As I've watched the political coverage of the first caucus and first primary, I've been struck by what I consider the fundamental weakness of the coverage. Here, in no particular order, are what I consider the biggest lapses so far.
The Illinois Effect: I was in Iowa for 2004's edition of the caucuses. I clearly remember that my candidate (Dick Gephardt) had extremely high expectations for his performance because he was from a state bordering Iowa and was therefore better known by Iowans with a better ability to draw on committed, career activists from his hometown. Those same increased expectations were repeatedly referenced this time around for Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. So why did no one mention the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) benefited from the same dynamic?
And benefit he did. There is a county-by-county map of the results from Iowa at The New York Times' website, and that map clearly shows that Obama dominated the counties bordering Illinois. Now, there are other explanations for some of that differential, but not all of it. It is my belief that Obama's unexpected blowout stems in large part from this ability to easily get his longterm supporters and volunteers into the state.
Romney got trounced in New Hampshire: simply untrue. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) only beat him by five points, far lower than his 16-point margin of victory in 2000 over George Bush. I strongly dislike Mitt Romney, but it was wrong for the media to portray his defeat as one from which he could not recover when George Bush came back from a far worse beating at McCain's hands in the same state.
Barack Obama is some sort of post-partisan savior who will create a new Democratic coalition: I certainly want to vote for Barack Obama. He is an inspiring speaker who usually, though not always, hits the perfect note while inspiring goosebumps and giddiness in those watching. He is the greatest orator of his generation, with an unmatched ability to build up a crowd. I disagree with him on many issues, yet my face lit up into an irrepressible smile as I watched his Iowa victory speech.
But at some point, a movement needs to be based on more than the personal magnetism of its leader. Former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton succeeded in transforming America not only because they were gifted politicians, but also because they seemed to stand for something more than a departure from the status quo. Movements need an agenda of their own, a clearly articulated positive vision of the future. "Change" in and of itself is emphatically not a positive agenda; it is a form of negative campaigning that makes no statement about what end-state one wishes to create, other than that it is different from where we are today. It is vacuous and empty rhetoric of the first order.
So what is Obama's vision? What defines his policy positions? His philosophy seems a fairly doctrinaire version of big-city liberalism that befits a politician who rose to prominence through the last real Democratic machine in America, that of Richard Daley's "Imperial" Chicago. In 2006, the last year in which he was a full-time senator, his voting record was the 10th most liberal in the U.S. Senate while no senator had a more liberal stance on the economy. This is partly offset by his willingness to stump for Republican votes, but one should have no illusion that President Obama would come down squarely on the Democratic side of every issue, even if his conciliatory rhetoric of compromise with the evil Republicans leaves some unhappy.
Why the vitriol between Obama and Bill Clinton? Not much has been made of the fact that Bill Clinton played a key role in Obama's only electoral defeat, a 2000 congressional primary. That seems a pertinent fact.
Obama has the youth vote, while Clinton dominates older voters: For the most part this holds true. But there is a strange hole in Obama's support: 25-29 year olds went for Clinton. What sets this group apart from those 18-24 and 30-39? I don't know, but I have a theory. The first presidential election that this age bracket remembers was 1996, while they were in high school. That was the high point of the Clinton presidency. Because their first political experience was of Clinton's riding high, I would be willing to bet that this group's psyche is such that it is more inclined to view Hillary highly. Either that or the exit polls were wrong. Barry Caro is a history major from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
