<$BlogRSDURL$>

 

brandon williamscraig  

Obama

The themes that will continue until the election is done

An acquaintance say my Facebook profile and asked "to know 3 real qualifications Obama has that qualifies him (above the local lawnman) to become President of the US - the highest position in the world. Just 3 things he has done...specifically done."

I responded:

The most difficult part of responding to your question is picking just three things. I'll choose the three which are indisputable and more than qualify him, especially in comparison to his opposition, to be the Chief Executive Facilitator of the most powerful nation in the world.

#1 he has built, funded, and remained engaged with community-based coalitions in which participants report they got a significant portion of what they needed. This is what I'm paying for when I religiously send in my taxes.

#2 he has had no choice but to become expert at operating diplomatically from a position of sympathy in the presence of opposition. As it is with other minority leaders of my acquaintance, this may be related to weathering comparisons to "the local lawnman" when you might more accurately have written "above the local graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School" but I am not qualified to speak to the origins of his skill in this area or to your background in diversity work.

#3 He says he will do what I want a president to do. What his opponents say they will do is the opposite of what I want a president to do. Even though this makes the choice between the two an obvious one it is not enough to get my vote because politicians, by design of our system, must tell you what they think you want to hear. Therefore I ignore them, in large part, beyond paying attention when a speech writer constructs a particularly satisfying bit of metaphor or compelling prose. Rather than listen to what they say I research their record and the people they owe. Overlooking a relatively small percentage of pork and wheeling and dealing I want more of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Lugar–Obama work expanding the Nunn–Lugar "cooperative threat reduction" approach regarding conventional weapons, and particularly the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, as I'm very much looking forward to the long life of www.USAspending.gov. He regularly works with Democrats, Republicans, and independents and toward things like the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (signed into law in September 2007). He also introduced S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, and introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. I want more of the same where he is concerned and not eight more years of deception and blatant "you couldn't stop me if you tried" criminality.

OK. I wasn't able to pick just three.

He responded:

"I asked for 3 REAL qualifications in Obama's life that qualify him for the most important job in the world. You gave me two things that Red Cross volunteers do for free here in Louisiana...but Obama did not do those things for free...he made a whopping $13,000 a year. The other thing you said was "He (Obama) says he will do what I want a president to do" and this is again the problem...he SAYS a lot but is an empty suit that changes his mind depending on the audience...not to mention he does not have a clus about Iran (a small country with no threat) or Russia (just let all sides hug and sit down and talk with the UN) or Packistan who he suggested we invade."

I closed:
With apologies, I am up to my ears in a new Executive Director position and need to withdraw from this exchange because it does not feel potentially fruitful. Red Cross volunteers at the organizational level Obama occupied often get paid ridiculously high salaries (remember the investigations?) and still don't get the specific, grounded results Obama did. But you'd know that if this exchange were actually dealing with the historical record. Every candidate ever to hop off the campaign truck gears her message to her audience, and every leader reserves the right to shift position when a change in circumstances dictates a change in strategy, with one recent and notable exception that is costing us lives and resources at an unprecedented rate. McCain does it. Obama does it. Regan did it. Likewise (fill in the blank). It is familiar, disingenuous demagoguery for a competitor to call his rival "an empty suit" because he changes his mind, which leads me to recognize some of the main anti-Obama points generated by the RNC campaign machine and not by the historical record. He never said Iran is a small country posing no threat, that Russia will hug and sit down with the UN, or that Pakistan requires an invasion. Good grief. Someday let's at least try to have a discussion based on what the candidates actually do/say and not what the campaign headquarters tells us to think.

-------

The Palin Choice

Posted Thursday, September 04 2008 @ 07:02 AM PDT
George Lakoff argues that the Republican choice of Palin makes total sense if you truly understand the strategy of the Republicans in this election.


The Palin Choice
The Reality of the Political Mind
by George Lakoff

This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform .

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be t aken with the utmost seriousness.

The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.

The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.

But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communicatio n, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity - not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.

And Palin, a member of Feminists For Life, is at the heart of the conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to.
At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them-all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.

Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin - the response based on realities alone - indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.
Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government.20The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.

Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain


also http://www.chopra.com/wordsfromdeepak
Tibet Isn't a Buddhist Litmus Test

Obama and the Palin Effect

by Deepak Chopra

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision

Look at what she stands for:

  • Small town values — a nostaligic return to simpler times disguises a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
  • Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
  • Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don’t need to be needed.
  • Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
  • Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.
  • ”Reform” — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn’t fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Labels: , , ,

   | posted by Unknown @ 9/08/2008 09:32:00 AM

 

 

|
All original material here is Creative Commons License licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License. All material not originated by the author is used in accordance with acceptable use practices governing public domain, academic study, and not-for-profit cultural development and critique. Any concerns about privacy or copyrights may be addressed by emails directed to public at bdwc dot net.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

  • Click here for RSS Feed