tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post1583512427316793830..comments2024-03-27T14:20:05.905-04:00Comments on Montclair SocioBlog: Sending a Message - But Who's Listening?Jay Livingstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-61427168615810501692008-12-21T08:35:00.000-05:002008-12-21T08:35:00.000-05:00NewSocProf, You couldn't be obnoxious if you trie...NewSocProf, You couldn't be obnoxious if you tried, and I can't imagine you trying. I agree with you completely that the public is usually swayed more by symbols than by evidence, at least in the short run until so much evidence accumulates as to be unavoidable. But inclusiveness might be a smart tactic. The Republicans, with people like Palin, energized the "base," but alienated a lot of other people with their "we're right, you're wrong" position. It went beyond that: we're right, and if you don't agree with us, you're not a real American. <BR/><BR/>Obama's approachs seems to be, "Maybe we can talk about this." He's not going to win Warren over completely, but mabye next time there's an issue like this, Warren won't be out there leading the opposition.Jay Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-11921904214253531772008-12-20T17:49:00.000-05:002008-12-20T17:49:00.000-05:00now i'll be obnoxious with a more substantive poin...now i'll be obnoxious with a more substantive point...<BR/><BR/>while you're right that the deterrence lit is pretty clear, the lesson on get tough crime policy is that symbolism and rhetoric trumps evidence most of the time. the public is capable of being manipulated (not always but sometimes) and the politics of criminal sentencing policy is a great example, i don't think it's reasonable to just say the public is ill-informed at this point. the soc of punishment literature would easily support the idea that framing warren as someone with valid points of disagreement (as opposed to say, a bigot) matters a great deal. <BR/><BR/>warren's position is, of course, much more complex (i believe he favors insurance for domestic partners and other benefits) so the bigot label is also unfair but my point is that symbolism does matter.newsocprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885289404970310411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-75194231249302928082008-12-20T17:31:00.000-05:002008-12-20T17:31:00.000-05:00i'm much more worried about the other things (judi...i'm much more worried about the other things (judiciary, appointments) and don't think sending a message matters much. sending a message is problematic for the reasons you detail but also because of where the message is supposedly sent -- i don't think evangelicals are going to be on Obama's team no matter what he does.<BR/><BR/>i second peter because this is the crux of why choosing warren makes me feel badly and disappointed in Obama -- it's clearly a political choice but it seems like it is also a stupid political choice. it kicks gays (and their friends) in the teeth for no purpose. i don't know if its worse to get kicked for callous political gain or no gain at all, but its a big disappointment.<BR/><BR/>this, of course, is beside the larger point that putting equality up for a majority vote is just wrong (if we did that, my parents would still own the decendents of my great-great-great grandparents slaves, obama would not be president, and i couldn't do much about any of this because i wouldn't be allowed to vote) and isn't about big tent politics or charting a new path or inclusiveness. it's rings as hollow as the prop 8 supporters who constantly blathered about how they weren't being discriminatory...<BR/><BR/>i never find you obnoxious though, jay :)newsocprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05885289404970310411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-47425310249369159902008-12-20T11:15:00.000-05:002008-12-20T11:15:00.000-05:00Kick in the teeth -- yes. I was surprised and disa...Kick in the teeth -- yes. I was surprised and disappointed, and I certainly think that progressives ought to speak out about it. I also wondered if it might be a mistake, but then I figure that Obama's a really smart guy and a smart politician, and he knows what he's doing. I hope. But I think that we're kidding ourselves if we think that it's going to do much to change minds or policies.Jay Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-54947741429424498872008-12-20T10:03:00.000-05:002008-12-20T10:03:00.000-05:00Does it have to be either/or? I am unabashedly up ...Does it have to be either/or? I am unabashedly up in arms about the inaugural pastor, and I don't think it means Obama is forever personally tainted (or that his policies will be as egregious as Warren). I do agree with your policy/symbolism distinction to a degree. <BR/><BR/><EM>If I were concerned about gay marriage, I’d be much more worried about who’s getting out the vote and who’s getting appointed to the judiciary than about who’s praying at the Inauguration.</EM><BR/><BR/>But also seems like 'don't worry about it' is kind of obnoxious as a response...it's the kind of thing I used to say to my older brother when he disagreed with me and I didn't want to argue with him on substance. It's a phrase designed to piss off and put down your critics. <BR/><BR/>And it does feel disappointing and kind of a kick in the teeth for (some? many? most?) progressives to include Warren in the inaugural and beyond. Because I care about both policy and symbolism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com