Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts

25 August 2019

It's Time to Stop Pretending That Both Sides are Equal: Trump's Parade is Leading Backwards on Progress

From about 1830 to about 1900, the Democratic party was all madness and defense of the agricultural economy and the Republicans were the progressives. While Democrats were defending slavery, Republicans were figuring out capitalism. Now the Republican Party under Trump has gone full bore mad, fighting for the waning industrial economy the way Democrats once fought for the waning agricultural party. While Trump is fighting trade wars, Democrats are trying to figure out how to finance education and R-n-D for projects like global warming.

This divide between defending an old economy and trying to navigate a new one is why Democratic support is so high everywhere that the economy is strong and Republican support is so strong everywhere the economy is weak. (In the regions with the highest wages, Hillary Clinton won twice as many votes as Trump. (See below for details.)) Communities whose policies support the information economy are more prosperous than those still defending the industrial economy.

One of the many things absurd about this current battle between information and industrial economies is that rather than engage in a really great conversation about policies that better support an information or entrepreneurial economy and how to transition into the latter, we're debating something settled decades ago ... whether we should give preference to policies to support an information or an industrial economy. It is a complete waste of time to defend Trump's 1950s vision of the world and yet that is exactly what you have to do if you're a Republican. It's the political equivalent of selling rotary dial phones. There was no legitimate "both sides are equal" argument in 1870 and there is no both sides are equal argument today. 

Progress is heading in a particular direction and that's not the direction Trump is leading his parade.

-----------
The claim that the most prosperous areas voted most strongly against Trump's call to defend the industrial economy is based on facts. Among them is this fact: the 15 counties with the highest average weekly wages voted 2-to-1 for Clinton and against Trump.


The average vote for Clinton in these regions was 66% . (Details here.) 

07 September 2018

In Other News, Trump Still Has a Penis

This week Bob Woodward's new book Fear and an anonymous New York Times op-ed from a Trump administration official describes a president who is inexperienced but confident, stupid, impulsive, and amoral.

We knew all this before the 2016 election. This was treated as news this week but there is nothing new in these reports. It merely confirms what we've known since Trump came down the escalator to announce his campaign and to accuse Mexicans of being rapists and murderers. In spite of the hoopla surrounding this news, Trump's poll numbers barely moved. Americans know who he is.

What remains so absurdly sad is that given the choice between that and a woman who believed in public service, was incredibly intelligent, disciplined, and experienced .... we chose that. Clinton carefully thought through the consequences of choices; Trump doesn't even have the attention span to think through the choices, much less their consequence. And speaking of choices, given the choice of someone as qualified for the presidency as anyone in our lifetimes, we chose someone who is not qualified to be a mayor.

Hillary Clinton was unable to close the deal that so many thought was done. She won the popular vote by 3 million and came within 100,000 votes in the three states that would have put her over the top in the electoral vote. I can't help but think it is because she was lacking one simple thing that every previous president had: a penis. It was a close race. She lost by inches.

Trump is so many things but maybe the saddest thing is that he is a reminder that even 96 years after women were finally given the right to vote, even the worst man as candidate wins against a woman. Some time ago my son came home from class reporting that one of the students actually said, "I think that women should be treated equal to men. I just don't think that they should be in positions of authority over men."

In Clinton's book What Happened she has a chapter on being a woman in politics. That chapter alone should be required reading. At one point Clinton quotes Frances Perkins, the first woman to serve in the U.S. Cabinet, under FDR, who said, "The accusation that I'm a woman is incontrovertible." But women in politics is only slowly becoming normal. Clinton also writes, "Even the simple act of a woman standing up and speaking to a crowd is relatively new. Think about it: we know of only a handful of speeches by women before the latter half of the twentieth century, and those tend to be by women in extreme and desperate situations. Joan of Arc said a lot of interesting things before they burned her at the stake."

Social change seems to lie somewhere between the glacial pace of evolution and the still leisurely pace of personal development. We have so very far to go before the best kind of woman is able to beat the worst kind of man. We still weren't there in 2016.

Trump will be taught in future classes for so many reasons: the most pathetic may be to illustrate how resistant this country still was early in the 21st century to giving women power.

08 November 2016

Stunning Election Results from San Diego

Today I went into my wife's class and held an election for 23 second graders. 7 year olds, most of them. Everyone at this San Diego city school qualifies for free lunch. The class isn't all Hispanic. There are two African-Americans.

They were intrigued with the process. I let them choose between four candidates: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. We discussed each candidate. I made the argument for each one. (Jill Stein wants to protect the environment, air and water, etc.) We talked about voting and hard choices (broccoli vs. candy), etc. They had some good questions (What's the difference between government and the president?) And opinions. (Trump just wants to make the rich richer.) They certainly know who Trump and Clinton are.

They voted in private at their desk, checking a box next to the candidate and his / her picture and name before folding up their ballot and handing it in.

Johnson, Stein, and Trump had a three-way tie.
Clinton got every single vote.

Nate Silver might dismiss this as both irrelevant and statistically insignificant. I think it's an indication of the trouble Trump faces with Hispanics.

28 October 2016

Two More Events that Could Give Donald the Presidency

Trigger warning: if you don't want to contemplate a series of events that could put Trump in the White House, stop reading now.

Trigger promise: if you have friends who say that haunted houses and horror movies don't scare them, read them this. 

Major institutions of the federal government might just tip this election in Donald Trump's direction.

FBI Director Comey just announced that he was re-opening the the investigation into Clinton's emails. Nothing more may be revealed before 8 November but nothing more needs to be said for the right to have enough material to feed conspiracy theories and worst-case scenarios. The evening before Comey's announcement, Sean Hannity had a man on testifying about Hillary Clinton's wild sex parties. Who has this man? Former editor of the Weekly World News that had also reported on Hillary Clinton being shacked up with an alien. Illegal alien you ask? No, Actual space alien, complete with a photo. Seriously. Contrast that with an announcement by the head of the FBI and you can only imagine how far the media can run.

What else could happen?

Well, Tuesday and Wednesday - the 1st and 2nd of November - Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve Board governors will meet to decide on interest rates. She's clarified that she does not consider politics when making this decision and there is plenty of evidence that the governors are ready to vote for an interest rate hike. If they do raise rates, the market will very likely to go into a short term, but dramatic, fall. This just 6 days before the election.

That Friday - the 4th - the job numbers come out for October. It's perfectly reasonable to expect yet another positive but we're at a special point in the recovery. The unemployment rate is now at 5% and it's getting harder to find unemployed people to hire. If two years ago a healthy rate of job growth was about 200,000 jobs a month, it is now probably closer to 100,000. But jobs numbers fluctuate by at least 100,000 jobs a month so a smaller healthy number means a higher probability of hitting - or dropping below - zero. For the first time since 2010, we could have a negative jobs report. Just days before the election.

The FBI, the Fed, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics may all - in the course of just doing their job - provide just what Donald needs to prove that its God's will that he lead this great (again) country.

On its own, it's doubtful that Comey's investigation will make a big difference in her numbers; she'll perhaps lose 5 points of her current 60 point lead on Donald. (5 points in the probability of a win.)

The odds are bad that Janet Yellen will leave rates the same. I think she'll raise them and make the market fall. Given a Democrat is in the White House and Donald has been warning that the the Fed is artificially propping up the economy, this could drop Hillary's lead by another 5 points.

The odds are good - but not great - that October's job numbers will stay above zero but few people realize how absurd it is that it's stayed above zero two years longer than any previous period. You might say that a bad report is due.

Put it all together and you have decent odds that all of this will fall in place to seriously hurt Clinton.

Imagine a stock market fall and a negative numbers job reports added in to this media's penchant for drama and Donald's conviction that we're sitting atop an economic Armageddon. It could be enough to drive up levels of fear to the point that his support surges and Hillary Clinton's supporters freeze. It's been such an utterly unbelievable campaign that it's believable that it would end in yet another unbelievable turn. If all of this happens, Donald's odds of victory raise from the 20% (fivethirtyeight is now forecasting) to 35%, from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3. What might have been a landslide for Clinton could turn out to be a win for Trump by margins as small as W. Bush's 2000 victory over Gore.

Additionally, we don't know what Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin have in store for Clinton for the final days of the election. They've both made it clear that they want Trump and hate Clinton and that they have more emails to unveil. They might yet have an email that would do to Clinton's support what the 2005 Access Hollywood tape did to Trump's. In that case, it might just be a toss-up, an election that will be decided on the 15th of November with a recount rather than at 5 PM on election day.

To clarify, I don't think this particular sequence of events is high probability or that even if they do play out this way that it will give Trump the election. I do, however, think it's a route to victory that isn't given enough - or indeed, based on what I've seen - any consideration.

The smart money is still on Clinton but the dominoes are lined up for the most bizarre finish to this most bizarre election.

26 September 2016

Now That We've Convinced You That All Politicians Are Liars, We'd Like to Offer You the Best Liar - a Really Terrific Liar

Republicans: I'd like to borrow the country.
Democrats: Again? It didn't turn out so well last time when you borrowed it.
R: As if you're any better.
D: Well you did total the country, the global economy, and leave the Middle East in turmoil.
R: None of that was my fault.

Today - 26 September - Donald Trump leads in the polls.


I do think that one thing Republicans have succeeded in doing is in making cynicism about government seem like sophistication. "All politicians are liars" is a wonderful way to excuse the worst candidates from any responsibility. There is now an argument about whether it matters that a politician repeatedly lies. 

It is an odd place that we've come to. Trump lays out incoherent policy that thumbs its nose at the constitution, expert opinion, and common decency and gets a break because everyone says, "Well, he will never do that." Clinton lays out a coherent policy and gets criticized because, "She will never do that."

Good policy that comes from the same ideological (and literal) family tree as the policy that helped to make the 90s so prosperous is discounted because we can't trust what Clinton is saying. 

Why can't we trust Clinton? Because all politicians are liars.

Bad policy that is inspired by reaction to talk radio and Fox news is discounted because we can't trust what Trump is saying.

Why can't we trust Trump? Because all politicians are liars.

Given all politicians are liars, we don't have to do the hard work of actually thinking about the policy or so-called facts. Instead of using our brains we can just use our guts. 

---------------
Politifact tracks statements made by the candidates, rating them from "pants on fire" to "true." 13% of Clinton's statements earn either a "pants on fire" rating or a simple "false." 13%. Trump? It's 53%. Over half the statements he makes can't be trusted. 

07 June 2015

Will Hillary's Campaign Strategy Make the Country More Polarized?

Today's NY Times has an article about Hillary Clinton's probable strategy, written by Jonathon Martin and Maggie Haberman. Bill Clinton went after (and won) states like Kentucky whereas Barack Obama focused on fewer states with an agenda that had less broad-based appeal. It seems that Hillary will be more like Obama in this regards, focusing on rallying more liberal voters rather than appealing to more moderate swing voters. The fear is that Democrats in the neglected states will be less likely to win local elections and even the ones who do win a place in Congress are going to be less able to relate to the folks across the aisle. Which is to say, it could cause more gridlock, not less.

The quote that summarizes the thinking behind Hillary Clinton's strategy is here:

“The highest-premium voter in ’92 was a voter who would vote for one party some and for another party some,” said James Carville, Mr. Clinton’s chief strategist in 1992. “Now the highest-premium voter is somebody with a high probability to vote for you and low probability to turn out. That’s the golden list. And that’s a humongous change in basic strategic doctrine.”

The real question is whether this is a capitulation to the reality of a more polarized electorate or if it is just going to exacerbate this polarization. In either case, it seems like a reminder that Hillary is more pragmatic than idealistic, less about changing voters's minds than winning office.


20 May 2014

The Politics of Location

Politically, counties are becoming more sharply divided. Between 1976 and 2008, the percentage of counties where the Republican or Democratic presidential candidate won by 20 points or more doubled from roughly 25% to nearly 50%. Increasingly, we vote like our neighbors.

Curiously, this tendency doesn't just define us as conservative or liberal. It's finer tuned than that. In the primary election between Obama and Hillary Clinton - two senators with nearly identical voting records - half the voters lived in counties where Obama or Clinton won by landslides. We side with our neighbors on differences large or small.

It seems that politics is like fashion, food and accents: it has a distinctly regional flavor.

Facts above come from Bill Bishop's interesting book The Big Sort, Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing us Apart.

18 June 2009

Sex and Nudity in the News!

In local news, my wife Sandi's school is having Hawaiian Day tomorrow. All the kids are dressing up. I like the idea of giving other states a turn. How about Utah Day? I can picture the 8 year olds in white shirts, name tags, and neck ties going up to different classrooms and asking, "Have you thought about becoming a second grader?"

Hillary Clinton fell yesterday, breaking her elbow. Just a couple of weeks ago, Sonia Sotomayor fell and broke her ankle. Lesser bloggers would, in an "I'm not sexist but" tone, point out that politics at this level is perhaps a bit too rough for the ladies. I would like some acknowledgement for refraining such a cheap and easy shot.

Sirius XM radio now has an application for streaming 120 channels directly into the new iPhone. Sadly, though, listeners cannot get NASCAR radio in this version. Why does that strike me as something as relevant as McDonald's not offering wheat grass?

David Letterman told a joke that offended Sarah Palin. Now protesters are asking for him to resign. I think that should be the new standard for deciding whether or not a comedian has employment: do his jokes offend Sarah Palin?

In Iran, where citizens prove their society is less developed than ours by protesting a lack of democracy rather than protesting comedians' freedom of speech, they have a Supreme Leader. A Supreme leader sounds so much better than our Regular or Mid-grade leaders. And if Sarah is unable to get a position determining which comedians get work, maybe she could get a position on Iran’s Guardian Council.

The GOP continues with its outreach program, doing what it can to attract minorities by showing a fun sense of humor.
"Wednesday, flanked by members of the NAACP, Columbia GOP activist Rusty DePass apologized for the Facebook remark that likened first lady Michelle Obama’s ancestors to an escaped Riverbanks Zoo gorilla. On Tuesday, Mike Green, an employee with Lexington GOP consulting firm Starboard Communications apologized for an online joke about President Barack Obama taxing aspirin 'because it’s white and it works.'"
One can almost picture GOP leaders frantic to understand blacks watching rap videos for clues about the right things to say and do.

[Okay. I admit it. There was neither sex nor nudity mentioned in this post but I was shamelessly trying to get your attention.]

13 January 2009

Clinton Seeks "Smart Power" Middle East Strategy

AP – 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton
said Tuesday that she intends to revitalize the mission of diplomacy in American
foreign policy, calling for a "smart power" strategy in the Middle East and
implicitly criticizing the Bush administration for having downgraded the role of
arms control.

Clinton seeks smart power? This, apparently, in contrast to Condoleezza Rice's dumb power in the Middle East? Or is that dumb luck?

In any case, I can only guess that Cheney is cursing in some undisclosed location. "Smart power! Why didn't we think of that?" Turns and looks accusingly at George, "But no. You had to continually resort to the dumb power."

Smart power. Wow. Sounds pretty much infallible. Kind of like compassionate conservative. I guess the days of Middle East conflicts are over. I can hardly wait.

08 December 2008

The Gore Kennedy al-Qaeda Conspiracy as Reported in the Tribune

The Democrats' most visible expert on environmental issues is flying to Chicago to advise the president-elect on his Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Secretary appointments. Unless Gore has found a way to fly there in a cape, I am not sure how this is news.

-----

As the world becomes more complex, brands have more value. In theory, we make rational decisions based on lots of information. In practice, we rely on familiar brands to sort through a sea of confusing variables. (Caroline) Kennedy may be replacing (Hillary) Clinton as the junior Senator from New York.

Or political dynasties could have nothing to do with brands and everything to do with our membership in the primate family: Jane Goodall might be able to explain political dynasties more readily than branding experts.

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

Tribune, publishers of newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and LA Times, has filed for bankruptcy. I've noticed of late that I don't have the patience for a newspaper for one simple reason: the mix of stories the editor chooses have little overlap with the mix I'd choose when on-line. As it turns out, the packaging of the stories into a "paper" is the part of publishing that has perhaps the least value. It is not just the fact that stories can be accessed by online users who don't subscribe - each of us can put together our own package of news, commentary, comedy, and borscht recipes without relying on the randomly overlapping interests of editors. Tribune is going to be just one in a string of casualties of this new hyper-customization of media unless they figure out how to facilitate this process rather than close their eyes and desperately wish it away.

-------------
Five members of al-Qaeda have entered a guilty plea. Apparently, they want a promotion from prisoner to martyr. Of course this is nonsense.

Those al-Qaeda guys could never manipulate a country as sophisticated as ours. Osama bin Laden had planned to lure the U.S. into wars it could not afford, destroying the country by enticing it into overextending itself financially, leading to economic ruin. Of course this is nonsense.

We are simply too sophisticated to be so easily manipulated.

02 May 2008

Are You Among the 100 Least Influenced?

Time announced the 100 most influential people. Topping the list is Shigeru Miyamoto. Second is Rain. If, like me, you've never heard these names, you may be among the world's 100 least influenced people. (Miyamoto is Nintendo’s game designer - creator of titles like Mario Brothers. Rain is a Korean pop singer whose influence might stem from the possibility that he may some day literally provoke the collapse of karaoke-loving Kim Jong Il, who I can imagine trying to imitate Rain's snappy dance moves.)

The list seems to support the contention that the hive mind found on the web is, in fact, programmed to spew out random results. A couple of years ago, a researcher in the UK wanted to find the world's funniest joke. Dave Barry heard about this and had his readers send in a variety of random joke set ups that all ended with the same punch line: "there is a weasel chomping on his privates." The research into the world's best joke was forever skewed by the overwhelmingly favorable response given to these jokes. I suspect that something similar might have happened in this poll. (And you are free to conclude that I’m denial about the degree to which I’m clueless about the outside world.)

What is weirder than Mike Huckabee finishing 9th? George W. Bush was ranked 158th - narrowly beating out China's president. Huckabee 9th? Heads of the world's richest and most populous nations are 158 and 159? And why couldn't they finish in the top 10? Well, Heidi Klum (4) and Tyra Banks (5) obviously wield more influence.

John McCain (56) might be pleased to have beaten out Tina Fey (57), but can't feel good knowing that the cast of High School Musical (55) wields more influence. (But at least he can commiserate with the Pope (59) and the Dalai Lama (207)). Yet even McCain has to feel better than poor Hillary Clinton (183), who finished behind Ho Ching (a person, not a verb), and Barack Obama (63), who ranked just above Madonna.

But if you are wondering who might finally win this Democratic primary, you should know this. None of the remaining candidates came close to Al Gore's 8th place finish among the most influential. Could this list of the most influential be predicting a last-minute upset? Or has traditional media like Time just completely given up on the pretence of relevance?

Maybe the first George Bush had it wrong. Perhaps it is not so much a new world order as a new world disorder. Because if this list makes sense, the new world does not.

03 March 2008

Newsweak

Pundits report the news before it happens and then authoritatively explain why it didn't happen as predicted. Hillary Clinton's campaign is over. So they say. They call themselves conventional wisdom and when they are wrong, they can all say, "We don't know how conventional wisdom could have been so wrong." When I get big, I'm not only going to talk about myself in the third person, but I'm going to refer to myself as some large and impersonal entity. ("Yes, dear, but conventional wisdom had been dead certain that you would love the real green dress.")

If you are willing to move to Kathmandu, there is an opening for a living goddess. It sounds like an interesting position, but I imagine that being the incarnation of Kali would leave one little room for personal self-expression.

Like an angry diner on a bad date cursing the waiter ("I did not order this heart break!"), the political machinery in Washington continues to try sending back the recession it did not order. But reality has its sense of humor, insisting that a prolonged recession is the perfect "cherry on top" for Bush's 8 years as leader of the free (for all) world. Proposing that his tax cuts be made permanent, Bush insisted that the problem was not government spending but was, rather, insisting that the government must pay as it goes.

It turns out that John McCain is "soft" on immigration because he is himself, an immigrant. John was born in Panama on a military base. Ralph Nader decried this as yet one more attempt by Republicans to eventually outsource every job in America.

The press has decided that they've lulled Barack Obama sufficiently that his expression of hurt surprise once they turn on him will make for priceless pictures and videos. Expect all favorable coverage to come to a sudden halt on Wednesday.

Crude oil prices continued their rise past $100 a barrel; sophisticated oil prices, by contrast, had already slipped past $150 a barrel months ago.

29 February 2008

Woman President? Not Yet

“I think that woman should be equal with men. I just don’t think that they should have positions of power over men.”
- Student in my son’s college class

The experts have begun to eulogize Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And I’m hesitant to make her campaign’s apparent demise mean anything because something had to be proven: either we would conclude that racism or sexism is still alive and well in the US. Someone had to lose. Obama is a great candidate, but he’s not flawless. Clinton is a flawed candidate, but she’s still great. It’s easy to say that she had the bad luck of running up against one of the best speakers in politics in years, but if Obama were running behind Clinton, similarly persuasive points could be made about why a candidacy as promising as his foundered.

Clinton is articulate and her view of the world is sophisticated. She talks like a politician at times, but we’ve had the good old boy approach of plan speech and simple thinking, so nuance ought not to automatically disqualify her. And while I acknowledge that she’s reviled by a wide swath of the polity, if that were enough to keep someone out of office, dubya would be clearing brush in Crawford. (Wait. Let me hold that image for a moment. Sigh. Back on topic.)

It’s hard to imagine that women will have a better shot at the presidency any time soon, and after 200+ years, they apparently still have not come up with a candidate worthy of the job. One wonders how long it’ll be before we join the 40+ countries that have already had female heads of state. (Among them Muslim countries like Indonesia and Pakistan.) It may well be that Clinton is not a good enough candidate and that she is, just coincidentally, one in a string of millions of women who just happen to be “not quite good enough” for the job.

There are many reasons that we have not had a woman president, but among them there seems to be a subtle one that intrigues me.

Women are used to putting the needs of others before their own. Blame (praise?) nurture or nature for this trait, but could it be that the edge to Obama is as simple as that? Women are better able to help others and might they have, once again, deferred their own agenda. Are women simply working to right racism before they deal with sexism?

Ben knew once he had opened the two sweaters that he’d better not wait. If he didn’t quickly put on one of the sweaters, his mother would be offended, assuming that he was unhappy with his Christmas present. As soon as he put on the one sweater, his mother wrung her hands. “Oh, Ben. The other sweater, you don’t like?”


I know that if Clinton wins, very similar arguments will be made about how racism is more deeply entrenched than sexism. But perhaps John Lennon was ahead on this as with so many topics. He and Yoko Ono were visiting some Black Panthers, talking about racism. Lennon was appalled at how casually demanding the men were of the women, ordering them about. This is what prompted him to write, “Women is the Nigger of the World.” Maybe he’s right. Maybe sexism is stronger even than racism. The Democratic primary suggests that this is still true.

09 January 2008

Pundits, Stories & Conspiracies


It had become a compulsion for me – dining with Bernard and Maddie. Perhaps it was because the clash between these two old siblings seemed like sublime proof of free will. These two had come from the same gene pool, were raised by the same parents in the same place and yet they had come to make sense of the world in such contrasting ways. Or, perhaps this was proof of destiny, so compelled did they seem to be who they were.

Bernard was disgusted. “These pundits all predicted Barak Obama would win. Once Hillary Clinton won instead, they explained her victory without even pausing to acknowledge that they can’t predict anything and so obviously don’t understand what’s going on. Prediction is the most basic proof of understanding,” Bernard concluded. “But these people are free from accountability. I want to be a pundit. Now that,” he paused, “is a sweet gig.”

“It’s like those mid day stock market headlines that are trying to track the bounce up and down and down and up and down again, making out like it all has meaning, even though anything they conclude at 10 AM will be rendered moot by 2 PM,” I added, trying to prove that I understood.

“Exactly,” Bernard agreed with me. “It’s like they’re excitedly reporting on the trajectory of a pinball or like kids trying to hum along with the radio that is tuned to static.”

Maddie said, “Well, the pundits just look foolish because they don’t know that this is all controlled anyway.”

“All controlled?” I stupidly asked.

“Yes. The Trilateral Commission decides who will become the new president. The election is just for show.”

“You think that democracy is a farce?” asked Bernard incredulously.

“You don’t have to use foul language,” Maddie chided. “But yes, I do think that democracy is just a drama made to distract people from how little control they actually have.”

Bernard and I were silent. Democracy as a distraction from control actually seemed, at some level, plausible. This was, for me, uncharted ground. I enjoyed Maddie’s company in no small part because she made me feel superior – something I was ashamed of the instant I realized it.

“You think that the whole thing is controlled,” asked Bernard.

“Well, obviously,” said Maddie.

He nodded. “We have a hunger for narrative. It started with a group of people huddled around a fire, afraid of the dark. They don’t know if they’ll be alive in the next instant. Someone begins to tell a story and they’re all transported. Suddenly, they think about tomorrow, they think about yesterday. Now their lives have a context – the invisible something that lets you see everything else. They have a narrative and now their lives make sense. Narrative made civilization. And to this day we’re wired to seek out stories.”

“And this has to do with conspiracy theories how?”

“Our need for narrative is stronger than our need for facts. We can’t take reality in its naked form – it is shapeless and void. ‘In the beginning was a great void, and then God spoke,’ Bernard said, loosely quoting Genesis. “Narrative made reality – before that it was a buzz of noise and confusion and temporality. We don’t want facts – we want a story.”

“So …”

“So people prefer to believe that their lives are controlled by conspiratorial cabals rather than dare to think that we live near the abyss of "things just happen," of random events that even the experts can’t predict or properly explain. The only honest thing the reporters of the elections and stock markets can say is, ‘Something happened today. We don’t really know why. Something new will happen tomorrow. It may or may not be like what happened today. As a matter of fact, we really haven’t a clue what is going on or what will happen next. Nobody does. We recommend that you liberally express your love and quickly eat your lunch because the next moment may not even arrive. We just don’t know”

“That sounds extreme,” I push back, but Bernard was on a roll.

“So we grasp for words and confuse syntax with synthesis of the facts, confuse coherent stories with coherent reality.”

“But reality always gets our attention sooner or later,” I say.

“Really? Do you know how many stories we consume in a day? We get reports at work. On the radio DJs are prattling on about celebrities. We watch movies and TV shows. We read books and articles. Listen when someone stops by our cubicle to tell us about their weekend. We’re story junkies. We can’t get enough. These writers out on strike, they’ve finally realized this. They want the money they should have for crafting the narratives that give our lives meaning – they are the modern myth makers. Our modern economy grinds to a halt without stories. No money from bankers without a good story. You don’t get elected unless you have a good story. You can’t win her heart unless you have a good story – or she provides one for you. She has to have something to tell her friends, and it’s a story. If they buy the story, they’re happy for her. If not, they advise her against making things serious with you.”

“I don’t know from stories,” Maddie said. "The Trilateral Commission chose Bill Clinton because they knew he’d pass NAFTA. It’s all a cabal.”

“What I said,” Bernard looked at me. “We love the idea of order and we’ll gladly trade reality for narrative. We’ll adopt conspiracy theories if they promise to make sense of our world, if they promise to add some structure to our lives.”

“You don’t have to talk like I’m not right here,” Maddie huffed. Suddenly, I felt for her. No wonder she so clung to her political fantasies. Growing up with a brother like Bernard, how could she not feel a desperate need for the very stories he so casually debunked? Who could take that much reality, really? At that instant, Maddie made sense to me. And for the first time, I envied her and her certainty. Bernard’s story about stories sounded good to me.

08 January 2008

Cynics Alert - Oddly Optimistic Blog Posting About America

Monday night, I flew into Washington National airport about 8 PM. The flight path sometimes goes right over the mall and I find the view inspiring every time. The monuments all lit up. The capitol dome behind Washington's monument. (Okay, Washington's monument is admittedly odd. Could we have erected a more phallic symbol to honor the father of our country?) The Jefferson Memorial aglow along the Potomac River. Then, as I drive south, I again see the beauty of the mall from another angle. It's a view that would have to inspire at least a temporary love of country in even the most jaded lobbyist.

This country is such a fabulously interesting experiment in social invention, such a brilliant bit of daring on the part of the founding fathers. And for all our kibitzing and whining about the way things are (I sometimes think that blogging is the equivalent of talking back to the TV), the results have been unpredictably spectacular.

When this country was founded, in the late 18th century, life expectancy was not even 30 years. Monarchs dictated even your beliefs. "All men were created equal" are among the most revolutionary words ever written.

Tonight, the pundits are analyzing Hillary's win over Barack Obama. Putting aside politics and who one would like to see win, I think that the Obama - Clinton victories are a beautiful thing. The Democrats are favored to win in the fall, so their primaries really do matter. And that a black won the first caucus and a woman the first primary is truly extraordinary.

It seems to give evidence to the claim that we are, indeed, still making progress. For the sake of your blood pressure, take a day to revel in this fact. This country was founded by idealists with a sense of urgency, possibility, and nearly inexplicable optimism. We've no reason to give up on that combination now. History is still being made and this is a fascinating time to be alive.

22 March 2007

In Defense of Hesitant Hillary

Various left-wing bloggers have taken a swing at Hillary and Barack for their hesitancy of late. When first asked whether she agreed with General Pace's comment that homosexuality was immoral, Hillary said "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." A day or two later, Hillary finally made her own conclusion, deciding that homosexuality is not immoral.

I have to confess that I initially joined in the disgust. Hillary's candidacy reminds me at time of Al Gore's - she often seems like a candidate who does not trust her own instincts and whether she is, as the cynics suggest, consulting her poll numbers before making up her mind or simply taking her time, the hesitancy seemed to me a liability.

And then I remembered something about the man we're so eager to send back home to Texas. One of the more remarkable things about his launch of the Iraq invasion is how little discussion preceded his decision. According to Bob Woodward, George did not even consult Colin Powell - his Secretary of State, the man who led the military against Saddam in the Gulf War. He merely told Powell that we were going in.

What if Hillary is a candidate who seems to realize that the decisions of a president are serious things and ought not to be rushed into based on initial "instincts?" We certainly could have used such an approach four or five years ago.