The Political Litmus Test.

One of the things that was so refreshing about being an Obama supporter was the vast array of thinkers, statesmen, artists, actors and writers that came out publicly for his candidacy. The list of people that I respected who decided to back Obama during this election cycle is long and impressive. It seemed that every week some other figure was coming out to back the Illinois senator. While a lot of these people were predictable, there were quite a few that came as a surprise. Yet what was most remarkable was that I was experiencing much the same phenomena in my own life. The vast majority (and there were really very few exceptions) of the folks that I'm close with felt the same as me when it came to picking our next president.

It's hard for me not to use this variable as a litmus test. The two candidates were so starkly differentiated that they seemed to effectively divide the American populace into camps, and identification with one or the other suggests a fairly distinct profile in terms of philosophy and world view. Perhaps it's silly to consider political affiliation as a factor one uses in determining who he/she would like to spend time with. Maybe it's unfair to become biased toward an individual with such a radically different life perspective that they would pick the ticket that one abhors. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that these associations didn't matter to me. In fact, I could give specific examples from my own experience that demonstrate otherwise.

I realize that this is a crucial time in American history, and that it's important to the future of the nation that some common ground be discovered to mark the path forward. I noted as much in a post after last Tuesday. Still there's something grating about suggestions that Obama must "govern from the center". Commentators from sources like the Weekly Standard and The National Review are trying to make the case that the country remains moderately conservative, despite what the polls showed last week. It's not difficult to figure out why they would insist upon that highly dubious assumption. Their side lost, and lost big. They know that it's the end of an era in America, and they are very unhappy about that fact.

Before the President-Elect and his new team accepts the assertion that bipartisanship requires paying homage to a discredited approach to American governance, I hope they take a few minutes to consider the quality of the voices who still stubbornly cling to their failed and outmoded belief systems. I think it's vital to remember that those who moan the most loudly for "compromise" are the same people that treated their opposition with so much contempt when they held consolidated power. Now they are forced to cry for a "fair and balanced" playing field. It's amusing how the "mandates" of 2000 and 2004 were so much narrower than the "tight race" just concluded, regardless of the actual numbers.

The reality is that the other side has been mortally weakened, is in a state of palpable disarray, and overcome with a breathless sense of desperation. This is a group that once saw itself as invulnerable. Now they are asking for temperance, and hoping for mercy. Their strategists and leaders have always preached that capitulation is self-destructive. They weren't extending any breaks to their critics during the last eight years. They did everything they could to marginalize their opponents. The temptation to repay them in kind is virtually insurmountable. It's not as if I have the urge to destroy the opposition utterly, but rather (playing off the immortal words of Far Right extremist Grover Norquist) "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

John McCain's Last Narrative: The Obstructionist.

This past Sunday, New York Times Magazine featured an article by Robert Draper entitled "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain." It examined the various narratives that the Arizona senator's campaign staff has tried to attach to its candidate over the last year-and-a-half. Terry Gross got to sit down with Draper on Tuesday, and I was lucky enough to catch that segment of Fresh Air. I marveled at the litany of identities that McCain has assumed. He's been The War Hero, The Agent of Change, The Wise Elder, The Bipartisan Deal Maker, and The Maverick. During the chaotic course of the race, he has often needed to change his story mid-step, and that has caused a fair amount of confusion out on the stump.

So what mask is John McCain wearing in this last week before the election? I've often felt that people tend to choose a Halloween costume that subconsciously reveals their inner desires and complex relationships with their inner selves. In this case I feel that insight holds true. McCain has finally exposed his true nature. He is The Obstructionist. This is the final message his handlers are selling the American Public. What convincing argument are they left with to get people to pick John McCain over his opponent? They are warning that if Barack Obama becomes president, he will have an overwhelming Democratic advantage in Congress to work with. He will be able to push through his agenda with relative ease. And McCain doesn't want to let that happen.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to see this latest face of John McCain. After all, we saw it just a few long weeks ago when the senior politician suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington DC to "rescue" the Wall Street Bailout bill. We were told that the "Do-Nothing Gang" in Washington needed his expert guidance. After a stop at the Katie Couric studios, and a visit to his old friend Bill Clinton, McCain dropped into the Capitol for one last mission. Despite the fact that his senate colleagues had difficulty recognizing their long-lost friend, he assured them (and the nation) that he would save the day. But what did he actually contribute? Sources at the scene reported that he scuttled a deal that was already on the table, without offering any fresh ideas.

McCain's approach to "solving the economy" is much like his overall strategy of leadership- "Talk loudly and drag your feet." He's got a hell of a reputation for taking on unpopular issues, but by the time his initiatives gain traction, he has already abandoned them. What would this nation be like today if John McCain had stuck to his convictions about lobbyist corruption, reasoned and deliberate military policy, positive dialog in political campaigns, or opposition to the Bush tax cuts? Where would he be if he had moved ahead with his plan to enlist an actual moderate of substantial qualifications (Joe Lieberman or Michael Bloomberg) as his running mate? What would his reception have been if he actually tried to fulfill his promise that "Change is Coming"?

When it comes down to it, all John McCain represents now is a place-marker. He's basically just running interference for a political party that has no idea what to do next. Virtually every move the GOP has made during the last eight years has proved to be a failure. With the potential of an ignoble defeat facing Republicans on November 4th, its leadership has directed its attention inward. But can the American people wait while the GOP tries to figure out whether it wants to become the populist (and anti-intellectual) party of social conservatives like Sarah Palin, or return to values like fiscal conservatism, cautious foreign policy, and political accountability? Thomas Paine notably said, "That government is best which governs least", but we have to ask ourselves if we can actually afford that approach in these fragile times.

Bring on the Debates!

Having expressed my serious reservations about the validity of a series of debates with rules agreed upon behind closed doors by the two major political parties, I still have to admit that I'm looking forward to watching the candidates square off against each other. Supporters of both sides have been boasting about the verbal abilities of their respective candidates. Will John McCain lose his temper, or appear to be hopelessly out-of-touch in his dotage? Will Barack Obama be too long-winded, and will he be able to dispel Republican accusations branding him as an "elitist"? It's clear that there are some clearly defined tasks for each politician. Some observers suggest that these debates could have a decisive effect on a close election.

One interesting dimension that has already been examined concerns the agreements that the sides made regarding the structure of these "contests". The McCain campaign had two notable desires for the debates. They wanted to have a tightly-structured format for the entire series, in order to compensate for their candidates' perceived disadvantages in loose and flowing exchanges. Both McCain and Palin rely quite heavily on previously-scripted jabs and "folksy" witticisms. They excel in their combined ability to deliver sound-byte worthy declarative statements on the issues. Obama on the other hand is commonly considered to be an excellent improvisational speaker. He also tends to include more nuance and complexity in his answers.

Obviously there is some give-and-take involved in the secret negotiations of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Apparently the compromise that the Republicans and Democrat reached was that the presidential debates would allow for more free-flowing interaction, while the VP debates would be tightly controlled. This reflects the special concern that Palin's handlers have about her debating abilities. The New York Times reports that "McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive." At first glance this decsion seems to favor the GOP. Palin will have less opportunity to make another potentially "fatal" gaffe.

However, a case could be made that Biden will be assisted by the extra structure as well. He is well-known for his penchant for delivering provocative statements and using more words than necessary to make his point. In addition, there will be less possibility that Biden will appear brutal in his aggressive attacks on Palin's "qualifications". One thing the Biden people worry about is the "damsel-in-distress" sympathy factor. On the other hand, the trade-off is that Obama will be free to exploit John McCain's weaknesses. The 72-year old has often looked confused and unfocused in recent television interviews. If Obama can avoid looking condescending, this should be a major advantage.


On the second issue, the McCain campaign has definitely received its preference. The first presidential debate was initially supposed to be focused on the economy. This has been the source of tremendous difficulty for the McCain/Palin ticket over the last couple of weeks. McCain has been a consistent deregulator throughout his political career, and he needs more than a few days to rehabilitate that image. Despite his baffling comments about the Spanish Prime Minister, many consider foreign policy a strength for McCain. Obama meanwhile needs to appear authoritative on an issue that has led many critics to bring up his relative "lack of experience". If he can convey that he understands what is at stake, he could enter the following debates (in which he is clearly stronger) unscathed.

Ethnicity and Identity.

Today I made my first summer trip to the coffeeshop. It wasn't just a quick stop to pick up a drink and run, but rather an extended visit by which I meant to catch up with some friends and good conversation. That's one of the pastimes that has fallen by the way side since I made the decision to bring more intentionality to my spare time. There were plenty of things worth writing about brought up in the talk today. But for some reason my mind keeps returning to the nebulous construct referred to as ethnicity. I forget the context that elicited the topic, but it might be illustrative to mention the fact that the friend I had this discussion with would be identified as being of a different ethnicity, merely on the basis of appearance. Yet our thinking on the concept shares a lot of common ground.

We are of the age to have experienced a shift in the way ethnicity is viewed. The civil rights era led to a close examination of the way people form their sense of self. Sociologists didn't want to limit their considerations to race, but rather wanted to explore the way one's ethnic identity affected the way he/she thought and behaved. While the desire to understand this factor had its positive side in terms of confronting perceptions based in ignorance and fear, it also led to some unintended consequences. Instead of a "melting pot", the United States was compared to a "tossed salad". This meant that people were to be looked at relative to their ethnicity, and group traits were supposed to be accepted without prejudice or judgment. Kids were taught to identify with the culture of their ancestral homelands. Children were expected to adopt their ethnicity as a source of pride, esteem and identity. This meant that everyone was expected to develop an awareness of diversity and multiethnicity. It was all well-intentioned and the academics who taught about these subjects believed that such education would prove wholly positive.

But there are several problems with such an assumption. For one thing, it tears down the notions of equality and shared values. As people got more vehement in asserting their own ethnic identities, the differences between folks became starker. While some people embraced the exploration of other ethnic groups as an adventure, there were many that began to fixate on ethnicity as a source of division. In this climate, it was easy for some to resent the "special privileges" that they saw extended to traditionally disenfranchised groups. There was a gradual disintegration in the belief of shared culture that transcended ethnicity.

At the same time there were many people who wanted nothing more than to assimilate. Especially among recent immigrants, there was a widespread desire to become more "American" and to blend in with the rest of the nation's citizens. Some truly resented being constantly reminded that they were "special". My maternal grandfather, whose parents were the most recent immigrants in my family line, turned his back on anything that made him seem like a "foreigner". Although he knew how to speak Ukranian as a kid, by the time he was a grown adult he had forgotten the language. This was a common story throughout the Twentieth Century. It would be foolish for us to believe that there aren't many who feel the same way today.

There are also a lot of US citizens whose families have been in the country for so many generations that they have no other true ethnicity aside from that of North American. My father's line can be traced back to a German man who moved to Eastern PA around 1730. I feel no real kinship to the German people today. In addition I have ancestors from England, France, and Wales. I am a mutt in terms of "ethnicity". It is much more common in our contemporary transient times to live in mixed neighborhoods than among people whose ancestors originated in the same foreign country. I have no problem with constructing elaborate geneologies and preserving traditions, but there are many cultural factors that inform identity as much as (or more than) "ethnicity". Religion (or lack of it), educational level, financial status, consumer choice, likes and dislikes, occupation, and political affiliation all play important roles in making us who we are. So why do we look for the easiest answer when someone asks us- "What are you?"