With Palin, has America finally jumped the shark?

It is possible that the pick of Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP nominee is a watershed moment in our national decline. For the first time, a major political party has openly declared that achievement, experience, education, knowledge, and skills are actually worthless in our society.

But, you say, what about the 2000 nomination (and victory) of George W. Bush? Wasn't he a complete ignorant unqualified dolt who up to that point destroyed everything he touched? Yes, of course, but I think there is an absolutely crucial difference: While George W. and Palin are perhaps similarly unqualified and ignorant, there has been a significant change in the way they are presented. With George W., the Republican talking shitheads at least tried to craft the illusion, among some circles, that George W. was a successful and skilled person. They touted some crap he did as Texas governor, and, more importantly, presented him as having been a successful businessman. There was even talk about how we were going to have a "CEO presidency."

Of course there was the whole idiot aspect of Bush, and they played that up when marketing toward the redneck contingent, but, crucially, they also tried to present another side when marketing him to the media and business "elite" of society, and to themselves. It was Bush the business man, Bush the son of a president who had "great instincts."

Now, with Palin, they are, predictably, playing up how "average" (ie unintelligent and small minded) she is, as in "Look at me, I'm a ditzy Hocky Mom. hee hee" But, tellingly, there isn't any corresponding seriousness directed at more serious people. The Republican talking heads don't even feel the need to try to pretend that Palin is intelligent, qualified, or experienced... to any audience, including themselves. Sure, they will spout transparently ridiculous stuff about being able to see Russia from Alaska, but that isn't designed or expected to convince anyone or themselves of anything real. It is just a way to avoid answering a question with an awkward "No."

All we have from them is "Here is our VP pick. She is a baby factory. She drives her kids to sports. She's religious. She looks decent for a 46 year old who has pushed out 5 kids. Her daughter is a teenage mom who got knocked up by a thug who posts pictures of himself throwing up gang signs. Her voice sounds like fingernails being dragged across a chalk board made of sphincters. Isn't this all great?"

"Sarah Palin is great because she's not great." That's all they have to say, to anyone. Not just to the mouth breathers who go to every high school football game, but to business, industry, the military, the media, and themselves. And that does represent the culmination of a major departure from how things used to be.

It used to be a source of American pride and identity that we did, accomplished, and achieved things. The pick and packaging of potential President Palin clearly shows that this is no more. Ironically, while conservative authoritarian minded people will try to blame this change from emphasis on success to emphasis on self-esteem on some 'squishy' hippie liberal stuff, it is in fact largely their fault. They are the ones, through the major party that represents their interests, that have systematically devalued knowledge and experience. Unfortunately for all of us, knowledge, experience, and education are the only things that are going to cut it in the 21st century.

Hilllary Clinton eats baby on live TV. Supporters rally.

By now we've all heard how, at a press conference yesterday, Hilary Clinton killed and cannibalized a cute defenseless infant. I have collected some of the reactions from her campaign, supporters, and the media.

We'll start by taking a look at some of the reaction in the blogosphere. Taylor Marsh had this to say:

Has it occurred to any of the so-called dons of the media establishment who are making such a stink about this that Hillary had to eat a baby because she was hungry? Do these people really have no idea how misogynistic males in our society drive women, even accomplished, educated women like Hillary Clinton, to starve themselves with eating disorders? Are they really that disconnected when they tisk-tisk all day about this baby eating, as though if Hillary isn't taking care of a baby she is worthless as a woman?

Meanwhile here was a post at MyDD:

are you fukking serious?? I am definitely voting for McCain now. The way that Chris Matthews and DailyKos kept talking about this non-incident over and over... rrrrrrr it makes me hate Obama sooooooooooo much!!!!!!

- ngrybtch

At Hillaryis44.com, they were even more emphatic

Geesh, so what if she ate a baby?? Last time I looked Obama is still black!

- hard werker

Moving on to TV, I found this exchange between Chris Matthews and Mark Penn on Hardball to be quite interesting:

Matthews: Maork Penn, don't you think this baby eating will turn off African Americans and young voters?

Penn: You know, Chris, I'm not too worried how people in Africa see this. Also, baby eaters are a significant demographic in several swing states - you can read about it in my book Microtrends. They are right there on page 173 between 'Water Cooler Vixens' and 'Tuesday Trannies'.

Matthews: No, back up, I'm talking about African Americans, you know, black people in this country, not people in Africa. And you know, also young people, voters under 35 or whatever, Hillary has not won these groups.

Penn: Chris, my job is to understand America, and if there were black people or young people under 35 here, you'd think I would be the first to know that! But there's not, so we're not worried.

An article in the Washington Post explored the political ramifications:

The most important question following the baby eating incident, both campaigns agree, is how it will be viewed among the white voters who Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over. Cletus Spuckler of Danville, Ky, a father of, in his words, "too many keeeids to count," who lives in a trailer in a small Appalachian town and is therefore perfectly representative of the 200 million white people in the United States, said that the incident did not diminish his lukewarm support for Ms. Clinton or his disdain for Mr. Obama. I like the way that when she skullfucked the baby, she used a giant black dildo, to show what will happen to us if that Osama Obama Hussein whatever boy is elected, Mr. Spuckler said.

In superdelegate land, Nancy Pelosi, interviewed on PBS's NewsHour, was more circumspect:

Interviewer: Do you think that the baby eating from yesterday will effect your decision to remain neutral?

Pelosi: Obvously, we will be united aound the nominee, whoever that is, by the time of the convention in Denver.

Finally, Obama himself was, as ever, unfazed:

Senator Clinton has run a great campaign, and I really respect her as my colleague in the Senate

Bad science: "Classic Rock fans support McCain"

Here's a chance to bring some science back into this blog. Actually, it's a chance to point out bad science.

I was surprised to come across an article in the news that claimed that fans of Classic Rock music are more likely to support John McCain over the Democrats. It was based on a survey of radio listeners. The supposed gist is this:

"It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.

...

Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo..."

Here is the full article. Needless to say I was surprised and disappointed, as a fan of "bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd." Is this the company I keep?

Time for some amateur demographic speculation: Now I would certainly expect fans of certain types of music to lean Republican. For instance country music... After all, today's country music is nothing but awful diva pop thinly disguised with some fake working class attitude. Hmm, something awful thinly disguised with some fake working class attitude... that's pretty much the Republican party itself!

But bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd? My sense is that their fans can be sorted into a few broad groups:

1) Baby boomers who came of age in the late 60s and early 70s (they lost their cherry to the Byrds, tripped to Hendrix at Woodstock, and mellowed out to Clapton's Layla)

2) Some people who were in high school in the 90s (While our stupid classmates were out buying New Kids on the Block and Vanilla Ice albums, we discovered Zeppelin just in time for the Wayne's World revival, synched up Dark Side of the Moon to the Wizard of Oz, and even today at 30 we sometimes put on that tight Pink Floyd prism t-shirt)

3) Working class dudes over 40 who don't listen to country. (Whether they used to rock to Eddie Money or Charlie Daniels, to this day they still yell "Play Freebird!")

So are we to conclude, as the article author would like us to, that we are dealing here with the canonical combination of 1) turncoat hippies (Jerry Rubin writ large!), 2) turncoat intellectuals (geez, finally give a dorky kid a decent job and he turns all Ayn Rand on you), and 3) people who drank so much that they now vote based on who they would like to have a beer with?

No. And therein lies the poor, or perhaps intentionally misleading (!) science.

The survey claims to report a characteristic of a group (fans of these bands), based on a study of a very select subgroup (people who listen to a certain type of radio station). And that subgroup is itself a subgroup of a very select group - people who listen to music on the radio at all. Ahh, an unrepresentative sample... science error numero uno!

We all know that many people have given up on music radio altogether. Witness the soaring popularity of IPODs, MP3 players, books on tape, and everything else. And when they do listen to the radio, Americans are tuning into NPR in record numbers, and also those 'shock jock' and 'morning zoo' type shows which aren't music. In fact, who even listens to music on the radio anymore?? I might even conclude that to still be listening regularly to music radio, especially in light of the Clear Channel consolidation where any format plays the same 30 songs off of a hard drive over and over, one must be an inherently conservative person. It is, afterall, an inherently conservative (and/or just plain stupid!) format.

So, if I were to guess, to generalize broadly, my group #1 is listening to NPR or occasionally dusting off their old albums, and my group #2 hasn't listened to music on the radio (or paid for a CD!) in about 10 years. That leaves elements of Group #3 remaining to respond to this survey.

So the proper conclusion from this survey is: "People who listen to 'Classic Rock' format radio stations are more likely to support McCain. The political leanings of fans of certain music is not determined."

I'm not holding my breath for a correction.

..........

Appendix:

It is not related to the poor science issue, but as long as I'm at it, I would like to examine how "Classic Rock" has actually ceased to denote an actual type of music. It used to mean what the authors claim it means above - "comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd." It was the genre of rock, often more arty, influenced by blues, folk, and country, that was distinct from metal, punk, alternative, or modern hard rock - all of which are fine in their own right. However, starting about 10 years ago, rock music from the 80s, such as U2 and Van Halen, became known as part of it. Then metal from the 80s and 90s was added. Today a 'Classic Rock' radio station will play as much Nirvana, Twisted Sister, and Ramones as it will Led Zepppelin. This reveals that 'Classic Rock' is not a genre of music, but just a marketing tool. It is white men ages 35 to 54. "Classic Rock" is nothing but a moving advertising window.

Obama's VP pick

Who should Obama pick as his Vice Presidential running-mate? It needs to be someone who fills in the real and perceived gaps in Obama's experience and persona. If you ask me, the ideal candidate would be:

1) A grey-haired white guy, to add gravitas
2) But still relatively young and handsome so as to further contrast with McCain
3) Someone with extensive military experience
4) But not just a soldier, it would be great if he were a military intellectual also (possibly a Rhodes scholar or something like that)
5) He should have foreign policy and diplomacy experience
6) After all of that, if he could be, or at least pull off, some kind of 'folksy' or vaguely Southern aspect, that would be good
7) But not the 'fake phony idiot' kind of Southern, ala Bush
8) It would be nice if he could be someone who has supported Hillary Clinton, so the pick would be seen as a gesture of reconciliation within the party
9) But not a fierce Clinton partisan who has been involved in all of the terrible behavior of late
10) It would be a bonus if he were from a state that Democrats aren't guaranteed but could pick up if he were on the ticket

Oh, if only there were someone like that! If only, lord, if only!

Oh wait, there is

Mark Penn: Loser and Faker

An analysis of the ideas of Mark Penn, serial campaign loser and Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, provides interesting insight into what has gone wrong with her tragic campaign, and with DLC-style strategy in general.

Personally, I first heard about Penn about a year ago when was being interviewed on the radio about his book Microtrends, in which he supposedly took a marketer's lens to demographic data and finely classified the American population into many distinct sub-cultural groups. This was relevant to his role as Clinton's chief campaign strategist: He was going to run her campaign as he had his others, and as the DLC-oriented always do - by identifying just the right combination of pools of 'swing' voters that can be then appealed to.

On the surface of it, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. After all, marketing, which lives by these methods, has evolved into a remarkably effective industry. However, when you mix ideology and marketing... you get another thing entirely.

One day while waiting in an airport I picked up a magazine that had a review of his book and brief synopsis of Penn's demographic groups. I think there were something like 64 of them, and as I read through the lot - "Archery moms" "Extreme Commuters" "Office Park Dads" "Caffeine Crazies" "Cougars" "Unisexuals" and so on - what ended up striking me was that I couldn't find myself or most of the people I'm close with. I was actually offended - you'd think with almost 70 groups he could find room for myself and my friends within the American family!

If he chose not to see or care about me, or my mom, or most my friends, then it must be that there are plenty of other people out there that also just don't register in Penn's published version of America. And that's the important point here... Fast forward to now and what do we have? The Clinton campaign is consistently shocked (!) (and appalled!) at the people that are voting for Obama.

You can see it most prominently in their constant dismissal of the Democrats in various (actually most) states. They are incensed that Democrats in the likes of Idaho and Colorado are getting a say in who the nominee is. These boutique states don't count! In fact, not only are they incensed, but somehow this campaign, in spite of employing multi-million dollar consultants like Penn, seems to have totally neglected from the start that the rules are unambiguous that Dems in these places definitely do get a say! Hillary had no presence in these states, allowing Obama to rack up huge delegate gains. It's like Penn just plain forgot they were out there (oops), even though the delegate math was available to anyone who was interested over two years ago! And now they are annoyingly getting in the way of Hillary's right to the nomination.

The same can be said of many of the demographic groups that seem to be Obama's base of support nationwide. I'm thinking in particular of younger people, singles without kids, and so on. Crucially and very tellingly, these are the groups most conspicuously absent from, or at least underrepresented in, Penn's analysis of American demographics. And lo and behold, these are the people who Hillary's campaign can't stand. They don't need a president, they need a feeling! Who are these under 40 non-working-class non-Hispanics? And why are they all of a sudden allowed to vote?!

So whether it's red and purple state democrats, or various Obama demographics, to Penn and his staff these people didn't matter going in, and they shouldn't matter now.

Penn's analysis, and the resulting method of campaigning, has been ruinous to Hillary Clinton, and with all of these insults, disastrous to Democrats as a whole.

Penn broke America down into what he wanted to see, and charged headlong into the campaign with that, to Hillary's great peril. And why would a supposed marketing genius do that, rather than accurately survey what's out there? I read an excellent theory Penn, and the DLC, as always, are wrong, corrupt, and a recipe for defeat.
here, the idea being that Penn's corporate ties, and the pro-corporate, pro-entrenched-interest orientation of the DLC as a whole, prevent them from appealing to a wider audience. Not only do they insist, election after election - unsuccessfully I might add - on trying to put together the same 50 + 1 Democratic coalition of swing voters (those "Archery Moms" and so on), because they are stupid, but they do it because they can't add other demographics and keep their pro-establishment bent. "Archery Moms" exist in Penn's world because some of them can be swayed by a pro-establishment DLC campaign, but single city-based people under 35 who are not independent filmmakers (for instance)... they're not really out there, or at least they don't count.

Penn, and the DLC, as always, are wrong, corrupt, and a recipe for defeat.

I used to think we had two great candidates

At one time I was more or less on the fence between Cinton and Obama. At one time I thought that that they would both make solid general election candidates and presidents. I almost voted for John Edwards in the California primary even though he had already dropped out - that's how much I thought Clinton and Obama were both pretty a-ok.

But now, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that Hillary is probably a complete disaster.

Who in their right mind, committed to a Democratic victory, would do, or allow her campaign to do, the things that have been done by the Clinton side in the past few weeks? Who in their right mind, committed to a Democratic victory, would feed John McCain golden sound bites and video clips to be used against a Democrat in the general election? Who in their right mind, committed to a Democratic victory, would consistently belittle large geographic swaths of the country, and, more importantly, necessary demographics of the Democratic coalition?

Hillary said twice in the past week that both she and McCain have proven they are "ready to lead," but Obama has "just has a speech." Way to make sure you star in John McCain's general election ads! Her campaign has constantly stated that the states that voted for Obama are 'not significant', and people who vote for Obama in primaries and caucuses "need feeling, not a president." The latest and greatest outrage is that her campaign actually used the "latte sipper" epithet in reference to Obama supporters .

Clinton's defenders believe that this is all 'just politics' and that the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, will have to do it so we better get used to it. That may actually be true. But my beef with this is not that it is politics, it is that it is poor politics.

It is a recipie for Democratic defeat!

The current Democratic coalition consists, in a broad generalization, of:

1) Working and middle class families who still vote their economic interests 2) Seniors who still vote their economic interests
3) Minorities
4) Rich liberals (eg. Hollywood)
5) Educated liberals / knowledge economy types
6) New voters

We can't win unless we have all of these groups on board, both with votes and contributions. By insulting Obama supporters, and especially insulting people in groups 5 and 6, her campaign is making Democratic defeat much more likely.

Worst of all, they are perpetuating the wedge that conservatives have used to divide Democrats for 35 years now! The working class against the professors - Karl Rove must be rubbing one out when he hears this stuff from an actual Democrat!

People have argued that it is elements of her campaign saying some of these things, and not Hillary herself. But guess what, if that's true and she can't keep her campaign from saying godawful stupid self-defeating things over and over, then we have a problem just as big. And the praising of McCain over Obama, that was definitely from Hillary herself.

So I am reluctantly forced to conclude that Hillary will do anything to win the primary, even if it makes Democratic defeat in November, whoever the nominee is, much more likely. And that is very unacceptable.

I used to like Hillary Clinton. She has had a great career, standing up for children and then being a new kind of first lady. I have always thought that she received such an unfair shake with all of the right wing vitriol over the years. But now she has worked hard to prove that she is absolutely unfit to be the Democratic nominee.

I'm educated, liberal, urban, mobile, and damn proud of it!

In a disappointing bit of tired conventional wisdom hackery, today's New York Times has an Op-Ed extolling the down-home virtues of contemporary country music. Surprisingly, this pointlessly shallow cultural exploration is not from David Brooks, but rather some guy named Kurt Campbell.

The piece is basically a rehash of the standard, tired old meme that Democrats/liberals/blue-staters are a bunch of silly snobs who are out of touch with the 'real' Americans and their more authentic culture.

Among other gems is this stunner:

"Country music – not jazz, hip hop or blues – is the most authentic and popular form of music in America today."

Popular maybe, but Authentic? Can he possibly be talking about the same contemporary country music that I hear on the radio - the one that is nothing but bubble gum diva pop very thinly and poorly disguised with a transparent veneer of twangy 'tude?

This ridiculousness got me thinking about this whole meme of 'authenticity.' I am sick and tired of the stupid yet widely accepted notion that only people with certain (often working class) values and lifestyles are 'real,' while the rest of us who live differently are silly, fake, ungrounded, and flighty.

If you stop to think about it, this meme is everywhere, and accepted in all quarters. It is perfectly acceptable in discourse at all levels, from political analysis to talk show banter to academic discourse, to throw around stereotypes of educated, urban, mobile people as "Volvo-driving, brie-cheese-eating elitists" as in the Op-Ed in question, or some other nonsense, whereas one cannot do such brazen attacks on other lifestyles. Imagine a columnist or guest on a political talk show lumping a demographic as 'Those inbred NASCAR-watching yokels in the country' or 'Those fake thugs and chickenheads in the ghetto.' It would never happen, but they can chuckle all they want about 'latte swillers.'

Just yesterday in the Times, David Brooks himself wrote, in an attempt to criticize the 'indie rock' genre of music:

"indie rock’s real wall is social; it’s the genre for the liberal-arts-college upper-middle class."

So what? Implicit here is the automatic assumption that because something is 'the genre for the liberal-arts-college upper-middle class' it is by definition of little value. I call BS on that - even if Brooks were right in his analysis (which he is of course not) the 'liberal-arts-college upper-middle class' is a viable sub-culture just as deserving of their forms of expression as anyone else.

In an example of how this pervades popular mass culture, how many cop movies do we have to see where a goofy middle class white guy gets paired with a cool black guy who over the course of the movie teaches him how to 'keep it real'? (for a funny send-up of this tired cinematic formula, look here)
Furthermore, it is almost taken as a given in our popular culture that educated people who move around a lot need to 'get off their high horse' and be taught valuable life lessons by the down home folks back home. Well, you know what, in my 29 years I've been all over the place and done and learned a hell of a lot, and they have at least as much to learn from me as I do from them.

This authenticity meme is not just incorrect, it is harmful and insulting. I am pretty sure it must originate from the bowels of the right wing, where they seek to divide and conquer the natural alliance of those that might oppose them. And just to demonstrate the complete logical bankruptcy of the argument, this notion is often promulgated by 'regular guy millionaires' like Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, Tim Russert, and, of course, the op-ed writers of the Times.

So I'm going to say it right here: I'm educated, I'm urban, I'm liberal, I've moved all around the country, and I'm damn real! I am never going to apologize for my lifestyle or sub-culture. In my life, I have forged amazing and profound friendships and relationships. I've had some great triumphs and some soul crushing disappointments. I've put in some amount of effort to go to a good college and then get a PhD. I've done everything I can to be informed, knowledgeable, well rounded, and to lead my life in a way consistent with my values, which are solid but are open to being shaped by my ongoing experiences. I've been in love and been lonely and been content and been fretful. I've stood on top of mountains, slept under stars, and buried loved ones. I've worked hard at times, I've played hard at times, and I've taken it easy at times. I have been proud of things I have done and regretful of things I've done. I've had to compromise with myself and others to get along in this world. In short, I've done everything 'authentic' that humans do in their lives, and the cultural outlets that I choose resonate with my experience, values, and interests. This is as real and authentic as it gets, and it doesn't, in my case, involve NASCAR, country music, R&B, marrying my high school sweetheart, or anything else that is, in the eyes of this meme, supposedly more real than what I've done.