Blahseblog

Have a read.  The biggest problem of democratic-like politics has existed in America since our first contested Presidential elections (if Washington were not a given, we may not have had to wait until 1800 to see nasty, lying, politics).  The problem is not so much nastiness in politics.  If nastiness were a problem, it wouldn’t last.  The reason people promote, put up with, and fall prey to nastiness is that large-scale electoral politics creates an atmoshpere condusive to massive simplification.  We take a side, and defend it - but because politics debates have the time restaint of a trip to the water cooler, we rely on quick barbs and talking points rather than serious, humble, and receptive discussions.  In such a system, if you take more than 15 seconds to verbally explore an issue, you will be interupted.  Most likely, by a person with a talking point jumping from the tip of their tongue.

So, divided opinions create nastiness.  We want divided opinions, though.  I don’t want nastiness, so what is the solution?  I admit, this is why I dug Obama when listening to Audacity…his tone seemed to speak to this problem: I liked the tone of humble, receptive thinking.  I liked this about McCain, too, in interviews I watched up to about half a year ago.  

In any event: the linked article up top of this post got me thinking about politics, divisions, and nastiness.  Have a read.

Political Wire noted this morning that, as far as early polling can go, independents were much less amused with Palin’s speech than Democratics.  The ABC news informal poll suggests the same.  

Compare this:

Jan Wheelock, 58, Royal Oak independent: “Nothing worked for me. I found her barrage of snide remarks and distortions to be a major turnoff. She is not a class act. The most important point she made is that she will be an effective attack dog.”

to this, from Dem Howard Wolfson:

What I was particularly impressed with was her ability to stick the knife into Barack Obama with a smile and do it effectively. She was very, very good…  That shot at the end with she and her family on stage cradling the baby is priceless. You can’t buy that kind of imagery. She did a very, very good job. I agree Democrats have reason to be concerned. Nobody should underestimate this woman’s political ability, to go on stage in a hall like this, give a speech like this for the first time ever, quite impressive.

My amature politico (and partisan) conclusion is this: Democratic politico-types think Palin did a really great job because she very effectively framed the dabate in the manner that the one that must not be named (Rove) would have it.  The Dem politico types fear that this race will become a battle of perceived personality rather than a focus on issues, and Palin nailed that tack last night.  My guess is that most Dems figure that if this race turns on issues (name it, economy, war, foreign policy, health care), Obama controls the majority opinion (to repeat, name it: GOP convention speakers have unwisely echoed Gramm’s whiner sentiment; most folks are not happy about Iraq; most folks think Obama’s diplomacy tendencies are good; and most folks don’t adore the current health care structure).  So the Dems that are obsessed with politics fear that the GOP ticket will turn this race into a contest between the beaten man that winked at his fellow POW captive versus the upstart.  And they figure Palin did a pretty good job in so framing last night.

If some informal polls are accurate, though, the Dem politico types have spent too much time in consulting school.  And I hope they are and have.  Politics is unavoidably a superficial exercise, so I will not argue that citizens should recite the respective policy platforms of each candidate before voting.  Nor, though, ought politics be an exercise in movie-script writing.  Issues are important, and whether a person votes on one or a hundred issues, I would rather have that voter care about a candidate’s tendencies in an abortion vote (or a health care, education, or highway funding) vote, than in whether they think that candidate is cool or stoic.  It is partly difficult in today’s politics to really estimate a platform (both sides present the others’ tax proposals, for instance, as a raise to the middle class).  But it is down right irresponsible to vote for a person thinking they’d be cooler to have a beer with.  My overriding gripe with modern politics is not that they simplify policies; it is that they attempt to create a character out of a person that the people will favor.  McCain is the guy that took torture rather than reveal U.S. secrets, and is the man that divorced his wife.  Knowing that I cannot judge his person, I try to refrain from the People Magazine-ish attempt to do so.  

Fortunately, hopefully, the independents that saw this problem in Palin’s speech represent the direction our country is taking in politics.  Hopefully the Democratic consultants are wrong.  Hopefully.

I’ve already seen more live footage of the Republican convention than the Democratic, and would be interested to see some OR responses to the themes in each convention.  Was, for instance, chanting “Drill, baby, drill!” a good idea?  Apart from sounding like ‘burn, baby, burn,’ it strikes me a desperate, frothy-mouthed inclination to simply tear up the Earth.

I’m also curious whether level-headed observers buy the framing of Obama as a hollow shell, self-obsessed, asprant on a personal journey.  I was struck by the fairly nasty sarcasm in Palin’s speech; it seems, though, that the sarcasm was exactly the tone they wanted to strike, casting the Democratic contender in hyperbole, rather than addressing him on the details of the respective plans.

From the bits I heard of the Democratic convention, I was annoyed at the continued discussion of Bush’s 2 terms.  Clearly, they want to connect McCain to Bush, but it got old and I was relieved to hear Bill Clinton offer a good summary of the policy differences between the two parties.  From there, Obama was able to give some detail on his plans to take the Democratic policy positions forward.  In any event, I am curious if a Republican would have felt as under attack at the Dem convention as I would at the GOP convention.

Finally, it is interesting that the Democratic speakers that I saw each praised McCain before dissing his current policy positions.  Unless we see some tack to civility from McCain’s talk tonight, I see only  dismissive nastiness toward Obama from the GOP speakers.

To the extent our early history informs the current social scheme, I enjoyed coming across the lines someone scribbled in Boston, circa 1795.

While Britain battled with France, John Jay popped over to London to settle some outstanding problems (like, their departing from some prolonged occupations and opening up trade). The treaty that he secured, though, rubbed against the division that had formed in our early politics: Republicans that thought the French Revolution was wonderful, and Britain the sign of all evil; and Federalists that saw the horror of the French Revolution and the value of good relations with England.

As partisans do, several Republicans placed the brunt of their political emotions on Jay. In Boston, one fellow scribbled on a Federalist’s house:

Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!

Hopefully we’ll think aloud on here sometime soon on Indiana’s voter ID law recently upheld by the Supreme 9. Fair voting isn’t something we’ve thought much about here - but man, is it ever a lush field for conversation. Let’s begin by working out four initial elements, starting with the final act:

(1) what is the meaning of fair, honest, and accurate vote tallying?

(2) what is the meaning of fair, honest, and accurate voting?

(3) what is the meaning of fair, honest, and accurate getting out the vote?

(4) what is the meaning of fair, … campaigning?

By that third element, I mean the things that government and private entities do to encourage folks to go vote - including absentee balloting, information dissemination, transportation efforts, etc.

Is, for instance, a robo-call telling people they will get voter registration information in the mail, and to wait for that information, and to sign it and send it in…fair, honest, and accurate? Does the answer depend on context - if the call might make folks think they can’t vote without having performed the actions discussed in the call? Is there some reasonable person standard we apply here - so that, if only folks half-paying-attention would have their votes suppressed, we don’t care? Like the Buchanan voters in Florida. Or the folks getting these calls?