Tag: president barack obama

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Politics Tagged with , , , ,
Supreme Court, 2009 (Photo)
In this 2009 portrait of the Supreme Court, Scalia is third from the right. Public domain photo found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court_US_2009.jpg

Dear Senators McConnell, Cruz, Grassley, etc,

President Obama has over eleven months left in office. Senator McConnell, your call not to fill the Supreme Court vacancy until after a new President has taken office is not surprising from the man who greeted the Obama administrations earliest days with the statement that his highest priority was to “deny President Obama a second term.” Senator McConnell, you been obstructionist from the get-go. Politico calls you “the face of Republican obstructionism.” This is the latest in a long line of unpatriotic—I might even say treasonous—refusals on the part of the Republican leadership to advance almost any part of Obama’s “change” agenda. From here, it sure looks like racism; no president in my memory has ever faced such unrelenting hostility.

Not only is there no reason to delay this nomination almost a year, but history supports quick action. In fact, both McConnell and Grassley voted to seat Justice Anthony Kennedy, in February, 1988—Reagan’s last year. The vote was 97-0, with three Democrats absent.

The record is clear. Of the seven instances in the 20th century where a Supreme Court vacancy opened in an election year, the Senate confirmed six, most of them quite rapidly. The seventh was not about waiting for a new president to be elected but about the Senate being in recess as a new Court season was about to start. Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan (of the opposite party) just weeks before the 1956 election; he was confirmed when the Senate went back into session (and Eisenhower had been re-elected) in early 1957.

There was one rather different situation: Abe Fortas, already on the Court and nominated by Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to become Chief Justice. Ethics considerations were the main reason this nomination went nowhere, though the argument about the change of administration was raised.

Senator McConnell and your cronies: Though you have been utterly disrespectful to the Administration and have ignored the strong mandate for change that elected Obama twice, we have been patient. Our patience is at an end. If you do not let the nomination go forward, we will not just flood you with calls and letters. We will picket you again and again. We will engage in appropriate nonviolent action. And we will do our best to bring about a Democratic supermajority in both houses of Congress.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren, @ElizabethForMA) speaks to me far more deeply than anyone named Clinton. On domestic policy, she’s a wonder (foreign policy, not so much), and I’m proud that she’s my Senator. However, I think if she or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) ran for President, they would be leaving a platform where they can be the conscience of the country, highly visible and highly effective, into a position of acutely marginalized and quickly forgotten.

I’ve certainly been involved with plenty of quixotic progressive presidential campaigns, most recently former Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (@Dennis_Kucinich). The problem is–as our political system is currently structured, when these folks are shut out of debates, underfunded, stretched waaaaay too thin, etc., they make the case to the center-right that the Left can be safely ignored.

I’d much rather see Warren leading a challenge to a Hillary candidacy to push leftward from a position of strength, offering positions and cabinet names and being taken seriously. I’d also like to see Warren provide the same kind of gravitas and deep analysis to her own foreign policy that she so cogently brings to domestic economic issues; there’s room for quite a bit of improvement there.

Also, for Warren but not Sanders, there’s the issue of inexperience. She was elected in 2012, which means when the campaign starts to heat up in 2015, she’ll have only had two years and change of experience as an elected official. That’s significantly less than Obama had–he was a state senator before moving up to the federal level–and I think that was one of the things that really got in the way of his effectiveness.

Had Obama been more experienced, he might have taken the huge organizing momentum of his 2008 campaign and actively translated it into a people’s movement for real change. I think, in the aftermath of that election, if GOP lawmakers had been hearing from thousands of their constituents daily about a set of chosen issues (maybe two or three at a time), they’d have crumbled, and Obama would have been seen as one of the most effective Presidents ever. But Obama and the Democrats threw that rare chance overboard without a struggle. Remember “public option is off the table,” and single-payer never being on the table in the first place? Just one of many squandered opportunities to do what he was elected to do: make change.

Had Obama been more experienced, he would have understood–as LBJ did–when and how to push hard for real reforms. He would have marshaled resources for a massive shift in the way we do energy, closed the festering sore of Guantanamo, exited rapidly from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

And had he been more experienced, he might have taken more risks with his Cabinet, and not put so much faith in the Clinton- and Bush-era politicos who were suddenly making policy again.

Neither Warren nor Sanders has an effective national base. While they are a very visible part of our nation’s conscience, I don’t think they’d remain so in a presidential campaign. Let’s keep them where they are so they can build that base. And maybe, by 2020, mobilize it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Branding, General Commentary, Innovation, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Politics, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

In yesterday’s post, “Does Making Decisions Lower Our Math Skills?” I looked at Paul Petrone’s article, “The Genius of Wearing the Same Outfit Every Day.” He describes why President Barack Obama (to simplify his day) and Steve Jobs (to brand himself) wear similar outfits day after day. Yesterday, I looked at the part of Petrone’s article that supported Obama’s reasoning, claiming that too many decisions weaken our brains. I took issue with that, as you’ll see if you click through.

But I’m basically in agreement with the other part of Petrone’s article: there can indeed be solid branding reasons behind keeping a wardrobe choice to a bunch of identical black turtlenecks, as Jobs did. For jobs, the black turtleneck made a lot of sense, for several reasons:

  • It’s sleek and modern looking, like Apple’s product line (at least if you stay trim, as Jobs did)
  • It reinforces the “think different” culture at Apple, a company that has built its brand from the beginning on not being the corporate-zombie persona that wears conventional business attire and buys conventional (IBM) computers; the very first Macintosh ad said, “you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984.’”

So now, let me jump into uncharted (and maybe shark-infested) waters: let’s look at President Obama’s wardrobe choice from a branding perspective. And let’s start by looking at the wardrobe choices of his own bed partner, First Lady Michelle Obama.

Michelle’s fashion choices for formal occasions are quite dramatic. Typically her outfits combine three elements: they’re bold, elegant, and surprising. She’s the most fashionista First Lady I can remember, surpassing even Jacqueline Kennedy.

Her husband Barack Obama, however, tends to dress “safe,” in conservative dark suits. When he wore a sharp-looking tan suit, he was heavily criticized—but I thought it was a good move, though years too late. (In fairness—the commentator who started it all said he didn’t care that the suit was tan, but he didn’t think it fit properly.) Still, in typical Barack Obama fashion, he retreated with his actions and went back to his power suits.

The problem is, those “safe” dark suits are at odds with the brand of his 2008 campaign: “change.” The boldness of his rhetoric wasn’t matched by the drab sameness of his attire.

I empathize with him. I don’t spend a lot of energy thinking about the clothes I wear, and I usually dress for comfort. I’m not particularly comfortable in suits and abhor neckties. But I do wonder—and here’s the big heresy:

Would President Barack Obama have had an easier time pushing an agenda of “change” if he had dressed the part?

If, starting on the campaign trail in 2007, he had emphasized Michelle Obama’s three wardrobe attributes of boldness, elegance, and surprise, would he have been better able to marshall support for his initiatives? Is the conformist wardrobe secretly saying “I’m not serious about change”?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Branding, General Commentary, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Here’s an odd one: Paul Petrone’s article, “The Genius of Wearing the Same Outfit Every Day,”  describes why President Obama (to simplify his day) and Steve Jobs (to brand himself) wear similar outfits day after day—and then supports Obama’s reasoning, saying that too many decisions weaken our brains. It’s gotten more than 1000 comments.

Leaving aside the flaw in the Obama example—he’s often photographed wearing something other than a suit—let’s look at Petrone’s claim, based on an L.A. Times article, “Too many decisions can tax the brain, research shows,” that too many decisions can lower math skills:

Two college professors…both found that a person has a limited amount of brain power in a day, so the more decisions they have to make, the weaker their decision-making process becomes…

Vohs…asked a group of random people how many decisions they made that day, and then asked them a series of simple math questions. The more decisions they made in the day, the worse they did on the math questions.

I was instantly skeptical.  1) I’d guess the more we train our brain to make interesting, challenging, important decisions, the more of those we empower it to make. But yes, if we fill our brains up with trivial decisions, we limit them.

And 2) there are many different kinds of decisions. Exercising critical thinking skills–or for that matter, intuitive snap judgments a la Gladwell’s “blink” theory–might actually boost our math performance. Other types of decisions could sharpen or weaken our math performance.

So I went back to the original article. The logic is far more nuanced than Petrone implies. What’s fatiguing is not how many decisions we make, but overwhelming choice in a single decision:

…When people have too many decisions to make — consumers end up making poor decisions, are more dissatisfied with their choices or become paralyzed and don’t choose at all.

And as the complexity of a decision increases, a person is more likely to look for ways—often erroneous—to simplify the choosing process. If there are 100 kinds of cereal, instead of looking at all of the characteristics, people will evaluate a product based on something familiar, such as brand name, or easy, such as price.

Now this actually does make sense. Marketers know fewer choices = more purchases.

Come back tomorrow for a look at the branding (Steve Jobs) part of Petrone’s argument. (Subscribe to this blog so you’ll be notified.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Energy & Sustainability, Politics Tagged with , ,

Last night’s State of the Union address laid out a strong progressive agenda, including a green jobs program.

It’s not new for President Obama to say the right things, but he tends to back down when it’s time to follow through. So we, the environmentalists, have to not just “have his back,” but apply some pressure. Obama moved to the right numerous times over the past four years, to mollify Republicans. It’s time for him to return to the left in order to mollify his progressive/environmentalist constituents.

And that will only happen if we create a political climate where he has to listen to us and act for us. So let’s get out there and create that climate.

If you can attend Sunday’s massive climate change rally in Washington, DC, that’s a great first step. If you can’t—thee are several solidarity actions around the country. Check this list to see if there’s a rally about catastrophic climate change near you.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Yesterday, I heard a RepubliPundit on All Things Considered, decrying Obama’s inauguration speech because he felt it was confrontative and didn’t offer any “olive branches.”

Seems to me, Obama has spent the last four years offering olive branches to the right—and having 98 percent of them snapped off, chewed up, and spat back in his face. The Republicans have been incredibly unwilling to compromise, or even make any substantive proposals. Meanwhile, Obama’s base rightfully feels like a whole lot of areas where there should have been progress have stagnated. I personally I’m glad he is finally stepping up and saying he was elected to make change, and he’s going to make change. If he can at least bring us back to the economic stability and human rights approaches of the Clinton era (and yes, he’s better than Clinton on gay rights), that will be a big step in reversing the Rogue State government of George W. Bush.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

…But I’m going to write it anyway.

As a young teenager protesting the Vietnam war, I had a huge poster in my room with a picture of a Vietnam-era peace demonstration and the quote,

It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest.

—Abraham Lincoln

It is my duty to protest.

I am only one generation removed from the Holocaust, and I wonder how many millions of lives might have been saved if ordinary Germans and Italians had protested and organized in large numbers against the gradual encroachments on their liberty that provided the legal framework for Nazi and Fascist repression.

Earlier this week, while the rest of us were merrily celebrating the arrival of 2012, President Obama signed a truly wretched piece of legislation: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

In the words of one commentator whose post is entitled “R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 – 2011,” this law

grants the U.S. military the “legal” right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

Signed into law by the same President Obama who, as a candidate, was the champion of liberty and “change” who would close the illegal prison at Guantanamo, rein in the torturers of Abu Ghraib, and quickly end the US presence in Iraq. The same Obama who had said he would veto this dreadful bill. (Yes, the soldiers have come home. But it took three years and we still have thousands of “advisors” there, along with a highly fortified embassy in Baghdad  that could easily be the nerve center for US command and control.) Guantanamo is still open, the climate of anti-Muslim racism persists, and the torturers at the highest levels (e.g., Cheney and Rumsfeld) have never been held to account.)

So I am protesting. Even though it puts my own liberty potentially at risk.

In his signing statement, Obama said he would…

interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that …upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Two problems with that. Number 1, he has not shown himself trustworthy in upholding those values in the past.

And second, there is no guarantee that the presidency won’t be delivered to a much more repressive figure with no such scruples. The contenders on the Republican side include several sworn enemies of freedom for those of us who don’t happen to be straight, conservative, and some repressive flavor of Christian: Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum (in alphabetical order).

This is merely the latest in a gradual erosion of our civil liberties committed during both Democratic and Republican governments; two other examples (among many) are the shift over the last two decades of ballot counting to insecure, easily manipulated, and highly suspect electronic counting devices that in some cases don’t even HAVE a paper trail (and that led directly to the disastrous worst-in-history administration of George W. Bush) and the citizens United Supreme Court decision that nakedly grants corporations the power to buy elections.

Yes I protest.

I have never forgiven myself for not doing enough to stop the coup that let Bush seize power in 2000—in part because I didn’t see Gore as any great champion of my values, in part because I could not foresee just how bad that eight years was going to be—but mostly because I was feeling too shut down and disempowered to help organize a movement like we saw in Mexico, Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere.

I still don’t feel like I can personally organize a movement. But I can at least protest, and send some money to a civil liberties group.  I hope you will too.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail