Gorgias visits Yale, Polus is alive and well and hacking at K2

My Democratic Rhetoric class read Plato's Gorgias (his dialogue attacking rhetoric from both a moral and a pragmatic angle) the week before Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain gave a lecture at Yale.

My professor was amazed by the similarity between the scenes, the charismatic orator in front of a crowd of eager, ambitious young people, promising that, if they followed his teachings, they would have

the word which persuades the judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting?--if you have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude.

Westen's thought-provoking book argues that Democrats could actually win elections if they used research on emotional intelligences and networks of associations to better target their messages. The book is worth reading for the close readings of major political ad campaigns alone, and Westen certainly covers the issues that plague the Dems (abortion, health care) with more coherence and less controversy in the frames and talking points he proposes.

But, as in Gorgias, the effectiveness of Westen's methods is called into question less by his description of his methods and more by blind spots where his method is, apparently useless. Gorgias is undermined by his consistent need to defend the morality of teaching rhetoric. He lives in fear of the inhabitants of the various towns who might banish him or worse, but if rhetoric truly gave him the near absolute powers he claimed, he should never fear an angry mob.

The weakness of Westen's method came out in the informal Q&A that followed his lecture. I had read the book and had noticed that many of Westen's proposed talking points included references to Scripture or the speaker's faith, Did he think, I asked, that irreligious candidates could still use his methods or be elected at all? Should the Democrats be imposing a religious litmus test on candidates for their own good?

Westen replied that he believed that atheists couldn't win. Further, he had been asked to run for Congress in his native Georgia and had turned down the Party Elders in large part because he felt his (fairly disaffected) Judaism would be a sticking point that even his rhetorical skills couldn't help him escape.

If Westen is right, I think this is a big problem for American democracy (not to mention any of my hopes for holding office). Westen's approach, ultimately, isn't built on manipulating others by using deceptive practices like priming, but, rather, to reassure voters that your positions are grounded in values that are similar to theirs. It's a shame if we can't trust anyone who doesn't worship our god to share the principles that we care about, particularly as faith in god has not, of late, been a particularly good guarantor of respecting any of his creatures.

Apocalypse Forestalled. Drat!

In an article titled "Ah Spring! Baseball, Colliding Protons" Dennis Overbye has a sad tale to tell. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), due to the recent liquid helium leak, will not be firing up again until April 2009.

...and I felt a great disturbance under the earth, as though hundreds of researchers had suddenly cried out in terror and run past their grant deadlines.

Until the LHC comes back online, refresh your memory of the LHC's methods and goals here, double check whether the LHC has released earth-devouring stranglets yet here, and hope that the LHC doesn't get pushed back past December 21, 2012, since the only thing worse than dying in the apocalypse knowing that you could have died in the cool, did-we-push-past-the-limits-of-what-Man-was-meant-to-know? apocalypse and got stuck in the lame, it-took-the-Mayan-gods-about-one-thousand-years-to-notice-we-stopped-worshipping-and-then-got-pissed apocalypse.

All I know is, people only write operas about the first kind.

Lateblogging Tony Blair

No laptops allowed in the hall meant no liveblogging. (And, for a slapstick-filled hour, the changing rules books but no bags, nothing held in your hands, newspapers but no magazine supplements to the NYT, and finally, books allowed again necessitated several trips off the line back to my dorm. Thanks ever so, Scotland Yard.) Below are my thoughts on Blair's speech:

First: Blair is a consummate showman. Anyone who watched this interview without knowing who he is would assume he was a well-known actor or author, rather than a politician. Again and again he chose to go for the laugh line, rather than the applause line in his responses to questions. He was well-spoken and utterly at ease in a manner that seems foreign to American politics. While Obama and other politicians may be comfortable in interviews because of lengthy prep work, they (and the audience) are always aware of the (high) stakes. Blair seemed to have lowered the stakes to a more relaxed, Oprah-like level, never becoming flustered or too intense.

On to policy:

It figures that Yale put the Iraq question in the mouth of the student, the person Blair is least likely to take seriously. Blair doesn't regret his actions in Iraq, but never once does the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" (let alone "Downing Street Memo") escape his lips. Blair's ultimate objective is setting up a viable counter-narrative to that presented by extremist, anti-modernity Islam. Since he explicitly stated that this goal can not be achieved solely by applications of violence, the obvious question was: Why did Iraq become the front line of this narrative-war? Why was violence necessary there, but not other countries (like, oh, Saudi Arabia)?

These questions were neither asked nor answered.

Overall: Entertaining, but not particularly enlightening.

Real Sarah Palin facts

40% of registered voters have a favorable impression of Sarah Palin.
38% of registered voters have a favorable impression of Joe Biden.

It's a little surprising that McCain's August Surprise isn't any more popular than Joe "clean and articulate" Biden, but it gets worse.

17% of registered voters have a unfavorable impression of Joe Biden.
30% of registered voters have a unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin.

Her high unfavorables don't matter so much as long as she turns our the evangelicals, but she's not likely to turn independents or PUMA. And she's not boosting the "maverick McCain" storyline, either: 75% believe McCain picked her solely to win the election.

But I'm sure McCain and his staffers probably skipped over most of those numbers in favor of this one:
59% of voters believe McCain won't bring change to Washington. That's only five percentage points lower than the percent that believe Obama will bring change.

But, hey, what's to change? "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"

[All stats from today's NYT]

Word of the Day: Antimetabole

(h/t to Juliet Lapidos of Slate)

Antimetabole (according to Dictionary.com: An`ti*me*tab"o*le\, n. (Rhet.) A figure in which the same words or ideas are repeated in transposed order.

At the conventions alone:

We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. - McCain

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. - Palin

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power. - B. Clinton

Great antimetabole of the past:

You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man. - Frederick Douglass

Ask not what your country can do for you —- ask what you can do for your country. - JFK

Fantastic rhetorical device, and I'm so delighted to be able to put a name to it.

What the Left does right

I'm a week late commenting (and complimenting) Sarah Vowell's op-ed which appeared in the Week in Review section of last Sunday's NYT. Here is how it begins:

ON Monday night at the Democratic National Convention, Caroline Kennedy introduced a tribute to her uncle, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, by pointing out, “If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell Grant has made it more affordable, Teddy is your senator, too.”

To my surprise, I started to cry. Started to cry like I was watching the last 10 minutes of “Brokeback Mountain” instead of C-SPAN. This was whimpering brought on by simple, spontaneous gratitude.

Vowell relied on Pell Grant's to get through college. The grant wasn't enough to pay her way or to let her get out of working. It simply meant she had to work ten fewer hours a week.

Ten extra hours a week might sound negligible, but do you know what a determined, junior-Hillary type of hick with a full course load and onion-scented hands can do with the gift of 10 whole hours per week? Not flunk geology, that’s what. Take German every day at 8 a.m. — for fun! Wander into the office of the school paper on a whim and find a calling. I’m convinced that those 10 extra hours a week are the reason I graduated magna cum laude, which I think is Latin for “worst girlfriend in town.”

I recommend reading the whole article, which is moving and well argued. The Pell Grant Vowell recieved changed her life, without representing too large a fiscal burden for the government (Vowell has since paid back her Pell Grant many times in the form of the increased income taxes she pays on her increased income).

The Pell Grant program is one of the best governmental programs I can think of. It's not a hand-out or a "special right," it just helps hard-working, motivated students clear one bureaucratic hurdle so they can succeed on their own merits. Government governs best when it clears obstacles out of the way of hard-working people who are doing the right thing but just need a boost.

So next time you go knocking the Dems, think about a world without Pell Grants. It's a world that makes it that much harder for poor students to go to college and compete academically with their peers, a world that makes it harder for children to escape the misfortunes or poor decisions of their parents. It's a world in which Assassination Vacation was probably never written.

I don't think any of us prefer that world.


UPDATE: I've just noticed that both posts that I've tagged "verklempt" are about Teddy Kennedy. Just mentioning.

Pandering? For me? You shouldn't have!

Science Debate 2008 prepared a list of 14 questions for the candidates, and today, Barack Obama's answers went up (h/t i09). Among the highlights:

As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight . . . I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

Specifically, I will implement a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. I will start reducing emissions immediately by establishing strong annual reduction targets with an intermediate goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

And my favorite:

[I will] strengthen the role of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) by appointing experts who are charged to provide independent advice on critical issues of science and technology. The PCAST will once again be advisory to the president. (emphasis added)

Needless to say, PCAST got booted under Bush.

I'd rather leave (Bristol's) baby in the corner

...because I'd rather talk about this.

Arguing that religious faith is pertinent inasmuch as it relates to character is one thing, but (according to this NYT profile her mayoral campaign took it way too far.

The traditional turning points that had decided municipal elections in this town of less than 7,000 people — Should we pave the dirt roads? Put in sewers? Which candidate is your hunting buddy? — seemed all but obsolete the year Ms. Palin, then 32, challenged the three-term incumbent, John C. Stein...

“Sarah comes in with all this ideological stuff, and I was like, ‘Whoa,’ ” said Mr. Stein, who lost the election. “But that got her elected: abortion, gun rights, term limits and the religious born-again thing. I’m not a churchgoing guy, and that was another issue: ‘We will have our first Christian mayor.’ ”

“I thought: ‘Holy cow, what’s happening here? Does that mean she thinks I’m Jewish or Islamic?’ ” recalled Mr. Stein, who was raised Lutheran, and later went to work as the administrator for the city of Sitka in southeast Alaska. “The point was that she was a born-again Christian.”

Palin wasn't just skillfully using the wedge issue for personal gain; it appears that questions of faith make too big a difference in her governing:

In her speech to the Wasilla Assembly of God in June, Ms. Palin said it was “God’s will” that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska.

Her religious rhetoric is not just a veneer to sugarcoat policy choices, it is the basis of those choices. Time is reporting that:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Please let me know when the talking heads leave Bristol alone and start discussing these choices. When faith trumps facts on issues of public policy, you're damn right it's a character issue.

Mental Health Break: It was a dark and stormy night...

This blog has been dark for a few days as I moved back to school and caught up with many of these guys. Normal blogging will resume tomorrow, but one delightful item had to be addressed today.

For those unfamiliar with the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, it is named for Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, who began his novel, Paul Clifford, with the following famous (and wretched) line:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Since 1983, the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Competition has sought out the worst opening line to a work of fiction (the line is not required to actually be part of a novel and is usually invented specifically for the competition).

So, congratulations to Mr. Garrison Spik, the winner of the 2008 contest, who was profiled in today's NYT. His opening line follows:

Theirs was a New York love, a checkered taxi ride burning rubber, and like the city their passion was open 24/7, steam rising from their bodies like slick streets exhaling warm, moist, white breath through manhole covers stamped ‘Forged by DeLaney Bros., Piscataway, N.J.’

Welcome back.