Obama Week One: Excitement is not Hysteria
According to Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post, the excitement around the world about the election of Barack Obama has reached the point of "mass hysteria." In a piece in today's Washington Post, she says the following:
"Things could get worse, too: Mass hysteria can inspire the world's crazed assassins, as the RFK analogy shows. This subject is borderline taboo, but I don't think I was the only one momentarily gripped by terror when Obama walked on to that stage in Chicago: What if something awful was about to happen? In some of the weirder realms of the Internet, you can already find verses from Nostradamus allegedly predicting that Obama's election heralds the end of the world, and someone out there probably believes them."
While the potential threat to Obama is real enough, the idea that somehow his popularity in and of itself will "inspire the world's assassins" is as irresponsible as it is illogical.
I'm all for calming down and figuring out what can realistically be accomplished in an Obama administration, but the fact that his election inspires people is nothing to sneer at, or to be afraid of, for that matter.
Applebaum does not get the whole Obama phenomenon.
She does not get (1) the amazing exhilaration of electing an African-American President especially for those of us old enough to remember the bad old days and (2) the sheer wonder for us liberals of smashing in the faces of the right by having a nominee who ran a perfect campaign.
She watches it all with such distance. It reminds me of a relative in NJ who congratulated me on Obama's election.
She's in NJ, fer chrissake, it's her victory too. Applebaum should go out on to the street sometime and feel what just happened.
November 11, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Appleaum the only "street" is in Arab countries. She's been truly deranged by her life's work.
November 11, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody at work yesterday told me that there is a website where one can go to place bets on when Obama will be assassinated, and that her brother had placed a bet there.
I thought to myself, "Wow, what a sick fuck!" But what I said to her is that her brother ought to be careful about linking his name to a website in which people are engaged in that kind of speculation, since the Secret Service will probably be all over it.
It strikes me that a situation in which people are engaged in betting on the date of a man's murder is inherently dangerous, since that means that there are people with a financial stake in making that murder happen.
November 11, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cass Sunstein, an occasional informal advisor to Obama and, I venture, a possible Supreme Court nominee or Special Counsel to the President (I am hoping! He would be very valuable in such a role in my estimation), has written on the wisdom of the many, particularly as seen on the internet. I'm currently reading his book Infotopia, which is fascinating and well worth the read.
He devotes chapter 4 of the book to prediction markets, of which the sick one rumored to exist in your comment would be one such example. This strikes me as an instance where Congress should step in and make illegal prediction market betting on the killing of particular individuals. (This would have the most unwelcome negative side effect of calling attention to this issue. However, I see no alternative. Perhaps they could bury such a provision in some big bill on a fast track to move quickly such as a stimulus package.)
Government isn't generally in the business of prohibiting what some find sick. But it is in the business of prohibiting that which is highly dangerous. And this is a most unfortunate example of the latter.
November 11, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry American Dreamer but if Cass Sunstein believes that prediction markets, however demented, should be censored then he doesn't belong anywhere near the Supreme Court. It is okay for people to express uncomfortable and even downright heinous notions, after all.
November 11, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't attribute my view to him. Nowhere does he even hint at the course of action I believe is the right one in this case. Call it censorship if you want--that's a discussion-stopper substituting for thought. We don't allow people to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. I'm not an absolutist on these matters.
November 11, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, AD, I jumped the gun.
And I don't mean to stop the discussion and I hope you know how abhorrent I believe betting on an assassination is (morally) but I have a tough time imposing my morals on others when issues of expression are at hand.
November 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, destor 23. Thanks for clarifying your views on this.
November 11, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, censorship is not the issue here. We're not talking about whether people can talk about this matter. We're talking about whether government can carve out a very narrow public safety exception by way of regulating interstate commerce. It's an understatement to say that this is done all the time in ways that do not raise constitutional questions.
And to further clarify, Sunstein does not address in Infotopia the question of whether there should be any legal restrictions placed on prediction markets. In fact, while noting several types of situations in which they may be prone to err, he is on the whole quite supportive of them and enthusiastic about their potential to aid decisionmakers in the private and public sectors.
November 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to me censorship is not the issue if well-meaning Web site owners were to say, prohibit and sharply criticize betting on an assassination on their websites.
But... were the government to make such an act illegal it would definitely be a freedom of expression issue. Now, maybe it's expression to incite (one could argue, in terms of an odds or betting site that somebody betting either for might be trying to incite the very action) but it might also be... just a sick bet. And... people who have no intention to incite do have the right to make sick bets. They just need to be called out and ostracized for doing so.
November 11, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are referring to essentially private bets between consenting individuals government has no more practical ability to reach such conduct, even if it wanted to, than it has the ability to reach, say, a private office or neighborhood betting pool on the weekend's football games.
There are prediction markets, however, such as IEM or InTrade (the latter based in Dublin) which are run as commercial enterprises on a scale such that they are different in kind from your basic office football pool. Although privately run they are public in the sense of having public visibility. Government can and does regulate gambling as interstate commerce.
In any case, I'm glad to be corrected if I'm incorrect but my understanding is that betting is commerce, not speech. And therefore as a legal matter if it is considered sufficiently broad in scope to count as interstate commerce, it is legally permissible for government to regulate it in non-arbitrary ways without running afoul of the US Constitution.
Obviously, as on any policy question, one can be in favor of or opposed to it regulating in particular ways. That it has the legal and constitutional authority to do so is not in question, however.
November 12, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they are foolish enough to air an opinion that Obama will be assassinated on a specific day, and have a financial incentive along with it, I think they should get a visit from the Secret Service. No, it is not illegal, but it is something we should all take VERY seriously. Freedom of Speech has its price.
November 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The government cannot inhibit free speech. We should, however, censor ourselves. I don't really see the point to the original post, and I would suggest that some things are better left unsaid. I could not help but notice that while several of us have commented, no one has rec'd this. I think maybe that shows we have some common sense in here.
November 12, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The government already inhibits free speech. Try talking about bombs as you enter a commercial aircraft. Better yet, don't do that. It is a sure way to be locked in a small room for some time. In fact any mention at all of bombs, hijacking, or just about any unpleasantness in an airport is a federal offense. I find air travel to be extremely uncomfortable nowadays.
November 12, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
MimiBird: Re the point you make in your last sentence, I noticed that as well. And I agree. I've written in this thread only because, given that it was mentioned, I was led to wonder whether there are any steps the government could legally take that it might want to take to keep the public visibility of this sort of dangerous as well as odious activity to a minimum. Think of how conscious some at this site were of the latest InTrade status of bets on who would win the presidential race.
For all I know, InTrade (which may be beyond the reach of the US Congress in any case, based in Dublin as it is) and/or IEM, to name just two of the better known prediction markets, may on their own have made voluntary corporate decisions not to traffic in bets on this or other matters.
November 12, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
another crazy, a georgia senetar said yesturday in refering to an obama quote where obama talked about the need for every american to step up and join the foreign service, so we would have as much citizens as military out there fighting terrorism, so the senator said this is a clear sign of obama trying to create his own security force who is loyal to him only, much like hitler did, than backed up say he is in no way comparing obama to hitler,
but i swear, im in the twilight zone, wasnt it bush who illegally tappped american phones, wasnt it bush who ended habeus corpus, who tortures prisoners of war, isnt under bush where the nations police forces began to beat and intimidate and video tape protestors?
If we follow this pattern the next thing they will warn us against is that obama will invade nations illegally ,
November 12, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is, among this country's elites both Left and Right, a deep and abiding mistrust of and unwarranted contempt for "the people". Us. ...At least, I consider myself part of this great populist fabric. Applebaum has evinced touches of this affliction in other columns more so than this one, but the very fear of "mass hysteria" sparking an assassin epidemic bears its trace. Some nutcase butchers a family, or kills a national leader, and - somehow - the crime is evidence of some gaping societal flaw.
Assassins, and even would-be killer clowns like Arthur Bremer, are out there, everywhere, and always will be. They represent, they mirror the society in which they dwell not at all; the proposal they do is a slick literary fiction to pimp an agenda du jour. Some jackass commits a horrendous atrocity because we're all evil. Sorry, Mick, we didn't all kill the Kennedys.
That outlawing sick betting is even entertained is evidence of the blinkered vision we cultivate of our nation and its populace. If we don't plug up this disgusting activity, it'll make the rubes go crazy! Hogwash. This granfalloon is the "stern foundation" for all arguments proposing "hate speech" laws, as well. We are mistrusted, we stupid children - and we cannot be allowed the perils entailed by free and open exchange of ideas.
Insulted yet?
This is a good time for an honest self-appraisal, a chance to slough off all the dumb-ass dogmas that have so dimmed us, so long. We can no longer allow ourselves to be defined by the most depraved among us. Their crimes are not our crimes. Human nature has a very bloody streak and sometimes it explodes. Let's hinder those bloodbaths as much as we can; let's help the bloodied, and even those guilty of bloodletting - when we can. But let's take the scam narratives out; let's put aside the hypocritical chest-beating. Let political agendas be debated on their merits, not on phantom points of mind-play voodoo about societal blame, and "intrinsic evil".
November 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Curt, you wrote: "That outlawing sick betting is even entertained is evidence of the blinkered vision we cultivate of our nation and its populace. If we don't plug up this disgusting activity, it'll make the rubes go crazy!"
Not sick betting. Dangerous betting.
The argument I am making is not "We need to ban this specific form of betting or else the rubes will go crazy!" The speculative theory underlying such thinking might be used to justify attempts to, say, ban Rush Limbaugh's program. That would be a clear violation of free speech and would be unjustified.
If Rush Limbaugh were to use his program explicitly to incite murder that would be a crime that would override free speech protection allowing his show to air.
The argument I am making, though, is that permitting bets which enable people to make money based on the committing of murder (the idea might to extended to, say, the commission of other felonies) provides people who stand to gain from such bets a very specific monetary incentive to engage in or facilitate such acts.
Again, this is about regulating commerce, not speech.
Imagine a loved one of yours is a fairly prominent public figure. Bets are placed at some visible, large-scale prediction market based in the US on the date that that person will be killed and indeed, these attract quite a bit of traffic. If and when the worst were to happen, do you think you would continue to feel it was just fine for such activity to be legal?
What is the positive justification on the other side for permitting such a very narrow, specific type of bet to be placed? This is regulation to protect public figures whose safety is endangered by a very specific form of betting.
There are many, many contexts in which interstate commerce, which is what betting is, is regulated by the government to protect public safety. This is seen as uncontroversial and entirely unremarkable by the vast majority of the public. Why should betting of this very narrow, specific type at prediction markets be treated as somehow sacrosanct?
November 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
AmericanDreamer,
No one is going to defend such a site. On a amorality scale, it's somewhere between dogfights and the kiddie porn underground. To place bets on the violent death of anyone is demented, revolting and creepy.
But what we have here is the famous slippery slope. Who will define the boundary between "sick" and "dangerous", between outrageous and unlawful? How can immminent danger be judged... and how far will the standards stretch? What will they encompass? Remember: As the arbiter of these standards, government will be handed more power - and historically, government is dangerous in direct proportion to the power it accumulates.
November 12, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC,
You claim:
"But what we have here is the famous slippery slope. Who will define the boundary between "sick" and "dangerous", between outrageous and unlawful? How can immminent danger be judged... and how far will the standards stretch? What will they encompass?"
You seem to only be addressing this as a freedom of speech issue, but it's also an issue of regulation of interstate commerce as American Dreamer has repeatedly pointed out.
And you yourself even say it's somewhere between dogfighting and kiddie porn. But both are outlawed. So why are you not advocating that these activities should be legal as well? Why doesn't your slippery slope argument start with kiddie porn?
The creation of a financial incentive for the assassination of the president is no different than placing a contract on his life. In fact it's precisely that, with the site and its operators legitimizing it as a futures contract that will payout on the event of it happening. I don't see your so called 'slippery slope'. If anything, I see a slippery slope in the opposite direction that could get out of control. What if Russian mobsters began putting up sites with a futures payout of 10000:1 odds upon the assassination of a political figure? You don't see how that would provide a huge incentive for it to happen?
November 12, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring the "amorality level" of the site - not it's illegality. It can be argued nothing is more amoral than lying to a loved one, but unless such falsehood entails another, sanctionable offense (theft, fraud, etc.), it's not nor should it be illegal. If there is no absolute proof this site encourages actual assassinations or conspiracies to commit them, it is not illegal. And official consideration of it must remain that way.
I know this argument is on a thin line, and your scenario of organized crime "gaming" such an enterprise with actual bloodletting is chilling and sobering. But there are many things that can provoke criminal action; our society daily proves one of them is the sale of liquor. But how many can be circumscribed without making our society more oppressive for the vast majority not depraved and murderous?
November 13, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Timothy McVeigh bombed that Federal Building there was a lot of talk about McVeigh being a fan of Conservative Talk radio; and that the constant barrage of invective toward the Government that he was subjected to may have been a driving force behind McVeigh. Rush Limbaugh was mentioned and he of course disavowed and connection.
CNN reported today that the number of threats against Obama rose as Sarah Palin kept connecting him to terrorists and claiming he was not a real American.
If we get journalists like Applebaum writing this tripe on any kind of regular basis it may give the fringe ideas.
November 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find most disgraceful of Applebaum's article is her neglect of what's called 'political capital'. Obama's rock star, celebrity status, whatever you want to call it that had people celebrating worldwide is more than applicable in this case. He's going to be riding a wave of political capital not just with congress on domestic affairs, but also as an agent of change in foreign policy. He's going to need it, BADLY, when he travels worldwide to gin up a multilateral coalition of nations willing to take part in stabilizing Afghanistan. Europeans, especially Germans, are reluctant to send any of their own troops into harm's way into a country where 'victory' is almost universally perceived as hopeless. Anyone thinking that an incoming McCain administration would have anywhere near that type of influence on our allies is blind.
The election of Obama and his rockstar aura has given the US more foreign policy political capital than the election of any other politician would have been capable of receiving right out of the starting blocks. His perception has risen to make the often cliched description of 'leader of the free world' an accepted reality rather than a statement of American condescension and imperial superiority. Her cynicism that Obama will only squander such capital away rather than be able to build more goodwill is a myopic obsession with the incompetence of our current president and his elitist unilateralism ... as if it couldn't be any other way. Pathetic.
November 12, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink