Although I have been too busy to post regularly on this blog (you all miss me terribly, right?), I’ve still been taking a great interest in political news and following the presidential race especially closely. So I thought I’d share a few thoughts on the overall state of the race, and give a few of my predictions.

Why Obama Will Win

I’m heartened by the fact that Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote tallies, even as the race in the battleground states appears to be tightening. But I’m not taking these polls seriously. I’ve been disappointed before when Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis led in the summer opinion polls only to see the Republican pull ahead in the fall. It’s quite possible that 2008 will have a similar dynamic.

I still expect Obama to pull off a victory, and quite possibly an electoral college landslide. If that happens, it will be for two reasons: first, the electorate is focused on domestic policy; second, Obama manages to neutralize voters’ concerns about his ability to be commander-in-chief.

My own experience of how I came to support Obama over Hillary Clinton seems instructive. Last year, I viewed both candidates as excellent overall, but each with significant flaws. It took me quite a while (more than a year, in fact) for Obama to clinch the deal and win my vote. It was only when push came to shove (the Washington state primary loomed) that I decided.

I know that most American voters pay far less attention to politics than I do, so I don’t expect them to warm up to a newcomer overnight. John McCain enjoys an advantage right now because he’s more familiar and has far more experience on the national scene.

Obama’s biggest electability problem has been well-known even before Clinton made “ready on day one” her mantra. Obama is a junior Senator who ran for the presidency with only a couple of years in the Senate. The media hype, fawning fans, and celebrity testimonials have contributed to the feeling (however unjustified) that he’s more style than substance.

My decision to support Obama over the more seasoned Clinton was agonizing. I felt that Clinton, for all her inauthenticity and her poorly managed campaign, was more than acceptable. She was the “safer” choice, and I deeply resented Obama’s decision to run for president in 2008 (instead of paying his dues and running in 2012 or 2016). How could he ask me to roll the dice and have faith that he could succeed at the most difficult job in the world? Luckily, I changed my heart and turned out not to be too cynical.

Now the opinion polls tell us that voters feel that McCain is “safer”, Obama is “riskier”. By nearly a 2:1 margin they feel McCain would be the stronger commander-in-chief. Basically Obama has yet to seal the deal.

But this isn’t such bad news when you consider that many voters won’t really be tuning on the campaign until the fall. By then, Obama will be a much more familiar face and images of him looking very presidential on his overseas tour will have changed many perceptions. Obama has a big job to do, but every day he continues to justify our faith in his superb competence and skills. He’s got plenty of time to succeed, even if the race gets even closer.

Why McCain Will Lose

Like most Americans, I have residual warm feelings about the John McCain who ran for president in 2000. He seemed the authentic maverick, a rare Republican who put his own ideals above party interest and often spoke uncomfortable truths (even if this image was partially manufactured by unduly biased media coverage). Now it seems this McCain is missing in action.

What an enormous disappointment his campaign has been! He has proven to be an underwhelming manager of a terrible campaign, bankrupting it twice and turning over its management team faster than a McDonald’s restaurant changes employees. He has repeatedly made alarmingly intemperate statements that paint his opponents and all who dare challenge him as unpatriotic traitors. He has flip-flopped on many issues in order to appeal to the right wing of his party. His reputation for “straight talk” is indelibly damaged.

Finally, he has made serious gaffes so often that I’ve become genuinely worried that he is not in sufficient command of his faculties to be qualified for the presidency. To put it bluntly, he’s past his prime. The more Americans see of him, the more they will conclude he’s too old for the job. I’m not being ageist. Maybe there’s a vigorous 71-year-old who’s up for it, but McCain’s not the one.

Perhaps McCain’s greatest failure has been his unwillingness to spell out his “vision thing”. Surely he will try to remedy this by urging some kind of Renew America’s Greatness theme at the Republican convention. I’m betting this effort won’t be enough for McCain to turn his campaign around. But who knows? If McCain’s surrogates and “shadow campaign” succeed in painting Obama as untrustworthy and therefore too risky, then he may yet pull off an upset.

Who Obama Will Choose as V-P

The most important decision Obama must make between now and November will be whether or not to select a vice presidential nominee who will be perceived to “beef up” the ticket’s foreign policy credentials. If he selects Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, or Wesley Clark, there will be no doubt that Obama is trying to cover his weakness on foreign affairs. This might soothe the fears of swing voters and neutralize McCain’s strong suit, but it also might shift public attention away from domestic affairs onto foreign affairs. If Obama plays the game on McCain’s favored territory, he’ll be sorry.

I think the ideal candidate for Obama is one who is immediately perceived as a credible commander-in-chief, but who is not primarily known for his or her foreign policy strengths. Joe Biden could almost meet this hurdle, but he is so strongly identified with foreign affairs expertise that the media spotlight would probably turn too much away from domestic policy. Who could help Obama overcome his perceived “experience” deficit while still accenting his domestic policy strengths?

Among all the major names floated for vice president, I see only two candidates who can fit this bill: Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh. Tough-as-nails Clinton is widely seen as possessing the knowledgeability and cool temperament to be commander-in-chief, but her passion is undoubtedly domestic affairs. Bayh, the two-term Indiana Governor, has impeccable executive experience. And he has a moderate reputation (former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council) and years of experience on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees.

If Obama’s decision comes down to Clinton or Bayh, the smart better should go with Bayh. Clinton’s many negatives are well-known (most importantly, her unpopularity with swing voters). But Bayh seems to have all the right mix of attributes: he’s telegenic, he has a national reputation, he has experience winning votes in red states, he hails from the Midwest and could help in Ohio and Michigan (even if Indiana is a lost cause), and he actually seems to want the job of vice president.

Bayh’s most important asset: he’s boring. When he’s partnered with a rock star presidential nominee, his blandness would help to give the ticket just the right temperament. Obama is the quintessential fiery Leo. Bayh is the quintessential earthy Capricorn. An earth sign veep grounds fire in a good way. Hey, if the astrology symbolism seems to fit, I’ll roll with it.

Who McCain Will Choose as V-P

I’m sorry, but I just can’t get excited about this question. If you can picture McCain as the GOP’s Snow White … (see, that wasn’t so hard, was it?) … guess who Pawlenty, Huckabee, Romney, Lieberman, Ridge, Palin, and Jindal are?

If I were a gambler, I wouldn’t place a bet. But what the hell, I’ll guess McCain goes with Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Crist has fans across the political spectrum, he hails from a swing state that McCain badly needs to win, his age and executive experience nicely complement McCain’s, and he seems to genuinely want the job.

I also imagine that McCain places a tremendous value on rewarding loyalty. Because loyalty is honorable and noble, of course, just the qualities McCain thinks of himself possessing. McCain owes his Florida victory to Crist’s timely endorsement, and he owes his primary victory largely to his campaign’s momentum coming out of the Florida contest. In the end, he’ll reward his “king-maker”.

Crist may seal McCain’s Florida vote, but he is unlikely to be a game changer. I can’t see that he’ll cost McCain any votes, though, unless some unflattering news comes prancing “out of the closet”, if you get my drift.

Postscript

I’m from Seattle. Locally, there are two very important concerns on the ballot for November that I know of; however, there hasn’t been much to watch closely yet.

The first issue is the Governor’s race, which is going to be a squeaker. In 2004, Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by only 192 votes. Recent polls show the race tied (again) between the incumbent Democrat and the Republican nominee. Anti-Dino ads have been running nonstop for weeks. I think Gregoire will probably lose a very close race, a victim of the strong anti-incumbent mood in the state. But that’s no reason not to work for her election!

The second local issue is Sound Transit 2, a proposal that will expand the light rail system to the suburbs by raising the state sales tax from 6.5 to 7.0 percent. It looks like the smartest transit proposal that King County has seen in the last few years (since voters killed the monorail boondoggle), but I would bet the measure fails. Last year’s transit package got voted down, and voters are unlikely to raise sales taxes when they’re already concerned about the economy.

P.P.S.

I’m very frustrated that my blog’s home page has decided (on its own, I assure you) that it wants to be virtually all italics. There’s no code in my blog posts, css, or WordPress templates that should be causing it, so far as I can tell. Damn gremlins. Sorry about the hard-to-read italics. I hope eventually to find a fix.

The first draft of this post was published on TPM Cafe.

Technorati Tags: McCain, Obama, politics

“Kids don’t think about race.
Think like your kids for once.
Think the way they think.” — Chris Matthews

Hat tip to Daily Kos.

Technorati Tags: Matthews, Obama

Chris Dierkes at Indistinct Union writes:

The Spirit of the Lord, blowing where it will, renews not only the face of the earth but the faces on the earth, the faces of the earth.  This is worthy of adoration. 

There is renewal of that which has been forgotten and should never have been.  Renewal of that which is held in oppression when the yoke is lifted and that which was enslaved returns to its pristine natural vigor.  There is renewal as new creation, re-newing everything that was prior to the truly new. 

Christian Ethics and the spiritual/religious path more broadly conceived should fundamentally be about renewal and re-creation.  It is too often about power, prestige, and place.  Far too often concerned not with renewal–which may mean letting things die a natural death so others can take its place–but rather with conservation (in the negative sense).   Holding on past time. 

But renewal without adoration becomes too easily the false idolatrous spirit of progressivism and worse revolutionary fervor and worse still violence.  Change for change’s sake, meeting the new boss whose the same as the old boss, is no answer, no virtue, religious or otherwise. 

Few progressives would recognize themselves as advocating change for change’s sake, nor with wanting a new boss the same as the old. Yet too often social change movements have turned against individual liberty, towards fascism, repression, and an impoverishment of the human spirit. Religious social movements have fared no better, so far as I know.

What I think Chris is getting at is that the impulse to change what’s wrong with the world must be balanced by an impulse to bless what’s right about the world. Whether that blessing impulse comes from a religious sensibility or not, I think it makes a huge difference in the real world. Progressives who fail to bless frequently find themselves consumed with bitterness, cynicism, and ultimately hypocrisy. Progressive movements which fail to bless may inadvertently destroy the meaning-giving, structure-producing, and discipline-enforcing contexts in which human development naturally occurs. Renewal is half blessing, half inspiration for change.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, progressivism

“Let America produce again.”–Sen. Larry Craig

Technorati Tags: Craig, politics

Terry Mattingly, the religion journalist, inquires in to the definition of the New Age. On the GetReligion blog today, he asks:

I know that the Associated Press Stylebook does not contain an entry that offers any insight into what is and what is not “New Age philosophy.” That’s the kind of vague religious term that cries out for specific information that lets the readers decide whether the label is appropriate. Or did the Levys use the term to define their beliefs? We do not know.

I am also aware that there are more than a few people blending Judaism and Buddhism — since entire books have been written on the topic. There really are sincere believers who call themselves “JUBUs,” short for “Jewish Buddhists.” However, once again, I am not sure this is a label that the Levys would accept.

Then there is the issue of Pentecostalism — by definition, a Christian movement — showing up in this list. What spiritual activities or beliefs led to the inclusion of this loaded term in the seemingly grab-bag list of faiths attributed to this grieving couple? The reporters need to show us why these words are accurate, in the case of the Levy family.

GetReligion has some regular readers who are practicing pagans or neo-pagans, which are two other terms that journalists tend to toss about from time to time. How do you feel about the term “New Age”? Do you think it has any actual content and, if so, what are the specifics? What are the essential beliefs and rites that reporters should investigate?

The first response to these questions isn’t the most important, but needs to be addressed just to keep reporters on their toes. I wrote:

Why in the world would you ask pagans to define the term New Age? Do you think those two groups are equivalent? That all pagans are New Age? Or all New Agers are pagans? It should be no shock to Terry Mattingly that New Agers come in all stripes: Christian, pagan, Buddhist. Some are even, gasp, associated with scientifically rigorous and empirically-based methodologies. And many people who others would call New Age resist the terminology because New Age has come to become a derogatory term, like fundamentalist.

There’s no reason to ask pagans what they think of the New Age, any more so than any other group. The pagan or neo-pagan emphasis on non-transcendent spirituality is diametrically opposed to the typical New Ager emphasis on the supernatural…

P.S.: Just for the record, I don’t consider myself New Age. I consider myself part of the Integral movement, which is actually a sort of repudiation of the New Age. I believe many of the core tenets of the New Age—belief in individual spirituality, direct mystical experience, reclaiming a connection to nature, openness to the existence of subtle energy forces, belief in the interaction between mind and “objective reality”—are actually part of a wide variety of spiritual and secular orientations.

Reacting to Mattingly’s request for definitions of the New Age, another dutiful GetReligion reader opines:

I think one of the hallmarks of the New Age is what Heelas calls “the sacralisation of the self”. This ties into what jeff, the first poster here, mentions, the idea that “we create our own reality”.

On examination, I’d say there is really very little that is “new” in the new age movement: it’s a hodgepodge of feel-good bits and pieces lifted from many different religous traditions and re-shaped to fit the anxieties of wealthy Western worriers.

Which led me to respond, in total seriousness:

Considering the pagan origins (or precedents) of many Christian (especially Catholic) sacraments and traditions, your definition of New Age also applies to virtually all American religionists.

Finally, after all that blather, I offer a few thoughts in response to Mattingly’s question:

I think it’s useless to attempt to define a set of ideas or practices as New Age or not New Age. What’s useful is to focus on the New Age “culture”—the specific bookstores, web sites, seminars, organizations, etc. that together comprise a New Age community. If a person is part of the New Age culture, then they’re New Age. If they’re not, or if they’re marginal, it’s very relevant how they see themselves as similar and different from New Age stereotypes.

It’s also helpful to distinguish between unchurched Americans and the New Age. By some acounts, 25 percent of Americans are “unchurched”, yet we know from other surveys that probably the vast majority of these belief in some notion of God, Higher Power, or Universal Spirit. Are all these people New Age because they would likely agree with some of the tenets of the so-called New Age movement?

I think not. The intellectually lazy approach is to assume that if someone has spiritual beliefs (some of which may have eclectic sources) but if they are not churchgoers, then they are automatically New Age. For example, the belief that 12-step programs are inherently New Age is commonly held by conservative religionists, but ludicrous to anyone familiar with the real diversity of these groups, not to mention the groups’ origins in Protestant Christianity. Journalists especially should resist the temptation to sloppy characterizations.

One of the difficulties writers face in discussing the New Age is that many of the movement’s tenets—e.g., the notion that truth is not limited to one religion alone, or the notion that subtle energy forces such as chi, prana, mana, or ether (can you say Holy Spirit?) exist—are actually mainstream positions with which many American religionists, churched and unchured, agree. Therefore, I would discourage journalists from using the term “New Age” at all, except to refer to self-described adherents to New Age philosophy. If a journalist thinks that an interview subject is sounding awfully New Agey, then it’s fair to ask that subject how he or she feels about the New Age, and report whatever they say.

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said, “I may see auras, but I’m not sure what you mean by the New Age.”

I personally define the central feature of the New Age as its anti-intellectualism, particularly the belief that rationality is an enemy of true spirituality. Thus, I set myself outside the definition of New Age. Others may agree or disagree with that definition, however, and journalists should generally avoid injecting their own biases.

Technorati Tags: GetReligion, New Age

Olivia Judson has a smart op-ed in The New York Times today. She writes:

I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

It does not. In the years ahead, I predict we will continue to refine our understanding of natural selection, and continue to discover new ways in which it can shape genes and genomes. Indeed, as genetic data continues to flood into the databanks, we will be able to ask questions about the detailed workings of evolution that it has not been possible to ask before.

Yet all too often, evolution — insofar as it is taught in biology classes at all — is taught as the story of Charles Darwin. Then the pages are turned, and everyone settles down to learn how the heart works, or how plants make energy from sunshine, or some other detail. The evolutionary concepts that unify biology, that allow us to frame questions and investigate the glorious diversity of life — these are ignored.

I think most of us would agree with all of that–except those opponents of science who want to mischaracterize, distort, and deny modern evolutionary biology. Those ideologues will continue to frame the debate in a way that associates biology with Darwin, and then associate Darwin with atheism, eugenics, fascism, and illiberalism.

Beware the creators of -isms, -ists, and -ians. They are not to be trusted.

Technorati Tags: Darwin, rhetoric, science

“Gosh I’m tired of divisive exchange,
And I got one or two things
to say about change
Like the change we must change
To the change we hold dear
I really like change
Have I made myself clear?”

Technorati Tags: humor, McCain, Obama, politics

“What we have to do now is embrace this new technology …” — John McCain

Technorati Tags: McCain, technology

Freddie at L’Hôte says he’s not religious in any way, but the New Atheism has no appeal to him:

The new atheism has made its challenge, then. And here is my answer. I don’t believe in God, in any meaningful way. I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew, or whatever else you will. In questions of public policy I feel religion has no place, and rational discourse has to rule. I don’t want religious artifacts in the public square, I don’t want creationism taught in public schools, and I don’t want any religion privileged in any way by government. I am, in most every way that matters, a natural ally of atheism.

But atheism has expelled me. It has expelled me because it has in its heart contempt and loathing and fear of the other. So I reject it. I don’t reject all atheists; many atheist are uninterested in ridiculing the religious– they simply want to be left in peace, and not have religion forced on them or on the law. That, to me, is a principled atheism, and one I am happy to coexist with. But this new atheism, this anti-theism, has only contempt at its heart, and I reject it as thoroughly as it has rejected me.

Very well put. I would express the point this way: Principled atheism is, in itself, noble. It is merely a rejection of all that is religious that is worth rejecting, not merely to negate, but to affirm the positive role of science, rationality, skepticism, secularism, and tolerance. I think you can tell more principled atheists from their less mature cousins by their degree of willingness to “coexist” with religionists without ridicule, contempt, or hatred.

I’m a catholic Christian in the sense of accepting truth wherever it is found. I share Freddie’s respect for the separation of church and state, even as I see a softer, more permeable barrier between the two. It seems to me that the discussion of religious or philosophical motives and rationales is a necessary and vital part of political discourse, yet I still want legislators and judges to serve all their diverse constituents and not govern or judge by narrow, sectarian concerns. So I don’t think I would agree with everything Freddie has to say about religion, but I appreciate that we seem to have some points of agreement with regard to atheism.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link.

Technorati Tags: atheism, religion

I don’t have a particular beef with Howard Fineman. At least I didn’t, until today. But a sentence in his Newsweek op-ed “Gaffe Alert!” just makes my skin crawl.

His piece opens with a few lines detailing what a wonderful week it was shaping out to be for John McCain: a “nicely staged” campaign event in Denver, a “tightly focused message” on the economy, the fresh energy of a “re-launched campaign”, and a renewed McCain “back in the game”. Then, oops! Phil Gramm makes a gaffe.

Okay… Big Bad Gramm put his foot in his mouth. Asinine. He should keep his mouth shut. Fine.

Fortunately, Fineman says, John McCain is above all that, untouchable even in a moment of distress. Fineman writes:

Senator McCain, cringing, immediately distanced himself from Gramm and his comments.

There’s just one little problem with this sentence. It’s a bald face lie. As has been widely reported on the Web, the McCain campaign initially backed up it’s guy Gramm. The Huffington Post writes:

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm’s remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator’s economic agenda.

“Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week,” the piece quoted a “McCain official” as saying. “The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We’re laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it’s been a great success so far.”

What’s more, this isn’t the first time McCain or his surrogates have said that the nation’s economic woes are “psychological”. Barack Obama, citing McCain’s claim that his gas tax holiday would have mainly “psychological” benefits, even said we don’t need another Dr. Phil.

But to Fineman, McCain is far too noble to have such asinine sentiments about the economy. Fineman knows McCain’s true motives, and since they must be pure, surely McCain must be imagined as having “cringed” upon hearing his advisor’s gaffe. I don’t suppose anyone actually saw John McCain cringe. Not necessary! Fineman knows how McCain would certainly have responded.

And even if McCain’s campaign flip-flopped on whether or not to stand by Phil Gramm, surely McCain himself is such a fast gunning, straight talking maverick that he should be imagined as responding “immediately” to such goofs. It all depends on the meaning of “immediately”. As “immediately: reluctantly, after backtracking, changing your mind, being cornered into covering your ass by throwing your own Economic Oracle under the bus”.  

So Howard Fineman, why are you dissembling about something so incontrovertible and documented as McCain’s response to Gramm?

cross-posted at TPM Cafe.

Technorati Tags: Fineman, McCain, media, Obama, politics