Talk to Our Guts

I should start by admitting and emphasizing that I’m not a political insider. While I live in a state capital (Columbus, Ohio), my state is relatively weak in terms of policy innovation or political debates. I have no idea what Democrats are planning. I don’t live in DC (yet), I’m only 27 years-old, and I have memories that only take me as far back as George H.W. Bush. Actually, I remember voting for Reagan in a class election back in 1984. Only two kids voted for Mondale, so being a strict conformist (I lived in Iowa for God’s sake) I raised my ignorant, but determined, 7 year-old hand in support of the incumbent. I regret it to this day. How my life would have been different if I hadn’t started out behind as a Republican. Those extra years could have made a difference.

Anyway, it seems to me that Democrats (e.g. me) have a problem. This problem seems obvious enough to most people. Republicans own the debate. Republicans are organized, Democrats are not. Republicans had a revolution in the 1990s and took advantage of the momentum that followed, while Democrats had a sex scandal in the 1990s, along with a schism between New Democrats (moderate), old-school Democrats (liberals), and Nadar Democrats (ultra-liberals and independents). Surely this is a simplified view of history, but it’s my view and it serves me just fine.

How do we get back in the game?

I was sitting in Starbucks—regrettably, by the way, since I think Starbucks is generally evil and serves mediocre coffee, except for the divine non-fat, no whip, French vanilla latte— reading a book for my public budgeting class. One passage struck me harder than my second espresso machiatto doppio:

The actual beneficiaries (of a program) may not be organized or may have little political power, such as the unemployed or the homeless. Their plight must catch the public imagination, and the public must define their situation as worthy of collective aid.

This is where Democrats have failed. A dramatic rise in standard of living, an anti-climatic Presidency, fierce opposition, and skewed power distribution to certain special interests (without the interests of said beneficiaries in mind) have crippled the voice of Democrats.
The new Democrat Manifesto that is being debated in selection for a new DNC chair and among Democrats throughout the states, as I see it, should include these elements or variations:

1. Democrats must recapture the imagination and collective sympathy that America has historically shown in the past and that Republicans have twisted to meet the needs of their misdirected and incompetent policies. It’s needed now as much as any other time. Democrats must re-define the problems. In fact, they must REMIND us of the problems we face—many, like poverty, health care and education disparities, have comprehensively been forgotten, or at least ignored, by Republicans. Democrats must not depend on arguing in terms of policies or programs as they’ve done until now. Instead, they must remind us of the most basic, fundamental public values shared across socioeconomic and geographic barriers. They must, instead, speak to our collective gut about what is humane, compassionate, and logical.

Their plight must catch the public imagination, and the public must define their situation as worthy of collective aid.

Democrats must organize and find a common language, using common phrases that will permeate all parts of the country. These phrases should reflect these core public values that are worthy of collective aid. They should be so obvious—so unequivocally logical—that they challenge people to disagree. They should be phrases like, “you are entitled to higher education.” They should be basic, simple phrases that dare us all, Republican or Democrat, to argue its opposites. They shouldn’t depend on ripping Bush’s policies; they should, instead, appeal to the basic compassions and sentiments of Americans, which I believe are rooted in a sense of community, responsibility, mercy, kindness, and charity. They should speak to our hearts about what we are able to do for people and what we must do for people, not what we are willing to do for people and under what circumstances, as Republican premises support. Democrats should shamelessly act to convince people that access to good education is a right; that there is social responsibility in the pervasiveness of poverty because we are not individuals living in a vacuum. Democrats must speak in unison. They must speak in a language that reflects values that unite everyone on our side of the aisle. They must recapture words like accountability, family values, freedom, and compassion. These are words that speak to basic American values which have long been reflected in Democrat ideology and, at least at times, in Democrat policies. On the other side of the aisle, at best, these words reflect a façade found in empty Republican rhetoric.

2. Democrats need a catalyst for unification to accomplish the points above. They need leadership and willingness to find common values. Whether a new plan is facilitated through campaigning bodies, like the DNC, or through some broader, information driven body, like a Democrat equivalent to FOX News, the Democrats need to find a common home—a clubhouse where a message is created, agreed upon, and disseminated throughout the party. I nominate Karl Rove. Wait…he’s Republican. I nominate…I have no idea. That’s the problem.

3. With a loud, unified voice, Democrats must convince us that Republican ideology fundamentally has not supported, promoted or in any way demonstrated success in achieving these common, core values. The evidence is out there and it’s an easy point to argue. The difficulty is getting the message to penetrate the bullshit that radiates from the screeching megaphones of the Republican Party (point 1 above is a good start).

4. Democrats need a fresh start in terms of policy. They must tie new policy ideas to these values. If they’ve been successful in creating a new sense of entitlement, established new rights for individuals, and defined a government role that cuts down to Americans’ basic elements, then policies, and their advocates, will find new, enthusiastic support.

As I'm writing this, my thoughts sound strangely familiar. Republicans accomplished this and more. The difference, though, is that Democrats can actually speak to core ideas of compassion and community because we genuinely care to acheive it. In fact, Democrats have something important that Republicans do not: DEMOCRATS. We have the original compassionate citizens of this country. No doubt there are compassionate conservatives out there, but the current Republican Party speaks to a false representation of compassion, hoping that in route to their real goals (i.e. keeping the status quo), enough happiness trickles down to the masses to keep us satisfied and confused. I strongly believe that people are unconvinced that tax cuts and deficits will solve our nations problems; that poverty, which under Republican rule has been vaguely defined and rarely addressed, will be adequately confronted; that terrorists are everywhere and we're all in danger all the time and that's the reason we've got problems. I strongly believe that people are unconvinced that economic hardship is solely the fault of the individual. At best, many are skeptical.

I know. I'm ranting. This post is hopelessly dreamy, broad, generic and maybe a bit naïve, but Democrats have to start somewhere and I'm a just a Democrat trying to figure out where that is. Variations of these points, as far as I can tell, have been implemented before; none of this is in any way original. I certainly haven’t addressed all the relevant points, nor have I given fair treatment to certain elements. But my point is that Democrats need to start over. Republicans managed to redefine values for the common American, values that have never served to help the common American. We know this and have our evidence. Let’s get it out there with basic, consistent, relentless language. Let’s remind ourselves what we really care about and say that it’s OK to help poor people; that you should be able to go to college without worrying about how to afford it; that you should have the best health care in the world whether you’re unemployed, employed or work for Wal-Mart. Let’s challenge people out loud, with confidence and with candor, to disagree with us.

It's Hard to Trust the Uninformed

It’s no secret that I deeply distrust the practices of the Bush Administration. In a previous post I was challenged to provide an argument to explicitly justify this lack of trust. Although I’m convinced that my posts on this blog over the last three months have sufficiently supported my claim, I feel like I have to be clear about this.

I recently had an enlightening discussion about environmental policy. Like other campaign promises in 2000 (think nation building), Bush reversed his promise to reduce dangerous CO2 emissions. Now, I know next to nothing about issues addressed by environmental policies (something tells me that Bush doesn’t either). I know that discussions about the environment have taken a back seat since 9/11 in this country and I know that this accounts for a large gap between European and US relations. Bush has since agreed that there is warming, but does not share the imminent desire to address the problem with the rest of the world. This is a topic that I really hope the more knowledgeable among you will address in this post.

My point:

Although campaign reversals are good reasons not to trust somebody, there’s another reason that makes me distrust Bush more than other politicians. To demonstrate, here’s a quote from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies director, James Hansen, on Bush and global warming

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now.”

This is the type of quote that lies at the core of my distrust. Over the last term, I read about or heard from too many people—important people—who claim that there’s an active information filter working hard to keep Bush’s policies afloat. Here’s another quote from the same MSNBC article:

“Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that fit predetermined, inflexible positions.”

I disagree with Bush’s policies on just about everything. Although I’d like to say that I disagree because of differences of core principles, most of the reason, unfortunately, is because of their treatment of useful information.

Is that not a good enough reason to distrust them?

Pundit or Prostitute?

You knew I had to say something about Armstrong Williams, right?

There’s an interesting investigation happening right now over a contract paid by the Department of Education to have prominent (and conservative) political pundit, Armstrong Williams, promote the No Child Left Behind Act to audiences and other African-American journalists and media players. Worse, Williams admits that “there are others.”

Although it seems that the press has already forgotten about it, this seems like a good chance to debate the ethics of these types of political moves. The legal implications are unclear and there’s a general sense that this is not the first time these types of contracts have been used, but we can say something about ethics.

It’s interesting—or rather, frustrating—to me that executives in our government would choose to spend our tax dollars in this manner. As a popular political pundit, Williams already serves an ambiguous role. Is he an authority in this program? Has he performed, sponsored or studied research evaluating this program? Or is he a TV journalist? Is he obliged to report facts? What about his role as one of the few prominent African-American conservatives?

Now, how exactly are these ambiguous roles made clearer by being PAID by our government to sell a federal program to the public?

I think this is crap. I think that the Director of the Department of Education was using this as a tool to get airtime and to confuse—that’s right, people…CONFUSE—the American public into thinking that Williams’ expertise and intellectual authority on education policy has driven him to make the positive claims about the program on TV instead of the $240,000 he was making on the side. The Administration wanted to use the ambiguity of his role to their advantage—giving them a new card to deal to a minority group they’re desperate to win over.

Implicit Bias

Given the large response the "Political Compass" received, I thought I might throw this other "test" out there for Fantastiko readers to enjoy. It's another one of those self-assessments, but of a less political nature.

In this weekend's "The Washington Post Magazine," they had a very interesting story about prejudice and bias. What I found so interesting is that it was not a story at all concerning the nature and effects of prejudice, but rather its measure; something that I would think very difficult to do since it would in large part, I would guess, depend upon the honesty of whatever survey group they might use. And who can really trust anyone to be honest when it comes to admitting that they have a distaste for fat people or blacks or whites or arabs or gays? Because it's just not cool have an aversion to something different from you.

So a group of psychologists at Harvard University are attempting to measure a person's bias as a function of time. How long does it take you to associate the word "laundry" with "Sarah"? And how long does it take you to associate the word "laundry" with "Tom"? Because if your fingers don't click on Tom/laundry as quickly as they do Sarah/laundry, you hold a negative association with men doing work in the home.

This is the Implicit Association Test and, according to the article,* the results are startling (not really). For example, those who honestly believe that they have no negative bias against gays, find that they actually do--in fact, 38.4% gay respondents have found that they have a negative bias toward gays. A sad figure, but not surprising (since 82.5% straight respondents also hold this negative bias). The article details other findings of course (a token political bend for the sake of the overall Fantastiko theme): conservatives, on average, show higher levels of bias against gays, blacks, and Arabs than liberals; 48.3% of blacks have a bias against blacks.

I took the tests that measure black/white and fat/thin bias. I was skeptical of the method: because you are asked to make associations in a certain order, it seems that the test itself is biased. However, the articles insists (and I found to be true, at least in my case) that the order of things does not matter.

I was surprised by the results of the first test (black/white--I have no negative bias, though I suspected it would tell me I did since I thought I was having the appropriate difficulties taking the test) but not the second (I wrote in the voluntary questionnaire that I do have a slight negative bias toward fat people, and it showed that I did). The article warns that most will be surprised by their results. What it matters, I do not know. Maybe it will turn your world upside down.

--JB

*Sorry I don't have a link to the article--I read it in print and you have to be registered to read it online, which I am not. If you want to check it out, just go to www.washingtonpost.com and search "see no bias"--it's by Shankar Vedantum.

WMDs: One more time, with candor...

In the last several days, ever since the administration went on the record about having given up hope of finding WMDs in Iraq, I've been rehashing many of the same angry thoughts as I have throughout the war: Lies! Fearmongering! Morons! You know the routine...

But now that the search is officially over (and officially fruitless), I've become truly curious about how the rest of the Fantastiko scatterplot is thinking about the WMD issue (or non-issue, I suppose) being put to rest this way, with such little apparent fanfare or debate. Now, I was opposed to the war with or without WMDs. Still, even I would have granted that the case for war was much stronger given the truth of the assertion. Moreover, I know many others who were in favor of (or at least went along with) the war based mainly on the threat (now: non-threat) of Iraq's WMDs and their proliferation throughout the networks of America's Terrorist Enemies. Take that factor out of the picture, and in retrospect the case for war looks weak. The decision looks like a mistake, and not a small one.

More seasoned politicos, bear with me -- I'm stuck on the obvious questions here: Was what the administration just admitted not worthy of even the smallest "oops"? I know that on Capitol Hill such admissions of errors aren't fashionable, but here in the blogosphere, where candor is more prevalent and paid apologists are fewer, I'm hoping someone can give a shot at telling me why they and/or the U.S. public don't seem to think this warrants a massive public backlash. Or is there at least, unbeknownst to me, a little, personal feeling of "oops" on the part of those folks whose support for the war was garnered with assertions we now know to be untrue? There must be something here I'm not seeing or hearing.

Political Compass

Back in the infancy of this blog, Nan posted about being called a Communist. And then several others, including myself, submitted comments with our own personal I-was-once-called-a-Communist-too stories. And they touched our hearts.

Well, the other day I was called a Democrat--something I have never called myself--and I was pissed. The term is not as dirty as "Republican," but nevertheless it's a label that I have not voluntarily adopted and I resented that someone else would put it on me. Given that I don't feel especially knowledgeable about all "the issues," and consequently a little uncomfortable making anything other than general idealogical commentary, I can't say where I stand--therefore neither can anyone else. All that can be said is that I'm not a Repulican and it's ignorant to define things in the negative, so the labeling stops there... until now!

I decided to take a quiz to see roughly where I fall, when asked all the pertinent questions. I took one of these a long time ago and was deemed a "progressive," which doesn't mean much in this bipartisan political climate. This quiz is neat though because it doesn't just use the liberal/conservative line, but two axes together (authoritarian/liberatarian and communist/neo-liberal). Also, it gets away from just American partisan definitions and puts you on a more global scale. For example, it looks like the Dalai Lama and I are bff*. Ghandi kind of thinks the same things we do, but his clothes aren't as cute so we don't like to be associated with him.

--JB (sorry, I keep forgetting to sign my name)

* best friends forever

Who Gets a Spot on the Sidewalk?

Remember that scene in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11? Remember the eggs? I don’t think that’ll be happening this time around. Unprecedented security and extremely restricted access for non-Bush supporters have made the absence of eggs almost a certainty. Accessibility and visibility for demonstrators—including groups that oppose abortion rights—will be at an all-time low at this years events.

The issue to consider here is the role of visibility for political opposition. Should opposition to the president’s policies be visible during the parade or during the ceremony? The notion of a ceremony like certainly doesn’t sound very pleasant. Can you imagine anti-war protestors sitting side-by-side with Rudi Giuliani at the ceremony? Uncomfortable!

It seems two issues have led to reduced visibility this time around. One is the enormous amount of security that President Bush requires when he goes anywhere. Second is the fact that the parade is funded by the Presidential Inaugural Committee—a group that is funded by private corporation and individual donors. But DC has been forced to pay a hefty bill in security costs thanks to the events, costing tax payers millions (estimated 17.3 million). So, local tax dollars are being spent on the parade, albeit indirectly. The ceremony itself is publicly funded.

The funding issue is only one of many reasons to raise concerns about reduced visibility for protestors. I think it’s a relatively small reason too. The security threat is an argument for restricting visibility and access, but it isn’t a bulletproof one. Demonstrators have been given other restrictions, which have been challenged in court. For instance, they originally were not allowed to use stakes for their signs. Without them, it would be hard to make the signs visible. As always, there’s a messy debate about balancing free speech rights and security. I tend to lean towards free speech. Once we start limiting that for security reasons, I think we’re headed down a dangerous road. Security is obviously important, but we should be honest about its costs; we’re rarely honest about costs of free speech. On the other hand, authorities aren’t saying they can’t protest. They’re saying that it should be done where guests and invitees can’t see them. That’s a sticky issue, right? What’s limiting free speech? Is limiting visibility the same thing?

To me, the main issue is honesty. It’s at least not entirely fair that demonstrators are restricted at these events. While it creates an ugly scene that reflects internal divisions in a country that is at war, our lack of unity behind this president is real and honest. I’m not sure that it’s right to hide it. On the other hand, I don’t like ugly scenes either and I do value traditions that allow us to honor the Office of the President. In the end, we should be honest. The security threat may be real, but I’m sure some of the methods are being used for political purposes just as much as security purposes. At the very least, security measures that are chosen happen to be politically convenient and that convenience certainly does not help arguments against those measures. I’m not advocating protestors at the ceremony. I’m saying that we should be honest about why we don’t want them there. It’s mainly because we like our traditions to remain undisturbed, to exude a sense of unity and because we want to keep our private donors happy. We should say that we don’t want them there because they’re potentially dangerous (but who isn’t?), ugly, loud, unsettling, and happen to disagree with the people be inaugurated. Let’s just say so! What are we afraid of? We’re still going to keep the demonstrators out! In fact, we’re not saying they can’t protest. We’re just saying they need to do it someplace else. This way I’ll be a little less unhappy knowing that at least we’re not being dishonest about why we’re reducing their visibility.

Congressional Republicans Do Not Intend On Improving Elections

I’m supremely disappointed by the Republican reaction to the objection of Ohio’s electoral votes. Many of the speeches given on the floors of the House and Senate by Republicans were defensive. I hope to have time to post excerpts on this blog once they’re on the net. Rep. DeLey (R-Leader) made the remark that this “isn’t about justice; it’s about noise.” The chairman of the Republican Party has said that Democrats are making noise because they lost and had Kerry won, they wouldn’t be objecting. How the hell does he know this? Is that the point? What are they so afraid of? The news isn’t listening, only one Senator objected, and all–ALL–of the Democrats in the Senate, including John Kerry, have said that they do not intend on challenging the outcome of the election but merely want to focus on injustices in our system. Democrats spent much of their speeches pointing this out. Republicans spent much of their speeches belittling these efforts. Why won’t they even consider the possibility that the problems are real and deserve more than just two hours of their time? As I’ve said before, both parties are hurt by election imperfections.

I’m disappointed because I had hoped that since the outcome was not in question, this would be a great opportunity for Republicans in our government to grow up and fix what’s clearly broken. They have little to lose and a lot to gain. We all do. AND it’s the right thing to do. But most importantly, with vast control of all branches, it is up to Republicans to do it. It’s clear to me today that they have no intention of fixing a damn thing.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan on the objection:

"I think the American people expect members of Congress to work together and move forward on the real priorities facing this country, instead of engaging in conspiracy theories and rehashing issues that were settled long ago."

I know that many Republicans want to improve elections. It's up to these Republicans to push their party to do the right thing. Otherwise, unless they replace the leaders of the party, democracy will continue to run like a Ford Pinto.

Spitting HIV

This may be old news to some of you, but when I learned that Alex*--who scours the internet infinity times a day leaving eye tracks on infinity sites—had not picked up on this story I thought it might be worth bringing up.

Once upon a time, forever ago in 2004, there was a congressman (Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif) who exposed some less-than-accurate proclamations that faith-based organizations were making on the government’s dime regarding the dirtiness that is sex. Of the 13 most commonly used “abstinence rocks” nationwide programs, 11 were found to be disseminating questionable factoids about STDs, pregnancy, birth control, etc. Since the report came out, its validity and accurateness has been called into question—that is, Waxman has replaced questionable statistics with more questionable statistics. No one can agree if teen sex is a factor in teen suicide, or if mutual masturbation can cause pregnancy (are we seriously even considering this one?), or whether condoms fail 31%, 14%, or 2% of the time…Whatever. Everyone knows statistics can be a tricky business distorted by bias and differing prospectives. The interesting part of this story is that when, in light of these false government-backed claims George Stephanopoulos asked Senate Majority Leader Doctor Bill Frist whether HIV and AIDS could be spread through tears and sweat he said, “I don’t know.” Seriously? Does he really not know? Because, well, he’s a doctor and I’m an Editor and even I know. To his credit, he eventually came out and said that it would be very difficult to do and that there are easier things to spread through sweat and tears than HIV or AIDS—like body odor and wetness. Or just saltiness.

Of course, my first question is who is he defending? Why does he hesitate to refute the claim outright? Then again, maybe he's side-stepping it because he really isn't sure, and he doesn't want a big fat F on the pop quiz. I can’t figure it out…So, here’s the interview if you’re curious. It’s really long and the part pertaining to this subject begins a little after 10 minutes.

--JB

*Alex is my fiance and he invented the internet (addiction).

Jigga who?

What am I doing posting?!?
Nan let me.
He has invited me to be a contributor to Fantastiko. Thanks for the phantom intro, bro. I prefer to step on stage welcomed by the roaring thunder of applause incited just by the mention of my name, but this is okay too.

This won't be much of a post--it's just brief message to guide your eyes down to the "comments" sections of the previous posts. You'll see that we have added some fancy HTML so you can see how many comments there are and who has made them--that way you don't have to actually click on the "comments" link to catch up and see if there is anything new. You'll notice that it lists the commenters' names, so if you're posting anonymously but signing your name at the end, you won't show up (that is, your posting will be listed, but it won't say who wrote it). You may want to consider registering with Blogger and getting a user name. It'll be fun, and free. But don't feel obligated. Thanks, Guille, for the idea; Nan, for the research; and JB, for the labor.

There may be some additional changes in the future...but I'm not sure what they will be. I guess the biggest difference is that I'll be posting stuff--stuff that is very different from what Nan posts. While Nan writes about welfare, national security, and elections, I'll write about unicorns, stickers, and kittens. Maybe I'll type up my latest made-up jokes; let you in on my latest catch-phrases that are taking America by storm. I don't know--could be anything.

One last thing: I have been advised to say that even though Nan and I are both contributing AND we're related, we don't necessarily have the same mind on many topics. Obviously. So...do with that what you will and hopefully I'll put up a real post soon!

--JB