A recent report from Pew has an interactive map on perceptions of trust of the government. There are also key events that attempt to contextualize the trends, as well as charts with changes in the House and incumbent losses. In 1992, Clinton inherited slipping trust from George H. W. Bush and Reagan inherited low, but rebounding numbers from Carter.

Should we expect a bloodbath in this fall’s midterms?

I think both parties need to be concerned, particularly given the trends on this chart::

Under George W. Bush, trust was in freefall for everyone in his second term. In my opinion, there was a perfect storm, which literally involved a storm. Katrina hit in 2005 and the conservative coalition started to break down, which I think became evident in the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court. The 2006 midterms with a surge of Democrat wins and Obama’s election in 2008 served to further cause Republicans to have less trust in the government.

Politicians on either side of the aisle should heed the antecedents of trust, in order to increase the odds of getting votes. In my opinion, negative rhetoric that doesn’t address increasing trustworthiness for a focal candidate is a danger.

What are the drivers of trust?

I’m working on a paper on organizational trust, based on the social psychology literature. The three antecedents of trust my co-author and I are using are::

1. Ability
2. Integrity
3. Benevolence

These are subject to contextual constraints, i.e., the current economy and the political zeitgeist which is up in the air regarding big or small government. The challenge is to craft a strategy to build trust. In a sense, Obama’s reaching across to Republicans should be appealing to benevolence, but it’s not. It may be overshadowed by integrity and ability, which given the economic woes will be hard to convince Obama’s detractors that his policies are leading us in the right direction, given the credence qualities {hard to gauge efficacy even after implementation} of economic policy. If obama and the Democrats don’t realize that this is a battle of “communication” that needs to be addressed quickly, expect losses in November.

Twitterversion:: New Pew study shows trust of the government at only 22% and for Republicans an all-time low. How can social psych. inform political strategy? @Prof_K

Song:: KMFDM-‘Trust’

Meg Whitman may have more more money than good sense, despite hiring a cadre of political consultants, but then again she’s in a tough bind. She was challenged to a three-way bipartisan gubernatorial debate before the California primaries by Democrat Jerry Brown. The debate would include Brown, Meg Whitman and her fellow Republican challenger and Steve Poizner. Her response went from maybe to no, no meaning not until Jerry has a debate with his longshot Democratic challenger. All the while, Jerry has received a ton of press with his challenge.

Whitman {a billionaire} and Poizner {a multi-millionaire} have plenty of cash to spend and they’re going to burn through it trying to get the Republican nomination. Brown’s warchest is light, but he hasn’t been spending. Meg was avoiding debating Steve, but finally succumbed last month. Poizner’s approach has been to paint Whitman as not conservative enough, while Whitman tries to allow for more shades of grey on issues. In the long run, Whitman’s strategy is what’s needed to win the blue state of California, as Republican numbers favour Democrats and moderates need to be courted to win. A debate with both Poizner and Brown would be very risky for Whitman. From what I’ve seen, she’s not quick on her feet and talks like a corporate executive who spends 15 minutes answering a question with, “it depends.” A three-way debate would mean attacks from her right and her left. She would have to come across as a strong moderate that would enough appeal to more conservative Republicans and I’m not convinced she has the platform or the rhetorical chops to pull that off.

Love him or hate him, Jerry Brown is an interesting guy. When I was a kid, I remember him running for Governor in 1978, handily defeating his Republican challenger Evelle Younger. I also remember his nickname, Governor Moonbeam. He was dating Linda Rondstadt and I recall this corny political joke, “Linda Ronstadt started dating Jerry Brown when she realized she wasn’t getting any Younger.” Anyway.

Jerry made a bid for the presidency in 1976, 1980, and 1992. He was a credible threat to Bill Clinton in the primaries with grassroots campaigning and a toll-free contribution line. He also isn’t afraid to get rough. Here he is going after Clinton by making Whitewater allegations::

I think he would give Poizner and Whitman a run for their money and having been in politics in the state since forever, he knows the beat.

Twitterversion:: Jerry Brown throws down gauntlet debate proposal vs. the millionaire & the billionaire. Shrewd PR move. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Linda Ronstadt-‘Blue Bayou’

Last week, Bill O’Reilly got on Senator Coburn’s {R-OK} case for a quip the senator made about Fox News-style reporting and the mandatory health care imprisonment debate {Hat tip:: Linniqat}.

Well, as it turns out, there was plenty of evidence of Fox News-style “reporting” that confirmed that Fox was making a big deal out of prison as a result of noncompliance. O’Reilly tried to spin it as reporting a news story, but examining the footage, the bulk, if not all, was commentary—not news.

While CNN ratings languish, Fox and MSNBC are both branding their infotainment and rely upon the blurring of news and commentary. O’Reilly and Fox like to jump between the two categories depending on what’s convenient for them, but it’s rather disingenuous and insulting to act as if that’s not what’s going on.

Twitterversion:: Bill O’Reilly goes aft. Sen.4quip on FoxNews journalism.HuffPo slams Bill, who blurs news/commentary #Fail #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Aimee Mann-‘Real Bad News’

The Huffington Post has an article on Democratic Candidate for California Governor, Jerry Brown. It mentions that while Jerry, now uncontested in the primaries, has spent next to nothing, Meg in on a media frenzy.

A group of Democrats have started taking potshots at her, using social media. Leveltheplayingfield2010 is using a an anti-Whitman wiki, wikimeg, and creating videos for YouTube::

Her allegiance to Mitt Romney and comments she made about Sarah Palin are weakening her cause among the tea party crowd.

I find it interesting that many user comments paint Meg Whitman as a RINO who is soft on immigration.

It’s hard to gauge what will go viral and her detractors are putting content out there to seed that possibility. Nevertheless, Whitman has a huge personal warchest to draw from, so she has the ability to hammer Brown with traditional media buys. Her biggest weakness. She’s an odd candidate for California. My take is she’s not moderate enough for the middle and not conservative enough for the right. Being an ex-CEO, like Carly Fiorina who is running for US Senate, might be a drawback in this political climate, particularly when it’s been reported that financial services and the legal industries have been key contributors to her campaign, this far.

Twitterversion:: Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman, candidate for CA governor is being attacked in social media, but will it matter? #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Steely Dan-‘More of the Same’

Notes from north of 49ºN

“But how could she mince around in high heels and then, in the next breath, work as a crisis volunteer for rape victims and march in Barrie’s Take Back the Night rally? Isn’t that a conflict of character?”

“It seems to me that she’s pushing the boundaries of several stereotypes about what makes a woman attractive. In fact, according to The Independent, “she entered the contest in the hope of launching a modeling career that might fund her athletics training.” So the lady was just using the contest to meet her “real” desire: to be an Olympian. Nothing wrong with hustling the system, right?”

I saw this story re-tweeted by a_picazo via SaeedCNN::

An Australian TV cameraman, Simon Fuller, was aggressively stakerazzing a riot suspect and his father outside of a courthouse. There were two camera crews from two different stations. The father of the suspect asked the cameraman of one of the crews to stop following them 25 times. What was meant to be a parting shot, Fuller called the father “a fucking terrorist.” Fireworks ensued with the son calling Fuller out on the terrorist slur. While Fuller apologized at the time, the damage was done. Some argued that given the gravity of the offense and the timing and context of the altercation, the apology wasn’t appropriate. The exchange was aired by Channels 7 and 10, but was edited in a way that that painted the father as hostile.

The full story is here, which includes the following video clip of a Media Watch programme, which analyzes the full video footage::

Here’s the crux of the exchange that set things off::

Gad Amr: You say to him fuck off. You say to him fuck off? You say to him to fuck off?

Simon Fuller: The camera’s rolling.

Gad Amr: You bloody idiot.

Simon Fuller: The camera’s rolling.

Gad Amr: You idiot. I don’t care you say to whoever, you idiot.

Omar (the accused) Amr: Fuck him, mate. He’s a fuck knuckle.

Simon Fuller: You fucking terrorist.

Race and Islam have been hot-button issues in Australia and vilification of the Islamic community has stemmed from sensational cases, such as the Sydney gang rapes committed by hardcore gang members. The rapes and crimes like it have been framed by some as “crimes against Australia.”

The lack of professionalism by Fuller and his epithet that was meant to insult Amr isn’t going to help things and paints the mainstream media as insensitive to the Islamic community.

Twitterversion:: Via @SaeedCNN & @a_picazo, Australian cameraman uses “fucking terrorist” slur after badgering father & son. Media #Fail. http://url.ie/5qbd @Prof_K

Song:: The Audreys-‘Nothing Wrong with Me’

I think this tweet by Impolitical sums up my sentiments::

More spot-on observations on Toronto Sun Covers Review. Check it out. There’s some good comedy on that blog.

Twitterversion:: @impolitical sums up my ‘sediments’ re: TO Sun #fail {image: @DanGoodchild}. I now long 4 mediocrity of the SF Chronic. @Prof_K

Song:: Billy Bragg-‘It Says Here’

I’m wondering what my fellow ThickCulturites think about Obama’s policies of late, e.g., environmental policies on offshore drilling and increasing the CAFE standards. Is he being schizophrenic or shrewd? I firmly believe his strategies tend to be well-thought-out, at least at the 40,000 foot level, and not haphazard. I think the strategy isn’t always clear. That said, I’m quite interested who he chooses to replace the retiring Justice John Stevens of the US Supreme Court.

I think the safe bet would be Elena Kagan. She’s a solid choice as a moderate and since any confirmation is likely to be contentious along party lines, a moderate will be harder to paint as a hardcore liberal by Republican senators. Doing so could backfire, depending on the media spin.

On the other hand, what if Obama went hardcore liberal, particularly anti-corporatist? Choosing an appointee that would satisfy the bloodlust of Main Streeters who want punishments doled out to Wall Streeters that Geithner’s policies. If there’s going to be a catfight over confirmation and threats of filibuster, why not appoint a nominee frames as a Wall-Street reformer? They would be tough for Republicans to attack in this political climate and it would test the cohesiveness of the Democratic party, as conservative Democrats may balk at supporting such a nominee. Appointing a hardcore would be a bold move and if the nominee fails to get confirmed::

1. It wouldn’t be a shocker, so if s/he’s not confirmed, it wouldn’t be a stinging loss to the Obama administration
2. It could be framed as a conservative support of big banks and corporate interests
3. It would pave the way for an easier confirmation of a more moderate appointee

The nomination would assuage the liberals and stir up an ideological hornet’s nest as we move towards the 2010 midterm election.

The devil’s in the details…So, all you legal beagles out there…who would fit the bill?

Twitterversion:: @BarackObama w/another Sup.Ct.nom. Odds may favour Kagan, but what about a strategy of an ultra-liberal anti-corporatist?  @Prof_K

Song:: Murphy’s Kids-‘The Anti-Corporate Beach Party’

In the early 2000s, there were two films that came out, Bully {2001} and Thirteen {2003} that were cautionary tales about the darkside of teen life and bad influences. I’ve noticed that in the media recently, bullying is getting quite a bit of attention recently, with a focus on suicides, suicide attempts, and the use of the Internet, i.e., cyberbullying, which got widespread media attention with the Megan Meier suicide catalyzed by Lori Drew’s creation of a fake persona.

I’ve been watching how the media portrays these cases, often focusing on white and/or middle-class incidents, which is part of the “shock and awe” of the story. The narrative is that your kids aren’t safe where they should be—in school, public or private.

A few weeks ago, I was watching an Anderson Cooper special on CNN, where he returned to the Hollenbeck neighbourhood of Los Angeles. Anderson wasn’t talking about bullying, but about gangs.

Bullies and gangs often use similar tactics to instill terror and intimidation, but gangs are often made distinct by their “criminal activity.” The motives are linked to similar needs for perceived control, belonging, and identity. Is this an artificial distinction, one of degree and not of kind? I think so and I feel that if the media were portray suburban bullies like gangland thugs, there would be a backlash tied to attitudes surrounding class and race.

Anyone who has read Geoffrey Canada’s Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America {1995} {Amazon.ca} could see the social structure, habitus, and behavioural parallels between bullying in suburban schools and Canada’s recounting of growing up in the Bronx in the 1960s. This is a good summary of one of Canada’s anecdotes about growing up:

“One day his two older brothers came back from the playground. ‘Where’s John’s jacket?’ their mother asked. John answered, ‘A boy took it.’ She asked Daniel, ‘And what did you do when this boy was taking your brother’s jacket?Daniel muttered, ‘I didn’t do nuthin’. I told Johnny not to take his jacket off. I told him.’ ‘My mother exploded. ‘You let somebody take your brother’s jacket and you did nothing? That’s your younger brother. You can’t let people just take your things. You know I don’t have money for another jacket. You better not ever do this again. Now you go back there and get your brother’s jacket.’ Though his older brothers were both smaller than the playground bully, they got the jacket back. Their mother gathered them around and told them they had to stick together, ‘she would not tolerate our becoming victims.’ That philosophy of ghetto parents he summarized as, ‘Accept it, this is a violent world, so teach (children) to cope by acting more violently than the others.'” [*]

Canada goes on to describe how the institutions in the neighbourhood, schools, police, etc., aren’t factored into the social order for various reasons, cultivating feelings of powerlesness and fueling taking matters into one’s own hands, i.e., violence. Again, I see parallels here with the bullying being portrayed in the media. While some may argue that the parallels fall apart with cyberbullying, I disagree. The warfare of bullying is a psychological violence, which can have just as deadly consequences. Technology isn’t the enemy though. It’s the social institutions enabling the behaviours.

Twitterversion:: Bullying is media darling now, but what about insights re: gangs? Is drawing that parallel too radioactive? #ThickCulture  @Prof_K

Song:: Belle & Sebastian-‘We Rule the School’