Some thoughts on tonight's debate among the candidates for California governor...and other things:

First, I absolutely loved the format, which encouraged pointed exchanges between candidates. And there were some sharp ones, most notably the one-liners traded by Arnie and Ariana over the former's notoriously poor treatment of women. It was utterly riveting but also surprisingly substantive thanks in particular to Green Party candidate Peter Camejo. That guy really impressed (and frankly inspired) me. Everyone had their moments, but he really demonstrated understanding of the issues.

From a purely tactical perspective, however, the clear winner was Cruz Bustamonte, who played it just right under the circumstances. (Everything but the use of the word "panacea," which made him sound like a dork.) He gives the impression that he's willing to listen--even to those who harangue him relentlessly. It lets him look and sound like a governor listening to constituents and legislators. It also gives him the appearance of standing above the fray. It strikes me that this would be a very effective tactic for some enterprising candidate to adopt in the debates for the presidential nomination.

I think Wesley Clark, in particular, could benefit from such a move. Particularly if he referenced other candidates' ideas that he liked and would emulate. This makes special sense for Clark since he enters the race late without having had a chance to articulate a platform. Such a move would allow him to co-opt and thereby free-ride on the efforts of his rivals. The best part is he would look progressive and presidential as part of the bargain.

Indeed, the progressive theme is something he would be wise to adopt as a general matter. Gore blew it in 2000 by misjudging the neo-Progressive impulse as a populist one. But American politics have come a long way since the days of Pat's pitchfork brigade and Perot's giant sucking sound. And, for that matter, Clinton's 1992 campaign for "Putting People First." My suspicion is that this is why John Edwards' campaign is failing--and why William Saletan is simply loony to advise democrats to emulate it. Clinton didn't become popular until he started tapping the angst of the middle class , which he soothed with relatively minor initiatives of largely symbolic significance.

Now, however, I sense that angst has turned to righteous indignation, particularly as it becomes increasingly obvious how much control big business and other such special interests have over the political process and daily life itself. September 11th and the war in Iraq have placed something of a damper on the rage, but I still think it's there, smoldering and waiting for the right person with the right message--and personality--to tap it.
- posted by bigmouth @ 10:49 PM

 
In honor of Richard Grasso's spectacular demise, check out this opinion from a 2002 case called NYSE v. Gahary. The NYSE sued to stop one David Gahary from posting offensive messages to certain internet stock bulletin boards under variations of the name Richard Grasso. A federal court denied the NYSE's motion for summary judgment because, among other things, no one knew who Richard Grasso was, a fact that severely undercut the NYSE's claim for trademark infringment. Now, of course, I suspect that, wherever Mr. Grasso goes, everyone knows his name.
- posted by bigmouth @ 9:52 PM

 
There is an interesting editorial on capuchin monkeys and fairness in the NYTimes this morning. You can access it here, though you will need a free membership to read it. The piece is well written, but it is flawed for at least a couple of reasons:

First, it fallaciously equates what is with what ought to be. The author echoes the suugestion of some segments of socio-biology that, because certain behaviors are naturally hard-wired into our minds or genetic make-up, our principled judgments should therefore reflect them. I am with Richard Dawkins, however, that it is precisely our ability to embrace principles that *depart* from our biological programming that differentiates us from most animals. The monkey case is illuminating to be sure--it always helps to know what behaviors we are pre-disposed to adopt and justify. But this editorial is an example of the naturalistic fallacy at its worst.

Second, the editorial is flawed for its failure to account for different dimensions of fairness. It implicitly celebrates the monkey's rejection of its bargain--after the fact. But was the monkey treated unfairly? It made a bargain and received the benefit. Then, when it realized it had not made the best bargain it could, it threw a tantrum. To me, that sounds like the athlete who signs a contract then wants to renegotiate when a teammate or rival receives more. Fairness of result is obviously relevant, but equally important is respect for the benefit of a bargain. The latter dimension of fairness is another feature that differentiates humanity from the beasties--and one for which the editorial fails to account.
- posted by bigmouth @ 2:27 AM

 
I now boldly go where many have gone and I've been meaning to go for some time: the glorious world of blogging. (May the heavens have pity on us all!) As the name of this blog suggests, it is a gateway to independent thought across the web.

But let's be honest: it's my blog and first and foremost about me. You will find here my musings on a variety of topics--everything from politics, to philosophy, to food, to film. I'm a jack of many trades, master of a few, but my big mouth transcends all, so let's get ready to ramble...
- posted by bigmouth @ 1:36 PM