The more the American mainstream media deny that President Obama is a Moslem, the more Americans choose to believe that he is.
Apparently this belief is more prevalent among college-educated Republicans than the rest of the population. How Republicans Learn That Obama Is Muslim (New Republic, 27 August 2010) This raises some intriguing questions about the relationship between education and knowledge.
Jeff Poor suggests that the media are to blame. "By consistently using questions about Obama's faith and his citizenship as fodder to demean conservatives, specifically the Tea Party movement and thereby creating a general mistrust by saying vile things, have the mainstream media perpetuated the very allegations they are abhorred by (sic)?" (Newsbusters, 19 August 2010) At least on this point, Charlie Brooker seems to agree. "Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway." 'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative (Guardian 23 August 2010). Brooker complains that the terms of the debate are grossly misleading, and grudgingly admires right-wingers for their ability to create snappy-but-misleading nicknames – like fun-size chocolate bars and the Ground Zero mosque. Buzzwords for blowhards (Guardian 30 August 2010).
Jeff Poor quotes CNN political analyst James Carville, who describes himself as "flummoxed" by this result, and claims that "the quality of information to people today is exponentially higher than it was in 19th century England". Now I wouldn't necessarily expect a political journalist to know what the word "exponential" meant, but I wonder whether the quality is higher at all.
Once upon a time, some people were bothered whether Disraeli was Christian or Jew, and some people were uncomfortable about electing Kennedy as a Catholic president. But they are now mainly remembered for what they achieved while in office, not their religious affiliation. Meanwhile, Mrs Thatcher's legacy is not feminism but Thatcherism. Obama will not be remembered for his birthplace, or the religion of his forefathers, nor even for being the first black president; he will be remembered for the successes and failures of his presidency. And perhaps one day, people will wonder why anyone cared whether he was a Moslem or not, and moderate Moslems will be as accepted in mainstream American politics as Catholics are now. (Let it not be forgotten that large sums of money were once raised from American Catholics to support Irish terrorism.)
John T. McGreevy and R. Scott Appleby Catholics, Muslims, and the Mosque Controversy (New York Review, 27 August 2010)
Adam Serwer, Build More Mosques (American Prospect, August 26, 2010)
Showing posts with label negation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negation. Show all posts
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Negative Campaigning
There have been many comments about negative tactics in the 2008 US election
Of course this is nothing new
And what's wrong with negative campaigning anyway, providing it is based on an honest appraisal of your opponent's weaknesses?
Are negative tactics counterproductive, and did they backfire on this occasion? Do they damage the candidate who uses them, either during the election or when elected?
And do they work at all?
What's the purpose of negative tactics? There are two possible effects that negative campaigners might be aiming at. One is to reduce the approval ratings of your opponent, and the other is to discourage people from voting at all.
At least in this election, neither of these effects have materialized. Negative tactics were used on both sides, and yet both candidates seem to have ended the campaign with personal approval ratings over 50%. (McCain's campaign may have been dented by the widespread public perception that it was relying more than Obama's campaign on negative tactics, but many people seem willing to blame the party and the campaign team rather than the candidate himself. Who is the real McCain?)
And turnout has been staggering. When I vote in a British election it takes a few minutes, maybe ten minutes if I go at a busy time. I just cannot imagine any British elector being willing to stand in the cold and rain for three hours or more waiting to vote. What passion for democracy is expressed by a nation that is willing to stand in line for several hours in order to play with an unreliable voting machine.
(There is a cultural difference here. The British voting process is designed to save wasting the time of the electorate: we collect the votes as quickly and reliably as possible, and then spend all night counting and checking them. The US voting process is designed to get the result to the TV networks as quickly as possible. Americans are far more patient than the British when it comes to voting, but much more impatient to know the result. And yet in Britain the new elected leader takes over the following day, whereas in America the leader-elect has to wait a couple of months. Different subjective views of time and the proper amount of time things should take.)
What will campaigners remember about this election next time around, and what lessons will they learn? Will they abjure negative tactics - at least until they perceive their opponents doing it? Or will they just develop more sophisticated negative tactics?
- Jon Kelly, US Election takes a negative turn (BBC News, 6 August 2008)
Of course this is nothing new
- Wikipedia: Negative Campaigning
- Carl Pyrdum, Negative Campaigning, Medieval Style (22 October 2008)
And what's wrong with negative campaigning anyway, providing it is based on an honest appraisal of your opponent's weaknesses?
- Steve Chapman, Some Positive Thoughts About Negative Campaigning (Reason Online, January 2008)
- Dick Morris, Negative Campaigning is Good for America (US News, 6 October 2008)
Are negative tactics counterproductive, and did they backfire on this occasion? Do they damage the candidate who uses them, either during the election or when elected?
- James Leach, Negative Political Ads Hurt the United States (US News, 6 October 2008)
- Jonathan Freedland, The End of Attack Politics (Guardian, 16 October 2008)
And do they work at all?
- Do Negative Campaign Ads Work? (This Nation)
What's the purpose of negative tactics? There are two possible effects that negative campaigners might be aiming at. One is to reduce the approval ratings of your opponent, and the other is to discourage people from voting at all.
At least in this election, neither of these effects have materialized. Negative tactics were used on both sides, and yet both candidates seem to have ended the campaign with personal approval ratings over 50%. (McCain's campaign may have been dented by the widespread public perception that it was relying more than Obama's campaign on negative tactics, but many people seem willing to blame the party and the campaign team rather than the candidate himself. Who is the real McCain?)
And turnout has been staggering. When I vote in a British election it takes a few minutes, maybe ten minutes if I go at a busy time. I just cannot imagine any British elector being willing to stand in the cold and rain for three hours or more waiting to vote. What passion for democracy is expressed by a nation that is willing to stand in line for several hours in order to play with an unreliable voting machine.
(There is a cultural difference here. The British voting process is designed to save wasting the time of the electorate: we collect the votes as quickly and reliably as possible, and then spend all night counting and checking them. The US voting process is designed to get the result to the TV networks as quickly as possible. Americans are far more patient than the British when it comes to voting, but much more impatient to know the result. And yet in Britain the new elected leader takes over the following day, whereas in America the leader-elect has to wait a couple of months. Different subjective views of time and the proper amount of time things should take.)
What will campaigners remember about this election next time around, and what lessons will they learn? Will they abjure negative tactics - at least until they perceive their opponents doing it? Or will they just develop more sophisticated negative tactics?
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Nuclear Weapons 2
It appears that Iran may not have nuclear weapons after all. According to some commentators, this is bad news for the Bush administration, and for the America it represents.
So Iran's not having the bomb is a "bombshell" is it? This illustrates the strange rhetoric of nuclear weaponry I commented on before. A bomb that doesn't work, or a bomb that doesn't even exist, can still produce interesting and powerful effects.
Previous post: Nuclear Weapons
- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that a US report on Tehran's nuclear programme is a "great victory". [BBC News, December 5th, 2007]
- "a massive body blow for the United States" [Ulterior Motive, December 5th, 2007]
- "this is a bombshell" [Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly, December 3rd, 2007]
So Iran's not having the bomb is a "bombshell" is it? This illustrates the strange rhetoric of nuclear weaponry I commented on before. A bomb that doesn't work, or a bomb that doesn't even exist, can still produce interesting and powerful effects.
Previous post: Nuclear Weapons
Monday, July 02, 2007
Timing and Regime Change
Two days after the regime change in the UK, the new Prime Minister was not woken up with the news of an attempted car bombing in Central London. (He was not told until 6am, and was displeased when he heard that the new Home Secretary had been told hours ago.) The following day, there was an attack on Glasgow Airport. The country remains in a state of critical alert.
Nobody seems to have any doubt that the timing of these incidents is related to the regime change in the UK. But what exactly is the point?
From a political point of view, the timing is bad for the Conservative Party. Instead of their devoting Gordon Brown's first weekend as Prime Minister to mounting the first of many attacks on his policies and personality, they were obliged to express the usual outrage at the attacks, and their general support (subject to the usual exclusions and caveats) for all necessary security measures.
Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith appeared on television dressed just right - he looking statesmanlike, she looking like a plain clothes policewoman - and the public will be suitably calmed.
In the past, conspiracy theorists have often imagined that the main beneficiary of security attacks has been the state machinery itself, and have tried to find links between the perpetrators and the security forces. For all I know, false allegations about this week's incidents may already be circulating on the Internet.
But if we discount explanations of this kind, we are left with a puzzle. Why do the plotters of these attacks care whether Blair or Brown is Prime Minister - what possible difference does it make to their supposed agenda?
But that's just the point - it doesn't. The underlying message of these attacks is that, as far as the plotters are concerned, nothing has changed. And presumably nothing would change if the Conservatives were elected either. This message is reinforced by the timing, and therefore helps to explain the timing.
In other words, the trigger for the events is the non-occurrence (in the eyes of the plotters) of real regime change. This is another example of an intriguing phenomenon - positive effects produced by negative causes. (Although the reality of regime change may be a matter of opinion, it is the opinions of the plotters and their potential supporters that we need to look at first if we wish to understand the timing of their actions.)
Nobody seems to have any doubt that the timing of these incidents is related to the regime change in the UK. But what exactly is the point?
From a political point of view, the timing is bad for the Conservative Party. Instead of their devoting Gordon Brown's first weekend as Prime Minister to mounting the first of many attacks on his policies and personality, they were obliged to express the usual outrage at the attacks, and their general support (subject to the usual exclusions and caveats) for all necessary security measures.
Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith appeared on television dressed just right - he looking statesmanlike, she looking like a plain clothes policewoman - and the public will be suitably calmed.
In the past, conspiracy theorists have often imagined that the main beneficiary of security attacks has been the state machinery itself, and have tried to find links between the perpetrators and the security forces. For all I know, false allegations about this week's incidents may already be circulating on the Internet.
But if we discount explanations of this kind, we are left with a puzzle. Why do the plotters of these attacks care whether Blair or Brown is Prime Minister - what possible difference does it make to their supposed agenda?
But that's just the point - it doesn't. The underlying message of these attacks is that, as far as the plotters are concerned, nothing has changed. And presumably nothing would change if the Conservatives were elected either. This message is reinforced by the timing, and therefore helps to explain the timing.
In other words, the trigger for the events is the non-occurrence (in the eyes of the plotters) of real regime change. This is another example of an intriguing phenomenon - positive effects produced by negative causes. (Although the reality of regime change may be a matter of opinion, it is the opinions of the plotters and their potential supporters that we need to look at first if we wish to understand the timing of their actions.)
Monday, March 19, 2007
Inactivity
In a post entitled J.D. Salinger and al Qaeda's "Chinese Democracy" Rodger raises a question about the apparent lack of al Qaeda activity on American soil since 9/11. He compares this with the rare artistic output of perfectionists like J.D. Salinger and Axl Rose.
Rodger describes this inactivity as a lack of productivity on al Qaeda's part. But given the enormous financial and psychological cost that America and other countries continue to incur for fear of al Qaeda, there seems little need for unnecessary activity. If al Qaeda can now achieve a very large effect from an unsubstantiated rumour or half-baked plot, this suggests they have attained an extremely efficient state.
It is a well-known phenomenon that inactivity can trigger activity. (See previous posts Nothing Causes Action, Negative Thinking.) In the case of fear, this phenomenon may be amplified - nameless dread being more powerful than any specific threat.
Rodger describes this inactivity as a lack of productivity on al Qaeda's part. But given the enormous financial and psychological cost that America and other countries continue to incur for fear of al Qaeda, there seems little need for unnecessary activity. If al Qaeda can now achieve a very large effect from an unsubstantiated rumour or half-baked plot, this suggests they have attained an extremely efficient state.
It is a well-known phenomenon that inactivity can trigger activity. (See previous posts Nothing Causes Action, Negative Thinking.) In the case of fear, this phenomenon may be amplified - nameless dread being more powerful than any specific threat.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Negative Thinking
I have always been intrigued by the fact that positive effects can be generated by negative causes. See my post Nothing Causes Action on my SOA blog.
I haven't actually seen the Danish cartoons that are currently causing so much trouble, but my understanding is that in themselves they are pretty unfunny. Apparently, the only point in publishing unfunny cartoons is to upset people, and then that becomes the joke. Ha ha ha, I don't think.
The BBC has ventured to publish some Peace Cartoons that make a joke of not showing the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). The winner of the competition is clever and funny and, I think, respectful. Please don't judge them until you've seen them.
See also Masood Mortazavi on The Other Cartoonist.
I haven't actually seen the Danish cartoons that are currently causing so much trouble, but my understanding is that in themselves they are pretty unfunny. Apparently, the only point in publishing unfunny cartoons is to upset people, and then that becomes the joke. Ha ha ha, I don't think.
The BBC has ventured to publish some Peace Cartoons that make a joke of not showing the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). The winner of the competition is clever and funny and, I think, respectful. Please don't judge them until you've seen them.
See also Masood Mortazavi on The Other Cartoonist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)