http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/poll-shows-obamas-vulnerability-with-swing-voters.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
This article was very interesting to me. I understand the concerns that many people have about Obama. I share many of their concerns. But the fact of the matter is, the Republican pool is very dismal. Quite frankly, far more scary than the idea of a moderate like Obama. People are so quick to throw around the term "socialist," but frankly, most of what he has done has been far more conservative than even Bill Clinton. But because Obama has been surrounded with so many firsts, from his election to the bills that he has signed into office, many people are frightened. And rightfully so, because it is not exactly a positive outlook for our country at this point in time. Yet, I still think many Independents would be wise to show up for Obama, because how practical is it for a president to accomplish everything they ran on, let alone in four years?
Friday, January 20, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Gingrich and Racist-Code Language
Read Charles Blow's column on this in today's NYTimes.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/newt-gingrich-and-the-art-of-racial-politics/?src=recg
Those who may be skeptical that Gingrich is resorting to "dog whistle" politics in his particular choice of words might want to consider the following:
1. South Carolina was the final state in the country to recognize MLK, Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday.
2. The modern Republican party's strength in the South began in the 1964 Johnson vs. Goldwater presidential election in which, for the first time since Reconstruction, five former confederacy states voted for the Republican nominee. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the most important civil rights legislation in our modern history. Nixon's "Southern Strategy," in 1968, was intended to capitalize on the switch in the Electoral College away from the solid (Democratic, pro-segregationist) South. White voters -- so-called "white ethnics" (Polish-American, Scotch American, and Irish-Americans) -- residing in the South from DC through the old confederacy began to associate the Democratic Party with African Americans, suffering from what Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips called "negrophobia."
3. Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign for President in Philadelphia, MS (not PA). Campaigning on "states' rights" against federal encroachment, the Reagan campaign knew full well that this was the sight that, in 1968, where three white "freedom riders" were killed in their efforts to desegregate the South. This acclerated the racial realignment -- and hence regional realignment, too -- of the two parties: Until Obama's victory in the states of Virginia and North Carolina in 2008, no northern Democratic presidential candidate could break the GOP electoral hold on the South. The exceptions, of course, consist of the two governors of Southern states, Carter and Clinton). Before Obama, nominating a non-southern was tantamount to giving the Republicans a significant head-start in the Electoral College. American national elections still follow these regional patterns.
4. The Party votes by race in 2008 in South Carolina tell the tale. Three-quarters of white voters voted for McCain in the general election; two percent of black voters cast ballots for the Republican nominee.
5. In SC today, a white woman thanked Gingrich for putting Juan Williams in his place on Monday night, saying that the so-called question of Gingrich's use of racialized language was not a question at all but an assertion of insidious motivation that was baseless. "Putting a questioner in his place" is an odd way to characterize behavior that is entirely innocent of racial overtones.
Anyone who would like to pursue this matter at greater length would be well-advised to run down Joel Olson's article in the Journal of Political Research examining "whiteness" as a root of American partisan polarization. It's not a pretty story, but it's first-rate political science in my opinion. I doubt, however, that Professor Ricci would concur with my assessment.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/newt-gingrich-and-the-art-of-racial-politics/?src=recg
Those who may be skeptical that Gingrich is resorting to "dog whistle" politics in his particular choice of words might want to consider the following:
1. South Carolina was the final state in the country to recognize MLK, Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday.
2. The modern Republican party's strength in the South began in the 1964 Johnson vs. Goldwater presidential election in which, for the first time since Reconstruction, five former confederacy states voted for the Republican nominee. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the most important civil rights legislation in our modern history. Nixon's "Southern Strategy," in 1968, was intended to capitalize on the switch in the Electoral College away from the solid (Democratic, pro-segregationist) South. White voters -- so-called "white ethnics" (Polish-American, Scotch American, and Irish-Americans) -- residing in the South from DC through the old confederacy began to associate the Democratic Party with African Americans, suffering from what Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips called "negrophobia."
3. Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign for President in Philadelphia, MS (not PA). Campaigning on "states' rights" against federal encroachment, the Reagan campaign knew full well that this was the sight that, in 1968, where three white "freedom riders" were killed in their efforts to desegregate the South. This acclerated the racial realignment -- and hence regional realignment, too -- of the two parties: Until Obama's victory in the states of Virginia and North Carolina in 2008, no northern Democratic presidential candidate could break the GOP electoral hold on the South. The exceptions, of course, consist of the two governors of Southern states, Carter and Clinton). Before Obama, nominating a non-southern was tantamount to giving the Republicans a significant head-start in the Electoral College. American national elections still follow these regional patterns.
4. The Party votes by race in 2008 in South Carolina tell the tale. Three-quarters of white voters voted for McCain in the general election; two percent of black voters cast ballots for the Republican nominee.
5. In SC today, a white woman thanked Gingrich for putting Juan Williams in his place on Monday night, saying that the so-called question of Gingrich's use of racialized language was not a question at all but an assertion of insidious motivation that was baseless. "Putting a questioner in his place" is an odd way to characterize behavior that is entirely innocent of racial overtones.
Anyone who would like to pursue this matter at greater length would be well-advised to run down Joel Olson's article in the Journal of Political Research examining "whiteness" as a root of American partisan polarization. It's not a pretty story, but it's first-rate political science in my opinion. I doubt, however, that Professor Ricci would concur with my assessment.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Greetings, 2012 Capstoners
Welcome to Obamadogs, 2012 capstone members! This blog exists as a forum for communication among an elite group of political science and international relations majors at Wartburg -- on topics pertaining to our common interests: all things political. Since members of PS460 meet only once a week, this provides an opportunity for extending conversations on class-related matters in the intervals between class sessions. Because we are only now getting into the Ricci volume, blog entries can deal with matters related to the book. Or they can pertain to current events, e.g., the looming South Carolina primary, the state of play in international politics, e.g., the recent spate of "accidents" killing nuclear scientists and engineers in Iran, or proposals for the post-Ricci design of this term's 460.
Because of last week's brief consideration of Stephen Bloom's article on Iowa and Iowans in a December issue of The Atlantic Monthly, along with the voluminous commentary and criticism his unflattering portrayal has provoked, the nature of Iowa as a "politically consequential" political phenomenon is yet another possible topic of conversation. In fact, this piece may well serve as the basis for a class project on Iowa, where the "identity" of Iowa is subjected to scrutinty in the form of a Q methodological study, where the massive population of subjective descriptors of Iowans found in the Bloom piece and in the nearly 900 online commentaries on the piece are treated as a "concourse" from which to draw a Q sample of, say, 40 or so alleged characteristics of Iowans. Participants could consist of class members, including those of us who are relatively new residents of the state and people with lengthy histories in the state as well. It might be fun . . .
Best wishes for a good term,
DT
Because of last week's brief consideration of Stephen Bloom's article on Iowa and Iowans in a December issue of The Atlantic Monthly, along with the voluminous commentary and criticism his unflattering portrayal has provoked, the nature of Iowa as a "politically consequential" political phenomenon is yet another possible topic of conversation. In fact, this piece may well serve as the basis for a class project on Iowa, where the "identity" of Iowa is subjected to scrutinty in the form of a Q methodological study, where the massive population of subjective descriptors of Iowans found in the Bloom piece and in the nearly 900 online commentaries on the piece are treated as a "concourse" from which to draw a Q sample of, say, 40 or so alleged characteristics of Iowans. Participants could consist of class members, including those of us who are relatively new residents of the state and people with lengthy histories in the state as well. It might be fun . . .
Best wishes for a good term,
DT
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Mormonism "Cult"
The Values Voters Summit of this past weekend featured an introduction of Texas Governor Rick Perry by a grand poobah of the Southern Baptists who declared Mitt Romney's faith affliation to be that of a "cult." This has long been the position of the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant organization in the country, and its roots and prevalence in the south make it far from a fringe element. To his credit, Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China, who also happens to share Romney's LDS faith, referred to Perry's introducer as, in effect, a bonehead. Romney, for his part, has remained silent while he and his advisors try to chart a path to the nomination by downplaying Iowa and South Carolina, where the numbers of Southern Baptists in the caucus and primary electorate are sufficiently high to dim Romney's prospects on grounds of the Mormon question alone.
It's a sad -- and interesting -- commentary that the gumbas that have been so unfairly anti-Obama, in the process abandoning policy positions held by Republicans for decades, to deny a political victory to the object of their derision would so blatantly self-destruct on a petard of religious bigotry. But if you live by the sword of intolerance you may well die by the sword of intolerance. Among the current field of GOP candidates for the nomination, Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama in 2012. Americans are not ready for Rick Perry or any other of the far-right ayatollahs as their president, so Democrats and Obama supporters shouldn't feel too sorry for the Republican intolerance turned inward. Nevertheless, it's hardly a source of pride that the best thing the Democratic party and candidates have going for them in 2012 is their Republican opposition.
It's a sad -- and interesting -- commentary that the gumbas that have been so unfairly anti-Obama, in the process abandoning policy positions held by Republicans for decades, to deny a political victory to the object of their derision would so blatantly self-destruct on a petard of religious bigotry. But if you live by the sword of intolerance you may well die by the sword of intolerance. Among the current field of GOP candidates for the nomination, Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama in 2012. Americans are not ready for Rick Perry or any other of the far-right ayatollahs as their president, so Democrats and Obama supporters shouldn't feel too sorry for the Republican intolerance turned inward. Nevertheless, it's hardly a source of pride that the best thing the Democratic party and candidates have going for them in 2012 is their Republican opposition.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Ninety-Nine Percenters
The Occupy Wall Street moment continues into its third week, growing in numbers in lower Manhattan and in kindred demonstrations across the country. Still not a movement, it resists efforts to categorize and pigeonhole protestors into some preconceived categories. What is going on is a reawakening -- failing to find from Democratic leaders a populist strategy for countering the effects of four decades of organizing and building by Republicans, these early efforts are aimed primarily to provide an opportunity to realize they are not alone in seeing the system we have as a rigged game. The presence on Wall St. , symbolizing wealth aplenty, undermines the official "scarcity" narrative that is used to quiet the discontented who realize the "scarcity" ruse is merely a diversionary maneuver to turn attention away from questions and questionable practices in re: distribution.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The baneful effects of partisanship . . .
The phrase used as a title for this post is borrowed from George Washington's farewell address, and it is as relevant today as it was when he warned his colleauges of the ill-effects of putting party ahead of country. To get us past this moment of paralysis, we need an accurate diagnosis of the cause of the current debilitating polarization, and that itself is far beyond the influence of toxic partisanship to sustain a consensus on how we got here, let alone how to get unstuck.]
Let's begin with the few held by the White House to a great extent: that the problems inherited by the Obama Administration were of such number and severity that their solution would take a 5 to 6 year period, thus making Obama's first term pretty much an iffy proposition. History suggests that economic downturns rooted in financial free falls take longer to repair than do regular recessions. So, in fairness, Obama does have a disadvantage he had little hand in creating. He bears some responsibiliy by hiring the very economic aids whose ideas contributed to the financial break-up in the first place -- Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in particular. And Obama demonstrated a deferential attitude to experts on economic issues that diminished confidence in his ability to see how the times called for bolder action than we got.
Meanwhile Republicans coalesced around a refusal to allow Obama's campaign promise of bipartisanship come to pass; instead, they vowed unanimous opposition to any proposals favored by Obama and Democrats. They deprived the President of a single vote for the Stimulus Package and the President helped them in this regard by turning the spending targets to Pelosi and Reid who had fellow Democrats lined up as recipients, giving Republicans good reason to be unsupportive of the Keynesian effort to prime the pump.
What might the President had done differently to secure Republican voters and yet get a stimulus in action:? Tthat is our next post's topic.
Let's begin with the few held by the White House to a great extent: that the problems inherited by the Obama Administration were of such number and severity that their solution would take a 5 to 6 year period, thus making Obama's first term pretty much an iffy proposition. History suggests that economic downturns rooted in financial free falls take longer to repair than do regular recessions. So, in fairness, Obama does have a disadvantage he had little hand in creating. He bears some responsibiliy by hiring the very economic aids whose ideas contributed to the financial break-up in the first place -- Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in particular. And Obama demonstrated a deferential attitude to experts on economic issues that diminished confidence in his ability to see how the times called for bolder action than we got.
Meanwhile Republicans coalesced around a refusal to allow Obama's campaign promise of bipartisanship come to pass; instead, they vowed unanimous opposition to any proposals favored by Obama and Democrats. They deprived the President of a single vote for the Stimulus Package and the President helped them in this regard by turning the spending targets to Pelosi and Reid who had fellow Democrats lined up as recipients, giving Republicans good reason to be unsupportive of the Keynesian effort to prime the pump.
What might the President had done differently to secure Republican voters and yet get a stimulus in action:? Tthat is our next post's topic.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Welcome Back!
Greetings, Obamadogs members!
Here we are at the outset of a new academic year in the fall of 2011, after months of a much-needed hiatus from national and presidential politics. In the interim since our last series of comments, we have survived -- barely -- the summer's debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling. Depending on one's perspective, this was not our finest hour politically. From the standpoint of the White House, it was a tough slog. The President's approval rating has dipped into the icy depths of the high 30's/low 40's, and his disapproval rating is as high or higher. More importantly, the unemployment rate remains above 9% in formal terms, above 15% when we factor in those who are under-employed and those who've given up a search for a job. Meanwhile, picking up the thread we left with, Republicans convinced the media and the country that our nation's debt is a more pressing public problem than our jobless and tepid recovery from the Great Recession. Obama meakly allowed this to happen.
We are now several weeks into the Republican presidential nomination contest, with the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, now leading in the national polls as the GOP's front-runner despite his relatively late entry into the race and his penchant for launching verbal scuds. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry has single-handedly and rapidly deflated the balloon of Michele Bachmann's once-bouyant candidacy.
Today Obama outlined his proposal for addressing the long-term debt issue. The "controversial" part is the call for tax increases or the elimination of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Passed off as "the Buffett Rule," after Warren Buffet because of the iconic investor's call for increasing marginal tax rates on people like him so that he paid at least as much percentage-wise on his income as his secretary, this is classic Obama: a late in-the-game oratorical effort to reclaim disheartened supporters from 2008 who are deeply disappointed in the president despite the tough hand he was dealt in the economic tsunami that accompanied the formal end of the recession that nearly metastasized into a global depression before June 2009.
Well, fellow Obamadoggers, what should the President do?
Here we are at the outset of a new academic year in the fall of 2011, after months of a much-needed hiatus from national and presidential politics. In the interim since our last series of comments, we have survived -- barely -- the summer's debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling. Depending on one's perspective, this was not our finest hour politically. From the standpoint of the White House, it was a tough slog. The President's approval rating has dipped into the icy depths of the high 30's/low 40's, and his disapproval rating is as high or higher. More importantly, the unemployment rate remains above 9% in formal terms, above 15% when we factor in those who are under-employed and those who've given up a search for a job. Meanwhile, picking up the thread we left with, Republicans convinced the media and the country that our nation's debt is a more pressing public problem than our jobless and tepid recovery from the Great Recession. Obama meakly allowed this to happen.
We are now several weeks into the Republican presidential nomination contest, with the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, now leading in the national polls as the GOP's front-runner despite his relatively late entry into the race and his penchant for launching verbal scuds. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry has single-handedly and rapidly deflated the balloon of Michele Bachmann's once-bouyant candidacy.
Today Obama outlined his proposal for addressing the long-term debt issue. The "controversial" part is the call for tax increases or the elimination of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Passed off as "the Buffett Rule," after Warren Buffet because of the iconic investor's call for increasing marginal tax rates on people like him so that he paid at least as much percentage-wise on his income as his secretary, this is classic Obama: a late in-the-game oratorical effort to reclaim disheartened supporters from 2008 who are deeply disappointed in the president despite the tough hand he was dealt in the economic tsunami that accompanied the formal end of the recession that nearly metastasized into a global depression before June 2009.
Well, fellow Obamadoggers, what should the President do?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)