One of the upshots of last night's election is that there will be a grand total of zero Black senators in our glorious, color-blind nation (I guess part of being color-blind is I have to not notice that). In fact, we haven't elected a Black person to the Senate since, well, Barack Obama in 2004. And he's otherwise indisposed at the moment.
But the news isn't all bad in terms of Black political achievement. Republicans will be sending their largest contingent of Black Representatives to the House since Reconstruction ... 2! One of whom, Allen West (R-FL), is a war criminal (he resigned from the armed forces after being convicted in a military court of assault and misconduct for shooting a pistol off next to a bound detainee)!
Jamelle Bouie asks whether either West or Tim Scott (R-SC) will gain significant African-American support, before remembering that "black people aren't pure identity voters and don't support politicians with policies they oppose."
In all seriousness, it is a good thing that Republicans are running more Black candidates. It seems like the GOP realizes that, with a Black President, it can't be seen as an all-White party anymore. And while its outreach (such as it is) to the Black community hasn't been particularly successful (as Bouie points out, the key factor influencing Black votes -- like all of us -- is whether they largely support or oppose the policies of the party or candidate in question), it is undoubtedly a good thing that opportunities are opening up for Black Republicans within the Party.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Rest of the Good News
I gave my general inspirational, rally the troops post immediately below this one. But, while recognizing that yesterday was indeed an excellent night for the Republicans (and it was), let's focus on some of the good news.
* Democrats have likely flipped five governor's mansions: California, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, and Minnesota. Putting Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island doesn't bother me none either. And we defended on some tough turf as well -- nobody expected Pat Quinn to be going anywhere but home yesterday, but he pulled through. Maryland wasn't close at the end, but for awhile Robert Ehrlich looked like he was going to make a run of it. And, for those of you who care about "close, but no cigar", look at Florida -- where Alex Sink lost by a mere point, and South Carolina(!), where Vincent Shaheen fell only four points short.
* While the vast majority of House seats that changed hands went blue-to-red, there were three that bucked the trend. Say hello to our newly Democratic districts: the DE-AL, LA-02, and HI-01.
* Democrats genuinely did beat expectations in the Senate. Michael Bennet and Harry Reid weren't supposed to be coming back. But they did, and Reid, especially, basically wrote a textbook on how run a badass campaign when all the fundamentals (including the "does anyone in your state actually like you" fundamental) are against you.
* The craziest of Republican crazies aren't headed to Washington (or at least, not the Senate). Christine O'Donnell was soundly thrashed by Chris Coons. Harry Reid turned back Sharron Angle. Joe Miller looks like he'll fall to Lisa Murkowski in Alaska (and, though she'll caucus with the GOP, I imagine she may fill a positively Lieberman-esque role for the next six years). Ken Buck couldn't overtake Michael Bennet. John Raese went down in West Virginia. And it's no exaggeration to say that in three of those states -- Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado -- the candidate cost them the race. That's three Senate seats in Democratic hands, because Republicans overreached in their primaries.
* Even in the House, there are some bright spots (particularly looking ahead to 2012). More than a few Democratic candidates who were written-off earlier in the evening came back to win their races (Sanford Bishop and Gerry Connelly), and others who hung tough to win re-election in agonizingly close races (Joe Donnelly and Jerry McNerney, for example). Excepting New Hampshire, Democrats continue to hold every single House seat in New England.
* Yesterday's defeat is tomorrow's victory. Plenty of folks who went down in defeat today are folks who I think could do wonders in a rematch -- Tom Perriello in the VA-05, who finished much closer to Robert Hurt than I think many expected, is someone I particularly hope to see again. And there are quite a few districts the GOP won which they better start running for reelection on day one: the MN-08 (I'm still shocked that Oberstar lost, but the iron range has deep Democratic roots), the NC-02, the NH-02, the NV-03, and several scattered around New York, to name a few. And the Democratic ground game in 2012 will be a nightmare for new GOP incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
* Finally, while the House will undoubtedly be its own special brand of nightmare for the next two years (Michelle Bachmann for #4!), I remember the Clinton years, and thus I remember what happens to Republicans when they let their inmates run the asylum based on rabid hatred of the President. The fact of the matter is that their behavior doesn't resonate with the nation's voters. It'll be Sarah Palin writ large. And since the House alone can't accomplish anything, I expect their off-putting rage to increase in direct proportion to their continued impotence.
So, mourn if you have to, but snap out of it quick. Things could have been much worse. Shake it off, get off the dirt, and get back in the game. There's still work to be done.
* Democrats have likely flipped five governor's mansions: California, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, and Minnesota. Putting Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island doesn't bother me none either. And we defended on some tough turf as well -- nobody expected Pat Quinn to be going anywhere but home yesterday, but he pulled through. Maryland wasn't close at the end, but for awhile Robert Ehrlich looked like he was going to make a run of it. And, for those of you who care about "close, but no cigar", look at Florida -- where Alex Sink lost by a mere point, and South Carolina(!), where Vincent Shaheen fell only four points short.
* While the vast majority of House seats that changed hands went blue-to-red, there were three that bucked the trend. Say hello to our newly Democratic districts: the DE-AL, LA-02, and HI-01.
* Democrats genuinely did beat expectations in the Senate. Michael Bennet and Harry Reid weren't supposed to be coming back. But they did, and Reid, especially, basically wrote a textbook on how run a badass campaign when all the fundamentals (including the "does anyone in your state actually like you" fundamental) are against you.
* The craziest of Republican crazies aren't headed to Washington (or at least, not the Senate). Christine O'Donnell was soundly thrashed by Chris Coons. Harry Reid turned back Sharron Angle. Joe Miller looks like he'll fall to Lisa Murkowski in Alaska (and, though she'll caucus with the GOP, I imagine she may fill a positively Lieberman-esque role for the next six years). Ken Buck couldn't overtake Michael Bennet. John Raese went down in West Virginia. And it's no exaggeration to say that in three of those states -- Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado -- the candidate cost them the race. That's three Senate seats in Democratic hands, because Republicans overreached in their primaries.
* Even in the House, there are some bright spots (particularly looking ahead to 2012). More than a few Democratic candidates who were written-off earlier in the evening came back to win their races (Sanford Bishop and Gerry Connelly), and others who hung tough to win re-election in agonizingly close races (Joe Donnelly and Jerry McNerney, for example). Excepting New Hampshire, Democrats continue to hold every single House seat in New England.
* Yesterday's defeat is tomorrow's victory. Plenty of folks who went down in defeat today are folks who I think could do wonders in a rematch -- Tom Perriello in the VA-05, who finished much closer to Robert Hurt than I think many expected, is someone I particularly hope to see again. And there are quite a few districts the GOP won which they better start running for reelection on day one: the MN-08 (I'm still shocked that Oberstar lost, but the iron range has deep Democratic roots), the NC-02, the NH-02, the NV-03, and several scattered around New York, to name a few. And the Democratic ground game in 2012 will be a nightmare for new GOP incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
* Finally, while the House will undoubtedly be its own special brand of nightmare for the next two years (Michelle Bachmann for #4!), I remember the Clinton years, and thus I remember what happens to Republicans when they let their inmates run the asylum based on rabid hatred of the President. The fact of the matter is that their behavior doesn't resonate with the nation's voters. It'll be Sarah Palin writ large. And since the House alone can't accomplish anything, I expect their off-putting rage to increase in direct proportion to their continued impotence.
So, mourn if you have to, but snap out of it quick. Things could have been much worse. Shake it off, get off the dirt, and get back in the game. There's still work to be done.
Game On
First of all, congratulations to my Republican friends on a substantial election victory. While the GOP underperformed expectations in the Senate (where Democrats scored upset victories in Colorado and Nevada), they exceeding them in the House, where they won well over 60 seats and will take control of the House with an over 50-seat margin. Stateside, things also were pretty solid for the Republicans -- taking over at least 11 governor's mansions (while losing them in Hawaii, California, and probably -- pending recount -- Minnesota) and racking up big margins in state legislatures. That will be a big benefit come redistricting time.
That being said, step away from the carnage, and where are we? Democrats control the White House. A sizable Republican majority in the House is balanced by a decent Democratic majority in the Senate. The wind at their backs in every way -- bad economy, off-year election, riled up base, an overextended Democratic Party after two straight "wave" elections of our own -- and the GOP only pushed us back to 50 yard line.
To be clear, that's no small accomplishment when you're starting from your own 10, and the GOP demonstrated an excellent ability to play red zone defense in the first half of the Obama administration. I'm not going to engage in any tripe either about how now Republicans have to show they can govern because, if there is one thing the GOP proved these past two years, it's that voters will blame the president's party for all that happens (good or ill) even if the opposition does literally nothing other than try and grind the machinery of government to a halt. They've found a winning strategy -- why shouldn't they stick with it?
So, congratulations to the GOP for getting back into the ballgame. Two more years until Obama is up for re-election, and as far as I'm concerned, every single one of those House seats you just won comes with a two-year expiration date.
Game on.
That being said, step away from the carnage, and where are we? Democrats control the White House. A sizable Republican majority in the House is balanced by a decent Democratic majority in the Senate. The wind at their backs in every way -- bad economy, off-year election, riled up base, an overextended Democratic Party after two straight "wave" elections of our own -- and the GOP only pushed us back to 50 yard line.
To be clear, that's no small accomplishment when you're starting from your own 10, and the GOP demonstrated an excellent ability to play red zone defense in the first half of the Obama administration. I'm not going to engage in any tripe either about how now Republicans have to show they can govern because, if there is one thing the GOP proved these past two years, it's that voters will blame the president's party for all that happens (good or ill) even if the opposition does literally nothing other than try and grind the machinery of government to a halt. They've found a winning strategy -- why shouldn't they stick with it?
So, congratulations to the GOP for getting back into the ballgame. Two more years until Obama is up for re-election, and as far as I'm concerned, every single one of those House seats you just won comes with a two-year expiration date.
Game on.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Night Liveblog
Fuck it -- what else am I going to do tonight? Most recent posts will be at the top.
* * *
1:03 AM: Well, a lot of the reporting has started to stall out (I'm looking at you, Washington). I'm headed off to bed. From the looks of it, the GOP overperformed on the House side of things, underperformed in the Senate, and was just about right for governor's race. I'll have a fuller "lay of the land" reaction post tomorrow. In any event, congratulations to my Republican friends, and good night.
12:38 AM: My rising panic over Minnesota is at least partially assuaged, as perhaps the only "big vote" county which isn't in yet is St. Louis County -- home of Duluth. It's only reported 22%. That's good news for both Oberstar and Dayton, who desperately need a shot in the arm as their lead continues to bleed out.
12:30 AM: So what meaningful races are still undecided out there? Obviously, there are a bunch of House races that probably are razor thin right now, but since all they're doing is padding a great GOP day, it's hard to get riled over them -- there are a few I'm still watching for idiosyncratic reasons (ID-01, HI-01, AZ-08, MN-08), but I'm not being systematic about it anymore. Putting those aside, the things I'm still watching are the Colorado and Washington Senate races, and the Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Florida gubernatorial races (Alaska's Senate race will be undecided for approximately forever).
12:26 AM: Dayton and Oberstar are both down to one point leads. I swear to God, Duluth, I will have your head for this (that means you, Netland).
12:11 AM: Bennet may yet win this. He's back to within 4,00 votes, and we still got that nice, juicy half of Denver to come in.
12:05 AM: Herseth can't get over the hump in South Dakota, handing another seat to the GOP. On the other hand, Rep. Ron Kind (my girlfriend's former employer) dodges the Wisconsin curse and holds onto his seat.
12:01 AM: James Oberstar's lead has been around 3 points all night. Mark Dayton's, by contrast, has not. This is disconcerting news.
11:59 PM: Buck finally jumps ahead of Bennet (49/46) as Colorado Springs comes in. We're at 73% of precincts reporting, total. There's still some big Bennet caches left -- for instance, half of Denver.
11:46 PM: Folks are starting to call Nevada for Harry Reid. Boxer's already been declared the victor in California, and Murray is still hanging onto her two point lead in Washington. Democrats definitely are exceeding expectations on the Senate side, even as they get killed in the House. And if Michael Bennet can squeak through in Colorado, I'd consider the day's Senate outcome to be a roaring success for the Democrats, all things considered.
11:44 PM: You can add Wisconsin to the (lengthy) list of states which killed Democrats tonight. Dems lost Feingold's Senate seat, the governor's mansion, and at two (possibly three) of the state's eight House seats.
11:39 PM: While Marco Rubio handily won the Florida senate seat, benefiting from the anti-Rubio faction splitting between Crist (30) and Meek (20), on the governor's side of things, Alex Sink (D) is creeping back into contention -- she trails Rick Scott (R) by only a point with 88% counted.
11:36 PM: Senator Pat Toomey appears to be the result as well. Oh, and for those of you who were interested, Jan Schakowsky defeated Joel Pollak by a rousing 66/32 margin. Pollak's campaign was based off the notion that Schakowsky was tied too closely to Obama and thus was not sufficiently "pro-Israel", which would turn off her Jewish Democratic base. Apparently not.
11:30 PM: Two Democratic incumbents in Arizona (Kirkpatrick and Mitchell) are down and probably out. Rep. Gabrielle Gifford looks like she'll pull out the W in the AZ-08, and staunch progressive Rep. Raul Grijalva is hanging on to a two point lead in the AZ-07.
11:28 PM: Paul LePage has taken a narrow lead in the Maine Gubernatorial race. Not promising.
11:23 PM: It looks like it will indeed be Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL). I wonder how long it will take for the erstwhile "moderate" to go full teabagger?
11:21 PM: Colorado gets in on the torture Dems fun. 67% in and Bennet's lead continues to fade -- it's down to one point. Bonus aggravation -- Republican gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes is now at 11% -- the GOP needs him to stay above 10% to avoid becoming a "minor party".
11:17 PM: With Harry Reid still holding onto a surprisingly robust lead (52/44) in the Nevada Senate race, it may be NV-03 that actually becomes the race to watch over there. Incumbent Democrat Dina Titus trails by 1,500 votes with 20% in.
11:06 PM: A bunch of folks had declared that we'd lost Sanford Bishop's seat in the GA-02. But with 96% in, he's crawled back into the lead. A 300 vote lead, but a lead nonetheless.
11:03 PM: 54% in, and Patty Murray is up 51/49 over Dino Rossi. Hold this and California, and it won't matter what happens in Colorado or Nevada (well, except for the part where it matters if Sharron Angle has an influence on anything more prominent than her lunch selection).
11:01 PM: While Pat Quinn may surprisingly hang onto his key to the governor's mansion, Mark Kirk maintains a two point lead in the Illinois Senate race. The Green Party candidate, by the way, is taking 3 percent of the vote.
10:54 PM: About 20% in, and both Boxer (Senate) and Brown (Governor) are holding decent leads. The Senate seat is probably the GOP's last chance to make a run at taking control of the Senate (Washington is other race to watch in that column -- and that's assuming Colorado and Nevada go their way), the governor's mansion would be a rare flip for team blue this year.
10:48 PM: In Minnesota, wins all around for the incumbents (well, Oberstar hasn't been called yet, but I think he'll swing it). The governor's race is closing, but I don't think fast enough -- Dayton's up 7 with 77% in. Way to keep the faith, Minnesota.
10:42 PM: What's happening in New England? Well, the Dems held both of their Rhode Island seats, and are poised to do the same in Connecticut (though the numbers in the CT-04 are wonky). They can't crack the Connecticut governor's mansion, though. Lincoln Chafee (I) has a narrow, two point lead in the RI governor's race -- hey, I'll root for him on that one. The Independent candidate is also leading the Maine gubernatorial race -- good news, since the Republican nominee (LePage) is certifiable. Vermont is all good news for the D's, although the governor's race is still pretty close (a 3 point margin). By contrast, Republicans rule the day in New Hampshire, with a Senate win and both House seats likely under their belt (Dems hold the governor's mansion). Finally, there was some rough sledding at times, but the Dems managed a clean sweep in Massachusetts.
10:39 PM: It looks like Republicans will indeed pickup both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Senate seats. The moral victory, I guess, is that it's by perhaps tighter than expected margins. Also, that big Reid lead appears to be from early voters -- make of that what you will.
10:36 PM: A ton of Democratic losses in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York. Fun fact: Also places that tend to get hit particularly hard in economic recessions. No coincidence -- it's the economy, stupid.
10:34 PM: (Re)count it! Rep. Gerry Connelly (D) holds on for a 500 vote victory.
10:31 PM: The story of the evening is early leads for Dems fade late. So I'll try not to get too cheery about Harry Reid being up 10 over Sharron Angle with 51% in. Still, if there is one person (even more than Pat Toomey) that shouldn't be allowed near any civic institution, it's Sharron Angle.
10:29 PM: Obviously, most of Alabama is, well, Alabama, but the AL-02 is close. Rep. Bobby Bright is in a 50/50 dead heat right now, with 86% in. Elsewhere in Dixie, Travis Childers (MS-01) is already down, and he looks to be joined by Gene Taylor (MS-04).
10:23 PM: Hey, at least the fetal personhood amendment went down, hard, in Colorado. And Bennet is still hanging on to his 5 point lead, with 46% in. Feels like it is just the calm before the storm, though.
10:21: Toomey is now up 51/49 in Pennsylvania, and I don't think there are enough votes left in Montgomery County for Sestak to make up the difference.
10:16 PM: Out in the Dakotas' at-large districts, Earl Pomeroy (ND) will go down in defeat by 10 points, while Stephanie Herseth (SD) is down 2 points but still in the hunt with 77% reporting.
10:10 PM: Bean's back in front (narrowly), Kirk has a one point lead, Quinn has a one point lead of his own, and now it's three Democratic incumbents falling (not including Bean) in the land of Lincoln (add Halverson to the list).
10:03 PM: Melissa Bean has fallen behind (albeit by less than 100 votes) in her reelection campaign in the IL-08. That one will sting. 87% is in.
10:00 PM: Carleton's own Rush Holt will hang on to his New Jersey congressional seat. Because every Congress needs at least one physics Ph.D.
9:55 PM: Mark Dayton (D) is up 9 over Tom Emmer in the Minnesota gubernatorial race. I am neither panicked nor thrilled about the areas which have yet to report. We have to keep an eye on Oberstar, Peterson, and Walz tonight, though all are leading in early returns.
9:53 PM: We're still probably in recount land, but Bob Etheridge (NC-03) is down almost 2,000 votes with 99% in. Republicans pick one off in NC, but the rest survive intact.
9:50 PM: 99% in and Rep. Ben Chandler (D) is up by 600 votes in the KY-06. He'll declare victory, the rest of us will wait on the recount.
9:49 PM: Roy Blunt (R) will be Missouri's next Senator. It's good to see another addition to the caucus of corruption there.
9:45 PM: What is it about Dan Seals? He always has narrow polling leads at the end of his races for the IL-10, and he can never actually win the damn thing. He's currently down 52/48 with 85% in. Mark Kirk has also pulled into a narrow lead on the Senate side of things, while Pat Quinn is maintaining a two point lead in his bid to hold onto the governor's mansion. Two Democratic House members (Phil Hare and Bill Foster) are looking like they'll lose their seats. Melissa Bean is up 3 with 77% in.
9:42 PM: Toomey's pulled even in the PA Senate race (75% in). The question is how much juice Sestak has left in the counties ringing Philadelphia. Pittsburgh is done, but Montgomery County (where Sestak is up 54/46) still has plenty of votes to spare.
9:38 PM: Oh, and it looks like Spratt is going down in SC too. Ohio is turning into its own little massacre, with 5 Democratic seats poised to flip. Ted Strickland is hanging surprisingly tough in the governor's race, down only 2 with 67% in, though I doubt it will be enough.
9:37 PM: The South Carolina ride is over -- Wilson holds (albeit by far narrower than expected margins), and Haley wins the governor's slot.
9:35 PM: 98% in, Rep. Gerry Connelly up by about 700 votes -- yeah, I think the VA-11 is going to a recount. And for all y'all who called that one GOP two hours ago ... oh ye of little faith.
9:33 PM: Rep. Joseph Cao (R) gets knocked off in Louisiana, in what was a gimme pickup for the Democrats since the moment polls closed in 2008. Still, every seat counts.
9:32 PM: Bob Etheridge is down by 59 votes right now in the NC-02. 85% in -- time to bite some nails.
9:30 PM: Well, Chet Edwards, you had a good run, but even you couldn't hold on to a seat that red in West Texas this year.
9:28 PM: John Hickenlooper looks like he will hold onto the Colorado governor's mansion for the Democrats. Now the real question (aside from the Senate race, where Bennet maintains a 5 point lead over Ken Buck) is whether Republican nominee Dan Maes can even break 10%. If not, the GOP is relegated to minor party status in Colorado (with all manner of terrible consequences). Thanks, Tom Tancredo!
9:25 PM: Rep. Frank Kravotil is trailing badly in the MD-01, down 55/41 with half in. Tough break, but it was always going to be hard to maintain a 7-1 split in the Maryland congressional delegation. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) cruised to victory in his rematch against Robert Ehrlich.
9:11 PM: Colorado time! About a third in, and Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper are sporting healthy leads in the Senate and Governor's races, respectively. Republicans are looking good for pickups in the CO-03 and CO-04 (Salazar and Markey's districts). I fully expect the statewide races to tighten considerably.
9:08 PM: Michigan is starting to float in -- the GOP will flip the governor's seat (no surprise there), and already has picked up the MI-01. We'll see if anything else goes their way -- Tim Walberg (R) looks poised to take the MI-07, which was a lean-R seat, and, somewhat unnervingly, longtime Rep. John Dingell (D) is down early (though still plenty to report there).
9:05 PM: This crazy South Carolina thing has actual staying power. Nikki Haley (R) is up a mere point in the governor's race with 61% in, and Rep. Joe Wilson (R) trails by three with 55% in in the SC-01. Either one going blue would be a massive upset.
9:02 PM: 98% in, and Rep. Ben Chandler (D)'s lead less than 1,000 votes. Pull it out, Ben! (Oh, FYI, right after I posted on how surprisingly well Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) was doing, a flood of GOP votes came in. She's down 8 now with two-thirds in).
8:58 PM: Democrats look to hold all their NC House seats except possibly the NC-02, where incumbent Bob Etheridge trails by about 1,000 votes with 75% in. Even if we lose that seat, things could have been much worse in the Tarheel State. Larry Kissell (who isn't entirely out of the woods yet, though he's up 52/45 with 71% in) is probably the best of these holds, as that race was a pure toss-up.
8:54 PM: Paul Kanjorski (D) is corrupt, so I'm not exactly shedding tears over his PA-11 seat (down 6 with 75% in), but Lou Barletta was an early adapter of the immigrant-bashing crowd, so I'm equally unthrilled to see him advance to a House seat.
8:51 PM: I think Gerry Connelly can pull it off in the VA-11. He's clinging to a narrow lead, but virtually all of Prince Williams County has reported (while a third of Fairfax is still outstanding). Other folks have called this race for the GOP already, so they may know something I don't (particularly if CNN is behind official tabulations -- but they called it a long time ago).
8:46 PM: Democrats are actually doing better than expected statewide in the Keystone State. Kathy Dahlkemper (D), for example, was effectively written off in the PA-02, but is currently trailing by only 2 points. Patrick Murphy, also considered a likely loser, is down only 4 points, with 38% in.
8:44 PM: For what it's worth, I'll gladly trade Republicans 5 House seats over their expected 55-seat gain for keeping Pat Toomey out of the Senate. I like Joe Sestak (he's up 8 points with 34% in).
8:41 PM: The IN-02 is virtually all in, and it looks like Donnelly (D) will indeed hang on. That's the sort of race that is vital for Democrats if they're going to stem the bleeding from tonight.
8:39 PM: All quiet on the Massachusetts front -- Democrats are leading by various margins (but none nailbiting tight ... yet) in all the House races. Deval Patrick is also maintaining a decent 7 point lead in his gubernatorial reelection bid.
8:33 PM: A quarter in and Sestak is up 8 points over Toomey. And unlike Illinois, Sestak isn't relying entirely on early numbers from the big cities that will get gobbled up as the rest of the state reports in. Fingers crossed here.
8:31 PM: Actually, Senate race aside, there's a bunch of interesting things going on in South Carolina. The SC-02 has Joe "you lie" Wilson (R) down 6 with a third in -- that's unexpected. Over in the SC-05, Rep. John Spratt Jr. (D) is down two points in his attempt to hold his seat (that's a little more expected).
8:27 PM: Shaheen (D) and Haley (R) are currently deadlocked in the SC-Gov race, with almost 40% reporting. That wasn't on anyone's radar -- I'm also doubtful it will last much longer. Needless to say, DeMint is cruising over accidental Democratic candidate Alvin Greene in the Senate race.
8:24 PM: Some good early numbers out of Illinois (Senate and Governor's mansion), but it's a lot of Chicago, so don't expect it to last. Meanwhile, Dan Seals is down 6 points in the IL-10 -- a race that was another of a handful of Dem pickup opportunities, but one in which Seals consistently has been unable to close the show.
8:21 PM: I didn't mention this before, but Blumenthal is projected to hold Connecticut's Senate seat for the Dems. Not unexpected, but the sort of race that -- if McMahon had pulled off the upset -- could have signaled a cataclysm this evening. There are some interesting House races and a tight gubernatorial contest I'll be keeping an eye on.
8:16 PM: Charlottesville is all in, Hurt is still up, which means Periello's toast. Over in the VA-11, it's Prince Williams County (R) versus Fairfax County (D) as Gerry Connelly fights for his life (he's up by a little over 1,000 votes with 56% in -- and a little more over Prince Williams reporting than Fairfax).
8:13 PM: Some other unsurprising calls: Republicans will take over a Dem Senate seat in North Dakota. The big New York races (Senator and Gubernatorial) will stay Democratic, however. In North Carolina, Richard Burr (R) holds the "cursed seat", marking the first time in recent memory an incumbent has won over there.
8:10 PM: So here's where we're at so far. Republicans have already picked up two Senate seats -- Indiana (open, formerly Bayh) and Arkansas (Lincoln). Both of these are entirely unsurprising. Democrats will hold their Senate seat in Delaware, as the hapless Christine O'Donnell got nowhere. Republicans will likewise maintain their seat in Kentucky, as Rand Paul will get a chance to actually repeal the Civil Rights Act. Other seats which will maintain their current position include Florida (Rubio) and Maryland (Mikulski). Most importantly, Joe Manchin is projected to hold a Democratic Senate seat in West Virginia -- one which was absolutely crucial to GOP hopes to flip the Senate.
On the House side of things, Republicans started well in Indiana flipping a Senate seat (expected) and taking at least two House seat (I'm writing off Baron Hill). That's roughly in line with expectations. Joe Donnelly looks like he may squeak out a victory in the IN-2.
Kentucky is looking better for the Democrats, as they will hold the KY-3 (Yarmuth). Ben Chandler's race to hold the KY-06 is too close to call -- he's up by less than 1,000 votes with over 90% of precincts tabulated.
Over in Virginia, Robert Hurt looks to take over Tom Periello's VA-05 seat (sorry, Leah) -- the outstanding Charlottesville votes aren't going to be enough. Rick Boucher also will lose in the VA-09, which is a good pick-up for the Republicans. The VA-11 race (it's a suburban DC district) is still too close to call, with incumbent Gerry Connelly down 2 points with about half the votes in. However, going county-by-county I think he still has a decent shot -- he's got more good terrain left than his GOP opponent does.
Finally, two Democratic losses in Florida seats (Kozmas and Grayson), with Boyd possibly to follow. The Governor's race is still tight. Democrats will pick up Mike Castle's old seat in Delaware, giving them an undoubtedly rare flip tonight.
* * *
1:03 AM: Well, a lot of the reporting has started to stall out (I'm looking at you, Washington). I'm headed off to bed. From the looks of it, the GOP overperformed on the House side of things, underperformed in the Senate, and was just about right for governor's race. I'll have a fuller "lay of the land" reaction post tomorrow. In any event, congratulations to my Republican friends, and good night.
12:38 AM: My rising panic over Minnesota is at least partially assuaged, as perhaps the only "big vote" county which isn't in yet is St. Louis County -- home of Duluth. It's only reported 22%. That's good news for both Oberstar and Dayton, who desperately need a shot in the arm as their lead continues to bleed out.
12:30 AM: So what meaningful races are still undecided out there? Obviously, there are a bunch of House races that probably are razor thin right now, but since all they're doing is padding a great GOP day, it's hard to get riled over them -- there are a few I'm still watching for idiosyncratic reasons (ID-01, HI-01, AZ-08, MN-08), but I'm not being systematic about it anymore. Putting those aside, the things I'm still watching are the Colorado and Washington Senate races, and the Maine, Minnesota, Oregon and Florida gubernatorial races (Alaska's Senate race will be undecided for approximately forever).
12:26 AM: Dayton and Oberstar are both down to one point leads. I swear to God, Duluth, I will have your head for this (that means you, Netland).
12:11 AM: Bennet may yet win this. He's back to within 4,00 votes, and we still got that nice, juicy half of Denver to come in.
12:05 AM: Herseth can't get over the hump in South Dakota, handing another seat to the GOP. On the other hand, Rep. Ron Kind (my girlfriend's former employer) dodges the Wisconsin curse and holds onto his seat.
12:01 AM: James Oberstar's lead has been around 3 points all night. Mark Dayton's, by contrast, has not. This is disconcerting news.
11:59 PM: Buck finally jumps ahead of Bennet (49/46) as Colorado Springs comes in. We're at 73% of precincts reporting, total. There's still some big Bennet caches left -- for instance, half of Denver.
11:46 PM: Folks are starting to call Nevada for Harry Reid. Boxer's already been declared the victor in California, and Murray is still hanging onto her two point lead in Washington. Democrats definitely are exceeding expectations on the Senate side, even as they get killed in the House. And if Michael Bennet can squeak through in Colorado, I'd consider the day's Senate outcome to be a roaring success for the Democrats, all things considered.
11:44 PM: You can add Wisconsin to the (lengthy) list of states which killed Democrats tonight. Dems lost Feingold's Senate seat, the governor's mansion, and at two (possibly three) of the state's eight House seats.
11:39 PM: While Marco Rubio handily won the Florida senate seat, benefiting from the anti-Rubio faction splitting between Crist (30) and Meek (20), on the governor's side of things, Alex Sink (D) is creeping back into contention -- she trails Rick Scott (R) by only a point with 88% counted.
11:36 PM: Senator Pat Toomey appears to be the result as well. Oh, and for those of you who were interested, Jan Schakowsky defeated Joel Pollak by a rousing 66/32 margin. Pollak's campaign was based off the notion that Schakowsky was tied too closely to Obama and thus was not sufficiently "pro-Israel", which would turn off her Jewish Democratic base. Apparently not.
11:30 PM: Two Democratic incumbents in Arizona (Kirkpatrick and Mitchell) are down and probably out. Rep. Gabrielle Gifford looks like she'll pull out the W in the AZ-08, and staunch progressive Rep. Raul Grijalva is hanging on to a two point lead in the AZ-07.
11:28 PM: Paul LePage has taken a narrow lead in the Maine Gubernatorial race. Not promising.
11:23 PM: It looks like it will indeed be Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL). I wonder how long it will take for the erstwhile "moderate" to go full teabagger?
11:21 PM: Colorado gets in on the torture Dems fun. 67% in and Bennet's lead continues to fade -- it's down to one point. Bonus aggravation -- Republican gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes is now at 11% -- the GOP needs him to stay above 10% to avoid becoming a "minor party".
11:17 PM: With Harry Reid still holding onto a surprisingly robust lead (52/44) in the Nevada Senate race, it may be NV-03 that actually becomes the race to watch over there. Incumbent Democrat Dina Titus trails by 1,500 votes with 20% in.
11:06 PM: A bunch of folks had declared that we'd lost Sanford Bishop's seat in the GA-02. But with 96% in, he's crawled back into the lead. A 300 vote lead, but a lead nonetheless.
11:03 PM: 54% in, and Patty Murray is up 51/49 over Dino Rossi. Hold this and California, and it won't matter what happens in Colorado or Nevada (well, except for the part where it matters if Sharron Angle has an influence on anything more prominent than her lunch selection).
11:01 PM: While Pat Quinn may surprisingly hang onto his key to the governor's mansion, Mark Kirk maintains a two point lead in the Illinois Senate race. The Green Party candidate, by the way, is taking 3 percent of the vote.
10:54 PM: About 20% in, and both Boxer (Senate) and Brown (Governor) are holding decent leads. The Senate seat is probably the GOP's last chance to make a run at taking control of the Senate (Washington is other race to watch in that column -- and that's assuming Colorado and Nevada go their way), the governor's mansion would be a rare flip for team blue this year.
10:48 PM: In Minnesota, wins all around for the incumbents (well, Oberstar hasn't been called yet, but I think he'll swing it). The governor's race is closing, but I don't think fast enough -- Dayton's up 7 with 77% in. Way to keep the faith, Minnesota.
10:42 PM: What's happening in New England? Well, the Dems held both of their Rhode Island seats, and are poised to do the same in Connecticut (though the numbers in the CT-04 are wonky). They can't crack the Connecticut governor's mansion, though. Lincoln Chafee (I) has a narrow, two point lead in the RI governor's race -- hey, I'll root for him on that one. The Independent candidate is also leading the Maine gubernatorial race -- good news, since the Republican nominee (LePage) is certifiable. Vermont is all good news for the D's, although the governor's race is still pretty close (a 3 point margin). By contrast, Republicans rule the day in New Hampshire, with a Senate win and both House seats likely under their belt (Dems hold the governor's mansion). Finally, there was some rough sledding at times, but the Dems managed a clean sweep in Massachusetts.
10:39 PM: It looks like Republicans will indeed pickup both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Senate seats. The moral victory, I guess, is that it's by perhaps tighter than expected margins. Also, that big Reid lead appears to be from early voters -- make of that what you will.
10:36 PM: A ton of Democratic losses in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York. Fun fact: Also places that tend to get hit particularly hard in economic recessions. No coincidence -- it's the economy, stupid.
10:34 PM: (Re)count it! Rep. Gerry Connelly (D) holds on for a 500 vote victory.
10:31 PM: The story of the evening is early leads for Dems fade late. So I'll try not to get too cheery about Harry Reid being up 10 over Sharron Angle with 51% in. Still, if there is one person (even more than Pat Toomey) that shouldn't be allowed near any civic institution, it's Sharron Angle.
10:29 PM: Obviously, most of Alabama is, well, Alabama, but the AL-02 is close. Rep. Bobby Bright is in a 50/50 dead heat right now, with 86% in. Elsewhere in Dixie, Travis Childers (MS-01) is already down, and he looks to be joined by Gene Taylor (MS-04).
10:23 PM: Hey, at least the fetal personhood amendment went down, hard, in Colorado. And Bennet is still hanging on to his 5 point lead, with 46% in. Feels like it is just the calm before the storm, though.
10:21: Toomey is now up 51/49 in Pennsylvania, and I don't think there are enough votes left in Montgomery County for Sestak to make up the difference.
10:16 PM: Out in the Dakotas' at-large districts, Earl Pomeroy (ND) will go down in defeat by 10 points, while Stephanie Herseth (SD) is down 2 points but still in the hunt with 77% reporting.
10:10 PM: Bean's back in front (narrowly), Kirk has a one point lead, Quinn has a one point lead of his own, and now it's three Democratic incumbents falling (not including Bean) in the land of Lincoln (add Halverson to the list).
10:03 PM: Melissa Bean has fallen behind (albeit by less than 100 votes) in her reelection campaign in the IL-08. That one will sting. 87% is in.
10:00 PM: Carleton's own Rush Holt will hang on to his New Jersey congressional seat. Because every Congress needs at least one physics Ph.D.
9:55 PM: Mark Dayton (D) is up 9 over Tom Emmer in the Minnesota gubernatorial race. I am neither panicked nor thrilled about the areas which have yet to report. We have to keep an eye on Oberstar, Peterson, and Walz tonight, though all are leading in early returns.
9:53 PM: We're still probably in recount land, but Bob Etheridge (NC-03) is down almost 2,000 votes with 99% in. Republicans pick one off in NC, but the rest survive intact.
9:50 PM: 99% in and Rep. Ben Chandler (D) is up by 600 votes in the KY-06. He'll declare victory, the rest of us will wait on the recount.
9:49 PM: Roy Blunt (R) will be Missouri's next Senator. It's good to see another addition to the caucus of corruption there.
9:45 PM: What is it about Dan Seals? He always has narrow polling leads at the end of his races for the IL-10, and he can never actually win the damn thing. He's currently down 52/48 with 85% in. Mark Kirk has also pulled into a narrow lead on the Senate side of things, while Pat Quinn is maintaining a two point lead in his bid to hold onto the governor's mansion. Two Democratic House members (Phil Hare and Bill Foster) are looking like they'll lose their seats. Melissa Bean is up 3 with 77% in.
9:42 PM: Toomey's pulled even in the PA Senate race (75% in). The question is how much juice Sestak has left in the counties ringing Philadelphia. Pittsburgh is done, but Montgomery County (where Sestak is up 54/46) still has plenty of votes to spare.
9:38 PM: Oh, and it looks like Spratt is going down in SC too. Ohio is turning into its own little massacre, with 5 Democratic seats poised to flip. Ted Strickland is hanging surprisingly tough in the governor's race, down only 2 with 67% in, though I doubt it will be enough.
9:37 PM: The South Carolina ride is over -- Wilson holds (albeit by far narrower than expected margins), and Haley wins the governor's slot.
9:35 PM: 98% in, Rep. Gerry Connelly up by about 700 votes -- yeah, I think the VA-11 is going to a recount. And for all y'all who called that one GOP two hours ago ... oh ye of little faith.
9:33 PM: Rep. Joseph Cao (R) gets knocked off in Louisiana, in what was a gimme pickup for the Democrats since the moment polls closed in 2008. Still, every seat counts.
9:32 PM: Bob Etheridge is down by 59 votes right now in the NC-02. 85% in -- time to bite some nails.
9:30 PM: Well, Chet Edwards, you had a good run, but even you couldn't hold on to a seat that red in West Texas this year.
9:28 PM: John Hickenlooper looks like he will hold onto the Colorado governor's mansion for the Democrats. Now the real question (aside from the Senate race, where Bennet maintains a 5 point lead over Ken Buck) is whether Republican nominee Dan Maes can even break 10%. If not, the GOP is relegated to minor party status in Colorado (with all manner of terrible consequences). Thanks, Tom Tancredo!
9:25 PM: Rep. Frank Kravotil is trailing badly in the MD-01, down 55/41 with half in. Tough break, but it was always going to be hard to maintain a 7-1 split in the Maryland congressional delegation. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) cruised to victory in his rematch against Robert Ehrlich.
9:11 PM: Colorado time! About a third in, and Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper are sporting healthy leads in the Senate and Governor's races, respectively. Republicans are looking good for pickups in the CO-03 and CO-04 (Salazar and Markey's districts). I fully expect the statewide races to tighten considerably.
9:08 PM: Michigan is starting to float in -- the GOP will flip the governor's seat (no surprise there), and already has picked up the MI-01. We'll see if anything else goes their way -- Tim Walberg (R) looks poised to take the MI-07, which was a lean-R seat, and, somewhat unnervingly, longtime Rep. John Dingell (D) is down early (though still plenty to report there).
9:05 PM: This crazy South Carolina thing has actual staying power. Nikki Haley (R) is up a mere point in the governor's race with 61% in, and Rep. Joe Wilson (R) trails by three with 55% in in the SC-01. Either one going blue would be a massive upset.
9:02 PM: 98% in, and Rep. Ben Chandler (D)'s lead less than 1,000 votes. Pull it out, Ben! (Oh, FYI, right after I posted on how surprisingly well Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) was doing, a flood of GOP votes came in. She's down 8 now with two-thirds in).
8:58 PM: Democrats look to hold all their NC House seats except possibly the NC-02, where incumbent Bob Etheridge trails by about 1,000 votes with 75% in. Even if we lose that seat, things could have been much worse in the Tarheel State. Larry Kissell (who isn't entirely out of the woods yet, though he's up 52/45 with 71% in) is probably the best of these holds, as that race was a pure toss-up.
8:54 PM: Paul Kanjorski (D) is corrupt, so I'm not exactly shedding tears over his PA-11 seat (down 6 with 75% in), but Lou Barletta was an early adapter of the immigrant-bashing crowd, so I'm equally unthrilled to see him advance to a House seat.
8:51 PM: I think Gerry Connelly can pull it off in the VA-11. He's clinging to a narrow lead, but virtually all of Prince Williams County has reported (while a third of Fairfax is still outstanding). Other folks have called this race for the GOP already, so they may know something I don't (particularly if CNN is behind official tabulations -- but they called it a long time ago).
8:46 PM: Democrats are actually doing better than expected statewide in the Keystone State. Kathy Dahlkemper (D), for example, was effectively written off in the PA-02, but is currently trailing by only 2 points. Patrick Murphy, also considered a likely loser, is down only 4 points, with 38% in.
8:44 PM: For what it's worth, I'll gladly trade Republicans 5 House seats over their expected 55-seat gain for keeping Pat Toomey out of the Senate. I like Joe Sestak (he's up 8 points with 34% in).
8:41 PM: The IN-02 is virtually all in, and it looks like Donnelly (D) will indeed hang on. That's the sort of race that is vital for Democrats if they're going to stem the bleeding from tonight.
8:39 PM: All quiet on the Massachusetts front -- Democrats are leading by various margins (but none nailbiting tight ... yet) in all the House races. Deval Patrick is also maintaining a decent 7 point lead in his gubernatorial reelection bid.
8:33 PM: A quarter in and Sestak is up 8 points over Toomey. And unlike Illinois, Sestak isn't relying entirely on early numbers from the big cities that will get gobbled up as the rest of the state reports in. Fingers crossed here.
8:31 PM: Actually, Senate race aside, there's a bunch of interesting things going on in South Carolina. The SC-02 has Joe "you lie" Wilson (R) down 6 with a third in -- that's unexpected. Over in the SC-05, Rep. John Spratt Jr. (D) is down two points in his attempt to hold his seat (that's a little more expected).
8:27 PM: Shaheen (D) and Haley (R) are currently deadlocked in the SC-Gov race, with almost 40% reporting. That wasn't on anyone's radar -- I'm also doubtful it will last much longer. Needless to say, DeMint is cruising over accidental Democratic candidate Alvin Greene in the Senate race.
8:24 PM: Some good early numbers out of Illinois (Senate and Governor's mansion), but it's a lot of Chicago, so don't expect it to last. Meanwhile, Dan Seals is down 6 points in the IL-10 -- a race that was another of a handful of Dem pickup opportunities, but one in which Seals consistently has been unable to close the show.
8:21 PM: I didn't mention this before, but Blumenthal is projected to hold Connecticut's Senate seat for the Dems. Not unexpected, but the sort of race that -- if McMahon had pulled off the upset -- could have signaled a cataclysm this evening. There are some interesting House races and a tight gubernatorial contest I'll be keeping an eye on.
8:16 PM: Charlottesville is all in, Hurt is still up, which means Periello's toast. Over in the VA-11, it's Prince Williams County (R) versus Fairfax County (D) as Gerry Connelly fights for his life (he's up by a little over 1,000 votes with 56% in -- and a little more over Prince Williams reporting than Fairfax).
8:13 PM: Some other unsurprising calls: Republicans will take over a Dem Senate seat in North Dakota. The big New York races (Senator and Gubernatorial) will stay Democratic, however. In North Carolina, Richard Burr (R) holds the "cursed seat", marking the first time in recent memory an incumbent has won over there.
8:10 PM: So here's where we're at so far. Republicans have already picked up two Senate seats -- Indiana (open, formerly Bayh) and Arkansas (Lincoln). Both of these are entirely unsurprising. Democrats will hold their Senate seat in Delaware, as the hapless Christine O'Donnell got nowhere. Republicans will likewise maintain their seat in Kentucky, as Rand Paul will get a chance to actually repeal the Civil Rights Act. Other seats which will maintain their current position include Florida (Rubio) and Maryland (Mikulski). Most importantly, Joe Manchin is projected to hold a Democratic Senate seat in West Virginia -- one which was absolutely crucial to GOP hopes to flip the Senate.
On the House side of things, Republicans started well in Indiana flipping a Senate seat (expected) and taking at least two House seat (I'm writing off Baron Hill). That's roughly in line with expectations. Joe Donnelly looks like he may squeak out a victory in the IN-2.
Kentucky is looking better for the Democrats, as they will hold the KY-3 (Yarmuth). Ben Chandler's race to hold the KY-06 is too close to call -- he's up by less than 1,000 votes with over 90% of precincts tabulated.
Over in Virginia, Robert Hurt looks to take over Tom Periello's VA-05 seat (sorry, Leah) -- the outstanding Charlottesville votes aren't going to be enough. Rick Boucher also will lose in the VA-09, which is a good pick-up for the Republicans. The VA-11 race (it's a suburban DC district) is still too close to call, with incumbent Gerry Connelly down 2 points with about half the votes in. However, going county-by-county I think he still has a decent shot -- he's got more good terrain left than his GOP opponent does.
Finally, two Democratic losses in Florida seats (Kozmas and Grayson), with Boyd possibly to follow. The Governor's race is still tight. Democrats will pick up Mike Castle's old seat in Delaware, giving them an undoubtedly rare flip tonight.
Stewing in Juice
Election day (as opposed to evening) is always rough on me -- even when the good guys aren't about to get trounced. What does one do all day? I'm thirsty for information, but nothing happens until polls close (the first batch closed 20 minutes ago, but we won't start seeing early results for a little while yet). The networks have a steady flow of election coverage I could tune into, except I still possess self-respect. What I want is some evidence of turnout ratios, but I haven't heard all that much (what I have heard is mostly what one would expect -- Republican turnout is good, Democratic turnout is maybe a little better than anticipated, but still underwhelming).
Nothing to do but quietly simmer, I guess.
Nothing to do but quietly simmer, I guess.
Mid-Term Madness!
Brace yourself -- it's gonna be a rough day. I probably won't live-blog, on account of being curled up in the fetal position. But you never know with me.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Life After Foxman
The Forward has a post inquiring what will happen to the ADL after longtime leader Abe Foxman retires. We can only hope he hurries up, but so far that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
Meanwhile, a new proposal working its way through the Knesset decides to crib off of North Korea and require that all tour guides swear loyalty to the "national Israeli viewpoint" (whatever that is).
Meanwhile, a new proposal working its way through the Knesset decides to crib off of North Korea and require that all tour guides swear loyalty to the "national Israeli viewpoint" (whatever that is).
The More Things Change
The Tea Party gets a boost from history's greatest monster: "I don't have any criticism of the members of the Tea Party. A lot of those same people, 30 years ago, were the ones who put me in the White House."
Hallow's Eve
All of us Democrats are bracing for an election day massacre. One can grasp at straws -- I was speaking to a friend whose working for a Congressman I had personally left for dead, and she was shockingly confident (especially given that a few months ago she was essentially passing out resumes). She told me that GOTV will be their salvation. It's a thin reed, but not a non-existent one, given the well-documented split between registered and likely voter screens. A campaign that successfully gets out some "unlikely voters" may shock some folks. But I wouldn't get one's hopes up.
The other weird thing is everyone's (I include myself) focus on absolute gains versus the relative balance of power. The consensus outcome for this election seems to be a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, and a narrow Republican majority in the House. Since this will replace a status quo of massive Democratic majorities in both, that will require an impressive absolute number of GOP wins. But at the end of the day, what does it signify? A nation that is roughly evenly divided. Give the GOP some credit for overcoming incumbent inertia, subtract some for having economic winds at its back (and how much inertia does one need to overcome to knock off a Democratic Congressman in Idaho anyway?). A roughly 50/50 Senate and a roughly 50/50 House signify a roughly 50/50 nation. It only looks like a GOP wave because we started from such a slanted baseline.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to not look out at the coming change and mourn for lost opportunities. Yes, there were some great accomplishments in the past couple years -- the stimulus package, Ledbetter, the health care act (a fight which, more than any other, demonstrated Democratic allergy to actually winning things). But one feels like given the historic majorities we were blessed with, we could have done more. Oh well. The tide goes in, and washes out again.
In any event, with a Republican-controlled House, we can look forward to the Select Committee on Birth Certificates and, of course, impeachment proceedings. And I for one can't wait for Senator Sharron Angle to formally grace our political establishment.
The other weird thing is everyone's (I include myself) focus on absolute gains versus the relative balance of power. The consensus outcome for this election seems to be a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, and a narrow Republican majority in the House. Since this will replace a status quo of massive Democratic majorities in both, that will require an impressive absolute number of GOP wins. But at the end of the day, what does it signify? A nation that is roughly evenly divided. Give the GOP some credit for overcoming incumbent inertia, subtract some for having economic winds at its back (and how much inertia does one need to overcome to knock off a Democratic Congressman in Idaho anyway?). A roughly 50/50 Senate and a roughly 50/50 House signify a roughly 50/50 nation. It only looks like a GOP wave because we started from such a slanted baseline.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to not look out at the coming change and mourn for lost opportunities. Yes, there were some great accomplishments in the past couple years -- the stimulus package, Ledbetter, the health care act (a fight which, more than any other, demonstrated Democratic allergy to actually winning things). But one feels like given the historic majorities we were blessed with, we could have done more. Oh well. The tide goes in, and washes out again.
In any event, with a Republican-controlled House, we can look forward to the Select Committee on Birth Certificates and, of course, impeachment proceedings. And I for one can't wait for Senator Sharron Angle to formally grace our political establishment.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Mondo Travesty
Spoiler alert, for those who haven't seen the finale of Project Runway.
Okay, Project Runway people, listen up. This is the second straight season where I've been ticked off at the winner of your show. Six straight seasons of (mostly) landing it on the head, and now the wheels are starting to come off the wagon.
Last season, it wasn't that there was some clear winner who got jobbed. I just didn't like Seth Aaron. I found him personally annoying, and his aesthetic to be ugly. I had been rooting for his elimination for weeks.
That wasn't the problem this season. I'm not a Gretchen hater. I think she's a very talented designer. And I even didn't really dislike her as a person. She did grate on me early on, but I think as we learned more about her and the struggles she had gone through, I understood a lot about where she was coming from. Her clothes were very wearable and usually interesting, and I can definitely see her selling in your local department store.
The problem this season wasn't that a bad designer won. It's that a truly unique talent -- arguably, I'd say, the single most talented designer that's ever been on the show with the exception of Christian Siriano -- didn't get the nod. Mondo's clothes were exceptional in every dimension -- exceptionally creative, exceptionally cheerful, colorful, bright, and fun. He mixed prints and colors beautifully, which I normally hate and is normally extremely hard to pull off. As Jill noted, as crazy and off-beat as Mondo's collection was, there was not a single item in it that she couldn't imagine someone she knew wearing (at this point I interjected that we had a slight advantage here, having attended Carleton). He instilled himself in every design that came down the runway. And, of course, he was adorable -- though that's just a bonus (Irina was an obvious villain in season 6, but she was also the clear victor).
When I think of Gretchen's career trajectory, it's selling interesting, stylish, wearable clothes at Macy's. And that's nothing to sneeze at, and a lot more than many other designers will reach. But the person who I think actually will do things in fashion -- who can push the ball in new and interesting ways -- that's Mondo.
Okay, Project Runway people, listen up. This is the second straight season where I've been ticked off at the winner of your show. Six straight seasons of (mostly) landing it on the head, and now the wheels are starting to come off the wagon.
Last season, it wasn't that there was some clear winner who got jobbed. I just didn't like Seth Aaron. I found him personally annoying, and his aesthetic to be ugly. I had been rooting for his elimination for weeks.
That wasn't the problem this season. I'm not a Gretchen hater. I think she's a very talented designer. And I even didn't really dislike her as a person. She did grate on me early on, but I think as we learned more about her and the struggles she had gone through, I understood a lot about where she was coming from. Her clothes were very wearable and usually interesting, and I can definitely see her selling in your local department store.
The problem this season wasn't that a bad designer won. It's that a truly unique talent -- arguably, I'd say, the single most talented designer that's ever been on the show with the exception of Christian Siriano -- didn't get the nod. Mondo's clothes were exceptional in every dimension -- exceptionally creative, exceptionally cheerful, colorful, bright, and fun. He mixed prints and colors beautifully, which I normally hate and is normally extremely hard to pull off. As Jill noted, as crazy and off-beat as Mondo's collection was, there was not a single item in it that she couldn't imagine someone she knew wearing (at this point I interjected that we had a slight advantage here, having attended Carleton). He instilled himself in every design that came down the runway. And, of course, he was adorable -- though that's just a bonus (Irina was an obvious villain in season 6, but she was also the clear victor).
When I think of Gretchen's career trajectory, it's selling interesting, stylish, wearable clothes at Macy's. And that's nothing to sneeze at, and a lot more than many other designers will reach. But the person who I think actually will do things in fashion -- who can push the ball in new and interesting ways -- that's Mondo.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Agency
A York University (Canada -- good to see them again) professor, apparently somewhat infamous for decrying Jewish influence on, well, life, has alleged in a letter to the university president that York's Hillel is serving as an "agent of a foreign government" and should be disbanded. While Hillel does do advocacy work to prevent Israel from being demonized on campuses, it isn't Israel's "agent". Insofar as Jews have widely divergent views on what Israel should or shouldn't be doing, I suspect that many of Hillel's members oppose Israeli policies on a regular basis. Consequently, it would be highly surprising if Hillel's pro-Israel advocacy extended beyond a few "red-lines" that tend to unify the Jewish community.
And that gets to what this is really about -- the view that Jewish political agency (of which Israel, of course, is the preeminent example) is something dangerous, aberrational, and illegitimate. Suppose that our dear Professor was correct and Hillel did come to the conclusion that virtually all decisions made by the Israeli government were right, proper, and worthy of praise. Why isn't it their right to advocate it?
"Agent", of course, implies a form of bad faith -- that the group is bought and paid for, rather than "honestly" engaging in the deliberative project. As is usually the case in these sorts of allegations, there is really no way to prove this is the case, so it is deployed more as a rhetorical trope -- a discursive shunt which enables the speaker to preemptively discount whatever her interlocutor is saying as unworthy of consideration (regardless of its facial content). When Jews speak, we can't take what they say at face value -- there's always a deeper game at work, and that's what we need to be on the lookout for. Not listening with open ears and a critical eye, but furtively scrambling for the hidden agenda. It's an outlook that's fundamentally incompatible with respecting Jews as political subjects. Which, alas, many do not.
And that gets to what this is really about -- the view that Jewish political agency (of which Israel, of course, is the preeminent example) is something dangerous, aberrational, and illegitimate. Suppose that our dear Professor was correct and Hillel did come to the conclusion that virtually all decisions made by the Israeli government were right, proper, and worthy of praise. Why isn't it their right to advocate it?
"Agent", of course, implies a form of bad faith -- that the group is bought and paid for, rather than "honestly" engaging in the deliberative project. As is usually the case in these sorts of allegations, there is really no way to prove this is the case, so it is deployed more as a rhetorical trope -- a discursive shunt which enables the speaker to preemptively discount whatever her interlocutor is saying as unworthy of consideration (regardless of its facial content). When Jews speak, we can't take what they say at face value -- there's always a deeper game at work, and that's what we need to be on the lookout for. Not listening with open ears and a critical eye, but furtively scrambling for the hidden agenda. It's an outlook that's fundamentally incompatible with respecting Jews as political subjects. Which, alas, many do not.
Can Counsel Cite Precedent?
People v. Hanifin, via the VC:
Being able to cite Schenck for someone actually making a false cry of "fire" is like being able to cite Carolene Products in a case that's actually about filled milk. Love it.
Defendant parked his car in the middle of Main Street in the Town of Union, Broome County in front of a business that, among other things, manufactures engine control systems for military purposes. He climbed on top of his car, poured a substance from a gasoline can onto his head, called 911 and threatened to light himself on fire if the war in Iraq did not end by a certain time that day. Emergency personnel from numerous agencies responded. Eventually, the responders doused defendant with a fire hose, took him into custody and determined that the gasoline cans contained water. Following a trial, defendant was convicted of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree and County Court sentenced him to five years of probation. He now appeals....
Defendant contends that he was conducting a protest, but his 1st Amendment rights do not permit him to falsely report an impending fire (see Schenck v United States, 249 US 47, 52 [1919])....
Being able to cite Schenck for someone actually making a false cry of "fire" is like being able to cite Carolene Products in a case that's actually about filled milk. Love it.
Death Wish
Arkansas school board member under fire for wishing all the "queers" would commit suicide:
You really wonder how a mind gets poisoned like this. And I feel for his kids too, since Mr. McCance has now publicly sworn to disown them if they turn out to be gay.
UPDATE: Mr. McCance says he is planning to resign, so as to not sully his community by association with his "ignorant comments".
According to the screen grab obtained by The Advocate, McCance wrote the following about the event: "Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin." (sic)
You really wonder how a mind gets poisoned like this. And I feel for his kids too, since Mr. McCance has now publicly sworn to disown them if they turn out to be gay.
UPDATE: Mr. McCance says he is planning to resign, so as to not sully his community by association with his "ignorant comments".
Raw Materials
Nigeria has intercepted several containers from an Iranian ship containing rocket launchers, grenades, and other explosives. The containers were disguised as building materials, and apparently bound for Gaza.
Of course, building materials are one of the things that Palestinian civilians desperately need to rebuild. And equally "of course", Iran is well aware that anything Palestinians need is something that can by cynically used as camouflage in order to further their real goal of killing more Israelis. I'm sure the Palestinian people are thrilled that building materials undoubtedly will be even less likely to be admitted into the strip now than before this little incident.
Of course, building materials are one of the things that Palestinian civilians desperately need to rebuild. And equally "of course", Iran is well aware that anything Palestinians need is something that can by cynically used as camouflage in order to further their real goal of killing more Israelis. I'm sure the Palestinian people are thrilled that building materials undoubtedly will be even less likely to be admitted into the strip now than before this little incident.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Has the President Condemned Marx Yet?
Like Pejman Yousefzadeh and (apparently) the rest of the Jewish community, I'm personally outraged that the Obama Administration has yet to discover time travel, and thus was unable or unwilling "to forcefully speak out against instances of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party" -- namely, a statement by Rep. James Moran (D-VA) from September 2007 (over a year before President Obama took office). One would think if you're going to have one keynote example of Obama's supposed unwillingness to take on anti-Semitism, it would be a good one -- "good" defined here as "not requiring one to violate the laws of physics."
Shifting tactics from examples of Democratic anti-Semitism that occurred before Obama took office, Mr. Yousefzadeh then turns to examples that don't involve Democrats, also mentioning a collection of anti-Semitic cartoons posted on "progressive blogs". Alas, most of them show up on Indymedia, which, as the name might hint at, isn't associated with the Democratic Party (of course, even if some random yahoo who identifies as a Democrat says something anti-Semitic, that doesn't actually obliged the President to issue a response). Perhaps we can merge the two complaints together and inquire why the President hasn't come out against Lenin?
And don't get me started on the ridiculous double-standard wherein we can impute the President's "unwillingness" to condemn cartoons published on a website that 99% of Americans have never even heard is evidence of his contempt for Jews, but dare mention* racism amongst the Tea Partiers and you're playing the dreaded Race Card.
* Or, since Mr. Yousefzadeh, despite his recitation of Jews' apparent fear that we'll be "tarred as racist by a charismatic president who is a gifted orator," doesn't actually give an example of President Obama calling anybody -- much less a Tea Partier -- racist, have a "supporter" do it. Apparently, Obama's oratorical skills are so great that they transmute onto all the faithful.
Shifting tactics from examples of Democratic anti-Semitism that occurred before Obama took office, Mr. Yousefzadeh then turns to examples that don't involve Democrats, also mentioning a collection of anti-Semitic cartoons posted on "progressive blogs". Alas, most of them show up on Indymedia, which, as the name might hint at, isn't associated with the Democratic Party (of course, even if some random yahoo who identifies as a Democrat says something anti-Semitic, that doesn't actually obliged the President to issue a response). Perhaps we can merge the two complaints together and inquire why the President hasn't come out against Lenin?
And don't get me started on the ridiculous double-standard wherein we can impute the President's "unwillingness" to condemn cartoons published on a website that 99% of Americans have never even heard is evidence of his contempt for Jews, but dare mention* racism amongst the Tea Partiers and you're playing the dreaded Race Card.
* Or, since Mr. Yousefzadeh, despite his recitation of Jews' apparent fear that we'll be "tarred as racist by a charismatic president who is a gifted orator," doesn't actually give an example of President Obama calling anybody -- much less a Tea Partier -- racist, have a "supporter" do it. Apparently, Obama's oratorical skills are so great that they transmute onto all the faithful.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Unfriendly Approach
Writing in the WaPo, Reuel Marc Gerecht claims that the problem with America's policy for combating Islamic extremism is that we've been too friendly to Islam writ large:
I think there are several problems with this. First, I think there should be an inherent aversion to the President -- a government actor -- criticizing an entire religion as flawed or diseased (if only on Establishment Clause grounds). Criticize horrible acts done by or in the name of a religion? Yes, of course. But blurring together all of Islam -- Sunni and Shi'ite and Sufi, North African and Middle Eastern and South Asian -- and proclaiming it infected is the sort of sweeping judgment about religious faith that as a constitutional matter we should tread lightly over. Imagine if the President had issued a statement demanding Christianity reform itself after the George Tiller murderer? After all, when it comes to murdering doctors in the US, that's a problem primarily associated with Christian extremists. Putting aside the legal questions, I honestly don't think Islamic terrorism in the United States has manifested so gravely so as to warrant sweeping chastisement of an entire billion-plus-person religious faith.
Second, Gerecht's claim that "some Westerners are having a more vivid debate about Islam's travails than most Muslims are having," is vague to the extreme and gives no guidance about what the statement even means, much less whether it is a positive development. Obviously, it's simply wrong that the Muslim community doesn't have an internal debate going on about what Islam means (maybe they aren't having the debate in Gerecht's living room, but that's what makes it "internal"). And while perhaps the American "debate" is more "vivid", in the sense that it indulges in lurid fantasies about whether Islam is a religion at all or a massive Dr. Evil-esque conspiracy to dominate the world, but it's hardly the case that this is a salutary development.
But most importantly, I think Mr. Gerecht doesn't really get how this sort of criticism works, or what the likely reaction to it will be. Criticism is unlikely to be taken seriously as a genuine, good-faith attempt for mutual improvement when the criticizer has credibility with his or her target. But there is no reason to think that US officials, including the President, possess that sort of credibility in the Muslim world. President Obama isn't a Muslim, much less a Muslim reformer. He is the leader of a country which many Muslims believe is at war with them, personally. More to the point, while Gerecht is correct that the US government has thus far been reasonably consistent in being "nice" regarding Islam qua Islam, that's no longer the case with respect to all American leaders. Folks like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin have had no such qualms regarding the permissibility of attacking Muslims qua Muslims -- Obama would likely be viewed as bowing to pressure from that segment of America, which (needless to say) would be credibility shredding. Pop quiz: Do you think the Goldstone Report helped or hurt the cause of Israeli critics of the occupation? How about the BDS movement? The answer is "obviously not", because neither the UN nor the BDS leadership possesses credibility with the community they are putatively trying to influence.
Mr. Gerecht doesn't explain why President Obama siding with Islamic reformers is likely to be considered credibility-enhancing in that community -- he seems to simply assume that if the US says something, everyone will have an epiphany about how right it is. In the "friend or foe" debate, we can just fiat the "friend" position, with no work on our part whatsoever. This is little more than intellectual Green Lanternism (ironically, a term created to counter an entirely different Gerecht argument).
This isn't to say that the US shouldn't make common cause with Islamic reformers, anymore than the US shouldn't make common cause with elements of any religious tradition (Jewish, Christian) seeking to undermine radical, violent, and/or fundamentalist elements inside its community. There are lots of organizations doing great work on the subject (the Quilliam Foundation out of the UK being a prominent one). But there's no reason to cast such groups as positive exceptions to the infected rule. Why make the concession that such views are exceptional or aberrational within Islam? That's fighting on the extremist's turf.
How do you approach the problem of Islamic militancy in the West and in the Middle East? President Obama, who has had innumerable briefings on the threats posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups, has chosen to dial down American rhetoric (it was actually pretty tame under President George W. Bush) in the hope that average Muslims, wherever they may be, will view the United States as more friend than foe, and help Washington combat "violent extremism."
This friendly approach is probably, unfortunately, counterproductive. So far, it's unlikely that Muslim self-criticism -- our ultimate salvation from Islamic holy warriors -- has improved under Obama. Judging by the satellite channel Al-Jazeera, a vibrant hodgepodge of all things Arab, the opposite current, fed by Western self-doubt, appears to be gaining force. By being nice, we suggest that nothing within "Islam" -- by which I mean the 1,400-year-old evolving marriage of faith, culture and politics -- is terribly wrong. By being kind, we fail to provoke controversy among Muslims about why so many Muslims from so many lands have called suicide bombers against Western targets "martyrs" and not monsters. Worst of all, by being considerate we fail to echo the great Muslim dissidents, deeply religious men such as the Iranians Abdolkarim Soroush and Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, who see that something has gone very wrong within their country and their civilization. The president would do well to be more nuanced in his outreach to the Muslim world, giving more sustenance to those who see its systemic problems.
I think there are several problems with this. First, I think there should be an inherent aversion to the President -- a government actor -- criticizing an entire religion as flawed or diseased (if only on Establishment Clause grounds). Criticize horrible acts done by or in the name of a religion? Yes, of course. But blurring together all of Islam -- Sunni and Shi'ite and Sufi, North African and Middle Eastern and South Asian -- and proclaiming it infected is the sort of sweeping judgment about religious faith that as a constitutional matter we should tread lightly over. Imagine if the President had issued a statement demanding Christianity reform itself after the George Tiller murderer? After all, when it comes to murdering doctors in the US, that's a problem primarily associated with Christian extremists. Putting aside the legal questions, I honestly don't think Islamic terrorism in the United States has manifested so gravely so as to warrant sweeping chastisement of an entire billion-plus-person religious faith.
Second, Gerecht's claim that "some Westerners are having a more vivid debate about Islam's travails than most Muslims are having," is vague to the extreme and gives no guidance about what the statement even means, much less whether it is a positive development. Obviously, it's simply wrong that the Muslim community doesn't have an internal debate going on about what Islam means (maybe they aren't having the debate in Gerecht's living room, but that's what makes it "internal"). And while perhaps the American "debate" is more "vivid", in the sense that it indulges in lurid fantasies about whether Islam is a religion at all or a massive Dr. Evil-esque conspiracy to dominate the world, but it's hardly the case that this is a salutary development.
But most importantly, I think Mr. Gerecht doesn't really get how this sort of criticism works, or what the likely reaction to it will be. Criticism is unlikely to be taken seriously as a genuine, good-faith attempt for mutual improvement when the criticizer has credibility with his or her target. But there is no reason to think that US officials, including the President, possess that sort of credibility in the Muslim world. President Obama isn't a Muslim, much less a Muslim reformer. He is the leader of a country which many Muslims believe is at war with them, personally. More to the point, while Gerecht is correct that the US government has thus far been reasonably consistent in being "nice" regarding Islam qua Islam, that's no longer the case with respect to all American leaders. Folks like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin have had no such qualms regarding the permissibility of attacking Muslims qua Muslims -- Obama would likely be viewed as bowing to pressure from that segment of America, which (needless to say) would be credibility shredding. Pop quiz: Do you think the Goldstone Report helped or hurt the cause of Israeli critics of the occupation? How about the BDS movement? The answer is "obviously not", because neither the UN nor the BDS leadership possesses credibility with the community they are putatively trying to influence.
Mr. Gerecht doesn't explain why President Obama siding with Islamic reformers is likely to be considered credibility-enhancing in that community -- he seems to simply assume that if the US says something, everyone will have an epiphany about how right it is. In the "friend or foe" debate, we can just fiat the "friend" position, with no work on our part whatsoever. This is little more than intellectual Green Lanternism (ironically, a term created to counter an entirely different Gerecht argument).
This isn't to say that the US shouldn't make common cause with Islamic reformers, anymore than the US shouldn't make common cause with elements of any religious tradition (Jewish, Christian) seeking to undermine radical, violent, and/or fundamentalist elements inside its community. There are lots of organizations doing great work on the subject (the Quilliam Foundation out of the UK being a prominent one). But there's no reason to cast such groups as positive exceptions to the infected rule. Why make the concession that such views are exceptional or aberrational within Islam? That's fighting on the extremist's turf.
The Invisible House
CNN asks how it is that 11 Cleveland-area women could have gone missing and nobody noticed. Looking at the pictures, the answer seems obvious: None of them was a pretty White blonde.
Gosh, whatever could give them that idea.
And there is another suspicion echoing among Cleveland residents, particularly in the black community: that the lives of poor black women aren't worth much, certainly less than had they been suburban white women.
Gosh, whatever could give them that idea.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
They Love Us for Our Freedoms?
A Tea Party acolyte sings the praises of Israel:
Israel, of course, does profile rather aggressively (though I don't think profiling exhausts Israel's treatment of Muslims). Nonetheless, this is hardly the type of praise I think Israel wants, nor is it the reason most American Jews support Israel. Jews want to see a "light unto nations"; (certain branches of) Christians apparently are just marveling at Israel's fine-tuning of a security state.
I accept that Israel faces grave security challenges that it needs to react to. But one of the things I admire about it is the degree to which it has preserved a commitment to human rights in the face of that struggle. Israel's engagement in profiling may be necessary, but it is hardly the element of its society that I'd want to see sung from the rooftops.
Hucke is a Christian who has spent years evangelizing at shopping malls, and by her lights, our once-godly nation has become so decayed -- so crime-ridden and secular -- that it's time to draw lines. She supports racial profiling, for instance. "We've got Mexican people streaming across the border, and we can't profile that?" she says. "And who's flying airplanes into buildings? Muslims! You know how they treat Muslims over in Israel? They stop and search them. Because they're the ones who are doing it."
Israel, of course, does profile rather aggressively (though I don't think profiling exhausts Israel's treatment of Muslims). Nonetheless, this is hardly the type of praise I think Israel wants, nor is it the reason most American Jews support Israel. Jews want to see a "light unto nations"; (certain branches of) Christians apparently are just marveling at Israel's fine-tuning of a security state.
I accept that Israel faces grave security challenges that it needs to react to. But one of the things I admire about it is the degree to which it has preserved a commitment to human rights in the face of that struggle. Israel's engagement in profiling may be necessary, but it is hardly the element of its society that I'd want to see sung from the rooftops.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Zombies Ate My Neighbors
I'm really glad the Japanese are willing to permanently traumatize their children for my personal amusement.
Friday, October 22, 2010
"Accountable for them First"
The Forward has an interesting story about going-ons in Rockland County, New York, where an Orthodox-Jewish majority on the local school board is accused of short-changing public schools in favor of directing benefits to private Yeshivas (where their children attend). I blogged about a similar story (I don't think it's the same district, but the facts are eerily similar) last year, but the Forward gives a perhaps more cohesive look.
Rick Roll Win
The best I ever did in a college paper was cite to Pirates of the Caribbean as a thesis statement for what law is ("more like a set of guidelines than actual rules").
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Moderate JDL
Continuing his intense, but well-deserved, attack on the ADL, Jon Chait remarks on the occasion of the organization giving an award to Rupert Murdoch shortly after Abe Foxman complained about rising "polarization, rage, stridency and partisanship":
It's really sickening, watching Foxman mutate a once-indispensable member of the anti-bigotry coalition into this.
If you're interested in the general principle of tolerance and equality, then awarding Rupert Murdoch is preposterous. But if you define your values in a purely sectarian way, then a figure who advances an illiberal agenda that defines Jews as one of the "good" nationalities is right up your alley. Looks increasingly clear that Foxman has made his choice, and is defining the ADL's agenda not as the universalistic vision of the ADL's founders but as a moderate Jewish Defense League.
It's really sickening, watching Foxman mutate a once-indispensable member of the anti-bigotry coalition into this.
In Good Faith and Bad
David Hirsh is one of those folks who makes me despair of getting tenure, for he's always already said what I was planning to write on. His recent article, Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism The Livingstone Formulation, ‘playing the antisemitism card’ and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse, 1 Transversal 47 (2010) is just such a paper (though I'm sure I could have come up with a better title). The piece, which discusses deployments of the "Livingstone Formulation" (basically, that claims of anti-Semitism are bad-faith efforts to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel), is extremely well-done and well-put-together, and is a must-read for anyone who cares about accusations of "card-playing" in racist discourse of any stripe.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
It's a Classic!
Sometimes I wonder if conservatives realize Black people have said things other than "I have a dream...."
Obviously unfair -- there are Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell to consider. Still, the power of the conveniently dead civil rights icon lives on -- as does the ease with which the right tends to ignore the substance of other aspects of Black political thought (including Dr. King's).
Obviously unfair -- there are Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell to consider. Still, the power of the conveniently dead civil rights icon lives on -- as does the ease with which the right tends to ignore the substance of other aspects of Black political thought (including Dr. King's).
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Orthodox Jews are not Evangelicals in Funny Hats
Yeshiva World has five tips on what not to do when trying to attract Orthodox Jewish votes. Paladino should have read rule #2:
That doesn't mean the Haredim support gay marriage, they just can distinguish between the spiritual and the secular. As one Lubavitcher put it with regards to Cuomo's gay marriage stance: "He's not running for Rabbi".
Should be required reading for conservative NY pols who still can't figure out why their red meat conservatism isn't getting them the Jewish vote.
2- Don’t bash gays. This is the major mistake that many politicians outside of Boro Park make. They think that Boro Parkers care about social issues. They’re wrong. Boro Parkers care about social-service issues not social issues. As far as they are concerned, violating shabbos, eating pork and gay marriage are in the same category – transgressions of Jewish law. But Boro Parkers aren’t trying to convert the world, they’re only trying to improve theirs.
That doesn't mean the Haredim support gay marriage, they just can distinguish between the spiritual and the secular. As one Lubavitcher put it with regards to Cuomo's gay marriage stance: "He's not running for Rabbi".
Should be required reading for conservative NY pols who still can't figure out why their red meat conservatism isn't getting them the Jewish vote.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Reasonable Christian
While I had to put my two cents into the comments regarding the problematic use of "Judeo-Christian", Caroline Mala Corbin's post on Texas' recent (2007) addition of "under God" to its own state pledge is well worth reading.
The Fifth Circuit recently rejected an Establishment Clause challenge, relying on a "reasonable person" test to conclude that the Pledge remains primarily patriotic, rather than religious, in connotation. Professor Corbin adopts from feminist theory to argue that the court is implicitly adopting a "Judeo-Christian" [sic] standpoint in making this assessment of reasonability.
The Fifth Circuit recently rejected an Establishment Clause challenge, relying on a "reasonable person" test to conclude that the Pledge remains primarily patriotic, rather than religious, in connotation. Professor Corbin adopts from feminist theory to argue that the court is implicitly adopting a "Judeo-Christian" [sic] standpoint in making this assessment of reasonability.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Problem with "Pro-Israel"
Walter Russell Mead has a fabulous post up entitled "The Problem with J Street", but which would be far better titled "The Problem with 'Pro-Israel'". Mead's basic thesis is that the entire premise underlying J Street is wrong. J Street exists to mobilize a pro-engagement, pro-peace, "anti-Likud" (though I find that phrase to be aggravating) American Jewish polity in hopes of affecting US policy towards Israel and, ultimately, foster peace between Israel and Palestine. The problem, Mead says, is that this fails to understand what's actually driving American mid-east policy. Hint: It's not the Jews:
J Street, in other words, is trying to mobilize a community that already agrees with it -- under the false presumption that largely Christian America cares what Jews think. I think Mead is correct at the shortcomings of the strategy, though I don't think the problem is with J Street so much as it is with the broader American populace which treats Jews so cynically and instrumentally. J Street remains important simply for expressive reasons -- if America wants to take a hawkish line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fine, but it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the skirts of "the Jews" to do it. And, by the same token, I think Jews have a clear right to prevent a reformulation of "pro-Israel" that would act to exclude most Jews! It's hardly a knock on J Street that it thinks that Jewish opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should carry actual, as opposed to mythological, weight, in our political discourse.
As you might expect from the sustained block quote, Mead's entire article is spectacular, and (title notwithstanding) I recommend it without reservation.
J Street fundamentally misreads the politics of America’s Middle Eastern policies, and as a result it is essentially irrelevant to the real debates that will decide what America will do in the region. Globally, one of the most common (and idiotic) assumptions about American foreign policy is that “the Jews” control it. Virtually everyone in the Middle East, a deeply depressing number of Europeans (who cling to anti-Semitic myths about Jewish power and clannishness even while claiming to be completely free of prejudice), and even a handful of misguided Americans think that American gentiles are so weak and so foolish that a handful of clever, rich and unscrupulous Jews have led us around for decades with rings through our noses when it comes to the Middle East. The allegedly awesome mindbending power of Jews in the media and the allegedly irresistible power of Jewish money (through AIPAC and other organizations) bribed politicians and bamboozled the public. How else, these theorists of occult Jewish power ask, to explain America’s stubborn and stupid support of the Jewish state?
Everything I know about the history of American foreign policy, the state of American opinion, the nature of American ideology and theology, and the state of American politics tells me this is wrong. Support for the construction of a Jewish state in the Holy Land has been an important part of American Christian and political thought going back to colonial times. The ideas of Jewish exceptionalism and American exceptionalism have been bound together in the American mind for more than two hundred years. During the Cold War, Americans gradually got into the habit of considering Israel one of our most valuable and reliable allies. In recent years this longstanding association has been substantially strengthened by the widespread public belief that the same people who most hate Israel and want to bring it down are the bitter enemies of the United States and will stop at nothing to kill as many American civilians as they possibly can.
AIPAC’s power, which is real, is a bit like the power of the National Rifle Association. The NRA has a lot of influence over American gun legislation, and few politicians want to take it on. It spends plenty of money and mounts plenty of PR campaigns, but if large numbers of Americans didn’t care about gun rights, the NRA would be a much less important and relevant organization. The NRA mobilizes an existing public consensus, and it increases the impact of the public support of individual gun rights, but its power flows from the public’s belief that gun rights are good — and that the NRA is a reliable watchdog. Politicians quake in their boots and obey because they know that if the NRA labels them ‘anti-gun’, the voters will believe the NRA on an issue that matters to them — and in most races the politicians who cross the gun lobby will pay a heavy political price.
AIPAC’s power works the same way, but it needs to be stressed that the politicians who fear it aren’t thinking much about the Jewish votes it allegedly commands. Less than two percent of the US population is Jewish, and Jews aren’t exactly swing voters. Next to African-Americans, Jews are the most reliable (and most liberal) bloc of voters in the Democratic Party.
AIPAC’s political power ultimately comes from its ability to influence non-Jewish voters. If AIPAC and related groups call politicians anti-Israel, the tens of millions of non-Jewish voters who connect Israel’s security with American values and interests will believe them. (A recent poll found that 53% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate who was ‘pro-Israel’.) AIPAC is powerful because it is the accredited watchdog on an issue the non-Jewish public cares about; if the dog barks, something is wrong.
[...]
Non-Jewish Americans aren’t listening to AIPAC because they are prepared to give “the Jews” whatever they want when it comes to Israel policy. Still less do they worry that defying AIPAC will bring down the awesome power of “the Jews” on their heads. They listen to AIPAC because they believe it is a reliable advocate for the approach to the issue they want American policy to take. A sturdy majority of non-Jewish Americans support Israel for reasons that have nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the generally more liberal and nuanced views of American Jews. Back in the 1920s, when most American Jews were still anti-Zionist, both houses of Congress unanimously supported the Balfour Declaration, the British statement that it would support the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Generalizations are always tricky, but from where I stand Jews in the media are also, on balance, if anything perhaps a bit less likely to take hard-line pro-Likud positions than non-Jews. Yes, there is Commentary and a relative handful of highly visible Jewish conservative and neoconservative writers at places like The Weekly Standard. But William Kristol and John Podhoretz are not exactly typical figures among contemporary journalists who happen also to be American Jews. Roger Cohen, Joe Klein, and Tom Friedman are, for example, considerably more critical of Israel than, say, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. David Remnick’s New Yorker doesn’t read much like a Likud PR outlet. The New York Review of Books stands, if anything, a bit to the left of J Street on Middle East issues.
The mainstream American Jewish journalistic establishment is firmly anti-Likud; the Jewish side of Hollywood is almost vituperatively anti-Likud; the predominantly liberal financiers of Wall Street — like George Soros — feel much the same way. To the extent that there is an American Jewish establishment, that establishment favors J Street style ideas. If the Jews of Hollywood, Wall Street and the mainstream media were as powerful and clannish as European anti-Semitic legend has it, Europe would actually like America’s Middle East policies much more than it does.
It can’t be repeated too often: the American Jewish community is not responsible for the popularity of hard line views among American non-Jews on Middle East issues. Individual Jews and predominantly Jewish organizations like AIPAC derive their influence over American foreign policy not from their Jewishness, but from the affinity of their policy agenda with the views and priorities of America’s non-Jews. When American Jews say things about the Middle East that resonate with the views of American non-Jews, they are influential. When, as in the case of the persistent agitation to free convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, Jewish conservative supporters of Israel deviate from the gentile consensus, that influence suddenly disappears. When, like the many liberal Jewish journalists and pundits who think hard line policies in the Middle East are bad for both Israel and the United States, they say things that American non-Jews don’t like — their views and their insights are largely cast aside. In none of these cases is the Jewish identity of the writers the key to the reception accorded their ideas.
J Street, in other words, is trying to mobilize a community that already agrees with it -- under the false presumption that largely Christian America cares what Jews think. I think Mead is correct at the shortcomings of the strategy, though I don't think the problem is with J Street so much as it is with the broader American populace which treats Jews so cynically and instrumentally. J Street remains important simply for expressive reasons -- if America wants to take a hawkish line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fine, but it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the skirts of "the Jews" to do it. And, by the same token, I think Jews have a clear right to prevent a reformulation of "pro-Israel" that would act to exclude most Jews! It's hardly a knock on J Street that it thinks that Jewish opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should carry actual, as opposed to mythological, weight, in our political discourse.
As you might expect from the sustained block quote, Mead's entire article is spectacular, and (title notwithstanding) I recommend it without reservation.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Abbas Admits Peace Could Have Come Long Ago?
In the course of reiterating his flat rejection of ever recognizing Israel as a Jewish state (I really don't think this is a preparation for a counter-offer), PA head Mahmoud Abbas appeared to make a startling admission:
It would be one thing if Abbas believed, as Mr. Ibish apparently does, that this "Jewish state" thing is just a distraction to delay final resolution of the conflict. But Mr. Abbas does not seem to believe this. Indeed, much the opposite -- he seems convinced that the conflict could have ended years ago had Palestinians been willing to compromise on points such as this, but apparently recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is such a grave affront, such a impregnable red-line, that contra Ibish, it is "worth continuing the conflict and the occupation to refuse to try to find a reasonable formula" for characterizing Israel's Jewish status.
"If we showed flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago," Abbas said.
It would be one thing if Abbas believed, as Mr. Ibish apparently does, that this "Jewish state" thing is just a distraction to delay final resolution of the conflict. But Mr. Abbas does not seem to believe this. Indeed, much the opposite -- he seems convinced that the conflict could have ended years ago had Palestinians been willing to compromise on points such as this, but apparently recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is such a grave affront, such a impregnable red-line, that contra Ibish, it is "worth continuing the conflict and the occupation to refuse to try to find a reasonable formula" for characterizing Israel's Jewish status.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
More Unfortunate Typos
Rich Whitney, The Green Party candidate for governor of Illinois will show up on electronic ballots as "Rich Whitey". But not in every precinct, mind you. Just a few heavily Black ones in Chicago.
Poser
I've always felt like Rabbi Yehuda Levin -- the Orthodox Rabbi behind NY Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paldino's anti=gay remarks at a synagogue -- was part of a particularly obnoxious branch of Jews who seem to desperately want to be Christian. Sometimes, when we talk about "marginal figures" within a religious group, we mean those whose views are more extreme manifestations of the general norm. For example, there are preachers whose homophobia and hatred towards gays is so extreme that embarrasses Christians as a whole, but it's perfectly fair to say that anti-gay prejudice is mainstream in political Christianity. Levin, by contrast, doesn't even seem like an "extreme Jew", so much as a Republican operative/Jerry Falwell wannabe who likes to play dress up. I mean, look at this:
Something about the way he's repeating "kosher" here seems awfully defensive -- like he himself feels the need to defend his Jewish bona fides. Which, in a way, he does -- since his views are so far out of the Jewish mainstream as to make him a laughable figure. Laughable, that is, if he weren't professionally devoted to tying the holy name to hatred of others.
UPDATE: Assuming I understand the meaning of "cooning" (unlikely), Ta-Nehisi Coates agrees.
“I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,” Rabbi Levin said. "While I was eating it, they come running and they say, ‘Paladino became gay!’ I said, ‘What?’ And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami.”
Something about the way he's repeating "kosher" here seems awfully defensive -- like he himself feels the need to defend his Jewish bona fides. Which, in a way, he does -- since his views are so far out of the Jewish mainstream as to make him a laughable figure. Laughable, that is, if he weren't professionally devoted to tying the holy name to hatred of others.
UPDATE: Assuming I understand the meaning of "cooning" (unlikely), Ta-Nehisi Coates agrees.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Ethics are for Chumps Roundup
I just found out that Maryland doesn't require one to take the MPRE. Guess where I'm taking the bar?
* * *
Interesting study out in the Journal of Social Issues on the conscious versus subconscious value people place upon their race (full text here, may be behind a pay-wall).
Howard Jacobson's "The Finkler Question" has won the Man Booker prize.
Mormon leader's comments on gays and lesbians spark an outcry. The church is responding with the usual pablum about how -- support for institutionalized discrimination notwithstanding -- they love and respect everyone, and it inspires the usual mix of bile and contempt in me.
Jon Chait is convinced a GOP-controlled Congress will attempt to impeach Barack Obama.
Harry Reid may finally be putting some space between himself and Sharron Angle.
Alex Knapp fisks the "education" Pam Geller (and, presumably, many others) have received about Islam.
* * *
Interesting study out in the Journal of Social Issues on the conscious versus subconscious value people place upon their race (full text here, may be behind a pay-wall).
Howard Jacobson's "The Finkler Question" has won the Man Booker prize.
Mormon leader's comments on gays and lesbians spark an outcry. The church is responding with the usual pablum about how -- support for institutionalized discrimination notwithstanding -- they love and respect everyone, and it inspires the usual mix of bile and contempt in me.
Jon Chait is convinced a GOP-controlled Congress will attempt to impeach Barack Obama.
Harry Reid may finally be putting some space between himself and Sharron Angle.
Alex Knapp fisks the "education" Pam Geller (and, presumably, many others) have received about Islam.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Dropped Letter
Here's a correction you never want to write:
Ouch.
This blog post originally stated that one in three black men who have sex with me is HIV positive. In fact, the statistic applies to black men who have sex with men.
Ouch.
On the "Jewish State" Demand
The US has officially backed -- or at least expressed its sympathy -- for Bibi Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a settlement freeze. Hussein Ibish, on the other hand, thinks that it demonstrates Netanyahu isn't serious about negotiations at all. What gives?
I think Ibish's position, though characteristically well-argued, is not quite right. The strongest argument against Netanyahu's request is that it exchanges something effectively permanent (recognition as a Jewish state) for something temporary (a settlement freeze of indeterminate duration). That's a fair point, but, as I think we'll see, it is something that could be worked around.
Ibish's other arguments, however, are unpersuasive. First, he claims that Israel's Jewish character was never a sticking point in Israel's negotiations with Egypt or Jordan. But that's primarily because Israel's Jewish character did not touch on any core claims of Jordanian or Egyptian nationalism. By contrast, it is a significant thread of the Palestinian national project that all of what is now Israel should really be Palestine -- "a Palestine next to a Palestine", as BDS founder Omar Barghouti described his ambition. The "greater Israel" project has the same ambition in reverse, which is why any permanent settlement has to be phrased as two states for two peoples. Otherwise it will have the feeling of but a temporary cease-fire in a larger conflict (which, in all honesty, is not particularly far off from Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan, whose civil society has always been furious that Israel yet breathes).
Second, he says that the "Jewish state" declaration is not merely symbolic, but has tangible impacts on the final resolution of concrete status items like refugees and Jerusalem. The latter is left essentially unargued, and the former is an area upon which everyone understood Palestinians will have to make significant concessions anyway. Palestinians demanding a total right of return is like Israel demanding to keep every settlement in the West Bank -- it's beyond a non-starter, it's a joke.
But the biggest problem is that Ibish's entire argument doesn't warrant what the PA actually did -- wholesale rejection of Netanyahu's gambit, accompanied by accusations of racism. What it warrants, as the US intimated, is a counter-offer. Ibish already concedes that President Bush's rendition of the "Jewish state" (that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people). So why not say that? Or better yet: "We are open to recognizing Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people as a product of final status negotiations." Then they don't even have to make the permanent-for-temporary-concession trade. But the PA didn't even look for something that, which indicates what many have long suspected: They're opposed to this sort of deal as a matter of kind, not degree.
I think Ibish's position, though characteristically well-argued, is not quite right. The strongest argument against Netanyahu's request is that it exchanges something effectively permanent (recognition as a Jewish state) for something temporary (a settlement freeze of indeterminate duration). That's a fair point, but, as I think we'll see, it is something that could be worked around.
Ibish's other arguments, however, are unpersuasive. First, he claims that Israel's Jewish character was never a sticking point in Israel's negotiations with Egypt or Jordan. But that's primarily because Israel's Jewish character did not touch on any core claims of Jordanian or Egyptian nationalism. By contrast, it is a significant thread of the Palestinian national project that all of what is now Israel should really be Palestine -- "a Palestine next to a Palestine", as BDS founder Omar Barghouti described his ambition. The "greater Israel" project has the same ambition in reverse, which is why any permanent settlement has to be phrased as two states for two peoples. Otherwise it will have the feeling of but a temporary cease-fire in a larger conflict (which, in all honesty, is not particularly far off from Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan, whose civil society has always been furious that Israel yet breathes).
Second, he says that the "Jewish state" declaration is not merely symbolic, but has tangible impacts on the final resolution of concrete status items like refugees and Jerusalem. The latter is left essentially unargued, and the former is an area upon which everyone understood Palestinians will have to make significant concessions anyway. Palestinians demanding a total right of return is like Israel demanding to keep every settlement in the West Bank -- it's beyond a non-starter, it's a joke.
But the biggest problem is that Ibish's entire argument doesn't warrant what the PA actually did -- wholesale rejection of Netanyahu's gambit, accompanied by accusations of racism. What it warrants, as the US intimated, is a counter-offer. Ibish already concedes that President Bush's rendition of the "Jewish state" (that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people). So why not say that? Or better yet: "We are open to recognizing Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people as a product of final status negotiations." Then they don't even have to make the permanent-for-temporary-concession trade. But the PA didn't even look for something that, which indicates what many have long suspected: They're opposed to this sort of deal as a matter of kind, not degree.
Monday, October 11, 2010
PA Rejects Settlement Freeze Deal
The Jerusalem Post reports that both Saeb Erkat and Mahmoud Abbas have rejected an Israeli proposal which would have extended the settlement freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish national home. Erkat called the proposal "racist" and an "Israeli game", while Abbas' spokesperson was slightly more measured, saying that "The topic of the Jewishness of the state is not connected at all to the issue [of the building freeze]."
My main concern is that talks continue, so I'm consequently unhappy at Palestinian rejection here. Obviously, the question of recognition is highly symbolic -- but it is only symbolic, and it hardly strikes me as an unfair trade for tangible concessions (which are also, to be sure, highly symbolic in addition to their concrete weight). On the other hand, I doubt that the ultimate resolution of the conflict is going to hinge on the precise words Palestinians use to characterize the Israeli state.
In an ideal world, we would say Israel should simply freeze settlement development because it is the right and intelligent thing to do. In an ideal world, the two states for two peoples formulation would not be controversial. Alas, it's not the ideal world. The one thing I can say is that Israel appears willing to talk without any preconditions -- it merely is saying that, if we are going to play the precondition "game", the path has to go both ways.
My main concern is that talks continue, so I'm consequently unhappy at Palestinian rejection here. Obviously, the question of recognition is highly symbolic -- but it is only symbolic, and it hardly strikes me as an unfair trade for tangible concessions (which are also, to be sure, highly symbolic in addition to their concrete weight). On the other hand, I doubt that the ultimate resolution of the conflict is going to hinge on the precise words Palestinians use to characterize the Israeli state.
In an ideal world, we would say Israel should simply freeze settlement development because it is the right and intelligent thing to do. In an ideal world, the two states for two peoples formulation would not be controversial. Alas, it's not the ideal world. The one thing I can say is that Israel appears willing to talk without any preconditions -- it merely is saying that, if we are going to play the precondition "game", the path has to go both ways.
Sack Him Sack Him Sack Him!!!!
Every day that Avigdor Lieberman remains Foreign Minister is a day I'm embarrassed for Israel. Even aside from the basic point that he's little more than a fascist thug, his tenure as FM can basically be characterized as one diplomatic catastrophe after another. In a world where Israel is verging on becoming a pariah state, the last thing it needs is a wretched incompetent like Lieberman as its public face.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Sunday Return Roundup
Jill's been out of town this week, which means we missed both Project Runway and Hell's Kitchen. Tonight will be epic.
* * *
Tennessee Mosque opponents plan to argue that Islam is not a religion.
Pam Geller is, as Jeffrey Goldberg correctly adduces, a "vile, racist creature".
A Colorado woman is charged with destroying a controversial piece of art which she says demeaned Jesus.
Dana Milbank argues that Glenn Beck is the conspiracy-theorists go-to source for mainstream validation.
Jon Chait shoots down a ridiculous Christopher Hitchens post attributing the passage of a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide to the nefarious "Isreal Lobby". I'd also refer back to this post.
I find it quite outrageous the fury with which some Orthodox groups react to calling ordained (whoops, apparently that word is taboo too) female religious leaders "Rabbas".
* * *
Tennessee Mosque opponents plan to argue that Islam is not a religion.
Pam Geller is, as Jeffrey Goldberg correctly adduces, a "vile, racist creature".
A Colorado woman is charged with destroying a controversial piece of art which she says demeaned Jesus.
Dana Milbank argues that Glenn Beck is the conspiracy-theorists go-to source for mainstream validation.
Jon Chait shoots down a ridiculous Christopher Hitchens post attributing the passage of a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide to the nefarious "Isreal Lobby". I'd also refer back to this post.
I find it quite outrageous the fury with which some Orthodox groups react to calling ordained (whoops, apparently that word is taboo too) female religious leaders "Rabbas".
Saturday, October 09, 2010
What Type of Slur is "Racist"
Commenting on yet another "I am not a racist" non-sequitur, Ta-Nehisi Coates wants to know
It's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure it gets quite at what's going on. My views have evolved since I wrote this post, but it captures a very real dynamic. There's indignation about the possibility of being labeled a racist, but there is also terror. The proportions may vary, but both feelings are definitely there. Racism is America's original sin, and the term "racist" has become emblematic of a supreme evil. To be considered "racist" is to be a Nazi, a slave-owner, or a Klansman. It is to be a person who must be shunned in public society.
All of this is amplified by the fact that there is no generally accepted definition of racist in the public discourse. The sanctions of being successfully labeled "racist" are high, but there really is no way to determine in advance who will be burned by it. Michael Richards' career is ruined, but Ann Coulter survives more or less unscathed. There is a wanton and freakish quality about the whole discourse, and I do think most White people view the accusation of racism as akin to a bolt of lightening: powerful, random, unpredictable, and deadly. They do not know what causes the blow to rain down (except that saying anything -- and I do mean anything -- related to race makes it more likely), so they intone their "I am not a racist" incantation to the heavens in panicked hope that it will serve as a ward. It's main quality is totemic.
And being subjected to such uncertainty, in turn, breeds resentment. It's simultaneously self-sustaining and self-serving. Self-sustaining because the resentment renders true dialogue about what "racist" means impossible, maintaining its mystical quality and preventing any sort of enlightenment. Self-serving, because the entire cycle serves as a warrant for the hostile sentiment in the first place. The anger and rage that those people seem to hold power over me -- that they can end my career, sever my friendships, and expel me from the community with but a "casual" word -- burns with a righteous fury. At that point, railing against the entire idea of racism becomes effectively a subspecies of populist anti-authoritarianism.
what it means among white people to be considered a racist. I don't mean under the sanction of black people. I mean in places where there are no black people. It almost feels like, among whites, to be accused of being a racist is a class slur. Like racist is short for "inbred uncultured hick."
It's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure it gets quite at what's going on. My views have evolved since I wrote this post, but it captures a very real dynamic. There's indignation about the possibility of being labeled a racist, but there is also terror. The proportions may vary, but both feelings are definitely there. Racism is America's original sin, and the term "racist" has become emblematic of a supreme evil. To be considered "racist" is to be a Nazi, a slave-owner, or a Klansman. It is to be a person who must be shunned in public society.
All of this is amplified by the fact that there is no generally accepted definition of racist in the public discourse. The sanctions of being successfully labeled "racist" are high, but there really is no way to determine in advance who will be burned by it. Michael Richards' career is ruined, but Ann Coulter survives more or less unscathed. There is a wanton and freakish quality about the whole discourse, and I do think most White people view the accusation of racism as akin to a bolt of lightening: powerful, random, unpredictable, and deadly. They do not know what causes the blow to rain down (except that saying anything -- and I do mean anything -- related to race makes it more likely), so they intone their "I am not a racist" incantation to the heavens in panicked hope that it will serve as a ward. It's main quality is totemic.
And being subjected to such uncertainty, in turn, breeds resentment. It's simultaneously self-sustaining and self-serving. Self-sustaining because the resentment renders true dialogue about what "racist" means impossible, maintaining its mystical quality and preventing any sort of enlightenment. Self-serving, because the entire cycle serves as a warrant for the hostile sentiment in the first place. The anger and rage that those people seem to hold power over me -- that they can end my career, sever my friendships, and expel me from the community with but a "casual" word -- burns with a righteous fury. At that point, railing against the entire idea of racism becomes effectively a subspecies of populist anti-authoritarianism.
Friday, October 08, 2010
The Kiryat Arba Synagogue
A little while back, Will Saletan asked about the "ground zero synagogue" -- a synagogue being built in Kiryat Arba, near the site of one of the worst acts of Jewish terrorism against Muslims (Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre). It's an analogy I've endorsed. Indeed, for all the unsubstantiated blather about a "victory Mosque", the local settlers really did try to build a shrine to Goldstein. The Kiryat Arba settlers are amongst the most radical and violent of the settler movement -- unlike the Park 51 Mosque founders, they are self-identified sympathizers of Jewish terror. But my endorsement notwithstanding, many of Saletan's readers apparently didn't appreciate the comparison. In general, I thought Saletan did a good job dispatching their arguments.
The one response which at least gave me some pause was the argument to "leave Jews out of the Mosque debate". I made a similar point when Dutch Muslims published a cartoon claiming the Holocaust was exaggerated as protest against allegedly anti-Muslim films produced by Geert Wilders -- despite the fact that the Jewish community was largely uninvolved in the latter dispute. I don't think Saletan's citation of the ADL's spectacularly ill-judged intervention is sufficient to render Jews parties here. Nonetheless, I think the comparison remains valid -- first, because the analogy is considerably more precise, and second, because it's a thought experiment, as opposed to an actualized effort to hurt or restrict the rights of other (if Saletan actually marched over to Hebron and started demanding the removal of Jewish shrines from the area, I'd think differently).
The one response which at least gave me some pause was the argument to "leave Jews out of the Mosque debate". I made a similar point when Dutch Muslims published a cartoon claiming the Holocaust was exaggerated as protest against allegedly anti-Muslim films produced by Geert Wilders -- despite the fact that the Jewish community was largely uninvolved in the latter dispute. I don't think Saletan's citation of the ADL's spectacularly ill-judged intervention is sufficient to render Jews parties here. Nonetheless, I think the comparison remains valid -- first, because the analogy is considerably more precise, and second, because it's a thought experiment, as opposed to an actualized effort to hurt or restrict the rights of other (if Saletan actually marched over to Hebron and started demanding the removal of Jewish shrines from the area, I'd think differently).
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Whirling
Whirleyball caps off a whirley day! Possible news to report soon (I know, I know -- I'm such a tease).
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
20 Years
When one hears of a theory that posits that judicial decisions are caused by nothing more sophisticated than "what the judge had for breakfast", one assumes that it is the creation of some academic too long ensconced within the ivory tower. The phrase is attributed to the legal realist movement through Jerome Frank, and while it is a slight exaggeration of Frank's views (and thus a considerable exaggeration of the realist position, as Frank was well on their fringe), it does at least cast some illumination.
Frank believed that legal decisions are the product, not of legal doctrine, but of the fact-situation presented to the judge. Legal reasoning is just dressing to make it sound good. Moreover, Frank believed that how judges react to various fact-situations is nearly entirely idiosyncratic -- in that sense, it might as well go back to what the judge ate that day, for all the prediction one might do.
But Frank was not actually an academic at all. He was a trial attorney for 20 years, then chair of the SEC, and then a judge on the 2nd Circuit. Which I think makes his legal realist philosophy sound less ivory-towerish -- and more like a depressed drunk:
Or maybe not.
Frank believed that legal decisions are the product, not of legal doctrine, but of the fact-situation presented to the judge. Legal reasoning is just dressing to make it sound good. Moreover, Frank believed that how judges react to various fact-situations is nearly entirely idiosyncratic -- in that sense, it might as well go back to what the judge ate that day, for all the prediction one might do.
But Frank was not actually an academic at all. He was a trial attorney for 20 years, then chair of the SEC, and then a judge on the 2nd Circuit. Which I think makes his legal realist philosophy sound less ivory-towerish -- and more like a depressed drunk:
Let me tell y'somethin'. *hic* I've been, been practisin' law for 20 years. And it's all random. All of it. It's just whatever, whatever the judge thinks is right that day. Law -- you can find law for anything. Judges don't care. They just do whatever they think is right, and who knows what that is. 20 years of practice and it's, it's all random.
Or maybe not.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
The Social Script of Objectifying Men
I find the story of the Duke "fuck list" to be very interesting, in a perverse sort of way. I admit my first reaction was very similar to the one I had after the Larry Craig scandal broke -- that is, how many women are looking at the list and saying "been there!" I feel like this list shows up in every other issue of Maxim, no?
These things seem to only become "problems" when the victims are men. What makes this list so shocking is that it makes men into women -- that is, casts them in the social script typically reserved for women. They stand passive and naked, judged solely on the amount of sexual pleasure they gave to this woman, and (horrors upon horrors!) some of them didn't make the grade. At the risk of hyperbole, that never happens in the American public sphere. And while I certainly understand why it would be disconcerting to be cast into that spotlight, once we get past the gender-inversion, it's hardly uncommon.
My second thought was that there is simply no winning position for women in this sort of scenario, whereas for guys there's at least something of a mixed bag. There are basically three roles one can play: the list writer, at the top of list, or at the bottom. If you're the guy whose at the bottom, well, yeah, that sucks pretty unambiguously. If you're a guy at the top, though, that's a little awkward, but also kind of a badge of pride. And if you're the guy who wrote the list -- well, you'll probably be seen as a cad. But you're also a stud who banged 13 ladies (hells to the yeah!). Again, at least a mixed blessing. By contrast, a female writer of this list is a slut, a woman who tops this list is a slut, and a woman who is at the nadir is either a frigid bitch or an untalented slut. Yeah, that's no-win.
Finally, I'm curious about the social meaning of this designation for the guys involved. As a society we have basically no experience with this sort of naked sexual objectification of the male body. It just doesn't happen. So if this list becomes a top 10 google hit for these guys in the future, what's the likely result? We don't know if we're supposed to be sympathetic, or high-five them, or shun them, or mock them, or what (for women in analogous situations of course, the answer is shame and shun). I think our collective confusion will result in it being effectively ignored.
This, I think, goes back to my old post, Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men. Because men aren't in a situation where, as a class, their moral subjectivity is unrecognized, recognition of their objectivity is considerably less threatening.
This doesn't mean that this list didn't cause a lot of pain and embarrassment, or that we shouldn't be attentive to it. But it does illuminate some deeper issues of sexual inequality that are clearly, I think, more intense (and more ignored) when the victims are women.
One of the things I've noticed about dominant social views on sexuality is that men really believe that a zone of sexual inviolability surrounds them and get really angry when it's penetrated. They want, at all times, to be in complete control of any sexual event or happenstance that involves them--but they don't seem to believe that women deserve the same courtesy. So when there is even the slightest risk of breaching a man's sexual perimeters (e.g., a gay man coming on to you in the bathroom), we erect all sorts of social and legal barriers to block it. Some jurisdictions seem to allow or at least condone violent assaults by heterosexual men being hit on by a gay man at a bar. And as Senator Craig's case shows, even something as tenuous as possibly signaling a sexual proposition of another man in a public place can get you arrested. Stacking that sort of treatment up against the yawning silence we give to the massive amount of street harassment women (especially urban women) face is mind-blowing.
These things seem to only become "problems" when the victims are men. What makes this list so shocking is that it makes men into women -- that is, casts them in the social script typically reserved for women. They stand passive and naked, judged solely on the amount of sexual pleasure they gave to this woman, and (horrors upon horrors!) some of them didn't make the grade. At the risk of hyperbole, that never happens in the American public sphere. And while I certainly understand why it would be disconcerting to be cast into that spotlight, once we get past the gender-inversion, it's hardly uncommon.
My second thought was that there is simply no winning position for women in this sort of scenario, whereas for guys there's at least something of a mixed bag. There are basically three roles one can play: the list writer, at the top of list, or at the bottom. If you're the guy whose at the bottom, well, yeah, that sucks pretty unambiguously. If you're a guy at the top, though, that's a little awkward, but also kind of a badge of pride. And if you're the guy who wrote the list -- well, you'll probably be seen as a cad. But you're also a stud who banged 13 ladies (hells to the yeah!). Again, at least a mixed blessing. By contrast, a female writer of this list is a slut, a woman who tops this list is a slut, and a woman who is at the nadir is either a frigid bitch or an untalented slut. Yeah, that's no-win.
Finally, I'm curious about the social meaning of this designation for the guys involved. As a society we have basically no experience with this sort of naked sexual objectification of the male body. It just doesn't happen. So if this list becomes a top 10 google hit for these guys in the future, what's the likely result? We don't know if we're supposed to be sympathetic, or high-five them, or shun them, or mock them, or what (for women in analogous situations of course, the answer is shame and shun). I think our collective confusion will result in it being effectively ignored.
This, I think, goes back to my old post, Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men. Because men aren't in a situation where, as a class, their moral subjectivity is unrecognized, recognition of their objectivity is considerably less threatening.
This doesn't mean that this list didn't cause a lot of pain and embarrassment, or that we shouldn't be attentive to it. But it does illuminate some deeper issues of sexual inequality that are clearly, I think, more intense (and more ignored) when the victims are women.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Two IDF Soldiers Convicted of Crimes During Cast Lead
They were charged with ordering a 9-year old boy to open packages they thought might have been booby-trapped. The punishment has not been announced.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Sarah Palin Invented the Internet Change
Sarah Palin apparently has a beef with new Obama chief of staff Pete Rouse.
As Kevin Drum put it:
It's unreal, the world that woman inhabits.
Palin appears to have been no fan of Rouse for a long time. In her 2009 memoir, she accuses him of being among those in the Obama presidential campaign who allegedly tried to smear her when she was named McCain's vice presidential nominee.
She also accuses him of lifting Obama's "change" slogan from her own gubernatorial campaign in 2006.
"Every part of our campaign shouted 'Change!'" she wrote. "We were amused a couple of years later when Barack Obama, one of whose senior advisers (come to think of it) had roots in Alaska– adopted the same theme," she wrote in reference to Rouse.
As Kevin Drum put it:
I don't know whether Rouse tried to smear Palin or not. Given Palin's expansive understanding of the word "smear," I wouldn't be surprised. But does she really think that she's the first politician to ever run on the theme of "change"? And that Obama via Rouse stole it from her? Holy cow.
It's unreal, the world that woman inhabits.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Shadowy Financiers, and, J Street as Israel
When the story first broke that J Street had, in fact, taken substantial amounts of money from George Soros (after previously heavily implying that they had no such funds), I left a comment over at the Z-Word that captured my views rather succinctly:
One should not have to agree with Mr. Soros or J Street on everything -- indeed, on anything -- to find the position Mr. Soros has been cast into in our society to be profoundly disconcerting. I don't begrudge J Street's opponents for seizing on this misstep to try and score points against it. That's how politics works. But they do, I think, have an obligation not to contribute to what is by all lights classic anti-Semitic imagery of Mr. Soros' role in society. I find the "shadowy Jewish financier" narrative considerably more creepy than I do J Street's financial misstatements.
That being said, let's be clear: J Street misled us here, and that's a problem. And I'm not convinced that the statement Mr. Ben-Ami put out shows that he gets it. While purporting to "take responsibility" for misleading the public, Ben-Ami rapidly pivots to allege that the folks attacking J Street are "not good government watchdogs concerned about the state of non-profit financing in the United States," but simply opposing partisans seizing the opportunity for a some cheap points.
To which I say, so what? Yes, J Street has some powerful enemies, who will take non-existent crimes (much less real mistakes, as here) and blow them up into epic crimes against humanity. In this, J Street is reminiscent of another rather prominent Jewish institution that also complains, not without justification, of unfair treatment from the surrounding community. But guess what -- they knew they lived in that world, and I expected them to behave accordingly. You can either cry about the refs being biased, or you can raise your game. Just because the rules aren't fair doesn't give you an excuse to make it amateur hour. Obvious errors like this betray a fundamental lack of seriousness ill-befitting of the gravity of the problems J Street is trying to solve.
I still support J Street because I still think they fundamentally have the right idea for what will make Israel and Palestine safe and secure now and in the future. But today, they've embarrassed all of those -- myself included (and I don't have a problem associated with Mr. Soros) -- who stood up for them and have worked to make them a viable player in the American pro-Israel community.
The Forward's excellent editorial on the matter is also worth reading.
NOTE: Folks whose comments I've previously identified as choking off the oxygen of my comments section will refrain from posting in this thread.
I have to say, there is something definitively creepy about how keen folks are to echo the “shadowy Jewish financier” trope when it comes to Mr. Soros. It is obviously disconcerting that J Street has not been entirely forthcoming about its relationship with Mr. Soros. But I remain deeply distressed at the all-too-common anti-Semitism that is directed at Mr. Soros for daring to be a Jew with money who backs causes. It’s very “J Street, backed by the Jewish money it didn’t tell you about ….”
One should not have to agree with Mr. Soros or J Street on everything -- indeed, on anything -- to find the position Mr. Soros has been cast into in our society to be profoundly disconcerting. I don't begrudge J Street's opponents for seizing on this misstep to try and score points against it. That's how politics works. But they do, I think, have an obligation not to contribute to what is by all lights classic anti-Semitic imagery of Mr. Soros' role in society. I find the "shadowy Jewish financier" narrative considerably more creepy than I do J Street's financial misstatements.
That being said, let's be clear: J Street misled us here, and that's a problem. And I'm not convinced that the statement Mr. Ben-Ami put out shows that he gets it. While purporting to "take responsibility" for misleading the public, Ben-Ami rapidly pivots to allege that the folks attacking J Street are "not good government watchdogs concerned about the state of non-profit financing in the United States," but simply opposing partisans seizing the opportunity for a some cheap points.
To which I say, so what? Yes, J Street has some powerful enemies, who will take non-existent crimes (much less real mistakes, as here) and blow them up into epic crimes against humanity. In this, J Street is reminiscent of another rather prominent Jewish institution that also complains, not without justification, of unfair treatment from the surrounding community. But guess what -- they knew they lived in that world, and I expected them to behave accordingly. You can either cry about the refs being biased, or you can raise your game. Just because the rules aren't fair doesn't give you an excuse to make it amateur hour. Obvious errors like this betray a fundamental lack of seriousness ill-befitting of the gravity of the problems J Street is trying to solve.
I still support J Street because I still think they fundamentally have the right idea for what will make Israel and Palestine safe and secure now and in the future. But today, they've embarrassed all of those -- myself included (and I don't have a problem associated with Mr. Soros) -- who stood up for them and have worked to make them a viable player in the American pro-Israel community.
The Forward's excellent editorial on the matter is also worth reading.
NOTE: Folks whose comments I've previously identified as choking off the oxygen of my comments section will refrain from posting in this thread.
Freebie
It looks like the bank bailout will end up paying for itself. The cost of saving the economy apparently really is priceless.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
On the Need To Know More
I took the Pew U.S. Religious Knowledge quiz and scored a perfect 15/15. What can I say? I'm good at standardized tests. I'm also Jewish, and the Tribe (along with atheists/agnostics and Mormons) apparently outperformed the field on this thing.
Matt Yglesias and Jamelle Bouie attribute this to the hypothesis that minorities simply need a working knowledge of the majority as a "survival skill":
Ilya Somin isn't sure. He says that, were this the case, we'd expect the primary advantage of these groups over Christians to be regarding questions about Christianity. But while we do, in fact, hold a slight advantage in that category, the area we really clean up in is questions about "world religions" (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), etc.. He says this is indicative that it is great "cosmopolitanism" amongst these religious groups that accounts for the difference.
But I think Somin's test is ill-conceived. Aside from the fact that I can think of at least a few reasons why knowledge of certain "world religions" would fall in the "survival skill" category for Jews, Atheists, and Mormons, the baseline expectation would be that each group should do well in their own category and poorly in all the others. For the Bouie/Yglesias hypothesis to hold, Jews don't have to outperform Christians on Christianity -- they only need to be close to them so as to demonstrate they've attained a working knowledge of the group. The point isn't that Jews know more about Christianity than Christians (though apparently we do), it's that Jews know more about Christianity than Christians know about Jews.
Admittedly, this is somewhat difficult to test, because a lot of the questions are overlapping of Judaism and Christianity -- the only question I recall that is specific to Jews asks when our Sabbath starts (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday). It would be interesting to see if Christians did as well on that questions as Jews did on specifically-Christian questions (e.g., who founded the Protestant Reformation or what Catholic views on transubstantiation are).
But in any event, I think the results still, on face, bear out the hypothesis rather well. When you're a small, vulnerable minority, you simply have to be curious about the world around you. When you're the biggest fish in the pond, you don't. Cosmopolitanism is a survival skill.
Matt Yglesias and Jamelle Bouie attribute this to the hypothesis that minorities simply need a working knowledge of the majority as a "survival skill":
All that said, let me speculate a bit. To me, it’s no surprise that the highest scorers — after controlling for everything — were religious minorities: atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons. As a matter of simple survival, minorities tend to know more about the dominant group than vice versa. To use a familiar example, blacks — and especially those with middle-class lives — tend to know a lot about whites, by virtue of the fact that they couldn’t succeed otherwise; the professional world is dominated by middle-class whites, and to move upward, African Americans must understand their mores and norms. By contrast, whites don’t need to know much about African Americans, and so they don’t.
Likewise, religious minorities — while not under much threat of persecution — are well-served by a working knowledge of religion, for similar reasons; the United States is culturally Christian, and for religious minorities, getting along means understanding those reference points. That those religious minorities can also answer questions about other religious traditions is a sign of broader religious education that isn’t necessary when you’re in the majority. Put another way, there’s a strong chance that religious privilege explains the difference in knowledge between Christians and everyone else.
Ilya Somin isn't sure. He says that, were this the case, we'd expect the primary advantage of these groups over Christians to be regarding questions about Christianity. But while we do, in fact, hold a slight advantage in that category, the area we really clean up in is questions about "world religions" (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), etc.. He says this is indicative that it is great "cosmopolitanism" amongst these religious groups that accounts for the difference.
But I think Somin's test is ill-conceived. Aside from the fact that I can think of at least a few reasons why knowledge of certain "world religions" would fall in the "survival skill" category for Jews, Atheists, and Mormons, the baseline expectation would be that each group should do well in their own category and poorly in all the others. For the Bouie/Yglesias hypothesis to hold, Jews don't have to outperform Christians on Christianity -- they only need to be close to them so as to demonstrate they've attained a working knowledge of the group. The point isn't that Jews know more about Christianity than Christians (though apparently we do), it's that Jews know more about Christianity than Christians know about Jews.
Admittedly, this is somewhat difficult to test, because a lot of the questions are overlapping of Judaism and Christianity -- the only question I recall that is specific to Jews asks when our Sabbath starts (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday). It would be interesting to see if Christians did as well on that questions as Jews did on specifically-Christian questions (e.g., who founded the Protestant Reformation or what Catholic views on transubstantiation are).
But in any event, I think the results still, on face, bear out the hypothesis rather well. When you're a small, vulnerable minority, you simply have to be curious about the world around you. When you're the biggest fish in the pond, you don't. Cosmopolitanism is a survival skill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
