Bring It On! Election 2008

With the 2008 presidential campaign in full swing, we are beginning to see each campaign initiate efforts to cast doubt on the opposition. As the primaries approach, candidates hasten their attempts to derail each other’s momentum in order to position themselves for the primaries as well as the general election.

Over the years, the methods and means utilized to achieve these goals have become far more negative. At the same time, the rhetoric and the rationale of each candidate has also become far more superficial. While it is easy to assail politicians for the current environment, one mustn’t ignore the fact that the voting public has lowered the bar…demanding less substance and accepting more hyperbole. Frankly, clever phrases and short sound bites work because voters have embraced the simplistic nature of partisan politics over the complexity of careful consideration.

Simultaneously, the passage of time tends to anesthetize us…enabling us to travel great distances without an understanding of where we began nor a recognition of where we’ve arrived. Such journeys are fraught with danger as they are journeys which often occur more by chance born of complacency than by choice derived from deliberation. The former tends to leave us tone deaf while the latter has the potential to launch a legion of luminaries. One is a series of steps in the sand; quickly washed away by the wind…the other is a map of measured marks; able to withstand the worst of storms.

One recent event illuminates the importance of remembering our roots and respecting the growth they so eloquently engender. As such, a tree provides an important metaphor…one which should remind us to look beyond the surface. Hence, we arrive at the substance of my musing. It is a mistake and a miscalculation to malign the absence of a flag pin on the lapel of Senator Obama. What’s not present on the surface likely tells us little about what lies beneath. To conclude otherwise negates our journey, ignores our roots, and darkens our destiny.

After completing the below graphic, I came across an article by Andrew Sullivan in which he points to a Wall Street Journal piece which was written by Peggy Noonan. While no fan of Noonan, her thoughts amplified my concerns with the criticism being directed at Senator Obama. Taken together, their thoughts provided the symmetry that can only come with the passage of time and an appreciation for what history can teach us about ourselves and the prospects of our future. I offer the following excerpts…first Noonan, then Sullivan.

From Peggy Noonan - The Wall Street Journal:

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he’s thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they’ll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he’s listening and not conscious of his expression. It’s a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I’ve noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I’m watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.

Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they’d agreed upon with staff. […]

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I’ve started to lean forward a little when he talks.

Mr. Obama is fortunate to have one with the grace and vigor of Ted Sorensen, John F. Kennedy’s great staffer and speechwriter, who told me this week, “I am supporting Obama.”

When I asked if his support was connected in any way to the idea of breaking away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush rotation, he said, “Above all, I believe this country needs change, and continuing the 20-year hold on the White House of the same two families is not my idea of change.”

The Bushes are winners; the Clintons are winners. We know this, they’ve won. The Bushes are wired into the Republican money-line system; the Clintons are wired into the Democratic money-line system. For a generation, two generations now, they have had the same dynamics in play, only their friends are on the blue team, not the red, or the red, not the blue.

Is this good for our democracy, this air of inevitability? Is it good in terms of how the world sees us, and how we see ourselves? Or is it something we want to break out of, like a trance?

From Andrew Sullivan - The Atlantic:

I don’t always agree with her [Noonan], but she represents for me that brand of blue-state conservatism that came of age in the Reagan era, one that was often Catholic (though not dogmatically so), repelled by the bile of the far left, respectful of religion and tradition but very much at ease with the modern world, often urban and ethnic, and very susceptible to the charm and rhetoric and deep seriousness of Reagan. I guess she reminds me of my mum and sister. These kinds of conservatives are meritocrats. They were much more Reagan than Bush. And they are deeply distrustful of dynasty and inheritance. They’re not country club Republicans. But they’re not Dobsonites either. And they don’t always vote for the party of the right.

I’ve been following him [Obama] for a while and got to interview him the other day for a forthcoming cover-piece in the Atlantic. He’s still a real human being, a commoner. She’s [Clinton] to the Manor wed. I don’t believe this race is over. I think it has barely begun.

Now it’s no secret that Noonan and Sullivan both despise Hillary Clinton…which should make one skeptical of their words with regard to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee. Moreover, Noonan may well be singing the merits of Obama as a result of her believing the GOP nominee stands a better chance to defeat him. On the other hand, I’ve found Sullivan to be more forthcoming so I doubt he would praise Obama just to undermine Clinton…though it is possible.

Regardless, both of them were Reaganites and see the former president as the last representation of a true conservative Republican. Truth be told, I suspect both of them believe George W. Bush squandered the Reagan legacy and will leave the GOP in a state of shambles…forced to grapple with its identity.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s problems have become part and parcel of America’s problem…a problem which has emerged under the tutelage of two families…a duality which has come to represent two distinct ideologies in a woefully divided nation.

In this dynamic, the nation and it’s citizenry is therefore more susceptible to the pitfalls discussed above. Consequently, as the two sides have jockeyed for dominance, the words of the war have continued to escalate…and to devolve into narrow black and white arguments intended to mobilize the combatant constituencies. Success has become an equation dependent upon division.

As I think about the assault triggered by what isn’t on Senator Obama’s lapel, I can’t help but think back to Ronald Reagan. In saying as much, I am not suggesting that President Reagan’s policies were palatable to all Americans…they weren’t. Notwithstanding, his approach to the political process…the means by which a president must govern in a two party nation…was in many ways functionally superior to what has now emerged at this juncture in the Bush and Clinton years.

When Ronald Reagan stated that he didn’t wear his religion on his sleeve, he established a necessary barrier between political practicality and ideological intransigence…a move that arguably served both the president and the nation. In so doing, he also set a tone of moderation…one which has subsequently evaporated. Just the opposite is now the norm. Not only has politics moved away from moderation…moderation has become synonymous with capitulation to those on different sides of the political spectrum.

The nation that took Ronald Reagan at his word without demanding sacramental symbols…because it was brave enough to believe that his deeds would speak even louder…has seemingly lost its way. In the intervening years, emblems have become evidence of authenticity while reasonability has become the signature of insincerity.

If one endeavors to understand the statement of Barack Obama with regard to not wearing a flag pin on his lapel…and does so by first looking backward to Ronald Reagan and then coming forward to the present…he was, like Ronald Reagan, attempting to place substance ahead of superficiality…an action meant to suggest that living one’s patriotism is preferential to dangling it as a badge. Further, he undoubtedly believes that love of country cannot be reduced to acts of symbolism…that it must be an ongoing set of actions meant to advance the nation; not just the political aspirations of one candidate or one party.

If we hope to reconnect with that which has steadfastly sustained us, integrity must emerge, sanctimony must surrender, and rancor must retreat. Ronald Reagan once said, “Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation.” I’m afraid that before we can begin to do so again, we may first have to recommit to using what already sits atop our shoulders. If we do, perhaps we’ll learn to look beyond each other’s lapels.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Hey here’s a novel twist - a Republican who pledges no new taxes during an election. Amazingly daring position for Mitt Romney to stake out yesterday. In Romney’s own words:

For years, conservative candidates for president signed their name on the dotted line, pledging to oppose tax increases,” Romney says in the ad that’s set to hit airwaves in the crucial primary state Friday. “I’m proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The others have not.

Can one of these guys sign a balanced budget pledge? Or maybe a how to finance a government realistically pledge? I’d like my child not to be even more in arrears to China thank you very much Mr. Romney. And please spare me the part about cutting out big wasteful programs like Social Security (needed), Medicaid (needed) and Medicare (if you don’t think it’s needed, ask yourself who will provide your health care when you retire. It won’t be your employer.) to balance the budget. It isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to happen any more than we are going to cut military spending.

Of course, Romney had more to say. He thinks your money is your money

“We’ve got to get taxes down. And grow our economy,” Romney adds. “I believe it’s not fair that you have to pay taxes when you earn your money, when you save your money and when you die.”

True, like most Republican’s they only think it’s fair that you pay taxes on the money you work for, not the money you get from your Trust Fund (Paris Hilton I’m looking at you) or your dead Grandpappy. Nope, only the money you actually get off your ass and go to work for should be taxed.

What I believe is not fair is the incredible dishonesty of Republican candidates who refuse to address the budget seriously. Candidates who refuse to count the whole deficit (the war funding, the borrowing against the Social Security Trust, etc) and present that to the American People. Candidates who won’t show how much money they had to borrow to support their pet projects (war, fraud and corporate welfare) and how the economy is still teetering on another recession because of it. That’s what I think is unfair.

I think it’s also the height of unfair that they don’t explain to Americans how the Chinese economy is growing at double digit rates in large part thanks to our overspending. All those “tax cuts” were paid for by our Asian “friends.” How about Mitt just be honest and say that the tax cut you get now (or won’t get since very few of you are rich enough to notice) helps fuel the offshoring of your job later. Hooray!

That’s the pledge Mitt Romney signed folks. No new taxes doesn’t mean anything if you aren’t making enough to pay them. Now that doesn’t seem very fair to me at all.

During the 2004 presidential election, much was made of John Kerry’s statement, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it”. The remark was said to be evidence that the Senator was a flip-flopper…although one could clearly argue that the Senator simply used questionable language to explain his reasons for voting for one bill and not the other due to the provisions contained in each bill. In the end, the GOP succeeded in depicting the Senator as a flip-flopper.

In my opinion, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts and current GOP presidential candidate, by comparison, provides a text book representation of a flip-flopper…one who has been willing to change his positions on social issues as if it were no more significant than the simple act of changing his socks. Romney has suddenly become a social conservative whose values are now magically aligned with those evangelical voters who form a significant segment of the GOP base.

The following video was just released by the Log Cabin Republicans…an organization of gays who remain members of the GOP despite the fact that the party platform advances positions to their detriment. In the video, Romney espouses his support for abortion rights, the upholding of Roe v. Wade, and opposition to the NRA. Romney has also been supportive of gay rights. The following is from a letter he wrote to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans.

“As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Ted Kennedy].”

“I am not unaware of my opponents considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”

Now I’ve spent years listening to the GOP assail Massachusetts’ liberals…particularly Ted Kennedy…and if Mitt Romney feels he would be better suited to serve the interests of gays and lesbians in Massachusetts than Ted Kennedy, just what does that make Mitt? Did I miss our sudden entry into a Seinfeld episode of the “Bizarro World”…or is it possible that Mitt Romney has simply never met a position he didn’t take? I’m betting on the latter.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Total hat tip to Courant for this one. This, my friends, is the official logo for the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, complete with prison stripes and a wide stance. It’s like Christmas came early. The fact that the elephant is blue instead of red is just icing on the cake.

I have a new theory…one that crystallized after reading Glen Greenwald’s latest offering at Salon.com. My hypothesis is that the election of Rudi Giuliani as the next president would simply be a continuance of a phenomenon which I have chosen to call “The Impotence Equation”. Before detailing the substance of my argument, a review of the Greenwald article is warranted.

Greenwald’s piece discusses the attacks he has endured in the aftermath of his thoughts about the growing anti-Muslim sentiment which seems to have emerged in the aftermath of 9/11. Greenwald refers his readers to the constant chatter by right wing bloggers about the evils of Islam and the threat they perceive is posed by this seemingly diabolical belief system.

As Greenwald aptly points out, any effort to refute the polemic beliefs of those consumed by their hatred of all things Islam is met with unbridled and unabashed attacks. These assaults are launched with a certainty…a belief that they embody every aspect of right versus wrong, good versus evil. Shades of gray do not exist and those who suggests otherwise are often assailed as unpatriotic, treasonous cowards who lack the good sense to identify the clear and present danger.

In fact, many of the individuals who are preoccupied with their dislike of Islam exhibit an indignation reminiscent of an older sibling…one who believes he or she is being forced to protect their younger, more naive family members from threats which they may not yet recognize…leaving them vulnerable to victimization and in need of oversight.

Greenwald then pivots; attempting to provide the reader with an understanding of this mind set…a set of beliefs that seem to be the connecting point for these individuals who exhibit a hypersensitivity to the evils of Islam. Greenwald posits that these traits represent the hallmark of neoconservatism. He points to a recent article by Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic, the blogging of Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson, and the past writings of Norman Podhoretz (perhaps the founding father of neoconservatism and currently an advisor to Rudi Giuliani) to support his contention. The following excerpts form the basis of his argument.

Bombing and killing Muslims is the only path for avoiding the humiliating scenarios which our nation’s war cheerleaders carry around obsessively in their heads, and which are currently filling my inbox. They’re not going to be the ones on their knees, begging. They’re not going to be the “faggots.” Instead, they are going to send others off to fight and bomb and occupy and kill and thereby show who is strong and tough and feel protected.

In his excellent and well-documented book “The Wimp Factor,” Psychology Professor Stephen Ducat reviews clinical studies which demonstrate that many men “are more likely to experience a vicarious boost in their own sense of power and potency when American military forces attack, and especially when they defeat, an enemy.” Neoconservative war tracts almost invariably are suffuse with explicit warnings about submission and humiliation.

There will never be enough bombings and sending others off to start new wars that will erase those feelings. But Podhoretz and his bloodthirsty followers — including his combat-avoiding protegee Rudy Giuliani — will never stop trying.

Now onto my own thoughts. First, an important caveat. While I have a background in psychology, I am not offering my opinion as a psychological thesis; rather my comments are the observations of an individual who has long been fascinated with human behavior and has sought to identify the traits that come to define certain personality types and the motivations that underlie them. Such efforts possess the natural flaws of generalization…yet they often serve to instruct and inform.

As I’ve watched Rudi Giuliani, I’m convinced that a number of defining traits have emerged…traits that place him in the neoconservative arena and which begin to paint a picture of a man who fits the profile put forth by Greenwald.

Life is an interesting process…and in that process we’re all running away from some things and we’re also running towards others. Understanding those motivations is essential to understanding ourselves as well as those we encounter. This basic concept can be easily applied to Rudi Giuliani.

Giuliani’s background isn’t dissimilar from that of many Italian’s who found themselves living in the United States in the middle of the prior century. Life was a struggle for his family and his father’s checkered past likely served as the backdrop for Giuliani’s drive and determination…leading to a desire to separate himself from his father’s indiscretions as well as to make amends for them.

In that construct, Giuliani’s primary understanding of fear was undoubtedly defined…and it likely had at it’s origin a need to avoid humiliating scenarios which had the potential to damage one’s ego. Giuliani’s assertive and abrasive style may well be traceable to his fundamental years…that period of time which likely included his awareness of how his father and other family members may have been perceived in the community.

His flirting with the priesthood and his subsequent immersion into law school and a career as a prosecutor support the argument that his actions were evidence of what he ran from and what he ran towards…in order to expunge the fears that accompanied his early years.

On the one hand, the humility and contrition of the priesthood seemed appealing and a means to atone…and on the other hand, a career as a prosecutor and a man of law and order offered the means to rise above…to not only distance oneself from the unacceptable past but to confront and defeat it. I contend that the former would have left Giuliani burdened with guilt and the need for forgiveness, while the latter would allow him to place blame and punish…a far more fulfilling elixir for fundamental fears.

Unfortunately, our primordial fears are the most persistent and they may well cast a shadow over the remainder of our lives. As we follow Rudi’s life, the evidence of their ongoing influence seems to emerge. Giuliani, like many Italians of his era, chose to embrace the safety of familiarity…going so far as to marry his second cousin…a woman who no doubt shared in the family history which created his fears and therefore spared him the risk of exposure which may have accompanied more distant associations and involvements.

Predictably, as Giuliani’s career advanced, his need for safety and the security provided by ethnic and familial kinship began to wane. With the acceptance of a position in the Attorney Generals office in Washington DC, Giuliani began to sever these ties…leading to the end of his first marriage as well as the beginning of his second relationship…with a woman far removed from his roots, Donna Hanover.

Notwithstanding, Giuliani sought an annulment of his first marriage; arguing that the couple had erred in assuming they were third cousins. Since they were in fact second cousins…a status allowed but frowned upon at the time…the church granted the request. In so doing, Rudi was able to wash away the nagging fears presented by a failed marriage…fears that lessened the distance between that which he had been and that which he sought to be.

Still plagued by the need to manipulate perceptions, Giuliani subsequently married his second wife…in the Catholic Church…a move that preserved his identity as a man of faith in the good graces of his chosen religion.

As Giuliani’s career progressed, so too did his willingness to venture beyond the prison of his fears. In fact, during his tenure as mayor of New York, Giuliani became so bold as to conduct extramarital affairs…making little effort to conceal their existence. As it played out, Giuliani and his second wife held separate press conferences to announce the end of their marriage. Giuliani’s revelation came after it was already widely known that he no longer lived with his wife in the Gracie Mansion and that he was involved with Judith Nathan, the woman who would eventually become his third wife.

In perhaps the ultimate of ironies, during the divorce proceedings with his second wife, Giuliani’s attorneys made note of his impotence…a condition precipitated by his battle with prostate cancer. Strangely, the filing sought to detail the fact that Giuliani and Nathan hadn’t engaged in sex for over a year…a move viewed by many as an effort to define a significant relationship between Nathan and Giuliani…one that was more than a conventional affair.

I argue that the move is further evidence of the fears that continued to nag Giuliani as well as his need to create a favorable public persona…one that could no longer be tied to that which he sought to deny.

While it is a widely held belief that Giuliani withdrew from the New York Senate race as a result of his prostate cancer, I remain unconvinced. Clearly I cannot prove otherwise, but if my theory is correct, the fears surrounding his messy divorce and what may have been revealed by his angry second wife and those familiar with the details played a larger role. I contend he withdrew in response to the fears that plague him…fears that would not allow him to accept the negative attributions that would most probably result.

As obtuse and offensive as this may sound, 9/11 was a stroke of good fortune for Giuliani. The mayor who had reconciled himself to serve out the remainder of his term and retreat to a life with his new wife was suddenly thrust into the limelight and he performed admirably in handling the situation and the attention.

Suddenly, his then current regressive period…one that could be compared with the time he spent weighing the merits of the priesthood versus a career in law…provided a moment of renewal and the opportunity to replicate the feelings that accompanied his days as a prosecutor…days that allowed him to focus on those guilty of egregious acts while relegating his own fears and doubts to a position of obscurity.

Further, the magnitude of 9/11 was far more significant for the nation and for the Mayor. Frankly, one would be hard pressed to identify an event that could create more distance between Giuliani and whatever valid or perceived fears he still held. In that regard, perhaps nothing better offsets fears which manifest in the ego than an opportunity to play the role of a hero…and Giuliani must be given credit for his fine performance.

The events of 9/11 may have changed the dynamic surrounding the Mayor and his professional circumstances, but there is no reason to believe that it significantly altered the core identity of Rudi Giuliani. Yes, the man that was able to augment his own persistent doubts years ago by choosing to attend law school and become a prosecutor is the same man who took the reigns following 9/11. Notwithstanding, the man who followed his career as a prosecutor with episodes of ego induced impotence is the same man who emerged from the events of 9/11. To assume otherwise is to ignore the wisdom of history.

Even worse, the psychological parallels which can be drawn between the life of George Bush and Rudi Giuliani are frightening. I contend that both men are prone to compensation…a process whereby their own innate fears and impotence are masked by making choices they believe…consciously or sub-consciously…may augment each man’s chronically challenged self-concept.

Rudi may be better spoken and better educated than George Bush…but with men so similarly susceptible…such attributes may only amplify the opportunities for him to draw America into activities which serve his neediness…all the while eroding what remains of the respect we have commanded by electing leaders who possess the capacity to not only see past their individual needs…but embody the empathy essential to enable and enact actions that serve the greater good of the entire world community.

Further, I fear that Rudi Giuliani exhibits even more of the bravado which has become the Bush administration’s foreign policy concept of “Cowboy Diplomacy”…a propensity to paint the problems which plaque us with a broad and arbitrary brush…one that is couched in certainty despite a deficit of details…one that removes repressed feelings of emasculation and which engenders feelings of empowerment.

Sadly, 9/11 has unlocked an analogous mechanism for many Americans with which to address their feelings of inadequacy…feelings that feed upon those opportunities that allow us to focus our frustrations upon the failings of others while fully ignoring or acknowledging our own flaws. America’s answers and our own individual aspirations will not be achieved through the arbitrary assassination of all things alien. America must not only defend and protect itself from outside threats; it must commit itself to addressing our own internal, individual, and often implacable ailments.

America can ill-afford another president plagued by a history of reacting to deep seated and persistent fears…fears which have a fragile and frequently impotent ego at their core. Just as George Bush embraced 9/11 as an opportunity to mask his own recurring feelings of inadequacy…feelings that are best suppressed when one is able to point to and punish others believed to be far worse…so too will Rudi Giuliani. Balance is not the mainstay of these men. They are prone to compensations which address their own feelings of impotence while ignoring other more obvious and objective realities.

Any presidential candidate who cannot see the error in taking phone calls from his wife while in the middle of a speech is not a man who should have his finger on any trigger. The pathology which leads a man to view his taking of a phone call from his wife in such circumstances as evidence of his virility and proof of his potency is a man caught in the throws of an insufficient ego and the talons of a woman who has mastered the art of playing him like a fiddling fool. Americans must not place our fate in the hands of another human who is hamstrung by his insatiable search for hero status.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater