The final sprint, week by week
November 1, 2008 | 10:40 PM Tim Groeling
As we near the end of the 2008 presidential election, I wanted to look back at some of the media coverage that has helped define this race. In so doing, I'll be updating some of the data in my prior posts, as well as a couple new series. As before, all data are drawn from the index of the UCLA Communication Studies Archive, and include a fairly complete picture of all television news and public affairs programs from the Los Angeles market. The first chart below compares the number of shows mentioning Iraq versus the economy. 
The chart shows that while August featured roughly equivalent coverage of the two issues (with the Republican National Convention pushing Iraq to its highest levels of coverage of the sample), the financial crisis has led to a massive jump in economic news. Since early September, in fact, the economy has been mentioned in roughly twice as many news shows per week as Iraq. Of course, there are many different ways to cover the economy. In the next figure, I search for mentions of gasoline or gas across programs, and then compare the proportion mentioning those terms with the set mentioning "recession" or "depression" (note that "depression" and "gas" are particularly likely to produce false positives, but those should presumably be scattered randomly throughout the weeks). 
The resulting chart shows an intense focus on gasoline in early August, with almost 2/3 of shows at least mentioning the terms. In contrast, relatively few shows were mentioning the recession/depression terms at that time (around 10-15%). However, beginning with the financial meltdown in early September (and the gradual decline of gas prices), the terms reached near-parity at around 40% of all shows. Of course, the subject of this blog is the election. How are the candidates being associated with the economy? The next figure looks for mentions of each candidate's name within 50 words of "economy." 
The chart shows several interesting patterns. First, we see that McCain has typically been associated far less with the economy than Obama. with the exception of the crisis and bailout period in early September. In contrast, Obama has typically seen half or more of his mentions take place in close proximity to the economy. While McCain has undoubtedly wanted to avoid discussion of the economy, he has tried to frame Obama's economic approach as redistributionist, most famously through his invocation of Joe Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber")-an Ohio resident caught on camera questioning Obama on his tax plan's impact on his future business plans on October 13th. Obama's response, recently cited by Politico.com as one the candidate's worst gaffes of the entire campaign, stressed his desire to "spread the wealth around." Beginning with the Oct. 15 presidential debate, McCain tried to make Wurzelbacher a household name. 
Rather than a mere "15 minutes of fame," Wurzelbacher is up to nearly three weeks, and counting, receiving mentions on nearly 1/3 of news and public affairs programs (although quite often as the target of derision). Finally, speaking of figures plucked from relative obscurity, my final figure compares the relative prominence of the parties' two nominees for the vice presidency. Rather than presenting a percentage across all shows, this chart shows the total count of mentions of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden's last names. 
The results show how each candidate has vaulted into the public consciousness. particularly in the case of Palin. With the exception of the week of the vice presidential debate, Palin has thoroughly drubbed Biden as a target of media attention. Even when Biden was the target of a particularly sharp Saturday Night Live parody mocking his apparent tendency to say "crazy" things, Biden still apparently failed to capture remotely as much attention as Palin.
The chart shows that while August featured roughly equivalent coverage of the two issues (with the Republican National Convention pushing Iraq to its highest levels of coverage of the sample), the financial crisis has led to a massive jump in economic news. Since early September, in fact, the economy has been mentioned in roughly twice as many news shows per week as Iraq. Of course, there are many different ways to cover the economy. In the next figure, I search for mentions of gasoline or gas across programs, and then compare the proportion mentioning those terms with the set mentioning "recession" or "depression" (note that "depression" and "gas" are particularly likely to produce false positives, but those should presumably be scattered randomly throughout the weeks). The resulting chart shows an intense focus on gasoline in early August, with almost 2/3 of shows at least mentioning the terms. In contrast, relatively few shows were mentioning the recession/depression terms at that time (around 10-15%). However, beginning with the financial meltdown in early September (and the gradual decline of gas prices), the terms reached near-parity at around 40% of all shows. Of course, the subject of this blog is the election. How are the candidates being associated with the economy? The next figure looks for mentions of each candidate's name within 50 words of "economy." The chart shows several interesting patterns. First, we see that McCain has typically been associated far less with the economy than Obama. with the exception of the crisis and bailout period in early September. In contrast, Obama has typically seen half or more of his mentions take place in close proximity to the economy. While McCain has undoubtedly wanted to avoid discussion of the economy, he has tried to frame Obama's economic approach as redistributionist, most famously through his invocation of Joe Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber")-an Ohio resident caught on camera questioning Obama on his tax plan's impact on his future business plans on October 13th. Obama's response, recently cited by Politico.com as one the candidate's worst gaffes of the entire campaign, stressed his desire to "spread the wealth around." Beginning with the Oct. 15 presidential debate, McCain tried to make Wurzelbacher a household name. Rather than a mere "15 minutes of fame," Wurzelbacher is up to nearly three weeks, and counting, receiving mentions on nearly 1/3 of news and public affairs programs (although quite often as the target of derision). Finally, speaking of figures plucked from relative obscurity, my final figure compares the relative prominence of the parties' two nominees for the vice presidency. Rather than presenting a percentage across all shows, this chart shows the total count of mentions of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden's last names. The results show how each candidate has vaulted into the public consciousness. particularly in the case of Palin. With the exception of the week of the vice presidential debate, Palin has thoroughly drubbed Biden as a target of media attention. Even when Biden was the target of a particularly sharp Saturday Night Live parody mocking his apparent tendency to say "crazy" things, Biden still apparently failed to capture remotely as much attention as Palin.
You learn something new every day
October 31, 2008 | 6:19 PM Mark A. R. Kleiman
I'm glad we have a hockey mom to teach us civics. Not only didn't I know that the Vice President runs the Senate, I didn't even know that the First Amendment is there to protect officials from criticism by reporters.
Of course, I don't feel too bad about my ignorance, since Jefferson (who said that he'd rather have newspaper but no government than government with no newspapers) seems to have shared it.
How do you think Sara Palin feels about her ignorance? More important, how do educated independent and Republican voters feel about it?
Clearly, Larry Eagleburger had it right the first time: not only is Palin not ready to be President now, she never will be ready. But, consistent with his political principles, Eagleburger decided to retract the truth and replace it with the politically correct lie.
Of course, I don't feel too bad about my ignorance, since Jefferson (who said that he'd rather have newspaper but no government than government with no newspapers) seems to have shared it.
How do you think Sara Palin feels about her ignorance? More important, how do educated independent and Republican voters feel about it?
Clearly, Larry Eagleburger had it right the first time: not only is Palin not ready to be President now, she never will be ready. But, consistent with his political principles, Eagleburger decided to retract the truth and replace it with the politically correct lie.
Down ballot
October 31, 2008 | 4:30 PM Ryan Enos
My sample ballot in the city of Los Angeles tells me that I have dozens of votes to cast on Tuesday. Hmm...I will soon have a PhD in political science and I have no idea what most of these votes are even about. That makes me pretty normal.
With all the hub-bub over the Presidential election it is easy for other important decisions to be overshadowed. What is a bit disturbing is that your typical voter on Tuesday will walk into the poling place and, underneath the office of President, do one of three things (or a combination): either not vote, vote entirely for one party (when available), or vote on some arbitrary criteria - like who comes first on the ballot.
We call these races - dog catcher, mosquito abatement board, county judge, etc. - 'down ballot' races. Political scientists know that voters handle the down ballot issues this way because they have actually looked at the ballots of voters. Unfortunately, no matter what a voter does down ballot - each is problematic. Voting the party line probably makes the most sense. Political party affiliation tells you a lot about a candidate. There is probably no better way for a voter to know whether or not a candidate shares her beliefs. Unfortunately - down ballot, many offices are required by law to be non-partisan. This is a ridiculously bad idea. Without partisan information - voters have pretty much nothing on which to base their decisions. Obviously, some arbitrary decision like who comes first on the ballot, or job title does not make a lot of sense. It might be better than not voting at all though, because there is pretty good chance that the voters that are actually making informed decision ons these issues do not share your values. People that care enough about politics to find out about these down ballot races are almost always far away from the center of public opinion. There is very solid evidence for this. So, the alternative between voting arbitrarily and letting near-extremists make decisions does not leave very attractive options.
Unfortunately, considering the total ignorance under which almost all voters cast votes for these races, these offices can be very consequential. In fact, there is an argument to be made that these obscure offices, especially those in the state legislature and county supervisor positions, have much more impact on your typical person's lives than the President of the United States. Of course Presidents can and does make grave decisions and can, ultimately, decide the fate of millions. But the freehand of the President in making these decisions is debatable and how far the Presidency will extend its reach depends greatly on the particular President.
The over-abundance of offices is a peculiarly American phenomenon - nowhere else in the world are voters asked to vote so frequently or for so many different offices and decisions. The ballot also grows longer in states like California - where decades ago Progressive reformers thought democracy would best operate by putting as many decisions as possible in the hands of voters, rather than elected officials.
It is also unlikely that the state will anytime soon undo the crazy system by which voters are asked to make so many uniformed decisions. Of course, we can't blame voters for paying so little attention to these down ballot races: one reason the Presidential contest is so interesting is because it is always relatively competitive. The majority of all other races: Congressional, legislative, etc., are not. Of course, part of the reason for this is that voters pay so little attention to the races that the basic mechanisms of party and incumbency usually determine the winner. If voters paid more attention - we'd probably see more competitive races.
I haven't offered too many solutions then. If we had more competitive races, voters would pay more attention, if voters paid more attention, we'd have more competitive races. If races were partisan, voters would have more information, but races are not partisan so voters do not have that information - nor are they likely to gather much information during their busy lives.
None of this is going to change between now and Tuesday - but it is worth paying attention. Locally, many of these contests are very important. For LA County Supervisor, a seat that has a bigger constituency than many U.S. Senators, Bernard Parks and Mark Ridley-Thomas are battling it out in the type of knock-down, drag out fight that is far more interesting and rough than anything that McCain or Obama can put together. And Proposition 8 is an issue that will have an immediate and direct impact on the lives of millions of Californians. Unfortunately, most voters will approach these votes, and many others, in relative or complete ignorance.
With all the hub-bub over the Presidential election it is easy for other important decisions to be overshadowed. What is a bit disturbing is that your typical voter on Tuesday will walk into the poling place and, underneath the office of President, do one of three things (or a combination): either not vote, vote entirely for one party (when available), or vote on some arbitrary criteria - like who comes first on the ballot.
We call these races - dog catcher, mosquito abatement board, county judge, etc. - 'down ballot' races. Political scientists know that voters handle the down ballot issues this way because they have actually looked at the ballots of voters. Unfortunately, no matter what a voter does down ballot - each is problematic. Voting the party line probably makes the most sense. Political party affiliation tells you a lot about a candidate. There is probably no better way for a voter to know whether or not a candidate shares her beliefs. Unfortunately - down ballot, many offices are required by law to be non-partisan. This is a ridiculously bad idea. Without partisan information - voters have pretty much nothing on which to base their decisions. Obviously, some arbitrary decision like who comes first on the ballot, or job title does not make a lot of sense. It might be better than not voting at all though, because there is pretty good chance that the voters that are actually making informed decision ons these issues do not share your values. People that care enough about politics to find out about these down ballot races are almost always far away from the center of public opinion. There is very solid evidence for this. So, the alternative between voting arbitrarily and letting near-extremists make decisions does not leave very attractive options.
Unfortunately, considering the total ignorance under which almost all voters cast votes for these races, these offices can be very consequential. In fact, there is an argument to be made that these obscure offices, especially those in the state legislature and county supervisor positions, have much more impact on your typical person's lives than the President of the United States. Of course Presidents can and does make grave decisions and can, ultimately, decide the fate of millions. But the freehand of the President in making these decisions is debatable and how far the Presidency will extend its reach depends greatly on the particular President.
The over-abundance of offices is a peculiarly American phenomenon - nowhere else in the world are voters asked to vote so frequently or for so many different offices and decisions. The ballot also grows longer in states like California - where decades ago Progressive reformers thought democracy would best operate by putting as many decisions as possible in the hands of voters, rather than elected officials.
It is also unlikely that the state will anytime soon undo the crazy system by which voters are asked to make so many uniformed decisions. Of course, we can't blame voters for paying so little attention to these down ballot races: one reason the Presidential contest is so interesting is because it is always relatively competitive. The majority of all other races: Congressional, legislative, etc., are not. Of course, part of the reason for this is that voters pay so little attention to the races that the basic mechanisms of party and incumbency usually determine the winner. If voters paid more attention - we'd probably see more competitive races.
I haven't offered too many solutions then. If we had more competitive races, voters would pay more attention, if voters paid more attention, we'd have more competitive races. If races were partisan, voters would have more information, but races are not partisan so voters do not have that information - nor are they likely to gather much information during their busy lives.
None of this is going to change between now and Tuesday - but it is worth paying attention. Locally, many of these contests are very important. For LA County Supervisor, a seat that has a bigger constituency than many U.S. Senators, Bernard Parks and Mark Ridley-Thomas are battling it out in the type of knock-down, drag out fight that is far more interesting and rough than anything that McCain or Obama can put together. And Proposition 8 is an issue that will have an immediate and direct impact on the lives of millions of Californians. Unfortunately, most voters will approach these votes, and many others, in relative or complete ignorance.
Obama's academic career should be considered
October 27, 2008 | 10:03 AM Patricia Gándara
Now that we are down to the last week of the campaign, the candidates' bios are well-known and each has defined the other in ways that can be recited by anyone who has only vaguely followed the campaign:
McCain is a war hero, a 36 year senator, and according to Obama, an extension of Bush. Obama is freshman senator who was a community organizer, and according to McCain a "tax and spend liberal" who is "inexperienced."
As a professor in a wonderful university I am struck by the fact that so little has been made of the fact that Obama has also been, for 12 years, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School - one of the most prestigious and influential in the country - and that he taught constitutional law, the most critical area of the law for any president to know. In plain terms, Obama has been a teacher, preparing the minds of the next generation of leadership for this country.
Yet neither the Obama campaign nor the media in general seem to consider this fact of any particular importance in defining the candidate.
Why?
Obama's "inexperience" has been compared to Palin's inexperience, given that they have both only held federal or state level office for a few years. Why has the Obama campaign - or the media -not mentioned that 12 years as a professor, studying and teaching constitutional law, is, in fact, a very important qualification for someone whose very job is to understand and uphold the constitution while managing the business of the nation? And why is the preparation (and ability) that it takes to become such a professor not considered an attribute worth noting as a key credential for being the leader of the free world?
Most recent studies of these things seem to show that professors are still held in pretty esteem on rankings of prestige (much higher than politicians, by the way). At the very least, the public thinks that university professors are "smart." Isn't that a pretty important qualification for the presidency?
Why is 12 years as a university professor not worth mentioning as a key qualification for president? Is being a professor too esoteric or ivory tower for Joe Six Pack to care about?
Is not 12 years as a teacher, helping students to understand, interpret, and use the law to further the purposes of justice and democracy experience worth touting? I'd put that up against being an office holder any day.
But maybe I am just biased.
The Rural-Urban Divide
October 22, 2008 | 9:57 AM Paul Ong
It is hard to miss the rural-urban divide in the primaries earlier this year and now in the general election, with the media focusing on which candidate has the upper hand in one location or the other. This geographic dichotomy has political currency, but does campaign rhetoric make good policy? As with most simplistic classifications, splitting the nation into two parts belies the complexity, nuances and diversity in the real world. The extremes are easy to identify, with small New England and Midwestern settlements surrounded by farms at one end, and Manhattan and the Loop in Chicago at the other. The boundaries between the two worlds, however, are fuzzy in many situations. Where does one place the exurbs, those hinterland areas that are a long commute away from but still tied to urban jobs? Internal variations are also pronounced. The urban domain encompasses cities and suburbs, and the rural domain includes villages and small cities. Despite a lack of precision, the rural-urban reductionism has implications, and we can dissect the political discourse from different angles.
The first is to recognize that politicians and parties use the terms to acknowledge and bond with key constituencies. DNC's platform, for example, has sections entitled "Metropolitan and Urban Policy" and "Real Leadership for Rural America," and Obama's acceptance speech includes the phrase "cities to rebuild, and farms to save". Republicans also take a similar tack, when they pledge to take "a business-like, cost-effective approach for infrastructure spending, always mindful of the special needs of both rural and urban communities." Geographic name-dropping is good politics to rally loyal followers and to erode the opponent's base. It could also be good policy because the jockeying maintains a balance, precluding government from being overly one-sided. Both parties talk about the need to include both urban and rural in national policies and programs, as exemplified by the Republican's statement that "Gang violence is a growing problem, not only in urban areas but in many suburbs and rural communities."
Political discourse takes on more substance when it focuses on the concerns, problems and potentials unique to each. Rural is closely tied to agriculture. Democrats promise to provide "a strong safety net for family farms, a permanent disaster relief program, expansion of agriculture research and an emphasis on agricultural trade," while the Republicans counter with a commitment to fight "any restrictions upon our farm products within the World Trade Organization." A shared concern for rural America's economic backbone, but different strategies rooted in one party's belief in government's constructive potentials and the other's fear of destructive intrusions into the market. There is no equivalent to the agriculture-rural nexus for urban areas because cities and metropolitan areas are incredibly diverse in terms of an economic base - traditional manufacturing, high-tech, service, finance, etc. What urban areas share in common, albeit at different intensity, are the unavoidable consequences of higher density and large population size. One visible and highly aggravating manifestation is traffic congestion, and both Democrats and Republicans support mass transit and improve transportation infrastructure. What is unknown but will differentiate the two parties is how to finance such an agenda, an important question given that the existing tax system is failing to keep up with changing realities.
Reifying the rural-urban paradigm runs the danger of missing commonalties and crosscutting ties. Regardless of location, rural American and urban American share many priorities over the next few years, whether it is solving the current economic meltdown, enhancing national security or improving public education. People differ on policy approaches, but this divergence is more rooted in ideology than simple geography. Moreover, the viability of one sector affects the well-being of the other sector. A major challenge for the next president is uniting the nation after a bitter contest, and this includes politically bridging the two geographic entities. Good public policy should address unique problems and opportunities in each, but should not unfairly privilege one at the expense of the other.
Before signing off, I want to add a last-minute tangent to this post. Analysis of the rural-urban divide yields a broader lesson because the geographic split is analogous to other potentially deep divisions in our society, including those defined by race, nativity, gender, religion, and other social and cultural lines. The presidential contest is taking a nasty turn, with specious claims of being the "real America" and unfounded charges of being "un-American." The challenge of the 21st Century is managing diversity, building on its strengths and avoiding needless conflicts. The struggle to achieve this balance must be a national goal.
Dirt and the campaign
October 21, 2008 | 2:20 PM Gary Orfield
The walk to the White House isn't a primrose path. Your opponents do not give up their dream of occupying the most powerful office in the world and turning history in a new direction without a fight. If they can't win fairly, they are surrounded by people suggesting how to win through mud wrestling. The two Democratic recent Democratic candidates who tried most clearly to play the game straight, Dukakis and Kerry, were repeatedly hit below the belt with attacks that seemed to them to be so absurd as to be unbelievable or irrelevant were hurt very badly and lost. People said they were too soft. Attack politics ruled again.
John McCain, when his primary campaign was derailed in South Carolina by George Bush in 2000 was hit by a barrage of attacks and whispering campaigns that left him defeated and the "straight talk express" at a deadend. No one rises in Chicago, where politics is a blood sport, as Obama did, without passing through brutal attacks.
One would have thought that both of these men, a good cut above the norm in politics, and sincerely devoted to their country, would have conducted a cleaner, better campaign. Certainly, this year there is an attentive public and truly urgent issues to talk about. Now, not far before the end, it seems like McCain has decided to drag out every fear tactic know to GOP politics - accusing his opponent of "socialism", fostering sexualization of preschoolers, suggestions that he and his supporters are answering back, though less intensely, not wanting to fall down the politics of attack rabbit hole, with the old Democratic standards - they will destroy your Medicare, etc. - though this is mixed with ringing visions of a better country.
There are two encouraging things about dirty politics in this election. For a change, the press is not sitting back and simply reporting ridiculous and untrue accusations as if they were serious and substantive charges. A number of the major news organizations are actually checking facts and reporting what they see, as are organizations that monitor the media, such as Media Matters. Major endorsements by newspapers, commentators and public figures deal with these issues.
If the press is going to be more than a passive, easily manipulated, transmission belt for lies and distortions, it is vitally important both to the profession of journalism and to the democracy, in which the press plays such an important role, that this trend continue.
It is much easier to put out a big lie than a complex truth so there must be a serious cost. We will only control this plague of dirty campaigning by proving that it doesn't work, that it has real costs. There are signs in the survey data that the public is moving in this direction by recognizing and rejecting dirty attacks and that could be one of the best developments of this campaign.
I hope that in the final days the candidates will run a campaign that they and the nation can be more proud of, that the loser can emerge with his reputation more intact than now seems likely, and that the country can be better prepared for the hard bipartisan decisions that will soon be required to solve long-neglected problems. The worst thing would be for the loser to sacrifice his reputation, lose both power and respect, and to leave the country he loves less prepared for the challenges it must face. That, sadly, seems to be the direction we're headed.
How'd Hillary be doing?
October 21, 2008 | 1:17 PM Michael Tesler
I had a stock answer throughout the primaries to the never ending questions about whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was more electable in the general election. I thought that only Barack could lose but that he also had a significantly higher support ceiling than Hillary. Since this is one of the few times when I think I'm right about something I said in the primary season, let me briefly explain why Hillary would most likely not be doing as well as Obama is right now.
The plot below of Clinton and Obama's Gallup unfavorable ratings during the primary months tells much of the story. As can be seen, Clinton's unfavorables were consistently around 10 to 15 points higher than Obama's. Perhaps more importantly, these opinions of Clinton are the product of fifteen years worth of considerations about her. Obama's inexperience, on the other hand, necessarily means the public brings less prior information to bear in evaluating him. The upshot is that opinions about Clinton should be more crystallized and thus more resistant to changing national and campaign dynamics.
This is precisely why I thought Obama had a lower floor and a higher ceiling than Clinton. Much the way Sarah Palin's gaffes get 100 times more attention than Joe Biden's, campaign missteps or scandal would have been way more devastating to Obama than Clinton because Americans have less offsetting information about him stored up in their memories. At the same time, though, Clinton could never have benefited as much as Obama seems to have from strong debate performances and the economy crashing. For everyone already had an opinion of her and 45 percent of them were negative. Simply put, it's extremely hard to envision a scenario from these unfavorable numbers where general election candidate Clinton registers the 62 percent favorability rating that Obama received in the latest Gallup poll.
I'm always perplexed, then, when I hear matter of fact assertions about how much better Clinton would be doing than Obama right now because she's white. How could any white candidate rack up the 6+ point win that Obama seems poised to capture if half of the country already disliked him.
Sorry to open up old wounds from the primary here, but Obama is positioned to earn a mandate that Hillary Clinton's polarizing personality and campaign tactics probably never could have.
Why taxing millionaires and billionaires is fair
October 21, 2008 | 1:00 PM Patricia Gándara
I note with consternation and some degree of frustration with our education system that the Republican candidates are evidently able to frighten (or at least put off) voters by using the term "distributing wealth" in reference to Senator Obama's proposed tax policy. They refer to it disparagingly as "socialism." Obama's proposed tax policy protects (and even lowers the taxes of) the lower and middle classes while modestly increasing the assessment on the wealthiest among us. Many American voters evidently believe that it is unfair to increase the taxes of millionaires and billionaires in order to provide a social safety net for all.
This sense of unfairness seems to emanate from some corollary to a belief in the American Dream, that the wealthy deserve what they have (and should not be required to carry a proportionate burden) because they "worked for what they have." (This suggests that the person working three minimum wage jobs and who cannot afford health care for her family isn't working hard enough. Otherwise she would be wealthy too.) Of course the same individuals who hold this belief also tend to oppose inheritance taxes that would help to ensure that whose with wealth did indeed earn it and not just inherit it. There appears to be a mistaken impression afoot in this country that the US affords its citizens opportunities that are the envy of the world.
Unfortunately, Americans are poorly educated about what goes on outside our own borders. A member of the working class is more likely to achieve the "American Dream" in most western European countries than in the U.S., where social mobility has been declining for decades. Citizens are also more likely to be able to send their children to college where they will earn a degree in about 15 other competitor nations than in the U.S. And this is intimately related to the fact that these countries, through tax policies, do not allow the huge disparities in wealth that exist here.
How did we get things so backwards that "distributing wealth" turned into an ugly concept and enormous disparities in wealth - in even the ability to provide the most basic aspects of life for one's family - is something to be protected? Do we need to revisit our civics curricula, or do we just need to teach our kids more about social policy in the countries where their peers are faring much better than they?
Socialism?
October 21, 2008 | 11:08 AM Gary Orfield
The McCain campaign is now accusing Sen. Obama of advocating socialism. Socialism, of course, is a policy of public ownership of the means of production. There is nothing about the Obama tax policies that have any relationship to socialism, so this word is merely being used to arouse emotion and fear in a free enterprise society where any hint of socialism can be a political kiss of death.
Ironically, the only thing that might possibly be fit into this category of socialism in recent history is the action of President Bush's Treasury Department in taking partial public ownership of all of the nation's largest banks, something that was widely seen as necessary after unregulated speculation in financial instruments backed by bad mortgages threatened to bankrupt the entire system.
What McCain calls socialism is the idea of raising taxes up to the level of the Reagan era by reversing some of the tax cuts to the rich that were paid for with borrowed money and national debt. When policy is changed to subsidize the well-to-do or private business, even incredibly rich oil companies, it is defended as economic development. When there is a proposal to provide some aid through the tax system to working families not earning enough to support their families, conservatives see it not as social justice, as caring for deserving families and children facing tough times, or as a way to develop their potential and give them a chance to fully contribute to the society, but as SOCIALISM!
As this campaign reaches its final days, I hope that the public will recognize these charges for exactly what they are--an effort to distract people from the fact
that the policies of blank check, license to steal economics have failed and that those making the charges are implicated in the failure and are now trying to sell primal fear in the absence of any compelling ideas of their own.
that the policies of blank check, license to steal economics have failed and that those making the charges are implicated in the failure and are now trying to sell primal fear in the absence of any compelling ideas of their own.
Videos explain the Bradley Effect
October 20, 2008 | 2:18 PM Editor
Some of our faculty bloggers talk about the notorious - and possibly mythical - Bradley Effect in short videos that are offered to help clarify things for voters. In this one, Assistant Professor of Political Science Lynn Vavreck and graduate students give the background.
Also see:
Related video:
About
Election analysis and personal commentary by UCLA scholars, unfiltered.
RSS Feed
Our Bloggers
Frank Gilliam
Dean of the UCLA School of Public Affairs and professor of political science.
Gary Orfield
Professor of education, law, political science and urban plannning.
Paul Ong
Professor of urban planning, social welfare, and Asian American studies.
Patricia Gándara
Professor of education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA.
Mark A. R. Kleiman
Professor of public policy.
Amy Zegart
Associate professor of public policy.
Mark Sawyer
Associate professor of political science and director of the UCLA Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics.
Dr. David Zingmond
Assistant professor-in-residence of medicine.
Lynn Vavreck
Assistant professor of political science.
Tim Groeling
Assistant professor of communication studies.
Ryan Enos
Ph.D. candidate in political science.
Michael Tesler
Graduate student in political science.