Labels

"I think therefore I am" does not mean "I am what I think." Identity and philosophy are not inseparable concepts and their all too frequent fusion produces serious challenges to civil and productive political dialogue and deliberation. While my effort to expand on Descartes' famous phrase may be too long for a bumper sticker and too short to evoke something profound without elaboration, it is a neat way to introduce thoughts on the impact of labeling in politics.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Ethics Schmethics!

Springfield’s Ethics Ordinance debate has caught my attention lately. Debate may be the wrong word here. As a casual observer of this issue, I have not heard or read any debate, only rigid advocacy. I think public policies should be discussed and debated, not bought and sold. The lack of reasoned debate on this is a shame; mostly because on an issue as complex as government ethics, the debate is often more productive than the proposed remedies, the impacts of which are never as clear as is hoped for or intended.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

"The Anti-Intellectual Presidency"

Today's David Broder column is a must read. Despite the title, it's not about the present administration, but rather a study conducted by a Wesleyan University political scientist that is well worth a closer look.

Across the op-ed page was a David Brooks column, which also included a book recommendation. In this case it was a new book by "promising" young conservative writers, Ross Douthat and Peihan Salam, called "Grand New Party." This book also seems woth looking at, but I was struck by the subtle but clear difference in the approaches of these two works.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Hyperbole

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Although I do read many of his columns I almost never feel satisfied with his work. Of course, being a liberal myself, I suppose this shouldn't be surprising. But its not Cal's positions that bother me. Many thoughtful conservative analysts have made clear, persuasive arguments for things I do not support. Cal, unfortunately, has a "hyperbole" problem that is summed up in a single sentence from one of his recent columns.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Ideology is good too!

"Simple minds talk about people. Average minds talk about events. Great minds talk about ideas."

The above quotation seems intended to celebrate the life of the mind. For me, it provides an insight into what I see as three levels of analysis, which we can use in every-day life to evaluate the reasonableness of our opinions....

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Ideas matter in politics

Ideas matter in politics. Few people believe this simple truth, believing instead that politics is all about the accumulation of power and self interested advocacy. People see electoral politics as the sum total of politics. Governance is popularly thought of as posturing and positioning for election or re-election, and little more.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Goings on

I haven't posted in a while. Things have been buzy. I have completed my term on the local school committee and look forward to retirment from elective office. I am embarking on a cable access/World Wide Web political talk show, which will air on June 30th at 6:30pm in Longmeadow, MA and be posted at JeroldDuquette.org shortly thereafter. The show will include commentary and analysis of local, state, and national politics from a political scientist's perspective.

The show is called "Put Up Your Duqs" and I hope it will be informative, educational and entertaining - we'll see. Anyone with suggestions, ideas, etc please do not hesitate to send them to me. You can include them in comments about this post or email me at jeroldduquette@comcast.net.

Also of interest to some, I have written a post about an incident in Longmeadow that illustrated a troubling aspect of contemporary American attitudes about politics that you can read at longmeadowbuzz.blogspot.com.

PUYD Promo #1

Anti-Intellectual Education

Conservative columnist Suzanne Fields’ column today is another reminder of how ideological rigidity causes paranoia and anti-intellectualism. She is writing about the ignorance of history among American young people, a well worn topic that should concern us all. Not surprisingly, Fields’ spin on this problem is that liberal “educationists” have been trying to create generations of anti-American kids by making terrorists look good and Americans look bad.

Click HERE to read the whole essay.

Uncomfortable Questions

Who are these low income, under educated, white voters turning out for Hillary Clinton in rural areas? Why are so many claiming they will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee? On what basis could one think Clinton best suited for the job, but that Obama is somehow so ill suited that it is better to cross party lines and vote for John McCain?

The first problem with these voters is that they are making their decision with the least reliable criteria available to them; the character and characteristics of the candidates themselves. In other words, these folks are not voting their policy preferences or their economic interests. They are voting for who they think is the "best person" for a job they must not understand. This is a fairly uncomfortable truth because it exposes these voters as fundamentally ignorant of the workings of our political system. However, there is an even more uncomfortable truth lurking here.

Senator Clinton has claimed to be more experienced than Obama, but has not been able to put much distance between she and Obama on policy. She has exploited Obama's association with his pastor and his former neighbor Mr. Aires. She has repeatedly talked about her ability to attract working class white voters. These repeated assertions are troubling because it is standard operating procedure in campaigns to repeat these types of claims not just to brag, but also to subtly send cues to others in the particular category mentioned (poor, uneducated, rural, whites, in this case). The uncomfortable question here is; how many of these lower income, under educated, rural, white voters are supporting Clinton because Obama is black?

Clinton supporters have dodged this question a bit by asking how many black voters are voting for Obama because he is black, in an effort to create moral equivalence and thus neutralize the potential damage to Clinton. Of course the dodge is not reasonable. If blacks are voting for Obama because he is black, they are not therefore voting against Clinton or anyone else because they are white. Indeed, blacks have never crossed party lines in great numbers to support black Republicans. On the other hand, if poor, white, rural Democrats are voting for Hillary now, but will cross party lines to vote for McCain in November, the most obvious reasoning is not nearly so benign. Clearly some significant portion of Hillary's new found supporters are voters who realize that a Democrat should win, but who are not willing to go so far as to vote for black man.

It ain't pretty, and it means that the legacy of Clinton's late surge may be profoundly negative.

Excellent Eugene Robinson Column

Hilarity: Truth in Jest

What if....?

What if only college freshmen who have just passed American government 101 were allowed to vote for president?

At first blush, this odd question should be a bit frightening. But, if you look closely you'll see that "passed" takes a bit of the sting out of it, and that it’s just a thought experiment and a way to make a point; not a serious proposal.

What do these 18-19 year olds learn about voting that might radically improve the manner in which campaigns are conducted if they owned the franchise? First, they learn that there are three main criteria used by Americans in selecting presidential candidates- party affiliation, policy issue positions, and candidate characteristics. They learn that party affiliation and issue positions have a very close working relationship, in that the latter can be largely understood by the former, especially at the presidential level. They also learn that presidential campaigns spend the vast majority of their time and money focusing voters' attention on the third (least probative and predictive) criteria- candidate characteristics. In other words, presidential campaigns, just like most commercial campaigns, focus on getting and holding voters' attention and good feelings, not on the content of the candidates' philosophy or policy issue positions. So, if campaigns were forced to appeal to voters that acted on this basic knowledge of the process, campaigns would surely be very different. Emphysis on style would logically be replaced by emphysis on substance. As it stands, too many voters are fooled into seeing what amount to stylistic differences as substantive ones.

The Primary Wrinkle:

In presidential primaries, the two most important criteria for voters are necessarily muted and largely undifferentiated. All the leading candidates of each of the two major parties are going to come around to what are basically the same issue positions and the same basic philosophy of governance. The more unconventional ideas and perspectives are always knocked out of primaries fairly early. This is a wrinkle because it leaves only the third (and least probative) criteria as the primary source of differentiating information, making primaries little more than beauty pageants. This is not particularly problematic though because it leaves two general election candidates separated by the more important criteria - philosophy and policy issue positions, which should make the job of general election voters pretty easy. They just have to vote for the candidate whose philosophy and policy issue positions most resemble their own - the more personal candidate character issues having been dealt with in the primaries.

It’s kind of like a race in which the competitors first have to do a standup comedy routine in front of one of two large groups of teenagers with one candidate from each major party then moving on to the actual race. It’s weird, but doable. It produces two general election candidates whose most relevant differences (party philosophy and issue positions) provide voters with a clear choice between a liberal and a conservative. The problem is that too many voters don't shift their decisional criteria in a rational way when the general election comes along.

The General Election:

Sadly, the primary source of voter information in any election is the mass media, which contains VERY little information about how and why voters SHOULD shift their priorities away from candidate characteristics toward issue positions and party affiliation. Ironically, the logic of this shift is no secret. When presented with its logic the vast majority of voters see its utility, but too many can't quite get themselves to vote using this rational approach. It’s a bit like explaining the benefits of proper diet and exercise to folks. We all get it, but very few of us are able to act rationally with the information.

So, even though voters should essentially compare their own philosophy and policy issue positions to candidates, choosing the most compatible of the two, waaaaay too many continue to evaluate the "character" and personal characteristics of the candidates, choosing instead the one whose personality and "values" are most compatible with their own. No matter how many times voters are reminded that this method of choosing a general election candidate is like choosing a brain surgeon based solely on bedside manner, too many stubbornly refuse to let rationality spoil their fun. [The really scary thing is that many people probably would choose a brain surgeon using irrational criteria. This is democracy's dirty not-so little not-so-secret] This is why I suggest (tongue in cheek, of course) that only college kids who have just passed an American government 101 course be allowed to vote. For at least a few weeks these kids will retain this basic knowledge and act on it. After that, the overwhelming flood of irrational information and analysis overtakes most of them too.

You are a sucker if.....

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 Wright Thing

The now infamous rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright have been spun up and twisted by Obama critics in every way imaginable, save one- fairly. When I heard the Reverend’s incendiary words I thought them unfair and over wrought, from where I sit. On the other hand, I did not see them as evidence that Wright did not love his country. Indeed, any serious understanding of love includes room for serious anger. The married couple that fights hard is often the same couple whose love and commitment keeps them together forever. When our loved ones give us a free ride, aren’t they exhibiting something less than the full commitment we associate with true love? Isn’t it those whose flag pins and poles are always being worn and hoisted without critical comment that we should worry about? Isn’t it they whose relationship to our country is immature and dangerous?

The most replayed of Wright’s angry insults to his country was his saying that America should be “damned.” Does this mean that every lover who has said as much to his/her partner is an adulterer, or a pretender to love? If a mother or father says as much to a family member in a fit of anger, have they proven themselves devoid of family values and unworthy of continued association? No one has provided any evidence in deeds that would lead a rational person to think Wright an enemy of the country he honorably served in the US Marine Corps, where by the way, drill sergeants and superiors often speak much more harshly to their charges that Wright did to America. No one in their right mind would say that leaders of Marines do not love their warriors. Indeed, the Marines are undoubtedly a terrific model of esprit de corps.

Barrack Obama’s candidacy is a test for our fragile experiment in democracy. It is a test of our moral fiber and our capacity for embracing differences. This guy who is said to be all talk is a test for us. Are we all talk when we repeat empty slogans about diversity, tolerance, and respect for all peoples? Obama’s pastor isn’t the devil; indeed, closer inspection reveals a man with gifts who has devoted his life to causes all American “claim” to support. How many of us can honestly claim to have done as much for our communities as Wright? How many of us can honestly claim that we have not been just as angry at those we love? Moreover, how many of us love America enough to get so emotional about her? If you vote your own interests and ideas, you’ll never be among the distracted. The next challenge for you will be to avoid becoming one of the distracters – which is even more difficult.

I see the bottom line in 2008 as quite clear. If you are a liberal, choose Hillary or Obama. If you are a conservative, choose McCain. If you are a libertarian, decide whether you want to vote your economic values or your social values. If the former, vote McCain. If the latter, Vote Obama/Clinton. If you are conversely attracted to social conservatism and economic liberalism, you too will have to choose between your economic and social values, voting the one that is more pressing this year. This way of choosing candidates is voter centric, rather than candidate-centric. The beauty of it is that if you know which set of values is closest to your own, you can tune out all the noise and the nonsense, because no matter which Democrat is nominated, we will have a liberal and a conservative to choose from in November. If you are voting on the personal characteristics of the candidates, you may as well flip a coin, because your criterion is not measurably related to what a president will do when in office. The best predictor of policy positions remains a candidate’s party affiliation, not his experience or character.

Bitter Medicine

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.”

Hanson compares Obama’s original comments in California, such as the line in which the Democratic candidate talked about voters clinging to “guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.” Hanson compares these characterizations to Obama’s later explanation in which “clings’ and “antipathy to people are not like them” is translated into less frank language. Hanson writes, “[n]ote how version #1's "cling" becomes version #2's "vote about" and "take comfort from"—as the condescending dismissal becomes empathetic understanding.” Hanson continues, “[n]ote how version #1's "religion" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" becomes version #2's "faith" and "their family and community" —as fundamentalist xenophobes now become beleaguered folks who band together against the unfairness.”

Though Hanson goes on to other passages, the above will suffice to make my point here. The ominous title is surely meant to suggest that Obama is now employing “doublespeak” to disguise his true meaning, which according to Hanson (to say nothing of Clinton and McCain), was that Pennsylvania’s working class voters are “fundamentalist xenophobes” who are eager to blame immigrants and gays for all their problems. This type of analysis of Obama’s remarks will get a great deal of attention and will probably do some damage to Obama, though not enough to derail him.

The interesting thing here is that Hanson’s version of Obama’s “lapse” as well as what Hanson wants readers to see as Obama’s elitism sneaking out, is totally unreasonable. Moreover, it is clearly Hanson, and many other Obama critics, who are employing “doublespeak” in this case.

Let’s apply Hanson’s technique to his own prose. Hanson’s translation of Obama’s comments about religion and antipathy toward others not like them into “fundamentalist xenophobes” is completely arbitrary. Had Obama used the fuzzier language of his later explanation in the first instance, Hanson would no doubt have translated his comments with equal zeal and the same pajoritive spin. Hanson’s argument is an exercise in projection. He is the Orwellian trying prop up a prefabricated frame of Obama with some punchy reverse engineered distortions. Painting Obama as an elitist in a field with the son of admirals and the daughter of wealthy Illinois Republicans is absurd. They know this, but they also know that Bush-Cheney 04 turned a highly decorated war hero into a dangerous dove, and that unless he is significantly weakened, Obama’s momentum will likely take him to the White House.

While Hanson implies that he is trying to back track on his comments, in fact, Obama has done no such thing. The truth of his observations is manifest in both his initial frank assessment as well as his later more diplomatic, poll tested, version. At the end of the day, everyone knows that he is speaking the truth, whether it’s about white racial anxieties or the frustrations of working class voters. This is what separates Obama from his rivals; his so-called “lapses” are only lapses in a political campaigning 101 sense. Obama’s allegedly inappropriate comments have the virtue of truth, a virtue that most recognize even if they consider the comments inappropriate or politically unwise. McCain and Clinton are using this elitist argument to knock Obama down a peg or two. But what they really hope is that this faux frenzy will knock him off his game and cause him to pull his punches and to avoid these observations that end up revealing profound and previously politically dangerous realities.

Here’s the thing about Obama; when he talks to people he is clearly thinking and authentically engaging with his listeners. When Clinton, McCain, or most other politicians deviate from the script their “gaffs” reveal many things good and bad, but rarely if ever truly thoughtful engagement and intellectual courage. For Obama, his so-called gaffs reveal the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They create space for serious debate; a space Clinton and McCain are desperately now trying to fill with distortions and false indignation.

This election will truly be a test of character and courage for the very voters now being bombarded with hollow praise and false promises. For these voters, the truth could set them free. The question is; will they have the patience and courage to see the truth and vote for it?

All politics SHOULD be local!

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%.

The Longmeadow School Committee will consider the adoption of this resolution at our April 14th meeting. More philosophically diverse than our counterparts to the North, the School Committee in Longmeadow will likely engage in spirited discussion and debate over the specifics of the resolution. The debate, if allowed to occur and continue until all sides have made thoughtful arguments, will represent a very small, but very important step forward for educational politics in Massachusetts.

Political activism by Amherst public officials is nothing new, but an activated Longmeadow School Committee would, indeed, be a change. As a relatively wealthy suburban community, Longmeadow School Committees have been consumed in recent years by the never ending task of husbanding scarce resources in order to maintain the town’s historically high educational standards. Politics has long been seen as either an external activity over which local officials have little to no influence or a dangerous activity to be avoided by local officials who want to avoid bad press.

In the wake of a hard fought override campaign there has been a growing consensus on the Longmeadow School Committee that, futile or not, local officials should become more vocal about what’s happening on Beacon Hill. What makes this emerging notion promising is the fact that Longmeadow will be electing a new state representative in the fall. This should provide local officials with a venue for public debate and education about the role of our state representative, as well as the entire state legislature, in the lives of our cities and towns. The way we fund local services should be made the primary topic of this election for Longmeadow voters. Unlike the vast majority of our fellow cities and towns, we will actually have a competitive election for the state legislature. This is an opportunity that doesn’t come around often in the Bay State and we need to make the best of it. That means that local officials need to step up and exercise political leadership. Local elected officials should take the lead in challenging the state representative candidates to take clear positions and outline serious proposals on the issue of funding local services.

I strongly urge our local elected officials to accept this charge and not to fall prey to the same old song that candidates always sing, namely that they have what it takes to get us our piece of the pie. That’s a bunch of crap (sorry for the technical jargon). We need to spark serious debate about the recipe for the pie, not just another vacuous argument about who will get us a bigger slice. It’s counter intuitive for most, but what we have to do with this election is to make it a competition of ideas, not people. We must resist making this a campaign for the best man (or woman) for a job, rather we have to steer this campaign toward a competition for the best ideas on the most pressing issue we face in local government – How can we keep up with the rising costs of local services? The rest, as they say, is just noise.

When candidates give us their resumes, we need to press for their ideas. When they emphasize local interests, we have to steer them back to the larger question of local funding reform throughout the state. One very effective way candidates avoid hard questions and serious debate is by emphasizing local interests and their ability to go to Boston and “fight for us.” Let’s not accept this invitation to pit localities against each other. Let’s be the community that forces our candidates to deal with this crushing financial problem as if they were running for Governor, not state representative.

What do we have to lose? Regardless of who is elected, without a noisy and even messy challenge to the status quo, our new state representative will just become another “fighter” for the crumbs that drop from the plates of Eastern Mass legislators. Some will argue that any direct challenge to legislative business as usual will only result in the punishment of our district. This argument is as sad as it is toothless. If we send our representative to Beacon Hill with a clear issue-based mandate and ongoing, active public support, Beacon Hill insiders will have to “handle” him or her with care. Sometimes in politics a loose cannon is a more powerful weapon than one firmly lashed to the deck of the ship of state.

Baseball & Politics

George Will’s latest column is about baseball. Will’s knowledge of and enthusiasm for our national pastime makes his occasional musings about this great game some of his most witty and entertaining work as a writer. A brilliant conservative political pundit and analyst, Will’s love of baseball and his ability to use its rules, norms, and history to both entertain and educate has always impressed me. I recommend his writings to readers of all political persuasions.

This latest column reminded me of a scholarly article I read a few years ago. You can read the full article at http://artsci.wustl.edu/~jgill/papers/qjps.zorngill.pdf. The article, written by political science professors Christopher Zorn and Jeff Gill, is called “The Etiology of Public Support for the Designated Hitter Rule.” The following is the abstract to the article:

Since its introduction in 1973, major league baseball’s designated hitter (DH) rule has been the subject of continuing controversy. Here, we investigate the political and socio–demographic determinants of public opinion toward the DH rule, using data from a nationwide poll conducted during September 1997. Our findings suggest that it is in fact Democrats, not Republicans, who tend to favor the DH. In addition, we find no effect for respondents’ proximity to American or National League teams, though older respondents were consistently more likely to oppose the rule.

I really enjoyed the article and have since recommended it to many. It’s a great example of how scientific methodology can be used in a fun and illuminating way. This piece allows for thoughtful discussion of both statistical methodology and American politics with a wide audience because of its subject matter. Exploring ways in which the DH rule manifests liberal values and attitudes about government, while opposition to this rule (government program?) is consistent with conservative values and attitudes, is a great way to sustain a pedagogically useful discussion of ideology in American politics.

For people who hate divisive political arguments, I recommend replacing whatever hot button issue is at hand with the DH rule. The argument may still be heated and intense, but because of the offbeat subject matter, I suspect that it may also be more creative and illuminating, as well as less acrimonious.

Casinos: Gamble or Gambit?

The rejection of Governor Patrick’s plan to bring casinos to the Bay State has me wondering. The Governor and the Speaker of the House, Sal Dimasi, have appeared to be in a personal struggle over the issue. Dimasi appears to have bested the Governor on this one, but appearances can be deceiving.

In the aftermath of the killing of the bill, the comments of both the Speaker and the Governor were revealing. The Governor’s argument for a proposal that many of his core supporters vigorously opposed was rhetorically forceful in public, but not necessarily as forceful behind the scenes in the legislature. While the governor indicated that a full and free debate in the House could have yielded workable compromises, Speaker Dimasi indicated that the Governor never sat down with him to specifically discuss the kinds of compromises that may have been made as a result of an open debate on the House floor. Dimasi also implied that the Governor never tried to sell the bill to him personally, which is code for – the Governor never came to the Speaker to talk turkey, or make a deal, something a strong advocate for a bill would likely do.

Governor Patrick went through the motions on casinos and pushed the issue in a “legislative process 101” kind of way – urging a fair hearing, public debate, open legislative debate, etc. But there isn’t a lot of indication that he did the behind the scenes legwork that such a proposal would require. I’m sure most Beacon Hill insiders thought that this was a product of the stong opposition to casinos from his most committed supporters, the very folks whose tireless efforts got him elected. So, if the Governor was really gambling on casinos, as the press and his critics have claimed, he does not appear to have done as much to increase his odds as one might have expected.

Why not? Could the answer be in his post defeat comment about “the ball [being] in the Speaker’s court now?” In the 2006 Gubernatorial election Patrick was forced (no doubt against his better judgment) to avoid taking a position on tax policy that his Republican opponent could exploit. This meant that he could not directly or forcefully speak out against the voter approved reduction of the State income tax and even had to say that “when affordable” he would support bringing it down to the 5.0% rate approved by voters. The problem with this tactic of avoidance was that it tied the Governor’s hands quite a bit when it comes to increasing state revenue, something clearly necessary in a state where local governments are drowning in cost increases. The Governor, unable to advocate for sane or rational tax policy because of the domination of a “penny wise, pound foolishness” in the state’s electorate, had to fashion a budget that would meet the increasing needs of the Commonwealth without raising taxes - enter casinos.

The casino plan and its inclusion in the governor’s budget may have been a opening gambit intended to put the legislature in the hot seat. Having forcefully and even boastfully defeated the Governor in this apparently straight forward power struggle, the Speaker may now be exactly where the Governor wanted him – in the position of having to devise and support a way to raise state revenue, or bear the political burden of finding things to cut. In other words, the Governor has put his idea on the table and the Speaker and House have said no. Indeed, buy killing it the way they did, they have made further legislative consideration of casinos impossible until next year. Can the Speaker now turn to the Governor and demand another idea? I don’t think so. I think the ball is indeed in Dimasi’s court. The House now bears the burden of making the next move, a move that should provide some latitude or political cover for the Governor.

For the Speaker, the lesson may be to take caution when a political adversary seems too easily outmaneuvered. As for Governor Patrick, well , maybe his game is chess.

Support Springfield and D2 Hoops

The economic vitality of our town and region is enhanced by the ability of Springfield to attract events and attention to the MassMutual Center. Once again the Birthplace of Basketball is the site of the NCAA D2 Men's Basketball Elite Eight tournament beginning with quarterfinal action on Wednesday and culminating in the national championship game on Saturday, March 29th at 2:30pm.

Last year's tournament was very exciting with three games ending with last second shots to win. Though the schools involved are not household names, the quality of play is very good. Massachusetts' own Bentley College has made it to Springfield and will play its quarterfinal game on Wednesday night at 6:00pm against the University of North Alabama at the MassMutual Center. Tickets are inexpensive and the matchup promises to be a good one.

I am a volunteer host for the host committee. This year I will be hosting the Augusta State University Jaguars, whose quarterfinal game is Wednesday afternoon against the University of Central Oklahoma. Fourth grade classes around the region, have followed the teams through the tournament. Schools in each town focused on one of the eight regions. Longmeadow fourth graders followed the South Atlantic teams. The South Atlantic region champs, Augusta State, will be meeting with these fourth graders at the Hall of Fame on Monday night for a brief rally and a "meet and greet." If you have a fourth grader who wants to come to this event but does not have the information, email me at jeroldduquette@comcast.net for details.

The host committee does a great job of creating family friendly events all week. For example, the D2 FAN FEST, an interactive and exciting event aimed at youngsters will be happening on Saturday, March 29th at 10am before the final game. For information about this and other events open to the public contact the Hall of Fame. Let's show these teams and fans coming from as far away as Alaska that our region appreciates their efforts and their contribution to our local economy.

Game Schedule:

Quarterfinals- Wednesday, March 26th at 12:00pm, 2:30pm, 6:00pm, & 8:30pm

Semifinals- Thursday, March 27th at 6:00pm & 8:30pm

Championship Game- Saturday, March 29th at 2:30pm

More info @ http://d2sportstalk.blogspot.com/

Tactic or Teachable Moment?

The latest flap about a candidate’s association with a politically dangerous character has produced something as refreshing as it was unusual, a teachable moment taken advantage of, rather than squandered by a poll driven politician.

Yesterday in Philadelphia, Barrack Obama gave a speech on the perils and opportunities that race provides in this election. He did not simply run from his pastor as fast as he could, nor did he overstate his opposition to Rev. Wright’s incendiary comments. He did what good teachers do- he put the issue in context. He used the negative attention brought to him from the words of his Pastor to connect to the racial resentments (conscious and unconscious) of all Americans. He carefully explained that while his Pastor was the product of an earlier era, he is the product of an improved and improving America. Obama’s approach to the issue of race mirrors his overall approach, which is to recognize the legitimacy of multiple perspectives on every issue. By acknowledging the anger of black Americans as well as the anger of white Americans regarding race relations and public policy, Obama has demonstrated something very significant about his leadership style and his confidence in the capacity of Americans to be thoughtful and reasonable. Clearly, “hope” has substance for this candidate.

He courageously explained that his Pastor was a whole person whose harsh comments were but a small part of a worthy and honorable man. Explanations like this, while common in non-political settings, are incredibly rare in political campaigns, where fear of spin, sound bites, and the 24/7 intellectual dishonesty of political rivals dominates. Candidates for public office (especially for president) are driven by public opinion polls. They reason that “temporarily” suspending their sober judgment is a necessary means to the coveted end of winning the presidency. Obama’s speech yesterday, and his campaign in general, have inspired and energized millions of Americans from all walks of life precisely because his is a sincere effort avoid this perennial rationalization for the politics of personal destruction.

While Obama’s betting on the fair-mindedness of American voters, both of his opponents are making a different wager. Voters will be putting their money down on hope or fear. I’m picking hope (and working for it) because I don’t think we can afford another cycle of unchecked fear mongering. Besides, personally I’d rather be a sucker than a cynic.

Take a look at the speech. Think about it.

View the speech @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxOSEj_sQM&feature=bz302

Select Board on the Budget

Last night’s Select board meeting, which drew a large crowd, did clear up some nagging questions.

First, the members of the board who voted to approve the override proposal (which passed the Select board by a vote of 3-2) confirmed that they did so with the understanding that it committed the Select board to level service budgets. Dr. Grady’s claims to the contrary was convincingly refuted. In addition, the Chair, Mr. Haberman, indicated that he recalled making this commitment clear to both the board and the Town Manager.

Second, the support of the Select board for fully finding the school’s level-service budget was made quite clear. Only Kathy Grady voted against the schools. Her rationale was quite revealing. She claimed that the failure of the school department to provide her with enough justification for a couple of expenditures made her incapable of supporting the schools. The implication; the schools are hiding something from Dr. Grady. The exhaustive and very transparent school budget process as well as the support of all four other Select board members did not appear to impact Dr. Grady’s view of the schools. Sadly, she also made very clear that she sees the town and schools as adversaries, not partners.

Third, The Town Manager interpreted the admittedly complex concept of “level service” budgeting very creatively. The town v. schools mentality was in full view as the Town Manager and Dr. Grady repeatedly referred to new SPED positions, implying that they were violations of the “level service” approach. Their indictment of our special education spending was part of their efforts to defend more than $200,000 in new non-education spending recommendations. All but one of those recommended spending increases was cut by the Select board last night.

So, the good news is that 4 out of 5 members of the Select board came to work last night with the interests of the whole town in mind. The very precarious financial position of Longmeadow (as well as most small towns in the state) makes it even more important that we reject the division of our town into school and town hall camps. Unfortunately, it appears that this counter-productive perspective found its way into the Town Manager’s recommended budget. Last night the Select board firmly rejected this approach and that is very good news for all of the town’s residents.

Response to Town Manager

I just read the Town Manager’s post on LongmeadowBuzz and am afraid she has not done much to reduce the controversy over the budget. While I am confident that she is doing a tough job as best and as sincerely as she can, I do have a problem with some of her comments here.

Ms. Crosbie writes, “I never committed to a level service budget for FY09.” Well, it may be true that Robin Crosbie, public administrator, made no such personal promise. However, her superiors, you know the actual policymakers known as the Select board, did make such a commitment when they voted to support the Budget Strategies Committee proposal on the override. One wonders who’s really in charge at Town Hall.

Ms. Crosbie also made clear that she was not cutting special education by more than $350,000, but rather was merely cutting the recommended school department budget by that amount. She went on to say that many departments would not get their requested amount for FY09. For this attitude we may have the Charter’s mandated consolidation to blame. Ms. Crosbie seems to think that the School Department is just another department under her charge. This is a very counterproductive perspective. The school budget goes through a transparent and rigorous process and is voted on by the elected policymakers known as the School Committee. The number given to the Town Manager by the School Committee is not simply another request from a town department. It is the recommendation of elected policymakers, which this year was strictly governed by the agreement reached by all three town boards – an agreement now being breached by the Select board’s chief administrator. If the Select board chooses to allow Ms. Crosbie to lead them around by the nose, that is their prerogative. The School Committee, however, is not so inclined.

Ms. Crosbie’s inappropriate intent to meddle with school budgeting and administration was even more egregiously on display later in her post where she had the audacity to question the administration of our Pupil Services department. She says parents and residents have shared their concerns about SPED with her and even recommends that an “outside management study” be considered to evaluate the way we provide special education services. WOW! Our pupil services and schools in general are run extremely well. I assume this ridiculous assertion is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism being leveled at the non-school departments in town.

On the bright side, Ms. Crosbie does demonstrate an appreciation of the big picture when she writes:

“As for the FY09 budget - we need to quit thin-slicing the words "level service budget". Let's face it, the proposed FY09 School and town budgets are not level service budgets. We need to look at the big picture. The Long Range Plan (remember that Plan?) identifies a number of economic development opportunities. As I said at my forum, economic development in Longmeadow must be a deliberate and intentional activity. Economic development is a school issue - the schools will be the primary beneficiaries in terms of new revenues - and school officials need to get behind this.”

This is all true, however, it in no way justifies cutting the school budget one thin dime because it is the School Committee that has routinely taken the lead in Longmeadow when it comes to acknowledging revenue needs and pushing for more responsible tax policy! This is particularly frustrating this year because it was the School Committee that got out on the street and sold the override that has kept us all afloat and made such economic development opportunities possible. As she herself admitted, without that override, we’d be in much deeper trouble. The School Committee unanimously supported that override. The School Committee has produced a wonderful strategic plan. The School Committee and the Superintendent are doing a considerable more professional and effective job than is being done on the non-school side of town. I suggest Ms. Crosbie not bite the hand that feeds, or question the competence of the most well managed department in town. Without the leadership of the School Committee she would be up a creek without a paddle. Remember, the override proposal only passed the Select board by one vote. Imagine where we’d be if Dr. Grady and Mr. Santaniello had succeeded in killing the override proposal.

In conclusion, Ms. Crosbie should not force the School Committee to take back the money she cut on the Town Meeting floor. I think town hall and the Select board have been embarrassed enough recently and should not have to be taken to task once again in front of the whole town. As someone who trains town administrators in Connecticut, I can tell you that town managers are often not particularly well suited to oversee school departments. If the charter has given our town manager too much authority over the schools it may have unintentionally produced a “tail wagging the dog” scenario that is not in the town’s best interests. I think it’s time to take a closer look at the Charter and its results to date. Clearly, unintended consequences have already reared their ugly heads.

2008 Election Results Leaked!!!

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Francis Xavier Duquette

Francis Xavier Duquette

Unemployment

Breaking News

Liberal Fascists!?!?!?

Speaking of popular and well done blogs, Tom Devine is a local blogging icon. One site (Mary Cary's called AboutAmherst) indicated that Devine "was blogging before the word was invented." I bet he's pissed he didn't think if it. Anyway, he is a devotee of a worldview/ philosophy called "objectivism." It's not a view I share, but it’s interesting enough.

Devine's blog (tommydevine.blogspot.com) caught my eye, not because he was running down W.E.B. Debois (that's an artifact of his "objectivism," which was championed by thinker Ann Rand - or was it Rant? he, he, he). It was Tom’s reference to a column by Tom Sowell, a Hoover Institute fellow whose columns are printed in the Springfield paper.

Sowell was flacking for an author that had written a book about what he called "liberal fascism." Obviously it’s a great title because its target market will gleefully snap it up if only for the title. In fact, it is a classic example of what philosophers call “vicious intellectualism.”

Sowell, and the book’s author are in this effort at least, political rhetoric entrepreneurs, not serious thinkers. I assume each is annoyed that conservatives get called fascists all the time and they don’t like it. Despite the fact that they both have called liberals commies, they seem eager to be able to call them “fellow travelers” of both extremes on the ideological spectrum.

Here’s the thing, though. Neither liberals nor conservatives in American politics can actually be called commies or fascists with a straight face. Both extreme ideologies deny and defame a fundamental principle that American libs and cons share and hold dear; the principle of individual rights and the fundamental sovereignty of the individual in society. Communism and Fascism are radical communitarian ideologies. They deny individual autonomy as both a social and political concept.

Therefore, Sowell and the book’s author appear to be counting on the fact that most Americans are not aware that both of our major political parties are ideologically liberal, which is to say, proponents of the notion that the best society is one in which individuals have maximum individual freedom, but limit themselves at the point where such freedom would hurt others or contribute to excessive disorder. We’re all liberals; we just have an intra-ideological disagreement about how best to achieve the goals of a liberal society.

So, calling American leftists fascists is stupid, and quite dismissive of the intelligence of one's audience. However, there may have been a valid ulterior motive for these authors. If it is an intellectual non starter for folks to call liberals fascists, it’s just as foolish to call conservatives fascists, or either of them, communists. So, while lefties like me take pleasure in revealing a weak conservative effort to further denigrate the philosophy of the American left, the logical result of this debunking is that we have equally condemned all the libs who love calling American conservatives fascists.

Son of a gun, Sowell made a positive contribution to thought today.

First full day as a blogger

Well, so far life as a blogger isn't as glamorous as I had hoped. After explaining the idea to the kids, it seems that the concept is old hat for many not terribly exciting for others. My hope that it would get me out of household chores appears to have been misplaced as well.

Nontheless, One stop musing and opinionating is still attractive for me. Last night I spent time reading other blogs. They were mostly quite impressive and well done. I've decided to have very low standards for mine because as much as I like tickling the keypad in thought about this or that political question or issue, I doubt I will take the time serious bloggers do to make their efforts more readable and entertaining, though I will try to put up video and pictures when helpful or funny.

The big issue in 08

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters