CNN has outdone itself this week, courtesy of the insightful genius of Octavia Nasser. On a leading Saudi cleric, she said 'that's the Big Kahuna, if you will'.
This was followed not long after by an interview about the financial crisis in the US, in which the question, 'And if there were two questions you could ask - who's next?' stole the limelight. I suppose with professionalism like this, they have every reason to turn more to 'i-reporters' for news.
CNN was probably outdone, however, by the sportsline.com.au AFL podcast.
The description of St Kilda's Sam Fisher-just named as an all-Australian nominee-along the lines of "I think he has really become probably one of the most underrated defenders out there", was promptly followed by the exchange about the same player:
"He deserved it."
"Yeah... thoroughly deserved."
There was little space between that thought-provoking exchange and:
"I don't think Goddard can run with Hodge."
"You never know, I think Goddard's a better marker than him so he can take a couple."
And then there was this:
"I don't think he's gonna play... I wouldn't play him anyway."
So... given you don't have any influence over whether he will play, how do these match?
And this gem:
"He's that extra player, the forgotten player almost, uhm, after you got your Mitchells and all your other players."
Thanks, mate. That clears things up a bit.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Binge Drinking Farce
How public discourse embraces a tiresome issue
I used to love this sunburned country. Now I think it’s a bit sun-stroked. The Rudd government’s decision to impose a 70% tax increase on bottled mixed alcoholic drinks−so-called alcopops−is yet another blow to logic and good sense in this country of ours, and it seems we are spiraling further down into the vortex of conservatism that is becoming typical of countries burdened by an oversupply of poorly educated and increasingly paranoid ageing baby-boomers.
Anybody who has recently tried to do business, conduct transactions, even perform basic banking functions in the United States will know how difficult simple things have become in post-Patriot Act America. Dubai Ports World sure found out. They were the company denied the opportunity to take over operations of six US mainland ports due to security concerns, despite being, well, just another profit-motivated company. Fox News, the stalwart of credible, objective news reporting in the US, rhetorically asked “with this company being a Middle East operation, why would this country turn over operation of six major ports to it?” Good question. It isn’t all one-way traffic for Fox however, as they also conceded that the “entry of terrorism through our ports is a well known threat, even when the ports are run by non Arab states” (italics inserted). The west can shut up shop for business all it likes, but it needs to acknowledge the consequences of doing so−the baby boomer generation’s children will become the first generation in a long time not to enjoy higher standards of living than their parents.
How am I linking Dubai Ports World and the binge drinking issue? Both are illustrations of how readily a frightened public will accept a government and media-driven agenda as established fact. Just like there are American people who watch Fox News as if its real news, there is a critical mass in the Australian public who have been sold a false reality when it comes to the notion of binge drinking, and they have agreeably lapped it up. As an occasional observer−being a non-resident−I probably notice these catch-phrase oddities more than most. ‘Binge drinking’ is a mightily popular phrase right now in Australia, and nobody’s even bothered to ask what it means.
Let’s set some things straight. Drinking every weekend, and not touching a drop during the week, does not make an alcoholic. An alcoholic is someone addicted to alcohol−which is probably going to manifest itself in the need to drink every day, if not close to it. Binge drinking seems to refer to drinking excessively, meaning to a point of intoxication, and doing so on a frequent but intermittent basis (i.e. on weekends).
The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey showed that teenage girls were more likely to drink alcohol than teenage boys. Brilliant. Studies among teenagers also found 85% of teenage girls believed they were ‘not the prettiest but maybe the second prettiest girl in school, although maybe a bit fat around the arse,’ and that ‘Test cricket is, like, boring.’ So where’s the tax on cricket and fat arses, Mr Rudd? Or perhaps it’s the bad language associated with alcohol the government is concerned about. The same study found that more than a quarter of respondents were verbally abused by someone under the influence of alcohol. Chilling stuff, that.
For the same reasons that we need to be skeptical about exit polls that reveal that Barack Obama was voted for by more people than really voted for him, we need to be wary of surveys of teenagers. People lie… even to people conducting surveys. More problematic is the grip our poorly educated baby boomer generation has on popular opinion, the media, and the language we use to describe social phenomena.
Even if the surveys are accurate, when we ask teenagers how often they binge drink before we tell them what binge drinking is, we risk getting misleading results. When I drink, I drink to excess. I like drinking. It’s fun. It’s social. It relaxes me after a hard week of work.
Do I binge drink? I don’t know. On any given Saturday or Sunday morning anyone who wants to know is welcome to ask me, but I usually got too drunk to remember if I binge drank the night before, and I’m not always up to answering survey questions. Friday nights not infrequently begin with a few quiet, cold beers, and then gradually descend into mayhem through the vessels of two or three bottles of whiskey, a few shots of tequila, and one or two bottles of Baileys to wash it down. With friends, of course.
Saturday is more often than not an all-you-can-eat sushi restaurant night out, including all-you-can-drink sake. Good food, good drinks, good friends. A problem? Who knows. And who cares. I drink to get drunk, just like they do all over East Asia, for example… where 2/5s of the world’s population lives with remarkably low levels of random street crime and violence. Japan has the second largest economy in the world and one of its richest societies. Korea is the eighth largest economy in the world and the global leader in semiconductors. China is closing in on the US in terms of economic size, regards 10% annual growth as too slow, and graduates hundreds of thousands of capable engineers every year. Binge drinking doesn’t seem to be doing this part of the world all that much harm.
I don’t encourage underage drinking obviously, but it’s not my job to discourage it. Nor is it the Australian government’s. Taxing alcopops to prevent people who aren’t legally supposed to be drinking them anyway from drinking them is much like taxing handguns to discourage their use. We’re not actually buying them, Mr Rudd.
The most irritating thing about this whole scenario is how quickly the mass media can latch onto the catch phrase of the month and how quickly the general public will take it and run with it. Society has no greater tool with which it can contort and destroy itself than a fool with a fool’s newspaper thinking he’s learning about the world.
Australia has an ageing population ill equipped to deal with an increasingly complex world and a government pandering to its fears at every turn. This is very much a generational war. When I feel my generation is getting closer to winning it, I might consider bringing my own children into the world. And when I do, I’ll teach them about the risks alcohol can pose to a developing brain.
I used to love this sunburned country. Now I think it’s a bit sun-stroked. The Rudd government’s decision to impose a 70% tax increase on bottled mixed alcoholic drinks−so-called alcopops−is yet another blow to logic and good sense in this country of ours, and it seems we are spiraling further down into the vortex of conservatism that is becoming typical of countries burdened by an oversupply of poorly educated and increasingly paranoid ageing baby-boomers.
Anybody who has recently tried to do business, conduct transactions, even perform basic banking functions in the United States will know how difficult simple things have become in post-Patriot Act America. Dubai Ports World sure found out. They were the company denied the opportunity to take over operations of six US mainland ports due to security concerns, despite being, well, just another profit-motivated company. Fox News, the stalwart of credible, objective news reporting in the US, rhetorically asked “with this company being a Middle East operation, why would this country turn over operation of six major ports to it?” Good question. It isn’t all one-way traffic for Fox however, as they also conceded that the “entry of terrorism through our ports is a well known threat, even when the ports are run by non Arab states” (italics inserted). The west can shut up shop for business all it likes, but it needs to acknowledge the consequences of doing so−the baby boomer generation’s children will become the first generation in a long time not to enjoy higher standards of living than their parents.
How am I linking Dubai Ports World and the binge drinking issue? Both are illustrations of how readily a frightened public will accept a government and media-driven agenda as established fact. Just like there are American people who watch Fox News as if its real news, there is a critical mass in the Australian public who have been sold a false reality when it comes to the notion of binge drinking, and they have agreeably lapped it up. As an occasional observer−being a non-resident−I probably notice these catch-phrase oddities more than most. ‘Binge drinking’ is a mightily popular phrase right now in Australia, and nobody’s even bothered to ask what it means.
Let’s set some things straight. Drinking every weekend, and not touching a drop during the week, does not make an alcoholic. An alcoholic is someone addicted to alcohol−which is probably going to manifest itself in the need to drink every day, if not close to it. Binge drinking seems to refer to drinking excessively, meaning to a point of intoxication, and doing so on a frequent but intermittent basis (i.e. on weekends).
The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey showed that teenage girls were more likely to drink alcohol than teenage boys. Brilliant. Studies among teenagers also found 85% of teenage girls believed they were ‘not the prettiest but maybe the second prettiest girl in school, although maybe a bit fat around the arse,’ and that ‘Test cricket is, like, boring.’ So where’s the tax on cricket and fat arses, Mr Rudd? Or perhaps it’s the bad language associated with alcohol the government is concerned about. The same study found that more than a quarter of respondents were verbally abused by someone under the influence of alcohol. Chilling stuff, that.
For the same reasons that we need to be skeptical about exit polls that reveal that Barack Obama was voted for by more people than really voted for him, we need to be wary of surveys of teenagers. People lie… even to people conducting surveys. More problematic is the grip our poorly educated baby boomer generation has on popular opinion, the media, and the language we use to describe social phenomena.
Even if the surveys are accurate, when we ask teenagers how often they binge drink before we tell them what binge drinking is, we risk getting misleading results. When I drink, I drink to excess. I like drinking. It’s fun. It’s social. It relaxes me after a hard week of work.
Do I binge drink? I don’t know. On any given Saturday or Sunday morning anyone who wants to know is welcome to ask me, but I usually got too drunk to remember if I binge drank the night before, and I’m not always up to answering survey questions. Friday nights not infrequently begin with a few quiet, cold beers, and then gradually descend into mayhem through the vessels of two or three bottles of whiskey, a few shots of tequila, and one or two bottles of Baileys to wash it down. With friends, of course.
Saturday is more often than not an all-you-can-eat sushi restaurant night out, including all-you-can-drink sake. Good food, good drinks, good friends. A problem? Who knows. And who cares. I drink to get drunk, just like they do all over East Asia, for example… where 2/5s of the world’s population lives with remarkably low levels of random street crime and violence. Japan has the second largest economy in the world and one of its richest societies. Korea is the eighth largest economy in the world and the global leader in semiconductors. China is closing in on the US in terms of economic size, regards 10% annual growth as too slow, and graduates hundreds of thousands of capable engineers every year. Binge drinking doesn’t seem to be doing this part of the world all that much harm.
I don’t encourage underage drinking obviously, but it’s not my job to discourage it. Nor is it the Australian government’s. Taxing alcopops to prevent people who aren’t legally supposed to be drinking them anyway from drinking them is much like taxing handguns to discourage their use. We’re not actually buying them, Mr Rudd.
The most irritating thing about this whole scenario is how quickly the mass media can latch onto the catch phrase of the month and how quickly the general public will take it and run with it. Society has no greater tool with which it can contort and destroy itself than a fool with a fool’s newspaper thinking he’s learning about the world.
Australia has an ageing population ill equipped to deal with an increasingly complex world and a government pandering to its fears at every turn. This is very much a generational war. When I feel my generation is getting closer to winning it, I might consider bringing my own children into the world. And when I do, I’ll teach them about the risks alcohol can pose to a developing brain.
Training immigrant doctors in Australia
The Australian medical fraternity has announced the successful implementation of a new re-training program intended for immigrant doctors to Australia. The program lasts two years and new Australians are licensed to practice medicine in Australia once they have completed the program.
Immigrants from most countries are tested and trained so that they meet Australian medical standards. Typically, immigrants trained at universities and hospitals in their home countries practice medicine using methods and techniques that exceed Australian standards. They are required to be re-trained so as to reduce their skills and knowledge in order to better suit Australian standards of medical care.
Head of the Australian Medical Standards Association, Dr Warren, said the program has proven extremely successful, claiming “Each and every new Australian doctor is taught how to properly misdiagnose, mis-prescribe, and use appropriate methods of malpractice. We have seen the skill level among our immigrant medical professionals fall by an average of 45% over the past three years, which is a terrific result.”
In areas highly populated with immigrant populations, and often immigrant doctors, the rates of cures and effective medical treatment regimes exceeded national averages by up to a factor of 2-to-1. “Clearly, past re-training schemes have failed the Australian public,” said Dr Warren, “We are proud to say that the AMSA’s new training structures are getting our new Australian doctors up to speed with Australian medical standards faster than ever before.”
Dr Warren concluded his press conference by reassuring the Australian public that the risk of receiving appropriate treatment, correct diagnoses, and cures for common diseases was falling rapidly. “Our safety net is very strong. We will not allow a single immigrant doctor to bring their superior medical practices to our country.”
Immigrants from most countries are tested and trained so that they meet Australian medical standards. Typically, immigrants trained at universities and hospitals in their home countries practice medicine using methods and techniques that exceed Australian standards. They are required to be re-trained so as to reduce their skills and knowledge in order to better suit Australian standards of medical care.
Head of the Australian Medical Standards Association, Dr Warren, said the program has proven extremely successful, claiming “Each and every new Australian doctor is taught how to properly misdiagnose, mis-prescribe, and use appropriate methods of malpractice. We have seen the skill level among our immigrant medical professionals fall by an average of 45% over the past three years, which is a terrific result.”
In areas highly populated with immigrant populations, and often immigrant doctors, the rates of cures and effective medical treatment regimes exceeded national averages by up to a factor of 2-to-1. “Clearly, past re-training schemes have failed the Australian public,” said Dr Warren, “We are proud to say that the AMSA’s new training structures are getting our new Australian doctors up to speed with Australian medical standards faster than ever before.”
Dr Warren concluded his press conference by reassuring the Australian public that the risk of receiving appropriate treatment, correct diagnoses, and cures for common diseases was falling rapidly. “Our safety net is very strong. We will not allow a single immigrant doctor to bring their superior medical practices to our country.”
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Why Mitt Romney Would Make A Bad Choice As McCain’s Running Mate
Despite Mitt Romney’s supposed economic credentials, McCain must resist the temptation to put him on his ticket as the republican candidate for Vice President.
There have been murmurings about the possibility of Mitt Romney joining the McCain bid for the white house as the republican VP nominee, a fact McCain has himself acknowledged. Given the former Massachusetts governor’s storied success as a businessman, and with economic concerns becoming increasingly crucial for Americans, McCain could well be tempted to entertain putting Romney on his ticket. It would be a big mistake.
There are three reasons why Mitt Romney would make a poor choice for Senator McCain as running mate. Firstly, Romney’s focus would clearly be on the 2012 election, and it would be seen to be so. Secondly, the two candidate’s genuine dislike for each other was too evident during the republican primary campaign season for their union to appear credible to voters. Thirdly, Romney’s tendency to promise the earth to whoever was prepared to vote for him during his primary campaign gives him a credibility deficit that would be too easily exploited by McCain’s democrat opponent in the fall.
Romney’s apparent interest in becoming McCain’s VP is political opportunism−a direct path to the Republican nomination for a shot at the White House in 2012. Romney’s record of pandering to voters makes this fact all too evident. He is interested in his own political ambitions and not in the interests of the country. This would not serve a one-term McCain administration particularly well, nor would it please voters looking for a candidate genuinely focused on fixing America’s economic woes.
Given McCain and Romney’s very public spats during the republican primary debates and the negativity with which each campaign targeted each other, a McCain/Romney presidential bid would be difficult for the public to swallow. This is not to suggest voters are naïve enough to hope for a president and vice-president that are genuine friends and allies. However, political rivalry−which best describes most president/vice-president relationships−is a different kind of relationship to active distaste. Governor Romney is to Senator McCain everything that is wrong with politics. He is the style to McCain’s substance, the conservative’s everyman to McCain’s commitment to making good policy.
Some might argue this makes for a perfect political union. Where McCain can be trusted to make the right decisions for America, Romney can help sell it. The problem with this view is that part of McCain’s appeal in the first place is his reputation−justified or otherwise−for being far more interested in good policy than good politics. His support for the surge in Iraq is the best example of this. Adding Romney to his ticket would undo this hard-won reputation, which, in combination with the lack of a genuine Reagan republican, was what got McCain the party’s nomination. Among core McCain supporters, and evidently among core republican voters (given their reluctance to embrace Mitt Romney during the primaries), Romney riding the straight talk express would be a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination, and juicy political fodder for the democrats.
Thirdly, among independent and even some republican voters, Romney suffers a severe credibility problem. This is his own doing. He flip-flopped on almost every moral issue to arise during the campaign, lied about his past, (his hunting credentials, and the ‘figure of speech’ debacle surrounding his father’s non-participation in a Martin Luther King Jnr. march being prime examples), and promised the simply unfathomable to any voter prepared to listen.
Promising Michigan voters to bring automobile industry jobs back from abroad was a particularly sharp assault on the intelligence of the average republican voter. In his efforts to portray himself as a so-called Regan republican, Romney cut a figure of the type of opportunistic politician voters have tired so much of. He treated republican voters as if they were far less sophisticated than they turned out to be, and he paid the political price. It is difficult to see voters looking past those efforts.
Despite having marketable economic credentials, Romney would be an enormous political liability for McCain, and he is simply not sophisticated enough to help McCain take northeastern independents away from either Clinton or Obama−the only bloc for which he would be worth considering as the VP nominee. Romney’s posturing for VP makes sense given the economy’s emergence as the most important issue to American voters. McCain, however, should trust his instincts and select a running mate he at least has some degree of respect for.
There have been murmurings about the possibility of Mitt Romney joining the McCain bid for the white house as the republican VP nominee, a fact McCain has himself acknowledged. Given the former Massachusetts governor’s storied success as a businessman, and with economic concerns becoming increasingly crucial for Americans, McCain could well be tempted to entertain putting Romney on his ticket. It would be a big mistake.
There are three reasons why Mitt Romney would make a poor choice for Senator McCain as running mate. Firstly, Romney’s focus would clearly be on the 2012 election, and it would be seen to be so. Secondly, the two candidate’s genuine dislike for each other was too evident during the republican primary campaign season for their union to appear credible to voters. Thirdly, Romney’s tendency to promise the earth to whoever was prepared to vote for him during his primary campaign gives him a credibility deficit that would be too easily exploited by McCain’s democrat opponent in the fall.
Romney’s apparent interest in becoming McCain’s VP is political opportunism−a direct path to the Republican nomination for a shot at the White House in 2012. Romney’s record of pandering to voters makes this fact all too evident. He is interested in his own political ambitions and not in the interests of the country. This would not serve a one-term McCain administration particularly well, nor would it please voters looking for a candidate genuinely focused on fixing America’s economic woes.
Given McCain and Romney’s very public spats during the republican primary debates and the negativity with which each campaign targeted each other, a McCain/Romney presidential bid would be difficult for the public to swallow. This is not to suggest voters are naïve enough to hope for a president and vice-president that are genuine friends and allies. However, political rivalry−which best describes most president/vice-president relationships−is a different kind of relationship to active distaste. Governor Romney is to Senator McCain everything that is wrong with politics. He is the style to McCain’s substance, the conservative’s everyman to McCain’s commitment to making good policy.
Some might argue this makes for a perfect political union. Where McCain can be trusted to make the right decisions for America, Romney can help sell it. The problem with this view is that part of McCain’s appeal in the first place is his reputation−justified or otherwise−for being far more interested in good policy than good politics. His support for the surge in Iraq is the best example of this. Adding Romney to his ticket would undo this hard-won reputation, which, in combination with the lack of a genuine Reagan republican, was what got McCain the party’s nomination. Among core McCain supporters, and evidently among core republican voters (given their reluctance to embrace Mitt Romney during the primaries), Romney riding the straight talk express would be a bit too much of a stretch of the imagination, and juicy political fodder for the democrats.
Thirdly, among independent and even some republican voters, Romney suffers a severe credibility problem. This is his own doing. He flip-flopped on almost every moral issue to arise during the campaign, lied about his past, (his hunting credentials, and the ‘figure of speech’ debacle surrounding his father’s non-participation in a Martin Luther King Jnr. march being prime examples), and promised the simply unfathomable to any voter prepared to listen.
Promising Michigan voters to bring automobile industry jobs back from abroad was a particularly sharp assault on the intelligence of the average republican voter. In his efforts to portray himself as a so-called Regan republican, Romney cut a figure of the type of opportunistic politician voters have tired so much of. He treated republican voters as if they were far less sophisticated than they turned out to be, and he paid the political price. It is difficult to see voters looking past those efforts.
Despite having marketable economic credentials, Romney would be an enormous political liability for McCain, and he is simply not sophisticated enough to help McCain take northeastern independents away from either Clinton or Obama−the only bloc for which he would be worth considering as the VP nominee. Romney’s posturing for VP makes sense given the economy’s emergence as the most important issue to American voters. McCain, however, should trust his instincts and select a running mate he at least has some degree of respect for.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Pandering in the Wrong Direction − McCain’s Path Forward
The GOP’s probable nominee is working hard to foster support among his party’s base, but he would be better served worrying about moderates and independents.
Having all-but sewn up the Republican Party nomination, Senator John McCain is busy rallying conservatives behind his bid for the White House. Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is positioning himself as the suitable running mate for the GOP candidate many in the party are reluctant to embrace.
McCain needs to tread carefully. While shoring up support among Republicans is important during these early stages − if for no other reason than to create the illusion of unity − the Arizona senator risks out-flanking himself on the left if he steps too far over the fine line between energizing the Republican base and appealing to moderates and independents. Choosing Mike Huckabee as the Republican vice-presidential nominee would be an erroneous and unnecessary political maneuver on McCain’s part.
Should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, McCain will have little need to ferment support in his own party. Sen. Clinton is a Republican get-out-the-vote campaign all unto herself. Despite Ann Coulter’s claims to the contrary, no GOP stalwart will withhold support for their candidate in a presidential race in which the cost of losing is a Hillary Clinton White House.
Sen. Barack Obama will be less polarizing and will present McCain with a whole different set of problems, but the conservative faithful can hardly be expected to abandon a not-quite-Reagan Republican for an anti-war African-American Democrat whose middle name is Hussein. McCain, against either potential opponent, would find it more difficult to lose the support of Republican voters than to win it.
Karl Rove’s base strategy worked against a largely uninspiring Democratic nominee in John Kerry in 2004, but had the Democrats chosen Howard Dean as their candidate, the Bush II campaign would have aggressively targeted the swinging voters they claimed didn’t exist.
Among conservatives, the threat of a Howard Dean administration was always going to be more offensive than a John Kerry White House, New England liberal though he was. That was precisely the reason, of course, Dean did not get his party’s nomination − his beliefs were classic democratic dogma, but he was not considered electable. The appropriate political tactic against a polarizing opponent is to target swinging voters and independents, confident that your base will come out whether you appeal to them or not.
With a conservative base, then, shored up one way or the other, and especially so if Clinton is nominated as the opposing candidate, McCain’s biggest mistake now would be to choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate. It would be a knee jerk response to the concerns many conservatives are currently voicing. In Michigan on January 15 the former Baptist minister frightened a great many Americans calling for an amendment to the Constitution to reflect ‘God’s standards’. Huckabee’s dream run in the GOP campaign to date has benefited from his socially conservative values. These would only be liabilities on a presidential ticket.
John McCain, given his age, would be an unlikely two-term president, so whoever his running mate is will almost certainly be the Republican nominee in 2012. Just as Hillary Clinton and her grand ideas for socialized healthcare frightens Republican voters, Huckabee incites fears among Democrats in much the same way. The threat of his having any influence in a McCain White House and of possibly succeeding McCain would energize the left-wing faction of the Democrats and turn swing voters off in a way that Clinton or Obama could never hope to. McCain would do well to avoid those risks.
Republicans are right to be concerned about the relative poor showing in the primary elections, and correct to suggest it was a result of the absence − the insipid Thompson and Brownback campaigns aside − of a genuine conservative in the race. With either Sen. Clinton or Obama replacing Mitt Romney as his rival, McCain will find the Republican base much less difficult to inspire come November.
Having all-but sewn up the Republican Party nomination, Senator John McCain is busy rallying conservatives behind his bid for the White House. Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is positioning himself as the suitable running mate for the GOP candidate many in the party are reluctant to embrace.
McCain needs to tread carefully. While shoring up support among Republicans is important during these early stages − if for no other reason than to create the illusion of unity − the Arizona senator risks out-flanking himself on the left if he steps too far over the fine line between energizing the Republican base and appealing to moderates and independents. Choosing Mike Huckabee as the Republican vice-presidential nominee would be an erroneous and unnecessary political maneuver on McCain’s part.
Should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, McCain will have little need to ferment support in his own party. Sen. Clinton is a Republican get-out-the-vote campaign all unto herself. Despite Ann Coulter’s claims to the contrary, no GOP stalwart will withhold support for their candidate in a presidential race in which the cost of losing is a Hillary Clinton White House.
Sen. Barack Obama will be less polarizing and will present McCain with a whole different set of problems, but the conservative faithful can hardly be expected to abandon a not-quite-Reagan Republican for an anti-war African-American Democrat whose middle name is Hussein. McCain, against either potential opponent, would find it more difficult to lose the support of Republican voters than to win it.
Karl Rove’s base strategy worked against a largely uninspiring Democratic nominee in John Kerry in 2004, but had the Democrats chosen Howard Dean as their candidate, the Bush II campaign would have aggressively targeted the swinging voters they claimed didn’t exist.
Among conservatives, the threat of a Howard Dean administration was always going to be more offensive than a John Kerry White House, New England liberal though he was. That was precisely the reason, of course, Dean did not get his party’s nomination − his beliefs were classic democratic dogma, but he was not considered electable. The appropriate political tactic against a polarizing opponent is to target swinging voters and independents, confident that your base will come out whether you appeal to them or not.
With a conservative base, then, shored up one way or the other, and especially so if Clinton is nominated as the opposing candidate, McCain’s biggest mistake now would be to choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate. It would be a knee jerk response to the concerns many conservatives are currently voicing. In Michigan on January 15 the former Baptist minister frightened a great many Americans calling for an amendment to the Constitution to reflect ‘God’s standards’. Huckabee’s dream run in the GOP campaign to date has benefited from his socially conservative values. These would only be liabilities on a presidential ticket.
John McCain, given his age, would be an unlikely two-term president, so whoever his running mate is will almost certainly be the Republican nominee in 2012. Just as Hillary Clinton and her grand ideas for socialized healthcare frightens Republican voters, Huckabee incites fears among Democrats in much the same way. The threat of his having any influence in a McCain White House and of possibly succeeding McCain would energize the left-wing faction of the Democrats and turn swing voters off in a way that Clinton or Obama could never hope to. McCain would do well to avoid those risks.
Republicans are right to be concerned about the relative poor showing in the primary elections, and correct to suggest it was a result of the absence − the insipid Thompson and Brownback campaigns aside − of a genuine conservative in the race. With either Sen. Clinton or Obama replacing Mitt Romney as his rival, McCain will find the Republican base much less difficult to inspire come November.
Romney Campaign Undermines Democracy
The Mitt Romney presidential campaign suggests money and cynical politics are encroaching on good public policy and healthy democratic debate.
As the three remaining Republican presidential hopefuls emerge from the crucial Florida primary vote, it appears increasingly unlikely that the party’s evangelicals will get their man in former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, but Arizona senator John McCain’s victory in the Sunshine State gives them some reason to celebrate. McCain’s success in the state puts him one step closer to ending the aspirations of Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon.
The evangelical bloc’s yearning for someone – anyone – in the Republican field to get between Mitt Romney and the nomination is shared by some rather unusual bed-fellows − those with a strong belief in democracy. Romney’s campaign has shown such a disregard for healthy democratic debate and displayed such a cynical approach to adversarial, competitive politics that should his candidacy prove successful – even in only grabbing the Republican nomination − it will represent a strong indication that the great American democracy is beginning to buckle under the weight of clever, well-financed politics.
Figures vary, but the Romney budget for the Iowa caucuses was fifteen to twenty times that of eventual winner, Mike Huckabee. He then went into New Hampshire splurging more money on TV advertisements than all his rivals combined, only to lose to Sen. McCain. The voters in Michigan were bombarded with $2 million worth of advertising, three times McCain’s spend and four times that of Huckabee.
As they headed into the Florida primary vote, the Romney campaign outspent McCain by five-to-one, ploughing around $30 million in advertising into the state. McCain had to restrict his spend to radio and youtube ads. While there is nothing to prevent these kinds of spending disparities among candidates, if there is any democratic spirit to be extracted from American election campaign finance structures it is that by permitting candidates to raise campaign funding through donations, the system favors those with the most appealing policies. The more popular the message, the more donations the candidate will attract, and the more they can then spend spreading that message. Romney, and other self-funded nominees before him, turns this pattern on its head.
The American campaign finance system has, of course, dubious democratic credentials, but a good flow of information enhances democracy by helping the public remain informed. An informed public will make better decisions when electing their politicians. The problem is that getting this information out costs money. There is nothing inherently malevolent about Mitt Romney for either being a multi-millionaire or being prepared to significantly finance his efforts, although personal ambition is not the ideal platform from which a campaign for the white house should be launched. Romney’s preparedness to take advantage of the American campaign finance system does not serve democracy in America particularly well.
With Mike Huckabee’s unexpected rise in the polls prior to the Iowa caucuses, Romney’s advisors saw the need for their candidate to give the speech he hoped to be able to avoid. Certainly, should he win the Republican nomination, it will be a speech he might well regret having made.
Romney’s Mormonism should not be a reason for voter hesitance. However, his defense of his religion in his ‘Faith in America’ address referred strongly to its Christian foundations. John F Kennedy claimed being Catholic would not influence his decisions, and voters should therefore be comfortable with his faith. Romney’s position on his own Mormonism was that it would influence his decisions as president, and that should be fine with Republican voters, as fellow Christians.
His speech left little room in politics for secularists or non-Christians. It was a remarkable attack on the Constitution − which specifically proscribes, in the First Amendment, the prohibiting of the free exercise of faith. It generally undermined the notion of the separation of church and state on which the American democracy relies so heavily. It is comforting to know that in a presidential campaign Romney − if he makes it that far − will need to retract some of the content of the position he outlined in that December 6 speech to appeal to a wider set of voters. It is less comforting to know that some well-paid advisors considered it politically savvy to send the message in the first place.
What America needs now in a president is not Messianism. Of course, the same criticism is better directed at Mike Huckabee. In Michigan on January 15 the former Baptist minister frightened a great many Americans calling for an amendment to the Constitution to reflect ‘God’s standards’. It might well have been the moment his presidential hopes ended. With Huckabee, though, voters at least know what they are going to get. He means what he says. When it comes to former governor Romney, discerning the rhetoric from what he actually believes is far more difficult. Indeed, it has been argued that he doesn’t actually stand for anything at all… except getting elected.
In an attack on Romney’s apparently re-positioned stance on Iraqi withdrawal, Sen. McCain claimed the former governor had “hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.” Romney’s back-peddling has become somewhat habitual throughout this race. He claimed the NRA endorsed his candidacy in the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial race. It did not. He repealed his claim to have marched with his father with Martin Luther King Jr. by brushing it off as a ‘figure of speech.’ From being a hunter all his life to having hunted small game on two occasions, to his tough stance on immigration despite employing illegal immigrants at his house, Romney has often found the facts difficult obstacles to overcome.
He has also gained notoriety for flip-flopping on issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, and abortion rights. Romney claims some of his positions have ‘evolved.’ His critics suggest that when it comes to moral issues that go to the heart of GOP beliefs, such as abortion rights and gun control, a candidate either believes something or they do not. Republicans consider any ‘evolving’ of views in the moral sphere with a great deal of mistrust.
Revisiting and rethinking issues is not necessarily a sign of a lack of clarity or a chronic propensity to engage in misrepresentation for political gain. In fact, a candidate’s preparedness to question their prior decisions or judgments is reflective of the type of humility and flexibility Americans are possibly looking for in a president after eight years of Bush stubbornness and arrogance. Barack Obama, at least among Democrats, has suffered little from his own admission of youthful waywardness. Certainty becomes a negative trait when you remain certain in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting your beliefs are wrong. Yet Romney’s penchant for hedging, flip-flopping, evolving… call it what you will, has taken on proportions that border on the absurd. More saliently, the problem is not that he flip-flops, it’s why he flip-flops.
Mitt Romney has earned a reputation as a candidate who will say anything to get elected. Nowhere was that more evident than in Michigan. His stunning victory in that state’s Republican primary on January 15 was as much a warning about the risks inherent in democracy as a boost to a flagging presidential campaign. Romney promised Michigan voters that he would return auto-industry jobs to their state − jobs that have been lost to foreign countries. He went to Michigan offering a message of hope. False hope.
John McCain was doing just the opposite, telling the people of Michigan that jobs lost to car manufacturers overseas were “not coming back.” He outlined plans to tackle the unemployment problems the state is suffering from − at 7.4%, the nation’s highest. Unfortunately for McCain, voters were looking for a message of hope, not a message outlining viable solutions to recognized problems.
Romney’s victory in Michigan is an example of cynical politics at its most damning. It showed that a clever politician with a lot of money and a well-oiled machinery can convince a public enduring high unemployment rates, a failing economy, and a general level of despair of, well, something with which most economists in the world would disagree. It showed that democracy carries with it great risks − risks that are amplified during times of economic or social hardship.
Contrasting Romney’s preparedness to promise what he had no intention − or ability − to deliver to the people of Michigan with McCain’s refusal to pledge support for ethanol subsidies to the people of Iowa makes for an interesting study. After the Bush II campaign’s distasteful tactics in South Carolina in 1999, McCain, if anyone, might be excused for adopting a more cynical approach to politics. Yet he campaigned only lightly in Iowa, knowing his chances of success were minimal given his misgivings about ethanol subsidies. He paid the appropriate political price, getting only 13% of the vote.
Sen. McCain refuses to support the ethanol subsidies that fuel the state’s economy because he believes they are bad economic and environmental policy. This does not suggest John McCain is incapable of engaging in nasty politics. His cheap shot at Romney in the Republican debate in New Hampshire about him being the ‘candidate of change’ is a case in point. The idea of the ‘Straight Talk Express’ is a great political tool, and he uses it to maximum effect. When John McCain wins, he likes to remind us, it’s because he told people the truth. When he loses, it’s because he told people the truth. In the long-run, it’s an appealing political strategy.
Strategy or not, however, it is at least consistent and it also appears to reflect an understanding on McCain’s part that American voters are sophisticated enough to accommodate nuance. McCain is − and has always been − supportive of the war in Iraq, supportive of continued American engagement, and supportive of the surge. He was not supportive of the administration’s general handling of Iraq. These positions are not mutually inconsistent and the American public gets it. The McCain campaign is one that takes place in the setting of a modern, attentive, engaged democracy. The Romney campaign, in contrast, has assumed at all stages that the public is capable only of understanding snapshots and sound bites.
Romney, to different audiences, has been the candidate of change, the Washington outsider, the immigration hawk, the successful businessman who knows how to run an economy, and most recently, the real conservative. His campaign smacks of a very base style of politics. He has the funds to present himself in whatever way he feels will most likely attract votes − and then back that up with a new image for the next primary a week later.
McCain’s debacle at Baghdad’s Shorja market in April 2007 was a reassuring reminder that some politicians simply don’t do politics very well. The senator’s claim on the Republican nomination for president is based primarily on policy. His immigration proposal is a realistic, yet humane, response to a significant problem. A nuanced form of amnesty. His support for the war in Iraq is support for the policy matched with criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of it. His proposal to the voters of Michigan was a series of retraining and education schemes that would help the state adjust to economic realities.
He speaks a more complex language to the public because the issues are complex, and one-line answers to immigration, Iraq, and unemployment do not address the problems in a reasoned fashion. Romney criticizes McCain’s immigration bill as amnesty, and therefore bad policy. The spirit of healthy democratic debate requires much more from its practitioners.
Watching the two men battle out the final stages of this race is to watch a battle between two different kinds of politics. Regardless of the outcome, America’s dynamic democracy has received a clear shot across the bow. Mitt Romney is, of course, more a symbol of this threat than a cause, and no victory of political rhetoric over policy needs to be taken to suggest the great American democratic experiment should be thrown out in favor of a system less precarious − simply that it needs better protection from the cynicism of adversarial politics.
The media and education are any society’s sharpest tools against the threat politics can present to forming good public policy. Mitt Romney may not be America’s next president, but when money and clever politics can get someone so lacking in vision and sound policy proposals as far as being the possible Republican nominee, it seems time America’s tools were sharpened.
As the three remaining Republican presidential hopefuls emerge from the crucial Florida primary vote, it appears increasingly unlikely that the party’s evangelicals will get their man in former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, but Arizona senator John McCain’s victory in the Sunshine State gives them some reason to celebrate. McCain’s success in the state puts him one step closer to ending the aspirations of Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon.
The evangelical bloc’s yearning for someone – anyone – in the Republican field to get between Mitt Romney and the nomination is shared by some rather unusual bed-fellows − those with a strong belief in democracy. Romney’s campaign has shown such a disregard for healthy democratic debate and displayed such a cynical approach to adversarial, competitive politics that should his candidacy prove successful – even in only grabbing the Republican nomination − it will represent a strong indication that the great American democracy is beginning to buckle under the weight of clever, well-financed politics.
Figures vary, but the Romney budget for the Iowa caucuses was fifteen to twenty times that of eventual winner, Mike Huckabee. He then went into New Hampshire splurging more money on TV advertisements than all his rivals combined, only to lose to Sen. McCain. The voters in Michigan were bombarded with $2 million worth of advertising, three times McCain’s spend and four times that of Huckabee.
As they headed into the Florida primary vote, the Romney campaign outspent McCain by five-to-one, ploughing around $30 million in advertising into the state. McCain had to restrict his spend to radio and youtube ads. While there is nothing to prevent these kinds of spending disparities among candidates, if there is any democratic spirit to be extracted from American election campaign finance structures it is that by permitting candidates to raise campaign funding through donations, the system favors those with the most appealing policies. The more popular the message, the more donations the candidate will attract, and the more they can then spend spreading that message. Romney, and other self-funded nominees before him, turns this pattern on its head.
The American campaign finance system has, of course, dubious democratic credentials, but a good flow of information enhances democracy by helping the public remain informed. An informed public will make better decisions when electing their politicians. The problem is that getting this information out costs money. There is nothing inherently malevolent about Mitt Romney for either being a multi-millionaire or being prepared to significantly finance his efforts, although personal ambition is not the ideal platform from which a campaign for the white house should be launched. Romney’s preparedness to take advantage of the American campaign finance system does not serve democracy in America particularly well.
With Mike Huckabee’s unexpected rise in the polls prior to the Iowa caucuses, Romney’s advisors saw the need for their candidate to give the speech he hoped to be able to avoid. Certainly, should he win the Republican nomination, it will be a speech he might well regret having made.
Romney’s Mormonism should not be a reason for voter hesitance. However, his defense of his religion in his ‘Faith in America’ address referred strongly to its Christian foundations. John F Kennedy claimed being Catholic would not influence his decisions, and voters should therefore be comfortable with his faith. Romney’s position on his own Mormonism was that it would influence his decisions as president, and that should be fine with Republican voters, as fellow Christians.
His speech left little room in politics for secularists or non-Christians. It was a remarkable attack on the Constitution − which specifically proscribes, in the First Amendment, the prohibiting of the free exercise of faith. It generally undermined the notion of the separation of church and state on which the American democracy relies so heavily. It is comforting to know that in a presidential campaign Romney − if he makes it that far − will need to retract some of the content of the position he outlined in that December 6 speech to appeal to a wider set of voters. It is less comforting to know that some well-paid advisors considered it politically savvy to send the message in the first place.
What America needs now in a president is not Messianism. Of course, the same criticism is better directed at Mike Huckabee. In Michigan on January 15 the former Baptist minister frightened a great many Americans calling for an amendment to the Constitution to reflect ‘God’s standards’. It might well have been the moment his presidential hopes ended. With Huckabee, though, voters at least know what they are going to get. He means what he says. When it comes to former governor Romney, discerning the rhetoric from what he actually believes is far more difficult. Indeed, it has been argued that he doesn’t actually stand for anything at all… except getting elected.
In an attack on Romney’s apparently re-positioned stance on Iraqi withdrawal, Sen. McCain claimed the former governor had “hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.” Romney’s back-peddling has become somewhat habitual throughout this race. He claimed the NRA endorsed his candidacy in the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial race. It did not. He repealed his claim to have marched with his father with Martin Luther King Jr. by brushing it off as a ‘figure of speech.’ From being a hunter all his life to having hunted small game on two occasions, to his tough stance on immigration despite employing illegal immigrants at his house, Romney has often found the facts difficult obstacles to overcome.
He has also gained notoriety for flip-flopping on issues such as gay marriage, gun ownership, and abortion rights. Romney claims some of his positions have ‘evolved.’ His critics suggest that when it comes to moral issues that go to the heart of GOP beliefs, such as abortion rights and gun control, a candidate either believes something or they do not. Republicans consider any ‘evolving’ of views in the moral sphere with a great deal of mistrust.
Revisiting and rethinking issues is not necessarily a sign of a lack of clarity or a chronic propensity to engage in misrepresentation for political gain. In fact, a candidate’s preparedness to question their prior decisions or judgments is reflective of the type of humility and flexibility Americans are possibly looking for in a president after eight years of Bush stubbornness and arrogance. Barack Obama, at least among Democrats, has suffered little from his own admission of youthful waywardness. Certainty becomes a negative trait when you remain certain in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting your beliefs are wrong. Yet Romney’s penchant for hedging, flip-flopping, evolving… call it what you will, has taken on proportions that border on the absurd. More saliently, the problem is not that he flip-flops, it’s why he flip-flops.
Mitt Romney has earned a reputation as a candidate who will say anything to get elected. Nowhere was that more evident than in Michigan. His stunning victory in that state’s Republican primary on January 15 was as much a warning about the risks inherent in democracy as a boost to a flagging presidential campaign. Romney promised Michigan voters that he would return auto-industry jobs to their state − jobs that have been lost to foreign countries. He went to Michigan offering a message of hope. False hope.
John McCain was doing just the opposite, telling the people of Michigan that jobs lost to car manufacturers overseas were “not coming back.” He outlined plans to tackle the unemployment problems the state is suffering from − at 7.4%, the nation’s highest. Unfortunately for McCain, voters were looking for a message of hope, not a message outlining viable solutions to recognized problems.
Romney’s victory in Michigan is an example of cynical politics at its most damning. It showed that a clever politician with a lot of money and a well-oiled machinery can convince a public enduring high unemployment rates, a failing economy, and a general level of despair of, well, something with which most economists in the world would disagree. It showed that democracy carries with it great risks − risks that are amplified during times of economic or social hardship.
Contrasting Romney’s preparedness to promise what he had no intention − or ability − to deliver to the people of Michigan with McCain’s refusal to pledge support for ethanol subsidies to the people of Iowa makes for an interesting study. After the Bush II campaign’s distasteful tactics in South Carolina in 1999, McCain, if anyone, might be excused for adopting a more cynical approach to politics. Yet he campaigned only lightly in Iowa, knowing his chances of success were minimal given his misgivings about ethanol subsidies. He paid the appropriate political price, getting only 13% of the vote.
Sen. McCain refuses to support the ethanol subsidies that fuel the state’s economy because he believes they are bad economic and environmental policy. This does not suggest John McCain is incapable of engaging in nasty politics. His cheap shot at Romney in the Republican debate in New Hampshire about him being the ‘candidate of change’ is a case in point. The idea of the ‘Straight Talk Express’ is a great political tool, and he uses it to maximum effect. When John McCain wins, he likes to remind us, it’s because he told people the truth. When he loses, it’s because he told people the truth. In the long-run, it’s an appealing political strategy.
Strategy or not, however, it is at least consistent and it also appears to reflect an understanding on McCain’s part that American voters are sophisticated enough to accommodate nuance. McCain is − and has always been − supportive of the war in Iraq, supportive of continued American engagement, and supportive of the surge. He was not supportive of the administration’s general handling of Iraq. These positions are not mutually inconsistent and the American public gets it. The McCain campaign is one that takes place in the setting of a modern, attentive, engaged democracy. The Romney campaign, in contrast, has assumed at all stages that the public is capable only of understanding snapshots and sound bites.
Romney, to different audiences, has been the candidate of change, the Washington outsider, the immigration hawk, the successful businessman who knows how to run an economy, and most recently, the real conservative. His campaign smacks of a very base style of politics. He has the funds to present himself in whatever way he feels will most likely attract votes − and then back that up with a new image for the next primary a week later.
McCain’s debacle at Baghdad’s Shorja market in April 2007 was a reassuring reminder that some politicians simply don’t do politics very well. The senator’s claim on the Republican nomination for president is based primarily on policy. His immigration proposal is a realistic, yet humane, response to a significant problem. A nuanced form of amnesty. His support for the war in Iraq is support for the policy matched with criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of it. His proposal to the voters of Michigan was a series of retraining and education schemes that would help the state adjust to economic realities.
He speaks a more complex language to the public because the issues are complex, and one-line answers to immigration, Iraq, and unemployment do not address the problems in a reasoned fashion. Romney criticizes McCain’s immigration bill as amnesty, and therefore bad policy. The spirit of healthy democratic debate requires much more from its practitioners.
Watching the two men battle out the final stages of this race is to watch a battle between two different kinds of politics. Regardless of the outcome, America’s dynamic democracy has received a clear shot across the bow. Mitt Romney is, of course, more a symbol of this threat than a cause, and no victory of political rhetoric over policy needs to be taken to suggest the great American democratic experiment should be thrown out in favor of a system less precarious − simply that it needs better protection from the cynicism of adversarial politics.
The media and education are any society’s sharpest tools against the threat politics can present to forming good public policy. Mitt Romney may not be America’s next president, but when money and clever politics can get someone so lacking in vision and sound policy proposals as far as being the possible Republican nominee, it seems time America’s tools were sharpened.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Having just read the PR from a website development company I have decided to opt out of all commerce for as long as my arse and my nostrils point in the same direction. What is a solutions provider? What is total solutions management? When did we start monstering and contorting language so that it could create meaninglessness out of what should mean something, drivel out of something clear, simple... elegant? What am I driving at here? I think I fell asleep and woke up in a different dimension - only someone forgot to tell me where I was and what everything meant. Why can't I call a hair-lipped gimp a hair-lipped gimp anymore? Or a white trash smack-head a white trash smack-head? PR is a great thing, sometimes a thing of great beauty, but when it fails to mean anything at all, and when everything comes out as PR, we lose a sense of clarity crucial for navigating modernity. When I don't know if something is advertising a kettle or a new kind of fajita either I'm an idiot or what I'm reading is nonsense. One way or the other, if I can't feel my way through the goal posts anymore - and I don't think I can, then perhaps it's time I just opted out, climbed up a tree somewhere and called myself a hippie. Can we still call hippies hippies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)