E-PUBLIUS UNUM

Out Of The Electronic Many, One

Name:
Location: Washington, DC, United States

Thursday, June 29, 2006

I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT

THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FEELINGS OF THIS SITE OR ITS AFFILIATES AND IS A FAVOR TO A FRIEND:

Do you suffer from constitutional interruption? Does the sight of red shirts on a city block give you an anxious pain in the ass? Do you resent righetous do-goodniks?

If any of these sounds familiar to you, you may be suffering from MASSPIRG woes. Your parents had to endure the crippling shame of MASSPIRG undiagnosed and untreated, without help or defense. For you, relief is only a click away.

Live the life you've always wanted.

If nothing else, the enjoy the picture of a beautiful girl in front of city hall with a toy gun.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

15:00, 14:59, 14:58, 14:57, 14:56...

I made my Boston Globe debut today:

















That's me in the back. The way back, between the two ladies. I'm the wash of pixels that vaguely looks like a guy who might be holding a cell phone to his ear. This photo was taken before a housing forum at Faneuil Hall.

Also there was something about Diane Patrick...

Saturday, June 24, 2006

IS THAT LATIN?

Welcome to the first installment of IS THAT LATIN?, the brief roundup of things I feel like rounding up whenever I feel like rounding them up:

House Passed the Estate/Death Tax – This week the House – the scrappy sidekick of the legislative crowd – approved permanent dissolution of the so-called Death Tax, which is actually called the Estate Tax, for all but the tiniest little portions of the rich. A percentage so small that you usually on see these numbers accompanied by the word 'asymptotically.' We can all rest easy knowing that the heirs of dead million- and billionares won’t suffer the injudicious loss of a percentage of whatever portion of their inherited estate they don’t instruct their accountants to find protected status for. Phew!

What else is nice that the Senate, where the real vote will take place, has tagged on a lovely incentive for the logging industry, which is in need of “tax relief” in order to compete on the global market. It seems unrelated, but there is a necessary connection between the need for more logging to keep up with the accumulating need for paper money.

What this all really means is that the House has deferred to the Senate, where there is likely to be an unstoppable Democratic filibuster sure to capture the hearts of Americans looking for strong leadership. House Dems don’t have to vote against an unpopular measure and can hopefully retain the seats they gained through this same pandering.

What it also means is that the legislature is dicking around with a fringe issue at a time when we are at war, losing jobs, kids are fat, climates are changing, dogs and cats living together, etc., &c.

A few questions and contradictions on this issue to come.

An Inconvenient Truth – I saw the movie last night, and as it told me to do, I encourage you to do the same. It’s a good movie, and hopefully very important. Go here.

The salient question of course is not whether the sky is falling but rather what indication the film gives of Gore’s plans in 2008. Could go either way really, I say. The fact that a politician made a movie is indicative of one (inconvenient?) truth: that the political landscape has shifted to the point where politicians are making policy movies. Gore is legitimately passionate about climate change, and I am not accusing him of diabolical maneuvering, but this movie is not a martyrdom of his political prospects on the altar of the issue. He definitely didn’t do or say anything to indicate that he wouldn’t be running for President.

Two New Books - Richard Brookhiser, author of biographies of Hamilton and Washington, and Gordon Wood, who Matt Damon used to intellectually smack around a Master-Race Ivy leaguer in Good Will Hunting, have both recently released books about the founding fathers.

Wood's book is Revolutionary Characters and is about character, that abstract thing you build when something sucks to do, and Brookhisers's book What Would the Founders Do? is about the founders' presumed response to modern-day problems and, no doubt, the lighter of the two.

Review
here.

I Have To Go To Work – Right Now.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

HONESTY IS BETTER THAN POLICY

Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You’re Stupid by Joe Klein
Reviewed by Federalist No. 2006

At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Harry Truman accepted his nomination under a host of inauspicious circumstances: he was roundly considered inferior to his predecessor Roosevelt; his party had taken a bad hit, losing Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats to integration disputes; the convention itself had been a dull episode, and the time was past midnight, meaning Truman’s audience was long asleep. Yet, Truman stepped to the podium and brought the convention to its feet, rousing supporters with a bold call for victory, and issuing a stern challenge to the “do nothing” Republican Congress, whom he aimed to call back on the 26th of July, “which,” he said, “out in Missouri we call Turnip Day.”

It is Truman’s “Turnip Day” that catches the ear of Joe Klein, and serves as the archetypal moment for the eminently readable, if inevitably limited, Politics Lost. Truman – off by a day – was invoking a Missouri maxim, “On the 25th of July, sow your turnips wet or dry.” He was working, amazingly, without prepared remarks, accepting his party’s nomination by simply speaking his mind. Turnip Day, “was a throwaway, a tiny gesture, perhaps an unwitting one, a small seed of humanity planted in the public mind – but the seed blossomed into the ‘Give ‘Em Hell, Harry’ personality that won one of the greatest upsets in American presidential history.”

Politics Lost traces the disappearance of “Turnip Day” moments in today’s political mise en scène. This disappearance Klein attributes to the development of the “pollster-consultant industrial complex,” a rise to power of consultants and their methods that have sanctified a scientific sterility in politics, a fear to tread beyond the market-tested that has left the American people with little to choose from but the most inane and inoffensive specimens.

Political stage management is nothing new: President Coolidge invited Vaudevillians to breakfast in an attempt to boost his dour image; the Times reported “Actors Eat Cake With the Coolidges…President Almost Laughs.” Klein, however, plants the genesis of the current incarnation in the early 70s, when Pat Cadell, pollster wunderkind and volatile savant, outlined for President Carter a Permanent Campaign strategy deemed necessary in the television age. Cadell’s foresight was prescient enough; unfortunately, his tactics, proscribing a national lassitude and itchiness in the famous and famously mis-nomered “malaise” speech, sent Carter into the dark woods of abstraction when a troubled populace, facing gas lines and inflation, needed real solutions. After Cadell, the situation only escalates, through the let-Reagan-be-Reagan successes of the 80s to the many failures of Bob Shrum, who manages to lose seven separate presidential elections through a consistent and calculated middling.

Klein is a veteran reporter of eight presidential elections and an expert in the theatre of politics. His special province is the campaign stage, which is where his gaze is set in Politics Lost. The book moves on tales of erratic political consultants and their static candidates, or erratic candidates and their static campaign staffers, or in the case of John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid, a statically erratic candidate and an erratic rotation of static consultants. There are occasional reports of success – Lee Atwater propelling Bush Senior, James Carville and Bill Clinton, and of course, Karl Rove and Bush Junior – but on the whole, consultants seem to collect checks by stymieing candor and foiling instincts.

Through it all, Klein never ventures to investigate why the American public is so vulnerable to the Carnival Barkers and Snake Oil Salesmen of the campaign trail. As a result, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the consultants and their clients. No other group – not a media increasingly intolerant of nuance, not a campaign finance structure that focuses power in moneyed special interests, not a public that has demanded so little of its leaders – comes in for indictment.

Indeed, there is more to the issue than Pat Cadell and Pandora’s Memo, or Bob Shrum and his Milquetoast message, and it would have been good of Klein to dedicate some ink to a broader explanation. Which makes Politics Lost more of a history of political campaigns in the last half-century rather than a dissection of the post-modern political mind. Klein makes note of important rhetorical and marketing trends, but forgoes the deeper analysis. He is vocal and entertaining on the How of the political evolution, but is unfortunately silent on the Why.

As the 2006 and 2008 elections lumber into sight, Politics Lost is bound to prove timely. The consistent blundering of the Bush administration, painfully articulated by Klein as a warning against governing by Permanent Campaign, has soured voters ever further on platitudes and parables. Candidates are now banking on claims of independence from the strictures of parties and establishments, raising cries heralding the end of politics. One can only assume that their phrases have been dial-tested and focus-grouped and phone-banked to prove by science that the at least 50% of likely voters will respond favorably. How could anyone argue with such a mandate? We can now look forward to a season of calculated spontaneity, wooden enthusiasm, and pageants of independent-minded pandering. Maybe this year, everyday can be Turnip Day.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

KARL? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

There has been a good deal of chatter lately about the Democratic strategy on Iraq going into the mid-terms. Most noise has been that same old song and dance about the Dems, that they can't get a cohesive message together, which is bound to hurt them come November.

After reading Adam Reilly's bit on Rove in the Boston Phoenix today, I am inclined to worry.

The GOP can counter with the kinds of arguments that Rove made in New Hampshire last week, and is bound to make in the coming months: That Dems are soft, want to cut and run, aren't willing to make hard policy decisions, and don't care about the sacrifices of the military.

Rove's nastiest bit came in this line, pulled out by Adam:

Those who advocate cut-and-run, those who say, ‘Set an artificial timetable,’ those who say, ‘Get out now,’ have to be willing to explain to the American people why fifty million people living in freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t deserve to live in freedom . . . [They] need to explain to our men and women in uniform why their hard work and their courage and their sacrifice doesn’t matter. And they need to explain to the families of the fallen why the loss of their loved ones could now have been depicted as being in vain.

That's nasty brother. Banking the global spread of Democracy off the families of soldiers who died in vain. What's most astounding is his ability to utilize these circumstances without actually caring about either one. These emerge out of a political calculus. Chilling.

The best strategy here, I think, is to play the Mismanagement card over and over and over again. Insufficient body and vehicle armor, priority in securing oil fields over troop and civilian safety, corruption in private no-bid awards to friends of the Administration, a callous disregard for much beyond politics, and (not to mention) the fact that neither being wrong nor lying is a reason enough for waging an unprovoked war.

This is how I think we win in November.

So, all 4 of you who read this, Mismanagement is the Message.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

CYNICS

John, “Steve,” Michael, “Andy”:

As per our previous, unresolved conversation:

Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

This is an approximate definition, which we of course already covered. Cynicism comes from an ancient sect of Greek philosophy that can loosely be called a school, and originates either with Anisthenes or Diogenes of Sinope (see Fig. 1), or both or neither.

The origins of the word come from the Greek word ‘kunikos’ or “dog-like,” which has something to do with the basic mode of behavior of the ancient Cynics – like dogs. The Cynics strove to expose the arbitrary and potentially damaging aspects of cultural, civilized norms. Thus they would bark at people and pee wherever and eat and sleep and screw at leisure.

In a linguistic irony, the Cynics opposed dogmatism. Droll.

In addition to exposing the fallacies of civilization, the Cynics also taught us the fruitlessness or organizing politically around a Poop-Where-Thou-Will platform. Any wonk worth his salt knows the Don’t-Shit-Where-You-Eat lobby is just too powerful.

The Cynic school of thought died out in the 6th Century CE, and is said to have influenced any number of different philosophical and political movements, from Christians, who respected the asceticism of the cynics (some also turned away the standard comforts of civilization), to the stoics, and the anarchists. Hercules was supposed to be a big deal for the Cynics. I wonder why not Zeus? Turning into a dog to have sex whenever you want seems a lot closer to what the Cynics where aiming at.

Modern day Cynics are known as Hippies and Assholes.

As for how the Cynics gave us the word cynics, I found no evidence. It may have to do with Diogenes futile search for an honest man – he was the guy with the lantern.

My theory that they involved themselves in some political debate that resulted in the tag and the shift of meaning holds no water. In any case, there is not a straight line from the Cynincs to the cynincs. So we are where we started.

The best translation of the word cynic is the Italian ‘cinisimo.’

A SIGHT TO SEE

Here is a video from the recent DailyKos bloggers convention. The convention has been something of a sensation for attracting such Hopefuls as Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack (the former Governor of Iowa; I fielded a phone call from him once).

This ad was done by Ava Lowry. She is 15 years old and lives in Nebraska.

Social Studies Dude.

I found out about this here.

Monday, June 12, 2006

ALLONYMS (A NOTE ON NAMES)

I realize that the Greek doesn't exactly match up here, 'Pluribus' being the actual 'Many' I mean to invoke, sorta.

'Publius' is an ode to the allonym used by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and - my favorite despite the sub-par University named for him - James Madison, the men who composed the bulk of the Federalist Papers to support the ratification of the Constitution in the individual states.

Their use of 'Publius' was itself an ode to the Roman Consul Publius Valerius Publicola, a guy who wrote the law that anyone who fancied himself a king of the Roman republic opened up a legally sanctioned hunting season on himself. 'Publicola,' also 'Poplicola,' means "friend of the people." But it also sounds stupid, and I don't want to be the friend of the people who only keep you around for laughs.

Additionally, I couldn't really resist the 'E-Pub' consonance provided with 'Publius.' I can't think of anyone who could.

A full airing of my nerdy laundry.

Update: John Adams Dime Campaign kickoff delayed.

INVOCATION

Having just returned home from south Georgia, I have decided to consumate my reconciliation with being "on line," as they wrote it in a quaint dixie bathroom, by starting a blog.

What happens from here on is a complete mystery.

As for the invocation, two good ones from Aristotle:

"For example, the priestess who did not let her son give a public address: 'If,' she said, 'your words are just, men will hate you, and if they are unjust, then the gods will.'"

and

"...it is not easy for for a long-haired man to perform any manual task."

up next: I kick off the John Adams Dime campaign