The main question about this upcoming Edwards press conference would seem to be how awful it’s going to be; I certainly hope fervently that the news will be more benign than seems likely. Even if Elizabeth is ill once again, I’m not sure that it will end John’s campaign–every family is different, of course, but I wouldn’t want my unfortunate hypothetical spouse to put off a pursuit of her dream job to care for me full-time almost no matter how sick I was (although a presidential campaign is evidently pretty sui generis in terms of the time it takes away from family.) Anyway, I’m not going to even think about how this will affect the race until we know about Elizabeth’s health. Let’s hope she’s well.
Author Page for Scott Lemieux
Where the Times went so wrong was that after it discovered there was, in fact, very little serious debate within the mainstream scientific community (i.e. “the middle ground”), the paper still plowed ahead with its controversial thesis and tried to fool its readers by suggesting, very high up in the story, that there were deep rifts among “rank and file” scientists — “the centrists,” as the newspaper called them. If that were true, the Times article, written by William Broad, would have been brimming with rank-and-file scientists questioning Gore’s facts. It was not.
Instead, as blogger David Roberts noted, the article had “all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo.” The article also had all the hallmarks of a journalist approaching a topic with an already confirmed belief and then working backwards trying to prove that point by selectively quoting sources.
The Times piece did prove that the newspaper was willing to cast a very wide net to locate sources with scientific affiliations who expressed doubts about An Inconvenient Truth. No offense, but if an emeritus professor from Western Washington University was the most prominent critic the Times could find (the prof’s the first person quoted in the Gore piece), I’m guessing Gore is on pretty solid footing. (Another critic prominently quoted by the Times isn’t even an environmental scientist.)
No offense intended to Dave’s alma mater, but that’s what you call manufacturing a controversy.
Shorter Verbatim Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser: “My favorite bumper sticker as of late is one that states, “Bumper Stickers Are Not the Answer.” I bought a bunch of them just because I thought it was funny. However, sometimes bumper stickers are the answer, they can tell you oodles about the person in front of you and warn you to avoid the person or just make you laugh. A good laugh is nothing to sneeze at and frankly, neither is an early warning system that tells you that the driver in front of you lacks critical thought, is emotionally fragile, or just has a wicked sense of humor when you see a bumper sticker that says something like this: “Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?”"
Um, I think this is one of those times when commentary is superfluous, except to say that I guess drawing broad psychological inferences based on bumper stickers might be slightly less unreliable than basing such inferences on someone’s socks.
As a follow-up to my post about Al Gore allegedly “squandering” the 2000 campaign, I thought it would be useful to take a look at Frank Rich’s analysis of the first debate (where Gore’s victory among viewers was esclipsed by Bush’s wins among the army of morons who covered it.) As Rich’s colleague Paul Krugman–who, unfashionably enough for a media pundit, actually cares about policy outcomes–was pointing out, it was also where Gore laid out a serious policy agenda while Bush systematically dissembled about his plan to piss away the surplus on upper-class tax cuts. How did Rich cover it?
Still, I wouldn’t have missed the debate for anything. Though it added exactly zero to our knowledge of either Al Gore or George W. Bush, it is a keeper for any time capsule of America 2000. At a cultural moment when many voters are forced constantly to make that hard choice between the Gap and Banana Republic, what is more apt than the spectacle of two princely boomers in identical outfits hypothesizing about how to spend a surplus of infinitely elastic trillions that both assume will last indefinitely?
Ha-ha, Gap and the Banana Republic, very droll! But did you hear the one about “Gush and Bore”? That’s a real knee-slapper! Anyway, I take the point; there’s really no difference between an accomplished center-left vice president and a not-very-bright guy who governed to the right of the Texas legislatures–after all, they both wear suits!
…what is more apt than the spectacle of two princely boomers in identical outfits hypothesizing about how to spend a surplus of infinitely elastic trillions that both assume will last indefinitely? Now that branding and marketing are the national ideology — and focus groups have a clout unmatched by labor unions or the religious right — what could be more fitting than a debate in which not a single word is uttered that hasn’t been pre-tested more rigorously than a McDonald’s breakfast sandwich rollout?
Jesus Christ, the whole goddamned point of the “lockbox” phrase you reliably make fun of later is that Gore doesn’t assume that the surplus will last forever. Almost as if, unlike his opponent, he actually knows what he’s talking about.
Though Mr. Bush is fond of boasting that he’s a man of principle, not ”polling and focus groups,” he was just as scripted as his opponent — no small feat. Mr. Gore’s hit parade of tested buzz words and phrases — ”middle class” (10 mentions), ”wealthiest 1 percent” (10), ”lockbox” (7) — was nearly matched by Mr. Bush’s Pavlovian references to bringing ”Republicans and Democrats” together (9) and ”fuzzy” math (4).
Wow, people actually prepare for debates and reiterate key themes in modern presidential campaigns. No kidding! But good that you repeated the narrative about Gore being “scripted.” Good boy.
OK, he does say something about Bush’s lies:
The moment came when Mr. Bush told a Gore-like whopper, fudging his previous stand in favor of trying to thwart the F.D.A.’s approval of RU-486, the abortion pill.
Bush told him one lie–which made him for a second just like that evil Al Gore, whose entirely fictious lies Rich has been hyping (and sometimes making up himself) for months!
And, the inevitable punchline:
Mr. Bush is still an entitled, hail-fellow-well-met American blueblood who has coasted through life with the right name and its attendant connections. Mr. Gore is still the overcalculating child of the expediencies of Washington, where no principle is written in stone for longer than a polling cycle.
Because you can recite cliched personality narratives about both candidates, see, what difference does it make who becomes president?
What a disgrace that people like this are hired to analyze politics in this country’s most presigious newspapers. (I think you can see why the Times thought it was a great idea to hire Ann Althouse for 5 columns.) Nothing rings hollower than the anti-war posturing of people like Rich and Dowd–few people worked harder to make it happen. Not out of principle, but because they’re vapid, self-satified clowns.
What do you mean we can’t punish oral sex just because it happens off-campus? Let’s install cameras! It will destroy our
precious bodily fluids educational mission!
The War On (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs has, among its many other problems, acted as an all-purpose Fourth Amendment destruction machine. The nation’s former Panty-Sniffer-in Chief proposes that we throw the First Amendment into the refuse heap while we’re at it:
Oral argument in Morse v. Frederick does reveal some of the worst aspects of sharing a bong. The first being paranoia. Because according to Kenneth Starr, former righteous independent counsel—now tanned Californian law-school dean—the fate of the drug wars depends upon the unconditional school message that drugs are bad, yet schools cannot enforce that message because smartass kids keep undermining them. Starr’s alternative (and if you ask me, far more paranoia-inducing) universe: Schools get limitless discretion to craft broad “educational missions” and are then free to squelch any student speech that “undermines” them.
The justices appear to loathe each alternative about equally. At some point, Justice Stephen Breyer groans that a ruling for the students would encourage them to be “testing limits all over the place in the high schools,” whereas a ruling for the schools would certainly end up limiting lots of speech.
Starr opens with the statement that “the glorification of the drug culture” is at stake here. He claims that schools, even under the broad standard laid out in the armband case, can’t necessarily limit political protest but may bar “disruptive speech.” This sets the court’s hippies off. Justice Anthony Kennedy: “There’s no classroom here.” Justice David Souter: “What did it disrupt on the sidewalk?”
Yes, it’s certainly not as if these restrictions are content-based restrictions of speech!
That middle paragraph is a little scary; I fear that we might be in for a Breyer swing opinion in which he upholds the policy but writes a “compromise” opinion emphasizing that a future violation of the First Amendment might be enough to shock his conscience or something.
Speaking of nominal supporters of gay rights and specious backlash arguments, you may remember that in the wake of the New Jersey civil unions ruling Glenn Reynolds said that “changes like this are better made through legislative than judicial means, and that this may well benefit the Republicans substantially in the coming elections.” So, what does he think about his preferred position on gun rights in D.C. being required by the courts rather than by democratically elected officials? He predicts a massive backlash if the Supreme Court defers to elected officials and upholds the law. Or what about Tom Maguire, who argued that “gay marriage or civil unions is fine if enacted by the state legislature but wrong if crammed down by judicial fiat.” Oddly, I haven’t seen any posts on his part hand-wringing about gun rights “being crammed down the throats of the people by judicial fiat,” but he has approvingly linked to a defense of the decision.
Of course, it is possible to agree with one decision and not the other for doctrinal reasons. But neither Reynolds nor Maguire disputed the legal reasoning of the New Jersey decision (and I’m going out on a limb and assuming that neither gentleman is an expert on New Jersey constitutional law). Rather, they simply made the a priori assumption that the gay marriage issue should be left to elected officials, regardless of a state’s constitutional order, and also assumed that it’s politically counterproductive for gay rights advocates to use litigation. But for some reason, when there’s an issue they actually care about these concerns about backlash and junior-high-school democratic theories mysteriously vanish. Why, it’s almost enough to make me think that claims that litigation produces a unique backlash are disingenuous and incoherent, and that their objections to the New Jersey decision were about substance, not procedure.
In response to my point that Mickey Kaus’s nominal support for gay marriage was empty because he never finds any means of achieving it acceptable (the only meaningful difference between people who are flat-out reactionaries and people who support social change unless it might cause social conflict or affect entrenched interests is that the former are at least honest), a commenter asks: “There wasn’t a massive backlash after the San Francisco and Massachusetts decisions? This didn’t mobilize the Republican vote in Ohio and other battleground states, thus costing Democrats the 2004 election?” Although the question is apparently meant to be rhetorical, the short answer is in fact “no.”
I’m presenting the long answer in an updated version of a paper I’m presenting at the MWPSA conference next month, and Dan Pinello does a good job of summarizing the arguments in his new book too. To summarize the many problems with the countermobilization thesis:
- The state backlash was window dressing. The strongest argument for the Kaus backlash thesis are the 13 state initiatives passed in 2004 which passed following Goodridge and Gavin Newsom’s actions. However, the actual cost of these initiatives for the cause of gay rights was trivial. In none of these states did gays and lesbians lose legal privileges*; and as Pinello notes, in 9 of the 13 states the new amendments just mirrored statutory bans on gay marriage that already existed. And since state constitutional amendments are generally no harder to change than a statute, the political cost is nominal. A federal constitutional amendment — which is almost impossible to change — would be a different issue, but of course the FMA was pure cynical exploit-the-bigotry-of-the-rubes politics with no chance of actually passing. Gay marriage isn’t any less popular now than it was in 2004. In other words, there’s no evidence that Goodridge actually made the practical task of achieving gay marriage harder. So, clearly, the decision was a net benefit: they gained in Massachusetts (where pro-gay rights legislators have fared better than opponents of the court’s decision, belying claims of a backlash), without actually losing ground anywhere else. As a general matter, I also don’t believe there’s any significant empirical basis for claims that judicial opinions create uniquely large backlashes.
- The election myth. As Pinello notes, the evidence that gay rights was a decisive factor in the 2004 election is scant-to-nonexistent; once you go beyond eyeballing exit polls and actually do empirical studies of voting behavior, the alleged effects disappears. Moreover, at this point the various strands in the antiliberal obsessions of Kaus and his fellow travelers start to collapse on one another. Kerry in 2004 did historically well given that he was facing a wartime incumbent in a decent economy. Obviously, few people (and Kaus least of all) would claim that this was because Kerry was an incredibly strong candidate. But if a massive anti-gay backlash hurt the Democrats badly, where did the votes go? And none of this is surprising. People who are single-issue gay marriage obsessives are pretty unlikely to be liberal otherwise.
- Predicting 9 of the last 2 backlashes. You may recall Kaus, and may other pundits predicting that the decision of courts in New Jersey to require civil unions would cause a major backlash against the Democrats in the 2006 election. You may also recall that this didn’t happen even at the level of simple correlation, which will be promptly forgotten the next time the courts issue a similar holding.
Obviously, substantive victories (achieved in any branch of government) will produce opposition from people who oppose them, which would obviously be a stupid reason not to want to win. But there’s no evidence that judicial opinions produce a unique backlash, and there’s also no evidence that gay marriage won the 2004 elections for the Republicans.
*UPDATE: As Mithras and another commenter note, this isn’t entirely accurate; while there was no loss of state marriage benefits in these states, in Michigan and Virginia it did interfere with the ability of gays and lesbians to negotiate private benefits.
Matt quotes my colleague Ken Sherrill about why Democrats who support equal rights may be reluctant to disclaim the notion that homosexuality is immoral. The other important point, I think, is that from a political (as opposed to personal) level, what matters is the policy, not the subjective morality. Just as it doesn’t matter what John McCain “really” thinks about abortion when he’s resolutely in favor of criminalizing it, if you support gay rights your personal position about the morality of gay sexuality is not terribly important.
…Pithlord, Matt and lt are correct to point out in comments that it’s wrong to imply that public comments about the morality of sexuality are irrelevant. Obviously, it’s suboptimal for candidates to express the wrong opinion on the issue.
Glenn Reynolds asserts as fact that “it was Joe Wilson who outed Valerie Plame.” If you clink through the link, however, you’ll note that the linkee provides no evidence whatsoever for his assertion; he’s got nothing but a just-so story based on pure speculation. Of course, we are dealing with a guy who proclaimed the Plame scandal “bogus” because she appeared in a public photo after she had already been outed, so admittedly the illogic and lack of evidence here are modest by his historical standards.