Oratorical Animal

Corporate College Sports

During my eleven years at the University of Georgia, I became a Dawgs football fan. So, naturally, I tuned into the Belk Bowl between UGA and the University of Louisville. I can't get one feature out of my head. The announcers cut to a Belk's department store and showed the players shopping. Turns out that Belk could legally give them a gift certificate and the kids--yes, kids--were thrilled. One unnamed player, it was said, broke down in tears because he could finally give his Mom a Christmas present--a coffee maker. The ESPN announcers were thrilled with his generosity. The school athletic departments received millions, I'm guessing. The kid got a coffee maker.

This was on top of a pretty bad year for college men's football and basketball, the corporate sports. The University of North Carolina, it was revealed, has engaged in a massive academic fraud for the past two decades to keep its players eligible. Florida State has resolutely ignored crimes committed by its athletes, with the full cooperation of the Tallahassee police department. The list could likely go on.

But what's increasingly starting to bother me is the day to day stuff. Millions for coaches, barely a dime for players. Games virtually every day of the week, which makes claims that the athletic departments care about the health of these students a joke, particularly in football. A kind of athletic industrial complex that makes a huge amount of money for a few at enormous cost to the many--to schools that cheat, to student athletes who suffer serious physical damage, to people all across the university who compromise their integrity--heck, to the good sense of anyone who has to pretend that the NCAA actually polices anything with any sense of justice. It is a bad, bad system.

I'm hugely torn here--my brain says what the hell and my heart yells, "Woof, woof, woof." What do I do? I'm starting to wean myself. I know I can't quit cold turkey. But I'm going to work on paying less attention to the corporate sports, the big two. I've consciously worked on learning about the UI women's basketball team, gone to my first women's volleyball and basketball games this year, and I'm going to spend more time with softball and baseball. If they'd ever actually host an outdoor track meet here, I'd go to that. 

I truly enjoy watching sports and I know I'll still talk about the big 2 and watch some. But I'm taking my attention and my dollars elsewhere more often. Because this system is rotten for many. And I'm voting with my feet.  

Ferguson and the Founders

I've been mulling over Danielle Allen's marvelous new book, Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality  . It's helped me to think through the reason for my anger over the acts of our justice system and, in turn, one reason why this is so very bad for our nation.

The Declaration declares that "all men are created equal." Since the moment Congress approved the draft, Americans have debated precisely what they--we--meant--mean--by that phrase. Was it only men? White men? All men? Men and women? Did God create? An accident of evolution? Aliens? And what do we mean by equality? Was--Is--it a right or, as Lincoln would have us take it, a proposition, one that needed to be tested not only by a great civil war, but also by the challenges posed to each generation as each makes and maintains a government of the people, by the people, for the people?

As you can tell, I'm inclined toward Lincoln--I live in Illinois, after all--and he not only defined the phrase as a proposition, but he also gave it a particular kind of meaning in his December 1, 1862 Annual Message. He wrote: "In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve." Both freedom and equality are, he thought, indivisible. To threaten the equality of one is to threaten the equality of all. Reciprocity underlined and gave force to our most fundamental national values.

Yet there is more to this, as the founders understood. The Declaration, Allen notes, records the first action taken by the American people as a people: they "petitioned [the King] for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." To be equal demands reciprocity--responsiveness--in relationships.

What did the colonists want? As a free people, they expected their government to respond. Perhaps they might not get all that they wanted, but their status, their dignity, as a free people demanded of their rulers that they respond fairly, openly, clearly. People have a right, the founders felt, to expect their rulers to understand the people's interests. As Allen writes, "If a king doesn't take his subjects interests to heart, he's not really doing his job. Reciprocity--or mutual responsiveness--is at the heart of justice." That is why the founders included the right to petition in the Constitution. They wrote into the heart of our founding dcuments the demand that the government respond to our grievances.

There is more still, I think. For when rulers, friends, husbands, wives, partners reject the rule of reciprocity, they not only damage the relationship, they also perform a kind of erasure. The right to an honest, heartfelt, thoughtful, caring response is fundamental to our identity. When someone denies us (3x before the cock crows), types us, refuses us, s/he erases us. We are not worthy. We are not a free people, are not citizens, are not due even the courtesy of a phone call, of any sort of recognition. We are wiped away.

In that situation, the founders concluded, a free people must make the ruler respond. They must organize, they must dump the tea into the harbor, they must "effect their Safety and Happiness."

Reciprocity is at the heart of justice. "A long train of abuses and usurpations" has created a situation in which some of our fellow citizens can no longer expect justice, recognition, or reciprocity. We owe it to them, to ourselves, to make it right.

 

A Quick Review of the Oval Office Address

After President Obama delivered yet another one of his weird, standing at a podium televised speeches last night, several people were wondering whatever happened to the classic Oval Office Address, that monument to our rhetorical youth. So far as I can tell, the story goes something like this.

The advent of television roughly coincided with that of the Cold War and presidents took full advantage of that fact. When they needed to speak to the nation on important matters, they generally sat at a desk in the Oval Office, sometimes with a desk podium and sometimes not. Most often, there was some sort of backdrop--a curtain or whatever--with flags on either side. Reagan skipped the backdrop and showed us the lovely view out the back. Most of us remember his speeches as the norm.

That style reflected the Cold War. It was a bipolar world and the president led freedom's forces from his command center, the White House, and when he spoke to the American people, it was from that platform. We could rest assured that the leader of the free world was doing his job from where he was supposed to be.

But as the world fragmented, so, too, did presidential public address. The end of the Cold War meant that the president had to attend to multiple problems and peoples and, to show his management of those issues, he often traveled to those places or spoke from scenes designed to reflect our concerns. Of course, this happened during the Cold War--the Berlin Wall was a favorite backdrop for Cold War presidents--but that change accelerated at the Cold War's close.

In addition, Ronald Reagan had trained in movies, hosted television shows, and regarded the camera as his best friend. If you haven't tried it, giving a speech straight into the unblinking eye is hard. Reagan learned to do it better than anyone. As a result, I suspect, subsequent presidents did not want that comparison.

H.W. Bush soldiered manfully on, as he did with nearly everything in his life, but the baby boomers put an end to the Oval Office address. Clinton sometimes used it, esp. for foreign policy statements, such as his speech announcing the Bosnian peace accord, but more often found other venues. In fact, he loved the State of the Union and tended to reserve major policy statements for that venue. W., too, hated the Oval Office speech. Both, I think, needed people--needed audience reaction, needed to be able to connect to the people in order to deliver a speech effectively. Obama has followed in their footsteps. I also suspect that the Obama administration finds something irretrievably old-fashioned about the sit at the desk speech in an Internet age.

I think it's a mistake. Many people still--and always will--question Obama's legitimacy as the president of the United States. When he can, he should invoke the iconography of the office in support of his credibility. Particularly when he suffers from low approval ratings, the visual reminders of his office's authority would enhance his standing with the American people. But for whatever reason, he seems remarkably reluctant to do so. And thus you get these ridiculous speeches, when it seems as if he's standing at a podium in his living room delivering a speech to no one. In case the White House staff hasn't figured it out yet, let me clue them in: It looks stupid.

 

 

Obama, Ferguson, and Rhetorical Opportunity

A recent article at vox noted that the "White House" claims Obama can't give a "big speech" on Ferguson because President Obama, unlike the candidate, cannot "bridge divides," might "infuriate conservatives," and make hard problems "impossible." Lord, these people are stupid.

1) Presidential rhetoric does not have as its ONLY goal conciliation. Sometimes, believe it or not, presidents say--gasp!--mean things;

2) Conservatives are infuriated when this president speaks, and when he's silent, and when he stands tall, and when he's small, and when he eats green eggs and ham, and when he sees a grand slam. Get the picture, nincompoops?! By trembling at the thought of conservative anger, you cede control of the president's rhetoric to conservatives, you dipsh%$#;

3) Where are these solvable problems? On what do you think the House will move? Immigration? And, by the by, look around. Some conservatives are with you on the militarization of police;

4) Candidate Obama didn't bridge squat. He persuaded people to vote for him, as he did in 2012, by recognizing problems affecting people, articulating positions that a majority thought likely would solve those problems, and proving considerably more attractive than the alternative. And candidate Obama wasn't afraid to attack the alternative, either. Sometimes, presidents peel the paint off of the national house--have you read TR or FDR? Heard of Truman?

5) Sometimes, rhetoric takes time and effort. You should know that one speech seldom resolves all problems, or did you believe your own propaganda about the race speech? Seriously, you need to develop ideas and stick to them.

This president is likely to go down in rhetorical history as an eloquent man who completely lacked a sense of timing--what the Greeks termed kairos. The second he took office, he lost all ability to seize an opportunity. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, but these people piss me off.

The Death of Baseball's Middle Class; or Why it Sucks to be a White Sox fan.

From May 1 to July 1, the Cubs and the White Sox were basically the same team--in fact, strangely so. Each had an outstanding #1 starter, a decent #2, an outstanding first baseman, an All-Star shortstop, some nice role players, and a rally killing black hole at second base. The Cubs had a better bullpen, the Sox better role players, but both were basically .500 teams throughout those two months. The Cubs then did what they've done of late--they stripped those assets and turned them into prospects by yesterday's trade deadline. They'll be bad, pick in the top 5 of the draft next year, etc. The White Sox stood pat and might even get some injured folks back. They'll finish around .500. The Sox are stupid.

It's often been said that baseball reflects America and it certainly does now because, like the NBA and the movie business, there's almost no reward for being in the middle class. The 2011 basic agreement changed the rules in many ways, but the primary result was to increase significantly the value of farm systems and lead teams to hoard picks and tank for high picks, like the NBA. The new culture also encouraged teams to sign good young players to longer term deals and avoid the free agent market, particularly because of the compensatory draft pick system. This was particularly true for major market teams, because they would never get compensation picks which the new system awarded to minor teams, like the Twins and Royals. It also limited international activity.

In a weird way, it's a back to the future goal. Strong farm systems feeding good players continually to the major leagues. Those systems should be supported by good drafts but also, and increasingly, by major league trade activity. If you're not going to make the playoffs, move the assets you have for prospects to strengthen your system, tank your team in the process, and gain better draft position to strengthen your system yet more. When your system produces, have the assets both to strengthen your club and trade to fill the holes your system didn't fill. To be caught in between--with a mediocre team and a mediocre farm system--is the worst of all worlds. You sort of compete, but the team isn't really all that good and you're simply drawing out the eventual rebuild.

Which brings us to teams like the White Sox (and the Phillies, Mariners, Reds, Marlins, Mets, even the Yankees, but they're an exception to everything). The Sox aren't good enough. Their farm system was bolstered by this last draft, but it's still kinda mediocre and good players are a long way away. Unlike some of the teams listed above, they'll never get rivers of cash from a great local media deal--they're the 5th most popular professional sports team in the city--or from a prematurely built ballpark, one erected well prior to the evolution of myriad ways to make your stadium pay. So, they're dependent on year to year streams and they try always to compete. But the environment's changed since 2011. They needed to strip to build this year, especially since the Tigers are already there, the Royals are much further along the curve, and the Twins will roll past the Sox in a year or two. The Phillies are even worse off (although they have a better media market in the long term). The White Sox, Mets, and Phillies needed to strip to build and did not.

The most interesting experiments at this year's deadline came from the Cardinals and Red Sox. The Cardinals are always so good, I hesitate to indict their moves, but these make little sense to me. They hit ungodly well with runners in scoring position last year and made the playoffs. That statistical quirk corrected itself this year and they're not a good offensive ballclub. So, they traded for more pitching. Huh? I assume they think Taveras will hit in an everyday role with Craig out of the way. I don't know if you should count that much on a rookie. Look, the Cards have lost their best player to injury, they had some guys with off seasons, the Brewers and Pirates are pretty good--I would not have stripped the club, but I'm not sure you trade Joe Kelly, a fine young pitcher and a good guy, to retrieve a year that I'm not sure can be retrieved.

The Red Sox are trying to rebuild on the fly--that's hard to do in this system. They traded assets for major league or nearly major league ready guys. Given their rivers of cash, they may be able to do this, but it'll require winning the free agent war for Max Scherzer, the great Detriot pitcher, in the off season. Given the likely weakness of the Yankees and Rays next year, and the fact that Toronto always finds a way to lose, the Red Sox may be okay. But it's certainly an interesting experiment.

In general, though, it does not pay to be the middle class in baseball. The White Sox need to figure that out.   

Annual Vacation Book Review

For those unfamiliar with this exciting feature of the OA, here goes. Professor Finnegan and I retire to a cabin for a couple of weeks each summer, a place without television, internet, or phone service. It's heaven. For weeks beforehand, I carefully select books (she does as well) and then gorge myself during the holiday. One rule above all other rules: NO WORK BOOKS. On my return, I long to continue the vacation, and so review the books I've read. Here you go.

It was a good year, with only 1 real disappointment and it was a doozy. I sometimes pick a theme and this year it was biographies, although I didn't read as many as I thought I would. Still, there's a fair representation.

1. Craig Johnson, Cold Dish and John D. MacDonald, Nightmare in Pink. Two good mysteries, for those who like their mysteries male. Cara and I have started watching the Longmire TV series on A & E. Cold Dish is the first of the Sheriff Longmire book series on which it's based. Nice book and very much in the Robert B. Parker Spenser tradition, which I like. I'm looking forward to the rest. MacDonald's Travis McGee series is over 50 years old now and it's truly the mold from which Spenser, Jack Reacher, and others descended. I'm thoroughly enjoying working my way slowly through the series, although, fair warning, it's over 50 years old and its sensibilities occasionally startle the contemporary reader.

2. Chris Lear, Running with the Buffaloes and Kenny Moore, Bowerman and the Men of Oregon. Lear lived with the University of Colorado cross country team for the 1998 season and this is an amazing account. One of the best running books I've ever read. Highly recommended. Bill Bowerman was a legendary track coach at Oregon and co-founder of Nike with his former student, Phil Knight. Moore grew up in Eugene, ran for Bowerman at Oregon, and made the Olympic Marathon team twice, finishing 4th at the awful 1972 Olympic Games. On the one hand, that history gives him enormous access and insight and he uses it beautifully. On the other hand, the book descends a bit into hagiography. It certainly refuses to take any kind of critical look at Nike. But the chapters on Munich and Prefontaine are worth the price of admission.

3. Nick Lloyd, Hundred Days and John C. McManus, September Hope. Very good military histories, another favorite genre of mine. Lloyd recounts the last hundred days of World War I. He has a particular personal connection--his great uncle died in those battles--and that adds to his account. McManus gives a deeply researched, excellent account of the Market Garden offensive in World War II, the basis for the famous book and movie, A Bridge Too Far. He concentrates on the Americans and offers a particularly strong portrait of General James Gavin. Nicely done.

4. Scott Eyman, John Wayne: The Life and the Legend and Fred Kaplan, John Quincy Adams. Two very good biographies, although Eyman's is superior. He's generous to Wayne, perhaps too generous when it comes to the ways Wayne shirked duty in World War II, but also even-handed in his assessments. He's particularly strong when it comes to the films; the book nicely combines a biographical account with film criticism. He also handle the politics well. Kaplan's book is interesting partly due to what it represents--the historiographical comeback of JQA. JQA's extraordinary campaign against slavery, particularly in his post-presidency, contrasts sharply with the ignorant, racist populism of Andrew Jackson. Decades ago, Jackson, in the hands of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., was the hero. Now, it's Adams. Kaplan thinks about writing and the bio is organized around JQA's amazing diary, a lifetime effort filled with poetry, essays, observations, character sketches and more. Yowza. But JQA can do no wrong in Kaplan's eyes, and that's simply not true. Plus, Kaplan truly doesn't understand or address the economic issues of the era in any detail. But good books.

5. Meg Wolitzer, The Interestings. What a disappointment. I'd heard good things but, to steal from John Sloop, this book was TERRIBLE. I only finished it because: 1) I'm stubborn about finishing books I start; and 2) Every 75 pages or so there was a nice bit of dialogue or description that was witty and encouraging. They never lasted. Twp major problems with the book. First, it's the perfect example of what Mikhail Bakhtin would call a monologic novel. The author never gives the characters room to breath, to grow, to do anything. She grimly marks the boxes on the Very Serious Novel checklist and woe befall anyone or thing that doesn't fit. There's a particularly egregious use of AIDS, simply to make a melodramatic character point and, amazingly enough, to add some titillation. You have to read it--but don't--to believe it. Second, the vision at the heart of the novel seems to be this: You are whatever you're going to be at 15. That's it. Your life trajectory is set. What an awful thought. She needs to read the next two entries.

6. Stephen King, Mr. Mercedes. This is important social commentary performed as a hard boiled detective story/Scooby Doo/Buffy the Vampire Slayer show. Seriously. I'm betting that 100 years from now, this will be regarded as the novel of the Great Recession. A retired police detective has a terrible cold case--a killer drives a Mercedes through a crowd waiting for a job fair to open and kills a number of them. He then starts sending letters to the detective. The detective tries to identify him before he can kill again. Pretty simple. Except that it's not. It's a great detective story as retirement forces the detective to gather slowly a group of Scoobies, rather than experts on the force, to help him, all of whom also become threatened by the killer. They're a weird collection, all on the edge for one reason or another (like Xander, Giles, etc.) King also spends, as you might expect, considerable time in the mind of the killer. Yet it's also important to see how all of this generic mishmash works. King invokes The Grapes of Wrath in the opening and the point of the novel gradually becomes clear over its course: There are no throwaway people. Everyone matters and too often we don't honor that. The Mercedes metaphor might be a bit heavy handed--the rich are RUNNING YOU OVER--get it? Except that it's not--I've not seen reviews that have read it this way. You can read the book for the mystery, thrills, and chills. But as is often true of King, there's more going on here. The detective and his Scoobies grow, rise, breath and face the challenge. They matter. Here that, Meg Wolitzer? Great book.  

7. Colum McCann, TransAtlantic. Wow. Just. Wow. I hate myself for failing to read McCann to this point. I love the idea that there's more of him to read. He tells the stories of 3 Atlantic crossings to Ireland from the US--the first flyers to cross, Frederick Douglass's trip to Ireland, and George Mitchell's peace negotiations. Sounds weird. But it's wonderful. Read it.

8. Alan Sepinwall, The Revolution was Televised. Engaging and entertaining history of the great television series since the millenium--The Wire, Oz, Mad Men, FNL, Buffy, etc. Lots of fun facts and good stories, as well as some nice critical evaluation. Word of warning: Spoilers glalore. I mean, there are all nearly off the air, with 1-2 exceptions. But if you don't want to know developments in one of these, don't read the book. Actually, it'd probably make for a great undergrad course, too.

9. Philip Caputo, The Longest Road. Caputo, the author of A Rumor of War, among many other books, and his wife, Leslie, piled their two English setters into a truck and an Airstream trailer and drove from Key West to the Artic Circle. The model is obviously Travels with Charley, although Caputo actually made the trip. An engaging and thoughtful book--nice contribution to road trip literature.

 

There you go. Bearskin Lodge books, 2014.

Marathon Training

This week marks the official beginning of my marathon training program. Cara and I are running Grandma's in Duluth, MN on June 21. I'm adapting, as I always do, an eighteen week program from Hal Higdon. It's a good program and it's gotten me through 2 marathons before.

It was weird to think of this as the first official run, though. I had a great December and January--injury-free after my November marathon and the running was good. I generally hit 22-25 miles a week, with long runs of 9-11. Then, just when I was going to do a 14 a few weeks ago, the big winter storm hit. Then, Cara got sick. Then, I got sick. Then, the snow and ice kept coming. I managd to get in some shorter runs and did my weekly Pilates lesson, so I didn't slide totally, but more running sure would have been nice. Better running, too. I don't mind the cold, but runs like my 5 mile today sucked due to the footing. Hope, hope, hope the warmer weather this week melts the roads and sidewalks and I can run without constant attention to my footing. Also, it just wears on my legs to be constantly adjusting.

Nonetheless, it wasn't below 0, got my run in, and finished well. Looking forward to more sunshine and dry shoes!

The State of the Union

"Republicanism," the political theorist Isaac Kramnick has written, "is historically an ideology of leisure." Its idea of citizenship privileges those who do not have to work, who can think deep thoughts about the virtues of communal life (with people like them), about the demands of citizenship (on people like them), and about the nobility of political action (for people like them). Slaves and women, as Aristotle noted, filled the gap. They worked, so civic republicans could think. And orate.

"Liberalism," Kramnick continued, "at its origin, is an ideology of work. It attributes virtue to people who are industrioyus and diligent and condemns as corrupt privileged aristocrats and leisured gentlefolk. The essence of humanity is the obligation to work." So it is for Barack Obama--and for Bill Clinton. As I noted on Twitter last night, Obama's 2014 SOU bears a distinct resemblance to Clinton's 1996 address and reflects, surely, something of an ideological consensus in the Democratic Party, one that the 4 different Republican respondents could not possibly project.

That consensus revolves around the value of work. Each individual possesses both the opportunity and the responsibility to work; the govwernment, in turn, will provide the conditions in which people can develop themselves to their highest capacity. And so, each of the president's policy proposals denigrated those of leisire--cut tax breaks for businesses that go abroad, end privileges for those living on capital, for those who do not work--and open opportunity for those who do. Infrastructure development, so people can go to work. Good health care, so people can go to work. Michelle Obama's exercise, so you won't get fat, and you can work hard. Technology hubs, to educate people, so they can go to work. At each stage, each and every American possesses the obligation to work, to develop their capacities to be, in the words of the old Army slogan, all that they can be.

Thus, we come to Cory Remsburg. It's not simply that the sergreant embodied patriotic values; it is also that he continues to develop himself, to create himself, to author himself, as Benjamin Franklin occasionally put it, under the worst of circumstances. As the ideal American, he represents our capacity for work.

The liberal emphasis on work, of course, cuts in a couple of ways. Quite often, it's been used as a powerfully progressive tool, in the hands of the Progressives and the Populists. They developed a producer orientation, arguing that the farmers, the laborers, the working people, produced and built this country and deserved a New Deal far more than the moneychangers who stained the temple of democracy.

Yet at other times, conservatives have turned the emphasis on work against the poor, pointing to "welfare queens," to them, to those people who get government benefits, who fail to work or who must be made to work.

As a conceptual resource, "work" can be turned to a variety of uses. Its traditional, liberal cut against the feckless wealthy and for those who "work hard and take responsibility," was most evident last night. For Democrats, I suspect it may continue to be a powerful rhetorical resource.  

Liberal Eye on the Republican Guy

Nearly everybody in the nation has weighed in on the Republican makeover; I think Heidi Klum featured it on "America's Top Model." To this point, I've been dissatisfied with the results. Most have either asked the Republicans to change too much or too little. Here's my two cents' worth. To be clear, this is a cynical, repugnant approach. That's why I think it will work for Republicans.

1) Cut deals on immigration and the deficit: These issues are losers for the Republican Party. They've been beaten time and again on them and, every time they come up, they remind everyone that the Republican establishment supports a government of rich white folks, by rich white folks, and for rich white folks. Obama is dying to make a deal and cement his legacy. Take the deals, declare victory ("With this agreement, we've finally forced the president to make the serious cuts, yada, yada") and get these issues off the table. You can always come back to them and give rich people more tax cuts and pillage programs for the poor when you control the government.

2) Let Obamacare go: Rs risk looking like the insane FB stalker who follows someone years after the breakup. Stop it. Let it go. Beyond that, Governor Rick Scott (Felon, Florida) is starting to figure out ways to take the money, "incentivize private providers," and shower already rich health care execs with said money. Copy him. Twist the implementation rules of Obamacare to exclude the poor and favor the people you love. Turn it to your advantage quietly, behind the scenes.

3) Purge the party of the old folks: Any Bush, Cheney, Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Graham, Hatch and the rest need to go. Perhaps some of them would be nice enough to fall on their swords and accomplish 1 and 2 on their way out the door. Put the new generation in charge and in front of the cameras, a group that doesn't stink of bigotry and losing--Rubio, Ryan, Kasich, Jindahl, McDonnell, Cantor, Martinez, etc. Some will flame out; others will go forth. But every time McCain appears on a Sunday show, a Republican loses another vote.

4) Turn to the governors: A series of controversial R governors have won in the past couple of election cycles. A couple (Maine, SC, Florida) appear to have serious problems or limited national potential. The rest have won with a surprisingly coherent agenda that's barely touched the congressional party. What is it?

    a) Public employee unions are the devil. Break them. "We" work hard and earn little; "they" are lazy and earn too much. They've ruined the education system, the postal system, and the federal government. All of the racial coding that Republicans know and love can be used--has been used--against public employee unions who, happily for such Rs, have a large % of minority employees. Scapegoat them for all of the nation's ills, but in particular for:

    b) Education. Blow it up. For decades, the mainstream media has run down American education and people are primed to hate K-12. So, offer vouchers, destroy the unions, promise to blow up the system and start over.

    c) Drill, baby, drill. Fracking, fracking, fracking. Pipelines. Shale Oil. Texas T. Black gold.

    d) Tax reform: The old arguments for protecting the rich have failed. You need new ones. On the state level, Rs have discovered the joys of investment vs. consumption. Income taxes attack savings and investment. America will be much better off with consumption taxes, that virtuously restrain the poor from buying what they want and reserve funds for the wealthy. It's the same policy result--soak the poor and help the rich--but it's a new language. Consumption=BAD. Investment=GOOD. It would be a brave canddiate who goes all the way and proposes a national consumption (sales) tax and lowers income tax rates to nearly nothing. But it might work.

    e) Embrace pro-life. Run screaming from the guns and the gays: You need to fire up the base and nothing is better than abortion AS LONG AS THERE IS THE EXCEPTION FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER. Don't be idiots. Americans will tolerate, if not endorse, virtually any restriction short of that, so don't be stupid. Meanwhile, gays and guns are bad, bad, bad. On both issues, the R base vociferously supports one position, and the majority (vast majority in some cases) supports another. That's simply awful for you. Practice glittering generalities. Lots of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. NO VERBS. Twenty years from now, I expect traditional conservatives will find a lovely issue in the high gay divorce rate ("Don't gays and lesbians understand family values?"). Until then, lay low.

5) Understand swing states: Rs have a narrow electoral window now. One or both 2016 nominees should be from Ohio and Florida. That's the route to victory. No more Utah, or Massachusetts or Arizona or even other southern states that are gimmes. Kasich-Rubio 2016 probably wins you the White House. If Kasich wins reelection. Which is looking better and better.

6) Kick out the neocons and bring America home: None of the Republican leaders have any understanding of foreign policy anyway. So, go simple. No more war. Strong defense, but no use of force. Let those "other" nations do their job for a change. We've got work to do here at home. The mainstream media will wring their hands and whine about isolationism. The rest of the coutnry will love you for it.

That's it. Evil, nasty and likely to be successful. Horrible for the country. A perfect path to second class status in the world. But, hey, Rs don't have a problem with that as long as they win.

 

Quick Thoughts on Barack Obama's Second Inaugural

Here's one rhetorical critic's reaction to Obama's Second Inaugural. In general, I find myself noting his consistent rhetorical habits.

1) President Obama loves to root his political philosophy and policies in history. The speech begins with the Founders, works its way through those moments in our past in which we made our truths self-evident, and concludes with the future. This habit constitutes the president as a conservative; his presidency has evolved out of the past and he seeks incremental, not revolutionary, change.

2) He frames that history as a journey. This matters for two reasons. First, it emphasizes our agency. History can happen to people; we choose to take a journey. Equally important, we make choices along the way to do this and not that; to go here, and not there. Thus, the journey led through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall. Second, it emphasizes the filiopiety so prominent in Obama's discourse. Each generation has a task (aka Moses and Joshua in earlier speeches). We must respect where those before us have gone, take up the journey ourselves, and pass the joys and burdens on to those who follow. The Exodus metaphor underwrites this notion.

3) In turn, the speech is a web of allusions to those who have made these journeys. Obama has a carefully selected repertoire of influential figures and documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.. In that way, Obama lays claim to a swath of American history and, indeed, to a powerful interpretation of that history--the Whig narrative of progress and inclusion.

4) The language of the speech is generally good with two exceptions. First, there are too many be verbs and dependent clauses. Second, there are two incredibly clunky paragraphs stuffed into the middle. The climate change and enduring security paragraphs are badly written and too detailed. They should have been excised and the ideas distilled into single sentences expanding the "Our journey is not complete..." section. Indeed, that section deserved more emphasis, both because of its centrality to Obama's lexicon and because it could have done what JFK's pledge section did so well--brought the people into governance not only as witnesses (see the first line) but as participants.

5) It reads a bit better than it sounds.

Anyway, some opening thoughts. Love to hear what others think.