Election Reaction. Duh.

Three days ago, the President of the United States was elected to be a black man, for the first time in history, with over 300 electoral votes and a 64% turnout, the highest since women won the vote.

I'm not going to talk about that for very long. I have a few posts in mind as reactions to various people. This first one is a reaction to this article by Will Wilkinson

The government of the state is profoundly important. And I think American voters picked a competent, decent, and sober executive officer. But this is not, headline writers, Barack Obama’s America. He is not your leader, any more than the mayor of your town is your leader. We are free people. We lead ourselves. He is set to be a high-ranking public administrator. Sure, there is romance in fame. But romance in politics is dangerous, misplaced, and beneath intelligent people. Were we more fully civilized, we would tolerate the yearnings projected on our leaders. Our tribal nature is not so easily escaped, after all. But we would try to escape it. We would discourage and condemn as irresponsible a romantic politics that tells us that if we all come together and want it hard enough, we’ll get it. We would spot the dangerous fallacy in condemning as “cynicism” all serious attempts to critically evaluate the content of political hopes.

I both agree and disagree.

Agree: You're right. We must remember we are still free people. We must allow the critical evaluation to take place; through criticizing Barack Obama, we can force him to be an even better president; to live up to his full potential. We need to balance out Obama's flaws as they emerge, we need to represent those in this country who are still strongly conservative, and we cannot let Rich Lowry's "starbursts" (I can't bring myself to link you directly to that post without the sane counterweight of Andrew Sullivan) distract us from Obama's reality.

But I want to very quickly take issue with one part of that argument, even though I have a hunch you don't actually mean it in the way I'm taking issue with it.

He is not your leader, any more than the mayor of your town is your leader. We are free people. We lead ourselves.

It is true that we lead ourselves, and are a free people. But he is our leader; we in the left movement, we who banded together, made him our leader. Now, "our" leader still has our criticism coming, and he needs to be our leader not just someone who leads us, but I want to defend the use of the possessive pronoun, and the ownership that implies.

We Obamanauts are invested in this Presidency. That means from this day forward, a duty falls to us to keep fighting, to keep engaged. Yes, we voted in record numbers. But if 2010 goes back to apathy, goes back to the old way of community disengagement... well then, everything reverses. If we think our job is done on Election Day, that now we can just sit back and snipe on the President, we can't. We own this presidency.

One of the failures of the Bush presidency, I think, is that conservatives did not own the President enough, with the exception of a few neoconservative thinkers who did. Those on the right who went into the conservative movement back during its Contract With America days... what did you do to keep the Contract alive? What did you do to keep the principles that you fought for in action? Where were you in the Primary season?

Now, the other failure of the Conservative movement is exactly what Mr. Wilkinson said; they took President Bush to be their leader, they marginalized and finally (when they latched onto Sarah Palin) closed the door on dissent. And that, too, will be coming in the near future. We shall see if Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can fulfill their duties the way they have until now, dispassionately. I am optimistic.

We own this presidency. We have to keep it ours--not in the sense of fighting to defeat its opponents, but in the sense of making sure it remains the presidency we fought for.

More About Language

I was exchanging a few emails with a friend of mine, and at a certain point she was grasping for a word to describe a complex emotion she was feeling. "I wish there was a word for it" she said.

I kind of don't. Neologisms are fine--I'm rather a fan of them sometimes, especially if they're witty--but I have been thinking about how we speak about our emotions lately, and I've got a bit of a bone to pick.

Sometimes it is nice to have a label at our hands, but we Americans have a tendency to like to label that I'm starting to get really uncomfortable with. Not just really damaging labels, like "anti-American" or "terrorist," but even labels like "family values," "pro-life," "pro-choice," etc. Not all these labels are political of course, but right now, that's what's on my mind. "In love" or "out of love," "happy" or "sad."

To a certain degree, a symbol is always reductionist. "Liberty" is something we can all agree on; the face of liberty is more complex. Politicians sense that, and that's why political speech basically trades on symbols. But art, too, has been trading on symbolism to a certain extent. And we do in our lives. "How are you doing?" "Fine." What does "fine" really tell you about your state of life?

I think we need to start describing. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's the elaborated phrase that sinks to the depths of character. Two words reveal a level of nuance that one alone simply can't.

Sometimes, I think, the urge not to explain things is a fear of wasting other people's time, or a fear of sharing too much. That's fear. Sometimes that fear is justified. But when we are talking with those we know and love, those we feel safe with, we shouldn't keep the habit of poor speech.


A second thought about language and emotion: I was in my Czech language class today, and we were talking about how in Czech, you "have" fear as opposed to English, where you "are" afraid. Many European languages are constructed similarly. What I like about that construction is that it allows you to operate independently of your emotion, without denying it.

Think about what it means to be afraid. That in that instant, you equal fear. After all, if you think about what function "to be" serves in a sentence, its an equation. I am afraid. It's more than an attribute: it's a state of being; it is said to define me in that moment. Who is he? He is afraid.

Instead, European languages make your emotion a separate entity. It exists separately. Perhaps that separate entity is inside of you (filling you up with emotion, perhaps) but it does not take you over. I was struck by Andrew Sullivan, describing his relationship to marriage, and the implication that his entire private life was swallowed up by his emotion; and because that emotion was condemned, his whole private life went inward. I sympathize with that.

Casting that emotion that exists but does not define may be an empowering way to deal with it. I'm sure psychologists agree. But do linguists?

Side note: it also reminds me of when we were in Spain, and my brother pointed out that in Spanish it isn't "I lost the camera," it's "The camera was lost by me." The event happened. The culprit is at the end of the sentence. You could, easily, say "the camera was lost" without self-implicating, without making it sound a little odd. I have often by chastised for using the passive voice. I think the passive voice is not always bad grammar. You just have to use it wisely.

Words I'm Sick Of

To refer back to this post of mine, I thought I'd toss together a quick list of phrases that have become meaningless, jingoistic phrases that, after November 4th, I'd like to have disappear.

1) _______ We Can Believe In.

2) Redistribution of wealth.

3) Socialism.

4) [name] the [occupation].

5) Maverick.

6) Real America.

7) Main street / wall street.

8) Ya know.


You can toss those in the bin with Mission Accomplished. I'll add to this list as more occur to me. I just... I want it to stop.

Good lord, I hope William Safire is willing to update his political dictionary.

Comment On Election Law

Again, Matthew Yglesias's post (itself a reaction to Rick Hasen)

I think having a national standard of elections is a good idea. A few issues:

1) The Legal Issues: I think the Civil Rights Act of 1960 sets a legal precedent that the Federal Government can regulate elections of local elections. But that law really is only a negative law: it says what states can't do. Again, standardized state and local elections might come under a lot of legal battle, but I think overall the Constitution will back it up, and the Supreme Court (which, although Republican leaning, tends to be very pro-Federal) wouldn't really strike it down.

2) Political Issues: There are interested parties who will stand up for states' rights and such, but I think it'd be a hard battle to convince people that making our elections cleaner, simpler, and less open to fraud is somehow a good thing.

3) How to do it: The posts I pointed at talked about having every interaction with the government interface register you. They talked about a voter registration ID number. I think I would like to take it one further. A Citizen's ID Number. I mean, I think we should have National Identification--not one that stores all your information in a central database: all it has to verify is three things: 1) Name 2) Address 3) Citizenship status. That's all. This amalgam of drivers' licenses, passports, state IDs, birth certificates, social security numbers, etc. does not work.

I went to get a job once I turned 18, and I discovered that although I had been naturalized at the age of 8, the Social Security Administration had not received notification from the INS that I was a citizen. Thus, my Social Security Number indicated to my employer that I was a legal alien, not eligible for work. Rather than using a SSN as my identifier, I'd like to have some administration, I don't care whom, have a name, address, and my citizenship status. Then, whenever I try to do something with the government, they just look up my name, and go, "Ah, he lives there and he's a citizen." If they need more info, they can ask me themselves, but those three facts are, at this point, public knowledge.

Racists For Obama?

Required reading for this post.

A few thoughts:

1) I didn't realize anyone could make Palin's shouting mobs sound centrist.

2) I didn't realize we still had organized groups of supremacists. It's a good thing someone's out there asking for their opinion.

3) I feel kind of guilty giving those people space... it's like the old "Should we be showing this?" conundrum.

4) My first response was "Oh my God... we've got Nazis judging Barack Obama by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." Isn't this fantastic? I mean, when we reach the point that Nazis or Klan members hatred of black people just isn't enough to turn them away from a black candidate to a white candidate--and when their dislike of the white candidate is basically based on issues (granted, incredibly reductionist, distorted issues)...

5) I think this speaks to two facts: one, that it is hard to remain racist against an individual that you've gotten to know and like; secondly, that this whole "Who is Barack Obama?" tactic appears not to be working against its most targeted audience. (And if you think that tactic isn't a racial tactic, then I'd like to point out Arlen Specter basically hoping for the Bradley Effect to bring Obama down)

6) On the other hand, these people are still incredibly racist, misguided people. The fact that today they've done the right thing does not forgive the fact that they clearly continue to bear a lot of hatred and close-mindedness.


That is all.

Question I Wish Someone Had Asked

As this election season winds down, with only twenty four hours left (for only the most inane and ridiculous moments for decisionmaking left), I look back on this election process (which I think has been better than most, up until September--as the polls confirm, I think), and there's one question which I wish somebody is asked:

What is your decisionmaking process on __________ ?

We sit in these campaigns, trying to suss out the "judgment" of the candidates, mostly through sifting through their record. Did they make good judgments during the campaign? Did they make good judgments as public officials before? Are they a good judge of friends?

But you know what? We could have also asked them about their judgment. How do you judge?

The question was asked about Judicial nominations. How do you select a judge? But let's say, economic policy. How do you select economic policy? How do you decide about taxes? How do you decide about cuts? How do you you choose priorities? What compass do you set sail by?

There are many different ways of thinking about these issues. In terms of taxation, unfortunately, both candidates seem to have gone with "What do people want?" Which is lower taxes on most people, to be picked up by the rich.

I think the distinction which has appeared between Barack Obama and John McCain is that John McCain still appears to be flying by the "gut"-decisionmaking championed by President Bush and Stephen Colbert. He chose Palin after meeting her once. He decided to suspend his campaign, and then quickly returned to the campaign trail when it didn't play out. He tacks to the right. He tacks back to the center. He tacks back to the right.

Barack Obama appears to do more reflection. He appears to weigh both sides of the issues. If you ask him about any issue, chances are he'll talk about both sides before he'll talk about his own decision. His inclusionary way of making decisions has gotten him into trouble: after all, in order to make a decision about Israel/Palestine, he might have to listen to someone like Khalidi (a Palestinian intellectual with reservations about Israel! Horror!). He might have to listen to someone like Reverend Wright to understand the black community he comes from. He might have to work with someone like William Ayers if both of them are committed to the cause of education.

McCain-Palin (mostly Palin, to be fair, but McCain hasn't come out against it) has endorsed the strategy of using ideology to lead. After all, no matter what happens, McCain remains "fundamentally a deregulator." Even when he's calling for more oversight. People who let ideology lead them will apply their ideology in inappropriate situations. Deregulation, after all, is good...if you have too much regulation. I don't think, however, that after Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm that we have too much regulation in the financial market. Especially when McCain's theory of blame for the financial crisis also comes from deregulation (deregulating Fannie and Freddie).

At any rate, I wish more questions had been asked about decisions that they're going to make, not decisions they've already made. Let's remember that for (oh God...) the next election.

I'm glad we only do this Presidential thing once in four years.

2008: Election

I'm going to write it down right now, just to see how my predictions stack up. You can all mock me as these predictions turn out not to be soon.

FEDERAL ELECTIONS:

Presidency: Obama
VP: Biden

Obama selects cabinet:

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates (or Wesley Clark, but not likely)
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson (or Colin Powell, but not likely)
Secretary of Homeland Security: Richard Clarke
Secretary of the Treasury: Warren Buffet (or somebody we've never heard of)
Attorney General: Patrick Fitzgerald (or Cuomo, but not likely)

The rest of the cabinet will be nobody we've ever heard of. I don't think Hilary Clinton's going to make an appearance.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman: Dan Bernanke remains
UN Ambassador: Somebody we've never heard of, or possibly Richardson if he doesn't get State.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS:
House: Dems: 350 Seats
Senate: Dems: 55 seats (not counting Bernie Sanders or Joe Lieberman)

JUDICIARY
No appointments in the first term of Presidency.

CALIFORNIA:
PROP 8 Fails (but by a terrifyingly narrow margin)
PROP 1A [High Speed Rail] Succeeds

NEW YORK:
Federal Justice Department blocks term limit lengthening Bloomberg's term. Sucks to be him. Christine Quinn does not win the primary to run to replace him. This may just be wishfulfilment on my part.

2012: These predictions on my part are sketchier. It depends on the leadership of the Republican Party after this election. My guess is that RNCC Chair Mike Duncan is going to be forced to step down after this disastrous election. Now, the RNCC Chairmanship is selected by the Republican President, or by the association of state party chairs; depending on who winds up selecting the new RNCC Chairmanship, it might have different results.

My hunch: Sarah Palin emerges as party chair of a party that's tacking even further to the right, but in 2012 Mike Huckabee wins over the nomination by appealing to the same right-wing values that Palin has tapped into in a manner not seen to be as self-destructive.


(UPDATE: I originally posted this on my Facebook, and decided to put it over here. In the meantime between my posting that there and posting it here, I suddenly realized that I had forgotten an important name in my considerations of Obama's cabinet--Holbrooke! I'm not going to change the prediction, but I really should have remembered that Holbrooke is almost certainly going to feature in the foreign policy. Also, while I'm at it, I should point out that while I didn't mention this before, I think that John McCain will not stand for re-election in 2010. In the off-chance that he is bloody-minded enough to run, I don't think he'll make it. Right now, he's on the verge of losing the Presidential election in his own home state.)