America: land of innovation, of the can-do spirit, of Yankee ingenuity.
Americans were the first people in the world to declare independence from an empire -- and get away with it. Americans dug the Erie Canal, reversed the flow of rivers, invented powered flight and the skyscraper, harnessed the power of the atom, sent men to the moon and brought them back alive. We supplied the world with an abundance of food and high-quality manufactured goods. We defeated fascism, take credit for having defeated communism, co-founded the United Nations, absorbed tens of millions of immigrants and made a single people out of many. We are one goddamn amazing country.
Or at any rate, we were. Something happened to us around 30 years ago. Suddenly, things seemed so awfully difficult. Preposterous, even. Reducing poverty? Building a 200-mpg automobile engine? Signing the Kyoto Protocols? Manufacturing consumer goods domestically? Fighting crime and terrorism without recklessly abrogating civil liberties? Forget it. It's too hard. Too inconvenient. Too unprofitable. Too much of a hassle. Or it might mean that we had to follow the same rules as every other country, that our specialness didn't render us exempt.
We've turned into Emo Nation, for crying out loud.
Unlike Barack Obama, I have no heartwarming story to tell about a grandfather or great-uncle who liberated the concentration camps of the Third Reich. My mother's father didn't fight in World War II: he was a machinist, needed on the homefront. My father's father did fight in World War II. An infantryman, he was stationed in Bulgaria, where he fought the Soviets . . . for the German army.
Ironically placed on MSNBC during Countdown, the ad, created by the even more ironically named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, depicts stereotypically overbearing labor unionists encroaching on a worker casting his ballot in an old-fashioned mechanical voting booth:
This thought came to me in a flash while watching Countdown; I'm not sure what triggered it, but it occurred while Keith Olbermann and Chuck Todd were talking about what Hillary Clinton would have to do to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
Suppose this isn't about Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination this year. Suppose it isn't about her setting herself up to win it in 2012. Suppose Clinton isn't even trying to keep Barack Obama from winning the presidency.
What if the whole point of Clinton's negative campaign against Obama is to dispel the magic? What if it's not to undermine his presidential bid, but to undermine his ability to change how Washington works once he wins?
Just because Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island and appears also to have won Texas after a spasm of negative campaigning, we shouldn't conclude, as Kos appears on the verge of doing, that Obama will have to go negative to win. This conclusion is based on another of a long string of misinterpretations of primary and caucus results, from tactical concerns and prejudicial demographics. Despite appearances, Obama's approach has worked for him; he did as well as he could have been expected to do in yesterday's contests, considering the social geography of the contested states.
Rep. Donald Brown (R) introduced a bill last week to create a "Confederate Heritage" license plate for the state. Saying "it would give motorists a way to show pride in their heritage," Brown proposes a $25 charge for motorists to purchase a plate with "a shield displaying the rebel battle flag symbol surrounded by several flags from the Civil War era." The money would benefit "educational programs run by Sons of Confederate Veterans," which considers the Civil War to be "the Second American Revolution."
(Princess Sparkle Pony created a few alternate designs for the plate, featuring a noose, a Klansman and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.)
Standing in line at the post office to buy stamps this morning, I saw something interesting: a display of computer software called PhotoStamps, priced at $19.95, that allows one to print one's own postage stamps, using one's own photographic images.
The mischief meter in my mind began pinging away madly.
As I've been watching the coverage of the primary and caucus results on MSNBC, I've been struck by a pattern in the outcomes, one that doesn't track women, African-Americans, blue-collar voters, senior citizens, college students, lattes, Priuses, Birkenstocks or trust funds.
I call this pattern "the stripes." And it harks back to the analysis of American geographical subcultures of David Hackett Fischer in his book Albion's Seed.
In my previous diary on this topic, I discussed how John Edwards' highland Southerner ("Borderer") background gave him strength as a general election candidate but would probably prevent him from winning the Democratic Party nomination; how Barack Obama's Midwestern roots and Quaker-like style gave him a strong geographic and cultural base across the heartland; and how Hillary Clinton's background, style and current office were somewhat at odds, weakening her despite her early advantages in the campaign. With Edwards out of the race, certain early patterns have become sharper, giving new grounds for speculation on the outcomes of the upcoming contests in Ohio and Texas.
This is the question that Hillary Clinton's campaign has been asking lately, implying that the answer is "Hillary Clinton" and not "Barack Obama." But looking at the way they've run their respective campaigns, I have to conclude not only that she's wrong, but that the more people think about it, the more the analogy will backfire on her.
In fact, the Clinton campaign bears more than a superficial resemblance to the Bush administration's Iraq strategy in its overconfidence and its failure to grasp how wars are won.
Today I took the time to read through Barack Obama's Blueprint for Change. Much of it I agree with wholeheartedly; some of it I agree with with reservations. There is one thing in it that bothers me, though, and it's a beef I have with manypoliticians, not just Obama. And that is the apotheosis of the "middle class," which I am not convinced is a useful category anymore.
Instead, I believe it's better to think in terms of four socioeconomic categories that reflect actual financial circumstances rather than social aspirations: poverty, subsistence, comfort and luxury.
"The line stretches a few more blocks that way," the volunteer cheerfully told me as I walked from the entrance of the Seaport World Trade Center in Boston along the line of Obama supporters queued up to get into tonight's rally.
It wasn't long before I realized she wasn't kidding. She had, in fact, underreported the situation.
The line went on for a few more blocks. And a few more. Then it turned a corner, went another block, turned again, doubled back on itself, crossed the harbor . . .
Lately we've been reading a lot about the purported media blackout on the candidacy of John Edwards. If true -- and to a large extent, I believe that it is -- it represents a harmful curtailing of the political dialogue, a snuffing out of potential futures, at a critical moment when we need as many paths toward restoration of democracy as we can get.
But suppose there were a more significant blackout going on: a blackout on an entire way of thinking about our economy. Suppose there existed a valid interpretation of economic forces and outcomes, one that explains our current situation, yet one that no one would acknowledge, even to knock down.
About 12 years ago I picked up Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life by Jane Jacobs (better known as the author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities) at a used bookstore in upstate New York. Jacobs wrote this book in 1983, in response the emergence of stagflation. As an informed and educated layperson, she examined economic history with a critical eye and an urbanist's heart, looking for the laws that explained what was going on -- which the economic theories of the time did not.
Many people seem surprised that Hillary Clinton won a plurality of votes in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, after Barack Obama's triumph in Iowa. I'm not sure why. Clinton's win was something of a foregone conclusion: she was the home-team candidate. I say this not in a literal geographical sense but rather looking through the filter of American regional culture, as set forth in the book Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. Viewing the Democratic presidential nomination as a contest among several different ways of being American, three things become apparent: First, that events are unfolding exactly the way one would expect them to; second, that the candidate with the best shot at winning big in the general election is, in all likelihood, John Edwards; and third, that because of the makeup of the Democratic Party, he probably will not receive the nomination.
An open letter to Mickey Kaus, in response to his blog entry of this morning:
Matthew Yglesias displays the strenuous casuistry loyal Democrats will employ to avoid the need for any confrontation with teachers' unions on the question Steve Jobs recently raised--firing lousy teachers.
Summary: Yglesias argues that there aren't enough highly qualified teachers to fill positions in underperforming schools, because high-performing schools have hoovered them up. Kaus counters that you don't know until you get rid of bad teachers and see who applies for the newly open positions. My response to Kaus below the cut.
So far I'm running pretty strong, clinging to a spot between 10th and 14th among soi-disant Democrats. And my favorite other candidate is running first, so I can't complain about that. One thing I've noticed, though, is that Republicans in general are running stronger on the site than Democrats. I think U4Prez may have more conservative than liberal users. How about some Kossacks rush the site and alter the balance a bit? While you're there, please check out my profile and support my candidacy!
Blink, and you'll miss it. Hell, don't blink, and you'll still miss it, unless you were looking for it.
I'm one of those obsessive-compulsive nutjobs who does his taxes as soon as his last W-2 arrives in the mail. This afternoon I sat down over my 1040 form and found myself wondering what had happened to the deduction for educators' classroom expenses. As it turns out, this deduction was scheduled to expire after 2005, and when the forms were printed, there was still no word on whether it had been extended.
Well, it has been extended, but you'd never know it from looking at form 1040 -- or the accompanying instruction book.
This press release explains (sort of) what happened with the deduction, and this link shows you how to claim it.
My fellow teachers may use some of the 30-odd dollars they save to express their gratitude to me with delicious treats.
On U4Prez, actually, not in real life. But I've often wanted to toss my perspective into the marketplace of ideas and see whether it can remain standing after being shot full of holes, and this seems like an ideal arena for it.
