American Anti-Intellectualism

My friend Josh Schrei recently launched The Schrei Wire and is kicking things off with some searing commentary on the McCain-Palin ticket and the dangerous encroachment of outright anti-intellectualism at the highest levels of American politics.

There’s a simple reason why the years after anti-intellectual purges aren’t fun. Because intellectuals matter. It really shouldn’t even need to be said, but frighteningly in the current political climate, it does.

Obviously no-one in the United States is overtly advocating violence against the intellectual elite, but in metaphorical and increasingly real terms, the Republicans are waging a war pitting middle American ‘Joe Six Pack’ and ‘Hockey Moms’ against coastal elitists with Harvard degrees. Sarah Palin is the personification of this, taking George Bush’s strategy of ‘everyday speak’ to even greater heights (or lows) than George ever did. Apparently, in the Karl Rove strategy book, ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’, so much so that now the war of ‘everyday America’ vs. ‘the smart people’ is absolutely central to Republican electoral strategy.

There should be no underestimating how dangerous and toxic this strategy is. By simultaneously gutting the very educational and social programs that support and sustain ‘Joe six pack’ with one hand and with the other creating a vitriolic culture in which those who actually are educated are seen as ‘other’ and therefore not worthy of governing, the Republican party is toying with the future of this country in ways that can and will cause irrevocable damage.

We all might laugh or cringe when Sarah Palin talks about being ‘five weeks on the job’ and bringing ‘Joe Six pack’ into the white house or describes herself as a ‘pitbull with lipstick.’

What we should be is very, very afraid.

…

A nation such as ours, founded on a very heady document written by some very smart and very well educated people, should never, ever shy away from electing scholars as president. We have, and we should, embrace it.

There are two saving graces here. One is that thinking Republicans are actually starting to realize the danger that Palin — and the campaign of class war that she represents — poses to their party and are becoming more and more vocal about it.

The other is that everyday Americans have suffered the most at the hands of the current administration and many of them realize it. Hopefully more will.

Schrei goes on to make a Tom Frank-esq observation that the end result of Republican driven popular anti-intellectualism is a negative impact on those who vote for it. He speculates that electoral defeat of Palinism at the hands of Barack Obama could recenter the Republican Party and renew their Party in a more thoughtful direction.

I am not optimistic that electoral defeat will derail the path the GOP is on. The Rove-Bush-Palin chain has been successful in energizing their base for eight years. In the face of a plummeting economy, there will be a greater value in political parties embracing populist rhetoric, not a reduced one. The GOP isn’t about to start winning elections talking about corporatism and increased global hegemony — they have to rely on the culture war. And in many respects, Palinism is the addition of a strong dose of anti-intellectualism to the traditional Republican sour brew of “God, Guns, & Gays.” If anything, I expect the GOP to stir the muck even more as they face off against President Obama. It will be ugly and I shudder to think as to how deep the rabbit hole (as Schrei describes in other countries) could really go.

They Write Letters

My friend Nima Taylor Binara gets a letter published in the Wall Street Journal:

Tony Blair Is Wrong In Approach to China

With due respect to Tony Blair (“We Can Help China Embrace the Future,” op-ed, Aug. 26), he wildly misses the mark when he suggests that because the Tibet issue relates to the “One China” policy, it is an “existential” threat to China’s modernization.

Frankly, it is insulting to the Chinese people to suggest that a modern China is incompatible with respect for minority rights or self-determination for colonized peoples. This paternalistic view dismisses the values of democratic pluralism and freedom that strengthen, not hinder, modern societies.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had it right when he said, in China, that true friends are not afraid to point out problems. If Mr. Blair genuinely wants to help China “embrace the future,” he could start by pointing out that in the 21st century, China’s ongoing, brutal colonization of Tibet is an unacceptable anachronism.

Nima Taylor Binara, Esq.
Board of Directors
Tibet Justice Center
Arlington, Va.

Well done, Nima.

DHS Study: Data Mining for Terrorists Not Feasible, Un-American

Yesterday Ryan Singel of Wired’s Threat Level blog posted a remarkable story about a Department of Homeland Security study which said that data mining for terrorists was not only unfeasible, but leads to un-American outcomes.

“Automated identification of terrorists through data mining (or any other known methodology) is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development efforts,” the report found. “Even in well-managed programs, such tools are likely to return significant rates of false positives, especially if the tools are highly automated.”

The 376-page report — entitled “Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists” — comes as a rebuke to the Bush administration’s attempts to use high-tech surveillance and data-sifting tools to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States.

…

In particular, the report continually stresses need for the government to follow the law — a none-too-subtle reference to the government’s secret warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ communications.

The committee was comprised of a number of technical and policy experts from government contractors, tech firms and academia. The group’s official name was the Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals.

The committee reiterated that the government should have useful tools to fight terrorism, but that they must be useful and respect Americans’ privacy.

Now would be a great time for Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Joe Lieberman to call hearings and investigate whether any currently classified programs are relying on data mining techniques that this DHS commission says are neither effective nor produce results in line with American principles. Of course that’s not going to happen. Even as the Department of Homeland Security itself says data mining doesn’t work and only leads to violations of Americans’ rights, we cannot expect Lieberman and his Republican cohort to demand oversight.

Were Lieberman stripped of his Committee chairmanship, I believe Tom Carper of Delaware would be next in line to be Chair (Levin and Akaka both already chair committees). Would Senator Carper hold hearings on the federal government’s use of data mining? I don’t know. But the next Congress and the next administration owe it to the American people to start turning back the clock on the Bush administration’s abuses of surveillance powers.

The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress (with frequent assists from Democrats) have thrown a lot of dubious, illegal, and ineffective techniques at the problem of stopping terrorism since 2001. Data mining is one of the most odious and it’s way past time that the powers that be stop, look around, and realize that throwing everything but the kitchen sink at a problem doesn’t work. Massive invasions of American privacy and violations of American law don’t make us safer – they reduce who we are as a country, which is exactly what our enemies have sought to do for years. Fortunately some people at DHS have identified a problem area. It’s up to Congress and the next administration to rectify it.

Video Bonanza

 A few morning videos, just because I haven’t had the time to give each their own post.

Obama PWND McCAin on foreign policy, Marty McFly-style.

One of the most creative, effective ads I’ve seen this cycle, courtesy of the Courage Campaign and the NO on Prop 8 crowd in California (which would ban marriage equality).

Finally, what I think is the best attack ad I’ve seen anyone make on Palin. It needs a couple tweaks in verbiage, but I’d love to see a 527, the DNC, or even the Obama campaign making this hit. It is a winner and it’s time the Palin’s ties to the Alaska Independence Party receive top-line attention. It could finally put this campaign to bed.

The Palin Amendment

From James Fallows, we have the 28th Amendment, to be filed under Wishful Thinking:

“No Person shall be elected President or Vice President without accepting a session of questioning by the press, such session to last no less than one hour and to be open to normally accredited members of the press in the same fashion as at Presidential news conferences. The questioning shall occur and the results shall be made freely available to the public at least one week before an Election is held.”

As great as it would be to have an amendment in the US Constitution to ensure that candidates for President and Vice President is scrutinized directly by the Fourth Estate, it would be a lot easier if presidential nominees simply picked running mates who were capable of holding a press conference and did not to be sequestered from the media to avoid politically damaging moments.

Inciting Violence Against Obama

The McCain campaign has puffed up its chest recently about its headfirst dive into the mud. Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment last night provides as concentrated a deconstruction of this strategy as I’ve seen in any medium.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27057346#27057346

Going beyond Palin’s role as a mud slinger, in the past few days rhetoric coming from McCain and Palin has lead to multiple instances where audience members volunteer that Obama is a “terrorist” and the response should be to “kill him,” Jeffrey Feldman takes a look at the consequences of the words Palin and McCain are using.

The ‘dangerous road,’ however, is not just a generic attack on Sen. Obama’s trustworthiness or honesty. Rather, the McCain campaign has chosen to stand before campaign rallies and accuse Sen. Obama of hiding sympathies with domestic terrorists–to accuse their opponent, essentially, of being a terrorist.

With the McCain campaign now using the Palin stump speech to accuse Sen. Obama of hiding a terrorist agenda, the McCain campaign has staked its future on rhetoric that skirts the boundary between character assassination and incitements of actual violence against their opponent.

Meanwhile, while McCain is not yet accusing Obama of terrorism in his own stump speech, the crowds at his rallies are.

In a recent video clip from MSNBC, McCain asked a rally, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” In response to McCain’s rhetorical question, a voice from the crowd can be clearly heard to shout in response, “Terrorist!” (link)

Since the start of the election campaign well over a year ago, voters have been subject to ongoing smear campaigns in emails and push polls accusing Sen. Obama of ties to and sympathies with domestic and foreign terrorist groups. No matter how many times these smear campaigns have been exposed, they continued. Now that John McCain and Sarah Palin have echoed these accusations–the idea that Sen. Obama is secretly a terrorist has the stamp of approval of a presidential campaign, but of a multi-term U.S. senator and a U.S. governor.

One wonders at this point how the various agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the Presidential candidates from violence will respond to this latest tactic from the McCain campaign. If, for example, a McCain supporter threatens the life of Sen. Obama by shouting ‘Kill him!’ at a Palin rally, should Sen. Obama’s Secret Service contingent launch an investigation? Having been accused of terrorist ties by the McCain campaign, will Sen. Obama’s name be put on the ‘No Fly’ list, effectively making it impossible for him to engage in normal airline travel?

I don’t think it’s possible to understand how dangerous the line McCain and Palin are walking is, especially as Palin in particular deliberately crosses it. While free speech is protected in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that no protection exists for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. What we’re seeing from McCain-Palin is approaching such a situation. Words mean things and when we are a country in two wars — one in response to terrorism, the other marketed as a response to terrorism — the word “terrorist” is one of the most potent words, to be used in the most particular situations, grounded in fact. As McCain and Palin play the fear card, their diction speaks more to their reckless desperation than to any meaning connected to the words they use have to reality.

Update:
Naturally the Obama hatred hasn’t stopped today. Huffington Post has the details.

Ted’s Been Preparing for Jail for A While

The prosecution in Theodore Stevens’ federal corruption case has played audio tapes of Stevens talking about the possible consequences of what he was under investigation for. The transcripts are remarkable. Reuters:

“These guys can’t hurt really us. They’re not going to shoot us. It’s not Iraq. What the hell?,” Stevens told Bill Allen, founder of the former VECO Corp. oil-services firm based in Alaska.

Stevens is charged with lying on Senate disclosure forms from 2001 to 2006 to conceal more than $250,000 in renovations to his property and other gifts provided by VECO.

“The worst that can happen to us is we run up a bunch of legal fees, and might lose and we might have to pay a fine, might have to serve a little time in jail. I hope to Christ it never gets to that, and I don’t think it will,” Stevens said.

It’s harder to adequately state how remarkable it is that a sitting Senator would casually discuss the likelihood that his behavior would lead to “a little time in jail.” I suppose if it’s just “a little time” it’s not bad, right? I mean, if they’re not shooting Stevens (like they would in Iraq???), it’s hardly anything to worry about.

I’ve been following this case closely for a long while, but this strikes me as some of the most damning evidence against Stevens. He knew he could go to jail for what he did. If you know you might go to jail for your actions, it’s hard to plead ignorance when asked about your actions. Stevens is in deep trouble.

Disclosure: Most readers of Hold Fast likely know this, but until recently I served as Online Communications Director for Mark Begich, Ted Stevens’ opponent for the Alaska Senate seat. I am no longer connected to the Begich campaign in any way; these views are mine and mine alone.

Keating Economics

Great job by the economy campaign. Their documentary on the Keating-McCain savings and loan scandal is insightful and informative. Most importantly, it’s accessible and succeeds at tying McCain’s actions on behalf of his friend and political contributor Charles Keating to McCain’s current failed approaches to the subprime mortgage crisis and economic troubles. I’m not sure how aware people are of McCain’s guilt in connection to the S&L scandal, but this should go a long way to increasing that awareness.

Watch the video then pass it along…

Also, Billmon’s take on the Keating-McCain scandal is instructive:

But I was around, and following congressional politics rather closely (by which I mean professionally) when McCain first popped up on the political radar screen in 1986 during the so-called Keating Five scandal. In exchange for various regulatory favors, Keating, a wealthy and politically, um, generous, S&L executive, turned himself into the special friend of a bipartisan group of sleazebag Senators, with five in particular, including McCain, reaping most of the benefits. By modern standards (i.e. Jack Abramoff’s and Ted Steven’s standards) it was actually pretty tame stuff, but it was considered a big deal at the time.)

In a sense, the scandal marked the birth of the McCain “brand,” because unlike the other four of the Five, he stood up in the Senate and more or less admitted he was guilty (not nearly as guilty as the others, he hastened to point out – but still, he felt bad about what he had done.) This went over really big with the media (“Senator admits guilt” outranking even man bites dog on the news-o-meter.)

Now, if you go back and look, you’ll see that if Keating didn’t comp McCain as generously and vigorously as he did the other four, it was probably because McCain was a very junior senator at the time, with relatively little influence to peddle. But it wasn’t because Honest John was shy about accepting the favors that were offered him. If John McCain had a problem with the way lobbying (i.e. legalized prostitution) was being done in Washington, you definitely won’t find it in the record of the Keating investigation. McCain’s fit of Puritan self-righteousness (or political calculation, depending on your view) came after the fact, once he’d already been caught. And yet, from that single Senate speech sprang the shoot that eventually grew into the sturdy tree of John McCain’s media image.

You have to admit it was a neat trick: Happily accepting the naughty goodies while they were being handed out, but then winning brownie points for admitting he took them – after the world had already found out he took them. But that’s precisely what McCain did. He’s never looked back since.

The lesson he learned, I think, is that pseudo-candor (truthiness) usually trumps the genuine article (McCain was way ahead of his time on this) And so he hasn’t hesitated to flip and flop shamelessly if (and these are the key points) it is in his interest and he thinks he can get away with it.

Now the Obama campaign is calling him on it. I think a full-scale reversal of public, documented history by the McCain campaign today will also lead the media to call McCain on it, too, especially as Obama turns up the heat on McCain on this issue.