In political terms, who are the ‘middle class’?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 10/14/2012

TERRE HAUTE — Will the 2012 presidential election win a prize for how many times the candidates say they care about the “middle class?” Who is this “middle class” they talk about? In many ways, the candidates are really talking to anyone and no one at the same time.




“Middle class” is a bland term, one that is broadly inclusive in an uncontroversial way and helps the candidates obscure their policy paybacks to their political base. To the candidates, middle class status is simple: it’s a single dimension, an income range, with no stated bottom, but a ceiling of $250,000. This is the political equivalent of redefining the shrinking middle class to enlarge it. There is no serious discussion of poverty. Hence, the middle class is construed as expansive. In short, it’s America.



According to the Pew Research Center’s study of 2,508 U.S. adults during July of this year, 49 percent identified themselves as “middle class.” The middle class brand is for mass consumption. Self-identified middle class status varies little by race, age (except for 65 and above), or education. Forty-six percent of those who earn $100,000 or more, 65 percent who earn $50,000-$99,999, 51 percent who earn $30,000-$49,999, and 35 percent who earn less than $30,000 self-identify as middle class.



If middle class means middle income, Pew used Census data to estimate how many people fall into a range of middle incomes. They found the share of adults who self-identified as middle class in the survey was about equal to the share of adults living in households defined as middle income using Census data falling in a range of two-thirds to double the overall median size adjusted household income. Hence, Pew found that 51 percent of adults lived in households with incomes $33,331-$101,004. If President Obama and Gov. Romney think middle income is above $200,000, it would be interesting to hear them explain why.



It is to the politicians’ advantage to use an abstract concept of social class, one based only on income. This simplistic, non-relational, concept of social class helps to obscure real social class differences that might cause political difficulties for the economic elite in the United States.



Many reading this surely remember everyday terms that real people use to describe various social class groupings. One that was common just 20 years ago was “working class.” And working class people had influential non-governmental organizations to help represent their interests in the rough and tumble world of politics — labor unions. How about white collar and blue collar? Those terms reflect social class as a relation, not just a crude income category; they reflect social class in terms of one’s relationship to the economic institution. In short, how a person makes their living, which is not the same as one’s income.



People who earn their money by working for a paycheck are treated differently on a daily basis in their work and through public policy than those who earn their money by “renting” their wealth. Most employees are “at- will” employees and serve at the will of their employers. Losing their job means losing their income, their health insurance and a whole lot more.



Others can earn a middle class income through dividends, interest payments on large sums of money and buying and selling stores of wealth. Others earn their money directly off the labor of their employees. Some earn a salary by supervising and managing the labor of others who in turn make money for the enterprise’s owners.



Public policy treats sources of income differently. Income earned through work is, except at the very lowest levels, taxed higher than income earned through expending no effort other than lending money, buying municipal bonds, and renting assets. In short, those who can live off their wealth are in a different social class than those who live mainly or solely from what they can earn with their labor. A job can be easily expropriated, but wealth cannot. These people are in different classes even if their incomes are similar.



Reducing complex social relationships that create power differences between people into broad groupings of people based on income serves only to benefit those who govern the rest of us. The Washington gridlock and the political polarization isn’t serving the interests of the middle class. Whose interests does such a situation benefit? The poor?



The median household income in Vigo County in 2011 was $39,229. Twelve percent of households earn over $100,000 and 22.5 percent of families with minor children live in poverty. That means that virtually everyone, to listen to President Obama and Gov. Romney, are middle class in Terre Haute. Really?

Does Obama like Spam?

I feel for our President while he vacations in Hawaii. Tough duty, but hey, I love Hawaii.

The reporters that follow our President-elect around though are getting ridiculous. As reported over at Politico (sorry, no link to this one...I almost feel embarassed), a reporter got a look at the snacks Pres-e Obama ordered and on the ticket was Spam musobi. Here is a pic, don't know if the Spam can is real or not, but what is pictured is apparently the spam delight.

Okay, here is the deal. I will admit it. I like Spam. Yup. Grew up eating the stuff. And not as a regular food,,,no, this was a treat mind you. My dad and I did a lot of fishing when I was a kid, both salt and freshwater....all day, all weekend trips. Always, for lunch, we packed a can of Spam (the old stuff was packed in a gelatinous goo that we typically washed off in river, lake or gulf), and very salty. Spam sandwiches...."Hillbilly" bread (that was a brand in those days), Spam, mustard, and onions (and my dad always, always added salt...he salted bacon. a great Christmas gift for him was a salt lick). The spam always had to be cut thin as did the onions. We usually ate two apiece. I was taught how to filet fish and make spam sandwiches about at the same time. (with the same knife as I recall...yup, we used the fish cleaning knife to cut our spam and onions)

Come on my few readers....leave me a comment....tell me your Spam stories. Everyone has one. Spam is ubiquitous, else why would Spam not have come to refer to unwanted mass junk email? Share your stories here. If we get some good ones, we'll send them to President Obama. Or, if we begin a cult from this exercise, we'll change President Obama's name to President Ospama.

\

President Ospama conjures up all kinds of possibilities doesn't it.?.

What Would Bipartisanship Look Like?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 10/15/2008

Dear Sens. McCain and Obama,

For the good of the country, both of you, please, stick to the issues and stop engaging in character assassination. Yes, yes, you can rationalize this poison as important, that the character and past associations of each be scrutinized. Both of you know this is bunk. Sen. Obama is no more a terrorist because of William Ayers than Sen. McCain is the Manchurian Candidate because he was a POW. And what is worse, it adds to the divisiveness and hyper partisanship that I bet our enemies count on when we face times of hardship, like during a multi-front war and the current economic meltdown.

Sen. McCain, a week ago you finally showed your true colors by facing a booing crowd of your own supporters and telling them that Sen. Obama is not Arab, is an honorable, decent, family man, who would make a good President, but that you would make a much better one. Sen. Obama, while your rally supporters are not yelling “treason” and “terrorist” about Sen. McCain, there are scurrilous and damaging misinformation on the internet by your supporters about Sen. McCain and his family. May I suggest that your “Fight the Smears” website include smears about your opponent, too.

How shallow you both sound in your campaigns for change. This campaign is looking like more and more of the same. But what boggles my mind is that it seems the both of you are playing chicken; the problem is when one of you blinks, its not damage to your campaign but to America. Maybe I don’t get it, but bipartisanship is more than just occasionally voting with the other side. It is also about recognizing our shared fate, something both of you seem to have forgotten or you would not engage in the politics of personal destruction. And forget about justifying it with “they started it.” Both of you are capable of stopping it.

Bipartisanship is a theme both of your campaigns embrace, then why not show it? Show the American people that you at least understand what it means and then act that way. One of you is going to be the next President of the United States. And one of you will return to the US Senate as a leader of your party. President McCain, would you like Sen. Obama’s help on your health care plan? President Obama, would you like Sen. McCain’s help on your energy policy? Or, are both of you going to engage in hyper partisanship to the degree that if one compliments the other’s wife, you will reflexively disagree with the compliment?

How can you, or let your supporters without correction, call each other “terrorist,” “unhinged,” and “dangerous” and then expect to work together? Moreover, aren’t you also hobbling the next President with these kinds of attacks? Is hobbling the President of the United States in this way a good thing for the country?

Here is what you should do. Call a joint press conference. Skip the part about who called first because it undermines your calls for service to country as you argue over who should get the credit.

Sen. Obama, after being deferred to by the more senior Senator, you announce that you are now embracing Sen. McCain’s health plan. And that either as President or as Senator you will work hard for its passage. Sen. McCain then announce that after three debates, that Sen, Obama has convinced you, that his energy policy is the best for America, and vow to fight for it as either President or Senator.

Sen. Obama, you next announce that after three debates, you are convinced that Sen. McCain’s veterans policy is the one to support and vow to help make it the law of the land either as President or Senator. Calling Sen. Obama’s raise, the gambler Sen. McCain calls Sen. Obama with “I support your climate change policy” and will work next year, either from the Oval Office of the Senate to make it law.

This is just four areas to agree upon. This is bipartisanship. This is recognizing shared fate. This means we both have a stake in not burning down each other’s house (otherwise called America). There are plenty of other issues to debate, but these are settled. It makes the debates seem real and that neither of you are ideologues. “Look,” doing that will introduce a little bit of certainty into an uncertain situation. And that, “my friends,” is leadership.

Barack Obama Health Insurance Plan....no change for me (probably)

According to Barack Obama's Health Care Plan, I wouldn't have to see any change. if I have insurance through my employer, I don't have to do anything. Like the good politician that Sen. Obama is, he still throoughs in a goodie, somehow I am supposed to save about $2500 a year (that is a savings of 37% on my current premiums). I assume that about half of that savings would actually go to my employer, not to me. Sen. Obama doesn't mention that.

No tax increases except letting the Bush tsx cuts expire on the households making $250000 or more. Which ain't very many, 2,245,000 according to the March 2007 CPS. That is out of over 116,000,000 households.

So, Sen Obama's plan is to cover the uninsured, shore up insurance by setting government competition, working the anti-trust laws, and so on and so on and so on. Very complicated. I'm sure he means well, but by the time this is legislated, some will not be done and it all depends on the whole working. So, we could end up with the very expensive Medicare part D, drug card....yeah, good idea, except no savings.

I don't care for either plan. Sen. Obama's is going to cost more, no question. And if he is successful, he will reduce the profits in the very profitable insurance industry. But costs are high due to incredible overhead. Little is said about that except medical IT. That will save money in nursing homes, but that isn't covered by anything but Medicaid anyway.

So, we have a big contrast. McCain would just push everyone into the private insurance market...people with jobs who don't qualify for government insurance, Medicaid, SCHIP, are going to end up hurt, I think with McCain's plan. And the insurance companies will just cherry pick, just like they do with Medicare patients. I saw that first hand with my mom and dad. Sen Obama's plan says it won't allow that...more regulation in an already pretty regulated industry.

I think we should decouple health insurance from one's job. I think it would be very good for the economy and would provide some flexibility for large firms. But, we have a very expensive health care system, it is irrational, due to the the remarkable costs of medical technology (do we reallly needs better than a half dozen MRI machines in my town of 50,000?), Medical competition doesn't drive costs down, paradoxically it drives costs up!

While Sen McCain's plan is not good for me personally, it is more radical. It will chnage things, but lots o risk. No risk for the rich, the poor will be the one's to bear the worst of that. Why should we be surprised at that?

Sen Obama's plan, is more modest, more focused, more bureaucratic, and legilsatively more risky to deliver the goods. And likely more costly to the taxpayers, (mcCain's is more likely to be more costly to those who must buy individual health insurance...and the little gift to the healh insurers with that HSA).

We need a single payer system. Even the doctor's agree (I've blogged about that before). America is ready for it. Put everyone on Medicare/Medicaid and let the helath insurance companies become contractors. Decouple health care from employment, and folks will probably end up with a bit more income, and tax it, tax it big to help pay for the monster. I;d personally make it bear bones...encourage HSA and very targetted private insurance.

But I'm not a politician. I just want a system that works for regular folks like me. I don;t mind paying more if it works and is stable.

Service Nation Forum

I watched/listened to the Service Nation Forum last night. I appreciated the civility, especially given the nastiness of the campaign in the last couple of weeks. (Unfortunately, at the end of the Forum one of the talking heads indicated that the Obama campaign was going to get down and dirty, beginning today. too bad).

There wasn't much to distinquish the candidates. here is my take: McCain sounds old, that is, he harks back more to the past than to the future. That maybe a function of his age....at his age, and with anyone at that age, there is a tendency to look back more than forward. Obama, he looked forward. Drew from the past, but always moving forward.

McCain did get angry, he, I felt, was smoldering, but kept it under control. It was in response to Judy Woodruff's question about the seeming inconsistency of his championing of service but the mocking and ridiculing of Obama's past as a community organizer. and that question came from one who is usually pretty friendly to republicans.

I thought McCain was angry. He gritted his teeth, he dissembled. He doesn't like to his actions quesetioned, especially if it suggests actions which are not honorable, such as hypocrisy or politcal craveness.

If I were scoring this event, given that the setting and topic favored Obama, I'd call it a draw.

I personally preferred Obama's nuances and I felt he kept politics out of it (at least obviously) as McCain did not.

Pigs in Lipstick

And now it begins. The presidential foodfight. If Republicans can make this two months of name calling, they will win. If the Democrats can keep focused on substance, I think they win.

But so far, the Dems have not been willing to get into the food fight. So, what happens? the Republicans just make up a fiction about Sen Obama calling Gov Palin a "pig."

Now, Democrats have been doing similar things. There is the whole "sambo and the bitch" fiction. But that stuff is not paid for or directed by the campaign.

But the fiction (including carefully edited videos) of Sen Obama calling Gov Palin a pig was paid for by the McCain Campaign. That elevates a 527 type of activity to the campaign itself.

The McCain campaign is calling for an apology! It is the McCain campaign which should apologize. Apparentlty "truth" isnot one of their campaign principles.

Get the facts here

It is 9 minutes long, but you will laugh for 10. It is worth a watch. It completely cracked me up.

The messy mixture of service, sacrifice and self-interest

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 8/23/08

Sen. McCain told Pastor Warren that he wanted to be president to “… inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest.” This was a theme of Sen. McCain’s hour-long conversation with Pastor Warren. Sen. Obama, too, sounded a similar theme, although not as clearly stated. Responding to a question from Pastor Warren about the greatest moral failing of the U.S., Sen. Obama said it was the U.S. treatment of the lesser among us, presumably both here and abroad. Sen. McCain said that sometimes we, the U.S., forget that we are part of something larger, that we have focused too much on self-interest.

It was 47 years ago when President Kennedy uttered those immortal words, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Only 15 years after the end of World War II and selfishness was a presidential issue.

Fact: All of us are part of something larger than ourselves. We may not recognize it. We may refuse to admit or even to see it. Nevertheless, we are social animals, we exist as members of many groups and the groups are larger than we are individually.

A cottage industry exists to point out the loss of community in the United States, from academics like Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” to the most recent offering, Dick Meyer’s “Why We Hate Us.” The observations are the same: Americans feel something is missing, that things are off track, that things are just not right. These authors essentially point to the same thing: too much “me” and not enough “us.” The most visible sign of the lack of community is the lack of civility in every nook and cranny of our society.

That lack of “respect” for others we find in our seemingly increasing “un”civil society, however, is the leveling of individuals in our increasing democratic culture. We forget how uncivil some groups were to other groups in the not-so-distant past. The open racism toward many groups; the patronizing and virtually invisible public status accorded to women; the shame bestowed upon the poor. Despite a culture of individualism, we still respond to people based on the groups with which we identify them.

There is tension between the individual and the larger group. Our culture tilts heavily toward the individual. As we exalt the individual over the group, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many decide that common norms are a bother and flaunt them. We see it everywhere, from text messaging friends during family dinners/celebrations to treating teachers rudely to candidates for public office maliciously spinning and lying about the character of other public servants only to turn around and hope to inspire people to public service because it makes one part of something larger than them selves. I probably should also point out that we expect cynicism today.

Community service is noble, but it is also a punishment for law-breaking. It is not that people don’t participate in things larger than themselves but that too many people do it for selfish reasons. Every college student states they wish to volunteer to help the community (“because it will look good on my resume and get me a better job”).

An important factor in the erosion of a “civil” civil society is that too many use the group for their self-interest: religious leaders who use their position to pursue their sexual preferences; politicians who feather their own nests while selling their influence to the highest bidder; school administrators who show overt favoritism to their friends and family members are just a few easy examples. Such events undermine our confidence in the groups these people are part of.

What we need are individuals who are (grudgingly) willing to sacrifice self-interest for the greater good. But when we all willingly demand tax cuts amidst a war; when we demand convenience at any cost; when we bristle at any suggestion that we bear any responsibility for the problems we face, and our leaders go along with us, then why are we grousing as we reap a bumper crop of that which we have been sowing? Because we all want the benefits of others’ sacrifices.

Cynical seems to be the norm today. Cynics lampoon the idealists. The idealists are out of touch. Where are the realists? According to an article I just read, in small group situations, if given a choice, the cynics and idealists would vote the realists off the island.

I want to be your leader but don't expect me to show leadership

News today, which means yesterday, something happened. Sen. Obama has changed his view of Offshore Drilling. While some think that is the news, what I find interesting about it is that the idea came from a bipartisan group of 10 Senators who are offering a "compromise" to end the dumb bunny stalemate in Washington about the gasoline price "crisis." Full story here (and this is better than the digested AP version)

The plan, offered Friday by 10 U.S. senators as a way to break the partisan impasse over energy policy that has stalled Congress in recent weeks, would expand drilling but also set new goals and establish new funding for the use of alternative fuels.

Don't know enough about the specifics, but this sounds to me like what politics is about, the "art of the possible" instead of winner take all, no drilling, exploration or anything in exchange for just more of the same, drill everything.

But here is the reason for this post: Why isn't Obama and/or McCain one of the original Gang of 10 (as the Senator's have been tagged)? Obama's rhetoric is that he would be this kind of leader (he did quickly support the move because he sees it as the way to get what he wants, a focus on alternative fuels and energy) and McCain has a history of reaching across the isle and supporing compromises, he was part of the Gang of whatever that stopped the stalemate and possible nuclear option in the senate over supreme court justices. Yet, where are they now? Campaigning, not leading.

I grew up in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, which would be significantly impacted by oil exploration and I do not favor it. Flordia's fragile ecology is about broken, this is only going to put it further to the test. Nevertheless, I think that a "crises" has been constructed (fuel and energy are readily available, they are just more expensive, this is not 1973 when oil truly was unavailable), and public opinion is such that we will drill every spot. In that sense, our leaders have collectively failed us because this situation was foreseeable (since at least 1973) and the American public is completely unwilling to accept any meaningful change for the future. A democracy gets what a democracy wants.

Obama's wailing wall prayer..let me be the first to twist this one

Here is the story: Sen. Obama visits the wailing wall in Jerusalem. Leaves a prayer as is the tradition. An Israelis student takes it, gives to Israeli newspaper. Full story here

The comments are predictable, what a terrible thing to do, invasion of privacy, the simple, routine prayer will sound very familiar to many Christians. Many wait, of course, for the attack from Sen McCain or his surrogates. One I've already seen, where Obama asks to be an insrument of God's will, already that is being seized on as what terrorists say before they do their evil deeds. Yet I recall the same line in a hymm sung in my Methodist church last week or perhaps the week before.

the Israeli student and press are being criticized, but let me be the first to spin this in this way: It is an Obama set up. He arranged to have his simple prayer taken and turned over to the Israeli press because it will show Obama's true heart (he didn't ask to be elected President, after all). Now, this is pure spin. I voted for Obama in the Indiana primary, but I expect to see more serious attacks like this to occur with this event.

I think this event is what it is. And the note does reflect a most private moment of Sen Obama's. But it will be spun to be a negative, you can be sure of that.

According to today's blogs, the katie couric interview disqualifies both candidates

I really like it when the blogs concentrate on the same event. so much of the blogosphere is divided into right and left, and they rant on about different things, but apparently today, katie couric (CBS) interviewed both Sens McCain and Obama. here is a bit form the Huffington Post on McCain's performance:

John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about. But anyway, what happened.

What did Sen McCain do? mispell potato(e)? point to Kansas when speaking of Saudi Arabia? Nope, got his timeline screwed up:

The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet.

So, scratch Sen McCain, he doesn't know his history.

Over at Instapundit, they are ranting about Sen Obama's disqualifying remarks to katie couric:

That was an amazing segment! CBS did an excellent job. Congratulations.
This could very well be a turning point in this year's election!
Obama came off cocky, confused and crazy. McCain was wonderful- honest, humble and smart.

Sen Obama's mistake? Other than a refusal to say he was wrong about the surge (wasn't mcCain wrong about Iraq to begin with?)....here is the reasoning:

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
Huh?
So, now Obama says the Bush surge in troops worked but defeating Al-Qaeda and Iran in Iraq was not worth it? And, if Obama believes that his plan of fleeing Iraq during the worst of the violence would have brought peace in Iraq, he is delustional.

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper is reproting on how Obama stole the victory away from the troops in his interview with ABC.
Here is Obama explaining the surge to Terry Moran:


"Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.

"In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
That must be Barack Obama's way of saying that he was wrong.

So, both are wrong and disqualified to be president. Whoooo, hoooo....Bob Barr or Ralph Nader???

Cartooning the candidates

Maybe one reason it is hard to make fun of Candidate Obama is because, well, at least cartooning him, he cartoons very similar to our current president. Now, routinely President Bush is referred to as a "chimp" but to refer to Sen Obama as a chimp, no matter how chimp-like the cartoonist might make him, would create a firestorm, right or wrong.








Notice the resemblance to cartoons of President Bush:














Cartoons of John McCain are not too simian:

If everyone follows the script, war will serve certain domestic interests

here is a different (and more thorough) analysis of the recent Iranian missle tests.

this analysis suggests, as I wish more would, that provocative displays of military force and claims of dangerous weapons development are more about domestic consumption than anything else.

It sounds like a script. The Iranian president who won his closely contested election playing on the problems of the regular Iranian people.... well, he has done nothing. So, he and the mullahs need to do something to distract from those issues as well as send messages to the people that they are beyond challenge. To me not much different that Saddam's WMDs. He had to keep the illusion in order to maintain power at home.

So, Iran's internal politics leads to more bellicose rantings toward Israel. Israel, on cue, responds with military training which could be s rehearsal for a strike against Iran. On cue, Iran fires off missiles, which our intelligence suggets demonstrates no additional capability and some faked pictures to suggest more capability than they have.

The "Great Satan" (what the extremists in Iran call the US), then on cue begin sabre rattling, all for Iranian domestic consumption.

Now, when the missile tests occurred, the Bush administration, especially Secretary Rice used it as an excuse to call for the missile shield in Europe and Georgia...all of which irritated the Russians who oppose the defensive missiles. McCain was ready to launch the invasion now. Obama, however, his response was to wait until the intelligence anaylsis shows if Iran has shown additional military capacity (which in the end, it didn't, and as this article suggets may actually show weakness). So, on the matter of judgement...who is showing the best judgement? Sen. McCain or Sen Obama? Who is eager to play the role being orchestrated by our enemies? More bellicose threats from the US actually serve the interests of the extremists in Iran. But what domestic interests does such bellicose respones here serve domestically?

The diplomatic pressure, however, looks like it is beginning to work on Iran.

No straight talk about the economy to those voters who are hurting?

From the current US News & World Report, from its lead story in the National & World section is this: A McCain strategist is quoted, regarding Sen McCain's strategy to court Reagan Democrats (white working class voters, who used to be called in Reagan's day, "white ethnics")

"If we're going to win this election, it will because we won Reagan Democrats," says a key McCain strategist. He addds that, since the economy isn't doing well, the argument probably will have to be based on "values issues," such as patriotism, religious faith, and opposition to gay marriage and abortion, in adition to supporting troops and winning the war in Iraq.

In other words, Sen McCain isn't going to address the most pressing issues with them, the slumping economy, high fuel prices. Instead, he is going to obsfucate and discuss these other issues which really have little place and when you look at the legislative success on those issues, pretty thin.

Reagan got away with that because he had a plan to get the economy going. But trickle down never really worked, and it is not working now, and McCain is going to continue with it. I hope the Reagan Democrats, white working class (now defined singularly by educational achievement), or white ethnics, are smarter than that. Of course, many of this group are among those who have told pollsters they wouldn't vote for a black man for president, no matter what. Sen. McCain should be especially effective in recruiting that group to his cause.

This is shaping up to be an interesting campaign: Sen McCain's fear and anger strategy vs Sen Obama's hope and change in the future strategy. In Biblical terms, it is a message of fear vs a message of grace.

David Brooks, yeah right...

Is David Brooks on Sen McCain's payroll? His editorial in the NYT, entitled "Talking versus Doing" is an artfully written argument for why Sen McCain should be president, unfortunately for Sen McCain, Brooks' claims are inaccurate.

Brooks compares Sen Obama's support for the bloated Farm Bill to McCain's opposition to it. Well, neither Obama nor McCain voted ... period. So, neither thought it was that important to take them off the campaign trail.

When I first read Brooks' column, especially this gem:

McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.

I thought to myself, yeah, Arizona is not exactly the biggest ag state. So, I looked them up in the last Agriculatural Census for 2002. There are only 17 other states whose value of ag products is lower. That puts Arizona well in the bottom half of Ag states. So, not supporting, by not voting, is not that a big a deal back home.

Obama, on the other hand, though he supported it by not voting for it, is from Illinois, where 41 states are lower in terms of ag value.

My point is to use the Farm Bill as evidence of McCain setting aside narrow interests is a laugh.

By the way, there were 15 Nay votes in the Senate on the Farm bill. 11 of those Senators were from states with lower valued ag production than Arizona.

I wish I could get a job writing fiction for the NYT editorial page.

Even I Could Write Zingers for The Daily Show With This Stuff

I thought I was reading a comedy spoof when I read this WaPo article. The article focuses on Sen. McCain's increasing attacks on Sen Obama's foreign policy credentials, mostly on Sen Obama's stated willingness to talk to America's enemmies. For instance:

Sen. John McCain stepped up his assault on Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials at a rally in Miami yesterday, criticizing Obama's willingness to talk to Cuban President Ra¿l Castro and other hostile foreign leaders without preconditions

Imagine Jon Stewart's contorted face as he then looks into the camera and asks, was Ronald Regan's Secretary of State an appeaser? As a video of Sec. Baker appears:

But McCain's argument was undercut when a 2006 video emerged of former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a prominent McCain supporter, saying that "talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Remember McCain was the one who confused the players in the Middle East and needed Sen Leiberman whispering in his ear all the time. Imagine those videos with McCain saying this:

...Obama fails to understand "basic realities of international relations." McCain said Obama's willingness to talk with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions during his first year as president would only embolden "an implacable foe of the United States."

Sen McCain's senior strategist Steve Schmidt said

"

John McCain is ready to be commander in chief. Barack Obama is not, because of his inexperience and poor judgment," Schmidt said. "Inexperience and poor judgment in the president of the United States makes the world a more dangerous place."

Imagine a perplexed Jon Stewart rubbing his chin and saying: Yeah, inexperience (Texas governor who couldn't find several foreign countries on a map) and poor judgement (invade Iraq) in the president make the world a more dangerous place. Slowly nodding, nodding, nodding. Then asking, why then would we want to continue the same policies? As a dumb picture of Sen McCain looms on the background.

To be far, we have to skewer Sen Obama, too.

Obama, meanwhile, has stuck to his position that the president should be willing to talk with enemies of the United States as part of a return to a more open and ambitious use of diplomacy, though last week he clarified that there would be lower-level contacts and "preparation" before any presidential meeting. On the campaign trail, Obama cites President Richard M. Nixon's opening of U.S. relations with China and President Ronald Reagan's negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as examples he would emulate.

Jon Stewart vigorously nodding, saying, Nixon's stupid foreign policy brought us cheap goods from China and has devastated our manufacturing base and negotiating with Gorby brought down communism and the newly capitalist Russia are outcompeting us on the capitalist market, too.

But Obama doesn't just cite Republican foreign policy success, he also quotes that foreign policy magician, John Kennedy:

Obama also frequently quotes President John F. Kennedy's position during the escalating nuclear arms race that the United States should be willing to meet with its adversaries: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate," Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural address.

Can you say "Bay of Pigs?"

It is just too easy.

What are these folks clinging to? Religion? Guns?

This remarkable article in WaPo. If you haven't read it, plesae do so now. It is about the racism that Obama field workers have encountered on the campaign trail. And be sure to read the 3000+ comments the article has generated on WaPo website and it is unbridled, much of it.

While I know politicians want people to vote for them, which poiticians want to court the vile racist vote?

I was disappointed in Sen. Clinton for trafficing in this. And McCain? Those types are mostly likely to vote for him anyway. I hope he is proud of that.

In a nation that is about choice, in a nation that would find the Muslim beliefs that you are born a Muslim and can't ever leave the religion (if you do, you can be executed as we have seen already), that we don't look at Sen. Obama for his accomplishments. I think he is surprised more people don't see it.

Of all the racist remarks I have heard, and I live in Indiana, one of the towns where a bomb threat was phoned in for the Obama HQ, is the one that if Sen. Obama wins, African Americans will be given everything and Whites will suffer. What has Sen. Obama been given? Isn't his path, through education, through merit, achievement, what is the American ideal? Oh, yeah, there is hte anti-intellectual aspects of the US, our current President probably being one of the best examples. Anyway, what a role model for anyone...Sen. Oboama, but especially for African American men. Egads, imagine what "Barack Obama" had to put up with. Yet, he persevered. That is a remarkable characteristic. Just as Sen. McCain has shown. And Sen. Clinton.

Read the article.

Making a choice had never been so complicated

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, May 11, 2008

May 4. In less than 48 hours the polls open for the much anticipated Democrat Presidential Primary. As has been pointed out endlessly, Hoosier votes count in this one.

Although I am not a lifelong Indiana resident (this is my ninth Presidential vote, fifth in Indiana), I have lived in states that had late primaries, so I am used to having my choices for the November ballot selected by others. That fact never bothered me. I just shrugged my shoulders and went about my business. The eventual nominee has never been my primary choice. In the past I would naively cast a vote for a candidate who could not win the nomination hoping to influence the platform. As I said, “naive.” Were I still so naïve I would ask for a Republican ballot and vote for Ron Paul.

As I write this I do not know who I am going to vote for. A couple of weeks ago I decided that I’d probably just flip a coin the morning of the election. I mean, why not? The policy differences between the two Democrat hopefuls are slight. My list of pros and cons for each candidate balance each other out, closer than the Guam caucuses.

The narrow test of who is offering “me” the best deal, has never been my test. No, I embraced those high school citizenship classes too eagerly, I really think we should be choosing who is best for the nation, and what is best for the nation is not necessarily always the best for me. At the same time, the historic and sociological implications of this election are not lost on me. In one sense, any vote contributes to an historic outcome. We are either going to elect the first African American, the first woman, or the oldest to the Presidency. One the other hand, I’d like to contribute, to be part of, in my small way, the historic outcome. Hence, I want to vote for the eventual winner.

Normally, endorsements mean nothing to me. I think they say more about the endorser than it does the endorsee. Endorsers are more odds makers than anything else; until Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Obama. That endorsement made me pause. Never before has any endorsement had such an impact on me.

I think Sen. Obama is what I want our president to be. I like his current advertisement where he characterizes Washington as unwilling to take on the hard questions and solve them, instead opting for political gimmicks like the gas tax holiday proposed by Sens. McCain and Clinton. At the same time, Sen. Clinton is a fighter and is willing to do whatever it takes to win. I understand that is part of why Republicans best Democrats because Democrats are often too idealistic. “Too idealistic” or “unrealistic’ is what many see in Sen. Obama. I share some of that skepticism, too. Argh!!!

Election day. As I drove into Roselawn Cemetery to vote early this morning, I thought to myself, “how fitting for what has become a “grave” decision for me.” I had an easier time proposing marriage! When asked which ballot I wanted, I replied “Demopublican or Republicrat.” I was told they would have those in November but right now, only the donkey or elephant. Along with everyone else, I asked for a Democrat ballot. I took my ballot over to the little stand and there it was, the “choice.” I quickly ran through the others races and in a minute or so am back to the “choice.”

I noticed others come in and get out pretty quick, while I stared and pondered the “choice.” I began to worry that there might be a time limit on how long I could stare at my ballot.

Finally I made a choice. I decided to pretend that Indiana was the first primary; that the previous elections had not happened. Who would I vote for if I got to be one of the first to make a choice instead of one of the last. And sure enough, as my past favorites end up, I voted for the Indiana loser (though, strangely, Sen. Obama seemed to win Tuesday overall--his narrow defeat in Indiana viewed as something of a win.) Democrat politics are more complicated than Republican politics; though 24% of Republicans still voted against Sen McCain.

I thought both Democrat victory speeches Tuesday night went a long way toward building a united front for the eventual Democrat nominee. I hope Indiana doubles the number voting in the November election.

How Racism Affects Those Who are Not Racists

Here is an insightful article from WaPo that is drawing exactly the kind of criticism I figure it would. The article is worth reproducing in full here.

The Willie Horton of the 2008 Campaign?

Monday, May 5, 2008; A02



Conduct a thought experiment: Imagine that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor to presidential candidate Barack Obama and preacher with controversial views, was not an outspoken black man but a white woman who penned her controversial ideas in a scholarly journal. If Wright's views were the only thing that mattered, his race, sex and public style ought to make no difference. Assuming she held the same views and shared a lengthy history with the presidential candidate, a white female scholar ought to damage Obama's popularity in the same way the pastor has done recently.

There is no way to conduct such an experiment in real life, but Arizona State University social psychologist Steven Neuberg believes that Wright has damaged the biracial Obama because, in his public persona -- as much as in his views -- he activates unconscious fears and racial stereotypes that many voters have about angry black men. Black leaders who are popular with white voters invariably find ways to put such fears to rest, Neuberg said.

"Like Colin Powell but unlike Jesse Jackson, the cues that suggest there is someone out there who may want to do you harm are not there" with Obama, Neuberg said. "It is the reason Powell could have won eight years ago and that Obama can win. His bearing is non-threatening."

"What this Wright guy has done is tagged Obama as a black guy," Neuberg added. "He is more aggressive and attacking, and that engages in people's minds and that makes race salient."

If Neuberg is right, Wright might well be the 2008 version of Willie Horton, the black Massachusetts inmate whose case was used against Democratic candidate Michael S. Dukakis in 1988. Talking up the controversy, moreover, gives Obama's opponents a potent weapon: They can hook into voters' hidden fears and racial attitudes without ever saying a word about the radioactive subject of race.


-- Shankar Vedantam

We’re No. 1 in the U.S. and we demand the best

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 20 April 2008

As a sociologist I am typically fascinated more by people’s responses to events than the event itself. Sen. Obama’s recent remarks given at a private fundraiser is a good example. As is well known by now, Sen. Obama, donning his sociology cap, tried to answer a question about rural, small town Americans. He suggested they were bitter because their local economies are in a shambles and no one pays them any attention.

Instead of discussing this sociological insight into rural America, Senator Obama’s opponents have instead attacked him as an “elitist” and out of touch with regular Americans.

Fascinating. I am not going to defend or even explain Sen. Obama’s remarks. I do want to explore the charge of elitism.

What exactly does elitism mean? According to Dictionary.com, elitism has several meanings: 1) practice of or belief in rule by an elite: 2) consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group; and 3) the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Aren’t the same folks accusing Sen. Obama of being an elitist also the same ones who suggest he is not fit to be President because he has insufficient experience? All three major candidates work very hard to make their resumés look the best, the longest, with exaggerated claims of legislative daring do, avoiding sniper fire, and brandishing their ignorance of the Middle East. Each one argues they are the most qualified and they believe they are the best to rule. And if experience isn’t enough, we’ll go bowling, knock back a shot and a beer, and appear on late night comedy shows, to show we are hip, regular, and in touch with the “real” people (even if it is just once an election cycle). Does it seem to you that those accusing Sen. Obama of elitism fit the first definition of elitism, too?

If Senators Clinton and McCain are not elitists, according to the second definition, then they must not be proud of belonging to a select or favored group. I wonder which group it is? The U.S. Senate? Both do want out, to join an even more exclusive club (so does Sen. Obama), so are they elitists or not? Perhaps Senators Clinton and McCain are not proud to be Americans? If that were true, they would probably be disqualified. Both have trafficked in suggesting Obama is anti-American, or a lacks pride in belonging to a select or favored group (Americans, or Christians, or Democrats, or Republicans). That then seems a catch-22 doesn’t it? If he is proud to be American he is an elitist. If he is not, then he is anti-American.

Let’s examine the third definition: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Hmm. This sounds strangely similar to another idea: meritocracy or (again according to Dictionary.com): an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. All three candidates are over-achievers. McCain, a Naval Academy graduate, Clinton, a Wellesley graduate, and Obama a Columbia graduate. Are we to believe that McCain and Clinton would prefer winning the presidency due to their family connections?

I don’t think a charge of elitism is going to make much difference. I think Americans, in general, are elitists. We demand the best, the elite in everything. Everyone wants the best doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, quarterbacks, and presidents. Chanting “We’re Number One” is not common anywhere but in the U.S. That seems pretty elitist to me.

Sen. Obama may be an elitist. But are we to believe those leading the chorus of those charges are not also elitists? Do they fit the opposite of the meaning of elitism? If they accuse Sen. Obama of being an elitist but are them selves elitists, doesn’t that make them “elite” hypocrites?