Eliza Krigman's Blog

Conservative underdogs want you! to give damn about Ames straw

bluebadger — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:25:07 EDT

When most of the country has no idea or doesn't care that you are running, I guess you grab on with both hands to any event, however immaterial, that provides an opportunity to elevate your candidacy. Such is the case with the upcoming Ames straw poll, which in former years was seen as a respectable indicator of a conservative candidate's organizational strength and a platform for one to emerge as the front-runner. However, this time around, top contenders Giuliani and McCain decided not to participate, and this has left Romney the favorite by a large margin thus eliminating the real competition factor, which ostensibly renders the event all but moot. But don't tell this to Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and the other lesser-known conservative candidates. They are desperate to use the Ames straw poll to gain the kind of momentum that will sling shot their campaigns into the category of serious hopefuls- unlikely. Fortunately, the rest of us can expect to witness an entertaining spectacle of conservative political theatre with media coverage that focuses on the quality of food served and the B and C list performers that were hired; stay tuned!

Clinton's Cleavage: Much Ado About Nothing

bluebadger — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:01:48 EDT

“There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.” For a moment I thought I was reading the teleprompter from a nightline crime scene report, but no, it was Washington Post writer Robin Givhan’s opening line to an article about the outfit Hillary Clinton wore last Wednesday giving a speech on the senate floor. According to Givhan, Hillary’s cleavage, “registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch faced scrutiny was necessary.” If you’re looking back at the photo, scrunching your eyes, and wondering how this amount of cleavage could warrant more than two seconds thought let alone a whole article, you’re not alone. Unwittingly, Givhan goes on to pontificate about the world of meaning that there is in this “reveal” and depicts Hillary as a woman who is both ambivalent and amateur when it comes to displaying any feminine sexuality. With no clear reason why, Givhan excuses or affirms other public official’s displays of sexuality. British home secretary Jacqui Smith’s greater reveal of cleavage is interpreted as a mark of confidence in her womanhood and Giuliani’s shirt being unbuttoned a little too far is excused as being equivalent to catching a man with his fly unzipped, “Just look away!” Hillary is given no reprieve; she neglects to consider that perspiration could have caused her top to lower slightly or that more cleavage could be interpreted as tasteless instead of more confident. Ultimately, Givhan rests her conclusions about Hillary’s outfit on the assumption that for a woman, being perceived as a sexual person and being perceived as an intelligent person are generally mutually exclusive. Unless, the display of sexuality is done in just right the way, a way that the article fails to articulate sufficiently, that a woman can hint at sexuality and not let it overshadow her other qualities. It is in this capacity that Givhan sites Hillary as a failure. This type of scrutiny over Hillary’s neckline is reminiscent of the breast brouhaha surrounding Janet Jackson’s super bowl performance. But this is even worse, because at least in Janet’s case an actual breast was revealed, not a paltry quarter inch of cleavage. However, the real issue is that a piece like this reinforces the negative journalistic tendency to report much more heavily on women’s appearance than men’s which hurts women’s image overall. In a lexis-nexis search for Hillary, Barack, Rudy and Mitt and the word outfit in the same sentence in news for the last month, Hillary gets five times as many results as the other three. This kind of coverage (no pun intended) is indicative of an author who is at best, desperate for material that will gain attention and at worst, too stupid or politically driven to see that her points are completely void of substance.

Fake News Blues

bluebadger — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:21:53 EDT

Sadly, as reported by the NY Times yesterday, the phenomenon of media outlets broadcasting reports as news, without disclosing that corporations produced them to launch a new product, is continuing. In the last 10 months 69 news stations broadcast fake news segments known as 'video news releases'. The good news is that more watch dog organizations like Media Matters are uncovering these under-handed tactics such as The Center for Media and Democracy which generated the information used in the NY Times article. The organization is located in Madison, Wisconsin and would be a great place to get involved for progressive UW students who want to demand honest and transparent reporting.

Inside the Mind of a Vegan Conservative

bluebadger — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:34:12 EST

Meet Jon. He works as a bartender and a landscapist in Madison, Wisconsin. He is learning to speak Korean and hopes to go back to school to study Urban Planning. He is into indie rock and has the NY Times as his homepage; by all cultural accounts he should be a liberal. But he's not; in fact, he is a conservative. A vegan conservative. This certainly makes Jon an anomaly among the vegan community as well as a political enigma. Most people consider the choice to be vegan a moral stance against cruelty to animals and a component of a philosophy which typically embraces progressive ideals such as human rights and environmentally friendly practices. The intrigue might end here if Jon were a vegan for health reasons, but that is not the case. To try and tackle why Jon remains conservative despite his liberal cue cards, and gain insight into what could make the rest of his political choices as progressive as his food habits, I asked him for an interview, and fortunately he complied.

Jon is, indeed, a vegan for ethical and not health reasons. It's important to pause here and identify that vegans are not just taking a stance against killing animals for food. A vegan abstains from dairy, a natural product of animals, and is therefore making a statement against the poor treatment of animals; essentially it is a form of progressive social activism. Precluding dairy from your diet is not easy in our society, least of all for someone who spends his days landscaping and then rushes to work in a bar where most of the food choices on the limited menu include dairy.
Herein lays the central paradox: how could someone who makes a significant dietary sacrifice based on consideration for the treatment of animals also support a political party and an administration that can only be considered hostile to this cause?

This is partially due to the fact that Jon refuses to recognize the conflict of interests between his choices to be a vegan and a conservative, even when given an example that clearly illustrates where the conflict exists. The non-renewal of the Multi Fibre Arrangement, a trade agreement that gave developing countries preferred treatment, is an example of a conservative policy that condemns both humans and animals to cruel conditions as it severed the only economic advantage that many countries had to compete within the global economy. Jon would not accept the connection sighting his belief that 'there are greater forces in the world' and things are improving over time because mortality rates are going down.

In Jon's case, like many others', his political beliefs were instilled by his family. He spent the first half of his childhood growing up in one of the worst neighborhoods in the South side of Milwaukee. Raised by a single mother, Jon lived on welfare until he was eleven and his mother was able to get work. They moved to Waukesha, in a particularly conservative region of Wisconsin. As Jon was approaching the voting age, his mother brought him into the voting booth, pointed to all the Republican candidates and said "this is who you are going to vote for." According to Jon, his mother is a fanatic Bush supporter who thinks that Bush is the "greatest orator of all time." He relayed this information to me with a half smile, which I took to mean that while he doesn't share the same blind enthusiasm for Bush, he is a supporter nonetheless.

Today, a decade after his first opportunity to vote, Jon defines himself as both fiscally and socially conservative. He didn't have a lot to say about why he identifies himself as conservative, but at the behest of more specific questions he opined that the government's primary responsibility is to ensure security, and beyond that to maintain a structure which allows people to 'achieve' or 'advance their cause.' When questioned about particular issues his answers were a mixed bag of conservative and democratic positions. He is pro-life and highly critical of welfare but also for gun control and okay with gay marriage. His pro-life position stems from not knowing where the line between embryo and person exists and being personally wary about abortion because his younger siblings were born premature. Jon's first hand experience with welfare leads him to believe that there is a serious dependency problem and welfare programs must demonstrate improvement in order to justify their existence.

Given the lack of engagement in his response about his conservative political identity I expected him to have specific reasons for not liking liberals, but here too he was very vague. When asked what it is that liberals 'don't get' or 'do wrong' he struggled to come up with an answer. Eventually he answered by stating a preference for the way he interprets conservatives to operate. In Jon's eyes, humans are selfish creatures and conservatives understand this and adopt it into their modus operandi, while liberals pretend to act on the behalf of others but do not in reality.

I asked Jon to name five positive things the Bush administration has done for our country and he was only able to come up with one, sort of. His answer was the war in Iraq, which he believes will have Bush credited with reforming the Middle East. His support of the war is underpinned by the belief that we need order before justice.

Jon feels that his politics have shifted some to the left since he started living in Madison but undoubtedly labels himself as a conservative. However, he crossed party lines to vote for Wisconsin's democratic Senator, Russell Feingold. He told me that Feingold won his lifelong support by being the only Senator to vote against the U.S. Patriot Act. Not because of something he didn't like in the legislation, but out of respect for the integrity it takes to go against the grain for what you believe in.

It occurred to me to ask Jon whether or not he would consider voting me into office. His answer was that he would need to do more research on me, but he felt good about it.

While none of us are perfectly logical or consistent, Jon's choice to be a vegan and a conservative makes for a particularly odd union. It seems to be his psychological and emotional profile that keeps him anchored to the right end of the political spectrum. When it comes to policy issues, Jon is neither informed nor passionate about conservative positions, a fact he admitted inadvertently before the interview by half-jokingly saying that the outcome would be that 'Jon is dumb'. I don't think Jon is dumb at all, but rather intellectually disengaged from the reasons he identifies himself as conservative. More importantly, he serves as a prototype of a person that democrats should be targeting for votes.

I believe I gained a lot of credibility with Jon simply for being willing to listen to his opinion and actively trying to understand it. Too frequently the debate between liberals and conservatives becomes a shouting match that drowns out any meaningful exchange of ideas. In this era of conservative domination, it is important to consider what it will take to get people like Jon to vote democratic. It doesn't work to assume that conservative voters are stupid, or to make compromises on stances that keep shifting the political spectrum to the right. As the fissures in the Republican Party are beginning to reveal themselves and the 2006 and 2008 elections loom ahead, Democrats need to work hard to understand the votes on which their victory depends.

Attention Fellow Bloggers

bluebadger — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:36:27 EDT

I am going to interview a friend of mine who is conservative and I would like suggestions for what questions I should ask him. The most prominent reason I want to interview him is because he is a vegan conservative, which I believe makes him an anomaly. Additionaly, he works in a very liberal bar in a very liberal city. Consequently I think it would be interesting to understand the mind of a conservative who is socially conscious enough to be a vegan, but still supports George Bush. So, I look forward to suggestions from other bloggers.....thanks in advance!

The Last Laugh

bluebadger — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:09:14 EDT

Okay, so I've been watching David Brooks spew conservative anecdotes to a roomful of eager collegiate conservatives. Most of what he has to say is not at all surprising; frustration over the lack of public support on social security reform, praise for Hamilton’s style of conservative governing and a nod to Christian campuses that in his opinion do a better job of shaping character. Nothing out of the ordinary aside from mentioning that possible presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is phenomenally good looking (he actually used the word phenomenally twice). I was getting bored of watching when a student asked Brooks why his columns had a more humorous tone than the columns of his colleagues. Brooks responded by referencing a 19th century conservative journalist who advised that using humour is the most effective way to convert people to your political cause. This got me thinking about the tactics and responses that Democrats have used in the wake of Bush’s re-election. Sure we have made some serious strides in trying to understand the composition of the conservative base and we have vowed to ‘fight back’ against Republican extremism, but the question is, “Where has this taken us?” Has increasing the outrage factor had the desired effect of inciting moderates and the apolitical to be angry with this administration? For the most part I think not. Voicing anger and dissent is an important part being an opposition but it must be done with caution or else it facilitates the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy of the Republican Party. In our attempt to reach out to America progressives have overlooked the humour variable. Brooks and other conservative talking heads have used humour wisely to create a comfortable and approachable vibe to their political viewpoints. This bodes well with the general public who will often lose site of a political message that is packaged with too much hostility or seriousness. Americans might have left Fahrenheit 9/11 somewhat outraged at this administration, but on Election Day, “who had the last laugh?” Democrats should not underestimate the importance of using humour to reach out to people even when it concerns very serious issues.

Article Accusing UW Professors of Liberal Indoctrination is Silenced

bluebadger — Thu, 05 May 2005 13:38:18 EDT

A few weeks ago I sat down to eat my breakfast and read one of Madison's weekly newspapers entitled "The Core". I opened the first page to read an incendiary article supporting the accusation that professors at UW are guilty of liberal indoctrination teaching. The article went so far as to say that it is surprising that no UW student has ever filed suit against a professor for this. Needles to say I immediately wrote a letter to the editor, which ended up being printed in the next edition of the paper and this is what it said:

"I was dismayed and angered by the "Students say no escape from professors' politics" article that ran in the most recent addition of your paper. The article supported the lofty accusation that UW professors are guilty of indoctrination teaching, which is simply not the case. As a UW senior on the cusp of graduation I have found that professors here are very loyal to teaching their subject matter and do their best NOT to express their personal opinions. I find the entire mission of those behind organizations such as Students for Academic Freedom and Noindoctrination.org hypocritical and manipulative. The Academic Bill of Rights, spear-headed by SAF, would shift the responsibility for course content and student evaluation from highly trained faculty to the state government or the courts. The Ohio senate is considering a version of this bill that would discourage faculty from teaching anything "controversial" as well as force the board of trustees, of both public and private schools, to adopt policies about what can and cannot be taught. This is all blatantly inconsistent with SAF's stated goal of achieving academic freedom. It is not surprising that no student has ever filed a complaint against a UW-Madison professor for political indoctrination because it rarely occurs. When students do complain about political indoctrination it is frequently an attempt to use the attention as a soap box to express their own political views. Such was the case earlier this semester when UW senior Joe McWilliams accused political science professor Scott Strauss of imposing his liberal views on the classroom. Following McWilliams accusation and a complaint posted on the SAF web site, the rest of the students in the class rushed to the professors defense by writing a letter that contested McWilliam's accusations, which included students with conservative political beliefs. Putting that aside, "Since when did teaching and opinions become mutually exclusive?" Professors earn their doctorates not only to gain expertise in their subject matter, but also to qualify their opinion, which could not possibly be eliminated from their teaching. Perhaps the most important aspect to consider is the effect that this "liberal bias" on campus is having on the nation. It is ironic that this issue should surge at a time when conservatives control both the legislative and executive branches of our government. For whatever multitude of reasons that liberal thinkers tend to end up in academia, this trend has not had any measurable negative effect on society. Overall this article displayed little critical thinking and selective evidentiary support. The author of this article would do good to remember that a few partisan comments does not indoctrination make."

I'm deeply troubled by this clandestine war being waged against this 'liberal bias' on campus, and I encourage others to speak out against it when given a chance.

Clear Channel aka Vigilant Republican Supporters

bluebadger — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:06:14 EDT

I was happily on my way to a Shins concert in Milwaukee when I glanced out the window of the car and saw a Clear Channel building. On the side of the building was a well-lit, enourmous billboard paying homage to the late pope. It's all well and good that Clear Channel or any other business pays tribute to the loss of a religious leader, but in this particular case it was a rude reminder that Clear Channel remains a determined branch of the Republican party. The billboard is just another example of Clear Channel's die hard committment to promoting the Bush agenda in whatever they do. It's been a while since thier underhanded involvement with the Republican party has been present in the media, but they continue to be very active for the conservative agenda.
Most recently Clear Channel refused to fire an ultra-conservative radio personality, Mark Belling, after he called the Hispanic voters in the Milwaukee area "wetbacks". Belling was suspended for a couple of months and issued a formal apology, but since he has returned to the airwaves he has use the term "gook" and declared that neither he or his program has changed. Clear Channel's soft punishment for Belling is not surprising considering that he has been a regular guest on the Rush Limbaugh show and his since become one of the regular radio figures for the uber conservative market. The reality is that Clear Channel continues to shamelessly support the Republican agenda and no one has created a sufficient opposition to stop them.

The Liberal Media?

bluebadger — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:41:08 EST

One of things that makes me truly irate is the constant reference to the "Liberal Media" by the conservatives and the unwashed masses. No matter how many times I tell people that the Conservative ideologue Rupert Murdoch owns an ungodly portion of the American media outlets, or that Clear Channel is merely an extension of the Republican party I never convince anyone. It is understandable when someone who is fairly ignorant or disinterested in politics believes that the media is entirely controlled by liberals; after all it is a mantra that has been repeated endlessly by the Republicans for the past two decades. However, it really boils my blood when acclaimed intellectuals make an unsubstantiated reference to the Liberal media such as Jagdish Bhagwati does in his book "In Defense of Globalization". So, this leaves me wondering if other progressives have developed a successful rhetoric to help dispel the misconception that there is a liberal media. Any thoughts??