Thank you for following as I’ve entered the realm of blogging. As part of my learning experience, I’ve moved from this wordpress site to one hosted on my own domain. I’ll be continuing blogging – and you’ll find all the old posts & comments – on my new blog:

http://emilyk.vraga.org/blog

Thanks again and hope to see you there!

Emily

With such a large crowd, it was hard to see the speakers

But after these difficulties, it was great hearing the speakers (being short, I didn’t see much of anything). I thought Feingold in particular, who apparently was a last-minute addition to the line-up, gave a good speech. There are a few things I found interesting across all three of the “political” speeches (Feingold, Barrett, and Obama):

1. No specific opponent, beyond “Republicans,” was ever mentioned. I thought the move smart – how many people there would know who Feingold or Barrett are running against? But at the same time, Feingold’s refusing to link Johnson (who he trails by double-digits in some polls) by name to the Republicans he’s attacking, may allow Johnson to assume the mantle of “outsider” and avoid links to damaging Republican policies.
2. While all three of the political speakers talked a lot about the failed Republican policies, they were very careful to distinguish the Republicans in Washington from regular Republican voters, who may be also unhappy with Republicans in Congress. This attempt at outreach was interesting, but, in my opinion, not very effective.
3. There were a lot of sports metaphors! We were told many times that we needed to stay “fired up,” that Republicans were “celebrating in the endzone” but the game wasn’t over, and Barrett claimed that democracy is “the ultimate participatory sport.” I found the endless sports metaphors overdone, and wondered if they were tailored for a younger crowd or whether they have been mainstays at other Democratic events.
4. The speakers also talked a lot about the Citizens United decision (which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads) and Democrats’ attempts to fight back. I found this focus surprising because I doubt many of the people in the audience know the implications of the decision. Indeed, even one of my friends, who I consider pretty well-informed about politics, had to ask what it was about. With all the big issues being talked about, I found their repeated mention of an issue unlikely to hold much sway among a crowd of mostly young people puzzling.
5. Finally, the inevitable and unceasingly exhortions to all of the attendees to vote dominated. We were told that apathy and indifference would allow the other side to win, Barrett claimed that of those not likely to vote, 75% supported Obama’s policies, and that with turnout like 2008, Democrats would succeed. The most successful of these encouragements, in my opinion, was not Obama, but Barrett’s reflection that the ability to forget how bad the economy was two years ago was good for the American psyche but that we should not forget whose policies put is in this position. The contrast was interesting and provocative – and brought something new to this often-rehashed idea in 2010.

Of course, Obama’s speech was the highlight of the evening. And while the focus of his speech was many of the same points as above, I thought the high point of the 40 minute speech actually came about 10 minutes in, when he had the crowd really fired up, talking about the partisan politics and the party of “no.” And while the speech overall was compelling, there were definitely points where his narrative seemed lost – such listing policies that are less well-known. Some of his biggest successes seemed to come when he talked about “facts” – which he said the other side isn’t always interested in, about Republican tax cuts for the rich, and his focus on health care reform and college loans (tailored for this audience). And his joke towards the end – when in a car (which he’s used as a metaphor for the country), you put it in “D” to go forward and in “R” to go backwards – encompassed his themes for the night.

Of course, an interesting question remains: will the speech fulfill its purpose? The clear purpose of the event was getting young people to the polls to vote for Democrats. According to madison.com, 26,000 attended yesterday’s speech, but will all of those people vote in the midterms? This article suggests only some people who attended will vote. It’s disheartening that even those people willing to wait over 4 or 5 hours in line to hear the president speak – obviously among the most engaged and interested youth – still may not take the “time” to vote and make their voices heard.

However, the “Pledge” appears to fall far short of making a credible effort on the issue. The Pledge focuses on government spending and the deficit (as well as health care reform), but the specifics on how they will do it seem lacking. In particular, expanding on defense spending, extending the Bush era tax cuts for everyone, and repealing health care reform all would  increase the budget, rather than decrease it. They avoid discussion of popular government programs like Medicare or Social Security – programs whose costs have been increasing steadily.

Although Republicans claim that conservatives are responding favorably to the Pledge, Democrats are attacking the bill as an extension of their flawed policies. Whether the Pledge changes the minds of Independents or really convinces those individuals who support the Tea Party for their position on government spending issues, rather than social issues, is yet to be seen. I remain convinced that there is the potential for a new party to take advantage of public outrage over the deficit and spending and become true contenders – or at least push the parties to really address these issues in meaningful ways.

But is the time right now? There is significant unhappiness with both of the parties, and the public are especially supportive of a third party option, more so than in recent years. Youth who flocked to the Democratic party during the “Obama election” of 2008 are less likely to self-identify as Democrats.  Finally, the Tea Party’s successes in Republican primaries may be indicative of the receptiveness of voters for a different option.

So what can we learn from 1854? The original Republican party’s success came about when they brought a new issue to the front of the agenda that both parties were ignoring: the expansion of slavery. In 2010, the ignored issue seems to be financial restraint. Democrats’ faith in government’s ability to solve problems – such as their stance on health care or cap-and-trade would indicate – makes it difficult for them to realistically cut spending, although they have been trying and Clinton helped proved they can reduce the deficit. And Republicans’ firm stance on tax cuts for everyone, which almost all economists believe will expand our national debt, makes their claim to financial austerity laughable.

So if the Tea Party renounces some of their extreme elements (a la Christine O’Donnell) and focuses on this issue of the debt, I think they have the potential to prove influential for many years to come. People are angry about the state of the economy and unhappy with both parties on this issue. And while financial restraint may not be a “sexy” topic, I think politicians can make it so and are trying to do so by talking about the effects on our children. So will 2010 be remembered as the 1854 of the Tea Party? It remains to be seen, but the potential is there.

“Our message is clear: if it can not be guar- anteed that the fraction of ’rational’ and ’random’ refer- ees is confined to a very small number, the peer review system will not perform much better than by accepting papers by throwing (an unbiased!) coin.”

Hardly surprising, right? One critique offered to this study is that unbiased editors are meant to correct for some of these errors. But in some ways, editors are the ones who have the most opportunity to be biased. They can accept a paper, even without much reviewer support, or can reject a paper that reviewers approve. And while the blinding process is never perfect – the existence of conferences, in-text references and cues, and even the style of the writer can cue “blinded” reviewers into whose paper they are examining – the editors are the only people who actually know the identity of the researchers, giving them more information to make a “rational” decision.

While I don’t think – and certainly hope – that most reviewers do not act in their own self-interest in reviewing papers, it is telling that this is the behavior considered “rational.” So what can be done? The author of this study offers one suggestion: create a marketplace of papers, where journals can compete for interesting papers while the less sought-after papers have fewer options. This is an intriguing idea, but it does get rid of one of the benefits of peer review: the changes recommended by one’s peers often make a paper substantially better. That said – and in line with this study – these reviewers sometimes make critical errors and reject papers on the basis of a false reading or misunderstanding of the study – and it remains unfair that the paper authors have no recourse against such misunderstanding.

It is also interesting that this study only varies the number of “rational” reviewers, without closely examining also the number of “random” reviewers – the reviewers who cannot judge the paper’s quality sufficiently. Reviewing is hard work and reviewers can often end up passing judgment on a piece outside their area of expertise – which again inserts randomness in the process. It would be fascinating to have some study attempt to survey researchers to see how many feel like they’ve had to review a paper outside their expertise (random) or have let their personal goals influence a review (rational) – of course, only a truly anonymous study could produce even somewhat-reliable results (who wants to admit either to a lack of expertise or selfishness?).

Although we probably all agree that there are some changes required to the process of peer-review, let’s make sure these changes benefit the scholarly community. Getting rid of the revision process would be a mistake, but more accountability for reviewers certainly seems necessary.

But are American politicians overlooking an obvious solution? A friend of mine sent me this graphic a few nights ago and asked if it was true.

The idea fascinated me. Did Portugal’s decision to loosen up their drug restrictions really produce such dramatic results? This article in Scientific American suggests that many of these facts are true. Although the article points to potential other factors at play – such as a global decline in marijuana use – it does suggest that Portugal’s decision to decriminalize personal drug use has been beneficial. And other countries appear to be learning this lesson and decriminalizing use, if not dealing.

So why hasn’t this idea merited more discussion among our own political elite or in our media? If legalization doesn’t lead to more usage, this should undercut a primary concern and objection. Furthermore, it seems like a partial solution to some of the tax concerns facing the country: legalizing marijuana would bring in a lot of tax dollars to our government.

Right now, Californians are preparing to go to the polls in November to vote on the legalization of marijuana use in their state. Given the results in Portugal, this seems promising. Of course, it is important to remember that the “War on Drugs” doesn’t only occur in the U.S. Mexico needs to be a part of any solution and we need to work with them to propose laws that work to our mutual benefit. Mexico appears open to listening to suggestions from other countries – we need to make sure that we are considering all of our options to really bring an end to the problems facing our countries.

Leaving aside what one considers the “right” position to take on any of these issues, I still don’t understand the strategic decision that either party is making. While I critique Republicans’ strategy because I think they will end up being seen as the party of intolerance, the Democrats run the risk of being seen as the party of…nothing.

Although common wisdom suggests that the parties should move towards the center to capture the undecided middle, I doubt this old adage in this case. Democrats’ move to the center may be appealing to people who haven’t made up their mind, but on issues of values – as so many of these issues are – the center is smaller and undecideds less likely. If Democrats want to really capitalize on being on the “right” side of the demographic trends, being the party that “isn’t as bad” on these issues hardly seems the way to go. To capture public imagination and loyalty requires a clear line in the sand and a clear difference between the parties.

The same is true of economic issues as well. I’ve watched with surprise as Democrats have attempted to change core Democratic values and worldviews, becoming the party of not only financial austerity but also willing to consider extending the Bush tax cuts for all. Leaving aside the inherent conflict in these two positions, I can see the strategic decision to embrace lowering national debt, but the latter position seems short-sighted. The Democrats have been almost uniformly against upper-class tax cuts of any kind for a while and to shift position leaves them open to charges of inconsistency (and we all know that “flip-flopping” on any issue is inconceivable, even if new information arises) and leaves voters confused about what the parties stand for.

And I’m left with the same conclusion – who’s running the parties? And, strange as I find it to say, the Democratic refusal to take a stand on many of these issues almost makes me wonder that in an age of polarization, will we again end up with Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum?

Republicans seem to be on the wrong side of every trending issue right now. Republican politicians remain relatively staunch opponents of same-sex marriage – even though opinion trends are changing and none more dramatically than among our youth. Although same-sex marriage may have been a “winner” for the past few years, how many more years will that hold? Even their own strategists are coming out of the closet.

Or what about their position on immigration? Republican support for stricter immigration policies – even John McCain just wants them to finish the fence – also seems like it is just going to get them in trouble. Although immigration is down, likely due to the economy, the number of Latino-Americans in the country is only going to rise.

Even their position on the mosque seems short-sighted. While people generally agree with their position and admit that while there is the right for a mosque, they would prefer it moved, I can’t help but hope that people’s attitudes become more genuinely accepting of religious freedoms.

So, in terms of long-term strategy, I wonder how their positions on these issues will affect their voter base in the next 10, 20+ years. It may be that these issues will become non-issues, but research tells us that social imagery of the parties lasts a long time. African-Americans remain one of the most reliable Democratic voting bases in the country, in large part due to Republican opposition during the 70s (and once upon a time, Republicans were the liberal party on civil rights). Will homosexuals and immigrants feel the same way in the future? Will the Republicans come to symbolize the party of intolerance for both cultural and religious differences?

The other point that confuses me is why Democrats don’t take better advantage of these lapses. Just in terms of political strategy, it seems that Democrats should be taking firm stands on these issues and aligning themselves with an emerging social norm (in terms of same-sex marriage) – or just emerging social reality (in terms of population demographics). Democrats’ stance on these issues also seems short-sighted – since they aren’t going to out-conservative the Republicans, why not be more passionate about the opposing position?

I know for politicians, each election is vital – it determines if they will have a job in the spring. But shouldn’t the whole point of parties be to provide a cohesive narrative for the future? Both parties appear caught up in the short term negotiations in trying to win the next election, rather than thinking about a policy for the future.

To exemplify the first, The New York Times reported that ads are now better able to track you to other sites. As soon as you click on a product, that product will pop up everywhere – even after you leave the site. While this idea of micro-targeting isn’t new – I remember that as soon as I changed my Facebook status to “engaged,” my ads instantly centered on wedding services and weight loss – the insistent nature of the ads seems to be growing. While some may argue that these targeted ads are better for consumers, increasing the likelihood that we are interested in the products they are trying to market to us, they also raise the potential of seeming to invasive, too targeted.

Meanwhile, services like Shopkick have the right idea. Although it is reported about in this Times article as a method to get people to use location-based services on smart phones, I think it has even greater potential. By using the program, people can find advertisements and coupons directly related to the services they are using at the time. If you’re headed to Walmart, check into the application and look for any coupons provided. These ads are even more personalized in a sense – you are giving them your location – they are also ads that you are choosing to view. And this should leave people feeling slightly grateful to the service, rather than skeptical and frustrated.

While the nature of advertising has to change, companies should think carefully about how audiences interact with their ads. While targeting might seem like an obvious answer, there are many ways to target. Giving audiences the feeling that they are choosing your application might be the most effective solution, for audiences and marketers alike.

However, in this election cycle, things are somewhat different. A new poll suggests that people are 10 points more likely to report they would vote for “the Republican candidate” compared to the “Democratic candidate” – without reference to who those candidates are.

We’ve read a lot about the anti-incumbent, anti-Democrat backlash in the media. And while we still have a two-party system, the strong conservative push is making the Republican primaries interesting. More moderate Republicans are in danger of being flanked on their right. And while this flanking has the potential to create a new party – indeed, the Republican party itself was formed around the Civil War as a new issue became dominent and a new alignment formed – I think it is more likely it simply shifts the ideological balance of the Republican party even further to the right.

But in Nevada, those people who are unsatisfied with the options presented by a two-party system have a different mechanism for expressing that dissatisfaction. Rather than staying home from the polls, or voting for a third-party candidate, they can enter a vote for “none of these candidates.” While it may still be considered a “thrown-away vote” by some, it provides interesting insight into the dissatisfaction of people with politics. And, just like a third-party candidate, it has the potential of shifting the outcome of the race.

So while I’m going to be watching all the races from now through November with interest, I’m going to pay special attention to Nevada’s “no” votes. If people are willing to spend their time to go to the polls and express an opinion – not in support of a candidate or party, nor even of an issue or ideology (like many third-party votes) – but instead to express their unhappiness with the system and their options, that speaks to an important dynamic – and may foretell a shift in American politics.