A Blue State of Mind



Jon Carroll writes in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Visualize a map of the United States, with each state colored according to the approval ratings it gave the president in the latest SurveyUSA, a poll funded by a consortium of media organizations. Those states in which more people approve than disapprove are colored pink (for mildly approve) or orange (for moderately approve). There are no red states, because there are no states in which the president's approval rating tops 60 percent.

But there are deep blue states, oh yes, because there are many states where the president's approval rating is less than 35 percent. I am proud to say that I live in one of those states. Even more disapproving than California is New York. Well, sure, you say: Those are the effete, gay-loving, Christ-hating coastal states. What of the heartland? What of the states that George Bush won in 2004?

Oops, they don't like him either. Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky: all blue. Texas is blue. Iowa is really blue, almost as blue as Illinois. Florida: blue. Colorado: blue. Isn't this fun? If this is not fun for you, move on.

This has been coming for a long time. Reality has not been on the president's side. It seems as if every time one of his aides says that something is true, oh dear, it turns out not to be true. Retrenchment is needed. Statements become inoperative, and are replaced by other statements that are also eventually inoperative. Many people believed in George Bush and were willing to cut him slack. But however much slack he was granted, he somehow needed more. As any 12-year-old boy will tell you, this tactic is eventually self-defeating.

Not that this means much of anything in electoral terms. Most seats in the House are safe because they're designed to be safe. Incumbents win. In my district, no one has a shot of beating Barbara Lee. Most districts are like that. Senators are not quite so automatic, but they have six-year terms, so change comes slowly. George Bush's poll numbers in November 2005 are not significant, except for the feeling of calm engendered by the blue sweep across the continent.

What is worrisome is that the president seems to be getting the wrong message from the declining poll numbers. The Founding Fathers thought that fear of losing elections would be a powerful goad to moderation. But the president can't run again, and he is not by nature reflective.

He believes what he believes, and the exigencies of the moment will not sway him. That would be an admirable trait, except that he is apparently now almost entirely surrounded by people who lie to him, so what he believes is not, alas, true. We have not turned the corner in Iraq; there is no corner to turn. Global warming is more than just a theory, however convenient it would be if that weren't true. Saying that no child will be left behind is not the same thing as leaving no child behind.

Thirteen million children in the United States are malnourished. They are by definition behind.
An Open Letter to The Economist

SIR,

Why should The Economist be so smug about British Airways' new carbon offset scheme ("Virtue for sale," Oct 29th)?

Because it's limited success would reinforce the belief in a revealed preference, i.e. that "appeals to people's better natures tend to fall flat if they involve demands on their wallets."

But it doesn't take an economist to figure out why the program isn't working. Who would want to be the only one paying for everyone's expense?

If BA is serious about this program, why not make it mandatory, and then give customers a chance to opt-out? This would dramatically increase participation from just 1 in 200 passengers, although I doubt BA or any other corporation would pursue such a tariff.

Alternatively, BA could at least offer some tangible benefit to its eco-conscious customers, e.g. preferential seating, some complimentary service, or even just a sticker awarded at boarding that reads "Thank me. I just paid for our pollution."

Sincerely,
TestPattern.org
E.L. Doctorow on "The Unfeeling President"

I've been meaning to write something about the tragic milestone our nation crossed in Iraq; what the loss of 2,000 American soldiers means; that tens of thousands of Iraqis have also given their lives up in an unnecessary war; that hundreds of Americans have died but not been counted as combat casualties; that this war has already cost more than $300 billion; that the war has cost us our democracy, our civil rights, and our values, if we ever had any.

Although E.L. Doctorow wrote "The Unfeeling President" 11 months and 1,000 US casualties ago, his words are still relevant today.
I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.