Introduction
One major part of a person’s political philosophy is their view on murder and how it is defined. The Bible makes it seem pretty simple: Thou shalt not kill. However, throughout the years, this simple maxim has been challenged by one ambiguous example after another. Is abortion murder? Is capital punishment murder? In order to help you think through your feelings on death and responsibility, I encourage you to work your way through the following exercise....
Exercise
Each of the following examples presents one case in which a person dies. Please read each example and apply one of the following three responses:
A. This is immoral, and I am responsible.
B. This is immoral, but I am not personally responsible.
C. This is just the way the world works, and while it is sad, no one is personally responsible.
Example 1: You shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Example 2: You come home to find your spouse in bed with another person, and, in a fit of rage, grab a gun and kill them both.
Example 3: A person breaks into your house. You grab a gun, and shoot him as he is fleeing out the front door.
Example 4: You are mugged in a back alley, but manage to wrestle the attackers knife from him and kill the man with it.
Example 5: You forget to use contraception, and as a result you/your girlfriend gets pregnant. Raising a child does not fit with your life plan for the moment, and you have an abortion.
Example 6: You are a soldier in the army. You kill a soldier in an enemy army.
Example 7: You are a pilot in the Air Force. You are given a target upon which to drop your bombs. You ask no questions and complete the mission, but later learn that the target was mis-identified and was actually a school.
Example 8: You are a judge in Texas, and you are presiding over the case of a serial murderer. It’s your call whether he is executed or spends his life in jail, and you elect to execute the man.
Example 9: In a prenatal screening within the first trimester of pregnancy, you learn that your child will have Downs syndrome. You elect to have an abortion.
Example 10: You are a doctor. Your emergency room is suddenly flooded with patients, and you ignore several critical patients who will probably die regardless of treatment in order to tend to several other patients who you have a better chance to save.
Example 11: You are the head of a household, and you find yourself in this situation: you have limited resources and money, and can either pay for an expensive treatment that will keep an 85-old relative alive for another year, or for two treatments that will significantly improve the quality of life of two teenage relatives.
Example 12: Your spouse suffers a car accident and loses brain function. After several months on the respirator, you elect to pull the plug.
Example 13: A child dies in Africa from malnutrition. You were aware that this is going on and had the money to donate to the charity that could save this child, but you elected to purchase Netflix instead.
If you feel comfortable posting your results, please do. I a interested to know where other people fall on the spectrum.
Sorry for the recent scarcity of updates. It turns out that school is more time consuming than I’d remembered. To sate your appetite for semi-coherent bloggerel, I recommend: pedagogue-blog.blogspot.com, an account of one young man’s trials and tribulations as a fresh-out-of-college music teacher in a New York City charter school.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Appealing Conspiracy Theories I
As a skeptic and positivist, I am usually dismissive of popular conspiracy theories. However, there are a couple that strike a note of truth. In this occasional series, I will discuss the appeals of some of the few theories I find appealing.
The Moon Landing Was Faked
You may have come into contact with people pushing the idea that Neil Armstrong et al never actually made it to the moon, but instead filmed the whole thing in Nevada somewhere. While it may sound like a wing-nut theory, and I'm sure that adjective describes many of its supporters, some of the arguments for it seem to strike a note of plausibility in my mind.
What it has going for it
The biggest reason why this theory raises my eyebrows is the political situation at the time. The United States and USSR were in the middle of the contest of bravado known as the Cold War. Among the battlefields of this war (aside: doesn't this seem kind of silly in retrospect?) was technological achievement: each side strove to out-invent the other, almost like two brothers competing for their father's approval. President Kennedy launched a major broadside in this battle when, in 1961 he dedicated the country to landing a man on the moon "before this decade is out." This put a lot of pressure on the US, for to fail to accomplish this goal would mean a failure to one-up the Soviets (seriously, doesn't this make it sound like some middle school pissing contest?). Furthermore, in 1969, the year in which the moon landing occurred, the U.S. was desperately
So there was clearly a good deal of incentive, but how about motivation? Was Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, so brazen as to dupe the world in such such a way? Well, yes, and Kennedy, too. JFK was a willing perpetrator of all sorts of shifty shenanigans, ranging from having someone break into a municipal office to ensure his election papers were filed on time, to the secretively planned Bay of Pigs operation. LBJ was certainly not above deception, famously accusing an opponent of bestiality with pigs in order to force the man to spend time in his press conferences having to deny it. And Richard Nixon, whose term had just begun when the landing occurred? I think it's safe to say that he was not above secret conspiracies.
With a strong motivation and the people willing to do it, all the ingredients were in place to fake the moon landing.
Why I don't actually believe
As appealing as the theory is because of the political situation and players involved, I just don't think they could have pulled it off. Faking the moon footage, in particular the low-gravity bouncing, would have been astronomical. Bear in mind that Star Wars was still a decade away. Combine that with the sheer number of people that would have had to be in on it--dozens of government officials from two different political parties, hundreds of NASA scientists, all the astronauts, the film crew, etc. I just don't think that it's possible for that big of a secret to remain a secret for so long.
The Moon Landing Was Faked
You may have come into contact with people pushing the idea that Neil Armstrong et al never actually made it to the moon, but instead filmed the whole thing in Nevada somewhere. While it may sound like a wing-nut theory, and I'm sure that adjective describes many of its supporters, some of the arguments for it seem to strike a note of plausibility in my mind.
What it has going for it
The biggest reason why this theory raises my eyebrows is the political situation at the time. The United States and USSR were in the middle of the contest of bravado known as the Cold War. Among the battlefields of this war (aside: doesn't this seem kind of silly in retrospect?) was technological achievement: each side strove to out-invent the other, almost like two brothers competing for their father's approval. President Kennedy launched a major broadside in this battle when, in 1961 he dedicated the country to landing a man on the moon "before this decade is out." This put a lot of pressure on the US, for to fail to accomplish this goal would mean a failure to one-up the Soviets (seriously, doesn't this make it sound like some middle school pissing contest?). Furthermore, in 1969, the year in which the moon landing occurred, the U.S. was desperately
So there was clearly a good deal of incentive, but how about motivation? Was Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, so brazen as to dupe the world in such such a way? Well, yes, and Kennedy, too. JFK was a willing perpetrator of all sorts of shifty shenanigans, ranging from having someone break into a municipal office to ensure his election papers were filed on time, to the secretively planned Bay of Pigs operation. LBJ was certainly not above deception, famously accusing an opponent of bestiality with pigs in order to force the man to spend time in his press conferences having to deny it. And Richard Nixon, whose term had just begun when the landing occurred? I think it's safe to say that he was not above secret conspiracies.
With a strong motivation and the people willing to do it, all the ingredients were in place to fake the moon landing.
Why I don't actually believe
As appealing as the theory is because of the political situation and players involved, I just don't think they could have pulled it off. Faking the moon footage, in particular the low-gravity bouncing, would have been astronomical. Bear in mind that Star Wars was still a decade away. Combine that with the sheer number of people that would have had to be in on it--dozens of government officials from two different political parties, hundreds of NASA scientists, all the astronauts, the film crew, etc. I just don't think that it's possible for that big of a secret to remain a secret for so long.
Friday, July 6, 2007
King for a day
Question
What would you do if you were made head of the country for just long enough to impose one piece of legislation? Would you right a perceived wrong, or attend to your pet cause? Essentially, the question is: what added law would do the country the most good?
My Answer
I would set up a system for the public funding of elections.
I thought for a while about the various other causes I might want to try and devote my 15 minute reign to, but I think this works out best. When you're trying to decide between a number of choices, I'm a big fan of third-way options which use a creative alternative to allow you to have you cake and eat it, too (aside: I used to hate that aphorism, but it's growing on me).
The theory behind my choice: as cynical as I may sound sometimes, I really believe that well-run democracies will eventually come up with the right answers. In our case, however, there is a huge problem created by the process of elections.
In order to be a serious contender, you must have some serious cash backing. In order to get that backing, you must be supported by major corporations. And in order for major corporations to think that you're worth investing in, they must believe that your election will bring them something in return. Obviously, there's a huge incentive there to govern in the interest of your financial patriarchs, rather than in the interest of your constituents.
People have tried to fix this problem through campaign finance reform laws. Unfortunately, there are a few major weaknesses in those laws:
1. It's really hard to plug all the potential loop holes.
2. Without some sort of financing, the super-rich have a huge advantage.
3. There is some concern that it is a violation of free speach to prevent people from giving money to political organizations.
My solution to the problem is publicly-funded elections. Here's how it works: money is accrued through taxes (the cost is an estimated $1 per person). Any candidate getting a requisite minimum number of signatures is eligible to spend this money on an election. If all the candidates in a race opt to run with public money, they are each allowed a fixed ammount. If only one candidate elects to take they public money, enough is given to catch him/her up with his opponent. Since the opponent now has no incentive to try to outspend his/her rival, the total money spent drops significantly.
I like this idea a lot because it frees politicians from their financial obligtions, and allows them to support the legislation based upon whether they think it is sound, rather than whether it will be good for their backers. This would end the patron system we have now, and get real work accomplished on immigration, the environment, education, the economy, and many other areas in which companies havea vested interest.
What would you do if you were made head of the country for just long enough to impose one piece of legislation? Would you right a perceived wrong, or attend to your pet cause? Essentially, the question is: what added law would do the country the most good?
My Answer
I would set up a system for the public funding of elections.
I thought for a while about the various other causes I might want to try and devote my 15 minute reign to, but I think this works out best. When you're trying to decide between a number of choices, I'm a big fan of third-way options which use a creative alternative to allow you to have you cake and eat it, too (aside: I used to hate that aphorism, but it's growing on me).
The theory behind my choice: as cynical as I may sound sometimes, I really believe that well-run democracies will eventually come up with the right answers. In our case, however, there is a huge problem created by the process of elections.
In order to be a serious contender, you must have some serious cash backing. In order to get that backing, you must be supported by major corporations. And in order for major corporations to think that you're worth investing in, they must believe that your election will bring them something in return. Obviously, there's a huge incentive there to govern in the interest of your financial patriarchs, rather than in the interest of your constituents.
People have tried to fix this problem through campaign finance reform laws. Unfortunately, there are a few major weaknesses in those laws:
1. It's really hard to plug all the potential loop holes.
2. Without some sort of financing, the super-rich have a huge advantage.
3. There is some concern that it is a violation of free speach to prevent people from giving money to political organizations.
My solution to the problem is publicly-funded elections. Here's how it works: money is accrued through taxes (the cost is an estimated $1 per person). Any candidate getting a requisite minimum number of signatures is eligible to spend this money on an election. If all the candidates in a race opt to run with public money, they are each allowed a fixed ammount. If only one candidate elects to take they public money, enough is given to catch him/her up with his opponent. Since the opponent now has no incentive to try to outspend his/her rival, the total money spent drops significantly.
I like this idea a lot because it frees politicians from their financial obligtions, and allows them to support the legislation based upon whether they think it is sound, rather than whether it will be good for their backers. This would end the patron system we have now, and get real work accomplished on immigration, the environment, education, the economy, and many other areas in which companies havea vested interest.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Running off with the nomination
Introduction
If ever there was an argument for run-off balloting, this presidential primary season is it. Both parties find themselves in the awkward position of of having a frontrunner who is viewed negatively by a large portion of the party. Keep reading for a brief explanation of the problem and potential solution.
Republican Primary
Former mayor Rudy Giulliani currently leads the Republican field with a slim majority of the vote. Giulliani appears to have a percentage of voters loyal to him within his party, but much of the rest of conservative America appears reluctant to support a pro-life, pro-gay rights candidate. Despite the fact that many of his party, perhaps even most, would list him at the bottom of their preferred candidates, Giulliani would likely be the Republican nominee if the vote were held today.
Democratic Primary
The Democrats face a similar predicament. Hillary Clinton has a significant lead over her rivals in the polls. However, in a one-on-one election, she would lose to many of her competitors. She is viewed negatively by many in her party, but has a large enough chunk of supporters to lend her the lead. (Aside: Hillary is by far the most-hated Democratic candidate among Republicans--most would prefer any other Democrat to her. And yet, she is the most conservative in the Democratic field by far. Can anyone explain this to me?)
Solution: Run-off voting
Run-off voting solves this stratgy by allowing voters to list the candidates from favorite to least-favorite rather than simply checking their first choice. This way, one candidate cannot win by splitting the vote, for example if Hillary should win the nomination when anti-Hillary voters were unable to choose decisively between Al Gore and Barack Obama. Pay attention to this, I could easily see it playing a big part in this election.
Note
One way the primary system has countered vote-splitting in the past is by the winnowing of the field--candidates drop out as it becomes increasingly clear they will not win. This will be less the case this year, as the primary schedule has been rewritten so that the individual primaries are less spread out, not allowing time for candidates to drop out.
If ever there was an argument for run-off balloting, this presidential primary season is it. Both parties find themselves in the awkward position of of having a frontrunner who is viewed negatively by a large portion of the party. Keep reading for a brief explanation of the problem and potential solution.
Republican Primary
Former mayor Rudy Giulliani currently leads the Republican field with a slim majority of the vote. Giulliani appears to have a percentage of voters loyal to him within his party, but much of the rest of conservative America appears reluctant to support a pro-life, pro-gay rights candidate. Despite the fact that many of his party, perhaps even most, would list him at the bottom of their preferred candidates, Giulliani would likely be the Republican nominee if the vote were held today.
Democratic Primary
The Democrats face a similar predicament. Hillary Clinton has a significant lead over her rivals in the polls. However, in a one-on-one election, she would lose to many of her competitors. She is viewed negatively by many in her party, but has a large enough chunk of supporters to lend her the lead. (Aside: Hillary is by far the most-hated Democratic candidate among Republicans--most would prefer any other Democrat to her. And yet, she is the most conservative in the Democratic field by far. Can anyone explain this to me?)
Solution: Run-off voting
Run-off voting solves this stratgy by allowing voters to list the candidates from favorite to least-favorite rather than simply checking their first choice. This way, one candidate cannot win by splitting the vote, for example if Hillary should win the nomination when anti-Hillary voters were unable to choose decisively between Al Gore and Barack Obama. Pay attention to this, I could easily see it playing a big part in this election.
Note
One way the primary system has countered vote-splitting in the past is by the winnowing of the field--candidates drop out as it becomes increasingly clear they will not win. This will be less the case this year, as the primary schedule has been rewritten so that the individual primaries are less spread out, not allowing time for candidates to drop out.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Republican debate II: the raw stats
Here's the raw, question-by-question data from the debate. Each group of letters represents one answer. I tried to develop objective methods of scoring (an answer earned an "O" when Wolf interrupted to tell them they were over time, for example). Also, to show the chronology of the debate, I jumped to the next column as soon as one of the candidates had answered that many questions. So: because McCain, for example, answered his second question before Tancredo had been asked his first, Tancredo's first answer appears in the second column. Hopefully, this shows the flow of the debate a little more clearly. Finally: if an N and an A appear in the same answer acronym, it means that moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed them for clarification and they then answered the question. Without further ado:
Candidate
McCain____A________NDOSAX___AXOS_________AO____NZ__ASO___A
Romney__CNNDO_____NPOD____AO______AS___NZPO___A___AO___A
Giuliani___AD_______AD______AS_______XS9___AO____AS___N____
Tancredo___________AO______AZBDO_________________________AB
Hunter_____________AXO_____ACAS_____NSB___________________NCO
Paul_______________AXO______________AX____AXB___AB___N
Brownback_NO_______AO_______________NO___NO______________AD
Thompson___________AO_______________AS___AZCO____________A
Huckabee___________ARP____________________NCO_______N___ABO
Gilmore___A________NO_____________________NO________AO______
A Answered
N Not Answered
R Unprompted Reagan Reference
X Attack on another candidate
P Platitude
O Over time limit
C Caught straying
D Attack on Democrats
B Attack on Bush
Z Shout out to the religious Right
S Tied answer to national security though the initial question did not
9 September 11th Reference
Candidate
McCain____A________NDOSAX___AXOS_________AO____NZ__ASO___A
Romney__CNNDO_____NPOD____AO______AS___NZPO___A___AO___A
Giuliani___AD_______AD______AS_______XS9___AO____AS___N____
Tancredo___________AO______AZBDO_________________________AB
Hunter_____________AXO_____ACAS_____NSB___________________NCO
Paul_______________AXO______________AX____AXB___AB___N
Brownback_NO_______AO_______________NO___NO______________AD
Thompson___________AO_______________AS___AZCO____________A
Huckabee___________ARP____________________NCO_______N___ABO
Gilmore___A________NO_____________________NO________AO______
A Answered
N Not Answered
R Unprompted Reagan Reference
X Attack on another candidate
P Platitude
O Over time limit
C Caught straying
D Attack on Democrats
B Attack on Bush
Z Shout out to the religious Right
S Tied answer to national security though the initial question did not
9 September 11th Reference
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Republican Debate, Take 2: in which I bite off more than I can chew.
I again missed the Democratic debate and caught the Republican one. Sorry. For this debate, I tried both to keep a running diary and some stats on the debate. Whew. I had to give up on the stat-keeping when we got to the town-hall part. Anyways, here they are:
Live blog
•9: times Huckabee raised his eyebrows in his 10 second introduction.
•Romney: We have to have a broad response against Islam in order to make sure that they are moving forward to modernity--his response to whether nuclear weapons are reasonable. Nuking Islamics will catch them up with the rest of the world? We'll have to revise Cheney's "we'll bomb you back to the stone-age" threat to "We'll nuke you up to the space age."
•"We are becoming a bilingual nation and that is not good." -Tancredo. Seriously?
•What the heck is going on with Tommy Thompson's hair? He has his sideburns shaved all the way back to mid-temple. Must be shooting for the 80's hair band vote…
•Pretty funny that lightening continuously struck while Giuliani was answering questions about being opposite the church.
•Giulliani seems to suffer disproportionately from the lightening strike phenomenon.
•Romney puts Putin, Abinojad, and Chavez all in the same answer: whoa. At your local theater this week: Cold War II, Vlad's revenge.
•Romney's a great staller. You couldn't take that mike from him with a gun.
•Gilmore gets in a dig on Russia, too. I'm terrified that Putin will respond to this debate by nuking NH.
•You'd think the "Live free or die" state would be more into a libertarian like Ron Paul.
•"This is not a time to deal with disruptive issues like this" -Giulliani on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Then cites the fact that Clinton has already dealt with it. Not too many subjects that a Republican would dodge by saying that Bill Clinton already solved it.
•"I would put him out on the lecture cicuit"- Thompson on how he would include George W. Bush in his administration. This is hilarious: if elected, Tommy Thompson will turn President Bush into a motivational speaker. He's got my vote.
•Giulliani takes Romney's stalling crown with a 100+ word answer to a "Yes" or "No" question.
•Romney, irate, responds with 150 words.
•Half-time analysis: All doing their best to avoid the issues of abortion, global warming, evolution, gay rights, pardoning Libby. Trying to bring it all back to security.
•Wow, hard not to feel impressed by the first young woman to ask a question in the town hall portion.
•McCain scores big by realizing that you can get up from the chair in the town hall part. All other candidates follow suit.
•Huckabee seems pissed to be asked questions on "morality".
•Apparently, Communism fell because Ronald Reagan was able to talk them out of it (Giulliani). We're approaching Chuck Norris level reverence.
•CNN uses some weird low and high angle shots to make Ron Paul look crazy. Paul helps them out.
•Romney scores with a reference to the "Kennedy-McCain" bill. Republicans hate JFK's little brother, so any linking to his name is poison.
•This standing up revelation is incredible.
•"Bilingual countries don't work, and we should not encourage it." -Tancredo. Take that, Switzerland.
•John McCain points out that many of our armed forces are Hispanic. Right on.
•I should've included a stat that tracked who got the big bursts of applause. Stupid.
•"The leading cause of fear in America is that you'll get cancer." -Brownback. Wow, I'd like to see the stats on that one. I wish that were true, but I think that if it were you would see the candidates trying to drag the debate back to health care rather than national security.
•"[The] tax system literally steps on [the American people's] head" -Huckabee. Yeah, I don't think that's true. Someone needs to explain the word "literally" to the good governor from Arkansas.
•To be an American means that you cut your ties with your past, according to Tancredo. Well, I guess I'm going to have to throw away my English rugby jersies if I hope to retain my citizenship during the Tancredo administration.
•Mike Huckabee stands for no man.
•Giulliani pulls a fake-out: first half of the answer sitting, second half standing.
•McCain's definition of what it takes to become an American includes a belief in the creator. Sorry Jefferson.
•Duncan Hunter, on whether the Republicans should be trying to work with the Democrats to forge consensus: "No". Unspoken: "F*** them."
•Romney 5, Blitzer 0. Wolf could hold Mitt underwater and it wouldn't stop him from talking.
Check back tomorrow for the raw stats.
Live blog
•9: times Huckabee raised his eyebrows in his 10 second introduction.
•Romney: We have to have a broad response against Islam in order to make sure that they are moving forward to modernity--his response to whether nuclear weapons are reasonable. Nuking Islamics will catch them up with the rest of the world? We'll have to revise Cheney's "we'll bomb you back to the stone-age" threat to "We'll nuke you up to the space age."
•"We are becoming a bilingual nation and that is not good." -Tancredo. Seriously?
•What the heck is going on with Tommy Thompson's hair? He has his sideburns shaved all the way back to mid-temple. Must be shooting for the 80's hair band vote…
•Pretty funny that lightening continuously struck while Giuliani was answering questions about being opposite the church.
•Giulliani seems to suffer disproportionately from the lightening strike phenomenon.
•Romney puts Putin, Abinojad, and Chavez all in the same answer: whoa. At your local theater this week: Cold War II, Vlad's revenge.
•Romney's a great staller. You couldn't take that mike from him with a gun.
•Gilmore gets in a dig on Russia, too. I'm terrified that Putin will respond to this debate by nuking NH.
•You'd think the "Live free or die" state would be more into a libertarian like Ron Paul.
•"This is not a time to deal with disruptive issues like this" -Giulliani on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Then cites the fact that Clinton has already dealt with it. Not too many subjects that a Republican would dodge by saying that Bill Clinton already solved it.
•"I would put him out on the lecture cicuit"- Thompson on how he would include George W. Bush in his administration. This is hilarious: if elected, Tommy Thompson will turn President Bush into a motivational speaker. He's got my vote.
•Giulliani takes Romney's stalling crown with a 100+ word answer to a "Yes" or "No" question.
•Romney, irate, responds with 150 words.
•Half-time analysis: All doing their best to avoid the issues of abortion, global warming, evolution, gay rights, pardoning Libby. Trying to bring it all back to security.
•Wow, hard not to feel impressed by the first young woman to ask a question in the town hall portion.
•McCain scores big by realizing that you can get up from the chair in the town hall part. All other candidates follow suit.
•Huckabee seems pissed to be asked questions on "morality".
•Apparently, Communism fell because Ronald Reagan was able to talk them out of it (Giulliani). We're approaching Chuck Norris level reverence.
•CNN uses some weird low and high angle shots to make Ron Paul look crazy. Paul helps them out.
•Romney scores with a reference to the "Kennedy-McCain" bill. Republicans hate JFK's little brother, so any linking to his name is poison.
•This standing up revelation is incredible.
•"Bilingual countries don't work, and we should not encourage it." -Tancredo. Take that, Switzerland.
•John McCain points out that many of our armed forces are Hispanic. Right on.
•I should've included a stat that tracked who got the big bursts of applause. Stupid.
•"The leading cause of fear in America is that you'll get cancer." -Brownback. Wow, I'd like to see the stats on that one. I wish that were true, but I think that if it were you would see the candidates trying to drag the debate back to health care rather than national security.
•"[The] tax system literally steps on [the American people's] head" -Huckabee. Yeah, I don't think that's true. Someone needs to explain the word "literally" to the good governor from Arkansas.
•To be an American means that you cut your ties with your past, according to Tancredo. Well, I guess I'm going to have to throw away my English rugby jersies if I hope to retain my citizenship during the Tancredo administration.
•Mike Huckabee stands for no man.
•Giulliani pulls a fake-out: first half of the answer sitting, second half standing.
•McCain's definition of what it takes to become an American includes a belief in the creator. Sorry Jefferson.
•Duncan Hunter, on whether the Republicans should be trying to work with the Democrats to forge consensus: "No". Unspoken: "F*** them."
•Romney 5, Blitzer 0. Wolf could hold Mitt underwater and it wouldn't stop him from talking.
Check back tomorrow for the raw stats.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
And the winner is...
So, a few days ago I posted a semi-serious statistical analysis of the first Republican debate. At the end of the post, as you can read below, I promised to crown a winner in several days' time. After completing the post, I endeavored to rehabilitate my mind from the hours of sifting through talking points by thinking about anything and everything else. On Sunday, I published one of the filler posts that has been kicking around as a draft for a while to buy some time, but today I realized that I'd have to stop procrastinating and write this post. However, after reading over the numbers again, I decided that I didn't really want to anoint a single victor. Instead, I'll make the case for each of the candidates and let you decide.
Sam Brownback
Brownback's first accomplishment was having a "B" in the beginning of his last name, netting him the lead-off position in this list. Brownback successfully positioned himself as a hardcore conservative. His goal was to pick off some far right votes, and he was thus able to shoot from the hip. He successfully answered 85% of the questions, which one can afford to do if he is unworried about alienating the centrist vote. He also got the opportunity to declare his anti-abortion and anti-evolution stance, scored a Reagan reference, and managed a subtle attack on his more moderate opponents. The final reason Brownback won: he was able to get in on 13 different questions more than any of the other fringe candidates, and even tying him with Giuliani. So without further ado, congratulations Sam Brownback.
Jim Gilmore
Gilmore successfully kept his head down in what turned out to be a gotcha-question free-for-all. Recognizing early on that the tricky questions threatened death-by-Youtube to anyone who stuck his head out too far, Gilmore kept his head down and lived to fight another day. He squirmed his way out of 2/3 of the questions he was asked, more by far than any of the other candidate. This included a crucial obfuscation on his murky stance on abortion. He tied Brownback with 3 platitudes, offering up lofty--but safe--rhetoric. Gilmore also managed a Reagan reference and several subtle attacks. Most importantly, he won by being one of the few candidates to maintain his appeal to both the Right and center by not offering up any material to compromise his hold on either demographic.
Rudy Giuliani (did I really promise to do everyone? whew...)
Rudy notched some serious face time. The front-runner entering into the debate, Giuliani realized that in a fractured Republican field and and bad political climate, conservatives would be forced to lean in the direction of electability, instead of for the socially-conservative candidate that they might prefer. Recognizing this, Giuliani maintained his pro-abortion position, while still throwing the Right a bone ("I hate abortions"). Finally, Giuliani tied Romney for the most unprompted Reagan references, tapping into the cult of celebrity popular with the Republican camp.
Mike Huckabee
Huckabee entered the debate as the dark horse, and managed to maintain this position. Like Brownback, the former governor hopes to capture the Conservative Christian votes that stray from the Big Three. Huckabee staked himself solidly in the Right's camp with anti-evolution and abortion positions. In fact, Huckabee was so confident in his conservative positioning that he was the lone candidate who did not go out of his way to include President Reagan in one of his responses.
Duncan Hunter
Like Gilmore, the Californian also managed to lay low. However, unlike Gilmore, Hunter accomplished this while only dodging a single question. He gave straight answers, and did a good job striking an iron while it was hot: Hunter's pet issue is immigration and border control, which is peaking at the moment. Furthermore, Hunter established himself as a candidate of substance by answering his questions without a single empty platitude. I doing so he strengthened his position as the pet candidate of conservative intelligentsia, including George Will. All in all, the Representative did a good job gaining his exposure without compromising integrity.
John McCain
McCain fired up the old Straight Talk Express, breaking out lines like "I'll follow [bin Laden] to the gates of Hell", and clarifying his belief in evolution with "when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." McCain attempted to revive the rebellious outsider status that made him the media darling in 2000. Furthermore, McCain made important gains on Giuliani by sticking to his guns on the war, staking out an anti-abortion position, and tying Romney for the most questions asked. McCain also made a point to address the camera directly, distinguishing himself from the other candidates, and preempted the issue of age by pointing out the elephant in the room.
Mitt Romney
For this endorsement, just look to the post-debatee polls. Almost all of them have Romney winning the debate. He demonstrated a knack for filling up his time with sharp answers. He was physically the most appealing candidate. He had a direct, if suspicious, answer on the issue of abortion. He invoked Reagan twice, went attack and platitude-free, tied McCain for the most questions fielded, and managed to answer fully 80% of them. He also squeezed through the issue of his religion, offering up a JFK-esque response. So Romney managed to shed two of his major parachutes, gave substantial answers, and made himself a media darling. Not bad for an hour and a half.
Ron Paul
No one made a more significant leap into the public eye than Ron Paul, vaulting from obscurity to YouTube hero status. Paul was the only man in the race against the war, and pressed his advantage with every opportunity. He racked up 9 total attacks, four more than all the other candidates combined, and managed to do it without sounding (too) shrill. All but one of his responses skewered his opponents on their backing of the war, and this may actually be a great strategy. Consider the numbers: though two-thirds of the American public opposes the war, a majority of the Republican base still supports it, so most of the Republican candidates have felt obliged to support it. However, there is still a significant percentage of Republicans who do oppose the war, and in a race in which the leading candidate has just better than a quarter of the votes, small slices of the pie become significant. The Texan's rhetoric, invoking Eisenhower and Nixon, reminded the conservative audience that they had won elections in the past on anti-war tickets. Perhaps this reminder will loosen some more votes to his side.
Tom Tancredo
The first Tommy T. in the debate demonstrated a knack for ducking a question gracefully. Of the three questions he avoided, he neatly avoided one with a platitude, and a second with a Reagan reference. The Colorado representative also joined Huckabee and Brownback as the lone three men expressing disbelief with the theory of evolution. A solid and safe performance, introducing Tacredo to the nation and putting the pieces in place for a later push.
Tommy Thompson
Nothing endears a person to a Republican audience like lines such as "[I was] the one that started welfare reform, reduced welfare caseload...in the state of Wisconsin, by 93%." and "[I] vetoed more than 1900 items in 14 years in office, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars." (the accuracy of these statements is in question, but that rarely matters in a debate). Thompson kept himself solidly in the majority, with stances against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, and signaling that he believed in evolution. Thompson's neutral positioning is key for his game-theory strategy, recently cited by George Will:
So, congratulations to the winner(s). I hope to do one for the next Democratic debate, whenever that is, but that will require enough time having passed to make me forget how much time this took.
Thanks for visiting Eclexia.
Sam Brownback
Brownback's first accomplishment was having a "B" in the beginning of his last name, netting him the lead-off position in this list. Brownback successfully positioned himself as a hardcore conservative. His goal was to pick off some far right votes, and he was thus able to shoot from the hip. He successfully answered 85% of the questions, which one can afford to do if he is unworried about alienating the centrist vote. He also got the opportunity to declare his anti-abortion and anti-evolution stance, scored a Reagan reference, and managed a subtle attack on his more moderate opponents. The final reason Brownback won: he was able to get in on 13 different questions more than any of the other fringe candidates, and even tying him with Giuliani. So without further ado, congratulations Sam Brownback.
Jim Gilmore
Gilmore successfully kept his head down in what turned out to be a gotcha-question free-for-all. Recognizing early on that the tricky questions threatened death-by-Youtube to anyone who stuck his head out too far, Gilmore kept his head down and lived to fight another day. He squirmed his way out of 2/3 of the questions he was asked, more by far than any of the other candidate. This included a crucial obfuscation on his murky stance on abortion. He tied Brownback with 3 platitudes, offering up lofty--but safe--rhetoric. Gilmore also managed a Reagan reference and several subtle attacks. Most importantly, he won by being one of the few candidates to maintain his appeal to both the Right and center by not offering up any material to compromise his hold on either demographic.
Rudy Giuliani (did I really promise to do everyone? whew...)
Rudy notched some serious face time. The front-runner entering into the debate, Giuliani realized that in a fractured Republican field and and bad political climate, conservatives would be forced to lean in the direction of electability, instead of for the socially-conservative candidate that they might prefer. Recognizing this, Giuliani maintained his pro-abortion position, while still throwing the Right a bone ("I hate abortions"). Finally, Giuliani tied Romney for the most unprompted Reagan references, tapping into the cult of celebrity popular with the Republican camp.
Mike Huckabee
Huckabee entered the debate as the dark horse, and managed to maintain this position. Like Brownback, the former governor hopes to capture the Conservative Christian votes that stray from the Big Three. Huckabee staked himself solidly in the Right's camp with anti-evolution and abortion positions. In fact, Huckabee was so confident in his conservative positioning that he was the lone candidate who did not go out of his way to include President Reagan in one of his responses.
Duncan Hunter
Like Gilmore, the Californian also managed to lay low. However, unlike Gilmore, Hunter accomplished this while only dodging a single question. He gave straight answers, and did a good job striking an iron while it was hot: Hunter's pet issue is immigration and border control, which is peaking at the moment. Furthermore, Hunter established himself as a candidate of substance by answering his questions without a single empty platitude. I doing so he strengthened his position as the pet candidate of conservative intelligentsia, including George Will. All in all, the Representative did a good job gaining his exposure without compromising integrity.
John McCain
McCain fired up the old Straight Talk Express, breaking out lines like "I'll follow [bin Laden] to the gates of Hell", and clarifying his belief in evolution with "when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." McCain attempted to revive the rebellious outsider status that made him the media darling in 2000. Furthermore, McCain made important gains on Giuliani by sticking to his guns on the war, staking out an anti-abortion position, and tying Romney for the most questions asked. McCain also made a point to address the camera directly, distinguishing himself from the other candidates, and preempted the issue of age by pointing out the elephant in the room.
Mitt Romney
For this endorsement, just look to the post-debatee polls. Almost all of them have Romney winning the debate. He demonstrated a knack for filling up his time with sharp answers. He was physically the most appealing candidate. He had a direct, if suspicious, answer on the issue of abortion. He invoked Reagan twice, went attack and platitude-free, tied McCain for the most questions fielded, and managed to answer fully 80% of them. He also squeezed through the issue of his religion, offering up a JFK-esque response. So Romney managed to shed two of his major parachutes, gave substantial answers, and made himself a media darling. Not bad for an hour and a half.
Ron Paul
No one made a more significant leap into the public eye than Ron Paul, vaulting from obscurity to YouTube hero status. Paul was the only man in the race against the war, and pressed his advantage with every opportunity. He racked up 9 total attacks, four more than all the other candidates combined, and managed to do it without sounding (too) shrill. All but one of his responses skewered his opponents on their backing of the war, and this may actually be a great strategy. Consider the numbers: though two-thirds of the American public opposes the war, a majority of the Republican base still supports it, so most of the Republican candidates have felt obliged to support it. However, there is still a significant percentage of Republicans who do oppose the war, and in a race in which the leading candidate has just better than a quarter of the votes, small slices of the pie become significant. The Texan's rhetoric, invoking Eisenhower and Nixon, reminded the conservative audience that they had won elections in the past on anti-war tickets. Perhaps this reminder will loosen some more votes to his side.
Tom Tancredo
The first Tommy T. in the debate demonstrated a knack for ducking a question gracefully. Of the three questions he avoided, he neatly avoided one with a platitude, and a second with a Reagan reference. The Colorado representative also joined Huckabee and Brownback as the lone three men expressing disbelief with the theory of evolution. A solid and safe performance, introducing Tacredo to the nation and putting the pieces in place for a later push.
Tommy Thompson
Nothing endears a person to a Republican audience like lines such as "[I was] the one that started welfare reform, reduced welfare caseload...in the state of Wisconsin, by 93%." and "[I] vetoed more than 1900 items in 14 years in office, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars." (the accuracy of these statements is in question, but that rarely matters in a debate). Thompson kept himself solidly in the majority, with stances against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, and signaling that he believed in evolution. Thompson's neutral positioning is key for his game-theory strategy, recently cited by George Will:
In the last 24 elections, since 1912, winners of the presidency won a plurality of the states along the Mississippi. Today the Republican presidential candidate with perhaps the most impressive resume says:
Republicans should assume that in 2008 they will lose Ohio (20 electoral votes), where the state party's corruption and incompetence cost it the governorship, a U.S. Senate seat and a House seat in 2006. So the GOP candidate must carry Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota (27 electoral votes). In 2004, George W. Bush narrowly carried Iowa and narrowly lost Wisconsin and Minnesota, the only state that has voted Democratic in eight consecutive elections.
The man with the impressive resume is Tommy Thompson, who says he can carry those three Midwestern states.
So, congratulations to the winner(s). I hope to do one for the next Democratic debate, whenever that is, but that will require enough time having passed to make me forget how much time this took.
Thanks for visiting Eclexia.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Analyze this: Stats on the first Republican debate
Introduction
Last night was the first Republican primary debate, closely followed by the customary declarations of victory by all involved. Now, you won't see me knocking a person for claiming to have won something that does not have an empirical method for deciding a winner. Much the opposite: I've been known to declare victory in events ranging from formal dinners to flossing. However, as someone with some experience at winning the un-winnable, allow me to give the candidates a tip: you have to quantify something to support your claim. So, in order to help out the White House hopefuls: I have broken down the debate into several quantifiable categories so we can see who the winner truly was.
Key
RR: Unprompted Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
A: Attack on another candidate
QD: Questions dodged
TQ: Total number of questions asked
%: Percentage of questions answered (not dodged)
Note: a series of questions in a row on a single topic are counted as one question, and if the candidate initially avoided the question, then gave a direct answer after being prodded, it is counted as half a dodge. The yes/no questions to the entire field were not counted here, but appear below in the raw data section.
Candidate_________RR___P____A___QD_____TQ____%
Rudy Giuliani_________2____1_____0_____4______13____69%
Jim Gilmore: _________1____3_____2_____6______9_____33%
John McCain:_________1____1_____0_____4______15____73%
Mitt Romney:_________2____0_____0_____3______15____80%
Sam Brownback:_______1____3_____1_____2______13____85%
Mike Huckabee:_______0____1_____1_____2.5_____10____75%
Tommy Thompson:_____1____2_____0_____2.5_____9____72%
Tom Tancedo:_________1____1_____1_____2.5_____9____72%
Duncan Hunter:_______1____0_____0_____1_______9____89%
Ron Paul:____________1____0_____9_____1______10____90%
Where I got my Stats: The Raw Data
Here is a question by question break down of the debate. Each individual question is listed either as A (Answered), or U (Unanswered). If a series of questions were asked, they are contained within parentheses. References to Ronald Reagan (R), platitudes (P), and attacks on other candidates (X) are also listed adjacent to the answer. So: a UP denotes a question dodged with a platitude, an AX shows the answer was accompanied at a barb at one of the other candidates, and the rare URP stands for a response that does not answer the question, contains an unsupported platitude, and cites Ronald Reagan.
Key
A: Answered question
U: Unanswered question
R: Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
X: Attack on another candidate
Y and N: Answer to one of the 4 yes/no questions posed to the entire field. U can still be given if the question is dodged. The number following the letter gives a reference to the yes/no question that was asked.
Candidates' answers in order
Rudy Giuliani: A (PUR) Y1 U (UUN2) (AUUA) A A Y3 A Y4 A (UR) A A A
Jim Gilmore: (PU) (AU) N1 Y2 (AX) (PU) (PU) N3 U Y4 (RAX) A U
John McCain: (UA) (UA) A U1 Y2 (PA) (RA) A A Y3 U A U Y4 A A A A
Mitt Romney: A (RA) A N1 (UR) Y2 (AA) (AAA) (AX) (UN3) A A Y4 A U A A U
Sam Brownback: A (PA) N1 Y2 (RAP) A U N3 A N4 A (AP) (AX) U A A A
Mike Huckabee: A N1 U Y2 (AP) (AX) (UUA) U N3 A N4 A A A
Tommy Thompson: (AP) N1 Y2 A (UA) U (URP) N3 A Y4 A A A
Tom Tancedo: (UA) N1 A Y2 A (UR) (PU) N3 (AX) N4 A A A
Duncan Hunter: A Y1 A Y2 (RA) U A N3 A A Y4 A A
Ron Paul: (AX) N1 (AX) Y2 (AX) (AX) N3 (AX) Y4 U (AX) (AX) (AX) (AX)
1. Should a foreign-born citizen be eligible for the presidency?
2. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
3. Embryonic stem cell research: yes or no?
4. Evolution: real or not?
Notes: Whether or not a question was answered was determined by my own subjective analysis. If you feel that I have slighted any candidate, please feel free to contact me and make your case.
And yes, I did give Representative Tancredo a "Platitude" for his declaration, "No more platitudes."
The craziest moment of the debate in my eyes
There was one specific moment on the debate that really dropped my jaw and I would like to discuss. Here's Mayor Giuliani on what an American president should do in terms of Iran:
Giuliani: And [the Iranian PM] has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.
Wow. Please tell me if my facts are wrong here, but I think that it was the secret shipments of weapons that convinced the Iranians to release the hostages, not President Reagan's eyes. As I recall that was something of a big deal, too. Not only was it giving in to terrorism, but it supplied a fanatic Islamic power with weapons, the same fanatic Islamic power that apparently now has enough weapon that it can loan them to Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers!
Did Mayor Giuliani really mean to suggest that he would have done the same thing? Is he saying that he would pay a ransom of weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to release a hostage? Probably not. Was Giulliani yearning to connect himself to Reagan so much that he was willing to invoke even Reagan's biggest blunder as long as he got a chance to speak the man's name? Definitely.
Stay tuned for...
Next time on Eclexia: I analyze the debate and chose a winner.
Last night was the first Republican primary debate, closely followed by the customary declarations of victory by all involved. Now, you won't see me knocking a person for claiming to have won something that does not have an empirical method for deciding a winner. Much the opposite: I've been known to declare victory in events ranging from formal dinners to flossing. However, as someone with some experience at winning the un-winnable, allow me to give the candidates a tip: you have to quantify something to support your claim. So, in order to help out the White House hopefuls: I have broken down the debate into several quantifiable categories so we can see who the winner truly was.
Key
RR: Unprompted Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
A: Attack on another candidate
QD: Questions dodged
TQ: Total number of questions asked
%: Percentage of questions answered (not dodged)
Note: a series of questions in a row on a single topic are counted as one question, and if the candidate initially avoided the question, then gave a direct answer after being prodded, it is counted as half a dodge. The yes/no questions to the entire field were not counted here, but appear below in the raw data section.
Candidate_________RR___P____A___QD_____TQ____%
Rudy Giuliani_________2____1_____0_____4______13____69%
Jim Gilmore: _________1____3_____2_____6______9_____33%
John McCain:_________1____1_____0_____4______15____73%
Mitt Romney:_________2____0_____0_____3______15____80%
Sam Brownback:_______1____3_____1_____2______13____85%
Mike Huckabee:_______0____1_____1_____2.5_____10____75%
Tommy Thompson:_____1____2_____0_____2.5_____9____72%
Tom Tancedo:_________1____1_____1_____2.5_____9____72%
Duncan Hunter:_______1____0_____0_____1_______9____89%
Ron Paul:____________1____0_____9_____1______10____90%
Where I got my Stats: The Raw Data
Here is a question by question break down of the debate. Each individual question is listed either as A (Answered), or U (Unanswered). If a series of questions were asked, they are contained within parentheses. References to Ronald Reagan (R), platitudes (P), and attacks on other candidates (X) are also listed adjacent to the answer. So: a UP denotes a question dodged with a platitude, an AX shows the answer was accompanied at a barb at one of the other candidates, and the rare URP stands for a response that does not answer the question, contains an unsupported platitude, and cites Ronald Reagan.
Key
A: Answered question
U: Unanswered question
R: Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
X: Attack on another candidate
Y and N: Answer to one of the 4 yes/no questions posed to the entire field. U can still be given if the question is dodged. The number following the letter gives a reference to the yes/no question that was asked.
Candidates' answers in order
Rudy Giuliani: A (PUR) Y1 U (UUN2) (AUUA) A A Y3 A Y4 A (UR) A A A
Jim Gilmore: (PU) (AU) N1 Y2 (AX) (PU) (PU) N3 U Y4 (RAX) A U
John McCain: (UA) (UA) A U1 Y2 (PA) (RA) A A Y3 U A U Y4 A A A A
Mitt Romney: A (RA) A N1 (UR) Y2 (AA) (AAA) (AX) (UN3) A A Y4 A U A A U
Sam Brownback: A (PA) N1 Y2 (RAP) A U N3 A N4 A (AP) (AX) U A A A
Mike Huckabee: A N1 U Y2 (AP) (AX) (UUA) U N3 A N4 A A A
Tommy Thompson: (AP) N1 Y2 A (UA) U (URP) N3 A Y4 A A A
Tom Tancedo: (UA) N1 A Y2 A (UR) (PU) N3 (AX) N4 A A A
Duncan Hunter: A Y1 A Y2 (RA) U A N3 A A Y4 A A
Ron Paul: (AX) N1 (AX) Y2 (AX) (AX) N3 (AX) Y4 U (AX) (AX) (AX) (AX)
1. Should a foreign-born citizen be eligible for the presidency?
2. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
3. Embryonic stem cell research: yes or no?
4. Evolution: real or not?
Notes: Whether or not a question was answered was determined by my own subjective analysis. If you feel that I have slighted any candidate, please feel free to contact me and make your case.
And yes, I did give Representative Tancredo a "Platitude" for his declaration, "No more platitudes."
The craziest moment of the debate in my eyes
There was one specific moment on the debate that really dropped my jaw and I would like to discuss. Here's Mayor Giuliani on what an American president should do in terms of Iran:
Giuliani: And [the Iranian PM] has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.
Wow. Please tell me if my facts are wrong here, but I think that it was the secret shipments of weapons that convinced the Iranians to release the hostages, not President Reagan's eyes. As I recall that was something of a big deal, too. Not only was it giving in to terrorism, but it supplied a fanatic Islamic power with weapons, the same fanatic Islamic power that apparently now has enough weapon that it can loan them to Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers!
Did Mayor Giuliani really mean to suggest that he would have done the same thing? Is he saying that he would pay a ransom of weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to release a hostage? Probably not. Was Giulliani yearning to connect himself to Reagan so much that he was willing to invoke even Reagan's biggest blunder as long as he got a chance to speak the man's name? Definitely.
Stay tuned for...
Next time on Eclexia: I analyze the debate and chose a winner.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Cosmo-politics
Introduction
Once upon a time, political coverage was restricted to policy and issues. Despite the tumultuous marital lives of John Kennedy and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, newspapers instead focused on the more pressing national issues rather than the preseident's personal lives.
Obviously, these times have passed. Most of us came of age during Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal, and since then the political community has been more and more concerned with politician's personal lives instead of actual policy. In the 2000 presidential campaign, people made up their minds about whether they preferred Bush's perceived stupidity to Gore's supposed arogance and dorkiness. In 2004, the debate was initially focused on the war in Iraq, but soon veered back to Bush's verbal ineptness versus the possibility that John Kerry had exaggerated details of his tour in Vietnam. Even when there is not an election imminent, the political airwaves are filled with polemics and invective directed towards the personal lives of the people involved rather than the issues. Furthermore, the issues that we do concern ourselves with are more and more frequently issues of sexual privacy. Basically, we've gotten pretty frickin' nosey.
There are two points I want to make in this discussion:
1. The danger of voting for character rather than substance,
and,
2. The rise of tabloid politics, its implications, and how to beat it.
And here they are:
1. The cult of personality
When asked in 2000, a majority of Americans responded that they would prefer to have a beer with George W. Bush instead of Al Gore. A big deal was made out of this "likability" factor, and would be again in 2004. This phenomenon was not unusual--Reagan and Clinton were also both seen as very "likable" people. You still see political bumper stickers saying things like "Character will out" and other cliches trumpeting the personality of the politician that they celebrate. Americans seem to frequently vote according to their perception of the candidate's character, on their gut feeling about what a (wo)man s/he is. This is dumb for several reasons.
The first reason why you should not pass judgement on politicians based on their personality: you actually have no idea who these people are. It can be impossible to see through the carefully practiced, focus group-tested personalities they put on. Good politicians are skilled actors who practice delivering lines and sincere expressions in private and receive hours on end of coaching. The senator that you think is a honest, plainspoken man of the people is just as likely to simply be the guy who plays the best honest, plainspoken man of the people. Consider Ed Norton. I like Ed Norton. He is a great actor, and takes on roles in movies I usually enjoy. Have I ever seen Ed Norton interviewed? No. Do I have any idea what he is like as a person? No. Is it irrational that I like him? Yes. By this same token, it is irrational for me to like Barack Obama simply because I read his book, shook his hand, and generally admire his personality and back story. I should make up my mind on him based on his policy instead.
"Going with your gut" is a celebrated method of making a political decision in our culture-and a stupid one. It is a poor substitue for actually doing the work to research and understand the issues. Not only does it smack of apathy and intellectual laziness, but it is dangerous. History has proved over and over again that the door to fascism is always opened by a likable, charismatic leader who inspires confidence and trust. The examples are so overused that they've become cliched (Hitler, Castro, Stalin, etc), but they are ignored nonetheless. Perhaps it speaks to a major human flaw of misplacing trust in "likability."
It is not safe to vote for the person you like more; you have to do the research and pick the person whose ideals you most identify with. Even this is not enough: it's just as important to keep track of them after the fact to make sure that they live up to their promises. If even 1% more of the population were to shoulder their civic responsibility in this way, the world would be a better place.
2. Entertainment Tonight: Washington
Personal politics are everywhere. You've heard all about McCain, Giuliani, Kerry, and Gingrich's ex-wives, Edwards' hair, Obama's middle name and elementary school, et cetra ad infinitum. For example, a Google News search reveals that there were 1,340 articles written in the last month with the words "Mitt Romney" and "Mormon", but only 821 on Romney and the economy, 984 on Romney and immigration, 350 on Romney and welfare. Why is it more important that we know about the man's religion than his views on thsee other issues? 1,732 articles on Bill's influence in Hillary's campaign, compared to just 872 on Hillary and the environment?
By now, if your candidate has any shot in the general election, you have to put some money into smearing the other guy. "Opposition researchers" dig around in their history, then take everything unpaid parking ticket they can find and pay clandestine third parties to post that information all over the airwaves. Suddenly, George Bush's DUI or Al Gore's energy bill are on the lips of every 11 o'clock anchor rather than the infinitely less-exciting and more-important medicair that went before the senate that day.
While it's easy to blame the media for their sensationlist political coverage--and I frequently do--the fact of the matter is it's just as much our fault. Media outlets are businesses which must cater to their audience in order to make money, and I guarantee that if no one was interested in the personal foibles of our politicians these new outlets would not cover them. However, in the world of multi-billion dollar industries based on Brad Pitt's marital life, the media rightly recognizes that they can boost their viewership by covering that sort of stuff. Admit it: while you may condemn the personal politics conducted by the bad guys, you get a little schadenfreude every time one of them is involved in a scandal.
Every time you buy one of the trashy magazine in the check-out aisle of the Stop and Shop, every time linger on a celebrity gossip story as you channel surf, you are voting for more tabloid political coverage. Most of the money generated by television and print periodicals comes from advertising, and so the more attention you pay to a particular media, the more ad revenue they generate, and the more that network/periodical will carry the material you were watching.
It's a nice idea that the media should have the scruples to provide us with the information neccesary to make well-informed political decision, but the fact of the matter is that they are money-making endeavours, and must therefore be expected to make deciscions based upon their financial outcome. If everyone in the country got together and secretly decided to watch a lot of bass fishing, you can bet there'll be a whole lot more coverage of bassing (yup, I verbed it) on the daily news. Similarly, if the American public were to become more educated and pay proportionately more attention to political issues instead of the candidate's personal lives, news outlets would quickly revert to pre-Lewinsky news coverage.
Where I stop whining and start doing something: My pledge
I will not provide coverage or commentary on any personal politics on this blog. I will not click on any online news stories that deal with news about a politician's personal life. I will change the channel rather than watching it, I will not buy a magazine or newspaper with such a story on its cover.
So, there my vote: no more assasination politics.
Once upon a time, political coverage was restricted to policy and issues. Despite the tumultuous marital lives of John Kennedy and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, newspapers instead focused on the more pressing national issues rather than the preseident's personal lives.
Obviously, these times have passed. Most of us came of age during Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal, and since then the political community has been more and more concerned with politician's personal lives instead of actual policy. In the 2000 presidential campaign, people made up their minds about whether they preferred Bush's perceived stupidity to Gore's supposed arogance and dorkiness. In 2004, the debate was initially focused on the war in Iraq, but soon veered back to Bush's verbal ineptness versus the possibility that John Kerry had exaggerated details of his tour in Vietnam. Even when there is not an election imminent, the political airwaves are filled with polemics and invective directed towards the personal lives of the people involved rather than the issues. Furthermore, the issues that we do concern ourselves with are more and more frequently issues of sexual privacy. Basically, we've gotten pretty frickin' nosey.
There are two points I want to make in this discussion:
1. The danger of voting for character rather than substance,
and,
2. The rise of tabloid politics, its implications, and how to beat it.
And here they are:
1. The cult of personality
When asked in 2000, a majority of Americans responded that they would prefer to have a beer with George W. Bush instead of Al Gore. A big deal was made out of this "likability" factor, and would be again in 2004. This phenomenon was not unusual--Reagan and Clinton were also both seen as very "likable" people. You still see political bumper stickers saying things like "Character will out" and other cliches trumpeting the personality of the politician that they celebrate. Americans seem to frequently vote according to their perception of the candidate's character, on their gut feeling about what a (wo)man s/he is. This is dumb for several reasons.
The first reason why you should not pass judgement on politicians based on their personality: you actually have no idea who these people are. It can be impossible to see through the carefully practiced, focus group-tested personalities they put on. Good politicians are skilled actors who practice delivering lines and sincere expressions in private and receive hours on end of coaching. The senator that you think is a honest, plainspoken man of the people is just as likely to simply be the guy who plays the best honest, plainspoken man of the people. Consider Ed Norton. I like Ed Norton. He is a great actor, and takes on roles in movies I usually enjoy. Have I ever seen Ed Norton interviewed? No. Do I have any idea what he is like as a person? No. Is it irrational that I like him? Yes. By this same token, it is irrational for me to like Barack Obama simply because I read his book, shook his hand, and generally admire his personality and back story. I should make up my mind on him based on his policy instead.
"Going with your gut" is a celebrated method of making a political decision in our culture-and a stupid one. It is a poor substitue for actually doing the work to research and understand the issues. Not only does it smack of apathy and intellectual laziness, but it is dangerous. History has proved over and over again that the door to fascism is always opened by a likable, charismatic leader who inspires confidence and trust. The examples are so overused that they've become cliched (Hitler, Castro, Stalin, etc), but they are ignored nonetheless. Perhaps it speaks to a major human flaw of misplacing trust in "likability."
It is not safe to vote for the person you like more; you have to do the research and pick the person whose ideals you most identify with. Even this is not enough: it's just as important to keep track of them after the fact to make sure that they live up to their promises. If even 1% more of the population were to shoulder their civic responsibility in this way, the world would be a better place.
2. Entertainment Tonight: Washington
Personal politics are everywhere. You've heard all about McCain, Giuliani, Kerry, and Gingrich's ex-wives, Edwards' hair, Obama's middle name and elementary school, et cetra ad infinitum. For example, a Google News search reveals that there were 1,340 articles written in the last month with the words "Mitt Romney" and "Mormon", but only 821 on Romney and the economy, 984 on Romney and immigration, 350 on Romney and welfare. Why is it more important that we know about the man's religion than his views on thsee other issues? 1,732 articles on Bill's influence in Hillary's campaign, compared to just 872 on Hillary and the environment?
By now, if your candidate has any shot in the general election, you have to put some money into smearing the other guy. "Opposition researchers" dig around in their history, then take everything unpaid parking ticket they can find and pay clandestine third parties to post that information all over the airwaves. Suddenly, George Bush's DUI or Al Gore's energy bill are on the lips of every 11 o'clock anchor rather than the infinitely less-exciting and more-important medicair that went before the senate that day.
While it's easy to blame the media for their sensationlist political coverage--and I frequently do--the fact of the matter is it's just as much our fault. Media outlets are businesses which must cater to their audience in order to make money, and I guarantee that if no one was interested in the personal foibles of our politicians these new outlets would not cover them. However, in the world of multi-billion dollar industries based on Brad Pitt's marital life, the media rightly recognizes that they can boost their viewership by covering that sort of stuff. Admit it: while you may condemn the personal politics conducted by the bad guys, you get a little schadenfreude every time one of them is involved in a scandal.
Every time you buy one of the trashy magazine in the check-out aisle of the Stop and Shop, every time linger on a celebrity gossip story as you channel surf, you are voting for more tabloid political coverage. Most of the money generated by television and print periodicals comes from advertising, and so the more attention you pay to a particular media, the more ad revenue they generate, and the more that network/periodical will carry the material you were watching.
It's a nice idea that the media should have the scruples to provide us with the information neccesary to make well-informed political decision, but the fact of the matter is that they are money-making endeavours, and must therefore be expected to make deciscions based upon their financial outcome. If everyone in the country got together and secretly decided to watch a lot of bass fishing, you can bet there'll be a whole lot more coverage of bassing (yup, I verbed it) on the daily news. Similarly, if the American public were to become more educated and pay proportionately more attention to political issues instead of the candidate's personal lives, news outlets would quickly revert to pre-Lewinsky news coverage.
Where I stop whining and start doing something: My pledge
I will not provide coverage or commentary on any personal politics on this blog. I will not click on any online news stories that deal with news about a politician's personal life. I will change the channel rather than watching it, I will not buy a magazine or newspaper with such a story on its cover.
So, there my vote: no more assasination politics.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Video killed the neo-FDR
It started with the Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960, the first debate ever to be broadcast on national television. Television was not yet as ubiquitous as it is today, and nearly as many people listened to the debate on the radio as watched it on TV. After the debate was over, polls showed a puzzling result: most people who had listed to the debate thought that Nixon had won, but those that had watched the debated overwhelmingly named John Kennedy the winner! This symbolism of this event was remarkable: Nixon was an adroit political speaker, and Kennedy a famously attractive young man. In the end, JFK's good looks helped him carry the debate and, eventually, a narrow victory in the general election. Perhaps even more significantly, the moment catalyzed a political revolution in America: the era of the photogenic president.
The movement began slowly, with uggo's like Nixon still managing to gain the Oval office into the 1970's. But by the 80's the Republicans, at least, had it figured out: they nominated a literal leading man, and soon former actor Ronald Regan was waving regally to the crowd at his inauguration. The phenomenon was apparent even after election, as Regan's (and later Clinton's) seemingly crippling scandals were shrugged off by an enamored public.
The phenomenon was dealt a setback in 1988 when neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis provided the looks to sate Americans desire for a handsome head of state, but this was quickly righted by the appearance of beautiful Bill Clinton in 1992. Since then, Americans have chosen the better-looking candidate in each of the last four elections.
The peak of this obsession came just recently. Republican primary voters were in despair, presented with double-chinned John McCain, squinty Rudy Giuliani, rotund Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, who looks a little like a charicature of an oily used-car salesman. Suddenly, a whisper ran through the Right: Fred Thompson was considering throwing his hat into the ring. An immediate upswelling of support ensued, instantly vaulting Thompson, who still has yet to announced as this is being written, into second place in the polling. What was the source of this excitement? Was it Mr. Thompson's position on family values? No, his record is fairly middle-of-the-road. A reprieve from the marital scandals characterizing the rest of the Republican field? Nope, Thompson has also been divorced. An distinguished political record? Can't be that either, Thompson spent just a term and a half in the Senate before deciding that the life of a politician was too intense. So what made Thompson so special? He plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law and Order.
It's not like the issues don't matter any more. Just like the talent competition can gain you some ground in the Miss America pagent, it pays to have some rhetoric to back up your looks. However, there's no question that having the "presidential look" is a major boon to one's candidacy. So what does this mean for America? Well, for one, you probably won't see too many more wheel chairs in the White House...
The movement began slowly, with uggo's like Nixon still managing to gain the Oval office into the 1970's. But by the 80's the Republicans, at least, had it figured out: they nominated a literal leading man, and soon former actor Ronald Regan was waving regally to the crowd at his inauguration. The phenomenon was apparent even after election, as Regan's (and later Clinton's) seemingly crippling scandals were shrugged off by an enamored public.
The phenomenon was dealt a setback in 1988 when neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis provided the looks to sate Americans desire for a handsome head of state, but this was quickly righted by the appearance of beautiful Bill Clinton in 1992. Since then, Americans have chosen the better-looking candidate in each of the last four elections.
The peak of this obsession came just recently. Republican primary voters were in despair, presented with double-chinned John McCain, squinty Rudy Giuliani, rotund Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, who looks a little like a charicature of an oily used-car salesman. Suddenly, a whisper ran through the Right: Fred Thompson was considering throwing his hat into the ring. An immediate upswelling of support ensued, instantly vaulting Thompson, who still has yet to announced as this is being written, into second place in the polling. What was the source of this excitement? Was it Mr. Thompson's position on family values? No, his record is fairly middle-of-the-road. A reprieve from the marital scandals characterizing the rest of the Republican field? Nope, Thompson has also been divorced. An distinguished political record? Can't be that either, Thompson spent just a term and a half in the Senate before deciding that the life of a politician was too intense. So what made Thompson so special? He plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law and Order.
It's not like the issues don't matter any more. Just like the talent competition can gain you some ground in the Miss America pagent, it pays to have some rhetoric to back up your looks. However, there's no question that having the "presidential look" is a major boon to one's candidacy. So what does this mean for America? Well, for one, you probably won't see too many more wheel chairs in the White House...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Prohibition, or pot for all?
Something needs to happen with our policy on illegal drugs. Consider the evidence:
The Problem of Definition
Criteria for determining what constitutes an illegal drug (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act):
1. Has a high potential for abuse,
and meets one of the following two requirements:
2. Has no currently accepted medical use and a lack of accepted safety,
or,
3. Has accepted medical use, but abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency.
Well, fair enough, but why then are alcohol and tabacco excluded from the list of illegal substances? Do they not meet requirements 1 and 2? Basically, the answer to this question is that alcohol and tobacco are grandfathered in because they are are substances that have a long tradition of recreational use in Western European culture. Had the China or India colonized America, perhaps opium have been excluded from the list, or maybe peyote would be legal if Native American tribes had retained cultural control of the continent. Basically, it's subjective and hypocritical to set a coherent definition, like the one above, and then allow other substances that fall under the definitions to be exempted because our ancestors were in the habit of openly consuming said substances.
So, what should happen?
There are two solutions, as I see it:
1. Remove all exceptions from the rules,
or,
2. Rewrite the rules to relax the definition of and illegal substance
Let's take a look at each of these options.
Option 1: Prohibition, take 2
So what would happen if we applied the current rules fairly to all substances? Here is a point-by-point look at the consequences.
Cons
• Alcohol and tobacco become illegal. This is very bad for various sectors of the economy: bars, liquor stores, various agricultural companies, liquor and cigarette companies. Many jobs are lost
• While alcohol and tobacco consumption are reduced, a major blackmarket is opened up. The quality of the products are unregulated and therefore have the potential to cause health problems.
• The government is unable to tax the money spent on the blackmarket, and loses a lot of money in tax income that it received from taxes on tobacco and cigarette sales.
• People generally become more resentful towards the government.
• The secession of Kentucky (or is this a pro? Kidding, of course).
• Billions more dollars for the enforcement, prosecution, and dentention of offenders.
Pros
• The standing law is applied fairly, and does not place a particular culture's substance of choice above any other's.
• Addiction to tobacco and alcohol do not disappear, but are reduced
• Less deaths caused by drunk driving, other intoxication-related crimes
• A major financial foot-on-the-throat of the working class, addiction to cigarretees, is at least partially lifted.
• Less disease from second-hand smoke; cleaner dining establishments
• Billions of dollars in health care saved
• Millions of acres that are now taken up growing tobacco could be put to use growing grains to help supply food to the world and fuel to our engines
Option 2: Bong hits for all
I won't advocate that the Controlled Substance laws be removed entirely; I do believe that some protection from extremely potent psychoactive drugs is neccesary. However, perhaps criteria 2 and 3 could be redacted to read just:
2. Abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency,
The legal defnition of "severe psychological or pysical dependency" would have to be explained as "causing a level of incapacity to as to prevent the user from performing such and such an activity", or maybe be defined in scientific terms as "a psychoactive negatively altering normal brain function to such and such a standard." This would create a clearly defined, no-exceptions definition that would legalize tobacco, alcohol, marjuana, peyote, and other mild substances while continuing to prohibit more dangerous drugs. A look at the benefits and drawbacks of this plan:
Cons
• Moral wrong? Some perceive marijuana to be on a different moral plane than alcohol or tobacco.
• More crime? This depends on how it's enforced. Crime related to drug dealing should go down, but it is possible that crime related to being under the influence would go up. This depends on the system for ensuring that the substances were sold in a manner that prevented them from being consumed in a dangerous way (ie, making sure there was a limited for potency), or if the system did not have an effective strategy to discourage the substance usage before operating a car, for example.
• Drug dealers out of work may need to turn to more violent sources of income
• More people using substances. This probably would not increase dramatically, but it would certainly go up some.
Pros
• Billions of government dollars saved in cost to enforce, prosecute, and detain minor drug offenders. Consequently, millions of people out of jail and able to help feed their family and bolster the work force, which would help the economy and decrease the need for welfare for the families who have a member incarcerated
• Less crime? See the discussion in the cons section.
• Billions of dollars made on taxing transactions that previously occured on the blackmarket.
• Regulation of currently-controlled substances lead to better standards of sanitation for the products--reduction in health problems from tainted or drugs
• The money that is currently flowing out of the country to fund various militias and cartels will be cut off.
So there it is. In summary: the system as it stands is hypocritical, and to ameliorate that problem would require adopting one of the two methods detailed above.
The Problem of Definition
Criteria for determining what constitutes an illegal drug (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act):
1. Has a high potential for abuse,
and meets one of the following two requirements:
2. Has no currently accepted medical use and a lack of accepted safety,
or,
3. Has accepted medical use, but abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency.
Well, fair enough, but why then are alcohol and tabacco excluded from the list of illegal substances? Do they not meet requirements 1 and 2? Basically, the answer to this question is that alcohol and tobacco are grandfathered in because they are are substances that have a long tradition of recreational use in Western European culture. Had the China or India colonized America, perhaps opium have been excluded from the list, or maybe peyote would be legal if Native American tribes had retained cultural control of the continent. Basically, it's subjective and hypocritical to set a coherent definition, like the one above, and then allow other substances that fall under the definitions to be exempted because our ancestors were in the habit of openly consuming said substances.
So, what should happen?
There are two solutions, as I see it:
1. Remove all exceptions from the rules,
or,
2. Rewrite the rules to relax the definition of and illegal substance
Let's take a look at each of these options.
Option 1: Prohibition, take 2
So what would happen if we applied the current rules fairly to all substances? Here is a point-by-point look at the consequences.
Cons
• Alcohol and tobacco become illegal. This is very bad for various sectors of the economy: bars, liquor stores, various agricultural companies, liquor and cigarette companies. Many jobs are lost
• While alcohol and tobacco consumption are reduced, a major blackmarket is opened up. The quality of the products are unregulated and therefore have the potential to cause health problems.
• The government is unable to tax the money spent on the blackmarket, and loses a lot of money in tax income that it received from taxes on tobacco and cigarette sales.
• People generally become more resentful towards the government.
• The secession of Kentucky (or is this a pro? Kidding, of course).
• Billions more dollars for the enforcement, prosecution, and dentention of offenders.
Pros
• The standing law is applied fairly, and does not place a particular culture's substance of choice above any other's.
• Addiction to tobacco and alcohol do not disappear, but are reduced
• Less deaths caused by drunk driving, other intoxication-related crimes
• A major financial foot-on-the-throat of the working class, addiction to cigarretees, is at least partially lifted.
• Less disease from second-hand smoke; cleaner dining establishments
• Billions of dollars in health care saved
• Millions of acres that are now taken up growing tobacco could be put to use growing grains to help supply food to the world and fuel to our engines
Option 2: Bong hits for all
I won't advocate that the Controlled Substance laws be removed entirely; I do believe that some protection from extremely potent psychoactive drugs is neccesary. However, perhaps criteria 2 and 3 could be redacted to read just:
2. Abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency,
The legal defnition of "severe psychological or pysical dependency" would have to be explained as "causing a level of incapacity to as to prevent the user from performing such and such an activity", or maybe be defined in scientific terms as "a psychoactive negatively altering normal brain function to such and such a standard." This would create a clearly defined, no-exceptions definition that would legalize tobacco, alcohol, marjuana, peyote, and other mild substances while continuing to prohibit more dangerous drugs. A look at the benefits and drawbacks of this plan:
Cons
• Moral wrong? Some perceive marijuana to be on a different moral plane than alcohol or tobacco.
• More crime? This depends on how it's enforced. Crime related to drug dealing should go down, but it is possible that crime related to being under the influence would go up. This depends on the system for ensuring that the substances were sold in a manner that prevented them from being consumed in a dangerous way (ie, making sure there was a limited for potency), or if the system did not have an effective strategy to discourage the substance usage before operating a car, for example.
• Drug dealers out of work may need to turn to more violent sources of income
• More people using substances. This probably would not increase dramatically, but it would certainly go up some.
Pros
• Billions of government dollars saved in cost to enforce, prosecute, and detain minor drug offenders. Consequently, millions of people out of jail and able to help feed their family and bolster the work force, which would help the economy and decrease the need for welfare for the families who have a member incarcerated
• Less crime? See the discussion in the cons section.
• Billions of dollars made on taxing transactions that previously occured on the blackmarket.
• Regulation of currently-controlled substances lead to better standards of sanitation for the products--reduction in health problems from tainted or drugs
• The money that is currently flowing out of the country to fund various militias and cartels will be cut off.
So there it is. In summary: the system as it stands is hypocritical, and to ameliorate that problem would require adopting one of the two methods detailed above.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Don't trust Iowa
Introduction
You've probably heard some talk recently about the shuffling of state primary dates. While this is a hot topic, I'd like to make a short plea: can we please remove the yoke of responsibility from Iowa's shoulders?
The Iowa Caucus: Background
As you may know, because of its early primary, Iowa is considered to be a major player in choosing a nominating a presidential candidate. In 2000, for example, Iowans launched George Bush to a lead that John McCain would never overcome. In 2004, they picked John Kerry out of a field of 9 candidates, propelling him to the the Democratic candidacy.
The Data
Before I get into my argument, let's look at the data for some background. Even though Iowa became famous for catapulting Cater to the presidency in 1976 (even though he lost to "Uncommitted" 37% to 28% ) I'm going to begin with 1980 caucus.
Year__________Republican winner_____________________Democratic winner
1980_________George H. W. Bush*____________________Jimmy Carter
1984_________Reagan, unopposed____________________Walter Mondale
1988_________Bob Dole*_____________________________Dick Gephart*
1992_________George H. W. Bush, unopposed___________Tom Harkin*
1996_________Bob Dole______________________________Bill Clinton (unopposed)
2000_________George W. Bush________________________Al Gore
2004_________George W. Bush, unopposed______________John Kerry
* Did not win nomination
Why I think Iowa's done a bad job
So why am I down on Iowa? Let's look at its track record...
On the Republican side:
Iowa has had four chances to pick a candidate from a field (as opposed to an unopposed candidate). Twice their support failed to win the candidate the nomination (1980, 1988). Of their two picks that made it through, only one was elected president, George W. Bush, who at the moment has an approval rating well below 40% in Iowa. The numbers: Iowa Republicans have converted 1 of 4 chances to pick a president, and that choice turned out to be one they did not like once he became president.
On Democratic side:
Iowa has had six chances to pick a candidate from the field. While the Democrats have much more success choosing the eventual nominee (four out of six: 1980, 1984, 2000, 2004), their candidates have done miserably in general elections. Absolutely zero have won a general election (with the arguable exception of 2000). In fact, the only Democrat to win the presidency over this span occured in one of the few years in which the Democratic nomination went to someone Iowa did not choose!
Looking to the general election, Iowa has failed to choose a candidate to unseat an incumbent five out of five chances, and succeeded in picking a winner in an open election only once out of three chances (that one being the president that they've liked the least in the last 27 years). Neither Reagan, nor George H. W. Bush, nor Clinton ever won a contested caucus in Iowa.
One final, more specific example: in the 2004 election, the Iowa Democrats seemed to be specifically looking for a candidate that would displace George Bush. Basically, they were voting for electability. Their choice, John Kerry, turned out to be pretty unelectable.
My preemptive Mea Culpa
Before the angry e-mails start rolling in from my Iowan (is that the right adjective?) friends, here's a defense of Iowa: Iowa's notoriety as the picker of presidents create a maelstrom of media attention and advertising. Iowans are innundated by this flood of propaganda, as quite understandably have a hard time seeing the candidates as the rest of the nation sees them. Furthermore, the other party generally waits to see who the front runner will be in Iowa before starting the opposition research and attack ads.
You've probably heard some talk recently about the shuffling of state primary dates. While this is a hot topic, I'd like to make a short plea: can we please remove the yoke of responsibility from Iowa's shoulders?
The Iowa Caucus: Background
As you may know, because of its early primary, Iowa is considered to be a major player in choosing a nominating a presidential candidate. In 2000, for example, Iowans launched George Bush to a lead that John McCain would never overcome. In 2004, they picked John Kerry out of a field of 9 candidates, propelling him to the the Democratic candidacy.
The Data
Before I get into my argument, let's look at the data for some background. Even though Iowa became famous for catapulting Cater to the presidency in 1976 (even though he lost to "Uncommitted" 37% to 28% ) I'm going to begin with 1980 caucus.
Year__________Republican winner_____________________Democratic winner
1980_________George H. W. Bush*____________________Jimmy Carter
1984_________Reagan, unopposed____________________Walter Mondale
1988_________Bob Dole*_____________________________Dick Gephart*
1992_________George H. W. Bush, unopposed___________Tom Harkin*
1996_________Bob Dole______________________________Bill Clinton (unopposed)
2000_________George W. Bush________________________Al Gore
2004_________George W. Bush, unopposed______________John Kerry
* Did not win nomination
Why I think Iowa's done a bad job
So why am I down on Iowa? Let's look at its track record...
On the Republican side:
Iowa has had four chances to pick a candidate from a field (as opposed to an unopposed candidate). Twice their support failed to win the candidate the nomination (1980, 1988). Of their two picks that made it through, only one was elected president, George W. Bush, who at the moment has an approval rating well below 40% in Iowa. The numbers: Iowa Republicans have converted 1 of 4 chances to pick a president, and that choice turned out to be one they did not like once he became president.
On Democratic side:
Iowa has had six chances to pick a candidate from the field. While the Democrats have much more success choosing the eventual nominee (four out of six: 1980, 1984, 2000, 2004), their candidates have done miserably in general elections. Absolutely zero have won a general election (with the arguable exception of 2000). In fact, the only Democrat to win the presidency over this span occured in one of the few years in which the Democratic nomination went to someone Iowa did not choose!
Looking to the general election, Iowa has failed to choose a candidate to unseat an incumbent five out of five chances, and succeeded in picking a winner in an open election only once out of three chances (that one being the president that they've liked the least in the last 27 years). Neither Reagan, nor George H. W. Bush, nor Clinton ever won a contested caucus in Iowa.
One final, more specific example: in the 2004 election, the Iowa Democrats seemed to be specifically looking for a candidate that would displace George Bush. Basically, they were voting for electability. Their choice, John Kerry, turned out to be pretty unelectable.
My preemptive Mea Culpa
Before the angry e-mails start rolling in from my Iowan (is that the right adjective?) friends, here's a defense of Iowa: Iowa's notoriety as the picker of presidents create a maelstrom of media attention and advertising. Iowans are innundated by this flood of propaganda, as quite understandably have a hard time seeing the candidates as the rest of the nation sees them. Furthermore, the other party generally waits to see who the front runner will be in Iowa before starting the opposition research and attack ads.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Democracy is the worst form of government...
...except for all the other ones that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
-Winston Churchill
Introduction: But seriously: maybe we should spend a little time evaluating how democracy is working in this country. From the moment we enter school, the wonder of democracy and its heroes are trumpeted. We sing songs and make colorful collages glorifying its virtues. Considering that we are raised in this evironment of pseudo-indoctrination, it is no wonder that most of us view democracy as the culmination of humanity's march to social perfection. Perhaps this never-assailed assumption could bear some more impartial reconsideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to talk you into giving monarchy another try. I just think that, judging by the less-than-objective way we learned about our system of government, we might benefit from a little reevaluation of democracy (or, more specifically, our brand of representative democracy).
Evaluation
In order to investigate just how well democracy appears to be working, I'm going to select a few issues and discuss how democracy has tackled them. These examples will be very broad with many simplifications, but bear with me.
War
Let's look at how America goes to war. The most recent American military egnagements were:
1. Iraq, part I
2. The Yugoslavian conflict
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq, part II
For the first two wars, the stated motivation was intervention to bring to a halt immoral action. For the second two, the stated reason was a response to a direct threat to ourselves. In one case, the threat was based upon the evidence of an attack on the US; in the last case, the threat was a predicted, future one.
So, in two cases, democracy went to war in order to intercede on others behalf. Without looking at the specific examples, we can conclude that the American democracy is willing to commit itself to helping others.
In the two final examples, we engaged in war on our own behalf. The first was in reponse to 9/11, and waged against the country that harbored those responsible for the attack. Lastly, Iraq part II, was based upon several premises which have now been proven untrue. Simplified: Americans are willing to engage in war to protect ourselves, even if from a perceived future threat.
Summary: In terms of war, American democracy is sympathetic enough to intercede on others' behalf. It is also quick to act in its own defense, in some cases before the evidence and justification are properly considered. So our grade: overall, pretty good. We could certainly be doing a lot worse, though perhaps a more rational consideration of the facts is in order at times.
Economy and personal welfare
In general, the American public walks a line between a libertarian philosophy of economic darwinism, and a socialist belief of redistributing wealth in order to ensure that everyone is priviledge to basic amenities. Over the years, we vascilate between these two philosophies, but usually strike a balance between the two.
This is a very broad subject, but I would like to suggest that we examine a subset of our economy in order to understand how it works as a whole. The example: health care. Health care is a prime example of America's middle-ground stance on economics. Health care in this country is privatized, but basic care is also extended to some of the population that cannot afford it.
Basically, health care is one area in which it is clear that the system is not working. Americans pay more for health care than any other people in the world, yet America has a higher percent of people without insurance than just about every other developed nation (15.7%, or 45.8 million people!!!). Further: the majority Americans, when explained the details of a state-run healthcare system, would prefer that method over our current situation. Clearly, something is wrong if most people would prefer the system work a specific way and yet the problem persists.
Summary: As seen in the example of our health care system, our system is failing, in some cases, to correctly meet the desires of the people. As this is the stated goal of democracy, the system is not serving its purpose.
Environment and Climate Change
There are no two ways about it: the facts of climate change are terrifying, and our reaction has been poor at best. The world faces an impending catastrophe, and the reaction within the country has not been promising.
To help make my point, here's a similar scenario, with the difference that this one happens over a period of days instead of decades:
Terrorism experts conduct numerous investigations and concur, with 95% agreement, that al Qaeda has a terrible new weapon. It will destroy many of the world's major cities, unleash disease that will infect millions, drive billions from their homes, destroy food and water supplies, and cause tens of trillions of dollars of economic damage. It will threaten the survival of the human race, and certainly send us into chaos. The experts warn that the only way to confront this threat is to dramatically cut back on the fossil fuels we consume.
Wouldn't it seem ridiculous if, following this warning, half the country began nit-picking at the experts' evidence and credentials, while the other half, wary of their political image, advocated adopting only a tenth of the experts' recommended strategy?
Clearly, our system is not working in this case. We have been unsuccesful in understanding and reacting appropriately to this threat. We are far too complacent and unwilling to respond.
This exposes a major flaw of our democracy: we are poor at considering the big picture and acting in our own best interest in the long term.
Two ideas on how to improve our system
I believe that much of our problems are rooted in education and accountability. Here are two methods that might improve our system and decision-making process. One is educational, the second involves incentives.
1. My (un-egalitarian, heretically anti-constitutional, half-serious) Educational Solution
Before any person is allowed to vote, they must answer 10 factual questions that would test their understanding of relevant and important issues. They would be required to score a 50% or better before being allowed to vote.
In this scenario, those with a poor understanding of the issues are removed from the process. The country as a whole is forced to better educate itself on the issues.
2. The Incentive Scheme Solution
Another major problem with our present solution is that voter turnout is very, very low. Most of the country feels disenfranchised. Perhaps if we implemented some basic incentive scheme, such as a $10 tax refund with proof of vote, it would encourage people to re-engage themselves in the process.
Friday, March 9, 2007
I have seen the enemy, and he is complexity
Introduction
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Mad Lib Politics
This is a simple excercise to help you determine where you fall on the political spectrum. Simply fill in each blank with one of the two answer choices provided.
I love and accept everyone in the world based upon my deep belief in BLANK #1. By "everyone", I mean everyone except BLANK #2. However, I find secret consolation in the knowledge that they'll get their just desserts when BLANK #3. I have a strong libertarian belief that the government should never interfere with BLANK #4. However, I also strongly believe that the government should control BLANK #5. For fun I like to drive my BLANK #6 to the nearest BLANK #7, where I typically down a few BLANK #8 and drunkenly speculate upon the chances that BLANK #9 will run for president.
BLANK #1
a. the teachings of Christ
b. the liberal philosophy of human worth and equality
BLANK #2
a. non-Christians
b. Christians
BLANK #3
a. the Rapture arrives
b. the ice caps melt and flood their beach-front property
BLANK #4
a. health care and the economy
b. abortion and gay rights
BLANK #5
a. abortion and gay rights
b. health care and the economy
BLANK #6
a. Hummer
b. Prius
BLANK #7
a. NASCAR event
b. showing of Rent
BLANK #8
a. Coors
b. glasses of Pinot Noir
BLANK #9
a. Anne Coulter
b. Angelina Jolie
Results
If you chose mostly A's:
Congratulations! You are a proud Republican, member of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln! You should celebrate this discovery by cranking a country song about the beauty of the outdoors while driving your 11mpg SUV with the AC on full.
If you chose mostly B's:
Congratulations! You are a proud Democrat, member of the party of civil rights! You should celebrate this discovery by complaining about how President Bush has sent millions of jobs overseas while driving your foreign-made car to the store to re-stock on imported fruit and beer.
If you had trouble finding answers that matched your own personal convictions, please listen to 10 straight hours of Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken and try again.
I love and accept everyone in the world based upon my deep belief in BLANK #1. By "everyone", I mean everyone except BLANK #2. However, I find secret consolation in the knowledge that they'll get their just desserts when BLANK #3. I have a strong libertarian belief that the government should never interfere with BLANK #4. However, I also strongly believe that the government should control BLANK #5. For fun I like to drive my BLANK #6 to the nearest BLANK #7, where I typically down a few BLANK #8 and drunkenly speculate upon the chances that BLANK #9 will run for president.
BLANK #1
a. the teachings of Christ
b. the liberal philosophy of human worth and equality
BLANK #2
a. non-Christians
b. Christians
BLANK #3
a. the Rapture arrives
b. the ice caps melt and flood their beach-front property
BLANK #4
a. health care and the economy
b. abortion and gay rights
BLANK #5
a. abortion and gay rights
b. health care and the economy
BLANK #6
a. Hummer
b. Prius
BLANK #7
a. NASCAR event
b. showing of Rent
BLANK #8
a. Coors
b. glasses of Pinot Noir
BLANK #9
a. Anne Coulter
b. Angelina Jolie
Results
If you chose mostly A's:
Congratulations! You are a proud Republican, member of the Grand Old Party of Lincoln! You should celebrate this discovery by cranking a country song about the beauty of the outdoors while driving your 11mpg SUV with the AC on full.
If you chose mostly B's:
Congratulations! You are a proud Democrat, member of the party of civil rights! You should celebrate this discovery by complaining about how President Bush has sent millions of jobs overseas while driving your foreign-made car to the store to re-stock on imported fruit and beer.
If you had trouble finding answers that matched your own personal convictions, please listen to 10 straight hours of Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken and try again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)