Geoffrey M Golia's blog

Let's contrast the recent visits of two American politicians to the Federal Republic of Germany ... First, here's a snapshot (courtesy of the Associated Press) of Barack Obama's speech in Berlin:

Second, a smaller image of the reception the President received when he landed in Germany (courtesy of Der Spiegel):

While not conclusive, I'd say, at least, anecdotally, that these two pictures, juxtaposed, represent (Old) Europe's preference in terms of which candidate, & more generally, which political party, they'd like to see (back) in power in Washington.

Now, I will say that, as a proud American, I don't bow to foreigners, nor do I like to be told what to think by those outside of this country. But it is important for America, as a leader in the world, to be respected & admired by our allies in Europe, & the notion that 200,000 mostly non-Americans were waving American Flags during Barack's speech simply takes my breath away, & should make us all think.

Also, I think the state of our relations with Europe, what I like to call the George W. Bush meets Michael Scott school of foreign policy ("Would I rather be feared or loved? Um ... Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me."), is defunct, & perhaps we need to explore a more equal friendship with the major European powers (as well as the rest of the world).

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.

Bumped. --Mike

I just read Keli Goff's column on The Huffington Post called "McCain's Perez Hilton Problem". While its a fine read (repudiating John McCain's statement that he doesn't support "gay adoption", defending the notion that LGBT people can provide excellent, loving homes for children), I was a little confused at why she references, specifically, Perez Hilton (who like may other people were outraged by this admission from the presumptive Republican nominee). I thought, from reading the first few lines, she was going to argue that sites like Perez Hilton ("What Would Tyler Durden Do?", "D-Listed", the 'Gawker' sites, etc.) provide a unique opportunity to foment action against regressive policies, causes & candidates among possibly apolitical youth who may have sympathy for progressive programmes. Goff didn't end up arguing that, so I will.

Goff wrote:

"On Sunday, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) selected McCain's statement on the matter as his "Quote of the Day." The quote simply reads, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." At last count Hilton's post garnered around 700 comments, some of which are blatantly homophobic, (which is ironic considering Lavandeira himself is openly gay, which begs the question: if you disapprove of gay people so much why are you visiting a blog run by one?). But for the most part, the comments -- many of which are too colorful to print here -- highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right."

Goff is right is that McCain's previous (though probably overblown) image as a moderate &/or maverick, which attracted moderate Independents & conservative Democrats in the past, is a liability as he tries to sew up the conservative Republican base ... It's a catch-22, because the more he panders to the base, the more he losses the moderates, & vice versa.

But I digress.

Election coverage can be framed in many different ways, & increasingly we've seen the pop-culture-ization of this process, especially with the Obama candidacy, which has spawned a popular movement of young people who may have sat this one out, or simply not cared, if Dick Gephardt was running. (No offense to Dick; he's like number 3 on my list of potential Vice Presidents.) Barack's candidacy has inspired political youth, as well as those who have never been interested in politics before.

& The Obama Team, to an extent, gets this. On example: just look at the Michelle Obama PR-blitz after Barack became the nominee ... co-hosting "The View", making the cover of "US Weekly" ... In other words, reaching out to young women who are probably pro-choice, probably who have a gaggle of gay friends, & could be moved to vote if they feel the candidate (or, in this case, his wife) speaks to them on level other than health care policy positions, discussions of Iraq & banking reform.

The power of celebrity gossip rags, whether in print (US Weekly), on TV (TMZ on Fox) or online, like the aforementioned blogs, when they comment on the political matters, can be enormous. Celebrity gossip is an ascendant medium, drawing huge audiences of mostly young people, who tend to be, at least on social & cultural issues, more liberal. Comment on McCain saying he's against "gay adoption" & there's a good chance you may energize a liberal, though apolitical, young person who reads your blog to say, "Geez, maybe I'll vote for Obama ... This guy is straight-up creepy ..."

That's where I thought Goff was going ... I hope I adequately took you there.

I'm cutting & pasting, with a little editing, an entry I wrote a few weeks ago about the youth vote during both the Democratic Primaries & the general election cycle (which, of course, is still going on) ... It's all pretty self-explanatory:

Generational Tectonics

Young people did not trust Hillary Clinton, & by huge numbers did not vote for her. Young people do not trust John McCain, & by huge numbers will not vote of McCain in November. (Or, rather, Hillary Clinton could not relate to young people. & she lost. John McCain will not be able to relate to young voters, & will lose in November.)

On the other hand, young people overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primaries & Caucuses, & will stick with him through the general elections. That was the conclusion of a study conducted by Harvard's Institute of Politics, the findings of which were organization published in April of this year. The IOP's conclusion is as follows:

"A new national poll by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at Harvard Kennedy School, finds 18-24 year-olds who plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in November strongly prefer U.S. Senator Barack Obama over U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (70% to 30%) to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The poll also finds a majority of likely young voters favor Obama (53%) in a hypothetical head-to-head contest against U.S. Senator John McCain (32%) but give Clinton a much smaller lead (44% to 39%) when matched up against the Arizona Senator."

I think there are a lot of good reasons for this trend, which I started to lay out here & I would like to finish, you know, laying out. (I will say that when I'm discussing "young voters", or "people my age", or "young people", I speaking of people, roughly, 18 to 32 years old - basically people who remember when MTV still showed music videos.)

First, Barack Obama is the youngest of the viable candidates, & at 46, he is also the first non-"Baby Boomer" candidate since that generation was named. He is also very handsome. Now, these facts do not mean that young voters are automatically going to think he is authentic, or truly able to understand our generations concerns & values. But this generational proximity is definitely a bonus, even for superficial reasons.

The second reason for Barack's strength with young voters is his authenticity. It is ironic that in a campaign that is built on so much calculation - where every speech, event, announcement is calculated for effect, to counter a narrative or effect us on an emotional level as well as a, well, political level - Obama's appeal to young voters lies in the fact that, at least when it comes to acting like one of us, he is actually not acting. Candid moments like the fist-bump, especially, but also, when he would joke around with Clinton & Edwards in the debates, or when he's riding his bike, or hosting a slumber-party for his daughters, or playing basketball, or discussing how he just paid off his student loans, are incredibly telling about Barack's personality, and bespeaks authenticity to young, hip people who would certainly would know better, & can spot a fake a mile away.

Thirdly, Obama is not a member of the "Baby Boomer" generation, who people in my generation look at with contempt & blame for many of the messes we're in right now. Young people perceive that the "Baby Boomers" were the generation that were given so much, & gave back so little - who, for instance, were the authors of the the egomaniacal decadence of the 1960s & 70s, as well as the fiscal & moral irresponsibility of the 1980s - whose greatest legacies will probably be the Iraq War, the deficit & the national debt, the burdens of which will be shouldered by my generation, my children's generation, & beyond.

Fourth, Barack Obama has spawned a cottage industry of apparel, both from his campaign & the Democratic Party, & from people how want to cash in on his youth appeal. Kids would not be buying his face or name on a shirt unless there was a great deal of support for him, & this is compelling evidence that Barack is seen as cool or hip. This is beyond campaign buttons, or the standard issue campaign logo shirt - these shirts straight up look hot. This may seem laughable, but it also means McCain will not be able to cash-in on this sort of phenomenon because it would (1) look like he was plagiarizing Obama's market, & (2) John McCain is unbrandable vis-á-vis youth culture - it would simply be a hilarious failure.

I have never seen or supported a candidate that I felt understood my experiences, & also shared my interests ... until now. I think this is universal but most young people feel dismissed & misunderstood by the "hegemonic" generation of their day - it's just nice to see someone speaking to my interests without pandering, or being phony, or someone who's just too damn old to understand why the issues that matter the most to me do or how the internet works.

You can find the original post, along with my non-political writing at:

http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com

I promise I'll have more original stuff here, well, maybe tomorrow.