Apt. 11D

Obama and the Economy

I think every president has an idea of what kind of president they want to be when they take office. And then life gets in the way.

George Bush wanted to be a domestic policy president, who focused on education policy. His first effort was No Child Left Behind, but then the wars happened. He neglected his signature policy, which was torn apart and ruined by number-manipulating state bureaucrats. Money got sucked into a war that he hoped would end in one week. He ended up as a mocked, failed War President. A punchline on late night TV.

Obama wanted to usher in a new era of prosperity and equality. Instead, he's getting buffeted by an economy that won't pick up steam. 

How much of this failed economy is Obama's fault? Is he failing the economy or is the economy failing him? Could he have done more with the stimulus? Taken a stronger stance against Tea Party types? Used his rhetorical skills to put a spin on this bad situation?

The most discussed New York Times article among my Facebook friends (yes, a scientific sample) is Sunday's Opinion piece by Drew Weston that argues that Obama has failed us. 

There is something tragic about the modern American Presidency. We let this guy's imagination go wild during the two year election campaign. Let him dream of greatness. We give him about two months to achieve those lofty goals in a political system that grows more dysfunctional, polarized, bureaucratically calcified by the year. When he inevitably fails, due to circumstance or human frailty, we mock him, hate him, loath him. 

Jonah does not want to be president when he grows up. Who can blame him? 

Soundbite Nation: Selling the Tiger Mother

Last Saturday, friends began sending me links to the article in the Wall Street Journal about a Chinese mother's method of raising her children. These links were the first flakes of snow. On Sunday, strangers that I follow on Twitter started responding. I began formulating a response in my head on Sunday night, and after the kids got on the school bus, I wrote a quick post. Parenting politics is a regular feature at Apt. 11D, so it was a natural fit.

The rest of the week was a full fledge storm of punditry on Tiger Moms -- Today Show segments, blog posts from Huffington Post to every mommyblog, full page articles in every traditional newspaper. Even the foreign policy blogs found an angle. And it hasn't ended. David Brooks had to add his two cents this morning.

The commentary in the snowstorm had its interesting moments. How much should we pressure our kids to do well academically? Do we worry too much about self-esteem? Should parents be tough sometimes? Those are all good topics for discussion.

At the same time, I feel a bit used. Chua certainly exaggerated certain aspects of her book to gain the attention of an agent and publisher. The WSJ certainly removed any remaining subtlety from the discussion. Pundits who failed to read the book (myself included) made the discussion even more two dimensional and created a snowstorm of coverage, because controversy sells. The public likes to hate bad guys and readership numbers soared. Chua's message could be reduced to a sentence and that works in the media world that needs its soundbites reduced to 140 characters.

I'm a very small player in the media circus, though I do think that I have some power in bringing certain issues to light. This power, no matter how minor, comes with responsibility. I'll keep talking about Tiger Moms and the next topic du jour, because there must be something about these topics that taps into national concerns and frustrations. I understand that people need to vent. But I also wish that we weren't being lobbed soft topics that have been carefully constructed by cynical pubishers and editors. I'm tired of being manipulated.

No Labels, No Chance

On Monday, a new group was launched at Columbia by two Washington consultants. The Washington Post reported, "No Labels is not a third party, its leaders said, but rather a home for Americans turned off by a deepening divide between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals."

Matt Bai writes,

No Labels was created by two Washington consultants, the Democratic fund-raiser Nancy Jacobson and the Republican image-shaper Mark McKinnon, and its slick opening event featured throngs of journalists, free boxed lunches and a song written for the occasion by the pop sensation Akon. The group’s slogan, printed on T-shirts and banners, summarizes its purpose this way: “Not left. Not right. Forward.”

Bai is skeptical of its ability to actually get someone elected. He rightly points out that third parties haven't had a great track record in American politics. "Third parties, at least since the advent of the Republicans in the 1850s, have generally been vehicles for making statements or for pushing the parties in an ideological direction."

Would you support the No Labels party?

The False Hope of Third Parties

On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column that continues to ripple through the blogosphere. He called for a third party to upend the current stagnation of Washington.

But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.

Critics of Friedman's column have doubted whether any politician can change the dynamics in DC or questioned whether there is actually a radical center in the United States. Let me just add a very boring, Political Science professor-type of critique.

Our electoral system makes it impossible for a third party to co-exist with the current two parties. Our winner-take-all system results in two parties. That's it. It's possible for a third party to get a little traction, but then those parties typically get swallowed up by one of the other parties. That's just how it works.

I understand Friedman's frustration with DC and the incremental changes that it produces, but any prediction of the rise of a radical new third party makes him look like a dumbass.

Meet the Next Republican Candidate For President

I am no fan of Gov. Chris Christie. He is crushing education in our state and increasing inequities. But you gotta check out this video. Shut up about Palin running for office. This is the guy. Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone' More info here. Be afraid. (via Jeremy S.)

Death Panels And Other Myths

The Monkey Cage discusses a new paper by Brendan Nyhan. Nyhan finds that Republicans are more likely than Independents or Democrats to believe certain healthcare myths, including the belief that Obama will impose "death panels." Granny's chemo is going to cost too much too much. It's time to put her to sleep.

Oddly, more educated Republicans are more likely to believe these myths than less educated Republicans. Why? Is this the Fox News effect?

Identify The Civil Rights Activist

by Jeremy

My local NPR affiliate is doing some sort of thing this evening on Malcolm X and his relevance for the 21st century. I just so happened to be thinking about his "Ballot or the Bullet" speech from 1964 this week because I assigned it as reading alongside King's more famous letter. To kick off the conversation in class, I planned to throw both texts into the always-fun Wordle machine and visually demonstrate the different emphases. Expecting contrast, I was surprised at how little there was. It may take you more than a moment to distinguish the two than you think.

This similarity got me thinking that two speeches from different camps on the same subject probably would make about the same word usage patterns, with some rhetorically loaded differences of jargon few in number. 

What other political contrasts might engender similar word usage patterns? Democratic and Republican nomination speeches from the same year? Debate transcripts? Party platforms?  Try Wordling and find out.

Click on the image to enlarge. PS- I removed the word "Birmingham" for obvious reasons.

 

Tea Parties, Glenn Beck, and Public Opinion

David Brooks' column today sort of pulls together a couple of yesterday's posts.

While Brooks is no fan of the Tea Party Movement, he believes that those ideas could dominate the next decade. It taps into American populist tendencies and has a great deal of passion, which sucks in supporters. Brooks points to public opinion polls that show that the public is supportive of the tea party movement.

According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

I'm a little skeptical of those findings. Do average Americans really know what the tea party people believe? I don't. It's really just some half baked conspiracy theories about professors and rich people trying to cloud their minds and take their money and their guns. It's crazy stuff. It's Glenn Beck.

Why is this crazy stuff getting free reign on cable television? I'm used to crazy stuff on the Internet, but I can't believe the new depths of FOX News. Beck makes Hannity look like a wise sage.

As I said in the comment section of the Beck post, Beck is excused by people who should know better on the grounds that he is entertainment/politics in the vein of Jon Stewart. His exaggerations are excused and slanders overlooked, because he isn't supposed to be real news. He is comedian news, they tell me.

He is asshole news, if you ask me.

But Beck is part of the lunatic fringe, as Brooks calls them, who have been stirring up the tea party movement. They've been dipping the tea bags. Letting the kettle whistle. [stop it, laura.]

Brooks seems to think that this movement has legs and could be a major force in the Republican party. I'm not sure about that. But they must be watched.

Will it Be a Deluge?

Republicans are bracing themselves to get destroyed in November. In today's Times, David Brooks refers to November as "the coming deluge." He's been predicting big doom in November for awhile. His columns have ranged from "we're going to hell in a handbasket" to "the Democratic leaders are pretty moderate, so we're going to be OK." This column was about an 8 on the Brooks panic scale.

In this column, he writes that the Republicans have been taken over by the religious right and the libertarians, and we need to go back to the social traditionalists who are concerned with values and less about God. Foley and Hastert are not the posterboys for good wholesome American values.

Security and values have been the Republican strenghts, since Reagan brought in working-class Catholic men into the fold. The declining support for the War in Iraq and the Foley scandal have destroyed their hegemony in this area.

Now the Times is talking realignment. I don't know if you can have a real party realignment without a strong leader, like FDR or Lincoln, leading the charge. Don't know if Hillary is really up to the task. Gore sure isn't.

Really fascinating article by the Times looking at age of maturation and life long party attachments.

All The Pretty Words

In Sunday’s Times, Matt Bai writes about how Democrats are learning to frame their message.

What is framing? It is choosing a word or phrase that is full of positive connotations to describe a political policy or party platform. It is a shortcut that gives the voter some hints about the policy and predisposes him or her to like it. Pro-life sounds much more positive than anti-abortion, because it is not good to be anti anything. Pro-choice sounds much better than pro-abortion, because you can be against abortion, but still be for a woman’s right to choose.

In one recent memo, titled ''The 14 Words Never to Use,'' Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls, grandly, the ''New American Lexicon.'' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates ''drilling for oil''; he prefers ''exploring for energy.'' He should never criticize the ''government,'' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack ''Washington,'' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. ''We should never use the word outsourcing,'' Luntz wrote, ''because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.''

Bai makes it out as if all this something new. That Republicans invented it and Democrats are slowly learning how to do it. Please. This trick is as old as the hills (of Rome) and there are books written about this.

It may appear that framing is entirely new, only because Democrats seem to have forgotten everything about political strategy and are continually playing the sap in the politic rumbles. They may be slow because in their close circles, there has been no need to frame an argument. In their mind, the guys in white hats and the ones in the black were just so clear that there was no need to convince others of that topic.

Well, losing the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republicans and the threat of losing the SC has got them to attend a Pol. Sci. 101 class and return to basics. They need to explain who they are and what they are for.

Bai relates a fascinating story about how the Democrats won back the filibuster. In an unusual show of discipline, Democrats in the Senate and House carried laminated, pocket-size message cards -- ''DEMOCRATS FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY, AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER,'' blared the headline at the top -- with the talking points on one side and some helpful factoids about Bush's nominees on the other.

Bai credits the blogs in part for getting them to work on their message. He also points to George Lakoff, the author of How Democrats and Progressives Can Win. I haven’t read it yet and am not sure if it's worth the bother. Lakoff is on the lecture circuit among Democratic elected officials getting them to realize that it is important to stay on message. And to the relief of Democratic party leaders, they’re listening, because the wonky professor appeals to their ranks. Heh.

Yes, framing is important. But like other Lakoff detractors, I think that we need something more than nice catch phrases. A powerful agenda backed by a common understanding a more perfect future is needed as well. But pretty words are a good start.

A few weeks ago, I took a stab at defining the Democratic agenda in modern terms. I urge others to add to this discussion.