Principles Matter

I have not been AWOL the last few days.  While the media have been busy trying to kill Gov Dean's campaign, I have been steadfast in my support for Gov Dean.  Once again, here's why ...

Horse Races

People love to watch a race,  any kind of race.  Media studies show that races sell better than, say, boring debates about life and death issues.  For the media, "sell" means ratings;  that's how many eyeballs are glued to the screen, or radios that pipe into ears.  High ratings are presumed to show that lots of people see or hear you,  not the other guy.

Of course,  ratings don't measure the non-audience.  If half the population doesn't listen to radio every morning,  that does not matter.  What does matter is market share; the fraction of the audience captured.  So, if X million people tune in to Mush Windblah, for example,  out of Y people that have the radio turned on,  the rating is just (100 * X / Y) per cent.  The fact that Z people aren't listening to the radio when the poll is done just doesn't matter,  and no estimate of the non-audience is made.

If Z is a large number in the total population (Y+Z),  even if Z is way more than 50% of the total,  it doesn't matter to the ratings fiends.  When our example, Mush Windblah, gets 30% or 40% of the audience,  the pollsters generalize that to 30% or 40% of the whole population.  This is intended to prove what a popular guy MW is.  Why? Because advertisers pay for the MW show in proportion to his ratings.  MW gets a hell of a lot of more money if he is loved by 30% of the people,  not just 30% of the audience.

This self-serving poll inflation is rampant.  All the successful media personalities use blown-up numbers to kill the competition and increase their net worth.  Thus, the media personality horse race.  But,  do we really know what fraction of the population attends Oprah?  Wolf Blitzer?  Mush Windblah?  Answer:  NO!  And, if X millions hear Mush,  does that mean they believe him?  Remember what he said?  Agree with him?  Once again, the answer is NO!

Now, apply this same analysis to Presidential candidates and office holders.  What do political polls mean?  Probably more than media ratings,  since the pollsters actually ask what you believe.  But, does that mean people will actually vote that way?  Is it surprising the answer is NO?

As is often said, the only polls that count are the ballots cast.  I will qualify this to the extent that people are predictable.  Thus, polls taken of likely voters shortly before an election are often an accurate indicator of results.  In contrast, in elections like the January 19 Iowa caucus,  where an unexpectedly large number of new voters showed up, all bets are off.  On January 19,  the polls and the pundits were wrong, and the politicians - including Gov Dean - who listened to them were wrong.  The results were not predicted;  they were a surprise.

Which brings us back to horse races.  The results could not have been better for the media,  especially those who are invested in 2004 election news.  Races are modern derivatives of battles, wars and blood sports. The heart of every sport is the winner and loser,  just as in the everyday struggle of life with death.  Races are thrilling because elating,  attracting while frightening, chilling because terrifying.  As in war, every so often someone is seriously injured or killed in a race.  The blood never goes away;  that proves the serious meaning of the event.  At some level, all spectators are aware of the deeper significance of the race for themselves;  their lust for life,  their horror of disability and their fear of death.  That is why races have been eternally popular,  and probably will remain so.

Now, please recall the media thrives on money,  which results from ratings.  Races get high ratings.  NASCAR or politics:  it doesn't matter, as long as there is a race.  To keep the money rolling in, absent the occasional ratings phenomenon ("the natural"),  the media will hawk a race.  O.J. and the other defendants are presented as if in a race with the prosecution.  Larry King and Court TV spend a lot of time handicapping the fine points of the contenders.  It keeps them on the air.  The mass media "bleed" the last buck out of those races by presenting them in every conceivable setting, over and over.  The "run life" of a race is not determined by viewer acceptance,  but by advertiser willingness (based on ratings and perceptions).

Thus,  initially it is viewer acceptance that puts something on display,  but advertising money that keeps it on display.  Generally,  there is a lag between public disinterest and finally product removal,  because those who invested in the product are interested in keeping "a good thing going."

Now consider the modern idea of "managed markets."  This is dramatically different from naive capitalism,  or anything Adam Smith wrote about in Wealth of Nations.  Modern advertising started in the Roaring Twenties with the advent of mass circulation magazines and radio.  Advertising techniques were rapidly improved during the Depression,  especially by the Nazis in Germany.  The use of visual media (Hollywood)  was pioneered in the 1930s in America and Germany.  Following World War II,  corporations discovered Madison Avenue and television.  All the modern advances in psychology and sociology,  and Hollywood's artistic techniques,  were brought together by Madison Avenue in the 1950s and following decades. Now, advertising (usually, "communications") is an academic profession which takes novices years to master.  The result is that you see masterpieces of rhetoric on TV;  potent pieces of persuasion for those not prepared to cope with it.  You will do what those masters ask,  if you watch it enough.

Detroit does not produce cars based on unbiased demand.  The auto makers consult with Madison Avenue and calculate how much demand can be induced.  "Unbiased demand" is, for example, the number of those who would buy the product in the absence of any suggestion (advertising).  "Induced demand" is the number who would buy when suggestion is provided.  How much demand is induced depends on the type of suggestion and other circumstances (about which Madison Avenue is very expert). The difference between induced and unbiased demand is commercially important because, most likely, Detroit wouldn't exist without induced demand.  Inducing demand is 'market creation;' i.e., the making of a mass market.

Once demand is induced, the market is maintained by market management. Market management uses polls and other tools to determine consumer acceptance, and that feedback is used to re-jigger the advertising. The results of this process are measured by sales, rating and/or approval polls.  It matters not whether the product is actually useful or useless, helpful or harmful;  it only matters that it sells.  So it is with McDonalds: how many billions sold?

The movie BRAVE NEW WORLD (starring Leonard Nemoy) is a brazen,  chilling reflection of ourselves,  the self-referential mass market cut loose from any moral anchor.

What's the Point?

Why have I dragged you through this unwelcome territory?  Because, it is in the media's interest to have a horse race. That's what they call it, and even have the temerity to tell you so (just every so often, but not too often, on the "political" shows).   News media "stars,"  such as Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings must have a story to tell.  (NBC's anchor just retired, so he's off my charts.)  What better story than the Presidency,  which affects almost everyone on this planet?

It should be obvious the Republicans are running George W Bush: no race there.  Fortunately,  Democrats  had 9 candidates at the gate;  lots of potential there.  Then, another horse (Gen Clark) got into the race late and by-passed the starting gate. What a story, what a crazy race!  He's up, he's down!  No, wait, back in the ring after a 9 count!  Saved by the bell!

For networks like CNN and FOX, which have invested heavily in politics, there's nothing like the horse race.  CNN doesn't care who wins,  even if FOX does.  Win or lose, those networks and the others just want it to go on as long as possible, because, folks, remember what Dillinger told the FBI: "that's where the money is."  It's just that simple.  (For those who think FOX more principled,  consider its owner, Rupert Murdoch, whose credo is the almighty buck, Aussie, US or otherwise.)

When Gov Dean was nobody,  the media built him up.  He was an exciting entry.  When he threatened to take the race away,  they tore him down.  The same sort of thing is going on now in New Hampshire.  Iowans surprisingly voted in Senators Kerry and Edwards,  which got Kerry and Edwards back in the media's spotlight.  The media have zeroed in on Kerry; he's the "comeback kid." (He's UP!) Media stars and pundits are telling us "Dean is Dead." (He's DOWN!)  It doesn't matter why, or what the eventual outcome means for the country.  That's just the way it is.  Now the media support Kerry,  because they want to ride him as long as possible.

Watch it, Senator Kerry, in a few days there's the South Carolina and other primaries where your campaign may have problems.  Southerners don't buy Yankee molasses and rum anymore.  Hometown boy Senator Edwards may soon be riding high.  Then, it'll be your turn to give a real Rebel Yell.

Advantage Kerry?

It's just before the New Hampshire primary.  The polls show Senator Kerry leading there.  But, I'm a Deanie,  so I have to ask,  just what is it that the Senator stands for?  I have the effrontery to ask this,  despite my admiration for Senator Kennedy, who has endorsed John Kerry.

What about health care?  Senator Kerry is opposed to any single-payer plan, that is, nationalized medicine.  He does promise to make private health insurance more affordable by subsidizing catastrophic care insurance.  That's insurance for medical costs over $50,000 per incident.  He believes his approach would enable up to 3/4 of those presently uninsured to obtain insurance.  You would still have to buy the insurance, albeit at hoped-for lower rates.

Rep Kucinich and Rev Sharpton favor a single-payer plan which Kucinich has introduced as a bill in Congress. Sens Edwards and Lieberman are generally opposed to spending as much money on health care as would Sen Kerry.  Wesley Clark is almost as generous as Kerry.

Dr Dean's program would cover everyone. Dr Dean has said many times he would support a single-payer plan, if he thought it would pass Congress.  So, Dr Dean is offering greater help on medical care than Sen Kerry,  and is sympathetic to comprehensive solutions.

Then, there's Iraq.  What are to make of Sen Kerry's vote against the Gulf War, and then his vote for the Iraq war?  The punditocracy suggested, at the time (Fall, 2002), that a number of Senators voted for the war resolutions because of their Presidential aspirations.  It appears Sen Kerry also wanted to overcome the "pacifist" perception resulting from his vote against Gulf War I. As Senator Kennedy explained on CNN, January 25, 2004,  those Senators would have that power for themselves,  were they President.  So, a desire for power overcame the national good.

Rep Gephardt and Sen Dashle decided to give George W Bush the war powers the President sought,  calculating that the war in Iraq would be a non-issue in the 2002 elections.  With the war out of the way,  Democrats would proceed to win the Fall by-election  on domestic issues.  Since the Democratic leadership did not think the Iraq war was a significant matter,  it was probably all the easier for Senators to vote their approval.  It is doubtful any of the Washington Establishment believed they would be called to account for their votes on Iraq.  Thus, supposed political advantage overcame the national good.

Despite Dashle, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman, Rep Kucinich and Sen Graham (D-FL) found their way to vote against the war.  For the latter, the war was a major issue requiring some discussion.  Kucinich and Graham did not dismiss the growing anti-war movement and opposition to the war.  Part of that movement were Gov Dean, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun.  (It's not clear where Clark stood last year.)

There is no doubt Senator Kerry is a well-meaning, liberal Democrat.  He is a long time associate of Sen Kennedy. He was a founder of Vietnam Vets against the War.  He has been in Washington, DC for 35 years.  He is one of the Washington Establishment.

Promises and Policy

So, what's wrong with Senators Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman?

For me,  everything.  I pledged NOT to support any candidate who voted for the Iraq War way back in September, 2002.  I keep my promises,  so those Senators are not on my ballot card.  I don't know whether or not I could vote for Gen Clark.

I advocate solving the medical care problems under a single-payer system.  I can go along with Gov Dean's half-hearted support,  but I cannot accept those Senators' opposition.  I can't figure out what are Gen Clark's proposals on this subject.

The Senators supported the Patriot Act.  Edwards wrote the Act.  Kerry and Edwards acknowledge there are problems with it.  Generally,  their solution is to amend the Act.  I and Gov Dean urge repealing the Act, or letting it expire in 2005.  You cannot "fix" civil liberties violations.

Gov Dean, and Senators Edwards and Kerry, advocate fixing WTO and NAFTA,  recognizing there are problems in globalization.  Rep Kucinich advocates abolishing regional and global  trade agreements.  I agree with Gov Dean,  that we need free trade,  but we also need Executive action to improve labor and environmental standards.  I don't agree with Kucinich on abolishing NAFTA and WTO.

But, let's skip the rest of these particulars,  as some might say it's really 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other,  in comparing the Democratic candidates.  What's really my big beef?

The answer is the Democratic  party, the Establishment and politics over policy.  I feel it is politically and morally wrong to decide whether to go to war for venal or trivial reasons.  This is not a matter to be decided between the entree and soup,  after a glass or two.  But, the Democratic Establishment appears to have done just that.

People are staying in office as a career, not for reasons of national interest.  When I was much younger,  I thought term limits would solve that problem.  Alas,  it didn't.  In fact, Gingrich led the Republicans in using that issue to throw out Democrats in favor of themselves. Later, when time was up, those same Republicans decided term limits did not apply to them.  Power corrupts because it is delicious to have it.  So, I'm not for term limits anymore.  The only way to get rid of the self-seeking careerists is by running and voting against them.  Not only is 'eternal vigilance the price of liberty,'  but so is eternal protesting and campaigning.  It's damn hard to keep the game honest.

One of Gov Dean's major goals is reform of the Democratic party,  not just getting elected President.  In that I concur, and give thrice three Hoorahs!

You have to have an ego to run for public office,  to think your ideas are just a little bit better,  to believe that others should do you bidding.  But, if all you have is vanity,  you do not deserve any office.  In a democracy, policy is the result of politics;  those words are intimately related. Democracy is not about the office-holder.

When the goal of political activity is merely to determine who will sit in a seat,  the political system should be considered authoritarian.  It doesn't matter whether it is a King who is "elected,"  or "first among Equals" selected.  When the particular person is all, the rest of us are none;  and that is not a democracy.

So, people should be voting for a candidate first for policy reasons, second for ability to carry out policy, and only third or last for the candidate's pleasing qualities.

I ask you to consider these propositions very carefully.  I ask you to conclude with me,  that we have been suffering under a very undemocratic government for some time.  I ask you to conclude that even the opposition party, now the Democrats, has been  corrupted by venality and personal ambition.

If "We the People" are not in charge of our government, who is?  What sort of government do we have?  Or, as I asked in the Wall Street Journal at the outset of the Iraq War debate, "What kind of country is this?"

Gov Dean is the one candidate who sees all of this clearly,  and promises to change what's wrong.  It's all about "Taking Our Country Back."

January 25, 2004

Last update: 11/02/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.