Tea Party Democrat-V.2

November 26, 2012

This is a non pedantic revision for those with political-marketing expertise.  It is prompted by a last minute campaign ad in the 52nd district of California that may have made the difference in a raced decided by a single percentage of the vote.  It looks at both the descent into emotional laden concepts, in this case that are contrary to the what those with a moderate level of understanding of issues would be aware of.  In fact, as  will be clear, this was antithetical to the wide range of opinion by those in politics and voters on a central issue to be decided by the position being vied for.

First I will look at the conflict between gut feelings, being a "regular guy" which is inimical to being "wonky-intellectual-egg head" a dichotomy that is long known, but made clearer in this election.  Such in "intellectual stigma" is a cause for suspicion of candidates for public office that must be avoided, as Mitt Romney's fluency in French was mostly hidden from the public.  In America such intellectual skill is something that will lessen a central quality for winning elected office, being a person you would want to share a beer with. This is so important that Romney's ability to communicate in a major language of diplomacy had to be downplayed, rather than promoted as something that would have been a benefit in his navigating foreign affairs.

The immediate occasion for this essay is a congressional campaign that has just ended where the use of the two esoteric concepts of my title is the best way to explore the message of one candidate, the Democrat Scott Peters.    This is in a new district, California's 52, where the entrenched incumbent Brian Bilbray was redistricted into a competitive demographic that resulted in a photo finish, the votes still being recounted as I write this.

Lets start with something that is in the headlines now that has been discussed for over a year.  It is called The Fiscal Cliff,  an unusual piece of legislation passed in August of 2011 that was meant to be so onerous that it would never actually be implemented,  but to get us past the stalemate between the two parties that was about to close down the federal government.  It provided that if Congress did not produce a bipartisan budget, the draconian across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013.

I have copied below the full press release on Candidate Peter's advertisement  with the link to the video here.   There are several key points:  Peters is running as a Democrat, and as such the major ideological opposition is the Tea Party, whose ideology has become the unanimous position of the Republican House of Representatives, including that of Peter's opponent.  The essential long term goal of this opposition is known as broadly as "austerity," the primary goal being reduction of the a country's deficit through "balancing the budget.;" and given they have signed commitments against any increase in taxes, this must be achieved through decreasing government services   While it is universally agreed that in the long term the deficit must be reduced, no one in political life is suggesting that it be done immediately at this time of worldwide economic recession.  The reason that the term "cliff" has been adopted for the aforementioned Budget Control Act of 2011 is that it is seen as an immediate ending of the inherent stimulus of federal expenditures that would precipitate an economic disaster.

This brings us to the content of Scott Peters' advertisement. It is important to note that this is meant to influence voters in one of the more educated and wealthy districts of our country.  90% of adults have at least a high school degree and forty percent a bachelors or advanced degree.  These are people that would be expected to know the adverse consequences of a precipitous balanced budget.

The text of the ad, certainly tested carefully on focus groups, was a seriously considered decision, being the final thrust of one of the country's most expensive House campaigns.  I will show that this demonstrates the ascendancy of memes, over rationality of appeals to emotion over cognition, a growing trend that has debased the essential principle of democratic governance.

The last part of the 30 second video begins with Peters strolling along the beach, and with the words , "....I say no budget no pay."  With this he hopes to bond with the voters who have disdain for all legislators, implying that their salary, their main incentive,  should be withheld for lack of performance .   "If congress doesn't do their job to balance the budget," with a shrug indicating how simple the solution is, he concludes with, "They don't get a pay check."  The ad continues with the pro forma, "I'm Scott Petters and I approve this message," closing with a firm, "Enough is Enough."

I'm sure this tested well by Peter's media advisors, that it will be taken by the viewers as differentiating him from those grubby legislators, especially the one he wants to unseat, who just builds up his pension while not taking the difficult stands that could ameliorate the nations structural problems.  The profound irony is that he makes his argument by using, and thus perpetuating, the most egregious defects in our political mass communication.

While he blames his opponent for not finding a way to avoid The Fiscal Cliff, his solution is to propose that congress pass a law that would, if ever adopted, not only speed the country to this economic precipice, but would lead to even a greater economic catastrophe.  What he is proposing, in a friendly casual way while enjoying his stroll on the beach, is not the Fiscal Cliffs activation, which would require an immediate withdrawal from the national economy of a half a trillion dollars, but one that would be twice as severe.

This casual proposal by a man who is running for the national legislature is not supported by any mainstream academic or political school of thought, as even the Paul Ryan budget, passed unanimously by the Republicans in the house, does not project a balanced budget until many decades in the future.  This campaign ad, one addressed to a literate audience, sheds a harsh bright light on two aspects of American culture in the second decade of the 21st century that are deeply troubling,  The first is the decline of ratiocination among even educated Americans; the second is the increase in political tribalism that makes it acceptable to those who understand its harmful consequences.

There is no doubt that Scott Peters and his team were well aware of the contradictions I describe in this essay, yet they chose to toss the dice by running this ad.  I assume that if I were to pose the question off the record, "Do you really advocate a balanced federal budget in your first term." that Peters would admit that he was being cynical and he knew it."

It is not only the advertisement that made his point, In an interview on this local news program, San Diego 6 in the Morning on November 1,  he dispelled an ambiguity of his proposal.  He ignored its political impossibility and, since the interviewer was clueless about such things as government finance and took him seriously, he affirmed his position with,   "Look, if you can't balance the budget every year, which is your job, then you shouldn't get a paycheck"

There are other questions that flow from this.  Did Peter's believe that those in his "tribe" who are committed Democrats will condone his using this reverse jujitsu  to make voters feel that he is just like them, someone they could "share a beer with."  Or would he argue that this is now the nature of politics, that  the currency of mass marketing of candidates is memes rather than rationality, and to abandon this irrational emotional language would be unilateral disarmament.

This is the first major election after the Citizen's United decision unleashed unlimited cash to swamp the media with political ads, mostly negative. What this election has shown is that the worst fear of the effect of this decision on campaigns didn't come to pass.  This decision was based on, among other less noble reasons, the belief that the American voters will not be swayed by a deluge of advertisements, but can understand enough of the central issues to make an informed decision.

Peters' ad described here is counter to this premise, and I argue that he by legitimizing emotion over content has enhanced the value of the unlimited funding for such ads allowed under Citizens United. . He was not providing any information on either the fiscal choices to be made, or his position on them.  By distorting the reality of what a balanced budget means, he is not providing any counterbalance to the effect of unlimited emotional messages allowed by this decision.

There is one defense, a justification of Peters action described here.  What if because of this dishonest proposal, Peters does get the extra votes to win the seat in the House?  And because of this, he is instrumental, along with a few members from the other side of the aisle, in forming a coalition to pass a reasonable budget. Will this be vindication for his distortion, his adopting a Tea Party meme to win the election.

If Democrats want to validate their claim of being the "reality party" those members who flout its principles must be called to account.  Whether such pandering described here results in victory or defeat, this is secondary to the damage done to the integrity of our political system.

In the election campaign just completed, with hundreds of thousands of advertisements, almost all that make spurious personal attacks on the opponent that avoid actual issues, why would this one be notable?  First, it shows how universal this is, extending to this district that is among the most educated, including the prestigious U.C.S.D campus.  It demonstrates how far we have deviated from the essential element of democratic governance, that universal suffrage requires informed involved voters.  Second, this overt counter-factual claim  provides a natural epidemiological event that can be mined by surveys of the reaction by party affiliation. Is this type of distortion now so commonplace that it is simply dismissed as meaningless.   Does this win elections, and if so at what cost.

Will Scott Petter's victory, by use of such memes, advance this irrational modality as the universal language of elections.  And if so, what is this thing we call a democracy, where the sovereigns, the people, have no clue as to the nature of the most pressing issues of the day, and the advertisements that they are exposed to obfuscate rather than educate,  as they choose those who will shape the country's policies.

At the very least, this documented example of cynical political speech should be examined, not to castigate the individual Scott Peters, but as an object lesson for those who still have hope for this noble, but fragile,  experiment in Constitutional democracy.

--------
Full copy of Scott Peter's campaign page. 

“If Congress can’t balance the budget, they don’t get a paycheck.”

San Diego – In a new 30-second television advertisement launched today, congressional candidate Scott Peters says he supports the concept of ‘No Budget, No Pay’ as a way to hold representatives accountable for doing their jobs, which includes working together to pass a federal budget.

“Congress’s inability to reach agreement on a federal budget caused America’s credit rating to be downgraded for the first time in our history. It led us to this fiscal cliff that threatens jobs, our economy and even national security,” said Peters.

“Yet Congressman Bilbray counts the draconian cuts forced by sequestration as a hallmark example of bipartisan work,” he added. “I think it’s a disaster; I say members of Congress shouldn’t get paid if they don’t do their jobs.”

In the ad, Peters says, “It’s time Congress worked for us. I say – no budget, no pay. If Congress doesn’t do their job and balance the budget – they don’t get a paycheck.”

The process known as sequestration resulted from the inability of Congress to compromise and reach agreement on a federal spending plan. The draconian across-the-board cuts, supported by Brian Bilbray, could mean the loss of 30,000 defense-related jobs in San Diego County alone, as well as the loss of billions of dollars of investment in science and research. These together could cripple San Diego’s economy.

“Congress is broken. To change it, we need to change the people we send there, and we need to hold our representatives accountable,” he said.
------------
Link to post election N.Y. Times article  that describes Internet data mining, such as part of the decision making resulting in what is described here,  in making manipulations such memes more effective

Thanksgiving Day 2012

This was sent to a group of men, ages 50s to 90s, some who have played doubles tennis together for three decades.  A few of us, from two to ten out of the twenty plus who play, get together at the local McDonalds to talk afterwards, which is what I refer to in this missive.  

Poinsettia Tennis Group

For the moment there is a suspension of the ongoing conflict that surrounds the Gaza Strip that could have been the fuse for a clash of civilizations between the Arabic world and Israel and its western allies. From such sparks -- the assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 comes to mind -- have come unimaginable global carnage. That murder lead to WWI, which sowed the seeds of revolutionary Communism which bred the fascist response that included the murderous antisemitism that resulted in the Jewish homeland-- with displacement of the indigenous population to a place called Gaza.

And then there's the occasional conflict that we experience while playing tennis in the courts of Carlsbad California. Voices are raised, tempers are lost, and there is a place deep in our brain that lights up in the same way as those who last week felt the explosions in that contentious land on the Mediterranean coast, including the family of a member of our group.

While this part of our primitive humanity can emerge even in our public playground, so does another side, the ability to transcend differences to form something that enriches us all. Among this informal group are those whose childhoods were blighted by political movements that defined the twentieth century; ironically by both arch enemies, Communism and Fascism. One man spent a good part of his youth in a Japanese displacement camp in Indonesia, others under the most oppressive phase of Soviet Communism, and some of us on different sides of the Jim Crow line that was an echo of this country's original sin.

We are Christians, Hindus, Agnostics, Jews and Atheists; staunch conservatives and dedicated liberals. Married, single, widowed--some who have known the joys and the sadness of parenthood and others with no family at all. Some of us with careers that have provided personal and financial rewards and others who for an array of reasons have not, and some who can really play this game of tennis like a pro, and others like myself who don't come close.

Some have experienced our country's wars, from the "good one" that united the country after that day of infamy to those that followed that divided us then, and have perpetuated the political animosities that are still so searing to this day. Scars of war, whether shrapnel embedded in flesh or images embedded in memory, last a lifetime, as are the emotional scars that accrue just in the process of being alive.

It is the pain of such injuries that can be alleviated, dispelled if just for a moment, as we concentrate on sprinting to that lob that may land in bounds and returning it for a winner. So, I give thanks for this game, and the people whom I play with who make it possible, and this brief moment of, if not world peace, at least the glimmer of hope that such a thing is achievable.

Al R.

Film review: "A Late Quartet"

There is a scene of Christopher Walken, playing the older declining cellist Peter Mitchell recounting an audition with the great Pablo Casals, where he said his rendition of a known classic was "just awful, nothing but mistakes" but the Maestro praised it with evident sincerity. Mitchell had remained disturbed by the seeming lack of candor, until many decades later, when both were at the top of the pack, over a glass of wine he asked him about it. His response is a lesson for reviewing this film and beyond.

"I heard those mistakes, but I also felt your passion, your conveying it in strong sensitive lyrical phrases that others rarely achieve. Those critics who keep track of every wrong note are missing out on what music and life has to offer."

And so I will leave the defects of this film to others, and there are many elements that deviated from what I write about, a rare sensitive exploration of life, using a string quartet as exemplar and metaphor. I only went to the art house showing this expecting it to be, based on the reviews, a bad movie that happened to be shot in my old neighborhood of Lincoln Center area of New York. My wife is an amateur violinist, and always came home from her week long SummerTrios camp with the glow from playing in groups such as this film depicted.

After seeing this film I understand why. This depicted consummate musicians, who rather than the solo careers available to them chose to become a single instrument, one that required that most human ability of merging of individuality into something that can only be achieved by--the word for it is "symbiosis" different organisms uniting in a common goal. While the conflicts of ego, sexual attraction, fame and glory may seem hackneyed, it is because this is the universal challenge of making any such group-from a marriage to a nation-long endure.

In my old neighborhood, a young world famous violinist bought into our coop building. We lost touch when I moved to California a decade ago, and wondered why with unlimited solo bookings he had joined a chamber group. This film explained why, not only from a musicological level, but from the human desire to be part of something beyond our individuality. That is the element of this film that transcends music.

You see, I also play in quartets, but they are doubles tennis with two people on each side ostensibly playing against each other. Yet, for it to work, for it to give the same type of pleasure that my wife and soloist friend got out of chamber music all four have to work together, enjoying the virtuoso movement of any of the foursome, no matter which side of the net they are on. And like in this magnificent film, the ego that makes for the excitement, when taken too far, to the point of questionable line calls, leading to animosity, can destroy the entire experience.

And like a quartet playing off each other in an "allegro" passage, in tennis a flurry of volleys, with a running get that is returned for a winner, can bring joy to the performers and the audience. This perfect miniature of a film, like all great productions, is only achieved by such seamless excellence that no one can tell where one individual's contribution ends and the other's begins.

This is about the the most sublime entertaining lousy flick I've ever seen.