How Do Americans Vote? Other Musings too

Thanks, Matt but I somehow think you'll get to a computer over there:

I remember long before embarking on this major that I used to debate a friend of mine. I said to him, "Most Americans vote based on one issue alone." He would lob obscenities at me, claiming I knew not what I said. Little did I know how right I was!

Last summer I took my first 400 level class and learned just how Americans vote. Philip Converse, who is considered by many in my field to have written the work on public polling did research on this subject. His definitive work is entitled The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Rather than bore you all to death with the work, much of which I don't understand (public polling isn't my specific area, btw), I will briefly summarize what he said.

Converse conducted research in 1956 on how elites and ordinary citizens vote. Briefly, he found out that 11.5% were ideologues or near-ideologues (meaning these are the people who think in terms of liberal or conservative). The majority of Americans, 42%, vote on what is known as group interest. This usually falls to one issue: immigration, Iraq, etc. 24% of Americans vote based on nature of the times, the issue that is in vogue (terrorism, right now); this isn't necessarily the group interest issue. Finally, 22.5% of Americans vote on no issue content: Obama's hair cut looking better than Romney's or some thing of the like.

Now, I will have to go out on a limb here and trust what my professor told me. She told me recent research had been carried out to see if Converse's findings hold true, considering they're a little over fifty years old. They do.

I just turned on the debates about an hour ago, catching the Republicans debating about immigration. A common theme I heard among the candidates was that we can not remove twelve million illegal aliens from our country. Personally speaking, I've heard the number is much greater (through various estimates) than twelve million (specifically that twelve million illegals reside in California alone by one estimate). Above all else, it distresses me that all of the candidates who said it is impossible to remove these illegals from this country. They lied to everyone watching that debate. IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. DO NOT LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!

One more thing, I won't be contributing here much longer (on a regular basis). Where am I going? A clue lies in the video below:

[fragmentation] strength of the sphere

How's this, from a U.S. Anonymous, as a rationale of the blogosphere?

There is a freedom in this technology, and yes that freedom is under drastic attack from centralised powers that wish only to control. Thus control is anathema to me. The strength of the 'sphere is in its fragmentation. If I don't like a place, I don't go there. Places open up, places close down. Thats the strength of the 'sphere.

It is indeed. Have a lovely night.

[townie ant] the fragrance of the city

Ares Den Dig meeting minutes 010208: The Townie Ant

Gibberish? Now, imagine the blogger has been at a meeting in the city for a length of time and the result of his frame of mind is in the pic he produced. Now, reflect on the fact that this is a blog, so for what purpose? To engage who in deep discussion on the meaning of life?

Now, in that light, the post appears brilliant to me, after which he drops this in to his next, concerning Harrison Ford kicking a Russian off his plane and Bill Bixby making his umpteenth return to the action:

Ms. Manners has emphasised that manners are the glue that hold society together. We turn the other cheek when we can, lest we stoop to vulgarian levels of behaviour. But what do we consider ‘crossing the line?’ When someone’s actions threaten the safety and well-being of others. That, and seeing this raving bloke marching towards the cockpit.

I think if I ever found myself in that position, my mind might work along similar lines. Perhaps Sean should take a look.

[new hampshire] more important than ever

Having read the the American pieces and then the Dizzy piece, the question comes down to whether the Lizard Queen can be the "Comeback Kid" in New Hampshire.

They're similar in that they both polarize voters but different in that he was perceived as young and she as old and as a woman. Before anyone writes off the Lizard Queen, it's also worth noting that a caucus is not a primary - a primary is more direct. Plus she's east coast.

With the exception of Gary Hart in 1984 and some others, NH has been pretty good at picking eventual nomination winners. Detractors of NH point to the uneven sample not reflecting the national split and yet it has the record to back it.

All eyes on New Hampshire. Too close to call.

[martin scriblerus] a fine tradition

Martin Scriblerus was the name given by Pope, Swift and others to a fictional writer of satire in the 18th Century.

Emerging from the particular literary coffee house they were members of, the joke was that anyone in the group could publish a satire and use the moniker Martin Scriblerus.

From this was born the Scriblerus Club and though it was never formal and never really a club, it became associated with fine writing and with a sense of humour. It seems, even today, a fine idea for a group of modern writers, e.g. bloggers.

The idea is completely different to what people feared in the first post on ethics below. In fact, it would be a freewheeling "brand name", as the 18th Century variant was intended to be. All would be equal, there'd be no rules or admins and it would be a collective only insofar as, to be in it, that would signify that you were a quality blogger.

The ethics question would just come naturally with the territory, rather than from any regulations or rules - in fact, in the manner Tony Sharp indicated.

The idea is to create a brand name synonymous with quality and in no way to "hand out Civility Enforced code of conduct badges to good little blogging boys and girls." That would never come into it as it would just be a collective of freewheelin' bloggers doing their own thing to the best of their ability but happy to be associated with the name.

Just as it was with Pope and Swift.

Who would decide such a thing? All members plus the readership's opinion on each blogger. It possibly wouldn't require a special site and paraphernalia and might act more like the Barbarians or I Zingari or like the current Britblog. The Baa Baa's code, by the way, is:

Membership is by invitation and the only qualifications considered when issuing an invitation are that the player's rugby is of a high enough standard and secondly that he should behave himself on and off the field.

It might be a nice combination of Brits, Americans, Canadians and others of a range of persuasions - the only criterion being good blogging.

The danger, of course, is that it could become seen as a club of high-noses and that would be nauseating to fellow bloggers but that could be solved by the simple expedient that caring for the blogosphere might be one criterion and a certain outwardlookingness as another. There's no reason members couldn't be in any other group they like.

Possibly it should have a self-destruct button too to prevent it becoming monolithic.

The question of swearbloggers comes into it. It was raised in the posts below. Speaking purely personally, I can't see the problem when it's for artistic effect but when it's just gratuitous, then it's an issue for some.

For example, in the Touch 'n Go song about Harlem, the girl who's just been mugged of her last $50 says, "F--k you." I'd suggest it was necessary in that context, especially as the whole thing's tongue in cheek. But there's a young conservative girl blogger who drops swearwords anywhere in lieu of good blogging, in an effort to impress as some sort of hard-girl, e.g. "What's that coming over the hill? Oh it's a big f--k off grey cloud."

Bloggers who come into the swearblogger category include DK, Mr. Eugenides, Reactionary Snob and Longrider among others. Clearly top bloggers who know how to provoke and there's nothing wrong with a bit of provocation now and then [I'd never do it, of course :)].

Anyway, the whole thing's just an idea only at this stage.

[ethical blogging] poetic justice

Clearly, the intent behind yesterday's post on ethics was not made clear enough and that was because I failed to give the background and therefore the real thrust of the post. So let me present this as a melodrama.

First, the motley cast of characters:

The Councillor - actually a soon to be councillor come the next elections. An excellent man and blogger who is very popular.

The Quiet Blogger - another popular personality whose blog many find to their taste and who has occasional, well constant really, outbursts at the government.

The Rattlesnake - likes to get inside and bite people.

The Initiator - otherwise known as T-1000 who "never, ever stops"; he likes to start things and is popular with many but his cavalier manner puts others off. His support is ebbing away.

The Ornery - an excellent blogger and good man who often misinterprets things and yet raises excellent points along the way.

The Deceiver - otherwise known as the Messiah, his blog is his God and he uses it to further his nefarious aims.

Goodheart - a great lady blogger who rises to authority and is under the spell of the Deceiver.

Synopsis

Long ago, a group of people gradually gathered together at the instigation of the Initiator and were concerned with the blogosphere. Out of this an ethos was born which simply reflected what Cllr Tony Sharp [not the one in the story] wisely said:

Surely any blogger worth their salt should be posting in a way that is ethical and moderating comments that offer nothing but abuse.

Ah yes, Tony but that doesn't take into account the snakes in the grass who put themselves onto others. No blogger is an island, after all. The story unfolds:

The Rattlesnake decided to publish a series of "Testimonials" which were ascerbic and often inaccurate portrayals, in a scurrilous manner, of some other bloggers, including The Councillor and the Quiet Blogger.

These latter were understandably upset and the Initiator and colleagues promised to look into this but didn't because pressing matters pressed and the truth was - it didn't directly affect them, may they be forgiven for this. Here is the first principle of wrongdoing:

We fail to act in support of other bloggers when it doesn't directly affect us or when we ourselves have other more pressing matters on our hands.

At the same time, fine words were being written about mutual support and ethics and the like and most people nodded on with approval. The injured parties, however, suffered on in silence.

Then, into this, came the Deceiver, who'd somehow got into the picture and he started his Messianic mission to allegedly [for legal purposes] use his blog and fellow bloggers to produce sexual acolytes and a culture of Pleasure Dome which, as many said, was his own business.

Except that first one then other victims contacted the Initiator who then did some exploring.

The Ornery now came into the picture, rightly claiming that it was all well and fine having noble and lofty aims if we never utilize them. He walked away from his fellow bloggers. Meanwhile, the Initiator felt it was time to expose the Deceiver who can cast magic spells, especially on women but in doing so, the former didn't count on the assiduous pull of the Deceiver. Only the victims knew the real truth which was shown in e-mails written to them by the Deceiver.

The Initiator saw a clear ethical breach here - it was as clear as day in the e-mails and in the blog itself. He jumped onto this issue but it was misinterpreted as a personal feud and the unethical nature of the Deceiver and his extraordinary capacity to convince others that black was white proved too much. The reason he does this so well is that he deceives himself as well and sees himself as a Knight in Shining Armour.

To illustrate how ethical he actually was, the Deceiver published a complete e-mail he'd been sent by the Initiator and the Initiator called for action on this, just as the Councillor and Quiet Blogger had before him. However, most saw this as just an error - hell, anyone can make an error, right? Kiss and make up.

However, a few astute bloggers saw it more for what it was - a rare lapse revealing true colours and they explored themselves and came to the same conclusion as the Initiator - the Deceiver was unethical. But not being privy to all his e-mails which the Initiator refused to release to his ultimate cost, they could not conclude further.

Seven people rallied to the call altogether but alas, most bloggers were away at the time and missed the show. The stated purpose of the Deceiver - to destroy the Initiator, the only obstacle in his path as he saw it - had been cleverly timed for two days before Christmas.

There were now two issues. The first was the issue of the Deceiver, which was clearly now a lost cause. The second issue was far more serious for the blogosphere:

When the chips are down, bloggers will not support ethical standards because either they're involved at the time in their own projects or else don't have all the data to judge.

If they did, then the Deceiver and the Rattlesnake would have been either drummed out of the blogosphere or would at least have been severely censured.

So, a much chastened Initiator now realized how personal ethics and how mutual support of fellow bloggers in a just cause are of vital importance. It's the old story of the Wolf and the Sheep - the Wolf can pick off the Sheep one by one because the Sheep fail to support one another, except in the proximity of sheer numbers.

The main reason bloggers will not support ethical standards and censure rogue bloggers is the great fear, which even the Initiator shares in full measure, that The Man is trying to remove the freedom of the blogosphere. Most will sign petitions but won't actually rally to support individual instances of quiet, underhanded attacks by the Man, who is cynically clever and knows that people are essentially self-interested.

Of course, occasionally an important person is thus attacked and then the sphere will rally, e.g. over the Usmanov affair. But generally The Man is more subtle than that. Now, while this battle between The Man and The Sphere is going on in one corner, Wolves are happily roaming around The Sphere picking off individual Sheep and no one comes to the rescue - you see, the Wolf wasn't personally attacking them so why buy trouble?

To wind this tale up, it was finally brought home with a jolt to the Initiator that ethical blogging is just a catchphrase when it applies to anything other than our own blog. No one will truly support censure of unethical behaviour against a fellow blogger, such as scurrilous "Testimonials" or the publishing of another man's e-mail.

The Initiator is now both chastened and less idealistic about ethics than before and that's a sadness. Also a sadness is that he has to walk away from the object of his heart for the past year and once again, a bit like in a divorce, go it alone.

Why must he? Well, he can't very well remain, pretending all is well when he's invested so much into the issue of ethics to the point where one of his close friends writes to say he's being a prat and whilst the Deceiver still roams around freely doing his thing.

Did I say alone earlier? Well, not quite alone.

There are a few people who support ethical blogging in real, actual terms - in terms of supporting fellow bloggers under the hammer and while the Initiator's personal position disintegrates and his health deteriorates, he knows that there are indeed certain very good hearts out there and he gives thanks that such people still exist in these increasingly Look After Number One days.

Epilogue [pretend it was a tele-drama]

The Initiator feels he has to now give back to others in some other way, to get off his butt and help and support fellow bloggers, not with fine words of a general nature but from inside himself and the only weapons are the posts on our blogs.

That's what he meant about Ethical Blogging - not regulation of the sphere or prescriptive rules, as The Ornery assumed in his customary but lovable misinterpretation [the Initiator actually hates regulation of the sphere] but instead:

Personal ethics and mutual support at the time when it is needed is vital for our mutual protection in these days when our blogging freedom is increasingly being threatened.