« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
New Guinea Tribalism and the Unification of the Democratic Party
In the April 21 issue of The New Yorker there is a piece by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel) about vengeance among tribes in New Guinea. When hostility between tribes results in bloodshed, the social scales become unbalanced and those affiliated with the victim feel compelled to take it upon themselves to right perceived wrongs. It makes no difference that the often violent "payback" hurts the avengers as much, or more, than the original transgessor. The avengers are driven to vengeance by a sense of pride and an identification with a group (the tribe). As described by Diamond's New Guinean friend, vengeance provides a genuine sense of satisfaction.
The dynamics of vengeance are familiar to anyone who has heard of the Hatfields and McCoys, or seen West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet. The desire for vengeance is part of human nature, as primal as the need to divide the world into an "us" and a "them", into friends and enemies. The cycle of vengeance is so strong--so engrained in our nature--that it can only be countered, Diamond suggests, by the imposition of the State. Only in the State can we surrender our desire--our right--for vengeance in favor of a dispassionate and objective dispute resolution system. Only in the State can we trust that an impartial arbiter will decide the fair resolution of our disputes.
The State can do this by depersonalizing aggression. The difference between an "enemy" and a "criminal" lies in the fact that an enemy stands opposed to you personally, while a criminal stands opposed merely to the state. In the State, all transgressors are criminals, not enemies. Final resolutions are only possible where the dispute resolution system can keep the dispute impersonal.
But the system breaks down--and civilization along with it--when disputes transcend the ability of the State to keep impersonal. As Diamond mentions,
"In times of war, even modern state societies quickly turn the enemy into a dehumanized figure of hatred, only to enjoin us to stop hating again as soon as a peace treaty is signed. Such contradictions confuse us deeply. Neither pacific ideals nor wartime hatreds, once acquired, are easily jettisoned. It’s no wonder that many soldiers who kill suffer post-traumatic stress disorder."The analogy is not far-fetched. The dispute resolution system employed within the Democratic Party--the primary electoral process--has failed to keep the dispute impersonal. It has gone on too long, employed arbitrary and inconsistent rules, and disempowered voters from important states. The legitimacy of the process has been called into question. The Democratic party has factionalized into two tribes: Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, many of whom have come to view the other as the "enemy." Although the "dispute" will soon be settled, there is no groundwork for a lasting peace. The contradictions faced by passionate Obama and Clinton supporters will not be easily jettisoned.
In recent weeks, polls have consistently shown that significant numbers of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. The polls show the same is true of Obama supporters, if Clinton were the nominee. Anecdotally, a number of people on these boards have claimed that they would refuse to vote for the democratic nominee if it is not the nominee that they support. It's easy to dismiss all these claims as being in the "heat of the moment." It's easy to imagine that every voter acts as a rational agent, and that such voters would recognize that it is not in their best interests to support McCain in a general election. But these conclusions are naive: the desire for vengeance is very real, and has time and again driven otherwise rational people to inflict great harm upon themselves and others. In the face of disappointment for a defeat, people desire the genuine satisfaction of vengeance--even if it is accompanied by great personal cost.
The dilemma of the cycle of vengeance is a real tragedy. As Diamond's New Guinean friend explained,
“I admit that the New Guinea Highland way to solve the problem posed by a killing isn’t good. Our way disturbs our day-to-day life; we won’t be comfortable for the rest of our lives; we are always in effect living on the battlefield; and those feelings go on and on in us. The Western way, of letting the government settle disputes by means of the legal system, is a better way. But we could never have arrived at it by ourselves: we were trapped in our endless cycles of revenge killings.”So, in the absence of a satisfactory and legitimate dispute resolution procedure, how do the New Guinean bloodfeuds end? In one of two ways: either with a death, or with a payment. In other words, the factionalization of the Democratic party can only be healed by Obama's defeat, or his concession to pay a political price. This could mean his agreement to select Hillary as his vice-president, to offer her another position of power, to adopt some significant Clinton policy positions such as truly universal health care, or to literally pay off her campaign debts. Most likely, some combination of all three will occur.
However, if the Obama campaign wants the support of passionate Clinton supporters, it cannot rely on some idealistic conception of democratic voters as rational agents voting in accordance with their economic and personal interests. Such motivation may work well in game theory, but will fail miserably in the real world of election politics. The anger is real, and so is the desire for vengeance.
Comments (101)
"In other words, the factionalization of the Democratic party can only be healed by Obama's defeat, or his concession to pay a political price."
You sorta had me, up till then.
So as the winner, it's up to Obama to pay blood money to end the clan feud?
How exactly did we end up back in the jungles of New Guinea?
We just had Jared Diamond's friend conceding that "the Western way," in which a legal system --the rule of law -- settles disputes, is a better way.
Isn't that what just happened?
Two candidates competed under a known set of rules, and one emerged victorious.
Isn't it "the Western way" that the loser graciously accepts the winner's right to the prize, and loyally backs his rightful claim to it?
Or has the Hillary campaign successfully destroyed that standard of civilized behavior as well?
May 15, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post makes an interesting point. But if you follow this logic, it hinges on "who is the victim" here. Hillary has certainly "chosen" the victim role and many of her supporters have rallied to her as a victim that is out for revenge.
HOWEVER, I would argue that Obama has been victimized by hillary. And that society has now exacted it's revenge. She's paying a price for her below-the-belt tactics in this race.
Barack does not owe her anything. And she's already paying the price.
So the feud is over. It's up to her to mend fences within the party.
May 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though this kind of thinking can be dangerous if dispute resolution systems are malfunctioning. All that matters is that Clinton supporters perceive her as the victim. Or, more to the point, Clinton supporters perceive Obama (and his supporters) as "the other" or "the enemy." The dispute hasn't been kept impersonal. And you can't expect someone who has become deeply invested in one candidate to pivot 180 degrees and support the person they've just spent four months demonizing. People don't work that way.
Even if Hillary's defeat has satisfied the desire for vengeance on the part of Obama supporters, it has created a new desire for vengeance on the part of Clinton supporters. This is the cycle of vengeance. We need to figure out how to stop it in a way that is acceptable to all (or at least most).
May 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your assessment. I could see this happening toward the end of 2007. It's been a very painful thing to watch. Over and over I tried to point out that it was not helping things to bash other voters.
I'll tell you what I think this is about. It's a bunch of people, all of us really, who have been so traumatized by the bush years. There is so much pent up rage at bush... but it's getting displaced into the primary process. People have felt so unheard, so demeaned, so demoralize during these years of a govt bent on oppressing and neglecting its own citizens.
So I'd argue that the real problem is the bush years. And our sense of victimization in so many ways.
Wish I had a solution. I actually think Obama is the solution. He wants to bring unity. But if some people are stuck in - dare I say it - bitterness.... then it's very hard for them to think clearly and rise above it.
I agree a healing process is needed. Healing from the bush years. What a shame that it's torn so much apart!
May 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweetie, this is not about Hillary being a victim -- it is about the contempt of Obama and his supporters towards women -- particulary angry women.
Obama twisted every remark similar to those made by Biden and the lynching remark about Tiger Woods that was made into a racist attack on him. He is the one posing as a victim and inflaming racial antagonism for his own political benefit. It is this which very early on convinced me that he is morally unfit to be President. I am well and sorrowfully aware that McCain disagress with me on about 90% of my issues but has shown that ability to put the country ahead of himself that I think Obama lacks. The only issue that is important enough to overcome this initial hurdle would be global warming and McCain is decent on that and may in fact be better at getting an effective plan in place as he is much less likely to sell out that is Obama -- see the NY Times piece on Nuclear Leaks -- and the Democrats are more likely to help him that the Republicans are likely to help Obama.
May 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it vengeful to wish HRC off the ticket? Vengeance comes in many flavors. For some newly minted McCain voters, it will prolly taste pretty good leftover and cold. The unreachable will be a fact to ignore or to analyze at our expense.
May 15, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every day is Bizarro Day at TPM...
How exactly is Obama's defeat supposed to "heal the factionalization"? I mean, why should that make Obama's supporters rally behind Hillary? That just doesn't make any sense.
Also, selecting Hillary as VP candidate might well be too high a price to pay for "unity". It is not at all clear that the advantages of such course of action outweigh the drawbacks.
But if all you were trying to say was that the Dems are screwed and it's all their own fault, I'd be inclined to agree.
May 15, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the defeat of Obama won't "heal" the party, but will make Clinton supporters feel better. What I should have said was this: In New Guinea society, a blood debt is extinguished either by payment of compensation or the taking of a life. But the taking of a life creates a new blood debt and perpetuates the cycle of vengeance. Obama's defeat would satisfy Clinton supporters, but would create a new blood debt which would require satisfaction for Obama supporters.
May 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how far it goes. I think the primary rules have more perceived legitimacy with the broader public than you might think. Because we're obsessed with the process, we see all the warts. But Jane Q. Public mainly sees "election - election - election - winner."
I.e., I think the State is working, and we won't have to pay wergild, or make anyone Attorney General. But it's certainly true that it has often felt like a blood feud.
May 15, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the comment about paying off campaign debts is ridiculous. They're not that big to begin with and Bill could give 15 speeches and pay it off. Actually I think the point is used just to ridicule Hillary as being only concerned about money.
May 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's an insignificant amount of money, even for the Clintons. But I agree that it's unlikely to satisfy Clinton supporters who feel that the "enemy" has won. I mention it primarily because (1) people have started to talk about it, and (2) it seems like an amazingly literal form of the kind of compensation Diamond talks about.
May 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's brought up to ridicule Clinton, but I have thought it'd send the wrong message to her supporters. With people seeing sexism under every rock and behind every bush, it would be ridiculous to have Big Ol' Papa Obama come down and give Lil' Hillary an allowance to pay off her debts. She's a big girl and can handle that side of her affairs handily on her own.
May 15, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately for us in the US, we do have a legitimate dispute resolution procedure, and it is adherence to the rules to which we all as members of the party and of a republic are subjected.
Bush vs. Gore left many Americans angry and bitter, but those who disagreed with the outcome swallowed the bitter pill and understood that the system and the rules trumped the outcome of the dispute.
It is in that sense that we are unlike feuding tribes in New Guinnea. As a Republic, we as individuals are empowered by the rules and always put down our weapons as we instinctively adhere to the Social Contract as described by Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In non-elitist speech, trust your fellow Americans, your fellow Democrats, heck, even your fellow Republicans. Americans are big and in general admit when they lose gracefully and move on.
May 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Bush v. Gore did not heal the divisions or the animosity between Republicans and Democrats. If anything, it heightened those divisions. It's just that, after the 2000 presidential election, there was no need for Republicans and Democrats to set aside their rabid opposition to each other and unite for a common purpose. The rabid opposition between Clinton and Obama supporters is very different in this regard. In a few short weeks, we must come together. And setting aside those animosities will be very difficult for a not-insignificant portion of the electorate.
Five months is a long time. But we can't simply ignore the psychological need for vengeance.
May 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is claiming that Bush vs. Gore healed anything. However, unlike interfighting New Guinea tribes, Americans understood that the rules were the rules and accepted them, even when the popular vote was trumped by the SCOTUS and the Electoral College.
This is actually the United States's contribution to the world, to successfully implement a process in which all agree that the winner peacefully assumes power, unconditionally.
The Unity ticket proposal is a good idea in certain respects. However, it is not so when presented as a threat. It goes counter to two centuries of established American tradition, reinforced every four years.
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
American society/politics quite often seems to me like a college sports game - you get a bunch of people who range from casual fan to body painted superfan on both sides, and they're deeply invested in their team winning. Only one team wins, and the winners gloat and the losers whine. You don't see losers toasting winners at the bar.
The problem is that this is NOT how politics should work. That's why we have bipartisanship and such. Unfortunately, while politicians can reach across the aisle (like players shaking hands before or after a game), most partisans are too riled up in the absolute dogma of their team/party.
For example, my little brother by another mother told me a joke he learned at scouts.
"hillary and barack are on a sinking boat. who gets saved? America."
That's not a policy disagreement. That's not even a purely ideological disagreement. That's being so partisan you can't even fathom the thought that someone on the other side could have a decent bone in their body (this is a light joke compared to some of the junk I hear my bro's scoutmasters spewing, mostly Limbaugh crap).
May 15, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your point about Rousseau is the crucial one here. Probably the earliest Western analog is the Orestia.
To the extent that Allsburg might have been speaking metaphorically, that there might be some kind of internal collective consciousness of violence-- I believe you could make the same argument, that there is a kind of internal collective consciousness of the Social Contract, or the Orestia.
May 16, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It works in fact, but will it work in theory?
Thoughtful piece, go unity baby, go! :)
I think that a lot of the ruffled feathers will be smoothed down after the convention. Having a place to direct the anger and vengeance (McCain and the GOP) will likely help.
After all, they are really at the root of all the angst most democrats are experiencing.
At least, I hope so.
May 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know workerbee, I hope you are right. In Diamond's piece, the feud ended when the two warring tribes had to unite against a common foe. That gives me hope.
May 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need? Really? Is it the purpose of elections to designate "winners" and "losers", or is it to put in place a government that is responsible to and representative of the people? Anarchists and Libertarians aside, having elected officials who are willing to put pure partisan maneuvering aside in the interest of creating a functioning government that acts for the good of the people (not simply for the good of the party in power) is the goal, isn't it? This isn't a sports championship that's over when the winner is declared; it's the starting point.
As far as uniting against a common foe, the Bush administration had that opportunity with 9/11 and rather cynically tried to exploit that unity to consolidate their power rather than to fight the enemy.
It easy, and dangerous, to let the cliched "fighting" metaphors that we use when talking about elections become too real. A rival campaign is a rival to be bested, not an enemy to be destroyed. In the end the President is elected to represent the interests of all Americans, and of our democracy, not just the interests of the people who supported him or her as a candidate. I don't think Bush and his cronies understand that at all; the damage they have done to our country and to our democratic institutions is deep and lasting. I can only hope that the Democratic Party will not fall to the same cynical nearsightedness.
Resist tribalism! Or at least save it for baseball season.
May 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, this is not about trolls. Is it still bizarro day?
Allsburg, you've left out the great uniter of human history: a common enemy. Nothing has more effectively united warring indigenous tribes than foreign invaders. I expect the Republican onslaught to do more Democratic unity than a whole army of unity babies.
Good post btw.
May 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never underestimate the power of an army of babies.
No, seriously. Never underestimate it. You'd think they'd be easy to outrun, but if they catch you they swarm all over you like fireants. They'll claw your frakkin' eyes out. Especially if their nails haven't been trimmed in a while. Unity babies are the worst.
May 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Now I'm going to have nightmares for weeks. I only just recovered from that little square dance show you did a few weeks ago.
May 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No inside jokes allowed here. If you're going to reference something off-board, you have to provide a link.
(Sorry, Billy.)
May 15, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't somebody else wear the dress?
May 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the slime.... OMG
The drool that would be produced by an army of babies could actually recharge the florida aquifer. Powerful stuff. Powerful!
Unfortunately, everything drawing from it would develop a kind of hazy crust on it's surface.
May 15, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said that already.
Plagiarist. I'm sicking the Canadian authorities on your flashing, multi-hued ass.
May 15, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike the "vengeance factor" discussed, in politics, it's easy to create a lot of hot air and have little follow-on reaction.
While I am sure there are Hillary supporters looking for Obama to pay reparations, the group will likely be quite small by the time of the GE. It takes a lot of energy for the blood-lust type of hate that the supporters exhibit. Many are still in the denial/anger stage of grief.
I have no doubts that many of these Hillary supporters already have their plan Bs ready to go, no matter how much convincing others give. These are the die-hards and no energy should be spent trying to convince them.
A far more effective tactic is to (a) broaden the Dem party through voter drives and (b) pull in indies and GOPers.
Obama is doing both.
One of the problems with the analogies posted about the present election is that they tend to ignore the face that the voter pool is about 2x larger than the people who actually vote. That tells you a lot right there.
May 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason why we can't do as you suggest, and also be cognizant of psychological factors impacting a non-insignificant portion of our base.
May 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is my point: no data exists showing that the vocal minority of Hillary supporters will have the size or the steam to continue want her to run as 3rd party candidate. There is the extreme fringe who won't be able to be convinced otherwise and it's their right to vote as they please. But nothing splinters humans so much as making them feel like they are being left behind.
The train is now pulling out of the Obama station. And the majority of the people who voted for Hillary in the primaries will be on it.
May 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy if that were true. I think it's true of most people. I think that it's dangerous to leave behind even 10%.
May 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that landslides are usually split 60%-40%. If Obama pulls in 80-90% of registered Dems -- and has cross over appeal and has an enlarged electorate, he will do just fine.
Jesse Jackson used to split the Dem Party back in the 1980s and Bill Clinton made him somewhat irrelevant on the national scale as a political force. By not worrying about him like Mondale and Dukakis did.
Don't forget that GWB has the lowest presidential rating ever -- and still 25% of the population thinks he is either doing okay or has no opinion. That's 1 in 4!
May 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Jackson was a spent force by 1992.
May 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore won 86% of Dems. Kerry won 89%. So we never get to losing less than 10%.
We outnumber GOP by 10% among the total electorate.
Bush held 91% and 93%. McCain probably can't get to 90%.
Let's go get the low hanging fruit before we go sending candygrams to our most intractable timewasting Obamahaters.
May 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with acanuck and Genghis. I am also glad the baby is posting. But I think the baby's exchange with Des above encapsulates why fetishizing the support of every last Clinton person doesn't matter. You offer to repay her debts, and instead of an olive branch, it's ritual humiliation. It's insane. Let's give up on the 10% of our base that we can't get back. That part of dialogue is a waste of time. There's other dialogue that's not, with the persuadable 10-15% of our base that will put Obama in the drivers' seat.
If the "common enemy" Genghis mentions gets Obama from mid70s among Dems to low80s, our winning is a mortal lock. We can't lose with anything in the 80s among Dems, IMHO, and we're pretty close today.
So I guess, though your post is very interesting and thoughtful, I hope you're wrong that Obama might make her VP (other positions of power, as you say, are a good idea), because taking the Clintons back to the executive branch is too antithetical to his campaign's themes, and too alienating of the 5% more of Repubs and 12% more of independents he gets than Hillary gets.
As to VP, it's just not going to happen. The commander in chief threshold thing alone means that, speaking pragmatically.
May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long before we see a poll that tells us how an Obama/Clinton ticket would fare against McCain? I'm thinking, any second now.
May 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In CA, we used to see polls about would people favor a constitutional amendment so that Schwarzenegger could be elected President.
It's called a "slow news day". What it should really be called is a tactic to fill up the newspapers so we don't have to deal with the real crises facing us.
Let's rip off the bandage fast. Hillary will have her shot to speak at the convention and then that's the end of it.
At this point, her actions are slowly screwing her political career going forward as I discussed in a blog today:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/laying-bear-a-label.php
May 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baby, I think we'll be peppered with that all summer. The question is how it would fare, compared with Obama/Sebelius and Obama/Webb and Obama/Strickland. My guess is, about the same.
The media, which love reporting on her because she's more newsworthy and they like this Obama/Clinton bloodsport, will play up the meme of her earning or deserving or having a right to it. The question is whether she feeds that pig.
I say no, because I say O makes some other deal. If he doesn't satisfy her, this shit will never end. Because she would stir the pot, even if her supporters would otherwise come back in sufficient numbers to make it moot, and they would.
And that's the real issue, I think.
May 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll be calling me "sweetie" next.
May 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody puts Allsburg in a corner.
May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise here is that Clinton's supporters feel they have been wronged, because their tribe didn't win, and because of that, feel the need for vengeance.
Do I have that right? That the "wrong" that Obama has done to the Hillary Tribe is simply that he won the nomination? The only way I can understand that as a "wrong" being done to her and her supporters is if you believe that the nomination is or was rightly hers. But I may be missing something here.
May 15, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is more loosely that in the heat of this nomination contest, both sides have come to feel that the other is a personal "enemy" rather than mere competitors. I don't think that Dodd supporters ever felt that Biden supporters were the "enemy." Usually in these nominating contests, large portions of the electorate withhold judgment, or support candidates conditionally until the nominee is clear. But here, large chunks of the electorate have already invested in either Clinton or Obama. They will take it personally, whatever the outcome. And that is dangerous.
May 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The uncomfortable truth is that many of Hillary's most vocal supporters in the general populace are "one issue" voters. I use quotes because that issue is gender.
Hillary has helped fan this entitlement attitude which arose originally by dint of her "35 years experience" -- remember that one? -- and it's morphed now into the notion that it's "not Obama's turn".
Hillary could show leadership and class by working hard to point out how her supporters should throw their collective weight behind Obama. She could show she is really concerned about what is correct for America first rather than her own warped sense of entitled destiny. Past behavior says that will not happen -- as even SNL hints in their parody of her. The next most fascinating story in this election campaign is how Hillary will deal with losing the Dem Primary.
May 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the issue I see uniting her supporters is a sense of being downtrodden. And a desire for the downtrodden to tread on the "elites" they feel have put them down. Those elites are the repubs, but hillary has used that ire to her advantage.
May 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hillary pretending she isn't the most among all elites: Yale, board members, access to political power her entire adult life, friends with A-listers in Hollywood...
... I'm always amazed by how these "downtrodden" people can fall for Hillary's lines. It shows a willful neglect of facts!
May 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I think you're right about that but I also think it is curable.
For the most part.
May 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying it's incurable. I'm saying we shouldn't ignore it, because it can fester. It's absolutely curable. But Clearthinker thinks that it will go away on its own. I'm not so sure.
May 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me, dear babe in the blanket, but when it comes to "psychological cure," it's a matter of people deciding to work on changing. Your desire to make that happen is commendable. However without a motivation on their part and a willingness to change, it's going to be very, very difficult to reach out a hand of solidarity.
Over many years I have had to recognize that not every one is "treatable." So reach out your hand. But beware of those who will bite even the hand that feeds.
May 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But at the same time, if a person has a known psychological block - a fear of water, for example - it's best to acknowledge this and not to rely upon that person to save you when you are drowning.
We cannot count on democrats who have been burned by the primaries to swallow their pride and vote their interests in November. We must reach out. We should try to manufacture closure and provide some kind of satisfaction. If we deprive these voters of satisfaction, we run the risk of having these voters take their satisfaction through the sabotaging of Obama's chances in November.
I leave open the question of what form the satisfaction should take. Maybe a heartfelt concession speech from Clinton will suffice--at least for most. I think that something more may be required. The VP slot would definitely do it. I think something less than the VP slot would suffice too.
Clearthinker thinks that those voters who would cast self-destructive votes are insignificant in number and/or are unpersuadable, and that we therefore shouldn't waste time on them. I disagree on both counts.
May 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No harm in trying! It's your call.
May 15, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Dodd is the enemy. I decided to go with McCain as soon as Dodd was unceremoniously driven from the race. Only death or payment will bring me back into the fold.
May 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. I didn't mean Dodd is the enemy. Dodd is the MAN. All Democrats are the enemy for the vicious and divisive campaign they ran against him.
May 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you believe that the nomination is or was rightly hers" being the key supposition here.
When the retrospectives are written on this the narrative will most certainly go that Obama arose to improbably defeat the nominee expected by most. (That '1984' Apple ad spoof from '07 is looking more prescient!).
I wore an Obama t-shirt out on the streets of Manhattan in the summer of 2007 and one woman passing by pointed and laughed out loud "year, right!"!
May 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This also goes very deeply to our most severe problems in our criminal justice system.
The Victim's Advocates have skewed our justice system over into vengeance fueled by the hyper emotion they have insisted belong in our justice system. IT'S A DISASTER!
There is a reason Justice is blindfolded and the Victim's Movement is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!!
And it's mostly women. I'm one too and I hate them for doing this to one of the better justice systems in the world. Damn it!
Our founders are whirling in their graves every time some family member gets on the stand and cries at the end of a criminal trial.
I hate it! It's wrong.
May 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On point as usual, Tena!
May 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
On that we can agree.
May 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of my better comments are my OT comments.
:)
( * )
do you get that?
May 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, my "on point" comment wasn't a sarcastic remark that you were OT, but that I agreed with you and your sharp insight.
May 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
O thank you. I thought you were giving me shit for being totally off topic cause I was painfully aware I was.
May 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not in the least! You know I dig your posts...
May 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Tena. You've got to let the founders go. :)
But you're right about victim impact statements.
May 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I most certainly do not! I love my founders and I can if I want to.
[all except that old pill, John Adams.]
;P
May 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody played by Paul Giamatti can be all bad.
He was the police inspector in The Illusionist, and the nicer guy in Sideways.
What's not to like?
May 15, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody puts Paul Giamatti in a corner.
May 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she is wrong about VIS and to hold women responsible for the state of the justice system in this country is downright evil.
May 15, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the Victim's rights movement has damaged our criminal justice system, but don't blame women for it. I blame the prosecutors who see this as a way to not only influence for greater sentencing (career bonus points) but in some egregious abuses of law, even in the actual guilt/innocence stage of the trial. However, the real power and money behind the movement is the prison industrial complex.
With prison privatization, there is huge money in the prision industry and how better to increase profits that to increase sentencing. The money spent on elections, lobbying and ballot measures is not for greater public safety but for greater private profits.
Go to the national institute on money in state politics and look at the giving of Corrections Corporation of America to name one. That's the drive behind this - money, pure and simple.
May 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prison reform is sorely needed.
May 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
VIS are not admitted in death penalty cases and in every single pre-sentencing report, the investigator includes the statement of the victim as to the extent of harm caused by the crime. It is also only one factor and all factors are equally weighted, to be considered and it is never admitted as evidence, nor considered as evidence.
May 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure that? The numbers say just the opposite of what you're claiming. Over 90% of cases in this country are settled by plea agreements with sentencing guidelines. Less than .01% of plea agreements have been overturned as the result of a victim impact statement.
May 15, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and who wouldn't take a plea, when the Prosecutor has the victims and family ready to haul out at the close of trial. "Take this plea, or take your chances with the jury hearing the sob stories from the victim." I'll take the plea any day.
But then, plea agreements are an even greater blight on our justice system than victim impact statements. Prosecutors overcharge a case in order to force defendants to plea to a lessor charge that, in all honesty, is the most the defendant could be guilty of in the first place. Kicking someone with a steel-toed boot becomes first degree assault with a deadly weapon, unless you take the 2d degree assault plea bargain.
And of course there's the fact that the court set a million dollar bail that you can't afford, so you've already been in jail for five months and you'll be out for time served as long as you plea. If you insist you are innocent, you'll be in jail another three months at a minimum, until your trial is over. What would you choose: out of jail today with a criminal conviction, or stay in jail another three months for the possibility of exoneration (or the possibility of conviction and more time in jail).
This is not the justice system we signed up for. This is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is "confess or else."
May 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
One study after another supports the finding that VIS has little to no effect on sentencing. VIS are not admitted in death penalty cases, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1987, the decision written by Justice Powell, with Scalia writing the dissent.
One study found that VIS were just as likely to offer forgiveness to defendents and ask for mercy than they were to ask for revenge.
I know this is a popular urban legend, but it simply is not true.
May 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandatory minimum sentences is the number 1 strategy of the prison industry to stuff their pockets. Victims rights are an adjunct as another way to increase sentences. 3 strikes and you're out another. They all work together to increase incarceration.
All of these put pressure on defendants to accept plea agreements. So no, it does not show the opposite. The 90% plea agreements is the effect of the heavy hand placed on the justice system by private prisons.
May 15, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not correct. VIS has none to little effect on sentencing. Now study after study confirms this, they do not increase sentences nor do they decrease sentencing in any statistical way whatsoever.
Now plea agreements, sentencing guidelines, and the three strikes law are very different from VIS and their effect on sentencing. I am not disputing that, I am disputing the claim that VIS has impacted the system, because it has not. It is not admitted as evidence in any court in this country, it is but one factor in the many factors to be considered by a judge, (just as the consideration of lack of substantial harm is a factor in sentencing) and any officer of the court should know that. Whether the privatization of prisons is a factor in longer sentences, I don't know because there are no long range studies that would prove or disprove that claim.
It is egregious that this poster would blame women for something that isn't true.
May 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting little side thread that's developed. As a public defender by trade, I'd like to weigh in. I have had few victim impact statements in many years covering trials as a producer/reporter and participating in them as an attorney. I don't think they are very influential. The impact of the crime is usually apparent. They are more to satisfy the victims' families than for sentencing purposes. In many cases I handle, though, the prosecutor will tell me, "well, I think that's a reasonable plea, but the victim's family won't take it." Of course, the prosecutor should be representing the People of the State of New York, not the victim's family, but that falls on deaf ears. DA doesn't want to piss anyone off who might go talking to a newspaper or church or whatever. Victims' rights advocates, as a small, tightly knit advocacy group with a sympathetic cause, have contributed to stiffer sentences, as has the prison industrial complex discussed above. Probably the greatest influence, though, is democracy. No politician ever got elected promising to lighten up on crime. District attorneys and (in my jurisdiction) judges are elected. Once enacted, it's very tough to go back - as the many efforts to overhaul NY's draconian Rockefeller Laws attest. The system feeds itself. I strongly doubt whether Obama or Hillary will change this appreciably.
May 15, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just not right. No, a thousand times no, VIS do not contribute to sentencing in any statistically appreciable way. None. Zero. Zip.
Now if someone tells you that, they are wrong, and just because an ADA tells you something it doesn't make it true. An ADA may consult with a family, it may listen to what the family would like, but the family of the victim does not determine the plea agreement or the sentencing. A full 90% of cases result in a plea bargain, it is the sentencing guidelines that determine the sentence and in only nine states do judges have the latitude to decide sentencing without following sentencing guidelines.
VIS are not admitted as evidence, they are not heard by a jury, they are not the determining factor in sentencing and in every pre sentencing report a statement by the victim is included in the pre sentencing report as it should be.
Judges listen to VIS, they might consider VIS, but studies show that while victims might feel some sort of measure of participation and "closure" it has no effect whatsoever, other than a generally beneficial one to the victim. One study found that a VIS is almost as likely to offer forgiveness and a plea for mercy as it is to ask for retribution.
Does the move to privatization lead to stiffer sentencing? No one has been able to determine that because there is not enough data, information and evidence for anything approaching an objective research study. For most of the history of the U.S. prisons were privately operated as money making enterprises, it was only for a relatively short time in our history, from the 1920s to the 1970s that prisons were run by governments. There are 158 private facilities housing prisoners, and a little less than 5% of the prison population are in privatized facilities. It doesn't make much money, it is even more subject to prisoner lawsuits than public prisons and the savings to the government are less than 1%. No one can make the claim that the industry is pushing for longer sentencing, because there is no data to support such a claim. (And no, I don't think it's a good idea to privatize prisons anymore than I think it's a good idea to privatize the military. If people are going to imprison or kill people they deem enemies of society, then ALL the people should bear the responsibility of that whether good or ill.)
May 15, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, I do this for a living. I know whereof I speak. I'm not sure we're in such disagreement. I said victim impact statements are extremely rare and most likely meaningless, except for the victim's families who make them. Victim rights groups, such as MADD and various domestic violence groups, I believe, have had an impact on sentencing laws. I have had countless DAs tell me that they'd offer the plea but "the family won't go along." Prosecutors regularly consult with the "victims"/complaining witnesses on their cases and factor in their input into plea offers. Of course, nearly every case ends in a plea. But the DAs have tremendous discretion in terms of what they offer and judges have discretion within often wide sentencing ranges. As for the so-called prison industrial complex, I have no idea what effect it has had on the justice system except the general sense that the beast must be fed.
May 16, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a Kurt Vonnegut reference. BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS. ;-)
May 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Dodd is the enemy. I decided to go with McCain as soon as Dodd was unceremoniously driven from the race. Only death or payment will bring me back into the fold.
May 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ignore me. This was meant to be posted above but I got a weird error message.
I will take this opportunity to say that I enjoyed reading the post. But there is one conflict resolution prospect you didn't mentinon that I think is far more likely. The victim - in this case, Hillary Clinton - joins with the alleged aggressor and the initial aggression is forgiven. Indeed, this process has already begun. In her interview yesterday on CNN, Clinton was forceful and unequivocal that she would urge anyone who voted for her to vote for Obama if he is the nominee in the Fall. Not surprisingly, her comments, as well as her apology/explanation of her "hard working white Americans" gaffe, received scant mention among the Obama faithful who see the need to continue to see her as Public Enemy Number 1.
May 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very disturbing trend in these parts too, also explainable by the "tribalism" concepts discussed here. Both sides need to get over their dislike of the other.
May 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think we need to recognize that some voters may dislike a candidate. But why do they have to dislike each other????
My beef was with clinton. Not fellow voters! We need to think our commonalities. We are all citizens. All voters. Tax Payers. Let's come together to make the country work again!
May 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, TheraP!
May 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
You know, when I caucused for Obama, I went into the building with another woman and we sat together waiting for the caucus to begin. I remarked about the huge number of people there and they were still coming. She said: "I'm here for Hillary. But I realize that it is Obama who has brought these people out." At that time, I didn't resent Hillary as much as I do now, and I said: "It's a win-win."
I used to see it kind of that way, though I never supported Clinton's candidacy. There was a time when it didn't look so damn bad to me, however, as it does now.
But it has nothing to do with her supporters outside of virtual space. Nothing.
blog comments boards are another matter - they are combat zones.
May 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It can get very heated on the boards, true. And with the cloak of anonymity comes a freedom to really let people have it.
I know I'm talking to some of the fiercest Clinton opponents (antagonists?) out there, but it is hard not to take personally some of the attacks on the Clintons, particularly the race-baiting charge. It is one of the most divisive things one can say "Oh, your candidate is a racist and is trying to drum up racial hatreds in pursuit of her selfish goals." By implication, you are charging the supporter with being on the side of the racists. Can you not see the insult to someone who supports the same progressive causes?
My disclaimer is that I really have been undecided between the two candidates but found myself defending Hillary on these boards. I am happy to support Obama but am really appalled by the nonsense propagated in his name.
May 15, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish we could get coffee in a group and discuss this more thoughtfully.
Message boards fairly well suck for deepening each other's understanding of things.
Alas.
May 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's very grown up of you.
May 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt there will be any healing at all. Clinton supporters will do their job and vote for Obama meanwhile despising his entire coterie of elitist snobs who think Democratic unity is achieved by claiming all Clinton supporters are racists, too ignorant to vote, stupid, racist, ignorant,racist trailer trash. Meanwhile, Obama supports show how funny they are with riffs on the ignorant racist Clinton supporters that are recommended to the top of the line - and even Josh says they are funny, because it's okay to make class jokes and despise ignorant hillbilly trailer trash that support Clinton.
May 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know which post you mean, that made you mad. I missed the "alls" that you're imputing to it.
Maybe you should turn your comment there into a longer, more detailed post about what's wrong with Obama supporters, and with this site, and why it makes you angry.
The phrase "coterie of elitist snobs" seems like a particularly good block to build upon.
May 15, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
Just one thing I'm unsure about. If I'm called (by implication) a member of a coterie of elitist snobs, am I supposed to be offended or is it safe to take that as a compliment?
May 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always wanted to be in a coterie.
It sounds so glam.
May 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just fancy elitist talk for "teh collective."
May 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great thread! Just conversation. No vilification. Kudos!
May 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You spoke too soon.
May 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was nice while it lasted. Wasn't it?
♪♪♪
May 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a vid in anthropology class a gazillion years ago, about the New Guinea tribe that Michael Rockefeller was photographing/studying when he disappeared.
They practiced a kind of ritualized warfare and the way they exacted vengeance and released the emotion and got even for every member of the tribe killed by an enemy was horrifying. They took the youngest female family member of the deceased's family and chopped off her last three fingers with a stone axe.
I decided I was not overly fond of the New Guinea tribes at just that moment.
May 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eeww. That Rockefeller New Guinea story. His fate appears not to have been the most desirable. I always found it macabre that he may have become a victim in the rituals of the people which he studied and that so fascinated him.
To this day, the story is hushed. I have tried researching it with little success.
May 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The buzz at the time was that he had been paying for heads and, unfortunately, became part of the supply.
May 24, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should read the Diamond article. Apparently, the New Guinea tribes he talks about are very different. Their warfare is not as ritualized--much more a free-for-all without rules or structure.
May 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I'll never forget that film as long as I live - they did it in the film and the little girl was 3 years old.
And I had a very good anthropological outlook - I was not ethnocentric. I was very open to all cultures - I wanted to be an anthropologist. But there are some things that it is impossible to be neutral about - and that was one of them.
I was horrified.
I doubt they do that anymore - New Guinea is no longer isolated like it once was.
May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the heat of the battle it had become a very distasteful task for me to vote for Obama, though I'd already conceded that he will be the nominee. That was before his cutthroat use of the Edwards endorsement right on the heels of Hillary's blowout in W. Virginia. Now I'm only glad that there are months to go before I have to face his name on the ballot, because I couldn't do it right now.
May 16, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Obama, it's Axelrod.
May 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment