In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was denounced by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who claimed the Massachusetts Senator lied about his service during the Vietnam War. Senator Kerry was awarded the Silver Star for the events on February 28, 1969 in which Kerry decided “to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.”[i] The Swift Boat Veterans claimed Senator Kerry embellished his story and was not worthy of the Silver Star and Purple Heart medals awarded to him.
In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate and the incumbent Vice President Al Gore was labeled a serial exaggerator, liar and flip-flopper by his opponent George W. Bush, the Republican Establishment, and the mass media.
Even though the 2008 Democratic contest has not been decided, a narrative involving Illinois Senator Barack Obama is slowly developing.
Mr. Obama is the progeny of a biracial couple – his father is of Kenyan ancestry, and his mother is white, from Kansas. As a child, he lived in Indonesia and studied in a “madrassa.” Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country.
The narrative implies Senator Obama is a closet Muslim who was indoctrinated in radical Islam while attending a madrassa in Indonesia. The fear is that once Barack Hussein Obama becomes president of the United States, he will disclose his Muslim identity and impose Shariah Law against the will of the people.
This is not paranoia from the left talking. An email is circulating throughout the Internet from the Republican Party Committee of Clark County, Washington. Posted on the front page of their official Republican Web site is a dire warning. Obama “takes great care to conceal he is a Muslim… [It’s] reported he swore his oath of office on the Koran and pictures have shown him standing for the pledge but not reciting it and holding his hands to his sides while others held their hands over their hearts. This is chilling information about a candidate for the highest office in the country, especially given the radical Muslim claims that they will destroy America from the inside.”[ii]
Senator Obama unknowingly disclosed his secret identity. Every patriotic American knows that standing with your hands by your sides and keeping your mouth shut while the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited is a verifiable sign someone is not a real American.
Parenthetically, it was Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District and the nation’s first Muslim who swore his oath of office on The Quran. The error is understandable. All black people look the same to most racist, deluded, paranoid, fear mongers.
This dark fantasy – a Muslim taking over the country – does not live and sustain itself in a vacuum. As a nation, we are currently at war against terrorists, radical jihadists, and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden issued a fatwa in the mid 1990’s directing jihadists to kill Americans wherever “they” can find them. What better way to destroy America than concealing a sleeper Muslim in the country of your worst enemy.
It takes an overactive imagination to create such a paranoid narrative, and it’s not even original because it borrows heavily from the brilliant 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate,” directed by John Frankenheimer.
Unfortunately, the people who concoct these wild fantasies would flunk an elementary school civics test.
Assume the worst. Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Manchurian Candidate. He is a closet Muslim with an agenda. After being sworn in as our next president, President Obama states his intentions as soon as his right hand comes off the Bible. “Surprise!!! I’m really a Muslim. Life as you know it is over.” President Obama proclaims Americans will be living under Shariah Law, will have to change our American names to Arabic names, men will have to grow beards, women will have to wear burkas, homosexuality will be criminalized, all the majors sports will be outlawed, prohibition will be reinstated, the mass media will be nationalized, movies, music, porn and mass entertainment will be banned, the Internet will be shut down, we all have to live in tents, Americans will have to learn Arabic, and Americans will be forced to convert to Islam.
Let us assume further that men dressed in white coats, with oversized butterfly nets and a white jacket with extra long sleeves that wrap around the torso, do not haul off the new President of the United States to a nice farm where it is peaceful and quiet, “with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes, where life is beautiful all the time and [he’ll] be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats.”[iii]
Our political system is structured to prevent radical change. Suppose President Obama wanted to substitute our current Constitution for Shariah Law. He cannot do it by decree or by President Bush’s current method of circumventing the Constitution – the infamous signing statements. To amend the Constitution, the proposal to implement Shariah Law would need the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives (287 congressmen), two-thirds of the Senate (66 Senators), and three-fourths of the states (37 states). Senator Obama prides himself on being the candidate of change, but to affect that type of change, you will need an awful lot of Manchurian Candidates.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama wanted to incorporate Shariah Law into American law. According to Civics 101, a bill would have to be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. After the introduction, the bill is sent to the Judiciary Committee, and then to a subcommittee. The subcommittee may hold hearings. The hearing may be open to the public. However, in this case the hearings will be closed. Congress will prefer to keep these hearings a secret. No need to alert the public. After the hearing process, the subcommittee sends the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with recommendations. Presuming the bill to incorporate Shariah law is accepted, the bill is placed on the calendar. Afterwards, each house will vote on the bill. If the bill is approved, then the president can sign it into law. This process usually takes longer than it took God to create the universe – at least according to some people. And this is how a bill becomes a law boys and girls.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama attempted to impose Shariah Law by force. To accomplish this act, he would need the complete loyalty and support of the United States military in order to declare Marshal law. Congress, state and local governments would have to be disbanded. The president would have to assume control of the state National Guards (all 50 of them), and take control of all state and local law enforcement agencies. Under the United States Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief, but the brave men and women of the military take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not obey the whim of an individual determined to eliminate our way of life.
Or maybe Barack Obama is a Muslim Svengali who will hypnotize Americans with his beautiful oratory skills, and eventually lure us with his siren call to Islam. The media is already alluding to the Obama campaign for President as a cult of personality
The probability that Barack Hussein Obama is a sleeper, radical Muslim preparing to take over the country in the name of Islam is remote. Al Qaeda did not exist when Barack Obama attended the madrassa as a child. Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 until 1971. Al Qaeda was established in 1988. If Obama were a sleeper, radical Muslim, then he would have been indoctrinated into radical Islam 17 years before our enemy was founded and organized.
But the fear exists and an effort is being made to perpetuate this fear. Articles printed in the mass media imply a Muslim past. The articles were debunked by the same mass media, but Senator Obama still needs to reassure audience members at his rallies that he is not a Muslim.
Delusional conspiracy theorists fear an individual or a minority will impose its will against the United States, and we will not be able to stop them. As if Barack Obama is the modern day conquistador Hernando Cortes who sailed boldly to Mexico in March of 1519 with a horde of 600 men, captured Mexico in two years, and defeated the Aztec Empire. Granted, Cortes was a powerful motivator who burned his ships to prevent his men from retreating. “Conquer or Die” was the campaign slogan of the day.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Spanish Conquistadors adventurously sailed to the New World, and eventually acquired a continent. These men established the “Encomienda” system in which the indigenous population was indoctrinated in the Catholic faith, and the Conquistadors demanded tribute from the natives for protection and religious instruction. Sound familiar? President Obama will raise taxes on Americans, and use the revenue to brainwash Americans into accepting Islam.
A minority with superior firepower conquered the indigenous population of the New World. Furthermore, colonial powers installed indigenous ethnic minorities as rulers over their territories reasoning ethnic minorities will do anything to hold on to power. Not only will a Muslim be president, but also black people will rule over white people. First sports (except hockey), then America.
According to the delusional, Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Hernando Cortes, determined to establish a new, radical, alien form of religion and government against the will of the American people.
Conventional wisdom by political pundits claim the Republican Party is afraid to run against an African American because they would be afraid to run a campaign that will flirt with racist ideology. The Muslim narrative provides a reason to exploit fear of Muslims without having to resort to using racist code words against Senator Obama.
That is not to say there are people who are not trying. Karl Rove, the former brain and conscience of President Bush, is off to an early start. Unable to shake off his true nature, Rove in an article for The Wall Street Journal explained Senator Obama lost the New Hampshire primary because the voters perceived him negatively after he attacked Senator Clinton in a debate. Rove argues that Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.”[iv]
Furthermore, Rove argues, “He (Obama) is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[v]
You can almost see it on the side of a blimp as it sails over the United States. Barack Obama, trash talking, basketball player, not intelligent, hustler, lazy. Not right for America!
Too outlandish? Too paranoid? Tell that to Senator Kerry who repeatedly had to rebut charges of exaggerating his bravery during the Vietnam War.
[i] “Republican Funded Group Attacks Kerry’s War Record,” FactCheck.org, August 6, 2004.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 22, 2008.
[iii] “They’re Coming to Take Me Away,” Napoleon XIV (Jerry Samuels), 1966.
[iv] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[v] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Mystery in New Hampshire
After all the ballots were counted, the mainstream media talking heads and political pundits were involved in a mystery, trying to explain how and why Hillary Clinton was able to defeat Barack Obama by two percentage points when every poll conducted prior to the New Hampshire primary predicted an Obama victory by an average eight points. Furthermore, exit polls indicated the young Senator from Illinois would defeat the battle tested Senator from New York by five to twelve percentage points.
Even Senator Clinton’s staff expected defeat, and was headed for the life rafts and life preservers. Clinton staffers were in danger of losing their jobs. The campaign itself would have to be restructured.
If you look closely, the pollsters were half right. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, New York Times/CBS, Rasmussen, WNBC/Marist College polls predicted Barack Obama would capture 32% to 37% of the vote.[i] Obama’s actual percentage of the vote was 37%.
The polls were correct about Obama, but were wrong about Clinton. She was polling in the 25% to 30% range. Instead, the former Inevitable Candidate lives to fight another day after the late surge of support in New Hampshire.
What happened? Why were so many polls wrong? And where did Hillary Clinton’s 10% increase come from? There are three theories.
The Rick Lazio Effect, named after the New York Republican candidate for the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton’s campaign opponent in 2000. During a debate, Mr. Lazio pulled out a folded sheet of paper, walked over to Ms Clinton, and demanded she sign a pledge not to accept “soft money.” Mr. Lazio was rather belligerent.
After the debate, a woman in the audience approached the moderator Tim Russert, and said she liked the Republican candidate until he decided to stalk the former First Lady. “At that moment, she confided, the Long Island congressman suddenly conjured up the image of her husband, waving a credit card receipt in her face, yelling at her that she had overcharged, his eyes bulging, his veins popping, screaming at her to return everything to the store.”[ii]
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, her male opponents roughed up Senator Clinton in a debate, and she became emotional during a question and answer session the day before the primary. The perception of unfairness towards a female candidate may have been enough to convince the legion of women over the age of 45 to support Clinton against her male bullies. Over 55% of the women in New Hampshire voted for Ms Clinton, a 25% increase in support she received in Iowa. Obama captured 34% of votes cast by women besting Clinton who was supported by 30%.
Second, The Richard Roma Effect. In the movie Glengarry Glenross, Richard Roma, as portrayed by the great actor Al Pacino, walks up a bar and orders an alcoholic beverage on a very hot and humid day. “They say you should not drink alcohol when it’s hot.” Another bar patron asks, “Who says that?” Roma answers, “Something I read. For they say it dehydrates you. They say you should drink water, but I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say bet the other way.”[iii]
The second theory could easily be called the New Hampshire Effect, but I wanted to make it sound cooler by interjecting a pop culture reference, thus named The Richard Roma Effect.
New Hampshire prides itself on its au contraire spirit during the election process, and has had a history of turning the presidential election process upside down. The political pundits and the talking heads celebrated New Hampshire’s defiant spirit after Senator Obama was defeated, claiming it was too soon to anoint the young charismatic Senator from Illinois as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This theory implies a sophisticated level of Groupthink in which the citizens of New Hampshire collectively agreed to halt the momentum of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton, thus extending the political contest further instead of holding a coronation ceremony for the Senator from Illinois on January 8, 2008 on their turf.
New Hampshire’s contrarian spirit may explain the sudden jump in support for Senator Clinton, but it does not explain why exit polls indicated Senator Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by 5% to 10% points. “According to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.”[iv] In fact, both theories do not account for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual result. But one theory does.
The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, Mayor Bradley was the Democratic candidate for governor. Prior to Election Day, Bradley was ahead of the Republican candidate George Deukmejian by 7%. Unfortunately, Mayor Bradley lost the election by 1%.[v]
This is a statistical “phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.”[vi]
Mayor Bradley was not the only black candidate whose poll numbers mysteriously decreased. In 1989, David Dinkins was leading the Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani by 14 points, but won by a narrow margin. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder was leading the Republican candidate by 11 points, but also won by a narrow margin. Harvey Gantt was running against the racist Senator from North Carolina - Jesse Helms. He also had a big lead in the polls, but lost. Barack Obama joins the list of black candidates who lost after seemingly having a lead in the polls.
It is important that New Hampshire is not labeled a racist state simply because a percentage of the population lied regarding their exit polls. However, it would be foolish to pretend the race factor does not exist.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and former pollster for Mayor David Dinkins, acknowledges the “longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.”[vii]
Kohut argues “poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.”[viii]
A counterargument against Kohut’s theory regarding the New Hampshire primary is someone who is predisposed to vote strictly on race may also be predisposed to vote against gender. In other words, the racist is not a feminist.
The counterargument to the Bradley Effect is Iowa. Senator Obama won a predominately white state. Why wasn’t race a factor in Iowa?
There are two possible explanations. First, Senator Obama received overwhelming support from voters under the age of 30, and voters who were participating in their first caucus. Young people are less likely to judge someone according to race. Also, first time voters are less jaded by the political process.
Second, Iowa was a caucus. A caucus is different from a primary in which an individual enters a private area, and casts a secret ballot.
Caucuses are not secret ballots. They are public events. Residents gather in schools, public libraries, and private homes. Supporters divide themselves into groups. This could lead to a form of peer pressure. Groupthink can assert itself. Imagine an individual who supports Hillary Clinton, but finds out the majority of his friends and neighbors are supporting Obama. Even if the Clinton supporter walks over to Clinton group, this individual can be subjected to peer pressure in order to change his vote. We are social beings who crave acceptance. It is only natural for someone to bend to the will of a larger group for the sake of acceptance. In the case of Obama, the pressure is greater because you want to appear enlightened and cool to your neighbors.
The Bradley Effect is the only theory that explains the discrepancy between the exit polls and the results of the New Hampshire primary. Racism does not have to manifest itself in large numbers to impact an election. Five percent of the electorate can decide an election.
The race factor explains why presidential candidate John Edwards desperately wants to be the last white candidate standing against Barack Obama. Even on a subconscious level, Edwards understands the importance of the last white candidate running against the black candidate. At some point, the Bradley Effect will assert itself, and Edwards wants to benefit from it, although he will never admit it in public.
Furthermore, the Bradley Effect does not have to based solely on racism. And it does not have to be malicious in nature. It could be based on white guilt. A white individual who meets a black pollster conducting an exit poll may simple lie to the pollster out of guilt.
The only way to find out how much of an impact the Bradley Effect may have on the election is to observe, study polls before the primary, then compare them with exit polls and the actual results. If the Bradley Effect exists, then it will manifest itself again.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 9, 2008.
[ii] Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; Her Brute Strength,” New York Times, September 17, 2000.
[iii] Glenngarry Glenross, 1992.
[iv] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[v] Michael Fauntroy, “Don’t Overplay The Bradley Effect,” The Huffington Post, January 9, 2008.
[vi] Andrew Sullivan, “The Daily Dish,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 8, 2008.
[vii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
Even Senator Clinton’s staff expected defeat, and was headed for the life rafts and life preservers. Clinton staffers were in danger of losing their jobs. The campaign itself would have to be restructured.
If you look closely, the pollsters were half right. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, New York Times/CBS, Rasmussen, WNBC/Marist College polls predicted Barack Obama would capture 32% to 37% of the vote.[i] Obama’s actual percentage of the vote was 37%.
The polls were correct about Obama, but were wrong about Clinton. She was polling in the 25% to 30% range. Instead, the former Inevitable Candidate lives to fight another day after the late surge of support in New Hampshire.
What happened? Why were so many polls wrong? And where did Hillary Clinton’s 10% increase come from? There are three theories.
The Rick Lazio Effect, named after the New York Republican candidate for the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton’s campaign opponent in 2000. During a debate, Mr. Lazio pulled out a folded sheet of paper, walked over to Ms Clinton, and demanded she sign a pledge not to accept “soft money.” Mr. Lazio was rather belligerent.
After the debate, a woman in the audience approached the moderator Tim Russert, and said she liked the Republican candidate until he decided to stalk the former First Lady. “At that moment, she confided, the Long Island congressman suddenly conjured up the image of her husband, waving a credit card receipt in her face, yelling at her that she had overcharged, his eyes bulging, his veins popping, screaming at her to return everything to the store.”[ii]
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, her male opponents roughed up Senator Clinton in a debate, and she became emotional during a question and answer session the day before the primary. The perception of unfairness towards a female candidate may have been enough to convince the legion of women over the age of 45 to support Clinton against her male bullies. Over 55% of the women in New Hampshire voted for Ms Clinton, a 25% increase in support she received in Iowa. Obama captured 34% of votes cast by women besting Clinton who was supported by 30%.
Second, The Richard Roma Effect. In the movie Glengarry Glenross, Richard Roma, as portrayed by the great actor Al Pacino, walks up a bar and orders an alcoholic beverage on a very hot and humid day. “They say you should not drink alcohol when it’s hot.” Another bar patron asks, “Who says that?” Roma answers, “Something I read. For they say it dehydrates you. They say you should drink water, but I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say bet the other way.”[iii]
The second theory could easily be called the New Hampshire Effect, but I wanted to make it sound cooler by interjecting a pop culture reference, thus named The Richard Roma Effect.
New Hampshire prides itself on its au contraire spirit during the election process, and has had a history of turning the presidential election process upside down. The political pundits and the talking heads celebrated New Hampshire’s defiant spirit after Senator Obama was defeated, claiming it was too soon to anoint the young charismatic Senator from Illinois as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This theory implies a sophisticated level of Groupthink in which the citizens of New Hampshire collectively agreed to halt the momentum of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton, thus extending the political contest further instead of holding a coronation ceremony for the Senator from Illinois on January 8, 2008 on their turf.
New Hampshire’s contrarian spirit may explain the sudden jump in support for Senator Clinton, but it does not explain why exit polls indicated Senator Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by 5% to 10% points. “According to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.”[iv] In fact, both theories do not account for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual result. But one theory does.
The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, Mayor Bradley was the Democratic candidate for governor. Prior to Election Day, Bradley was ahead of the Republican candidate George Deukmejian by 7%. Unfortunately, Mayor Bradley lost the election by 1%.[v]
This is a statistical “phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.”[vi]
Mayor Bradley was not the only black candidate whose poll numbers mysteriously decreased. In 1989, David Dinkins was leading the Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani by 14 points, but won by a narrow margin. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder was leading the Republican candidate by 11 points, but also won by a narrow margin. Harvey Gantt was running against the racist Senator from North Carolina - Jesse Helms. He also had a big lead in the polls, but lost. Barack Obama joins the list of black candidates who lost after seemingly having a lead in the polls.
It is important that New Hampshire is not labeled a racist state simply because a percentage of the population lied regarding their exit polls. However, it would be foolish to pretend the race factor does not exist.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and former pollster for Mayor David Dinkins, acknowledges the “longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.”[vii]
Kohut argues “poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.”[viii]
A counterargument against Kohut’s theory regarding the New Hampshire primary is someone who is predisposed to vote strictly on race may also be predisposed to vote against gender. In other words, the racist is not a feminist.
The counterargument to the Bradley Effect is Iowa. Senator Obama won a predominately white state. Why wasn’t race a factor in Iowa?
There are two possible explanations. First, Senator Obama received overwhelming support from voters under the age of 30, and voters who were participating in their first caucus. Young people are less likely to judge someone according to race. Also, first time voters are less jaded by the political process.
Second, Iowa was a caucus. A caucus is different from a primary in which an individual enters a private area, and casts a secret ballot.
Caucuses are not secret ballots. They are public events. Residents gather in schools, public libraries, and private homes. Supporters divide themselves into groups. This could lead to a form of peer pressure. Groupthink can assert itself. Imagine an individual who supports Hillary Clinton, but finds out the majority of his friends and neighbors are supporting Obama. Even if the Clinton supporter walks over to Clinton group, this individual can be subjected to peer pressure in order to change his vote. We are social beings who crave acceptance. It is only natural for someone to bend to the will of a larger group for the sake of acceptance. In the case of Obama, the pressure is greater because you want to appear enlightened and cool to your neighbors.
The Bradley Effect is the only theory that explains the discrepancy between the exit polls and the results of the New Hampshire primary. Racism does not have to manifest itself in large numbers to impact an election. Five percent of the electorate can decide an election.
The race factor explains why presidential candidate John Edwards desperately wants to be the last white candidate standing against Barack Obama. Even on a subconscious level, Edwards understands the importance of the last white candidate running against the black candidate. At some point, the Bradley Effect will assert itself, and Edwards wants to benefit from it, although he will never admit it in public.
Furthermore, the Bradley Effect does not have to based solely on racism. And it does not have to be malicious in nature. It could be based on white guilt. A white individual who meets a black pollster conducting an exit poll may simple lie to the pollster out of guilt.
The only way to find out how much of an impact the Bradley Effect may have on the election is to observe, study polls before the primary, then compare them with exit polls and the actual results. If the Bradley Effect exists, then it will manifest itself again.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 9, 2008.
[ii] Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; Her Brute Strength,” New York Times, September 17, 2000.
[iii] Glenngarry Glenross, 1992.
[iv] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[v] Michael Fauntroy, “Don’t Overplay The Bradley Effect,” The Huffington Post, January 9, 2008.
[vi] Andrew Sullivan, “The Daily Dish,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 8, 2008.
[vii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Politics of Words
Labeling is a uniquely American phenomenon. It is our way to simplify something we would otherwise do not understand, or are too lazy to fully investigate, or comprehend. During the current presidential campaign, an ugly word is being tossed around, with complete disregard, to describe a threat to the American way of life: Islamofascism.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
