Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 30, 2007
‘Politik’ and the Presidential Candidate Race

Little do I write about the U.S. presidential (presidency?) race. Everytime I try, I find that there is nearly nothing to work from. Writing from abroad my assumption was that I simply don’t ‘get’ the real stuff.

But now I read this:

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

Instead of policy proposal discussions, the available news and analysis is about hair-cuts and lapel pins. The blogs fret about campaign slogans, consultants and hotel rates.

Sorry, I can not digest such stuff. It’s just package with no content.

I need a website with a ‘spreadsheet’ of 100 questions on hard policy issues in the vertical:

"24. In what regard should companies have/have not personhood status?"

Each candidate’s opinions on each question, with links and fact-checked backups, should be in the horizontal:

Huckabee: "In all regards"; Gravel: "In all but free speech and the right to carry arms."

The site should allow me to rank these questions in their importance to me. It should let me give my personal answers to each of them. A simple algorithm would match my opinion to the candidates’ and find the one that provides the best fit to my personal stand.

I have yet to find such a site on the web. Why? Do you know one?

Where I am coming from on this is of course a different environment:

In my country (Germany) we don’t have much of personality races, at least compared to the U.S. We vote for parties who hold their internal member elections to select their party leaders. Those persons will get some media scrutinity in their political life. But reporting on personal issues or affairs of politicians is frowned on and rarely happens.

During the party conventions the party members actually formulate and vote on party program points. Last weekend the social-democrats had a convention here in Hamburg and the party members had some fiercy discussions and quite a few suprise votes. They chose to work for a general 80mph speed limit and against privatization of the railway monopoly. Both of these votes  ran against the wishes of their established leaders but will, for now, be binding party policy.

Before elections journalists here scrutinize party programs and compare these on the issues. The better papers and TV programs do discuss in detail the content and consequences of the various proposals. It is not perfect of course and more could be done to look at the record of what these parties have promised and actually done. But one can reasonably find out who stands where on what and there are four or more serious parties to choose from.

Interestingly the German language has only one word to covering policy and politics: ‘Politik‘. The meaning of ‘Politik’ leans much more towards ‘policy’ than to ‘politics’. It is on the issue first and on the interaction about the issue only in a secondary role.

Maybe the problem of getting the U.S. election stuff is really writing from abroad and thereby lacking U.S. ‘feeling’. But the study quoted above suggests otherwise. There is simply nothing serious available to think and write about.

One probably needs to be a sports reporter (Olberman) or theater critic (Rich) to write about this horse race production. I for one lack the talent for even trying to comment in those fields.

Comments

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton………. sounds scary eh?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 30 2007 20:47 utc | 1

a big TV focus of the supposed success of a candidate here is continually emphasized how much $ they have raised for their campaign, thereby inspiring to give more money to the one you support because it reflects in their success. they do this because they know that the money from this drive is going to be spent ON THEM.
stories about a persons positions don’t raise their coffers in a similiar fashion. its all media driven for media control for media coffers.
the dumbing down of america. image over facts.

Posted by: annie | Oct 30 2007 21:08 utc | 2

@CP – Nepotism – or even more restricted – family business.
Some links on this as I was thinking to post about it:
The Guardian yesterday had a fine remark on the Saudi dictatorship which is based on the exclusive rule of one family of ‘princes’ (certainly no girls allowed.) The country is named after the family.
Comparable is the generation to generation move within the Neocon scene Jim Lobe documents. Then jump to the Bhutto family in Pakistan and the Kirchner family in Argentine – both are simply business operations with no real political content.
The U.S. looks like becoming as much a dynasty state as the Saud state is. The family names change every eight years but the differences are more and more marginal.
It’s Called the Ruling Class Because It Rules (a bit OT). It is reduced to a few families with generational contracts. In middle age Europe they would intermarry and eventually merge. In a ‘Democracy’ they stay away from each other so they can switch the top position and name in a ‘believable’ way once a while – Bush Clinton Bush Clinton …
not even scary anymore – just a laughable sham

Posted by: b | Oct 30 2007 21:28 utc | 3

b
if it is theatre – it is theatre of the absence of quality – of the dimunition of the individual into a mere unit of fear

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 30 2007 21:44 utc | 4

b,
here is a link that gives some insight into what the candidates stand for. of course, none of them can get too specific because that merely opens them up to sniping but you can get a decent idea of where they would take us.
link

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 30 2007 22:12 utc | 5

@DoS – thanks – but that is a collection of NYT puff pieces sorted by candidate – I didn’t found one actually going into comparative policy analysis. It is all hat no cattle. A simple ‘select’ & ‘sort’ function in the NYT archive of mediocre reporting.
Do I need new glasses, rosy once maybe, to read this stuff?

Posted by: b | Oct 30 2007 22:51 utc | 6

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? The shallowness of the campaigning and its coverage obscures the fact that there are deeply entrenched interests on both sides. There is large commonality, but obviously there are factions upon factions within factions jostling for position. Some factions are pretty much secure either way, sure, but as the response to 9/11 shows, substantial policy differences exist. So the pointlessness of the discourse shouldn’t be confused with pointlessness of the outcome, or as evidence that the ptb are monolithic.

Posted by: boxcar mike | Oct 31 2007 3:01 utc | 7

boxcar mike wrote (#7):“…as the response to 9/11 shows, substantial policy differences exist.”
Are we talking about the same event that caused everyone to vote in lockstep in favor of The War Against Terror™ and pass the USAPATRIOT Act nearly unanimously and unchallenged? I don’t mean to be dim, but to what substantially different policies do you refer? The response to 9/11 confirmed for me the suspicion I had been trying to dispel that no differences whatsoever exist between parties and their members except for stances on entirely negligible splinter issues. I’m walking away with precisely the opposite impression you have, it seems.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 31 2007 4:05 utc | 8

b, I think you get it just fine. I don’t know if America is becoming dumber and dumber, but mainstream TV is nearly unwatchable for someone who does not have A.D.D. (I am speculating because I won’t pay for it)
But, I do remember a site as you describe, a matrix, from the last campaign, maybe it will turn up again.

Posted by: korr-elater | Oct 31 2007 5:26 utc | 9

This Stupid Story about a confederate flag hanging on a door of the hunting lodge Dick Cheney was patronizing, gave me a pause – not the least of which was Al Sharpton in a justified, yet expected tizzy, over the event. What gets me though, is not the specific incident of having a confederate battle flag not scrubbed out in advance, and remaining in plain view of photographers, for a semi-public media event involving our notorious VP, but the general casualness and often sentimental affection the current republicanism often displays toward that flag. The confederate flag. It is after all the same republicans that have enshrined themselves as the true standard bearers of that other flag. The American flag. If memory serves correctly, didn’t the confederate flag at one point initiate to remove itself and succeed from the American flag? Didn’t the confederate flag then make war on the American flag for six long years? Wasn’t it the confederate flag that placed itself on the wrong side of the American constitution and its promise of freedom, liberty, and justice for all? Who the hell gives these sentimental closeted anachronistic racists the right to call into question anybodies patriotism, let alone declare themselves representative of the true America? This time Al Sharpton is dead on.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 31 2007 6:43 utc | 10

b, here is another issues calculator. some of my colleagues were surprised to find themselves in line with the “other” party. I mentioned to one of them that he may not be as conservative as he thinks he is and shared my belief that the democratic party is now far to the right of where the republicans were just a few short years ago.
anyway, most of us should not be surprised at who pops out on top.
enjoy

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 31 2007 7:14 utc | 11

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton… — yeah, kinna scary, in the long run.
But, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Giulani is even scarier ’cause there would likely be no long run…

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Oct 31 2007 7:21 utc | 12

@DoS – 11 – that is exactly what I was looking for (a 95+% match for Gravel btw – he also leads the overall list there).
One wonders why the major media companies can not come up with such, but then – the results would not fit their intent and business plans.

Posted by: b | Oct 31 2007 8:16 utc | 13

According to DoS’s #11 link, I am 87.31% Mike Gravel’s man. Of course, it also said I am 54.34% Republican. Huh.
Now I’ll have to take a Cosmopolitan Magazine quiz to find out who the best celebrity kisser for me might be.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 31 2007 13:19 utc | 14

I would apparently be a Kuchinich voter if I lived in the US. Gravel as runner-up, then the rest of the dems, closely followed by Ron Paul and then a gap to the rest of the repubs.
Monolycus,
I think the party results are the agregated winners among those who has taken the test, i.e. adding the support for the individual candidates in the list above. So it is not you, it is the visitors of the site…

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Oct 31 2007 15:27 utc | 15

Thanks for clearing that up, ASKOD! Wasn’t sure how that would work.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 31 2007 15:45 utc | 16

check out our ‘value voters’
w/video!
Star Parker, a former welfare cheat who had multiple abortions, claimed to me that abortion is the leading cause of death among African American women between the ages of 25 and 34. Then she described her wish for the forced quarantine of all “sodomites.” Parker was not a lone wacko milling around in the hallway; she was a speaker invited by the Family Research Council.
brandon vallorini says under a christian order ‘ideally’ there would be no more public schools. he is on the fence about the death penalty for blasphemy tho.

Posted by: annie | Oct 31 2007 18:17 utc | 17

91.30% match Gravel for me, per
DoS’s #11 link. Suspect he’d fit the populace as a whole more than chosen front runners. Unfortunately, it’s all irrelevant to what will happen.

Posted by: plushtown | Oct 31 2007 20:03 utc | 18

I got 100% Gravel, which worries me, as I shouldn’t 100% agree with anybody.
Too bad nobody’s ever heard of Gravel, because he’s leading that poll, not that it makes the slightest difference.

Posted by: mats | Oct 31 2007 22:08 utc | 19

Annie, you nailed it at #2. All the coverage I hear (NPR mostly, I don’t watch TV news) is about who’s made how many $$$$. Our society can’t seem to get beyond the $ as a measuring device. Pathetic–anyone in the arts can tell you making $$ is nice, but has nothing to do with real value.
I got to see Gravel last summer, at a Unitarian convention, at a talk with Daniel Ellsberg, talking about the process of releasing the Pentagon Papers. It was a fascinating story–if anyone tried such things today, Cheney would have them shut up in many dark dark ways.

Posted by: catlady | Nov 1 2007 2:44 utc | 20

b: you might try this website for starters, though it depends on the candidates willing particpation: http://www.vote-smart.org/
Vote-Smart is a non-profit group that started here in Corvallis, OR, and has now moved its offices to Missoula (hey, unca!).

Posted by: catlady | Nov 1 2007 2:47 utc | 21

It’s not about the candidates, or their positions; it is jockeying behind the scenes by anonymous interest groups who own and run the candidates. A while ago I stumbled upon this first person account of the early years of the Reagan “run”. Reagan was simply their “horse”. Bush, Clinton, etc are all “horses” in a race between the various owners in the same way that pop music groups are creations of industry players rather than reflections of actual talent. American sense that, which is why they gravitate towards the trivial details.

Whether or not Reagan was intellectually sharp or not is debatable. What follows are my first hand experiences in these matters. As a young golf pro (1969-1973), I had the opportunity to spend time with several members of the country club where I worked near Palm Springs. Eldorado Country Club in Palm Desert, CA is the club and its members included major industry leaders from all walks of life and a few wealthy movie stars such as Bob Hope, Randolph Scott, Irene Ryan (Granny) and others. Early on, I was not high enough on the assistant golf pro seniority list to play with Bob Hope, but since we were directed to play at least a weekly round, if not more, with the members, I found myself playing with another member, Holmes Tuttle. During our first round of golf together, I did not realize that he owned a racehorse-turned-governor of California named Ronald Reagan. I simply knew him as a member who lived in a multi-million dollar mansion along the third hole while I was making $125 per week and living nearby in a $125 per month apartment. Still, I was thrilled at being paid to play golf for a living and I was flattered that Mr. Tuttle seemed to take a shine to me.
From 1965 when he first began his run for office until he completed his terms as US President in 1988, including eight years as an unemployed actor and politician, Reagan was sponsored by a group of very successful entrepreneurs and corporate CEOS, led early on by Mr. Tuttle.
In fact, that group of members was formed to finance Reagan’s run for California governor. After he finished his time as California governor in 1975, they saw a man without a job, facing financial ruin due to poor personal asset management skills, but who was nevertheless a television star with a spotless reputation and a positive hero image in the public’s eyes. More importantly, he had instant name recognition. Say anything you care to say about his acting ability, but as a television star, he wore a white hat and his grandfatherly smile lit up any room he entered. Their thoughts were that he would be valuable to them come election time if they could get him to run in a future election. They were thinking US President and it took nearly a decade of training to get Reagan ready for the national stage.
Much of that training took place in the winter home of Mr. Tuttle at Eldorado CC. I often played golf with Mr. Tuttle and his entourage when Reagan was a house guest and while the future President didn’t play much or well, he rode along on a golf cart. It was evident that Tuttle, and the others were grooming Reagan for the future. I politely discussed such goings on with Mr. Tuttle if and when the opportunity presented itself. Mostly, I listened.
When Reagan eventually became President, Tuttle was appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Tuttle’s qualifications? Tuttle, a converted Oklahoma hillbilly who emigrated to California in the 1940s had sold Reagan a coupe in 1946. He was a self-made zillionaire and owned more car dealerships than anyone else in California. He also owned banks and savings and loans.
Backgrounder: After Reagan finished up as governor, he faced personal bankruptcy. The CEO group from Eldorado, a kitchen cabinet of sorts, came in and guided Reagan out of financial ruin and even eviction from his home for failure to make his mortgage payments. Other members of the support group included oil magnate Henry Salvatori, chairman of Union Oil. “Cy” Rubel and another whose name escapes me who was CEO of what was then United California Bank, which incidentally founded MasterCard. They accomplished the task by offering business tips as to where to invest in land that was targeted for future development by the same group. Later, they personally sponsored bank loans that funded such investments. Later still, as President, those holdings near Rancho Santa Fe appeared on Reagan’s financial disclosures. As a result of his kitchen cabinet, he became a man of great wealth.
During the time that Reagan was governor of California and leading up to the run for President years later, a huge portion of Reagan’s writings were the work of Mike Deaver, also a visitor to the Tuttle home in Palm Desert. Evidently, Deaver sent the advance men into markets where the Reagan handlers believed that appearances would be beneficial and that Deaver booked, planned and wrote speeches for the unemployed actor-turned-politician and so on. I seriously doubt that Reagan ever wrote a speech for those appearances or even knew where the limo was taking him or even which group he was to speak to. Deaver’s handlers were famous for assembling the topics of interest in the market where Reagan had an appearance scheduled, writing those topics on 4×6 note cards along with details and suggestions and handing them to Reagan as he got into his limo for the ride to the appearance. All Reagan had to do was scan the cards and the notes and he was ready to wing it once they got to the destination.
I still have my copy of his address to the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas and it has Mike Deaver’s imprint on it. My impression from my listenings to the Tuttle group discussions on the golf course was that Reagan was their racehorse. Mr. Tuttle even explained his motives to me once. “Randy, would you rather have a politician at the top of the heap who has clawed his way up over thirty years, as did LBJ, but once there, was beholden to anyone who had ever helped him no matter their cause or motives? Or would you rather have a President who represents industries led by successful, proven leaders who won their titles because they know now to create jobs, profits, income and products, to move this nation forward and have the track record to prove it?” Or words to that effect.
Later, during the Reagan run for the White House, I had left the golf business (one too many three-putt greens) and was a reporter for the *Dallas Times Herald*, a daily with circulation of about 400,000 on Sundays. At an early Reagan appearance in Dallas in the mid-1970s when the Tuttle group had Reagan out testing the waters, who got out of the limo after Reagan? Holmes Tuttle. It was a nice reunion of sorts for me. Mr. Tuttle recognized me and after a brief explanation of why I was there instead of in Palm Desert, he introduced me to Reagan and invited me backstage. A few years later, I was on assignment for the UPI and once again, was invited backstage at the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas. Again, I was privy to the behind the scenes goings ons and clearly Reagan did not control the words he spoke—others did.

Posted by: PeeDee | Nov 1 2007 3:03 utc | 22

ps. Sorry about the length.

Posted by: PeeDee | Nov 1 2007 3:04 utc | 23

nice find PeeDee, look where Mr Tuttle is now

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 1 2007 8:24 utc | 24

PeeDee: it’s exactly what happened with Thatcher, by the way. A pretty useless pointless brainless housewife groomed and trained to be an apparently strong-willed bitch, which still never got any original idea, and was enough of a lapdog to do every bidding of her masters.
If mankind is to survive, sooner or later, we’ll have to cull these wealthy wannabe-masters of the world bastards for good.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 1 2007 9:38 utc | 25

What is the cost of the Iraq war. One, two, maybe 3 trillion, in dollars. What is the booty to be gained in oil reserves. 30 or 25 or 40 trillion dollars.
And the measures in dollars is but a fuzzy guide line.
What is needed, essential, cannot be given up – is priceless.
This song rang out:
We chased our pleasures here,

Dug our treasures there,

But can you still recall

The time we cried?

Break on through to the other side.

-Doors.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 1 2007 19:03 utc | 26

I’ve been away a while. Monolycus, you are basically right in that the response to 9/11 was lockstep. I am assuming that Gore would not have done anything like what we saw. I can’t prove that of course. But I doubt anyone honestly believes “Gore would have invaded Iraq.” or “Gore would have set up Guantanamo and set up illegal wiretaps in response to 9/11.” I think whoever was president at the time was going to get lockstep response to pretty much whatever they wanted.

Posted by: boxcar mike | Nov 6 2007 1:15 utc | 27

@boxcar mike
Good to see you back. As for what Gore “might have done”, that is anyone’s guess. What we know is that during his tenure as Clinton’s vice-president, he supported Operation Desert Fox and years of brutal sanctions against the Iraqi people, resulting in the deaths of over a million Iraqis (half of whom were children). In the run-up to Gulf War II in 2003 and shortly thereafter, Gore also was entirely on the bandwagon that Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States. It was only after the tide of public opinion turned away from the Bush administration that Gore began criticizing these actual actual policies and assumptions.
I see no reason to assume that President Gore would have responded any differently than Senator Gore did, which was to lend support to military reprisals and fuel The War Against Terror™.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 6 2007 5:03 utc | 28