Lying awake the other early morning, I found the twin images of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton coming into my mind. Maybe it was the Ambien, but inevitably the choice between those two haunts the fevered brow in the dead of night. I realized that beyond the policy arguments, my psyche sees the decision between the two of them as the choice, baldly put, between fear and loathing. I loathe Clinton; I fear Giuliani. Which emotion surges most? Clinton could still pull it out as my least favorite, but right now, my fear of Giuliani is outweighing my loathing of Clinton. David Brooks reminds me today how that didn’t use to be the case. I always admired Giuliani, marveled at what he did with New York City, liked his social liberalism, admired his way with bureaucracies, enjoyed his knockabout style. Any pol who’s happy to put a dress on for a bit of fun is fine by me.
But that was before 9/11, and before the Bush-Cheney presidency. All the things I admired about Giuliani as mayor loom as liabilities as president. The security state is understandably more pervasive and powerful than before. But the newly empowered executive branch – with powers to seize anyone anywhere without charges and torture them if necessary – makes a man with the instincts and temperament of Giuliani a real danger in the White House. Oddly, then, it is 9/11 that has made Giuliani intolerable to me. His obsessive loyalty to aides, his reflexive defense of the security and police forces, his discomfort with any argument smacking of civil liberties, his mean streak, his desire to extend his own term of office as New York City mayor, his authoritarian, meddling instincts, and his frequent, hotheaded outbursts: all this make giving him the Cheney-style presidency a huge risk. Maybe not immediately – but in the wake of another terror attack, I don’t think anyone can feel comfortable with what he might do to the Constitution and American liberty. Maybe this worry of mine will lead to charges of "shrill hysteria" from those already declaring that it’s World War IV, but it’s my gut sense of the kind of man Giuliani is and the kind of world he would confront as president. We can’t risk him under those circumstances. So it’s back to dealing with a candidate who, however loathesome, is not quite as dangerous.
Blogging has been light this long, Thanksgiving weekend. I’ve been spending some down-time with hubby, friends and beagles. I’ll keep blogging but not the usual frantic pace. Once we get back, it’s going to be one crazy ride to the nominations.
Rob Anderson squares off against Kate Sheppard. Her bottom line:
Most of the discrimination directed at the LGBT community is based not on actual knowledge that someone’s sexual orientation is something other than heterosexual, or seeing direct evidence thereof, but on the suspicion that one might be. That suspicion comes from assumptions about how men and women should speak, interact with others, groom themselves, or dress—all of which falls solidly in the gender identity and expression realm. If gender identity is excluded from ENDA, the protections for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals aren’t actually guaranteed, as a detailed examination of the legislation conducted by Lambda Legal concluded.
Stephen Fry discovers something:
I was warned many, many years ago by the great Jonathan Lynn, co-creator of Yes Minister and director of the comic masterpiece My Cousin Vinnie, that Americans are not raised in a tradition of debate and that the adversarial ferocity common around a dinner table in Britain is more or less unheard of in America. When Jonathan first went to live in LA he couldn’t understand the terrible silences that would fall when he trashed an statement he disagreed with and said something like “yes, but that’s just arrant nonsense, isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense. It’s self-contradictory.” To a Briton pointing out that something is nonsense, rubbish, tosh or logically impossible in its own terms is not an attack on the person saying it – it’s often no more than a salvo in what one hopes might become an enjoyable intellectual tussle.
Jonathan soon found that most Americans responded with offence, hurt or anger to this order of cut and thrust. Yes, one hesitates ever to make generalizations, but let’s be honest the cultures are different, if they weren’t how much poorer the world would be and Americans really don’t seem to be very good at or very used to the idea of a good no-holds barred verbal scrap. I’m not talking about inter-family ‘discussions’ here, I don’t doubt that within American families and amongst close friends, all kinds of liveliness and hoo-hah is possible, I’m talking about what for good or ill one might as well call dinner-party conversation. Disagreement and energetic debate appears to leave a loud smell in the air.
I think that’s why I enjoy blogging so much. It has Anglicized American debate somewhat. But my jousting still evokes hurt or anger or personal woundedness. Nothing personal is intended, even when I rip into another blogger, or, ahem, a presidential candidate.
Mark Blumenthal tries to calm down those who see a Romney dirty trick. A commenter notes that two of the 600 recipients of the calls just happened to be Romney staffers who subsequently expressed outrage to the press. The firm that did the polling also has Romney donors high up in its staff.
Will it blend?
A useful nuance in the debate:
Geneticists have come up with the concept of a reaction norm to describe the range of environments in which a genetic trait might develop. Under this view, characteristics of organisms are not either innate or learned: they vary in the width of the reaction norm describing the kind of environmental inputs they require. Under this view, the race and IQ question comes down to the question of whether African IQ deficits are like dark African skin, so pervasive across all imaginable environments that calling them innate is perfectly reasonable as a first approximation, or more like African-American success in popular music, for which we require no scientific evidence to attribute to the particular combination of history, culture and sociology of the present time. We are justifiably offended by a hypotheses involving, say, an innate gift of rhythm.
What we’re discussing is a function of both genetics and environment and their interaction. I don’t think those pointing out resilient racial differences in IQ are positing anything as crude as "innate."
A Christianist predicts:
Narratives about positions on public policy are like enormous steamships: It takes a long time to turn them around. But if the news of stem-cell breakthroughs prove accurate, we may well see over the next few years a gradual reversal in news stories and editorials. Watch for it, now that abortion is out of the equation: Much less hype about all the miracle cures that stem cells will bring us, more suspicion about the cancers and genetic pollution that may result, and just about the same amount of bashing of religious believers—this time for their ignorant support of science.
Hat tip: Ross.
