Boo!

In view of the recent Osama bin Laden video, many Democrats have been forecasting gloom and doom for the election, as they are wont to do. Democrats' morbid desire to predict electoral defeat is a topic for another day, but I can just say for now that in this case, it's misguided. The bin Laden tape will either have no effect, or even give a slight nudge to Kerry.

As noted in the Times this morning, this isn't the type of thing for which people switch their votes. There is not an appreciable number of undecideds remaining, so the video will only serve to reinforce the partisans on each side. Bush supporters will think of 9-11 and rally to Bush, Kerry supporters will say that the only reason OBL is still around making tapes is because Bush hasn't caught him. Therefore, for the most part, it's a draw.

However, if someone stands to gain from this, it's Kerry. As noted by TNR's Noam Scheiber in an article I can't find a link to, Kerry has a tendency to gain in the polls when the election's focus is on national security. The reason for this is that it is Bush's default strong point, so when it's on the table, Kerry has an opportunity to chip away at it, while his own strong point, domestic issues, remains untouched. However, when the focus is on domestic issues, Bush can deride Kerry as a big-spending liberal, weakening Kerry's advantage and leaving Bush's untouched. This theory makes sense, seeing as how Kerry's biggest gains were after the DNC's military-themed convention, Kerry's anti-war speech at NYU, and the first debate, which was centered on national security. In keeping with this theory, Bush's biggest poll gains were after his Kerry-and-the-liberals-bashing RNC convention and the third debate, which centered on domestic issues.

Kerry and the Democrats shouldn't be concerned with bin Laden's foray into the election, because if anything, it reminds voters that on Bush's biggest strong point, he's all talk and no results. But I doubt it will have even this effect. The voters are set. From here on in, it's turnout, turnout, turnout.

Double Feature

For a while, the strangest double feature I've ever seen was "Jackass: The Movie" followed by "The Ring." Last night, I think I topped that with "Saw" followed my "Team America: World Police."

I knew next to nothing about Saw going in, except that it had mixed reviews which depended on whether or not the reviewer was a particular fan of horror or not. Since I am a fan of horror, I was optimistic. This hope was enforced by the first half of the movie, which was adequately creepy and tense. However, towards the end, some major, unforgiveable plot holes came to form, and the acting was bad throughout. I'll just say it was done with a lot more intelligence and tact the first time, when it was called "Seven."

In spite of being a South Park fan, particularly the topical, satirical direction the show has gone in the past two seasons, I was still nervous about Team America. I didn't care for "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" since it was pure shock value and lacked the intelligence of the show, although the music deserved every laurel it received. I expected a similar reaction to Team America, since the trailer and commercials made it seem as though it was going to fall back on stereotypes and perceptions broader than what's used in the show, in order to appeal to a movie audience.

However, the movie greatly exceeded expectations. Contrary to the perception given by its ads, the film is hilarious and a creative and effective critique of both doves and hawks, in true South Park fashion. Simultaneously, the film lambasts Bruckheimer-esque action flicks in a way that was strong enough to be noticed (unlike Parker and Stone's failed sitcom-parody: "That's my Bush!), but not too overpowering. The music is again fantastic, and the grand analogy used to reach a compromise at the conclusion is so great that it tempts me to write a spoiler, but I'll just say this: rent "Saw" if you're curious, see "Team America" even if you're not.

The Kerry Coalition

Much has been said this election season concerning John Kerry's under-performance among traditional Democratic constituencies, namely women, blacks, and Jews.

The alarm concerning the first group, women, has been greatly exaggerated. The argument that Kerry's "losing women" is a misperception that dates back to the post-GOP convention days. At this time, Kerry was losing all sorts of voters, and women, being voters, were part of this. Also, this charge has been based on a series of anecdotes, rather than empirical evidence. News stories talking about a new cadre of "security moms" don't actually look at polls, but instead discuss Mrs. Jane Smith from Saginaw, Michigan, who thinks George W. Bush is the only one who can keep her children safe. When one actually looks at the polling data, it can be seen that the gender gap, while slightly diminished, is still very real.

Next is the loss of blacks. The overwhelming support of blacks has been essential to every Democratic presidential win since FDR, and their status as a minority requires their support to be just that: overwhelming. Therefore, there has been much ado about Kerry polling at 80% among blacks rather than 90%. Compared to the perception about women, this is a genuine loss. However, it should have been an expected one. The black community as a whole is more church-going than the community at large, so there is a natural response the GOP's increasing projection of social conservatism and religious piety. Also, the black community is more affluent than it was 40 years ago. The inherent opposition to inherited wealth cannot be any longer expected of at least the wealthier parts of the black community. The first generation of black millionaires is about to die.

Last but not least is Bush's increased support among the Jewish community. This is usually attributed to Bush's unflagging allegiance to a Sharon government that has been successful in defeating the intifada. Also, the idea of a "war on terror" has much more relevance in Israel than it does here. However, the percentage of Jewish voters who vote based on Israel policy alone is very small, not to mention that most Jews know that there is nothing anti-Israel about Kerry. Therefore, Jewish support for Kerry might be a little weak this time around, but it is by no means an abandonment of the Democratic Party. There is more to being a Jew in America than supporting Israel.

On the whole, while Kerry is in fact not polling as well among these groups as his predecessors, I do not think that this erosion is as much cause for concern as one might think. Those who are disturbed by Kerry's polling among these groups are lacking a grasp of a simple logic. Think about it: Kerry is polling similar to where Gore finished in 2000, even though Gore performed better among these groups. This means that these votes are being replaced by traditionally Republican voters, or from swing voters.

Whether they have been attracted by Kerry or scared off by Bush, this development is good for the party and for Kerry. From a policy standpoint, the Democratic Party for too long has lacked the elements of a true cross-section of the country, instead being a party of separate interests groups. And from an electoral standpoint, you're much better off polling at 50% among everyone than polling at 90% among certain groups and 35% among everyone else. Simply put, Kerry and the Democratic Party shouldn't have all their eggs in one basket.

Tom Friedman's Gooey Center

Every once in a while, Tom Friedman writes a bland column wherein he laments the erosion of a bygone worldwide governing class of even-headed moderates which may or may not have ever existed. Reading the synopsis of his piece today, I thought this was going to be the case. However, upon reading the whole thing, I found it to be one of the more pithy and far-thinking critiques of the Bush administration's foreign policy that I've read. And while Mr. Friedman likes to keep his political affiliation ambiguous, I'm just going to say I hope he votes absentee back in Minnesota.

A Nation of Cheeseheads

A few electoral analyses that I've seen now, including my preferred one at Slate, have identified Wisconsin as the state that can swing the election. Not being as familiarly acquanited with the Badger State as I'd like to be, I can't make a prediction as to which way it will go, although my continuing theory of latent Democratic voter strength through new registrations and casual voters energized by the last election make me hopeful for Sen. Kerry's prospects.

Regardless of which way it might swing, the election's shift to Wisconsin has prompted a few thoughts. The first is the outright ridiculousness of the electoral college. The very fact that at any point in the election we're reduced to one state, or even ten or so states, as the sole possessors of any importance on the eve of the election saps our democracy enormously.

Also, while only the most committed Deanocrats may remember this, Gov. Howard Dean focused the strength of his waning campaign on the isolated primary of the state of Wisconsin, hoping that a win would provide much-needed momentum. Once I recalled this, I realized that pretty much every candidate-related problem the Democrats have had this past election would have had their antithesis in Gov. Dean: message inconsistency, liberal voting records, or lack of strong critiques and counterattacks surely would not have even been issues.

With this in mind, it adds another reason not to look forward to Nov. 3 should the election not go Kerry's way, because the Democratic Party is going to have one hell of a round of "I told you so," and I'll be right in the center of it.

Barnaby, Hardly Working

Usually, it is more engaging to stay on the cutting edge of a band's work, seeing what comes next, how it has evolved from what came before, and how the change relates to the evolution in the times or that in the band itself. However, from time to time, it is just as interesting to look at the unknown previous work of a band. Sometimes, what you find is not a whole lot different from what is more recent, but sometimes it is so different that it speaks to the breadth of the group's range, its taste for experimentation, and its willingness to change.

Recently, I've discovered a work of the latter form, Yo La Tengo's "Fakebook" (1990). Being a fan of their more recent efforts "I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One" (1997), "And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out" (2000), and "Summer Sun" (2003), I was interested to see what their early work would sound like. The three albums I just mentioned display a straight progression, from the impetuous and varied indie rock of "I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One" to the mellow and instrumental "Summer Sun", so I figured "Fakebook" could be aligned on the same gradient.

However, "Fakebook" lands nowhere on the progression of these three albums, not even holding a place as a distant forebear. Yet while it could have just as easily been the product of a different band altogether, a few listens shows that "Fakebook" certainly has a place in Yo La Tengo's catalog. While it may lack the bravado and tongue-in-cheek genre experimentation that marks the other albums, "Fakebook" exudes a warmth and human sincerity that is present throughout Yo La Tengo's later period, albeit muted.

A collection mostly of cover songs, "Fakebook" has a folksy and honest appeal that could have become the band's trademark, if only their later albums hadn't shown the band's guts as well. While a country-tinged old timey album may not seem like a romp to fans of Yo La Tengo's later work, I can assure that it only strays towards the sappy or hokey on only a few tracks, namely "Speeding Motorcycle" and "The One to Cry." On the whole, regardless of how it fits in the band's catalog, Yo La Tengo's "Fakebook" is always a good spin, especially when you're studying, as I should be doing now.

al-Mahdi al-Aqsa

I don't believe the mid-term period ever had as much palpable significance as it has had this year. Mid-terms are never pleasant, but I've never wanted them to be over more than I do now. Largely, I'm sure it has to do with the congruence of mid-terms, law school applications, and an exhausting trip to Pittsburgh, PA. Also, perhaps it's a case of senioritis, but I think it has more to do with what comes after mid-terms. First, once my mid-terms are done there is a week left until the election that has dominated my life for the past year. Second, I can finally set to work on my thesis, which I have barely touched since last May. Odd things to look forward to, but they motivate one to study the tenets of Islam with just a tad more vigor.

Is this a bad idea?

I've always fought the unrelenting blog urge. While I do like to write and share my opinions, I already have a column for that, not to mention plenty of discussions with friends and enemies on both sides of the aisle. However, at the same time, that writing and those discussions have their limitations. Certain topics or styles fall beyond the pale of particular contexts, so why shouldn't I have a little more control? And besides, couldn't I use another thing to do that isn't school work? I'm sure my roommate thinks so, since he's made it clear to me that I really don't do school work anymore. Anyway, here goes my entrance to the blogosphere...

The Lost Column

I wrote this piece for the Washington Square News, but it did not publish for lack of an appreciable NYU focus. Fair enough. So here is the secret song of the album that is my tenure at WSN:

It Takes One to Know One
Bush can’t bring democracy anywhere, if not to U.S.

In all the talk of President Bush’s management of Iraq in the presidential debates, the content has mostly been concerning procedural matters. Regardless whether Mr. Bush applied the necessary resources and strategies needed to win the peace, the fundamental reason that he will be unable to bring genuine democracy to Iraq is that he has proven himself unwilling to practice democracy here at home.

To be sure, Senator Kerry’s criticisms of President Bush’s stewardship of Iraq have been salient, as these matters do have bearing on the short-term security of Iraq and our soldiers there. Troop levels have been too low, rebuilding projects have been under funded, potential allies have been spitefully shoved aside, and the Bush administration’s reliance on starry-eyed exiles to shape their vision of postwar Iraq was clearly quixotic. In addition, the refusal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to make honest assessments of the situation in Iraq serves as a barrier to progress. However, there is more to be done in Iraq than having the streets safe and the water running.

Someday, the Iraqis will need to self-govern. This is not to mention that a strong democracy in the region will be an asset to long-term security, as a responsive and transparent democracy in the center of a region entrenched in autocracy can serve as a valuable example, and can therefore be a first step towards a Middle East whose denizens are not so violently opposed to America.

When it comes to actually making an Iraqi democracy a reality, I will grant that President Bush is right to begin by assuming that democracy is not an anathema to the Muslim world. Indeed, we can agree that democracy holds an appeal that is neither Western nor Christian, but human. There is certainly nothing in the Islamic religion that precludes its followers from coming together and making their own decisions concerning the way they are ruled. It has been custom, not theology, which has consigned the Middle East to the rule of despots for so long.

Therefore, President Bush is correct to believe that democracy is possible in Iraq. However, the problem is that he is unquestionably the wrong leader to actually implement it. His unfitness for this task can be seen in his domestic governing practices, which reveal his anti-democratic instinct to be about as strong as any Baathist insurgent.

In the past four years, President Bush and his surrogates have built a clear record of suppressing information, decreasing transparency, and using the procedures and resources of government to perpetuate their own administration. A book could be written on the subject, but space permits me to briefly mention a few: the intentional underestimation of the Medicare reform bill’s cost and the overextension of its House vote, the illegal use of $9.5 million in treasury funds to air TV ads touting the prescription drug benefit, the employment of Department of Homeland Security officials to track down Democratic lawmakers protesting gerrymandering in Texas, the suppression of the State Department’s candid “Future of Iraq” project, and a steadfast reticence towards congressional committees, the 9/11 commission, and the press, who have been granted only fourteen press conferences with the President in four years. These instances are merely the tip of the iceberg.

This administration requires an undemocratic process in order to create policy along the lines of ideological panaceas, rather than an honest and open process derived from the appraisal of fact. Unfortunately, this sequestered and stubborn mentality has been taken by the administration to Iraq, where lack of popular accountability and public transparency in the interim government, as well as the absence of frank assessment of the challenges ahead has been the rule.

The Bush administration is setting up Iraq’s upcoming January elections, however flawed they will be, as a quick fix for democracy. However, the real hurdle for Iraqi democracy is not security, religion, or will. Rather, the problem is that it has an incapable architect in the Bush administration, which has shown itself unable to practice what it preaches. When democracy is genuinely fulfilled in Iraq, it will not be because of George W. Bush, but in spite of him.