The Logical Left

Shock! John Gibson lies!!!

2007-02-01T10:44:00.000-08:00

Like many to the left of the political spectrum, I have a lot of problems with Fox News, but I'll confess I watch it on a fairly regular basis. My Grandfather used to read the right wing papers, because as he said, you should "Know your enemy".

As many of you know by now, the latest conservative attack on Barack Obama is a rather subtle one alluding to his smoking habit, which has been well known for some time now, but will probably resurface again and again, just like the youthful experimentation with cocaine. I'm sure Obama and his team are calculating that it is far better this stuff emerges early and can be dealt with.

But what struck me more than anything else in this interview was the little throwaway line that John Gibson added during the interview about Obama's supposed liberalism.

Gibson states "Obama's formula for success. He has a moderate image, but he has one of the, if not the, most liberal voting record in the Senate. Malia, is that part of the secret of his success, is actually obscuring his liberal voting record?"

Really? According to the National Journal, who measured the entire senate's voting record in 2005, Obama ranks 16th most liberal, which puts him neatly within the middle third of the Demotratic Party. It's amazing how that "the most liberal" title varies at Fox according to the proximity of the individual to power.

Hillary and Guiliani lead the field - Obama and McCain close behind.

2006-11-15T18:45:00.000-08:00

The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by 12 percent among Democrats and Democrat leading independents. To me the most amazing thing about that is that he is in clear second place now, ahead of John Edwards (about to embark on his own publicity blitz) and Al Gore, riding on the coattails of "An Inconvienent Truth".

Given the enormous name recognition advantage that Hillary has in this race, I think her comparatively narrow lead at this stage speaks clearly to problems many Dems have with her. These problems I think are in two broad categories. 1) They percieve her as too polarizing a figure, and worry that she can never be elected because too many people hate her, and 2) They percieve her as "false", someone who will do anything to be elected. As a Democrat friend of mine recently put it - "I wouldn't buy a car from her".

Personally I believe Hillary can win. Bush is I believe at least as polarizing, and "won" twice. Plus if Hillary can hold every state Kerry did (not a difficult task) she only has to win one more (Ohio?) to get elected. In short, no matter who the Democratic candidate is in '08, they should have a good chance.

All that said, it doesn't mean she is the best candidate the Democrats can put forward, and at this stage I believe Obama is. The country appears so dissolusioned right now, that a truly charismatic, open "new" yet smart politician could just be the tonic that the country collectively feels it needs. And despite everything, I even believe there is a chance that Hillary might not run. She has the advantage of not having to enter the race eccessively early, due to her ability to raise money, name recognition and broad assumption that she will enter the race. So if she wishes, she can sit on the sidelines and observe for a while. If the Clintons see the Obama momentum become unstoppable, then she may sit out after all. If she thinks she won't win the primaries, I don't expect to see her at the starting line.

As for the Republicans, don't expect Giulinani (currently leading McCain) to stay in front for long. A party that is so caught up wrestling with its social agenda will not be able to fall square behind such a socially liberal figure. However, if he fails to get the nomination, I wonder if he would think of doing a Lieberman and running as an independent? Intruiging thought.

Pew Research Center on what the midterms mean

2006-11-14T20:26:00.000-08:00

Interesting analysis arguing that Independent swung strongly for the Democrats, while the Republicans pretty much held onto its base. It also shows the increasing tendency of less religious people to vote Democrat. Does this mean that non-religious voters are pushed away by the Republicans emphasis on those matters, or simply that other issues decide which way they vote? I'd be inclined to guess the latter, but it would be interesting to see some research on that.

How signficiant is taking two houses?

2006-11-13T15:05:00.000-08:00

Interesting article here from Charles Krauthammer in the Seattle Times, equating the recent election to a football game, and showing how small the shift actually was. He also points out how both parties have shifted to the right.

The fact that this has happened shows what a strange and dangerous political place the center can be in terms of job security. The Dems in this election were very smart in their recruiting for battleground states, selecting more socially conservative politicians for states those states they were targetting to pick up. This of course allowed many of those social issues to be taken off the agenda, and allow the voters to think of other issues. Meanwhile, the more socially liberal GOP candidates typically lost their jobs, in some cases pretty much purely because they had an (R) after their name - Lincoln Chaffey being the most obvious example, who lost despite v. high popularity in his own state.

So the Dems target a move to the right to meet the electorate, the electorate moves to the left somewhat to meet them, and the GOP, almost by accident shifts further to the right by losing some candidates at the center. I've seen this happen in the UK as well. For many years after Tony Blair first won election, the Conservative party was effectively voted into irrelevancy by the public, with most of the more moderate elements of the party voted out of office, leaving a ragtag bunch of ultra-conservatives left to fight over their own ideology.

The bottom line here is if you are going to fight in the center, you better win in the center, but you ignore the center at your peril, because you may risk losing it for a generation.

GOP starting to get it?

2006-11-13T14:58:00.000-08:00

Here is Trent Lott, talking a good game about where priorities should lie, if the GOP are to remain relevant.

http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_317093900.html

At least it seems that the Dems and the GOP are reaching some agreement on what is important to discuss.

Role of the net in 2006 mid-terms

2006-11-10T16:22:00.000-08:00

Check out this excellent post on Buzz Machine about the role of the net in this last election.

Battle for the soul of the GOP

2006-11-10T14:15:00.000-08:00

After this defeat, the GOP is trying to figure out what it stands for. Expect the different factions to come out fighting. Here is the view of the religious right organization - Focus on the Family.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76034

Truthiness and Gut-thought

2006-11-10T01:44:00.000-08:00

I sometimes compare the United States to a troubled, talented, teenager. It is maturing fast, but its still young, confused and prone to dramatic mood swings.

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic is confusion, probably best exemplified by the red/blue state divide. Of course that divide in itself is an over-simplification. This map from wikipedia shows the truth, that we are a purple nation (which makes you wonder why we are so intent on banning gay marriage). There are definitely however, red and blue people. In fact the political parties are so sure of it that they pay millions of dollars to consulting firms to find those people. Here is a quiz to help prove the point.

If you are a blue person, no matter where you live, you will likely know at least one red person, and boy are we different to one another. Stop and think for a second about, say, Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity. Now try to understand that these people are icons to many of your neighbors. Can you understand that? Does that even make sense? The reality is that we live among people who's views are SO alien to us that they are almost impossible to empathise with. You can be sure that they feel the same about us.

So were we always this way? Well, yes and no. The critical change, some would argue the genius of the Republican party, is changing what MAKES us red and blue, creating conservatives through Truthiness, or what I will call gut-thought. We are still pretty much the same people, its just that our political identities have changed from under us, pretty much starting with the Ronald Reagan era, as shown here.

Gut-thought is surprisingly easy to stimulate if you have political and media power. Controlling the executive and the legislature is a good way to start. Having a cable news network in the pocket, and talk radio hosts following Republican talking points, are also a great help. Once that power base is in place, then you can define the agenda of the day, raising issues and creating legislation that by definition will produce visceral responses. Issues like:

Homsexuality (Gay Marriage)
Abortion/Right to Life
Flag Burning

Issues like these are ideal for the ADD society of today. They can be explained in moments, produce conflict (which provides endless fodder for the cable news networks and the Internet) and feel important to many people. To me the test of a visceral issue is something where a position can be stated in one short sentence, such as "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" (aka God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve). Even better if an issue can be represented in the form of a person, such as Terry Schiavo.

Conflict inevitably arises from these issues (when did you last have a nice civilized discussion about abortion?), and with the help of the media, creates a tension that many would argue becomes news in itself. This is what has been characterized by Bill O'Reilly as "The Culture War" between secular progressives (S-Ps) and traditionalists. O'Reilly's thesis may have had its roots in the War on Christmas, extensively covered by Fox of course. Now conflict, based on these gut issues has become the story, and liberals and conservatives inevitably find themselves lining up on the battlelines. Fox routinely critisizes the "mainstream media" for not covering these issues, but it does a very good job of ramping up the tension all on its own. "We report, you decide" should perhaps be replaced by "We provoke, you repond".

The conflict that arises from gut-thought is a critical part of what makes it effective as a political strategy. This conflict, even more than the issues themselves, is what "energises the base", the controversial Karl Rove strategy. Conflict is what makes Christian conservatives feel "under attack", is what gives these issues overwhelm all others when the time comes to vote.

The true strength of gut-thought is when it is applied to other issues that traditionally require more careful consideration. If the public and media are are accustomed to gut-thought, then that is what they will get, regardless of the issue. Phrases like "Cut and Run", "Blame America First" and "Stay the Course" become buzzwords to define how we "feel" about an issue like Iraq, and replacing careful consideration and analysis to determine the correct course of action.

If issues cannot be explained in those terms, they are generally ignored, or avoided, no matter what their level of importance. No matter what your political leanings, can you REALLY argue that a flag burning amendment is more important than millions of Americans without proper healthcare, medicare/medicaid and social security facing bankruptcy, a huge national debt, or even the threat of Global Warming?

We have an epidemic of Gut-thought, and its affecting the very fabric of our nation. Our natural normal, social differences have been characterised by the O'Reilly's of this world as a war, and are now defining the way we vote, and so the way we are governed. We urgently need to reevaluate our priorities, and start arguing about things that really, seriously matter.

To do that, a new group of people need power, and as of today they have it. I'm hugely encouraged by the initial rhetoric of the Democrats, and I would hope that many Independents and Republicans are too. The point here is not even the exact position taken on the issues, but the fact that these issues will now be discussed. We need a government that will address important issues, and in turn get the nation used once again to thinking about real problems with real solutions, not about social issues designed to push our buttons and take our brains out of the equation.

Blog direction

2006-11-10T00:07:00.000-08:00

My plan in this blog is to be pragmatic, realistic and thoughtful throughout. I want to highly encourage comments from any direction, and I'm sure on occasion I will sway from the "party line" on individual issues. I have no affiliation with any political party, and no intention of ever doing so. I just happen to swing a little to the left, as the title suggests.

I want to create a dialogue of original, sometimes radical, ideas that can help make this country a much better place. Many of the posts will be much longer than is typical for a blog, and as I mentioned will not always track directly the current news cycle, but instead will try and grapple with some of the bigger issues.

Hopefully this will find an audience. I'll give it three months, and see what happens.

Welcome to my blog

2006-11-09T18:24:00.001-08:00

I've been blogging for some time now, over at Slater in Seattle. That blog focuses on IT issues, mainly security, and is affiliated with my work. I've been itching to spend time blogging about things that are more important to me, namely the direction of my adopted country (I'm a transplant to the United States from England).Now with the Democrats taking the House and the Senate, I've decided to bite the bullet and launch this blog, where I can freely express myself in the spirit of the first amendment. The purpose of this blog is to help focus the Democratic party on the issues I feel are vital to the forward direction on this country. In no particular order, I believe these to be:

Creating government that is truly accountable to the people
Narrowing the gap between rich and poor
Dealing with threats to our national security
Reducing the threat of violent crime
Providing first class health care to all
Providing first class education to all
Resolving the social security crisis
Resolving the immigration crisis

In the course of the next few months and years I'll be exploring each of these issues in depth, as well as dealing with the news of the day. I look forward to hearing your comments to tell me where I am right and where I am horribly wrong.