The Politics of Black Friday

Why do otherwise rational people drag themselves out of bed at 4:00 AM the day after a holiday?

Why are perceptions so important in politics?

The same reason: the bandwagon effect.

It is easier for people to follow the crowd than engage in independent thinking. Thinking, after all, means you must take some time to evaluate a situation, or a candidate, before making up your mind.

That's why most people who are members of a political party, or a particular worldview such as conservatism or the religious right, will automatically adopt all the opinions espoused by the group. Otherwise, they must think about each particular item, and that might take some time, or, God forbid, require some reading and investigation instead of watching another mind-numbing television show.

So, if all the media outlets make a big hoopla about shopping the day after Thanksgiving, and the retail stores join the hype, people will respond en masse.

Thus, everything becomes a game of expectations. Of course, politicians are constantly trying to manage expectations because sometimes, if you do better than anticipated, even if you don't win, it will be viewed as a victory.

And if enough stores run commercials on TV advertising their 4 AM opening, and the news channels cover Black Friday as if it were a major phenomenon (like lemmings jumping off a cliff), the people will show up, almost against their will.

So here's a plea to the public at large. The next time you decide on a seemingly insane course of action, or evaluate a political candidate who will lead our country for the next four-to-eight years, avoid a snap judgement and mull over your options for just a little bit longer.

Political discourse and the horse race

Political pundits on TV periodically bemoan the level of political discourse in the United States. They claim coverage of the campaign for President typically consists of who's ahead, who's behind, and by how much.

Instead of covering policy proposals by the candidates, news programs dutifully report the polling percentages instead. This is referred to, with some disdain, as the "horse race."

Why does this happen? Because the American people are more interested in the horse race than differentiating abstruse details on health insurance, energy, education and military proposals. Anyway, except for one or two extreme candidates, most of the Democrats agree with each other on the broad strokes of political philosophy and the role of government. Most of the Republicans, with the notable exceptions of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, are the same.

As the owner of a full-service public relations firm, Cut-It-Out Communications, and with a degree in Government, I inherently understand this situation. Repetition is the key to any persuasive effort aimed at a large number of people. Whether it's a business running the same TV commercial ad nauseum, or a politician reciting the same stump speech across the nation, repetition ensures saturation into the collective public mind. Propagandists often spout that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it even if it's false.

And so, the level of political discourse suffers. The media, unfortunately, abets this situation. Reporters are faced with the alternative of repeating the candidates platitudes over and over again as they meticulously stay "on message," or covering something more exciting, the horse race.

This situation has slowly become ingrained in political coverage, especially for mass media outlets. Today, the main hope for politically-active, informed citizenry is centered on the Internet. More on this in a future post.

Why I Support Hillary

Why do I support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President?

You mean besides the fact that she has had to cope with discrimination against women in the legal profession, one of the last to be reformed?

Besides this discrimination has given her a natural empathy for minorities and the outcast?

Besides enduring national humiliation because of her husband's wanderings and her determination to stick by his side?

Besides recognizing the healthcare debacle as one of the outrages of our time?

Besides her knowledge of said arena and her painfully earned recognition of the forces arrayed against its reform?

Besides her intuitive understanding as a woman and mother about the very real impact of war, ruining one family at a time?

Besides her determination to work together with all Americans instead of splitting them apart?

Besides her amazing record in the U.S. Senate, where she has silenced critics and impressed independent New York citizens, who provided her with an overwhelming landslide in her campaign for reelection?

Besides her willingness to listen instead of pontificate?

Besides the relationships she has developed with key world leaders during her years as First Lady?

Besides her position on global warming and her refusal to become an ostrich like George Bush, who has stuck his head in the sand until it might be too late?

Besides the vicious attacks she has endured, and will continue to endure, from friend and foe alike, and the cool poise and leadership she shows in response?

Besides her refusal to be pigeon-holed as a liberal and her ability to think independently of any worldview?

Besides her very real devotion to her family, and fierce protection of Chelsea, during her years as First Lady, an evidence of family values far greater than the Republican hypocrites?

Besides the fact she will pick the best and brightest for her advisors, Cabinet and staff, unlike the cronyism of the Bush administration?

Besides her ability to renew the image of the United States abroad?

Besides she will not need as much on-the-job training, during these dangerous times, as her Democratic and Republican competitors?

I'll tell you why. Because she has a good, generous heart and a keen, insightful mind. Because she is flexible and can adapt to changing situations, growing as a person and a leader in the process. And because, after all this time in the public eye, I've come to know her well enough to trust her with the country I love.

Saving Face

The concept of saving face was fundamental to Japanese society where warriors would often commit hari-kari by falling on their sword rather than endure dishonor or humiliation.

But this week in Washington, we saw the effects of saving face in our society. Senator Chuck Schumer, in one of his more helpful moments, had recommended Michael Mukasey to George W. Bush as a possible consensus candidate for Attorney General after the disastrous tenure of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales was accused of firing United States Attorneys for political reasons, perjuring himself on Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, and writing a secret memo authorizing the use of physical interrogations that many described as torture.

Surprisingly, Bush listened to Schumer's advice. After the nomination of Mukasey, Schumer crowed that the nomination would have bi-partisan support.

But events don't always go according to plan. Mukasey opined that the President didn't always have to follow the law in national emergencies, and, most signicantly, refused to characterize waterboarding as torture.

Of course, Schumer had argued strenously against both those positions. But he proved unable to extract himself from his own pride since the President had followed his advice. He didn't want to be the only Democrat supporting Mukasey so he hunted around, and, through his own persuasive gifts, convinced Diane Feinstein to support Mukasey as well. As a result, the nomination will probably be voted out of committee and approved by the entire Senate.

Thus, Schumer showed an inability to retreat from his strong support of Mukasey despite the results of the Senate investigation, an investigation that found Mukasey diametrically opposed to everything Schumer believed in.

Why? Because Schumer needed to save face. That's the same affliction as George W. Bush who refuses to admit error in a disastrous war.