The Senator debates his opponent — and becomes unglued

The first presidential debate is coming up in a few days.  The experts say that the debates really aren’t terribly important–they happen too late in the election cycle to change people’s minds.  But on a personal level, they are high drama–the candidates at last facing each other on stage.  They are a natural for a political novel, so of course I included one in Senator (there’s one in Replica as well, but it’s too central to the plot to talk about here).

In Senator, the protagonist is under all kinds of pressure as the day of the debate arrives.  His marriage is crumbling, the DA is getting ready to charge him with murder . . . and then, the afternoon of the debate, his father wrecks his car and ends up in the hospital.  The senator arrives at the debate with little time to spare, and his advisers quickly prep him . . .

**************

Sam Fisher paced along one end of the conference room. “Maybe you can use this as a human-interest story,” he suggested. “You know, they ask you about health care, the elderly, so on, work in about how you just came from visiting your aged father in the hospital, you saw what wonderful care he was being given, and your reforms to the medical system would provide every senior citizen with the opportunity for the same kind of care.”

I rolled my eyes. “I’ll keep it in mind,” I said.

“You’ve got to stay personal,” Sam warned. “You have a tendency to come across as a know-it-all. People can’t digest strings of statistics in a debate; they like anecdotes.”

“Welfare mothers using food stamps to buy heroin,” I said. “OSHA inspectors shutting down pro football ’cause it’s dangerous to the employees.”

“And don’t be a wiseass. You can be witty, but don’t get nasty, and don’t go over people’s heads.”

“And above all, be myself,” I said.

“Well, that goes without saying,” Sam replied, and I wasn’t sure he got the joke.

“Perhaps we could go over the main points one last time,” Harold said.

The debate, we figured, would be the campaign in a microcosm. Each candidate had his themes; they’d been tested on countless focus groups and honed to a fine edge by master political craftsmen. They didn’t have a great deal to do with policies and issues, which made some op-ed types gnash their teeth, but they weren’t entirely devoid of content. We both stretched the truth in support of our themes, but they were close enough to reality (they had to be) that people wouldn’t notice or care if we fibbed a bit.

Bobby Finn’s main theme was that he was in touch with the people of Massachusetts. Their concerns were his concerns. He was the guy you could go have a beer with and talk about your sewer bill, your car insurance rates, your kid’s drug problem. He wasn’t the handsomest or wittiest politician around, but he understood how to make government work for the average citizen.

The corollary of this was that Jim O’Connor was out of touch with people. Out of touch philosophically, since many of my positions were not shared by the majority of voters. And out of touch as a senator, hobnobbing with the rich and famous and planning my run for the presidency instead of taking care of the voters’ business. Bobby Finn wanted to be senator so he could serve the people, not so he could gratify his own ego.

Our main theme, on the other hand, was that I was the candidate who had the stature to be the United States senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I had the leadership skills; I had the experience; I had the intelligence; I had that extra something that made me a worthy representative of the Bay State in the world’s greatest deliberative body. You might not always agree with Jim O’Connor, but don’t you feel proud that he’s your senator?

Our negative theme, therefore, was that Bobby Finn was just not “senatorial.” He hadn’t done a good job as governor, and he wouldn’t do a better job as a senator. You might go out for a beer with him, but can you imagine him debating the great issues of the day on the floor of the Senate?

Our debate would be a contest to see who would do the better job of getting across his themes. I would stress my accomplishments and try to project my senatorial image—without sounding too intellectual—while portraying Finn as just another local politician who was in over his head. Finn would try to come across as the friend of the workingman—without sounding too inarticulate—while portraying me as distant, uncaring, interested only in my own career. And the one who had the edge might see a spurt in his tracking polls, and that spurt, if properly nurtured, might be enough to win the race.

I listened to all the advice as Harold led the last-minute strategy session, but I didn’t pay much attention. Harold, of course, noticed. He cornered me in the men’s room afterward. “You’re not here,” he said.

“I’m on my way,” I responded.

“Would you please make sure you show up? I mean, I’m sorry about your father, I’m sorry about your marriage, but this is important. This is crucial.”

He knew about my marriage then; Marge had probably told him that she had given away the secret about Liz and Roger. “Doing my best, Harold,” I murmured. “Honest.”

He gazed at me, helpless. A campaign manager can take care of a lot of things, but he can’t step out in front of the TV cameras for his candidate and debate the opposition. We flushed in unison and washed our hands, and it was time to go.

* * *

The debate was held at the John F. Kennedy Institute of Government at Harvard University. More or less neutral territory, since I was a Harvard grad and Finn claimed to be a JFK Democrat. My entourage pulled up at a side entrance, and we made our way to the auditorium. A burly Cambridge cop was guarding the stairway to the stage. He beamed when he saw me. “Hey, Jim, good luck tonight!” he said as we approached.

“Thanks very much,” I replied with an automatic smile.

“I’ll never forget you writin’ those book reports for me in high school. Sure saved my ass.”

I stopped and looked at his name tag. Doherty. “Billy?” I said.

He grinned. “Been a long time, huh, Jim?”

“Sure has.” Since that gray dawn when you punched Paul Everson in the face and might have killed him with your nightstick if I hadn’t kindled some spark of human feeling in your soul. Do you remember, Billy? Or have you conveniently forgotten—like Danny, rewriting the past to make it fit what he needs to survive the present? “Gee, it’s good to see you, Billy,” I said. “You’re looking great.”

“Ah, I’ve put on the weight. Too many beers. But we’re all rootin’ for you, Jim. You’re doin’ a great job.”

I shook his hand. “I appreciate it, Billy. We had some good times in the old days, didn’t we?”

“Sure did.”

“Senator,” Kevin murmured.

“Gotta go, Billy. Give my regards to the family.”

I went onstage, to cheers from my half of the audience. Bobby Finn was there already, along with his wife. They were talking to the moderator, an anchor emeritus at one of the Boston TV stations, which trotted him out for important occasions like this. Gobs of makeup made him presentable on camera, but in person they couldn’t disguise the passage of time; he seemed tired and bored, as if he had attended one too many of these things in his career. Mrs. Finn looked cool and handsome in a navy blue silk dress and pearls. She also looked psyched up for the big event; I was glad I was debating her husband instead of her.

Finn’s forehead was already beaded with sweat, and his palm was moist when he came over and shook hands with me. He made no secret of his dislike of debates. “Don’t worry, Senator,” he said with a tense smile, “I’m gonna go easy on you tonight.”

“No, no, gimme your best shots,” I replied. “We don’t want people upset because they gave up reruns of The Cosby Show to watch us.”

Finn shook his head. “Okay, you asked for it.”

I looked around for Liz. She was already in the audience; Kathleen waved to me, and I waved back. Liz didn’t want to come up onstage, and I didn’t blame her.

So we killed time chatting with the moderator and the panelists, who were going to ask the penetrating, provocative questions to which we would respond. We went over the ground rules. We tried to control our nerves. It felt like a prizefight; it felt like a trial. The difference was that there was rarely a clear-cut winner in a debate. Finn would win if he did better than people expected; I would win if I came up with better sound bites or if he said something outrageously stupid. The polls might show something, but most likely the message would be mixed. And the battle would continue until election day.

The director started giving orders. The audience quieted. I went over behind my lectern, where Kevin had arranged my notes. Everyone waited. Then the red light over the camera came on, and the debate began.

* * *

I gave the first opening statement. “Six years ago you elected me to the United States Senate. It was the greatest honor of my life. Not a day has gone by since then that I haven’t reflected on the responsibilities that go along with that honor. Not a day has gone by that I haven’t tried to live up to the trust you have placed in me…”

I could tell immediately that I wasn’t right. I had hoped that my personal problems would take an hour off while I did my job; they had generally cooperated in the past. But instead I felt the way I had on the Senate floor when making my futile speech in favor of my amendment. The words were all there, but the passion was missing. I couldn’t focus on what I was saying. Instead I saw my father in his hospital bed, or Liz in Roger’s arms, or Amanda dead on her kitchen floor. I wondered if Melissa and Danny would survive their latest crisis; I wondered if I would share Liz’s bed again; I wondered how much all this was hurting Kathleen. I tried to banish such thoughts, but apparently I was no longer in control.

Would the voters notice? Would the pundits and the spin doctors? Perhaps not. I was a professional, after all, and my opening, no matter how absentminded, was still smoother than Finn’s; Bobby stumbled a couple of times and looked as if he’d rather have been single-handedly battling the entire North Vietnamese Army. And this was the easy part for him: just say what he wanted to say, without having to respond to some tricky question. So maybe I would be all right, at least by comparison.

The first question was about crime. Doesn’t matter what the specifics were; reporters spend hours crafting their questions trying to trip us up, and then we go ahead and answer the unasked question we feel like answering. Finn over-praised his own record and belittled mine. For all my tough talk, what had I accomplished as a senator? He brought up the failed amendment. All talk, no action; that was Jim O’Connor. I gave my standard response, ticking off all that I had done and all that Finn had failed to do. Too many facts, Sam would say. Well, did he want me to bring up Amanda?

The next reporter brought her up for me. Did I think her death and my relationship with her should be a factor voters should consider in deciding whether or not to vote for me?

We had figured out how to handle this one. “Her tragic death is an issue,” I said. “But so is every other murder in this state.” And then I simply ignored Amanda and laid into Finn again.

Finn gave a careful response, which indicated to me that his people still didn’t know how to handle the situation. The matter was under investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment on the case until the investigation was complete, blah, blah, blah. If Cavanaugh had something on me, wouldn’t Finn at least have dropped a hint?

And so it went. Neither of us was particularly effective, I thought. Finn made a moderately controversial statement about taxing Social Security, but I failed to follow up on it. He garbled his syntax, but I tossed off too many statistics.

And then came the easiest question of them all. “Could you each recount for us one incident from your early life that helped form the person you are today?”

Finn went first. As usual he didn’t answer the question; instead he talked about how important his family had been to him. Good old middle-class Democratic family values. Big deal. While he blithered, I thought. My standard response to this sort of question was to talk about the time my grandmother had been mugged, beaten up by a couple of punks for about seven dollars in cash. She lived for a few years after that, but she never left the house again, except to go to a nursing home to wither away and die. The punks were never caught.

But I didn’t feel like talking about Gramma. God love her, I had gotten enough mileage out of her suffering. What then? Just one-up Bobby Finn on families? Mine was more working-class than yours, so there! I could bring in my poor dead mother and probably my injured father—Sam Fisher would be pleased—but I didn’t feel like doing that either.

What about the time Danny scored the touchdown off me and made me cry? Not very senatorial, unfortunately. But I wasn’t feeling especially senatorial. I was feeling… strange.

Something was happening inside me as I stood at my lectern and listened to Bobby Finn—some shifting of my internal continents, some rearrangement of my constellations. It had started when I talked to Carl Hutchins in the cloakroom and realized that I didn’t know if my amendment was worth passing, or perhaps it had started even before that, when I found out about Roger and Liz, or when I saw Amanda’s body on her kitchen floor.

I don’t know when it started. I only know that at that moment I felt reckless; I felt reborn. I felt as if true wisdom were within my grasp if only I could recognize it.

Finn had stumbled to a finish. “Senator O’Connor,” the embalmed moderator intoned.

I opened my mouth, and I swear I had no idea what was going to come out.

“One morning in April 1969 I was present when the police evicted a group of demonstrators from University Hall in Harvard Yard,” I heard myself say. “This was at the height of the antiwar movement, when campuses across the country were in turmoil. The police cleared out the hall without much trouble, and then some of them proceeded to riot in Harvard Yard, indiscriminately bludgeoning helpless onlookers. I saw fellow students, male and female, with blood streaming down their faces. I saw a boy being dragged from his wheelchair and beaten with a nightstick. I saw the fierce, unreasoning eyes of the police as they attacked these kids who despised them.”

So what did that teach you, Senator? How did that form the person you are today? It had better be something good, or you’ve just thrown away the election. “It would have been easy enough,” I went on, “to become a left-wing radical as a result of that experience, to mindlessly despise all authority, to see everyone in uniform as the enemy. That’s what happened to many of my classmates. But I think that eventually I learned some deeper lessons. First, that all authority must be tempered with restraint. It must not simply please the majority; it must be absolutely fair to the minority, or else authority will become tyranny. Second, that you must give the people in authority the tools and the training and the support to do their job effectively; otherwise you risk having them lose control the way the police did that morning. And finally I learned the importance of tolerating diversity, of seeing someone else’s point of view. I was a student, but I was also a local boy; those cops were my neighbors. So I was pulled in two different directions. But in life I’ve found that you can be pulled in many more directions than that. You choose the path that you think is right, but you always have to keep in mind that there are other paths, and other people who firmly believe that those paths are correct.”

I stopped. Had that been ninety seconds or ninety minutes? I felt as if the whole world were staring at me with its mouth open; Bobby Finn certainly was. Was that Jim O’Connor, the Jim O’Connor, talking about a “police riot”? About them beating up a kid in a wheelchair, for God’s sake? Had my explanation of the lessons I had learned saved my skin or just dug me in deeper? And had I really learned those lessons, or was that just the politician in me talking?

The next question arrived, and I answered it on automatic pilot. Everything else was an anticlimax now. The TV stations had their sound bite; the columnists had their angle. And I had one more problem to add to my list. Before long I was making my closing remarks, and then Bobby and I were shaking hands as the moderator declared the debate history.

“You kinda surprised me there, talking about the police,” Finn said.

“I’m full of surprises.”

“You don’t think you shot yourself in the foot?”

“Just wait and see, Bobby. Just wait and see.”

Then it was time to greet the family, who were obliged to come onstage as the closing credits rolled. “I thought you were great, Daddy,” Kathleen said, giving me a hug.

“I’ve been better,” I said.

Liz was looking at me oddly. “You never talked about that incident in Harvard Yard before,” she said.

“Saving it up for the right moment.”

“It was very moving,” Kathleen said.

“See? I’ve clinched the fourteen-year-old vote.”

On the way offstage I saw Billy Doherty staring at me. We didn’t speak.

* * *

Sam Fisher kept on pacing. “They don’t know what to make of it,” he said, referring to the pundits. “Some of ’em think it’s a cynical ploy to get the liberal vote. Most of ’em think you’re off your rocker, although they’re afraid to say so.”

“It reminded me of one of those Saturday morning cartoons,” Marge said. “You know, where the stupid lumberjack saws off the limb he’s sitting on?”

“I think it’ll go over well,” Kevin said. “It’ll make the senator appear more human, less—less…”

“Arrogant?” I suggested. “Cocksure? Condescending? Isn’t that what you wanted, Sam?”

Sam threw up his hands. “I wasn’t suggesting that you spit in the face of your core constituency.”

“Just what were you thinking of, Jim?” Marge demanded.

I shrugged. “I don’t know. It seemed like the thing to do at the time. Maybe I was wrong. Do you people want a real live candidate or a robot?”

“A robot, of course,” Marge replied. “Especially if the real one is going to start reminding people that he was a draft-dodging police-bashing Harvard pinko while Bobby Finn was over in Vietnam heroically defending his country.”

Harold glanced at me. I smiled at him. He looked away.

“This is bad,” Sam muttered. “This is very bad.”

“Well,” Kevin said, trying desperately to look on the bright side, “things can’t get much worse.”

The Real News comes out tomorrow,” Harold said.

I stood up. “I guess we’ll have to have another meeting tomorrow then,” I said wearily.

No one replied, so I left the conference room and went home to sleep on my couch.

Empathy, Good Writing, and Mitt Romney

Beyond basic writing skill, the quality fiction writers need most is empathy.  You need to get deep inside the characters you write about and understand what makes them the way they are. This doesn’t mean that all your characters need to be sympathetic.  You can have villains–but villains without interesting, understandable motivations belong in comic books.

And of course the goal is to make your readers understand what you understand, feel what you feel. Here‘s the novelist Jane Smiley recently in the New York Times:

Reading fiction is and always was practice in empathy — learning to see the world through often quite alien perspectives, learning to understand how other people’s points of view reflect their experiences.

(I can’t really keep up with Jane Smiley’s output, but I can really recommend Moo and A Thousand Acres. Ten Days in the Hills, not so much.)

As a writer, I have thought a lot about politicians in my time, and it seems clear to me that a successful politician also needs to be empathetic.  Or, at least, he (or she) has to be really good at faking empathy.  This is somewhat tricky at the presidential level, where the candidates tend to be wealthy, accomplished, and far removed, at least in their personal lives, from the problems that confront everyday voters.  But of course presidential candidates are also supposed to be pretty good politicians.

Mitt Romney’s speech to campaign donors is shocking because it is such clear proof that he is utterly lacking in empathy for ordinary, struggling people. Here is Ezra Klein:

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, or the agonizing choices faced by families in which both parents work and a child falls ill. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.

Way before this latest incident, The New Yorker commented on Romney’s empathy problem:

But it’s getting harder to escape the conclusion that there’s a pattern to Romney’s behavior, that he has a real problem understanding and caring for those with whom he can’t easily identify. As Amy Davidson writes, “This story [of bullying a gay kid] is resonant because one can, all too easily, see Romney walking away even now, or simply failing to connect, to grasp hurt.” That may or may not be a fair conclusion—we are none of us mind readers—but given what we know about him, it’s certainly a reasonable one.

The additional problem that Romney faces is that he’s such a bad politician that he can’t even convincingly fake the empathy when not talking to his rich donors.  And we (most of us, anyway) are so easy to deceive–especially if we want to be deceived!   President Reagan was known at the Great Communicator, but recall the essay by Oliver Sacks in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, recounted here:

In the mid-eighties, Sacks studied the reaction of people with aphasia as they watched a televised speech by the actor-turned-president. Despite being unable to grasp the skillful politician’s words, the patients were convulsed with laughter by his bogus expressions. As Dr. Sacks explains,

“One cannot lie to an aphasic. He cannot grasp your words, and so cannot be deceived by them; but what he grasps, he grasps with infallible precision, namely the expression that goes with the words, that total spontaneous, involuntary expressiveness which can never be simulated or faked, as words alone can, all too easily.”

“It was the grimaces, the histrionics, the false gestures and, above all, the false tones and cadences of the voice which rang false for these wordless but immensely sensitive patients. It was to these (for them) most glaring, even grotesque, incongruities and improprieties that my aphasic patients responded, undeceived and undeceivable by words.

This is why they laughed at the President’s speech.”

Conversely, Sacks remarked on a woman with tonal agnosia who was also watching the address, but sat in stony-faced appraisal. Emily D., a former English teacher and poet, could have no organic emotional reaction to the speech but was able to judge it from a neural vantage point. Emily summed Reagan up thusly:

“He does not speak good prose. His word-use is improper. Either he is brain-damaged or he has something to conceal.”

Tell me about it! Sacks goes on to explain the implications regarding soothsayers and politicians:

“We normals, aided, doubtless, by our wish to be fooled, were indeed well and truly fooled. And so cunningly was deceptive word-use combined with deceptive tone, that only the brain-damaged remained intact, undeceived.”

I’d be interested in seeing the reactions of aphasics to a Mitt Romney speech.

Listening to Joe Biden give a speech literally makes my head explode

I liked Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention.  But he should leave the ad-libbing to Bill Clinton.  His prepared text, which you can read here, is fine.  But his ad libs showed a strange, almost obsessive penchant for the word literally. As a blogger for the Washington Post put it:

At the beginning of the speech, which went on only slightly less long than it seemed to go on, Joe spoke about his love for his wife. But as the speech went on it became clear where his true affections lay: nestled around the word “literally.”

Here is the text as delivered.  I count ten occurrences of literally. Sometimes he used it correctly; sometimes he used it incorrectly.  It didn’t seem to matter to Joe.  It served as an all-purpose intensifier with which to punch up the speech.  At one point the text says:

My fellow Americans, we now find ourselves at the hinge of history. And the direction we turn is in your hands.

But here Joe doubled down on his favorite word and said: “And the direction we turn is not figuratively, is literally in your hands.”  Yikes.  (By the way, double down has become a trendy political term.  Here is an article on Romney doubling down on his initial response to the latest trouble in the Middle East. At least it doesn’t say that Romney was literally doubling down.)

Of course, complaining about the misuse of literally is just pedantry, as well as a lost cause.  Here is xkcd, as usual making the point perfectly:

Parsing “factual shortcuts”

“Factual shortcuts” was the phrase of the day after Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican convention last week.  It was how AP characterized statements he made about the Medicare cuts, the closing of a GM plants, etc. Many other outlets reprinted the story and the characterization, so it received huge play in the media.

It’s an interesting phrase.  Clearly someone at AP had to think hard to come up with something that was softer than “lies” but stronger than “misstatement” or “inaccuracy” or “questionable claims”. It drove Andrew Sullivan nuts:

“Factual shortcuts” are newspeak for lies. Zack Beauchamp goes nuts at the media euphemisms for lies. I think they should call them “enhanced campaigning techniques.”

Daily Kos snarked:

What is a “factual shortcut”? Does that mean that you were on your way towards a fact, but then decided to hop a fence and cut through Cow Patty Fields?

It really does seem to be a neologism.  Google only gives hits related to the AP usage.  Google Ngram Viewer doesn’t show any occurrences through 2008.  So somebody just added an idiom to the language!

But why bother?  We already have a perfectly good phrase that says pretty much the same thing.  You could say “Ryan’s speech played fast and loose with the facts” and people would understand you perfectly.  And Kos is right–the phrase doesn’t really make any sense.  It seems to rely on an implied negative connotation to the word “shortcut”, as in “there are no shortcuts to success” or similar phrases.  But where is the shortcut in factual shortcuts?  Where are you heading when you take a factual shortcut?  It sounds like a quick and perhaps morally dubious way of reaching a fact.  But of course its meaning is exactly the opposite — it’s a way of avoiding a fact.

I suppose the phrase was formed by analogy with “ethical shortcut,” which is a morally dubious way of resolving an ethical challenge.  So, a “factual shortcut” is a morally dubious way of dealing with a fact–by twisting it in some way so that it means something different from what ordinary people would recognize as the truth.  In this interpretation, Ryan didn’t say anything that you could directly point to as a lie, but if people had all the facts, instead of the ones he twisted, a different reality would emerge.

OK, that’s the best I can do.  Ultimately an idiom doesn’t have to make sense.  I don’t really know what the literal meaning of “play fast and loose” is, but I understand it well enough.

Still, it would be helpful if the mainstream media could bring itself to utter the word lies.

Ayn Rand, Malcolm Gladwell, bad writing, and bad politics

A few years ago I decided I should try to read Atlas Shrugged.  I felt as if I was missing out on a part of my political education.  The novel, and Rand’s philosophy, seemed to have changed the lives of a lot of important people–probably some who were a lot smarter than me.  It came in first in the readers’ poll of the top 100 English-language novels of the twentieth century.  Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte, and he was a Very Serious Person.  Maybe if I read the book my life would be changed, too!  So I gave it a shot.

I managed to get through about a hundred pages before I had to give up.  The book was just terrible.  I would have thrown it across the room if I’d had the strength to chuck the thing that far.  Rand can write a decent paragraph, but her characters bear no resemblance to any human beings I had ever met.  I couldn’t even get to the philosophy part, because the philosophy was clearly going to be based on the characters (or the characters were based on the philosophy), which meant the philosophy would be as bad as the characters, as far as I was concerned.  Because good writing matters to me.

I sometimes wonder if that’s a mistake, when it comes to judging philosophy or anything else.  I am willing to believe Dan Gilbert about anything after reading his delightful book Stumbling on Happiness; I’m pretty sure that’s a good judgment.  But what about Malcolm Gladwell? He is another delightful writer, but he’s come in for his share of criticism.  Here is Steven Pinker’s assessment of Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw from the New York Times a few years ago.

An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “sagittal plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.

I loved What the Dog Saw!  Now what do I do? Good, clear writing is a reasonable marker for good, clear thinking.  But there obviously has to be more.  I have a feeling that Ayn Rand could have written a terrific novel, and I still wouldn’t have bought into her philosophy, as I understand it.

And the fact that the Republican vice presidential candidate is so enamored of Atlas Shrugged terrifies me.  Maybe this is another bad idea, but I think a candidate’s literary tastes say a lot about him.  If you enjoy novels with two-dimensional characters like the ones Rand created, you’re not going to be able to see the complexity of human existence, which seems to me to be critical to wise leadership.

So, anyone want to guess what Mitt Romney’s favorite novel is?  Click here to find out.  I dare you.

In which Joe Biden tests the limits of my support

Here is a report of Joe Biden speaking down in Provincetown:

Biden honed in on the LGBT issues during his campaign speech at the Pilgrim Monument and Museum, which is located in a prominent gay community in Cape Cod. “If I had to use one adjective to describe this community it’d be courage,” Biden said. “You have summoned the courage to speak out, to come out. We owe you.”

(First, note the Politico reporter testing the limits of my support by using the phrase “hone in on,” which I’ve considered previously. Also, who says “in Cape Cod”?  Any native would say “on Cape Cod.”  But I digress.)

I’m pretty sure that Biden knows that courage is not an adjective.  And his sentiments are admirable! But geez, every vote counts; let’s think harder about what we’re saying and avoid making the pedants grumpy.

Here is Biden speaking:

image Jamie Citron twitter

Like most vice presidents, Biden is the target of a lot of ridicule; it comes with the territory.  He actually has a compelling biography, especially the heartbreaking story of what happened to his family after he was first elected to the Senate:

On December 18, 1972, a few weeks after the election, Biden’s wife and one-year-old daughter were killed in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping in Hockessin, Delaware. Neilia Biden’s station wagon was hit by a tractor-trailer as she pulled out from an intersection; the truck driver was cleared of any wrongdoing.Biden’s two sons, Beau and Hunter, were critically injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries.Biden considered resigning to care for them; he was persuaded not to by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and others and was sworn into office from one of their bedsides.The accident left Biden filled with both anger and religious doubt: “I liked to [walk around seedy neighborhoods] at night when I thought there was a better chance of finding a fight … I had not known I was capable of such rage … I felt God had played a horrible trick on me.”

On the other hand, we’ve been blogging about plagiarism lately, and Biden has more than one plagiarism story in his bio. Here is a nuanced (and lengthy) discussion of the topic.

Lying — sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t

Dunno why I’ve gotten so interested in lying lately.  But it keeps popping up in the news.  Here we see the ex-Yahoo CEO landing on his feet at some new high tech company.  He was the guy who lied on his resume by claiming an extra minor degree from an obscure college instead of going for broke with a bogus Oxford Ph.D. or something.  And now we see Fareed Zakaria getting himself in hot water by copying text from a New Yorker writer on his blog.

So I went and read Sam Harris’s free book on lying.  But he doesn’t really doesn’t have much of interest to say about the subject.

If you leave religion out of the picture (which, of course, Harris does), you generally have two ways of approaching lying (and other moral issues): the utilitarian way or the Kantian way.   If you go the utilitarian route, you can ask whether a particular lie adds to or subtracts from human happiness.  If you go the Kantian route, you can ask whether there is a categorical imperative not to lie, because that’s the way people should behave.  Harris dismisses Kant rather breezily, so we’re left with a utilitarian discussion, in which he brings up various cases where it might seem that lying would be a good idea, but it turns out not to be.  People lie to grandma about her terminal cancer, and everyone is worse off.  Harris tells a friend that his screenplay sucks, and the friend turns out to be grateful.  That sort of thing.  So, the world is better off if we don’t lie.

But that’s too easy!  Because obviously there are cases where lying works.  The Yahoo CEO lied on his resume, and eventually it tripped him up, but not so much that it ruined his career.  Mitt Romney is setting Olympic and world records for lying, and for all I know it may get him elected president.

One can, of course, make the case that lying is (at least in general) bad for society, even if it helps the individual.  So it comes out behind in the utilitarian equation.  And I’ll buy that–I don’t want Mitt Romney to become president!  But that’s uncontroversial.  The interesting thing, for me as a writer anyway, is the moral dilemma that lying presents to the individual.  In Senator, I present the protagonist as a presumably moral guy who ends up lying throughout the entire novel.  But he feels bad about it–it worries him, not just because he might get caught, but because it’s wrong.  Did it worry the Yahoo CEO?  Does it worry Romney?  Is Romney making utilitarian arguments to himself about the greater good that his lying is supposed to achieve?  Or is this just another business decision for him?

I wish Harris had spent more time looking at issues like that.  But I suppose this is why some people write novels instead of philosophy.

While I’m here, I’d like to recommend Rick Gervais’s weird little movie The Invention of Lying, which treats the issue of lying in an amiably subversive way.

What makes Mitt Romney happy?

In this post I pondered the weirdness of Mitt Romney not planning his taxes in such a way that he could release his returns just like every other candidate and head off the inevitable suggestion that he was hiding something.  How could a smart guy who has been running for political office for 20 years not take care of this?

Now the next stage of the taxes drama is playing out, with Harry Reid suggesting that Romney didn’t pay any taxes at all for the past 10 years.  This is a pretty ballsy move coming from a prominent Democrat; here‘s a pretty funny summary of the state of play.  Is Reid simply lying?  Irresponsibly repeating an unsubstantiated rumor?  Dunno.  But it keeps the issue in play for at least a few more days.  And any politician with half a brain would know that something like this would happen.  Romney can fulminate all he wants about how this is undignified and unfair, but the response is obvious: Release the returns, like everyone else, and prove Reid wrong.

Will this have an effect on the election?  Dunno.  I wouldn’t have expected the Swiftboat attacks against Kerry to have any traction in 2004–and neither did Kerry.  But they did.  And this issue obviously helps the Democrats define Romney, and keeps him on the defensive.  It’s hard to see a downside.

So how did Romney get himself into this fix?  Before, I attributed it to a failure of imagination on Romney’s part.  To take that a little further: It seems to me that what Romney knows, what he is good at, and (most important) what makes him happy is pretty simple: making money.

The political thing–that comes out of a sense of obligation: to his religion, to his family, maybe even to some deeply held principles (although that seems like quite a stretch).  He has been spectacularly successful at making money, but so far has been only moderately successful as a politician.  And that’s because politics calls on a bunch of skills and traits that he doesn’t really possess.  (His recent trip to the UK highlighted some of those problems.)

I spent a long time pondering what makes politicians tick when I was writing Senator.  The best nonfiction book I have read about this is What It Takes by Richard Ben Cramer, which I devoured when it came out in 1992.  It was a flop at the time, but has apparently managed to become a classic since then. And deservedly so!  Cramer got inside the heads of the people who were running for president in 1988 in a way that I found  engrossing and somehow even thrilling.  What remains with me is the randomness of the motivations that got them to where they were.  In particular, I remember his portrait of Dukakis.  Someone once said that Michael Dukakis was born to be governor of Massachusetts.  But here he was running for president.  Why was he doing that, when he already had the only job he had ever wanted?  It turned out that he didn’t really know himself.  There was a kind of logic to it, as presented to him by his aide John Sasso, that he was simply unable to resist.  The logic brought him the nomination and, if he had been a slightly better campaigner, slightly different from who he really was, it might have brought him the presidency.  But ultimately he didn’t quite have what it took.

Romney is starting to remind me of Dukakis.  There is a logic to his campaign that is going to bring him the nomination, and it might even bring him the presidency.  But if he loses, it will be because he too doesn’t quite have what it takes–as a politician, and as a human being.  Running for president doesn’t come naturally to him, and that’s why he keeps getting tripped up–by his taxes, by his tenure at Bain, by his comments on the London Olympics.  He must find it frustrating–the way Dukakis must have been frustrated by the Willie Horton attacks and the response to his debate response about the death penalty.  But that’s life at the top.

“You knew full well what was right, but you chose wrong.”

That was the judge’s comment when sentencing Monsignor Lynn to 3-6 years in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse trial. As I mentioned before, this case is in its own way much more significant than the Penn State scandal, because the Catholic church is (some would say) more important than college football.  Andrew Sullivan notes that Pope Benedict was apparently responsible for much the same crime 30 years ago:

[T]his precise chain of events – in which a child-rapist priest was reported as a criminal to the church authorities, then sent to therapy, then reassigned only to rape again – is exactly what Joseph Ratzinger did in Munich in the 1980s. How does an institution allow a lower priest to go to jail for such an act, while allowing the chief pontiff to carry on as if nothing had happened, as if children had not been raped because of his direct complicity in protecting the rapist?

Here’s an interesting quote from one of Lynn’s supporters:

After the sentencing, Ann Casey, a friend of Monsignor Lynn for 36 years, said she believed he was a scapegoat and a victim of his intense faith in the archdiocese’s leaders. “It was his vow of obedience to the church that landed him this morning in jail,” she said.

That is to say, he was only following orders.  This is, of course, the problem that comes from being part of an institution with an absolute belief in the rightness–and goodness–of its beliefs and practices.  Nothing can be allowed to happen that might lessen people’s faith in that institution.  And if you have taken a vow of obedience, nothing can stand in the way of fulfilling that vow.

The judge’s remark is an interesting refutation of the NOMA position that morality is the province of religion. Clearly we have a common understanding of when religious authorities are being immoral.  We need to hold them to our standards, not theirs.  So why should religion be privileged in its pronouncements as to what is right and wrong?

Let’s hope Monsignor Lynn has a chance to ponder this in prison.

Life is stupider than fiction: Mitt Romney and his tax returns

It seems clear that Mitt Romney’s refusal to release more than two years of his tax returns will be something of a political liability.  Here’s the kind of hit he is taking, even from Republicans.

Democrats, led by Obama’s campaign, have pushed for Romney to release more years of returns. On Sunday, Bill Kristol had a similar message, saying Romney is “crazy” not to release more tax returns as soon as possible.

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It’s crazy,” Kristol said on “Fox News Sunday.” “You gotta release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two.”

One plausible theory I’ve come across (see here, for example) is that if he releases his 2009 returns, he might show even more income than on his 2010 returns, but with no tax liability at all.  The blogger says:

Still, willingness to do extremely aggressive tax sheltering (such as through loss generation from circular flows of cash) in 2009 would not come as a huge surprise, even though it seems like a dumb idea if you are preparing to run for president again.  I wonder if the very fact that he was running for president might have led him to figure that he was audit-proof, on the ground that the IRS would look too political if it started challenging things.

I would like to second the “dumb idea” remark.  I just don’t get it.  Mitt Romney is a smart guy, and apparently he has wanted to be president all his life.  He’s been running for elective office since 1994.  He is clearly willing to forego vast gobs of money that he could be making in the private equity world.  Couldn’t he see this coming?  If I were Mitt Romney in 2004 or so, and I was making the decision to run for the presidency, I’d start cleaning everything up.  What’s a few million dollars in taxes, compared to achieving your lifelong ambition of being the most powerful man in the world?

In a way, I find this more baffling than the record-shattering stupidity of John Edwards.  People do stupid things when they fall in love.  But people fall in love with people; they don’t fall in love with aggressive tax shelters.  Or maybe I’m just suffering a failure of imagination.

If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s Romney who suffered a failure of imagination.  To him, using aggressive tax shelters is as natural as breathing.  If you have vast gobs of income, of course that’s what you do.  Doesn’t everyone?  Living in Massachusetts, I’ve seen enough of Romney to know that he’s not a natural politician.  He’s smart enough to understand the game intellectually, but he doesn’t have good instincts.  If you’ve been wildly successful at everything you’ve tried your entire life, maybe you start thinking the game will be easier than it really is.  And that leads you to unforced errors like this one.

Or maybe he’s just an idiot.