Posts
I want to wish a happy holiday season to everyone who, well, celebrates a holiday at this time of year.
Unfortunately a recent spate of work has kept me from the blog for a while, so if you've been checking, stay tuned.
Recent Posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The GOP could win big in 2010...maybe
UPDATE: a version of this was posted to the Huffington Post. Please visit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-warners/gop-to-retake-house-in-20_b_306832.html
When House whip Eric Cantor said the GOP would win a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, I simply laughed out loud. Now, I am not a polling junkie or a professional political operative. This tells me that if reason dictates the GOP doesn't deserve that shot in 2010 it will be entirely due to playing political games of dubious merit that the GOP even stands a shot. Not that, you know, we should expect anything else given the current state of politics.
The GOP brand was recently polled quite badly. Pollster.com, run by the National Journal just posted an article showing dire straits for brand GOP:
Nevertheless, Cantor has insisted that people want to put some limits on the Obama administration's power, and on the power of Nancy Pelosi. But the main components of the Obama agenda are overwhelmingly popular. The Public Option has been overwhelmingly popular, the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions is popular, being able to take insurance with you when you change jobs is popular, etc. The only reason the bills under discussion hasn't been more robust is because of dissent within the Democratic party over their scope. Doesn't sound like the intense, scary government bogeyman with control that Cantor's trying to live-up. In fact I think the President will be able to make a more compelling case, that we had a discussion that Republicans decided largely to opt out of and a broad coalition of Democrats who spent a good amount of time haggling over even the broadest outlines of health reform. So as far as I'm concerned there isn't much if any merit to Cantor's argument.
But of course he's priming the media pump to generate the perception that his story may be plausible, which is step #1 to actually making it plausible. If nobody believes that the GOP has any fight in it for 2010, they'll put up fewer resources to finance the battles that would be necessary to beat a large number of Democrats. Indeed the GOP has a big enthusiasm problem, with a quarter-century low in the number of people self-identifying as Republicans.
So we're seeing two things. There's the current reality on the ground that the GOP is up you-know-what-creek with few prospective paddles, and the media reality where GOP leaders are trying to paint a picture of possibility for 2010.
Now, the question that follows is, To what extent to the GOP have to do anything substantive, as opposed to just changing tone and message, in order to get big gains? I think it depends.
Right now you see a lot of talk from a wide range of people concerned about the "fringe." This is for good reason. A while ago, the Department of Homeland Security warned of rising right-wing extremism. And a whole bunch of conservatives got offended. And then some crazy showed up and shot someone at the Holocaust Museum. Yeah, report vindicated. But I think the fact that the Glenn Becks and Michelle Bachmanns have generated so much noise actually presents a strong opportunity for people like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to take the spotlight by being minimally reasonable. In other words, by repudiating or at least dissociating themselves from the hardcore crazies, mere every-day crazy could be made to look normal and perfectly vote-for-able.
That of course depends on a number of factors, including the GOP leadership corralling its membership on board that particular Arc. Otherwise, the flood may not go the way Cantor says it's going to go.
When House whip Eric Cantor said the GOP would win a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, I simply laughed out loud. Now, I am not a polling junkie or a professional political operative. This tells me that if reason dictates the GOP doesn't deserve that shot in 2010 it will be entirely due to playing political games of dubious merit that the GOP even stands a shot. Not that, you know, we should expect anything else given the current state of politics.
The GOP brand was recently polled quite badly. Pollster.com, run by the National Journal just posted an article showing dire straits for brand GOP:
The overall finding is simple -- the GOP's standing relative to the Democrats on both measures is worse than any opposition party in the sample. For instance, the Pew data show that the Republicans are currently viewed more negatively than any minority party in the previous four midterms in terms of both net favorables and the difference in net favorables between parties
Nevertheless, Cantor has insisted that people want to put some limits on the Obama administration's power, and on the power of Nancy Pelosi. But the main components of the Obama agenda are overwhelmingly popular. The Public Option has been overwhelmingly popular, the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions is popular, being able to take insurance with you when you change jobs is popular, etc. The only reason the bills under discussion hasn't been more robust is because of dissent within the Democratic party over their scope. Doesn't sound like the intense, scary government bogeyman with control that Cantor's trying to live-up. In fact I think the President will be able to make a more compelling case, that we had a discussion that Republicans decided largely to opt out of and a broad coalition of Democrats who spent a good amount of time haggling over even the broadest outlines of health reform. So as far as I'm concerned there isn't much if any merit to Cantor's argument.
But of course he's priming the media pump to generate the perception that his story may be plausible, which is step #1 to actually making it plausible. If nobody believes that the GOP has any fight in it for 2010, they'll put up fewer resources to finance the battles that would be necessary to beat a large number of Democrats. Indeed the GOP has a big enthusiasm problem, with a quarter-century low in the number of people self-identifying as Republicans.
So we're seeing two things. There's the current reality on the ground that the GOP is up you-know-what-creek with few prospective paddles, and the media reality where GOP leaders are trying to paint a picture of possibility for 2010.
Now, the question that follows is, To what extent to the GOP have to do anything substantive, as opposed to just changing tone and message, in order to get big gains? I think it depends.
Right now you see a lot of talk from a wide range of people concerned about the "fringe." This is for good reason. A while ago, the Department of Homeland Security warned of rising right-wing extremism. And a whole bunch of conservatives got offended. And then some crazy showed up and shot someone at the Holocaust Museum. Yeah, report vindicated. But I think the fact that the Glenn Becks and Michelle Bachmanns have generated so much noise actually presents a strong opportunity for people like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to take the spotlight by being minimally reasonable. In other words, by repudiating or at least dissociating themselves from the hardcore crazies, mere every-day crazy could be made to look normal and perfectly vote-for-able.
That of course depends on a number of factors, including the GOP leadership corralling its membership on board that particular Arc. Otherwise, the flood may not go the way Cantor says it's going to go.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Why morganBlog?
On occasion I blog on the Huffington Post, but I've been feeling the need for a forum all my own to share thoughts with the world. Hence morganBlog. Everything I write for HuffPost will be linked to here, but I want to use this blog as a way to think things through, especially political issues.
Blogs are weird things. They can be forums for people to speak to the ether and thereby for self-reflection. For others blogs are sources of news that traditional outlets wouldn't report or are too slow to report. They can embrace multiple media simultaneously.
The impact of blogging on political discussion has been widely acknowledged for the way it levels the differences between the lone citizen armed with a few digital devices and a huge media empire. CNN has embraced this with its iReport concept.
But of course the shift is bigger than that. We have been freed to a large extent from the institutionalized delivery of news. We are much more literally consumers of news now. Outlets like the Huffington Post filter out stories that their constituency won't be interested in. It's not like this didn't happen before, but with an ever-wider range of sources for news we are freer than ever to ignore points of view we don't like.
Blogs have unleashed a contradictory set of forces therefore. On the one hand we're freer to consume news as we choose, and on the other, stories and perspectives we were less likely to hear before the advent of blogs has become more likely than ever, so long as we dig around the internet a little.
Making sense of the blogosphere entails, I think, participating in it actively. Not doing so means agreeing to be influenced by an online discussion between millions of participants that interfaces directly with more traditional media and their coverage, and also with politics and cultural developments. Political discourse helps construct and configure the symbols we see and attach to objects all around us. In that sense, blogs perform a political function recognized decades ago by political scientist Murray Edelman:
I won't be any more philosophical than to say the interface between virtual blogosphere discussion and real-world political and cultural effects is something of a false juxtaposition. Bloggers shape our experience of political symbols and I hope to occasionally expose some cracks in their "omnipotence."
morganBlog is my experiment in engaging online content for the sake of my self, my friends and family, and for the sake of understanding and influencing in some small ways how people think about contemporary issues. It may ultimately be more of a journal of my thinking and its evolution, and a kind of sketch pad for experiments in the world of New Media, but I hope that you find it interesting, informative, and occasionally provocative. Comment, share, tweet, re-tweet, post to facebook, share on Google reader. With a little dialogue between you and me this space could evolve into something interesting.
Blogs are weird things. They can be forums for people to speak to the ether and thereby for self-reflection. For others blogs are sources of news that traditional outlets wouldn't report or are too slow to report. They can embrace multiple media simultaneously.
The impact of blogging on political discussion has been widely acknowledged for the way it levels the differences between the lone citizen armed with a few digital devices and a huge media empire. CNN has embraced this with its iReport concept.
But of course the shift is bigger than that. We have been freed to a large extent from the institutionalized delivery of news. We are much more literally consumers of news now. Outlets like the Huffington Post filter out stories that their constituency won't be interested in. It's not like this didn't happen before, but with an ever-wider range of sources for news we are freer than ever to ignore points of view we don't like.
Blogs have unleashed a contradictory set of forces therefore. On the one hand we're freer to consume news as we choose, and on the other, stories and perspectives we were less likely to hear before the advent of blogs has become more likely than ever, so long as we dig around the internet a little.
Making sense of the blogosphere entails, I think, participating in it actively. Not doing so means agreeing to be influenced by an online discussion between millions of participants that interfaces directly with more traditional media and their coverage, and also with politics and cultural developments. Political discourse helps construct and configure the symbols we see and attach to objects all around us. In that sense, blogs perform a political function recognized decades ago by political scientist Murray Edelman:
Politics is for most of us a passing parade of abstract symbols, yet a parade which our experience teaches us to be a benevolent or malevolent force that can be close to omnipotent.
I won't be any more philosophical than to say the interface between virtual blogosphere discussion and real-world political and cultural effects is something of a false juxtaposition. Bloggers shape our experience of political symbols and I hope to occasionally expose some cracks in their "omnipotence."
morganBlog is my experiment in engaging online content for the sake of my self, my friends and family, and for the sake of understanding and influencing in some small ways how people think about contemporary issues. It may ultimately be more of a journal of my thinking and its evolution, and a kind of sketch pad for experiments in the world of New Media, but I hope that you find it interesting, informative, and occasionally provocative. Comment, share, tweet, re-tweet, post to facebook, share on Google reader. With a little dialogue between you and me this space could evolve into something interesting.
A Health Care Town Hall in Milton, MA
On 9/3 I attended a health care town hall in Milton, MA, hosted by Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D). Rather disappointingly he thought that holding a town hall also meant listening to lies about "death panels." It's one thing to accept that people are afraid of those things. But not to take the opportunity to inject some actual facts into discussions about such things struck me as irresponsible. Here are some views of the circus outside.
Reposted: Health Care Reform is the New Gay Marriage
Originally featured on the Huffington Post
I'm going to go out on a limb here. The Tea Baggers are not just a whole bunch of white racists, comments by Janeane Garofalo to the contrary.
I don't at all disagree that racism is a huge factor in all the outrage. Garofalo's point, that if these people were really just concerned about spending they would have been protesting George W. Bush's tax cuts and spending, has merit. Just look at this photo over at Politico.
But I think there's a broader, existential fear here and that racism is but one element of it. There are particularly American elements of this and others related to globalization.
Americans have long had an ambivalent relationship with government, going back to 1787 or even before. We have always contested its very makeup and responsibilities. Not all the colonists wanted independence, then we had the Articles of Confederation. Our Constitution is as much the product of compromise as consensus. The Supreme Court arguably invented its capacity to exercise judicial review. The Civil War pitted South and North against each other and set a fault line that has yet to disappear. Desegregation pitted the Feds against States. The governor of Texas now openly speaks of secession. Today's battle over health care reform and "government takeover" clearly relates -- the Governor's remarks came at one of the now infamous Tea Parties.
Today, the Tea Bagger movement displays new specific fears laid over a pastiche of classic American preoccupations. The race issue in the health care reform debate is, I think, more than just a signal of the unfinished business of racial reconciliation and justice. It is more than a battle over the proper role of government. It's a signal about the broader challenge of preparing an entire country to live in a modern world that departs in significant ways from real and percieved traditions and forms of the status quo.
Our quintessential American troubles regarding race and government meet a world that now easily penetrates the comfort of our local communities. Ironically, this permitted and incited conservative Christians, in reaction to the baudy 1960s, to organize via televangelists and direct-mail campaigns in the 1970s to launch Reagan into office, followed up by the two Bushes. Barack Obama used tools that did the same thing -- using our Facebook pages, our email accounts, our Blackberries and iPhones his campaign got people together in peoples' homes all around the country, gave conference calls to supporters.
Social issues seem to have functioned in much the same way. Gay marriage and our increasingly obvious interconnectedness present threats to traditions and ways of doing things that many of us, though not all of us, think should change. Who could have predicted the existential angst of those whose world seems so threatened by people of the same sex getting married? How could we explain that without recognizing some kind of fear finding its manifestation in an appeal to tradition? In that regard, health reform is the new gay marriage.
The Tea Baggers aren't just a rowdy mob of racists. Their behavior, like that of Joe Wilson, can't simply be explained as racism, even though that's clearly a factor.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-warners/health-care-reform-is-the_b_286103.html
I'm going to go out on a limb here. The Tea Baggers are not just a whole bunch of white racists, comments by Janeane Garofalo to the contrary.
I don't at all disagree that racism is a huge factor in all the outrage. Garofalo's point, that if these people were really just concerned about spending they would have been protesting George W. Bush's tax cuts and spending, has merit. Just look at this photo over at Politico.
But I think there's a broader, existential fear here and that racism is but one element of it. There are particularly American elements of this and others related to globalization.
Americans have long had an ambivalent relationship with government, going back to 1787 or even before. We have always contested its very makeup and responsibilities. Not all the colonists wanted independence, then we had the Articles of Confederation. Our Constitution is as much the product of compromise as consensus. The Supreme Court arguably invented its capacity to exercise judicial review. The Civil War pitted South and North against each other and set a fault line that has yet to disappear. Desegregation pitted the Feds against States. The governor of Texas now openly speaks of secession. Today's battle over health care reform and "government takeover" clearly relates -- the Governor's remarks came at one of the now infamous Tea Parties.
Today, the Tea Bagger movement displays new specific fears laid over a pastiche of classic American preoccupations. The race issue in the health care reform debate is, I think, more than just a signal of the unfinished business of racial reconciliation and justice. It is more than a battle over the proper role of government. It's a signal about the broader challenge of preparing an entire country to live in a modern world that departs in significant ways from real and percieved traditions and forms of the status quo.
Our quintessential American troubles regarding race and government meet a world that now easily penetrates the comfort of our local communities. Ironically, this permitted and incited conservative Christians, in reaction to the baudy 1960s, to organize via televangelists and direct-mail campaigns in the 1970s to launch Reagan into office, followed up by the two Bushes. Barack Obama used tools that did the same thing -- using our Facebook pages, our email accounts, our Blackberries and iPhones his campaign got people together in peoples' homes all around the country, gave conference calls to supporters.
Social issues seem to have functioned in much the same way. Gay marriage and our increasingly obvious interconnectedness present threats to traditions and ways of doing things that many of us, though not all of us, think should change. Who could have predicted the existential angst of those whose world seems so threatened by people of the same sex getting married? How could we explain that without recognizing some kind of fear finding its manifestation in an appeal to tradition? In that regard, health reform is the new gay marriage.
The Tea Baggers aren't just a rowdy mob of racists. Their behavior, like that of Joe Wilson, can't simply be explained as racism, even though that's clearly a factor.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-warners/health-care-reform-is-the_b_286103.html
