Republicans have already made a strategic error in the 2008 presidential election by focusing not on the merits of their own candidates, but on the presumed democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Every time those two democratic presidential candidates are mentioned republicans give them more credibility than they've earned or paid for. The most important names republicans have in the race are republican candidates', not the democrats'. This is what accrediting your adversary is. Rather than focusing on your proposition you focus on your opposition, and when you do that, you either elevate them to your level or lower yourself to theirs. In either case you make them your equal.
We can see this in our state's auto industry and sometimes in our own businesses or careers. We focus more on our competition than our jobs, products or customers.
Some conservatives in Ferndale are in a quandary on how best to help their city. They're concerned Ferndale's gay activists are taking the city down a path from which there is no return. Recently, Ferndale was voted the third gay-friendliest city in the US by Advocate magazine and the award was not greeted by enthusiasm by these social and religious conservatives.
Whatever Ferndale's gay population is (I expect less than 5%), by constantly whining about it they keep attracting attention to Ferndale's gay population. Whenever we name them as a contributing cause of anything we give them more credit than they deserve. Not unlike how global warming advocates elevate man to be as great a force of nature as even the sun, by claiming man's activities have contributed to the earth's warming (and apparently man has contributed to the warming of Mars, Jupitor, and Pluto as well).
In any case, blaming gays for Ferndale's ills gives them more publicity than they need, and area conservatives may be thought to have a myopic obsession on homosexuality. In fact, as some give more credit to homosexuals than they deserve, they simultaneously discredit themselves.
The gay community has one (and a half?) councilpersons and enough sympathizers to pass the HRO. It mattered not whether they did the right thing, only that they felt they did the right thing. But honestly, is Ferndale's greatest problem Ferndale's gay population?
They're a distraction. An embarrassing one for some, but a distraction all-the-same.
Ferndale's problem is not its homosexual hospitality. Ferndale is part of a region suffering economic recession, our state's greatest industry is in decline, our state government is over budget and our governor is working toward a tax increase, both white and blue collar workers are losing their jobs, our housing values are falling, we have no public transportation, our schools are below average, our city's socio-economically diverse neighborhoods make it difficult to craft unified policy, and Proposition A and Headlee have wreaked property tax chaos on our city's housing stock and contribute to Ferndale's relatively high millage rate (24 mills) compared to other cities to our immediate north (Royal Oak's 11). On less weighty issues, we've too little parking to support our downtown district which depresses its growth, its profitability, and its attractiveness to higher-end or name retailers like Barnes & Noble.
And area conservatives think our gay population is the city's greatest challenge?
Perhaps conservatives' greatest challenge is to be honest about the tough issues affecting all Ferndale residents, pursue the greater goals with the greater rewards, and ignore the low hanging fruit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the stories that demonstrates what I'm talking about is actually between Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and David Geffen. I first heard about it on the radio but it didn't take much time to find an online synopsis. This one from Editor & Publisher. You can read the original Maureen Dowd column here, Obama's Big Screen Test (may require subscription and/or registration).
ReplyDeleteIn it we see Hillary Clinton has drawn negative publicity to herself for losing her temper, while Barak Obama seems Teflon coated. And how many people could tell you, even if they recognized the name, who David Geffen is?
Nice post, Thomas. While we've rarely agreed in our conclusions in the past, I've always enjoyed how you put forth your position. You identify what I suspect is the main thing that dissuades your citizens from greater interest in civic affairs (demonstrated most notably in the low voter turnout). It reduces the political process to its lowest form, that of positioning. In that respect, it's merely a souped up version of high school behaviour or petty office politics. When you run a campaign based on, fundamentally, "Don't vote for the other guy," it's hard to argue that you've achieved any kind of mandate or what that mandate might consist of. Governing necessarily becomes an extension of that same base politics. Any thoughts as to why politics in both main parties has been degraded in such a manner?
ReplyDelete(Canada, if you haven't been following politics up north, is in an unusual situation in that the leaders of the Conservatives and the Liberals are both deep thinkers and, in many respects, would rather be right than prime minister. It's presumed that the next federal election will be one that is a true rarity—competing visions of Canada's futures put forth by intelligent and sincere leaders.)
I've often been envious of Canada's debates. I wish our own politicians would be willing to forgo choreographed, low-risk topical discussions for deeper and feistier political drama.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I don't think any insight into American politics can be found comparing them to any other country's politics. There just isn't another example of a democracy from whom as much is expected as is expected of the United States.
It's still an interesting question--why are our politics seemingly shallow? Perhaps the best comparison would be to measure America to itself, and consider the changes from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and perhaps extrapolate some predictions for the 21st.
I've often been envious of Canada's debates. I wish our own politicians would be willing to forgo choreographed, low-risk topical discussions for deeper and feistier political drama.
ReplyDeleteMy guess—that is, no hard evidence to support it—is due to the relative weakness of Canada's homegrown entertainment industry. In the U.S., everything has been connected to, in one manner or another, entertainment. Apart from degrading substance for spectacle, it also necessitates an incredibly high ratio of spectators to participants. In a democracy, this could very well be fatal.
Regardless, I don't think any insight into American politics can be found comparing them to any other country's politics. There just isn't another example of a democracy from whom as much is expected as is expected of the United States.
I'd hesitate invoking American exceptionalism here. You can never make direct comparisons with other nations and systems, but there are a sufficient number of democracies rooted in the Western tradition to compare and contrast the relationship between political culture and the structures of government.
It's still an interesting question--why are our politics seemingly shallow? Perhaps the best comparison would be to measure America to itself, and consider the changes from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and perhaps extrapolate some predictions for the 21st.
Certainly, historical experience is valuable data, but extrapolating from a linear perspective has its own dangers. Still, as many a historian of nineteenth century America have observed, a constant has been the tension between the principles of liberty on which the revolution was founded versus power or order. The communications revolution has only served to heighten that tension, as figures from both poles acknowledge its potential to sway the fight. I lean towards the cynical in this, regarding those who would cap liberty for order are winning the fight (and I think both Reps and Dems are equally guilty of this), limiting the number of issues being presented for public discussion and framing them in the most limited and limiting manner. Very deadening to experience such an amazing access to information and ability to communicate with others, yet see the type of information and communication be utilized for such banal and stunting purposes. As it turns out, Brave New World seems to have been more predictive than 1984.
..there are a sufficient number of democracies rooted in the Western tradition to compare and contrast the relationship between political culture and the structures of government.
ReplyDeleteOne of the key comparisons I mentioned, ".. democracy from whom as much is expected as is expected of the United States." I'm curious of any democracy (or any government or NGO) as criticized as the US, or from whom as much is expected of them as is expected from the US in terms of charity, military support, logistic support, and fair trade. There isn't one I can name, though I'm willing to discuss any someone else may nominate.
It's still an interesting question--why are our politics seemingly shallow?
ReplyDeleteThis may not be a popular answer, but could it be that both our citizenries are just becoming dumber and as a result our politics is following suit? As Cletus said, we are so focused on the entertainment industry and the idiocy that it presents that most people just don't have the ability (or time) to be deep thinkers anymore. So politicians play on that and reduce their arguments to stereotypes and sound bites meant to rile people up.
And I am certainly not singling out the U.S. here. Canada is following the same path and our average IQ about all things not TV is dipping alongside yours as well.
One of the key comparisons I mentioned, ".. democracy from whom as much is expected as is expected of the United States." I'm curious of any democracy (or any government or NGO) as criticized as the US, or from whom as much is expected of them as is expected from the US in terms of charity, military support, logistic support, and fair trade. There isn't one I can name, though I'm willing to discuss any someone else may nominate.
ReplyDeleteAh, gotcha. An argument might be made for comparing the experience of Britain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as it wrestled with being a democracy at home and a global policeman abroad. Chalmers Johnson makes such a connection (as well as with Imperial Rome) in Nemesis, discussing what he regards as the impossible co-existence of domestic democracy with imperialist foreign policy. Rome failed and fell into despotism; Britain chose to abandon empire. So, there is an argument out there, tho one certainly tempered by historical context. Nevertheless, even accounting for certain American peculiarities of circumstance—namely its very active foreign affairs—ignoring the experiences of other Western democracies prematurely assumes that those peculiarities are crucial. They may well be, but the only way of determining that is to do the comparison and see what shakes out.
Hmm. I checked CNN.com and didn't find any articles written in the 19th or early 20th centuries about Britain's struggles with democracy at home and accusations of imperialism abroad.
ReplyDeleteI Googled for blogs and other news items written in the years preceding Rome's fall but didn't find a one.
The point here isn't that other nations haven't struggled, but that none have had to do so under our circumstances, under constant media harassment, and an uncensored blogosphere where any idiot with Internet access can spew ill-conceived and poorly thought-out opinions on any subject they feel enraged about.
Until recently, world opinion lagged world events by weeks. Even then, world opinion was hard, if not impossible, to measure without the technology we have today.
Historically, you're correct in pointing out there may be similarities, but like Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself -- at best it sometimes rhymes."
I hope ours isn't a limerick.
The point here isn't that other nations haven't struggled, but that none have had to do so under our circumstances, under constant media harassment, and an uncensored blogosphere where any idiot with Internet access can spew ill-conceived and poorly thought-out opinions on any subject they feel enraged about.
ReplyDeleteSo you're arguing that the radical liberation of the means of communication—every man gets a soapbox, 24/7—is the key ingredient to the degradation of political discourse? The effect of this change would seem very testable in other contemporary locales. Yes, these other nations don't have the burden of empire (or quasi-empire) that America has, but it's still a useful place to start.
Until recently, world opinion lagged world events by weeks. Even then, world opinion was hard, if not impossible, to measure without the technology we have today.
Certainly, the tools for measuring popular opinion are better now—better data, more refined techniques—but historians have done a decent job teasing out opinions and trends using quant methods, buttressing it with qualitative/anecdotal material. Perfect is an impossibility, but the past isn't as lost as one might presume.
Historically, you're correct in pointing out there may be similarities, but like Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself -- at best it sometimes rhymes."
Check out, if you're so inclined, either The Fourth Turning or Generations by Neil Howe and William Strauss. They put forth a theory of American history that is more cyclical than linear, in which history does not exactly repeat but rather echoes in predictable generational patterns. In a more abstract sense, their stuff seems dubious, but after becoming versed in their theories, it's intriguing how much their ideas predict and explain. To take one example, Generations came out in 91 or 92, and in it they stated that US politics in the next twenty years would be very bloody and fought mostly on moralist grounds. The reason being that Boomers are of a generational type that behaves that way in later adulthood.
Sorry to go off a bit there, but I think they offer a useful perspective.
Responding to Dodson: ..could it be that both our citizenries are just becoming dumber and as a result our politics is following suit?
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to tell whether that's cause or effect.
I believe the media plays a role because it caters to the lowest denominators. Economically, it's the most profitable segment.
I've also read studies showing how American college students' reading comprehension is at an all time low, influenced in-part by spending more time in front of television and video games than inside books. Television isn't able to communicate strong ideas based on reason and logic and so communicate weaker ideas based on emotion.
Maybe the media's relentless pursuit of sensationalism and dirt has scared away all but the blandest candidates.
Like I said, I don't know what the cause is but I can list a lot of the symptoms. Now, if I could just get some of Dr. House's time we might be able to work this one out.
Linda Chavez has a relevant point, I think, in A Nation of Nincompoops.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Thomas.
ReplyDeleteYou should check out the movie Idiocracy. It is a tad absurd, but it makes a good point.
Not sure if you've ever seen the show "Are you as Smart as a 5th Grader," but that pretty much summed up our culture in a nutshell.