The Tea Party has brought the Constitution to the forefront of American politics. If you're not familiar with this topic, here are some links.
There are many ways I can go with this blog post, but I'm going to focus on the implications, the impact, the power of bringing the word "Constitution" into the fray.
The Constitution is a powerful concept. Constitutionality is the basis on which laws are judged. The Constitution is what our government is based on. Students learn about the Constitution in school. And now, political debate serves to further the prominence of the Constitution.
From what I have seen, although many people know of the Constitution and believe the Constitution to be significant and important, not many people know what is actually written in the Constitution. Many only know of couple of the articles in the Bill of Rights, and do not know the exact wording of said articles. With the internet, this isn't such a problem, since all this information can be looked up. However, I have found that many people do not bother to even look up said information.
So here we have this concept that many people believe to be important and powerful, which many people do not understand. The situation is just oozing with exploitative potential.
Tea Party candidates bring up the idea that the Constitution is on their side, and try to win support via their Constitutional legitimacy. In case you were about to write off the Tea Party as a joke and that nobody would believe their arguments, note that the Tea Party has more positive than negative associations, according to the Global Language Monitor. It is entirely possible that their Constitutionality argument may prove to be somewhat effective.
The kicker? The Constitution is not a very specific mandate on how Americans should run their nation; the founding fathers did not know what the world would be like in 2010. The Constitution is and was meant to be a guideline for how to run our nation. As a result, it leaves much room for interpretation. As a result, their interpretations of the Constitution may not be "wrong." (although the sources I linked to may, in fact, say that their interpretations are wrong.) So besides the fact that the Constitution is powerful and well-known, and besides the fact that many people do not actually know what is written in the Constitution, the Constitution is ambiguous enough that many different but perfectly legitimate arguments can be made using the Constitution in order to support very differing or or even radical points of view. Triple whammy. At the same time, opposition to the Tea Party can use these same aspects of the Constitution to make solid counterarguments. But the Tea Party brought up the issue first. Will that give the Tea Party authority and legitimacy on the topic of the Constitution in the eyes of Americans?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Midterm elections
With the midterm elections coming up, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what people are talking about in politics. Thanks to the Global Language Monitor's Narrative Tracker, I was able to find a list of the top 30 most-frequently-electronically-discussed topics relevant to American politics. Here it is, straight from GLM:
"1. Narrative – Idea of the narrative is a strong No. 1
2. Lower Taxes – 600% higher than Raise Taxes (No. 10)
3. Obama Muslim Connection - Two weeks before 2008 Election it was No . 6
4. Conservatives – Stand at 43% of sample citations
5. Climate Change – Always one of Top 5
6. Liberal - Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
7. Recession (linked to Obama) – Over 4x the number that link to GWB (No.20)
8. Hillary Clinton – Hillary Ascendant
9. Tea Partiers – Very strong for a recent phenomenon
10. Obama Aloof, detached, Professorial – Reached peak in reaction to his handling the Gulf Oil
Spill
11. Raise Taxes – Only 16% of lower taxes (No. 2)
12. Progressive – 74% of Liberal citations; Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
13. Deficit Spending – Close to Out-of-Control Spending (No.15)
14. Independents – Independents stand at 20% of citations
15. Out-of-control Spending — Spending is widely viewed as out-of-control
16. Sarah Palin – Apparently, opposition only makes her stronger
17. Healthcare Mandate – Nearly triple the concern for HC Reform (No. 21)
18. Change you can believe in – Not so much, these days
19. Iraq War – Far from top of Mind
20. Recession (linked to Bush) – Warning to Dems, this is fading from view
21. Healthcare reform – Comes in just a bit higher than the Gulf Oil Spill
22. BP Gulf Oil Spill — The BP SpillCam was the No. 1 Television Word (Teleword) of the Year
23. Anti-incumbent — It’s not just a matter of anger; lower than pundits have it
24. Obama “oil spill” response — Major factor in negativity of overall narrative
25. Al Qaeda – Low ranking reflected by several polls, also
26. George Bush — Not much value in running a ‘Not Bush’ Campaign
27. Wall Street Bailout – Bush, Bailout, Pelosi and Limbaugh, Cheney (and Reid) line up closely
28. Grand Zero Mosque – More than 110 times the number of citations for 51 Park Place
29. Nancy Pelosi — Off the radar nowadays
30. Rush Limbaugh – Interesting pairing at Nos, 29 and 30, no?"
Many of these words relate to Obama. Not surprising; he is the President. Perhaps more pertinent is the fact that many of these words relate to Obama as person, instead of to Obama's policies. The narrative Obama painted for himself, Obama's Muslim connection, Obama's aloof, detached, Professorial style/personality, etc. deal with him as a person. Why is there more talk now about Obama as a person? Perhaps it is because in 2008, very few people knew about Obama as a person, but many were willing to take a gamble on change. Now, after electing him, we may be trying to get to know him; or perhaps use our lack of understanding about Obama to portray him in a negative light.
Note that many of these "buzzwords" pertaining to Obama as a person are not meant to be viewed positively. Obama's narrative, which he painted using 2 autobiographies and his speeches, could now begin to more thoroughly examined, and perhaps undone. Associating Obama with Muslims taps into Islamophobia in the states stemming from 9/11, and perhaps generates mistrust from American non-Muslims, and specifically Christians (who make up over 50% of the United States). Calling Obama aloof and/or detached [as opposed to, say, professional and objective] paints a picture of an incompetent aristocratic ruler who is not aware of the needs of his people. Aloof/detached are associated with uncaring, uninterested, and uninformed. These are not qualities one would like to see in a President, and are meant to drive people away from voting for the party that Obama is associated with. The Democrats, in case you were wondering.
Apart from Obama as a person, there seems to be much talk over how Obama's policies are not good, ineffective, or bad. There seems to be much concern over tax policies and government spending, as both raise/lower taxes and deficit/out-of-control spending are on the list. The recession seems to be associated more with Obama than with Bush now, possibly because of the health care bill that was passed, increasing our deficit, or possibly because of a lack of action on the government's part to alleviate the recession.
In any case, there seems to be much negative portrayal of Obama and thus of the Democratic Party. I would expect the Democrats to lose seats. The question is, if the Democrats lose seats, who will actually be there to take the seats?
"1. Narrative – Idea of the narrative is a strong No. 1
2. Lower Taxes – 600% higher than Raise Taxes (No. 10)
3. Obama Muslim Connection - Two weeks before 2008 Election it was No . 6
4. Conservatives – Stand at 43% of sample citations
5. Climate Change – Always one of Top 5
6. Liberal - Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
7. Recession (linked to Obama) – Over 4x the number that link to GWB (No.20)
8. Hillary Clinton – Hillary Ascendant
9. Tea Partiers – Very strong for a recent phenomenon
10. Obama Aloof, detached, Professorial – Reached peak in reaction to his handling the Gulf Oil
Spill
11. Raise Taxes – Only 16% of lower taxes (No. 2)
12. Progressive – 74% of Liberal citations; Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
13. Deficit Spending – Close to Out-of-Control Spending (No.15)
14. Independents – Independents stand at 20% of citations
15. Out-of-control Spending — Spending is widely viewed as out-of-control
16. Sarah Palin – Apparently, opposition only makes her stronger
17. Healthcare Mandate – Nearly triple the concern for HC Reform (No. 21)
18. Change you can believe in – Not so much, these days
19. Iraq War – Far from top of Mind
20. Recession (linked to Bush) – Warning to Dems, this is fading from view
21. Healthcare reform – Comes in just a bit higher than the Gulf Oil Spill
22. BP Gulf Oil Spill — The BP SpillCam was the No. 1 Television Word (Teleword) of the Year
23. Anti-incumbent — It’s not just a matter of anger; lower than pundits have it
24. Obama “oil spill” response — Major factor in negativity of overall narrative
25. Al Qaeda – Low ranking reflected by several polls, also
26. George Bush — Not much value in running a ‘Not Bush’ Campaign
27. Wall Street Bailout – Bush, Bailout, Pelosi and Limbaugh, Cheney (and Reid) line up closely
28. Grand Zero Mosque – More than 110 times the number of citations for 51 Park Place
29. Nancy Pelosi — Off the radar nowadays
30. Rush Limbaugh – Interesting pairing at Nos, 29 and 30, no?"
Many of these words relate to Obama. Not surprising; he is the President. Perhaps more pertinent is the fact that many of these words relate to Obama as person, instead of to Obama's policies. The narrative Obama painted for himself, Obama's Muslim connection, Obama's aloof, detached, Professorial style/personality, etc. deal with him as a person. Why is there more talk now about Obama as a person? Perhaps it is because in 2008, very few people knew about Obama as a person, but many were willing to take a gamble on change. Now, after electing him, we may be trying to get to know him; or perhaps use our lack of understanding about Obama to portray him in a negative light.
Note that many of these "buzzwords" pertaining to Obama as a person are not meant to be viewed positively. Obama's narrative, which he painted using 2 autobiographies and his speeches, could now begin to more thoroughly examined, and perhaps undone. Associating Obama with Muslims taps into Islamophobia in the states stemming from 9/11, and perhaps generates mistrust from American non-Muslims, and specifically Christians (who make up over 50% of the United States). Calling Obama aloof and/or detached [as opposed to, say, professional and objective] paints a picture of an incompetent aristocratic ruler who is not aware of the needs of his people. Aloof/detached are associated with uncaring, uninterested, and uninformed. These are not qualities one would like to see in a President, and are meant to drive people away from voting for the party that Obama is associated with. The Democrats, in case you were wondering.
Apart from Obama as a person, there seems to be much talk over how Obama's policies are not good, ineffective, or bad. There seems to be much concern over tax policies and government spending, as both raise/lower taxes and deficit/out-of-control spending are on the list. The recession seems to be associated more with Obama than with Bush now, possibly because of the health care bill that was passed, increasing our deficit, or possibly because of a lack of action on the government's part to alleviate the recession.
In any case, there seems to be much negative portrayal of Obama and thus of the Democratic Party. I would expect the Democrats to lose seats. The question is, if the Democrats lose seats, who will actually be there to take the seats?
Monday, October 4, 2010
On Obama's Record
According to Stephen Walt, Obama's record looks terrible, but is not really as bad as it looks.
Obama's record does look terrible. For many Americans, words like "Iraq," "Iran," "Afghanistan," "Palestine," and "recession" are negatively associated with Obama's policies. These words carry much weight to Americans: the memories of those who died in 9/11, the lives of the Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, job loss, increasing income and wealth gaps between the poor and the wealthy, poverty, etc. America's failures abroad and it's economic troubles at home deeply unsettle it's citizens. And unfortunately for Obama, the President is usually the one who takes the most flak or praise (deserved or undeserved) for the current state of America, and especially its economic condition. As it is, Obama is taking a lot of blame for our situation.
Have Americans forgotten Bush? The one who previously took the brunt of the anger over our wars abroad? I doubt it. So then, why are Obama's ratings going down as much as they are? Well, first of all, it's as I said previously; America isn't doing well, and Obama is the President. He will take blame simply because he is the one who is perceived to be in charge.
However, perhaps more disconcerting to Americans is the lack of "change we can believe in." Change and hope are powerful messages, especially in tough times; this message was amplified by repetition by Obama and the Democratic Party. But, if after all the rhetoric, there has not been "change we can believe in," perhaps Americans are rightfully offended by Obama's record. A small stimulus package was passed along with a scaled-down version of health care reform: too much change for some, not enough change for others. The war in Afghanistan was escalated: change we can believe in? We're currently pulling out of Iraq tentatively following a schedule set by Bush in 2008. And there is much controversy over when/if/how we should pull out. And although Obama wishes for "two-states for two peoples" and peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Israel continues building settlements in areas that Palestine desires, fueling tensions between the two nations.
Walt does a nice job of covering what Obama does well that he doesn't get much credit for, because rather than causing something good to happen, he potentially prevented something bad from happening. Our economy perhaps didn't fall as badly as it could have. And yes, we technically came out of the recession in 2009 based on the GDP. However, to say that Obama's record may be better than it looks may be a stretch; should Obama be praised for his small moves, whether you believe they were good moves, bad moves, or maintained the equilibrium, when he promised "change we can believe in?"
Obama's record does look terrible. For many Americans, words like "Iraq," "Iran," "Afghanistan," "Palestine," and "recession" are negatively associated with Obama's policies. These words carry much weight to Americans: the memories of those who died in 9/11, the lives of the Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, job loss, increasing income and wealth gaps between the poor and the wealthy, poverty, etc. America's failures abroad and it's economic troubles at home deeply unsettle it's citizens. And unfortunately for Obama, the President is usually the one who takes the most flak or praise (deserved or undeserved) for the current state of America, and especially its economic condition. As it is, Obama is taking a lot of blame for our situation.
Have Americans forgotten Bush? The one who previously took the brunt of the anger over our wars abroad? I doubt it. So then, why are Obama's ratings going down as much as they are? Well, first of all, it's as I said previously; America isn't doing well, and Obama is the President. He will take blame simply because he is the one who is perceived to be in charge.
However, perhaps more disconcerting to Americans is the lack of "change we can believe in." Change and hope are powerful messages, especially in tough times; this message was amplified by repetition by Obama and the Democratic Party. But, if after all the rhetoric, there has not been "change we can believe in," perhaps Americans are rightfully offended by Obama's record. A small stimulus package was passed along with a scaled-down version of health care reform: too much change for some, not enough change for others. The war in Afghanistan was escalated: change we can believe in? We're currently pulling out of Iraq tentatively following a schedule set by Bush in 2008. And there is much controversy over when/if/how we should pull out. And although Obama wishes for "two-states for two peoples" and peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Israel continues building settlements in areas that Palestine desires, fueling tensions between the two nations.
Walt does a nice job of covering what Obama does well that he doesn't get much credit for, because rather than causing something good to happen, he potentially prevented something bad from happening. Our economy perhaps didn't fall as badly as it could have. And yes, we technically came out of the recession in 2009 based on the GDP. However, to say that Obama's record may be better than it looks may be a stretch; should Obama be praised for his small moves, whether you believe they were good moves, bad moves, or maintained the equilibrium, when he promised "change we can believe in?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)