Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Keep the Birthers Going
The oddity of the fringe movement that insists that President Obama was not born in the United States is a guarantee that Obama's popularity will remain in the 50s or higher through the rest of the debate on health care. Why? Because people who are truly in the middle have no desire to be associated with the craizes. So, keep them going if you support Obama.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Since nobody reads this blog, I can post these thoughts without fear...
Okay, I do not wish to dwell on the "he said-he said" dynamic of the Gates arrest and whether President Obama should or should not have applied value judgments to actions taken at the Gates home, but the debate and, specifically, the comments made by both Professor Gates and Sargent Crowley, fall under the general theme of this blog about being "Grownups." Here goes...
First, I agree that this is less a matter of race and the insecurity of law enforcement officers and more a matter of two men misbehaving and letting their testosterone (or their desire for a testosterone rush) get control of their judgment. Gates flew off the handle and Crowley let his defensiveness get the best of him. Both reactions seem to be understandable if not appropriate.
Second, I am deeply troubled with the notion that a person cannot rant in their own home without the threat of arrest. So long as it is fairly clear that it is a temper tantrum that does not present any kind of physical threat, such rants should not provide sufficient reason to arrest, no matter how insulting they may be.
Third, given Crowley's description of the incident where he noted that he sought to get Gates out onto his porch (which is afforded lesser constitutional protection of privacy), I see this as behavior aimed at manipulating circumstances to make an arrest "legal." This is, in my view, an indicator of premeditation on the part of Crowley, and will not serve him well as we eventually hear more about the details.
Fourth, Gates' explosive reaction should be a lesson to us all We should try to control our urges to act out in ways that result in making ourselves vulnerable to others having control over the meaning of our outbursts (in other words, we should control our temper). However, this is easily stated by me, a white guy who has never been stopped, followed, searched, harassed, or suspected by law enforcement officials. Gates clearly has deeply scarred experiences with authority (especially law enforcement officers), something that every black male I have known also shares. The closest thing I have experienced this myself is when an African colleague of mine was in the passenger seat of my car when I drove into the gates of my campus. The gate had been open, but the security guard--someone very familiar with me and my car--put the gate down for a few seconds, until he noticed the mistake.
Finally--and this is the statement that I will be criticized for if anyone besides my sister is reading--I am very distressed with the assumption that law officers should have a presumption of controlling interactions with citizens. They are public servants, not paramilitary officials. They are there to serve us, not to control us. In every case where there is not imminent threat of physical harm, police should defer to citizens' rights to express themselves. And, when they are in the home of a person, they must assume that they are guests, with law enforcement power only when there is a clear public safety threat.
It is my view that the real error was made after police were convinced that the call was a false alarm. They should have left, and apologized to Gates, while also noting that they were responding to a 911 call.
First, I agree that this is less a matter of race and the insecurity of law enforcement officers and more a matter of two men misbehaving and letting their testosterone (or their desire for a testosterone rush) get control of their judgment. Gates flew off the handle and Crowley let his defensiveness get the best of him. Both reactions seem to be understandable if not appropriate.
Second, I am deeply troubled with the notion that a person cannot rant in their own home without the threat of arrest. So long as it is fairly clear that it is a temper tantrum that does not present any kind of physical threat, such rants should not provide sufficient reason to arrest, no matter how insulting they may be.
Third, given Crowley's description of the incident where he noted that he sought to get Gates out onto his porch (which is afforded lesser constitutional protection of privacy), I see this as behavior aimed at manipulating circumstances to make an arrest "legal." This is, in my view, an indicator of premeditation on the part of Crowley, and will not serve him well as we eventually hear more about the details.
Fourth, Gates' explosive reaction should be a lesson to us all We should try to control our urges to act out in ways that result in making ourselves vulnerable to others having control over the meaning of our outbursts (in other words, we should control our temper). However, this is easily stated by me, a white guy who has never been stopped, followed, searched, harassed, or suspected by law enforcement officials. Gates clearly has deeply scarred experiences with authority (especially law enforcement officers), something that every black male I have known also shares. The closest thing I have experienced this myself is when an African colleague of mine was in the passenger seat of my car when I drove into the gates of my campus. The gate had been open, but the security guard--someone very familiar with me and my car--put the gate down for a few seconds, until he noticed the mistake.
Finally--and this is the statement that I will be criticized for if anyone besides my sister is reading--I am very distressed with the assumption that law officers should have a presumption of controlling interactions with citizens. They are public servants, not paramilitary officials. They are there to serve us, not to control us. In every case where there is not imminent threat of physical harm, police should defer to citizens' rights to express themselves. And, when they are in the home of a person, they must assume that they are guests, with law enforcement power only when there is a clear public safety threat.
It is my view that the real error was made after police were convinced that the call was a false alarm. They should have left, and apologized to Gates, while also noting that they were responding to a 911 call.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama's "Sinking" Numbers
To follow up on the last posting, I wish to contextualize the findings in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows support for President Obama's policy initiatives "slipping" to below 50%.
Reading the article and looking at the figure comparing the level of support for Obama versus the level of support for the Republican Party on these issues, it is clear that what we see is not a function of declining support as much as the effect of the partisan polarization that has seeped down through elites to the general public. There is a rising consensus among political scientists that party polarization, which has occurred in Congress since the 1970s, has crept (probably through an increasingly partisan media) down into the broader polity. By the middle of the presidency of George W. Bush, this polarization solidified, leaving a public that is as Manichean in their political views as political elites have been since the mid-1990s. So, the result is that a President will always have at least a third of the public strongly opposed to any initiative.
By the way, I believe this polarization and political manicheanism is very bad for us and a harbinger of trouble in the future.
Reading the article and looking at the figure comparing the level of support for Obama versus the level of support for the Republican Party on these issues, it is clear that what we see is not a function of declining support as much as the effect of the partisan polarization that has seeped down through elites to the general public. There is a rising consensus among political scientists that party polarization, which has occurred in Congress since the 1970s, has crept (probably through an increasingly partisan media) down into the broader polity. By the middle of the presidency of George W. Bush, this polarization solidified, leaving a public that is as Manichean in their political views as political elites have been since the mid-1990s. So, the result is that a President will always have at least a third of the public strongly opposed to any initiative.
By the way, I believe this polarization and political manicheanism is very bad for us and a harbinger of trouble in the future.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Honeymoons, Presidents, and Policy
I was flipping channels yesterday and saw someone on cable waxing about the meaning of the latest polling showing that President Obama's approval rating had slipped below 60% for the first time. Of course, with the usual lack of insight, the person (I do not remember the channel or the person, since I have little time to waste on uninformed talking heads) wondered why this might have happened and whether this is the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.
I have several things to comment on regarding this issue. First, President Obama's approval ratings do not seem to have varied much at all, hovering around 60% and, in some polls, dipping to the upper 50s several times since January. A single data point of a CBS poll done right before the Sotomayor hearings and during presidential travel abroad, does not a trend make.
Second, comparing the trends we have seen thus far to recent presidents (with data courtesy of the Roper Center for Public Opinion at the University of Connecticut, the first clear decline in support has generally occurred long before July of the first year. George W. Bush saw a dip by May of 2001, Bill Clinton say ratings in the low 50s by February, and George H.W. Bush was in the mid 50s by May. So, in comparison to recent presidents, the "honeymoon" for Obama is longer than we might expect.
Third, I want to remind everyone that the definitive research on presidents and public opinion, done by Paul Brace and the late Barbara Hinckley, finds that when it comes to public support, presidents have two basic choices: they either retain their popularity at the cost of promoting their policy agenda, or they push their agenda, with the expected decrease in the level of public approval.
It seems to me that grown-up (or, to use the political science label, modern) presidents choose the latter approach, while postmodern presidents choose the former...
I have several things to comment on regarding this issue. First, President Obama's approval ratings do not seem to have varied much at all, hovering around 60% and, in some polls, dipping to the upper 50s several times since January. A single data point of a CBS poll done right before the Sotomayor hearings and during presidential travel abroad, does not a trend make.
Second, comparing the trends we have seen thus far to recent presidents (with data courtesy of the Roper Center for Public Opinion at the University of Connecticut, the first clear decline in support has generally occurred long before July of the first year. George W. Bush saw a dip by May of 2001, Bill Clinton say ratings in the low 50s by February, and George H.W. Bush was in the mid 50s by May. So, in comparison to recent presidents, the "honeymoon" for Obama is longer than we might expect.
Third, I want to remind everyone that the definitive research on presidents and public opinion, done by Paul Brace and the late Barbara Hinckley, finds that when it comes to public support, presidents have two basic choices: they either retain their popularity at the cost of promoting their policy agenda, or they push their agenda, with the expected decrease in the level of public approval.
It seems to me that grown-up (or, to use the political science label, modern) presidents choose the latter approach, while postmodern presidents choose the former...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)