Legal Fiction

Today's Sunday NY Times provides a perfect example of why logical arguments for or against gay marriage are useless. Logic is adding nothing -- all rational arguments for or against gay marriage are merely justifying pre-existing subjective views of homosexuality. In other words, logical arguments are nothing more than window-dressing for one's gut-level view of homosexuality. Let's start with the futility of the Left's logical arguments.

Look at what Frank Rich wrote today:

Here's the denouement of the epic drama over gay marriage. It's going to happen, it's going to happen within a generation. . . "An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license" has been transformed by the people embracing it, much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month.

That argument only works if you assume that homosexuality is not immoral (as I certainly do not). It adds nothing to the logical debate. The important logical leap is that gay marriage is equivalent to the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. I agree, but based on my own subjective views of homosexuality. Many do not.

Now let's look at the Right's views in a column by Lisa Schiffren (on the NYT op-ed page):

Whether you favor gay marriage or not, it should be a concern when judges and officials decide to circumvent the democratic process on a core issue.

No no no no. I'm so sick of this argument. It too assumes the correctness of its view of homosexuality. For example, I think we all agree with "activist" judges who ended segregation, and segregation had overwhelming majority support in the South. So, to say that judges are "activist" is only to say that you disagree with the merits of their decision. Again, this argument adds nothing to the logical debate because it pre-assumes that homosexuality is immoral and not a fundamental right worthy of protection against majority tyranny. She also writes:

It is society's basic institution for raising children. . . . It is how we protect children from the pain and frequent poverty of fatherlessness and family breakdown. Like private property and the rule of law, marriage is one of a few institution that hold up democracy.

Again, that's a great argument, if you start from the assumption that homosexual marriage can't achieve these same goals. It's important that everyone understands the weaknesses of this line of attack. This is not a logically strong argument in favor of the FMA. It only reaffirms pre-existing views. Gay marriage only undermines marriage if you think homosexuality is a bad thing in the first place - so, the "undermining marriage" argument adds nothing. The logic is: (1) gay marriage cannot achieve these goals b/c gay marriage is bad; so therefore (2) it undermines marriage. Step 2 assumes that Step 1 is correct. But too many arguments that I'm hearing are proceeding directly to Step 2.

I know I've been harping on this, and I may take a break from the FMA for a while, largely because I find the logical arguments so pointless. The key for progressives is to get people to change their "first principles" - or to change their pre-existing subjective views. This means appealing to people's emotions, not their logic (pathos over logos). Explain that gay marriage is not a battle of abstract morality, it's a battle for custody rights. It's a battle for visitation rights. It's a battle to keep children with their parents - something that all parents can sympathize with. It's a battle of property rights. It's a battle of privacy - Rosie O Donnell's private conversations and emails were made public (in her recent trial regarding her magazine) because there was no spousal privilege between Rosie and her partner. When people start talking abstractly about gays and immorality, progressives should make the debate more concrete. Ask them if they have a gay neighbor or friend or family member. Then ask them if that person should have the right to visit their children in the case that partners split up or separate. If they agree, then they are in favor of civil unions, which I cannot distinguish from the word "marriage." Call it marriage, call it "civil union," call it a "Satan-convenant." I don't really give a shit, so long as parents have the right to visit their children after a break-up.

Schiffren said one other thing that is just patently false (outrageously and ludicrously false): What marriage most certainly is not is a benefits grab. It does not exist for the sake of providing health benefits or minimizing estate taxes. That's the opposite of true. Marriage implicates over ONE THOUSAND civil provisions. Just look at this list provided by Atrios. It does exist to provide benefits and the benefits are the whole point. Churches can do what they want. But when the public's taxpayer money goes toward creating and enforcing hundreds of civil rights associated with marriage, I don't see how you could possibly say that marriage "does not exist for the sake of providing health benefits." Of course it does.

[Update: Nick over at Tapped provides several more reasons why Schiffren's op-ed struggles.]

Today's NY Times has a great piece explaining that many evangelicals are ambivalent about the FMA. It's not that they are die-hard gay rights activists - it's that they aren't particularly "energized" by Bush's endorsement. If that's true, that could be really bad news for Rove, the genius. After all, the whole point of pissing off half the country was that it would energize the infamous four million evangelicals who stayed home in 2000. The more I think about it, the more I see a much deeper problem for our Boy Genius and his prize student. Here's the million dollar question - what if Rove got bad information? In other words, is it possible that Rove depended too much on the leaders of the evangelical movement who might have given him faulty information about the preferences of the rank-and-file? And it is possible that these leaders might not have been speaking with the interests of their flock in mind, but rather in the interests of their own financial and fund-raising activities? That's a question I'm going to flesh out today. If I'm right, Rove may have just gotten Chalabi-ed by Christ, Inc.

There are two things everyone should understand about the American evangelical movement (and American Protestantism more generally): (1) it is extremely decentralized; and (2) the national organizations that claim to speak for it are multi-million dollar businesses. For those who don't know, "Protestantism" essentially means "not Catholic." It was a protest movement (thus the name Protestant) that eventually split from the Catholic Church in the 1500s, which resulted in the multitude of sects we have today.

As for the decentralization, the whole point of the Protestant Reformation was to democratize Christianity. Luther (along with the printing press and rising literacy - which were fundamental to the rise of Protestantism) taught that anyone with a Bible and a candle could come to know God. You didn't need a leader or a Latin-speaking priest - everything was about your subjective experience with God. Not suprisingly, the Protestant movement, over the course of 500 years, splintered into an infinite number of sects. My hometown alone (population 1500, county population around 8,000) has over 100 churches (if not more). That excessive splintering is part and parcel of the Protestant theology. I mean, I've seen churches almost split about whether guitars (and "modern music") should be allowed for hymns.

The point is that it's extremely problematic to say "evangelicals think X," or to say "doing policy X will energize evangelicals." It's just not possible to know. Unlike the Catholic church, there's no real organization to this multi-headed and very large organism. For one, a substantial number of (white) evangelicals vote Democratic. According to this article, nearly 10 million voted for Gore in 2000. Two, Blue America is way too paranoid about the power national organizations like the 700 Club or the Southern Baptist leadership have over ordinary church-goers. I grew up in a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some years our preacher would go to the convention, sometimes he wouldn't. The only time he ever discussed what happened at the convention was one Sunday when he talked about how stupid all the leaders were (and my town was very rural and working class -- no Starbucks; lots of F-You Boys). But I never felt any sort of organic connection to the national organization, much less any obligation to take or follow orders. The national organization and convention were generally ignored, as I suspect they were in many other churches. That's the beauty of American Protestantism - it's uber-democratic and egalitarian, in the inter-denominational sense.

And don't be fooled when you hear things like Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family has a direct email list of 2.5 million. A lot of that comes from one or two nutcases in the congregation that get people to sign up on the email list, or the direct mail list. People sign up and then head home for the football game. What I'm saying is that the national leadership has little interaction with the rank-and-file, and know very little about their political preferences. And unless you grew up in a rural southern church, it's easy to imagine that Pat Robertson has mind control over millions of automatons. It's just not true. I had never even heard of Pat Robertson until I was in college - and I first learned about him when I heard liberal students attacking the religious right on campus (which offended me at the time b/c I was raised conservative).

Which brings me to point number 2. The so-called evangelical leadership organizations are very lucrative businesses. The 700 Club takes in hundreds of millions of dollars each year (some of it goes to good purposes, which doesn't change its desire for the money). Pat Robertson sold his "Family Channel" to Rupert Murdoch for $1.8 billion (read in Dr. Evil voice) for which Robertson got $200 million himself. The way these organizations raise money is through direct mail and email solicitations. And, as you might have guessed, they've been having a hard time fund-raising as of late. Just look at this recent (Feb. 8) NY Times piece, which describes it very well.

At the same time, attracting new supporters and raising money had grown much more difficult since their bete noire, Bill Clinton, left the White House, several Christian conservative activists involved in the Arlington meeting acknowledged. "Bill Clinton was a great motivator, and when he left there was a sense of 'O.K., our guy is in the White House,' " said Gary L. Bauer, founder of the advocacy group American Values and an early ally in organizing the Arlington meeting.

But some in the movement believe opposition to gay marriage could make for even more effective direct mail -- the financial lifeblood of most advocacy groups -- than their other great cause, the fight against abortion. "Abortion has never been a strong direct-mailer," said Richard A. Viguerie, founder of American Target Advertising and the dean of conservative direct mail.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Viguerie said, his company expects to send out more than 10 million letters for a host of social conservative groups.

I think you see where I'm going with this. These groups were having difficulties raising money and attracting new members, so they needed something new to demonize in their mass mailings. That seems to be how they raise money (which I'm deducting from the Clinton reference above).

Ok - we're getting close to the end. So here you have these multimillion dollar businesspeople who are watching their revenues decline. In case you didn't know, these are the same people who Rove allegedly talks to every day. They have free access to Rove, which means they have free access to Bush, which means they have free access to influence our national policy. And so they've been putting a ton of pressure on Rove, threatening that Christians won't come out or will be depressed - as if they had some sort of control or knowledge or even influence over that. And so Bush caved, thinking that it would energize evangelicals ("There is no middle" as Rove once said).

Here's the problem - how does Rove know that these evangelical leaders can (1) know the preferences of the extremely decentralized evangelical groups; (2) speak for this group; and (3) direct or influence this group in any way. Tell you what Karl, they can't. You got suckered, Chalabi-style. These people have a very tenuous grasp on the broader evangelical pulse (which I think is unfairly denigrated by the Left). I base this conclusion on both the Slate and NY Times article (linked above) and on my own personal experience. In my town (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism), the people who were actively involved in these national organizations were viewed as slightly nutty within the congregration. But the slightly nutty are the ones who give the money. And the people who get the money will act in the interest of those who are giving the money. It's classic public choice theory.

In other words, the "leadership" has a very skewed perception of the evangelical movement, because the people who give money and are the most active are not that (in my opinion) representative of the collective evangelical group. Simply put, it's not possible for these leaders to know (in an epistemological sense) what will or won't energize the base. But that didn't stop them from telling Rove that they knew something they couldn't possibly know.

Here's my last point. There are a couple of ways of looking at these leaders' influence in getting Bush's endorsement of the FMA. One theory is that these people really didn't care whether it would energize the base or not. They needed to raise money. And to raise money, they needed a bogeyman. It used to be Bill Clinton. Now it's Rosie O'Donnell and the queers. I'm not quite that paranoid though - I think that these people think they are acting morally. So, a more likely theory is that the leaders projected their own intense preferences upon the greater evangelical movement, which can neither be classified nor strongly influenced using a top-down approach. In other words, they told Bush what they wanted to see happen, rather than what would energize the broader evangelical movement. Which means they gave Bush faulty data.

Bush got suckered. Again. Only this time, he wasn't Chalabi-ed. He was Bauer-ed.

I've decided to take Saturdays off from the blogosphere. But rather than leaving you with nothing, I've decided to use Saturdays to repost some of my old writings that newer viewers may not have read. I wrote this post on January 18.


ORIGINALISM AND RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM - Distant Cousins?

I'm in the process of reading an interesting book by Karen Armstrong - "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism." She surveys three major religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) and traces the rise and development of each religion's fundamentalist movements. Her central argument is that fundamentalism should be understood as a modern response to, as well as a rejection of, the forces of modernity (and the changes that follow). Applying her insights to constitutional law, I was struck by the similarities between the rise, or recent revival, of originalism in American constitutional interpretation and the rise and revival of religious fundamentalism. In fact, I think the debate over originalism reflects a larger debate in our society between the forces of what I call modernism and anti-modernism. I also think this debate is the source of the extreme political polarization in America today. But let's back up.

According to Armstrong, the history of the three religions can be divided up into broad general categories. Throughout most of their existence, the religions existed in the "premodern" stage, in which the "conservative spirit" dominated. She explains:

Instead of looking forward to the future, like moderns, premodern societies turned for inspiration to the past. Instead of expecting continuous improvement, it was assumed that the next generation could easily regress. Instead of advancing to new heights of achievement, societies were believed to have declined from a primordial perfection. This putative Golden Age was held up as a model for governments and individuals. It was by approximating to this past ideal that a society would fulfill its potential. Civilization was experienced as inherently precarious . . . [and] could easily lapse into barbarism. (p. 34)

You can read the rest here.

You can now add comments.

I used to be very frustrated with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's failure to provide any information about anything. I was even beginning to believe that the press briefings were pointless. But no more. I finally learned how to crack the code. And once you know how to crack the code, the briefings are actually very informative and will tell you all you need to know. Here's how you crack the code - whatever Scotty says, just assume the opposite is true. Expressed algebraicly, truth = the opposite of what Scotty says. Just add a "not" to everything, and you're golden. Just look at the following examples from recent press briefings (I'm getting them from Josh Marshall).

MCCLELLAN CODE: [regarding the 9/11 commission extension]: I mean, the President supports extension -- supports the extension that the commission has requested.
TRANSLATION: The President does not support the extension that the commission requested.

MCCLELLAN CODE: [on cooperating with the 9/11 commission]: One, this administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to the 9/11 Commission.
TRANSLATION: The administration has not provided unprecedented cooperation.

MCCLELLAN CODE: [regarding Bush's willingness to spend only one hour with the commission]: [The President] looks forward to meeting privately with the chairman and vice chairman to provide them with the necessary information.
TRANSLATION: The President does not look forward to meeting with them.

MCCLELLAN CODE: [regarding the Hastert kabuki dance]: Well, we continue to urge Congress to extend it for two months.
TRANSLATION: We urge Congress not to extend it for two months.

MCCLELLAN CODE [regarding the phony jobs forecast]: I've been asked this, and I've asked -- I've been asked, and I've answered.
TRANSLATION: I've not answered.

MCCLELLAN CODE [regarding the National Guard]: Again, the documents -- the records document that he did serve while in Alabama.
TRANSLATION: The records do not document that he served there.

It's really easy once you get the hang of it.

I still have doubts about his electability, but John Kerry is on a roll right now. His debate performance was very strong. And today, he offered his plan to combat terrorism. This is exactly the right strategy. As I explained before, Kerry could pick up a lot of alienated moderates by showing a strong conviction to combat terrorism. Quite simply, this is the only advantage that Bush has left. He's losing on every other issue, and last I checked, he was about at even on Iraq. If Kerry can make a formidable challenge on the issue of terrorism, it will be very difficult for Bush to win.

Bush's anti-terrorism strategy relies heavily (I think too heavily) on the military. But, people are scared, so this isn't a loser for him. What Kerry must do is to combine a willingness to use the military with an approach more sympathetic to international alliances. But Americans aren't crazy about internationalism, so Kerry needs to package this message in terms of national security. In other words, he's not going to get anywhere saying, "We must respect the international community." He needs to say, "Respecting the international community makes us safer. Ignoring it or embarrassing it makes us weaker. Without the goodwill of the world, we cannot obtain the intelligence and cooperation we need to go after those who would destroy us." Something like that. I hate to sound too much like Dick Morris, but the Republicans are going to try to justify their policies through fear. Kerry has to strike back and say that Bush's arrogant treatment of the world endangered our security, which it has. I would love to see the number of people who wanted to attack us in late 1999, and compare it to the number of people who want to attack us right now.

Again, Kerry doesn't have to win this debate. If he just closes the gap, he wins in a landslide. That is, unless the Bush/Greenspan economic policy of cutting-Social-Security-to-pay-for-tax-cut-inspired-deficits becomes popular.

It's Friday, so I'm going to be an amateur sociologist today. Again, I haven't seen the Passion, but I've read about 100 reviews or blogs on it, so I think I have a good idea of what the film is about. Getting away from the controversies surrounding the film, I want to make a somewhat different observation. The Passion is perhaps the most quintessentially American film out right now, in that it reflects a lot of characteristics of modern American culture (and this is not necessarily a good thing). If you were a sociologist, you could easily account for the Passion's popularity by looking at larger themes within American mass culture. As a disclaimer, this is all speculation, so I'd welcome thoughts on these observations.

The Passion and Reality TV

Whatever else it is, the Passion is extremely violent and gory. Some people will find this gratifying because it symbolizes Christ's suffering and will lead to a higher religious experience. I think, however, that most people will find it gratifying because Americans are so very sadomasochistic - they derive pleasure from watching pain inflicted on others. And American popular culture reflects this insatiable desire for sadomasochism. The Passion is merely an extreme manifestation of a much larger and widespread phenomenon.

Take reality TV - it is, at its essense, sadomasochistic. I watched "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" (it was like crack - too hard to resist). That show was 100% sadomasochism. This poor family was emotionally tortured while they thought their daughter/sister was going to marry this truly terrible guy (but mustn't give the queers this right - or else marriage will be "undermined"). Take American Idol - the main reason people watch is to see what smartass things Simon will say. That's also why the Asian guy is so popular right now (you know, the one that sung so badly that it became kitschy). The list goes on and on - Fear Factor, Survivor, Temptation Island. They're all about watching others in pain. I don't know what causes us to enjoy sadomasochistic programming so much, but we clearly do (Freud linked it to sex - shockingly). These shows are all about gratifying our desire to see others in pain. I think even presidential political succumbs to this demand. We say we want to be inspired, but we what we really want is to see people destroyed. Our sadomasochistic desires also explain the fascination with the Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart trials.

To fool ourselves into thinking that we are not watching only because we love to see people in pain (or get some unconscious sexual gratification from seeing others in pain), the reality shows need to give us some sort of excuse for watching that lets us believe we're not that bad. For example, "My Big Fat Fiance" was eventually going to award the family a million dollars - so we thought it was OK to see them tortured in the meantime. Likewise, people can make excuses for enjoying the violence of the Passion because they can rationalize it as relating to their faith.

I'm not casting moral judgments on this part of the American pysche. I mean, the Romans packed the Coliseum to see tigers eat people - this is not a new phenomenon. And a lot of great art incorporates sadomasochism. But make no mistake - the reality shows and the Passion provide very little "art," and a great deal of sadomasochism. From what I understand, Gibson really isn't using the violence to express some higher, intellectual point. The point of the Passion is the violence - and we love violence, for many the same reasons that some people like porn - pleasure from pain.

What's truly interesting is whether there's something about American society that makes us more willing consumers of sadomasochism. In other words, I'm asking whether this is part of the human condition, or whether something about our society makes sadomasochism even more appealing. Perhaps it's that so many Americans hate their jobs, or find their lives boring - they like the escape of seeing others in pain. Maybe it's because Americans are so isolated and atomized (just look up how long people watch TV every day), which robs them of healthy social and community interaction. I don't know - again, I'm merely speculating. I'd welcome people's thoughts on this.

Nothing terribly dramatic. I thought Kerry's performance was much better. Sharpton showed rhetorical brilliance - again. ("Let's make a constitutional amendment against presidents that lie.") I'm no longer dreading his convention speech (assuming he gets one). I'm actually kind of excited about it. Anyway, the only thing I took away from tonight was a strengthened conviction that Kerry-Edwards would be a powerful ticket. I laid out my arguments in some detail in a previous post, so I won't do so again.

To sum up what I said earlier (I recommend reading the earlier post), the main point I made is that voters place far too much emphasis on Electoral College calculations with respect to vice-presidents (though I've argued they place far too little emphasis on Electoral College calculations with respect to presidents). I think that the most effective VPs are those who complement the ticket. For example, Quayle didn't help Bush in the Midwest in 1992. Kemp did not win New York (or anything) for Dole. Lieberman did not win Florida for Gore. I think that instead of trying to pick off an individual state, Kerry should follow Bush's example in 2000. Cheney was not selected in the hopes of carrying Wyoming, or carrying the brooding Hobbesian Gollum-like creature vote (both groups voted Bush). He was selected to complement Bush - to fill in Bush's gaps (which related to gravitas and national security in 2000). In other words, Cheney was selected to create a winning ticket in every state, not just to win a couple of states.

Kerry will probably end up picking Gephardt, or Richardson (that's my bet), or Graham, all in the hopes of picking off a couple of states. I'm sorry, but any of those combinations will create the most boring, unexciting ticket ever. Yes, Gephardt gets you Missouri, but at the cost of losing all energized Democratic voters in other swing states (which also means less donations, less committed volunteers, grass-roots efforts, etc.). In thinking about national tickets, does anyone really get excited about Kerry-Gephardt or Kerry-Graham (uggh) or even Kerry-Richardson. No. What Kerry really needs is someone to complement him. Kerry needs someone who can fill in his gaps, so that he can create a truly national ticket that inspires excitement.

Edwards is perfect. Kerry lacks charisma on the stump, Edwards has it. Kerry has a hard time relating to Red America. Red Americans will love John Edwards. Kerry has no meta-theme on domestic policy. Edwards has strong, compelling meta-themes ("Two Americas" and "Wealth to Work"). Kerry looks older. Edwards looks younger. Kerry doesn't generate or inspire excitement. Edwards is always inspiring.

Edwards, however, has no real foreign policy gravitas (as his bumbling Iraq response showed tonight). Kerry does. Edwards lacks national security credentials. Kerry doesn't. Edwards has never fought in a war. Kerry has.

It truly is a match made in heaven.

I haven't seen the movie yet, though I'm hoping to see it this weekend. I listened to an NPR show today and the question of whether the film or Gibson was anti-Semitic came up a lot. I express no opinion on that. I am suprised, though, by how certain everyone seems to be that the film either is or isn't anti-Semitic. How can we possibly know what Gibson's intent (either conscious or unconscious) was? The film reminds me of the mirror in the Harry Potter movie. You look in and it shows you what you want to see. For those so inclined, there's a lot to support the anti-Semitic claim - especially the positive treatment that Pilate gets and the demonization of the Jewish leaders. On the other hand, there's a lot to support the opposite conclusion. After all, the depiction of pain is a big part of the Christian message that Christ suffered for man's sins, and this part of Christianity has nothing to do with Jews.

It's sort of the same with WMDs. Throughout 2003, people thought Iraq definitely didn't have them, or definitely did have them. There was nothing in between - no agnosticism about a question they could not possibly know the answer to.

So, the Passion is probably anti-Semitic if you want it to be, and it's not if you don't want it to be. And, Gibson is anti-Semitic if you want him to be, and he's not if you don't want him to be. Reason follows passion - always.

Well, for those who like that sort of thing, I should think it is just about the sort of thing they would like.
- Abraham Lincoln

[Update: I should add, though, that for those who are anti-Semitic to begin with, this film can only make that worse. But that's true for any work of art. ]

Something has been troubling about the conception of Strom Thurmond's daughter. The more I think about it, the more it seems like rape. People will certainly get upset about my claim, but hear me out.

From what I understand, Thurmond had sex with Carrie Butler, who was a 16 year old maid in the Thurmond house at the time. That would have been in the 1920s. Now in case you don't know, the early 20th century was about as bad as racial relations got (especially in the South). This was the era of lynchings and disenfranchisement. The Klan was also enjoying a resurgance. Blacks had no political or social power, in large part because they had been ruthlessly lynched, maimed, and threatened in order to force them to abandon all civil and political rights.

Rape, as you know, is forced sex, or sex without consent. Here's my question - was Carrie Butler capable of consent? I think not. I don't know the details, but just think about Butler's situation. Here you have a 22 year old scion of a prominent South Carolina family approaching her for sex. With a single word or accusation, Thurmond could easily have had her fired or arrested or even killed. The power imbalance was severe (to say the least). In the world of South Carolina in the 1920s, 16-year old black maids could not possibly have consented or resisted white sexual advances. The potential threats were too heavy in the air.

Again, I'm not saying that Thurmond held her down and violated her. But it's worth asking - did Thurmond rape Butler? And why aren't more people angry about it?

[Update: I did a quick Google search and found this MSNBC article, which makes the case much better than I do. It also provides some grotesque details of that area of South Carolina at the time. By the way, I was reminded of this topic after reading the Slate article about Naomi Wolf's claims that Yale ignores sexual harrassment, which I will be writing about later (as a Yalie myself - I have some problems with Wolf's dubious arguments.) I also was on campus during one of the events she discusses (in 1996), and she misrepresents it. I'll explain later.]

One of the many criticisms of Bush’s FMA endorsement is that he’s turned his back on states’ rights. After all, conservatives are supposed to be the party of states’ rights, so if they were consistent, they would oppose the FMA on federalism grounds. While I agree Bush is being a bit inconsistent, I don’t think this criticism is a strong one. And I think so largely because “states’ rights” is a meaningless concept. There is nothing inherently conservative about supporting states’ rights. There is nothing inherently liberal about it either. And the reason is because “states’ rights” has no conceptual meaning. It is always and necessarily a pretext for some underlying argument. So, every single argument that you will ever hear involving federalism is actually an argument about something else. As a matter of logic, states’ rights adds nothing to the argument - it’s merely window dressing. But let’s back up to see why.

Throughout history, states’ rights has been invoked equally well by conservatives and liberals (though I don’t like imposing those words on history - they don’t really apply well, but anyway). The most obvious example was the use of states’ rights rhetoric to defend slavery and segregation. But at the turn of the century, states’ rights rhetoric was adopted by “liberals” such as future Justice Brandeis to oppose corporate centralization and big business. In the late 19th and and early 20th century, federal courts were notoriously anti-labor and pro-big business, and as a result, so was federal law. The most infamous example of the courts’ labor bias was the all-too-common labor injunction, which blocked strikes and other valid labor movements. Liberal reformers challenged these federal rulings by arguing for more power to be given to the states.

More recent examples confirm this pattern. Conservatives, for example, want their states’ rights when it comes to abortion or environmental regulation. But they oppose it for gay marriage and medicinal marijuana. Liberals do the same thing, only in reverse. It sounds inconsistent, but it’s really not. That’s because the “states’ rights” arguments are actually arguments about the underlying disputes themselves - slavery, marijuana, gay marriage, Bush v. Gore, whatever.

Logically speaking, the statement “I support states’ rights” has no meaning. You always have to ask the follow-up question - “the right to do what?” Federalism does not exist in a vacuum - it can only have meaning in relation to some external debate. Thus, whenever anyone says, “I support states’ rights,” he or she is actually saying, “I support granting the states this or that particular power.” And it’s the merits of “this or that particular power” that are actually debated under the guise of states’ rights.

Take some of the most common justifications for states’ rights. For example, people say, “I believe local communities can decide what’s best for them, and increasing states’ rights is a way to allow local people to express their preferences.” But you always have to ask the follow-up question - “increasing the rights to do what?” What if the local community wanted to enslave blacks? Or what if they wanted to end Social Security, or eliminate the federal interest rate? No one wants to give the states the power to do these things. And that’s because people have strong views about the merits of slavery and Social Security. States’ rights has nothing to do with it.

Another common justification is that giving power to the states encourages diversity and experimentation. But again, you have to ask - “giving them power to do what?” What if a state wanted to ban interracial marriages or bomb Canada? Those are diverse experiments. Our nation wouldn’t allow them because we think banning interracial marriage and bombing Canada are immoral actions.

Same deal for gay marriage. A lot of reasonable people say, “I think this or that, but I really think it should be left up to the states.” I’m sorry, but leaving it up to the states is merely an expression of your view of the merits of gay marriage, not states’ rights. Some conservatives think gay marriage is so wrong that it should not be left to the states. Some liberals think the right is so fundamental that it should not be left up to the states. Those people in the middle who would leave it up to states don’t subscribe to either theory (leaving aside tactical decisions of politicians). This “moderate” group doesn’t think gay marriage is so wrong that it should it banned, but they apparently don’t think that it’s such a fundamental right that it must be imposed on the states either (like interracial marriage should be). This “middle way” is simply a reflection of some people’s particular view of homosexuality and gay marriage. States’ rights has nothing to do with it.

This is why both sides seem so inconsistent whenever federalism-related disputes come up (especially in the legal world). But once you understand that states’ rights is merely a pretext for some underlying dispute, everything makes sense. Conservatives support states’ rights when it supports a position they favor - abortion, federal regulation, state sovereign immunity - and disregard it when it doesn’t - Bush v. Gore, gay marriage, marijuana. No doubt some conservatives are in favor of letting states have legal marijuana, but this decision is based on their libertarian preferences (or their fondness for da herb) rather than on “states’ rights.” Liberals do the same thing - no federalism for slavery, but federalism for medical marijuana.

So if the concept of states’ rights is so meaningless, why has it made such a lasting impression on our national consciousness? In my opinion, it’s a persuasive and beautiful narrative - meaningless and empty, but beautiful nonetheless. In other words, it’s a great rhetorical tool. It evokes images of Norman Rockwell town meetings. It lets people argue that they are for local sovereignty. But make no mistake - it adds nothing. It is always used to either attack or defend a pre-existing policy preference.

I’m going to be exploring this issue more next week, so stay tuned.

LF just got its 10,000th visit today. It's not a lot I know, but you have to remember that it's only been around for two months, and it was not widely trafficked during the first few weeks (to say the least). Anyway, I just wanted to thank everyone for reading and for all the emails. I do appreciate it.

With independents opposing the FMA by nearly 52 to 37, Kerry has been given an opening to snatch them up, along with moderate Republicans. Now is the moment for Kerry to become a terrorist hawk. I think there are literally millions of single issue Bush supporters, who care only about protecting the nation from terrorists. Many of these people hate everything else about Bush, but fear that Democrats won't be tough enough.

If Kerry came out right now and ran to the right of Bush on protecting us from terrorism, I think he could be well on his way to the White House. Terrorism is the only thing the Bushies have left. If you take that away (or mount a serious challenge), he will only have his white evangelicals to fall back on. Kerry has been given a window - let's see if he takes it.

I just got directed to an article in the Weekly Standard by Stanley Kurtz called "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The 'Conservative Case' for Same-Sex Marriage Collapses." The article's thesis is that after legalizing same-sex marriage, Scandinavian countries have experienced higher divorce rates and more out-of-wedlock births. I've had this article cited to me several times, so it's important to understand why the logic fails. It's a very simple principle - correlation does not equal causation.

There's a great example from Samuel Johnson's Rasselas, which shows why this logic is so bad. In the book, the main character finds a troubled old man. The man was worried because he alone was responsible for making the sun rise each day. Every morning, the man had to get up and perform a ritual, and lo and behold, the sun would come up. Johnson's point was that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the sun always followed the performance of the ritual, that does not mean that the ritual caused the sun to go up.

This exact same logical fallacy is found in the Kurtz article. Kurtz cites a parade of horribles, but never explains how gay marriage (as opposed to broader demographic trends common throughout the West) caused the higher divorce rates. In fact, it's a little contradictory to say that a policy that increases permissible weddings and creates families actually causes higher divorces and destroys families. Here's how Kurtz gets around this contradiction:

Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

It has? What? My law professor would give that logic an "F." I mean, do people really believe this stuff? Yes, divorces are up, but that's true in America too and has been since the late 50s (should we blame "I Love Lucy?" or Eisenhower perhaps). Lots of factors lead to the increase of divorce. And because every post-industrial country has experienced increased divorces, the more empirically minded might think that this suggests broader, structural causes (other than those damn gays running around all over the place). First, women now have both the financial ability and the legal right to leave marriages they find distasteful. Second, American workers (and Western workers) are much more mobile and move around a lot, which puts stress on the nuclear family. Third, a lot of people are concluding that marriage sucks - they like their freedom and mobility. Kurtz is merely pointing out demographic trends that have a multitude of causes, and then pinning that cause on gay marriage.

People do the same thing to the "60s." They point to hippies and blame them for changes that, in reality, were brought about by our revered free market capitalist economy (and I'm not advocating socialism, everyone's favorite straw man - I'm just pointing out some of the negatives). Here's a news flash - capitalism destroys families, not homosexuals. Our economic structure imposes endless demands on Americans: the social pressures of having a good house or car; the ability of companies to come and go on a moment's notice; the destruction of local stores by chains like Wal-Mart; the pressures to work longer and harder hours and ignore the family; along with the pressure on Americans to move around continuously to find money for health care and education (which should be free and are free in countries not run by warlords).

Not to get too Marxist - but the 60s and gay people are useful scapegoats for the real culprit - the free market, global economy. It's destroyed far more families than any gay people ever will.

I know I promised another post on why Rove is not a genius - that's coming. But I'm not finished with the FMA debate. I think the key for all progressives is to focus on defining the terms of the debate. If we allow the debate to proceed at a dreamy abstract level, it will be hard to persuade anyone. For example, we can't win a debate about what is or isn't a "traditional pillar of moral society" - whatever the hell that means. That's the reason conservatives use lofty, meaningless language in the first place. The language itself is so devoid of meaning that anti-gay advocates can impose their own personal preferences upon the language and make it mean whatever they want it to mean (which is a common tactic in both biblical and constitutional interpretation). And as a result, rational argument becomes pointless because the argument becomes completely circular. Gay marriage is wrong because it's immoral. And because it's immoral, it's wrong.

Progressives should come down from the clouds and show what the marriage ban actually looks like on a micro-level. We need to show people the painful world that exists for those who don't have the benefits that heterosexuals take for granted every day. Atrios, for example, provides an excellent list of all the rights that depend upon a legally recognized marital status. I want to do my part by offering some more cases in which the lack of marital status led to heart-breaking results. I offered some yesterday (which people should read), but here are more.

Again though, it's important to remember that the more concretely we argue, the more effective we will be. Rational arguments (or "logos" - defined here) won't work - progressives must appeal to pathos, or to people's natural sense of pity and compassion. As I explained in a previous post, rational argument usually doesn't lead anyone to change their minds, because rationality is merely a tool to justify pre-existing preferences that are the result of non-rational factors such as one's upbringing, or social network, or parents, etc. Anyway, here are more of the horrible cases.

Guardianship of Z.C.W. (Cal. Ct. of App. 1999). In this case, a lesbian couple had a baby (via insemination) in 1987. They proceeded to raise the child together, and the child was even named after the non-biological parent. In 1990, the couple split up, but the partner got to visit the child regularly through 1994, when the biological parent terminated the agreement. The partner, shut off completely from the child she had raised, secretly met with the child until the biological mother found out about the meetings. She then obtained a restraining order against her former partner under the "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" (there was no indication of any mistreatment). The restraining order prevented the partner from even contacting the child. In denying the partner's eventual lawsuit, the court said, "a lesbian partner who was not the adoptive or biological parent of children conceived during a lesbian relationship [is] not entitled to seek custody or visitation of the children." I think any parents out there can understand the magnitude of the pain this would cause.

Florida Adoption Law - Florida statute 63.042 regulates adoption. Section 3 of that statute says "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual." This provision was recently challenged in federal court (the 11th Circuit) - Lofton v. Secretary. In this case, a group of plaintiffs sued, arguing that this statute was unconstitutional. Two of the plaintiffs had been involved in the Florida foster care program. One had cared for an HIV-positive baby since birth for over five years and nursed him back to health (he had previously cared for numerous other sick children). He ultimately filed for adoption. A second plaintiff began caring for a child in 1996 (the child was 4) after the child's alcoholic father left it. When the two plaintiffs (and there were others in the case) filed for adoption, they were denied ONLY because they and their partners were homosexuals. The court explained, "the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging this optimal family structure by seeking to place adoptive children in homes that have both a mother and father." Apparently, "optimal" does not refer to a guardian who has successfully and lovingly cared for the children since birth.

Mississippi Adoption Law - Section 93-17-3(2) states that "Adoption by couples of the same gender is prohibited." This is a new law, so it hasn't been challenged yet, but you get the point.

People need to understand that homosexuality is a reality. These people raise children, seek adoption, get divorces, and have custody battles. By banning gay marriage and civil unions, the state does the opposite of strengthening the family. It destroys families and prevents them from being created. And it crushes individuals who are torn from the children they have raised since birth. These laws are cruel. And well-intentioned or not, those people who support such discriminatory laws are advocating cruelty and creating pain and destroying families. I dare call it immoral.

Bush said that the FMA (or protecting "traditional" marriage) will "promote the welfare of children and the stability of society." I would urge Bush to do a little legal research. These are past cases that show the human costs of denying homosexuals the right of marriage. My research was hasty, so I don't know if statutes have been changed, but these are real cases. Just look at the following examples and see whose side most threatens the "welfare of the children."

Liston v. Plyes (Ohio Ct. of Appeals 1997). This case involved two lesbians who had been partners for sixteen years. They decided that they wanted a child and Pyles agreed to be the biological mother. They both raised the baby for three years and Liston (the partner) had even provided the bulk of support in 1994, the year they broke up. After the separation, Pyles refused to grant Liston visitation rights and so she sued. The court denied visitation rights to someone, who by anyone's definition, was a PARENT. The Ohio court explained, "In sum, appellant has no statutory right to visitation nor a statutory remedy to assert her alleged right to visitation. Should the legislature determine that companionship or visitation rights should be extended to lesbian and/or homosexual partners, such a determination must be left to the legislature: not this court. " So, imagine (parents) if you were separated from your baby after raising it for three years and then you were refused visitation. Can you imagine how crushing such an experience would be. It makes me almost cry just thinking about it. What's so fucking Christian about this?

In re: Visitation With C.B.L. (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). Again, a lesbian couple agreed to have a baby and one of them was inseminated. After raising the child together for a year and a half, they broke up and the biological mother refused to allow the partner to visit the child. The partner sued and the court dismissed her suit. It explained, "This court, however, has no authority to ignore the manifest intent of our General Assembly. Who shall have standing to petition for visitation with a minor is an issue of complex social significance. Such an issue demands a comprehensive legislative solution." But a two-thousand year old book says it's bad, so I guess there's no harm. Right?

Here's a happier one - Leora F. v. Sofia D. (Family Court NY 1995). In this case, the biological mother died shortly after birth. Her partner filed for guardianship, but it was challenged by an estranged husband and his mother (the child was not even the husband's child). Fortunately, the child was awarded to the partner, but I think you can imagine what would happen if this case came up in a different state, or had been heard by a different judge - let's say, oh, a Bush appointee or a GOP state judge.

There are undoubtedly many others - I'll look when I have more time. But our current laws prevent partners from enjoying so many important rights such as bringing wrongful death actions, from adopting, and from hospital visitations. And I'm sure that some homophobic grandparent has been awarded custody of children who were raised by a deceased biological parent and his/her partner. This is heart-breaking stuff. And it's really hard not to hate the FMA supporters when you understand the real-life consequences of their actions.

I should say that I don't mean to be too hard on Christianity - just this particular interpretation of it. I have argued that Christianity - properly understood - actually requires people to accept the rights of gays and lesbians.

Bush is set to endorse the FMA and Democrats should be thrilled. This move will prove to be a colossal mistake and will only help the Democratic long-term strategy of limiting the GOP to a white, southern, evangelical base (see my post from last night - below).

I think the GOP is grossly "mis-underestimating" the opposition that the amendment will generate once people realize that it does more than "protect" the right of states to define marriage - it actually will intrude into their lives by banning all gay marriage and possibly all civil unions as well (see here for details). There's a precedent for the backlash-to-come - slavery (and I'm not equating support for slavery with opposition to gay marriages - I'm just noting the backlash phenomenon). Before the Civil War, many northerners were largely indifferent to slavery as long as it didn't affect them or their lives. It was a regional phenomenon, far removed from them. But the South insisted on enacting the infamous Fugitive Slave Act, which required northerners to assist the authorities in returning people to slavery. When slavery began actually affecting their lives in tangible ways, things changed dramatically. One famous example of this change is Anthony Burns, a former slave in Boston. In 1854, Burns was set to be sent back to slavery and it inspired a mob to try and save him. It took a military deployment to beat back the mob, and Burns was reenslaved. This inflamed and radicalized the north. Amos Lawrence (a Whig) put it best, "we went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs & woke up stark mad Abolitionists." John Brown explained that the Fugitive Slave Law created "more abolitionists than all the lectures we have had for years."

Something similar will happen if Bush pushes hard for the FMA - especially if it means that couples will start having to relinquish benefits or even children (either through adoption bans or through the legal default that children of deceased parents go to family members other than the partner - that would be a great legal battle - a partner battling homophobic grandparents for custody of a child). People don't mind if Alabama bans civil unions. But people will mind when the federal government reaches into their lives and forbids them from enacting civil unions through their legislature. And they will certainly mind when the GOP attempts to carve homophobia into our revered rights-expanding Constitution.

It's so stupid. The GOP had a short-term advantage on the issue because it seemed like "extreme" San Francisco types were pushing too hard and imposing their will on the country. But the GOP is forfeiting that advantage by introducing their own extreme amendment. But Rove should take note, people aren't really that outraged at what's going on in San Francisco. Maybe he should talk to people other than the nutball evangelicals he allegedly talks to every morning. And he should realize that even if a poll indicates a lack of support, the poll says nothing as to the intensity of that lack of support. Rove is making a tragic error - only the evangelicals intensely support the amendment. Right now people are indifferent. But there will soon be intense opposition once the GOP takes this fateful step, even among Bush's friends. Already, the Log Cabin Republicans have threatened to drop their support if Bush supports the FMA. Many others will follow. As I explained in post below, supporting the FMA is ignoring major demographic trends and jeopardizing the health of the GOP over the long term. Bring it on George, you stupid, stupid man.

[Update: The first casualty - Andrew Sullivan. Bush just lost the most trafficked blog on the Internet. More will follow.]

[Update 2: The Musgrove version of the FMA - the one Bush is allegedly supporting - would ban civil unions too, despite what Bush and the press are saying. Check out Jack Balkin's post for details - pointed out by Atrios initially.

Like many many others, I have long held the opinion that Karl Rove (no matter how distasteful) is a political mastermind. His alleged political genius was first announced to the world in 1999. Just look at what Mark McKinnon, a Bush media advisor, said about him back then: "Karl plays politics like Bobby Fischer plays chess . . . He looks at the whole board and thinks 20 moves ahead." And as we all know, Rove fancies himself a modern Mark Hanna, the Republican strategist who helped McKinley usher in an era of Republican dominance from the 1890s to the 1920s. Like Hanna, Rove wants to create a new Republican majority. But after reading Stanley Greenberg's wonderful (wonderful wonderful) new book - the Two Americas - I'm beginning to realize that the genius has fucked up - royally. Instead of laying the groundwork for a new Republican majority, Rove has directed Bush down a path that will result in permanent minority status for the Republicans over the long term.

If Bush read Greenberg's book (hypothetically speaking), he would dump Rove and bring Jim Baker and the country club Republicans back in. That's because Rove's strategy is not really that savvy. In fact, it's dumb. The opposite of brilliant. He's essentially sacrificing the long term health of the Republican Party for the short term success of Bush. It's sort of like trading 10 minor league pitchers for a 40 year old Roger Clemens. It will help in you this year's World Series, but it will ultimately hurt you. Based largely on Greenberg's book (which I'm only halfway through), I'm going to do two posts (one today, one tomorrow) on why Rove's strategy is so bad.

If you're a Republican, listen closely - Rove is going to destroy your party. And the reason why he's going to destroy your party is that he is aligning your party with segments of the population that are in systematic decline. He's also creating a party that is directly opposed to those segments of the population that are growing the most rapidly. Tomorrow, we'll look at the Hispanic strategy, but today I want to look at gay marriage and the secular, urban, and highly educated vote. (Disclaimer - I haven't read Ruy Texiera's "The Emerging Democratic Majority," but I suspect many of the arguments will be same. I welcome comments on that since I haven't read it.)

Before reading Greenberg's book, I was convinced that America was in the midst of a Third Great Awakening. I feared that militant evangelicals (concentrated in the South) were increasing in numbers, and were on their way to creating a permanent Republican majority. Not true. According to Greenberg, the number of regular church-goers (attending church every week) is 25%, down from 35% in 1972. The decline seems to have stopped, however, and it's held steady at 25% for the past 15 years. And it increases to 30% when you include people that go nearly every week (though I suspect a big chunk of these are black voters). But - get this - the number of people who either never go to church or go less than once a year has increased from 18% in 1972 to 29% in 2000. The number increases to 42% when you include the number of people who go to church only once a year. I was shocked at these numbers, but it explains why the Democrats gained seats in 1998 on the heels of the moral crusade against Clinton.

Also, Democrats are sweeping up in what Greenberg calls "ideopolises" - which are "post-industrial regions with information technology, entertainment . . . major universities . . . immigrant and ethnic diversity, and frequently thriving artistic and gay communities." These areas are growing at a rapid pace - more than twice the rate of the rest of the nation.

In addition, the voting population is growing more and more educated. In 1952, 8% of the population was college educated. Now 31% is. The number of professionals has grown from 20% in 1984 to 27% in 2000. The number of voters with postgraduate educations has increased from 3% in 1960 to 11% in 2000. All of these groups (along with the urban secular voters) tend to be more socially moderate (which correlates with education levels), especially on the issue of homosexuality. If all that’s not enough, people under 30 favor gay marriage 55 to 42. It should be clear which way the wind is blowing on this issue. And that's not even counting the millions of gay people in America and their friends, families, and co-workers (though I'm sure there's significant overlap).

Enter Karl Rove. Rove, in his wisdom, has decided to pursue a social agenda that will be directly opposed (even passionately opposed) by these rapidly growing groups. Rove is pinning his hopes on white, southern, evangelicals - whose social preferences are opposed (sometimes passionately) by the groups described above. In other words, he's betting on the wrong horse - and he's betting a lot of money. And that's why Jim Baker needs to step in and stop Bush from making the biggest mistake of his career - not Iraq, not the tax cuts - but endorsing the FMA. Rove thinks it will divide the Democrats. It won't, but it will destroy the Republican Party. It will drive out all the Andrew Sullivan/South Park/Seattle suburban, socially moderate Republicans from the party (and God knows it needs them). It will also alienate young people, and it will further isolate the base of Republican support to a narrow-minded segment of the population which is not growing at all.

But the FMA is just one aspect of the larger problem with Rove’s long-term strategy. Betting on the evangelicals (who are disproportionately southern and white) is ignoring demographics. Rove has often stated that he wants to get the 4 million evangelicals who stayed home in 2000 to come back out. And it looks like he’s pushing hard on Bush to adopt the FMA in pursuit of that goal. Bush seems to be resisting and he should. Quite simply, any strategy (but especially gay-bashing) that will fire up 4 million evangelicals will necessarily cause a backlash among the groups listed above. Remember 42% of the country does not go to church more than once a year. And the group is growing, especially in the rapidly growing ideopolises. I think Republicans underestimate how quickly indifference could transform into passionate opposition once Bush endorses an amendment that would ban all gay marriage and possibly all civil unions too - see my post here.

Republicans’ only chance of long-term viability is to adopt (or at least tolerate) Schwarzenegger-style Republicanism - fiscally conservative, market-oriented, but socially moderate (By the way, Arnold exists only because there was no GOP primary - McClintock would probably have beaten him in a primary). If the GOP moved in this direction, they could make inroads into the cities and Starbucks-drinking suburbs and establish a real, lasting majority. But they won’t, in large part because Rove is letting the wrong people steer the boat. Rove has persuaded Bush to pin the Republicans’ hopes on one of the most socially polarizing groups in America - southern white evangelicals. And what's worse - they're literally chasing centrists out of the party. National Review had a cover article calling Arlen Specter "The Worst Republican Senator." Northeastern centrists like Christine Todd Whitman have no place in Rove's GOP, and neither does Colin Powell and the internationalist wing of the GOP foreign policy establishment.

Note to Republicans - you better get Baker in and Rove out. He's driving the party off a cliff. And if Bush caves in and endorses the FMA, he will have ushered in an era of Democratic dominance. And if that happens, it will be because the "genius" was too clever by half.

Regular readers know that I've been fairly critical of John Kerry. But I think he may be starting to learn a bit about rhetoric. His latest anti-Bush assaults have been pathos and ethos-inspired, which are quite different (and quite refreshing) from Kerry's traditionally logos-inspired arguments. (see my post on Kerry and Classical Rhetoric for a definition of "pathos" and "ethos"). For example, after Senator "Wounded Knee" Chambliss attacked his voting record this weekend, Kerry challenged Bush to a debate about Vietnam. Tonight, Kerry charged the GOP with attacking his patriotism. He said, and I love this, that he would not have his patriotism and commitment to defense challenged by Republicans "who never fought in a war." Ouch.

This is good stuff - and the strong language he's using is a legacy of the Dean campaign. But look at Kerry's argument through the lens of classical rhetoric. First, he's making a strong ethos-inspired (or character-based) argument by drawing a contrast between himself, the war hero, and Chambliss and Bush, the draft dodgers. And he's forcing that issue to be discussed in the news. Second, the bravado in his response to the GOP attack was meant to appeal to the emotions of Democratic voters. Dems (desperately) don't want to see another candidate back down and equivocate and seem weak before GOP national security attacks (and I'm looking at you, Tom Daschle). They want someone who did exactly what Kerry did - strike back. Even if Kerry is slightly distorting what Chambliss said, it doesn't matter. Democratic voters don't want logos - they want pathos. They want someone to fight back and get them fired up. I must admit, Kerry scored some major points against Edwards this weekend.

Also, Kerry's attacks strike me as very media-savvy, which is also promising. First, the attacks knocked the GOP off their feet a bit. They expected to be defining the debate by attacking his record. But rather than arguing within the terms of a debate defined by the GOP, Kerry started a new one. The new debate was whether he was patriotic, and whether the GOP is equating patriotism with support of every weapons system ever proposed. Marc Racicot (chair of the Bush campaign) was even forced to say, "We have praised repeatedly his patriotism." That's not the sort of words the GOP had hoped to be using against the Democratic candidate.

It's promising. Kerry is showing a willingness to both fight back, and more critically, an ability to redefine the terms of the debate in a way that catches headlines. Did I speak too soon about Kerry's electability?

Over at Calpundit, Kevin Drum asked the following question: "[H]ow did [Bush] manage to convince the vast majority of the Republican party apparatus that he should be their favored candidate?" His point was that Bush has no experience and certainly no intellectual vision. So how he'd do it?

I think the answer traces back to the internal dynamics of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is in reality a coalition of at least two major blocs - rural/Southern social conservatives and urban libertarian Wall Street types. The former go along with Republican economic policies (even though they run counter to rural America's economic self-interest) because they have an intense preference for Republican positions on cultural issues. The Wall Street Republicans - who tend to be socially liberal or libertarian - put up with Jerry Falwell because they have an intense preference for Republican economic policies. The problem is that it's very hard to find a candidate who can straddle the line.

Think of the GOP as a corporation with two huge, well-financed, well-informed groups of shareholders. The CEO needs to be someone who is acceptable to both camps, which is difficult because the camps have such different views on cultural issues. Most potential CEOs (or presidential candidates) cannot satisfy both camps. Pat Robertson and most of the other cultural warriors are simply too scary and too backwards for the Wall Street types. Similarly, people like Dole and Bush I smell too much like a socially liberal country club for the Buchananites.

That's why Bush II was perfect, even though he had no experience. In fact, his inexperience may have allowed both GOP blocs to think they could manipulate him. In 2000, Bush II seemed to be sufficiently religious to be acceptable to a large bloc of evangelicals. Bush II was also a Texas good ol' boy businessman. With the Bush name and the East Coast education, the Wall Street types knew that they weren't handing the party over to Jerry Falwell. Bush's cloudy vague campaign slogans gave both camps reason to believe that not only was he one of them, but that he would be acceptable to the other camp too. Remember too that both sides hated Clinton, so both blocs might have given Bush II the benefit of the doubt. And it's possible that his inexperience allowed both sides to read what they wanted to read into the ambiguous meaningless platitudes he uttered.

Bush II is now in a major pickle. Both sides feel like he's betrayed them. And to some extent, he has. But Bush's bigger problem is that the Republican Pary is an incoherent coalition that cannot possibly produce a leader who can satisfy both camps.

One of the central tenets of the Republican faith is a belief in “limited government.” If you asked the average person on the street what it means to be conservative, that person would inevitably respond that conservatives believe in low taxes and limited government. And I suspect that when conservatives reflect on why they label themselves “conservative,” they honestly and sincerely think, “Because I believe in low taxes and limited government.” This economic position maintains and solidifies a Republican coalition that I believe could not exist without the great unifying theme of low taxes and limited government spending. There’s a problem, though, with this economic position - it’s an utter fantasy. Americans don't want limited government, they want big government, as their actions make clear.

Let me perfectly frank, as I think there are few things more essential for Americans to understand. There is no such thing as “limited government” in America. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, there is also no real debate about whether they want “limited government” or “big government.” They want big government. The current debate between limited government and big government is a complete sham. It is merely a pretext for the real debate – What types of big government services do people want?

To see why, let’s look back to the 2002 federal budget. It’s not the sexiest topic imaginable, but it clearly shows what I’m talking about. In 2002, America spent about 2.1 trillion dollars. Approximately two–thirds of the $2 trillion (1.3 trillion) represented the so-called “mandatory spending” - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments on the debt. As Gingrich learned, proposing to cut any of these programs is political suicide. So two-thirds of the money we spend every year is never even debated.

All of the debates about limited versus big government are thus confined to the remaining one-third - the discretionary spending, which represents about $734 billion. But don’t be fooled - nearly half of this amount ($345 billion) went to defense spending, which is equally un-cuttable. When you combine defense spending with the mandatory spending, the total is about 81% of our total budget. If you throw in education spending (which is as sacrosanct as defense and mandatory spending), then 83% of our federal budget is not even up for debate each year.

So, of the $2 trillion dollar federal budget, only $335 billion is really up for grabs. Even if Congress voted to cut all $335 billion from the budget, we would still be living under a very, very “big” government. And as we have seen, no one wants to cut any of the $1.7 trillion, or at least none have the political courage to say so.

But cutting the entire $335 billion is also unrealistic politically. This money (representing around 17% of the budget) includes all the discretionary funds allocated to the Departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs – to name a few. This money also funds agencies like the EPA and important branches of governments like, oh say, the judiciary. Even if there are conservatives who want to make some cuts in these programs, the size of any cuts would be limited both by the needs of the federal government and by political reality.

The point here is that only a tiny, miniscule fraction of the federal budget is ever up for debate from year to year. I certainly don’t mean to say that small cuts would not have serious consequences. They would. My point is that small cuts (which are the only possible kind) will not usher us into an age of “limited government.” Not by a long shot. What the cuts will do is allow upper-class people to save some money on taxes at the expense of programs that serve people with less money.

When Republicans clamor for budget cuts, they often argue that the cuts are necessary because we need “limited government.” This is a complete sham, though I believe that many conservatives are sincere in their convictions. It’s a sham because the budget cuts they want have absolutely no significant effect on size of our total federal budget. Instead, the real debate is over what types of government services Americans want. Republicans say they want small government, but they favor enormous levels of spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, interest payments on the debt, defense, education, as well as basic funding for other important federal agencies. This is essentially the entire budget and it’s a really really big sum of money.

I cannot stress this point enough. When conservatives state that they favor limited government, what they are actually saying is that they favor one type of federal spending over another type. The genius is that they have framed the debate in terms of “big” versus “limited” government. The spending preferences of liberal Democrats are labeled “big government,” while the spending preferences of conservatives go unnoticed. Regardless of the reality that Republicans also support big government and big spending (with somewhat different priorities), Americans still seem to believe that Republicans favor limited government. And what's truly horrible is that this illusion has caused Americans to vote for tax cuts (in the name of "limited government"), while simultaneously refusing to swallow the spending cuts that must accompany them if America is to avoid an Argentine-style collapse. You must either take Reagan or reject Reagan. But to only take half of Reagan is the worst of all possible worlds. If Bush is going to cut taxes, then he needs to slash entitlements too. Or, he needs to keep the entitlements and raise taxes. Both policies have their problems, but both are at least coherent, unlike the policies we have today, which involve massive cuts accompanied by not only a refusal to cut spending, but a commitment to vastly increase spending (see, e.g., the new half a trillion dollar - and counting - Medicare bill). Again, take Reagan or leave him. But don't just take half of him because that's a fiscal disaster, especially when you think about the retiring Baby Boomers.

In short, the Republican narrative of “limited government” is wrong because people actually want so-called big government whether they realize it or not. They want it, but they don't want to pay for it. The challenge for progressives is to redefine the terms of the debate. When the question is posed at a very general level whether people are for “big” or “limited” government, they will obviously choose the latter. Yet, if the question can be made more specific and concrete, I suspect that people would choose so-called “big” government. Here’s an imaginary conversation that illustrates my point:

Q: So do you prefer big or limited government?
A: Limited government. That’s why I vote Republican.
Q: Can you tell me exactly what government spends money on that is so wasteful?
A: Not really, I just think it’s too big and big government doesn’t work.
Q: So you’re for cutting the current spending levels Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
A: No.
Q: What about defense?
A: No way.
Q: Are you for cutting education, or defaulting on our interest payments?
A: No.
Q: That’s almost 83% of the budget, assuming everything else gets cut. Are you opposed to at least some levels of funding for the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and all the other administrative departments and agencies?
A: Maybe we could cut some of their funding, but we should definitely fund them.
Q: So, are you for big government or limited government?
A: Limited government.
Q: But you support the funding levels for all these programs I listed?
A: Yes.

[Update: Jonathan Chait has some more numbers regarding the deficit and the impending fiscal meltdown (if we don't act, soon) at the New Republic. Very informative - you can get it here. Chait provides further support for many of the arguments that I made in this post. The arguments were my own, however, and you can see from the post dates that I posted mine first and had no idea he would be writing on this subject.]

Here's the extent of the RNC's creativity in attacking the various presidential candidates:

Wesley Clark - A Flip-Flopping, Liberal Clinton Crony With A Penchant For Whoppers And Poor Foreign Policy Decisions.
Dennis Kucinich - A Flip-Flopping Liberal Extremist
Al Sharpton - A Liberal Democrat Out Of Touch With America
Dick Gephardt - An Inside-The-Beltway Liberal Who Has Been Tried, Tested, And Rejected
John Kerry - Kerry: Dukakis's Lt. Gov. Who Votes Lockstep with Ted Kennedy
Howard Dean - An Ultra-Liberal On Social Issues Who Is Out Of The Mainstream And Wrong For America
John Edwards - An Unaccomplished Liberal In Moderate Clothing And A Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.

Pretty funny right? But as I explained in my earlier rhetoric post, these are all pathos-based argument, no logos. In other words, the goal is not to argue rationally. The goal is stir up raw emotions by identifying each candidate with a disfavored concept - which in this case is "liberalism." There are major problems with this kind of reasoning. First, if the response to each candidate is the exact same (i.e., "liberal," "liberal," "ultra-liberal"), that is a strong indication that there is no real rational evaluation going on. They're just hoping that (1) people hate liberals and (2) that people will see the given candidate as a liberal. But here's my question - why is it so bad to be a liberal? It seems like most of our nation's most treasured actions and policies were often inspired by dreamy-eyed liberals, who fought and fought and eventually won people over.

Did you like the American Revolution? Thank a liberal. Are you glad slavery was ended? Thank a liberal. Do you admire the way that abolitionists bravely challenged legalized slavery, even though they were hated and despised and called "extremists." If you agree with what they fought for, then you're agreeing with liberals, even "ultra-liberals."

Do you like Social Security? Are you comforted to know that you will never have to face starvation or extreme poverty when you are a senior citizen? Thank a liberal. Do you think the minimum wage was a good thing? Do you like having the weekend? Thank a liberal. Do you like national parks? Do you like knowing that the federal government will protect the air you breathe and water you drink? Thank a liberal.

Did you favor ending segregation? Are you glad that America adopted the Civils Rights and Voting Rights bills in the early 1960s. Thank a liberal. Did you agree with the efforts of the early women suffragists? Are you glad that women can now vote? Thank a liberal.

Do you favor Medicare? Does it comfort you know that your grandparents will not be denied medical services? Thank a liberal. Do you favor Medicaid? Do you think it's an obligation of a just society to provide medical care to its poorest citizens? Thank a liberal.

Do you like free education? Are you glad that all children - no matter how poor - have a right to an education? Thank a liberal.

It seems to me that all of these policies were opposed in their day by tactics remarkably similar to what are being used today. When liberals advocated new policies - say, women's suffrage or free education - society laughed at them, called them extremist, and demonized them. It's funny how quickly things change. For example, people called Social Security "socialist" in its day, and now no politican dares to touch it.

My point is that if liberals have been right so many times, and if their efforts have been responsible for some of the programs and actions that America most values and is most proud of, tell me again why it's so bad to be a liberal?

I've decided to take Saturdays off from the blogosphere. But rather than leaving you with nothing, I've decided to use Saturdays to repost some of my old writings that newer viewers may not have read. With gay marriage in the news, I thought it would appropriate to repost my "Yankophobia" post from Jan. 22

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF YANKOPHOBIA - Why Republicans want People to Hate Northeastern Latte Drinkers (Jan 22)

At one point in the debate tonight, the moderator mentioned that his friend (or relative) said that "we [the Dems] don't need another Northeasterner on the ticket." And we all remember the recent anti-Dean commercial where the wholesome Iowa elderly couple told the "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, volvo-driving, New York Times-reading . . . left-wing freak show" to go back to Vermont. To me, the moderator's question and the anti-Dean commercial provided further proof that a new form of political racism is developing. Until I think of a better word, I'll call it Yankophobia - racism against the Northeast, or against those who are perceived to have "northeastern" sensibilities. While many have noticed this, few have noticed the economic dimensions and benefits of Yankophobia. Let me explain.

To me, the sentiments displayed in both the moderator's question and in the anti-Dean commercial are indistinguishable from what I call "political racism." By political racism, I'm referring to the demonization or demagoguing of a particular numerical minority, followed by a subsequent attempt to link a political opponent or movement with that minority. When you view it from this general level, you'll see that "racism" is actually a subset of the broader phenomenon I'm describing. And the phenomenon itself is the act of stirring up animosity and resentment toward a numerical minority whether that minority be differentiated by race, sexual orientation, or even religious belief. But most critically, political racism (or bigotry if you prefer) is most effective and most necessary when it is used to divide a group whose individuals share the same economic self-interest.

Sadly, southern politics provide a very clear example of what I'm talking about. Throughout the history of the South, poor whites and blacks always had more in common with each other (in terms of economic self-interest) than with the aristocratic, white leaders. These leaders maintained their power by dividing the potential coalition through the use of race. And it worked - and it continues to work (See the 2002 races in Georgia and South Carolina, along with the 2003 Mississippi governor's race - all three of which demagogued the Confederate flag issue).

Today (though in a more subtle way), Yankophobia is working in the same way. And the reason why Yankophobia is so necessary, and the reason why some conservatives are so passionate about stirring up resentment toward the northeastern "latte-drinkers," is because the latte-drinkers advocate policies that are in the economic self-interest of America's working classes. If the "latte-drinkers" had their way, there would certainly be more efforts to provide better health care, to offer fully funded educaton mandates, to create more job initiatives, to avoid deficits that threaten future programs (which help the non-rich the most), and most critically, there would be no tax cuts that go primarily to most well-off segments of the country at the expense of programs that help the least well-off (and anyone who can add must concede these taxes went primarily to the wealthy -- we can argue about the economic wisdom of them - but it's not even possible to deny the wealth-favoritism of the tax cuts). The sorts of policies that the latte drinkers favor would be of the most benefit to the working and middle classes of America. Simply put, latte drinkers are more likely to support using government to promote economic well-being - see, e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal education grants - all Democratic New Deal coalition initiatives.

So, if working class southerners and midwesterners ever realized that the economic policies favored by the latte drinkers would actually help them the most (and would help them even more than they would help latte drinkers themselves, who are voting against their own economic self interest in a sense), the Republican coalition of Wall Street libertarians and rural social conservatives would be split down the middle. So, Republicans have resorted to what other groups have resorted to in the past -- demonizing the numerical minority who threatens their hold on their political coalition.

That's why you hear so many references to "east coast liberal" in politics, and especially southern politics (where white poverty is higher). That's why Bush flies to Kentucky and Mississippi before the governor's race and praises the candidate's values. It's a not-so-subtle indictment of the values of latte drinkers. That's why they need to stress how much latte drinkers love criminals, and tree huggers, and gay people. Demonizing the Northeast (which is just a proxy for latte drinker sensibilities) allows the Republican coalition to continue to exist. In my opinion, Yankophobia has grown stronger in the past 5 years or so just because it's becoming more obvious how little Republican policies help the middle classes economically.

It will be interesting to see if this continues in the general election. If Kerry gets the nomination, you can bet that we'll hear the word "northeast" thrown around over and over again. But remember, the desire to create cultural resentment is driven by economics.

Nader is in - though he may have trouble getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

Billmon's Whisky Bar (which I think is the best blog on the Internet) has two absolute must-reads. The first one relates directly to the rhetoric post I wrote last night (see below). Billmon argues that the Democrats need a new rhetorical message and should adopt "economic patriotism." I think that's a great idea. Billmon's second post offers a potential long-term demographic strategy of the Democrats, which could gain them a permanent majority. That strategy is to systematically confine Republicans within the Pat Robertson wing of the party. Billmon speculates that the religious wing may ask for so much that it consigns itself to permanent minority status. That's why the GOP is making a serious long-term error by pushing the FMA - even if it helps in 2004, it's ultimately going to haunt them, just like Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant policies caused the Republicans to lose California. And the rise of Pat Robertson is also why Northeastern Republicans are a dying breed. The other must-read is Fred Kaplan's "The Tragedy of Colin Powell" on Slate. I agree with everything in that article - Powell should resign and embarrass the administration that has opposed everything he's ever fought for, and, in the process, ruined his career maliciously.

It's clear that both Kerry and Edwards have decided to make economic populism a central theme of their respective campaigns. As you may remember, Gore did the same thing in 2000 with his "People versus the Powerful" theme. And as I have pointed out before (see post here), the message will be a loser for Kerry, just as it was for Gore. So here's the problem that many readers have pointed out - I've been suggesting that Edwards has a better message than Kerry. Edwards, however, has adopted the exact same economic populist message that Kerry has. So how can I say that Edwards's message is better? And furthermore, why should Democrats think the message will work any better for Edwards than it did for Gore? It's a good question, and it's been troubling me. I mean, both candidates are saying essentially the same thing. But at long last, I think I have the answer - it's all about rhetoric. Any by "rhetoric," I'm referring to the forms of classical rhetoric as defined by Aristotle. By understanding some basic principles of classical rhetoric, you can understand why the message might work for Edwards and why it probably won't work for Kerry.

Rhetoric is simply the art of speaking or writing effectively and persuasively. Long ago, Aristotle identified three different types of rhetoric - ethos, logos, and pathos. Each of the three types of rhetoric is meant to persuade the audience, though each type goes about it in a different way. Ethos is an appeal based on the character of the speaker. When Kerry talks about his Vietnam heroism, he is making an ethos-driven argument. Logos is an appeal based on logic and reason. This type of rhetoric should be familiar to everyone. Finally, pathos is an appeal based on emotion, and it can be quite powerful. When Bush invoked September 11 and WMDs as a justification for invading Iraq, he was relying heavily on pathos-based arguments because he was appealing to people's fears and anger. The best rhetoricians can mix and match all three. Lincoln was the best that I know - just read his Second Inaugural Address - especially if you're in the Lincoln Memorial where the speech is etched on the walls. It's an amazing piece of rhetoric that includes healthy doses of ethos, logos, and pathos - and not a little poetry. And it was from a real "war president" - (By the way, real "war presidents" don't need - and don't desire - to point out that they're "war presidents." The more I think about that blatant politicization of the war, the more upset I get - but that's a different post).

With that in mind, let's return to the two Democratic candidates. Obviously, the purpose of any given candidate's message is to persuade people to vote for that candidate. Thus, the economic populism theme is intended to persuade voters. And so, both candidates are using economic populism as a form of rhetoric. But here's the key - the two candidates are using different combinations of rhetorical styles. In other words, even though they're both preaching the exact same message, they are not using the same types of rhetoric.

Take Kerry. His economic populism is too heavy on the logos and too light on the pathos. His populist messages always get drowned in his nuanced, professorial logos-inspired speeches. And when he does use pathos, he appeals (like Bush always does) to base emotions like fear and anger. Kerry's economic populism is angry - it lashes out at the big HMOs and drug companies. That was Gore's problem too. The message is fine, but the rhetoric was bad. Gore too was guilty of appealing only to people's anger and resentment when he lashed out at the powerful. Also, unlike in his strong ethos-inspired Vietnam rhetoric, Kerry abandons ethos (appeals to character) in making his populist arguments.

Compare that with Edwards. With him, it's all pathos and ethos. To be sure, he throws in the necessary logos. But Edwards understands what Reagan understood - pathos and ethos beat logos any day of the week. Let's break Edwards's populism down into the different rhetorical categories. First, he always uses ethos effectively by stressing that he grew up poor and that he shares the values of working class Americans. Ethos is all about establishing trust. Edwards wins over audiences who have been skeptical of Democrats lately because he gets them to trust him with his powerful ethos-inspired rhetoric. He doesn't seem like a snobby East Coast liberal - he seems like someone they can trust.

He is also extremely talented at delivering pathos-inspired arguments. Clinton was the master of using pathos rhetoric, but Edwards ain't too shabby. Look at the following statement from the South Carolina debate:

I've seen mills close, I've seen what it does to communities, I've seen what it does to families.

And all this talk among politicians in Washington about, "We're going to get you job retraining program, we're going to make sure that we give you the transportation to get to a new job" - say that to a 50- or 55-year-old man who's been supporting his family his entire life working in a mill.

I think the truth of the matter is, we need to start by recognizing the pain. And not just the economic pain -- the pain that these families are in.

That's powerful stuff. Edwards's other populist arguments - the "Wealth to Work" and the "Two Americas" themes are definitely pathos-inspired, but they're not appeals to anger. They are appeals to dignity, pity, and compassion. Both of these themes affirm the basic dignity and competence of the working classes, which is something Gore's does not do (and that's typical of the "East Coast" mentality that I myself am guilty of). Gore and Kerry's message is implicitly condescending, though not intentionally. Their message is "You are weaker than these people who are screwing you and I'll punish them for you." That's not the right kind of pathos. Edwards says, "I value those who work and we're going to try to make America value working people too." Again, it's not that different logically, but it's a huge difference emotionally. It's not condescending and it's not even angry. It's critical of the "Powerful," to be sure, but the tone is different than Gore and Kerry's. It's saying, "You work hard and we're going to remove these obstacles and let you shine." Kerry makes it sound like the working classes are on the losing team. His populism doesn't exude hope (from a rhetorical perspective), even though he's advocating almost everything that Edwards is (even on trade).

So that's my answer to the question I posed above. The message will work for Edwards because he understands rhetoric better. Emotion beats logic always. And positive emotion usually beats negative emotion. Again, look at 2000. Gore's theme was the "People vs. the Powerful." Bush's was "Prosperity with a Purpose." Whose message do you think sounds more hopeful? Bush is good at the pathos too, but his strength comes from the dark side of the force - fear, anger, cultural animosity toward minorities and gays, resentment about paying taxes, and on and on. Bush and the GOP appeal to the worst in us. And that's why I think Edwards would beat him. And if Kerry could do a quick refresher on rhetoric, he could overcome the dark side of the force too. Just remember the wisdom of Yoda:

LUKE: Is the dark side stronger?
YODA: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

As law nerds know, there has been a raging Ninth Amendment debate going on within the legal blogosphere. For what it's worth, I think Curmudgeonly Clerk gets it exactly right. As much as I would like to awaken this sleeping giant, it just strikes me as completely unmanageable. I'm about to read Randy Barnett's book, so I'll have more Ninth Amendment thoughts later (and after I've had a chance to digest all the Southern Appeal posts). In the interests of full disclosure, I consider myself a non-originalist textualist - so that's my bias.

At the gym today, the TV was stuck on Fox News, which forced me to listen to that weasel John Gibson discussing the rise and fall of Dean. He was obviously trying to spin the Dean campaign as an insignificant hippy movement that would soon be forgotten. In pursuit of that goal, he asked sarcastically (and I'm paraphrasing) - "What did the Dean campaign stand for? What was Dean's message?" It's a fair question and it's not obvious at first. For the Dean movement to be remembered, it has to have been something more than an anti-war or anti-Bush movement. And it was. It was much more than that. I think the real legacy of the Dean campaign will be that it provided a roadmap that we can use to free ourselves from the tyranny of the centralized two-party system, which has literally choked public discourse and alienated half of the American voters. In other words, Dean showed us how we could smash the heads of the two beasts - the RNC and DNC, each of whom's existence depends (ironically) on the continued viability of the other one. To understand what I'm talking about, you must first understand why excessively centralized, national political parties are so harmful.

The Constitution did not contemplate the rise of national political parties. In fact, political parties undermine a great deal of the Constitution's structural design. I have a post discussing these issues in more detail, which I highly recommend for those interested in constitutional matters. But for today, you just need to recognize that political parties undermine a lot of the structural freedoms that the Constitution intended to create. Take the House. As originally designed, each Representative was intended to be dependent upon, and responsive to, his or her 450,000 constituents and to no one else. That's what I mean by "structural freedom." The structure of the House elections ensured that the individual Representatives could not be bullied by anyone outside the district - not even the President because the President had exactly zero influence on whether the Representative would continue to be elected.

Centralized political parties undermine this structural freedom in a number of ways - but money is the most important. Just look at all the "services" provided by the RNC and the DNC. They give out campaign cash, provide campaign strategy, and arrange for high-level officals to help campaign for the individual candidates. Because today's Representatives depend so heavily upon the assistance of the RNC/DNC, the leadership can exert an enormous amount of leverage over individual candidates. If you need an example, just look at the controversy surrounding Rep. Smith and the Medicare prescription drug bill. Smith (a Republican who opposed the bill) initially claimed that the GOP leadership threatened to withhold money from his son, who was going to run to replace Smith (who was retiring). As this example shows, today’s Representatives (for structural reasons) are no longer responsive only to the people of their district. They must also be responsive to the party leadership because they depend upon receiving campaign contributions, desirable committee placements (which is huge), and upon high-level visits from Bush or Clinton or whomever. This is not how things were meant to work.

In my opinion, this increasing centralization is the source of almost everything we hate about politics. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we now have a hierarchy (or a machine or establishment or whatever you want to call it) that trickles down to all levels of government. And the machine has all the money. More specifically, it possesses the lists of donors and provides (or blocks) access to them. When you think about how elections work on a micro-level, you can begin to understand why so many public officials rigidly enforce the party line. They need the money. For example, if I want to be a Republican state legislator in Tennessee, I have to win over the Tennessee Republican establishment or else I can't raise any money. That's what the RNC and the DNC (or their state equivalents) do - they compile fund-raising lists and can give you access to them, for a price. And these fund-raising lists consist of the people who attend the $2,000-a-plate dinners that Bush loves so much. And what's true of the establishment nationally is true locally. I have no doubt that many people give Bush $2,000 just so they can make good with the state's party leadership, who then exerts leverage over them. It's rotten from top to bottom.

Make no mistake - the two-party system exists because the parties are centralized and because the leadership controls the money and the committee placements. Here's how it works in practice - influential lobbyists get access to the leadership and make their "requests." The leadership (which is itself dependent on the donors) then makes sure that the demands are reflected in the legislation. There is simply no other way to account for certain provisions of the energy bill and the Medicare drug bill other than that they were written by lobbyists who had essentially purchased the right to draft them. And I bet that many members of Congress would tell you, off the record, that they hate the leadership and they hate having to put up with all the pork and that they hate being forced to follow the party line on everything. But they will also tell you that they have to do so because they need the money and they're afraid of losing it.

Enter Howard Dean. Dean's single greatest accomplishment was that he showed us how to restore structural freedom. Dean raised his money through small donations from hundreds of thousands of people. Because his Internet fund-raising bypassed the DNC's donor lists, the DNC couldn't exert leverage over him. He was structurally free because he didn't need their money or their donor lists. He could get money his own way. And if Dean were elected, and if he had raised 2 million $100 donations from ordinary Americans, he could tell every single lobbyist to fuck off. He could tell the DNC to fuck off as well. He would be free. That's the Dean legacy. Just step back and reflect on it - he raised $40 million without any help from the DNC money establishment. It was simply astounding - no one's ever done anything like it. He showed us all how we can finally be free from the tyranny of the two-party system. Through the Internet and local mobilization, new parties can be formed - organic parties that start from the bottom. Everett Ehrlich recently made the argument that the Dean movement was more of a third party than a movement within the Democratic Party. I totally agree. And because Dean is structurally independent, he could easily create a third party right now if he wanted to.

To really change politics, you have to change the structure of the political system. I like Edwards and Kerry both, but neither will really change anything. Dean was promising structural change, which is the only real kind.

In the novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the main character McMurphy figures out how to break out of the asylum. All he had to do, he realized, was to pick up a heavy water fountain and smash it through the window and escape. He walked over and tried hard to pick it up, but it was too heavy for him. Famously, McMurphy said, "But I tried, didn't I? God-damn it. At least I did that."

Dean has given America a blueprint for reforming politics. It's up to us to follow through. And if the political system has fundamentally changed fifty years from now, that change will be Dean's legacy.

[Update: If you want to see another real-life example of what I'm talking about, just check out today's Post. The article explains that the Democratic establishment is going to punish those "insiders" who defected to Dean. The New Republic also has a story about the DNC's retribution, but you need a subscription. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The DNC establishment is doing to the Dean people what the RNC establishment did to the McCain people - using economic leverage to deter them from leaving the rotten-to-the-core establishment.]

Check out Noam Scheiber's New Republic article. He points out that the exit polls showed some strange voting patterns last night. Poor and blue collar Democrats favored Kerry, while the more affluent voters favored Edwards. That's the opposite of what the conventional wisdom would predict. Kerry is the wine Democrat and Edwards is supposed to be the beer Democrat. Scheiber offers a rather bold explanation for these voting patterns - the Edwards voters were more informed. I'm not saying I buy this argument, but it's worth reading. Here's one particularly interesting excerpt:

My own hunch is that what we're seeing is an important divide between less sophisticated voters and more sophisticated voters. Just about the only thing less sophisticated voters--who, I'm guessing, tend to be poorer and less well-educated--know about John Kerry is that he's been winning, and possibly that he's a longtime Senator and a Vietnam veteran. On the other hand, more sophisticated voters--who, I'm guessing, tend to be more affluent and better educated--have probably paid attention to the campaign long enough to know that, in addition to these things, Kerry's from Massachusetts (not exactly a presidential breeding ground of late), tilts to the liberal end of the ideological spectrum, and tends to be kind of boring and long-winded. Which is to say, less affluent, less educated voters are looking at John Kerry's string of primary victories and concluding from them that he's electable. More affluent, better educated voters are actually watching debates and reading newspapers. And they're concluding from these things that Edwards--who is neither from Massachusetts nor a liberal nor boring--is actually more electable. (Particularly after many of these newspapers endorse Edwards, as the two biggest papers in Wisconsin recently did.)

As everyone knows, Ben Chandler won a special election in Kentucky yesterday and snatched a previously Republican House seat. Josh Marshall has a very interesting post about how Chandler used blogs to raise money and how it worked out rather well for him. He further speculated that we may be witnessing the beginning of something huge in that the Internet may be the answer to the Democrats' fund-raising woes. Very interesting - and well worth the read.

Tonight was almost a very good night for Edwards, and it showed that people have serious reservations about the Kerry candidacy (at least 60% anyway). Because there will literally be floods of analysis tomorrow, I want to limit my comments on the election to two specific issues and I welcome comments - I'd be interested to hear what people think.

The Problem With Kerry's So-Called Electability

Here's a quick summary of the rise of Kerry: Democrats rejected Kerry for most of 2003 because he was uninspiring, seemed to have no message or meta-theme, and lost whatever core principles he once had during his nineteen years in the Senate. And for most of 2003, Democrats were infatuated with Dean because he was the opposite of Kerry in every way. But as much as Dems liked Dean, they despised Bush more. And after the capture of Saddam (I don't buy the argument that Gore hurt Dean), Democrats suddenly realized that Dean could not win even though they liked almost everything about him. And there was Kerry. He had sharpened up his message a bit and he was a war hero. So they voted for him. Not because they found him inspiring. Not because of any substantive change in Kerry. Not even because they liked him. But because they thought he was the most likely to beat Bush. All the Dems were lukewarm about Kerry, but they voted for him primarily because they hated Bush and they thought Kerry was the most likely to defeat him. "Electability" became the theme of the primary.

Thus, the logic behind Kerry's appeal goes something like this: Even though Democrats aren't particularly excited about Kerry, they're voting for him because they think he could beat Bush. So, they're voting for him because of the perception of electability. Thus, Kerry's only appeal is the perception that he can beat Bush. Period. Here's the problem with that logic: The Democrats' strategy - picking someone with no real appeal only because they think he can beat someone they hate - is a great strategy for selecting a candidate who can win 45% of the vote. It's a horrible strategy for picking someone who can win 51%.

What Democrats fail to grasp is that not everyone hates Bush. Let me say it again - not everyone hates Bush. One more time - NOT EVERYONE HATES BUSH. Perhaps 45% do, but not 51%. And to get to 51%, a candidate must have some appeal other than "I can beat Bush." That's the flaw in Kerry's "electability" logic. It pre-assumes Bush hatred. Kerry gets a free pass from Democrats who don't really like him just because they have succumbed to the herd mentality that he's the most electable. But to beat Bush, a Democrat has to win independents and some Republicans. And these latter groups will not vote for someone who lacks appeal just because he could possibly beat Bush. And why not? BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE HATES BUSH. And that, in a nutshell, is why Kerry cannot beat Bush. He has no appeal other than the perception that he can beat Bush - and that's an insufficient justification for being President. It might get him 45% of the vote, but not 51%. Look, I live in the South - I read conservative blogs and magazines. And I actually talk to real Republicans every single day. And as hard as it is for liberals to get their fat heads around it, not everyone hates Bush.

The Democratic voters - so historically savvy in picking nominees - are making a tragic error by assuming that 51% of Americans hate Bush. It's flawed logic. People won't vote for a candidate who has no appeal. And independents and Reagan Democrats will not abandon Bush for a candidate whose only appeal is the perception that he can beat Bush. That won't be enough to convince them because they don't hate Bush. Independents and moderate Republicans must be given a reason to leave Bush - they need to be inspired. They need to hear a compelling meta-theme that speaks to them.

Candidates need themes - meta-themes. What's Kerry's? Right now, it's "People Think I Can Beat Bush - Have you seen my polls?" Candidates need to be inspiring. When's the last time Kerry inspired you? For me, it was his speech on the Senate floor in 1971 - that was awesome - it always gives me chills - "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" That's good stuff. But I haven't seen anything like it since. That said, it is possible that Kerry could beat Bush, but the election would be Bush's to lose. And Bush will only lose if the economy tanks or Iraq erupts - Kerry can do nothing to inspire swing voters. To win, Kerry has to hope that Bush fucks up. And to me, it's a little disturbing that Democrats would have to spend 2004 hoping for either economic disaster or military defeat.

Edwards' Moment of Truth

Edwards now must make a decision. As Mickey Kaus said, he must decide whether he wants to President or Vice-President. In my opinion, Edwards would be foolish not to unleash some punches. Kerry acted obnoxiously by blocking access to Edwards' speech. Given that bare-knuckled punch, why would Edwards not fight back? I've got news for him - Kerry is not going to select him for VP - for reasons I explained here. To be honest, if the next eight months go as I suspect they'll go, Edwards would be better off not joining the ticket anyway if Kerry is the nominee.

Edwards must decide. Kerry hit him pretty hard tonight by preempting his speech. He must either fight back or go home and sit on pins and needles and wait for a phone call that won't come. To fight Kerry is a gamble. But to be President, you have to take a few gambles.

[Update: You can read more about Kerry's "electability over at Unfutz - a good blog I've been keeping my eye on.]

LF sources are reporting the following exit poll numbers for Wisconsin:

Kerry - 42; Edwards - 33; Dean - 17.

If this holds up, I think Edwards is back in. Dean's concession would probably dominate the news though. And if there were even the slightest hint that Edwards was moving up, then I'm sure Clark would disclose some homosexual affair he had just to keep Edwards out of the news - see my prior post for the many examples of Clark screwing Edwards.

I wanted to congratulate Adam White on his NRO essay - which can be accessed here. You can also access his blog - White Noize - here. He's very deluded - just a warning.

Recall my predictions in last week's VP post. I predicted that the masses would start clamoring for Edwards as VP. Then, the genius pundit class would tell us why that's a bad idea. And finally, I explained why the people, rather than the pundits, would be correct about the choice of Edwards for VP. Today's Post confirms that the first phase may be upon us. Get ready for the geniuses to tell Democrats why they're wrong and why Graham or Gephardt would be better even though it would create the most boring, uninspiring ticket in history.

I'm not joking. Sean Hannity (of Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes") is certainly a bully, and he always tries to simplify complex issues into clear black and white terms that favor Republicans. Perhaps he's really smart and is just gifted at simplifying issues, or perhaps he's simple-minded. Who knows. What I do know is that he is a master of linguistics. More specifically, he's a master of using linguistic strategies to make his bullying interrogations more effective - and in doing so, he acts very much like a gifted prosecutor would.

To understand why, you'll need to know a couple of general linguistic principles. As any linguist will tell you, language has many other uses other than mere communication. For instance, language can be used to establish dominance over one's adversary. Prosecutors do this every day by attempting to confine adverse witnesses within "linguistic cages." Like real cages, linguistic cages confine people and limit the number of possible responses they can offer. An example would help illustrate this principle. Let's assume you're being questioned in court. The prosecutor asks, "What were you doing on the night of June 10?" This question is very open-ended. You are not at all constrained or confined. You are free to tell the story in your own words. But now assume the prosecutor asks, "You were at the office the night of June 10th, weren't you?" In response to this question, you can only answer "yes" or "no." You have been linguistically confined to one of two possible answers. This is one of the many ways that attorneys assert power or dominance over witnesses. If attorneys want to limit the range of possible responses, they ask questions that are linguistically confining such as "yes" or "no" questions.

But the technique is not limited to attorneys. Bully talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, and Bill O'Reilly are also very good at this kind of questioning. Hannity may be the best though in terms of pure linguistic dominance. What's especially entertaining (or revolting) about Hannity is that he doesn't limit his linguistically confining questions to political candidates (who are accustomed to them). He likes to invite timid professor types on the show - people who are not at all used to having their range of responses limited - and embarrass the hell out of them. And Hannity is smart enough to know that he's not smarter than them. So, he uses linguistic strategies to lead them into a trap. Look at the following transcripts:

Robert Reich Interview - Jan. 12, 2004

You'd think Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor) would be better at the game by now. But look at how Hannity approached him.

REICH: Can I say something? We have - job growth is the essence of the recovery. If you have companies that are doing better and better and profits that are higher and higher, if you don't have job growth, you don't have anything. You're not going to sustain it.

HANNITY: Rob, the most growth in 20 years means nothing to you?

REICH: This is the -- This is the --.

See the genius? Reich was waxing eloquently about productivity and job growth, but Hannity took control. He not only confined him within a yes or no question, he forced him to answer yes or no to a question that favors Republicans regardless of how Reich answered. If Reich says "yes," then Bush deserves praise. If he says "no," then Reich looks like an idiot for not supporting "growth." Pure linguistic genius.

Interview with Leslie Cagan - member of the anti-war group United for Peace and Justice - Dec. 29, 2003

CAGAN: I do think obviously [that a] response to terrorism is necessary. I'm not in any way condoning terrorism by any means. We have to stop it. We also have to look at the root causes of it. And I think further escalation of tensions between people by going to war does not stabilize the situation.

HANNITY: So what you're saying is we should not have attacked after 9/11? We should not have done that?

CAGAN: I'm not sure that attacking innocent people . . .

HANNITY: We're not attacking innocent people. We attacked the Taliban.

Again - Hannity asserted control by trying to force Cagan into a "yes" or "no" question. But even more significantly, Hannity subtly redefined the terms of the debate in a way that transformed the nuanced intellectual discussion into clear black and white terms - and this redefinition puts him in a superior position. And again, notice how Cagan was forced into a yes or no question that was already loaded with conservative bias. If she says "no, that's not what I'm saying," then Hannity wins. If she says "yes, that's what I'm saying," then she looks awful because Hannity has effectively simplified the issue - to say yes is to say America should have done nothing after 9/11. Her nuanced argument is no longer effective because Hannity redefined the terms of the debate. Bush does this all the time. He reduces the terms of any given debate into false dichotomies - everything becomes black and white. As I explained in a previous post (the David Kay one), Rove's genius (and Hannity's) is to define the terms of a given debate in such a way that the opposing position is not just wrong, it's actually evil.

Interview with Gerardo Sandoval - January 30, 2003

Sandoval (a California state worker) was arguing on the show that the term "illegal immigrant" was a racial slur. Watch how Hannity's questioning allowed him to maintain control over Sandoval at all times - just like a prosecutor.

HANNITY: Let me ask you something. We have laws on the books, correct?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: And if somebody enters this country without the proper documentation, they come here illegally, that's a crime, right?

SANDOVAL: It is. It's a violation of the law.

HANNITY: It's a crime. So they broke the law? They broke the law, right?

SANDOVAL: They have broken the law.

HANNITY: And what they did is illegal.

SANDOVAL: That's correct.

HANNITY: And that is the truth, isn't it?

SANDOVAL: It is correct.

Aspiring prosecutors, take note. This is how it's done. Notice too how simple the issue becomes under Hannity's questioning. He never lets you say, "Well, Sean, it's more complicated than that. Let me explain." He never lets you explain because he's constantly trying to confine your range of possible responses.

I find linguistic and rhetoric strategies very interesting. I'll have some more posts on this theme later this week.

You can bet that this story will keep Rove & Co. up at night - AP is reporting that "fault lines are emerging for a possible civil war" in Iraq.

To me, this development is a direct result of Americans' parochialism. I know everyone gets tired of hearing liberals talk about how we need to understand the world and become more educated about nations other than ours. Well, it's true and the potential civil war we now face shows why. If more Americans knew the first damn thing about the Middle East, or the history of the Balkans, they could have predicted this development. Iraq is not an organic country like America or England. It was created from scratch after World War I. In other words, it never existed. Its boundaries were drawn up on a table by Europeans who paid little attention to the ethnic and tribal divisions in the region (I'm about to read "August 1919," so expect future post on this subject). The sense of Iraqi nationalism is therefore much weaker.

Iraq existed as a country because it was ruled by cruel dictators like Saddam who crushed dissent. Yugoslavia - another country that should never have been created - was similar. After its dictator was removed, Yugoslavia splintered along ethnic lines. And now that Saddam has been removed, Iraq is in the process of splintering along ethnic lines - and war will probably occur the second our troops leave.

This is a huge problem. The nation of Iraq can't exist without a strong leader - and no strong leader can possibly emerge who could command the loyalties of three ethnic groups that have always hated each other. Bush Sr. understood this and he cited it as one reason why he did not overthrow Saddam in 1991. If Americans knew more about either history or any culture other than their own, they could have assessed these possibilities when they made their calculations about whether to support the invasion.

But Americans can't do that. Their international ignorance is too blinding. Because they see the world through a American-tinted lens, they think that American-style democracy can just spring up like a tree. And the neocons nurtured this illusion. People thought, "Hey, we'll just remove Saddam and then we'll have a democracy and it will spread and it will be great."

Ignorance has consequences. And the Bush adminstration should have been required to provide its post-war strategy before we went in with our guns a-blazing.

A conservative friend of mine asked me recently if I thought Cheney was really a bad person. More specifically, he asked whether I really thought that Cheney would sacrifice the interests of the country for the interests of his corporate buddies. It's a fair question - and one that all progressives should ask themselves about both Bush and Cheney. Some people think that both Bush and Cheney are just lying evil men. I don't think that's right. I think that Bush and Cheney both think that their actions are good and will help America. But - and this is a big "but" - I think they are incapable of knowing what is good for America because of the limits of their knowledge and experiences. In other words, I think that Bush is incapable of knowing (in an epistemological sense) what working class Americans need.

Before I explain why, I must concede that Bush and Cheney are not evil. Though just for the sake of argument, how do we know? It's an interesting thought experiment. Everyone has an opinion about Bush's character - some say he's an honest straight shooter; others say he's a liar. So I ask everyone (regardless of their opinion) - what are you basing your opinion of Bush upon? If you think he's honest, what's your basis? What are the data points of your observations that have led you to this conclusion? It never ceases to amaze me how confidently people seem to think they know what Bush is like in private, or what Bush's character is like. We have no real basis other than what we see on TV or read in the papers - and this information usually comes from those who love or hate Bush. The impression of honesty that so many ascribe to Bush is in many ways the result of a successful public relations message. To be honest, we have no idea what Bush is like outside of what others tell us he is like.

We have certainly been told Bush is honest, but how do we know? O'Neill's book claims that Bush initially questioned the 2003 tax cut. He said, "Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" I didn't hear anything even remotely similar to this frank observation when Bush publicly advocated for the 2003 tax cuts. Was he lying? Was O'Neill lying? We can't really know. If Bush is an honest man personally, many of his policies certainly don't seem that way. So - do we use the dishonest policies to inform our opinion of the man, OR, do we use our opinion of the man to inform our views of his policies? It's an interesting question. My point, though, it that people should try to form opinions of public officials through a more empirical approach and stop relying on the secondhand personal narratives for which we have no evidence either way. Personality is irrelevant to being a good president, even assuming we could know what the candidates' personalities were like - which we can't. So, we should stop treating the Presidential campaign as a battle of personalities (which necessarily consist only of what people tell us about the personalities) and start treating it as a battle of policies, which we can know and verify and evaluate.

But getting away from all that, let's assume that Bush and Cheney are not consciously making decisions that they think are bad for America. In other words, let's assume they're not evil, as many of my friends seem to think. The truly interesting question is epistemological - how does Bush come to know what he thinks is good for America. Upon what evidence does Bush come to a conclusion that a given policy will either hurt or help working class families? These questions form the heart of my critique of this administration. It's not that they are consciously making bad decisions, it's that they are incapable of knowing what's good. The world of Bush and Cheney is a bubble world - a privileged existence in which they are never forced to interact with ordinary Americans.

Let's take Bush - and let's assume that Bush sits down in the Oval Office and says to himself, "How will this policy affect working class Americans." So here's the problem - because Bush has never interacted with ordinary Americans, how can he possibly know? He was born into one of Connecticut's most presitigious families. He attended East Coast prep schools. He went to Yale and Harvard Business School. Then, he worked for big business and for the Texas Rangers. As both Governor and President, he spends his time around rich businessmen and lobbyists. He crisscrosses the country attending $2,000-a-plate dinners. He doesn't go out and interact with voters. In part because of legitimate security concerns, protestors are blocked from his fundraising trips. And when he does give a speech, it's usually a very controlled environment where his views will not be challenged. So I'll ask again - how does he know a thing about the needs of ordinary Americans? I'm not saying this as a campaign talking point and I'm not arguing that Bush is bad or doesn't care - I'm asking how Bush comes to know, in an epistemological sense, what Americans need. What's his evidence and where does he get it?

He told Brit Hume he doesn't read the papers. O'Neill portrays him as a man who depends upon the political wing (i.e. Rove and Co.) for all his information. So, if Bush gets everything secondhand, the secondhand sources must be trusted to convey the needs and fears and concerns of ordinary Americans. I'm not sure Rove can do this. Again, even if I concede that Bush is a "good guy," I question whether his bubble-world of privilege can provide him with the raw data points that are necessary to determine what will help people. It's for this reason that he can satisfy himself that free trade is good for people - because it looks good on the Wall Street Journal front page. It's for this same reason that Cheney can say that deficits don't matter - because higher interests rates don't affect anything other than his stock portfolio. If you had to mortgage a house or finance college, then deficits would sure as hell matter. But Cheney, like Bush, now lives in a world of fund-raising and lobbying where he only interacts with people who are disproportionately wealthy and favor pro-business policies. This isolation skews the data he uses to make judgments.

To be fair, I'd put Kerry in this boat too. I think he's a good guy, but he may also be limited (epistemologically) from truly knowing what Americans need. Campaigning certainly helps, but I wonder if he'll remember these lessons once he's off the campaign trail. And again, we're told that Kerry is a "good guy." But how can we know that? And if we can't know, then maybe we should focus on things we can know - like his legislative record or military service. That's why I think Clinton and Edwards aren't full of shit when they talk about poor people. They have a lifetime of experience that informs their judgment. Clinton, according to Dick Morris's book, was always concerned about how a given policy would affect a mother in Arkansas. I believe that. Even though there are limits on what I can know about Clinton, there's more evidence to support the argument that Clinton knows and cares about the needs of ordinary Americans.

I hope I haven't rambled today. My main point is that people should stop voting and forming opinions based on characteristics for which they have no knowledge, and cannot possibly gain knowledge. To vote for either Bush or Kerry because he is a "good guy" is to vote ignorantly and for stupid purposes.

[Update: For an example of what I'm talking about, look at today's Washington Post article about Bush's visit to the Daytona 500. Here's the relevant excerpt: But other fans gave the president a warm reception. "He's like me," said Thomas Hanner, 58, a self-employed contractor from Sarasota, Fla. "His swagger, his confidence -- I can relate to his thinking." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Thomas Hanner has no way of knowing anything about Bush's "thinking" outside the White House's public relations campaign.]

Last Friday, I poked fun at an Oklahoma Congressional candidate for opposing gay marriage by claiming that 9/11 was caused by Osama bin Laden's parents and their polygamous marriage. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that gratuitous invocations of 9/11 have become all too common - even among non-fruit balls like the Oklahoma guy. My fear is that 9/11 is becoming a black hole upon which people impose their own values. In other words, I'm afraid 9/11 is being drained of all meaning because everyone across the political spectrum is using that tragedy to advance their own political agenda.

Before I give some examples, let me break down the logic of the 9/11 argument. Everyone agrees that 9/11 was the greatest American tragedy since Pearl Harbor. Everyone remembers the pain and introspection it caused. In short, all of America unanimously agrees that 9/11 was a horrible day. And that unanimity is the most essential aspect of what I call the "9/11 invocations." Because everyone agrees that 9/11 was awful, it becomes almost irresistible for people to try to defend their policies by invoking 9/11. Expressed more formally, the argument would be, "X was terrible, so we must adopt Y." That's the logic of the 9/11 invocations. People argue - "9/11 was bad, so we must therefore adopt policy Y to address it."

The problem is that policy "Y" may or may not have any sort of logical relation with 9/11. That's because when people invoke 9/11, they're not really arguing logically - they're attempting to argue emotionally by stirring up people's fears. It's a classic advertising ploy. Remember the old Head and Shoulders commericals - or the Sure deodorant commercials? These commercials played on people's social fear of ostracization. The commercials presented a world where people would disown you if you had dandruff on your shoulders or if, God forbid, you had wet armpits. But you could avoid this awful fate by purchasing their product. It's simple - create a fear and present your product as a way to eliminate that fear. Or even more generally - stir up an emotion and create the impression that your product would calm that emotion.

This is how 9/11 arguments work. First, you stir up the emotion. You point out the fear and the pain and make people remember that something should be done. With the emotion established, you then present your policy as a way to address 9/11 and the fears and anger it caused. Of course, some policies are logically related to 9/11. Foreign policy proposals are very much relevant to 9/11. Gay marriage, however, is not.

No one understands this technique better than Karl Rove. To be fair, I fully supported the Afghanistan war. I think the argument worked well with respect to that war. Bush's argument was "9/11 happened, so must therefore invade Afghanistan." Seems fine to me - the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to train there. No problems here. The problem is that Bush started using 9/11 for other policies that had no relation to 9/11. For examples, take a look at this 2003 Washington Post article entitled "Bush Cites 9/11 on All Manner of Questions."

In the past six weeks, Bush has cited "9/11" or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation.

Again, some of these policies are related to 9/11 and others aren't. The most important, and most questionable, use of 9/11 was the administration's attempt to use it as justification for invading Iraq. I don't think the two were related at all. I think Bush sucessfully capitalized and exploited Americans' post-9/11 fear to justify Iraq. And I think historians will agree when they look at speeches like this (delivered by Bush two days before the invasion of Iraq):

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

It's a very simple argument, logically speaking. Fire up people's emotions by invoking 9/11, and then present Iraq as a way of dealing with it. No different than the Head and Shoulders commercial.

To be fair, 9/11 can be exploited by liberals too. After 9/11 many intellectuals such as Susan Sontag used 9/11 to argue that America should take a look at the possibility that it may have caused 9/11. I agree that Americans take an excessively sunny view of American history, but Sontag's argument went too far and I don't agree with her. But her logic was the same as Bush's - 9/11, therefore "Y." The larger point, though, is that I fear that 9/11 is increasingly being used merely as a universal justification for any policy that anyone wants to propose (regardless of their political beliefs). And if over-invocation causes us lose sight of the tragedy that united America, then over-invocation will be a new tragedy for America.

And based on what I'm hearing from the Bush campaign, everyone can get ready. 9/11 will be used early and often. Already, the GOP pushed its convention into September (latest convention ever). And - suprise, suprise - the convention will be in New York. That was not a coincidence. The Bush campaign will depend on creating fear this year and invoking 9/11 will be a big part of that. Essentially, Bush's argument will be - "You should be scared, and therefore, you need me." (I have an earlier post on what I called the politics of fear.)

I've decided to take Saturdays off from the blogosphere. But rather than leaving you with nothing, I've decided to use Saturdays to repost some of my old writings that newer viewers may not have read. So, the first "Saturday repeat" discusses Kerry's populism, and why it's such a bad theme. The original was posted on Jan. 28.

____________________________________

HOW TO LOSE AN ELECTION -- Kerry's Ill-fated Populism

After winning New Hampshire, I heard Kerry say the following in his post-victory speech:


So I have a message, I have a message for the influence peddlers, for the polluters, the H.M.O.'s, the big drug companies that get in the way, the big oil and the special interests who now call the White House their home: We're coming. You're going. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It sounded so familiar. Where had I heard that before. O right - Gore's 2000 acceptance speech:

And that's the difference in this election. They're for the powerful, and we're for the people. Big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMO's. Sometimes you have to be willing to stand up and say no - so families can have a better life.

This message cannot win. Edwards could possibly get away with this kind of message, but not Kerry - you just don't buy it from him. This "people versus the powerful" theme failed in 2000 and it will fail in 2004. And there's a simple reason: the working classes in America don't realize that they're working class. David Brooks first made this observation in a 2001 Atlantic Monthly piece, which I would classify as nothing short of brilliant. Just read what he says:


Stanley Greenberg tailored Al Gore's presidential campaign to appeal to such voters. Gore's most significant slogan was "The People Versus the Powerful," which was meant to rally members of the middle class who felt threatened by "powerful forces" beyond their control, such as HMOs, tobacco companies, big corporations, and globalization, and to channel their resentment against the upper class. Gore dressed down throughout his campaign in the hope that these middle-class workers would identify with him.
. . .

[Brooks went to rural towns to see if Gore's message was correct.] When the locals are asked about their economy, they tell a story very similar to the one that Greenberg, Teixeira, Rogers, and the rest of the wage-stagnation liberals recount. There used to be plenty of good factory jobs in Franklin County, and people could work at those factories for life. But some of the businesses, including the textile company J. Schoeneman, once Franklin County's largest manufacturer, have closed. Others have moved offshore. The remaining manufacturers, such as Grove Worldwide and JLG Industries, which both make cranes and aerial platforms, have laid off workers. The local Army depot, Letterkenny, has radically shrunk its work force. The new jobs are in distribution centers or nursing homes. People tend to repeat the same phrase: "We've taken some hits."

And yet when they are asked about the broader theory, whether there is class conflict between the educated affluents and the stagnant middles, they stare blankly as if suddenly the interview were being conducted in Aramaic. I kept asking, Do you feel that the highly educated people around, say, New York and Washington are getting all the goodies? Do you think there is resentment toward all the latte sippers who shop at Nieman Marcus? Do you see a gulf between high-income people in the big cities and middle-income people here? I got only polite, fumbling answers as people tried to figure out what the hell I was talking about.

When I rephrased the question in more-general terms, as Do you believe the country is divided between the haves and the have-nots?, everyone responded decisively: yes. But as the conversation continued, it became clear that the people saying yes did not consider themselves to be among the have-nots. Even people with incomes well below the median thought of themselves as haves.

What I found was entirely consistent with the election returns from November of last year. Gore's pitch failed miserably among the voters it was intended to target: nationally he lost among non-college-educated white voters by 17 points and among non-college-educated white men by 29 points. But it worked beautifully on the affluent, educated class: for example, Gore won among women with graduate degrees by 22 points. The lesson seems to be that if you run a campaign under the slogan "The People Versus the Powerful," you will not do well in the places where "the people" live, but you will do fantastically well in the places where "the powerful" live.
. . .

In sum, I found absolutely no evidence that a Stanley Greenberg-prompted Democratic Party (or a Pat Buchanan-led Republican Party) could mobilize white middle-class Americans on the basis of class consciousness. I found no evidence that economic differences explain much of anything about the divide between Red and Blue America.

Could someone please forward Brooks's article to the Kerry campaign?

Courtesy of Cliopatria, I think I've found the most irrational invocation of 9/11 to date (which is no small accomplishment). Wayland Smalley is running for the House seat in Oklahoma's 2nd District. He has his own website, which woos voters with the following inspiring lines: "If you want your kids to be able to read . . . you should help me." But his best line comes from his defense of limiting marriage to a man and a woman:

There are reasons that polygamy is illegal in our country. On 9-11 we saw what harem life can produce. A 47th son, such as Osama Bin Laden, rarely gets the quality time he needs with a father. Apparently, the results can be disastrous.

Can't argue with that logic.

. . . in a John Edwards administration - Wesley Clark. Just for good measure, Clark screwed Edwards one last time today by endorsing Kerry on the eve of the Wisconsin primary. For the other examples of Clark's sabatoge of the Edwards campaign, see my earlier post.

In an exercise of old-fashioned civil disobedience, city officials in San Francisco have defied California state law and issued marriage certificates to gay and lesbian couples. Because of the current debate in Massachusetts, the officials' decision will certainly add more fuel to an already hot fire. And with all the "expert" legal commentary now circulating, I'm sure that non-lawyers (and lawyers) are understandably confused about the legal dimensions of judicially mandated gay marriage. "Experts" on both sides seem to be arguing that the opposite side is acting unconstitutionally. Let me save you the time and effort and cut through all the bullshit. There is no legal answer to these questions. That's because the gay marriage dispute is not about law. At its essence, it is simply an argument over the merits of homosexuality. We can argue all we want about federalism and equal protection, but these legal arguments are merely pretexts for, or "superstructures" of, what's really driving the debate - and what's really driving the debate is America's view of homosexuality. Let me explain why.

My argument relies heavily upon my general skepticism that rational arguments can make people change their mind. To me, rational argument is merely a tool - it's neither good nor bad in and of itself. And I don't think people form their opinions on the basis of rational arguments. Instead, people use rational arguments to either oppose or defend pre-existing positions that were formed for non-rational reasons (e.g., where you grew up; whether you were raised religious; etc.). For example, rational argument will never resolve the death penalty debate. There are good arguments on both sides. But I suspect people's view of the death penalty depends on their subjective contempt or tolerance for criminal defendants. If I'm right, then you can argue all you want about racial disparity or DNA acquittals, but you won't convince anyone to change their mind unless you can somehow make emotional arguments that cause them to rethink their pre-existing contempt for criminals.

That's why you can't really trust lawyers. Lawyers are trained in the art of rational argument. Legal training gives them the equivalent of a tool box with a set number of tools. Depending on the situation, lawyers will use one type of legal argument ("Yes your Honor, that's generally true, but this individual case is different") or another ("Yes your Honor, this individual case may seem different, but it actually falls within the scope of the general rule"). There are different types of rational arguments, just as there are different types of tools. But you must remember - and this is critical - lawyers are always given a pre-existing position that they must either attack or defend. In other words, lawyers use the tools of rational argument to help their client.

So back to gay marriage. No matter what particular legal debate you're reading about, the legal reasoning (on either side) is merely a tool to defend one side's pre-existing opinion about the merits of homosexuality. People aren't looking at the relevant legal arguments and then deciding their positions on gay marriage - people are adopting a position on gay marriage and then looking for a legal argument to justify it. If you don't believe me, let's look at some of the major legal "fronts" in the gay marriage wars.

The Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause

The big conservative fear is that DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional because it allows states to ignore other states' decisions with respect to definitions of marriage. In other words, DOMA allows Nebraska to ignore Vermont's civil unions if it so chooses. The Constitution, however, requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public actions and rulings of other states. Despite this text, DOMA would probably be found constitutional because of a long line of Supreme Court precedents that allow states to ignore other states' definitions of marriage if they contradict a state's "public policy." The "public policy exception" has traditionally been applied to prevent states from recognizing marriages involving polygamy, incest, and interracial marriages.

"Public policy," however, has no clear meaning. It essentially just refers to a non-legal community norm - or a pre-existing opinion. Polygamy was and is repulsive to enough people that it contradicts "public policy." Interracial marriage used to be against public policy, but now it's not. And people's views of interracial marriage did not change because of legal arguments, but because non-legal norms changed. Similarly, if DOMA ever gets litigated, it will turn on the definition of "public policy." And public policy is simply whatever the community thinks about gay marriage. Law is secondary. Both sides will argue that gay marriage is either consistent or inconsistent with the public policy, but the legal arguments won't be doing any real work. The legal arguments will depend on each side's pre-existing view of homosexuality.

[Update: It occured to me that people's views of homosexuality will likely color their view of the effectiveness of DOMA. Opponents of gay marriage seem quicker to say DOMA won't work, while supporters argue that the "public policy" exception makes DOMA fine. To be fair, though, I'm sure many supporters of gay marriage will argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. Regardless, I think these views of DOMA are still consistent with my general point that one's legal position is largely driven by one's views of homosexuality.]

Equal Protection and/or Due Process

Another "front" involves equal protection and due process. These are notoriously vague legal concepts that have traditionally functioned to incorporate the norms of the propertied elite classes (from which the judiciary is disproportionately derived) into the Constitution. Using these doctrines, both sides can make credible legal arguments in support of their respective positions. Let's take equal protection for example. Equal protection depends entirely upon the level of generality a judge applies. In other words, a judge could say, "Marriage has traditionally been a fundamental right of a consenting man and woman." Or alternatively, a judge could say, "Marriage has traditionally been a fundamental right of two consenting adults." Both statements are true, but one statement is more general than the other. So, for equal protection purposes, the "law" depends on how a judge defines the relevant baseline - i.e, man and woman, or two consenting adults. If you favor gay marriage you'll argue for the latter, and if you oppose it, you'll argue for the former. But your views of homosexuality will be doing the real work.

Federalism Arguments

A lot of people take the position that gay marriages should be allowed if state legislatures approve them, but they should not be judicially imposed upon an unwilling majority. The most reasonable conservatives (I think) want the law to be structured to accommodate this states rights approach (which is not what the FMA does by the way). But again, this sounds fine and dandy, but it's still only a pretext for the real battle over the merits of homosexuality. For example, assume I said the following: "State legislatures should be allowed to decide whether black people can marry white people." Many people would, justifiably, be quite upset about leaving this issue to the state legislatures. That's because people have determined that there's nothing wrong with interracial marriage. They have also decided that banning interracial marriage violates a fundamental right, which justifies judicial intervention regardless of what the majority thinks. So, as I've hopefully made clear, the real question is whether people approve of homosexuality. If they did, and if they thought marriage was a fundamental right, then judges would be justified (if not required) to impose gay marriage upon unwilling majorities.

Thus, the real fight isn't over federalism or states rights - the real debate is over the merits of homosexuality. Some people think banning gay marriage is just as morally reprehensible as banning interracial marriage. Federalism-based arguments will not persuade these people. Others think homosexuality is different than interracial marriage. Who's right? - Who knows? It depends entirely on people's subjective views on the morality of homosexuality.

In sum, legal experts can argue until they're blue in the face, but neither side is necessarily right and neither side will convince the other with legal arguments. Just as law and rational argument did not cause people to approve of interracial marriage, neither will legal arguments convince people to approve or reject gay marriage one way or the other. The real key is to get people to change their pre-existing, subjective opinions of homosexuality.

And if this is true, then what happens over the next few years really doesn't matter. The non-legal norms are changing, as I think all sides would admit. According to this view, Will and Grace will do more to undermine the FMA than the ACLU ever will. In addition, millions of Americans have come out of the closet in the last 20 years and this usually causes their friends and family to see things differently - to change their pre-existing opinions about homosexuality. Over time, these numbers will grow larger and larger (I stole this point from a recent NY Times op-ed, which I don't have a link for). Gays are also now a widely accepted part of pop culture. I think it's only a matter of time before homosexuality is fully accepted as a community norm.

In short, the times are a'changin'. So even if the FMA gets passed - don't worry. Time is on the good guys' side.

Drudge is reporting that Kerry may have his own Lewinsky problem. I'm skeptical - Drudge is notoriously unreliable, so until others corroborate, I'm certainly not taking his word for it. But if it's true, then Drudge and his fellow muckrakers were stupid for releasing the information this week. The only real effect will be to give Edwards a boost in Wisconsin - and according to the Republicans I've talked to, Edwards is the guy they fear. I'm sure people might think it would help Dean, but Dean is done.

I always find it slightly amusing to hear non-southern Democrats talk about the South as if it were an alien planet. Another less amusing question I often get involves some variation of "What the hell's wrong with you people?" Because I'm fairly liberal, my friends assume they can make fun of the South with impunity - and I usually go along in frustrated silence. To be blunt, non-Southern Democrats don't understand the Southern psyche. Until they do, the Democrats will continue to have a hard time winning elections, despite the obvious fact that Democratic economic policies would be better for much of the poverty-stricken South. And the most critical aspect of the modern Southern psyche that the Democrats don't understand is what I call "Southern inferiority." Southerners feel inferior - morally, racially, intellectually, and linguistically. This inferiority complex, more than anything else, is the biggest obstacle to Democratic rule in the South. I'll explain why, but let me give you a quick overview first.

The roots of the inferiority comes, of course, from slavery and its consequences. No one can deny that a very large part of Southern heritage includes a racist legacy that can only cause shame and embarrassment. Race is the Banquo of Southern consciousness - it's always there, always reminding white Southerners about the sins of their ancestors. But people deal with the past in different ways. Some don't care and just hate blacks - but fewer do than most people think. Others adopt a Southern bravado that I have always thought was a Freudian compensation for feelings of inferiority or insecurity. The preferred course of action for most people, however, is to pretend like the past never happened. Or more precisely, many Southerners pretend that the past is in the past - they think that racial oppression no longer has consequences today. And this sentiment is strengthened by the horrible residential segregation that exists throughout the South and the country more generally. Because so many think race no longer matters, they think everyone should ignore race and become color-blind. But underneath all these calls for color-blindness, there is a deep brooding guilt. It may be unconscious guilt (in a Freudian sense), but it explains why Southerners are - and have always been - so sensitive about issues of race.

But it's more than race. It's also tied into class and culture. The South is - and has been - the most rural, poorest, and least educated part of the country (in large part because it's always opposed "big government"). As much as it burns me to admit it, the Southern dialect tends to be associated by non-Southerners with a lack of education. And we feel self-conscious about it. If you take the smartest guy in the Alabama Law School and dropped him in a New York law firm, he would try his best to water down his accent and talk differently, just as black people feel pressure to talk "white" in certain situations. I know from experience - I grew up in a rural town and went to a good northeastern college. When I came back from summer vacation, students would say my accent had grown "worse" (not "thicker") over the summer. And it made me feel insecure. I have no doubt that my intellectual drive stems from a desire to compensate for these insecurities.

Southern insecurity and inferiority has led many to adopt what psychologists call "selective perception" - which refers to the tendency of people to interpret the world in a way that's consistent with their pre-existing views or concepts. Quite simply, Southerners think that the rest of the country thinks they're stupid and racist. And what's worse, their selective perception causes them to place too much weight on those statements that confirm their view. In other words, if nine people from Connecticut explained how much they like Georgia, and one person made fun of Georgia for being racist, Southerners would fixate on the statements of the tenth person - this is "selective perception."

And so now we get to the Democrats. The media is - and has been - simply full of examples of anti-Southern arrogance that reinforces and solidifies Southerners' perception that everyone thinks they're inferior. Just look at Bill Maher's comments last Friday on his HBO show. Read them and you'll hopefully begin to understand why Democrats are having problems:

And finally, New Rule: Southerners have to at least consider voting for candidates from the North. North Carolina Senator John Edwards has a powerful argument in his bid to be the Democratic nominee when he says, "What I give people is a candidate who can win everywhere in America." Translation: "We Southerners ain't gonna vote for no Yankee." "You suckers up north will take our Clintons and Carters, but we just ain't buyin' Kerrys and Deans."

And that's a shame, not just for Democrats, but for democracy itself. And I feel bad for the millions of intelligent people who live in a region still dominated by so much prejudice that anyone who wants to be president better have a twang in his voice and pronounce all for "e's" in the word "shit."

I'm sorry, but responding only to people who look and sound like you is small-minded. So if Southerners don't want to have an inferiority complex, I say, stop doing things that make reasonable people think you're inferior. Like getting rid of slavery was a good start. But don't stop there. Stop being the place that's always challenging the theory of evolution.

What's next to challenge? Gravity? Is that just a plot by the Jews up north to get people to drop spare change?

And I like the South. I love to party there. But Southerners need to let go of the Civil War, beginning with those re-enactments. First of all, you're re-enacting something you lost. It's one thing - it's one thing to gloat about victory, but when you do it about losing, your front porch is a few couches short of being decorated.

The time has come to move on. The time has come to consider - just consider - voting for a Yankee. Howard Dean's Vermont and John Kerry's Massachusetts are no longer where carpetbaggers come from.

However people choose to define racism - this statement qualifies. Maher's point, however, is correct. Southerners need to take responsiblity for the racist past and stop ignoring it. Southerners need to accept Darwin and the Enlightenment more generally. Southerners need to stop feeling inferior. But - Maher convinces exactly zero people with this arrogant rhetoric. It only exacerbates the problem by reinforcing Southerners' pre-existing view of Democrats.

But Maher is wrong - Southerners will consider voting for a non-Southerner. But they will not consider voting for someone who they suspect thinks they're stupid. That's the key. Southerners just want to know that a candidate or a party respects them and doesn't think they're stupid. This is why Bush (the blue blood with Connecticut roots) does so well. It's not the phony accent and being from Texas - working class Southerners think that he respects their beliefs, their religion, and even the way they talk.

That's why Democrats need a whole new rhetoric. They need to stop advocating their policies negatively. In other words, they need to explain why people should join their cause instead of arguing why people shouldn't join Republicans. I did a recent post on this in which I argued that Democrats need to forsake 1968 rhetoric and reclaim 1960 rhetoric - and everyone should read that post. Southerners will vote Democratic, but they must be treated with respect (because they have such a raging inferiority complex). Instead of bullying people into accepting gay marriage, Democrats might use Christian rhetoric to defend it. The same could be true of higher taxes - Southern Democrats could argue that providing government services is more consistent with Christian beliefs than the atheistic free market. In other words, Democrats don't need to change their policies, they need to use new creative rhetoric. They need to say, "Look, I respect your beliefs. But I think my policies are more consistent with your beliefs."

None of this is to say that certain racist practices that continue today should not be dismissed in the strongest terms - see my previous post for examples. But again, there's a right way and a wrong way to address these problems. The right way is to take the moral high ground (as the early civil rights movement did) but be firm when necessary. The wrong way is to say "Stop it you stupid hick inbred racist!"

The South isn't an alien planet. It's just got a massive two-century old inferiority complex. Until Democrats understand the psychology and adjust for it, they will continue to lose in the South.

Last night, I explained why Kerry should (but won't) pick Edwards for VP. Maybe I spoke too soon. Now that I think about it, Wisconsin could get very interesting if Dean decides to go after Kerry. Think about it - it will be hard to get Kerry's numbers to go down unless someone attacks him. And Edwards isn't going to attack him. But Dean will - I think he's pissed off that Kerry isn't getting the type of scrutiny that Dean got when he was the front-runner. So Dean is going to do the press's job for it.

If Dean draws blood (which depends on how strongly he attacks), this might open a window for Edwards. Remember who's left in the race - Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. Arguably, Dean and Kerry split the more liberal Democrats in the state. But Edwards, by contrast, no longer has to worry about rival candidates on his right flank - Gephardt, Clark, and Lieberman are all gone and these are the people that would most likely vote for Edwards over the other two.

So Dean may have his revenge on the DNC establishment, which has started to rally behind Kerry (in some cases by deserting Dean). So stay tuned - we may be in for a fight after all.

According to the Post, Bush is going to endorse the FMA. The relevant language is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

There are many problems. First, this version could prevent states from legislatively recognizing gay marriage ("nor state or federal law. . ."). Second, the FMA's vague language could allow a judge (if he or she were so inclined) to ban legislatively created civil unions. When critics of gay marriage tell you this amendment won't stop states from creating civil unions, don't believe them. Eugene Volokh explains it well over on his blog - everyone should check it out. Civil unions would arguably "confer upon unmarried couples . . . the legal incidents [of] marital status." As Volokh explained, these are not the only readings, but they're certainly possible when you're dealing with vague, indeterminate text. He explains:

When you're deciding whether to support a proposed amendment, I think it's important to think about these ambiguities. Even a 50% or a 25% chance that an amendment will be interpreted to yield bad results might offer enough reason to oppose it (though of course much depends on how bad you think the bad results would be, and how good the good results would be). And if the amendment is still in the drafting stages, why not modify it to avoid these ambiguities in the first place?

[Update: If Bush gets behind the FMA, there's a very good chance it could pass because of the single-issue voter phenomenon - see my earlier post.]

It was fun while it lasted - but I think the game's over. Kerry won, so let the VP speculation begin. To you save you time and effort, I'm going to tell you how the VP discussion will proceed. First, whenever Kerry ultimately wins, the Democratic masses will urge Kerry to pick Edwards for VP. Then, our genius political pundits will get on TV and inform everyone why Edwards would be a bad choice for Kerry. And the pundits are going to be wrong. Here's why. [Update: My prediction may be coming true - check out this forum and look at the very first question asked.]

The pundits' primary argument will rely upon Electoral College calculations. Edwards, they will say, probably can't even carry North Carolina against Bush, much less any other southern state. Picking Edwards would be stupid when Kerry could pick up an important swing state with a different selection. For example, picking Bob Graham (the popular Florida Senator) would allow Kerry to take Florida, which would admittedly hurt Bush a lot, assuming it's true. Another name tossed around will be Gephardt. Gephardt, people will argue, would carry Missouri and help win over union voters in the critical Midwest. Another name will be Bill Richardson, the Latino governor from New Mexico (my money is on him, by the way). Richardson would help Kerry win Latinos everywhere, but especially in the southwest (and might put Arizona and Colorado in play). At first glance, these seem to be strong arguments against Edwards.

Again, any of these three choices would be made with the Electoral College calculations in mind. Now don't get me wrong - I think people vastly underestimate the importance of the Electoral College dynamics in picking a president. In fact, I think that Kerry may be a poor choice exactly because Democratic voters don't seem to grasp that "electability" means "electability under the Electoral College" (see my post on this issue).

That said, I think people overestimate the importance of the Electoral College with respect to vice-presidents. In 1992, Bush 41 did carry Indiana (where VP Quayle was from), but lost every other midwestern state. In 1996, Jack Kemp did not carry New York for Dole (and it wasn't close). In 2000, Gore won Connecticut (where Lieberman was from), but he didn't carry Florida (well, officially) - and winning Florida was a big reason why Lieberman was selected. Bush, on the other hand, picked a VP (Cheney) from Wyoming - a state with 3 Electoral College points that Bush would have won anyway. But I think Rove - as a student of history (i'll give him that) - understood that VPs should not necessarily be used to fit certain Electoral College calculations. VPs should be used to complement the ticket in a way that maximizes the ticket's appeal. Bush could have picked a California Republican, but he picked Cheney. Why? Because Cheney gave him what he needed - gravitas and experience. Bush was an inexperienced governor going up against a very experienced two-termed incumbent. Experience (especially foreign policy experience, ironically enough) was going to be a liability for him, but Cheney filled that void beautifully (we only found out later that he had become a Gollum-like brooding creature).

Kerry doesn't need help with gravitas and experience. He needs help exciting voters, and especially the base. Kerry's single biggest problem is that he's boring (or at least seems that way on TV). Can you imagine how dreadfully boring these tickets would sound: Kerry-Gephardt; Kerry-Graham; Kerry-Richardson. Good God. These selections might bag Kerry a state, but at the cost of creating the most boring Democratic ticket in modern American history (with Gore-Lieberman a close second). It doesn't do any good to win Florida and New Mexico if Democrats are too bored to go vote for you in the other states. That's a critical point - picking off individual swing states is only important if you can actually carry the other states.

This is what Edwards brings - excitement. He's young. He's southern. Everyone likes him. He's a great speaker (better than Kerry). He's not a patrician. And he's actually capable of generating excitement (Bob Graham is not). He's the anti-Kerry - he has everything that Kerry lacks. And Kerry has everything that Edwards lacks - experience, national security credibility, and he's a war hero. It seems like a match made in heaven.

It's a bit of gamble, I admit. And it would have to be done with the understanding that North Carolina would probably vote for Bush (but new NC polls might be different after Edwards's relatively successful showing in the primary). But winning North Carolina would not be the main reason for selecting Edwards. The main reason would be to create a ticket that Democrats could actually get excited about. So even though Edwards might not help Kerry win in the south, the excitement he would generate would certainly help Kerry turn out the vote. And this election is going to be all about turnout. Just go try to persuade the Nader voters in Oregon to go vote for Kerry-Graham, or (dear god) Kerry-Gephardt. It won't happen - they'll stay home and smoke weed, or go vote for Nader.

So that's my two cents - I suspect Kerry and his staff will find the possiblity of winning Florida or the Latino vote in the Southwest irresistable. That's why I predict that Richardson will get the nod. Also, I have left out Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Bayh's not a bad call, but no one knows anything about him. The nation now knows Edwards pretty well and many Democrats have been excited by him. Edwards is a gamble, to be sure, but as Bush can tell you - Presidents have to take gambles.

One last thing - Bush is an idiot for keeping Cheney on the ticket. Bush no longer needs gravitas, so the need for Cheney no longer exists. He's only a negative now. And with all the shit he's been into (and there are a couple of ongoing investigations that could ultimately make him look worse), Cheney could go from being a slight drag to a full-blown liability on the ticket. I guarantee you that Kerry prays each night for Cheney's health.

For the past month or so, everyone's been saying that Bush is in trouble, that his base is deserting him, and that the Democrats are mobilized like never before. I've been largely skeptical that these are permanent developments, if for no other reason than Americans seem to have a stubborn admiration for Bush (much like they had for Clinton and Reagan). But after listening to an NPR interview with a public relations consultant (sorry - I don't have the link), I realized why Bush may actually be in trouble - and its not for the reasons everyone is saying.

The consultant explained that a president sustains a real decline in popularity when his actions contradict what Americans perceive to be the president's primary virtues. For example, Clinton's affair didn't result in impeachment because Americans knew from almost Day One of the Clinton candidacy that he liked to chase women and that he wasn't always truthful. So when the whole Lewinsky debacle broke, it didn't contradict Americans' perception of Clinton (and more specifically, it didn't contradict his strengths). If, however, the economy had bombed during Clinton's presidency, it would have contradicted his strongest perceived virtue - fiscally sound economic policies. Good economics was the raison d'etre of the Clinton presidency, and moral goodness was not.

Now we have Bush. As the Russert interview made painfully clear, our Commander-in-Chief is not exactly a master of the English language. But his gaffes and difficulties with language never hurt him, because Americans have known from Day One of the Bush candidacy that he was not a great speaker. He was not elected for his verbal skills. I would even argue that, absent Iraq, Bush wouldn't have been hurt significantly by the enormous deficits caused by his tax cuts. Everyone knew he was going to try to cut taxes, so the tax-cutting (and its consequences) didn't cause anyone to change their view of Bush.

The real strength of the Bush presidency relies on the perception that he is honest and that he is the best leader to fight terrorism. Iraq has destroyed both perceptions. Let's start with the first one - honesty. Arguably, honesty and moral goodness were the raison d'etre of the Bush presidency. In light of the whole Lewinsky affair and Clinton exhaustion, Americans were ready for Bush and his savvy message - "Prosperity with a Purpose." If you asked ten Bush supporters a year ago why they liked Bush, nine of them would have said, "I think he's a good, honest man." But lately, Bush doesn't look so honest. There were no WMDs in Iraq, which makes it much more likely that the Bush administration was dishonest during the lead-up to war. It also seems like Bush is lying when he says that he's a fiscal conservative. Then you have the budget and Bush's claims (I won't say "lies" - but they are) that the deficit can be cut in half in five years. Again, I think the real harm isn't caused by the deficit itself, or the lack of WMDs itself - the real harm comes from the perception of dishonesty, which contradicts many Americans' perception of Bush.

The same is true for Bush's perception as being a "strong leader." Strong leaders don't lead countries to war based on false information. He may be completely innocent, but the failure to find WMDs still contradicts his image as a strong "war president."

I admit, it's sort of an unfair standard. Clinton could lie with impunity because he was Clinton. Bush can't. And with the steady drip, drip, drip of possible deception about WMDs, the National Guard, the budget, the Medicare bill, and his so-called fiscal conservativism, Bush can no longer successfully argue that he is the more honest candidate - which has always been one of his main strengths.

And here's the real problem - if Bush can't say he's the more honest candidate, or the best candidate to fight terrorism, what's left? His environmental record? His fiscal policies? His jobs statistics? This is why Bush may actually be in trouble. And that's why I predict he'll have no choice but to turn to social issues like gay marriage to rally support - he may have nothing else left.

An article in today's Post provides some evidence of what I predicted after the February 3 primaries - Clark's razor-thin victory in Oklahoma doomed the Edwards campaign. For those who love the idea of "contingency" (i.e., the dramatic effects that single, random events can have upon the course of history), look at poor John Edwards. Imagine what would have happened if Edwards picked off roughly 700 Clark voters in Oklahoma. Clark (who had and has no shot of beating Kerry) would have dropped out. Edwards would have received significantly more press, having won not one, but two states. Edwards would also be in a one-on-one match with Kerry (with strong momentum) in Virginia and Tennessee, without having to split the anti-Kerry vote with Clark.

You need skill and luck the win the presidency. Kerry certainly has the latter.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while Bush pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of Cheney’s weapons’ lore--
While he nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at the White House door.
"'Tis some visitor," Bush muttered, "tapping at the White House door--
Only this and nothing more."

Presently his soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
"Sir," said he, "or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at the White House door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"--here Bush opened wide the door--
Vietnam there and nothing more.

Deep into Saigon peering, long he stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams he had not dreamed since 1974;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “1974?"
This Bush whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, "’74!"--
Merely Vietnam and nothing more.

Back into the White House turning, all his old fears start returning,
Soon again he heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely that is something at the White House door;
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;--
'Tis Vietnam and nothing more.”

Open here he flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of 1974.
Bush said, “Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore--
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!"
Quoth the Raven, "‘74."

And the Raven, sitting lonely on Lincoln’s bust, spoke only
That one word, as if its soul in that one word he did outpour
Nothing farther then he uttered; not a feather then he fluttered--
Till Bush scarcely more than muttered: "Other soldiers were lost before--
On the morrow it will leave me, as it left me once before."
Then the bird said "‘74."

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
"Doubtless," said Bush, "what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy blogger -
It soon will leave and speak no more
of blood and war and ‘74.

Bush soon betook himself to thinking
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking “‘74.”

This he sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into his bosom's core
"Wretch," Bush cried, "thy God hath lent thee--by these angels he hath sent thee--
Give me rest and leave me from these memories - these memories of ‘74!”
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."

Prophet!" said he, "thing of evil!--prophet still, if bird or devil!--
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
On this home by Horror haunted--tell me truly, I implore--
Is there--is there hope for me in 2004? --tell me, I implore!"
Quoth the Raven, "‘74."

"Be that our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" Bush shrieked, upstarting--
"Get thee back into the tempest and to Saigon’s bloody shore!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!–leave the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"
Quoth the Raven, "‘74."

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Adams just above the White House door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadows on the floor;
And Bush’s soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted--nevermore!

Ok - last thought on the Russert interview (for real). Although most of the interview involved Iraq, some of Bush's most troublesome statements involved the economy (see Andrew Sullivan's excellent TNR article on this point). Specifically, when asked about the exploding deficit and massive spending increases, Bush replied:

And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we're at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the best training and the best possible pay.

Fine. No argument there - if it were true. But the increases in spending and the increased deficit have not been the result of the high costs of Iraq. Iraq is certainly one factor, but there are many others - all of which are not related in any way to defense (see Sullivan's post). If we're at war, the President sure isn't acting like it on the economic front (as Friedman noted Sunday).

I think Friedman identified the country's most basic problem - the Bush administration has developed full blown schizophrenia. On the foreign policy front, the adminstration stresses repeatedly the magnitude of our struggle. Fighting terrorism is a "generational commitment" that requires hundreds of young Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice. Yet on the economic front, this sense of urgency and the calls for sacrifice suddenly disappear and are replaced with happy-faced forecasts with little basis in reality, along with promises that no one in America (other than our troops) has to sacrifice anything.

How else can you explain the administration's economic policies? With an uncertain war still raging, and costs still uncertain (both human and monetary), Bush pushed for a 700 billion dollar tax cut (it ultimately was 350 - still roughly quadruple the costs of the 87 billion Iraq spending). He also pushed through a 400 billion (no, 521 billion . . . no, 1 trillion? - who knows?) Medicare prescription drug benefit. Then, he proposed an expensive trip to Mars, despite our deficit, despite our war, and despite our economic woes. Only schizophrenia can explain these policies.

War requires sacrifice. When we're at war, our energies should go toward winning that war even if domestic issues have to take a back seat. And that's why going to war is such a big deal. By agreeing to go to war, America was saying (or should have been saying), "We believe this is necessary and we are willing to sacrifice our own economic interests for the protection of our nation." In the video-game reality that many Americans live in, war doesn't seem real. It's fun to watch on TV, and Americans may feel bad if people die, but don't ask them to give up tax cuts. Don't ask them to give up Medicare subsidies. War is fine and dandy until someone has to sacrifice for it. As Russert pointed out, every "war president" has raised taxes in times of war. Not Bush - mustn't ask the rich to sacrifice or else they might not attend those $2,000-a-plate dinners. And on an aside, I bet those $2,000-a-plate dinner people don't have children in Iraq or else they might think twice about giving Bush $2,000. But I bet those $2,000-a-plate dinner people's employees have children or brothers or sisters in Iraq. In case you didn't know, the upper classes are entirely absent from the military. Country club Republicans have a jolly time clamoring for war and criticizing Clinton for being a dove, but maybe stupid-ass country club Republicans would think twice if their family members were patrolling the streets of Baghdad right now. Maybe Clinton understood this because he grew up among working class people - the class that disproportionately protects the rest of us. Maybe Bush doesn't understand because he grew up among blue bloods and never saw a day of combat in his life.

Bush calls for "sacrifice" only from the soldiers. For everyone else, things are great! The economy is booming, we're adding jobs, we're making tax cut permanent, we're adding a half-trillion dollar drug benefit, and we're going to Mars.

War requires sacrifice. People at home must suffer too if the war on terrorism is as important as Bush says it is. If people are unwilling to make economic sacrifices, then we shouldn't have agreed to go fight a war (but hey, it was fun to watch on MSNBC, right?). And this is why the failure to find WMDs is such a big issue. I think people are willing to make sacrifices when faced with the threat of a WMD attack. But I'm not sure people would have been willing to sacrifice their economic well-being to prevent the possibility that a "madman" may one day obtain something that might possibly be used by terrorists who may one day develop a relationship with Iraq, even though history suggests they actually hated Saddam.

Rove's error - perhaps tragic error - was his failure to realize that wars must be fought on the domestic front too.

I have one last thought on Bush's Meet the Press interview. During the interview, he argued, as many other Bush supporters are now arguing, that America was still justified in invading Iraq even though Saddam had no WMDs. This answer will inevitably be the standard campaign response. To me, though, this response doesn't quite answer the question. There's a two-part question that Bush must answer: (1) Was the war justified?; and (2) If so, would America have agreed to fight it in the absence of WMDs? It's important to recognize the distinction. There are many possible wars that would be justified. Invading North Korea would be justified. Hell, invading China would probably be justified. But that doesn't mean Americans would agree to fight the war, or that Americans should fight the war. Expressed more logically, the total set of possible justified wars is much larger than the set of wars America would agree to fight (or should fight), the latter being a subset of the former. So, it's not enough to say the war was justified. The real question is whether America would have agreed to invade Iraq had it known that Iraq did not possess WMDs. That's a much tougher question.

In the words of Tina Turner, what's justification got to do with it?

This will probably be the last post (for now) on the question I've been pursuing over the past couple of weeks: Why do working class Americans vote Republican and support Republican economic policies even though the policies seem to be opposed to their economic self-interest? I've offered several explanations in previous posts: (1) Republicans have been successful in stirring up animosity toward Northeastern "latte-drinkers" - a phenomenon I call "Yankophobia"; (2) many Americans don't understand basic principles of economics and Republicans exploit their ignorance - see posts here and here; (3) many working class Americans advertise their Republicanism as a form of "conspicuous consumption" - an advertisement of wealth and status.

None of these explanations, however, place any blame upon the Democratic Party. Today, I want to argue that certain actions and characteristics of the Democratic Party have driven blue collar people to the Republicans.

To understand why the Democrats themselves have contributed to the exodus of working class people from the party, let's go back to the 1960s. You must understand that what is generically referred to as the "Sixties" should actually be broken down into two distinct periods. There is the pre-counterculture 60s, full of optimism and promise, and the so-called counterculture 60s, which was angry, combative, and not at all optimistic. The former period witnessed the rise of Kennedy. With the Cold War thawing, it was a period of renewed possibility. It was a period of hope. It was a period of new beginnings and promise. Young activists aimed to persuade Americans not by bullying them, but by showing them that their view was the most just. There was a strong sense that something must and could be done to solve America's intractable poverty and racial problems. One of the most overlooked aspects of the early 60s is the role that churches played in the political development of both black and white communities. For anyone interested, I recommend Doug Rassinow's "Liberalism, Christianity, and the New Left in America." It shows, among other things, how churches and college students often combined to battle segregation and other racist evils.

With Vietnam and the financial pressures it caused, this period soon gave way to the counterculture 60s. Don't get me wrong - I think this period has been unfairly demonized and that it produced a wealth of art (as all periods of tumult do). But it's true that this period was full of anger and resentment. Young activists no longer aimed to persuade - they aimed to bully people into accepting positions that were more and more extreme. To the counterculture, mainstream America was both a target and an object of ridicule. And what's worse - the previously optimistic youth began adopting angry, paternalistic outlooks.

David Brooks discussed this dynamic in a recent column in which he described some of the characteristics of an Iowa Democrat he had met on the 2004 campaign trail:

She remembers having faith in that kind of heroic politics when she was young. Conservatives sometimes say that Democrats want to go back to the 1960s of Woodstock and the peace movement. That's not quite right. The quintessential Democrat here doesn't want to return to the angry, disruptive long-hair style of the late 1960s. She wants to return to the confident, short-hair, pre-counterculture mood of the early 1960s.

She remembers John F. Kennedy, the personification of the optimism she longs to recover. She remembers neatly dressed idealists infused with a sense of possibility. She's not hostile, as the late '60s/early '70s leftists often were, to the authoritative institutions of American life.

So here's how all this matters. Liberals have, for far too long, tried to persuade people by being moral bullies. They have a tendency to argue negatively rather than positively. In other words, they don't explain why their position is better - they argue that the conservative position is worse, or racist, or anti-enviroment, or whatever. Quite simply, there is far too much 1968 in Democratic rhetoric, and far too little 1960. Red Americans (people in states voting for Bush) have been told for 25 years that they are backwards, racist, sexist, fill-in-the blank and Democrats are now reaping the benefits of that rhetoric. Now, a lot of those arguments are true, but liberals have been characteristically stupid in the rhetoric they have adopted to counter these positions.

These different strands of the 1960s have filtered through into the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Take Gore. His meta-theme was the "people versus the powerful." The only way the message could have succeeded was if people were angry and without hope. Americans weren't. They never have been, even to the point of absurdity. Gore argued negatively - he provided no reason to vote Democratic, he only offered reasons not to vote Republican. I think Kerry may be falling into this same trap with his screw-the-HMOs message. Democrats need to return to their roots - to 1960. They need to offer positive reasons for voting Democratic. Modern day "liberalism" is, at its essence, a beautiful message. It's not a word to be ashamed of. Liberalism is about helping people. It's about protecting an environment that we do not own, but for which we act as stewards for future generations. Liberalism rejects the pure Darwinian free market, which cares nothing for the struggles of individuals and which is - at its essence - an atheistic philosophy that only values raw power. Liberalism instead mixes free market principles with government programs to help those who need help. It recognizes that government can act as a force for good to help people. That's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal. Properly understood, it is much more consistent with morality and justice than the atheistic free market.

I think Clinton understood this - as does Edwards. I mean, listen to both Edwards and Kerry. They're both saying the exact same thing. They're both preaching populism. But Kerry's populism makes it sound like working class people are on a losing team. And they may be - but that's not the point. You don't persuade Americans that way. Edwards's tone is "imagine what we can do." Kerry's tone is "look at what those awful people are doing to you." One message gives a reason to vote Democratic, the other gives a reason not to vote Republican.

So finally we get back to blue collar Americans. There are two mistakes that Democrats have made with respect to them. First, they have opposed Republican economics with angry 1968 arguments, rather than with optimistic 1960 arguments. In doing so, they have (as have I) treated blue collar people as too stupid to know their own economic good. Second, Democrats have favored social issues that many blue collar people are skeptical of. Again, the problem is rhetoric. The Democrats are right to believe in the social issues they do, but they have chosen to argue for them in a way that seems to threaten blue collar Americans. Imagine what could happen if Democrats offered a positive defense of their positions rather than a negative one. Instead of calling opponents of the death penalty cruel, Democrats could use religious arguments to persuade blue collar Americans (or a substantial chunk of them). Instead of calling opponents of gay marriage homophobic, Democrats could use arguments of morality and justice and take the moral high ground. Instead of stressing the evil intentions of anti-environmentalists, Democrats could discuss what's good about protecting the environment. For example, I think Democrats have done a good job protecting the Arctic refuge by using these sorts of positive arguments.

In short, there's no need of feeling a moral inferiority because you're liberal. The liberal message is fundamentally good and even beautiful. If Democrats could remember 1960, maybe they could convince working class people to do the same. Maybe instead of treating them like children, they could persuade them as adults.

I don't have a lot to say - it was a pretty boring affair and I don' t think that Bush will be helped or hurt by the interview. Although his platitudes were skillfully crafted so that he wasn't lying and wasn't telling the whole truth, I don't think he said anything that will hurt him (except maybe the bit about the deficit being cut in five years). Visible Hand has some commentary and the transcript of the interview. I want to offer only a couple of observations, because I'd rather spend more time on the issue of blue-collar Republicans (I'll have another post on that later today).

1) Bush and the Duke Blue Devils

I love college basketball. And Duke has been the dominant team since the late 90s. What is most striking about Duke's opponents is that they never think they're going to win. Duke can be down 10 points with 2 minutes to go and the other team will still be terrified that Duke is going to come back. Their ability to intimidate and strike fear in the hearts of opponents is quite amazing.

I get that sense from Democrats about Bush. Even though Bush is having a very rough month (for reasons he brought upon himself), you can almost taste the liberals' fear that everything is about to get on track for him. When liberals discovered that Bush would appear on Russert's show, they were terrified that the interview would turn things around and that we'd return to the days of late 2002 and early 2003 when Bush seemed unstoppable. I think that's why so many people were skeptical that Russert would ask "hard" questions - they needed an excuse for what might happen when Bush turned things around. I believe that fear of Bush (after his periods of high popularity) feeds a lot of the so-called "Bush hatred." We hate what we fear. Republicans hated Clinton because they feared his political abilities, and they feared getting another pounding by him after the 1995 budget debacle. Democrats hate Bush in part because he so successfully squashed them in the ground in late 2002-early 2003.

2) Political Strategy and Julius Caesar
Everyone remembers the famous scene in Julius Caesar where the unruly crowds went from hating Caesar to hating his assassins in a matter of minutes after a fancy speech by Mark Antony. The scene itself is a powerful indictment of democracy, showing both the fickleness of the masses and the power of rhetoric to manipulate them. To me, presidential campaigns and political strategies assume that Americans act similarly to the easily-persuaded masses in Julius Caesar. Let's take the Democrats first. John Kerry put all his eggs in Iowa, hoping that the Democratic masses (who had given up on him two months ago) would suddenly turn full circle if he won. He was right - but what does that say about the Democratic voters? Kerry went from political death to the status of presumptive nominee in two months. Two months! When people change their mind that quickly, and in such overwhelming numbers, I think it's fair to ask whether their decision was based on their own beliefs and calculations, or whether it was based on herd mentality (see my earlier post on this point).

On the other side, Republicans seem to think that a couple of isolated events (e.g., Russert interview or Mars proposal) will put Bush back in the news, and that this single event will cause people to suddenly give him higher ratings again. In a rational world, Bush will be re-elected or booted on the basis of big events that have already happened - economy, Iraq, terrorism. It seems kind of insulting to one's intelligence that a single Sunday morning interview should be expected to turn things around suddenly.

That's my biggest gripe with the political strategies and the pundits - they're obsessively fixated on the hyper-short term. Take Dean's scream speech. After the speech, all the pundits declared that this single event would be his downfall. Forget the fact that Dean spent two years laying out broad themes. With one speech (repeated nearly 700 times that week), the press declared him dead - making the assumption that this single event would change everyone's mind. But it did. The Democrats suddenly jumped ship - even though they had favored Dean for a long time. I'm not saying that single events can't hurt (e.g., Watergate), but I'm not sure Dean's speech was even close to being egregious enough to justify such a mass defection (though it surely wasn't the only cause - again, the bigger point is the assumption among the pundits that the speech would cause everyone to change their mind).

I'm not saying that I share Shakespeare's profound skepticism of democracy, but the actions of Democratic voters haven't exactly inspired much confidence over the past couple of months.

If you want a sense of the depth and intensity of the current anti-American feelings throughout the world, check out the following (courtesy of Drudge): (1) Crowds in Mexico chanted "Osama! Osama!" during a recent soccer game; (2) Only 15% of Canadians would vote for Bush. And these are our next door neighbors and closest friends.

One of my constant preoccupations is the question of why working class, blue-collar Americans are voting Republican, even though the Republicans' economic policies seem to be opposed to their economic self-interest. One obvious response is that these people are voting on social issues and "values," but that answer doesn't satisfy me. Even assuming these people rate social issues higher than economic ones (which seems questionable, but let's just assume it's true), why do they continue to support the Republicans' economic policies so strongly? It's not like the Christian Coalition is pushing for tax increases or anything. But why not? Why do rural and working class people go along with Republican economics? One possibility that I explained earlier this week was that many Americans don't understand basic principles of economics - you can see both of my posts on this subject here and here.

Today I want to offer a different reason - a sort of speculative sociological reason. I have no empirical support for this claim, so indulge me and comment if you'd like. I think that more and more rural and working class people are voting Republican because of a phenomenon called "conspicuous consumption." Economist/Sociologist Thorstein Veblen first coined this term and I think everyone will agree that it's an all to common feature of American social life. Let me explain.

In his classic "A Theory of the Leisure Class," Veblen examined the spending habits of the wealthy or the so-called leisure class. Specifically, he asked why people waste so much money on items that serve no purpose. His answer was that people's wasteful spending is used to purchase items that prominently display their wealth - thus the term "conspicuous consumption." A few examples make it clear. In Veblen's day, rich people wore extravagant clothes that were impractical for any sort of work. Men, for instance, cannot mine coal in a suit and top hat. The same is true for the ostentatious Victorian dresses worn by women. I've never tried one on, but it's safe to say that no work can be performed by people wearing these dresses. But that was the point. The fancy, but impractical, clothes were intended to be signals to the population at large. Wearing a goofy suit and top hat was the same as saying, "I make a shit load of money." The same was true of the Victorian dresses - they had no other point other than to advertise one's wealth, or leisure, or whatever. They were meant to say, "I don't have to work because I have so much money. Can't you tell by my dress?"

In today's America, conspicuous consumption has gotten worse, even though we don't have the ridiculous Victorian clothes. For example, I know people who won't buy a Ralph Lauren shirt unless the little horse symbol is displayed prominently on the front of it. Similarly, suburban Americans are buying SUVs by the millions, even though most people have absolutely no purpose for owning such a large truck (unless there's snow in the Appleby's parking lot or something). But these people aren't buying goods because they need them - they're buying them to advertise their wealth. That's why so many Americans fall into hopeless debt in order to purchase an excessively big house, or a boat, or whatever. Everyone wants others to know just how much money you have.

Conspicuous consumption seems silly at first. I mean, why would people waste this money if it meant they had to work longer hours? My response is that there are probably evolutionary pressures at play. Advertising one's wealth in modern, capitalist America is the same as saying, "I'm a fit mate. I can provide for you. I have status within this society." Veblen says it well:

In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence. And . . . the evidence of wealth serve[s] to impress one's importance on others and to keep their sense of his importance alive and alert..

So this brings us back to Republicans. My theory is that many blue-collar Americans vote Republican because favoring Republican policies is associated with having greater wealth, or being a businessman, or being an aspiring entrepreneur. If what I'm saying is true, then these people must do more than vote Republican - they must be loud and vocal about their preference for Republicans. They must advertise it conspicuously.

Again, I don't have much support other than my own experience growing up in a rural southern town. Some of the most vocal Republicans I know are working class people. There's another element to this as well. You've got to keep in mind how elections work at a micro-level - town and county elections, for example. Usually, the Republican Party has a few leaders in the town or county, and these people are often successful professionals - the local doctors, or lawyers, or real estate owners. When the election comes around, the leader needs the help of the working classes to get Republicans elected. So by helping these people deliver votes, working class people get to advertise their assocation with the local Mr. Big Shot. And they can tell their friends. Not to be undone, their neighbors follow suit (there's a sort of collective action problem involved in conspicuous consumption) and vocally support Republicans too.

I think there are other factors at play too. The rise of online trading and the investor class makes more and more people feel like they're not that different from the J.P. Morgans of the world. They can watch CNBC and follow the few hundreds or thousand dollars they have invested and feel like they are truly a part of the capitalist markets. And when Bush talks about cutting dividend taxes, they understand and think it will help them. And they let everyone know about it too. Fiddling around in the stock market is its own form of conspicuous consumption, if you talk about your investments all the time.

Again, I have no real evidence for any of this, but I would be curious to hear whether other people have had similar experiences.

It looks like President Bush is going to offer a full-blown endorsement of the Federal "Marriage" Amendment. Once again, Rove is forcing Bush to throw away any positive historical legacy he might still possess in order to satisfy a narrow interest group - in this case, by supporting an amendment that will inevitably be seen as equivalent to "separate but equal" or the "3/5 clause."

While you might think this decision is based on pure homophobia, it's not. It's a rational political calculation based on economic considerations. Bush's base is revolting, half the country dislikes him strongly, and he's already beaten national security into the ground. To pick up votes, he needs a new issue. So, Rove and Co. have decided that singling out gays will provide the wedge issue they need to pick off blue collar working class people in the swing states. I have an earlier post on the political economy of these wedge issues. Though you should go back and read it, the basic point is that Republicans will use gays to create a wedge between the working class and "gay-loving" Democrats because gay-loving Democrats advocate economic policies that are in the self-interest of the working class.

The South has a long history of this phenomenon. Wealthy southern whites knew that they would be out of power if poor southern whites and poor blacks ever combined to form an economic coalition. To prevent this coalition, the wealthy whites demagogued race and used it to divide two groups with the same economic interests. Today, Republicans are going to do the same with gay marriage. They will use gay-baiting to disguise the fact that Democratic economic policies are in the self-interest of the working class. I explain all of these points better in my earlier "Yankophobia" post. Go check it out.

The blogosphere has been debating the merits of anonymous blogging recently. Curdmudgeonly Clerk has a good post today, which I largely agree with. I would also urge interested parties to read Tapped's post on this subject, which makes an important distinction between anonymous blogging and pseudonymous blogging.

Although I'm surely sacrificing any future as a federal judge for saying what I'm about to say, I think it may be time for all progressives to abandon Roe v. Wade.

Before I go any further, let me say that I fully support abortion rights. If it were on a ballot, I would vote pro-choice every time. It's makes me sick to think that 14-year old girls would be required by law to have babies. I also think outlawing abortion would hurt poor people the most (because wealthier people would still get their abortions somehow). But - and this distinction is critical - there's a world of difference between saying that you favor abortion rights and that you believe the Constitution grants a right to abortion. Those are two completely different issues. Though I'm sure to get a firestorm of angry emails, I think that Democrats should give up on Roe for both political and constitutional reasons. Let me explain.

Politically speaking, I'm not sure Roe has accomplished anything other than weakening the Democratic Party and strengthening the Republican Party. The modern religious right that we have come to know and love (i.e., the Pat Robertson wing) did not exist pre-Roe. Roe electrified this segment of the population and brought them back to the ballot box after a long absence. In fact, I think that you can make a strong case that Reagan would not have been elected had the Supreme Court not intervened in the abortion debates. I also think the Dems went too far in their defense of Roe in the early 80s. I learned about this latter point in a great book review in the Dec. 2003 Harvard Law Review by L.A. Powe (reviewing Mark Tushnet's new book). Powe pointed out that in 1980, the Democratic platform was very "lukewarm" about abortion - it recognized the difficulties of the issue but stated that Roe was the law of the land. Yet, in 1984, the platform boldly declared that it was a "fundamental human right." I don't think I have to remind anyone that the Dems didn't do so hot that year. And today, because of Roe, the religious right is now a lobby with enormous influence (i've heard they get to talk to Rove daily - which is essentially the same as talking to the President).

From a more Machiavellian perspective, I also think the Dems could gain millions of Republican converts by adopting a more federalist approach to abortion (i.e., leave it to the states). One of the great mistakes liberals make is to assume that Christians and other religious groups are 100% monolithic in their thought. While I certainly don't think a majority of these people will be voting Democratic anytime soon, I think the Dems could pick off enough of them to splinter the Republican coalition. I've heard some scholars argue that America is in the middle of the Third Great Awakening. If so, the Democrats are idiots for not co-opting the religious narrative and framing their policies as being more consistent with Christian teachings (or other religions - I only know about Christianity).

I think the Democrats could and should use Christian rhetoric to defend a number of their policies. For example, the Dems could say they favor using the government as a force for good because that's the moral, non-materialistic thing to do. You're supposed to help people - the poor, the needy, etc. Tax cuts don't do that. The Dems could argue that their positions on crime and the death penalty are more consistent with the teachings of Christ than those of Try-'Em-and-Fry-'Em Ashcroft. They could argue that their support for gay marriage is more consistent with Christ's message of tolerance. love, and non-judgment. They could argue that their opposition to unnecessary wars stems from religious conviction. I am convinced that there are literally millions of religious people who are itching to vote Democratic if they could only convince themselves that the Dems' policies were consistent with their religion. And abortion is a HUGE obstacle to ever persuading these voters to switch camps (especially Catholics).

What liberals fail to realize is that many Americans think that embryos (from conception) are infused with a divine soul. I don't buy that - I think the "soul" is a construct of our neural networks, but that's not the point. The point is that liberals need to exercise a little intellectual empathy and concede that they might think differently about abortion if they believed these little embryos actually had divine souls. That's why abortion debates are so pointless - there are two different paradigms of thought arguing with each other.

Second, Roe should be abandoned for constitutional reasons. As any honest law student will tell you, Roe was a constitutional abomination. Again, the result is not an abomination. But the process by which the result was obtained is an abomination. Though I think originalism is both stupid and a remnant of pre-Enlightenment modes of thought (as I've argued here), I do think that history is one of several relevant criteria that judges should use in making decisions. Roe - and the line of cases that spawned it - has no basis in text, history, precedent, nothin'. The judges just created a fundamental right themselves - this was the legal justification.

Progressives must remember that it's only by accident that the legal justification underlying Roe serves liberal ends. Conservatives could use the exact same justification to serve their own political ends. If Bush wins, Republicans will thoroughly dominate the judicial branch. If so, the rationale behind Roe could be used to outlaw collective bargaining or invalidate a number of market regulations. Like judges before them, the new Bush judges could simply find new fundamental rights (in this case, "economic liberties") and apply them to serve conservative political ends.

I do want to make clear that my opposition to Roe is not simply because courts overrode the "legislative will" of the people. I'm so fucking sick of hearing that argument raised (especially with respect to gay marriage). Of course Roe overturned the legislative will. That's what judges do when legislatures violate civil rights. That's why we have Article III judges. Brown v. Board also overrode the "legislative will."

The relevant question is not whether "activist judges" overrode the legislative will, the question is whether they should have. In other words, are there good reasons to override the legislature? When the courts overturned legislatively-mandated segregation, I think they were justified because blacks were a minority and were not allowed to vote. Thus, the political process couldn't fix it. Similarly, I think courts are right to be "activist" (I prefer to say "are right to enforce the Constitution") in allowing gays to marry because gays are a numerical minority who are at the mercy of the majority. Thus, the political process doesn't work for them. But these "political process" arguments don't work for Roe. Women are 50% of the population - they're not disenfrancised and they're not even a minority. The only good argument I can think of is that abortion rights are important for 12 to 17 year old girls who cannot vote. But, I'd have to see some numbers on that - anyone know them?

In short, I think the standard conservative rant against activist judges is generally a bunch of crap that only masks their political disagreement with the issue or decision at hand. But they have a point about Roe. Also, if Democrats abandoned Roe and adopted more creative rhetoric, I firmly believe they could make gains politically among religious voters who question whether Republican "values" are consistent with religious values. Second, by disavowing Roe, Democrats can prevent Republicans from creating their own Roe in the future.

Let the angry emailing commence.

I generally enjoy Will's columns - he's very smart and makes good points. But today, he could not be more wrong about the Democrats' so-called "southern problem." He writes:

[The Democrats'] Southern problem is rooted not in regnant racism but in the region's increasingly individualistic, optimistic, entrepreneurial and religious culture.

Not true. Not by a long shot. As I explained in this post, the Democrats' Southern problem has everything to do with race. Just read my post and decide for yourself.

If you're going to pick someone to be a scapegoat for a war that you pushed upon a country through fear and false information, maybe the CIA shouldn't be your first choice. The analysts (with a few well-placed leaks) could make 2004 a living hell for Bush. But that hasn't stopped the Bushies from blaming the whole WMD fiasco on the CIA. Today, however, the CIA struck back in what might be the first shot of a nasty interdepartment war. George Tenet dropped a bombshell by saying that his analysts "never said there was an imminent threat." This is huge. Because as we know (and despite the current crap about how the president never said "imminent"), many administration officials said that Iraq did pose an imminent threat.

For examples, check out Josh Marshall's post last November. Here's an excerpt:

More in contention are the quotes from the president’s spokesmen at the time. Did they think the president was arguing there was an imminent threat? The evidence here is awfully clear. Three examples from my Hill column …

Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: “Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.”
Fleischer’s answer? “Yes.”

In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: “Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.”
Bartlett’s answer? “Well, of course he is.”

A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, “Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?”

Fleischer’s answer? “Absolutely.”

Marshall also notes that Bush used the word "urgent" and Rumsfeld said "immediate." Go check out the post.

And if you want a very good compilation of pre-war claims about WMDs, check out Whisky Bar.

The shit just hit the fan - and Bush has Russert on Sunday.

In a recent post, I argued that Republicans are in power because many Americans don't understand some basic principles of economics. Today, I just want to add one more principle to that list.

1) Indirect "Tax" Increases

The best way to introduce this concept is by example. In Kentucky this past November, the Republican Ernie Fletcher defeated the Democratic candidate for governor (for the first time in 36 years). During the campaign, Fletcher went on and on about how he had signed Grover Norquist's infamous "no new tax pledge." (Yes, his name is Grover.) Basically, it's a pledge to never ever raise taxes, and certain Republicans use the pledge to demagogue candidates in both primary and general elections. But anyway. . .

Governor Fletcher recently announced his new proposed budget for Kentucky. It has no new tax increases. It does, however, propose to cut the amount of Medicaid funds provided to local health facilities. These facilities provide various medical services for poor people including immunizations, prenatal care, child care, and disease screening. Fletcher's budget also proposes to increase health insurance costs for state employees and teachers. But again, no new taxes. See anything fishy?

You should. The cuts in Medicaid services, along with the increased health insurance costs, are tax increases. From an economic perspective, there is no difference between raising taxes, and cutting Medicaid or making health insurance more expensive. They have the same effect as tax increases. For example, let's say I'm a state worker and I pay $100 in taxes a year, and my health insurance costs $10 a year. If the state increases the cost of health care, it's forcing me to pay more for the exact same amount of services. In other words, the state's decision is costing me more money, just like a tax increase would. In economic jargon terms, the increase in price exerts the same effect on the supply curve as a tax increase would. The same is true for Medicaid cuts. Again, let's say that I am poor and I receive $100 worth of medical benefits through Medicaid. Now assume that the state makes cuts and can now only provide $50 worth of medical benefits, even though my medical needs are the same. That's the same as a tax increase (from both a mathematical and economic perspective). Unless I want to stay sick, I'm going to have to make up the $50 difference myself. Again, cuts in services or increases in health care (or tuition) are indistinguishable from tax increases.

So here's the really outrageous part -- and to me, what I'm about to say is one of the fundamental reasons why my political beliefs are what they are today (I used to be very conservative). Fletcher's Medicaid cuts and increases in health care premiums are supposedly necessary to cut the budget deficit. But for reasons I explained, there is no difference (in economic terms) between reducing a deficit by increasing taxes and reducing it by cutting services. By choosing the latter, you are essentially balancing the budget by raising taxes on those with the least amount of money. This point is absolutely essential. Do you see how Republican policies favor wealth? By not increasing or even cutting taxes, those with wealth have a much smaller tax burden. By cutting services, however, (which is what Bush's current budget does - in spades) the government shifts the tax burden to those who had previously benefited from the services (i.e., working class people). In other words, when the government stops providing essential services that it had previously paid for (e.g., health care services), working class people must pay more (or "internalize" the costs, as economists say). So, Fletcher and Bush are essentially raising taxes on the working class to pay for the deficit, which was caused in part by cutting tax rates for the wealthy. So if you remember nothing else from this blog, remember this: When Republicans call for either tax cuts and/or spending cuts, they are essentially raising taxes on working class people.

This is exactly what John Edwards means when he claims that the administration is shifting the tax burden "from wealth to work." I do want to add that I don't think all Republicans are aware of these economic truths. I think many Republicans are aware, but continue to be disingenuous, greedy, and in contradiction to their religious creeds. But many Republicans are good people who think that tax cutting and cutting government services will help working people. It won't - it's the same as raising taxes on them. And what's truly tragic is that many working class people vote for the "no new taxes" candidate, thinking they'll save money.

This is probably the most important post I've offered. It's absolutely essential for all progressives to understand these economic principles.

I'll leave with you one last quote from Fletcher regarding his budget:

[A] competitive Kentucky . . . doesn't solve its budget problems by overburdening people or businesses with higher taxes.

This budget is conservative, goal-driven and compassionate.

It reflects a lot of tough decisions.

And it calls on each of you and every Kentuckian to make reasonable sacrifices for a better future.

Well, actually Governor, it calls on teachers, state employees, and Medicaid recipients to sacrifice by paying "higher taxes." It doesn't call on the wealthy to sacrifice anything.

[Update: Slithery D has some responses to my first post, though I think you'll agree they're less than clear.]

According to Hardball tonight, Bush is going to submit to an hour-long interview on Meet the Press Sunday. It's the first Sunday morning talk show he's done as a President.

This move is very risky. Bush is pretty good reading a script, but he's truly terrible the second he veers off the pre-approved talking points. And Russert is tough - though I thought he pooh-poohed Cheney and I fear he might pooh-pooh Bush too. But again, there's a lot of potentially tough questions - Bush's National Guard service; the budget; the 9/11 commission; and the lack of WMDs. It will interesting to see if Russert can manage to steer him off-script.

On the one hand, the benefits could be huge. If he does well, he'll be in the news for a few days and might steal the Dems' thunder - who, not coincidentally, have a primary the night before. (Remember - the State of the Union was purposely held the day after the Iowa caucuses for the same reason.). On the other hand, with Bush, there's always a real possibility that he'll say something utterly stupid. Or, he might say something that is disproven on down the road (for example, he needs to be very careful about what he says regarding his Guard service). It's a big gamble. But say what you will about Bush, he takes big gambles. But the thing about gambles is that they're risky and they often don't work. Don't expect Rove to sleep much this week.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a right to be married under the Massachusetts Constitution. For reasons I stated earlier, there is a very real possibility that the federal marriage amendment might be ratified if Bush decides to back it because of the "single-issue voter" phenomenon.

On an aside, I think if it passed it would be remembered historically as worse than the Prohibition Amendment, but not quite as bad as the 3/5 clause (you know, the clause America ratified saying that a black person is worth 3/5 of a white one - remind me again why originalism deserves intellectual respect?)

I promise that I'm going to follow up on my earlier post, which explained that Republicans hold power because many Americans don't understand basic principles of economics. But for now, I have several brief thoughts on the primary.

1) Electability and the Electoral College

Although I have been skeptical of Kerry's sudden rise, Democratic voters seem to have concluded he's the most "electable." It has baffled me why people think that Kerry is so clearly the most electable. But I think I've figured it out. Most voters (even those valuing "electability") do not understand the dynamics of the Electoral College. If the presidency were decided by a national popular vote, then I agree that Kerry is the most electable. He would play well on the urban coasts and his Vietnam experience would prevent him from getting crushed in the South. But the presidency isn't decided by popular vote. It's decided by the Electoral College (which is a bullshit institution that should be abolished). But it exists. And because it exists, the presidency is not a true national election (as I've explained in more detail here). I would guess that nearly 40 states will vote Republican or Democratic regardless of whomever the Democrats nominate. So, the election is really an election to win 10 states. And in these 10 states, it's not clear to me that Kerry is the most electable. Most of these states (Florida, West Virginia. Penn., Ohio, etc.) are blue collar and socially conservative and not in Skull and Bones.

With the Electoral College in mind, consider both Kerry and Edwards and ask yourself the following question: which states could each candidate bring to the table that the other candidate could not (sort of like a Venn Diagram). I think a strong case can be made that Kerry could not win one state that would not be won by Edwards (or even Clark). But Edwards (or Clark) could win a number of states that Kerry could not. Also, Kerry has all but said that he's conceding the South (b/c he's making Electoral College calculations of his own). The problem with that strategy is that Bush won't have to spend a dime protecting his own turf. He can spend literally 100 million dollars in the 8 or 9 swing states. If, for example, Edwards were the nominee, Bush would have to spend a considerable amount of time and resources defending states like North Carolina and South Carolina (and I would add Kentucky, Louisiana, and Arkansas). That means he would have less money to spend in the swing states, and much less opportunity to challenge solidly "Blue" states. Because Kerry would have to work so hard to defend the swing states (and even some Blue ones), he couldn't mount any sort of offensive in the Red states (except perhaps in the Southwest).

So maybe I've been too hard on the Democratic voters - the Electoral College dynamics are not intuitive, but they are vital. And they certainly call Kerry's electability into question.

2) Clark Screws Edwards Once Again

[Update: Will Saletan from Slate has raised points that are nearly identical to mine (on Clark and Edwards). But if you look at the time of postings, you'll see that mine came first and that I'm not stealing arguments from him.]

The study of history is very often the study of "contingency." "Contingency" (as used in historical jargon) just means that history need not have occurred the way it ultimately did. Or more simply, things could be different but for a few random events. These "contingent" individual events can have drastic effects on the course of history. For example, if Robert E. Lee had created a decentralized guerilla army rather than surrendering, we might still be fighting the Civil War (sort of like Ireland and England still fight). Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was also "contingent" (meaning not necessary), but the world will be much different because of that contingent event. Similarly, but for a few contingent events (mostly relating to Clark), Edwards might well be the nominee right now. Consider Edwards bad luck: (1) Clark announces his candidacy one day after Edwards had announced, which deprived him of media coverage; (2) Edwards' strong Iowa showing was crowded out of the news by Dean's "scream" speech (played nearly 700 times that week according to the Dean campaign); (3) Clark just barely nudged Edwards out of third in New Hampshire, which had some effect on his momentum; and (4) Clark barely won Oklahoma. I think the last event will be the undoing of Edwards. First, although it's just a few hundred votes (a statistically meaningless difference), Edwards would have made headlines by winning two states to Kerry's five. Now, his win is less meaningful (because Clark won too). But most importantly, Clark will now stay in the race. Clark's continued presence means that the anti-Kerry vote (especially in the South) will be split. With Clark in, Edwards can't make it the two person race he so desperately needs it to be. I think Clark destroyed the Edwards campaign tonight.

3) The Longer the Better (for Dems)

If I were Terry McAuliffe, I would want the primary to drag on into March. The Democrats are monopolizing press coverage right now, and I think it's having an effect on Bush's approval numbers.

4) Dee Dee Myers is hot.

I'm not sure when it happened, but she's hot now.

On Inside Politics today, Judy Woodruff asked RNC chair Ed Gillespie about our Commander-in-Chief's courageous protection of Alabama (or lack thereof) during the Vietnam War in 1972. The transcript is classic:

WOODRUFF: Well just very quickly on this allegation about the president being AWOL. Is this something that can be put to rest once and for all with the facts, or is there always going to be some ambiguity there?

GILLESPIE: There is no ambiguity, Judy. The president was honorably discharged from the National Guard. He served his time, made his commitment in terms of the service points -- and he fought -- he served in a very dangerous area which is fighter jets.

I'm not saying that that is -- I mean -- it is a -- there's a risk to flying a fighter jet, is what I'm saying. And his service to the National Guard is honorable. And Terry McAuliffe is just wrong about this. And it is a shame to see this kind of -- it's a shame to see Terry stoop to these kind of attacks, which are demonstrably wrong.

Good answer Ed. I've heard the "dangerous area" of "fighter jets" was full of Viet Cong guerillas. In Alabama.

to Matt Yglesias for the shout out. If you don't check out his blog regularly, start doing so.

Daniel Gross (as usual) has a great post on Slate today explaining how the Bushies (and the OMB specifically) are basically lying about the expected revenues the government will receive. So, if this is even possible, the budget is in far worse shape than we realized.

I can’t really even begin to explain how angry Bush’s budget makes me. So I won’t. Calpundit has some excellent posts (here and here) showing just how bullshit Bush’s pledge to “cut the deficit in half” really is and I strongly recommend them. I’d prefer to use the current budget mess to make a larger point - Republicans are in power because many Americans do not understand basic principles of economics. Think about it - the Republican coalition consists of a group of rural social conservatives and urban social liberals who are united only in their support for tax cuts. This coalition seems to be irrational when you consider that rural conservatives (and working class people more generally) stand to gain much more from Democratic economic policies than Republican ones. But many of them are voting Republican. David Brooks has noted that working class (white) people who did not attend college favored Bush over Gore by seventeen points. The most common response is that many Republicans vote on social issues and “values.” Fine - that may well be true. But why then do social conservatives support tax cuts so strongly? They support them as strongly as they support appointing pro-life judges. The sad truth is many Americans don’t understand basic principles of economics. I don’t mean to be elitist - people who have to work their ass off to provide for their families don’t have time to read the Wall Street Journal or Richard Rubin’s new book. But, Republicans exploit Americans’ economic ignorance to enact policies that are directly opposed to most people’s economic self-interest. I’ll list just a few of the economic concepts here.

1) The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth

This principle is very simple. Let’s say that I have $10,000 in the bank and that’s all that I own in this world. If you gave me another $10,000, that extra money would very valuable to me. But if I had $10 billion, then the extra $10,000 wouldn’t be nearly as valuable, even though it's the exact same amount of additional money. That’s because the wealthier you are, the less valuable increases of wealth will be. That’s what the term “diminishing marginal utility of wealth” means. To put it more formally, people derive less and less satisfaction with each incremental unit of wealth they receive. For example, if you got $10,000 every day for ten years, the initial payments would be much more valuable than the payments in year 10. That’s because the “utility” of wealth marginally diminishes as it increases.

Now let’s apply this principle to Republican economics. How often did we hear the squealing and whining during the tax cut debates that “the wealthy pay the most taxes, so they should get the biggest cut.” By the way, the fact that the wealthy pay the most taxes says nothing as to whether they are taxed at an appropriate level. But for reasons just explained, the wealthy should be taxed more than everyone else. It's not because rich people are bad (as too many liberals seem to think). It’s because their extra wealth is not as valuable to them as the wealth owned by the middle class (to whom the Bushies have shifted the tax burden, as John Edwards often notes). By increasing taxes on the wealthy, the government takes money from those who have the least need for it and spreads it out to those who would benefit the most (because they have the least). I’m not advocating socialism here (the strawman so commonly invoked), I’m just saying that taking a larger percentage of taxes from wealthy people hurts them much less than working people are hurt when tax cuts divert funds from programs that benefit them.

2) Opportunity Costs

This concept is also fairly simple when people refrain from using economic jargon. Basically, opportunity costs refer to the costs associated with giving up an opportunity. For example, let’s say the local church is giving $100 to anyone who comes to church during the Super Bowl. You decide to stay home and watch the game because you reason that you never had the money anyway, so it's not like you're losing anything. Wrong. You had the opportunity to gain $100. So, watching the Super Bowl has an opportunity cost of $100 - which is the same as saying that watching the Super Bowl cost you $100. The key question is always - “What am I giving up by taking this particular action?”

Now let’s apply this concept to politics. In 2001, everyone was so happy about their $300 rebate checks. My mother decided to vote for Bush on that day and hasn’t look back since. But if more people understood opportunity costs, they would ask, “What are we giving up by enacting the tax cut?” As it turns out, quite a bit. For example, if the total sum of the tax cuts were applied to subsidize college tuition or health care, most people would actually save more than $300 in the long run. But even if we disregard nonexistent government programs, Bush’s budget makes it all too clear that America gave up the opportunity of having a budget free from the constraints of deficits (which would free up money for the non-military government programs that Bush is now forced to slash and which most benefit those with less money). And as we're about to see, deficits hurt ordinary Americans in the long run far more than they hurt rich people.

3) Deficits and Interest

Let’s assume that your friend has a ton of credit card debt. One day, he gets a letter from the credit card company that allows him to borrow up to $10,000 with no interest payments for twelve months. He takes out the full amount, but rather than paying off his debt, he proceeds to quit his job and uses the money to make a down payment on a new sportscar. That, in a nutshell, is our federal budget. Given the amount of credit card debt in this country, it’s no surprise that Americans aren’t fully grasping what “interest” means. It is surprising that our President (who allegedly has an MBA) doesn’t quite grasp it either.

Interest, obviously, is the additional amount of money that someone (or some nation) pays in order to borrow money. Even I will admit that one can at least make a plausible argument that tax cuts are beneficial when coupled when spending decreases. But it’s economically insane to cut taxes drastically at the same time you increase spending drastically. It creates massive deficits. And to pay for deficits, America has to borrow money from creditors (often foreign), who charge substantial interest rates. And the higher the deficit, the higher the interest rate (because the creditors’ investment gets more risky). And very soon, because of the skyrocketing deficits, the Fed is going to start jacking up interest rates. And when that happens, ordinary Americans are going to feel the pain of deficits whenever they have to borrow money (for a car, a house, college - everything). And take a guess who will be hurt more by higher interest rates - rich people or working class people?

Bush’s economic policy is also bad because higher interest payments prevent us from using that money for more beneficial social programs (again, an opportunity cost of the wealth-friendly tax cut). But what’s even worse is that we are saddling future generations (like my own) with debts they never incurred. It’s generational robbery pure and simple. Spending the future’s money because you don’t have to pay for it. Bush had better pray that his “twelve months at zero percent financing” doesn’t end before November.

I’m trying to keep my posts shorter - but I’m not finished with this topic yet. I’ll have Part 2 later today or tomorrow.

[Update: Slithery D posted some responses to my economics arguments. His arguments aren't very clear, so I'm hesitant to respond. But you should check out his blog anyway.]

According to this article, Roy Moore - the Alabama "Ten Commandments" Chief Justice who thinks that federal orders are merely suggestions - may be running for president. If Karl Rove had to choose between civil war breaking out in Iraq and a Moore candidacy, he would choose war.

Lecture Room at a University - October 10, 2050

History 211 - American Presidential Elections - 1948 to 2048.

Welcome back to the History of American Presidential Elections. I hope everyone had a good weekend. You’ll be glad to know that we are finally finished with Bush v. Gore. Just to be clear, the big point to remember with Bush v. Gore is that the dispute over the Florida recount descended into a realm of legal indeterminacy, which resulted in a bare-knuckled political battle and a very political Supreme Court decision. And as we discussed, two schools of thought have emerged in relation to this case. Both sides concede it was a highly political decision, but the two sides disagree about whether the Court’s intervention was necessary to prevent a constitutional crisis. Anyway, on to 2004 . . .

How many of you have ever heard of a guy named Howard Dean? Ok - a couple of you. Most people have never heard of him, but for a few months in late 2003, it looked like Dean would coast to the Democratic nomination. So before we start discussing Kerry and Bush and the opening shots of the Iraqi Civil War, we’re going to look at Howard Dean. Understanding his rise and fall is necessary if you want to understand how Bush, who was so popular after the September 11 attacks (or “9/11" as they used to call them), could be so soundly defeated in 2004. In fact, I'm going to argue that even though Kerry won the election, it was actually Dean who caused the president to be defeated.

First, we need some brief context. The late 1990s and early years of the 21st century were times of great change. The Cold War had ended. Globalization was wreaking havoc with traditional societies all over the globe. The Internet first exploded - which I consider to be as significant as the invention of the printing press. Anyway, it was a period of great change and periods of great change have traditionally been accompanied by strong reactions to that change. Religion and fundamentalism came roaring back, even though they seemed to be dead in the 1960s. In the Middle East, this reaction took the form of Islamic fundamentalism. In the United States, this reaction (which was not nearly as backward and violent as the Islamic movements) resulted in the rise of the so-called Religious Right and the transformation of the Republican Party.

In short, everyone was anxious and scared. Then 9/11 happened in 2001. It’s hard to overestimate just how transformative 9/11 was. If you ask anyone of my parent’s generation, they would cite 9/11 as the defining event of their lives, much like Pearl Harbor was to past generations. There’s a great seminar being offered next semester on 9/11 and its consequences. For now, I just want to point out that there are two competing theories or schools of thought about 9/11. The first school of thought is that America overreacted to what was in reality an isolated event that was never repeated. Scholars in this camp argue that 9/11 merely confirmed and crystallized America’s more general fears and anxieties that resulted from rapid globalization. The second school of thought argues that 9/11 fundamentally transformed Western thought and forced the American intelligentsia to abandon the conceptual framework it had applied to the world since the 1960s. I’m not going to get into all that now.

For our purposes, you just need to know that Bush was incredibly popular for several months following 9/11. And by popular, I mean that he had 80+% approval ratings for a long time. Both parties supported him and his moral clarity after the attacks was praised and welcomed by all (though it began hurting him when he applied it to tax cuts, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves). The rise of Dean stems directly from a strategic decision made by Bush in early 2002. Bush faced a crossroads of sorts after Afghanistan. He could use his immense political capital to move to the center (like Eisenhower) and create a broad centrist coalition that would be undefeatable, though it would anger his base. Or, he could follow the plan of his advisor Karl Rove and use his political capital to punish Democrats and attempt to create a new Republican majority. He tried the latter and many attribute his defeat to this decision. Specifically, Bush used his political capital to push through wealth-friendly economic measures, including tax cuts and deregulation. But most importantly, he used the political capital he had gained as a warrior against terrorism to persuade and/or bully America into invading Iraq. Democrats who had previously supported him were suddenly targets of fierce partisan attacks in the 2002 midterm election. The most extreme example was a Republican political ad comparing a Georgia Senator (who was a triple amputeed Vietnam vet) to Osama bin Laden because he opposed a provision in the Homeland Security bill that would not have protected the federal workers (Bush had wanted the power to fire them).

Long story short - the Republicans swept up in 2002 and regained the Senate - largely because of the extreme partisanship and the war fever that had gripped America by late 2002. After the election, Democratic voters looked around and saw bad news everywhere. Republicans now controlled all branches of government. They had successfully enacted an obnoxiously unfair economic agenda. And worst of all, Republicans were about to start a war that seemed unnecessary and the Democrats were powerless to stop them. And to add insult to injury, many congressional Democrats had refused to stand up to Bush on anything. Even the presidential candidates refused to criticize Bush’s actions in late 2002 and early 2003 for fear of being cast as a "liberal," which was a bad word then. The base was completely disheartened and disillusioned.

All of sudden in the spring of 2003, this unknown governor from Vermont entered the scene. As war became inevitable and the establishment Democrats continued to offer no resistance, Howard Dean began a summer long tirade against President Bush. For the first time, one of the presidential candidates was not only standing up to Bush, but excoriating him publicly. He passionately opposed the Iraq War when no other presidential candidate did. To the Democratic base, he provided a voice and a backbone that had been missing since 9/11. Dean gave a voice to the deeply felt frustrations and anger of the Democratic base. Many argue that the base was still mad about Bush v. Gore (you knew I would bring it up!). I think that's wrong - I actually think that Democrats felt betrayed and used by Bush after he used the political capital (that they had given him) to ram through a blantantly partisan Republican agenda, which included what is now considered to be a somewhat dishonest war (after the records were declassified in 2030).

One more important point about Dean. He was the first modern presidential candidate to incorporate the Internet into his campaign as a means of coordination and communication. Dean campaigns spread throughout the country over the Internet. There were even community meetings where people met their future spouses. The whole "Dean movement" was perceived to be a revival of sorts - a political revival for the Left. And for a while, people loved him - so much so that he had become the front-runner by the end of 2003 after raising massive amounts of money through small donations on the Internet. Even our ill-fated friend, Al Gore, endorsed him.

The conventional wisdom on Howard Dean is that he couldn't shake the perception of unelectability, which he exacerbated by making a series of public blunders in late 2003 and early 2004 that confirmed these pre-existing fears. There's some truth to that, but I want to make a different argument. I want to argue that even though Kerry became president in 2004, it was actually Dean who allowed Kerry to win. As I mentioned before, the Democratic base was thoroughly depressed in 2003. But Dean woke them up. Dean, in a sense, was a victim of his own successful message. His opposition to the war, but especially his courageous and outspoken opposition to Bush was coopted by all the major candidates. Dean's success forced the others (including Kerry) to adopt messages or tones that Dean himself had originally offered. Historians also credit Dean with inspiring literally millions of younger, Internet-savvy voters to abandon their political apathy and get involved and most importantly, to vote.

These two contributions (the stiffening of the Democratic backbone and the new voters he inspired), in my opinion, were responsible for Bush's defeat. Obviously, there's a big debate on why Bush lost in 2004. Some blame the chaos of Iraq and the Civil War, but I still believe it was unclear at the time of the election that the violence in Iraq was actually the beginning of a larger Civil War. I also believe that Bush's reckless budget angered and depressed the "small-government" wing of the Republican Party. But the main reason Bush lost was Democratic voter turnout. Democrats went to the polls in 2004 in hordes. The tracking polls never really predicted this surge, because there were more first-time voters in 2004 than in any other political contest in American history. Polls generally track the opinions of people who voted in the past. There's a good book on this subject, complete with exit polls and everything, if anyone is interested. The truth is that Democrats came out en masse because they were so pissed off. And this massive voter turnout, to me, can be traced directly to Dean's efforts in 2003. In this way, I argue that Dean, and not Kerry, actually defeated Bush in 2004.

That's all for today. For tomorrow - read the Kerry material and the article on the Iraqi Civil War. I'll see you then.