Don't Think of an Elephant

In Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - The Essential Guide for Progressives, cognitive scientist George Lakoff explains how conservative rhetoric has framed people’s perceptions, which has led to Republican electoral victories. He goes on to suggest ways in which Democrats can respond.

For example, Republicans coined the term “tax relief” to characterize the Bush tax cuts. The word “relief” frames taxes as an affliction and tax cuts as a mechanism of relieving the pain. That framing disregards the worthwhile accomplishments that arise from government spending of those tax dollars. And whenever anyone in either party repeats the phrase “tax relief”, they reinforce that framing.

Democrats could frame taxes as investments in the future, such as roads, education, health care, or reducing the national debt. Or, since people’s incomes depend on the government for security, justice, infrastructure, etc., liberals could treat taxes as an obligation and tax cuts as shirking responsibility. However, those formulations rarely arose during discussions of the Bush tax cut proposals.

Lakoff proposes two approaches to parenting as metaphors for liberal and conservative worldviews. Conservatives think in terms of a “strict father” model, in which children are born bad and must obey their father’s commands to learn the internal discipline they need in life. Liberals follow more of a “nurturant parent” perspective. As a non-parent, those metaphors didn’t quite resonate with me. However, a small shift – conservatives focusing “right vs. wrong” while liberals focus on empathy – does make a lot of sense.

His suggested responses were less compelling, in part because liberals have such an uphill battle. Republicans have been reframing the debate for decades, funding think-tanks, using carefully chosen terms in their speeches, and influencing the media. Being aware of the issue and avoiding terms like “tax relief” is a good start.

Democrats must find and express counterparts to the Republican maxims of “strong defense”, “lower taxes”, “smaller government”, and “family values”. Lakoff proposes stuff like “broad prosperity” and “mutual responsibility” which isn’t at all persuasive. Themes involving empathy and caring for the average American sound more promising, as Bill Clinton proved in the electoral victories.

The book is a short easy-to-read collection of essays, which include some repetition. He applies his ideas to various contexts, such as 9/11, the California recall, and gay marriage. Though I disagree with some of the details, his big picture of how the Republicans have framed the public discourse is on target and important for progressive to comprehend. I plan to read Lakoff’s larger work Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think for a more detailed analysis.

Napoleon's Buttons

In Napoleon's Buttons: How 17 Molecules Changed History, chemists Penny Le Couteur and Jay Burreson discuss chemicals, largely organic, that had a major impact on human society. They cover spices, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), glucose, cellulose, dyes, the pill, olive oil, chlorocarbons, and several other chemicals.

For each substance, they display the chemical structure and explain the chemical reactions that made each substance important. They discuss the origins of each chemical (plants, animals, or laboratories) and efforts to grow, generate, and trade each chemical or a variation with similar properties. They provide a larger perspective of how each chemical affected human history.

The chapter on glucose, as one example, describes the different kinds of sugars, their structure, why they taste sweet, and various sugar substitutes. Sugar was first grown in the south Pacific or India, arrived to Europe with the returning Crusaders, and was planted in large plantations in the New World. The need for workers on those plantations led to much of the slave trade from Africa.

Much of Napoleon's Buttons focused on chemistry, which I found quite interesting since I’ve never studied organic chemistry. The real-world consequences of each chemical made it seem much more relevant than most science books. Also, I gained some appreciation of the influence of chemistry, which is easy to overlook in a world that makes a much bigger deal about electronic technology.

Limbo

Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams describes the experiences of people from working-class backgrounds who enter the middle class. The author, journalist Alfred Lubrano, the son of a Brooklyn bricklayer, provides anecdotes and analysis that portray the lives of the people, who he calls “Straddlers”, bridging the gap between two differing American subcultures.

As someone who grew up in a middle-class household, I was surprised at some of the working-class expectations that Straddlers deal with. While many, though not all, working-class parents view college as a ticket to a better life, they’re afraid that college will corrupt their children’s values. Working-class families expect their kids to remain nearby and disapprove why they move across the country to further their careers. People in the blue-collar world honestly state their concerns, an approach that doesn’t work so well when it comes to office politics.

My main quibble involves Lubrarno’s idealistic view of people who grew up in middle-class families. He treats his classmates at Columbia, along with others at first-rate universities, as representative of the middle class when they’re actually upper class or the intellectual elite of the middle class. Many people from middle-class backgrounds have difficulty navigating the subtleties of office politics.

Limbo was a quick read, though it was a bit repetitive at times. He provides some insight into one group of citizens, including a few friends of mine. People who’ve made that class transition would find the book a lot more resonant.

Falluja

US troops may be winning the battle in Falluja, but at a high cost: the death of 31 US troops and over 1,200 alleged insurgents. And the remaining residents of Falluja are suffering, since they lack food, water, and other necessities.

However, as Wesley Clark points out in his analysis, military confrontations alone won't defeat the insurgency (from Daily Kos). When US troops cause death and suffering among the Iraqis, the population becomes angrier and more motivated to support the insurgents. Riverbend, an Iraqi citizen, proclaims bluntly that "People in Falloojeh are being murdered," and that's probably the overriding sentiment of the Iraqi people.

I'm terrified of a Vietnam-like situation during the next four years. The Bush administration will continue to attack Iraqis without making any real headway against the insurgency. And US officials will refuse to acknowledge any mistatkes, much less alter their tactics.

Bad Thoughts

In Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking, philosopher James Whyte describes flawed approaches that people use when making arguments. I’ve seen most of those questionable approaches many times before: relying on the authority of someone who isn’t an expert, accepting ideas on faith, redefining terms, preventing others from speaking, misusing statistics, and so on.

Sometimes Whyte views things in overly black-and-white terms. For example, his “Motive Fallacy” warns you not to disregard a claim simply because it’s in the speaker’s best interest for you to believe the claim. While that’s a reasonable point, taking into account the biases and interests of a speaker is often helpful.

Bad Thoughts is an easy-to-read book, full of specific examples that clarify each fallacy. Though you’ve probably seen many of the logical errors discussed elsewhere, it’s convenient for them to be collected in one concise analysis. As far as I can tell, the book hasn’t altered the way I make arguments or analyze what others have to say. Still, it was worthwhile, especially since it didn’t take long to complete.

Since Bad Thoughts was published in Britain, you’ll have to order it through Amazon UK. New Scientist has an interview with the author, which motivated me to read the book in the first place.

Latina lesbian sheriff

This is the most entertaining result of last week's election.

Lupe Valdez is a woman, a Hispanic, a Democrat and a lesbian -- and, come Jan. 1, she's entering the ranks of Texas good ol' boys. Valdez is becoming Sheriff Lupe.

Any one description -- female, Latina, Democrat and openly gay -- would have qualified Valdez's election as Dallas County sheriff for the local history books. But all four?

Good for her! (from Burnt Orange Report)

Winning Modern Wars

In Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire, General Wesley Clark expounds on the pressing security issues that the nation is facing and the major events of the last couple of years.

The best part of the book is Clark’s description of the US-led military operation that toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. I hadn’t read about those battles since they took place, and it’s difficult to comprehend the big picture from daily news reports. Clark elaborates on the challenges the armed forces faced, the military plans, and how those plans evolved in response to unexpected developments. He takes great pride in what the US military accomplished and in the caliber of the soldiers, their technology, and their organization.

The one troublesome aspect of Clark’s account was his indifference about Iraqi casualties, as when he states,

3rd Infantry Division reported killing some 2,000 Iraqi soldiers in the drive across the Euphrates and up to the outskirts of Baghdad.

That one maneuver killed almost as many people as died in the WTC, and Clark casually mentions it in his only reference to Iraqi war dead. Those war dead are a greater concern to me than the glory of the US troops, which Clark emphasizes.

Half of the book covers topics like terrorism, Afghanistan, the lead-up to the Iraqi war, and post-war planning. Though I agreed with most of Clark’s points, those topics are very familiar from other books and articles that I’ve read. Since the book was completed in August of 2003, it doesn’t provide much insight into the current chaos in Iraq.

In the final chapter, entitled Beyond Empire: A New America, Clark presents a broad picture of how he envisions America’s role in the world. It’s largely an attempt to position himself for his subsequent Presidential campaign, and he comes across as a capable potential commander-in-chief. My main quibble is that, despite the chapter's title, he denies the imperial side of US economic and foreign policy.

I had mixed opinions about Winning Modern Wars, since only a third of it, dealing with the military developments in Iraq, contained new information for a current events junkie like me.

Bush mandate

Feeling down about the election? Enter Bush mandate in Google and select "I'm feeling lucky". (from Atrios)

The Blank Slate

In The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, linguist Stephen Pinker makes some strong claims regarding the nature vs. nurture debate. He argues that all people and all cultures shared certain behaviors. Also, a large fraction of the variation in human behavior is heritable: you resemble your parents because you inherit their genes. (As a minor irritation, during much of the book Pinker intertwines those two premises, which involve rather different evidence and implications.)

Much of the book rebuts the Blank Slate theory, in which people are solely influenced by their environment. Pinker tears apart two other theories that he associates with the Blank Slate: the Noble Savage belief that man was much better before civilization corrupted him and the Ghost in the Machine conception of the mind existing in a separate sphere than the body.

The intensity of Pinker’s arguments was surprising, though I agreed with many of his claims. His style reminded me of the way liberal books, articles, and blogs attack conservative actions and theories. Pinker perceives the academic battle between the Blank Slate defenders and his evolutionary biology / intrinsic nature views quite seriously. I was often wary of his straw-man portrayal of the Blank Slate advocates, and his personal attacks on some of them seemed irrelevant when weighing their competing claims.

The highlight of the book was the chapter on children, which every parent should read, emphasizing these three laws of behavioral genetics:

• The First Law: All human behavioral traits are heritable.
• The Second Law: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.
• The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

In other words, as long as parents don’t abuse their kids, their influence of their children’s lives is rather limited. Parents don’t need to worry so much about doing a perfect job, despite widespread child-rearing advice claiming otherwise.

Pinker did an enormous amount of research in a wide range of areas and dives into a variety of controversial topics. Some of his emphasis reflects his academic milieu, such as his hostility towards Marxist thought, which isn’t a factor in my political world. And I’d like to read an opposing viewpoint for balance, since I’m skeptical of his caricatures of opposing theories. Still, I learned a lot from The Blank Slate, and he gives you a lot to ponder.

Did Kerry win?

The Blogging of the President has a list of articles questioning the accuracy of the vote count in Ohio and Florida (from Politics in the Zeros). I'm trying to figure out whether the Republicans stole the election.

Most elections have some level of fraud, going back to Landslide Lyndon and long before that. And considering the extreme Republicans tactics on display in the election, there's every reason to believe that Tuesday's election continued the pattern. The question is whether Kerry would have won the Presidency if it weren't for that fraud.

For example, this graph displays how accurate exit polls with in states with paper ballots, while Bush exceeded the exit polls results in states with electronic ballots. According to this chart, Florida counties with optical scanner tabulations sent voting totals in Republicans did massively better that you'd expect from the party registrations. And there are numerous sad stories from Ohio about voters who didn't receive absentee ballots, voting lines several hours long in minority districts, and other problems.

Since the mainstream media isn't investigating, and the Democratic Party isn't challenging the results, it's an academic issue. Still, it seems more likely than not that the American people elected John Kerry as President.

Martial law in Iraq

The situation in Iraq continues to worsen.

Iraq's interim government declared martial law on Sunday after insurgents killed 23 Iraqi policemen and set off blasts in Baghdad in a fresh show of force before a planned U.S. offensive on Falluja and Ramadi.

So much for democracy in Iraq. What, exactly, are US troops fighting for? Are soldiers dying so Iraq can have a pro-American regime? Bush will sacrifice endless lives and wealth to achieve victory over the so-called terrorists.

Why Bush won

I’ve been trying to figure out why Bush won the election today. My predictions of a Democratic victory suggest that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but here it goes.

Fear of a terrorist attack was probably the biggest factor shifting voters into the Bush camp. Since terrorism kills far fewer people than car crashes, disease, accidents, suicides, street crime, wars, etc., it’s a rather low priority in my mind. Still, lots of voters far from any terrorist targets viewed terrorism as a major issue, and thought that Bush would be stronger at fighting it. For whatever reason, people bought the bogus Republican argument that Kerry was too weak to stop terrorism. And concern with ones personal safety is a powerful factor.

Meanwhile, people must be ignorant of all the garbage that has occurred as a result of Bush’s disastrous policies. The situation in Iraq keeps getting worse with no signs of a turnaround, even after the death of over 1000 American soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis. And piss-poor leadership, before the war and during the occupation, has made things much worse. The media has downplayed Iraq, the budget deficit, and other debacles that Bush responsible for.

And moral concerns like gay marriage and abortion remain central to the Christian right, as What’s the Matter with Kansas? explains in great detail. It seems strange that people regard those issues as more important that stuff that has a major direct impact on their lives, such as Iraq and the economy.

And the factors I thought would break in Kerry’s favor simply didn’t occur. Traditionally, most undecided voters support the challenger, but not this time. High Democratic turnout was countered by high Republican turnout. Despite Bush’s extreme right-wing policies and disgraces such as Abu Gharib, voters weren’t abandoning George Bush or sitting out the election. The Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik received only a third of a percent of the vote, slight less than the Libertarian did in 2000.

Kerry was a good candidate who ran a good campaign. However, the Democrats haven’t been able to devise and stick with a clear message that resonates with undecided voters. Bush’s simplistic and dishonest message got through instead. It’s an incredibly depressing situation.

Electoral predictions

After reading the electoral predictions other bloggers made, it sounded like a fun game to play. When I was on the treadmill at the gym, these numbers popped into my head:

• Presidency: Kerry 52% & 330 EV, Bush 46% & 208 EV
  
• Senate: 49 D, 49 R, 1 I, 1 runoff
  
• House: 218 D, 216 R, 1 I
  

This may just be optimism, but here are my rationales:

• The polling samples are overly Republican.
• In 2000, Gore did a few percent better than the latest polls, and Bush did a little worse.
• Liberal are angry and motivated to vote.
  
• Undecided voters tend to vote for the challenger.
  
• The 2004 election is like 1994 in reverse, with a significant under-the-radar shift in voting patterns.
  

Mr. Liberal (mentioned by MyDD) came up with similar predictions based on a more knowledgeable analysis. Anyway, we'll find out tomorrow (hopefully) how accurate we are.

The Penguin Atlas of World History

I purchased Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann’s The Penguin Atlas of World History Volume 1: From the Beginning to the Eve of the French Revolution to visualize the geography behind the historical events I’ve been reading about. It’s helpful to look over the boundaries of the various powers at different points in time, especially since most history books have insufficient maps.

The book is a small paperback, which makes it easy to carry around and access when reading other books. On the other hand, the smaller size means the maps aren’t so detailed. Half of the atlas consists of an abbreviated description of events, which I basically ignore since I’m reading a longer book in parallel. I’m tempted to purchase a more thorough, though more expensive, historical atlas.

Early Medieval Europe 300-1000

Roger Collins’s Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 is a textbook that covers a lot of ground. He starts with the decline of the late Roman Empire and the transition into the successor states of the Goths, Vandals, and others. He lays out the subsequent historical changes across Europe, up to Charlemagne’s Carolingian dynasty and the subsequent Ottonian dynasty. Collins also describes the surrounding geographic regions, such as England, Spain, Scandinavia, and Byzantium.

A few things frustrated me about the book, which I’d attribute to the subject matter instead of the author. Knowledge of the Dark Ages is limited, leading to inevitable gaps in the narrative and a great focus upon individuals, such as church leaders, who left more of a written record. With such broad geographic and chronological coverage, at times it was difficult to keep track of who the relevant people were and what was going on.

Still, Early Medieval Europe gave me a decent understanding of a historical period that I knew almost nothing about. Since I’m feeling saturated with history, I’ll read other books for a while. After that, I’ll move on to the High and Late Middle Ages, which are much better understood and documented.