Archive: Sep 2008

Avid readers of this blog, which I’m sure numbers in the tens of thousands, might wonder where the term “thickculture” comes from. Orignially the term was used by political theorist Michael Walzer in a book called Thick and Thin, Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. I’m sure I won’t do his argument justice, but in it, he distinguishes between an abstract, baseline common morality which we all purportedly share (basic human rights, self-determination) that he calls “thin” morality and a more contextual, particularistic morality that he calls “thick” morality. What’s so valuable about Walzer is his view that “thin” principles must be realized within “thick” cultural contexts and not externally imposed. One quote from Walzer that has always stuck with me is this:

“the left has never understood the tribes.”

As Walzer explained here:

Tribalism… is the commitment of individuals and groups to their own history, culture, and identity, and this commitment (though not any particular version of it) is a permanent feature of human social life.

This passage has reverberated with me as I’ve observed the newfound Republican success in the presidential election. The right has been effective and exploiting this blind-spot in the thinking of progressives. For example, the rapid-response to the Palin VP selection denigrating her for being a “mayor of a town of 9,000” people was a perfect indication of the bias on the left towards “thinness.” The implication of the critique is that a town of 9,000 is too provincial, too disconnected from the universal to be of any real consequence to the development of a world leader.

Barack Obama’s unfortunate “bitter” comment followed this same track of opposition to the particular, the provincial, as an impediment to realizing universal moral principles. Walzer’s great insight is that the abstract and universal has to be realized through the particular and the provincial. It could be that what Obama meant to say is that people “cling” to thickness in the face of global change. But he hasn’t really done an effective job of articulating that if it’s what he meant.

Today’s Gallup tracking poll has a 3 point McCain lead, a lead which will probably grow tomorrow..the first set of polls during which all three days of interviewing were conducted after McCain’s Thursday acceptance speech. I think the reason that the Republican convention was so successful is because it tapped into the existing meme on the part of the Democrats that they simply “don’t get tribes.”

The problem is that “thin” principles matter. While Republicans understand that culture and identity matter as much, if not more, than material gain, they haven’t necessarily put in place policies that lead to universal principles of individual self determination and autonomy. They subscribe to a “thin” version of freedom that ignores the role of government in providing individuals with the tools to help people realize their full selves. If people were ok with being allowed to practice their cultural norms undisturbed, we wouldn’t have 80% of Americans saying we’re headed on the “wrong track.”

If Obama is truly to be the transcendent political figure he aspires to be, he needs to realize that the abstract (thin) principles he aspires to needs to be connected to the norms, values, and experiences (thickness) of everyday existence. This is his big mission for the next 60 days, to convince people in small town and suburban America that the “thin” abstract principles he espouses are rooted in “thick” small town norms and values.

Just to round out a week of Sarah Palin discussion culminating in her VP acceptance speech tonight, I bring you (by way of Tech President), Sarahpalinisyournewsegway.com. This is a spin off of the woderfully enntertaining, probing and time wasting barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com.

Both sites welcome you to substitute their adjective for your own. It’s interesting to see the distinction in the entries for both sites. Keep in mind the lefty bias on the web.

Both allow for twitter-like expression of political views in a sardonic way. But Palin’s tend to derisively emphasize a sense of undeserved, fleeting fame status. Among the last suggestions were “Sanjaya” “Ted McGinley” “Regent University Dropout” “Pontiac Aztek (sp)” and “chia pet”

The Barack Obama site is more prosaic and includes gems like Barack Obama:

“e-mailed your dad and told him how great you are”

“laughed at your joke”

“listened to your mp3”

“saved his dessert for you”

These critiques are more oriented towards the perceived emptiness of the “hope message.” The idea being that Obama represents all things to all people. In a small way, both sites engage civic participation by allowing for an additional outlet to express underlying discomfort with a presidential or vice presidential selection. In the Palin case, the concern is the preparadness for the job. In the Obama case, the concern is empty platitutdes. Both provide great insight as to the political zeitgeist.

“paid your speeding ticket”

As adroit as the McCain campaign has been over the past month, they could not be happy about this kind of publicity (HT: The Page). US Magazine, the weekly journal of political and literary commentary, features the Republican VP selection on its cover with the ominous title “Babies, Lies, and Scandal.”

Over the last few election cycles we’ve been seeing what Henry Jenkins calls convergence between politics and popular culture, but this is a new plateau for presidential politics. What does this type of convergence do to the political process when popular culture? Does this humanize her in a way that attracts new voters? Does it frame her in a way that focuses on Palin as a mother rather than Palin as a professional politician? I suspect there are going to be multiple framing and re-framing of each of the candidates in the election. It will be interesting to see how the Republican party handles all of this during their convention. Will they paint her as a victim of a scandal obsessed culture? Or will they ignore the coverage and build upon their own framing of her?

Two new polls put the Obama Biden ticket between 7 and 8 points ahead of McCain-Palin. A new USA Today/Gallup poll taken over the weekend has the election at 50%-43% for Obama-Biden, while a new CBS News Poll has the election at 48%-40% for Obama-Biden.

A look inside the CBS numbers reveals the fault lines in the electorate for the next 60 days and gives some clues as to why Mccain made the selection of Sarah Palin for vice president. All of Obama’s lead appears to be coming from Women. Bush won this demographic is 2004, but according to CBS, Obama is winning this group by 14 points.

Ideologically, Obama is winning a greater share of independents. For all the talk of Democrats reluctant to vote for Obama, both candidates are pretty even in their base support. However Obama has a six percentage point lead among those described as independents.

Another interesting tidbit is that, according to the CBS poll, the effect of Palin as VP on support for McCain is a pretty break even proposition. But as Nate Silver pointed out yesterday, support for the Palin choice is stronger among Men than among Women. Whereas the Palin choice helps McCain among the constituency in which he’s already strong, it seems to have no effect among the constituency in which he needs the greatest help. 17% of Men said they were more likely to support McCain because of the Palin pick while only 10% of women were similarly inclined. Nate Silver attributes it to ideology:

it may simply be a matter of ideology. Men are generally a bit more conservative than women, and opinions of Palin are very strongly determined by ideology. Conservatives have a favorable impression of her by a 79-8 margin, but this falls to 43-35 among moderates and 26-46 among liberals. Likewise, by a 48-22 margin, conservatives think she’s ready to be President, but she loses this question 23-54 among moderates and 9-67 among liberals.

This is the problem with the Palin pick, locking down the base with this selection comes at the expense of turning moderate women off. These numbers can change but the initial roll out appears not to have significantly moved the needle for McCain. If this was supposed to be a great “game changer” pick, the game is still waiting to be changed.