11:04 PM, Election night...

All polls closed, ethical to call the election now- Obama. By a landslide. He may well pass Eisenhower to have the largest popular vote total of any non-incumbent in American history.

I'm proud of my country, but not surprised. To my misanthropic colleagues, those UU bloggers who keep saying race is *THE* issue "coloring" everything, I give a Nelson Muntz "Ha-ha, told you so". And yes, I know their response- "He would have had 97.78% of the vote if he'd been white!" Well, ppbbbbbbt! I'm near tears.

I'll also confess to fear for my country. Will the President elect have the power- or desire- to rein in Reid and Pelosi? Will we become another European-style democratic-socialist state, with institutional double-digit unemployment, a fractional growth rate, passing the torch of world leadership to China or some other up-and-comer? I don't know.

As I was typing this, Senator McCain gave his concession speech. Another proud moment.

It was for nights like this that God gave us alcohol.

Interesting election coverage from across the pond

I've mentioned before my fondness for foreign newspapers- here are a few stories that illustrate why.

Everybody loves lists. The Times has a list ranking US Presidents from worst to best (No, Bush isn't the worst). The comments are interesting, too- one commenter wanted Reagan listed as worst, and a good many held out for Carter. The Telegraph has a list of the top turning points in the campaign, while BBC has a list of the top YouTube campaign videos. (I still love John Edwards in "I feel pretty")

Leaving lists aside, The Times has a story on my own Indiana . The Telegraph has an interesting bit , "John McCain admits tensions with running mate Sarah Palin", and BBC has a video , "Peru's shamans send US election vibes"

Behind Senator Obama's comments to "Joe the plumber"

Bush tax cuts for the rich

have been transferring the tax burden from the rich to the poor, allowing the fat cats to get away without paying their fair share while hurting the poor and middle class. Right?

Wrong.

Here are the actual percentages of the total federal income taxes paid (last year figures are available for is 2006):

The top 1 % of wage earners
2000 37.42%
2006 39.89%

The top 5 % of wage earners
2000 56.47%
2006 60.14%

The top 10 % of wage earners
2000 67.33%
2006 70.79%

The top 25 % of wage earners
2000 84.01%
2006 86.27%

The top 50 % of wage earners
2000 96.09%
2006 97.01%

The bottom 50 % of wage earners
2000 3.91%
2006 2.99%

(figures from the The Tax Foundation They also have links to the raw data from the Internal Revenue Service)

Under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 50% have seen their share of taxes paid cut by 25.5%, while every taxpayer in the upper 50% have seen their share increase. Not that it matters, of course- the real issues in this race are Palin's wardrobe and Biden's Botox injections.

CNN anchor comes to Palin's defense over wardrobe

Montana Senate candidate sends campaign jobs overseas

From BillingsGazette : "Republicans, furious about negative campaign phone calls made by Democrats last week in Billings, did everything but label the tactic un-American.

Turns out, they could have.

The calls were made from Romania, according to phone records submitted this week to the state commissioner of political practices."

I wonder how he'd vote on the issues of tax breaks for companies who send jobs overseas.

Fair and balanced election coverage

No, I don't mean Fox. Nor ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC. If you want to read about issues, you have to go to the internet- and I don't mean Drudge or Huffington, either. The only source for real election news is foreign newspapers.

The BBC 's election coverage includes an issues guide, a finance tracker, an election glossary, a region-by-region breakdown of foreign policy (something I haven't seen in any American media), a Q&A on campaign finance rules-and all the headlines.

Another British paper, The Telegraph , has fewer resources but more headline stories.

France 24 is also lighter on resources, but better on human interest aspects.

Even Al Jazeera has been doing a better, more balanced job than many US media. They have a good explanation of our electoral system, fair bios of the candidates (although, understandably, they pay more attention to how it impacts Arabs than other papers), and even an in-depth (more than seven minutes) interview with the Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney. (try and find that on our networks)

If you like your election coverage in a reality-TV show format, by all means watch TV news... but if you want issues and analysis, read world newspapers- those listed above, and as many others as you can.

No matter who wins this election,

There are two sure losers. The first is public funding of elections. both McCain and Obama promised to limit themselves to public financing. Senator Obama broke his promise, and proved in the process that there are no consequences for doing so- no one outside Senator McCain's immediate family is raising the issue or cares about it. But if there are no consequences, there certainly are benefits- Senator Obama raised more than $150 million in September alone- nearly double the $84 million McCain gets for September and October combined. This pushes Senator Obama's total fundraising to over $605 million- many pundits are predicting the 2012 elections will see candidates raising over $1 billion each.

The other sure loser is third parties. Many have said that the primary intent of campaign reform is to freeze out third parties... whether that was the intent or not, it most certainly been the effect. All third parties are caught in a political Catch 22: the only way to raise money in large numbers of small contributions is to have a nationwide political machine in place, and the only way to build such a machine is with large contributions. This produces a second Catch 22: the major party candidates get free ink as simple news coverage, but the "unimportant" candidates do not- and, of course, with neither money nor free ink they will always be "unimportant". Notice that neither the Greens nor the Libertarians were invited to the debates.

Notice also that this stifling of third parties has been the only effect of campaign finance reform. Money is more important than ever, and the tone of campaigns haven't improved, either- campaign reform has been, overall, a bigger failure than the war on drugs. I propose that all such laws be scrapped in favor of a simpler system: let the parties and the candidates accept whatever they can get from whoever will give it- but with full and prior disclosure. Make the parties list every contributor on their websites, before the checks are cashed. You know, kind of like the system in place when the nation and the major parties were founded.

Or we could just continue to let the heads of the DNC and RNC decide between themselves who we are allowed to see in a debate and have on our ballots... and somehow expect real change to come about anyway.

I wonder what he meant by that?

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." ... "There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

What is he alluding to? An atomic attack? A new war front? Or the opposite- is he hinting that the reason the decision may be unpopular is that we won't react militarily, that we might cut a deal instead? He does say, "We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

Ominous as that warning about military action may sound, his economic comments are if anything, scarier. "Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

Does this mean they plan to change our entire economic system? Does he want to change the market system? Lest you think I'm taking him out of context, here's the ABC News coverage. Portions are also available on YouTube.

Is he trying to prepare us for a long series of actions his supporters aren't expecting or wanting? Is it a warning that with one-party control of the country, they're going to remake the nation in the two years before the next election?

Or, given his history of strange, babbling speeches, does even HE know what he's talking about?

One more point about "Springerfication"

I took off on Rev. Wikstrom's post because of his admittedly nifty term, "Springerfication"; but a lot of pundits and bloggers have written much the same thing. Orcinus , in his post "The hate also rises" quotes ""Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.", and Reverend Gary Kowalski says, "With extremist rhetoric like that directed at the Senator, is it any wonder that the crowds at Republic rallies have recently been yelling “Kill him” and “Off with his head?”". I can understand why they were moved to write what they did- that's pretty horrific.

Except, according to the Secret Service , it never happened.

"Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.
Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”"

Of course, the complete lack of corroboration didn't stop the Scranton Times-Tribune from running the story, or ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann from repeating it. They didn't need corroboration; it fit completely with their mental image of what kind of people Republicans are.

That is why I've been writing against the demonization of your opposition. The ready acceptance of the worst in your opponents leads to the kind of cynicism that causes people to believe all is lost and withdraw from the system. It leads to dark thoughts, despair, and depression. I have come over the years to believe that cynicism is humankind's greatest enemy.

The Springer-fication of the Electorate?

That is the title (without the question mark) of the latest blog entry by The Reverend Erik Walker Wikstrom . In it he reprints a letter to the editor he sent to local and national papers, worried about the tone of the Republican campaign.
"I am frightened for my country.
..And culturally, here at home, we're seeing what I've come to think of the "Springerfication" of the electorate.
Think back to the Democratic National Convention--throughout you saw people looking up at the dais through glistening eyes which revealed a spirit of hope and inspiration that permeated the convention hall.
Think of the Republican National Convention--all loud booing and derisive laughter that conveyed a mean spirit, an angry spirit...."

Reverend, please. Yes, Republican bashing is our eighth principle, and yes, we all like to believe that we're the GOOD GUYS, so naturally there must something wrong with the other side. But rationally you must realize that Democrats have no corner on glistening eyes, and Republicans have no corner on mean spiritedness. Do you think eyes were glistening while protesting a Palin speech wearing obscene tee shirts ? (the linked story doesn't say what's on the shirts- photos are here and here ) Or perhaps they were glistening when they vandalized Republican HQ's in Muncie, IN , or Tacoma, Wa , or Rock Hill, SC , or Tampa Bay ? Or were they glistening when they fire-bombed a McCain sign?

Of course Senator Obama is not responsible for these things. In fact, it's not even a question of political parties- here is a story about a pro gay marriage supporter beating an anti gay marriage proposition supporter and destroying his campaign signs. The issue is human frailty, human passions, and the danger of believing your opposition is evil. No one party, and no one candidate is responsible for it, nor can they cure it single-handedly. The only way to stop the "Springer-fication" of politics is to stop believing that your friends are glistening eyed idealists, and their friends are mean spirited villains. Your friends, no matter who you are, are human beings. And so are theirs.

And anyway, Jerry Springer was a Democrat.


UPDATE: Whoopi Goldberg says it better.

Bush III?

Senator McCain deeply resents being called "Bush III". How justified is that title? Let's take a look...

Religion. Bush is famous for his religious devotion; it comes up in every speech. Bush III? "I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ." That faith is the basis for Bush's decisions and programs, as witness his "Faith based initiatives". Bush III? He would expand the Faith based initiatives; he gave a speech about it on Father's Day. And they have the same opinion of gay marriage- in 2004, Bush III said, "Gays ... should not marry." And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders ... Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." Abstinence education? Bush III's on board.

Economics. Bush III voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills. Bush III told reporters that he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush's bailout package, then voted for the $700 billion plan. Although he initially opposed Bush's tax cuts, Bush III now has his own tax cut plans, and his stump speeches sound a whole lot like these 2001 quotes from President Bush: "Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class. For hard-working lower-income families, we have cut the bottom rate of federal income tax from 15 percent to 10 percent. We doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000, and made it refundable. ... Tax relief is an achievement for middle-class families squeezed by high energy prices and credit card debt."

Civil Liberties. Of the Senate bill passage that rewrote intelligence laws to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's wiretapping program, Bush said: "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people." Bush III? "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Like Bush, Bush III supports capital punishment, saying in 2006, "I believe there are some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment." And Bush III voted yes on preauthorizing the Patriot Act, sought by the Bush administration.

Race. Bush III's campaign literature states that he will call for a ban on racial profiling, even though Bush issued a directive that banned racial profiling in 2001. Bush III adopted the Congressional principles "to increase minority homeownership" as it is "one of the best wealth-creation vehicles for minority families." These principles were developed as part of Bush's vision to expand minority homeownership to 5.5 million new homeowners by 2010. "Across our nation, every citizen, regardless of race, creed, color or place of birth, should have the opportunity to become a homeowner," Bush said. Similar comparisons can be drawn for their positions on small businesses and on businesses owned by women and minorities. President Bush says that Affirmative Action is "fundamentally flawed"- because it depended solely on race. Bush has said other factors, such as socioeconomic status, should be considered, which would include poor white students. Bush III agrees, wanting to "...change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic class."

Energy. In signing the $12.3 billion Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bush said it "promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future." Bush III voted for the energy plan and called it a "first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil." Bush has consistently pushed for drilling offshore; Bush III agrees: "We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling."

Social issues. Bush III boasted this summer that he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work" and "slashed the rolls by 80 percent" (though all states had to as a result of the Clinton administration's mandate). Despite his past endorsements of some gun control measures, Bush III's reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutional right of individuals to own handguns mirrors the administration's. Bush and Bush III agree that the problem with health care is "about affordability" and there is a need to address minority health concerns with more coverage and targeting. That is why Bush expanded community health care centers, covering the uninsured and targeting urban areas, to the tune of $1.5 billion for 1,200 centers "coast to coast." And Bush III has given Bush kudos for his efforts to combat global AIDS and the record amount of funding ($15 billion over 5 years) the president has earmarked for the fight. "I think President Bush -- and many of you here today -- have shown real leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS."

The second most remarkable thing about Bush III is how closely he mirror's President Bush, in all these areas and many more there isn't really time and space for. But the MOST remarkable thing is that every one of the quotes and positions cited above for "Bush III" are Senator Obama's! See Commentary: Obama and Bush are not so far apart (I chose a CNN Commentary because I knew that many of you would neither read nor believe a Fox or National Review story)

Both parties talk about change. McCain's change would be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Obama's change would be much more extensive- more like completely redecorating the Grand Ballroom on the Titanic. There will never be substantive change as long as our discussions begin as this paragraph did- "both". The Indiana ballot does not have "both" parties on it; it has five parties on it, not that you'd ever know that from listening to the mainstream media. How about looking at some of them, instead of letting the Big Party Matadors dazzle you with their "race" and "sex" and "charismatic" and "experienced" capes?

Yeah, yeah, I know, this year is too important to waste by voting for a fringe candidate. Yeah, so was last election. And the one before that. And the one before that, ad infinitum. And as long as you keep buying that, you'll keep getting status quo, no matter how bad the need for improvement. Indeed, the Big Parties would be fools to offer change as long as you keep voting for them as is; ask any behaviorist- change occurs only when it becomes painful not to. And after all, it's not like the UUs aren't used to supporting or being the fringe...

Is Joe Biden a hypocrite?

This is the claim being made on many blogs because of this headline: Palin gives more to charity than Biden Joe Biden, the champion of the poor, the man who illustrates every point with an anecdote about a conversation with his poor friends, gives less to charity than Governor Palin- who makes half as much money. "In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on $166,080.But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325. By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review."

This is a common phenomenon, written about many times- the supposedly hard-hearted Republicans giving more than the compassionate Democrats. From The Chronicle Of Philanthropy, Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist ; from ABC News, Who Gives and Who Doesn't? ; a state-by-state list from the Catalogue for Philanthropy . Does this indicate Liberal hypocrisy? Many are cynical enough to think so- I remember a Doonesbury strip, with Honey asking Duke, "Doesn't he care for the poor?", and Duke answering, "Of course he does- that's how he avoids being one of them."

No, Senator Biden is not a hypocrite; he really does care for the poor. His Senate service illustrates this- he has the talent to be a multimillionaire in private industry, as a lobbyist if nothing else. Every day he spends in the Senate is costing him a fortune. The difference in personal giving does not reflect where his heart is, it reflects where his trust and philosophies lie.

A political liberal believes in government solutions. He believes that his own gifts- even large ones- are like trying to fill the Grand Canyon by throwing bricks in it; a meaningless gesture for the most part. The real cure, he believes, is by creating programs that will help everyone everywhere. He trusts the government to handle such programs more fairly and effectively than any private charity could. He believes that it takes a village.

A political conservative believes government programs exist primarily to provide plum jobs for political appointees. He believes that even the best intentioned government programs will be bungled. And so he fights against government programs and gives privately instead.

There is the additional effect that the political conservative is most often also a religious conservative. A religious conservative tends to believe in a personal duty to help the poor and unfortunate; "Rendering unto Caesar" does not discharge that duty, only his personal efforts do. That is why the dirt-poor often give a higher percentage of their incomes than the better off.

This is the only nation in which this philosophical difference makes a practical difference. For example, the US is often criticized for how little foreign aid we give- but that criticism arises from the fact that only government programs are counted. To illustrate with a personal example, the amount we send to our sponsored child in Guatemala- small as it is- is tens of times higher than the portion of our taxes going to foreign aid... multiply that by millions of like-minded Americans, and the total amount of aid sent, government and private combined, is much higher per capita than any other nation.

But the rigid political partisan of either side doesn't look at the big picture. The liberal believes the conservative heartless because he doesn't support the liberal's pet project. The conservative believes the liberal a hypocrite and a demagogue because he isn't doing those things personally. The professional activist feeds those beliefs to create hatred and anger because he knows that those emotions are easier to manipulate. One activist sits on our right shoulder, whispering that liberals want government programs to increase their personal power and empire, that liberals just want to rule, using the poor as pawns. One activist sits on our left shoulder, whispering that conservatives are heartless, greedy pigs who don't give a damn about anyone else, too stupid to know their own good. And so we have these nasty election campaigns. Think about that manipulation before you post your next jeremiad.

Finally, election reform in Ohio

This year, the elections results in Ohio won't be controversial or end up in court like they did in 2004- not with secure programs like this in place!


UPDATE: Lest you think I was overreacting to the shenanigans in Ohio, watch this video and tell me that if the election is close, it won't wind up in the Supreme Court again.

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

No, no, it's not the lips- after all, even after a trip to the dentist when their lips are numbed by Novocain some of them are capable of lying. No, you can tell by watching them on RealScoop , a site that uses computer analysis of their voices to determine their believability level, with a bar at the bottom of the screen going from green to red. I can see one fly in the ointment: the software can only tell if the politician (or actor or entertainer or pundit- watch the clips, it's fun!) believes what he or she is saying- they could still be wrong. Judge for yourself from the clips.

TechCrunch isn't impressed, and points out other flaws- the party poopers- but they also say that RealScoop is going to cover the Debate Thursday! Accurate or not, it will be more fun to watch it there than on PBS!

A children's song

Enthusiasm for your candidate is a good thing; why would you vote for someone you weren't enthusiastic for? But this? This seriously creeps me out- I cannot believe Senator Obama, in his heart of hearts, would approve of this. It's sweet, reverent, hopeful... just like another children's song from Cabaret.

UPDATE: The song is working again, at the moment. no promises for the future.

An interesting take on what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

This video was forwarded to me today, and I found it interesting. It is a series of CSPAN videos covering Congressional hearings into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, citing irregularities and predicting doom- in 2004. What I found interesting is not as much what was said, but who said it.

Obama should honor McCain's request to suspend

Senator McCain has suspended his campaign to concentrate on the economic fix, and asked Senator Obama to do the same, postponing debates until after an agreement on the economy is reached in Congress. So far, Obama has refused, saying the debates will go on even if he's the only one there. I think Senator Obama would be wise to change his mind.

Was McCain's request made in good faith? President Clinton thinks so . ""We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said..." Even so, it could still be a trick- any grand gesture in an election cycle is suspect. But I still think he should go along with it.

Why? To do what Senator McCain is doing- to keep his Vice Presidential pick out of the public eye for some coaching. Joe Biden is a walking gaffe machine. If someone doesn't get him a tranquilizer and get him back on message, he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory all by himself. Here's a sampling from the last ten days:

He angrily denied being in favor of clean coal technology, ranting about how that was something the Chinese did, and "No coal plants for America- let them build it over there,"... when both he and Obama individually as Senators have championed clean coal, and together have it in their campaign energy policy. The gaffe resulted in this devastating McCain ad.

Got their stance on the economic bailout package wrong, causing him to be publicly chided by Obama himself.

That echoed an earlier gaffe on the economy when he said that he didn't know a single economist who had said that raising taxes on the rich would hurt the economy during our present crisis- after Senator Obama had said that very thing himself.

And while we're on the economy, he criticized Bush's lack of public discussion by saying "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed." FDR wasn't President when the market crashed, of course, and commercially available television wouldn't be offered to the public for another ten years...

Called one of his own campaign commercials terrible , saying, “I didn’t know we did it, and if I had anything to do with it, we’d have never done it.” This from the man who says the other candidate is "out of touch".

Said that raising taxes on the rich- you know, that thing that Obama said would harm the fragile economy- was patriotic . How can Obama complain about the Republicans wrapping themselves in the flag when his running mate is doing the same thing?

I'm not even counting a myriad of lesser gaffes, like "You need to work on your pecs", or "Stand up and let them see you", or "She might have been a better pick". These are harmless in themselves, although if he keeps it up the cumulative effect could be toxic.

Senator Obama has nothing to fear in his own debates, but he'd better start worrying about the Vice presidential ones. Governor Palin is no Jefferson or Adams in the intellect department, but she is a savvy politician with a true talent for snark. Biden has already given her enough ammunition to turn the debate into a celebrity roast if she so chooses. Or she could take just one- use his coal gaffe as a launch pad for her only area of expertise, energy, for example- and make herself look presidential. And that's assuming he doesn't make another gaffe during the debate- something i wouldn't bet on.

Senator Obama should listen to Senator McCain and take the bye week- and use it sending Biden back to political boot camp.

I got a call from a pollster...

A quick aside- dontcha just love how when the "No-Call List" legislation was written, the politicians exempted themselves from it? Anyway... here's how it went:

Her: Do you intend to vote in the Presidential election this year?

Me: Yes.

Her: Are you going to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama?

Me: Neither one.

Her: Then you're undecided?

Me: No, I've decided.

Her: Then are you going to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama?

Me: There are five Presidential candidates on the Indiana ballot, you know. And eight more allowable write-ins. I'm not going to vote for either McCain or Obama; I'm voting for one of the other eleven.

Her: That's not a choice on my sheet.

Me: Well, it should be.

Her: I'll put you down as undecided. Does supporting abortion rights make you more or less likely to vote for that candidate?

Me: It's not a consideration.

Her: What do you mean?

Me: I mean abortion isn't one of my issues. I don't care where they stand. Put me down as undecided.

Her: Undecided isn't one of the choices for this question.

Me: Imagine my surprise.

Her: Then what do I put down?

Me: I don't care; pick one.

Her: Ummm...

It kind of went downhill from there. I actually did try to cooperate with her as best as I could- but given the nature of her questions, my best wasn't very good. I couldn't help wondering as she continued if this was one of those polls that would determine that Obama would have 75% of the vote if it weren't for racism.

One last time...

I had intended to let this matter drop, but since I have been addressed directly by Rev. Sean , I'll take one more stab at what I meant.

There's an old joke that rewritten for this situation might help explain how I see it. There's a long line at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and people are starting to grumble. A conservative says, "Typical government inefficiency- they should contract this out to private enterprise." A liberal says, "Typical of this miserly administration- they should raise taxes on the rich and hire more clerks." A Unitarian Universalist says, "They're just stalling to avoid waiting on the black man in line- typical of our oppressive society."

Any of their theories might be true. Or maybe the Bureau is having computer problems. Maybe someone is sick, and they're shorthanded. Maybe it isn't the clerk's fault at all- the people in line don't have their paperwork in order. It doesn't really matter what the truth is. All three of the complainers, with no objective basis for their opinion, using only their predisposition to believe certain things, have constructed a scenario that "obviously must be true". This is what the author of "This is your nation on white privilege" did.

He took ordinary political hypocrisies, (some of which weren't even true, but that's beside the point), rewrote them as racial hypocrisies, then criticized the nation for what were, after all, his own assumptions. Example: "White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter,..." Four years ago, Howard Dean ran as Governor of Vermont- a state with a smaller population than Alaska, much smaller in fact than the city of Indianapolis- and a much smaller Gross State Product than Alaska. He had no political experience prior to his election as Lt. Governor, (He became Governor when Richard Snelling died in office); not even as Mayor of a small town- not even as community organizer. Not only did people not piss themselves laughing, he was the early front-runner. There is no objective basis for the charge of "white privilege".

The Eclectic Cleric did much the same thing. He set up a series of hypothetical situations, presumed to know what our reactions to them would be, then presumed to know the motivation for those presumed reactions, then said "This is what racism does." Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that?

Of course, all the hypotheticals of both authors exist only to set up their basic assumption: the only reason that Senator Obama isn't 20 points ahead is racism. That's possible, of course- but what is the objective reason for believing so? As I pointed out in my previous post , Senator Obama is polling as well as or better than every other Presidential candidate has in the last twenty years at this point in the cycle. There's simply no discrepancy to explain away.

Rev. Sean doesn't accept that answer. "And sorry Joel, “Other elections were close too” is NOT a logical argument. It’s possible that if Obama were a white man the polls would be showing a landslide in his favor. We’ll never know." He's right- we'll never know. But since we don't know, why are you assuming that an unknowable possibility is more logical than a known history? It's also possible that if Senator Obama were a white man, he'd have lost the primaries in a landslide and Senator Clinton would be the nominee. We'll never know.

Rev. Sean also said, "See, there is one huge fallacy in Joel’s response: He argues that pointing out systemic racism is itself an act of hatred. He thinks uncovering and talking about racism is the same as “an ugly desire to see the worst in the other side.”" He has two fallacies of his own there. The first is that his "quote" is not my words. But more importantly, he has the concept wrong. I applaud pointing out systemic racism. What I object to is inventing systemic racism when there's no objective reason to believe that it's an important factor in a given situation. I object to assuming that a given situation must exist, and then when it doesn't, assuming without evidence that the reason for the discrepancy is not a flaw in your own logic, but rather a flaw in other people's character. I do believe that you must have a deep contempt for your fellow man to believe that the reason half of them disagree with you is racism.

Rev. Sean also says, "Neither of the essays accused people of racism. They did, however, look at some of the ways systemic racism (the preference for white folks over black that is built into our culture and systems) may be affecting the election." That is sheer sophistry. This whole discussion is about why Senator Obama isn't as far ahead as his supporters think he should be. Well, cultures and systems don't answer pollsters. Cultures and systems don't vote. Oppressive laws and corporate practices don't vote. People do. It's not possible to blame racism for poll results without accusing the people who answered those pollsters of racism.

Nobody is arguing that racism isn't a pervasive problem. Although they do argue about whether it's "white privilege" or "class privilege", no one is arguing that unearned privilege isn't an obstacle to raising people out of poverty. Racism is a factor. But it is A factor, not THE factor. I believe that today- not in the days of slavery, not in the days of lynching and Jim crow, but in 2008- there are other "isms" of equal and even greater importance.

Sexism: Does anyone seriously doubt that sexism- and the cover-up of the Edwards affair- is the reason Senator Clinton isn't the nominee? Polls showed that even in the deep south, men preferred a black man to a white woman in the White House- and an amazing number of women agreed. Women have always ridden in the caboose of the civil rights train. I remember hearing Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, say at a convention that he got more complaints over Lt. Uhura, a woman, giving orders to men than he got over having Capt. Kirk being court-martialed by a black admiral.

Lookism: I could never be elected to a position much higher than City Council because I'm fat. Despite being an overweight nation, it's been nearly a century since we've had a portly President. Even Governors have to be slim- you can count on one hand the number of overweight governors there've been since the invention of television. People simply won't vote for a fat person unless they know them personally. You have to be tall, too- there have only been a couple Presidents under six foot tall in the history of the United states, and none in the last hundred years. President Bush stands unique in the modern era for having defeated a taller man. And these qualities are very nearly as important in the corporate world as the political. People who go above and beyond in the recruiting of minorities still have no problem with telling fat jokes, and hiring, firing, and promoting by weight.

Able-ism: there has never been a candidate from either party with a widely known handicap (Roosevelt and Kennedy concealed their infirmities) except for John McCain and Bob Dole- and they're special cases in that their ailments were received in the process of becoming war heroes. Even so, they can still get around on their own in public. I don't believe we'll ever see a wheelchair in the oval office, because medical science will develop cures and life-like powered exoskeletons faster than the public will get over this prejudice.

CORRECTION: The Eclectic Cleric is not the author of the quotes I mistakenly attributed to him; they were emailed to him, and he just posted it. The authors:

Mary M. Gaylord
Sosland Family Professor of Romance Languages andLiteratures
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Undergraduate Adviser for Romance Studies
424 Boylston Hall, Harvard YardCambridge MA 02138

Jane R. Dickie
Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies.
Hope College.
Holland, MI 49423