Category Archives: Random Blogging

Deconstructing The Bully Pulpit

In the aftermath of President Obama’s affirmation of same-sex marriage,  a fascinating poll by PPP showed a truly dramatic shift of opinion in the African-American community in favor of such unions.

Now, polling is hardly an exact science (as a colleague of mine who teaches survey research is fond of saying, really sound polling costs a lot more money that political partisans are willing to spend), and this poll may prove to be an anomaly. While I have no evidence to back this up, however, my hunch is that the President’s use of the “bully pulpit” did make a difference. Indeed, control of that pulpit has long been thought to be one of the levers of power available to the nation’s leaders.

The interesting question is: why? Why should the opinion of even a powerful politician operate to change citizens’ positions on highly-charged issues?

I can think of two possible theories, although I’m sure there are more. The first is that–despite the heated rhetoric that seems to envelop those of us who follow public opinion–a significant number of Americans “tune out” such conversations. They live their lives without paying very much attention to governmental or political affairs, and (unbelievable as it may seem to us political junkies) hold superficial positions in which they really aren’t particularly invested. When a public figure or celebrity they admire takes a position contrary to one they’ve lightly held, such people are willing to reconsider.

The other theory is that a Presidential use of the bully pulpit operates as permission to accept cultural change. The stereotype has been that homophobia is more deeply rooted in the African-American community, where it has been reinforced by much of the black church. Whatever the validity of that stereotype, the black community has not been insulated from the significant changes in public opinion about homosexuality. Over the past decade at least, Civil Rights organizations and African-American political leaders have made common cause with the GLBT community, chipping away at what consensus may have existed. When the (black) President announced his support for same-sex marriage, it was experienced as permission to affirm a cultural shift that was already well underway.

As I say, these are theories; I have no data to confirm or reject them. But the consequences of President Obama’s statement should remind all of us that the bully pulpit is not simply a fiction of the political imagination. Used judiciously, that pulpit can educate, admonish and move the country forward.

Comments

Fact Checking and Alternate Realities

One of the stereotypes firmly embedded in the nation’s political psyche is that of the “tax and spend” Democrats. The taken-for-granted “reality” of American politics pits these profligate lefties against fiscally prudent conservative Republicans.

As with all stereotypes, this one has roots in reality. When I was young, Democrats were leftwing big spenders. And Republicans were fiscally responsible. (Those Republicans would never have waged a war and cut taxes at the same time, to use just one example.) The problem with stereotypes, however, is that they persist long after the reality that generated them has changed.

Which brings me to the reality-challenged charge by Mitt Romney and his minions that the Obama Administration has spent money like drunken sailors, a charge echoed by partisans on the Internet, Faux News and other outlets that have long since abandoned even the pretense of fact-checking and/or objectivity.

The charge has now been pretty decisively debunked by no other than the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left-wing publication.

The Journal reports that, even taking into account the massive stimulus spending during Obama’s tenure, overall federal spending has been rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. In fact, according to the article,  “Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.”  The article includes a nifty graph, and hyperlinks that will lead skeptics to the official sources of the information presented.

Not only has spending barely increased in present dollars, after adjusting for inflation, the Journal reports that spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

Why level a charge so demonstrably untrue? Because people will believe it. It feeds into a persistent stereotype, and the “legacy media” that could formerly be relied upon to provide fact-checking has been displaced by lazy “he said/she said” reporting and partisan spin.

Repeat a big lie often enough, and you’ll be amazed at how widely it will be accepted.

Comments

The First Encouraging Sign

If reports are correct, later today John Gregg will finally announce a smart decision–one that will actually motivate, rather than depress, his Democratic base. According to Jim Shella, Gregg will announce that Vi Simpson will be his running mate.

One of my Facebook friends posted that she will “gag less” when she votes. Another noted that–while a Simpson/Gregg ticket would be better than a Gregg/Simpson one–the choice meant that he, too, would be a more enthusiastic supporter.

Vi Simpson brings major assets to the campaign. Cynics will attribute the choice to gender; Mike Pence picked a woman running mate, presumably to blunt the impact of the Republican war on women, so they’ll shrug and say Gregg countered with a female running mate of his own.

The cynics couldn’t be more wrong. Vi Simpson brings party legitimacy, legislative savvy and uncommon principle to the ticket. A long-serving, well-liked and effective legislator and party leader, she has also earned a reputation for calling it like it is. She has been a standard-bearer for doing the right thing–and not just for women. Thanks to her years of service, she also has instant name recognition.

Contrast that with Pence’s running mate, a freshman legislator few people have ever heard of, a woman who (among other things) voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and is thus unlikely to help him with women voters alienated by the GOPs assault on contraception and reproductive rights.

The November election is now a contest between a team of experienced public servants and a team composed of an ideologue who has never passed a bill and an unknown freshman legislator obviously chosen for her gender. If Hoosiers actually want their government to work–an open question, admittedly–the choice is now clear.

Game on.

Comments

New York, New York

My husband and I are city people, so when one of our sons moved to Manhattan, we increased the frequency of our trips to the Big Apple.

We just got home from one such trip, a long weekend in New York, and I continue to marvel at what that city has done and is doing. My son’s very spiffy apartment building is located in a neighborhood adjacent to the Hudson Yards redevelopment project–a rapidly developing part of town that prudent people avoided 15 years ago. The High Line park–a favorite walking route these days–used to be an abandoned elevated rail line. The city took an eyesore and made it into an amenity so desirable it has reportedly spurred two billion dollars of adjacent redevelopment. Despite the city’s lack of alleys, city streets and sidewalks were clean and free of garbage. Bikes were everywhere, and more are coming: the city plans to roll out the first ten thousand bicycles of a planned bike-sharing program in a couple of months. Small pocket parks are everywhere, and the ones we saw were meticulously maintained.

When I was in city hall in Indianapolis, back in the late 1970s, then-Mayor Hudnut used to say we wanted to be “a city that works.” Clearly–with all its challenges–New York is a city that works. If we are honest, it works a lot better than Indianapolis does these days.

New York’s crime rate is lower than ours. Its ability to maintain public spaces should shame us–a few years ago, the Mayor wanted to get rid of small parks that were “too hard” or “too costly” to care for, and a walk on the downtown canal is a depressing reminder that this administration doesn’t understand the importance of maintenance. The canal is one of Indianapolis’ most important amenities, and it’s being allowed to fall apart.

Public transportation? New York has buses and taxis and subways, and isn’t resting on its laurels: a new subway station is going in a couple of blocks from our son’s apartment. In Indianapolis, we can’t even manage decent bus service.

When a city is safe and well-managed and convenient, people want to visit. When it isn’t–when it is a hassle to get from one place to another, when crime rates are worrisome, when public amenities are neglected–all the SuperBowls we can host won’t make us a favorite destination.

Comments

Resolving Any Doubts……

Does anyone seriously doubt the persistence of racism in America? Or the influence of that racism on our politics?

Phyllis Schlafly–never a subtle communicator–responded to news that minority births in the US had outnumbered Caucasian ones by explaining that this is a calamity because “those people” don’t “share our values.”  

I devoutly hope they don’t share hers.

A lone statement by a woman who has long been loony-tunes, of course, wouldn’t confirm the persistence of anything. But Schlafly is hardly alone.

Just in the last week, we’ve learned about the gazillionaire from Chicago who was planning to bankroll a SuperPac ad campaign focused upon President Obama’s links to his former Pastor, the not-so-reverend Jeremiah Wright. According to information about the plan leaked to the media, the ads had a decidedly racist cast.

And we mustn’t forget the news that Arizona’s Attorney General is debating whether to place the President’s name on that state’s November ballot, since the AG “isn’t sure” Obama was born in the United States.

The question of Obama’s place of birth is another one of those dog whistles. Most of us hear “place of birth,” but the intended audience hears “doesn’t look like us.” He’s “other.” Not a “real American.”

Look–it is absolutely possible to disagree with Barack Obama on specific policy issues. It is absolutely possible to argue that he has mishandled some governmental function. But most of the crap that gets thrown at this President has absolutely nothing to do with the normal give and take of policy or political disputes. “He’s trying to change America!” “He’s a socialist!” “He’s an elitist!”–all boil down to variants of “he’s black.”

And black people, you know, “don’t share our values.”

Comments