The choice of Democratic primary voters in a special election to fill Kennedy’s seat should be easy. Although all of the candidates are good and accomplished people, Congressman Capuano IS ALREADY ON THE JOB. There is absolutely no mystery about his legislative record, skills, or prowess. Despite their impressive credentials, none of the others has even one day of legislative experience and their campaigns show it.
The political debate over healthcare reform in the United States has been extremely heated despite the reality that the actual policy debate is rather tame, even boring. Constitutional, public policy, and healthcare policy experts are NOT really divided on the relevant legal and policy questions. The controversy and conflict over healthcare policy has been introduced and maintained by those with narrow economic and/or rigid ideological interests.
The following New York Times op-ed columns represent the Republican and Democratic Parties interpretations of the 2009 elections. These are not skewed views of the present reality. They are sincere, but different, perspectives on the present political “mood” offered as opening arguments in each party’s case to the 2010 electorate. 
The following passage is from today's David Brooks column in the New York Times:They [military experts] do not know if he [President Obama] possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.David Brooks is a very talented columnist whose work is almost always cerebral and serious, which makes this column even more troubling. Does Brooks really think that "tenacity" is "in tension" with "intellectual sophistication?" Does he really see Presidents Bush and Obama as "war presidents" in the same way that Lincoln and Churchill were leaders of nations at war? Are we to believe that the American Civil War and World War II, wars that threatened the very existence of the nations led by Lincoln and Churchill, are even remotely analogous to present conflicts?
Solve for X. I have always encountered resistance to theoretical discussion and debate, both in the classroom and in the public square. Students and politicians fear it, voters have no patience for it, and reporters and pundits can't sell it. Americans expect anyone with a valid argument to simply "cut to the chase," and to "let the facts speak for themselves." Efforts to interpret facts contextually (i.e. the only intellectually honest way to do it) are assumed to be efforts to manipulate facts for personal gain, which is itself assumed to be contrary to the public interest. In other words, a healthy scepticism has been replaced by a very unhealthy cynicism, which actually works very well for those who really are trying to "fool some of the people some of the time."
I am fascinated by the responses from virtually all quarters to the President's approach to the public option element of the proposed health care insurance reforms. The media and supposedly "in the know" pundits are constantly heralding the imminent death of the public option. It appears that everyone has become so obsessed with reading between the lines, that they simply refuse to actually read the lines. The White House line on this has been very consistent. They have always maintained support for the public option, but have qualified that support by indicating that it's only a means to an end. If someone comes up with another way to achieve the goals of a public option, the White House is all ears.
At present, the public relations war over health care reform appears to be going badly for President Obama's health care reform approach, at least if you consider public opinion polls as the definitive word on such things. Pundits from across the political spectrum have begun to pronounce the president's effort a political failure for having failed to heed the number one rule in marketing - "keep it simple, stupid." President Obama has not only refused to develop effective sound bites and slogans, he has even had the audacity to use a primetime news conference to actually discuss and explain the provisions of a health care reform bill he would like to sign.
The considerable attention being given to conservative extremists protesting against the Democratic healthcare reform bills has raised protests from Republicans who feel that the media didn't highlight the bad behavior of liberal extremists during the Bush Administration. Are they right about that? While I have not seen any systematic media content analysis on the question, I do think their perception is reasonable. So the question is why? Why is the media (even Fox News) jumping at the chance to cover conservative citizens frothing at the mouth about things as ridiculous as the liberal conspiracy theory that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks? 
The "teachable moment" presented by the Gates-Crowley affair has now become fodder for virtually every commentator. While listening to the radio yesterday I heard an insightful point (sadly,I missed the identity of the insight's author). The gentleman on the radio program argued that the problem with teachable moments is that everyone thinks that it's a time for their perspective to be taught to others. In other words, everyone recognizes the utility and potential of a teachable moment, but thinks themselves teachers, rather than students. The success of such a moment then would be measured by the degree to which other Americans become convinced that my perspective was the best one all along. 
The debate surrounding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates has created an unprecedented opportunity to engage in national conversations about the age old question infamously articulated by Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along?"
The following discussion of the incident will proceed with the facts as described by the police report. In other words, the testimony of the arresting officer will, for the purposes of this analysis, be taken as entirely accurate. Based on the report filed by Sergeant Crowley, I believe that his conduct did not meet the standards of professionalism expected of him as a sworn law enforcement officer. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The metaphor of a neutral umpire or referee is never far from the surface of any public policy debate. The politically immunizing aphorism, "I just call'em like I see'em," concisely conceals and perpetuates an assumption that is both ubiquitous in its practical adherence AND demonstrably impossible to achieve. Neat trick, right?
I would like to see (and participate in) a simulated confirmation hearing in which academics played the parts of the nominee and the Senators. Ideally, there would be at least two such simulations; one with a liberal jurist and conservative senators and one with a conservative jurist and liberal senators.
Will Sotomayor’s inquisitors focus on the kind of Justice she would be, or will they use her hearings to advance political agendas? This question pervades much of the analysis of the Sotomayor nomination and confirmation process, but is it a fair question? Why do we assume that the members of the US Senate are supposed to put their political philosophies, agendas, and interests aside when providing “advice and consent?”
Governor Sarah Palin has decided to shed the responsibilities of public office, but not the goals and objectives of most who seek such offices. Gov. Palin seems to have come to a conclusion that, I must admit, seems pretty reasonable; that influence in public life can be greater without "official" responsibilities. Plus, unelected influence accumulation pays a hell of a lot better.
Yankee manager Joe Girardi, in yesterday's game against the Florida Marlins, noticed that the Marlins had made a substitution mistake by sending one wrong player into the field for the eighth inning. So what did he do? Did he call timeout and inform the Marlins of their error prior to the first pitch of the inning? Nope. He intentionally waited until after the first pitch and then called timeout to protest the mistake to the umpire and to announce that the Yankees would play the remainder of the game (which they were losing 6-3) under protest.
I just saw a TV commercial for MassMutual Financial Services. In it a women approaches a street corner on a rainy day, notices the puddle in the road and backs up several steps. Just then, a passing bus soaks the poor fools who did not step back and thereby exhibit what the commercial portrays as "being smart" and "planning ahead."
The unhinged rhetoric of present day Republicans and conservative public figures generally may represent a fairly simple misunderstanding on their part. The last couple of elections have seen the convincing rebuke of Republicans and conservative ideas and rhetoric. I suspect the present conservative rhetorical offensive against the Obama Administration and Democratic congressional leaders is based on the assumption that the electoral decline of Republicans was the result of overheated liberal and Democratic rhetoric during the Bush Administration, rather than the perception of voters that Republican policies have failed.
Are the people of Longmeadow united by their membership in a community where citizens have broadly shared values, institutional obligations, and economic interests? Or, is Longmeadow a town where residents share resources, have overlapping cultural values, but see their relationship with town government as economic; the way consumers see producers in the marketplace, or employers see employees on the job?
When life was simpler it seems like we were better able to segregate the reasonable from the unreasonable, the passionate from the paranoid, the intense from the insane. Today, there is no longer a big bright line recognized by all separating the ridiculous from reality.
President Obama's speech on national security this week drew more criticism from the left than it did from the right, despite the fact that he eviscerated the previous administration on its handling of national security affairs. After decisively declaring an end to the Bush era of national security ineptitude and moral depravity, the president did not then throw red meat to his liberal base.
People constantly ask me about the differences between left and right in American politics; what divides us as Americans? In some ways its an easy question to answer. The difficulty is, in fact, that there are so many useful (if incomplete) ways to explain it. The tricky thing is that every American can identify with elements of both wings of the American Eagle. Left and right revolve around the same fundamental philosophical/moral tenant, born of the Enlightenment, that each person possesses -or is endowed by their Creator with- individual freedom and self determination, natural rights thought justly limited only when they encroach on those of another.
The liberal media watchdog website, Media Matters for America has produced a video montage of the Fox News Channel's coverage of the Obama Administration in its first 100 days. For people who don't watch Fox News much, the video is surreal. Comparing this depiction of Fox News coverage with national public opinion data reveals a truly amazing contrast. Americans as a whole have very positive feelings about the president and his policy agenda. When this fact is combined with the fact that Fox News is usually #1 in the cable news ratings, one gets a good sense of how the news broadcasting business does niche marketing. It's called narrowcasting and since no president is ever going to sustain 98% favorable ratings among voters, outfits like Fox News will always be able to succeed. MSNBC, which was nearly out of business a couple years back, has rebounded by catering to another niche in the TV news market, Fox News haters.
Arlen Specter's surprise defection from the GOP should give the Republican Party just the kind of wake up call it needs. When Al Frankin gets to Washington, the Democrats will have the magic number of 60 votes in the US Senate.
In thinking about the public relations battle between President Obama and his critics, I find myself thinking of that lovable scamp Ferris Beuller gracefully riding a wave of self confidence and popularity, while his Nemesis, Principal Ed Rooney, haplessly pursues him only to to be thwarted at every turn by his own jealousy, incompetence, and obliviousness.
Although I often cringe at the commonplace notion that politics and policy are mutually exclusive, there is a good reason for this common misconception. In Massachusetts politics today we have a Democratic governor and a legislature overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats at a time when the Republican Party and its fiscal policy agenda is in shambles and crippled nationally. The Massachusetts Republican Party couldn't get Mother Theresa elected Miss Congeniality. And yet, the Beacon Hill line on the state's fiscal policy is NO NEW TAXES! Why are our Democratic legislators acting like the anti-tax crackpots in last week's Fox News Tea Party protests? 
It's April Fools day but there's nothing funny about the ongoing self destruction of America's conservative political party. The Republican Party has had a really bad decade or so. The gap between the Republican Party's principles and its performance in office makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole. What is needed is some serious soul and mind searching by the party whose job it is to caution against over reaching. The real life failures of conservative public policies were the result of the abandonment of intellectual conservatism. 
Last fall at CCSU a student was asked to come to the police station for questioning about firearms possession after he had given an oral presentation in a communication class in which he argued that students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The CCSU police were alerted by the professor of the communication course, who apparently was concerned that this student might present a danger to the campus community. 
Readers of this blog can be forgiven for rolling their eyes as I write yet another post bemoaning the fixation of just about everyone with the who, rather than the what, of politics. In Washington, DC today everybody is killing themselves to avoid blame for the current economic crisis and when real issues do get some airtime, such as the contending economic theories regarding the appropriate role of the government in regulating the economy, debate quickly turns to the advocates and away from the arguments.
Readers of this blog know that David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists. His latest column was a gem, though I do have quibbles.
The following Obama quotation is from an interview with several syndicated columnists recently. In it he clearly and concisely describes his vision of post partisanship. -I made every effort to reach out to Republicans early to get their input and to get they buy-in. I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don’t believe in Keynes and they’re still fighting FDR. And no matter what we did, said, whatever the process was, they just don’t agree that this is the best prescription. And I think we can disagree without being disagreeable on that front.
President Obama's efforts to bring about a "post-identity" politics is rightfully praised by one and all, right? That depends on what is meant by the term "identity" politics. It appears that most consider it a synonym for "partisan" politics, which is why Obama has used the term "post-partisan" politics as well. Should we be willing to cast off partisanship? Should we, as is constantly advocated by partisans on all sides, "put partisanship aside to do what's right for the American people?" 
I have spent my life listening to speeches by civic leaders called in youth to their life's work by the words of Kennedy and King. President Obama's call, no less poignant, will be no less potent. Today, I am as thankful for a national leader capable of inspiring a nation as I am envious of those who experienced this great call to service with the pure hearts and open minds of the very young. What a gift.
George W. Bush gave his final press conference this morning. He was probably more relaxed and in control than ever before at such an event. While his presidency was undoubtedly less than he had hoped for, there is no reason why his ex-presidency need be.
I am sorry that I have not blogged in so long. The thing is: I haven't had any ideas worth sharing. One of the good things about blogging is that I don't have to write on a schedule and produce something just to have it out there. We all know how annoying it is when columnists write "filler" columns.
As the President-Elect assembles his White House and executive branch team he, like all his modern predecessors, must answer difficult questions about the differences between his campaign rhetoric and his present claims and comments. The press is duty bound to highlight potential conflicts and the president is well advised to answer carefully and seriously, without attacking or belittling the questions or the questioners. In this morning's press conference called to announce Obama's national security team, the President-Elect faced these types of questions.
When Ronald Reagan said "facts are stupid things" I thought he was making a profound statement about the difficulty of deriving objective meaning from facts. Apparently, he was actually just fumbling an attempt to quote John Adams, who called facts "stubborn things." I thought of this while reading Leonard Pitts latest column in which he expresses his ongoing frustration with what he sees as the profound anti-intellectualism of the Bush Administration.
Overcoming bias is probably the most difficult and the most essential element of intellectual work. At a website called Overcoming Bias sponsored by Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute I stumbled onto what I call a web gem, not to be confused with the term for great defensive plays in baseball.
One source of blog posts is the op-ed pages of the newspapers I read. This evening, while proctoring an exam, I settled in to read a couple of columns published in my local paper. First, I found myself laughing out loud at a Michelle Malkin column (not good when proctoring an exam). Malkin was complaining about "unscrupulous gossipmongers" who have wrongly attacked Sarah Palin. Michelle Malkin is one of the foremost unscrupulous gossipmongers around, so her outrage was in fact, hilarious. For a columnist that gleefully pitched in to help "swift boat" John Kerry (at one point alleging that he shot himself to win a purple heart) to complain about such slanderous conduct is absurd. Compared to Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin is Mother Theresa with a genius IQ.
One sad, but seemingly inescapable element of electoral politics, is the impossibility of complex arguments. Oversimplification and even blatant anti-intellectualism appear to be the price of mass democracy (at least during elections). But what about post election politics? Why can't Americans spend the "transition" period engaged in more deliberative dialogue?
The Springfield Republican newspaper has endorsed John McCain and Sarah Palin. Actually, the editors avoided any mention of Palin in their endorsement (I wonder why). Apparently, the one campaign decision that is indicative of executive ability was not important to the editors of the Republican newspaper.
Many of the efforts to smear Barack Obama are the result of his 10 years of "subversive" activism, otherwise known as his time as a professor at the University of Chicago. Apparently, in "real America" everybody knows that professors are by definition "subversive" and un-patriotic. They hate America and never say nice things about our country.
This colorful metaphor for the futility of bad arguments has gotten some play in this election cycle. It is nowhere more in evidence than the op-ed pages of our nation's newspapers. Though there has been a deluge of conservative intellectuals leaping from the Republican cause for some time now, more interesting is the persistence of some who simply will not yield to the present reality's annoying "liberal bias." (Rod Cordrey)
Every day Republican supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin do media interviews with the help of a very familiar, yet still unsettling, playbook. Respectable men and women who hold high office and other responsible positions in society are telling talk show hosts and reporters that Barack Obama cannot be trusted. They are saying (with straight faces) that his character and leadership ability are in question. They continue to claim that Obama's "relationship" with Bill Ayers indicates poor judgment at best and a hatred of America at worst.
I have written a lot recently of the troubling anti-intellectualism in American politics and society in general. There has been a veritable flood of books and other treatments of this widely recognized trend. While the present election is providing vivid examples of this sad reality, it is difficult to point this out credibly.
Political campaigns tend to highlight a near universal view of politics; namely that it ain't good and good people don't need to do it. This perverse notion of politics is even more in evidence during presidential campaigns. The irony is that not only is politics one of, if not the highest, goods in liberal democracy, it is also an inescapable 24/7/365 phenomenon. When politicians, pundits, journalist, and the proverbial "man on the street" talk about politics, they treat it as at best a "necessary evil." Why?
All the hubbub about the Republican vice presidential nominee, while entertaining, may have greater significance that we cannot appreciate in the middle of a very competitive campaign. I am confident that no one, including John McCain and Sarah Palin herself, thinks the governor of Alaska is ready to be the leader of the free world, at least not in the way the public conceives of that job. She is, however, plenty capable of being the Republican president of the United States. None of her embarrassing gaffes to date have been any more frightening than those routinely committed by George W. Bush, and while his tenure has been a bad one, the significant failures (and successes) of the last eight years are primarily the result of his political philosophy, not his character or intellect.
As an educator, activist, and citizen I spend a great deal of time trying to explain the relationship between institutions (like political parties, the Congress, the White House), ideas (like liberalism and conservatism, regulation and de-regulation), and interests (like winning elections). The 2008 presidential election is unfolding in a fascinating way. More than past elections, this one is providing striking examples of the complex inter-relationship between these factors as well as the serious misconceptions this complicated nexus produces among voters.
Obviously the content free conventions and TV commercials in this presidential campaign season are frustrating for reasonable people. Thank God we have good comedians. Jon Stewart's coverage of the conventions may save America from itself.
While I will vote for Democratic nominee Barack Obama and my informed conservative friends will vote for McCain because we understand that each will try to advance policies and political ideas that are consistent with our policy and ideological preferences, the voters who are the primary targets of each presidential campaign see the race VERY differently. 
The importance of "context" to all human actions and decisions is too obvious to need mention. Or is it? How and why has this most fundamental law of human intelligence been so thoroughly obscured and misconstrued in modern American politics? Attempts to answer this question could, and I think do, fill libraries. Is it because of our failing education system? Our technology driven instant gratification culture and consumer marketplace? The domination of an increasingly superficial and profit driven mass media? The decline of bowling leagues famously highlighted by Robert Putnam's popular book? The breakdown of the nuclear family? Declines in church membership? Increases in church membership? Rock and Roll, Rap, sex and violence on TV? Runaway social individualism preached by liberal college professors? Runaway economic individualism preached conservative Social Darwinists in business schools and the "real world?"
David Brooks has always been one of my favorite syndicated columnists. A political and intellectual conservative, Brooks routinely helps me examine my assumptions while at the same time clearly articulating his own. A recent Brooks column provides a wonderful example of commentary that makes the reader think about ideas. Not one single person is named in this column. There is no discussion of personal character or campaign strategies, something that can very rarely be said about a newspaper column. 
This fall Massachusetts voters will be asked whether or not to eliminate the state's income tax. The issue, relentlessly pushed for years by the state's Libertarian Party is a perfect example of why the Framers of the Constitution sought to create a "representative" democracy at the national level and to guarantee it in each state.
The 2008 presidential election is a "change" election. Though Obama has been the better marketer of the term, both candidates are trying to sell themselves as the right "change" agents for our time. The mass media has spent every waking hour buzzing about what each of these two individuals will do to make change happen. Both candidates are careful to avoid too many specific change promises, which inevitably lead to media criticism about their sincerity. 
Conservative scholar and pundit Thomas Sowell has written a very useful piece about the destructive impact of anti-intellectual politics called "Are Facts Obsolete?" 
If your vote for president in the general election turns on the following, you are a sucker: Character issues, such as consistency, temperament, judgment, experience, or any other quality that accrues to the individual candidate, rather than to their political ideology; abstract ideas like hope, the "American dream" or an end to "politics as usual."
What a jerk I must be! How could I say that character doesn't count? How could I say that we should not vote our hopes? Well, the truth is that character doesn't count much at this stage of the game, especially the general election for president, and if your hopes and dreams are not consistent with a coherent philosophy of government, then they are worthless.
When Obama finally gets out from under the Clinton barrage to face John McCain in the general election the chattering class will spend 99% of its time talking about "issues" that mean nothing to knowledgeable voters. The only thing knowledgeable voters care about is the ideological profile of the candidates. The rest is just noise, or bread and circuses, if you will, intended to bring along the ignorant masses one way or the other. There is one important exception to the ideological perspective of knowledgeable voters - pure economic interest voters. While these folks do have ideological preferences, they hedge their bets so they can get what they want from whoever wins. In other words, elections are speculative affairs, not meaningful debates about the future.
Who are these voters who understand what really matters? Ironically, they are the ones given the least credibility in the mass media and the public at-large. They are the devoted partisans; the voters who understand their own ideology and that this larger conceptual element of a candidate's profile far outstrips the rest when it comes to predicting what they will do if elected. Political scientists (99% of whom are partisan) have long established via survey research that there is a very strong correlation between civic knowledge and partisanship. In other words, the more you know about how our system works the more partisan you are likely to be. The myth of the intelligent independent voter is not a myth, but it is clearly the exception that proves the rule that so-called "independence" is actually an expression of ignorance. This argument, despite being supported by the evidence, always pisses people off. All I can say is that you might be one of the few independents who understand the system. Certainly the pundits and pols who claim this status are not ignorant of the system, they are just playing a niche market that is growing steadily (unfortunately).
In a very real way the voters who act most like spectators (ironically) in general elections are the most knowledgeable ones. They root for their candidate like a sports team because they have already figured out which side most closely resembles them philosophically. And, they understand that this philosophical kinship is FAR more important and predictive than ANYTHING else. The folks still trying to "figure it out" are actually the ones least knowledgeable about our political system. Because of this, general elections look like two groups of adults trying to sway a large group of children to make the right choice as they understand it. If you are trying to get kids to do something you see as good for them, don't you often skip the complex explanation of why it's good for them and merely make it attractive to them in some way? Of course you do, and that's EXACTLY what campaigns and partisan pundits and groups do in elections, comically pandering to these ignorant voters by making it seem like they are the thoughtful ones; the ones doing their homework and "not falling for spin."
If all this is true (and it is) shouldn't voters be more willing to become partisan and/or rely on partisan analysis? The answer to the first part is likely the easiest; people don't have the time or inclination to study philosophy and to develop an integrated philosophy of governance (ideology). The answer to the second part is a bit more complicated. Average voters DO rely on partisan analysis, but (of necessity) only the kind of analysis that relies on the ignorance of voters regarding ideology and the workings of the political system. For example, telling a voter that John McCain's promises to eliminate all capital gains taxes when elected sounds good to folks who want to pay fewer taxes and may well earn McCain many votes. Unfortunately for these voters, basic knowledge of the political system would have made them realize that this promise CANNOT be fulfilled simply because he will face a Democratic legislature that will definitely prevent such a thing. For the candidate and his knowledgeable supporters, however, it’s a win-win in the short term. You attract voters, knowing you will never face the negative consequences of following through on it. Knowledgeable McCain supporters go along with the ruse, knowing that regardless of the makeup of Congress, it’s better to have a conservative in the Oval Office than a liberal. If they simply say this - conservatives are better than liberals - too much explanation would be required. Obviously, the same kind of scenario can easily be seen on the Democratic side.
Bottom-line: knowledgeable political actors either treat the average voter like a child and compete with each other to attract voters with the shiny objects (Character issues, scandals, fear, hope, etc...) or they tilt at intellectual windmills and become marginalized. Given the choice, it's hardly surprising that most sign up for the "silly season." If you think the only way to get your kid to take life saving medicine is to lie to him - what would you do?
Ask yourself why this vidoe is so funny.
The effort to spin Obama’s comments about the bitterness of Pennsylvania voters continues. A skillful dissection of the differences between what Obama said and what he now says he was trying to say can be found in the National Review Online. The NRO piece by Victor Davis Hanson is ominously titled “Why Orwell Matters.”
The Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee recently passed a resolution that urges the state legislature to enact changes to the way the state funds special education and charter schools. Additionally, they have called on the state’s lawmakers to change the Chapter 70 formula by creating a $3,000 minimum per pupil across the state. They also call for increased funds to the School Building Authority and for changes to the chapter 70 formula that would make it easier for school districts to obtain “extended learning time” funds. On the revenue side, the Amherst-Pelham resolution calls for an increase in the state’s income tax of 0.5%.
Last night’s Select board meeting, which drew a large crowd, did clear up some nagging questions. 
