Fearful Worldview Defense

August 23, 2007

In the five years after September 11, public opinion shifted dramatically in favor of much more restrictive positions on issues such as immigration, abortion rights, and gay marriage. The Republican party, prior to the 2006 midterm elections, astutely played to this rightward swing and indeed assiduously cultivated it. Anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and anti-immigration forces fused with hawkishness on Iraq to make for an (initially) unbeatable electoral coalition. Why did this happen? This fascinating, must-read TNR article locates part of the answer in the political psychology of the American public. In a word, the fear induced by September 11, systematically stoked by the Bush administration, led to the erection of “worldview defense”—a return to instinctive prejudices tied to maintaining and strengthening imaginary moral absolutes. Political psychologists have performed several experiments—documented in the article—that show how reminders of mortality and death, sans time for consideration and deliberation, are reflected back out in much more right wing positions.

What does this mean for 08? Thus far we have seen the main Democratic candidates—Obama, Clinton, and Edwards—stay away from the politics of fear. Candidates such as Kucinich have done the exact same. On the other hand, the Republicans, including Giuliani most spectacularly, are playing the exact same card. The 2006 elections resulted in a repudiation of the Bush years because, the article speculates, Bush’s aura as an authority figure and the receding impact of September 11th meant that more consideration and deliberation was involved in electoral decisions. So this is a good thing. However, the irrational sources of such electoral support mean that there remains a hard core base firmly convinced that the Republicans alone can deliver security and moral protection while the Democrats will open the gates for the terrorists and make America a den of iniquity. If things stay the same, this trend will remain a minority; however, if there was god forbid another terrorist attack or some egregious foreign developments, there is no reason to think that the minority will increase substantially and will revert to the same positions. And as long as the Democrats do not provide and publicize as fervently as the Republicans do, a compelling alternative narrative that deals with the stark reality of terrorism without locating the answer in fear, the danger of demagogic exploitation remains high.

7 Comments | Foreign Policy | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Finding Their Inner-Geek

August 22, 2007

The class of ‘08 isn’t exactly ready to establish a policy platform on Java vs. C++ (nor am I…I have no idea what that means), but we are definitely seeing some major progress this campaign in candidate awareness of tech policy issues. The National Journal presents an excellent overview of candidate positions on everything from Net Neutrality, to spectrum auctions, to how well the campaigns themselves are utilizing web 2.0. That’s fun and important to many of us, but what I find fascinating is how much a candidate’s position on tech issues - or sometimes simply what tech issues they choose to focus on - can tell you about the candidate. I’ll use some excerpts from the National Journal piece to explain:

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has incorporated technology into almost every aspect of her policy platform — from using information technology to overhaul health care to likening her plan to build a national, high-speed Internet system to the wiring of America after the development of the telephone and electricity.

This is hardly even a policy stance, this is about infrastructure investment, but it says a lot about the Clinton campaign: think big, stick with the can’t-lose issues, don’t get mired in a technical debate. Just ask the other candidates, right now, you don’t want to argue with this woman.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has come out in strong support of network neutrality, a term that describes efforts to ensure equal treatment of broadband content. He is also the only candidate to write the FCC and ask commissioners to use the upcoming spectrum auction to make the Internet more affordable and accessible.

Ever the populist. Sticks with name-brand issues that seem simpler than they really are: make a good name for yourself among the activist left and ignore the dirty work of actually accomplishing the policy objectives.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wants to focus on expanding Internet access in rural areas and inner cities, and he has a plan for granting vouchers to low-income households for converter boxes to help them transition from analog to digital television broadcasts.

High-impact, low-commitment (from a policy standpoint). Obama is constituent-focused and wants to be seen as a candidate for progress, giving himself measurable and achievable objectives.

Meanwhile, read on in the NJ piece to see how the second-tier Democrats utilize technology issues as a conduit to get the voter to their real strengths: Kucinich focuses on technology and outsourcing, Biden is concerned w/ technology when it harms national security, and Mike Gravel has refocused his campaign and has an excellent shot at being elected President of SecondLife.

From Left to Right:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been active in pushing legislation related to “decency” and regulatory controls on various forms of media. Sen. John McCain this year has sponsored a bill aimed at making the moratorium on certain Internet-related taxes permanent.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas…has been a vocal opponent of Internet regulation of any type…

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has been vocal about his opposition to Internet pornography and the need for better protections for children surfing the Internet. And Mike Huckabee of Arkansas received praise while in office for brining e-government to his largely rural state.

Pretty straight forward: only need a policy when it comes to pornography and terrorism, which is about all the Internet is good for anyway. And Giuliani’s my favorite:

 ”Mayor Giuliani believes that the free flow of information on the Internet and the development of new technologies are essential to America’s global leadership in the 21st century,” a spokesman said. “Open competition should be encouraged, and federal government intervention in these areas should be limited to reasonable regulation and vigilant security against those who want to exploit it for illegal or unethical acts.”

Mr. Mayor, whatever you do, don’t forget the three Rs: Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Giuliani’s tendency to equivocate and rely on tough-guy tropes has been covered on this blog and elsewhere and we see above that he can pull this off for any issue.

To be fair, conventional campaign wisdom says the Democrats are the only earthly-party with a geek constituency, hence their more nuanced and focused approach. However, conventional wisdom also allows the Dems to stick to their own little cottage-industries within the wider landscape of technology policy issues, and the absence of engagement from the Republicans leaves voters with a dearth of substantive debate. However, I wouldn’t say the Right writ-large is not engaged in the debate. Full disclosure, I work and study in the field of technologies policy and see plenty of voices and powerful forces balancing what Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Netroots Ku Klux Klan. Makes me wonder if the Republicans couldn’t gain some ground in the netroots community by actually engaging them and getting the backs of their consituents already in the debate. There’s a loose parallel here to the battle over the Latino vote that Bush, Rove, and others think the Republicans are ceding to the Left. When I see the Republicans unsure of whether the YouTube debates are even a good idea, I wonder if they’re not doing the same with the geeks.

1 Comment | Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Ron Paul, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

The “Terrorists’ War on US”

August 21, 2007

In quest of the votes of pampered Iowa Staters, Giuliani has again fired another salvo in his frenetic quest to prove he is the Biggest, Baddest, Real Man in America. Real men– with bulging muscles, (and also, balding heads, beady eyes) –“don’t play defense, they play offense”:

 

“I believe that America should be on offense against terrorism,” he says, to whoops and cheers. “I do not believe that we should go back into the way we used to be, which is what I call ‘on defense.’ We have to use our military in a way that protects us.”

 

Giuliani’s use of the NFL metaphor builds on his incoherently written (we have to be alert to the “Terrorists’ War on Us”) , astonishingly bad Foreign Affairs essay. Don’t take my word for it, many heavyweights in the blogosphere, from the left to the right, were reeling from the sheer wanton badness of the exercise. It’s thesis was America needs to kick ass, and if it doesn’t kick ass it is weak and weak is not good. It was accompanied by a vague and confused depiction of realism and idealism in American foreign policy. It even resurrected that old delusional right wing canard about how “We had but won Vietnam before we were forced to withdraw.” It is definitely worth reading to see the kind of big, bad leaders the Republican party so achingly seeks to manufacture so as to guide us poor sheep ever so gently to the promised land of a muscled peace.

 

If you thought that policymaking couldn’t get more extreme than the Bush era, then Giuliani’s foreign policy pronouncements betray the falsity of that assumption. Unfortunately, every time you have the discourse dominated by non-reality based folks, you have the legitimation of crazy talk, and there’s always someone else willing to run to the right, flexing his pecs.

3 Comments | Foreign Policy, Giuliani | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

ygolohcysp esrever

August 20, 2007

This week, we need to welcome a new player to campaign 08: the double agent. Actually, double agent is an understatement, we already have evidence of agents spinning, flipping and reversing psychology so many times that I’m not sure what the appropriate suffix would be.

 Take Karl Rove for example. Some are speculating that he’s bashing Hillary because he actually wants her to win the primary. The thinking here is that the left will rally around Hillary to defend against the evil turd blossom, push her campaign further left and make her easier to skewer for even the weakest of a Republican candidate (hmm…so many to link to…). That’s at least a double-reverse.

Exhibit B: Gays For Giuliani. The number of spins behind this campaign depend on who you attribute it to, but we can at least chalk it up to a single turn of sarcasm and assume this message was not approved by Rudy Giuliani. Ok, then let’s say a group of gay men from New York are really behind this and are eager to allow their own sexuality to be exploited in the interest of sabotaging their former mayor’s presidential campaign. I suppose we have to consider this a possibility, but realistically:

These are baby turd blossoms taking a page from a playbook with a triple reverse: take down Rudy and remind the Right that homos from New York are actually voting. Get to the polls middle-america!

No Comments » | Campaign Advertising, Giuliani | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Idealistic Pragmatism

August 15, 2007

A revealing quote by Obama from a good profile in GQ:

‘He leans forward and becomes more animated as he speaks. “One of the dangers of movements is that they always want to be completely pure and have everything their way. But politics is about governing and making compromises. And so sometimes folks who come into politics with a movement mentality can be disappointed.” As I listen, I realize I have never witnessed a politician so genuinely trying to fuse idealism and pragmatism.’

The profile generally corroborates the view that Obama is as close as you can get to a person with strong moral instincts and intellectual sophistication in to the White House. Now this may not be nearly as far as I would like ideally, but when I look at the havoc wreaked in the last few years, it’s pretty darn good. However, this certainly doesn’t mean that Obama should get a free pass from liberal opinion in the run up to the nomination. If anything, people of a progressive bent should perpetually dialogue with him to advocate certain policies (and criticize others) that will benefit our country without any illusions that absent that pressure Obama will voluntarily bring about the liberal changes America so desperately needs. His heart and mind are in the right place; let’s keep them there.

No Comments » | Obama | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Flunking Out of the Electoral College

August 15, 2007

A follow-up to Ahmed’s post: more on proposed electoral reforms in California and beyond from Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker.

All of this really speaks to the dangers of only screaming for change after your candidate loses. Since 2000, folks on the Left have wanted to abandon the electoral college and those who don’t look too deeply into initiatives like the one in California may ride the anger from Al Gore’s loss right into an even larger disaster of indirect democracy.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Electoral Reform

August 11, 2007

This New York Times article highlights a nascent, nationwide movement afoot to reorder the processes through which the president is elected. As dull as electoral procedures sound, they have a huge impact on how presidential candidates run their campaigns, and are ultimately elected. So file this under the “utterly dull yet vitally important” tag. Currently, the electoral votes of most states (consisting of the sum of the votes in the two houses of Congress) go to the presidential candidate receiving the plurality of the vote on a statewide basis. The problem with this system, however, is that it encourages presidential candidates to focus the bulk of their attention on a few states whose electoral votes are judged to be “in play.” In other words, a candidate thinks, if I am likely to get a plurality of the vote in a given state anyway, then why spend time and money campaigning in that state which is not “in play”? Thus, as the article points out, in 2004, 13 states with a total of 159 electoral votes were considered to be in play by both political parties and that was where they focused all their attention.

 

If presidential candidates calculate that they can ignore the voter preferences of significant chunks of the population, then this is less than what a democratic system should aspire to. So recent initiatives considered in 8 states have considered bills that give electoral votes to winners of the national popular vote, rather than to the presidential candidate chosen by the plurality of state voters. Obviously, this means that whoever gets the most votes from the public gets the electoral votes of a given state, essentially sucking out the juice from the electoral college and giving primacy to nationwide electoral results. MD has gone as far as to overtly pass legislation that would abolish the electoral college altogether.   

However, these are germinal movements, still in their early stages. A drastic overhauling of the entire presidential voting system before 08 is highly unlikely. What is possible, however, are resurgent state proposals to allocate their electoral votes in a way that does not depend on the rest of the states in the Union following suit. Thus there is a proposal afoot in California that would award electoral votes based on number of congressional districts carried, rather than statewide vote. A Republican measure that would primarily benefit a Republican presidential candidate, it is being carefully watched by the Democrats who are likely to respond with similar initiatives in other states. Keep an eye on this development because if within the year such proposals are successful (and the Republicans are making a concerted effort in California) it could result in a lot more electoral votes being cast one way or another… 

No Comments » | Campaign Advertising, Money | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Digging From Cleveland to China

August 10, 2007

So here’s a tool with some potential (thanks, CM): an issues-based aggregator to help you choose your candidate. I’d say it still needs a lot of work, would like to see it capture more granularity and focus on broader issues while not diving too deep into one issue with contradicting indicators (can’t one oppose the Iraq War AND support the surge?). I’m probably a bit hypercritical of version 1.0 because I’m not too happy with my current ideological choice for president:

[Apparently, I'm voting for the guy in the middle]

My own horror at this new self-awareness aside, I think a sign that the survey is flawed is in the fact that I didn’t mark a single issue as ‘key.’ Not because I lack passion, but because there was nothing on trade, China, foreign policy beyond Iraq/Iran, or issues of both domestic and global economic development. And it makes me wonder if any one cares about economic issues? Well, some do, and here’s a good breakdown of the economic issues addressed at Monday’s forum (courtesy of Dan Drezner). A hint of why questions on economics and China may be a wedge between me and Mr. Kucinich who was probably the most adament ‘blame China’ candidate in the forum:

5)“It means that we are also not running up deficits and asking China to bail us out and finance them, because it’s pretty hard to have a tough negotiation when the Chinese are our banker.” — Sen. Barack Obama. This is the myth that “China holds all the cards.” Look, the Chinese government needs fast growth to hold down social unrest and justify the continued dominance of the Communist Party there. And the most likely cause of a slowdown there would be a slowdown here first. The last thing China wants to do is start dumping U.S. bonds and cause a recession here.

Wait, we share interests with China? They’re not just an evil lender waiting to sink our feet in cement and toss us off a bridge? You mean Dennis Kucinich might be just a little off when he says we need “to take a whole new direction and change trade with China?”

Ok then, that sounds more reasonable. The man from Cleveland is right about a few things, but he has the key issues wrong.

1 Comment | Foreign Policy, Kucinich | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

AFL-CIO Forum: Gut Reactions

August 8, 2007

Um, Hillary: “I do not believe that people running for President should engage in hypotheticals.”

Ok, let’s take our time here Hill. Considering your husband introduces you as “the next president of the United States” at every rally, I think everyone is guilty of engaging in hypotheticals here. More to the point: you can’t be a good policy maker without making hypothetical statements. After all, policy is, in essence, anticipation.

Obama: Yup, it’s working. Despite a risky strategy of advancing concrete foreign policy this early in the race - and a risky policy at that - the people are only hearing: “I’ll end the wrong war and bolster the right war.” I’ll say it again, that’s easy to vote for. Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is turning out to be the glistening public speaker that many had hoped for.

Clinton: Not much to lose, so she’s constantly sharpening her image in the eyes of the liberal blogosphere by scrubbing her campaign trail with the dish-rag that is the Bush administration. This is smart and she does it well.

Edwards: Held strong as the populist candidate despite another Joe Biden surge.

Kucinich and Richardson: A good performance that will garner some funding and press, but no more votes.

Dodd: His message is getting through to no one.

George W. Bush: Remember when people criticized Al Gore for not utilizing the popularity of President Clinton (which of course wasn’t even that high in 2000)? Contrast that with this race where Republicans are avoiding him and the Democrats tonight, every time they stumbled or encountered a tough question, could simply mention Bush and insert some vitriol to make whatever they said sound like music to America’s ears. That’s the kind of unpopularity that opinion polls simply cannot convey.

Keith Olberman: Should moderate all of these. Not that he’s ‘asking the tough questions’ or anything, but realistically, the best a moderator can do in this overly-scripted age is to move things along, lighten it up every once in a while, and not be annoying throughout. Olberman gets dangerously close to violating the last rule, but on the whole, he seems completely natural in this most unnatural of roles as the contemporary moderator. Oh, and he does it all while sitting down. Has Anderson Cooper ever sat down?

2 Comments | Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Foreign Policy, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Things Candidates Should Keep to Themselves

August 7, 2007

Here’s a new spin on candidates actually proposing foreign policy objectives and strategies: it harms our foreign policy objectives and strategies. Peter Baker from washingtonpost.com’s The Trail explains:

In the last week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declared that he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan to get al-Qaeda leaders even without President Pervez Musharraf’s permission, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she would leave the option of nuclear strikes on the table in the struggle with terrorists and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said he would bomb Islam’s two holiest sites to retaliate for a terrorist nuclear attack.

None of them actually has a key to the Oval Office, so their pronouncements on the trail add up to little more than electioneering rhetoric. But Bush was still left to pick up the diplomatic pieces. The State Department had to reassure the Muslim world that it considered Tancredo’s suggestion to blow up Mecca and Medina “absolutely outrageous and reprehensible.” And amid howls of protest from the Pakistanis, Bush was quizzed during a Camp David meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai yesterday about whether he would go into Pakistan unilaterally as well. (He ducked the question.)

This is tricky territory. Yesterday, I praised Barack Obama for providing concrete foreign policy objectives and fundamental reforms for achieving them, despite the fact that I disagree with important components. Apparently, I’m not alone:

Protesters in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan, took to the streets to burn the U.S. flag after Obama’s comments without regard to the fact that at this point at least he does not actually speak for the United States.

Peter Baker brings up some good points regarding the low signal to noise ratio that bold policy statements from candidates can create for present policy makers. Perhaps, I should think twice before praising such boldness in the face of such instabilities in global politics? But before we go questioning the free speech merits of this affair, a few things should be addressed.

First off, the reactions to the statements by Obama and other candidates are being painted as gross misunderstandings of who the players are that determine U.S. foreign policy (bold above). In fact, candidate Obama does contribute to U.S. foreign policy and is an elected leader. If a leader in such a position has the opportunity to speak up on matters of policy in which he or she dissagrees with the executive branch, then that’s part of the political process and is healthy for democracy regardless of the negative political externalities. Not that those externalities can’t outweight the positive contribution to the democratic process at home, but I don’t think they do in the case of Obama.

Additionally, conflating statements by prominent Americans with U.S. policy isn’t about disregard for some type of policy hierarchy, it’s human nature, and we’re all well aware of the problems with assigning the statements and actions of individuals to large ethnic, national, or religious groups. I’m not saying it makes it ok, but let’s consider for a second how we could possibly police both domestic statements from citizens with a soapbox and reactions to them abroad and just how slippery a slope that is.  I’d also propose that it probably wasn’t just Obama’s statements that led to the flag-burning episode.

Despite all that, I’ll wander onto the slippery slope and say that there are degrees of responsibility that can realistically be assigned to certain statements. Given that, Tancredo’s statements surely exceed Obama’s:

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”

I’m wondering what the logic is that leads Mr. Tancredo to pursue “the most negative consequences he can think of?” Whatever it is, surely it’s not a foundation for strong poicy making. What I find fascinating about Tancredo’s statment though is the dualism between “this homeland” and “the holy sites in Mecca and Medina” that the statement relies on. I suppose this is a clue to the logic of Tancredo - as scary as it is unsurprising.

1 Comment | Foreign Policy, Obama, Tancredo | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

« Previous Entries