IDEAS MATTER!

WE'VE MOVED!

2010-04-15T09:25:00.006-04:00

Go to http://ideasmatter.jeroldduquette.org

Legal Challenges to Health Insurance Reform

2010-03-29T11:16:00.002-04:00

The prospects for success in the courts are certainly slim and the plaintiff's are surely as motivated by electoral politics as by concern for constitutional integrity, but on the whole I think these lawsuits serve a valid and valuable educational function.

As a civics educator the past year watching the tortured path of health insurance reform has been fantastic for students of government and politics. Real time legislative maneuvering beats textbooks and case studies every time. The next chapter in this real life saga will be judicial and will do doubt enliven and illuminate my efforts to demonstrate both the importance of seemingly arcane rules and procedures and to show the vital connections between aspects of government and policy making that students too often consider in isolation.

I would encourage supporters of the several legal challenges to tout the educational value of their efforts along with their political arguments. That would give them at least one uncontroversial motive.

The Tortoise and the Hare

2010-03-24T10:57:00.008-04:00

Do you remember the book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten? I think the Obama Administration may have been counting on the lesson of The Tortoise and the Hare over the last 13 months or so. The question now may be whether the Republicans still need some extra help after class.

Principles and Consequences

2010-03-23T13:12:00.005-04:00

Recently Stanley Fish wrote a column on the Supreme Court decision in F.E.C. v. United Citizens . In it he explained very clearly the difference in the arguments of the Court's liberal minority and conservative majority. The conservative majority, Fish explained, made a "principled" argument, while the liberals relied on a "consequentialist" approach. These two approaches are often present in left/right debates in the political arena as well. Health insurance reform provides a clear example of a debate between left and right to which the principled-consequentialist theoretical framework can be applied productively to sort through the complexity, confusion, and intensity of the clashing rhetoric.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Is the Right right?

2010-03-22T12:37:00.006-04:00

The intensity and venom coming from conservative opponents of health insurance reform is so great that we simply must examine the conservative argument to find out how so many folks could be so adamant and resistant to compromise.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

The Dangers of Profitable Rage

2010-03-21T08:40:00.017-04:00

The rhetoric that has dominated the year long effort to stop health care reform has ranged from ridiculous to very frightening. The "Tea Partiers" who yelled obscenities and spit on Members of Congress who support health care reform yesterday, reportedly calling several black Congressmen "niggers," ought to scare every reasonable American. The striking contrast between a legislative debate that is truly moderate over a bill filled with formerly Republican proposals, and the hyperbolic rhetoric of opponents is surreal. The bill is far from the comprehensive reform sought by progressives.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Political Argument versus Political Antagonism

2010-03-15T10:31:00.012-04:00

This week, I will be trying to put together a whole lot of research, past writings, and new data for a conference paper/ presentation next month on civic knowledge, civility, and partisanship. My fascination with the intersection of personal opinions, styles of intercommunication, and political partisanship is stoked daily by the constant fixation of 24/7 radio & TV with "politics" programming, as well as the seemingly massive "new" media infrastructure built around political research and/or activism. I have regularly monitored and participated in political debate on the internet, both in my own social networks (like facebook) and in various interactive internet formats. The free three-month subscription to satellite radio that accompanied my recently purchased new car has pushed me even further into this strange world of hyper-politics.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Extremism and Lazy Thinking

2010-03-13T11:54:00.007-05:00

Political extremism may not be a vice “in the defense of liberty,” but in most cases it is both cause and consequence of lazy thinking. Even brilliant ideologues, whose conclusions have been honed by a lifetime of scholarship and experience, often come to a place where the scholarly imperative of regularly questioning assumptions (however long held) is logistically impractical, if not impossible, in routine discourse. In fact, the reification of long held principles is probably inescapable given the limitations of human rationality.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Breaking News- "Ideas Matter" Blog is now accepting Reader comments!

2010-03-12T12:47:00.009-05:00

From now on the millions of faithful "Ideas Matter" readers can contribute directly to the blog with comments, questions, and insights of their own.

Earmarks: good process, bad politics?

2010-03-11T12:15:00.010-05:00

Are all "earmarks" corrupt? A recent New York Times article describes the House Democrats' plan to end "earmarks" to particular companies (i.e. no bid contracts). The article says that Republicans are calling for the end of "ALL" earmarks. Are they trying to seem more anti-corruption? Are they trying to stop earmarks that liberals are more likely to seek? Or, are they hoping to save some corporate earmarks by threatening non-corporate earmarks? My initial sense is that all three of these motives are afoot among both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress on this issue.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Hand holding or arm wrestling?

2010-02-23T11:34:00.002-05:00

President Obama was elected on an inspiring message of hope and change. The content of these wonderful things was left to the eye of the beholder. That’s how it’s done, and Obama did it very well. In his first year in office he has indeed changed things. He has steered a very moderate policy course and tried very hard to exemplify what he calls “post partisanship.” He has tried to live up to a rhetorical claim that everyone makes but no one seriously tries to fulfill, namely putting partisanship aside and trying to solve big problems by consensus. This was both a political and a policy mistake! He thought that the American people really did want bipartisan cooperation and compromised policy responses to serious problems, something Americans only claim when confronted with the false choice of gridlock or unprincipled compromise.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Civility versus Substance?

2010-02-17T10:40:00.014-05:00

In a recent Washington Post op-ed UVA professor Garard Alexander asks; Why are liberals so condescending? His complaints about liberal intellectual condescension were not unreasonable. In fact, as a liberal who tries to avoid intellectual incompetence and condescension in public dialogue [ironically efforts to avoid of one sometimes lead to the other], I found myself nodding in agreement with much of Alexander's claims. The problem is that after reading the column one is left with what seems to liberals like a plausible answer to his query - because conservatives are stupid. Sadly, Alexander presents no argument or evidence to the contrary.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Longmeadow ain't what it used to be

2010-02-12T13:54:00.005-05:00

Longmeadow became an upscale community with an exceptionally high quality of life because of its residents’ shared values, among them shared (participatory) governance and shared interests (economic and otherwise). The notion of “commonwealth” was deeply engrained in the people, institutions, and ethos of this place. The persistence of our participatory form of government (Town Meeting) serves as an institutional reminder of the Tocquevillian notions of citizenship and community that survived largely unchallenged in Longmeadow until at least the early 1980s.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Taking Stock in the Aftermath of Defeat

2010-01-21T14:25:00.010-05:00

All political debates whether in elections or in governance are translated by the participants into an “us” versus “them” contest. The trick is to make the “us” bigger than the “them.” Even though a lot of college kids take poli sci to avoid math, the reality is that politics in a democracy is really about division and that is as it should be. The only time everyone in a democracy should be united is when everybody in a democracy has the very same interests and principles at stake. In other words, total unity in a democracy is only reasonable in the face of a real existential threat, or on questions with little or nothing at stake (i.e. should we go to war, or should we designate January “neuter your pet” month?). The rest of the time, which is most of the time, calls for national unity are at best an unintentional affront to the principles of individual rights and popular sovereignty.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

The "Scott" Heard Round the World

2010-01-20T13:40:00.009-05:00

It’s January 20, 2010, one year to the day after Americans made history by electing Democrat Barack Obama President of the United States and just 17 hours (or so) after Massachusetts voters sent a very surprising and stern warning to President Obama by electing Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat occupied by liberal icon Ted Kennedy for more than four decades. I went to bed last night as a sad Democrat. I woke up this morning, still a sad Democrat. As I made the 40 minute commute to the office this morning I slowly went from just a sad Democrat to a sad Democrat and a very exited political science professor, who by a wonderful coincidence is teaching a course on American public opinion this semester.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Public Opinion Reality Check

2010-01-12T11:15:00.011-05:00

Public opinion polls are only useful if read properly. The claims about Americans turning away from the Democratic healthcare reform bills are perfectly accurate, as far as I can tell. It is clearly true that many Americans who once supported the President on Healthcare reform are now unhappy about his approach.

Unfortunately for the opponents of reform, some of these same polls reveal that there is as much (or more) dissatisfaction with the present state of the reform legislation on the left as on the right. This means that the American public remains solidly in favor of liberal health care reform by a 2 to 1 margin, according to the latest CBS News Poll. The problem with media analysis of polls on healthcare reform is that it often doesn't clearly distinguish between those who oppose the present reform from the left and those who oppose it from the right, which creates a false positive of sorts for conservative opponents to reform.

The latest CBS Poll does make this distinction clear in the data, but not in the accompanying CBS news analysis, which is deceptively (but provocatively) titled "Obama Healthcare Marks Hit New Low." In fact, this accompanying analysis describes Americans as "divided" on whether the present reform package goes too far or not far enough. While technically accurate, this interpretation masks the reality that the percentage of respondents who said the reforms are either just right or don't go far enough in regulating the health insurance industry is 61% compared to just 27% who oppose it from the right (i.e. believing that reforms go too far). That's more than a two to one advantage for at least the weaker Senate bill.

The White House's apparently lack luster defense of the most liberal elements of the healthcare reform package may indicate that the Administration reads polls properly and understands that despite the headlines to the contrary, a solid majority of Americans support liberal healthcare reform. After more than six months of relentless attacks and millions of anti-reform dollars spent on turning Americans against liberal reform, the data that is apparently too complicated for the mass media to report reveals a much more accurate picture of what Americans think about healthcare reform.

Public Opinion; When does it matter?

2009-12-21T13:32:00.012-05:00

The standing of American presidents in the polls has long been an every-day story in the national press. As the numbers creep up or down hand wringing about the loss or gain of influence fills the op-ed pages and the cable news airwaves. That a president's approval ratings impact his capacity to lead is clear, the nature and degree of this impact, however, is not. President George W. Bush recorded many of his policy victories while his poll numbers were subterranean, and President Obama's approach to his policy agenda seems anything but responsive to the polls. What's going on here? What has changed that would reduce the need for president's to jealously guard their public approval numbers?

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

The Intentions of the Founders

2009-12-19T10:53:00.011-05:00

I recently heard Glenn Beck praising the recent uptick in popular interest in the political thought of America's founding generation of statesmen, marking one of the few times I agreed with him. Increased interest in understanding the ideas, motivations, and arguments of the men who designed our constitutional system is a very good thing, though I'm not sure it will work out very well for the Glenn Beck's of the world.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Mediscare: Republican Style

2009-12-02T11:05:00.010-05:00

When the Newt Gingrich led Republican Congress of 1995 tried to slow the growth of Medicare payments, the Democrats employed hyperbolic scare tactics in an effort to prevent the reduction in growth to Medicare. Today, Senate Republicans are doing the same thing on the healthcare reform bill when they say over and over and over that the bill will "raid" Medicare and "cut benefits to seniors" and even "kill grandma." Republican Senators McCain and Alexander relished the opportunity to use the Democrats' opposition to cuts in growth in 1995 in their own attempt to prevent the cuts in growth that are part of the present Democratic healthcare reform bill. Every politician loves the opportunity to use the words of opponents against them.

Click HERE for the rest of the story

Democrats Must Choose Kennedy Successor

2009-11-11T12:02:00.019-05:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Health Care Reform

2009-11-10T10:02:00.020-05:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Who's up? Who's down?

2009-11-05T16:26:00.004-05:00

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.

I see the impact of off-year elections as primarily rhetorical and motivational. In my opinion, off-year results simply provide fodder for particular rhetorical arguments, and don’t represent the direction of voters’ actual policy preferences. They also serve to energize the base from which the 2010 election ground troops will come. If the spin is positive, it is used as momentum to generate confidence and enthusiasm among base supporters (especially for the out party). If a positive spin is impossible, then the base needs to be reassured and motivated to prepare for a tough, but all important, fight to come.

As for potentially persuadable 2010 voters, surveys eliciting substantive policy preferences do not presently show any significant shift in policy preferences. Nevertheless, both parties will, quite understandably interpret off year elections (publicly at least) either as showing increasing support for their policy perspectives, or at least do not show retreat from their policy perspectives.

Finally, an Authentic G.O.P., by Alex Castellanos

Relax, Democrats , by Ruy Teixeira

Tenacity v. Intelligence?

2009-10-30T10:47:00.030-04:00

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?

Lincoln and Churchill represent intellectual sophistication in the face of an imminent existential threat. Maybe President Kennedy's efforts during the Cuban missile crisis could be included in this category? The present situation, however, is not an imminent existential threat and the idea that Churchillian tenacity is required is what motivated President George W. Bush.

Need I say more?

Three kinds of Truth

2009-10-05T10:11:00.033-04:00

The pursuit of THE TRUTH, A TRUTH, and TRUTH are the sine qua non of religion, politics, and philosophy, respectively. They are the ends that justify the means of pastors, politicians, and professors. The will and wisdom to see, understand, and respect the differences between these varieties of truth may be a good starting place in the effort to elivate our human conversation, which is too often beset by the failure (intentional and unintentional) to distinguish between truth premises.

X + Facts = A Reasonable Claim

2009-10-02T11:04:00.017-04:00

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."

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

American Idol for Pundits

2009-10-01T13:53:00.010-04:00

The Washington Post is having a pundit contest to find "America's next great pundit." As a longtime talking head wanna-be, I'll probably be unable to resist the urge to send an entry. As I thought about this earlier on my commute, it seemed to me that pundits have gone from analysts to guides, maybe even gurus for some, and that's just for those who take them seriously. For others they are entertainers, space & time fillers, or "nattering nabobs of negativism" (which I now know was actually coined by Bill Safire).

I think, ironically, that maybe the effort to make people think, either in general or to persuade on a specific issue, may best be left to artists. These days it seems impossible to sustain general credibility as an analyst, whereas for artists it seems like we more often let the art speak for itself and to tell us or teach us what it will without as much concern for its creator.

Maybe I'll submit a poem?

The Public Option Debate

2009-09-14T18:00:00.008-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

We could use a little Socrates, though we'd no doubt kill him too.

2009-08-27T11:40:00.002-04:00

The Tortoise and the Hair

2009-08-21T17:55:00.015-04:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Whose crazies are crazier?

2009-08-16T09:57:00.019-04:00

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?

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Teachers? Students? Or, Scholars all?

2009-07-30T10:23:00.011-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story

How long is a "teachable moment?" & Who's willing to learn?

2009-07-29T14:20:00.007-04:00

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 confrontation between Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley is an example of two men who failed to get along. The debatable questions about the incident, those questions that will ostensibly be examined during this "teachable moment," are many, but the immediate reactions of whites, blacks, cops, civil rights activists, media commentators, politicians, political partisans, and the public-at-large (via polling data)do not bode well for either the quality or duration of this "teachable moment."

Click HERE for the rest of the story

The Gates Arrest: Its about Professionalism, not Race

2009-07-24T10:47:00.016-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Lawrence O'Donnell's take

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I call'em like I see'em.

2009-07-20T13:08:00.005-04:00

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?

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Healthcare reform debate: Both sides say same thing

2009-07-16T12:36:00.003-04:00

How can proponents and opponents of the president's healthcare reform proposal make the same claims about the advantages of their preferred approach?

Click HERE for the rest of the story

Parallel Universe Simulation

2009-07-16T09:29:00.009-04:00

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.

Ideally, these would be broadcast during the actual confirmation process in order to help Americans understand the real debate and the real issues in contention. The absurdity of a nominee pretending that there really is such a thing as neutral jurisprudential philosophy and opposition senators struggling mightily to maintain the same fiction even as they seek to reveal the nominee's infidelity to same is almost too much to bear.

Click HERE for the rest of the story

Duquette on Sotomayor Hearings

2009-07-14T14:41:00.005-04:00

Principles ARE political

2009-07-13T15:00:00.006-04:00

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?”

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

What is she up to?

2009-07-06T07:32:00.010-04:00

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.

Though she will not be in a position to win the Republican nomination for president in 2012, she may well be able to influence the race and might even mount an independent run for the White House. Will she succeed? Not if success means becoming president, but why should it mean that? The presidency, after all, is just another elected office with responsibilities to large numbers and a wide variety of interests.

Sarah Palin appears to be on a path to celebrity-conservative stardom. Her story might be part of an increasingly clear realization about politics: Influence and office are not necessarily as interdependent as most suppose.

For a video of my analysis of Gov.Palin's resignation, click HERE.

One of my favorite public intellectuals, Stanley Fish, published his thoughts about Governor Palin's resignation on NYTimes.com yesterday afternoon. I am pleased to report that his analysis mirrors my own, though admittedly, Fish's take is both more substantial and more artfully presented.

More USC by Yankee's Manager

2009-06-23T11:13:00.006-04:00

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'm well aware that Major League Baseball is a business and is hyper-competitive, and that many admire the Yankee skipper's clever exploitation of the Marlins' mistake. However, I cannot believe that such a move, while within the rules, is an example of good sportsmanship. For me, it may have been fair (according to the rules) but it was also ungentlemanly, maybe even unmanly.

The Marlins won the game, 6 to 5.

Unintended Social Commentary

2009-06-22T19:12:00.007-04:00

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."

Obviously,the intention was merely to portray a MassMutual financial services customer as someone smart enough to plan ahead. However,what struck me, especially when the women who didn't get soaked walks through the wet bystanders across the street with a smug look of self satisfaction, is that this exemplar of intelligence and savvy chose NOT to recommend to her fellow pedestrians that they also step back.

Am I nitpicking? Probably, but I have little doubt that the folks who wrote the commercial never even considered having the women warn her fellows. For one thing, the swamped bystanders provide a TV friendly stark visual of the difference between smart and dumb, which is key to their message. On the other hand, I also suspect that the subtle "every man for himself" message wouldn't raise an eyebrow among the ad men even if it were pointed out to them.

Rhetorical Attacks: Do they work?

2009-06-18T11:03:00.005-04:00

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.

What if the overheated attacks against Bush and Republicans merely coincided with the public’s rejection of Republican policies based on perceived failure? What if the political decline of Republicans would have happened (maybe more gradually) even if liberals had not employed crazy, over the top, rhetorical attacks? If this is the case, then the present administration will not be damaged by extremist rhetoric, at least until there is credible evidence that its policies are not succeeding. Staying with this assumption, the present conservative approach may only be succeeding in damaging the credibility of conservatives, who are not savaging a president with 30% approval ratings, but rather are savaging a president with approval ratings consistently in the 60s whose programs are not (at least not yet) perceived as failures.

Click HERE for thye rest of the story.

Democratic Theory and Local Government

2009-06-15T12:02:00.007-04:00

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?

My sense is that the latter better describes the perspective of most Longmeadow residents. Unfortunately, this model of citizenship is starkly at odds with both the actual form of government in Longmeadow (the New England town meeting) and its attendant theory of democratic citizenship; a theory to which virtually all of Longmeadow's 11,932 registered voters probably aspire and (ostensibly at least) subscribe.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Bring back segregation!

2009-06-03T10:30:00.006-04:00

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.

Presently, two ongoing stories in the national press bring this sad state of affairs into stark relief: the nomination battle over Sonia Sotomayor, and the Dick Cheney national speaking tour. In both cases, folks with national audiences and plenty of resources are saying things that ought to get them laughed off the stage for stupidity and naked dishonestly.

The strange part is that none of the absurd lies, distortions, and twisted interpretations are actually fooling anyone, even those who are repeating them out of political self interest. That's right, I'm saying that most of the ditto heads and O'Reilly Factor fans who dutifully parrot the lines of the day DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE that their claims are "true," in the strictest sense. Rather, they believe their claims are "right" or "righteous" means to achieve larger, more important, ideological ends.

Extremists of all stripes perform this kind of mental gymnastics in order to maintain prejudices that form the core of their worldview in the minds of impressionable followers. For such folks, sober self reflection would be self destruction. This type of behavior used to be confined to marginal kooks like Lyndon LaRouche or cult leaders. Now, argument by oft repeated (and often untrue) assertion is the method of choice even for "mainstream" political activists, to say nothing of so-called "political pundits."

The good news for you is that if you are reading this it is very unlikely that you are persuaded by anti-intellectual arguments. As far as Sotomayor's nomination and Dick Cheney's revisionist tour, her confirmation and the sober judgement of history on the Bush-Cheney record would (and I think will)help confirm the popular political wisdom that in the long run the people are by and large reasonable and tend to get it right.

Obama's National Security Policy Approach

2009-05-22T09:48:00.015-04:00

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.

President Obama could have promised to reverse every constitutionally suspect Bush policy or tactic with civil libertarian bravado. He could have said that freedom must always trump fear and that security purchased at the price of justice is no security at all. Make no mistake, the president was eloquent and his rhetoric was soaring, but his substantive policy approach appears to be something much different.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

The Theory and Practice of American Politics

2009-05-20T11:56:00.017-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Et tu, George?

2009-05-15T10:38:00.026-04:00

For decades, the lunatic fringe of American conservatism has tried to sell the idea that liberals want everyone to be dependent on the government so they can maintain power by handing out the goodies. The lunatic left analogue to this absurd theory is that conservatives want to starve widows and orphans and force every American to worship Jesus Christ.

Presently, The Republican Party is in terrible shape. The right wing nuts seem to be running the show. Limbaugh, Coulter, Sowell, and other irrational ideologues are running wild. [Click HERE for a particularly egregious example of conservative stupidity and moral relativism.] Sadly, credible conservative intellectuals, like George Will, seem to be getting pulled into the madness. In a recent Will column, he matter-of-factly asserted that the Obama Administration has a "dependency agenda" intent on "maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government."

We need George Will and other credible conservatives to keep their heads while their fellows lose theirs all about them. Analysis that calmly asserts ridiculous claims such as this will not help save America's conservative party. Indeed, this is exactly the type of claim that has sent the Republican Party into an apparent death spiral. Undoubtedly, it is difficult for ideological conservatives like Will to accept that the present condition of our economy and international standing is due in large part to the folly of their dogma, but we cannot forget that part of the reason America lurched too far to the right in the first place was the ineptitude of the minority Democratic Party over the last decade or so.

Without credibility, conservatism will remain in the wilderness for many years, something that would be quite dangerous for the nation. Credible opposition to the majority party in the American system is vital to stability and progress.

George, please, put down the cool-aid, take a vacation and come back ready to espouse credible conservative ideas.

100 Days in Narrowcast America

2009-04-29T13:59:00.014-04:00

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.

Is this situation the beginning of the end of journalism? I doubt it. As far as I can tell, regular and/or exclusive consumption of partisan news operations is only harmful to those doing it. I don't think there is any real danger of "second hand" self delusion that needs to be dealt with by society at large. Watch the video. Consider the source and assume it's editors took "artistic license." Still, I'm confident that at least 62% of Americans (Obama's current approval rating) will either laugh at, or cry for, the folks in the Fox News target demographic.

Republican Identity Crisis Worsens.

2009-04-28T14:08:00.005-04:00

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.

What does it all mean for the Democratic agenda, the survival of the Republican Party nationally, and the public policy making process in the short and long run?

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

"Ferris Beuller's Day Off"

2009-04-23T12:57:00.023-04:00

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.

Is it really that hard to see this cult classic as an apt description of President Obama and his increasingly hysterical and decreasingly credible critics? If you want to know how the president is doing politically at the 100 day mark, maybe you should go rent a movie.

Policy v. Politics

2009-04-22T19:12:00.012-04:00

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?

Click HERE for the Rest of the Story.

Republican Party in Trouble

2009-04-01T10:22:00.002-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Why we need Rush Limbaugh!

2009-03-27T14:16:00.004-04:00

Click HERE for a video blog post on this counter intuitive claim.

Free Speech on Campus

2009-03-19T07:17:00.002-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

It's the ideas, stupid!

2009-03-06T10:12:00.007-05:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Epistemological Scepticism AND Experimentation

2009-02-26T09:15:00.007-05:00

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.

Brooks worries that the Obama Administration is moving too fast, that it is falling into a trap to which liberals are more susceptible. He characterizes Obama's bold plans as government designed "top-down transformational change" and argues that if it "mostly" works, "the epistemological scepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited." If it "mostly" fails, "then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow and conservatives will be called on to restore order and sanity." Never mind the obvious reality that it was conservative reliance on old ideas that got us into this mess, that's not actually my quibble here.

The problem is that Brooks' language (despite his conspicuous use of "mostly")oversimplifies things and rings of cynicism instead of the much more laudable scepticism about which he writes. He makes it seem as though we can only have one or the other, epistemological scepticism OR experimentation, and that the Obama plan represents the latter. Sceptical(or critical)experimentation, not to be confused with splitting the baby in two, is what all sides are really after.

It's a small quibble about a thoughtful essay that spells out for readers the yin and yang of liberal and conservative thinking, both of which serve valuable functions in our intellectual and political life.

Truth in jest: gets me every time.

2009-02-25T12:35:00.003-05:00

Are you a REAL AMERICAN? Take the quiz.

WMass Reader-Specific Post

2009-02-19T09:17:00.006-05:00

Click HERE to read my reaction to the Springfield Republican's latest editorial.

Obama's Approach

2009-02-18T14:35:00.008-05:00

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.

What the president makes clear here is that bi or post partisanship is not about splitting the ideological difference. It is about pursuing the agenda that got him elected without ignoring or attacking Republicans. It's about giving them an opportunity to contribute to his agenda, not an opportunity to enact a Republican agenda. Obama is offering Republicans a chance to help him recognize "unintended consequences" of liberal policy prescriptions in order to avoid them. He is essentially asking them to play the role of loyal opposition, rather than that of obstructionist.

The difficulty is that his vision of post-partisanship is daily distorted by folks on both sides; conservative and extreme liberal ideologues have an interest (a genuine and legitimate ideological interest by the way) in resting control of public opinion from Obama.

By speaking much more often and much more substantively to the press about the substance of policy, Obama is effectively blunting his critics' efforts. It is very hard to distort a president's objectives and perspective when that perspective is regularly explained and discussed with the public by the president himself, rather than "administration officials."

Post-Identity Politics

2009-02-06T14:46:00.004-05:00

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?"

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Obama's Call to Service

2009-01-20T13:49:00.010-05:00

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.

Bush's Ex-Presidency

2009-01-12T13:05:00.012-05:00

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.

Ckick HERE for the rest of the story.

Apologies

2009-01-09T14:38:00.011-05:00

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.

I have work due to an editor this month, so will likely return to blogging at the end of the month. In the meantime, I did tape a couple of TV interviews you might be interested in. To watch, to to my Web TV page. Actually, I may blog next week on thoughts about the Obama transition and immediate future because I agreed to speak on a panel about it at my next Town Democratic Committee meeting.

Happy New Year!

Transition: Traps or Opportunities?

2008-12-01T14:23:00.008-05:00

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.

How did he do? Good, but not great.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story

"Just the facts?"

2008-11-25T16:22:00.008-05:00

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.

As I sat down to write this post, I googled the Reagan quote to confirm it. I actually thought he had called facts "silly," not "stupid." Glad I checked. What I found was an entertaining list of famous quotations about "facts." Some cynical, some humorous, and some adamant. The variation of these quips suggests that while facts are clear and objectively verifiable, there significance, meaning, and value rarely are. In this sense, gaffe or not, Reagan's characterization could be understood as profound.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Web Gem!

2008-11-17T17:06:00.015-05:00

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.

The site hosts contributors who write about their efforts to improve their thinking. The posts are wonderfully diverse and filled with valuable links to academic articles and other resources for those interested in improving their analytical skills. I followed one link to a blog called Metablog where I read an excellent essay about debating "charitably." Though the election is over, the arguments about what comes next will surely be vigorous. In an essay that lays out some intuitive but very valuable "rules for being charitable," Metablog author Chris Capel provides a road map to effective and civil debating.

Bad Arguments Don't Improve With Age

2008-11-11T19:48:00.012-05:00

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.

The next column I chose to read was that of Thomas Sowell, who has a habit of publishing very unimpressive conservative cookie cutter columns when he can't think of anything interesting to write about. Today, he bored me with an incredibly sophomoric argument against gay marriage.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Can we talk now?

2008-11-05T12:57:00.003-05:00

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?

I think now is the time for Obama and McCain to hold the series of town meetings around the country that McCain called for during the campaign. Now that the vote is in, neither man has to pander or oversimplify nearly as much. If they spent the transition period going around the country talking openly and without political constraints about how liberals and conservatives can govern together, I think Obama has a chance to make good on George W. Bush's promise of being a "uniter, not a divider."

Springfield Republican Endorses McCain!

2008-11-02T07:58:00.004-05:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Professors and Politics

2008-10-31T10:36:00.002-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Lipstick on a Pig

2008-10-28T15:11:00.007-04:00

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)

Most emblematic of this group of die-hards is Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell, whose recent column, "Believers in Obama," could easily be mistaken for satire were it not consistent with his normal approach to political commentary.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Longmeadow's Own

2008-10-25T15:40:00.008-04:00

Jim Flaherty at Boston Comedy Club talking politics.

The Politics of Defeat

2008-10-22T14:46:00.003-04:00

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.

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Will Intellectual Conservatism Survive?

2008-10-21T15:25:00.009-04:00

ACORN is "tearing the fabric of democracy." Obama's tax plan is "socialism." Obama "pals around with terrorists." Obama needs to "come clean" about any number of manufactured issues. Obama and his supporters are "Liberal, leftist, and un-American." These are rhetorical jabs that are devoid of truth. Many others, which are also dishonest, are based on the out of context manipulation of facts. While both campaigns, indeed every presidential campaign, trades in the latter form of deception, the use of outright lies seems to have increased and/or expanded sharply in the last two or three presidential elections.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Is John McCain "The Penguin?"

2008-10-20T17:18:00.002-04:00

Very Scary Gal

2008-10-18T20:18:00.013-04:00

Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a prime example of how far one can sink when desparately clinging to a rigid, extremist view of the world.

General Colin Powell is a man respected by all but the Bachmann's of the world.

Below are links to interviews with each of these folks. The contrast is quite illuminating and illustrates with great clarity the intellectual and moral bankrupcy of contemporary American conservatism, at least as it is practiced by Rovian Republicans.

General Powell on "Meet the Press"

Congresswoman Bachmann on "Hardball"

The Open Secret

2008-10-07T14:02:00.011-04:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of this story.

Definition of Politics

2008-10-01T10:53:00.002-04:00

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?

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Sarah Palin

2008-09-30T07:00:00.003-04:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

Method OR Madness

2008-09-22T11:49:00.003-04:00

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.

The financial crisis unfolding in real time gives us an opportunity to highlight a clear, rational path through the morass for voters. Philosophically, the Republican Party is opposed to government regulation of the economy. The Democratic Party is philosophically in favor of economic regulation. Institutionally, the next president will have to work with a strong Democratic majority in Congress. And, it is obviously in the interest of committed ideologues on both sides to win this presidential election.

Click HERE for the rest of this essay.

Comedy to the Rescue

2008-09-05T09:56:00.005-04:00

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.

The Republican campaign has soared to new and dizzying heights of anti-intellectualism and disingenuousness. They have been willing to make fools of themselves in front of reasonable Americans because they know that they already have the votes of half of them and have no shot at the other half's votes. This allowed them (or so they thought) to concentrate on the least informed, least knowledgeable voters in the mushy middle. The over the top inconsistencies and exaggerations of the Republicans (especially after the Sarah Palin pick) have not been effectively exposed by the news media because the Republican talking heads have ready made attack and distortion tactics to deploy on the news media.

If journalists report Republican exaggerations, distortions, flat untruths, the RNC immediately deploys the "talking points" instructing every Republican on earth (it seems) to attack the media in exactly the same way at every opportunity. In addition to attacking media credibility, they calculate that their simple denials and flat claims will get through to their target audience while the critical explanations and exposure of their tactics will either go over the heads of their target audience, or be seen as sour grapes.

Though I think these very sophisticated and acutely targeted tactics reveal an impressive propaganda machine at work, I think that this is the year that relevant facts will overwhelm the irrelevant facts that Republicans are relying on here. And, I think that the inability of Republicans (or Democrats) to discredit comedians the way they do journalists will be crucial to the reduction of blatantly anti-intellectual political campaigning.

Click HERE to watch Jon Stewart deploying comedy as a deadly intellectual weapon.

Dumb and Dumber

2008-09-03T09:59:00.015-04:00

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.

Neither campaign is wasting much effort trying to woo informed voters, voters who both understand their own preferences and the ideological and institutional realities of governing. Instead, their efforts are focused like a laser beam on the so-called "swing voters." These are folks who do not know which candidate they will vote for in November. While it is impossible and inappropriate to paint this entire voting bloc with one brush, it is fair to say that the most impressionable among them (i.e. the low hanging fruit) lack substantive knowledge about government and politics. It is also clear that in an age of very close presidential elections that winning this group can make the difference. These are the folks who are featured on late night segments like Jay Leno's "Jay-walking." They cannot name their congressman nor do they have a conscious understanding of their own political interests.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

MY KINGDOM FOR CONTEXT!!!

2008-08-26T10:19:00.007-04:00

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?"

Click HEREto read the rest of this essay.

Individualism v. Collectivism

2008-08-22T12:54:00.019-04:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Mass Ballot Question #1

2008-08-18T15:59:00.011-04:00

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.

While the will of the people is the basis for democratic government, the Framers understood the need to "refine" the peoples' will by filtering it through representative institutions. Direct democracy, of which a ballot measure is an example, is COMPLETELY absent in the US Constitution. Without mediating institutions the will of the people is much too easily manipulated and distorted for the advancement of particularized interests.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Campaigning v. Governing

2008-08-11T16:12:00.003-04:00

Professor Elvin Lim, the author of a new book called "The Anti-Intellectual Presidency," has a political blog eponymously titled "Out on a Lim." His latest post provides an acute example of the difference between campaigning for the presidency and being the president.

Professor Lim suggests that candidates Obama and McCain are battling to appear most hawkish in their responses to the unrest in Georgia, while President Bush is responding to the situation in a more measured and reflective way. The reason: Presidents have to deal with geo-politics realistically regardless of American public opinion, while candidates have to deal with American public opinion regardless of geo-political realities.

The obvious question this paradoxical situation begs is; Why don't American voters reward candidates for reality-based analysis?

CHANGE!?!?

2008-08-01T14:44:00.004-04:00

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.

Click HERE to read the rest of this essay.

Sowell's "facts"

2008-07-16T12:48:00.016-04:00

Conservative scholar and pundit Thomas Sowell has written a very useful piece about the destructive impact of anti-intellectual politics called "Are Facts Obsolete?"

His thesis is quite simple really: that charisma and style should not be mistaken for substance, and that vague notions imparted with catchy words or phrases should not be taken at face value. Instead, voters should demand "the facts," in order to substantiate or invalidate vague marketing slogans.

I suggest that you click HERE and read Sowell's column before reading my analysis.

Click HERE to read my analysis of Sowell's thoughts.

The Onion Rules!

2008-07-15T12:18:00.008-04:00

Click HERE to watch two very funny videos.

Math Anxiety

2008-07-13T13:04:00.001-04:00

One of my favorite SNL laugh lines is "Ah...I was told there would be no math..." This Chevy Chase line was delivered while impersonating President Ford. In my ongoing study of and frustration with the over-personalization of American politics, I am starting to see a link between this tendency to avoid policy issues and the significance of ideology with a fear of complex math.

Click HERE for the rest of this essay.

Labels

2008-07-08T15:26:00.015-04:00

"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!

2008-07-07T16:38:00.009-04:00

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"

2008-06-29T10:49:00.015-04:00

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

2008-06-27T09:25:00.007-04:00

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!

2008-06-26T14:46:00.022-04:00

"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

2008-06-21T15:03:00.009-04:00

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

2008-06-15T09:56:00.005-04:00

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

2008-05-26T10:30:00.009-04:00

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

2008-05-21T13:43:00.010-04:00

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

2008-05-16T16:05:00.004-04:00