Trump the Roman Leader - Sacrifice is For Suckers

With Trump's on-going attack on dead John McCain last weekend one thing is clear: the GOP has officially become the anti-sacrifice party.

Trump's criticism of McCain for his failure to thank him for the funeral Trump "authorized" is another instance of Trump's lack of civility. It's worse than that, though.

I used to marvel that the GOP who readily called on soldiers to make the ultimate sacrifice of a life for the country were so outraged that they might be called on to pay 40% tax rate on income over $250,000 rather than 35%. "You're upset about sacrificing another 5% of your income over a quarter of a million but think it both natural and good to sacrifice a life for one's country?" I wondered.

Well, apparently the GOP heard that and decided that I was right. But they resolved that in a direction I hadn't predicted. They continue to believe that only suckers pay taxes and now also believe that only suckers go to war to be shot or captured. Accused of not paying taxes, Trump claimed "That makes me smart." Questioned about his criticism of John McCain, Trump said that McCain was not a hero. "I like people who weren't captured," he said, casually dismissing POWs as people we should respect.

Frans de Waal has written extensively about our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos. Terry Gross interviewed him recently and here's a fascinating excerpt about alpha males within chimpanzee communities. I suspect that group support for leaders in human societies is not that different.

The alpha male has many duties. ... A good alpha male breaks up fights and defends the underdog — not the winners, usually, but the losers. And the alpha male also is the consoler in chief, [who] goes to individuals after a fight to console the ones who have lost and sit with them and groom with them and hold them and things like that. And so the consoler-in-chief role is extremely important, and an alpha male who is good at that, he is also usually kept in power for longer.
In a chimpanzee society, [there are] always ... challengers to the top male. And it's almost as if the group is waiting [to see] if the male is a bully [or if] they don't like him. ... If it's a good alpha male who keeps order and is protective and is not abusive, then they try to keep that male in power.

And curiously, the chimps are considered violent in contrast to the bonobos and yet this matter of empathy is so crucial to their acceptance of leadership. In this sense, a chimp troop is probably more developed than is the US right now.

What has happened to the Republican Party under Trump? They have made official the position of contempt for sacrifice for others. Trump is less anti-Christ than pre-Christ, a man whose morality is very Roman. For him the question of morality is a question of what one can get away with, his sense of civic duty defined by a quest for power rather than any sense of service. Greed is good and sacrifice is for suckers.

John McCain and What Might be Trump's Most Incredible Accomplishment

There were things I did not like about John McCain's politics. McCain and his buddy Lindsay Graham seemed intent on sending troops into every hot spot around the world. He gave us Sarah Palin, helping to move us towards candidates whose major qualification is fame rather than understanding. (He obviously regrets that. Palin was asked not to come to his funeral.)

There were things I did like about his politics. Most importantly, he pushed the Bush - Cheney administration away from torture; without him it's plausible that our official policy on torture would be no different from that of dozens of dictatorships around the world. 

Beyond politics, I'm not sure how you would dislike his person. A man who nobly stayed a prisoner of war for years rather than leave behind his fellow prisoners - a price that cost him, among other things, his ability to raise his arms above his head - is a man you can't help but respect.

He was an icon of the Republican Party and yet Trump attacked him.

Even though he was not running against McCain in the primaries, Donald Trump went out of his way to say that McCain was not a war hero. "I like people who weren't captured," said the man who claimed that his own personal Vietnam was avoiding sexually transmitted diseases at Club 54 in the 80s and who avoided being drafted into Vietnam because of "bone spurs." Trump made more than one enemy with that comment.

Trump has also - repeatedly - shown disrespect towards all the former Republican presidents named George Bush.

Here's Trump's remarkable achievement. To side with him, you have to side against both living, former Republican presidents and one of the party's most iconic figures and former candidate for president in John McCain. He has repeatedly shown contempt for those men. They have repeatedly made clear their disdain for him.

Trump has forced his supporters to choose between him and *

• American prisoners of war
• a gold star family (a family who has lost a child in combat)
• every living former Republican president
• the FBI
• his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions
• the American Intelligence community (which includes the CIA)
• Economists who argue for multi-lateral trade agreements like the WTO, TPP, and NAFTA (which includes the overwhelming majority of economists)
• the Editorial boards on 100 of the nation's top 102 newspapers (of the two newspapers that endorsed him for president, one was owned by Jared Kushner, his son-in-law)
• iconic conservative voices like George Will, David Frum, and David Brooks

And Trump has succeeded in this. Republicans have sided with him over all these opponents to his policy and person.

In spite of making enemies of every living Republican candidate for president and every former Republican president, Trump's approval rating among Republicans stays close to 90%.

Based on this, I think it is safe to say that no president has - in my lifetime - changed a party more. Republicans not only love him but are willing to side against so much of what past Republicans have sided with to do that. Most recently they have happily joined with him in his contempt for McCain. (40% of Republicans disapprove of McCain.) To redefine a party that much is an incredible accomplishment.

----------------------------

* And of course as time goes on, the list of people Trump supporters have to side against grows. His former allies who have turned against him immediately end up on his enemies list. His former lawyer and confident Michael Cohen and former adviser Omarosa Manigault are just the most recent of the people who his supporters had to once revere and now disrespect.

The Difference Between Experts and Expectorate

"McCain was in communication with Bernanke and Paulson, too, but to less useful effect. In one exchange with the Fed chairman, McCain compared the causes of the crisis to some recent management troubles at Home Depot. It's kind of like that, isn't it? he asked Bernanke. No, it's not, a flabbergasted Bernanke replied.
[p. 381 of Game Change by Heilemann and Haperin]

When even the man who came close to becoming president doesn't understand the difference between macro and microeconomics*, I suppose I ought not to be so dismayed by what we see among the talking heads and the general public. Of course there is nothing unique about the dismissal of economic experts. The public has rejected the claims of experts from domains as varied as astronomy (well, now that we have pictures we accept the notion that we're hurtling through space at high speeds in spite of the fact that our hair is not blowing back every time we stand outside), climate change, evolution and medicine.

Perhaps in the future, we'll have a series of questions one has to answer about what best we know. It seems probable that we'll know more and better in the future and some of that will refute what best we know now. But I have little respect for people who reject the claims of experts until they can first explain those claims. If you understand current science and theories on these topics and THEN choose to reject them, good enough. Your rejection I can accept. If the only thing you know about what the experts assert is that they are wrong, whatever you're expressing doesn't really even qualify as an opinion: it might just be gas or, well, expectorate.

So, what about a new phase of democracy? We make people take a driver's test before they can get a license and yet bad policy is more dangerous than bad driving. Perhaps we ought to give out different levels of voting license to our representatives in Congress. On some things, anyone can vote. On other issues, one needs a special license. And again, you don't even have to agree with the conventional wisdom - you just have to understand it.

The making of policy is wonderfully public. This is good. Or can be, if the public and their politicians knew when they didn't know. Sadly, too many take Palin's approach.

"Palin was waging a persistent internal crusade to reverse one of the [McCain] campaign's major strategic decisions. ... When her traveling chief of staff, Andrew Smith, pointed out to her that McCain, Schmidt, and Davis had reached their conclusion on the basis of complex calculations involving the polls and the budget, Palin simply shrugged and uttered one of her signature phrases: 'I know what I know what I know.'"
[p. 409 of Game Change by Heilemann and Haperin]

One of my favorite thinkers, W. Edwards Deming, said you could trust a man who knows his limitations. It seems that we could say the same thing about a polity and its media and representatives.

* The difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics is this simple: when Keynes helped to define macroeconomics he essentially said that the whole (the macro) economy has characteristics different from its parts (the microeconomy). Implied in this is the use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate or dampen demand but chronic deficits are no more essential to Keynesian economics than atomic bombs are to Einstein's theory of relativity. Keynesian economics does, however, suggest that regional, national, and even global economic policy will need to depend on something other than a laissez faire approach to economics or simply relying on agents within the economy to do what seems best from their perspective.

Report on the Senate, for the Senate, from within the Senate

After 23 years in the Senate, John McCain made this observation:

"I must say that I don't know what's happening here in this body, but I think it's wrong,"

I think that McCain's comment should be put onto t-shirts and given to freshman senators to wear as they sit through sessions.

Obama & McCain - What the Astrologers Say

The polls at fivethirtyeight.com predict an Obama win. According to them, Obama has a 96.3% chance of becoming president in early 2009.

But for those of you who don't trust polling data, there is something more convincing: excerpts from the horoscopes for Obama, McCain and their running mates for tomorrow.

Obama’s 4 Nov horoscope

You may be accepted as just the person for a particular job. If you have always been the follower, you may find yourself a leader today. As a leader, you could appoint a co-leader to help you plan and coordinate. Radical and inventive ideas hold the key to realizing your ambitions and advancing your status--a shake-up could be in the works. You draw emotional sustenance and a sense of security from friends who give you support. Your relationships and partnerships are very important to you. They are capable of transforming you at the most basic level. A time of real inner growth is encouraged through other people.

Biden's horoscope suggests that he might be working with the younger Obama on foreign policy issues. Biden's 4 November horoscope.

Your communication skills are energized this morning. Your timing should be perfect and those around you should find your responses are lively. Concerning relationships, you are entering a phase of emotional directness--one marked by powerful feelings. Emotional beginnings, a fresh start, perhaps the establishment of new habit patterns--make sure they are good ones, because they will set the tone for you for quite some time to come! This evening there is time to enjoy a favorite hobby. Rearranging, organizing and perhaps trading with someone that enjoys the same hobby will be part of this preoccupation. Doing something nice for a loved one makes you feel good about yourself this evening. This may involve helping a child with homework.

McCain's 4 Nov horoscope

Report any difficulties as you see them and ask for help to create a friendlier atmosphere. This may bring an end to the problem or at least ease the problem. Change happens and in time the situation will become non-existent. Working through problems seems to be the order of the day and hard to avoid. It is good you are understanding and can be helpful in the work place or at home.

It doesn't sound good for Sarah Palin either. She may be looking at a career change that includes tupperware or amway? (Of course, if McCain Palin pull off an upset, this working in your own home may take on a diferent sound.) Her 4 Nov horoscope

Ambition and achievement can be a tough path to follow. You win reward, recognition and authority through hard work and knowing the score; otherwise, you may wisely realize that someone hungrier and in the know will overtake you. Who owes what, who owns what and who decides what, are some of the major issues for you today. This could be a time of developing ideas for working out of your home. You have a deep yearning to express your talents and may feel that you are held back. Working in your own home would place you in the roll as your own boss. Talk to people that have a business in their home; go to conventions where home-based businesses are advertised. Careful--someone you work for or with could be a new customer

.

It is hard to construe this as anything but positive news for the Obama camp. And really, what could be more reliable?

That's Absurd! (Mere Blogger Takes on Would-be Leaders of the Free World)

The difference between Monty Python skits and political debates is that Monty Python was trying to be absurd.

It was utterly absurd when McCain and Obama were arguing with each other about who would provide the most in tax cuts. Next year’s deficit is projected to be as much as $1,000 billion (a trillion or a million million) and they are clamoring to cut taxes. Do they really think that we Americans are so stupid that we don’t realize that tax cuts that fuel deficits don’t make us better off? Or are they really that stupid? Can anyone pronounce “credit crisis?”

Obama had the good sense to talk about needed investments. Why Obama did not make more effort to distinguish between government spending and government investment is lost on me. The American people need to be reminded that things like the interstate highway system, the Internet, and the GI Bill were fabulous investments that more than paid for themselves. Today there are even more opportunities for such incredible investments – in everything from biology research and nanotechnology and alternative energy to transforming school systems to educate and train people able to work in such fields. And getting back to deficit spending, it was no coincidence that when deficits became surpluses in the 90s, investment and business formation boomed. Government borrowing squeezes out business borrowing. Can anyone pronounce “credit crisis?”

In an age of globalization, it is ridiculous to talk about ending reliance on foreign oil unless or until we end reliance on oil. The mix of oil we consume through free markets will always pretty much look like the mix of oil on global markets. Can anyone pronounce “credibility crisis?”

One of the odder proposals thrown out by McCain (almost as odd as his defense of the “drill baby drill” chant while claiming to be one of the early defenders of climate change initiatives) was his casual mention of a “troops to teaching” bill that would allow veterans to go right into teaching without needing those (and this said with a grimace) “credentials that they require in some states." So, having worn a uniform somehow exempts a person from the need to meet state teaching standards?

We spend the most per capita on education and health care and we rank near the bottom of the industrialized countries in measures like math and science and infant mortality. Obama’s solution to high expense and poor results in health care is more government. McCain’s solution to high expense and poor results in education is less government. I have no doubt that their plans will work.

Finally, the most absurd thing about the debate was how the first third of this debate seemed to be taken up with accusations and defense of character. This when the American people are watching a slow motion train wreck of America’s financial system, when 86% of Americans think that we’re on the wrong track. McCain seemed not to understand that the American people would be less interested in his hurt feelings than what he proposed to do to get the country back on the right track.

It seems as though McCain missed his opportunity to gain ground on Obama tonight. I am almost beginning to feel sorry for McCain, seeing various polls that suggest Obama led by 8 to 14 percent before the debate and that the percentage of undecided voters who thought he won tonight’s debate is nearly double those who thought McCain had won. But I’d much rather feel sorry for McCain than for the country that has already suffered under 8 years of Republican’s confident and cheery incompetence.

Strategy or Tactic? The Difference Between Obama & McCain

From Friday night's debate:

OBAMA: But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
...

MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

OBAMA: We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?

So the question is, do you want to elect a president who thinks that his strategy ought to begin with the question of how best to win a war or who thinks that his strategy ought to begin with the question of what – including war, investment in research into alternative energy, tax cuts, health care, etc. – is going to do the most to improve quality of life?

A president should not focus on the best strategy for educating the youth, extending longevity, enhancing the safety of pensions, or creating transportation solutions that minimize commuting time and carbon footprint. The president should focus on the best strategy – among these and various other options – for improving quality of life.

For Obama, the change in the approach to the Iraqi occupation is a tactic and the decision to make the world safer by invading Iraq is a strategy. For McCain, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq is a given and how best to do that is a strategy. McCain remains the good soldier. He is not, it would seem, running for president so much as Commander in Chief.

Bernie and the Bad Psychology of Republican Politics

Maddie's eyes had a twinkle as she poured the packets of sugar into her diet coke. "That Omama guy had better look out now," she said happily.

"Excuse me?" Bernard asked, looking confused as he touched his hearing aid.

"McCain has announced that he's putting on his campaign suspenders! He's getting serious now."

"Um," I offered hesitantly. "I think that you might have that wrong."

"Huh?" Maddie frowned. And then she followed my eyes to her glass and laughed. "Oh! This?" she waved the sugar packets. "I just add the sugar because they say that the artificial sweetener in diet coke is not good for you, so I add the natural stuff."

"No," I said. "John McCain suspended his campaign. There was no mention of a wardrobe malfunction or costume change."

"Although," Bernard drew himself up, running his thumbs through his own suspenders, "there is nothing wrong with suspenders."

"If you want people to know you were born before World War II," I mumbled. "But it might be time for someone in Washington to don a cape," I added.

Bernard leaned forward. "McCain's problem has nothing to do with his wardrobe. His is a psychological problem."

"What?" I asked, my attention momentarily diverted by the arrival of my Reuben sandwich.

"It's called all or nothing thinking," Bernard said. "I read about it. It is a cognitive disorder."

"You and your books!" Maddie said with a shake of her head.

Bernard gave her a look and continued. "This really happens. Some kid gets a B on her report card and suddenly, she thinks that she'll never get into medical school and since she can never be a doctor, she'll never find any career that interests her and since she has no future now she doesn't even want to go to school. It's called all or nothing thinking," Bernard said. "It is one of the worst kinds of distortions of reality, because reality is rarely so stark - a choice between bliss or your own personal purgatory."

"What does that have to do with the way John McCain dresses?" Maddie asked.

"Nothing!" Bernard said. "I'm talking about his speeches over the last couple of weeks. And Bush's speeches. Two weeks ago, the fundamentals are sound, everyone should just stop worrying and go shopping. This week, we're in a financial crisis. We have to pay $1.3 trillion to bailout out banks and brokers! You know how much that is? Out of 170 countries, $1.3 trillion would make you the 10th largest economy on the planet! Just smaller than Canada, just larger than Brazil and tied with France! Suddenly, we go from everything is fine to teetering on the edge of disaster?"

"So, you think that McCain's problem is psychological?"

"Yes! Those Republicans have nothing but contempt for subtlety, and yet life is always shades of gray."

"So why don't they just say so?" I ask, as it turns out, stupidly.

"Because the people who vote Republican don't want nuance, complexity or subtlety. They have no patience for it. They pay for the simplification of reality. That's why they put candidates in office - to assure them that life is predictable and makes sense."

"You are talking in circles again, Bernie." Maddie reached over to pat his hand and turned towards me. "Even when he was a kid we could never follow him. He could never make things simple. For him it was always layers of complexity."

"Reality is complex!" Bernard insisted.

"So you say, Bernie," Maddie tucked her head down and took another bite. "So you say."

-----
“The neurotic person distorts reality, makes demands upon it, imposes premature conceptualizations upon it, is afraid of the unknown and of novelty, is too much determined by his interpersonal needs to be a good reporter of reality, is too easily frightened, is too eager for other people’s approval, etc. It may be expected that as a culture improves, thereby improving the health of all its citizens, truth seeking should improve.”
- Abraham Maslow

Just the Facts

Why people have grown cynical about politics
A Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that much of the money collected by professional fundraisers does not get to charities. "Philanthropy watchdogs say fundraisers should never keep more than 35 cents on the dollar, but the Times found the overall average was 54 cents, and for missing children charities, fundraisers kept 86 cents. (Fundraisers for an organization called Citizens Against Government Waste kept 94 cents.)"

Which one of these candidates didn't know how many houses he owns?
Percentage change by 2012 in the after-tax income of the top 0.1 percent of the U.S. earners, under Barack Obama's tax plan: -5

Percentage change under John McCain's tax plan: +12


Why the government may have to buy $700 billion in bad mortgages:
Percentage change between 1989 and 2007 in the median price of an American single-family home: +130

Percentage change in the median down payment: +3.7

Well, okay - not just the facts:
And since I'm quoting from The Funny Times, here is the caption to a cartoon featuring a women talking to two smiling friends at a cafe: "My ideal man is kind, sensitive, intelligent, six-two, a hundred-eighty pounds, and made of solid milk chocolate."

Obama and McCain Unqualified to be CEO?

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of an $80 billion company, said that the presidential and vice presidential candidates competing to run a $3 trillion federal budget would not be qualified to be CEO. (Curiously, the market seems to have had a similar opinion about Fiorina. During her tenure, HP’s market value dropped in half. After she left in 2005, the stock rose by 224%)

My initial reaction to this was scorn for Fiorina. Here, I thought, is another CEO who actually believes her own compensation package. But then I woke up this morning to news of the bailout of AIG – something that will cost taxpayers $85 billion. It is true, I thought. Any president who could nod his head at that kind of a bill would not be able to run an $80 billion a year company.

Don't Games Usually Have Rules?

Those Republicans hate regulation. That hatred seems a little awkward to explain now that financial markets are teetering on the brink of economic catastrophe.

Conservatives more than anyone pointed out that it is ridiculous to have the referees play the game when they railed against socialist government that nationalized companies and industries. That is fine and good. But it is nearly as foolish to play a game with no referees.

McCain recently said that greed on Wall Street is the problem at the heart of the current financial market woes. That is just foolish. Greed is always there. We all want higher returns. People don’t cheat because they want to win – everyone wants to win but not everyone cheats. The problem on Wall Street is one of oversight and regulation. It should be simple: we don’t let the referees play and we don’t leave refereeing to the players. Anyone fan can tell you that competition is enhanced by good rules and fair officials. Enhanced, that is, unless you like it when your golf tournaments look like ultimate fighting matches.

Social Distortion

An old friend (Tim, who has recently begun reading and commenting) sent me an interesting email, listing some suggested reasons as to why Obama is slipping in the polls. It seems intelligent and well reasoned and might even be right. It could be, though, that there is a simpler reason: this is the same country that twice elected George Bush.

Scott (commenting as LSD) pointed me to a Camille Paglia essay at Salon. An excerpt:

Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let's turn the damned page.

We finally have a woman VP candidate and a black presidential candidate. Obama was raised in Hawaii, Palin in Alaska. Apparently there were no qualified blacks or women in the lower 48. Who knew we were looking in the wrong place all this time?

Since 2001, the percentage of Americans believing that humans are causing climate change has dropped by 4%. Dropped. Meanwhile, in the last century the average length of a heat wave in Western Europe has doubled.

By 2007, 41% of Americans believed that it was Saddam Hussein, not Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11. Worse, 85% of service personnel in Iraq believed that the US mission was mainly to retaliate for 9-11.

Fighting the Viet Cong in the Middle East

This morning, thousands of San Diegans are discussing how the Chargers could have won yesterday. Two weeks in a row, the Chargers would have won if games were only two minutes shorter.

But the Chargers are 0-2. The “could have won” sentiment is very real but largely irrelevant.

This month’s Atlantic reports that the biggest proponents of staying the course in Iraq are those who think that we could have won in Vietnam. We could have won, I suppose. The Nazis could have won World War 2.

And had we won in Vietnam, what would have been different today? Would Asia have been saved from the dominoes of communism and instead be a hotbed of capitalist activity – even places like communist China?

Why did Americans lose interest in supporting a decades-long war in southeast Asia? Because sometimes it matters less what you could do than what you ought to do. Could we eventually “win” in Iraq? Could be. You could keep that job but lose your family life. You could buy that car but not afford a vacation for the next five years. The real question is whether this victory is worth pursuing at the cost of sustained deficit spending and loss of life. Would our foreign policy be better served by investing $100 billion a year in Iraq or into research on alternative energy?

It is worth remembering that Osama bin Laden never thought he could topple the American government directly; he did, however, think that he could get us to over-react in ways that would seriously weaken our country (driving deficit spending, for instance, that could strain our financial markets) like when an immune system turns on itself in an allergic reaction.

Could we win in Iraq during the next century, as McCain proposes? Perhaps, assuming that we have nothing better to do with our time, attention, and resources between now and 2100. And assuming that the focus on "winning" over there doesn't mean that we lose here at home.

Just Say "NO!" to Same Sex Presidencies

What follows are excerpts of an exchange of emails with my friend Damon. In fact, given that we both blog, you might even call us "e-males."

Damon:
I’ve decided that since I dislike both Obama and McCain….
I’m voting for Sarah Palin.

Ron:
I just like the fact that McCain is offering such a stark contrast to the same-sex ticket of Obama - Biden, giving us voters the choice of a heterosexual couple.

Damon:
I agree! The presidency should be between a man and a woman. And I’m all for a constitutional amendment that keeps same-sex presidencies out of the White House!

Just some random thoughts at end of week

We now live in a world where the fastest man is named Bolt. It’s as if the folks at Marvel or DC Comics have taken over from Newton and Einstein, tired of simply defining blockbuster movies they are now defining our reality.

In Cancun, one of the guides asked us what the difference was between Miami and Cancun. The answer? In Cancun they speak English.

I’m delighted that Obama chose Biden as his running mate, but I have to take a shot. The good news is that Obama actually has someone old enough to offer adult supervision to his campaign and administration, to enforce things like a curfew, for instance. The bad news is that Biden is too old to stay up late enough to find out whether Obama actually observes the curfew. I shouldn't joke, though. This could not have been easy for Obama who, in order to balance the ticket, had to find an older white guy active in politics.

My notion that women in their forties and fifties are in the prime of life has gotten two more confirmations. 50 year old Madonna has launched her new tour dancing like someone half her age and 41 year-old Dara Torres is swimming away from Beijing with three silver medals. Minds as interesting as any 60 year old’s and bodies as able as any 20 year old’s. If that isn’t the prime of life I’m unclear on the concept.

My favorite quote regarding McCain’s need this week to check with his staff on the number of homes he owns.
"The number of Americans who do not know how many houses they own is so small they could probably fit in a golf cart."
- John Dickerson, at Slate

What is worse, McCain’s resident blogger has twice ridiculed the “pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd.” One commentator writes, “the McCain campaign has inadvertently woken an angry nerd army.” I hardly know whether to chuckle or wince at the thought of a swarm of dice-throwing pale and angry men shaking their fists at the former POW who would be president.

And yet, McCain has recently gained on Obama in the polls.



Finally, for those of you wondering about all the effect of mingling all those amazingly fit bodies together in one place at the Olympics, you may want to read Matthew Seyd’s article, Sex and the Olympic City, in The Times. The Greeks loved the physical and their Olympics were a celebration of the body. Apparently, modern athletes continue this tradition and sex between athletes is rampant within the Olympic Village.

Good Soldier

A good soldier is like a good gun. He doesn't ask questions about where he is pointed, he just moves in that direction. A leader, by contrast, is all about asking questions - ensuring that the gun is pointed in the right direction and extremely hesitant to ever pull the trigger. You don't want a soldier who debates for months about following orders. You do want a leader who knows when to debate for months about issuing orders.

McCain's criticism of Obama's opposition to the war shows that he's not ready to be a leader. If Obama were running for general, it would be fair to criticize him for questioning our need to go to war in the first place. He is not. Obama is running for president. As such, he should be completely willing to question any use of our soldiers.

McCain, by contrast, has not seemed to show himself able to question the war. If he were still in the military, this would be admirable (I guess). Given that he's asking us to make him president, this just makes him scary. He might be a good soldier. There is nothing about his stance on the war that suggests that he'd be a good president.

Inflation, Politics, and Trans Fats

It didn't look like inflation when the stock and home prices were going up. Now that commodity prices like fuel and foods are going up, it does. I guess it just sounds funny to say, "stocks rose today as price inflation hit Wall Street."

McCain was criticizing Obama for talking about the Middle East without visiting. Now that Obama actually visited the region to great media fanfare and warm reception, McCain is criticizing him for taking the trip. There seems to be no pleasing those opposition candidates.

In California, trans fats are now illegal and (medical) marijuana is not. I'm sure this is not the only way in which our state is different from Alabama but right now it seems like one of the more obvious.

Who Are These Swing Voters and Why Are McCain and Obama so Eager to Distance Themselves From Them?

The latest political game reminds me of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. "Today, Obama's priest said ..." "Yesterday, McCain's advisor said ..."

The candidates have learned not to go off script, realizing that one gaffe could define them to swing voters (defined as people who spend 7 minutes or less on politics every 4 years) and spoil their chances. Meanwhile, they are surrounded by a posse of advisors and donors about the size of the posse that follows a rap star (which is to say, a population roughly equal to Cleveland). These people - like Americans everywhere - occasionally speak their mind.

I guess the thing that I like best about it is how much attention all this gets. If a candidate is going to win this thing, they'll likely aim for at least 50.1% of the vote. This means that among their supporters will be some certifiable nut jobs. Genuine loonies. Complete whack jobs. In fact, these very people - prone to sprout nonsense like a toddler with Tourette’s - probably make up the swing vote. Which is to say, the candidates ought not to distance themselves from the members of their retinue who say stupid things; in fact, if they are serious about winning this thing, they need to embrace these people and say that such nonsense is welcome among their supporters.

Or, they could take it one step further and, like George W., they could actually be the spokesperson and representative for the gaffe-prone among us. How else to explain the fact that he was elected twice? And why wouldn't either McCain or Obama be eager for those very supporters who put George in the White House?

You Made It Rain! - No, You Made it Rain!

This might be my favorite headline of the week: "Obama, McCain try to pin economic woes on each other"

No wonder people eventually lose interest in elections. This is like two rivals to become tribal chieftan blaming each other for the latest hurricane or drought. To paraphrase Jeremy Bentham, "this is nonsense on stilts."

In a related story, Bob Dole blamed Bill Clinton for global warming and the otherwise inexplicable popularity of reality TV shows and Nicole Ritchie blamed Paris Hilton for the fact that plaids and stripes clash.

Heil Leader

Richard J. Evans writes in The New York Review of Books:

Almost as soon as the Nazis came to power in Germany, they made the greeting 'Heil Hitler!' a compulsory part of national life. Civil servants were legally obliged to sign documents with it, and anybody writing a letter to officialdom would have been well advised to do the same. Schoolteachers had to greet their classes with a 'Heil Hitler!,' raising their right arm stiffly in the 'German greeting' as they did so; train conductors had to use the greeting when they entered a compartment to collect tickets from passengers.

I can't help but wonder if we aren't doing something similar at this stage of elections.

The election is, for me, coming into the boring period. Gone is the plethora of choices that I found so interesting. Even when they weren't choices that I liked, I liked the fact that, for instance, the Republicans had such a wide variety of characters, I mean candidates, who represented very different segments of the American right.

But even worse than the sudden lack of variety is this deification stage of the election process. The right has to continually defend an old conservative who likes to pretend he is a maverick; the left has to defend a young liberal who likes to pretend he's led something before. These are real people and real choices (not even bad choices), but Obama and McCain are as far removed from flawless as the rest of us. And yet their supporters see fit to elevate their candidates, gather in circles around them, and then chant like primitive natives before the god of volcanoes.

"Modern politics is a chapter in the history of religion," John Gray writes in the opening line of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Sadly, it doesn't seem as though we have to put in place true despots to feel compelled to deify leaders. There is something more tribal or religious about this stage of elections than rational and open.

We carry our psychoses into every arena we play in - from family to business to community; I suppose that there is no reason that politics should be excluded from this weight. But does politics have to be based on such psychoses? It just seems to distract from the larger and more important question about what kind of world we want these leaders to help us to create.

I suspect that one of the reasons we do this is that if we could convince ourselves that these leaders really are omnipotent, we won't have to take responsibility for our world. And in this cycle - deification, disappointment, and vilification of leaders - we have the electoral process that never once forces communities to be accountable for creating the world that we all love to complain about.