Extended Phenotype

Regardless of their effectiveness at cementing support among each party’s base, I have to admit that I’m very tired of reading the “flip flop” examples — on both sides. You’ll notice that Extended Phenotype has not featured any such material, and I intend this to be my only post on the subject. But I read blogs and media from “both sides of the aisle” and I think I finally went over the edge reading California Yankee’s post on Kerry’s “consistency” tonight. I don’t mean to pick on him specifically; this particular genus of campaign discussion is rampant in the regular press as well as the blogging world (I also have to say the term “blogosphere” is starting to drive me nuts).

I’m tired of how much we all focus on voting record and position inconsistencies, using them as cheap shots. And I’m not just saying this as a Democrat smarting from attacks on my candidate; anyone competent with Google can find lists of position changes and inconsistencies for George W. Bush in under a minute. (Hint: assault weapons, steel tariffs, military nation-building, Dept. of Homeland Security, and even gay marriage). I’m not going to present any links to Bush “flip flops” — you’re on your own there.

I will say, though, that in my opinion none of this means a damned thing, on either side. Expecting absolute consistency from any long-time politician is ludicrous, because it ignores the very real influence of compromises, deal-making, party-line voting, and negotiation that goes into the legislative process. We don’t send politicians to Congress to be rock-stable philosophers, we send politicians to pass legislation. And anyone who’s been involved in the process can tell you how messy it can get.

And that’s not to mention the possibility that a politican simply changes their mind on an issue given new information. People on both sides of the aisle have been known to do this, and when they do, we should applaud rather than condemn, because it means they’re learning and putting that learning to good use.

But none of that is discussed whenever we roll up someone’s voting record and use it like a club, to beat the opposition into submission. The complexities, which affect both sides, are conveniently forgotten.

Nevertheless, worse is the fact that Kerry seems rattled by such criticisms. California Yankee is correct (as he often is): claims by Kerry of “consistency” do nothing to defuse the power of the accusation, and merely look ridiculous. What would be more effective would be Kerry discussing the factors I mentioned two paragraphs ago. Kerry talks about how he is better suited to deal with complexity, and arguably he is, but what he isn’t showing us is any sign that he can explain it in the campaign. And to that extent, he’s losing opportunities to (a) gain support from intelligent folks still on the fence, and (b) defuse what may be the Bush campaign’s most powerful weapon.

In the final analysis, however, I’m mostly just sick of the space and words that cheap shots like this take up, when we ought to be spending our time figuring out what we expect the winner to do for the next four years. Regardless of who wins, the next four years present some mountainous challenges, and nobody is discussing realistic solutions — all we hear is “campaign solutions.”

So here at Extended Phenotype, you’re going to see me focusing less on campaign tactics, and more on what I believe the next four years ought to bring. Campaign discussion is interesting only from the perspective that it actually — and usually accidentally — reveals something about a candidate’s true agenda.

Let’s talk about Bill O’Reilly and Paul Krugman, on Tim Russert’s CNBC show this weekend. Not to join the crowd and deplore O’Reilly’s bullying tactics, although that would be all too easy, but because the reaction to it says a great deal about what Americans expect from “debate.”

A transcript is available here, and video clips available from MediaMatters.org. (the full episode is also floating around on the web, but you’re on your own in terms of copyright law).

The “debate” was anything but. Krugman did what he does best — offer conclusions and opinions based on facts, which he brings out in notes to back up his statements. He’s not the best speaker, nor does he fight back in an exciting telegenic way. He’s merely solid and factual. O’Reilly, in contrast, consistently ducked every factual question in favor of ad hominem attacks. You can search in vain through the transcript to find an instance where O’Reilly cited a fact or research result to support an argument. O’Reilly used every trick in the book against Krugman, but never once answered for his own views with evidence.

How did ad hominem attack become the mode of intellectual discourse in this country? How, for example, do people watch or read attacks like O’Reilly’s and conclude that “O’Reilly kicked his butt on every single issue.” Donald Luskin, someone who should know better, gloats over at National Review Online today: “Bill O’Reilly didn’t just win the debate. He cut out Paul Krugman’s heart and stomped on it.” Every single approving comment I’ve read believes O’Reilly won the debate not because he successfully rebutted Krugman’s arguments, or offered better counter arguments of his own, but because O’Reilly physically dominated the debate.

I can only conclude that Americans have lost track of what a logical argument is, and substituted in its place the notion that the “winner” of a debate is the person who is loudest, scores the most cheap shots, and physically dominates the conversation. By these standards, O’Reilly clearly “won” on Russert’s show.

This is, sadly, nothing more than the alpha-male dominance of gorillas, writ into the political arena. One of the crowning achievements of our species is that we don’t have to think about everything in terms of aggression, dominance hierarchies, and physical intimidation. We’ve got language, and logic, and can use them. If we try.

I know, I know, a reader of Orwell’s essays — in particular, Politics and the English Language — shouldn’t be surprised by this at all. And I’m not surprised. But I am disgusted. It’s easy to be disgusted by O’Reilly. He’s in the vanguard of right-wing “shock” pundits that make their living by being high-profile bullies, and never engaging in real debate. But it’s much more important to be disgusted at ourselves, if we can no longer tell the difference between attack and debate, between logic and dominance, between facts and intimidation. That should worry the hell out of us.

An interesting discussion over at California Yankee describes Kerry’s “religion problem,” as the campaign’s heavy-handed efforts to campaign on faith backfire. Rev. Brenda Peterson resigned under pressure after only 13 days after it became public that she’d signed an amicus brief on behalf of Michael Newdow in his attempt to have “under God” stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. California Yankee does a good job of describing how detrimental this is to Kerry’s campaign. In this post, I describe how I’d like to see Kerry handle the “religion question” in this campaign.

First off, the DNC and campaign should have stood behind Peterson and not allowed the discussion to be driven by the Catholic League. Peterson was quite clearly making a statement of conscience in the amicus brief. Those who believe, possibly based on second hand accounts, that Peterson shows “infinitely more concern for the sensibilities of atheists like Newdow than it does for the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God” (1) haven’t read the brief in question.

The fight over gay marriage continued this week, as King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that Washington’s DOMA was unconstitutional. If the Washington State Supreme Court upholds the ruling, Washington would become the second state (after Massachusetts) to allow same-sex marriages. Republicans and social conservatives continue to fight back: in Washington State, a constitutional amendment will be introduced during the next legislative session, and nine other states will vote on similar amendments this fall. And it seems likely that many of them will pass, even if a Federal amendment doesn’t stand a chance.

Opponents of gay marriage continue to portray the question as one of democratic will versus “activist judges out to impose their will on society” (1). Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review Online, describes the “the untiring efforts of gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges to circumvent the democratic process” (2). Conservative talking points universally portray opponents of gay marriage as upholding morality and doing it via our hallowed “democratic process.” Those who support gay marriage are portrayed as unprincipled, immoral, and willing to stoop to “forcing” gay marriage on the nation by judicial decree, thus circumventing the democratic process.

As a nation, we do ourselves a grave disservice by allowing the controversy to be shaped by this caricature of the real issues involved. For most, the controversy is “about” conserving the traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage. But regardless of the outcome, this controversy is also about more than simply the definition of marriage, or even the injection of religious morality into public law.

The fight over gay marriage is also a fight over our deepest civic principles.