Against Stereotypical Liberalism: Part 2

And Also: The nomination of Alberto Gonzales for attorney general is the first real test to see if the Democrats have any guts. His support of the torture memoranda alone makes opposition a matter of principle. There are several other reasons as well (see here [involvement in Plame Affair, etc.], here [lack of independence/questionable relationship with careerists in Justice], and here) [general]). Surely, he will be confirmed, but dissenting on principle is one of the few things those in the minority can do. If we are going to go the "we can do worst" or "it's his choice" route here, just toss up the white flag now and be done with it!

The most outrageous cases are those in which supposedly tolerant liberals impose limitations on other people's freedom for no sufficient reason, just to express their values and identity. Much of gun control fits this model.

As a libertarian, I support the sentiment, but it is just wrong for Kleiman to fail to point out that all the major Democratic presidential candidates supported the Second Amendment, which is well worthy of note given how many libs feel about the thing. The fact that Sen. Kerry supported the banning of certain "assault weapons" might have turned some conservatives off, but a basic belief in the Second Amendment as still a viable part of the Constitution is a rather big step to take.

Libs also don't like hunting, even if it often reflects a form of environmentalism, but Sen. Kerry is a hunter. Since Dems seem to live near bodies of waters (look at the locale of Blue States), I guess they are more of a fishing sort of people, but many do hunt as well (though prime hunting grounds in NY probably leans Republican). Anyway, if you are going to point to the anti-gun nature of the liberals, you really should remind people that their recent standard bearer did not quite fit the stereotype.

The NRA wouldn't be for that program, but a liberal politician who said that as if he meant it wouldn't have much of a problem with gun owners. The problem, with gun ownership as with abortion, is that the presence of a group of people committed to ending the practice entirely makes those committed to defending the right to engage in it justly suspicious of small steps in the wrong direction.

Exactly! And, the current leadership clearly do not want to end the practice entirely. Not that you'd know it from his comments.

But that stuff will cost us fewer votes if liberals manage to figure out a way to convince the rest of the country that we're not trying to push our weird religious beliefs and practices down their throats. Having a candidate who looks like one of "them" rather than one of "us" is part of that: of this year's choices, Gephardt or Graham or Edwards or Clark all felt and sounded more red-state-compatible than Kerry.

True enough, though his comments on the problem were not as true.

And the fact that the liberal leadership is profoundly secular in its orientation makes it easy to interpret this as hostility to religion, or to religiosity, generally. We claim that we are merely carrying out the Enlightenment program of getting the heavy hand of the state off religion, but that's not really a very convincing claim given our own actual beliefs and practices, and given the sheer hatred and contempt the usual liberal commentator can pack into the word "fundamentalist." Where, one might reasonably ask, is liberal tolerance when the chips are down? (I'm reliably told that academics who are committed evangelical Christians are mostly in the closet about it at work.)

Since both Clinton and Kerry are not "profoundly secular" in various respects, I find this "easy to" stereotype. What is going here is sadly ironic -- a hostility to a form of religion, perhaps dominant in this country that is sometimes said to have established "cultural deism," that is low key and strongly private. After all, where are all these atheists is politics? Though it is true that many libs are not too tolerant of fundamentalists, this intolerance is often in answer to intolerance.

It also must be said that the point can be overblown. Concern for minorities, including religious minorities, is a particularly liberal theme. The whole point of separation of church and state is to protect religion as well as the state. And, I'm sure in many areas outside of those Mark Kleiman is likely to frequent that atheists are likely to be mostly in the closet at work.

But try imagining it from the believer's viewpoint. If you've taught your kids that what's in the Bible is true, and that the moral teachings in the Bible are the Word of God, and an authority figure comes along and says that what's in the Bible is false, where does that leave you, and your child?

First off, it should be pointed out that among the things that Democrats have to worry about, creationism (or intelligent design) is pretty far down on the list. Second, putting aside other faiths whose religious documents call into question things taught in school, the Bible has a lot in it that can be read to conflict with what Johnny and Susie's teachers tell them. Why stop at creation science? If we are going to give a literal reading to Genesis (pick your creation story), should we also use the Bible as a history book? Promoting equality for men and women also runs into problems, the Pauline Epistles and all that.

Yes, we have to respect the concerns of those who believe otherwise, but the core opposition to creation science comes from the fact that it is bad science. Surely, part of the issue is that many feel it is not science at all because the presence of a creator is assumed to exist, so is not truly considered falsifiable. Other similarly weak theories are not taught for one basic reason: they are not useful in promoting religious doctrine, which is a clear First Amendment issue. But, so it goes. Hippie parents might be upset that schools have anti-drug programs, but school policy cannot solely be about making minority believers feel good.

Moreover, the psychological links between Darwinism and Social Darwinism aren't hard to spot. ... Is it utterly unreasonable to think that teaching children that human beings are naked apes is less conducive to a certain kind of morality than teaching them that human beings are created in the image of God? ... No, I'm not suggesting that we compromise on teach evolution in the schools. I am suggesting that we ought to try to discuss these issues without insulting the deeply-held beliefs of others.

Actually, it is rather "unreasonable," even putting aside those who argue that current proponents of creation science are actually the true social darwinists. It is one thing to argue that the existence of God is not purely a religious fact, though the failure of science to "prove" such existence (makeweight attempts to do so notwithstanding) makes it rightly not something taught in science class. It is quite another thing to confuse science with the morality that arguably grows from such facts.

This is where the line between science class and philosophy/social science/comparative religion classes comes into play. After all, proponents of creation science itself probably will often try to argue that it has no moral weight per se, though it clearly can be used as such. OTOH, I must say the assumption that evolution necessarily promotes a cruel worldview is ironic given the policies of the bunch now in office. Animals outside the human race quite often leads one to question the meaning of the word "humane" vis-a-vis how we act.

So, surely, we can respect the beliefs of others. We should not do this, however, by going the other way and stereotyping liberals. And, finding a common ground does not require poor argument. Though these days, it sometimes seems that way.

Against Stereotypical Liberalism: Part I

Slate has been providing a series of debates on "why America hates Democrats," which I assume have some merit to them, but the title just turns me off. A moderate Republican friend of Mark Kleiman summed up nicely the ideal battle plan of the Democrats: "get a spine, get some discipline, and get a strategy." In other words, the Democrats have to be emphatic about their beliefs, defend them aggressively and proudly, including not being ashamed about being against bigotry, supportive of privacy rights, and believing in a social safety net.

And, get some good leadership -- the idea that we should not damn Sen. Kerry and his strategists because it is somehow in bad form, is just plain stupid. Thus, though it could be helpful to bring in someone from a Red State, what is essential is bringing in someone with a strategy and message that can connect with enough closely divided red/purple states to get the brass ring. I just don't find this rocket science and along with the benefits of incumbancy, the way President Bush took advantage of the War on Terror, and so forth, overanalyzing it seems a tedious affair.

[For instance, some analysts note that more white women and Hispanics to some significant degree voted for President Bush this time around. First off, since the guy received around three percent more of the vote this time, we are talking about thin pieces of the electorate. At some point, one can go crazy when dealing with such small numbers.

Second, the whole "security mom" phenomenon is not rocket science, though I guess it might be given how much people are talking about "values." Finally, the conservative nature of various Hispanics is notable, but it is not news either. At the end of the day, the Democrats lost for basic reasons, and overanalysis might make them miss the forest for the trees.]

After providing a useful reminder of such things from a moderate Republican who probably was not too enthused with the winner of the election, Mark Kleiman decided to join the liberal bashing brigade. There is a hazy line between being critical of the self-satisfied liberal who doesn't quite realize why anyone would find them "culturally non-threatening" and stereotyping liberals overall. Mark Kleiman does so, even if he is trying to make a point. And, he is not alone -- the level of missing the point is ridiculous.

To give an example, Richard Cohen had a column on how voters really aren't confused. For instance, the idea Kerry would pay for his programs by just cutting taxes on the rich was surely ridiculous. First off, the many voters were confused, unless we suddenly have evidence Saddam Hussein had WMDs and had a role in 9/11. Second, that is an oversimplification of Sen. Kerry's programs. As an example, let's remember that currently those without insurance still at some point often receive emergency health care, which often is more expensive in the long run. One aspect of Kerry's plan would have supplied such coverage, resulting in savings in the long run. It's so much easier to stereotype, even if you are a putative supporter (Cohen voted for Kerry).

Anyway, Kleiman really put some effort is his "liberals don't get it" post, and it might be useful to answer the complaints. If the Democrats want to regain their majority, they have to at least have the support and understanding of their natural allies. And, "Democrats" might not be the same as "liberals" (one person who challenged my p.o.v. over the last year or so is a Democrat, but is also in my eyes clearly a conservative), but Kleiman basically considers them interchangeable in his comments. The caricature he sets up really makes this interchangeability hard to take, but I guess it shows the importance of having more standard bearers (such as the lady senators from Alabama and Louisiana, perhaps) that don't seem so liberal, a term on par with "socialist" these days.

In particular, liberals are taken, correctly, to be morally uncomfortable with the need to inflict pain on wrongdoers, both domestically and internationally. Conservatives, by contrast, think that punishment is not only necessary but right. That's a position on which most people instinctively agree with the conservatives.

Thus, he starts off badly. Not only is pain and punishment not necessarily the same thing, liberals do not feel punishment is unnecessary and/or wrong. Their concern is on the degree and sorts of punishment. This is not just a shading or anything, it goes to the substance of the position. What is the value in furthering a stereotype that liberals believe criminals should just get away with their crimes? There is a germ of truth to his comments but "by contrast" seems to imply just that.

Linked to their uncontrolled compassion is liberals' perceived (and to some extent real) indifference to the Puritan virtues -- chastity and sobriety and hard work and thrift -- or at least their unwillingness to act on behalf of those virtues in any way that might seem to imply disapproval or intolerance of those who display the corresponding vices.

On the other hand, liberals are perceived -- again, not entirely falsely -- as having their own set of strongly-held moral commitments and as being willing to impose them on other people.

First, to the degree any of this is true, liberals are not the same as Democrats overall in this regard. If so, it is unclear how blacks, union members, and those who make fun of President Bush for not working for his money are members of the party. It is not simply that "liberals" like myself (no matter what I consider myself, I'd probably be labeled a liberal by many) believe strongly in "hard work and thrift" as well as chastity (to some degree), but it's just an exaggeration overall. The "to some extent real" aspect of the libs here amounts to a pretty small kernel of truth.

As to the OTOH, the moral commitments are such things as being against discrimination and so forth, though also various things like environmental regulations, which has often has some sort of nature religion flavor to it (though the mention of Al Gore exaggerates the point). True enough, quite defensible in many cases, but yes, liberals should keep in mind that it isn't all some sort of scientific obviousness that is taking place here.

The Democratic platform is arguably rather "Christian" in fact, which is why many believers find the party copacetic. I must note however that if Kleiman finds the President Carter going on television with a sweater is a problem (libs don't want us to turn up the heat), how does this compare to the stuff the other side tries to force on the public? Thus, I think Mike Kinsley has a point:

We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?

[Yeah, Kleiman answers, but such a "live and let live" attitude doesn't work too well when you find the activities inhumane. If you believe abortion is murder, saying it should be an individual choice is akin to making child abuse an individual choice. Interesting example given how many support corporal punishment and look at child services with a questioning eye, but okay. Still, I say each side at some point might cancel each other out, so the libs do not come out badly. And, the cries of elitism and victimization still seems a bit hypocritical when it comes from the conservatives.]

Mark Kleiman in another post suggests that truth and right should not be put aside just because a majority (bare or not) believe otherwise. Leaders in this country might have to appeal to the people at large because it is expected in a democracy, much like a king's courtiers appeals to him in a monarchy. But, if a majority supports torture, it does not make it right. Wise words. Kleiman seems to forget about them in his remarks that stereotypes liberals in an attempt to point the way to obtaining an electoral majority.

At best his comments is a sort of devil advocacy, one I will continue responding to in the next post, but even on that level it is poorly done. And, the tenor of his comments suggests he truly believes "liberals" have such problems. Such stereotyping must not be allowed to become conventional wisdom ... too late, I guess.

Slow Food Movement: Enjoying Food

And also: Major injuries on top of losses to bad teams on Sunday suggest yet again that NY football is damned these days. An interview by Jessica Lynch suggests that even twenty-one year olds can remind us why we still can be proud to be Americans sometimes. Good riddance to John Ashcroft. Edward Lazarus had a good article on the future of the Supreme Court, while Julie Hilden had an interesting one on fictional crime shows.

As a sort of respite, perhaps, a progressive talk radio show discussed the "slow food movement" yesterday. The guests included Michael Pollan, who wrote an interesting book on food entitled The Botany of Desire as well as an interesting article ["Our National Eating Disorder"] last month in the NYT that covered many of the issues involved.

Another article on the movement defined it thusly: "Slow Food aims to be everything fast food is not. It's slow - in the making and the eating. It's fresh - not processed. It's from neighborhood farms and stores - not from industrial growers such as Tyson Foods (TSN) or retail goliaths such as Wal-Mart." And, if you would pardon the reference, something of which that both red and blue states can be sympathetic.

The movement began as a way to counteract fast food restaurants by providing alternatives of fresh and traditional foods. I myself have a distaste of fast food places, though not "fast food" of all sorts. The book Fast Food Nation suggests all the problems with the McDonalds of the nation, but notes that it is not impossible to have reasonably priced meals that come quickly without the overly processed food, plastic, and high calories/low nutrition.

For instance, the environmental impact of your local pizzeria or Chinese restaurant is not quite on par with fast food, and you are likely to get as much or more for your buck. It is this financial payoff as well as a dislike of the quality (and selection) of the food itself that turns me off from "fast food." And, something from the local fafalel truck (chicken/meat available for those so inclined) is pretty "fast" as well, reasonably priced, and a more enjoyable lunch.

Though the slow food movement honors homemade dishes and fresh foods, the opportunity for a fairly diverse diet is available even for those who rather buy their goods ready made. This is surely the case in big cities, though maybe not as much in certain areas as should be the case. For instance, a fine lunch is some soup with a nice fresh roll. There are quite a few places that provide this option, including a few with a diverse selection. It is surely quick (the stuff is generally ready-made) and not expensive though some of these chain places are overpriced.

Bread itself is a delicious food, especially if you do not focus on your typical sliced varieties. You know what is a fine snack or companion to a meal? Foccacia bread dipped in or combined with some sort of vegetable, such as broccoli, sweet potatoes, or mushrooms (great for dipping). Most big supermarkets have a bread section with much to pick from. A simple fresh bagel with a spread is a fine meal, quick, and often quite yummy. In fact, there are various ways to have nice meals with fresh ingredients, both simple and complex, and it's often a fun experience from the shopping to the production to the consumption.

While our senses can help us to draw the first, elemental distinctions between good and bad foods, we humans rely heavily on culture to keep it all straight. So we codify the rules of wise eating in an elaborate structure of taboos, rituals, manners and culinary traditions, covering everything from the proper size of portions to the order in which foods should be consumed to the kinds of animals it is O.K. to eat. Anthropologists may argue whether all these rules make biological sense, but certainly a great many of them do, and they keep us from having to re-enact the omnivore's dilemma at every meal.

So says Pollan. And, quite true -- food is an important part of culture, though in this country it is more a matter of guilt (often health related, exaggeratedly so: the book Losing It by Laura Fraser discusses the matter pretty well) than a source of pleasure. Artificially limited options, failure to set up encouragements to enjoy food, and perverse cultural norms about body type (the skin and bone look doesn't attract me personally) are three reasons for this problem. It was suggested in the program that our lunch hours are too short, a half hour often the norm. This reduces our options (though encouraging food from home, which is not a bad thing) and limits the ability to truly relax at lunch.

Likewise, culture has discouraged family dinners, including by providing advertising that encourages each person to have their own food when they want it (the microwave meal helps here). Other factors, including two parent incomes, helps this development too, but it is problematic. I myself find a leisurely meal can be enjoyable both for the stomach and companionship. Dinner dates often lead to marriages ... meals to keep the resulting families thriving as well. And, this might include some "fast food" dinners as well, as long as it is enjoyed in a fairly leisurably fashion.

The slow food movement also is concerned with genetically modified foods (GMOs) as well. The potential of GMOs should not be ignored, though not exaggerated, but there are various problems involved. First, they have not been very well regulated, and at times put on the market without much study. The move against labeling is also troubling because in some cases individuals have negative reactions to certain ingredients and on a free choice basis.

After all, if a person for ethical reasons does not want to consume kosher food, even if it is totally healthy, it is not deemed a ridiculous thing. Why not GMO foods, especially since Japan and many nations in Western Europe find it worthwhile to know? Also, GMO plants have a tendency to contaminate other plants, even those grown by organic farmers. Many have a problem with patenting life forms, something that in this country was forced upon the Patent Office via lawsuit. And, there is a tendency against diversity (Pollan discusses this in his book), which can lead to famines and losing out of all that diversity brings.

Food is not only an essential part of life but can be one's of its most enjoyable aspects, if we allow it to be.

Bush Continues To Be Illegitimate etc.

Bush demonstrated his political legitimacy through the combination of the 2002 and 2004 elections.

-- Jack Balkin

Jack Balkin, a strong opponent of Bush v. Gore and someone concerned about black disenfranchisement in the 2000 and 2004 elections, argues that the 2000 Election is over in that President Bush won re-election and so forth. This is true to some degree, and his remarks are worth reading (as are those that complete the post excerpted below), but we cannot undo the past. The result of that election changed all that happened afterwards, and we cannot take the aftermath on its own.

Simply put, it would have been darn hard for President Bush or his bunch to win the White House if they lost in 2000, so 2004 (and 2002) is indisputably tied together. So, in some sense, 2000 is never over. This feels a bit like "money laundering," where illegitimate gains are being processed into legitimate businesses. The last two elections, putting aside the corrupt ways used to win, surely cannot be ignored. But, is interest and profits raised by smart investment free and clear, even if the base funds were stolen?

The Bush administration is waging a war on Al Qaida. But it continues to use metrics better suited for law enforcement in measuring its success in that war. To date, the administration has not devised a grand strategy for measuring political, moral, economic or strategic progress against Al Qaida, much less what victory might look like. And thus, we measure our success using crude metrics like the body count -- something which is ananthema to most military planners today, but still used in the prosecutorial context by officials who measure their success by convictions and imprisonments.

-- Philip Carter

The fact that this is galling given how Sen. Kerry was damned for allegedly believing in something quite similar cannot lead us to ignore the possibility it is all too true.

---

Bush Supreme Court: Chief Justice Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and is eighty years old, so it is unsurprising that there is talk of retirement in the air. After all, President Bush was elected fair and square this time, and so forth. Though various individuals say otherwise, some are fearful of what this opportunity will bring. This plus other opportunities for justices of the Scalia/Thomas mold that President Bush says he favors to the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, upsets many. I respond to one article on the possibilities of a Scalia Court (and the future of the federal courts in particular) here.

NY: Great For 2-5 Teams

Joshua Marshall reaffirms my sentiment that those who put Sen. Clinton as a possible presidential candidate in 2008 are simply nuts.

I posted The Fall of Baghdad by Jon Lee Anderson on the side panel before really reading it. Now that I did, I have mixed feelings about the book. It is basically an American journalist's first person account of the weeks before the day the coalition forces entered bagged with an extended account of his various trips back over the next year. The primary source material is his own observations and accounts of some of his contacts, including his driver and a doctor/poet who was a favorite of Saddam Hussein. The net result is that the book is somewhat limited in scope, though written in an easy to read/novel fashion.

Likewise, I think he spent too much time in the lead-up to the war, resulting in material that did not really add to the overall story. Some insights, including the problem of looting/lack of control, probably could have been handled in a more detailed fashion. The best part might be the last chapter, an extended epilogue with various quick takes respecting the year after the fall of bagged. So, though worthwhile, the book was a bit of a disappointment.

The same can be said about today's football games. Though playing well, fans of the NY Giants and Jets know not be too cocky, realizing both team's penchant to keep things a bit too interesting and choke at the worst moments. The Jets have played down to too many teams this week, and this time (helped by a poor outing by the QB, who left mid-4Q for medical reasons), they gave the game away to Buffalo (3-5). A bit of late game magic failed when the defense could not make the stop needed to give the offense a shot to come back from behind (the back-up, after a safety, fairly quickly got them halfway to pay dirt).

The Giants started off strong vs. another team that started the day off 2-5 ... a quick fourteen points seemed to mean the Bears would play their expected role. Not so fast -- twenty points in the 2Q, mostly early Christmas presents, made it 20-14. A mid-4Q score + 2pt shot made it 28-14, Bears with more time left for the Giants to embarrass themselves in front of their hometown fans. The two games did provide time to finish the book, six hours of football like this being a bit too much for me to bear ... pun appropriate, if not intended.

Last week was a respite, but it just hasn't been a good few weeks for NY sports. btw I found out the TMQ is still around and added his link on my blogroll. He should have a thing or two to say about the bad play of Jersey/A and Jersey/B. Did I say already that nothing is worse than sloppy football? Not that I think Bills and Bears fans probably will be too sympathetic.

Baseball, Movies, and Phone Stuff

Baseball: Though the year ended badly for both NY baseball teams (equally so, perhaps, considering the circumstances), Willie Randolph has a lot to be excited about. The former Yankee third base and bench coach finally has a managerial job of his own, the NY Mets hiring him to try to salvage the mess. This might seem like heresy at first, but actually Randolph rooted for the team as a kid (he's a Brooklyn boy, his first "legitimate" date with his wife was a Mets game), and played there in his last year in the majors.

The team got him at a cut-rate salary, the pitching coach not making much less, but he'll take it. It is also another first: the first time a NY team had a black manager, though the Mets as a team and coaching staff has long been quite diversified. I don't know his managerial skills, but it's a nice story, and helps (along with a new and more independent GM, this being his first big hire) to bring some faith to the fans that 2005 will be worth waiting for.

Al Franken: A free pay channel weekend allowed me to catch the last episode of The Al Franken Show, Sundance Channel Edition. It was amusing to watch the show, allowing us to see the hosts (including Katherine Lanpher) as well as some visuals (the dancing "oy oy oy" titles were funny). For some reason, I found a bit suggesting that if you played the President's speech backward, you hear Satanic messages, hilarious.

Ditto, though in a more gallows sort of way (for the joke is on us because we have four more years of these guys, well some of them, since Colin Powell and others should be able to escape to be replaced with more inmates of the asylum), when a statement by Condi Rice equivocating on exactly how many Al Qaeda operatives were really caught (somewhere in the range of 20-100). I do wonder how the show, which like those that expected the end of the world to happen at a certain date must now re-examine its presuppositions, will do now that the real world slammed their illusions in the face.

Hedy Kiesler: Overall, the free weekend is tedious, since you have all these channels, you expect something is on, and in reality, not really too much. I did catch (on TCM) an interesting and controversial early Hedy Kiesler (Lamarr) film, a Czech production from 1932 entitled Ecstasy. The impressive part of this melodrama is its ability to show the sexual longings of its young star about as well in its own way as a film these days is likely to do. [Emotional dramas respecting women's longings are a rare breed in general outside Lifetime Network.]

Young Eva (the name as well as all the naturalistic imagery surely is meant to be symbolic) marries a much older man, and the film begins with her clearly unsatisfied on her wedding bed. She leaves and goes back to her father, soon deciding to go for a nude swim, conveniently leaving her clothes on her horse. Thus, she must run after it in the nude (this along with the sexual angst made the film quite controversial in its day, though you do not see much), and is seen by a young man surveying in the area. Though the first meeting doesn't go well, they do become a happy couple [One scene was called by one viewer "the first screen orgasm."] before some melodrama sets in.

Hedy is quite effusive with her emotions in the film, which is useful, since it is a largely silent film (with music) ... to good effect, actually. Overall, an interesting viewing experience, on its own, and as an example of early cinema. Be sure you do not get one of the censored cuts.

Irony of the Week: Three times, including 8:30 this morning, Verizon phone ops came to my door attempting to fix my service. The service did go out last Friday, but was okay by Saturday without any need for a service visit. The only problem is that I do not have Verizon -- I switched after they screwed me over a few years ago by repeatedly failing to come to fix my phone. Apparently, ex-customers have the best service. Meanwhile, the poor lady they really should be helping might very well have no phone service. Unless she too switched.

Purple America

Though a few will console themselves in thinking that the election was stolen, the reality is that President Bush and his new conservative friends in Congress came in with a net fair winning percentage. This is not to say that things went on without a hitch. For instance, in Florida and North Carolina, reports of electronic voting machine problems suggest yet again the importance of a paper trail.

A glitch in North Carolina involving a machine that mistakenly was thought to be able to handle thousands of more votes than it could resulted in a loss of those votes with no way to re-count them. A minor statewide race was decided by less than that but in 2000 a few states' electoral votes were as well. Luckily, for what it is worth, the election for President or control of the Congress was not decided by so close margins that this affected the outcome. Still, just like Ohio could have made Kerry the second president in the row with a loss in the popular vote, the system's problems must be faced.

It is also useful as the event slowly seeps in and all to get a realistic view of what occurred. First, the gains in the Senate came mainly from red states, though the win in Florida (more of a purple state as was Nevada, which had a 51/49 split for Bush ... the same might be said for one or two of the Great Lakes states that went to Kerry) is more troubling. Thus, though Harry Reid (NV) as minority leader might still be a bit too cautious, Senate Democrats probably will be a little less moderate (Bush apologist) than they were last time. btw a "purple state" (see map) is basically one that is largely closely divided.

This is good, for instance, if President Bush does something like considering Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, especially if Sen. Specter shows some degree of guts and is a halfway fair chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The new new senators are exciting too: from red/purple Colorado and the voice of the future from Illinois. On the House side, the net wins came from Texas, thanks to the crooked mid-decade redistricting that is still under court review. The closest race in Texas was Rep. Tom DeLay (55-45).

Finally, since local races did not get much press [all my local choices won, including state assembly, and I really don't care], it might be useful to look at ballot measures. Alabama had one regarding ending school segregation -- it was too close too call. All the measures against gay marriage, including Oregon (where the matter is currently in the courts), passed. Various other depressing losses is one in California (where stem cell research funding did pass) which would have only made violent felonies be included as a "third strike" in its strict three strikes and you are out law, a few states that limited damage awards in tort cases, and a chance to end the criminality of possession of marijuana (Montana did allow medicinal pot).

Positives included raises in minimum raise (Florida/Nevada), expanded patients rights (Florida), environmental measures (e.g., CO, WA, MO), education funding (NV, NC, AK, OK), and rejection of caps on noneconomic medical malpractice damages (WY). In various cases, the people voted for things opposed or hindered by the person their state elected for national office. And, a majority of the voters don't like how the country (run by Republicans) is going. This will not stop the President and company to try to argue that "the people have spoken," so they have every right to do any number of ill advised or blatantly wrong things.*

Meanwhile, the fight against the bad things the President and his supporters are doing must continue. I highlighted the gay issue last time, but to those who say "hey, I have nothing against gays," clearly there are many other problems. For instance, there is the war in Iraq and all its permutations. The latest: not only does it now seem to be clear evidence of looting of explosives, similar lack of planning and oversight has hindered the collection of evidence for war crime trials. We have heard little about such things, even though basically it is a primary aspect of the only reason left that justifies the war. Likewise, the president's economic problems, ways he does business, and so forth did not suddenly become fine and dandy.

As to his "mandate," not only is the win small (smallest of all incumbents, if large as raw numbers, given the increased voter turnout) and existing at all only in certain areas, the actual reason for it is unclear. For instance, Paul Krugman today suggests 9/11 concerns was the margin of victory. Others say it was the anti-gay backlash. The fact many did not truly understand his policies or reality itself (no, Saddam was not involved in the attacks of the towers in 1993 or 2001) also must be factored in. This does not stop people from blaming the election on presumed failure of Democrats to talk about values (putting aside Edwards dripped with down home country values and Kerry is a church going Catholic) or whatever.

[Give me a hometown boy from Ohio or some other close state, take away the incumbent and war factor, and I'll give you a Democratic victory. Heck, give me a hometown boy with the right determination and skill, I bet we'd be still counting votes now. It also merits notice that Bush didn't even get NH this time, making Maine to DC all Kerry country. Along with the fact non-whites, an ever growing body of people, still strongly went Democrat, this demographic should be troubling to Republicans with a long range focus. Maybe, they should learn how to understand us a bit too.]

Such is life -- a failure to take a careful accounting of what you get when you vote in a President Bush will tend to bite you and all the rest of us in the ass. The opportunity, however, is opened that with the proper amount of effort and leadership that a narrowly divided electorate can be geared into the right direction. In fact, even in the darkest of red states, people are worried about things that can open the way for liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and all the good people out there to work together to help us to have a saner, fairer country.

The fact that the current bunch only furthers poisons the well, truly makes it HARDER to unite together (leading to some of the loyal opposition to become part of the problem) even if we have some serious differences, is one of our biggest problems. But, to quote a fairly good book, no one promised us a rose garden.

---

* Besides discussing our troubled economic future, one account gave a fairly good example of this phenomena: "Meanwhile, at yesterday's press conference, the president indicated that priority number one will be his ill-defined ambition for Social Security reform (the notion that you can claim an electoral mandate for a plan you not only didn't campaign on but haven't even yet devised is a bit absurd, but it's going to be theater-of-the-absurd time every day for the next four years), which has an estimated price tag somewhere in the trillions."

2+2 = 4 No Matter What 51% Say

"We had a good conversation," the senator said. "And we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."

Democrat: Heal thyself.

W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."

-- Maureen Dowd

President Bush, fresh with victory, stayed the course -- bullshit. After all, now he has "a broad, nationwide victory." I was not aware when "nation" meant the Midwest and South, unless by "nationwide," he meant the Confederacy, French Louisiana, and the Spanish Southwest. Likewise, he mentioned that we must all work together. This also must be translated, since similar language was used in 2001 when his "victory" was purely electoral.* What he meant was that as long as the other side agreed what him, he'd work with them. If not, well, clearly they are divisive ingrates. On the other hand, David Letterman can have four more years of jokey Bush videos.

And, given the President's corrupt mandate (given it was based on mistruths, crud, and fear ... more so than usual), we Democrats are now instructed to accept his legitimacy and hope we all can work together. Yada yada yada. I blame Kerry/Edwards (his wife has breast cancer ... in 2002, it was a plane crash around Election Day ... did we offend Zeus or something?) for some of this stupid post-election discussions. Over at Slate they have a "Why America Hates Democrats" article. Well, at least 51% of them or whatever. A frayster suggested the Dems give away the store on abortion and gay rights. And, so it goes.

When reality loses out to idealized fantasy, I guess this sort of this is expected. I will not submit to it myself. First off, it's all patent bullshit. The President didn't suddenly earn our trust because more people voted for him in various areas this time. Democracy allows people to make mistakes, but mistakes they remain. The fact people in various states find it necessary out of fear and loathing to put it in their constitutions that homosexuals cannot marry those they love and whom their religious faiths sanctify remains unjust. As one person crudely said: "America -- what the fuck?" The fact that we sadly are not too surprised at this sort of thing doesn't make it much less viscerally depressing.

[It bears repeating, given the sorts now in power will only more often whine about how some sorts are enemies of religion, somehow a nation with a First Amendment that at least seems to suggest we all have religious freedom and government should keep its hands off it, is one in which religious belief is more important in politics than most countries outside of Saudi Arabia.]

And, we should say so! Ditto all that Bush did. The fact that yet again Congress will not properly investigate or respond, surely not given it is even more Republican now (and those Republicans are if anything more conservative) doesn't change that. Surely, one hopes, that their gains will allow some in the party to throw a few bones the other side's way. This bunch doesn't seem the type to find this necessary, but one never knows. Likewise, they are the leadership we got (obviously Bush is "my president"), so I hope for the best. We shall survive, and some good things actually will happen. But, a strong opposition, must be in place now more than ever.

It is said that Sen. Reid (NV) might be the new Senate Minority Leader. From what I heard and saw, the guy is a soft spoken sort, but one who defends the party strongly when necessary. And, as an assistant leader, he knows the job. The party needs some strong leadership. For instance, I didn't really like Senator Kerry from the start. I didn't quite think he had the guts and ability to connect with the voters. Such qualities, more than a message per se, decides elections.

This is not to say message doesn't matter, but politics is about selling oneself to the electorate. It therefore might be said that certain partisans who felt the truth would set us free was misguided, if they didn't realize selling one's version of the truth (hopefully one close to the actual truth) is what is key. And, Kerry didn't do that properly. So, no, I will not pat him on the back or say we did pretty good considering (vs. an incumbent, etc.). Sen. Edwards, who I honestly sometimes felt appeared MIA (maybe, it's my vantage point in NY, but still), had a better shot at it, but was probably a bit too green in the politics game. Also, his Two Americas theme was a bit too narrow. A helluva lot more to aim for than that.

So, once more into the breach! Yes, pick your battles, and take what you can. But, fight on, do not give into the hype that voting for this bunch is about "morality" while being against fraudulent unjust wars and anti-homosexual bigotry is not. Do not let the disillusioned and ill advised votes of the few that decided this election stop the struggle against injustice and bad government. The Republicans didn't stop when they lost in 1996 or even 1966. They didn't suddenly just work with the other side and hope for the best.

Why should we?

---

* Or rather, officially he won. It was sort of like when the general in Beetle Bailey was recently handled a report summary. But, he said, this is full of misstatements! Well, she said, they are official misstatements. The same probably can be said about the win this year -- official, but full with misunderstanding.

And, it's over ... and Begins Again

Well, the election is over -- that's something. As things that seem a long coming often do, it seemed over oh so fast. The chance of the end being near is over, and now it's a matter of trying again, and making the best of a bad situation (one not as horrible as some say, but worse than many voters think). Oh joy. Rear guard actions are always so much fun!

A few quick remarks. First, I'm not in the mood to hear about how Kerry did a good job. This is the sort of things you say to losers, who rarely appreciate the sentiment too much. And, not only does it sometimes require more than simply being good, I have from the start found the Kerry campaign an imperfect vehicle. And, I think we need to have a candidate from a Red State or one that is closer enough attuned to their wavelength (given the election again split by area, such a metaphor seems appropriate) than a senator from Massachusetts.

After all, though the additional popular vote is hard to take given what the guy did, the election still was rather close. It was possibly a small state away from a tie, a few percentage points from one state going the other way to give Kerry the win. This should be recalled as the President again gives his "uniter" speech, hiding his glee and smirk while doing so.

Life goes on, and no Andrew Sullivan, the president that people across the political spectrum thought a lousy leader suddenly doesn't deserve our support as if now what he stands for warrants it. President Bush is the only president we got, so we have to hope (pray) he does the best he can, but part of this must be tempering the excesses of his first administration. And, trusting in the rest of the bunch out there to do a better job at that.

Meanwhile, we all have to go on with our lives, luckily aware that the system protects us from certain excesses, and provides us with a lot more to worry about than what smuck is in the White House.

Election Day Plus A Few Hours

I'm not sure when I'll post again. I need time to gather my thoughts. Again, anything I say right now I will certainly come to regret. I will say this - I'm not so much angry as I am sad. I'm sad for the world. I'm sad for our environment that is about to be raped for four more years. I'm sad about the implications that rewarding such political behavior will have on the future of American politics. I'm sad about everything. I'm also just stunned. It's hard to be a political commentator when you can't even comprehend 52% of your countrymen. I honestly don't understand them. I don't understand why people support this man, this administration, and this record.

Well, Publius (Legal Fiction), you did a good job explaining why we had to vote against Kerry, but your optimism that he would win fairly easily was not quite justified, hmm? I took the polls seriously: too close to call with some going Bush's way. And, please: you are from the South, rich in Bush voters. You surely understand why the people stuck with the guy. And, that is what happened: helped by redistricting that resulted in a net gain of a few key electoral votes in Red States, he basically kept the states he won in 2000. And, picked up a bit more as well. The battle would be Florida and Ohio, and his brother recently won re-election in Florida by a good margin.

So, we were left with hoping that the people realizes that lying about war, being hateful to gays, secretive, politically nasty, sneering at civil liberties, and not considering reasonable debate and fact based execution truly part of your job description is not something we should honor. It's not something we should give a mandate to. And, mandate it would be, which would be truly hard to take. What straw would be left to grasp on to?

In fact, it's morally reprehensible to do so, even if a majority of voting public couldn't understand or did not think it important enough to care. Democracy failed us before, and it will fail us again. We will survive either way, just some degree worse (if we use words liked "raped" ... we won't survive, so won't go there) if what some people see as the obvious is ignored. And, I bloody cannot stand considering that I have to suffer for four more years of this jerk.

I didn't suddenly respect him after 9/11. I won't now. No matter what happens in Ohio. I stick with my own counsel, even if the leader of the country benefits from things I find shockingly wrong.

Election: Midnight

On Gilmore, she has carved out her own wishful-thinking world that closely resembles our own, only smarter, gentler, and funnier. In fact, according to Sherman-Palladino, the place even has political advantages: In Stars Hollow, Al Gore is president.

Though I heard some bad mutterings early, I figured that 10PM was the time to start seeking out electional returns. Thus, after I came back at 9, it was time to watch the tape of Gilmore Girls, subject of another charmed review. How was it on the "lame ass season so far" meter? Well, okay ... Luke got tortured by the Gilmore parents, Lane's date prospects are looking good, and Rory got a chance to get a close look at the secret campus society (where rich kids apparently get a chance to dress up and act pompous). The fact it might have been the best of the season is more a factor of the season than the episode, but it will do.

The election news isn't going too well. The Republicans are likely to gain a few votes in Congress, including the Senate, though there are a few races still up in the air (anyway, the net gain so far was Zell Miller's slot, and well come on ...). Though I was not crazy about the idea, the failure of Colorado's ballot measure to split its electoral votes will hurt Kerry. Florida just went Bush and things will probably come down to Ohio ... which with its provisional ballots, voting issues, and whatever, might keep me up late for no final gain ... again.

And, how about this? If Kerry wins New Hampshire (slight lead, Nader vote [hell, I thought he wasn't on the ballot!] a possible factor) and loses New Mexico (more comfortable Bush lead, sadly a loss thus far of a few percentage points from Gore's win in 2000) and everything goes the same way as 2000 (too close to call in a couple states, but quite possible) ....

269-269!!!! And, Bush did win West Virginia, the home of that supposed, possible, who the hell knows now, faithless elector. Thus, the hell with positive or negative predictions on how a presidency that might not occur (or people quite optimistic about Kerry winning, who now are sweating or are pessimistic -- fuck you guys: your fantasy not only was not deserved given poll data, but you should always say "knock on wood!") will work out.

So, America ... you think Bush is doing a good enough job to deserve four more years or think it's a real close question vis-a-vis Kerry? Yeah ... we are truly fucked up, aren't we?

Happy Birthday ... Bobby and Harry Joseph Letterman.

Election Day: Before Anything Really Happened

And Also: Last night, I added a new set of books to the side panel: a light comic novel, a book on the history of dance, and one concerning the fall of Baghdad. Also on the entertainment front, this week's movie is Birth, a story about a possible re-incarnation of deceased husband into the body of an annoyingly earnest ten-year-old boy. It was all too heavyhanded, but gets an "A" for effort, and is probably worth watching. As is this flick, which was the late movie last night.

Volokh Conspiracy mentions an intriguing article regarding what appears to be a chambers opinion of a couple justices regarding a federal judicial challenge to the 1912 Presidential Election. They refused to decide the matter because the matter was questionable and therefore judicial discretion would counsel not interfering with electoral politics since the result might be more trouble than it was worth. It's applicability to Bush v. Gore is unclear, and it was not even an opinion of the Court, but it would be interesting to know what people would have thought about it if it was revealed in 2000! The overall principle is surely a sound one:

But as courts are reluctant to interfere with the ordinary course of elections, whether primary or otherwise, as the rights asserted are not clear but doubtful, and as the injury and public inconvenience which would result from a supersedeas or any like order, if eventually the judgment of the state court should be affirmed, or the writ of error dismissed, would equal the injury which otherwise would ensue, we think no supersedeas or kindred order should be granted.

As the Jets creamed the Dolphins (they did basically nothing for most of the First Half, the Dolphins tied the game, and the Jets finally became serious -- including scoring a field goal after getting the ball back with :20 on the clock), we saw views of the first voters in NH getting ready for vote. Though Kerry lost the conservative town shown, the other one voting at midnight was a tie with Nader having one vote, which was an improvement from last year. But, of course, the real thing is the electoral vote.

But, let's put aside the Electoral College. The real chance for improvements and reforms need not include replacing the system with the popular vote. It would be a better handling of the vote itself, including an assurance that they will be properly counted. The whole EC issue is interesting and all, but at the end of the day, a bit pointless to worry about. The one exception might be Colorado's ballot measure to apportion it by popular vote. I'd just add that applying that to this election (if it passes) seems a bad idea, even if it is legitimate, which I don't think it would be. In this case, it really is a valid Article II question given the legislature did not pass the change as compared to Florida 2000, which concerned the interpretation of law passed by the legislature.

Though I have not kept up with the matter, there has been quite a few complaints of Republicans trying to interfere with the vote. As with the various problems in Florida, this sort of thing really must be stopped, and responded to on a national level: the right to vote is a federal right, even if the contours is a matter of state discretion (e.g. the whole felon voting issue, which is another matter that must be reformed -- those who served their time should have their voting rights back; and even if you deprive them of it, a system that results in loads of non-felons being caught in the net is patently unjust).

The same should be the case, as we saw with HAVA, regarding various voting procedures and so forth. State by state control of the election systems, including election challenges, is fine and maybe even the most efficient.* State control that allows computerized voting with no printouts or biased political officials to be the deciding factor in close races is not so acceptable. I'd toss in that we should not forget that non-competitive House races is another big problem, one that independent commissions instead of ultra-political gerrymandering might very well result in some real elections, not pro forma efforts.

About a third, by some accounts, voted before Election Day. I find this a bit distressing, since the very act of going to the polling place and voting on Election Day seems to me to have a special quality to it. Maybe, this is a bit of outdated nostalgia, but weekend voting and making Election Day a holiday might help promote the concept. I know that some just cannot be at their polling place on the right day because of travel or whatnot, but surely not THIS many! Oh well.

Those of us in NYC that actually do go to the polling place to vote use old fashioned lever machines -- no hard copy record for us either (except for a numeric counter and such) -- which gives everything a certain sense of kitsch to it. When some of the elderly poll workers were my age, they too signed their name in a book and pulled those little levers and such. Some of them also voted for "JFK" -- some things change, some things stay a bit more the same. I did have a bit of a problem with the damn things today, the little levers not clicking properly the first time I switched them. I'm ready for one of those new fangled ATM things.

And, the news might not be good for Chief Justice Rehnquist because his throat cancer might be more serious than once thought. Thus, the presidential election becomes that much more important. I hope for the best for Rehnquist -- his ideology might not be appealing to many (though less extreme in recent years than the Scalia/Thomas bunch), but it is well noted that he is a pretty nice guy, which is a quality that we need more of in this world. As to fears of his illness having more immediate results, including if the Supreme Court has to decide the election again or even the chance of a recess appointment, I think that sort of thing is a bit premature and/or unlikely to occur.

I shall report later on ... hopefully before 4A.M.

Happy Birthday (a day late) .... Tom.

---

* One reason given for the Electoral College is that a popular vote system would have resulted in 50 Floridas in 2000. I'd add that it would be 51 (DC), the fact federal territories and such was not included is revealing, and that it would not necessarily be true anyway. We could still have state by state control of electoral systems, including recounts that only kick in when the tally is particularly close in that particular state. At worst, 2000 would have resulted in a few Floridas with both sides trying to obtain recounts in the few states that were so close that the states might have allowed them.

Furthermore, improved voting procedures would make things go even more smoothly -- remember that Gore challenged a particular voting method that in time will no longer be used at all. As with moves toward instant run-off voting, this is just another case of problems not of popular or electoral vote systems per se, but a particular form of them. Reform therefore need not replace the current system entirely, which should be obvious given how much the Electoral College system itself changed over time without any amendment being necessary.

Election Time Already?

And Also: Justice Thomas on Bush v. Gore: "What are you supposed to do when somebody brings a lawsuit?" Thomas asked University of Kansas law students. "You hear people say the Supreme Court jumped into the last election. I find it very ironic that the very people saying judges are interfering are bringing lawsuits. ... What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?" This is simply laughable: not only did others also bring election lawsuits in 2000 that the Supremes declined to take, every year they take but a tiny portion of the lawsuits available. Remember to turn back your clocks ... well, except for those who don't.

Slate writers do a fairly good job explaining why we should vote for Sen. Kerry on Tuesday, especially Phil Carter (military policy/rule of law) and Dahlia Lithwick (rule of law/secrecy*). I think Sen. Kerry sometimes doesn't get the credit (and here) he deserves, though, yes, I wanted someone who provided a clearer case and more inspiration.

And, yes, his caution and inherent conservativism (ironic, given the attacks on him) will require activists to push him in the right direction. But, the point is that he actually is not a lost cause. Reason, debate, and adherence to basic rules of the game, not just the end result are not foreign concepts to him. Caution also trumps recklessness. And, Kerry/Edwards is on the whole on the right side (or closer to it) of things while having the potential to bring true competence and honor back to the Oval Office. Sheesh ... deja vu.

This is why those who do not vote against him because they feel he is just like President Bush (Naderites etc.) are deluding themselves. If the state is not a battleground, I think it's fine to vote against Kerry, if you want to vote your conscience and send a message of what can be. I find Nader mostly a vanity candidate without a real movement, one with a misleading message that ignores the true difference in this election. This is counterproductive at the end of the day as compared to Greens, the Working Families Party, or heck, even the Socialist Party, who are a little more honest, and say that they just want more than what Kerry offers.

But, vote your conscience, it's a free country. Just be honest about it, okay? Republicans have somewhat of a problem in being honest, using lame and unconvincing reasons to vote for somone they know is a lousy choice. Some Republicans realize the craziness of this, and like swing Democrats often do in election Republican presidents, support the other guy. This not only is best for the country, but probably best for their party. If you don't want to vote for Kerry, vote Libertarian or something, unless you are truly convinced Bush is the best option available.

A primary reason not to vote for President Bush is that 9/11 did not change everything. It changed a lot of things, but basic rules of the game still apply, including (some assumptions aside) Bin Laden (looking "hale") still being around to make campaign videos is not a good thing. Nor, is the fact he seems to make more sense in it at times then our leaders, such as their claim that the terrorists "hate freedom" vs. their particular policy concerns and other complicated factors. Or, President Bush continuing to read a little girl book about goats after being notified of attacks, and thus giving terrorists more time, justifiably makes him a laughingstock. And, deserving of our scorn.

Just as Bush supporters oppose Kerry for a lot more than his stance on terrorism per se (the "anybody but Kerry" and "anybody but Bush" brigades are probably rather equal in size in their relevant parties), there is any number of reasons to oppose Bush. The President's incompetence is not total, but it is serious enough to belie to claim that we need to ignore all his faults because he surely is better than Kerry. This is almost amusingly obvious. All the same, what President Bush is good at must be kept in mind too, and it is as troubling. This includes the subject of a letter to the NYT by Burton Glass of the Center for Investigative Reporting:

The president's nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues like abortion. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries.

Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers we've talked to who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

It is disconcerting that the move by Senate Democrats to in some small way truly challenge such excesses has not been better explained to the public at large. Ditto any number of other problems with the administration and bunch now in party, but that is no reason to refuse to support their loyal opposition. This includes key Senate races, the matter even closer now with questions arising about the health of a key incumbent that once seemed a sure win for the Republicans. And, local races too, often where democracy truly feels close to home.

I, personally, will plan to have something on hand to drink -- for celebration or whatever.

---

A word on the many ballot measures, some involving confusing (and obscure) measures that have no business being left to voters who basically are unaware of the key facts. I'd say the same for judicial races. There are many measures a lot simpler to understand, including those involving gay marriage, medicinal pot use, and smoking bans. Though I accept the practice of legislatures offering certain types of referenda to the public, ballot initiatives seems to me a quite questionable practice.

We have a republican form of government, one in which direct democracy is funneled through intermediate bodies, including state legislatures filled with representatives of a great range of interests. Interests that have to debate, deliberate, and compromise. Such bodies ideally also have some degree of special knowledge, such as on how bond measures should be set up (they are filled with lawyers and MBAs, people who thrive on such things). Thus, having the people themselves (likely pushed upon by certain groups or rich individuals) raise single issue ballot initiatives that have an up or down vote by the public at large is a dubious enterprise, even if some of them might have merit.

Anyway, voting assumes that Lincoln's principle of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" truly means something, and it is useful to recall as well that his closing thought that it "shall not perish from the earth" has remained true this long. No matter the outcome, no matter how hard it seems at time, this fact helps keep things in perspective.

---

* As noted by Secrecy News: "Bush Administration secrecy [though probably constitutional in most instances] places a premium on strong executive branch authority at the expense of congressional oversight, freedom of information and even such mundane things as making the President available to answer questions from the press. As a result, the character and the possibilities of citizenship in our democracy are increasingly constrained."

Is The Electoral College Actually Beneficial (Not Really)

I discuss the Red Sox victory here; Norman Mailer's appearance in Gilmore Girls encourage Slate's entertainment writer to sing its praises here. The guest appearance was a nice touch in an otherwise bland episode with the additional annoyance of the growing subplot of a Tristan-like WB pretty boy character. Should I fear for the future?

Much has been said in opposition to the Election College, so it is useful when arguments are made in support of it, in order to see how convincing they are. Benjamin Zycher provided a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a conservative free market think tank one such argument in a guest piece. The nature of the organization might be unknown to readers of the piece, and its relevance to the immediate issue is somewhat unclear.

Of course, the current occupant is in the White House because of the Electoral College, but some scenarios have him ironically losing in 2004 on account of it -- turn about is fair play? And, since the "popular will" both is checked by the Electoral College and is not so gung ho about some of PRIPP's policies, this too makes it useful for readers to be aware of the background of their organization. The same would apply no matter what the ideology, and others might think the liberal nature of a writer on gun control would also be helpful to know.

On to the arguments of the piece, one subtitled "Forcing Candidates to Broaden Their Base Reduces Political Extremism." The author suggests the system can

provide candidates with incentives to broaden their geographic and political bases and to steer toward the center rather than the extremes of the political spectrum.

This, the founders felt, would help reduce the sources of political strife and, in the extreme case, avoid civil war. They understood that passions and irrationalities can afflict mass decision-making under direct democracy.

The geographic diversity appeal of the Electoral College turns out to be less useful when we look at the actual results. From the beginning, electoral votes tended to be grouped by section, the winner take all system only furthering this tendency. For instance in 1796, John Adams picked up a few stray electoral votes (like one can now do in Maine and Nebraska) in the South, and thus won the presidency. Such a result led to the move toward winner take all systems in which even a bare majority of the popular vote statewide (including results involving a few regions in a large state like California) will result in all the electoral votes going to that candidate.

This plus the reality that only a few "battleground" states are truly in contention, results in selective campaigning. In fact, in large states, a candidate might benefit from campaigning in select areas of the state, if the votes would add up the right way. And, as in 2000, some regions vote Democrat, some Republican.

The idea that those with support favoring certain regions are burdened by the system just does not match history. The example of Al Gore in 2000 is used, but again, it doesn't help his case. At best, it proves supports the idea of an Electoral College because the stars (popular vote) aligned perfectly. At worse, it put in the White House someone that didn't even win in Florida, a controversy that probably would not have arisen if we had a popular vote system. And, given a mere thousand vote swing, and Gore would have won the state and election.

Colorado will vote for an initiative supporting a system that would proportionally allocate the electoral votes, which would arguably help geographic diversity. Candidates would benefit from campaigning in states that might not vote for them overall, but in which they would pick up a few electoral votes, especially if we are talking about large states. Zycher notes such a system, which is surely allowable under the Electoral College, would "induce candidates to shift their efforts and resources to uncompetitive states, where there are large numbers of electoral votes to be had."

It is unclear if he finds this a good idea or not. Nonetheless, he does note the current system encourages candidates to move on to another state once they determined they have a plurality. A close election, however, makes such assurance often unlikely, resulting in selective campaigning in a few key states. And, quite likely both sides will in fact compete over a few states, ignoring chunks of voters elsewhere in the process. Both systems could thus promote targeted campaigns.

The Electoral College is also said to motion a centrist political system and limit the power of third parties. Current realities again lead one to question this argument. It is true that our system promotes centrism, but it is done in any number of ways, and the importance of the Electoral College is rather unclear.

Second, our current political system in fact promotes the power of special interest groups, especially in the primary campaigns. Next, a closely fought election does raise the importance of third parties, which again are limited by any number of factors. For instance, the fact so few local and state officials are members of third parties surely is not a result of the Electoral College! And, of course, some might say third parties are not exactly a bad thing.

The importance of "passions and irrationalities" in the current system surely suggests that value leaves something to be desired. The Electoral College in fact is a grand anachronism, a mere shadow of how it was originally intended to be carried out, including the use of electors tied to popular votes. And, it sets up a system that lays in wait, jumping up with some unintended consequence every so often. A few examples or near misses of the "wrong" President being elected, "rare occasions," or not (toss in just one near miss, we are talking about elections affecting ten percent of the occupants of the office).

An elector in this election suggests he might vote against the candidate he is aligned to, an election which sets up various 269-269 scenarios. The system also has tie breaker that results in a few members of the House of Representative deciding things, surely as troubling as "disproportionate bargaining power to regional and ideological fringes" supplied in runoff election scenarios. Scenarios much less likely if instant runoff voting is used. And, our current system sets up just such bargaining power scenario, including a few voters in say Nevada being more important than millions in New York, a state likely to be a sure Kerry win.

He concludes:

Yes, the electoral college is easy to poke fun at. Yes, it occasionally frustrates the will of the plurality or majority. But the founding fathers understood the dangers of direct democracy and struggled to create a system that reflected the will of the people while constraining the majority. The electoral college serves those ends well.

The current form of the Electoral College really does not serve those ends well. Not only is it more of a direct democracy than the founding fathers surely would have liked, but current realities make many of its original purposed outdated. This last point in fact was not even mentioned by the editorial, such as the lack of a truly national media and modern communication systems, or concerns arising from slavery or a nation much more state centered than it is today.

An editorial can only do so much, so I don't really mind the fact it was not discussed, but it should be underlined. The main point is that even if we accept there is some benefit to the Electoral College in theory, in practice, the benefits turn out to be quite debatable. And, the problems remain as well, resulting in a cost/benefit analysis that makes the system at best a wash, at worst, a troubling outdated system with a dangerous down side.

Causal Falsehood and Character

Nicholas Kristof's column today tries to have it both ways: Bush isn't a liar, but has a "casual relationship with truth." The shading is important in his opinion because it is such a sensitive topic, and thus we need to be cautious not to use counterproductive emotional laden language. Perhaps, but his column is a rather lame attempt to prove the point. A column perhaps especially worth examining because slight alterations might make it a fairly effective pro-Bush piece.

He starts with a pretty ridiculous example: a "charming little story" about a stuffed dog that takes up a significant amount of the column. The example is trivial and the fact there are various accounts really doesn't matter -- it is a typical example of a cute story that is told in different ways, the exact details not really mattering. A person who provides one version is not guilty of a "causal relationship with the truth," so the example turns out to be meaningless. It only becomes such once little parables told to express "mega-truths" concern serious matters, such as the presence of WMDs and such.

Kristof then notes that we all sometimes ignore the facts, discount data points, when we formulate our views of reality. No shit. What example does he provide? Military intelligence tests in the 1960s put Bush in a higher percentile than Kerry, but "most liberals" still think he is a nitwit. First off, I would challenge the easy use of both "most" and "liberals" -- many liberals surely do think he is smart (in a fashion, the term having various applications) and many non-liberals think he is rather dim. Anyway, some intelligent test in the 1960s does not prove one or the other is a "nitwit." It's a moronic comment to make.

And, then he truly becomes President Bush's ass kisser:

In fact, I'm convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).

This is truly a gratuitous/ non sequitur ass kissing comment to make in a column entitled "Pants on Fire?" Just how does he reach this conclusion? What "critics" are we talking about? And, the comparison is patently false, so much that it truly pisses me off. President Bush flipped-flopped repeatedly, including on the 9/11 Commission, the Homeland Security Dept., the reasons for the war, and so forth. Sen. Kerry has "core values" as well, and it is a blatant libel to suggest otherwise, surely by the mere note of Kerry's positions on two issues (the zig and zag nature of such at least to some degree exaggerated).

And, "genuine leadership" is a bit much too. What exactly does it mean? I assume "casual relationship with truth" = "genuine" in Kristof's twisted calculus because Bush believes he is putting forth a "higher meta-truth." Such Orwellian fantasy is required to support Kristof's kudos on how good of a man Bush is, how great he leads, surely as compared to Kerry!

I was informed that the Denver Post supports President Bush because of his decisive leadership. Kristof praises this aspect as well, even in the promotion of foolish and crazy ends. After all, "his grim willingness ... underscores a solidity of character and convictions." Given Kristof is not a total nitwit, he does come out on the side of the "clear-eyed thinker." All the same, it is a somewhat skewered example of character to not be able to accept reality, in fact, to develop an administration that in many ways goes out of its way to remain blind to it.

[The exact details on the missing explosives are somewhat murky, but the President's response to criticism on them suggests the nature of this "character" Kristof admires. Since clearly he didn't do anything wrong, those who suggest he might have are the problem, and we need to keep information close to our vest to stop "them" from benefiting. Dahlia Lithwick felt when a justice tried another way, that is admitting he is human, it was "weird." This runs to the heart of the problem as this thread discusses.]

And, yes, examples can be raised of the solidity of Kerry's character and convictions (e.g., service in Vietnam and afterwards, votes against DOMA and the 87B, his support of abortion rights, and so forth). But, Kristof is for Kerry, so apparently has to prove his fairness by kiss up to Bush. President Bush does not deserve all these kudos because of his stubbornness.

A causal reader of Kristof's column can very well find it quite positive to the President. Liberals are criticized, Sen. Kerry is demeaned, the primary example of Bush's problem with the truth apparently is a story about a stuffed animal, and he sounds like a pretty good guy (smart, better than his critics think, not a panderer, has core values, and provides genuine leadership). All a pretty blatant example of overkill at trying to sound balanced, so crudely that it doesn't pass the smell test.

Finally, to get back to the apparent point of the column, Kristof doesn't call the President a liar because "reality to him is not about facts," but a set of higher truths, so his misstating the facts isn't really lying. I too find the word "liar" results in emotional reactions that often tend not to further debate, but this doesn't really work, does it? Saying Bush "isn't truthful" really doesn't help the tone of political discourse any more than calling things he does foolish or crazy.

And, to the average person, it sounds awful like "lying," anyway. If I think you are an asshole (mega-truth), wrongfully (including without proper evidence) implying you surely stole from your sister is still a lie, even if used just to prove the point. And, at some point, Bush is a "nitwit," if he can deny reality so much that he can convince himself of the truth of all the things he has claimed to be true. So, he's either a liar, or not such a good man after all -- take your pick, Kristof.

I'd add that the co-host on the Al Franken Show today suggested Kristof doesn't think non-malicious statements are lies. This appears to me a misreading of the editorial, though it might be what the editorialist believes. If so, it too is ill advised. We lie all the time in a non-malicious manner, such as the well-known "white lie" of the sort that you tell to a loved one so as not to hurt their feelings.

It's silly to deny we are lying just because the lies probably do not do much harm. And, it's silly to deny that Bush truly has a character flaw because he genuinely believes in his wrongful conduct. Such analysis would hold firm tyrants in higher regard than decent if flawed democrats, especially if you did a piss poor job in comparing the records of the two individuals.

Odds and Ends

A Bit More: As I noted, there are reasons to vote for President Bush, just not very good ones. There is the "decisive" argument, as if recklessness is fine, as long as it is decisive. Our founding fathers had the opposite in mind: they didn't quite trust authority, feeling it better if it was a bit weaker with some checks and balances. Even in wartime. Others fully admit he is trouble, but put aside their "liberal" side because Bush is good on the "War on Terror." Kevin Drum cites such an "Armed Liberal" (I'd counter with Gen. Clark, quite armed, pretty liberal) here, also arguing the evidence actually goes the other way. Also, here's a good reason Bush v. Gore was ill advised, even if you liked Bush.

Shopping: Though it's somewhat hard to believe, Xmas buying season is not too far off. I myself have traditionally did my catalog shopping around the second week of November, which is quickly approaching. Thus, it is not surprising that there were various little gifts at the Walgreens that I stopped by yesterday. It didn't have what I wanted per se, but I wound up spending around $30 anyway -- life is like that sometimes, isn't it?

[I particularly liked the magnetic dart board in a tube, getting one for myself and one as a present for an upcoming birthday. My landlord will appreciate the magnetic part, given my aim. I didn't pick one up, but they also had miniature versions of those running water/stone desktop relaxation things. Our economy would collapse if we only bought things we truly needed. ]

Eating: I find Chinese food to be a good deal both for lunch and dinner. Not only is it a good food for delivery ($10 will give you dinner for one, $20 and change, dinner for three), but it's just a good deal period. Not only is there various vegetarian options (especially tossing in shrimp), you get a lot for your money. I find fast food hamburger places rather ridiculous for any number of reasons, but the food/cash ratio alone counsels other options, including Chinese (or pizza or whatever).

I stopped at a favorite spot for lunch today and looked on as a older businessman type (turned out to be a lawyer) amused himself. Another guy at the takeout place said he looked like Dick Cheney, and there was a resemblance. Anyway, he asks if there were any hungry man specials, vegetarian. Then, he asks if the place takes food stamps. And, finally if they could reserve a table for him, since he had to step out for a minute. Not surprisingly, he had to talk on his cell phone as well.

When I grow up, I want to be just like him ... you know, with a better sense of humor, and more cell phone etiquette. Or, make enough so that my sense of humor is more appreciated. Money helps even the most deluded sorts to be quite funny and their point of view accepted with little challenge ... or so, it sometimes seems.

Political News: Some accounts suggest that George Bush will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote (the same was said in October, 2000). This might finally lead to electoral college reform and will do, but it is quite distressing. Where exactly are these idiots? The accounts suggest Kerry will receive narrower wins in certain states, while Bush will get stronger wins in others, but Kerry would pick up some votes in enough key states to win it all.

If Kerry will pick up said votes, why will he still lose them in other states, including states that went to Bush in 2000? Is the fact that non-swing states (like my own NY) don't have to deal with those stupid campaign commercials have something to do with it?* Is the President's record so good that red state votes will go out of their way to vote for him to such a degree that his numbers will rise up? Oh well, I assume there are reasons, though I honestly don't care enough to study poll analysis (inexact for various reasons,) enough to determine them, but it does seem just a tad crazy. Anyway, I wonder if Tim Russert will be up there with his little electoral vote blackboard again this year.

Oh, and if Kerry does win, want to bet the press will be a bit harder on him, to prove they aren't total incompetents? Always the case -- fighting the last war.

---

* A recent one involves wolves, which Sen. Kerry apparently allowed to threaten our sheep, or something. The ad notes he cut funding "after the first terrorist attack" (the one in 1993), not mentioning that President Bush's new CIA director would have cut funding more. So, that would make who weak on terror? Hmm. Oh, and that the funding was for something not being used anyway. It has the required scary voiceover and images, apropos for the Halloween season [Kerry will be Frankenstein, Bush will be either Beavis or Jonathan Winters]. Full of crap too, but that's another matter.

"A small core of conservative administration officials"

Movie: Sideways started off a bit slow, though had a great sense of place and character from the very beginning, and saves some truly hilarious bits for later on in the film. The movie's charms are especially expressed by the performances: Paul Giamatti (emotionally torn wine loving schlub), Thomas Haden Church (husband to be, shallow cad), Virginia Madsen (possible savior to schlub) and Sandra Oh (sexy local cad hooks up with). I had mixed opinions of some of Alexander Payne's past work (About Schmidt, Election, Citizen Ruth, etc.), but this is a gem. And, surely a boon to the wine industry.

NYT has a two-part article on the creation of the military tribunal system in the Bush Administration. A conservative leaning bloggist summarizes it thusly: "the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the [9/11] attacks." He follows up with the comment that it is mentioned that even Attorney General Ashcroft felt things might have gone too far.

And, now we hear that the same "small core" has been at it again. The torture memoranda, refusal to respect international law and institutions (or have a certain degree of due care), and dishonoring of basic civil liberties is a major reason to worry about this administration. Of course, their penchant for secrecy is a major issue here. All of these things are also involved in some fashion in the disappearance of close to four hundred tons of explosives in Iraq. This includes lack of due care, cover-up activities, and refusal to take proper advantage of the resources and warnings of international institutions.

[The true problem is not that some material was lost in the fog of war, though the fact the war was unnecessary means they deserve less of a pass. The problem was their failure to heed warnings and then trying to cover-up the fact to the degree that they pressured the Iraqi government to not reveal what happened. And, then, try to claim superiority in the area of foreign affairs and terror fighting. Imperfection mixed with lack of humility mixed with failure to admit error mixed with going it alone (with a small core often in control) just crosses some line, even if you are sympathic (unlike I) to their general philosophy.]

Remind me again: why exactly are people voting for this guy? I'm unclear the net value of voting for someone even many conservatives argue violates conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility and restraint in foreign affairs (America #1 sure ... America going on reckless foreign adventures? not so great). Is the idea that President Bush is a man of faith? You mean as compared to a church going Catholic who spoke of his anti-abortion personal beliefs? There are reasons to vote for the guy, not that many are that good, but it's sometimes hard to think of them.

True libertarians might not like Kerry, but Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) would seem to be the true alternative. Given the restraint of a Republican Congress and the fact fiscally, Kerry might be more responsible (some rhetoric aside), the fact the vote might help him is not really too bad, is it? Also, unlike Nader, Badnarik is not only on all the state ballots (except for New Hampshire, where write-ins are possible, and Oklahoma, which is being litigated), he is a head of a true party. His candidacy is not some sort of vanity effort. And, since the his party is split over abortion, Badnarik not even pro-abortion rights (more agnostic) as a true libertarian arguably should be.

Back in 2000, a libertarian candidate was the difference in one state, leading to a split US Senate (later 50-49-1, Democrat). Nader supporters might sometimes go around saying his candidacy might actually hurt Bush more, but listening to Nader talk about the need for stronger environmental regulations and such (his specialty), I find this somewhat hard to believe. Badnarik ... now he might do the trick.

Given how the Red Sox are doing, who knows what will happen?