Isebrand.com

Social Media

NYC

  • Ephemeral New York
  • Hello New York
  • MUG
  • New York Observer
  • Patell and Waterman
  • Serious Eats
  • Skint, The
  • Dizzy Fizz, The
  • TONY
  • Vanishing New York
  • Webcams: NYC

Words

  • Fritinancy
  • Schott's Vocab
  • World Wide Words
  • wwftd

Terribly Important Silliness

  • Brick Testament
  • LOLCat Bible Translation Project
  • lolcat translator

NY(C) Politics

  • Politicker, The
  • City Room
  • City Limits
  • Daily Politics, The
  • City Hall News
  • State of Politics

IseTile

Other

  • Blog For Darwin
  • Gore Vidal Pages
  • Religious Right Watch

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012

More...

You can hear me on BBC Radio 4's "Any Questions?" this week ask my question to the panel.

BBC-Radio-4-Any-Questions-BBCAQ-2013-April-18-recordingHear me ask my question to the panel of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? this week. It will be broadcast online and on UK radio at 3:00 p.m. EDT (New York), 20:00 in the UK and available as a free podcast for download.* (Also available for free via iTunes.)

This week's panelists:

Sir Harold Evans of The Sunday Times, US News and World Report, The Atlantic Monthly, and the New York Daily News. In 1986 he founded Conde Nast Traveler. His book The American Century (1998) receiving particular acclaim. He is editor-at-large of The Week Magazine.

Former U.S. Rep. Nan Hayworth (NY 19th Congressional district) who may be considering a re-entry into politics. She was defeated in 2012 by Sean Patrick Maloney (who I've met several times over the course of years, as well as his partner Randy who is a fellow Hawkeye).

Scott-Isebrand-and-Donna-EdwardsFormer NY Attorney General and NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a contributor for Slate.com as well as a guest on cable news programs such as, recently, Up With Steve Kornacki; (a clip).

U.S. Rep. Donna Edwards (MD 4th Congressional district) who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2008 and sits on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology  and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I attended a recording on the evening of April 18th, 2013, of one of my favorite radio shows, BBC Radio 4's Any Questions?, the world's longest-running radio panel discussion program, begun in 1948.** The show traveled across the pond to NYC this week to Columbia University's School of Journalism. Usually the show is broadcast live in the UK, and broadcast from a different location each week.

Attendees' questions are submitted ahead of time and selected by BBC staff. Panelists don't know ahead of time what the questions will be. For this taping, my question was one selected. I got to read my question aloud to the panel. For me this was very exciting.

Jonathan-Dimbleby-and-Scott-IsebrandThe show has 3 million listeners a week, and it is part of my BBC Radio 4 triumvirate podcast I listen to each weekend--the other two programs being Friday Night Comedy (The News Quiz hosted by Sandi Toksvig and The Now Show with Hugh Dennis and Steve Punt) and In Our Time with host Melvyn Lord Bragg of Wigton.

*It's rebroadcast at 8:10 a.m. EDT on Saturday, 13:10 in the UK, too. Once archieved, it will be here.

**Technically, Gardeners' Question Time was founded a year earlier, in 1947, but it's a niche program really. ;)

PHOTOS, top to bottom: The panel (in the Pulitzer Building's lecture Hall on campus); me with Congresswoman Donna Edwards; me with Jonathan Dimbleby after the recording.

April 19, 2013 in Democrats; progressivism, Economy, economic justice, Misc., summary, web whorls & eddies, New York & NYC, Radio, Republicans; conservatism, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Kathleen Wynne - first woman to lead Ontario & Canada's first openly gay provincial premier

539208_395206597237279_1423392427_nIn Canada, the Liberal Party elected its new leader on January 26, 2013, replacing Dalton McGuinty--who announced back in October that he would be resigning--with Kathleen Wynne, a Cabinet minister and member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, representing the riding of Don Valley West. 

The Premier-designate of Ontario will be be appointed premier by Lieutenant Governor David Onley on February 11, 2013. She will be both the first woman to lead Ontario and the first openly gay provincial premier in Canada's history.

"On top, for now", The Economist:

When Ms Wynne, a former federal cabinet minister, takes over in Ontario, she will head a minority government at a difficult time. She must grapple with a budget deficit forecast at C$11.9 billion ($11.9 billion) this year, while finding a way to satisfy teachers and civil servants angry at Mr McGuinty’s austerity measures.
.....
Ms Wynne echoed other women premiers when she spoke of finding a new way to do politics, seeking common ground and free from “rancour and viciousness”. But sisterly spirit has not been much in evidence in the spat between Alberta and British Columbia over building the Northern Gateway oil pipeline; nor in the dispute between Ms Marois in Quebec and Kathy Dunderdale of Newfoundland & Labrador over a hydroelectric project on the Churchill River.

February 03, 2013 in Democrats; progressivism, Equality, rights, liberty, Internat'l, foreign policy, (incl. Iraq), UK | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Edward Irving Koch (1924 - 2013)

EIKHeadshotI'm sorry to hear of Ed Koch's passing. Ed helped bring the City back from the brink financially and was the first mayor to apply City funds toward housing--80,000 units of affordable housing.

I met Ed on several occasions and attended some of this birthday parties in recent years--first at Metropolitan Pavilion (I even designed the invite one year) and, by riding the coattails of my friend Jim Capalino, Commissioner of General Services in Ed's Administration, at Gracie Mansion during the Bloomberg years. Ed was always gracious and also humorous. Alas, the best stories he told aren't for publication on Isebrand.com.... Let's just say that Ed was an expert at the effective comedic use of flowery language!--a trait not uncommon among native New Yorkers.

I last saw him late one evening in Fairway about a year ago. I said hi, but I didn't want to hold him up; so I just told him it was good to see him up and about. A young couple were standing by, iPhone at the ready, eager to ask for a photo. Lots of shoppers said hi--everyone called him Mister Mayor or Your Honor.

I know his record as mayor is mixed. His handling of the emerging AIDS crisis at a time of severe shortages of hospital beds will be rightly criticized. It was a profound, tragic missed opportunity with horrible consequences. It might be noted that he also signed into law the City's first sexual-orientation non-discrimination statue, and before that, as Congressman he had introduced with Rep. Bella Abzug a bill to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And though elements of his Administration were tinged with racism, without Ed's endorsement and support, Democratic mayoral nominee David Dinkins, after unseating Ed as the Party's candidate following Ed's third term as Mayor, would have undoubtedly lost to his Republican opponent. I knew Ed only after he was mayor, and some of his political choices of the last decade infuriated me. Though, to be sure, if there was one thing Ed didn't mind, it was being infuriating.

Today, though, I'll remember Ed in his overcoat and flat cap, standing at the meat counter at Fairway, waiting for his turn, tall among the rest (Ed was a very tall guy), surrounded by a respectful, extremely subtle deference. It's a very New-York-moment image, and I think Ed would have liked it.

February 01, 2013 in A good thought, Democrats; progressivism, New York & NYC | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Adversaries - summing up Washington's situation

Corporate_moneyFrom The New Yorker -- a summing up of Washington's situation the last 50 years, in 340 words.
For the past generation or two, Washington has been the not so hallowed ground for a political war. This conflict resembles trench warfare, with fixed positions, hourly exchanges of fire, heavy casualties on both sides, and little territory gained or lost. The combatants wear red or blue, and their struggle is intensely ideological.

Before the nineteen-seventies, most Republicans in official Washington accepted the institutions of the welfare state, and most Democrats agreed with the logic of the Cold War. Despite the passions over various issues, government functioned pretty well. Legislators routinely crossed party lines when they voted, and when they drank; filibusters in the Senate were reserved for the biggest bills; think tanks produced independent research, not partisan talking points. The "D." or "R." after a politician's name did not tell you what he thought about everything, or everything you thought about him.

To Phyllis Schlafly and the New Right, this consensus amounted to liberalism, and in the nineteen-seventies they began to use guerrilla tactics--direct mail, single-issue pressure groups, right-wing think tanks, insurgent campaigns. By the nineties, conservatives had begun to take over the institutions of government. Liberals copied their success: the Heritage Foundation led to the Center for American Progress, the Moral Majority to People for the American Way, Bill O'Reilly to Keith Olbermann. The people Washington attracts now tend to be committed activists, who think of themselves as locked in an existential struggle over the fate of the country, and are unwilling to yield an inch of ground.

Meanwhile, another army has invaded Washington: high-priced influence peddlers working on behalf of corporations and the wealthy, seducing officials of both parties and daily routing the public interest. The War of Organized Money goes on almost unnoticed outside the capital, but the War Between the Colors reflects a real divide in the country, the sorting of Americans into ideologically separate districts and lives. From time to time, a looming disaster--such as the upcoming budget crisis--leads to negotiations and a brief truce. But the fighting never really stops.

-- George Packer, "Adversaries," The New Yorker, Oct. 29 & Nov. 5, 2012, p. 88.

via www.gorevidalpages.com

November 19, 2012 in Campaigns, elections, Democrats; progressivism, Republicans; conservatism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

The Invention of Political Consulting : The New Yorker

120924_r22583_p465The field of political consulting was unknown before Leone Baxter and Clem Whitaker founded Campaigns, Inc., in 1933.

via www.newyorker.com

Jill Lepore's "The Lie Factory" in the September 24, 2012, issue of The New Yorker is facinating. Baxter and Whitaker were California Republicans. They represented many clients, not just politicians. They used their knowledge, savvy, and insights to successfully thwart attempts to create government administration and expansion of health care. 

Camapign operatives and political consultants, take note! Here are some nuggets from Campaigns, Inc.

  • Begin every day with a two-hour breakfast to plan the day.
  • "Every voter, a consumer."
  • Harper’s later reported [about the successful campaign to defeat California's Proposition 1]

“In a typical campaign they employed ten million pamphlets and leaf-lets; 50,000 letters to ‘key individuals and officers of organizations’; 70,000 inches of advertising in 700 newspapers; 3,000 spot announcements on 109 radio stations; theater slides and trailers in 160 theaters; 1,000 large billboards and 18,000 or 20,000 smaller posters.”

  • Lepore continues:

In 1940, they produced materials for the Republican Wendell Willkie’s Presidential campaign, including a speaker’s manual that offered advice about how to handle Democrats in the audience: “rather than refer to the opponent as the ‘Democratic Party’ or ‘New Deal Administration’ refer to the Candidate by name only.”

  • Save seventy-five per cent of your budget for the month before Election Day.
  • Campaigns, Inc. created an ad agency, a newspaper wire service that sent a political clipsheet every week to "fifteen hundred 'thought leaders.'"
  • Make it personal: candidates are easier to sell than issues.
  • If your position doesn’t have an opposition, or if your candidate doesn’t have an opponent, invent one. "You can't beat something with nothing," [Whitaker and Baxter] liked to say. 
  • Pretend that you are the Voice of the People.
  • Attack, attack, attack. Whitaker said, “You can’t wage a defensive campaign and win!”
  • Never underestimate the opposition. 
  • Keep it simple. Rhyming’s good. (“For Jimmy and me, vote ‘yes’ on 3.”)
  • Never explain anything. “The more you have to explain,” Whitaker said, “the more difficult it is to win support.”
  • Say the same thing over and over again.
  • Subtlety is your enemy. “Words that lean on the mind are no good,” according to Baxter. “They must dent it.”
  • Simplify, simplify, simplify. “A wall goes up,” Whitaker warned, “when you try to make Mr. and Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think.”
  • Never shy from controversy; instead, win the controversy.
  • Whitaker: "if you can’t fight, PUT ON A SHOW! And if you put on a good show, Mr. and Mrs. America will turn out to see it."
  • Turn your liabilities into assets!

An example of that? Campaigns, Inc. had a candidate who was "a grave, resolute man." So, their strategy involved stressing that such qualities are strengths at a time of war.

  • Try not to speak for more than fifteen minutes—people get bored—and never for more than half an hour.

November 13, 2012 in Campaigns, elections, Democrats; progressivism, Health care, medical, Republicans; conservatism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

America's Tory President

Andrew Sullivan:EdmundBurke1771

I have long been baffled as to why people said my preference over Obama was some kind of shift to the ideological left. Nope. Against a radical right, reckless, populist insurgency, Obama is the conservative option, dealing with emergent problems with pragmatic calm and modest innovation. He seeks as a good Oakeshottian would to reform the country's policies in order to regain the country's past virtues. What could possibly be more conservative than that? Or less conservative than the radical fusion of neoconservatism, theoconservatism and opportunism that is the alternative?

For thinking conservatives of a classic variety, Obama is the best president since Clinton and the first Bush. We need him for the next four years if we are to avoid the catastrophes that always follow revolutionary ideology. Like another Iraq; or another Katrina; or another Lehman.

via andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com

(Image: Edmund Burke, PC, (1729-1797), by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–1792), National Portrait Gallery, London, an Anglo-Irishman in the conservative Whig faction in the British House of Commons during the American Revolution and widely considered a representative of classical liberalism and the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism.)

August 26, 2012 in Democrats; progressivism, Economy, economic justice, Equality, rights, liberty, History, Republicans; conservatism, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Gore Vidal (1925-2012)

In Memoriam

Photo-gv-mm.new_2
Left: Warrant Officer Junior Grade Gore Vidal circa 1944, the Gore Vidal Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University; right: Gore Vidal in 2006 © Stathis Orphanos

October 3, 1925 – July 31, 2012

Writer and provocateur of America's mid-century political and literary circles, Gore Vidal was raised in a prominent Washington D.C. Democratic family but describes himself as a conservative. He was the son of airline pioneer Eugene Vidal, grandson of Oklahoma Sen. T. P. Gore, stepbrother of Jackie Kennedy, and friend of writers and actors including Tennessee Williams, Anaïs Nin, Christopher Isherwood, Tim Robbins, and Paul Newman. A man of contradictions, he has been described as controversial, playful, acerbic, arrogant, and warm; as a gadfly, a conspiracy junkie, a paleo-isolationist, an America-hater, and a patriot; but also "the master essayist of our age" by the Washington Post and America's "greatest living man of letters" by The Boston Globe. He explored history, religion, sex, politics, and power in 25 novels--including his "Narratives of Empire" series about American history--several plays, movie scripts, and more than 200 essays.

PHOTO GALLERY, The New York Times: Gore Vidal 1925-2012

The New York Times: Prolific, Elegant, Acerbic Writer

San Francisco Chronicle: Gore Vidal, Celebrated Author, Playwright, Dies

BBC News: US Author Gore Vidal Dies Aged 86

The Guardian: Gore Vidal, US writer and contrarian, dies aged 86

CNN: Chronicler of American life and politics, dies (and CNN "This Just In" blog: A dozen thoughts from Gore Vidal)

The Atlantic: Gore Vidal - A Salute to Self-Absorbed yet Selfless Genius

Word & Film: Remembering Gore Vidal - Cultural Polymath, Political Gadfly, and Social Butterfly

AntiWar.com: Gore Vidal - the Last Jeffersonian

HuffingtonPost: The Legacy of Gore Vidal

 

  • Vidalprophet
  • Gore Vidal and JFK
  • C
  • Gore Vidal with Michael York
  • 2768-1
  • Vidalcat
  • YngVidal
  • 340x
  • Gore Vidal at the Academy Awards, March 29, 1976
  • Gore Vidal collage
Gore Vidal collage

August 01, 2012 in Books, Campaigns, elections, Democrats; progressivism, Economy, economic justice, Equality, rights, liberty, Gore Vidal, History, Photos, film, TV, webisodes, Religion; religious right; church & state, Republicans; conservatism, Security, terrorism, the military, war | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

The Special Missed Opportunity

DT5573The kerfuffle lingers in the UK where presumed Republican presidential nominee Gov. Mitt Romney made several gaffes shortly after arriving ahead of the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony in London. He questioned London's Olympic preparedness, to which Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron responded,

We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world.... Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.

It was a thinly-veiled contrast between London's games (10,500 athletes in a city of 8.2 million) and the 2002 winter games Romney successfully oversaw in Salt Lake City (2,399 participants in a city of 1.1 million). Romney then appeared to forget the name of Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, who's basically as close to the British premiership as Romney is to the presidency. Finally, Romney broke security practice by disclosing he'd had an undisclosed meeting with the head of MI-6.

The Obama campaign jumped on these gaffes. However, the Obama administration's record on Britain, while on balance strong, has had problems. President Obama's administration “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent.” Obama gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown an almost insultingly unconsidered gift. Brown may not have been a head of state, but a box set of DVD's and a coupon to McDonald's? The administration also continues to side with Argentina's Peronist government against Britain's legitimate and long-held interest in its Overseas Territory, the Falkland Islands. The overwhelming majority of Falklanders are British, see themselves as such, and wish to remain that way. In 1982, an unelected military junta in Argentina launched an undeclared war and invaded the democratic and nearly defenseless islands, and 255 British soldiers lost their lives liberating them. But, showing less than a full commitment to the principle of self-determination, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the Organization of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over Falkland sovereignty, something even the Falklanders don't want. Insult to injury: the administration insists on using the Argentine term “Malvinas” for the Islands.

0313-ncaa-obama-cameron-special-relationship_full_600But, Obama's May 2011 state visit to the UK was very successful. He was extremely well received. While anticipating the President's historic address to both houses of Parliament, Tessa Jowell MP tweeted that "the atmosphere was like 'political Beatlemania.'" At the state dinner with Queen Elizabeth II, the mood was upbeat despite the President having to navigate through a tricky moment when musicians mistakenly started to play "God Save the Queen" while he was attempting to raise a toast to her. He took time to visit the Globe Academy in Southwark with Prime Minister Cameron--a fantastic opportunity to inspire young students and demonstrate cordiality properly reflecting the US-British relationship. And in a joint article, Obama and Cameron declared: "Ours is not just a special relationship, it is an essential relationship — for us and for the world." When Prime Minister Cameron visited the US in March 2012, President and First Lady Obama were superb hosts. The highlight of the visit, at least for the media, was when President and Prime Minister took in a college basketball game. And for the record, the tale that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House or relocated it based on anti-British sentiment is a complete myth.

However, Romney's gaffes are especially a missed opportunity for both US political parties to affirm the special relationship itself, the commonalities and ties that bind through the centuries. It particular, when an adviser to Romney's campaign cited Romney's "Anglo-Saxon heritage" as a qualification for the presidency, both Democrats and Republicans could have gone a step beyond rightly condemning the racially-charged and factually ill-informed comment and reminded the world that today more than ever US and UK successes rest on citizens more racially and ethnically diverse that seen in other Western democracies like Germany or emerging ones like China or Brazil. It's part of both nations' strengths. It was more part of our pasts, too, than the Romney adviser appreciates, given that our two nations' earliest shared heritage of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries--when we were all British--rests quite firmly on the writings and laws born of Scots and Irish, too--not Anglo-Saxons alone but Celts. Is there a Western concept more profoundly shared by the US and UK than capitalism? Its father Adam Smith was Scottish, not English.

QEII-and-POTUS-BHO-and-FLOTUSThere is a special relationship between the US and UK, however imperfect it is. A shared heritage is no small thing--it's an intellectual force combining language, laws, and values that helps shape national institutions and systems. And this relationship has included US-British alliances in World War I and World War II and Britain's shoulder-to-shoulder stance with America throughout the Cold War. Not to mention Britain's willingness to stand by American in bad times, too. The UK's level of commitment to the profoundly expensive and morally and militarily controversial--some would say epically disastrous--invasion and occupation of Iraq is singular among all nations, which is why Britian was targeted by extremists on 7/7--the July 7, 2005 London terrorist bombings.

The Anglo-Saxon remark in particular was a missed political opportunity for both parties. As candidate Obama faces attack ads questioning his commitment to business and Romney faces attack ads questioning his experience as a businessman, both candidates might have highlighted critical elements of Western economic success that the US and Britain have hugely helped shape, and which in turn has helped bind them together.

Western power may have been born among Dutch and English banks and shipping vessels and US devolved property ownership--some historians would look back as far as the Italian Renaissance banks or even earlier events--but Britain and America in the 1800s and 1900s expanded and strengthened it like no other nations. Think of the Industrial Revolution, Europe's liberation from the Nazis, and the near ubiquity of British-American and, in the 20th century especially, purely American cultural icons, corporate brands, technology and--well--denim. This is a point made by the eminent Harvard historian (and Scot) Niall Ferguson in his book and documentary Civilization, in which he terms these elements of shared success the "killer apps" of Western power and numbers them exactly six: competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic.

You may disagree with some of the list, but there's no denying that Britain and America played special roles in creating, preserving, and strengthening Ferguson's apps as well as values most of us hold dear and most of the rest of the world wants if they don't have, and that those values include the ones that bring about business innovation and invention from which stream many benefits. In these last two days, both President Obama and Gov. Romney could have articulated their understanding of those values, and done so especially effectively in the context of the US-UK special relationship--and to the benefit of each candidate's campaign and to the special relationship itself.

(Image UR: Avenue of the Allies, Great Britain, 1918, by Childe Hassam, American, 1859–1935. Oil on canvas: 36 x 28 3/8 in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York. Image R: President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron play table tennis against students at the Globe Academy in London, 2011. Image LR: President Obama and the first lady welcome Queen Elizabeth II for a reciprocal dinner at Winfield House in London, May 2011; photo by Charles Dharapak l Associated Press.)

July 27, 2012 in Democrats; progressivism, History, Internat'l, foreign policy, (incl. Iraq), Republicans; conservatism, UK | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

The Bull about the Bully Pulpit - George Edwards and the Powerless Presidential Bully Pulpit : The New Yorker

Teddy-rooseveltWhen you’re running for President, giving a good speech helps you achieve your goals. When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent you from achieving them.

via www.newyorker.com

Ezra Klein wrote an interesting piece in The New Yorker, "The Unpersuaded," about the work of George Edwards, the director of the Center for Presidential Studies, at Texas A. & M. University, outlining a strong argument that presidents--even those considered good communicators--have far less power to persuade with public speeches than many Americans realize.

Consider the following about presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt:

Between his first inauguration, in January, 1993, and his first midterm election, in November, 1994, [Clinton] travelled to nearly two hundred cities and towns, and made more than two hundred appearances, to sell his Presidency, his legislative initiatives (notably his health-care bill), and his party. But his poll numbers fell, the health-care bill failed, and, in the next election, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than forty years. Yet Clinton never gave up on the idea that all he needed was a few more speeches, or a slightly better message. “I’ve got to . . . spend more time communicating with the American people,” the President said in a 1994 interview. Edwards notes, “It seems never to have occurred to him or his staff that his basic strategy may have been inherently flawed.”
.....
Reagan succeeded in passing major provisions of his agenda, such as the 1981 tax cuts, but, Edwards wrote, “surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities”—all programs that the President opposed—“increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure.” Meanwhile, “support for increased defense expenditures was decidedly lower at the end of his administration than at the beginning.” In other words, people were less persuaded by Reagan when he left office than they were when he took office.
.....
[P]olitical scientists Matthew Baum and Samuel Kernell...found that [FDR's fireside chats] fostered “less than a 1 percentage point increase” in his approval rating. His more traditional speeches didn’t do any better. He was unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War, for example, until Pearl Harbor.

In fact, Edwards' evidence suggest that many presidents achieve their policy goals most efficiently without publicly advocating for them. For a president to publicly address a policy goal, according to Edwards, is often to solidify partisan opposition against it. But it can also strengthen support  among the president's own party. Presidents' public persuasion attempts often have a politicizing effect--whether they like it or not.

Edwards:

“Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.”

Of course, this is not to say that presidential attempts to persuade cannot effect the rhetorical landscape. Jeffery L. Bineham, a rhetoric professor at St. Cloud State University, notes in a letter to the editor of The New Yorker that "death tax," "wars" on poverty, drugs, terror, and mottos like "government is not the solution but the problem," are all examples of presidential speech entering the political lexicon.

April 05, 2012 in Books, Campaigns, elections, Democrats; progressivism, Health care, medical, History, Media, the press, Misc., summary, web whorls & eddies, Republicans; conservatism, Wordcraft | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Next Week's Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care Law

The Supreme Court is set to hear three days of arguments next week over challenges to the health reform law President Obama signed two years ago. Here's a viewer's guide from The PBS Hews Hour as well at a summary by Jeffery Toobin of The New Yorker.

Watch A Viewer's Guide to Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Toobin:

The legal challenges to ACA, which the Supreme Court will hear next week, center on its key provision, the individual mandate. The mandate essentially requires all adults to obtain health insurance, either through their employers or by buying it themselves. (There will be subsidies for those who cannot afford it.) The idea of a health-insurance mandate first came to wide public notice in 1989, in the form of a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, one of Washington’s venerable right-wing think tanks.... For decades, no one suggested that an individual mandate was unconstitutional.
.....
The main argument that opponents of the health-care law have come up with is that the mandate regulates economic inactivity—i.e., not buying insurance—and the Commerce Clause allows only the regulation of economic activity. In the first appellate review of the law, last summer, the Sixth Circuit demolished that argument. The court pointed out that there are two unique characteristics of the market for health care: “(1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay.” Thus, there was no such thing as “inactivity” in the health-care market; everyone participates, even if he or she chooses not to buy insurance. Indeed, the choice to forgo insurance imposes a direct cost on the taxpayers, who wind up footing the bill. Those choices by consumers, especially in the aggregate, represent an economic matter that Congress may decide to regulate.

March 23, 2012 in Democrats; progressivism, Equality, rights, liberty, Health care, medical, Judiciary, Republicans; conservatism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reblog (0) | | | | Pin It! | | Digg This

Next »

Often

  • 3quarksdaily
  • Archaeologica
  • Arts & Letters Daily
  • BBC | In Pictures
  • Blog About History
  • Flickriver
  • God of Wednesday
  • Great British Landscapes
  • Lady Sabre & The Pirates of the Ineffable Aether
  • Manhattan User's Guide

And

  • Anthropology Blog
  • Butterflies and Wheels
  • Charles and Fred
  • English Russia
  • io9.
  • NCSE
  • Progressive Realist
  • ReligionDispatches
  • Panda's Thumb
  • Volokh Conspiracy
  • Wonders & Marvels

Friends' Blogs

  • Lamp for the Journey
    … | Looking at the world in a different light
  • Pottery House Loch Ness B&B
    Pottery House Loch Ness B&B

Medieval History

  • Got Medieval
  • Medieval Ecclesiastical Art
  • Medieval News
  • Medieval Studies "Florilegium"
  • Medievalists.net
  • Quid plura?
  • Transformations of the Year 600

History

  • Early Modern England
  • History of the Ancient World
  • MacroHistory
  • Page in History
  • Shorpy (Photos)
  • The Bowery Boys (NYC)

Science

  • Nature News
  • PhysOrg.com
  • Science Daily
  • Tree of Life (ToL)
  • ZipcodeZoo

Evolution

  • Evolution 101
  • Evolution (NHM)
  • Evolution (PBS)
  • Human Origins
  • Talk.Origins
  • Guardian's Darwin
  • Evolution for Teaching
  • BCSE blog
  • Evolution of Evolution
  • Panda's Thumb

Misc Sites

  • EDGE
  • English-to-Latin
  • Fallacies
  • Snopes.com
  • Webcams: London
  • Wolfram|Alpha

Timelines

  • Ancient Scripts
  • Art
  • Astronomy
  • British History
  • China
  • Cosmological
  • Food
  • Geological
  • Hellenic
  • HIV/AIDS

Maps Sites

  • MapLib.net
  • Oddens' Bookmarks