Thursday, September 10, 2009
Bickering
The Globe headline this morning reports that according to President Obama, "The Time for Bickering is Over." Bickering is what we used to call the legislative process, back when we had leaders who believed in democracy.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
What’s the Rush?
Things are built in China at an incredible pace. Need a new airport expressway for the Olympics? Done. Decide to create a new economic zone in Shanghai across the river with skyscrapers that rival Manhattan? Done. Projects the size of the Big Dig are no big deal.
On the other hand, consider the Walden Street Bridge in Cambridge. In the 1990s, engineers noticed that the 86-foot long two-lane bridge needed repair. A public meeting was held in April 2000, construction began six years later in October 2006, and the bridge reopened last December after over two years of construction.
This lethargic pace was disruptive for the neighborhood and commuters who use Walden Street, and it’s frustrating for the rest of us. Can’t we get things done in Cambridge efficiently, like they do in China?
This problem of bureaucratic stagnation is an argument used by both the left and right to advocate for pushing control in different directions.
Advocates for small government argue for greater local control, as Mark Steyn does in his wonderful anecdote about two bridges in his New Hampshire town. On the first, the town waited six years for State funds to cover 80% of the cost and saw their 20% share increase to more than the original 100% estimate. When another bridge needed repair, the town hired a local contractor and paid for the entire project. It was completed in two months and cost 1/14th of the State estimate.
Advocates for greater federal control—in particular, our new President--attempt to focus the frustration with government sluggishness to generate excitement about “getting things done.” The metaphor of bridge repairs is wrongly applied to all manner of legislative fixes—it’s broken, the solution is obvious, let’s just get it done! After all, a country that put a man on the moon can fix our broken health care system.
“Legislative logjams” however are not the same as bridge repairs. The solution to complex problems is rarely so obvious that no discussion is required.
Tom Friedman refers to this as the “China for a day” solution. Wouldn’t it be nice, he muses, to have an authoritarian government for a day that could simply pass, for example, global warming legislation by fiat. To his credit, Friedman replies that no, it would not be a good idea.
It pains me to defend red tape, but there are legitimate reasons why it takes longer to get things done here than in China.
No doubt we could curtail the six-year public comment period on an 86-foot bridge. Perhaps a fact-finding trip to Minneapolis is in order, where, as others have pointed out, the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge was entirely rebuilt in 13 months. But unlike authoritarian states, a democratic state requires a period where citizens can voice concerns before their money is spent. Walden Street abutters had a say in detour routes and work hours. Facing further delay, the neighborhood agreed to expand construction hours.
Anguishing as it is at times, this process is an integral part of the representative government that the Founders envisioned—a system where checks and balances slow down rash decisions. The U.S. Senate is known as the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. To deliberate: “engage in long and careful consideration.” Legislating was intended to be cumbersome. Once a law, a new agency, or a new tax is created, it’s not easy to get rid of it.
Our President however is a man in a rush. First, the Stimulus and its clones. Then Cap and Trade. Finally, Obamacare, a thousand pages of legislation that the President wanted passed in three weeks.
When it looked like the health care timetable was in trouble, the President issued this chilling statement: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”
If this sounds like a quote that MoveOn.Org might have invented to paint President Bush as a tyrant, go watch Obama on YouTube. The mess? Get out of the way? No talking allowed? These are the words of a man who has little faith in democracy.
I can imagine how the Obama Bridge and Tunnel Authority might have handled the Walden Street Bridge: “You folks in your SUVs messed things up and we’ve got to clean up after you so we’re building a billion dollar tunnel from Raymond Park to Mass Ave. Now get out of the way and don’t do a lot of talking.”
On the other hand, consider the Walden Street Bridge in Cambridge. In the 1990s, engineers noticed that the 86-foot long two-lane bridge needed repair. A public meeting was held in April 2000, construction began six years later in October 2006, and the bridge reopened last December after over two years of construction.
This lethargic pace was disruptive for the neighborhood and commuters who use Walden Street, and it’s frustrating for the rest of us. Can’t we get things done in Cambridge efficiently, like they do in China?
This problem of bureaucratic stagnation is an argument used by both the left and right to advocate for pushing control in different directions.
Advocates for small government argue for greater local control, as Mark Steyn does in his wonderful anecdote about two bridges in his New Hampshire town. On the first, the town waited six years for State funds to cover 80% of the cost and saw their 20% share increase to more than the original 100% estimate. When another bridge needed repair, the town hired a local contractor and paid for the entire project. It was completed in two months and cost 1/14th of the State estimate.
Advocates for greater federal control—in particular, our new President--attempt to focus the frustration with government sluggishness to generate excitement about “getting things done.” The metaphor of bridge repairs is wrongly applied to all manner of legislative fixes—it’s broken, the solution is obvious, let’s just get it done! After all, a country that put a man on the moon can fix our broken health care system.
“Legislative logjams” however are not the same as bridge repairs. The solution to complex problems is rarely so obvious that no discussion is required.
Tom Friedman refers to this as the “China for a day” solution. Wouldn’t it be nice, he muses, to have an authoritarian government for a day that could simply pass, for example, global warming legislation by fiat. To his credit, Friedman replies that no, it would not be a good idea.
It pains me to defend red tape, but there are legitimate reasons why it takes longer to get things done here than in China.
No doubt we could curtail the six-year public comment period on an 86-foot bridge. Perhaps a fact-finding trip to Minneapolis is in order, where, as others have pointed out, the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge was entirely rebuilt in 13 months. But unlike authoritarian states, a democratic state requires a period where citizens can voice concerns before their money is spent. Walden Street abutters had a say in detour routes and work hours. Facing further delay, the neighborhood agreed to expand construction hours.
Anguishing as it is at times, this process is an integral part of the representative government that the Founders envisioned—a system where checks and balances slow down rash decisions. The U.S. Senate is known as the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. To deliberate: “engage in long and careful consideration.” Legislating was intended to be cumbersome. Once a law, a new agency, or a new tax is created, it’s not easy to get rid of it.
Our President however is a man in a rush. First, the Stimulus and its clones. Then Cap and Trade. Finally, Obamacare, a thousand pages of legislation that the President wanted passed in three weeks.
When it looked like the health care timetable was in trouble, the President issued this chilling statement: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”
If this sounds like a quote that MoveOn.Org might have invented to paint President Bush as a tyrant, go watch Obama on YouTube. The mess? Get out of the way? No talking allowed? These are the words of a man who has little faith in democracy.
I can imagine how the Obama Bridge and Tunnel Authority might have handled the Walden Street Bridge: “You folks in your SUVs messed things up and we’ve got to clean up after you so we’re building a billion dollar tunnel from Raymond Park to Mass Ave. Now get out of the way and don’t do a lot of talking.”
Thursday, June 11, 2009
City to Purchase Renewable Energy Indulgences
The Chronicle reports that “Over the years, Cambridge has implemented elements of a climate protection plan, with goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the community’s carbon footprint”
(Chronicle 5/13/09).
As noted on the City website, “in 1999, the City Council passed a resolution to join the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), a campaign of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability.” Since then, “Climate Protection Initiatives” have flourished, including the Cambridge Energy Alliance, Team GreenSense, GoGreen Month and the GoGreen Awards, Green Decade/Cambridge, the Cambridge Climate Leader Program, the EcoTeam Pilot Project, etc. Cambridge also collaborates with regional and statewide efforts like the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, Renewable Energy Trust, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, Solar Boston, New England Wind Fund and Commonwealth Solar.
The City’s Climate Protection Plan (it’s an official plan, complete with a beautifully designed 120-page book available on the City website) is run by the Department of Community Development, which in FY10 has a budget of $5.06 million. A million dollars of this budget is allocated to the Environmental and Transportation section, of which an unspecified portion goes to Climate Protection. The Plan contains a number of sensible programs: promoting energy efficient buildings, encouraging city employees to turn off lights in empty rooms, planting trees, for example.
It seems that Cambridge is already doing quite a lot to protect us from the climate. (Or is it to protect the climate from us?)
City Councilor Henrietta Davis stated to the Chronicle, however, that present efforts are “not enough. We have to do more.” Why, given the success of the green agenda in Cambridge, would Councilor Davis appear frustrated by the lack of progress?
According to Councilor Davis’s website, Cambridge has “adopted the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.” In the real world, reducing 80% of CO2 emissions is not realistic, and if any coalition gains sufficient political power to impose it on the world it will cause massive economic disruption, bringing suffering disproportionately to the world’s poor nations. Furthermore, even this drastic curtailment of carbon-based energy will have little effect on global warming. Manmade CO2 accounts for a miniscule one tenth of one percent of greenhouse gasses; 95% is water vapor, which to date has escaped regulatory efforts.
The Cambridge Climate Protection Plan proposes a more realistic GHG Reduction Strategy of “purchas[ing] 20% of electricity from green power sources.”
There’s one difficulty with this goal. As the Plan notes: “Currently, the availability of renewable energy supplies in New England is very limited.” To give an idea of scale: one of the City’s goals under the Cambridge Energy Alliance is “to reduce energy demand by 50 megawatts to bring its peak electricity demand down to approximately 300 megawatts”—or 300 million watts. A solar energy project in Porter Square commended by the Plan has photovoltaic panels rated at 20 KW, or 20,000 watts. Even at 100% efficiency (in New England, 40% is more likely), Cambridge would need at least 15,000 Porter Square sized installations to supply its peak electrical power. By contrast, the natural gas power plant in Charlton has an output of 360 MW, enough to meet peak demand in Cambridge.
Regarding municipal usage: City Hall and thirteen other city buildings use 3.7 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year, while the Porter Square solar panels generate 22,000 kwh per year; thus it would require 170 solar installations to power municipal buildings, or 34 such arrays to provide 20% green electricity.
I don’t doubt that solar power has a role to play in our future energy mix. The day may come when all new construction uses solar panels as roofing material, but at present there is basically no green electricity for Cambridge to buy. The only solution, as the budget states, is the “purchase of renewable energy certificates.” Rather than buy non-existent electricity from solar and wind generation, Cambridge donates money to a non-profit called the Conservation Services Group, which according to their website, ”work[s] with renewable generators to capture value in the emerging, expanding regional REC markets. And we help energy consumers access the RECs they need.” It all seems a bit vague. What exactly do we accomplish with Cambridge tax money?
These RECs have been compared to medieval indulgences, which allow a sinner to purchase absolution. Even if the REC market is an effective means of encouraging struggling solar and wind power entrepreneurs, why is our City making donations on our behalf? Shouldn’t we as individuals decide which non-profits we’d like to support?
As noted on the City website, “in 1999, the City Council passed a resolution to join the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), a campaign of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability.” Since then, “Climate Protection Initiatives” have flourished, including the Cambridge Energy Alliance, Team GreenSense, GoGreen Month and the GoGreen Awards, Green Decade/Cambridge, the Cambridge Climate Leader Program, the EcoTeam Pilot Project, etc. Cambridge also collaborates with regional and statewide efforts like the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, Renewable Energy Trust, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, Solar Boston, New England Wind Fund and Commonwealth Solar.
The City’s Climate Protection Plan (it’s an official plan, complete with a beautifully designed 120-page book available on the City website) is run by the Department of Community Development, which in FY10 has a budget of $5.06 million. A million dollars of this budget is allocated to the Environmental and Transportation section, of which an unspecified portion goes to Climate Protection. The Plan contains a number of sensible programs: promoting energy efficient buildings, encouraging city employees to turn off lights in empty rooms, planting trees, for example.
It seems that Cambridge is already doing quite a lot to protect us from the climate. (Or is it to protect the climate from us?)
City Councilor Henrietta Davis stated to the Chronicle, however, that present efforts are “not enough. We have to do more.” Why, given the success of the green agenda in Cambridge, would Councilor Davis appear frustrated by the lack of progress?
According to Councilor Davis’s website, Cambridge has “adopted the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.” In the real world, reducing 80% of CO2 emissions is not realistic, and if any coalition gains sufficient political power to impose it on the world it will cause massive economic disruption, bringing suffering disproportionately to the world’s poor nations. Furthermore, even this drastic curtailment of carbon-based energy will have little effect on global warming. Manmade CO2 accounts for a miniscule one tenth of one percent of greenhouse gasses; 95% is water vapor, which to date has escaped regulatory efforts.
The Cambridge Climate Protection Plan proposes a more realistic GHG Reduction Strategy of “purchas[ing] 20% of electricity from green power sources.”
There’s one difficulty with this goal. As the Plan notes: “Currently, the availability of renewable energy supplies in New England is very limited.” To give an idea of scale: one of the City’s goals under the Cambridge Energy Alliance is “to reduce energy demand by 50 megawatts to bring its peak electricity demand down to approximately 300 megawatts”—or 300 million watts. A solar energy project in Porter Square commended by the Plan has photovoltaic panels rated at 20 KW, or 20,000 watts. Even at 100% efficiency (in New England, 40% is more likely), Cambridge would need at least 15,000 Porter Square sized installations to supply its peak electrical power. By contrast, the natural gas power plant in Charlton has an output of 360 MW, enough to meet peak demand in Cambridge.
Regarding municipal usage: City Hall and thirteen other city buildings use 3.7 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year, while the Porter Square solar panels generate 22,000 kwh per year; thus it would require 170 solar installations to power municipal buildings, or 34 such arrays to provide 20% green electricity.
I don’t doubt that solar power has a role to play in our future energy mix. The day may come when all new construction uses solar panels as roofing material, but at present there is basically no green electricity for Cambridge to buy. The only solution, as the budget states, is the “purchase of renewable energy certificates.” Rather than buy non-existent electricity from solar and wind generation, Cambridge donates money to a non-profit called the Conservation Services Group, which according to their website, ”work[s] with renewable generators to capture value in the emerging, expanding regional REC markets. And we help energy consumers access the RECs they need.” It all seems a bit vague. What exactly do we accomplish with Cambridge tax money?
These RECs have been compared to medieval indulgences, which allow a sinner to purchase absolution. Even if the REC market is an effective means of encouraging struggling solar and wind power entrepreneurs, why is our City making donations on our behalf? Shouldn’t we as individuals decide which non-profits we’d like to support?
Friday, May 15, 2009
“Death of Environmentalism” Author at the Cambridge Forum
The Cambridge Forum--“bringing people together to talk” for 42 years—is an amazing local resource. Last week the speaker was self-described “provocateur” Michael Schellenberger, author (with Ted Nordhaus) of the controversial essay titled “The Death of Environmentalism.”
Schellenberger delivered what a friend who joined me called “a tour de force.” He was frequently challenged during the Q&A, and he held his ground with admirable diplomacy. The talk was videotaped and will be available soon on the WGBH Forum Network website.
Schellenberger and Nordhaus’s argument is summarized by the section titles of their 2007 book, Breakthrough: they reject “The Politics of Limits,” and advocate for “The Politics of Possibility.”
The authors question the effectiveness of “environmental tales of tragedy” told by Rachel Carson and others as quasi-religious narratives that begin with unspoiled Nature as paradise, which is then destroyed by fallen man’s over-consumption and materialism, and finally redeemed by sacrifice; limits to growth, sustainability, recycling, “another way,” “learning to live with less” become paths to salvation.
Schellenberger argues that only a wealthy society that has taken care of the material needs of its citizens can spend money on “post-material needs”—quality of life issues like clean air and clean water. Thus the earlier (and very real) successes of the environmental movement were due more to post-war prosperity than to the dissemination of an eco-tragedy narrative.
In the current global warming discussion, Schellenberger argues that anthropogenic global warming poses a significant threat to the planet, but he observes that the apocalyptic rhetoric of Al Gore, James Hansen, and mainstream environmental groups has only produced fatalism, apathy and little progress toward the goal of reducing CO2.
The authors note that focusing on limiting CO2 by limiting growth and energy use is advocated only by the world’s wealthiest people, environmentalists who have all their material needs met by the energy expenditures of the past. Rather than pursue the unrealistic goal of preventing the developing world from attaining the benefits in health, education, and material comfort that come with energy use, we should address global warming by developing carbon-free energy with the help of large government investment in research and development.
Thus we should abandon what he calls the “pollution paradigm” and adopt a politics of possibility, the belief that a breakthrough to new cheap zero-carbon energy sources is possible—and essential for our survival.
Schellenberger made cogent arguments for government support of energy R&D, claiming that the development of the computer chip and the Internet were assisted by government support—largely from the military. He proposes a mere $30 to $50 billion annual investment—pocket change in the Age of Obama. He noted that venture capitalists hope to get one success for every nineteen failed investments, so government money picking winners ought to be a workable model.
Although I was impressed with Michael Schellenberger’s intelligence and much of his analysis, I don’t agree with his foundational premise, that CO2 must be limited if we are to survive. This is not mere willful blindness as many AGW acolytes accuse; 31,000 scientists have signed the Petition Project statement that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide…is causing…catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.” If CO2 and carbon content dominate our energy decisions, we end up making bad choices. We label natural gas a dirty fuel, but wood “bio-fuel”--clear-cutting forests and burning millions of trees--is by some pretzel logic considered “green”? Rather than carbon footprints, we should consider development footprints and ask if covering millions of acres with switchgrass, solar panels, wind farms and long-distance transmission lines is more environmentally sound than the minimal disturbance caused by offshore drilling platforms and nuclear power plants.
In addition, I wonder if government-run R&D will lead to the next Internet, as Schellenberger hopes, or simply to more ethanol boondoggles. I believe in human ingenuity but any technology can be made into a winner with enough government subsidy.
The special interest groups, lobbyists and businesses slurping at the government trough make it nearly impossible to declare a loser a loser.
Developing new energy sources is a good idea for many reasons, and government-funded R&D can clearly play a role, but none of the current “alternative” energy sources except nuclear power show even a remote potential for replacing the world’s huge supplies of cheap carbon-based energy. Oil, gas and coal will continue to bring prosperity to the globe for at least the next century. We need everything out there: R&D, baby, R&D, and wind farms in North Dakota and new transmission lines through my back yard and cheap solar roofing panels. Increase efficiency everywhere, but also build nuclear plants and mine oil shale and don’t forget, drill, baby, drill.
Schellenberger delivered what a friend who joined me called “a tour de force.” He was frequently challenged during the Q&A, and he held his ground with admirable diplomacy. The talk was videotaped and will be available soon on the WGBH Forum Network website.
Schellenberger and Nordhaus’s argument is summarized by the section titles of their 2007 book, Breakthrough: they reject “The Politics of Limits,” and advocate for “The Politics of Possibility.”
The authors question the effectiveness of “environmental tales of tragedy” told by Rachel Carson and others as quasi-religious narratives that begin with unspoiled Nature as paradise, which is then destroyed by fallen man’s over-consumption and materialism, and finally redeemed by sacrifice; limits to growth, sustainability, recycling, “another way,” “learning to live with less” become paths to salvation.
Schellenberger argues that only a wealthy society that has taken care of the material needs of its citizens can spend money on “post-material needs”—quality of life issues like clean air and clean water. Thus the earlier (and very real) successes of the environmental movement were due more to post-war prosperity than to the dissemination of an eco-tragedy narrative.
In the current global warming discussion, Schellenberger argues that anthropogenic global warming poses a significant threat to the planet, but he observes that the apocalyptic rhetoric of Al Gore, James Hansen, and mainstream environmental groups has only produced fatalism, apathy and little progress toward the goal of reducing CO2.
The authors note that focusing on limiting CO2 by limiting growth and energy use is advocated only by the world’s wealthiest people, environmentalists who have all their material needs met by the energy expenditures of the past. Rather than pursue the unrealistic goal of preventing the developing world from attaining the benefits in health, education, and material comfort that come with energy use, we should address global warming by developing carbon-free energy with the help of large government investment in research and development.
Thus we should abandon what he calls the “pollution paradigm” and adopt a politics of possibility, the belief that a breakthrough to new cheap zero-carbon energy sources is possible—and essential for our survival.
Schellenberger made cogent arguments for government support of energy R&D, claiming that the development of the computer chip and the Internet were assisted by government support—largely from the military. He proposes a mere $30 to $50 billion annual investment—pocket change in the Age of Obama. He noted that venture capitalists hope to get one success for every nineteen failed investments, so government money picking winners ought to be a workable model.
Although I was impressed with Michael Schellenberger’s intelligence and much of his analysis, I don’t agree with his foundational premise, that CO2 must be limited if we are to survive. This is not mere willful blindness as many AGW acolytes accuse; 31,000 scientists have signed the Petition Project statement that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide…is causing…catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.” If CO2 and carbon content dominate our energy decisions, we end up making bad choices. We label natural gas a dirty fuel, but wood “bio-fuel”--clear-cutting forests and burning millions of trees--is by some pretzel logic considered “green”? Rather than carbon footprints, we should consider development footprints and ask if covering millions of acres with switchgrass, solar panels, wind farms and long-distance transmission lines is more environmentally sound than the minimal disturbance caused by offshore drilling platforms and nuclear power plants.
In addition, I wonder if government-run R&D will lead to the next Internet, as Schellenberger hopes, or simply to more ethanol boondoggles. I believe in human ingenuity but any technology can be made into a winner with enough government subsidy.
The special interest groups, lobbyists and businesses slurping at the government trough make it nearly impossible to declare a loser a loser.
Developing new energy sources is a good idea for many reasons, and government-funded R&D can clearly play a role, but none of the current “alternative” energy sources except nuclear power show even a remote potential for replacing the world’s huge supplies of cheap carbon-based energy. Oil, gas and coal will continue to bring prosperity to the globe for at least the next century. We need everything out there: R&D, baby, R&D, and wind farms in North Dakota and new transmission lines through my back yard and cheap solar roofing panels. Increase efficiency everywhere, but also build nuclear plants and mine oil shale and don’t forget, drill, baby, drill.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Hysteria
Rick Bass reviews EARLY SPRING: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World By Amy Seidl
What evidence is there of this tilting, sagging, slumping and burning, you may ask?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Has neither of these people ever seen a storm knock down a tree branch, or daffodils covered with snow?
"Early Spring" is the kind of book we'll be seeing more of, as the natural world tilts, sags, slumps, and burns, growing ever-more heated, and with biology's whispered promises of impermanence dialed up to a such a volume now that even those who might not wish to consider such things can hear them roaring in the near distance.
What evidence is there of this tilting, sagging, slumping and burning, you may ask?
In Vermont, a freak storm rips the limbs from the maple trees, daffodils emerge early, winter grass remains green deep through autumn and into winter, and bobolinks decline.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Has neither of these people ever seen a storm knock down a tree branch, or daffodils covered with snow?
Joan Vennochi admits that the image of the "adorable" Obama family is "managed expertly by the White House with help from the media." She also admits that Sarah Palin's family life "brings baggage that is especially difficult for a female candidate to overcome." But this female member of the press is happy to help out with the media manipulation of the Obama image, and happy to make life more difficult for a female politician. She has compiled a snarky repetition of old baggage about Sarah Palin. An absurd internet rumor from last summer about Palin's Down's Syndrome daughter. Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's father's legal difficulties. Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend's sister calling the Palin family "white trash" (so Vennochi doesn't have to say what she's obviously thinking.) At the same time, we hear about the "adorable First Puppy" and "adorable First Daughters" but none of Obama's baggage that is far more damaging than anything brought up about Palin--Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.--things actually connected to the President and not to people two degrees removed from him.
Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.
Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.
Palin Bashing is a fun elitist sport
Joan Vennochi (Globe, 5/7/09) admits that the image of the "adorable" Obama family is "managed expertly by the White House with help from the media." She also admits that Sarah Palin's family life "brings baggage that is especially difficult for a female candidate to overcome." But this female member of the press is happy to help out with the media manipulation of the Obama image, and happy to make life more difficult for a female politician. She has compiled a snarky repetition of old baggage about Sarah Palin. An absurd internet rumor from last summer about Palin's Down's Syndrome daughter. Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's father's legal difficulties. Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend's sister calling the Palin family "white trash" (so Vennochi doesn't have to say what she's obviously thinking.) At the same time, we hear about the "adorable First Puppy" and "adorable First Daughters" but none of Obama's baggage that is far more damaging than anything brought up about Palin--Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.--things actually connected to the President and not to people two degrees removed from him.
Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.
Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
