Wednesday, October 29, 2008

My two favorite Political Ads of All time

Since we're sharing.  







The first is an obvious rif off the "who would you rather have a beer with" question, which played a seemingly vital role in some of Bush's campaign. It does two things though, that, I think, make it a great add. It is an OBVIOUS rif, meaning that the add itself draws attention to the silly reality of the question. This is the same sort of satire of the system stewart and colbert perform every night. Also, it offers a compellingly fresh answer - the amputee.

This has some drawbacks, since he might forever been known as "the midget with the bottle opener arm" but if the point of a political ad is to be memorable as opposed to substantive, then this does a great job.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Counting in the first place

One of the things that stood out from "Recount" was its unstated assumption that not every vote is counted.  The question that arrises from that is a major aspect of the film - is the election process ever accurate?  

We've all heard the Chicagoan voter mantra "vote early and often."  Many of us, myself included, take that phrase as a sort of dry, cynical idiom, not as policy.  Yet, is there some sort of truth to it?  Not that there is voter fraud (which I'm sure there is), but is the system even remotely close to accurate?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is not accurate.  Then what?  There are a few different ways we can begin framing this sort of question, but all of them center around one simple question - do you care?  Do we care if the right person is elected?  Or do we care that we think the right person is elected?  

That last question is why many of us turn our brains off when we start thinking about the accuracy of voting.  It's a hard thing to swallow.  It's so much easier to believe in an accurate system.  The existential feeling that arrives with that thought is a hard thing to shake.  "Recount" itself arrives at the same sort of existential end.

"Klain (Spacey):  So, did the best man win then?

Baker (Wilkinson): You bet.

Klain: You sure about that?

Baker: As sure as you are about your man."



Yet, remember our assumption.  

"Recont" leaves us with that sort of cliffhanger end, as did the 2000 election.  Is the right person in office?  

You caught me though, I'm assuming that there is an objective reality at the end of this thing.  That there is a clear winner and that there is a right person.  Far from it, it seems.  


Review Method Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

The multitude of interpretations seems to make Lynne Chenney's claim that there is an "externally verifiable truth" seem a bit erroneous.  Externally verifiable truth is something that, even if you want to believe exists, is never the truth we, as a society, come to.  External truth, by its definition, exists outside of the realm of interpretation, and we, as a society, interpret everything.  We interpret with our eyes, ears, noses, brains, etc.  The event could by the exact same (see hostile media bias article from the beginning of the term), yet it is perceived differently.  So, even if you claim that a perfect truth, an externally verifiable truth exists, it is forever unattainable.  

If anything, it seems, our society isn't looking for the truth.  We're looking for truth that we can be comfortable with.      
 

   

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Forgive the Interruption

I think that this is probably an important video for all of us to watch.

Biden was asked some, um, interesting questions by a News anchor.  Here's the video which is getting harder and harder to find.  

EDIT***

In an uncomfortable moment, two distinctly different impressions of reality, met on live TV.  Often, when we have a conversation there is a certain set standard of assumptions that our conversation rests upon.  There are things taken for granted, idioms all party's are familiar with, etc. 

Yet, every once in awhile, a conversation occurs where the parties aren't even in the same ballpark.  The anchor was asking a serious question.  The quote from Marx, taken out of context, represents a feeling/concern held by many (I can't find a poll, but it seems to be forming into a master narrative of sorts) that Obama is for a redistribution of wealth.  

Most people, though, don't understand that taxes are a redistribution of wealth.  Marx was referring to his system in Das Kapital which, in effect, would have redistributed all wealth, "each according to his own."  Yet, Obama wants to redistribute some of the wealth.  He is never going to raise taxes on anyone to 100%.

Yet, Biden missed that point.  Worse, he laughed off a concern felt by many people.  His answer, too, was off the mark.  Biden claimed that Obama wants to give a chance to the middle class, "honest, hard working Americans."  He never took the time to explain how that is not Marxism.  

So, what you had were two different monologues going in the form of an interview.       

Friday, October 24, 2008

Linguistic Theory and Election '08 (part I)

Elaborated Code and Condensed Code in Campaign Rhetoric

Part I - Condensed Code and the Polar Classes

In an article titled "The History of Habit" , Robert Bellah (1), a social theorist who, I think, still works at UC Berkeley, describes two methods of linguistic indoctrination, or, perhaps a more nicer way of saying it, acculturation.  

A word about this post before we dive in.  For the purposes of my argument, I want to ask my reader to suspend his or her value judgements.  This is not an argument about which code is better, more moral, etc.  This is not about whether one connivingly plays to a certain audience or not.  That is for you to decide and it is up for you to draw your own conclusions from this post.  I'm wielding this post as a kind of garden hoe.  I want to cull back some of the ideas we have had about this campaign's rhetoric and dig fruitful tracks for further discussions. What you decide to plant is up to you.         

The two models Bellah uses are in this post's subtitle: elaborated code and condensed code. Now, as he points out, these two codes are hardly mutually exclusive, but the prevalence of one in a single discourse says a lot about the speaker and the speaker's idea of an audience. 
He suggests that condensed speech code is one that originates from the positionality of members in a family.  For example, if you remember when your mother told you to do something because "she said so," she was employing condensed code, specifically in a hierarchical way.  Other examples are: "Because you're a boy," "Because you're a child," etc.  

In his description of the elaborated code, Bellah states that reasons are given, like "daddy will be pleased if you do that" or "you will get hurt if you do that" etc.  The reasons though are not positional reasons like the condensed code, they are reasons that rely on the existence of "abstract principles" and "systems of feeling."  

Both the elaborated code and the condensed code are more than fundamental forms of rhetoric.  They are the assumptions on which rhetoric is founded upon.  If I argue, for example, that I am the best possible choice for president of the United States because  "I pledge to you that if [I] am elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House." The sort of argument is predicated on the condensed code.  My position as your friend qualifies me 
for service in the White House.   

Bellah seems to find the condensed code used more often among two different groups of people: those with fewer words in their vocabulary (the less educated), and those who value positionality (the aristocratic) - the polar classes.  

It is essential to realize that the elaborated code is a product of the division of labour. The more highly differentiated the social system, the more specialized the decision-making roles - then the more pressure for explicit channels of communication concerning a wide range of policies and their consequences.  The demands of the industrial system are pressing hard now upon education to produce more and more verbally articulate people who will be promoted to entrepreneurial roles.  By inference the condensed code will be found where these pressures are weakest [that is to say, among people whose jobs are both routine and require little verbal facility].


So, any rhetorical appeal to those audiences should exhibit some form of condensed code.  

When AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka gave his impassioned speech in support of Barack Obama at the USW (steelworkers) convention in Nevada in July, he invoked many arguments in support of Obama while operating in condensed rhetoric. 

But, at the end of the day, what people are going to need to hear is that when it comes to protecting jobs,

when it comes to protecting pensions,

when it comes to health care, child care, pay equity for women, Social Security, Medicare, seeing to it that people can afford to go to college and buy a home -- and restoring the right to collective bargaining -- Barack Obama has always, always been on our side.
This is one of a few examples in that speech.  The fact that Obama's is with us, he positions himself with us, qualifies him for service in the White House.  



Next Post:
Part II - Elaborated Code and the Middle Class

1 Thank you to my girlfriend's mother, Dr. Ellen LeVee, for pointing me in the direction of this essay.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Fun Times with the GOP

"Why I'm a Republican"

Alamogordo Daily News
Article Launched: 10/21/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

I read in today's paper what a woman wrote explaining why she's a Democrat. Let me tell you why I'm not. I'm a Republican because:

I believe in a sovereign God who sometimes gives us what we deserve.

I believe Muslims are our enemies.

I believe in life. A baby is not just a fetus, but a living being no matter where it resides.

I believe there is a good reason for the death penalty.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, for the government and for us.

I believe the government is way too big and rife with greed and corruption.

I believe in the truth. People believe lies because it's much easier than finding the truth.

I believe in personal responsibility. That includes spanking your children.

I believe American women should raise their own children and American men should be men enough to pay for children they've produced.

I believe a man and woman make marriage. Period.

I believe in America first and foremost and we ought to take care of our own people, our own land, and illegal aliens should go home.

I believe in guns and knowing how to use them properly.

I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win.

I believe in lower taxes. I know how to spend money better than Congress any day

I believe in voter ID.

I believe there is a moderate and a socialist in this election. I agree with a two-party system, but Obama isn't a messiah or a democrat.

He's a Muslim socialist.


Marcia Stirman, Alamogordo

Marcia Stirman is the chairwoman of an Otero County (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Republican women's group. (If anyone has a link to "Why I'm a Democrat" please send it my way).

Monday, October 20, 2008

Election Eve

Dr. Pimpare, here are our demands:

Use of Morgenstern Lounge November 4th
One TV on CSPAN
One TV on Fox News
One TV on MSNBC
Catered by whatever you can get us that is not fast food or generic Jewish food.

And, you can tell them someone will cover the event in the Commentator (PR) or they can actually send someone from PR.   

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Exit Polling

W.
"EXCLUSIVE: *I've learned that the exit polling showed that among W. filmgoers, 89% disapprove of Bush. In addition, 78% are voting for Obama, 6% are voting for McCain, and 6% don't know. Moviergoers were 52%/48% male vs female. And a whopping 47% were over age 40. The audience was overwhelmingly liberal at 55%, followed by moderates at 31%, conservatives at 10%, and those who don't care about politics 5%. The audience was primarily white at 66%, with African Americans at 10% and all other ethnic groups less than 10%. Most attended because of the prospect of making fun of Bush (42%), or because of Oliver Stone as director (41%), or because the preview looked good (39%), or because of the prospect of humor (33%). In terms of expectations, only 27% felt the movie was better than expected, with 38% feeling it was not as good as expected (this was consistent across all groups, especially liberals), and 35% felt it was as good as expected. Those who disapprove of Bush felt very strongly that the movie was not as good as expected.*"

Cute, huh?

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Mob Mentality

In a recent article, Slate magazine argued that:
"At a normal campaign rally, it's the candidate who tries to whip the crowd into a frenzy. At John McCain's town hall in Waukesha, Wis., Thursday, it was the other way around. "I'm mad, and I'm really mad," said one man who'd been called on to ask a question. "It's not the economy. It's the socialist taking over our country." McCain started to respond, and the man shot back sternly. "Let me finish please. When you have an Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we've got to have our head examined. It's time that you two who are representing us, and we are mad."
It seems as though John McCain has forgotten the first rule of an instigator - you don't control the mob, the mob controls you.  As his campaign's negativity has increased (see here), his crowds have started to more or less become their own master.

Now, the supporters of McCain are making headlines for yelling things such as "terrorist" and "off with his head" about Obama.  We have some decent polling data on the negative effects of McCain's negative add campaign in recent months.  Yet, what might be really interesting is whether or not his supporters have been turning people off.

This is not a question based on any evidence as of yet - but who wants to be associated with that sort of crowd?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Best Damn Debate Coverage Ever

I watched the debate on CNN, enjoying both the text of the question on the screen and the polling of independent voters in ohio streaming beneath.

After having sat through more than 40 minutes of AC 360, a number of consensuses have emerged among the panel of independents, republicans, and democrats. Obama clearly portrayed himself as a leader, as leaderly as John McCain. McCain was condescending towards Obama. Obama was, for the most part, clear with his answers. Independents loved ("liked more" Obama 65%, McCain 42%) Obama. Now, as most of election coverage is, much of the AC 360 time has been spent on the race, the versus.

Yet, what has been incredibly interesting is the critics (pundits) parsing of Obama's answer. His answers were clear, yet thoughtful and nuanced. And the pundits are treating them with care, and with, by gosh I'm gonna say it, thought. Obama's rhetoric has slightly changed the pundit discourse.

When Obama talked about the invasion of Pakistan, for example. The debate in the pundit sphere was not a superficial one. It was one of specific diction, "what does Obama mean when he says "unwilling" or "unable" about the pakistani government." And, in some of the clarifications of the point as well, "Obama never said he would invade pakistan." These comments were across party lines.

One of the things we mentioned last class, based mostly on Leighley, was this simple truism of media - the items, ideas, and policies that can be easily reduced to polar dynamics. Yet, just structurally speaking, the way the media reduces those things to polar opposites is through diction, through rhetoric. I published about the word "risky" recently. Words and phrases like welfare state, tax cut, bailout, etc. all carry partisan weights and preconceived opinions.

Obama's words were not built solely around those heavy words (he wasn't completely innocent). His answer on Pakistan was readily indicative of this. (By the way, I've included a picture of Pakistan to visually arrest the situation, also because its a pretty good graphic).



"Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."


When Obama's raw, uncliched language forces the media to cover nuance, that means something.

Alas though, they are back on Palin.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Palau Primaries

Palau presidential candidate Elias Camsek Chin and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. Alan Seid, came in first in this week’s presidential primary by posting strong results in heavily populated Koror State and the central Babeldaob district.
Chin and Seid will face the team of attorney Johnson Toribiong and Delegate Kerai Mariur, the second highest primary vote getters, in the Nov. 4 general election.


Rest of article here.

Game Time

Daniel,

My sn is tanw87. Where do you want me?

Dr. W. W. Herenton

Dr. Herenton is a graduate of Le Moyne-Owen College in South Memphis, and the University of Memphis. He received his doctorate in education at Southern Illinois University, and is also a recipient of two honorary doctorates from Rhodes College and Christian Brothers University. He has four children, the youngest of which was born in late 2004 to a local waitress.

He is the first African-American to be elected mayor of Memphis. He won his first term by defeating incumbent mayor Richard Hackett in 1991 by a mere 146 votes. Prior to serving as mayor, Herenton was the superintendent of Memphis City Schools for twelve years. In his State of the City address on January 1, 2006, Herenton announced his intention to run for a fifth term in 2007 and refused to debate his challengers during the campaign.

He was elected to his fifth term in office on October 4, 2007, thus making him the first Memphis mayor to be elected to five terms of office. Despite his win, Herenton garnered only 42% of the popular vote on the October 4, 2007 election. Nonetheless, run-offs for Memphis city-wide elections have been banned by court order since 1991, on the premise that the intent of run-offs was to give white candidates an advantage. Indeed, Herenton also scored his initial 1991 victory as well as his 1999 re-election with less than majority support (thank you wikipedia).

The City of Memphis has a total population of roughly 680,000.

The State of Alaska has roughly the same.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Great Article

Good read on Obama and rural VA at the LAtimes.

Unsung

Much of the media criticism we've been performing over the past few weeks has centered around the master narratives that seem to guide this election.  Obama's inexperience.  McCain's age.  Palin's inexperience.  Biden's tenure.  As Stewart pointed out on Cross Fire, major media coverage seems to perpetuate these narratives.  For the most part the headlines have all been those few aforementioned words restated in countless ways complimented by evolving evidence and some polling data.  

Too infrequently have we seen the media harken back to the subversive fourth estate of, say, Woodward's Washington Post.  Nor have we seen much in the way of thoughtfully nuanced analysis (outside of the very occasional Obama lecture).  The question becomes why?  Why does the media feed the master narratives with hours of coverage?  What happened to thoughtful journalism?  And, in the same vain, is there any left?

Well, to take the last question first, I'd point to a recent Harper's article titled "Obama's Jews" by Bernard Avishai (You can't get the full article at the site without a subscription. I'll photocopy it for class if anyone is interested).  Now, Harper's is probably not mainstream media by majority opinion, however its circulation is around 220,000 .  It is the second oldest circulating periodical in the states.  And I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of those 220,000 vote and/or contribute financially to campaigns, although I have no evidence.

Avishai's article is a tight, nuanced diagnoses of modern American Jews and their organizations.  I wont summarize the article here, but I will say that he uses Obama as a spotlight of sorts, to expose the gaping rift between the majority opinion among Jews (he characterizes it as the "we like SNL's Liberman more than Liberman" attitude) and the opinion of the neo conservative Jewish Leadership.  

One of the things though that Avishai does surprisingly well is that he subverts the master narratives using simple, available evidence.  For example, he breaks down the Jewish voting block by demographics and by issues.  He highlights that Jews don't vote based on the zionistic attitudes of the candidates - an issue which we all noticed during the VP debates.  He points out that the biggest issue for Jews is healthcare, even though 40% of American Jews make over 150,000$ a year.  And nearly 80% don't worry about healthcare on a regular basis.  

This sort of journalism is unsung, to angle back though, why isn't it the norm?  Well, the answer is nuanced, unsurprisingly.  The Washington Post still wins Pulitzer Prizes for good journalism.  It's 2008 story on the mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital is a good example of this.  Yet, it seems, that the problem lies with television more than with print.

As for the final question I posed (why does the media feed the master narrative), I'd like to submit one observation that I think captures the issue.  

It's all in the diction.

The McCain campaign has been labeling Obama as "risky" for months now.  So when the NBC/Wall Street Journal ran a poll about which candidate seemed more risky, it was, unsurprisingly, Obama by 16 points, validating riskiness as a storyline.  As well as placing the word risk into the public discourse with evidence, misrepresenting the origins of the word.

Imagine, if they had polled which candidate was more likely to start a war?



  

Friday, October 3, 2008

Shady Aftermath


The pundantic (oh yeah, that's right) fallout of that debate is one of the weirdest things I've ever witnessed.  

In the Blue Corner:
Polling Data from Mediacurves.  
Other polls.
And an article from the Huffington Post.

Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list of sources, it does, i think, a good job at representing the majority opinion of those who believe Biden won.

In the Red Corner:
and Drudge's poll.
This is also coupled with the ancedotal evidence of my viewing party (about 20 white male and female independent voters).

Ditto for Palin.

There has been a lot of stuff flying in the past few hours since the debate, however at least one thing, I think, is clear.

No one votes for vp and everyone now remembers this.

Gov Palin has undoubtedly energized the conservative base, while even attracting a few independent white women voters.  Her place in the campaign could have been a game changer, and in many ways it did a lot to shift the overarching narrative of the past few weeks media cycle.  However, the focus of this debate, but its very definition, shifted the tunnel vision of the American attention span squarely onto McCain and Obama.  

That said though, I feel it would be disingenuous not to mention the visceral displeasure I felt when Gov. Palin obviously dodged questions.  And that, in my mind, makes this whole aftermath even weirder.  After looking at some of the conservative opinion and hearing my own audience, I couldn't help but believe that we had watched a different debate.  

I don't think that this was hostile media bias, or even party loyalty.  There was something deeper afoot.  There is almost a surreal sense of connection that many have with Gov Palin that transcends any form of rhetoric I can imagine.  It is almost a subliminal craving.  I'm honestly not quite sure how to begin parsing it, so here's my best shot.

The Kindergarden line got a lot of smiles.  It was a feel good moment, reminding us of both her small town heritage and the value our nation places on democracy.  There was something more though in her line about "extra credit" that I found telling.  Why is it extra credit to follow a presidential campaign?  Sure, I know she was talking about pre-schoolers, but hear me out for a second.  Why?   

I think this line taps deeply into the psyche of the regular, Joe Six Pack, American bystander.  Average investment and interest in a presidential campaign is pretty darn low.  We've seen how roughly 1/5 to 2/5 voters, vote for a candidate who is either contrary to their beliefs or branded with their favorite color.  Yet, even then in 2004, the highest ever turnout, only produced about 120 million voters.  That's a little more than 1/3 of the country.

Gov. Palin's answers were cliched, bumper sticker swan songs, when they were coherent.  But that unengaged, yet compassion and smart mouthed tone, is darn close to the American public's own unengaged, almost anti-interest in the affairs of state.   

I hate to burst the bubble of this course, maybe I've become too cynical and cranky, but people just don't really care that much who leads them.  And my vote counts as much as theirs does.  Yet, I see it as my civic duty, for many though, we must remember, it is merely extra credit.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

***LIVE BLOG***

It is now 8:59 and I'm setting up to watch the VP debate on my local fox station.  I'm planning on writing about the pundits and the critics.

Already Shep Smith has spent about 20 seconds criticizing Palin and over 2 min on Biden and Iffel.  Fair and balanced... here we go!

At least Gwen didn't say "toin coss" like Lauer did.  

Not leading with the woman.  Learning from Hillary.

Oh man...

Biden's answered are focused so far.  He lists, he ticks off points, and he points to his experience.  Palin seems unfocused and her answers are more cliched than specific.

Good pick up by Iffel, about the vp question.  

This might be a good strategy for Palin.  It's hard to rebut answers that don't make that much sense.  

I'm having a lot of trouble following Palin.  Her sentences have no transitions.  I'm going to have to quit the live blogging while listening to her. 

That was one of the most honest exchanges I've seen about trickle down economics vs. redistribution of wealth. 

Here's some live polling data.

Thanks Pop Culture Critic.

My original observations have seem to hold up so far.

Now it's mortgage crisis vs credit crisis.  

The moderator is moving the questions toward Palin's line of thought.  

Palin's working hard to inflate domestic energy to exclusively include oil.

Woah, Palin bringing out her rape kits.

It appears Palin is pro civil unions.  Someone should tell McCain.

That's a hard line.  Obama Biden - the White Flag of Surrender (expect to see that ad soon).

She's got the pronunciation of nuclear down pat.

She moved away from the administration Israel thing real fast.

Richard Luger is getting a lot of press right now.

I'll have more on the debate later.

Quick Read

I found this interesting.  I'm drafting a response to his points now, in light of our reading for Monday.  Any thoughts beforehand though?