How Barack Obama moved to the top of my list

As a previously "undecided" Democratic primary voter who was, if anything, leaning toward John Edwards, I thought I would take the time to explain how I recently became convinced that Barack Obama is the right choice for 2008.

At the July 23 "YouTube debate," CNN selected a number of questions that were rather uneven in quality. One in particular has attracted a lot of attention, in no small part because Hillary Clinton's campaign has sought to use it to score some points off of Obama.

The candidates were asked whether as President they would meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Obama's actual response to the question was quite reasonable, and it exploded the delusional foreign policy idea - enthusiastically embraced by the Bush administration - that simply refusing to talk to adversaries puts the United States in a position of strength. Without actually disagreeing with Obama in practical terms, Clinton sounded a note of caution that resonated with the sort of thinking that Obama had decisively attacked.

The foreign-leader question was obviously "red meat" for right-wing media outlets, bound to attract the sort of tabloid headline that is the specialty of the New York Post (e.g. "Dems Provide Comfort to Enemy"). If it were simply a matter of Clinton trying to cover herself from this line of attack, the matter would be a non-issue. Instead, sensing an opportunity to "differentiate" herself, Clinton enthusiastically joined in a reactionary attack from the right.

Even before the debate was over, her campaign posted a clip of that question to her website and highlighted it as a "defining moment" of the evening. Clinton went on to assert that Obama's answer was "naive," and she sought to frame the issue as one of Obama's inexperience.

While I was hardly in the Clinton camp to begin with, the episode did more than just further sour me on her. Obama's response demonstrated precisely the sort of approach that I'd like to see from a candidate heading into a critical election. It would have been easy for him to capitulate and "restate" himself in the face of cynical pandering and right-wing talking points. Instead, he held firm and defended his position against the attack.

Presumably unprepared for any serious push-back, Clinton was reduced to trotting out a surrogate (Tom Vilack) for damage control.

The Democrats, and the country, deserve a better nominee than Clinton. Edwards hasn't gained the sort of traction he needs to win, and with no one else stepping forward, I am increasingly convinced that we should look no further than Barack Obama.

Mental Gerrymandering: On the emergence of the "red state / blue state" dichotomy

Following Thanksgiving this year, I went through some old possessions that were still stashed away at my father's house. One item that caught my attention was a special issue of Time magazine from the fall of 1996, with coverage of the election results and a retrospective of the presidential campaign. While the time-warp of election coverage was fascinating, the most striking element was tucked in the back without any particular emphasis:



Nine years later, viewing an electoral map with "reversed" colors is somehow startling. Dislocating. And, I believe, absolutely essential.

Redshifting

Prior to the 2000 election, there was no consistently followed association between political parties and single colors. With the advent of color in print and broadcast media, the graphic design of electoral charts and maps was often arbitrary or purely aesthetic. To the extent that there was any meaningful association between politics and color, it followed the European convention of red for the political left and blue for the political right. Consequently, the Democratic Party was more often depicted with red, and the Republican Party was more often depicted with blue.

Why the colors "switched" in 2000 isn't entirely clear. A majority of broadcast media seem to have decided to follow a uniform color scheme that year, and that color scheme was cemented as the standard during the unending coverage of the disputed presidential election and recount process. The media narrative focused on the narrowly divided electorate, and the terms "red state" and "blue state" entered the vocabularies of political commentators. The very idea of "red states" and "blue states" became increasingly popular, with tremendous media reinforcement in the 2004 election cycle.

The conceptual origins of the "red state vs. blue state divide" have been the subject of some commentary, though much of it fairly superficial. In 2004, articles in the AIGA Journal of Design, the New York Times, and the Washington Post considered the question of color association in politics, taking into account everything from historical symbolism to color psychology and the left-right arrangement of the electromagnetic spectrum. The stories focus on the question of why a particular color is now associated with a particular party, and whether that association is itself positive or negative. Unfortunately, each of the articles misses the point.

The conventional association between single colors and political parties is new. However, if it were simply a matter of media outlets arriving at a consensus on a color scheme, it wouldn't matter to anyone outside their graphic design departments. The color association that emerged in the aftermath of the 2000 election is important because of its relationship to another phenomenon: mental gerrymandering.

Mental Gerrymandering

The color scheme of the 2000 election was not simply a visual change, but a linguistic and conceptual one. The new consistency in visual representation enabled political commentators to very easily make attention-grabbing generalizations about entire states and regions of the country. No longer were pundits only talking about "Reagan Democrats" and "states that went for Clinton in '96," but "red states" and "blue states." Florida and Utah, Michigan and Massachusetts - no distinctions made in terms of the margin of victory, the appeal of specific candidates, the urban/rural divide, or the role of local politics. "Red" or "blue." As of November, 2000. The outcome of that presidential race in each state, however narrow, was assumed not only to be of broader cultural significance, but also to provide normative insight to the state's political future. After all, calling a state "red" or "blue" is of little use unless it says something about the next election as well.

Gerrymandering is the process of manipulating political divisions for electoral advantage, typically through redistricting. The result is uncompetitive elections that favor incumbents and the existing balance of power. The "redistricting" that took place following the 2000 election created mental boundaries - psychological associations between the residents of a state and a particular political party. While there are certainly discernible realities of political history, it is quite a different matter to talk about West Virginia as "a state that went for Bush in 2000" than to call it "a red state." It's worth noting that conservative commentators did not enthusiastically identify Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana as "blue states" (to use the current color scheme) when they voted for Clinton in the 1996 election. To the extent that such terminology is more normative than descriptive, it's important to question which particular status quo has been elevated to the norm. While the "red state / blue state" dichotomy appears to have emerged haphazardly, there is no doubt that the Republican Party has emphasized the electoral alignment of 2000 to build its Congressional majority in 2002 and re-elect President Bush in 2004.

It's easy to understand the tendency of mass media to oversimplify, but the swift acceptance of the "red state / blue state" dichotomy by the political parties themselves is worth considering. Just as with the gerrymandering of legislative districts, the mental gerrymander of the country into "red states" and "blue states" serves the interests of incumbents on both sides of the aisle. After all, if there is any principle that can be said to unify elected officials, it is the desire to reinforce the electoral conditions that put them in office. For the national parties, red/blue mental gerrymandering aids in fundraising through the increased self-identification of constituent bases, and it facilitates the redirection of resources away from "safe" areas. And just as with the gerrymandering of legislative districts, it deeply undermines the health of our democracy.

Changing our colors

There are a few things we can each do to help repair the mental gerrymander:

• Don't talk about politics in terms of "red" and "blue."
  
  Red/blue terminology has an undeniable appeal to partisans on both sides, particularly when used in conjunction with discussions about the "culture war." This topic is important enough to avoid making crass generalizations, and avoiding the "red state / blue state" terminology will improve the level of discourse.
  
  
• Talk to others when they use the terms.
  
  Take the opportunity to discuss why you don't like to talk about "red states" and "blue states."
  
  
• Put quotes around the terms if you reference them online and in other writing.
  
  The way we frame ideas - even in an insular online community setting - can have a significant impact.
  
  
• Challenge the convention.
  
  If you're making an electoral chart or map, reverse the colors. Use shades of green. Think purple. Just make sure you challenge the prevailing ideas about "redness" and "blueness."
  
  
• Write to elected officials and media outlets.
  
  Make the case for burying the "red state / blue state" meme.
  

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Who should replace Corzine in the Senate?

Now that Jon Corzine has won the New Jersey governor's race, it's natural to ask: which Democrat will be appointed to the Senate seat he is vacating?

Acting Governor Richard Codey has been frequently suggested, but Codey has insisted that he's not interested. Moreover, an "insider" pick like Codey or Menendez would likely feed into negative perceptions about the state's political culture. The other possibilities currently have less statewide name recognition, but Corzine has the opportunity to immediately elevate the profile of a worthy public servant who is, for the moment, less known.


My pick is Congressman Rush Holt (NJ-12). If you're not yet familiar with Holt, he is a brilliant scientist, effective public speaker, and stalwart progressive. He has been out in front of a number of important issues, including verified voting. He has spoken out against the Iraq war and Bush's disastrous tax policy. And he could very well be the first rocket scientist in the Senate - a reality-based statesman who would earn the respect of both Democrats and moderate Republicans.

The Governor-elect gets to decide, but we can contact his office (732-729-9820 / info@votecorzine.org) and ask that the decision be made carefully and with an open mind. Corzine has an opportunity to do something truly different and unexpected with the Senate appointment. It should not be passed up.

[Update] Rush Holt is definitely interested, and his name is being floated in current media coverage of the upcoming Senate appointment.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

In Vitro Hypocrisy: stem cell technology and the religious right

While two new techniques for generating embryonic stem cells are designed to address the moral concerns of some right-wing religious groups, they only call further attention to the absurdity of the original objections. In the first of two papers published online October 16 by the journal Nature, scientists describe the delicate removal a single cell from a newly fertilized embryo, allowing the creation of a line of stem cells without destroying the embryo. The second paper outlines an even more transparent exercise in bioethical tightrope-walking: wherein the source embryo is genetically modified to make it incapable of implanting in the womb. Neither technique solves any real scientific problem, and the opponents of research will undoubtedly continue to rely on pseudo-secular philosophical contortion to maintain a sectarian position.

The particular rhetorical attention paid to the destruction of embryos in stem cell research has been mostly divorced from its context. As a practical matter, researchers obtain human embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, which have a large supply of excess embryos that will never be implanted in a woman. These embryos will either be destroyed, or alternatively used by researchers to develop cures for terrible diseases. The new, "non-destructive" technique for the derivation of stem cells would indeed "preserve" embryos - right up to the point when they are discarded after the procedure. After all, there is no vast reservoir of infertile women dreaming of the day they might be implanted with the genetic product of a random couple. Adoption is an easier, less expensive, and morally worthy option for would-be parents unconcerned with biological lineage.

In a similar vein, genetically modifying the leftover embryos to be incapable of implanting in a woman would change their moral status only if we choose to ignore their original destination: the dumpster in back of the IVF clinic. Fundamentalists concerned about the immortal soul of each and every fertilized embryo are strangely silent about the veritable massacres carried out in the daily operation of IVF clinics - presumably because the clientele is wealthier, whiter, and more sexually virtuous than the "licentious" young women whom they condemn from the picket lines outside abortion clinics. Banning IVF is, for the moment, politically impossible, and the state has not yet taken to conscripting handmaidens for the sanctified disposal of excess embryos. Criminalizing abortion procedures will remain the overriding priority for the religious right. For mainstream ethicists and legislators who respect the constitutional separation of church and state, the most reasonable stem cell policy is a simple one: banning the sale of embryos and their derivatives.

If IVF clinics receive no financial compensation for providing embryos to researchers, there will be no strong incentive to overstep ethical boundaries. If principled opposition to stem cell research is truly rooted in a dystopian vision of "fetus farms," then the essential role of government should be to regulate the economic incentives within the biotech industry. While the business lobby invariably becomes uneasy at any mention of government regulation, they would do well to persuade the other members of the Republican coalition to support a less draconian balance between the interests of scientific progress and ethical vigilance.

Filibuster Frist!

Princeton students have come together to protest GOP's willingness to trash the Constitution by exercising "Nuclear Option." By changing the rules of the Senate, they hope to stack the courts with right-wing extremist judges who would turn back the clock to the constitutional jurisprudence of 1937. Progressive members of the Princeton community have been running a non-stop filibuster outside the Frist Campus Center - the building sponsored by the family of Bill Frist '74, who is spearheading the "Nuclear Option" as Senate Majority Leader.

• Live video feed
  
• More coverage @ the Progressive Review
  

Another structural power play: church and state

Not surprisingly, the Christian Dominionists in Congress are trying to make sure that right-wing churches can openly and actively campaign for Republican candidates in 2006.

Social conservatives, frustrated by the lack of movement on a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, are shifting their focus to passing legislation this year that would allow religious leaders to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

Proponents of legislation sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) say it is a step on the long journey to collecting enough support to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Just about everything Republican Congressional leadership is doing seems to be intended to reinforce their electoral dominance.  Neutering 527 groups, expanding the "investor class" with SS privatization, undermining trial lawyers with tort reform, "supporting" Israel, etc. are intended to undermine key Democratic constituencies and expand Republican electoral majorities.

Some Republicans say the push for the Jones legislation will help the GOP's push to attract more support among African-Americans in 2006 and 2008.

Many Democrats and some Republicans say that the Jones bill is a thinly veiled attempt to bolster the Republican base of power in Washington.

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the effort to pass a constitutional amendment on marriage and H.R. 235 are linked. The Jones bill would give new clout to conservative churches, which would use that authority to elect candidates who back a marriage amendment, he said.

Wedge issues are the lifeblood of the GOP, and they're sucking hard.  Once they lift the "gag order" and free the tax-exempt hands of their evangelical brethren, you can expect an even higher tide of hatred, vitriol, and right-wing social conservative candidates in 2006.

The Price of Ideas: Conservative Sponsorship Pays Dividends with the James Madison Program

In case anybody hasn’t noticed it yet, American politics have been realigned, paving the way for a growing Republican electoral dominance. But don’t point it out to an actual Conservative – they’re still in the habit of imagining themselves as an oppressed minority, fighting off the cultural onslaught of “Hollywood” or the “elitist liberal intelligentsia.” It’s understandable, considering the beginnings of the Conservative Movement as a reaction to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. For Americans that weren’t quite ready for interracial sex (nothing yet on the gaydar screen), recreational drugs, and any critical thinking that might have undermined religious, nationalist, or consumerist orthodoxy, some reassurance was needed. The business community, having been scared shitless by the threat of American socialism, located this political base (and the Republican party) quite easily. For more than 30 years, wealthy capitalists have poured money into elections, purchased media outlets, and sponsored right-wing foundations and think tanks to refine and transmit their message. In the last decade, this machinery was quite effective in bringing down President Clinton and in narrowly installing President Bush’s son in the White House. More recently, they’ve been turning their sights on Princeton.

Academia, the last remaining venue where anyone bothers to question things that seem profitable, makes an obvious target for the Right. Their much-amplified “struggle for academic freedom” works within the broader conservative narrative of Discrimination – in this case, between “accurate” and “inaccurate.” Having deemed the Giant Investment Banking Vacuum to be a force insufficient for the indoctrination of Princeton students – after all, there are always some budding lawyers in the bunch – alumnus Steve Forbes and other “philanthropists” underwrote their very own ideology machine in the summer of 2000: the “James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.” Fueled by right-wing financiers like the Olin and Bradley foundations, the James Madison Program has raised tens of millions in support of its ideological agenda at Princeton.

Houston, we have a Program…

Earlier this week, I made the highly masochistic decision to attend a James Madison Program lecture titled "Lawrence v. Texas: The Worst Supreme Court Opinion in History?” Lawrence, for those of us who are not fluent in constitutional case law, was the 2003 decision that declared state laws against homosexual sodomy to be unconstitutional. It was not legal jargon that made the lecture so painful, however, but the delight with which guest speaker Nelson Lund of George Mason Law ridiculed a decision that protects the rights of a minority population. To fits of snide laughter from a largely dyed-in-the-wool conservative audience, Lund deconstructed each line of the majority opinion’s opening. The notion that “liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct” was considered utterly laughable. But no more so than the assertion that the case “involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” which Lund, despite his impressive academic and legal credentials, claimed to be utterly incomprehensible.

Perhaps Professor Lund missed the point of this language because he does not recognize the debate over sodomy law in terms of Enlightenment Reasoning vs. Theocratic Dogma. In fact, he made it quite clear that he had done his best not to think about the merits of the issues at all. Like his ideological peers in the Cult of Robert George / James Madison Program, Professor Lund believes that members of the Supreme Court shouldn’t actually do anything other than rule on administrative minutiae while slowly dying on the bench (since any meaningful protection of individual rights requires the anathema of “substantive due process”). To confirm this, I asked him if the Supreme Court should ever have had a role in deciding issues such as the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws in the South (which had made it a criminal offense for whites and “coloreds” to marry and create “half-breeds”). His answer was, essentially, “No.”

Lund’s preferred mechanism for settling issues involving basic human rights is something called “competitive federalism.” Of course, the last major “competition” over federalism was a little gentleman’s disagreement called “the Civil War” – which by most accounts was decidedly unpleasant. The constitutional amendments and political order that followed it inaugurated a new era of economic and social development, specifically by repudiating the backward, parochial doctrine of “states’ rights.” Having taken moral leadership on a number of issues in the 20th century, the Supreme Court’s role as guarantor of individual rights is well established. Except, perhaps, to Market Fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back to Warren G. Harding (or further) by systematically dismantling everything from labor unions and Social Security to the FDA and environmental protections. Of course, Lund and George don’t need to own up to their political preferences; they can simply use rhetoric about “traditions” and a “constitution in exile” to disparage the last 150 years of American history and progress, pretending that it has all been wholly illegitimate. Clearly, the conservative movement knows how to fight on all fronts: artfully manipulate social wedge issues to build electoral clout, while your academic assets crank out the legal justification for a complete rollback of the modern nation-state. Unfortunately, the unholy alliance between Market and Christian Fundamentalists may soon bring us a reality that more closely resembles the Salem Witch Trials than the Gilded Age.

The height of hypocrisy was saved for the end of the lecture, in an exchange between Professors George and Lund. They considered, with no sense of irony, the extent to which courts are more influenced by “elite” opinion than by that of the broader public. Then, confident in their righteousness and their populist credentials, they concluded the Ivy League lecture and proceeded to the reception area for hors d’oeuvres, no doubt courtesy of the James Madison Program’s wealthy conservative patrons. It was easy enough to imagine similar gatherings taking place with Congressional leaders, but I suppose not everyone received the memo about legislators also taking “elite input.”

Ironically, the recent GOP dominance of government may have brought me closer to Professor Lund’s position on at least one issue… (Lund is a “Professor of the Second Amendment” at the George Mason University School of Law.)