled this piece of research when a buddy generated a comment about the current presidential campaign. However, I acknowledged that new research might reveal other patterns, particularly in light of the massive amount of information available to us through the media and other sources, and the fact that our citizenry is generally better educated and more sophisticated. I just didn’t have the data or research to support my suspicion about the evolving mindset of the citizen voters.
Well, C-Span2 Book TV addressed the research issue yesterday, and again today. You can watch the presentation on your own schedule by clicking on this link. Andrew Gelman is a professor at Columbia University specializing in statistics and political science. He recently published his most recent book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. During the presentation, Gelman and several of his co-researchers present their findings.
The following introduction is taken from the C-Span2, Book TV page for the program, copyright 2008, by the National Cable Satellite Corporation:
“Andrew Gelman examines the common thinking about the American electorate and contends that several long held beliefs are incorrect. Mr. Gelman argues that the political fissure in the United States does not lie between Blue America and Red America but rather between affluent Republicans and Democrats. He also contends that religion is no more divisive in the United States than amongst European voters and that church attendance is a greater predictor of voting among the rich than the poor.”
The program is hosted by the Cato Institute. (It should be kept in mind that even according to its website, the Institute is dedicated to “promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations.” Hmmmm. Oh well, they are still a respected entity, and all of us are free to stake a position and advocate for it.)
One of Gelman’s co-researchers argues that only a relatively small number of Americans are informed sufficiently to have an ideology, and thus the conflict in ideology only exists between the elite. Reference is frequently made to the works of Ronald Englehart, who tracked the cultural shifts that occur in societies internationally as they became more economically advanced in the post-modern era. To the extent that there is a counter-culture revolution, it invariably creates a backlash, or counter-counter-culture revolution, and in the case of the US, it was the rise of the evangelical Christians, otherwise known as the Moral Majority.
The results of the research are interesting, and will cause one to think. Enjoy it – it’s thought provoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)