The jobs report on Friday was bad, as David Howell analyzed here. This immediately was interpreted across the board as good news for Mitt Romney and his party, bad news for President Obama and his. It’s the economy stupid, and bad news about employment means that Obama’s chance for reelection has declined precipitously. And things are worse then that. It’s now or never. It is in the summer that the public’s perception of the economy is locked in for Election Day. Even if things improve in the fall, there won’t be enough lead-time to change the public’s perception.

I know that this is based on solid evidence. Considerable scholarly research has demonstrated the strong correlation between the state of the economy and election results.  But the way this research has been directly applied in daily political commentary is troubling, especially because it can become a political factor itself. As the “Thomas Theorem” posits: If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.  I add, especially when they are doing the defining on television.

This concerns me as a scholar and as a partisan. As a scholar, I worry about the philosophic anthropology of this. The voting public is being depicted as simpletons, not capable of critical thought, of the most basic examination of the facts. There is a kind of economic determinism involved and the determinism is quite mechanical. People vote their pocketbooks and they don’t think critically about it. They don’t wonder about the causes of their economic woes and just vote the bums out. It amazes me how in the same broadcasts talking heads suggest both that the job numbers are a result of long-term trends beyond the control of the President and that Obama’s chances of victory have greatly diminished because of the state of the economy as indicated by the latest job report. They propose a simple Pavlovian stimulus and response vision of voters, never inquiring about how they may interpret the news.

Thinking comparatively, in this way, it’s not the austerity policies, along with other non-economic issues, that is leading to a left political shift in Greece, France and Germany, as we have reported in Deliberately Considered. It’s just a turn against incumbents, and the U.S. will make a right turn for the same economic reason. Might it not be a little more complicated that this?

As a partisan, I wonder are Americans capable of noticing that the persistent unemployment is the result of both the rise in employment in the private sector, and radical cuts in the public sector, including masses of teachers? They surely are capable of noticing that the Republican policies in Congress led the U.S. to the brink of default last summer, and that Romney is offering more of the same, with economic proposals that look a lot like those of George W. Bush and have about as much chance of success as those of David Cameron in Great Britain. Americans also are capable of noticing that in fact Congress is a co-equal branch of government and has moved economic decisions in the direction of austerity, and that state and local governments have been cutting jobs very rapidly during the recession. In effect, Obama is continuing to push in the opposite direction, while a national austerity policy is in place because of the Republicans, as Paul Krugman argued in his piece “This Republican Economy” in today’s New York Times. I know not everyone is going to agree with this Keynesian economist’s political assessment, though I do. What disturbs me is that many posit that argument doesn’t matter. Gross economic statistics, they assume, is political destiny. Following this logic, FDR would have been a one-term president.

And while economics are important in deciding Presidential elections, it is not the only thing. The Republicans, especially as they appeared in the primary elections and in Congress, state legislatures and state houses, are fighting a rearguard action against major social trends in America.

They became the reactionary party when it came to the issues of race and racism, when Nixon adopted his infamous southern strategy. This approach was continued by Bush the elder with his Willie Horton ad and his nomination to the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas as the most qualified jurist in the land (a strained anti-racism). And the reaction is alive and well in the Birther movement of Donald Trump and company, and the crazy wing of the Tea Party, with which the Republican establishment has toyed, and the Islamophobia to which many Republicans are deeply committed, fighting against Islamofascism and Sharia law in Oklahoma and beyond. Yet, America is a much more diverse, much more tolerant society. The American Dream more and more looks like the one depicted and embodied by Barack Obama.

And there is much more, concerning the rights of women to equal pay for equal work, immigrant rights, equal rights for gays to serve in the military and to marriage, full healthcare rights for women, including access to contraception and abortion, and much more. For significant segments of the population these are not just social issues, a euphemism that disguises the degree to which survival and fundamental dignity are at issue.

I know that the studies that predict election results take all this into account. They assume that people do vote on these issues, but that the turn of the election to the Republicans or the Democrats is decided by the state of the economy with a high degree of accuracy. Yet, it will matter who people hold accountable for their economic woes, and it will matter which candidate appears to make sense about the economy, often as this is related to other issues.

Perhaps when the economy went into deep crisis, McCain lost the last presidential election. But certainly when he declared in the face of the crisis that the economy was fundamentally sound, he put the nail in his election coffin. For the young, people of color, women and members of the LGBT community, his cluelessness on issues of their special concern magnified his apparent economic ignorance. Across the board, he didn’t make sense about the pressing issues of the day.

I believe this is the central factor: the struggle to make sense to the public about our problems, economic and non-economic, indeed as they are related. As a partisan, I think and I believe Obama still has an advantage in this regard over Romney and the Republican Party, which over the past year has revealed its radicalism. My next post: more reflections on the issue of making sense and communicating it. How it relates to the question in American identities and the issue of America’s place in the new global order.

Following developments in the Republican presidential nominating contest the instability of the race is stark. Every political contest involves flawed candidates: how could it be otherwise? But often the public develops a firm sense of the perspective of the candidates and chooses to join a team. As primary campaigns are waged on a state-by-state basis, it is expected that in some realms one candidate will do better than another, but psychiatric mood swings are something else. We saw the politics of allegiance in the competition between Barack and Hillary (and the wormy love apple: imagine our blue dress politics in an Edwards presidency!). In the states of the industrial Midwest, home to Reagan Democrats, Hillary posted strong numbers; Obama was more successful in states not so hard hit by industrial decline, states with a rainbow electorate, and those open to a new type of politics. Soon one knew the metrics of the race, even if the outcome was uncertain. But the Republican campaign upends these rules as voter preferences lurch wildly. This is a campaign year that reminds us of voters’ cultural fickleness – their political ADD. They are watching a reality television show and so are we (Jeff Goldfarb describes his pained reaction in “The Republican Reality Show”). If one is not newly tickled, one turns away. Media narratives set our politics.

We have gazed at candidates, quasi-candidates, and proto-candidates – Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and The Donald – dance with the stars. Can parties fire their voters? Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty could have had his turn had he the internal fortitude or cockeyed optimism to recognize that to be dismissed in August might lead to be crowned a year later. If politics were based on a comparison and conflict of ideas, this would be inconceivable.

But American politics has become, as Jeffrey Goldfarb emphasizes, a reality show – adore it, dismiss it, or despise it, but depend on it. Voters demand diversion; they want bread and circuses, at least circuses. Around the scrum are kibitzers, now Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, who, after deciding to disengage, demand that attention be paid. Palin seems committed to pursuing Rush Limbaugh’s 2008 “Operation Chaos,” designed to prolong the Democrats’ primary contest and undercut the eventual nominee. In her case, the fleeting Governor undercuts what is ostensibly her own party as she tells her admirers to vote for Newt to continue debate, and, presumably, her role in it. Our rogue muffin, a mildly progressive governor of a mildly libertarian state, has assumed her role as a mistress of ceremonies of the grand guignol of tabloid politics.

At this moment, after the Florida presidential primary, Mitt Romney seems to have surmounted Newt’s second surge, despite Sarah Palin’s counter-cultural rap to “rage against the machine” by voting for the former speaker. Images, even those of the heavy metal left, are to be plucked by anyone plucky enough to do so. No doubt twists and turns will continue in this drama on the road to Tampa, as voters get bored with the pragmatic lassitude of Mitt, a man who would be Ike or at least Bush 41. Perhaps Ron and Rand Paul will galvanize voters to throw the TSA off the island, raging against those airport scanners and the bureaucratic touch that follows. More plausibly, we might discover that the sad illness of Rick Santorum’s special needs young daughter Bella, now hospitalized in Philadelphia (from the effects of the genetic disorder Trisomy 18), will provide sufficient weepy pathos to propel his candidacy among an electorate weaned on Love Story.

But what if Mitt triumphs? Mitt as nominee poses challenges for an ADD electorate that demands the frisson of thrills and the flutter of delight. Elections in which a President is on the ballot can be referendums or choices. The incumbent hopes that the voters will see the contest as a choice. The challenger, particularly in parlous economic times, hopes for a judgment of the sitting leader. Despite his deep pockets, if Romney is the Republican nominee, Obama will provide the only electricity in the room. He will be the Ozzy Osborne, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian of October. Perhaps Mitt Romney will find it difficult to energize his base, but Barack Obama will achieve that for him. With Newt on the ballot, the choice will be stark, but with tame, vague Mitt, the election might be a referendum. Our ADD electorate will have to determine the narrative of the moment on that first Tuesday in November. On that day will the president be imagined a Greek naïf, an acolyte of Fidel, or the Great Leader of the resurgent East? Or is being an American Idol enough?

I am allergic to political gatherings. You are not likely to discover me at movement rallies, rubber-chicken circuit banquets, or victory parties (more commonly weep-in-your-drink defeatathons). I treasure the quietude of the old voting booths where one could think one’s civic thoughts while surrounded by worn fabric. I enjoyed the experience so much that I annually decided to change at least one intended vote just because that choice would mean that casting a ballot was an act of deliberation.

Still, nineteen years ago on a bright September afternoon, I made my way to the train station in Norcross, Georgia, near where I resided at the time. That day Al Gore was coming to town. I no longer recall whether Gore was riding a whistle-stop train or merely using the station as a nostalgic background. Given Atlanta’s transportation mess, I imagine it was the latter. The idea of rearranging my schedule to hear Senator Gore declaim might seem an act of perversity, or at least desperation.

But it was not. It was lovely and sweet and purposive, not only because of the flags and the band and National gemeinschaft and Southern gemutlichkeit. Without yelling, Al Gore was eloquent, passionate and true. At least true enough for campaign purposes. I left persuaded that the order of the Democrats’ 1992 ticket should be reversed. I voted standing on my head.

I tell this tale because of current discussions of Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and Minnesota’s Timothy James Pawlenty, both of whom being regarded as a bit wonkish and “Gorish.” Apparently Daniels homelife was slightly Gothic, and he decided that he could miss the attentions of Perez Hilton, Gail Collins, Larry Flynt, and Matt Drudge, but T-Paw has decided to make a go of it. It is too early to trek to a local rail station, if there are any stations left, but from what I have heard, T-Paw is, despite his nickname, a serious man.

The web is filled with accounts questioning whether one so measured can be measured as presidential timber. In competition with Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann – not to mention a certain raging rogue elephant with fire in her belly – seriousness, modesty, and respect is a virtue in the public sphere. Presidential Obama, of whom some liberals despair, seemingly unwilling to rise to the heavens or sink to the mud, also seems rhetorically appealing.

I have previously written with some warmth of a lusty, rugged, prickly political discourse which does not always observe kindly civility. But there should be a distinction between those who critique and those who wish to lead, a division between fire and nice. And even these so-called boring candidates are not above throwing a few good jabs amidst all the clarity. Certainly Gore did on that afternoon, and so too do Governor Pawlenty and President Obama. Some red meat is healthy for a rhetorical meal, just as long as one abjures the political equivalent of a Paleo-diet (all raw moose). I call for a candidate with a core of commitment to public debate and to political process. Yes, a candidate who is passionate about values and goals, but also one who recognizes that one’s opponents are similarly and properly passionate.

And so without any endorsement, I am glad that good-ol’-worn-sock Tim Pawlenty is running for president. I am glad that he has a vision, however imperfect it might be, just as the same could be said for the pre-Clintonized Al Gore. Many reasons might be adduced as to why a Vice-President will never be the President. Failures have many fathers, but I have long felt that part of what doomed the Gore candidacy was that by 2000 he lost sight of the willingness to take us seriously and to speak in themes that made us consider, not just proposing bubba-Redux.

We will be blessed, if, as the Republican nominating process heats up, it doesn’t incinerate those candidates whose quieter, clever, wiser voices we need, even if, in the end, we determine that the incumbent has the edge. Let us hope for an election in which our decision will not be certain until we close the curtain of the musty, old voting booth.

I have been long impressed by the relationship between theater and politics, and am impressed once again in considering the posts and discussion at DC this week. Theater is the art form, according to Hannah Arendt, that most closely resembles politics, and as such it can be of great political significance, for better and for worse.

I have based my intellectual career on this. Theater opened Polish society to major changes, and in the process, it changed my life. It presented alternative visions; it constituted an alternative space, for the Poles and also for me.

The theatricality of public events, particularly when televised as a “media event,” can at least momentarily express the solidarity of a nation state, as was evident to the British this week in the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, real not only for British subjects, but as well for the global audience.

But the relationship is not always a happy one, as events of this week and our discussions at DC show. Theater, broadly understood, especially bad, base theatrical entertainments, can present fundamental challenges to democratic life. Rafael Narvaez examined this in his post. Kitsch entertainment created junk politics in Peru. Like junk food, it provides its immediate pleasures, as Lisa pointed out in her response to Narvaez. But it can also have quite serious negative consequences. In Peru, it was implicated in the political culture of corruption. And perhaps it’s not surprising that the role model of the Peruvian exotic dancer turned politician, Suzy Diaz, was Cicciolina, the porn star turned parliamentarian in Italy, the European country that also has been marked by corrupt anti-democratic politics. Of course, these entertaining figures do not cause the corruption, but are manifestations of it.

Matters are in a way worse in the U.S. The reality show star Donald Trump, who has used his theatrical skills of self promotion to make and lose fortunes, has been playing at being a Republican Party candidate for President of the United States. It seems impossible to take him seriously, but his performance as demagogue has been quite impressive, leader of the Republican pack at this point. DC contributor, Gary Alan Fine, might call this pungent politics. The Trump spiel, as all Americans know all too well, has focused on the eligibility and competency of President Obama, “the worse President in the history of the United States.”  First, Trump took on the mantle of Birther-in-Chief, pushing the issue until the President relented and released the generally unavailable long form birth certificate.

The official document, the short form, released at the time of the election, was not enough for the birthers. But of course for those who can’t imagine a black President now the long form is not enough. Some are convinced it’s a forgery, while others, with Trump as their leader, now turn to the question of whether Obama was a good enough student to deserve admission to Columbia and Harvard Law. Never mind that the Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Just not smart enough. There are those who are driven by suspicion which will never be satisfied. It has Shakespearean qualities, as Paul A. Kottman explored in his post. Suspicion is a powerful force, more powerful than facts, whether it be in the form of Desdemona’s handkerchief or Obama’s long form birth certificate.

One of Obama’s great tasks is to redefine the American Dream by overcoming the great American Dilemma, the legacy of slavery in a democratic society. For a stubborn twenty or twenty five percent of the population, there is resistance led by Trump the clown. This is high drama mixed with comedy. Fine theater reveals the tragedy of racism. It does battle with mediocre theatrical form.

And this battle is not only on the stage, it also appears in everyday life, when we look closely. One of the “closest lookers” died last week. Iddo Tavory’s post on Monday remembered and honored the distinctive sociology of Harold Garfinkel. He died last week, but his intellectual project, avoiding abstractions that turn away from the complicated details of how people make their worlds in interaction, lives on. It is not a disease named racism that denies the President’s eligibility and competency to be President, but it is racism as it is created and recreated in the dramas of everyday life.

In my book, The Cynical Society, published in 1991, I had a simple project. I sought to show that along with the manipulation and cynicism of contemporary politics and political reporting, there was ongoing real principled democratic debate in American society. I criticized one dimensional accounts of American society that saw the debate between Ronald Reagan and his opponents, for example, as being about his personality and theirs, the interests he served and they served, and the manipulative strategies of both sides. They didn’t recognize that fundamental issues in American public life were being debated, specifically about the role of the state in our economy. I worried that people who didn’t like the prevailing order of things confused their cynicism with criticism, and in the process resigned from offering alternatives. My posts this week were extensions of that project to our present circumstances.

I attempted to illuminate the ways in which Barack Obama’s Presidency was and still is about fundamental change in my first post, and I tried to illuminate the terrain of principled political debate in my second post, additionally accounting for Obama’s position. America is a cynical society, but it is also a democratic one. A rosy colored view is naïve, while an exclusively dark one is enervating. I insist on understanding both dimensions.

But as the host of Deliberately Considered, I am learning and expanding my understanding. My two dimensional picture is limited and conceals some important matters, specifically the emotional dimension. We should keep in mind that we don’t only act on principle and reason and pursue our interests with strategies that are sometimes manipulative. We also act out and upon our emotions, as James Jasper explored in his posts a couple of weeks ago, and Gary Alan Fine has analyzed as well. Indeed Richard Dienst’s “bonds of debt,” that Vince Carducci reports on, are more emotional than rational, highlighting the connection between attachment, indebtedness and power, making it so that breaking the bank is a good thing. This is an imaginative act, working on emotions, revealing alternatives. I have my concerns about such thinking, skeptical as I am about utopias, but I understand how they can work reasonably to illuminate and form the basis of criticism.

Vittorio Arrigoni

But there is a much darker side to emotional politics revealed in Benoit Challand’s post and the discussion which followed. Emotions and emotional dispositions are part of the explanation for the assassination of Vittorio Arrigoni and our reaction to it. Chiara questioned Benoit Challand’s account when it came to the assassins. His suggestion that Salafists were responsible was not convincing. She felt that those responsible for killing a pacifist must have an overpowering reason and noted that “as Kant reminds us, human beings are not devils.” Yet we received a reply from Gaza which answered her assertion, poignantly explaining“to kill you do not need a reason you need to lose one,” affirming that the killer may very well have been a Salafist.  Chaira confidently maintained that we will know the identity of the killers if we can discover who could not tolerate what he was saying and who benefited from his silence. And then in a reply quite untypical, for its brevity and certainty, on this blog, Inggaw declared “This is an Israel move.” The ungrammatical sentence suggests that this reply also may be from Gaza or the region.

Although press reports emanating from the Hamas authorities in Gaza do suggest that this was a Salafist operation, gone bad, I don’t think we can know for sure at this distance. What is noteworthy in terms of our theme of the week is that what people “know” is as much a product of their emotional state as a product of their reason, and that this is an important if difficult part of the political situation in Israel – Palestine. To overlook this dimension means to not understand it. This has been revealed in some earlier posts coming from the region and will be explored in the future.

Keiko Fujimori

This dark emotional dimension of politics may play a decisive role in the upcoming second round elections in Peru and was evident in the first round, Rafael Narvaez reported in his post this week. Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of a thief, her father, Alberto Fujimori, complicit in a regime of torture, may be elected, with a primary end of freeing her father from prison. She is not a rational choice, but one arising from a deep and dark emotional place. Narvaez speculates: “The Fujimoris of the world fit the almost Jungian image of the obscene, emasculating, and yet seductive father.” To ignore such emotional politics is to ignore the appeal and to turn away from confronting the horrors of authoritarians of all different sorts, archetypically from Hitler to Stalin. But clearly this is an emotional side that must be constrained and answered with alternatives.

Donald Trump

An assassination in Gaza and the possible return of a corrupt and brutal Peruvian regime, or at least the toleration of criminals associated with that regime, seems quite distant from New York, where I write this review. Yet, this dark side of politics clearly plays an important role here as well. How else can I explain Donald Trump’s remarkably high polling among potential Republican Presidential candidates, apparently at the top of the heap as he bizarrely escalates the attacks against Barack Obama, as the worst President in American history, an illegitimate office holder, born in Kenya? It seems to be a joke, but with public support emanating from an irrational emotional place, such jokes can become deadly.