Isebrand

Isebrand.com turned 10 years old and even I didn't notice.

Isebrand.com turned 10 years old in January 2014. I wouldn't have expected anyone to notice.... But even I didn't! That's a bit pathetic. :)

Below is the first post, "Why This Site," that I published. Most of the links are dead. (Also, above is a screen cap (click to enlarge) of the top portion of the blog's first page. It's in my digital archives, not online anymore.

OK, I admit that I'm a tad impressed that a decade ago I was blogging about wealth disparity and the top 1%. Maybe I was a bit ahead of the curve. Frankly, they're topics I moved away from over time, though they're certainly on my mind again nowadays.

I launched Isebrand.com on January 7, 2004. It was entirely focused on U.S. politics and done in HTML. If TypePad or WordPress existed back then, I didn't know about them. What's annoying is that I went from several hundred daily unique visitors on average (getting more than 5,000 daily during the week of the 2004 General Election and the day after) to 100s fewer once I switched to TypePad in 2006. All of a sudden many followers couldn't find my blog as easily and it seemed lost to search engines.

Now, Isebrand.com 2.0, as it were, is just a sort of scrapbook of Web snippets, more likely to be about the UK or British history or a good cocktail recipe. On an extremely good day, I might get 200-300 visitors but that's rare; merely 50-80 unique visitors is more common.

If my initial post's tone seems angry, it's because I was. 9/11 and its aftermath showed the spitefulness of G. W. Bush and the GOP. I found the Republican Party's demagogic lies during the 2002 midterm campaigns to be utterly unconscionable. To successfully insinuate that the likes of Max Cleland and other Congressional Democrats were potentially traitorous or dangerous for opposing a rush into a war of choice against Iraq, a nation not involved in 9/11, almost literally sickened me. It sickened me that the GOP dared to do such knavish things and that so many voters bought into it.

By late 2003, I was part of the Draft Clark movement and agreed with Gore Vidal--now the late Gore Vidal (and I still agree with him on this)--that George W. Bush's administration was one of the worst to ever befall the republic, largely a calculating and grotesquely cynical cabal bent on warmongering globally for personal profit and glory, stirring up the religious right domestically, and deliberately spending while cutting taxes in order to cause a crisis of debt that could be used as an excuse to undo the New Deal.

My late and beloved Aunt Ardith Buffington was among the sweetest and least judgmental people I've ever had the privilege to know. She was not very political. I remember being taken aback when she somewhat sharply declared once to me and my uncle when President George W. Bush appeared on the television screen, maybe in 2005 or 2006, "Oo, when I see his face, I just want to slap him." There was something about that man. Not just the policies but the swagger, the smirk, the seeming lack of serious-mindedness, that could cause strong antipathy. In general, I think it was often warranted, and while I am usually good about avoiding the ad hominem these days (guideline: "attack the idea, the message, not the person or messenger") and think it is an important principle, back then on Isebrand.com, I often referred to the President as a "frat punk."

Why this site?

by IseFire - Wed. 01/07/04; 8:51 pm EST

BECAUSE the wealthiest 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 95% combined;

BECAUSE the president threw away a $237 billion government surplus, leaving America no emergency funds;
BECAUSE his imprudence has given us a $400 billion deficit;
BECAUSE he feeds wealth disparity with tax give-aways that help the rich, force service cuts for the rest of us, and drive state and community taxes up;

BECAUSE on January 28, 2003 the president lied to America before Congress assembled;
BECAUSE he exploited the 9/11 tragedy to start an unrelated war, and deceived Americans to gain their support.
BECAUSE his war is diverting money and immeasurable resources from the fight against terrorism;
BECAUSE his warmongering showed contempt for our allies and squandered their goodwill;

BECAUSE he protects officials who treasonously betrayed an American intelligent agent;
BECAUSE he and his staff censor information and withhold from the American public even basic facts about their secret governance;

BECAUSE his environmental record is the worst of any president in American history.

BECAUSE savvy conservatives overwhelmed our insipid and lazy media (while Democratic Party leaders sat idly by) with well-funded think tank data, right-wing commentary, and partisan spin;

BECAUSE the grassroots campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark offer the hope of a resurgent Democratic Party;
BECAUSE Democrats are finally recognizing the need for better political communication;
BECAUSE grassroots organizations like MoveOn.org show that the Internet can help defend the republic and its constitution;

that's why this site.

Scotch Whisky industry warns of the risks of separation

It's World Whisky Day today. But here's a sobering thought: Scottish independence might be bad for Scotch.

On September 18, 2014, Scotland votes on whether or not it will remain in the United Kingdom. There are many reasons for and against. I hope Scotland remains in the UK. Various industries and interests are raising concerns about separation, including the Scotch Whisky sector again recently. Among others, Martin O'Neill, who I interned for when he was an MP, also raised these concerns earlier this year in the House of Lords. #BetterTogether

NYers: Vote NO on Proposition One on Tues., Nov. 5. "NO to More Casinos in New York State" - NYTimes.com

I wholeheartedly agreed with The New York Times editorial board in urging New Yorkers to vote NO on Proposition One on Tuesday's ballot. Vote AGAINST more casinos in New York State.

The general election is Tuesday and New Yorkers won't decide only races like the one for mayor of New York City, but also six constitutional proposals listed on the ballot, too. (In New York City, the ballot questions will be in only 6-point type. Yikes!) Excerpts from the Times editorial concerning Prop. One:

Gambling is a regressive tax that takes its highest toll on those who can least afford it. Casinos often bring higher crime rates and deterioration of the communities nearby.... [Y]ou should not accept the way this amendment is advertised on the ballot as a jobs and growth initiative for upstate New York. It is liable to fail to deliver on that promise.

[T]he experiences of other states that have expanded casino gambling have been mostly dismal. The casino construction jobs are not permanent, and the better-paying croupier and management jobs often go to workers from out of the area and even out of the state. People from the community usually end up with the low-wage service jobs at best....
.....
Other communities have reported a loss in local business as gamblers are swept into the casino and stay there to spend their money. And the National Association of Realtors reported in July that when a casino is built in Massachusetts, the effect on home prices nearby is expected to be “generally negative.”

There is plenty of evidence that more casinos will simply do more damage. Voters should reject the constitutional amendment.

via www.nytimes.com

See NoToProp1.com for more information. Click the image below for the full-size graphic that you can post on social media.

“Casinos are a whole different breed. It changes communities.
It doesn’t generate wealth, it just redistributes it.”
- Mario Cuomo, Governor of New York, 1983–1994

How I'm voting on Tuesday in several of the key races and all six propositions:

Mayor: Bill de Blasio*
Public Advocate: Letitia James*
City Comptroller: Scott Stringer*
Manhattan Borough President: Gale Brewer (this race is on Manhattanites' ballots only)
*I'll be voting for them on the Democratic Party line

Prop 1 No
Prop 2 Yes
Prop 3 Yes
Prop 4 Yes
Prop 5 No -- respectable environmental groups actually split on their recommendations here for and against this land swap in the Adirondacks; I'm voting no because I think it destroys essentially (though not technically) old-growth areas and could also, potentially, open the door to private development; those supporting it argue correctly that it does result in a net gain in the amount of public land
Prop 6 No -- I'm ambivalent about this on; it calls for forcing judges to retire at the age of 70, but NYS's court system is understaffed and over-burdened, we need both the new, young workers and the experienced senior jurists

For New York City Comptroller, Democrats should vote on Sept. 10th for Scott Stringer, accomplished public servant

The New York Times endorsement of Scott Stringer:

Scott Stringer has done an outstanding job as Manhattan borough president and would make a fine New York City comptroller.... The comptroller sits on many boards, committees and commissions. The ideal candidate is politically astute and ethically impeccable, and works well with others. Mr. Stringer has shown all those qualities as a public servant. As a state assemblyman, he was committed to the principles of good government. In his nearly eight years as borough president he has improved the scope, effectiveness and reputation of that sometimes marginal office. He has been a strong voice for civil rights and marriage equality, a defender of immigrants and the poor.

Mr. Stringer’s opponent, Eliot Spitzer, has intellect and cunning, but he lacks the qualities critical for this job.

The New York Daily News endorsement of Scott Stringer:

Scott Stringer [is] a steady, serious, well-prepared public official with an unblemished record of accomplishment. [Conversely, Spitzer, while] meeting with the Daily News Editorial Board for an endorsement interview, made definitively false statements in response to long-unanswered questions about the actions that put him at the heart of a federal criminal investigation.

The New York Observer endorsement of Scott Stringer:

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer showed that he was ready for citywide office just a few weeks ago, when he announced his support for Mayor Bloomberg’s rezoning plan for Midtown East. With a Democratic primary looming, it would have been easier for Mr. Stringer to pander to the ideologues and critics; instead, he stood up for visionary change. That’s good.

Mr. Stringer is a capable public servant. He represented the Upper West Side in the State Assembly for 13 years, earning a reputation as an irrepressibly earnest advocate for good government.... As the chief monitor of the city’s finances, Mr. Stringer would bring energy, independence and diligence to an office that requires all of those virtues.

am New York endorsement of Scott Stringer:

New York City Democrats who value good government and solid performance have a great choice in the Sept. 10 primary race for city comptroller. Scott Stringer, an Upper West Sider, has spent 20 years in office, first as an assemblyman and now as Manhattan borough president. In both positions he has built a strong reputation for thoughtfulness, attention to detail and solid constituent service.

As borough president, for example, he backed Columbia University's proposal to rezone 17 acres north of 125th Street for academic buildings -- after the school agreed to contribute $33 million for affordable housing and other public benefits.

But most important, as he runs for comptroller, Stringer shows a keen grasp of that office's nuances. The same can't be said for his opponent, [Eliot Spitzer].

The problem lies with Spitzer's expansive view of the comptroller's job. Sometimes he seems to yearn for a nostalgia tour as state attorney general. [Spitzer's] candidacy is more about Spitzer and less about New Yorkers.

[T]he comptroller must be able to sit at the table with the mayor and play an effective advisory role as City Hall hashes out the details of contracts with an army of private vendors who do business with the city.

It means the city must hold Wall Street to the highest standards of honesty and service as it invests the pension money of municipal workers. Yet it also means that the comptroller must work well with the financial industry to reduce, for example, the costs of investing.

The job requires a grown-up -- with sound judgment, unquestioned integrity and a talent for working well with others when the public interest demands it. We endorse Scott Stringer for comptroller in the Democratic primary.

America's problem with gun ownership. BBC Radio 4 - Letter from America by Alistair Cooke (1993 broadcast)

A 14-minute rebroadcast version of the 1993 gun ownership program from Alistair Cooke's Letter from America BBC series, which ran for 58 years (2,869 installments), the longest-running speech radio show in history. "Does a multiple murder on a Long Island train prove that America has a problem with guns?" This program is available through December 29, 2012.

The problem of US gun ownership, and why the American constitution doesn't actually guarantee a right to bear arms, as examined by broadcaster and journalist Alistair Cooke in 1993.

Paddy O'Connell introduces a shortened archive edition of Letter from America first broadcast 19 years ago on 29 October 1993.

In this edition, Alistair Cooke took the American nation's temperature on gun control in the midst of that early-90s panic, as Congress was about to pass the Brady Act in 1993, after more than a decade of lobbying by Jim Brady, President Reagan's former press secretary, shot with the President in an assassination attempt in 1981.

Alistair Cooke's talks on American life, history and politics - Letter from America - were broadcast weekly on BBC Radio from 1946 -2004. Over 920 archive editions are available to listen or download for free on the Radio 4 website.

Presenter: Alistair Cooke
Introduced by: Paddy O'Connel
Archive producer: Zillah Watson.

via www.bbc.co.uk

Margin of victory

The Economist looks at the remaking of the president:

Mr Romney won the white vote by 59% to 39%—an improvement over John McCain’s showing in 2008. But in Midwestern swing states, that margin was narrower: just four points in Wisconsin, for example, and 15 in Ohio.
.....
Over the course of his presidency, [Obama] has pointedly unveiled policies designed to appeal to each element of this coalition.
.....
Perhaps the best illustration of Mr Obama’s campaign-by-niches is his wooing of gay voters. The 5% of voters who identified themselves as gay in exit polls opted for Mr Obama by 76% to 22%—enough to account for his entire margin of victory.

via www.gorevidalpages.com

Image.

Adversaries - summing up Washington's situation

From 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

The Invention of Political Consulting : The New Yorker

The 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.

Gore Vidal (1925-2012)

In Memoriam

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

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

When 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.