The Convention Finale: V-day for Kerry and his Crew!
There are many ways to judge John Kerry’s acceptance speech last night. Check lists that measured such things as “passion,” “clarity,” “leadership,” “specificity,” and “vision” were much in evidence last night on the networks. In evaluating his speech, however, I would ask just a simple question: If you were John Kerry, would you have gone to bed last night with a great feeling of satisfaction? The answer, a resounding “yes,” reflects the quality not only of Kerry’s performance, but of the entire presentation last night at the Fleet Center.
The early days of the convention had given us delicious appetizers in the form of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton; last night however, John Kerry and his “band of brothers” served up a moving and satisfying main course that will serve to energize Kerry for the rest of the campaign. I mention Kerry’s Viet Nam shipmates, because it is impossible to talk about Kerry’s speech without discussing the moving introduction that he got from friends and family.
When John Kerry’s Viet Nam comrades first took the stage, I was struck by the fact that they had not dressed up for the occasion. Rather, they looked like guys who had just finished a tour of duty on the Mekong Delta: strong, selfless, and unassuming. I was moved by them much in the same way I was moved by seeing the “Funk Brothers,” the Motown house band that had toiled in obscurity for years, with no expectation that they would ever be acknowledged or hailed for their accomplishments. Just as the “Funk Brothers” were plucked out of obscurity by history, so it was with Kerry’s “band of brothers,” beaming with pride at their role in events that they thought had long been forgotten. In keeping with this theme, the subtext, the mood of the entire evening was that of spiritual renewal. Max Cleland, former senator from Georgia, and a triple amputee, described his despair during 1968, while recovering from his severe wounds at Walter Reed Hospital. “My body was broken,” said Cleland. At the time, he was embittered, depressed, and hopeless. In 1971, however, when he heard a young man named John Kerry begin to give voice to the failings and injustices of the Viet Nam war, Cleland rediscovered his own calling as a public servant. Max Cleland was the perfect man to introduce John Kerry.
One of the most quietly moving parts of the evening was the tribute paid to Kerry by his daughters Vanessa and Alexandra. Family endorsements, while seemingly obligatory these days, are usually something to be endured, not relished. The depiction of their dad by Vanessa and Alexandra, however, was the exception. Both women had the ability to balance their appreciation of their father with a gentle twitting of him, which made their picture of him all the more moving. Vanessa, a Harvard Medical student, spoke of Kerry’s unwavering confidence during the dark days of December 2003, when the entire media corps had dismissed his chances at the nomination; but she also feigned horror at his decision to use the family home as collateral to finance his then-flagging campaign. Older sister Alexandra, a documentary film-maker, told an intentionally over-the-top story about Kerry rescuing a hamster whose cage had fallen into the ocean, and then administering CPR to it. She concludedher story with, “The hamster lived but it was never right again.” Both women were refreshingly real, and their impressions of their dad came to life because of it. On a side note, Alexandra is already something of an international celebrity a result of a saucy walk she took on the red carpet during this year’s Cannes film festival. Both women are strong role models for their generation, and I predict they will be a force to be reckoned with on the campaign trail.
When Kerry finally took to the podium, he didn’t falter. He was hard-hitting and tough on the Bush administration, while always remaining in bounds. He touched every base, scoring the Bush administration’s impulsiveness in foreign policy, it’s inability to form alliances, it’s lack of judgment, its lack of truthfulness, and it’s lack of tolerance. Rhetorical nuggets from Kerry’s speech include the following:
I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now, I know there that are those who criticize me for seeing complexities -- and I do -- because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "Mission accomplished" certainly doesn't make it so.
I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.
You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as president: I will cut middle-class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in health care, education and job creation.
When I was a prosecutor, I met young kids who were in trouble, abandoned, all of them, by adults. And as president, I am determined that we stop being a nation content to spend $50,000 a year to send a young person to prison for the rest of their life, when we could invest $10,000 in Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, a real start to the lives of our children.
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush. In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
These excerpts alone, and the confidence, poise, and passion with which Kerry delivered them will serve him well in the final 95 days of the campaign. His speech soared, roused the delegates, and confirmed everything that shipmate James Rassman had said about him earlier in the evening: Kerry has a natural sense of command about him.
Of course there is already the predictable nit-picking about the speech. Ed Gillespie of Republican National Committee complained that Kerry offered no blueprint for what he would in Iraq, other than bolster international alliances. The reason for this is both simple and wise: There is not a person in the world who can predict what Iraq will look like in January 2005. As we watch government figures being assassinated with regularity, will the ruling coalition look as it does now? Will oil and electricity be functional by then? Will the restive Kurds sign on to nation-building or will they be agitating for independence at that point? Will Sunnis and Shia be collaborating or competing? Will Islamic extremism have spilled full-blown into neighboring Saudi Arabia? Will American troops have worn out their welcome? Will our troop deployment have been stretched beyond the breaking point? Will other coalition countries have bailed out? We have no answers to any of the questions, and certainly can’t get them from a Defense Department that has been wrong about every stage of the occupation. The only certainty that John Kerry can offer with confidence is that a change in our leadership will be welcomed with enormous relief by the rest of the world. Both the developing nations and “Old Europe,” in the dismissive phrase of Donald Rumsfeld, will see John Kerry as a man in whom they can place trust. That will alter the entire landscape, the entire equation in Iraq.
The lead editorial in today’s Washington Post was similarly critical of Kerry for not offering more specifics about trouble spots like Iraq and North Korea. I’m a bit bewildered by such criticisms. A political convention is a place for articulating a broad vision of the nation and its future; it is not the forum for either a foreign policy lecture or for saber-rattling at the Koreans.
When I logged onto American Online this morning, I saw one of the many online polls that dot the internet landscape. “Who gave the best speech?” it asked. Since I’m a sucker for these slapdash, unscientific polls, I clicked the link to see my options: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and “others.” My difficulty in casting my vote drove home for me how successful the convention had been. Bill Clinton gave a stem-winding speech, but was it better than that of Barack Obama? Or should John Kerry get the nod, for “degree of difficulty? After all, his speech was given in the most pressurized environment.
After some deliberation, I gave my vote to Barack Obama, who set a new standard for oratory at the convention. His speech was both conversational and passionate, intimate and abstract, serious and witty, intense but at the same time utterly charming. That there were so many quality speeches at the Fleet Center, signals how successful the convention was. The Democrats were unified, and believe it or not, they were also well-organized. Heck, the only thing that didn’t work was the balloon drop at the end! The convention was well worth watching, and every delegate should be proud.
Day Three of the Convention: CNN Goes Bonkers
One of the demands of a network covering a convention is that of filling the significant amounts of empty time during the proceedings with discussion and commentary. A network rises or falls by how it uses this fill time. Does it offer insight, perspective, clarity to the proceedings, or does it give the viewer lowest-common-denominator hot air. CNN, on day three of the Democratic Convention, offered the latter last night, as Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, and Jeff Greenfield gave us commentary that ranged from the silly to the hysterical. With a paucity of news being made on the convention floor, the network tried to manufacture some. Let’s look at some of their miscues:
1) Al Sharpton--too sharp? Around 8 PM Eastern time, Al Sharpton rose to give his speech, an address scheduled to last 6 minutes. The good reverend intoned passionately for 20 minutes, deviating from script, as the Teleprompter operator desperately tried to keep up with him. The Sharpton speech, crowd pleasing but not particularly memorable, detailed the gains in civil rights over the years, criticized the Bush Administration for its conduct of the war, and attempted to answer the question that President Bush asked the Urban League last week: “Does the Democratic Party take African-Americans for granted?” The speech had several major applause lines:
“This [Supreme] court has voted five to four on critical issues of women's rights and civil rights. It is frightening to think that the gains of civil and women rights and those movements in the last century could be reversed if this administration is in the White House in these next four years. I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school.”
“ It, to me, is a glaring contradiction that we would fight, and rightfully so, to get the right to vote for the people in the capital of Iraq in Baghdad, but still don't give the federal right to vote for the people in the capital of the United States, in Washington, D.C.”
“…the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule. That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us.”
Wolf Blitzer and company were in high dudgeon about the speech. It was “incendiary,” they said. It was “tough,” it was “off message.” It “violated the tone of the convention” by being too negative in tone. Jeff Greenfield, normally a very thoughtful guy, was the most hysterical with his comment that Sharpton, in speaking about the Supreme Court, had called George W. Bush a “segregationist.” Huh? To suggest that a Bush-picked court would have ruled differently on Brown vs. Board of Education is not to say that Bush, or the Court would be segregationists; it is simply to say that they would not have attached the same urgency to the issue, and would not have had the social conscience to challenge the nation’s entrenched Jim Crow school system. Likewise, the Bush administration’s opposition to affirmative action doesn’t make them racists; it simply makes them woefully complacent about social injustice. Nor does Bush tolerate the existence of 44 million Americans with no health insurance because he likes it; he just doesn’t find this to be a pressing enough social problem to do anything affirmative about it.
2) Time Out! The second thing that scandalized the crew about Sharpton’s speech was that he had run over time. The Kerry team must be experiencing “heartburn,” Blitzer said gravely, about Sharpton’s 15 minute overrun. They quickly dispatched reporter Candy Crowley, who interviewed Sharpton like he was a naughty schoolboy who had been caught throwing spitballs at the teacher. Then CNN hunted down Jesse Jackson, Jr., and asked whether his father had any feelings about the fact that Sharpton had gotten a prime time speech while Jackson the elder hadn’t. The younger
3) Kerry and the 87 billion. As the CNN crew continued to interview guests, they added to the almost universal confusion about John Kerry’s vote against the 87 billion dollar supplemental appropriation for the
4) George Mitchell: A sane voice at Last. It was left to former senator George Mitchell to inject some perspective and sanity into CNN’s coverage least night. Speaking with Larry King, Mitchell wondered how anyone could expect a political convention to take place without criticism of the opposition, and suggested that all the emphasis on a “positive message” was overblown. I agree entirely, and would further say that the convention has succeeded so far in spite of all of this focus on being “nice,” not because of it. As is the case at most conventions, the best lines have tended to be the most critical lines. Even before the convention started, Kerry surrogates had put out the word that the convention would show off “the softer side” of John Kerry. Upon hearing this, comedian Jay Leno was incredulous during his monologue:
“Softer side!? Haven’t we been watching him hugging and kissing John Edwards for the last two weeks? How much softer can this guy get?”
Leno hit the nail on the head. We don’t need to see the “soft” John Kerry at this convention; we need to see the tough John Kerry. We need to be reminded that John Kerry has a core set of convictions that are non-negotiable. It is my ardent hope that Kerry has been asking others to pull their punches so that he can be the one to come out swinging against the current administration. When Kerry speaks tonight, I want to see him throwing punches; I want the feisty John Kerry. Even a little anger and outrage wouldn’t hurt. It’s my view that every delegate in the
The First Day of the Convention: “Sensational”
I have to admit that I was concerned at first when I heard that all speeches at the Democratic convention would be vetted to make sure they were sufficiently “positive” in nature. I envisioned a cautious, sanitized convention, purged of all criticisms of the failures of George W. Bush. I worried that the convention would become a one-dimensional snoozer. After watching the first day of the convention, I can happily say that I was dead wrong in my worries.
The convention’s first day struck the perfect tone, achieved the perfect balance of calling George Bush to account for his failures on the one hand, and providing a positive, uplifting alternative on the other hand. The convention organizers got it just right: Their call for a “positive” message simply meant no gratuitous, personal bashing of Bush, no name-calling, no over-the-top rhetoric. But critical, even harsh discussion of Bush policy failures and comparisons with Democratic ideas were fair game, as they should be. Let’s take a look at some of the central players on Monday, the first day of the convention, and check on how they did. Stock up, or stock down?
Al Gore: STOCK UP! For all the concern that Gore might deliver an overheated rant, the Tennessean provided the perfect tone as the first prime-time speaker of the evening. Gore’s speech had a healing function, taking us back to the wrenching Florida election of 2000, but doing so with grace and humor:
“….you know the old saying -- you win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category….I didn't come here tonight to talk about the past. After all, I don't want you to think I lie awake at night counting and recounting sheep…. I prefer to focus on the future because I know from my own experience that America is a land of opportunity, where every little boy and girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote.”
If you caught it live, the man was funny! Gore’s return to the election of 2000 was appropriate, and allowed him to put that lingering issue to rest, so that he and the rest of the delegates could be forward-looking from that point on. The subtext of Gore’s message was profound, that every vote counts, that every citizen has a responsibility to get involved and vote, and that every public official has an obligation to count those votes:
“ Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next president, but also that this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court.”
And in a not-so-subtle swipe at Ralph Nader, Gore poignantly asked,
“I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?”
Gore’s speech served to remind Americans of why he had been the party’s standard-bearer in 2000: Here was a man who was thoughtful, who was an adult, and who had real gravitas. And at the end of his speech, when Al and Tipper reprised their famous kiss from 2000, you could sense with satisfaction that Al Gore had found peace with himself.
Jimmy Carter: STOCK UP! James Earl Carter is the embodiment of the principle of good karma. When he was trounced by Ronald Regan in 1980, Carter’s reputation was at low ebb. But rather than lick his wounds and retire from public life, Carter stuck doggedly to his principles and became the quintessence of how to lead one’s life after being president. Never was there a better example of how leading a good life is the best revenge. Approaching his 81st birthday, Carter spoke to the convention last night as the party’s great elder statesman, and a recent Noble Laureate for his peacemaking efforts. Carter represents everything that George W Bush is not: Carter is a multilateralist, a man who believes in international relationships, a bridge-builder, and a person who believes that only strenuous, selfless negotiation can keep alive the great accomplishments he made in the Middle East with the Camp David Accords. George Bush is a unilateralist, suspicious of treaties, which he feels somehow rob us of our sovereignty, who has let the Middle East founder like a capsized ship. Last night, Carter was the personification of the best values of the Democratic party last night. Some of his best lines:
“The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of “preemptive” war….In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation….we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others… in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.”
And finally, Carter, who began his career serving on a nuclear submarine, turned his attention to John Kerry, “I am proud to call Lieutenant John Kerry my shipmate, and I am ready to follow him to victory in November.”
Carter’s speech, while softly delivered, was a hard-hitting indictment of Bush foreign policy, leading journalists to ask the convention planners, whether Carter’s speech was vetted beforehand. The response was something on the order of, “Hell no. He’s a former president, he’s 80 years old, he’s a Nobel Laureate—he’s earned the right to say whatever he wants!” Damn right, he has!
Hillary Clinton: STOCK UP! I was outraged when I first heard that Hillary had not been given a speaking role at the convention—outraged not for Hillary, but for what it said about John Kerry. Any time Kerry fuels the public perception that he is worried about being “upstaged,” he does damage to his image as a leader. I remained outraged when I heard that party organizers had thrown her a small bone, by allowing her to introduce her husband. How demeaning for one of the party’s stars, a woman who has come into her own as a universally respected senator from New York. However, Hillary handled the situation with such aplomb and adroitness last night, she managed to get John Kerry off the hook. She did this by turning her speech into a tough, analytical nominating speech for John Kerry, rather than a fawning introduction of Bill Clinton—after all, Bill Clinton needs no introduction—and showed the caliber of her intellect, the toughness of her personality, and the degree of commitment she has to this election. My view is that she put to rest the sophomoric view that she is lukewarm about the ticket or is in competition with John Edwards. She put it well in an interview with Dan Rather: “I don’t see politics as a zero sum game. We are part of a team. If Kerry and Edwards win, we all win. I can’t imagine four more years of George W. Bush.” You go, girl!
Bill Clinton: STOCK WAY UP! Bill Clinton, in his way, is the Michael Jordan of politics: The bar gets set unreasonably high for his performances, but he manages to live up to them anyway. Bill Clinton showed in spades last night why Republicans hate him. He has star quality, he has presence, he has perfect pitch politically, and he can give a speech! The effectiveness of Clinton’s speech rested on one brilliant rhetorical conceit: Early on in the speech Clinton noted with some self-directed humor that he has recently joined Bush Republicans in the top 1% income tax bracket, entitling Clinton to all the gifts and favors bestowed upon the rich by Bush economic policies:
“You might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me. But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress. I almost sent them a thank you note for my tax cuts until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it. And then I thought better of it.”
Clinton then went on to list all the groups in America who had been forced to sacrifice for the sake of the Bush tax cuts:
"They chose to protect my tax cut, while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their after-school programs when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school, learning, going to college and having a good life… they chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising the out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests."
In those two paragraphs, and in the many contrasts that he drew later in the speech, Clinton encapsulated the difference between the two parties. By placing himself within those privileged recipients of Bush tax cuts, Clinton injected a huge dose of irony into his speech which served to emphasize the greed of the Republicans. Clinton’s speech laid out the battle lines, threw down the gauntlet, and called out the opposition for its selfishness. Small wonder that the convention leapt to its feet as a unit. Clinton had articulated the soul of the Democratic Party.
Teresa Heinz Kerry: STOCK DOWN! I have never been one to believe that Mrs. Kerry was a great asset to the campaign. Her behavior way back in the primaries struck me as distant, erratic, and worrisome. However, I have comforted myself with the thought the candidates’ wives don’t help much, and don’t hurt much. However, Mrs. Kerry’s recent contretemps with the editor from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has revived all my concerns about her role in the campaign. To review the facts, during a speech to Pennsylvania delegates, Heinz Kerry issued a call for greater civility in politics:
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."
When pressed by Colin McNickle, editor of the conservative Pittsburgh paper, as to what she meant by “un-American activities,” Heinz Kerry told him that he had misquoted her, and became angry. The exchange seemed to be over when she went back to speak with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. However, later, Heinz Kerry went back, sought out McNickle, with Secret Service agents trailing behind her, and snapped at him, "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
I am not one of those cheering Mrs. Kerry’s behavior. Frankly, I found it ridiculous for her to chase after a journalist to tell him off, particularly after having just given a speech on civility. When asked what she meant by “un-American,” she had a perfect opening to say, “By un-American, I mean the way Max Cleland’s patriotism was demeaned in Georgia; I mean the way Republicans have tried to sully my husband’s heroism in Viet Nam.” If she can’t come up with that sort of response, then she needs to stay in the background where she, and all the rest of us, will be safe! Hopefully, this will be a three-day story, and disappear. However, if Mrs. Kerry comes to be viewed as a loose cannon, it will do John Kerry no benefit.
That small quibble aside, the first day of the convention was a resounding success. The best word for it is, sensational!
Linda Ronstadt: Singing the Blues
A strange confluence of politics and entertainment took place at the Aladdin Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas last Saturday, one that serves as a wake-up call to all performers who work for social change (take note Whoopi Goldberg, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon!): Sixties star Linda Ronstadt was summarily thrown out of the Aladdin Hotel after making comments in her show that praised filmmaker Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Everything about this story is bizarre, from the apparent audience reaction, to the hotel's hostility to one of its featured performers, to Ronstadt's surprising silence since the event took place. There are several varying accounts of what happened, but certain facts are clear:
On Saturday, July 17, Ronstadt, backed by the 40-piece Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, had completed the main body of her concert, which offered a mixture of Sinatra-era standards (e.g., Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue”) and some of Ronstadt's hits from the 60's and 70's. After performing for an hour to very warm response, Ronstadt prepared to sing her encore, Desperado. She prefaced the song with a tribute to Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, urging the audience to see it. It is at this point that accounts of the concert begin to diverge. Aladdin president Bill Timmons, who was in the audience, said, "She praised (filmmaker Michael Moore), and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose." Hotel spokeswoman Tyri Squyres described it as a "mob scene," with patrons storming out, tossing cocktails at Ronstadt's posters, and defacing other posters. Once she had finished her encore, hotel officials ushered Ronstadt out of the hotel, without letting her return to her luxury suite. Just in case the Aladdin had not made its position clear, spokeswoman Squyres issued a further statement: "To be clear, the Aladdin does not condone the comments made by Ms.Ronstadt.....Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse her political views. Following her performance she was escorted out of the hotel and immediately checked out of her room. And she will not be welcomed back." Quite an extraordinary reaction to a featured performer who simply praised a movie, isn't it?
Since the brouhaha took place, the official version of events has been challenged by other eyewitnesses. News anchor Paula Francis, of KLAS channel 8 in
It is interesting to note that Ronstadt is on a national tour, and has offered the same encomium to
How and why did all this take place? First, It is likely that the touristy, middle-America crowd was more politically conservative then that of the average Ronstadt concert. A second explanation may be found ironically, in the city's famous motto, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." The flipside of that motto is, "Please don't let one iota of reality intrude on my vacation!" Simply by talking about the real world, Ronstadt starkly violated that dictum, which was unforgivable to some in the audience and apparently everyone in the Aladdin hierarchy.
In the wake of the fracas, The New York Times offered a biting take on the Ronstadt concert. Theater critic Jason Zinoman twitted the Aladdin, wondering how the Tony award-winning musical "Avenue Q" will fare when it begins its scheduled run on the Vegas strip: "If dedicating a song to Mr. Moore could send fans fleeing to the exit doors there, as was widely reported, imagine what might happen when a musical in which puppets have sex onstage, sing about masturbating to Internet porn and take potshots at President Bush comes to the city without clocks.” The Times also printed perhaps the most economical explanation for the incident: "As Jed Bernstein, the president of the League of American Theaters and Producers, a trade group, speculated.... what may have upset the Aladdin crowd was not so much the content of Ms. Ronstadt's message, but that she stopped performing to deliver it. 'The only real sin onstage,'' he said, 'is to stop being entertaining.'''
As frivolous as all this may seem, there is a chilling dimension to the incident. Implicit in the hotel’s behavior is the idea that somehow Ronstadt breached her obligation to the hotel by expressing heartfelt political views. The notion that Ronstadt must pass a political litmus test in order to receive civil treatment from the Aladdin is disturbing, and should be challenged from all quarters. Personally, I hope that Ronstadt files a legal action against the hotel. After all, if the Aladdin felt aggrieved at the nature of her concert, it had one simple remedy: Don't invite her back in the future! There is one further lesson to be taken from this saga: Those who go to retro concerts by aging rock stars should expect that the audience will be filled with dunderheads who have long since forgotten what the 60’s were all about!
Voting Machines: Will They Rock the Vote or Block the Vote?
Is anyone else as perplexed as I am by the issue of voting machines and our lack of readiness for the November elections? At a time of dazzling flights to Saturn and stunning advances in microsurgery, why is it that as a nation we can’t seem to produce simple, reliable, standardized voting equipment that would give us all confidence?
Given the experience of 2000, it is astonishing to me that we are still woefully ill-prepared for the election of 2004. For those still too traumatized to remember, let’s quickly review what happened in 2000: Nationwide, almost 2% of votes cast were not counted. In Florida, it is estimated that almost 3% of the vote was “undercounted.” In Georgia, the number of undercounted votes reached 3.5%, a fact which drew little attention, for the simple reason that races were not close enough for us to notice. Such undercounts would be intolerable under any circumstance, but the failures in vote-counting are made worse by the fact that undercounted votes are not random in nature. After studying the results in 40 congressional districts drawn from 20 states, a report prepared for the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform reached a very simple conclusion: The poorer and more non-white a district was, the more likely its votes were to go uncounted. The report points up this racial component with frightening clarity:
In the 20 districts with high poverty rates and a high minority population, 4.0% of ballots cast were not counted in the presidential race. In the 20 affluent districts with a small minority population, only 1.2% of the ballots cast were not counted. On average, voters in low income, high-minority districts were over three times as likely to have their votes for president discarded as voters in affluent, low-minority districts. Voters in some low income, high-minority districts were 20 times as likely to have their votes discarded as
voters in other congressional districts.
Not only did failures in vote-counting disproportionately affect poor (and likely Democratic) voters, technology was clearly implicated in this fiasco:
In low-income, high-minority districts, the undercount rate was 7.7% on punch-card machines, 4.7% on centrally counted optiscan machines, 4.5% on lever machines, 2.4% on electronic voting systems, and 1.1% on precinct-counted optiscan machines. The difference between centrally counted and precinct-counted optiscan machines is that precinct-counted optiscan machines can alert voters to errors and offer them an opportunity to revise their ballots.
Given these findings, the responsibility of state and federal agencies is clear, isn’t it? Eliminate all punch-card machines, and look at ways to tweak electronic and optical scanning machines. Unfortunately the switch to high-tech voting equipment has been anything but smooth. Touchscreen voting machines, once seen as a panacea, have recently attracted a chorus of criticism. In the recent Florida presidential primary, the machines had a 1% rate of undercounts. While this represents a significant improvement over the old punch-card machines, the number was still 8 times greater than that found in optical scanning machines. An optical scanning machine simply reads a paper ballot that a voter has marked with a pencil. This finding has led to a significant loss of support for the idea of making touchscreen machines the national standard.
A variety of complaints about touchscreen machines has surfaced recently. Some critics have sounded alarms about the possibility of computer hackers corrupting the computerized touchscreen system. Others have argued the using touchscreen voting would pose a great risk because it produces no paper copy of a vote that could be analyzed in the event of a recount. What would happen in the event of a computer glitch, or a razor-thin race that required a recount? Without any paper back-up the recount might be useless, because a computerized recount would probably be no different than the original count if glitches had occurred. It is for this reason that many politicians (including the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Howard Dean) are backing bills that would require a paper receipt for every vote cast.
What is striking to me about this mess is that the technology for a hybrid touchscreen-and-receipt technology has been available for decades; in fact we use this technology every day. Every time we to an ATM machine, we, in effect, cast a vote. First we identify ourselves to the machine. Then we “elect” a particular type of financial transaction by way of a touchscreen. After the transaction is completed, we are then given a receipt, showing the specifics of our transaction. When we use such machines do we fear that a hacker is going to violate our banking account? No, we conduct our business routinely, with great confidence. If there were a meaningful probability that using an ATM would put our accounts at risk, ATM commerce would collapse overnight. Obviously the industry has placed safeguards and firewalls into the system that allow us to use these machines with confidence. Likewise, for the last several decades we’ve been doing the same thing at self-serve gas stations: We identify ourselves to the pump, “elect” a certain grade of gas, carry out a transaction, and then receive a receipt for our own record-keeping. Given this, it should be the height of simplicity to translate this technology to the voting booth. Unfortunately, however, a bill that would require a paper-ballot backup is now stalled in the Republican-led House. This should be both a scandal, and a regular front page news story. However, the issue of the integrity and fairness of the vote count in the November elections has stayed much too far under the radar.
The class- and race-based disenfranchisement of voters was not peculiar to the 2000 election; the state of Florida simply put a spotlight on this outrage. As a nation we have tolerated this stain on the democratic process for decades. As we approach the 2004 elections, this matter should be getting the highest priority. Instead, we are stumbling forward with no particular urgency. It is another example—like the doctrine of preemption, like Abu Ghraib, like fabricated rationales for war—of how, if we want to successfully sell democratic values to a skeptical world, we first need to live up to those values.
"Groupthink": Hans Christian Andersen Meets the Bush Administration
The fashionable word in political circles right now is “groupthink,” the term used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to explain the faulty intelligence produced by the CIA. Groupthink is the tendency for an organization to practice self-deception, extreme conformity of thought, and a resistance to any ideas which challenge its current beliefs. In other words, once a party line has been established, members convince themselves of its rightness, coerce others within the group to think the same way, and strongly guard against any challenges to this orthodoxy. This, the Senate report tells us, is what happened within the CIA.
Politicians on both the left and right have readily accepted this conclusion, that the CIA was marked by rigidity and resistance to critical thinking. My problem with this point of view, however, is that it seems to suggest that such intellectual conformism is rare, unique, or somehow limited to the CIA. To the contrary, groupthink is all around us and permeates organizations far beyond that of the CIA.
While the term was developed by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, to describe the way in which members of a group conform their thinking to what they believe is the current consensus within that group—done both out of self-deception and fear of ridicule-- groupthink is a universal phenomenon that is as old as humankind. A superficial but fascinating example of it was on display at this year’s Wimbledon, when, during an important match between Venus Williams and Karolina Sprem, the umpire in the chair, Ted Watts, began calling out the wrong score during a crucial point in the match, as thousands of people watched in the stadium, and millions watched on television. The two competitors appeared confused by his error, but did not argue, continuing to play based on the now erroneous score. The fact that the players did not perceive the mistake did not surprise me particularly; at that moment, they had a kind of tunnel vision, and were simply focused on the point at hand. What did shock me, however, is that none of the line judges deployed around the court rose up to correct the incompetent umpire. They simply let the fiasco continue, either convinced by his “appearance” of competence that the score was correct, or cowed by his position of authority. Only after the match was over did onlookers point out the mistake, long after it was irreversible.
While many studies have been done, and many tomes written about groupthink, the best articulation of this psychological phenomenon comes not from the hallowed halls of academe, but from a fairy tale written 167 years ago, a story itself adapted from hoary folk tales that are much older. This most compelling portrayal of groupthink can be found in the Hans Christian Andersen story, The Emperor’s New Clothes. While most of us are generally familiar with the story, it is worth reviewing, because it has a relevance to contemporary politics that Michael Moore would love. Let’s take a look:
The tale begins by describing an Emperor who loved
to dress in elegant clothes. He changed clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.
Here we have a leader who had an obsession, a preoccupation, a predisposition, that he readily communicated to his constituents. Can there be any doubt that Hans is prophetically telling us of George W. Bush here, and his relationship to Saddam?
Word of the Emperor's refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the Emperor's vanity decided to take advantage of it.
Now, there may not have been any Neo-Cons back in 1837, but our insightful folklorist was onto something here! Leaders who have fixations are quite prone to being suckered, to being told what they want to hear. The two scoundrels in fact had an ingenious scheme: They not only promised the Emperor that they would make him a beautiful suit, they also said that they had
invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.
Andersen goes on to tell us that the Emperor was doubly delighted; not only would he get an elegant set of clothes, but anyone who suggested otherwise would be shown to be stupid and incompetent. In this way, the Emperor could identify those subjects who were “stupid and incompetent.” The author obviously had a prescient understanding of 21st century politics: People judged by our modern-day leader to be stupid have included left-wing Democrats, Europeans--especially “Old Europe”--as well as weapons inspectors like Hans Blix. Andersen's Emperor was so taken with this new project that he lavished gold coins on the two swindlers, certain as he was that they would spend the money wisely. Just to be sure, however, the emperor dispatched one of the wisest men in the kingdom to check on their progress:
"Go and see how the work is proceeding," the Emperor told him, "and come back to let me know." The prime minister was welcomed by the two scoundrels. "We're almost finished, but we need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the softness!" The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead. "I can't see anything," he thought. "If I see nothing, that means I'm stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!" If the prime minister admitted that he didn't see anything, he would be discharged from his office. “What a marvelous fabric, he said then. "I'll certainly tell the Emperor." The two scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was requested to finish the work.
Just as Hans Christian Andersen couldn’t have known about Neo-Cons, Democrats, and weapons inspectors, he also couldn’t have known about Colin Powell. And yet he describes perfectly how our Secretary of State, revered for his sound judgment, got co-opted by the power and prestige of his own office, and began recommending things to his superior based on evidence he couldn’t see. Sometimes, even the wisest man worries about going against the grain; few men want to be seen as incompetent by their peers. Further, as the story progresses, we see the demands on the Emperor’s treasury becoming greater and greater. Andersen guides us through all the bizarre rituals of the scam: cutting the air with imaginary scissors, running imaginary clothes through their fingers, and finally, dressing the Emperor in his new “invisible” clothes. Interestingly, as enamored as he was of his new clothes, the Emperor did have some doubts about showing them to his subjects:
The Emperor was doubtful showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent. "All right," he said. "I will grant the people this privilege." He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd. Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!" "What a marvelous train!"
The Emperor's fantasy has not only spread throughout his government, but now the citizenry has also succumbed to its power. No one dares criticize him as he pompously rides by in his carriage, accompanied by cheers and flowers. Andersen magnificently anticipates the contemporary procession, led by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers, Abizaid, Fife, Frist, and Bremer. The Emperor’s parade initially drew great support. That is, until he met up with one unexpected critic:
A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage. "The Emperor is naked," he said. "Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried: "The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
Once again, Hans Christian Andersen is right on point: There is always a pesky Howard Dean somewhere, ready to stand up and spoil the Emperor’s fun. Further, the author points out insightfully that the little boy was able to tell the truth largely because he had no position of power to protect, no turf to guard, and could therefore see clearly, unlike the 77 senators who authorized the war in Iraq. And if anyone doubts the power and wisdom embedded in art, there is one additional and amazing element to Andersen’s story; it does not have a happy ending:
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
Does this form of denial sound familiar? Wow, 167 years ahead of his time, Hans Christian Andersen has brilliantly managed to penetrate the psyche of Dick Cheney! Apparently, it doesn’t take scholarly writing to reveal the tragic mistakes of the Bush administration. A children’s story will do quite well, thank you.
The Edwards Pick: All’s Well That Ends Well
John Kerry’s choice of John Edwards as his running mate evoked three distinct reactions in me: First, relief that the selection process, which seemed both torturous and interminable, is over; second, appreciation for the pick of Edwards, who, while not my first choice, will make an excellent addition to the ticket; and finally, a measure of dismay at Kerry’s process in making the choice. While Kerry seems to feel that four years ago Al Gore mishandled his own selection process, in my view, Kerry’s process was just as ham-handed.
While it has become a truism that vice-presidents don’t matter in presidential elections, I beg to differ. It’s important to remember that running mates have variously secured important states for the ticket (Lyndon Johnson landing Texas for JFK), have subjected the ticket to great ridicule (Dan Quayle), and have added to a ticket’s overall image of vigor (the Gores and Clintons celebrating to the sounds of Fleetwood Mac). In each of these cases, the overall attractiveness of the ticket was affected either up or down by the vice-president. While it is true that the vice-president typically only affects campaigns on the margins, when the electorate is as evenly divided as that of this election, the margins can be utterly decisive.
Another way in which veep choices matter, is that they serve as a kind of inkblot test, a psychological measure of the man at the top, signaling to the electorate how comfortable he is in his own skin. Take the case of George Bush the elder, whose public life was marked by insinuations that he was a wimp. In 1987, Newsweek did a cover story about him entitled, “Fighting the Wimp Factor.” In 1988, as the Republican nominee, how did Bush handle the whispers that he lacked manliness? He picked an untested and dimwitted senator from Indiana, Dan Quayle, a man utterly lacking in any kind of authority. The choice only served to highlight Bush’s insecurity. Who, but a man worried about his own image of authority would seek out such an obvious lightweight as Quayle?
In the year 2000, Al Gore, running as far and fast as he could from the Clinton legacy, chose Joe Lieberman as his veep, Clinton’s harshest critic among Democratic senators. While Lieberman’s unctuous and moralizing style suited the times well, and did help Gore’s campaign, it also hinted at an insecurity on Gore’s part: Al Gore did not trust his own campaigning skills enough to believe that he could invoke the Clinton name without alienating the electorate. As a result, he foolishly made little use of the Clinton economic record, and stubbornly disowned Clinton, a man who today has a 62% approval rating.
So if veep choices serve as a kind of Rorschach Test, what does Kerry’s decision-making process tell us about him? The message is not a good one. Unfortunately, Kerry once again emerges as a man who has trouble holding to his convictions and making tough choices. This was evident in his early flirtation with John McCain. Many hailed Kerry’s courtship of McCain as a bold stroke, an imaginative attempt to form a unity party during a time of virulent partisan politics. I did not see it as such. Rather, I saw it as the act of a man who was not comfortable enough with his own leadership ability to trust his prospects with another Democrat on the ticket. I found the wooing of McCain, a lifelong Republican, and a man who has profound disagreements with Kerry on the issues, to be somewhat frightening. Think for a moment about one issue that will be huge in the next eight years: the Supreme Court. Imagine the pool of judges that Kerry would turn to in filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Now imagine the pool of judges that McCain would relish. It’s a completely different list! And this issue is emblematic of the incoherence that would have emerged from such a ticket. Nor was the wooing of McCain a harmless flirtation. The Bush campaign’s first announcement after the naming of Edwards was to trumpet the fact that Kerry’s first choice for vice-president, McCain, is now campaigning aggressively for Bush. In turning Kerry down, McCain actually did both himself and Kerry a great favor; McCain returned to his own conservative Republican roots, and he saved John Kerry from himself.
Another alarming thing about Kerry’s selection process was the emergence of Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, as a serious contender. Now, let me make it clear that I have nothing against Vilsack; I couldn’t, since I know virtually nothing about him! And if a political junkie like me knows nothing about a politician this late in the campaign, how wise would it be to put him on the ticket? Polls have shown that there are still large numbers of people who don’t know much about John Kerry—for example, that he’s a war hero. Why on earth would he compound that problem by picking a complete unknown--moreover, one with no foreign policy experience--as his running mate? Yes, I know that the race in Iowa was close in 2000, with Gore taking its seven electoral votes by a margin of 4,000, but I fail to see the rationale behind a Vilsack vice-presidency.
It was Kerry’s goal to conduct his search with more “dignity” than Al Gore did in 2000. It’s not clear to me that Kerry’s search process offered any improvement. It had the same obligatory leaks, the same list of vice-presidential suspects, the same soap opera tone, and by the end had devolved into a coy guessing game between “anonymous sources” and the media. For some reason it seemed important to Kerry and his staff to cast Kerry as making up his mind at the last possible second, as if that would be particularly honorific. One unnamed staff member went so far as to tell CNN, “Don’t be too sure that he’s made up his mind. There were times when he would take to the Senate floor to cast a vote, and we didn’t know which side he was on.” If this statement is accurate, please don’t talk about it too loudly, because this is precisely the side of Kerry that I don't want to see.
In the end, however, one has to give Kerry his due. He did make an excellent choice in Edwards. While my own favorite was Joe Biden, I am excited to have John Edwards on the ticket. Indeed, perhaps there will even be a “trickle-up” effect, where Edwards will impart to Kerry some of his passion and charm. Another possibility is that now that he has completed the ticket, Kerry will emerge with a new level of dynamism. I have a hunch that to-date, Kerry has been using a kind of rope-a-dope strategy, laying back and letting the Bush administration flail about in its own incompetence. But there is a time to lay back and there is a time to engage, and I am encouraged by a line from a long time Kerry watcher in Massachusetts: “Kerry always finishes races stronger than he starts them.”
That quote is music to my ears, and if true, will serve to cure me of my current crankiness. Because it is clear to me that the American people will not elect a vacillating Hamlet to the presidency, least of all during a war. So come November 2, I’m wishing, hoping, and expecting to see a strong finishing kick from John Kerry and John Edwards....
