Politics

As we move closer and closer toward Election Day, I’ve found myself zooming out of the daily back-and-forth of the campaign, focusing on the larger meanings of this election. Since Obama began to seriously challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, I have observed a few different dynamics that, should Obama go on to win the election, would lead to a groundbreaking shift in American politics. I’d like to examine these over two posts -- one today and one next Saturday -- with the understanding and acknowledgment that we still have much work to do and that nothing in presidential politics (including an Obama victory) is a given.

Setting the Stage – Nixon’s Contribution

Earlier this summer I read Nixonland by Rick Perlstein, and I found it fascinating (if you’re at all into politics and current affairs, you must read it). Perlstein looks back at our modern political history, tracing the culture war dynamic present in our politics to Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1968, and eventually clear back to his childhood. Prior to running that campaign, the curiosity of Nixon’s strategists was peaked by a memo written by a young, former aide of conservative Bronx congressman Paul Fino named Kevin Phillips; the title was “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority.” The effects of that memo have shaped the political battlefield of the last forty years.

The language was new, but the theory was as old as the crusade against Alger Hiss: elections were won by focusing on people’s resentments. The New Deal coalition rose by directing people’s resentment of economic elites, Phillips argued. But the new hated elite, as the likes of Rafferty and Reagan grasped, was cultural – the “toryhood of change,” condescending and self-serving liberals “who make their money out of plans, ideas, communication, social upheaval, happenings, excitement, at the psychic expense of ‘the great, ordinary, Lawrence Welkish mass of Americans from Maine to Hawaii.’ (Perlstein 275-76).

As Perlstein would go on to note, the cultural resentment fostered by the Nixon campaign capitalized on the humiliation many Americans were feeling at not being able to defend what, to them, were obvious American values: “Nixon described the ‘silent center’ as ‘the millions of people in the middle of the political spectrum who do not demonstrate, who do not picket or protest loudly.’ They were loud. You were quiet. They proclaimed their virtue. You, simply, lived virtuously” (275).

Emphasis original. At a time when a crevice was already developing within the electorate, Nixon sought to create a canyon. And he was successful. We all know what happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and the 1968 election was one of the closest decisions in history: Nixon nabbed 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191 (George Wallace had 46), but the razor-thin margin in popular vote told the story. Nixon received 43.42 percent of the popular vote, while Humphrey collected 42.72 percent. America was divided, and Perlstein, throughout his book, demonstrates the coalitions’ hardening into the two red-blue political camps we see today.

Gridlock – Red Versus Blue

These red and blue camps, formed in the 1960s, have organized our political culture for the past forty years. If you’re a Millennial, it's all that you have experienced. The two sides slug it out: the party’s candidates and his/her supporters are seen as the “cultural elite.” This candidate is portrayed by the other side as out of touch, and his/her followers are painted as weak and un-American. The other candidate and his/her supporters are seen as stupid fools, voting against their own self-interest and doing it proudly, while lining the pockets and inflating the egos of the conspiring elites.

The most important dynamics in presidential elections since 1968 have not been stances on issues; the “game-changers,” instead, have been the results of the rational-efficient approach taken (the Republicans have been better than the Democrats at applying it, winning seven out of the ten elections over the last forty years). Cheating, preying on fear, and limiting the political discourse to symbols and character assassination have all been incorporated in these campaigns at one time or another since 1968. Republicans, in particular, have their own greatest hits album of win-at-at-all-costs, short-sighted politics (mainly because they've been the party to benefit from this approach): Watergate; Reagan’s “bear” ad in 1984; the Willie Horton ad sponsored on behalf of the Bush campaign in 1988; Pat Buchanan’s speech pushing the culture war at the RNC in 1992; the Bush ad emphasizing the word “rats” in connection with Al Gore in 2000; the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry in 2004; and, in 2008, the attempt to paint Barack Obama as a mere celebrity, and therefore, “not ready to lead.”

The shrinking of the political dialogue is not limited to presidential campaigns. In numerous confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill (especially those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas), in the filibuster showdown that erupted in 2005, and in Dick Cheney’s directing the phrase “Go f**k yourself!” to a Democratic senator, we have seen the breakdown of the collegiality and devotion to the common good needed in order to make any kind of political progress.

Let’s be clear: the Baby Boomer generation’s relationship with this approach to politics is symbiotic. We know, from Neil Howe and William Strauss, that Baby Boomers inject morals into their politics. Fiercely ideological, they will dig in and refuse to compromise for the greater good, because, to them, the greater good is their cause. Nixon’s emphasis on cultural warfare while in pursuit of drilling a chasm within American society played to the Boomers’ moralistic and individualistic tendencies. And with the political dialogue repeatedly calibrated to Boomers’ minds, the Boomers reinforced, again and again, their brand of politics.

We’ve seen the divisive approach to politics in 2008, especially given the racial and sexual tensions in the nominating contests and the general election thus far. But with the emergence of 1.) the Millennial generation, the civic-minded counter-balance to the values-driven Boomers; 2.) various traumas to the country (9/11, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Financial Meltdown) that have combined to serve as Howe and Strauss’s “crisis,” and 3.) presidential candidates representing both brands of politics, a perfect storm may be about to strike that transforms the political landscape for years to come. What might this transformation look like?

Please read Part II next Saturday to find out.

Sources cited:

Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland. New York: Scribner, 2008.

Saturday evening reading:

• As we're moving closer and closer to Election Day -- one month from today! -- make sure to go over to the website for the November Fifth Coalition. Here is an excerpt from the front page of their site that explains their objectives:
  

  The November 5th Coalition is an all-partisan alliance committed to civic partnerships that address our biggest challenges. The Coalition is named for the day after the election in 2008 when a new chapter of America's civic history begins. Wherever the people gather they should be able to ask candidates “November 5th questions” about how they plan to tap the talents of the whole society, instead of posing as superheroes who will solve our problems for us. We will also develop leadership networks and civic policies that can serve as resources for a new administration. We encourage our fellow citizens to join with us in calling on candidates to rise above excessively divisive partisanship and to promote the common good.

• The Personal Democracy Forum has the top five reasons you won't be able to vote.
• Gizmodo takes you on a tour of the new Obama iPhone application. Very impressive! You can download it here.
• More scare tactics from the Republicans, this time aimed at Montana voters. Alternet has the details.
• Young Nevadans are overwhelmingly registering as Democrats:
  

  In the 18 to 24 age group, for example, Democrats have 54,192 registered voters compared with 31,405 Republicans, or 45 percent of the total registered voters for Democrats versus 26 percent for Republicans. That's a 19 percentage point difference.

• More youth attempting to be politically engaged. More youth being told not to. This time in Texas.
• Prop 8, the evangelical-led effort to amend California's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has gradually grown less and less popular; this Washington Post article explains that young voters are the main reason for the decline in popularity.

In Thursday night's debate, Sarah Palin told America that she favored dropping assets connected to the Sudanese government within the state's large investment fund as a means of protesting the genocide occurring in the country. But, of course, she was misleading.

ABC News looked into this claim, and found out that she was -- shock! -- against divestment until it was politically convenient for her to be for it.

The Gara-Lynn Sudan Divestment bill was reviewed in February at a public hearing. A Palin administration official testified against it:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.

The minutes are here in case you're interested.

It took some time, but Palin finally came around to it, even if it was very late in the legislative year.

Gara said that after it was clear the bill had stalled, he and others pressed the administration directly on Sudan divestment.

"We were outraged," Gara recounted. "We went to the Commissioner of Revenue and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? This is genocide. We're going to keep pushing this until we divest."

Two months later, at the end of the legislative session, the administration softened its position. Appearing before a Senate committee which was considering a companion measure to Gara's bill, Palin's Revenue commissioner, Patrick Galvin, stated the administration supported such a measure, though it hoped to amend the bill to allow for investments held indirectly, for example in index funds.

And Palin is supposed to appeal to the youth vote for the GOP?

Thanks to WireTap, here's how passionate youth feel about the ongoing genocide in Sudan:

Three years after the United States classified the situation in Darfur, Sudan, as a genocide, students are still organizing to make sure the crucial cause doesn't get ignored. In April, two thousand white-clad activists played dead in Boston Commons for five minutes of silence. In December, thousands of students worldwide fasted to raise money to fight rape in the African region. STAND, a student anti-genocide coalition, helped organize those events and hundreds of others this year. Students have been signing petitions, lobbying representatives, staging events -- anything to keep Darfur in the news. And the coverage has paid off. Companies have started divesting in ventures that support the government that allows the genocide to continue, and awareness is at an all-time high. As long as the violence rages, so will the activism. "The world has been slow to act to protect the people of Darfur," said STAND student director Scott Warren, "so students across the globe will be taking protection into their own hands."

Don't play politics with Sudan, Ms. Palin.

Thanks to Political Wire:

John McCain, when Obama confronts him with his mistake on Spanish-language Union Radio (in a radio interview from Miami) saying he would not meet with Spain, mutters "that's horseshit" twice 57 seconds into this clip. Check it out:

That's not rhetoric we can believe in, my friends.

One thing that stuck out to me in last night's debate is the refrain of "just doesn't understand" that McCain kept using on Obama. Clearly a premeditated line, I question its effectiveness.

First -- poll numbers from last night show it clearly didn't work. From the CNN poll, thanks to TPM:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

The last one is the most important here. This thirty point spread indicating Obama is the candidate that is more in touch with needs and problems is political gold, especially when its in the face of McCain's repeated declarations that the Democrat doesn't understand. Not only did the last point bear out the ineffectiveness of this strategy, but so did the leadership question. McCain's "not ready to lead" theme may have been disproven by Obama's threshold performance -- clearly the leadership people gleaned from the debate didn't scare anyone. But, of course, we can expect the McCain campaign to bring up the fact that Obama is a master wordsmith and point out we shouldn't have expected anything different.

Second, for someone that doesn't understand, Obama's body language was superior. The senator was mostly looking into the camera, speaking directly to the viewers at home. And when he wasn't doing that, he turned to look directly at his opponent. McCain, meanwhile, was looking anywhere but Obama's eyes and the camera. He was acting like the event was not televised, looking out at the crowd for most of the debate. Not only that, but TPM had some readers well-versed in psychotherapy and psychology write in with their own analysis of McCain's inability to look at his opponent for any amount of time. Quite interesting:

As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.

I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.

Afraid of Obama?

I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.

Obama demonstrated that he did understand the issues, especially when he was asked to name legislative priorities for his presidency, even with the financial crisis tying his hands. Obama talked about healthcare, the energy issue, and the economy; McCain talked about minutae in defense spending? This is about 7:22 in. (Apologies for using Faux News's recording -- it was what I could find in a short amount of time.)

Finally, I know I've discussed this repeatedly in the past, but I keep going back to what Millennials and young voters would think. How often do you think these serious young activists, trying to get a seat at the table and be taken seriously, are told "you just don't understand?" Keeping that in mind, it's even less difficult to see why McCain just wouldn't appeal to young voters who seek to work within the system to create change.

Yes, young voters that seek to act as change agents within organizations might be predisposed to support Senator Obama anyway; but with these comments, McCain doesn't give his campaign any chance to be seen as a credible alternative to a young voter who doesn't quite agree with Obama.

Yes, young voters are just as diverse (and maybe even more so) as the rest of the electorate and so to make generalizations can be dangerous. But being a young voter myself, and having surrounded myself with young voters both at my place of employment and in my own social life, I notice that while we're by and large not a big proponent of civil disobedience, we're still headstrong and stubborn. We don't like to be told by our elders that we can't do things or that we're too naive to understand issues. And so it's not a huge stretch to assume that McCain's patronizing tactic didn't play well with young voters.

All in all, I thought the debate was a tie. Both candidates had a few good moments. But the fact that it was a tie on the scorecard actually favors Obama in the grand scheme of things. He didn't make any mistakes, he came off looking in touch with America and as a credible leader, and he held his own against John McCain on a subject that is supposed to be McCain's strong suit.

What did you think?

What I'm reading this Saturday:

• This history of the culture wars of the last 40 years dovetails a bit with my earlier piece. I think (and hope) we're emerging from this.
• The Times proclaims that "the year of the political blogger has arrived."
• Virginia's young voters are tearing it up. What an amazing development.
• Are younger candidates the answer to getting youth involved in local politics?
• Congressional Democrats zero in on a directive to Veterans Affairs hospitals to prohibit voter registration efforts.
• Incoming college freshmen were born in 1990?!? Find out more about them here.

I wrote a post on my own blog last night criticizing Obama's latest ad called "Hands," that was made especially for the Olympics. I was getting frustrated because every ad I see finishes with a policy promotion. It's reminding me of what happened in 2000 and 2004 with Gore and Kerry -- the Democratic candidate gets a lead and then plays it safe by campaigning exclusively to minds instead of guts. While I still think Obama's campaign needs to be more aggressive at playing offense, I took a break to look at the big picture this morning.

McCain had most of us debating and thinking at the lowest levels in recent campaign history, as we focused on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and the purpose of their inclusion in McCain's "Celebrity" ad. The McCain campaign was determined to tie Obama's strength in rhetoric, his charisma, and therefore his "celebrity," to a class-based criticism. They labeled him as elitist and too inexperienced to be president. But when we zoom out of the celebrity debate and look at the state of the campaign today, we can see that we have another month to go before the last stretch and that we have been locked in a media-driven phase -- more to John McCain's advantage -- since early June, when Sen. Obama became the presumptive nominee.

The post I wrote last night argued Obama's strengths using McCain's frame. I unintentionally bowed to the idea that Obama's only strength was his rhetoric. But the truth is that his strength is not merely in his rhetoric -- that's just the only place we're able to see it now. His advantage was planted in the summer of 2007 in Iowa, and it has now bloomed into the grassroots efforts of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, across the country. Obama has put his experience as a community organizer to use.

A post this morning on Al Giordano's blog, titled "The Movement Comes After Labor Day," helped me remember this. I think Al meant movement in a polling sense, but I took it another way. This fall's harvest will not only refer to the yield of crops, but the fruits of the most extensive presidential campaign in memory. Only after Labor Day can we begin to see the ramifications of this one-of-a-kind grassroots operation.

It's no wonder, then, that this election has seen the pundits offer less-than-stellar political commentary. In past elections we might have a fairly good idea of what might happen come November, due to coalitions that solidified over the last few decades, and major party candidates that looked alike and had generally similar stories. But 2008 is an election unlike any we've ever had in this country. The race and age dynamics are there, in addition to signs that point toward a rearrangement of the political map and a realignment of the electorate. Because political junkies like ourselves have never had this experience, we have even less of a chance of correctly predicting what happens on November 4th. The Gallup poll I wrote about previously, the likely voter screen that only calculated young voters as a 10% share of the entire sample (when they actually formed 16-18% in 2004), is an example of this uncertainty.

What we do know, again, is that Barack Obama has put together an operation that the Democratic Party and the United States has never seen before. And I believe that the size of this movement -- one that encompasses the youth vote -- is what's truly going to determine what happens on Election Day. In the meantime, the Obama campaign still needs to be more aggressive with emotion in their ads, and they need to be on the offensive far more than they have been over the past few weeks. But come October, the ads of this summer will be relics of the past. What will be much more important is the Obama campaign's mobilization. That organization is the true strength of Obama's campaign, and it's a strength we can only evaluate in October and November.

This year's convention theme is "Seizing the Time for A Better Tomorrow"

The purpose of this convention is for the political hip hop community to meet, network, and build and evolve a platform of issues that are directly effecting our communitites. We all hope to use this platform/agenda to guide our work and as a reference for engaging our community, leaders, and politicians.

Also, with the election approaching, the convention wants to strategize so that this community's voices are heard, with the hopes that their issues will be addressed.

Right now me, Eddie Rashad, and Camille Cyprian are sitting in one of the classrooms at the University of Las Vegas, waiting for the Hip Hop Political Convention to start. We got here on time, but everyone else is running late!

The plenary looks good for today - Understanding Hurricane Katrina and Gulf Coast Reconstruction Movement: Fighting Neo-Liberalism and Afrikan Ethnic Cleansing. I am excited to hear Mayaba Libenthal speak. She's from INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence and Critical Resistance.

GenVote is supposed to have a couple of trainings today - strategic campaign planning, nonviolent direct action planning, and voter registration. They might not happen as planned. People partied late last night, so things are running incredibly late.

Me and Eddie want to meet Rosa Clemente today - she will speaking today and tomorrow. I want to meet her and tell her about the CUNY Social Forum I am helping to organize.

Peace,
Maria

It looks like the same old politics from John McCain. He promised that his campaign would do away with the negativity seen in politics. Looks like he hasn't kept his word. The first video you see on his site is an attack ad on Barack Obama. Obama has no such ads on his site. Furthermore, you can more easily see Barack's accomplishments and what he has been doing more recently than on McCain's site. McCain is an old guy. And it looks like he's sticking with the politics of old.

Obama has promised change, and look how many attacks he's made! On his site, absolutely none. That may have to change, as the attacks on him may be too much to sit passively and not fight back. However, Obama's intentions are clear: the country needs to shift its focus, and the government needs to become more trustworthy and more focused on the people, and not interest groups.

Obama has been accused of flip-flopping, but this attack has failed now that McCain has failed to keep his word on negative campaigns. People are worried that Obama's numbers in the poll are not as high as they should be. I'm positive his numbers will rise once people start to put more trust and faith in Obama as he continues to demonstrate that he has and will continue to keep his word.

I implore you to look at these sites. It'll help gain your understanding of how these two candidates are approaching the campaign, and hopefully help you to see the strong differences between the two.

From www.juniorpolitics.com

A few days ago I overheard my coworker discussing the elections with one of his buddies over the phone. He was speaking quite loudly, so it’s not as if I was eavesdropping. It provided me with the rare opportunity to figure out what political party he backs. Now, I’ve heard of people who do not like Obama, either they do not like what he stands for, they don’t think he’s qualified enough, etc. But this guy is talking about Obama like he’s going to bring the end of the world. I’d never heard harsher terms directed at him. In the meantime I’m thinking to myself, what is this guy talking about? He’s just another guy with a fresh perspective, what’s so bad about that?

Republicans in the ideal would prefer less government to more. This guy made that perfectly clear: he does not want more government in his life. I can understand that. However, I think it’s incredibly selfish to say that government should stay out of people’s lives. The government is there to protect us. Without government survival of the fittest would surely kick in and then wouldn’t everyone just have a blast… Anyhow, there are those that need the government’s protection. I mean we’re not paying taxes into the system for nothing, right? Those who haven’t been able to find a job in a while (and yes it can happen, and no those people are not being lazy) need government action to help them. The poor need the government’s assistance to pull them out of the downward spiral they are in. There are always going to be those less fortunate than ourselves, we can either let them drown or help them up. How is helping others the end of the world?

Yes Obama is going to try to change the status quo America has set up for itself. Yes change can be scary, especially to the older folks, but it shouldn’t have to be that way. No one who has run for the office of the presidency in the United States has been evil in my lifetime. Everyone has good intentions, and yet bias gets in the way of people’s thinking, as do emotions. Fear comes from misunderstandings, misconceptions, and from ignorance. To be fearful of Obama is to be misinformed as to who he is. Here is my advice: read up on every candidate running for office. Especially focus on McCain and Obama but it wouldn’t hurt to look up the candidates running on the libertarian ticket or another independent ticket. If anything, it’ll help you to sound a little more intelligent if you ever need to go toe-to-toe with someone in a political debate.