A Particular Level of Thinking

[Mike]

"One candidate would put a spell on you, and one would assign your occupation," Mattia said. "My preference is none of the above." The quote is from a piece relating to the race for Delaware Senator, and I perceive that it's symptomatic of the depth of thinking to which too many voters relate and to which too many journalists and bloggers cater. Notice that I don't say ALL by any means, but the frequency with which this kind of dichotomy becomes established in many minds is a concern to me. Note that there is really no substance in the quote--a spell? Assignment of your occupation? My point here is not the contrast between these two particular candidates. I'm only pondering a particular level of analysis that grates on me. I observe that it's often the pithy (but less substantive) remarks that are stored for instant recall and subsequent parroting later on. Regardless of which candidate a given voter chooses, I merely cringe at the notion that it would come down to fear of witchcraft vs. fear of communism. What are your thoughts? (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/27/1894083/once-the-toast-of-the-tea-party.html#ixzz13Yvh7e2J)

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Bear in mind that the person who said this was a Republican supporter of Mike Castle. He also voted in the primaries, which means he could be somewhat out there on the right. Personally, I have not done my homework on Coons. I have heard him say that his essay was a joke, but I think that without having done any research on Coons, I think that it's fair game to suspect a Democrat who wrote an autobiographical essay called "The Making of a Bearded Marxist" to believe in communism, just as one would suspect a Republican who writes an autobiographical essay called The Making of a Goose-stepping Storm Trooper to believe in white nationalism.

Delaware is a blue state and O'Donnell has no chance. Rasmussen has her down by 11 points, and other polls have her down by 20. I would relate a different person I heard who talked to NPR. He basically said that he would normally vote for Michael Bennett in Colorado, but he was mad at Obama because of the health reform and that he didn't want Obama to have any more support in the Congress. I think a person like that is closer to a more independent voter than the Republican you've cited.

[Mike]

Bear in mind that the person who said this was a Republican supporter of Mike Castle. He also voted in the primaries, which means he could be somewhat out there on the right.

I don't disagree with any of your observations. Moreover, your observation (that the person who made the remark had a political investment in the question) underscores my point. Should I as a voter entertain even momentarily the notion that one candidate would practice magic on me or the other would choose my occupation without regard to my own wishes? Recent (Tea Party) history suggests that some voters do. If the statement were made by Jay Leno, it would of course be perceived appropriately. We'd all enjoy whatever we were drinking and anticipate the next joke. But in this context in recalls similar fear-based statements such as oh, death panels, and their adoption as reasons to vote for one or another candidate. Thus, I suspect many voters would indeed entertain the remark made by Castle's supporter. In any event, I'll be interested to see the continued coverage of this particular race. :)

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Should I as a voter entertain even momentarily the notion that one candidate would practice magic on me or the other would choose my occupation without regard to my own wishes? Recent (Tea Party) history suggests that some voters do. If the statement were made by Jay Leno, it would of course be perceived appropriately. We'd all enjoy whatever we were drinking and anticipate the next joke. But in this context in recalls similar fear-based statements such as oh, death panels, and their adoption as reasons to vote for one or another candidate. Thus, I suspect many voters would indeed entertain the remark made by Castle's supporter. In any event, I'll be interested to see the continued coverage of this particular race. :)

I think a good question might be: what is reasonable to ask for your side and the opposing side? I think it's a fair question for a conservative to ask if a Democrat who writes an essay called "The Making of a Bearded Marxist": does this guy believe in Marxism? It's a stupid question to ask if the guy will assign people occupations, as a Marxist could never be elected to office as a Marxist. The question is if he BELIEVES in Marxism, not will he ENACT Marxism. The former can be true, the latter cannot.

[Mike]

Moreover, I'm prone to ask (at least to myself) what do I care what a person "believes"? Indicators of job performance are more likely to be past performance relative to the job than past expressions of belief that have little to do with the job. For example, I don't care that O'Donnell believes it's wrong to masturbate. I really don't care at the moment if her opponent did or even does believe in Marxism. As I think you remark, it's not like Senator O'Donnell is going to introduce an anti-masturbation bill or Senator Coons is going to introduce a "let's change our form of government" bill. Am I straying from my own topic? hahaha

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I think it's highly relevant what a candidate believes (i.e. some form of extremism) in, and I also think that even if the full radicalism cannot ever manifest itself due to political realities, it can still partially manifest itself, which is bad.

While a Marxist Senator could never enact Marxism, he could move the country as close to Marxism as possible. That might manifest itself as government-owned businesses (i.e. GM, agriculture, energy, commodities, etc). He could pass onerous regulations and very high taxes on businesses (which has impacts on employment). The door swings the other way too with fascism, and candidates with fascist or racist beliefs.

Aside from real affects, there's also the symbolism of having a Marxist in office. To some people, it's highly offensive.

[Mike]

I think I understand your point of view. I suppose you feel that a senator who believes in Marxism could conceivably introduce a bill that would open the door even if the bill were killed in committee. Or that if one Marxism-believing senator were allowed in Congress, then a slippery slope might occur bringing more and more Marxists into Congress over time? Am I understanding you?

I'm also pondering your remark about symbolism. You may have noticed that I live in Utah. I recall my Utah history regarding the first man the people elected as a Senator, Reed Smoot. Although Congress couldn't legally prevent his election, his peers in Washington tried to prevent him from being seated. I believe it had to do with public bias against the Mormons in general and their doctrine of plural marriage. Do you perceive any analogies as far as the potential for adverse symbolism and what may or may not be offensive?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I think I understand your point of view. I suppose you feel that a senator who believes in Marxism could conceivably introduce a bill that would open the door even if the bill were killed in committee. Or that if one Marxism-believing senator were allowed in Congress, then a slippery slope might occur bringing more and more Marxists into Congress over time? Am I understanding you?

I would say that you can influence something in Congress. Let's take Rand Paul as an example. He believes that the Civil Rights legislation was wrong. Will he ever be able to repeal the Civil Rights Act? No. However, there is a fair amount of civil rights legislation out there, which he can kill or weaken. So the fact that he has a philosophy that is racist-friendly has tangible destructive possibilities even though he cannot bring the full force of his stupid philosophy to bear.



I'm also pondering your remark about symbolism. You may have noticed that I live in Utah. I recall my Utah history regarding the first man the people elected as a Senator, Reed Smoot. Although Congress couldn't legally prevent his election, his peers in Washington tried to prevent him from being seated. I believe it had to do with public bias against the Mormons in general and their doctrine of plural marriage. Do you perceive any analogies as far as the potential for adverse symbolism and what may or may not be offensive?

I'd say the situation is parallel in many ways. From what I've read on Wikipedia about Smoot, the Congress practically equated Mormonism with polygamy and Smoot was an "apostle" of the LDS Mormon Church. By the standards of the early twentieth century, that might be the equivalent of being in the upper echelons of a church that used marijuana to attain the correct mental state, or worships the devil. The feelings of the Senators were probably that the membership of such a person damaged their sacred institution.

There were also different issues involved, like whether he could Constitutionally be an apostle of the LDH Church and be a Senator due to possibly loyalty oaths to do harm to the US, and contradictory oaths he would have to take to defend the United States.

[Mike]

As a side note I just had an interesting personal introspective moment regarding my remarks about not caring what somewhat believes vis-a-vis your remark about what others find offensive in a candidate. After I read your last post on this thread I read your post regarding Paladino's paradigm. As I viewed those images my blood pressure increased and I could feel my ire rising. That brought your point home to me in a way that I didn't expect (and perhaps you didn't either.) Hahaha Thanks.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

As a side note I just had an interesting personal introspective moment regarding my remarks about not caring what somewhat believes vis-a-vis your remark about what others find offensive in a candidate. After I read your last post on this thread I read your post regarding Paladino's paradigm. As I viewed those images my blood pressure increased and I could feel my ire rising. That brought your point home to me in a way that I didn't expect (and perhaps you didn't either.) Hahaha Thanks.

Oh yeah, I definitely had racism in mind when I was thinking about things that I find offensive. As a racially mixed person who is black and Chinese, I (like most other racial minorities) are keenly attuned to racial politics. Racial minorities are very sensitive to racist demagoguery and I'm sorry to say that racist demagoguery has been widely used in American politics since this country's founding. There are many people that I put in the have to be taken down category because of such things.

I'm glad you found those comments interesting.

[Mike]

I'd say the situation is parallel in many ways. ... The feelings of the Senators were probably that the membership of such a person damaged their sacred institution. ... There were also different issues involved, like whether he could Constitutionally be an apostle of the LDH Church and be a Senator due to possibly loyalty oaths to do harm to the US, and contradictory oaths he would have to take to defend the United States. And yet history appears to demonstrate that notwithstanding the fears, in this particular case the adverse results didn't materialize. Of course history is tricky when it comes to predicting the future. I suppose there are plenty of examples of this-must-be-like-that thinking that resulted in poor decisions on the part of leaders and voters alike. :)