my ninth blogaversary

(Washington, DC) I started blogging on Jan. 9, 2003 and have since published 2,176 posts, almost one per workday. Every year on my blogaversary, I reflect on the year’s blogging. In 2011, the biggest change was a shift to WordPress, which allowed me to accept comments again and to embed Facebook and Twitter buttons. (I find I have a Pavlovian reaction to “likes” and Tweets.)

My favorite posts on my own blog this year  included:

I also posted more frequently on other blogs in 2011, including: “If You Want Citizens to Trust Government, Empower Them to Govern” (on the Democratic Strategist blog), “Young, Black, and Voting” (on the Root), and four entries on HuffingtonPost.

youth voting update

(Atlanta) While I am here for meetings on state standards, CIRCLE has been churning out press releases related to youth voting in the primaries and caucuses (and getting a fair amount of coverage). Notwithstanding my recent critique of horse-race campaign coverage, we do try to provide solid and timely information about young voters–to set the record straight and to help young people draw attention that may translate into political importance.

So far, I think these are some of the highlights:

Youth turnout in Iowa was just 4%, but that’s rather typical of the Caucuses. The outlier year was 2008. It helped that youth could vote in either the Democratic or Republican Caucuses in ’08, but Barack Obama’s 30,000+ young voters pushed it to record-setting heights.

This year, although not a huge number of young Iowans participated, they concentrated their votes for Ron Paul (who drew 48%: far more than anyone else), thereby affecting the result. If you subtracted Paul’s roughly 8,800 young voters from his total, he’d have fallen behind Newt Gingrich there.

Some people have been analogizing the Ron Paul youth phenomenon of 2012 to the Obama surge of 2008, but it’s important to recognize that Obama drew 3-4 times as many young voters.

In New Hampshire, we show that youth voting and engagement are normally high, making young voters a potentially important part of that primary as well. In ’08, their preferred candidate (Barack Obama) lost, but youth turnout was very strong. It’s not clear whom they will support next Tuesday–or, indeed, whether New Hampshire will be interesting, since some polls are predicting a Romney blowout.

Even though I disparage prognostication, I tend to think that this year’s primary season is basically over, with the apparent “race” between Romney and his opponents now a bit of a ritual rather than a suspense-inducing choice. But the earlier stages of the Republican race were full of surprises, so who knows?

the politics of The Sound of Music

(in Atlanta) My family watched The Sound of Music over the winter break. I am not a big fan of musicals, but the music, lyrics, and cinematography of this movie are famously good. I had always thought the politics of the story were problematic, in a naive sort of way. Thanks to an impressively researched essay by Robert von Dassanowsky, I now believe that the politics are quite sophisticated and perhaps a bit less problematic.

The von Trapp family is threatened by Nazis. The hero of the film, Captain von Trapp, explicitly opposes Nazism. But he doesn’t object to the obvious problems: Antisemitism, militarism, or authoritarianism. His concern is the threat that Nazi Germany poses to Austrian independence. That stance had always struck me as implausible as well as offensive. Austria, after all, was the accidental product of defeat in World War I. It was only a few years old at the time the movie is set (“The Last Golden Years of the Thirties”): a rump, landlocked, German-speaking, Tyrolean republic created very much against the wishes of people like Captain van Trapp, a former officer of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial Navy. Veterans with  authoritarian, hyper-conservative, nationalistic sentiments would be drawn to Germany and to Nazism. Hitler himself was Austrian, and Austria was a crucible of his movement. So I always thought that The Sound of Music was a Hollywood confection, a fantasy of a Germanic nationalist who could be anti-Nazi without having to mention Jews, democracy, or war. You could even suspect that Uncle Max (the money-grubbing urbanite) is meant to be Jewish. That would be a kind of soft Antisemitism, since Max does save the von Trapps at the end, but he is clearly their inferior.

But von Dassanowsky shows that the movie is very carefully contrived (down to the smallest detail) to evoke the specific ideology of the “the anti-Nazi authoritarian state, the 1934-38 Austrofascist Ständestaat of the Chancellors Engelbert Dollfuss (1892-1934) and Kurt von Schuschnigg (1897-1977).” This regime replaced the first Austrian Republic. It was authoritarian; the government jailed political opponents and even executed people accused of “rioting.” But it was also explicitly anti-Nazi; in fact, it imprisoned Austrian Nazis. It was not aggressive, militaristic, or Antisemitic. Numerous prominent Austrian Jews supported the regime. Its natural ally was Mussolini’s Italy, and once Mussolini withdrew his protection, the Ständestaat collapsed.

Von Dassanowsky traces the rather learned evocations of the Ständestaat in the film. For instance: “Captain von Trapp is defined by a white Austrian decoration in the shape of a crusader’s cross or Kruckenkreuz around his neck, and displays the Austrian flag in his entry hall during the ball. … The Austrofascist Chancellor Dollfuss believed the Kruckenkreuz to be a Christian symbol that would show Austria to be a ‘better’ Germany in contrast to the Third Reich, which found representation in the pagan symbol of the swastika.” The invented nationalism of the Ständestaat combined several distinctive elements: the Austro-Hungarian military aristocracy, the Catholic church,  Tyrolean peasant culture and folk music, patriarchal families, a peaceable and friendly foreign policy, and the Baroque heritage. Once Maria and Georg are married, and the former naval officer is the leader of a large family folk music ensemble from Baroque Salzburg, the Ständestaat ideal is complete.

I find it very surprising that Hollywood producers in post-War America would know or care enough about this episode from Austrian interwar history to evoke it so carefully, especially since Austrofascism was not remembered fondly in post-War Austria. The ideological motivation, however, is understandable. In the midst of the Cold War, it would comforting to view a highly conservative and authoritarian cultural movement as an ally in the fight against Nazism.

Emerson’s Circles (in verse)

Fragments from Emerson’s prose essay “Circles” (1841):

Our life is an apprenticeship to the truth
that around every circle another
can be drawn. There is no end in nature,
but every end is a beginning.
There is always another dawn risen
on mid-noon, and under every deep
a lower deep opens. The Greek sculpture
is all melted away. The Greek letters
last a little longer, but are already
passing under the same sentence, tumbling
into the inevitable pit which the
creation of new thought opens for all
that is old. The new continents are built
out of the ruins of an old planet.

The man finishes his story, – how good!
how final! how it puts a new face on
all things! He fills the sky. Lo, on the other side
rises also a man and draws a circle
around the circle we had just pronounced
the outline of the sphere. Then already is
our first speaker not man, but only first
speaker. His redress is forthwith to draw
a circle outside of his antagonist.

In common hours, society sits
cold and statuesque. Then cometh the god
and converts the statues into fiery men,
and by a flash of his eye burns up the veil
which shrouded all things, and the meaning of
the very furniture, of cup and saucer,
or chair and clock and tester, is manifest.

The natural world may be conceived of
as a system of concentric circles,
and we now and then detect in nature
slight dislocations which apprize us that
this surface on which we stand is not fixed,
but sliding.

I am gladdened by beholding that no
evil is pure, nor hell itself without
its extreme satisfactions. But let me
remind the reader that I am only
an experimenter. Do not set the least
value on what I do, or the least discredit
on what I do not, as if I pretended
to settle any thing as true or false.
I unsettle all things, an endless seeker
with no Past at my back.

playing the horse race game

Late last week, we issued a press release on the trend in voter registration, with the the phrase “Warning Sign for Barack Obama” in the subhead. The release was quickly picked up by Politico, National Review Online, US News (Ken Walsh’s “Washington” blog), Andrew Sullivan, and the Charlotte News & Observer. In contrast, our much more ambitious and nuance-filled study of young voters proved relatively hard to place. I would give our PR firm, Luna Media Group, lots of credit for the success of the latter release, but comparing the two products tells you something about the way the news media work today.

Basically, any information–no matter how complex and arcane–that seems relevant to whether a given candidate will win the next election interests reporters. Any information–no matter how broad and durable–that doesn’t help predict the winner falls to the wayside.

Back in 1996, CNN political director Mark Hannon explained that his network conducted daily polls because they “happen to be the most authoritative way to answer the most basic question about the election, which is who is going to win.” I’ve saved his quote all these years because it seems so characteristic of the whole profession.

In my view, “who is going to win” is absolutely not the most important question. Voters need to know what the candidates stand for, what they have done in the past, how government works, a range of opinions about the issues, and information relevant to assessing the candidates’ positions. For example, they need to know what each of the Republican presidential candidates would do about the federal budget and what the federal budget currently pays for.

Reporters are leery of those matters because (I suspect) policies and issues seem complicated and dry; they can be intimidating to write about; and they involve value-judgments as well as simple facts. In contrast, reporters feel they are experts about who will win, and they see that as a value-neutral topic. (It’s a prediction, not a recommendation.)

Yet making predictions does transmit values. It suggests that you’re wasting your vote by choosing a candidate with low poll numbers, it implies that your only role as a citizen is to vote, and it depicts politics as a horse race in which winning the next election is the overriding goal. It makes doing anything to win seem natural and acceptable; to expect anything else looks naive.

Incidentally, the last time I complained about horse-race coverage (in June 2011), my example was the unfair treatment of Rick Santorum. If he does well in Iowa, the same dynamic that frustrated him then will boost his candidacy now, for equally arbitrary reasons.