Inconsequential

People who follow politics and political coverage often criticize the media for not explicating policy proposals and instead focusing on polls and swing states. Such critics see the media as too focused on distractions. Now, following Tuesday's Presidential debate, an online public hears Romney's "binders full of women" comment and amplifies it, silencing other discussions for a day or so.

Maybe the "binders full of women" is sort of amusing, and within that amusement is the sense that some things are odd about Romney. Some things are, but nothing evidenced in his comment is revelatory unless you've never thought about who Mitt Romney is beyond his brand, "successful businessman".

The larger discourse on women voters and women's issues seems far more revealing about what we're like, and how we perceive ourselves and those around us. Women are sort of treated as a political g-spot in need of some serious finessing. This gender-oriented political discourse seems to say that a candidate needs to understand and address things women "care about" without appearing to stereotype women or lock them in the home. This CNN article on Romney's women-talk during the debate cites a political science professor voicing such a concern:

"His discussion of work-life balance appeared condescending to some because of the reference to women cooking dinner."

So the candidate must embrace gender difference but frame his embrace in terms of equality. Maybe most or all political discourse aimed at a specific segment of the voting public includes some version of outlining that segment, then erasing those lines, of conjuring their image, then making them disappear, but women are a good, current example of this, I think. The finessing and specific, pointed targeting of women leaves an impression that women are both foreign and essential to political discourse. A political writer in The New Yorker touched on all this when addressing political ads aimed at "women voters":

... that ad, like every ad targeted to women voters for the last half century, including those made by both campaigns this election season, assumes that women are wholly different species of citizen than men. The political imagination of American women, at least according to American political advertisers, begins with our cervixes and ends at the kitchen door.

Notes:

• The "binders full of women" meme nearly obscured the best bit of political gamesmanship by anybody of either party in years: Obama's "Proceed, Governor".

• Embracing gender difference while seeking equality is sort of similar to how feminist theory works in academia, I'd say, from my very limited experience with it.

When is a whistleblower not a whistleblower?

An anonymous source leaked internal documents from Libertarian thinktank Heartland to hydro-climatologist and climate debate figure Dr. Peter H. Gleick. These documents discussed fundraising and strategies for fostering climate change doubts within schools. Under someone else's name, Gleick pursued the leak and received more documents, which he then turned over for publication. He's (1) commendable for truth-seeking and/or (2) guilty for his methods.

In the op-ed "The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats—and We All Lose", Time magazine's Science desk Going Green columnist condemns Gleick, citing journalistic standards (because Gleick publishes on Huffington Post) and drawing support from a confession the would-be whistleblower himself published in Huffington Post. In that confession, Gleick admits to "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and says he regrets his actions.

No doubt Gleick disapproves of Heartland's tactics and holds a higher standard for himself in this climate "debate" messaging war. He is very clear about this. He's also clear on where he stands in the larger debate. The Time columnist shows less courage, condemning the confessor while saying nothing substantive of its context. The point of his column is that "if a reporter lies in the pursuit of facts, the resulting story will be much harder to believe, even if it really is true". If in this case that happens to be true, it's only thanks to columnists like this who, cynically writing under the header Going Green, further obfuscate the debate, leaving casual readers to come away thinking "another global warming advocate lied".

Notes:

• Where is the story on Heartland's tactics?
• If global warming/climate change was my issue, this would frustrate me.

We all were appalled

Right off, last night CNN's Republican debate moderator John King asked Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife's new claim that he asked for an open marriage. Newt answered,

I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through personal things. To take an ex-wife, and make it two days before the Primary, a significant question in a Presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

Despite his admitting to having a weak imagination, this morning's coverage calls Newt's reply brilliantly calculated. What made it a hit was not so much Newt's words but rather (1) the timing of the exchange, (2) Newt's delivery, (3) King's freezing up, and (4) the audience's enthusiasm.

No doubt King thought his opening rhetorical situation a golden opportunity; he hoped to start with fireworks, embarrassing Newt by capitalizing on the big ABC tabloid interview with the ex-wife. But doing so created an even bigger rhetorical situation for Newt, one he seized with his customary bluster by rejecting the question on moral grounds. That he got to do so right in the beginning, at the moment when anticipation and energy were peaking and ratings were highest, only magnified the exchange and created an immediate emotional outlet for the audience, who cheered Newt on as he chastised the media, the moderator.

Here we have a politician who publicly preaches values, from the party that owns family values, caught violating those values, claiming that he is morally above public inquiry into his values and his personal life.

The hypocrisy is plain as day, yet King fumbles on the opportunity, and Gingrich looks brilliant because he gets away with it.

Gingrich holds aloft his righteousness in his staccatoed indignation. He summons the dignity of the moment--a Presidential debate (a Primary debate)--a dignity due to such an event in abstraction, but not often felt in practice.

King could have countered along another route: Gingrich faults "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" while enjoying the destructive, vicious, negative nature of attacks hurled at candidate Romney by him and his Super PAC.

All this aside, what to make of Gingrich's appeal to "personal pain"? What pain? The pain of the divorce? And whose pain? His? The ex-wife's?

The answers don't matter. What matters is, What does the pain speak of? I'd venture that, for Gingrich, "pain" in this context is the pain we inflict and feel ourselves when confronted by personal failings. Gingrich has them in spades, but a candidate can't say so. Instead, "pain" is a code, a signifier of the unspeakable. Pain communicates to us without words and carries its own meaning. I'd venture further and say most his audience understands this, personal failings, even if they don't know it.

And if I'm right about what Gingrich is saying, I'd be tempted to see this as a product of his recent conversion to Catholicism, as his statement has in it an element of Confession.

Another transcript

The New York Times piece Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science offers only a summarized transcript of environment-related content spoken during last night's Republican debate. This pointless article quotes a bold assertion by Huntsman, then makes no attempt at verifying his figure. Unbelievable. Here is the only authentic moment from the debate--a potentially historically significant moment in the evolution of the GOP--starring Huntsman and left alone by the NYT:

When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science ... By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

Congratulations on buying the Robot Romney Corp 2012

In The New York Times article "‘Corporations Are People,’ Romney Tells Iowa Hecklers Angry Over His Tax Policy", the reporter quotes Romney tossing out a line about raising taxes which draws shouts of "Corporations!" from an audience member. Romney says corporations are people:

“Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

The reporter shares analysis:

It was a telling, unscripted moment for Mr. Romney likely to be replayed on YouTube. In an instant, he seemed to humanize himself by pointedly squabbling with the group of hecklers, showing flashes of anger and defying his reputation as a sometimes stilted, unfeeling candidate.

This "stilted, unfeeling" reputation comes from the media. They invented it, the Romney narrative, and they reinforce it. This slight break in that narrative amuses the reporter because he's so much a part of it he can't see that it is only a characterization, and that Romney actually is human.

Here's the article's highlight:

Thursday was Mr. Romney’s most fiery day on the trail this week, even before the hecklers, affiliated with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, an organizing group, drew him into several aggressive exchanges. Mr. Romney took the stage with sweat already glistening on his brow and upper lip. The sweat trickled down his cheek as he worked himself into animated rhythm in a 10-minute speech that criticized President Obama.

Worked himself into animated rhythm? Did he oil his machine parts? Maybe get Dorothy and Scarecrow to lock arms for song?

By drawing attention to this supposed anomaly, the article reinforces and emphasizes the prevailing narrative that media generated. The exception seems to prove the rule. This is a much smaller version than the time Hillary Clinton got weepy toward the conclusion of the Democratic Primary in 2008.

The other narratives include Huntsman attempting to stand on his own two legs and Bachmann trying not to act psycho.

Too cynical? No, not cynical enough.

During the weeks leading up to today's budget resolution, President Obama consistently argued for a "balanced" proposal--one that included new revenues in the form of loophole closings and/or tax increases. Despite not getting that, the President commented on the resolution as if he still could:

It's an important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means, yet it also allows us to keep making key investments in things like education and research that lead to new jobs and assures that we're not cutting too abruptly while the economy's still fragile.

These words convey and promote a positive perception of the resolution. The perception matters more than the final scorecard, it seems. That "we're not cutting too abruptly" is a matter of controlling perceptions. Obama himself seems to say as much:

The uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling for both businesses and consumers has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need, and it was something we could have avoided entirely.

The tireless debate in Washington aided and abetted in media coverage generated uncertainty and pessimism among portions of the population; credit rating agencies, in a bid for relevance, threatened further economic consequences should debate continue; their assigning a less desired letter would lead to interest rates rising and so forth by those who agreed that credit ratings matter. Economics is discourse: signs are adjusted based on agreement among power holders. How much is too much? Whatever they say is too much.

Back in the White House Rose Garden, the President attempts to retain his supporters by claiming that, despite the immediate line-in-the-sand address he made on prime time television last week, the real fight is still ahead:

I've said it before, I'll say it again, we can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the brunt of this recession. Everyone has to chip in. It's only fair. That's the principle I'll be fighting for in the next phase.

This phrasing, balancing on the backs of so-and-so, is a metaphor conjuring an image that jives with the image everybody has of themselves: That they bear a burden, a cross, and are hard working. And being recognized for burden-bearing is sometimes better than being relieved of that burden. Obama signals his sympathy through this recognition. The urge to return that sympathy can be powerful: "He's doing the best he can!"

Business rules and faith in the leadership

Mitch McConnell wants the Republican-controlled Congress to stick President Obama with sole ownership of the decision to raise the debt ceiling. Probably a good move for them. This way, come election time, the GOP-Tea Party can point to the White House and say "Obama wants to spend even more, so he raised the debt ceiling!"

The whole debate places the Republican leadership in a tough spot: They don't want any part of a default, but they don't want to be perceived as being soft on spending, either. McConnell's way provides a way out. His additional requirement--that Obama specify cuts equal to each increase--almost seems unnecessary.

The New York Times article "McConnell Warns of Risk to Party, and Country, of Default" lays out the issue from McConnell's point of view. And it says,

While Mr. McConnell’s plan would face an array of political and perhaps constitutional issues, it signaled that Republican leaders did not intend to let conservative demands for deep spending cuts provoke a possible financial crisis and saddle the party with a reputation for irresponsible intransigence.

This sentence (1) nods in agreement with the premise that not raising the debt ceiling is bad and (2) signals confidence in the Republican leadership. And the word "irresponsible" is key there; it is at once (1) a recognition that the party has already been saddled with a reputation for neutral or responsible intransigence, and (2) a denial of any intransigence because such recognition goes unstated.

On the blue side, President Obama is always in need of strategy; if he wanted to rebuild some Federal Government credibility among the public, he should start a PR campaign to highlight new research and development in other countries and frame this in terms of other nations progressing while America stalls. What proud American wouldn't reconsider funding NASA after learning that China is gearing up its space program?