Communicating complicated scientific issues to the public is becoming increasingly vital to democracy, especially as science becomes more complicated and more intrusive upon traditional values. With global warming becoming a valence issue, though, I think it’s time to pay credit where credit is due to those who so effectively educated the public on the myriad threats to our environment.
I refer, of course, to none other than Al Gore and the heroes behind Futurama.
If you, like me, receive periodic updates from the Obama campaign, you will have heard that at the Democratic Convention, Barack Obama will spurn the very dais that rocketed him to fame in 2004, to deliver his acceptance speech before an audience of 75,000. While I applaud Obama’s vigorous pursuit of the populist ideal, it concerns me that he’s using the Convention to play to his strengths rather than shore up his weaknesses. We all know that Barack Obama is the Rock God of politics. We don’t need to see him gather, for the eighteenth time, a crowd of thousands to be reminded of that. While I’m sure it will draw a sharp contrast to McCain’s convention - especially given the discussion below - that’s the only use I see for it. This decidedly Caesarian gesture (spurning the organization for the populace) even runs the risk of alienating some voters by playing up the person above the party, and above the nation. A concerted show of unity among the various Democratic factions, rather than another cult of personality grandstanding event, might be better.
That said, I’ll certainly be chipping in my $5 for the chance to be on stage with the man himself.
On to the second of the Two Towers: the Republican Convention (depicted to the right, visible to the left of Mount Doom). There, McCain may face a rough crowd, as the Huckabee debacle comes home to roost. As I’ve said a couple of times, McCain’s nomination was essentially the result of Romney and Huckabee splitting the hardline conservative vote, and a good deal of the party is no doubt still upset that they’ve managed to accidentally nominate a moderate who barely managed to poll a plurality until the true conservatives started dropping out. Despite the fact that McCain’s (apparent) moderate credentials are the only causes for hope in his presidential campaign, conservatives at the convention are preparing to rake him over the coals for departing from the party line on value voters’ pet issues, like stem cells. Luckily, social matters like the stem cell debate have almost become valence issues: most voters now support stem cell research (Claire McCaskill’s triumphant Missourri Senate campaign proved as much), and McCain will therefore face the tough choice of alienating swing voters, or alienating his party. Matched with Ron Paul’s alternative convention, and the quixotic quest of born-again “libertarian” Bob Barr, McCain has apparently alienated most of the ideological wings of his party. While McCain’s nomination seems to be on the surface a resounding rejection of the divisiveness and ideologically-driven politics of the Bush years, the battle over the Bush legacy may yet tear the Republicans asunder. No doubt the Democrats had their own problems with party unity, but it looks like the Republicans’ concerns are just beginning.
Update 1: McCain may defeat some of his own demons by picking Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Collin and I discuss that possibility, and the gamesmanship involved in picking McCain’s running mate, in the comments field.
Update 2: Ugh. Sorry for the massive typos… I think they’re now corrected. I wrote it when I was sleepy… sorry.
To ensure that McCain and the Republicans won’t succeed at defining Barack Obama negatively - namely, as the out-of-touch elitist - Obama needs to constantly project himself not only as a populist, but as a humble man of the people, caught up in something bigger than himself. A President should be powerful, constantly projecting power and intelligence - that’s what’s been lacking the last couple years - but the power needs to derive from the masses, not from somewhere above the masses. The above picture (from the New York Times) shows the simple family man swallowed by the crowd and the moment, and drives home just that message. This is a baseline image to which everyone can relate.
If I were Barack Obama, this picture would be on my campaign website’s front page, and in a couple ads, too. It underlines a broader campaign theme that Obama needs to start hitting: his own personal story. His history didn’t just begin last year. Before that, he struggled from humble beginnings, worked for the poor, and turned down a Supreme Court clerkship to do so… although that’s not the part of the story that I’d be stressing. Obama needs to show this softer side, and expose himself a little more. It’s only in seeing the big picture that any scandals of the moment will disappear.
Before going into this idea in much depth, I’d like to reassert my firm belief that attack ads, and the Bush-era divisiveness that underlies them, are bad for America. We need to move past them, and past the spirit that they embody. But the Republicans show no sign of playing clean, and it would be foolish to claim the moral high ground, while in the process squandering a golden opportunity to retake America. We need to play dirty, and here’s one idea how. The goal is to right-wing Republican voters to stay home.
In politics, a “valence issue” is something that everybody agrees upon; either they love it or they hate it. Valence issues are often either extremely specific - “I will fight breast cancer!” - or so broad as to be meaningless without further explication. One of the broader, positive valence issues, which typically has a good deal of traction in America, is the idea of the “family.”
Politicians are well-served by defining themselves in relationship with valence issues, and opponents are ill-served by allowing this definition to go off without a contest. For the better part of three decades, the “family” has been a valence issue seized upon by the Religious Right and, since the 1990s “Republican Revolution,” the Republican party. Groups like “Focus on the Family” define themselves as “defenders of the family” - which means that they oppose gay rights, oppose a woman’s right to choose, and oppose competent sex education. As you can probably tell from my description, I think there’s room to argue this label.
The only way in which Republicans are “defenders of the family” is through their myopic defense of archaic notions of gender roles and norms. They do very little to actually support the family itself, beyond dictating its subjective & unflinchingly Christian morality. Democratic candidates would do well to try to seize the “family” mantle for themselves, and they plenty of ammunition with which to do so. The war in Iraq tears families apart - by seeking to end it, and reunite families, the Democrats are practically “pro-family.” Democrats tried to push for an expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), over Bush’s veto, and McCain’s opposition. It’s hard to be more “pro-family” than that.
For Republicans, the “family” is an ideological battleground. But Democrats want to do something to help your family now. Doesn’t that have the ring of good spin to it?
Progressive political thought, spin, and a reaffirmation of the foundational values of equal justice and reason.
Ames Grawert is a law student at NYU and a New Yorker. His experience ranges from law to ancient history, and includes a tiny bit of science.
R. Timothy Brady is a composer and a New Yorker. He has written an award-winning opera, Edalat Square, which will be performed in Houston, Texas this summer. He is also the founder of the Soulbird Music Project, a collaborative charitable organization focusing on the nexus between music and human rights.
Senator John McCain sharply increased his spending in June as he ramped up his campaign and his presumed Democratic opponent became clear, according to new filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Stumble It!