Downtown Scotty Brown

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/2012/10/23/bdc-scott-brown-the-model-gallery/hxcGNdX5JulyXJuZoFo9YN/gallery.html?pg=1&t=150&cp=1

The reason I chose this article -- hilarity aside -- is that it fits fairly well with our recent focus on attention and the economics thereof.

I'm unsure if it's because I live in a primarily blue state, but it seems the GOP is somewhat rife with these sorts of faux pas. Earlier, we had the Paul Ryan gym photoshoot, and now this has cropped up. Granted, Brown's former modelling career is fairly well-known, but with the Senate election coming up, it's been referenced to more and more.

It's obvious that the media are using the economics of attention to their benefit. In this sense, they are bombarding their chosen public with sensational images, such as a scantily clad Brown. This then grabs peoples' attention and makes them buy newspapers or look at websites or however they choose to consume this news.

Likewise, this operates on a level of attention-grabbing to the benefit of the Democratic party. While one could argue that Brown's photo shoots might instead benefit him -- perhaps displaying him as an attractive man-beast or some such -- I doubt this will be the outcome. Instead, peoples' attention are focused on the ridiculousness of the photos taken, thereby removing their attention from anything Brown's opponent might be doing wrong.

Colin Powell is pro-Obama

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/10/25/powell-standing-obama-presidential-race/D2YV4L3IUfLjtQrXehWhMN/story.html

The Boston Globe (among others) report that former Secretary of State Colin Powell will vote for Obama in 2012.

This by itself is somewhat interesting, but not exactly a bombshell. Indeed, having anyone from the Bush administration publicly favor your campaign might have the opposite effect.

Regardless, the way this connects to the recently discussed idea of economies of attention is somewhat simple. It's often you hear politicians -- both Republican and Democrat -- claim they work "across the aisle." Indicating that the politician doing the talking is able to work in a bipartisan manner. Because politicians -- aka Important and Famous People -- keep referencing it, it has become a new buzzword, or buzz-topic, that the media love to report on.

In this case, Powell's endorsement or admittance to voting for Obama this election centers the attention on that concept. This then provides the reporting medium -- in this case, the Globe -- with readers which then buy its newspaper.

Obama Says No-No Words

This is merely a humorous youtube clip of excerpts from President Obama's book, Dreams from My Father.

An audiobook was also released, in which Obama himself narrates. This is great because we get to hear the 44th President of the United States drop f-bombs.

http://youtu.be/DTdyMklPv3g

Jenkins and Memes -- BBC

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19973271

The BBC article is  great because it highlights the aspects of what a meme is. Still, some would argue that this is horrible, because it centralizes a decentralized concept for those who aren't in the loop. Defying the very viral nature of a meme. But we'll ignore the latter opinion for now.

The initial concept the BBC introduces is the amount of remediation the meme is subjected to. There is an original image, or icon, that then becomes wildly popular. The internet is the most common repository for such icons. Which then is spread from audience to audience until it becomes an even greater icon, garnering enough attention for popular media to comment on it, as in the case of Romney's comment regarding binders and women.

Moving forward, the BBC article touches upon what Jenkins was talking about in his article, where popular culture is creating much greater access to politics and political interpretation than ever before. The Romney-binder example may be a bit limiting. The Hillary Clinton meme where she is seen texting on her phone is a better one.

Why is it a better example? The main reason is that it was used by both parties, Republican and Democrat. This creates an essence of egalitarianism due to equal access to the image, and by default, the meme itself. Jenkins perhaps puts it best where he writes:

...we may be able tot alk across our differences, if we find commonalities through our fantasies. This is in the end another reason why popular culture matters politically -- because it doesn't seem to be about politics at all (239).

XBox Live Trying to Get Out the Vote

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Gamespot:
XBox Live Election Overview

Various Kotaku Articles:
40% XBL Voters Don't Know Who To Vote For

XBL Debate Coverage Craps Out

Awful Questions During Second Debate

These articles are all fairly short, and sort of interesting. If you're like me. And if you like video games and find them fun.

Chances are, you've heard of Microsoft's Xbox 360 console, played a game on it, or at least seen what it looks like. Likewise, because it is the most popular console in the United States at the moment, it seems appropriate that Microsoft would try to capitalize on that popularity and their console's ubiquity.

I should mention that although I enjoy video games, I have not used this feature on my own console. Indeed, I don't trust Microsoft enough to not screw it up. Also, if the dashboard is any indicator (this is the main screen for the XBox 360) then it'll be covered with advertisements and information about how great Kinect is.

That said, how does this connect to the stuff we've gone over in class? Probably the most obvious is Poster's article about new public spheres. In this case, XBox Live's target audience is adults over the age of 18. Traditionally, the younger the voter, the more unlikely they are to vote. This in itself is a public sphere. A sphere populated by possible voters who simply don't care to. This also opposes the public sphere of traditional voters.

This attempt by Microsoft also touches upon Jenkins' article about Convergence Culture. People in the age group I described (young, 18+ voters) don't seem to watch traditional news programs and consume news through the usual methods. They like alternative news, such as the Daily Show or the Onion. Therefore, this highlights the importance that Jenkins posited regarding how popular culture is becoming important to citizens.

XBox Live is attempting to provide easy access to an apparently less accessible medium for its target demographic.

Second Presidential Debate

The version of the Presidential debate I watched can be found here:

http://youtu.be/Vd_0THGPe6Q

Yet another Presidential debate between candidate Romney and President Obama. At least this one was much more entertaining than the first. That part where Romney and Obama were toe-to-toe is great. And, start a fist fight (much to my disappointment), I still had a good time watching them try to bark over each other.

I suppose the debate proper can become much more interesting to observe when you look deeper than just what the two candidates are spewing. Originally, I argued that there isn't anything deeper. They're both either lying or misleading the audience in a performance meant to garner votes. While I still believe that to be true, I also believe that the Presidential debate is a great exemplar of the Lanham article and how economics of attention work. At least in the sense of the Presidential election.

The Big Reason the Lanham article fits so well with the debate is because "truth," as we would understand it, is fairly meaningless. The facts are play-things to both Romney and Obama. Indeed, they use information to try and focus attention on themselves. Likewise, the machine-gun rhythm of switching topics, buffering one's accomplishments, and finally attacking the opposition acts as attention traps -- as described by Lanham -- that keep people from looking deeper into the argument the speaker is making.

This really grinds my gears.

After observing that triumvirate  of logos, pathos, and ethos, I liked the idea of focusing on logos. For myself, logic trumps blind belief any day. The President and candidate Romney do not subscribe to this idea however.

Interestingly, it seems as though the media is perhaps picking up the slack. Fact-checking has become much more popular and ubiquitous than what I've seen thus far. Though, admittedly, my experience with politicians and their fact-checkers is limited, at best. Fact-checking in itself operates similar to those art critics and gangrenous professors Lanham mentioned. They try to "look through" that which is being displayed.

The candidates however, only want the public to "look at" what they're saying. Of course, this isn't really the candidates' fault. It is the nature of the beast, the beast being Democracy in this case, that essentially makes it a giant popularity contest. It's like an exploded version of the archetypal Prom King and Queen. The football team captain and the most popular cheerleader (do cheerleaders have captains?) winning both positions, not because they deserve it, but because a majority of students like them.

Is that bad? Probably. Is there a better alternative? Doubtful. At least, one that works well and that we can all agree upon.

I don't think my idea of the candidates wrestling each other during the debate would go over very well.

Vice Presidential Debate

The version of the Vice Presidential debate that I watched was provided by the New York Times and can be found here:

http://youtu.be/j3roG09O6T4

My reaction to the Vice Presidential debate is relatively similar to the the first Presidential debate of 2012: uninterest, bordering on revulsion.

To the debate's credit however, there was one part that did amaze me quite a bit. The portion where Vice President Biden referred to Paul Ryan's two letters requesting stimulus funds for some businesses in his home state of Wisconsin. Biden mentioned it, and Ryan confirmed it, therefore it probably, could be, may be, true.

Of the recent debates I've watched or heard -- Obama/Romney, Biden/Ryan, and Brown/Warren -- I don't know that I've heard any blatant agreement such as the one featured there. What that meant -- that Paul Ryan did send those letters -- was somewhat irrelevant to me. I could see what Biden was trying to imply, but that's all it was: implication. I'd have to look it up and decide for myself to have a real opinion.

Also, it was pretty obvious throughout that Biden was determined not to repeat Obama's mistakes during the first Presidential debate. Both he and Ryan were concerned with the image they were projecting. It was smiles, frowns, and eye-contact throughout.

One of the most poignant aspects of the debate that I noticed was how entertaining it was. I should be fair and reveal that I am basically pro-Obama. Therefore, it may be possible that I enjoyed this debate more because there was a more animated Democratic candidate. Regardless, watching both Biden and Ryan writhe and struggle in the ring of honor was fun.

It felt akin to how the former WWF would put on wrestling. It opened with a good amount of smack-talk, followed with references and counter-references to "facts" on both sides -- this would constitute the debate's version of DDTs and pile drivers. Indeed, both candidates -- wrestlers -- dropped a zinger each: Biden's "You're no Kennedy" line, and Ryan's "...things don't always come out of your mouth the way you want them to" line. I pictured these instances as equivalent to a chokeslam, or perhaps even the dreaded Stone Cold stunner, delivered in verbal form.

Unfortunately, Biden didn't end the match by headbutting an effigy of Romney, nor Ryan by physically assaulting Biden and stealing his motorcycle.

Accentuate Candidates, Eliminate Moderator

The Boston Globe article I'll be referring to can be found here:

Accentuate Candidates, Eliminate Moderator, by Kevin Cullen

http://articles.boston.com/2012-10-14/metro/34432897_1_moderator-commission-on-presidential-debates-lincoln-douglas-debates

This article is particularly interesting because it focuses not on either of the candidates, but on the debates' moderators. Specifically, Cullen mentions the recent Vice Presidential debate, in addition to the Massachusetts Senate debate between Warren and Brown.

Upon first reading this article, I thought Cullen's references to the Lincoln-Douglas debates was great. Likewise, I agreed that getting rid of the moderators might be a good idea. After watching the Vice Presidential debate however, I've changed my tune.

Another aspect I disagreed with that Cullen purports is that both candidates are (allegedly) adults. And therefore, both can presumably converse civilly as adults should. I posit that both candidates are not adults, but are tools by their respective parties to get votes. To be fair, I believe that once either candidates steps off stage, the tool analogy no longer applies. They only behave like that because they know America is watching.

That said, it seems that without a moderator to provide a semblance of topics or framework for the debate that both candidates would just huff and puff until one of them has a stress-induced aneurysm. The reason, is that there is a constant of that bickering and no-you-didn't-yes-I-did pseudo-arguments.

Shakespeare and Us

In this blog post, I'll be referring to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Probably the primary reason for this is because Julius Caesar is an utterly badass play, and everyone should reference it more often.

I've transcribed the portion of Caesar that I plan to focus on for this post here:

Act III, Scene ii

Enter Brutus and Cassius with the plebeians.

Plebeians. We will be satisfied! Let us be satisfied! 

Bru. Then follow me, and give me audience, friends.
Cassius, go you into the other street,
And part the numbers.
Those that will hear me speak, let 'em stay here;
Those that will follow Cassius, go with him;
And public reasons shall be rendered
Of Caesar's death 

1. Pleb. I will hear Brutus speak.
2. Pleb. I will hear Cassius, and compare their reasons,
When severally we hear them rendered.

[Exit Cassius with some of the Plebeians. Brutus goes into the pulpit.]

3. Pleb. The noble Brutus is ascended; silence! 

Bru. Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for my cause,
and be silent, that you may hear. Believe me for mine
honor, and have respect to mine honor, that you
may believe. Censure me in your wisdom, and awake
your senses, that you may the better judge. If there
be any in this assembly, and dear friend of Caesar's, to
him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than
his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose
against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I lov'd
Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more. had you
rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that
Caesar were dead, to live all freemen? As Caesar lov'd
me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice
at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but, as he was
ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love; joy
for his fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his
ambition Who is here so base that would be a bond-
man? If any, speak, for him have I offended. Who
is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any,
speak, for him have I offended. Who is here so vile
that will not love his country? if any, speak, for him
have I offended. I pause for a reply. 

All. None, Brutus, none. 

Bru. Then none have I offended. I have done no
more to Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The
question of his death is enroll'd in the Capitol: his glory
not extenuated, wherein he was worthy; nor his
offenses enforc'd, for which he suffer'd death.

Enter Mark Antony [and others] with Caesar's body.

Here comes his body, mourned by Mark Antony, who,
though he had no hand in his death, shall receive the
benefit of his dying, a place in the commonwealth, as
which of you shall not? With this I depart, that, as I
slew my best lover for the good of Rome, I have the
same dagger for myself, when it shall please my
country to need my death. 

All. Live, Brutus, live, live! 

1. Pleb. Bring him with triumph home unto his house.
2. Pleb. Give him a statue with his ancestors. 

3. Pleb. Let him be Caesar. 

4. Pleb. Caesar's better parts
shall be crown'd in Brutus.
1. Pleb. We'll bring him to his house
With shouts and clamors. 

Bru. My countrymen-- 

2. Pleb. Peace, silence! Brutus speaks.
1. Pleb. Peace ho!

The portion after this is fairly important to the play as well, but I'll just summarize it:

Mark Antony rolls in and essentially incites the crowd (in an extremely clever manner via rhetoric) to violence. Also, he manages to turn the Roman public against the conspirators who slew Julius Caesar. Mark Antony's speech is that famous one with the often-cited line, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!"

The reason I've chosen Shakespeare to observe in this post (aside from the aforementioned badassery) is that it's interesting how Shakespeare's own observations can be linked to some of the readings we've done in class. The more obvious one is perhaps Habermas' argument regarding the public and private sphere and their evolution through time.

Shakespeare -- and by extension, his play -- is great for this argument because he and it touches all three portions of Habermas' argument. First, we have the ancient world's version of the public and private spheres. Then Shakespeare's own time (basically the dawn of the 17th century), which features the step from the second style of public v. private -- with Kings/Queens personifying the public sphere -- into the third style of public v. private spheres found in the Renaissance.

The second, and probably less obvious reference to our readings, is where Stracham & Kendall posit how peoples' preconceived notions are notoriously difficult to crack.

Just for reference, a quick synopsis of Brutus' speech to the Roman public:
Brutus approaches the crowd, who are pretty pissed that the conspirators killed off Caesar. Brutus explains that it had to be done, and that him and Caesar were bros, therefore it hurt him to do this. Indeed, this is true, as seen in Brutus' struggle with conscience featured earlier in the play, during a soliloquy.

He goes on to say that Caesar's transforming Rome from a Republic to an Empire (or Monarchy) was a dick move. And that it couldn't stand. Eventually, the crowd is won over and exclaim that they'll honor Brutus. The part I highlighted in red is perhaps the most poignant. The crowd wants Brutus to take Caesar's place!

The irony of this is unbelievable. The crowd wants Brutus to become the very thing he fought so hard against. I thought it immensely interesting that Shakespeare's observations of peoples' preconceived notions (made in the very early 17th century) echo that of an argument and studies done in the 21st century.

Five Things You Need to Know About the Election -- BBC

I found this article on the BBC website. I can be found here:

Five Things You Need to Know About the Election, by Tom Geohegan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19729802

This is a fairly small article that touches upon those public spheres mentioned by Poster. Specifically, these are public spheres that are outside the United States.

Geohegan perhaps puts it best when he writes that:

There is huge international interest in who occupies the White House because the actions of a US president have a global impact.

 As an American citizen, it is easy to forget the amount of influence the United States government wields. Thus, it makes sense that people of other nations are going to be watching the Presidential election process. Likewise, the article as a whole is interesting merely because I find any sort of geographically outside perspective supremely fun to look at.

Another great excerpt is the audience (in millions) that Obama's inauguration had:

US: 38m
Germany: 11m
France: 7m
UK: 5m

Germany's viewership by itself is incredible. It outnumbers the entire population of Massachusetts (around 6.5 million).

Finally, the article by itself could probably be of use to many Americans who might feel a bit lost about where to start in looking at the election.

The New Profile of Faith -- NPR

This is an NPR broadcast featuring the On Point program, starring Tom Ashbrook.

Guests include:

Gregory Smith, senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life . He is one of the primary researchers for the report released Tuesday titled “Nones on the Rise.”

Robert Putnam, professor of public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. His most recent book, American Grace, co-authored with David Campbell of Notre Dame, focuses on the role of religion in American public life.

William Lawrence, dean of the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University.



The broadcast can be found here:

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/10/11/the-new-profile-of-faith

Unfortunately, there is no transcript.

This broadcast is interesting because it connects pretty well to my previous blog post regarding Mormonism and Romney's faith.

Specifically, I was very curious as to why Romney and pals didn't broadcast how cool Mormonism is, and how it connects to Romney. This would have helped explain Romney's character, in my opinion, in addition to displaying a favorable aspect of his personality. Interestingly though, the On Point broadcast describes how many people who were fairly into their faith and church were turned off by the connection of faith and politics. The most specific example featured in the broadcast are Evangelicals. Likewise, those that did not affiliate themselves with any specific religion, but claimed that they did believe in a higher power, are also turned off by the connection between religion and politics.

Another aspect that is very interesting is this concept of what the broadcast describes as "nones." Humorously, this sounds like "nuns," though this is not what they are talking about. "Nones" describe a public sphere that is unaffiliated with any specific religion, but are not apparently connected with agnosticism or atheism. Likewise, the broadcast describes how this sphere is growing, and how it has become somewhat important in the election process primarily because of its size. Indeed, early on in the broadcast, one of the guests (Mr. Smith, I believe) points out how the size of the Nones in support of Obama was roughly equal to that of the Evangelicals in support of McCain in the 2008 election.

Overall, it seems that the broadcast is essentially focusing on the decline of Protestantism in the United States, which is still the majority religion despite the apparent drop in population percentage. Likewise, the broadcast describes why this is.

A final aspect of the broadcast that is supremely interesting is that of guest William Lawrence, dean of the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. His portion of the broadcast begins around the 11 minute mark. His perspective is interesting because he is obviously a religious man, but acknowledges the proof that specific denominations are dropping. He also gives reasons for this, and other great perspectives regarding the drop, such as the idea that while one year many people would be considered a None, the next they may join with a specific denomination, finally switching back to a None, again. The callers which speak on air are interesting as well, primarily because it displays the disdain many people seem to have of any connection between faith and politics.

TIME Magazine (again)

The TIME article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/who-lies-more-yet-another-close-contest-obama-vs-romney/#who-lies-more-yet-another-close-contest

This article is much shorter than the preceding one, and I have included scans from the magazine showing at-a-glance excerpts of lies told by both candidates.

Who Lies More? Yet Another Close Contest, by Alex Altman

To find out who shaded the truth most, TIME asked each campaign for a list of its rival’s worst deceptions. After examining those claims and consulting independent fact-checking websites, we selected some of the most prominent falsehoods and prevarications of the 2012 campaign*—at least so far. Compared with the Obama campaign’s, the Romney operation’s misstatements are frequently more brazen. But sometimes the most effective lie is the one that is closest to the truth, and Obama’s team has often outdone Romney’s in the dark art of subtle distortion. On both sides, the dishonesty is “about as bad as I’ve seen,” says veteran journalist Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org. 

The lying game unfolds on many –levels. Campaigns obfuscate, twist the truth and exaggerate. They exploit complexity. Most of all, they look for details—real or unreal—that validate our suspicions. There was no Obama “apology tour,” but the canard flourished because some voters are wary about his sense of American exceptionalism. If you read the whole paragraph, the President’s “You didn’t build that” riff seems a lot more reasonable, but context fell victim to a perception that Obama disdains free enterprise. Bain was never the beneficiary of a taxpayer bailout, and yet 75% of Americans believe the contrary, partly because Democrats have cast Romney as the kind of plutocrat for whom the rules are rigged. 

Even for the most open-minded and informed voters, truth is often subjective. Discerning it is that much harder when the campaigns cater to two different groups of voters who seem to prefer two very different sets of facts. 

* These quotes come from the candidates or campaign ads they personally approved, with the exception of the Obama team’s claim about Bain Consulting, which was repeated by Vice President Biden

This article is mainly in support of the previous one, featured in my previous blog post.

It merely points out how both parties and their candidates are a pack of filthy liars. Likewise, it is apparent that the public likes it that way. And that's terrible.

The at-a-glance excerpts featured in the magazine itself but not found online can be found here:

TIME Magazine

The TIME magazine article I will be referring to can be found here:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/

This is another long article, similar to the previous one. However -- unlike the last article posted -- there really isn't a way to skip any of it if you want the whole story. It's super interesting, though.

Blue Truth, Red Truth, by Michael Scherer

No one would ever mistake the White House press briefing room for a courthouse or a confessional, so the blue curtains and official seal made an ironic backdrop this summer for President Obama’s impromptu homily on honesty in public life. “The truth of the matter is you can’t just make stuff up,” he told the scribblers who get paid to check his facts. “That’s one thing you learn as President of the United States. You get called in to account.” It was just what reporters wanted to hear, even if it was not exactly true. 

At the time, Obama was speaking about a campaign ad from Mitt Romney that falsely claimed that the President had eliminated the work requirement for welfare. The ad was unmistakably deceptive. But just five minutes earlier in the very same press conference, Obama had offered some misdirection of his own. “Nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon,” he said. In fact, one of the President’s senior strategists, Stephanie Cutter, told reporters a month earlier that Romney was misrepresenting himself either to the American people or to securities regulators — “which is a felony,” she said. 

Cutter’s was a conditional accusation but an accusation nonetheless, and at the time it allowed the Romney campaign to take its turn playing truth teller. “A reckless and unsubstantiated charge,” protested Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, who asked Obama to apologize. Of course, no apology was forthcoming. So the posturing got worse. 

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney complained about Obama a few weeks later, without any apparent self-awareness. That was followed by Obama aides’ announcing that Romney’s campaign was built on a “tripod of lies” and that Republicans “really think that lying is a virtue.” Romney continued his protests, saying, “The challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the President tends to — how shall I say it — to say things that aren’t true.” 

So it goes in the world’s most celebrated democracy: another campaign day, another battle over the very nature of reality. Both of the men now running for the presidency claim that their opponent has a weak grasp of the facts and a demonstrated willingness to mislead voters. Both profess an abiding personal commitment to honesty and fair play. And both run campaigns that have repeatedly and willfully played the American people for fools, though their respective violations vary in scope and severity. 

The rules for this back-and-forth were set in 1796, in the nation’s first contested presidential election, when John Adams’ supporters falsely charged Thomas Jefferson with atheism and loyalty to France while Jefferson’s forces made up fables about Adams’ monarchist ambitions. In the centuries since, campaigns have evolved into elaborate games of cops and robbers. Candidates and their supporters bend, twist and fabricate facts as much as they can without sparking a backlash. Reporters and opposing politicians do their best to run down the deceptions for voters. 

But the perpetrators usually remain a step ahead of the cops. “It’s like the campaigns are driving 100 miles an hour on a highway with a posted speed limit of 60, but the patrol cars all have flats,” says Mark McKinnon, a Republican ad man for the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. “There was a quaint era in politics when we were held accountable for the truth and paid consequences for errors of fact. No more.” 

Indeed, the 2012 campaign has witnessed a historic increase in fact-checking efforts by the media, with dozens of reporters now focused full time on sniffing out falsehood. Clear examples of deception fill websites, appear on nightly newscasts and run on the front pages of newspapers. But the truth squads have had only marginal success in changing the behavior of the campaigns and almost no impact on the outside groups that peddle unvarnished falsehoods with even less accountability. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” explained Neil Newhouse, Romney’s pollster, echoing his industry’s conventional wisdom. 

Similarly, the so-called Truth Team for the Obama campaign has found itself in recurring spats with journalists brandishing facts. One of the most galling Obama deceptions, embedded in two television ads, asserts that Romney backed a bill outlawing “all abortion even in cases of rape and incest.” This is not true. Romney has consistently maintained, since becoming a pro-life politician in 2005, that he supports exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. 

No Consequences 

So what explains the factual recklessness of the campaigns? The most obvious answer can be found in the penalties, or lack thereof, for wandering astray. Voters just show less and less interest in punishing those who deceive. The reasons may be found in the political fracturing of the nation. As some voters feel a deeper affinity for one side or another in political debates, they have developed a tendency to forgive the home team’s fibs. No matter their ideology, many voters increasingly inhabit information bubbles in which they are less likely to hear their worldview contradicted. 

In 1960, when John Kennedy won the White House by just 0.2% of the vote, 20 states, with 52% of the population, were considered highly competitive, according to Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz. By 2000, only 12 states, with 28% of the population, had a margin of victory of less than 5 percentage points. This year no more than nine states are in play, and the vote in several of those may not even be close in the final tally. Persuadable voters are increasingly hard to find. As Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth professor who studies falsehood in politics, puts it, “The incentives for truth telling are weaker in many ways than they have been in the post-Watergate era.” 

At the same time, chances are high that your neighbors mostly agree with you and that the media you choose to consume rarely rattles your outlook. The pundits on MSNBC, the Huffington Post and the editorial page of the New York Times do a fine job of calling out the deceptions of Romney, but if you want to hear where Obama is going wrong, you might be better served on the Drudge Report, Fox News or the Wall Street Journal editorial page. 

“We don’t collect news to inform us. We collect news to affirm us,” explains Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who has been studying the 2012 electorate in swing-state focus groups. “It used to be that we disagreed on the solution but agreed on the problem. Now we don’t even agree on the problem.” All of this contributes to an environment in which, for some voters, unwelcome facts are simply filtered out and flushed away. 

Human beings are simply more willing to believe falsehoods that confirm their worldview. In July, 17% of voters told pollsters for the Pew Research Center that Obama is a Muslim, an increase from just 12% in October 2008. Within the GOP, this fiction was believed by 30%, up from 16% in 2008, and the increase was more pronounced among those with college educations than among those without. The President is a Christian. There is no credible information to suggest otherwise. But for many caught up in the passions of politics, the facts are not conclusive. 

Instead the public increasingly takes issue with those who deliver the facts. Gallup recently recorded the highest levels of distrust in the media since it began measuring this sentiment in 1998. Only 40% of the country, including just 26% of Republicans and 31% of independents, express a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. “In the past, the press effectively played the role of umpire,” explains Chris Lehane, a Democratic campaign consultant who served as press secretary of Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. “Now they are effectively in the bleachers.” 

The result is a landscape where accuracy is largely in the eye of the beholder. If you ask voters which candidate is fooling the public, the answers vary by political disposition. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 76% of Romney voters believe Obama is “intentionally misleading” voters. As it happened, the exact same share of Obama supporters believe Romney is “intentionally misleading.” Only 17% of Romney voters and 12% of Obama voters were willing to say their own man had deceived. 

Two Men, Two Realities 

To see just how easy it is to be fooled, one need only visit the controlled confines of the university laboratory. In the spring of 2006, Nyhan and his research partner Jason Reifler of Georgia State University gathered conservative and liberal students to test their resistance to factual information. They asked the group to read an article that included President George W. Bush’s claim that his tax cuts had increased revenue for the U.S. Treasury, which was provably false. Then they added a factual correction: the Bush tax cuts led to a three-year decline in tax revenue, from $2 trillion in 2000 to $1.8 trillion in 2003. 

The correction worked among liberals, but among conservatives it produced a curious backfire effect: conservatives were nearly twice as likely to say the Bush tax cuts increased revenue after they had been told this was not true. Such distortions are not limited to the conservative mind. The researchers presented an article showing John Kerry’s claim from 2004 that he would “lift the ban on stem-cell research” imposed by Bush, followed by corrective information: Bush never actually banned stem-cell research; he prevented federal money from funding research on a subset of embryos. The true information had a corrective effect for conservatives and moderates but no impact on liberals. Once again, personal views had intervened. “The more we care about politics and the more it becomes central to our worldview, the more threatening it becomes to admit that we are wrong or our side is wrong,” Nyhan concludes. The studies show that facts that contradict our biases actually have the effect of reinforcing them. 

Even more factual information might seem like a good solution to this problem. But the reality is more complex. Researchers have demonstrated in similar conditions that pieces of false information, once heard, establish themselves as “belief echoes” that can persist even after a falsehood is corrected. There is also a tendency among those with more information to be more biased against reality. In 2006, Danielle Shani, then a Princeton graduate student, analyzed a large-scale election survey taken in 2000 that asked voters for evaluations of the Clinton presidency while gauging their levels of political knowledge. She found that more-knowledgeable voters actually showed more bias. Democrats and Republicans, for example, differed predictably on whether the Clinton presidency had improved or damaged national security. But among highly informed Democrats and Republicans, the differences were more stark. When asked if the budget deficit had increased under President Clinton, those with more information exhibited a bias 5.5 times larger than those who knew less. 

The bias extends to how people digest news. In a 2007 study published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, participants were asked to rate the bias contained in a single news report that was alternately identified as originating from Fox News, CNN and a fictional television station. Simply changing the brand attached to the report changed people’s views of the information. People made assumptions about the veracity of the news independent of what the news actually reported. “As a result, individuals sometimes create bias even when none exists,” concluded authors Matthew Baum of Harvard and Phil Gussin of UCLA. The effect was stronger among those who knew more about politics. 

One hint as to why this is the case can be found in other research on the interaction between emotion and fact. Some of the same emotional impulses that lead voters to seek out more information — concern, insecurity and fear, for example — skew their ability to accept accurate information. A 2008 Nyhan and Reifler study asked some research subjects to write a few sentences about a time when they had upheld a value that was important to them. The idea was to get subjects feeling good about themselves before they had their political biases challenged by facts. The exercise worked: when presented with evidence that the 2006 Iraq troop surge had reduced the number of insurgent attacks there, supporters of withdrawing U.S. forces from the country were more likely to accept the validity of the surge after a self-affirming exercise than without the exercise. Self-confidence allowed people to overcome their biases. 

The Fact-Checking Movement 

Campaign strategists, especially at the presidential level, know well just how easy it is to fool the public. No ad goes out without significant data from polls and focus groups to ensure its effectiveness. Glenn Kessler, who writes the Fact Checker column at the Washington Post, tells a story about the head of a super PAC who chewed him out after Kessler called him on a deceptive ad. “This was after he was screaming at me about something I had written, and he laughed and said, ‘I actually don’t give a hoot what you say, because these ads work.’” 

This is the challenge now facing the political press, which has largely embraced the cause of correcting politicians when they run astray. As recently as the 1980s, journalists stayed on the sidelines when politicians fibbed, preferring to report on the back-and-forth rather than get involved in adjudicating the underlying merits of each claim. There were some early efforts to fact-check Ronald Reagan, who argued, among other things, that vegetation was the major source of air pollution. But when George H.W. Bush ran an ad in 1988 falsely claiming that Michael Dukakis “opposed virtually every defense system we have developed,” including the Stealth bomber, his charge went mostly unchallenged. Dukakis did support the Stealth bomber and other defense systems. 

The move to push for more accuracy began in earnest in the 1990s and evolved into the fact-checking outfits of today. It is grueling, sometimes messy work, given the complexity of the claims made in the course of a campaign day. Obama routinely says, for example, that use of renewable energy doubled under his watch, which is true only if you define renewable to mean just wind and solar energy. Romney claims that he can cut income tax rates 20% and still raise the same revenue with the same progressivity by eliminating deductions and loopholes. Using traditional budget scoring, this is not possible, though some conservative economists say the cuts should be judged outside traditional metrics, assuming new economic growth that would make the math add up. But there is much debate over the legitimacy of such predictions. “Truth is not a binary,” says Bill Adair, who founded PolitiFact, a site that employs 35 reporters and won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 campaign. “We recognize that truth is in shades of gray and different interpretations can be valid.” 

But even when there is little gray area, the fact checkers often find themselves sidelined or, worse, used as tools of dishonest campaigns. Both the Romney and Obama operations often cite fact checkers to underscore their opponents’ deceptions but have resisted changing their own behavior. More and more, the worst deceptions fly under the radar, with microtargeted mailings and radio spots that can escape the attention of fact checkers. One of the most deceptive spots of the 2008 campaign was an Obama radio ad that claimed McCain “stood in the way” of stem-cell research despite McCain’s long record of support. Though it’s easy to track down television spots posted on YouTube, reporters and fact checkers then had to find out about the ad from the McCain campaign. 

In late September, Brooks Jackson, a veteran CNN reporter who runs FactCheck.org, convened his colleagues, including Kessler, Adair and Jim Drinkard of the Associated Press, to discuss their craft at the National Press Club. “Do you see places where either campaign has paid a price for misrepresenting facts?” Jackson asked them. Several seconds of silence followed. “Well, that’s kind of depressing,” Jackson said. Eventually, Kessler chimed in by noting that Romney has stopped saying in stump speeches that the U.S. is the only country on earth where hands are put over hearts during the national anthem. Kessler disproved the claim with YouTube video from other countries. “He dropped that the very next day,” Kessler said. Not exactly a huge score. 

The Question of Character 

The great irony in this curious chapter in American politics is that both campaigns have made telling the truth a central message and a core qualification in each man’s case to be President. In the run-up to the first of three debates in October, both campaigns charged that deceptions by the other guy would be a window into his essential character. “He’s trying to fool people,” Romney told reporters on his plane. “Facts will matter,” said Obama aide David Axelrod in a memo in response. 

As a strategic matter, this makes sense; the best defense is often a strong offense. But when politicians speak of truth telling in such high-minded terms, they risk hypocrisy. In the final weeks of September, Obama seemed to acknowledge this risk by admitting in an interview with CBS News that his campaign sometimes goes “overboard” and that this is something that “happens in politics.” Romney has refused to waver. “We’ve been absolutely spot on,” he told CNN. 

The October debates will offer one of the last chances to expose falsehoods. “What debates are really good at is dispensing a caricature of the other side,” explains Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania who helped found FactCheck.org. “Except for debates, you don’t get a lot of two-sided information.” 

But when the final book is written on this campaign, one-sided deception will still have played a central role. As it stands, the very notions of fact and truth are employed in American politics as much to distort as to reveal. And until the voting public demands something else, not just from the politicians they oppose but also from the ones they support, there is little reason to suspect that will change. 

— With reporting by Alex Altman and Alex Rogers / Washington

Probably the best way to summarize this article's main point is the simple observation that both the Democrats and Republicans are a pack of liars and cheats. And the reason for this is merely that the public doesn't seem to care. Indeed, they want to hear how awful the opposing party is, even if it's a fabrication.

In further narrowing the article's argument, it is beneficial to observe what Scherer wrote at roughly the fourth paragraph of "No Consequences" heading:

“We don’t collect news to inform us. We collect news to affirm us,” explains Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who has been studying the 2012 electorate in swing-state focus groups. “It used to be that we disagreed on the solution but agreed on the problem. Now we don’t even agree on the problem.” All of this contributes to an environment in which, for some voters, unwelcome facts are simply filtered out and flushed away. 

Human beings are simply more willing to believe falsehoods that confirm their worldview. In July, 17% of voters told pollsters for the Pew Research Center that Obama is a Muslim, an increase from just 12% in October 2008. Within the GOP, this fiction was believed by 30%, up from 16% in 2008, and the increase was more pronounced among those with college educations than among those without. The President is a Christian. There is no credible information to suggest otherwise. But for many caught up in the passions of politics, the facts are not conclusive. 

Superficially, this seems extremely bizarre. One would imagine that after all the hubbub concerning Obama's true nationality and religion, these sorts of opinions would die out rather than increase. Even more striking is the observation by Scherer that "...the increase was more pronounced among those with college educations than among those without." This operates completely opposite of what logic should dictate, yet it seems the evidence is there. Indeed, I don't want to believe it, even though the evidence is apparent.

This seems to connect with the enthymeme concept mentioned during class in the sense that whether or not the "fact" is true is irrelevant. The concept is left out of the equation, thereby forcing people to assume that Obama is indeed a Muslim.

Another concept this article connects with is that of the human psyche. In the Stracham & Kendall reading, the authors mention how pre-conceived notions are notoriously difficult to dislodge. This proved to be an enduring problem for Presidential candidate Al Gore.

Thus, it is fair to say that a person's beliefs -- notions and ideas most likely constructed and held by the people themselves -- begin pre-conceived before encountering a political candidate. Therefore, any attempts to dislodge or change these beliefs are rejected by the person. However, if a candidate spews information that corresponds or supports those beliefs, the person is more likely to believe in that candidate. Regardless, of whether or not what the candidate says is true. Likewise, if the candidate spews vitriol against the other candidate that initially challenged a person's beliefs, that person is again more likely to favor the vitriol-spewing candidate -- even if that vitriol spewed is false or misleading.

Also worth noting is that while the previous example regarding Obama's faith and nationality tends to poke at the GOP and Romney, Scherer does try to be fair in pointing out issues with the Democrats and Obama campaign. The blog post following this one will cover deceit of both parties, and their respective candidates.

The final aspect this article points out is how awful it makes people look, as a whole. It is apparent that the majority of Americans observed in the article have fallen victim to their own nature. And willfully, it seems. From my perspective, this follows the logic that "because I believe it to be, then it must be so," the so-called facts be damned. Which, I believe, is perhaps the filthiest method of thought there is.

TIME Magazine

The TIME Magazine article I will be referring to can be found here:

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2125510-1,00.html

Also a warning: this article is pretty huge. It covers Mitt Romney in addition to Mormonism as a whole, so it goes into its history and notable events. It is probably possible to skip the part titled "Joseph Smith's Journey" and still be able to get a feel for what the article is talking about. Smith's journey mainly covers the history of Mormonism.

The Mormon in Mitt, by Jon Meacham

On the eve of America's bicentennial in 1976, a leading authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rose to speak at the Mormons' biannual General Conference in Salt Lake City. "Can we maintain our basic freedoms, peace and prosperity for another 200 years?" he asked, rhetorically, before continuing, "The answer to this question is yes, if we shall individually repent and conform to the laws of the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ." 

The sermon that followed was titled "America's Destiny." Its preacher was Marion G. Romney, a member of the Mormon elite and cousin of former Michigan governor George Romney and of Mitt Romney. The Salt Lake address and a follow-up speech the next spring at Brigham Young University neatly captured the Mormon vision of America's special role in sacred and secular history--a vision that greatly expands the traditional Protestant view of America as a new promised land. 

According to Mormon founder Joseph Smith, the U.S. is the terrestrial home of the Garden of Eden and the place where a resurrected Jesus appeared to restore the gospel and where he will come again--in Jackson County, Missouri. "What is largely metaphorical for many Protestants is literal for many Mormons," says Matthew Bowman, a historian of Mormonism at Hampden-Sydney College. At BYU, Marion Romney spoke of America's "final, great and glorious destiny. Here Zion is to be established and the New Jerusalem is to be built. From here the law of God shall go forth to all nations." 

It's tempting to think of Mitt Romney's faith as that of John Winthrop on steroids--that the Republican presidential nominee's religious tradition exalts America above all other nations, creating an exceptionalism that could invest American policy with a sense of divine sanction or lead to theocracy. Even the title of Romney's 2010 book--No Apology: The Case for American Greatness--doesn't allow for much nuance. Yet the political implications of the Mormon understanding of American destiny are not so simple. The story of the faith of Romney's ancestors on the American continent is one of exile and redemption, of blessing and punishment and, perhaps above all, of struggle and endurance amid trial and tribulation. 

Which, when you think about it, is a pretty fair description of a close-fought presidential campaign. At the moment, for his supporters and opponents, Romney remains more a political caricature than a character from real life. There is Romney the Plutocrat, the man who can seemingly dismiss 47% of the country because they are "dependent upon government." There is Romney the Turnaround Artist, the man who should be trusted with the fortunes of a troubled nation. There is Romney the Secretive, the man who keeps his tax returns close to hand. And last week, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, who is also a Mormon, added a new one to the mix: Romney the Unrepresentative Mormon. Reid told reporters that Romney has "sullied" his faith and "is not the face of Mormonism." 

Like most other presidential candidates, Romney speaks of such matters in general, not in particular. "I will be true to ... my beliefs," he declared in his most expansive discussion of his faith and politics, a 2007 speech delivered at George H.W. Bush's presidential library. "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." 

Yet in the search for the real Romney in these last weeks of the race for the White House, there's much to be said for beginning at the beginning, with what Romney has called "the faith of my fathers." In his address at the Bush library, Romney said, "I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor ... I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements ... My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect, and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency." 

Observers have long sought clues to Romney's character and worldview in his Mormonism. There is the optimistic salesmanship, the blindingly pure family values, the can-do spirit. In many ways Romney is Reagan with children who speak to him, a cheerful leader who has a mystical appreciation of the role America is meant to play in history. 

What is less appreciated is the Mormons' historical sense of siege and of tragedy. By cultural and theological conditioning, Romney expects life to be difficult, even confounding--hence the need for the analytical skills of a management consultant. Mormons are accustomed to conflict and expect persecution. The Mormon sense of destiny gives followers a part in a divine story, a larger saga of the conflict between good and evil, infusing their lives with both great purpose and keen pragmatism. Viewing Romney through the lens of the Mormon understanding of history helps explain his ambition, his devotion to personal liberty and his comfort with expediency. 

Joseph Smith's Journey 

The story of Mormonism--the quintessential American religion--begins with Joseph Smith Jr., who experienced visions in the first third of the 19th century to restore what Smith said was a fallen and corrupted church. Through his own prophecies and the Book of Mormon, Smith founded a faith that emphasized America, and Mormon leaders have long held that American greatness was contingent on the moral choices of its people--choices that were to be made by free will, or what is known as moral agency. In the Mormon cosmology, life in this fallen world is a constant struggle between good and evil. 

In December 1833, Smith and his followers were in a bad spot. They had moved to Missouri to build their Zion, the place they believed would ultimately serve as what a 20th century Mormon leader, Ezra Taft Benson, would call the Lord's "base of operations." 

Under pressure from locals who were unhappy to have members of the new sect in their midst voting as a bloc and practicing economic communalism, the Mormons soon heard a prophecy from Smith that exalted religious liberty--a liberty the Mormons desperately needed America to protect and nurture. Smith said God had told him the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Founding Fathers were "wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose."
Eventually driven from Missouri, Smith and his flock attempted to settle permanently in Nauvoo, Ill. Yet a backlash against Smith led to the arrest of the prophet, who was ultimately shot to death by an anti-Mormon mob. 

Moving westward, the church grew more pragmatic over time, seeking to make peace with the broader world to preserve freedom for Mormons to live as they wished. Even polygamy, the most notorious of Mormon practices, was linked to practical concerns: the church needed new members. As Romney told 60 Minutes in 2007, referring to his great-grandfather Miles Romney, "They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert, and so he took additional wives as he was told to do." 

According to biographers Michael Kranish and Scott Helman in their book The Real Romney, in 1862, after signing federal legislation outlawing polygamy, Abraham Lincoln, consumed with concerns about the Union, told a messenger to "go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone." Lincoln's "true priority," wrote Kranish and Helman, "was to ensure that Mormons stayed out of the conflict." Which they did. They had their own concerns and did not need to invite a war with the Union. 

By the last years of the 19th century, the church had officially abandoned polygamy--not least in order to win statehood for Utah. Theology conformed to political reality; a tenet of the faith gave way to the needs of the moment. The decision on polygamy, announced in 1890, had a particular effect on the Romney family. Mitt's great-grandfather went to northern Mexico and created a Mormon outpost at a time when the faith of the church included plural marriage. A crisis shook the clan when it was driven out of Mexico by revolutionaries. As a boy, George Romney, Mitt's father, was part of this latest Mormon exodus. Circumstances changed, and one had to cope. 

Politics and Pragmatism

It is possible that Mitt Romney's tendency to conform to the world immediately around him is at least partly rooted in the history of his family and of his church. In Massachusetts he was a moderate; when seeking the nomination of a more conservative national party, he moved right, often not even trying to explain why he might have held such different opinions in such a relatively short span of time. 

Romney's commitments to liberty and individualism as organizing American principles also have Mormon origins. "People from all over the world who prized freedom--the innovators, the pioneers, the dreamers--came to America," Romney wrote in No Apology. "And so they continue today ... It is this love of liberty and the accompanying spirit of invention, creativity, derring-do, and pioneering that have propelled America to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world." 

Though usually right of center, the Mormon church has staked out different political positions at different times. Utah went for William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and for Franklin D. Roosevelt in all four of his presidential victories. On the conservative side, in the 1950s Ezra Taft Benson served as President Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, ultimately becoming a supporter of the far-right-wing John Birch Society and exploring the possibilities of running on presidential tickets with Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. (Church president David McKay held Benson back.) Among a handful of Mormons, there's also a much disputed report of what is known as "the White Horse Prophecy." Joseph Smith is alleged to have said that an hour would come when the U.S. Constitution would "hang by a thread" and the Mormon people would ride forth to rescue the nation. The prophecy is far from official church doctrine, but it is even now a favorite among radically conservative Mormons. And at the time of Marion Romney's Salt Lake City sermon, Protestant evangelicals, in part in reaction to the Supreme Court's January 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, were beginning to organize politically, and Mormons became active in the antiabortion cause. 

The story of the church, however, does not march in lockstep with the story of modern conservatism. As Bowman points out, Utah Mormons supported Ronald Reagan by a substantial margin in 1980 only to have the church leadership successfully fight against the siting of MX missiles in the state. "When threatened," said then church president Spencer Kimball, "we become antienemy instead of pro--Kingdom of God. We train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot ... perverting the Savior's teaching, 'Love your enemies.'" As the mood of the country grew more optimistic in the 1990s, the Mormon hierarchy urged the faithful to view the world in less hostile terms. Every election year, the church issues a letter reminding members that "principles compatible with the Gospel can be found in the platforms of various political parties." 

A Question of Charity 

The voice on the video is steady, the message seemingly stark. "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what," Romney said at a private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., in a May recording reported in September by Mother Jones magazine. "All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." He added, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." 

Romney has also clearly articulated the opposite view. "If we're going to help lift our brothers and sisters out of poverty, we must restore our economy and reduce the debt," he told faith leaders in September, in a contrast reported by Christianity Today. "When our economy is healthy and growing, we have the resources to take care of those who still find themselves in need." Moreover, Romney said, "Our government rightfully provides a safety net for the hungry, the homeless, the sick and the elderly, and we have the responsibility to keep it intact for future generations." 

Romney's personal engagement in charitable works is formidable. The Mormon church requires its members to tithe 10% of their income to maintain good standing in the church. He and his wife are generous donors: in 2010, the Romneys gave $3 million to charity, $1.5 million of which went directly to the church. The church runs more than 300 employment-resource centers and 80 family-services offices. Some 9,800 missionaries work in welfare services, teaching English as a second language, improving agricultural and medical practices and distributing clothing. The LDS church encourages members to keep a three-to-six-month food supply in reserve so the faithful won't go hungry in case of a natural disaster. Mormon families also forgo two consecutive meals a month and give the money that would have been spent as a "fast offering" for the poor. Local bishops--a position Romney held in Massachusetts, where he eventually led several thousand church members--work with members of their wards to overcome economic challenges. Bishops can even pay a family's mortgage while spouses look for jobs. With fast offerings and tithes, the Mormon system is designed both to make members self-reliant and to follow the biblical mandate to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. 

So we know how Mormons feel about caring for other Mormons. What about reaching out to others? And what is the proper role of government in caring for the least of these? 

As a young man in the 1960s, watching his father campaign for President amid the rise of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Romney heard warnings about an overly paternalistic government. "Under the Great Society, a gap is growing between government and people," his mother Lenore said in a fundraising speech in 1967. "Government is becoming 'they,' not 'we,' 'theirs,' not 'ours.' Instead of encouraging us to be our brother's keeper, it tells us to relax because we've hired a keeper for our brother. It tells us that government will not only keep our brother, but government will be our keeper too ... Americans are not by nature a 'kept' people." 

Mitt would agree with his mother but would not rule out a role for government, if a more limited one than Democrats favor. "My faith is grounded in the conviction that a consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another--to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God," Romney told Cathedral Age. Still, he has a Mormon's dislike of the idea of a dole. Within the church, those receiving help have to give something back too; dependence is to be avoided, though generosity is essential. It is, if you will, a pragmatic way of looking at the matter. 

With only weeks to go before the election, the question is whether Romney has the capacity to draw once more on the pragmatic tradition of his religious forebears. Will he stick with a strategy that seems not to be working against President Obama, or will he respond to changing events--in this case, falling poll numbers in key swing states--with bold policy proposals or a more overtly negative campaign or whatever might move the election in his favor?  

One thing is clear: as a devout Mormon leader, Romney knows his church history, and he knows that difficulty and doubt are inherent elements of life. The key thing is to remain faithful, to serve, to press ahead--to the next territory that might welcome you, to the next voter who might decide to give you a chance. From the outside, Romney's life looks to have been easy and affluent. There is, however, another angle of vision, one that reveals a deep-seated Romney instinct to survive and thrive in even the worst of storms. Whether that part of him can carry the day will determine his destiny--and ours.

Whew. What a huge article.

Perhaps the best place to start is where Mormonism fits within Romney's identity. The reason for this is twofold: One, after reading this article I feel that it makes Romney seem a much more likable character. And two, why hasn't he been trumpeting this stuff all over the place during the election?

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure Romney hasn't been doing so. Because I don't live in one of the swing-states, there really isn't that much air time with regard to the Presidential election. Also, I don't watch TV. So my perspective on Romney's trumpeting is limited.

However, the imagery associated with Mormonism as a whole probably has a lot to do with why we haven't been hearing all that much about it. This is super similar to how John F. Kennedy's Catholic denomination made many voters suspicious. It's a dividing line between Romney and the people he is trying to convince to vote for him. 

Despite this, the TIME article does really well to point out a great many of Romney's traits can be traced to his faith. Indeed, many of those traits sound downright noble when observed in the context of how the Mormon church deals with them. For example, that little piece about "clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry" sounds amazing. But the author, Jon Meacham, does well to point out that while the Mormon church does participate in charity, dependency is highly frowned upon. Those who receive help are expected to do what they can to give back.

This paints a particularly warm and reasonable picture of Romney and his faith than what I've heard before. Which is mostly just noise about how Romney hates welfare, and the poor, and so on.

Another aspect I thought was great was how Meacham highlighted Mormonism's adaptability. Moving westward, Mormonism was more than once chased out of the states it tried to settle in. As a result, the faith has adapted by compromising when necessary, without completely losing its self-identity. It feels as though this is a good reflection of Romney's own political strategy.

Romney, by necessity to become the Republican Presidential candidate, has had to compromise and adapt to the more conservative aspects of his party. Does this make him a liar and a scoundrel? Not necessarily. He is merely adapting to the political realities of his situation. Likewise, many could argue that Romney has done so -- similar to the Mormon church -- without sacrificing his self-identity, which is that of a successful businessman.

In observing the situation as a whole, it seems a bit more obvious as to why Romney's faith hasn't been such a big campaign point. The primary reason is that Romney's faith is different than the majority of Americans. This could be easily spun to make him seem untrustworthy, or an unknown, despite what gains he might make in the warm-and-fuzzy department.

Also, there are other opportunities for Romney to show more emotion. The most obvious example is the first Presidential debate that made Romney seem very human and gung-ho emotionally. Still, I find it curious that Romney's faith still isn't a bigger campaign point. Especially when compared to the hubbub about Kennedy's Catholic faith.

Philosophical Clash During Presidential Debate

This article also comes from the NYTimes and can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/debate-a-clash-over-governments-role-news-analysis.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fpolitics%2Findex.jsonp

The article is written by Peter Baker and broadly covers the differences in both Obama and Romney's campaign styles and goals.

In the fifth paragraph Baker writes:

There was little of the overt nastiness that has characterized the campaign this year. Instead, the debate was perhaps as direct an articulation of the profound schism in this election as has been heard over the course of the campaign. The candidates spent much of the 90 minutes here at the University of Denver defining it in narrow policy details that may have bled some of the passion out of their arguments and made them sound smaller than they were. But at its core, the debate brought home a divide over domestic policy greater than any since President Ronald Reagan and Walter F. Mondale faced off in 1984.

This is particularly interesting because of the part where Baker observes that "...defining [their campaigns] in narrow policy details...may have bled some of the passion out of [Romney and Obama's] arguments and made them sound smaller than they were."

The irony is that in an earlier post I observed and bemoaned how debates heavily emphasize emotional aspects of their candidates' arguments, rather than the policy choices and the logic behind them.

This implies that Baker thought that more passion would have improved the debate. This then implies that the NYTimes, a large news corporation, thinks that more passion -- or emotion -- would have improved the Presidential debate.

A final implication in this sequence is that because the NYTimes -- as a representative of what the public wants to read in their news -- wants more emotion in debates, so do too does the public. And that disgusts me.

Debate Moderator Fair Game

The articles I'm looking at are both featured on the NYTimes website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/debate-moderators-are-subject-to-partisan-rancor.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/after-debate-a-harsh-light-falls-on-jim-lehrer.html?ref=politics

These two articles focus primarily on Jim Lehrer, who moderated the first Presidential debate between Obama and Romney.

This seems to highlight the clash between the new and old styles. This is most obvious if one observes both this debate and the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. Jim Lehrer operates fairly similar to the moderator of the 1960 debate. Indeed, so much so that the 2012 candidates have no trouble bulldozing through any protest on Mr. Lehrer's part.

Mr. Lehrer seems to firmly be a part of the older style of journalism where the reporter is not at all in the news story itself. Their job is to merely observe, or as a moderator, merely get the candidates to talk about the issues. This is directly opposite of new journalism, where the reporters themselves often inject themselves into the news stories.

Interestingly, Mr. Lehrer is apparently catching large amounts of flak for "allowing" the candidates to carry on as they did.

TIME Magazine

The TIME magazine article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/26/the-magical-negro-falls-to-earth/

The Magical Negro Falls to Earth, by Touré (Born Touré Neblett)

If President Obama had to run against Senator Obama of 2008, he’d probably be crushed. Back then, Obama seemed superhuman; today he is merely mortal. His victory in 2008 was historic, breaking the race barrier in the nation’s highest office. But an Obama victory in 2012 would say something even more profound about how far our country has come.

Granted, Obama’s election (or not) is merely one of many factors that will tell us where we are on race in America. But it is a big one. In 2008, Obama had to overcome racial bias that a recent study by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, a Harvard Ph.D. candidate in economics, suggests may have cost him as many as 3 to 5 percentage points in the election.

Obama had to be extraordinary, which reminds me of something my mother told me when I was a boy: that being black meant I had to be twice as good to get ahead. Obama more than just good; in many ways, he was the embodiment of that staple of film and literature, the magical Negro.

The magical Negro is a character full of knowledge and wisdom, sometimes with supernatural powers, whose job is to help a white protagonist reach his full potential. Jim in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is the classic example. More recently, there were Will Smith in The Legend of Bagger Vance, Michael Clarke Duncan in The Green Mile and Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus in The Matrix, who offers Keanu Reeves’ Neo a red pill that will change his life. 

In 2008, Obama was Morpheus and America was Neo, a nation of great potential that had lost its mojo and did not understand reality. Obama offered America the red pill — the chance to vote for him — and we swallowed it. In The Matrix, the red pill took effect immediately, and it wasn’t long before Neo revealed himself to be the One — the Jesus-like figure Morpheus had thought he was. In the real world, change happens much more slowly. When Obama took office, it felt as if the sky were falling and we were close to a depression. We avoided that fate. But it has been a rough few years marked by problems (not all of his making) that include a historic recession, Washington gridlock, the passage of controversial health care legislation, the failure to close the Guantánamo prison, the Middle East explosion and the rhetorical blunder of “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” by which the great orator handed the GOP a gift it could mangle into a slogan. After all that, it’s impossible to view Obama as a superhuman magical-Negro figure anymore.

Obama has been brought down to earth, and he now admits, as he said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, invoking the words of Abraham Lincoln, “I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.” Yet despite his failings and mortal humility, Obama remains the favorite to win: he leads 48% to 45% in the latest Gallup poll and 48.9% to 44.9% in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. 

All incumbents have natural advantages, but for Obama, incumbency is a double-edged sword. Given the super-human expectations placed on him when he took office, it’s not surprising that he has disappointed some of his followers.

So those poll numbers suggest something very interesting about this country in terms of racial progress. They show American voters embracing a non-magical black man. The magical Negro concept arose from a need to rectify supposed black inferiority with the undeniability of black wisdom by suggesting that wisdom is so alien that its origins cannot be explained by normal scientific methods.  

While some may think it complimentary to be considered “magical,” it is infantilizing and offensive because it suggests black excellence is so shocking it can only come from a source that is supernatural. To accept a black leader who is extraordinary yet so human that he cannot be magical is an entirely different prospect than electing a black superhero. Anyone would vote for a superhero who lived up to my mom’s standard of having to be twice as good. But for it to embrace a nonmagical black person who cannot promise anything but hope, intelligence, sweat and experience, now that comes closer to equality. Equality is freedom from having to be twice as good to get ahead.

 This TIME magazine article is great merely because it introduces the idea of the "magical Negro." A literary topic I've come across before, but never truly explored.

 That said, it fits with our class discussion in keeping with the idea of imagery, and transmission of information via a medium. I recall a large hubbub in the 2008 Democratic primaries due to the contenders being a black man and a white woman -- which would be a first Presidency for either of those demographics. This in turn brought up many arguments that many people would vote for Obama, not because his policies were sound, but because he was merely a black man. It seems that Touré's article echoes this concept.

Similarly during the 2008 campaign, I recall many arguments questioning Obama's "blackness." Whether he was "black" enough. This imagery was obviously important to people, enough so that they would argue about it. This then, it seems fair to say, became a part of Obama's image as the first black President.

A final issue that Touré brings up is the idea of true egalitarianism. I would argue that according to Hariman & Lucaites' argument, egalitarianism is highly desirable in an icon, or an image. And Touré is very observant to point out that while during Obama's first election to the Presidency presented him as a very powerful candidate, this election has proven that he is indeed human and fallible. This in turn, makes Obama a more desirable candidate because he's like me. He makes mistakes, but tries his best.

There are a few different ways it seems that this article can be taken. Howver, my personal favorite is what Touré points out by citing Obama's election numbers. That race is more or less being ignored in favor of policy choices.