As presidential campaigns become longer, the media’s appetite grows for comments by anyone who has a connection — no matter how close or remote — to candidates who are in the running for the highest office in the land. Extreme views are important for 24 hour cable news, the Internet, or political talk shows who need this stuff to stay in business. When people say or do things that have a “jaw-dropping” effect, it’s like a gift from the gods for media outlets trying to keep their advertisers happy by capturing a good share of the audience. It also means they have programming fodder for a minimum of 24 hours. If it’s a good sex scandal (see Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer) all the better! It means people will be tuning in with mixture of outrage, curiosity, and titillation. For lack of a better term, let’s call the Pavlovian behavior to these stories “The Tune In Factor,” or TIF. When you have a story with a high TIF, it may be a boon for TV/radio ratings, hits to a website, or newspaper sales, but it can quickly frame a political campaign in ways that the candidates don’t expect. If the story is to the candidate’s favor, they try and get the most mileage out of the story. But if it’s not, then they quickly rush to nullify the story’s negative effect. Sometimes, however, one can just sit back and collect political chits from a story that has no direct connection to a campaign.

This week’s TIF examples center on two hot button issues: 1. Race politics. 2. Sexuality — or more specifically, homosexuality. In the U.S., we love our right to free speech — until someone says something that we disagree with. That’s when our friends in the media jump in an exploit the level of disagreement in culture. Case in point: Barack Obama. Hillary’s camp has been rightfully slamming the media for their love affair with Obama. SNL did a skit on said love affair and suddenly stories on an indicted businessman giving Obama money surfaced (yet again). More importantly, there’s Obama’s pastor saying things in church about Hillary, about race, about 9/11, about the incarceration of blacks, about a lot of things that, because he’s Obama’s pastor, Obama must address. (more…)

If you’ve been reading the papers for political stories that aren’t about the presidential campaign, you might have noticed a story that had a headline with a variation of the following: “California Court Declares Homeschooling Illegal.” Shock, outrage and disbelief seemed to be the emotions du jour after the story was published. However, many papers reported the story inaccurately, or highlighted portions of the Appellate court decision that were taken out of context.

Reporters look for “the sexy” in a story, and boy did they find a good one in this court ruling! On page one, paragraph two of the actual decision, the court provided the media with their money shot: “California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” However, if one bothered to actually read the rest of the decision, one would find that the court was quick to point out exceptions to this assertion. To wit:

Full-time public school education for persons between the ages of six and eighteen is compulsory under California’s compulsory education law (Ed. Code, § 48200 et seq.), “and each parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of the pupil shall send the pupil to the public full-time day school . . . and for the full time designated as the length of the school day by the governing board of the school district” (§ 48200). Exemptions to compulsory public school education are made for, among others, children who (1) attend a private full-time day school (§ 48222) or (2) are instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught (§ 48224), or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child. Because the parents in this case have not demonstrated that any of these exemptions apply to their children, we will grant the petition for extraordinary writ.

(more…)

It seems every four years Ralph Nader surfaces as a presidential candidate to remind progressives, and even some libertarians, why our system of government is rigged, why we’re getting screwed, and why we should vote for him. There’s nothing wrong with Nader running as a presidential candidate. I’m not one of those who gets all frothy at the mouth and screams “Spoiler! You’re responsible for George W. Bush in 2000! You’re an ego-head who just loves the limelight and doing what you can to destroy the Democratic party!” I don’t resent Ralph for wanting to become President on a far left agenda. In fact, I’m in agreement with him on many issues. And when he talks about democratizing the election process by giving people more choices in terms of candidates, I can only say “You go, Ralph!”

I think people need to hear from individuals who come from political parties that haven’t been part of the duopoly (to use Ralph’s term for the way in which the Republicans and Democrats have basically closed the system so their candidates are the only viable ones running for office). I also think it’s important to end “safe seats” for members of Congress, and to end the dominance of corporate power by changing the way in which campaigns are financed. However, all this presumes that we, as a people, actually find these issues compelling and act to change the way in which business in conducted in Washington D.C. and in state capitals around the country.

It takes more than just a presidential run as a third party candidate to alter The System. It takes a movement that agitates, pressures, and compels The System to do thing differently. It’s not an easy thing. Just look how long it took for the U.S. government to finally pass civil rights legislation, or how long it’s taken right-wing activists to chip away at reproductive rights for women in this country. For the most part, the notion of “change” that’s been part of almost every presidential campaign is an incremental thing. When is it not incremental? Well, that’s easy to answer: war, or some kind of national crisis where people turn to the government to “do something.” (more…)

I would venture to guess that most of the Popdose audience wasn’t even born when the radicalism of the 1960s bubbled up — yet the shadow of the 1960s is showing signs that its legacy still has some life. I don’t aim to sum up the ’60s here in one post, but one of the things that I can’t seem to get out of my mind during this presidential campaign is the language used during the ’60s, and how certain groups that form the base of the Republican Party are locked into the tone of that language today. Simply put, the language of politically active lefties, anti-war groups, civil rights, and later women’s and gay rights was the language of non-negotiable demands.

The idea was effective in its simplicity: find an injustice that’s linked to an institution. In the case of many top-notch research universities, the link was government-funded research into chemical-biological weapons conducted at a university, and its link to the Vietnam War. Then mobilize a group around said injustice and storm the gates (or a university regent meeting) and present those who represented The System a list of non-negotiable demands that essentially said “cease and desist.” If the demands weren’t met, students would picket, sit in, or go on strike to disrupt the usual functions of the institution until the administration caved.

As you can imagine, for 18-22 year olds with their heads full of idealism, taking on The Suits who are at the forefront of injustice of the world is an intoxicating thing. As the movements grew in numbers, the language became more moralistic, the tone became more strident, and ideology sharpened into a hybrid of left-libertarianism, Marxist critique of capital, and race, class and gender identity. Sure, there are some aging new lefties who still cling to that political point of view – which at the time was quite innovative. However, political conservatives are now the ones who are riding the “steady state” of a ’60s brand of non-negotiable moralism – but they have adapted it to their own issues. (more…)

Years ago, I used to teach political science to students whose level of interest ran the range from apathetic to enthusiastic — with a good chunk in the middle just trying to get a decent grade on the way to getting a degree. Those on the apathetic end of the spectrum would often drop the course, those in the middle would muddle though, and those who were enthusiastic would, as you can probably guess, excel and go on to do great work in school. Some semesters there would be a larger group of enthusiastic students; others, the apathetic types would sit there until that last possible drop date and then they would be gone — leaving me with an embarrassingly paltry number of students. It was a game that was played at this particular community college, and the game was “Priorities.” What did you want out of life? What were your priorities during college? For the apathetic types, their priority was to keep their parents off their backs by demonstrating that they were motivated enough to go to college, but because of a series of circumstances, life got too busy and they had to drop — but not before renewing their car insurance to get the student discount!

For the college, its priority was, as one of the Deans told me, to “keep butts in those chairs — ” because that’s how the college got money from the state. For me, the priority was “pie in the sky” idealism. I guess I was a true believer in a mild form of “positive liberty” I use the term “mild” because I’ve studied enough history and politics to know that to be a true believer (without the caveat of a term like “mild’) carries with it the danger of extremism. But I really believed that, armed with knowledge of both the theories and practices of politics in the world, students would become better citizens. Having informed citizens who could filter the crap from the enormous amount of data that’s hurled at us everyday was, to me, an ideal worth being dedicated to.

While it’s easy to be drawn into the petty fights that erupt on a political campaign, in the halls of Congress, or in the daily slugfest of 24-hour cable news, what’s really important in politics is following the priorities of those who have the power to dole out money. Every year, the President and the Congress battle over how tax dollars are going to be spent, and every year one group blames the other for shortcomings. It’s the same old song and dance that newspapers duly report on page A4, but save the “sexy” stuff for the front page — which is a whole other set of priorities that I could easily get trapped into writing about.

This year is no different. We’re at the tail end of the Bush presidency, and for a guy who came in touting “compassionate conservatism” in 2000, looking at his budget priories for 2008, it’s clear that whatever compassionate intentions Bush had are now clearly dwarfed by the PNAC wing of his administration who’ve had war, global hegemony, and profit on their mind since the mid ’90s. Looking at the proposed budget Bush wants Congress to approve reveals priorities that clearly show he’s got war and virginity on his mind. (more…)

For all intents and purposes, Bill and Hillary Clinton should be my candidates. On the political spectrum I consider myself center-left, and the Clintons have been center-left politicians since, well, they became politicians. You can call it centrist, or “Blue Dog,” or what have you, but they are political dealmakers in a system designed for compromise. However, the system seems to work well when those who are forced to compromise also have a set of core values that are different from the opposition. The whole notion of compromise might be a foreign thought to our ears after enduring the reign of W. and his contingent of “no compromise” congressmen and women; however, during Bill Clinton’s tenure as President, he frustrated the hell out of many Democrats by making whatever deal he could to insure that he would survive politically — even if that meant walking and talking like a Republican.

(more…)

Upon leaving office in 2000, Bill Clinton was keen on having a national conversation on race in America. He eventually did in 2004, but because he was a former president involved in this conversation and not a current president, it had very little effect on the political culture writ large. Neither of the two presidential candidates in 2004 even spoke about race in the narrative we’re used to (i.e., black and white), and with the current news of the “Under-30 crowd’s” intolerance of the use of race in a political campaign, one could easily argue that Martin Luther King’s “Dream” of a color-blind society is on its way to becoming a reality. In my own day-to-day, I’ve noticed that younger folks are more apt to have friends of different ethnicities and are very accepting of cultures that differ from their own. One could credit the growing emphasis on multicultural education in many school curriculums; however, the dry recitation of historical facts, sociological trends, or artistic creations is no substitute for a truly effective gateway into another culture: food. (more…)

Presidential campaigns, like marketing campaigns, have to have a sellable theme. Something that sounds snappy and connects with voters/consumers so they will act (i.e., vote for a candidate or buy a certain product). Whether it was Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America,” or Bill Clinton’s “Hope” campaign, or even George W. Bush’s “Trust” campaign (in which he proclaims his trust for people over the government), they are all selling something.

This year the theme is “Change.” Hillary wants change, Obama wants change, Huckabee wants change, McCain wants change. They all say they want to govern differently than the current administration – something that the Bush administration seems okay with, as long as Republican candidates don’t criticize him too pointedly.

Campaign themes appeal to our emotional desires. They sell the sizzle, and it’s our job to fill in the blanks for which kind of steak we want. But what if the “change” we crave has consequences that are more nightmarish than the status quo? (more…)

A news item broke late Friday that was quite novel for political retribution stories. Lawyers representing Jose Padilla – the guy who was locked up in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years as an “enemy combatant” for allegedly attempting to construct a so-called “dirty bomb,” but not formally charged with crimes so as to avoid a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court – have filed a lawsuit against John Yoo, claiming that a memo he co-authored while working as an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department justified the use of physical and mental harm during interrogations. Some folks call these acts by their brand name: torture.

Who is John Yoo, and what’s at issue? Well, John now teaches at UC Berkeley’s School of Law, and the memo he worked long and hard on was known as the “Bybee Memo,” because it was signed by Jay Bybee. Nevertheless, it was later brought to light that Yoo was the primary author of the memo, and if you want to spend an hour or so reading all 50 pages, you’re more than welcome to. I did, and what I took away from the memo was – to be blunt – an elaborate rulebook for S&M that didn’t have any “safe words.” (more…)