WHAT WE DON’T TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MITT AND BARACK

We’ve got six weeks to go in POTUS 2012®, and as you may have guessed, the campaign hinges on two crucial issues – Mitt Romney’s tax returns and Barack Obama’s secret plan to redistribute America’s economic power to the rest of the world so that we’re all on the same level (which would be somewhere around where Greece is now).

Ha ha. Not really.

It’s mostly about the economy and jobs, although thanks to some hack filmmaker in California, it’s now also about foreign policy to an extent, and whether or not the solution to Muslim unrest is to declare war on Iran. (Because let's face it, if Obama had done that, you wouldn’t see all those riots. I guess. At least I think that’s what Mitt Romney has been trying to say without actually saying it.)

Anyway, now that foreign policy is on the table – which in this case basically means Dealing With Overseas America-Hating Muslims That Hate America That Al Qaeda Can Recruit From the War On Terror™ – it will be interesting to see if that brings another issue on the table: civil liberties.

To recap: the US Govt currently prefers to deal with Al Qaeda by give intelligence and law enforcement agencies all kinds of powers – mass surveillance, indefinite detention, assassination, etc – all of which can be applied even if yr an American citizen entitled to due process under the Constitution (as opposed to Foreign People You Don’t Know). Most of that started under Bush Jr. And it has continued under Presidente Obama. Some of it has even been legalized under Obama, and you can find a whole nice long list of things Obama has endorsed and utilized here.

Bipartisan!

Which is why civil liberties has been a non-issue in this campaign. No one on either side wants to bring it up. Why would they? Obama’s not going to bring it up because it makes him sound like Bush 2. And Republicans aren’t going to bring it up because they support every one of those policies, and they’re not about to give Obama credit for anything, least of all their own ideas. Indeed, the only thing they’d sincerely criticize Obama for in the civil liberties field is that he’s not violating them nearly enough.

“Pussy!”

Mind you, if any of this does come up in the debates, it’s going to make for some uncomfortable moments for Obama supporters.

I should know. I’ve pointed out Obama’s civil liberties record to a few of his admirers who have gone to great lengths to convince wavering liberals that Obama’s record in Term 1 proves he’s accomplished more than they might think. When I suggested they look at the full record – in the interest of having a more fully informed opinion – the response usually went something like this:

“What? Where did you get that from? I don’t think that’s true. It doesn't sound like something Obama would support.”

Well, they would say that. Never mind that it’s a matter of record. Obama’s only got a single-digit advantage, and no one wants to ruin that with inconvenient truths.

That said, I don’t think they have much to fear on that score – it’s not like civil liberties would improve under a Romney/Ryan admin. Indeed, they're likely to get worse. 

And as mentioned earlier, there are other issues on the table where Obama is the more appealing choice for them. And I do think even disenchanted Obama supporters from 2008 are much more likely to stick with him for another term than vote for Romney.

Still, I suppose it’s symptomatic of the Big Fear gripping the Left over the prospect of a Double R victory that they can’t even face some basic, documentable truths about their own candidate.

So is the fact that a lot of people – and by no means just Republicans – either see nothing wrong with the current status quo on civil liberties, or do but figure that’s just the way it has to be now because of all the terrorists out there plotting to kill them.

Roy Batty was right.

Off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush,

This is dF

HOW TO MAKE ENEMIES AND ALIENATE PEOPLE (POLITICAL SCIENCE EDITION)

I get press releases.

Sometimes they are about pseudoscientific polls.



The “collateral damage” involves relationships with friends, family members and/or co-workers – three out of five respondents to the poll say they’ve had such relationships damaged by talking politics. Around 14% say the damage is permanent.

And so:

The study of more than 500 people found that only 15 percent of respondents believe they can express their full political views to others without getting upset. So, rather than risk an emotional verbal battle, 86 percent avoid political discussions and one in 10 report they stay away from political banter at all costs.

Now, leaving aside the fact that this poll is from a company pushing corporate training products to improve interdepartmental communication and team-building, this kind of thing is easy to believe – especially if you spend any amount of time on Facebook. Or if you watch a lot of Fox News.

I can tell you from my own experience that when I go back to the states, I stay off politics as much as possible, although that’s partly because:

(1) For most of the Bush II admin, I was on the wrong side of the Socially Acceptable Political Opinion divide (i.e. I opposed the war and thought Gitmo, the Patriot Act and TSA no-fly lists were terrible, dangerous and useless ideas). No one wanted to hear about that for at least the first five years after 9/11 – not when the official White House/DOJ/DHS position was “If yr not with us, yr an honorary member of Al Qaeda, and if you know anyone like that, let us know”. And:

(2) The Fox News/MSNBC/Daily Kos/Breitbart/talk radio hyperpartisan echo chamber seemed to be expanding the reality gap between the two sides into batshit territory, and who wants to risk getting caught up in an argument with one of THOSE people?

However … there’s a lot this kind of poll doesn’t tell me. For example, how much of this is new? How would this compare to, say, 20 years ago? Or before Vietnam? Have we always been this insane about politics, or is this a recent development?

Which leads to the other missing point: how much of this being gun-shy about politics is the result of social media making it easier to get into toxic arguments?

I ask because one thing I’ve noticed is that, overall, the way people talk about politics online is a lot different from the way people talk about it face to face. Maybe it’s because I’ve never met the kind of people who show up at Tea Party rallies – or people who take Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris seriously – but that feared screaming match that I often dread actually never happens. Not even if I make a political remark in a public place where other people can hear me.

Which gets me to thinking that social media has been a major influence (alongside things like cable TV news) in shaping people’s perceptions of the nature and risks of political discourse – and amplifying them.

Or, again, maybe it’s just made us more hyperaware of something that’s been around for most of American history.

Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was something to this survey – not that political discussions in themselves are risky in 2012, but that the majority of people in America THINK they are.

TRY IT AT HOME: The press release also gives some tips on how to have a productive political discussion. They’re good in theory, but in practice I don’t imagine too many people will follow them. And of course they're useless for Facebook rants.

No time to argue,

This is dF

GOO GOO WAH WAH

His name is Wah Wah Watson. And he is funky.

That is a lot of wah wah.

Pedal to the metal,

This is dF