Monthly Archives: March 2008

bloggerel

To bleg is to beg on your blog, your blog.
A blog made of movies: a vlog.
To twitter’s to text folks your latest post;
A flog is a blog by a corporate ghost.
A blath is on math; a blawg covers law;
A troll will pounce on your teeniest flaw.
An attorney whose mind is a fog
Should post his bleg on a blawg web log.
To clog a blog, you jam it with spam:
Just ping that thing a link to your scam.
The blogosphere, it’s got it all:
Rolls and blolls and folderol.
Post anything on yours–it’s fine;
Just don’t forget to link to mine.
Quotes and lies, it all is free;
Just don’t forget to link to me.

(If you think I made any of this up, click here.)

what the campaign is about

I have my own preference in the Democratic primary, which is probably clear enough to regular readers. But this is a non-partisan, politically nonaligned blog that’s a vehicle for my work for various independent, nonprofit, civic organizations. In that spirit, here’s what I think the current Democratic primary debate is about.

It can’t be about “change” versus “experience” (vacuous categories drawn from exit polls), nor about nominating the first woman versus the first person of color. Those choices are beneath our dignity as a people. And the campaign cannot be about policy differences, because any differences between the position papers of Clinton and Obama are so subtle as to be completely lost in the legislative process. So I think the campaign is, or ought to be, a choice between two views of America and our future.

One view says that what’s wrong with America is the Bush Administration and its allies among Republicans and conservative groups. They really messed up the country through some unprecedented combination of malice and incompetence. To solve that problem, they need to be defeated, and it has to be clear that the voters have rejected them. (That way, they won’t just bounce back for another round). The ideal Democratic candidate is someone who represents a restoration of the situation before 2000, and none better than the wife of the last Democratic president. Further, Senator Clinton is thought to be especially tough and skillful in the face of the politics of personal destruction, which (according to this viewpoint) is the specialty of today’s Republicans.

This view is reinforced by: examples of Republican malfeasance, polls showing George Bush’s unpopularity, and evidence of Senator Clinton’s tactical/managerial skills. This view is undermined by: examples of social problems and bad government under Democrats, surveys showing a public desire for reconciliation, and doubts about Senator Clinton’s public appeal or political skills.

The alternate view says that what’s wrong with America started well before 2000 and implicates the whole class of political leaders, Democrats and Republicans (although not necessarily to the same degree). This whole class has lost the confidence and support of Americans because of unproductive conflict in Washington and because leaders haven’t called on–or even permitted–Americans to participate in solving our problems. The best president to bring about reconciliation would be a newcomer to the national scene, someone with experience in the nonprofit world, a progressive with the ability to understand and respect conservative views and a message of empowerment. Senator Obama fits the bill.

This second view is reinforced by: new voters entering politics to support Obama, the resonance of his message, and evidence that we could address important social problems through popular participation and broad, cross-partisan dialog. This view is undermined by: doubts that Senator Obama’s appeal is broad, evidence of unbridgeable gaps within the public, or arguments that Obama is only popular because of his personal charisma, which may prove evanescent.

That’s my best effort at a reasonably neutral summary. It seems an appropriate choice to put before the public. We should reason together and decide.

free speech for the public as a whole

Gay marriage is currently before the California State Supreme Court as a constitutional issue. News coverage of the case has made me think that there might be three ways of addressing the issue:

1. Allow state legislatures (or voters in referenda) to deny to gay couples all the traditional rights of marriage. I believe that policy is discriminatory and counter to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection.” I would like to see courts intervene against this policy even if they must defy popular opinion.

2. Require states to offer marriage licenses–by that name–to gay and straight couples. That would be full equality. But it would be deeply unpopular, and it would block public participation and deliberation about an important issue. It would substitute the expert judgment of a few judges for the political process.

3. Require states to offer all the traditional benefits of marriage to gay and straight couples, but allow states to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexuals. That is not completely and absolutely “equal” treatment. But this third policy has the great advantage of offering a possible compromise. Besides, I’m not keen on courts’ dictating what governments must say (as opposed to what they may do).

For one thing, we should avoid abridging the collective speech rights of the people or their legislatures. In my view, not only individual people, but also “the people,” should be able to say what they want (even if it’s wrong). The remedy to bad public speech is to rebut or criticize the majority’s view, not to ask a court to strike it down. One can also simply ignore what the government says by, for example, calling gay people “married” even if the state won’t.

Further, I think we should be careful about striking down state language or expression that treats citizens differently, even when the differences are invidious. That opens the door to all kinds of litigation about governmental expression. Do we want courts to decide the content of textbooks in public schools, the meaning of public statues and monuments, or statements made on the job by teachers and police officers? The state can do wrong by speaking offensively, but lawsuits are not the best remedy.

digital media and learning

The MacArthur Foundation ran a very competitive contest for projects that use technology to enhance learning. These are the seven winners. They are all highly creative, innovative efforts that help young people to be civic or political actors and thereby learn a range of skills. Some of the projects are elaborate and challenging simulations, but most are intended to produce real public benefits.

youth unemployment rate hits 18%

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for people between ages 16-19 was 18 percent in January, 2008. I’m looking at a table that goes back to 1998, and this is the highest rate shown. (It was 13.9 percent in January 1998). For ages 25 and older, the unemployment rate was 3.8 percent in January, and that’s below where it was for most of 2001-5. In other words, the current weak employment market is mainly a problem for our youth.

Why don’t we hear more about this on the campaign trail? Although “young people” are now voting, young voters are mostly (79%) college students or people with some college experience. The other half of young people–those with no college experience–are not part of the campaign. Therefore, we hear some talk about the cost of college and some discussion (albeit not enough) about issues that especially concern idealistic college students, such as climate change. But there is silence about the serious plight of working-class youth.