by publius
Though I watched the Democratic debate, I’ve read very little post-debate commentary today. So I don’t know who “won.” But as I was watching them last night, I stopped thinking about who was winning or losing. Instead, I found myself marveling at their combined performance. The entire debate – certainly the most substantive one in my lifetime – was a collective advertisement for the Democratic Party. Whatever else it achieved, the clash of these Titans made the Republican field look small, petty, and tired. Democrats should feel proud about both the caliber of the candidates and the level of the policy discussion on display last night.
It confirmed how much I enjoy primaries – especially this one. Frankly, I’ve never agreed with those who belittle primary races, or feel above picking sides. For obvious reasons, these races are extremely important – and historically consequential. But what’s less obvious is how interesting they are from a purely aesthetic perspective. The horse race we’re witnessing is drama of the highest order – pure political theater. And while emotions will surely run high in the weeks to come, political junkies in particular should take a step back and enjoy the beauty of it. Not beauty in the sense of flowers and butterflies, but in a higher, more human, aesthetic sense.
First, consider the novelty of this race. The Democratic Party is about to hold a runoff between a woman and an African-American for President of the United States. Obviously, this is a testament to these two individuals and their immense talents. But from a broader perspective, this runoff is the vindication of generations of activists and political organizations (armies of Katherines, if you will).
Consider the condition of both women and blacks a mere hundred years ago. Francis Fukuyama notwithstanding, there was nothing inevitable about the changes we’ve seen. Those changes were the product of blood, sweat, and tears over a long period of time. They were willed by political engagement and social movements that were often ridiculed in their day (and remain ridiculed – note the smug way people refer to “identity politics” today). Again, I’m not taking anything away from these two individuals, but we should remember the broader social and political struggles that made their ascension possible in the first place.
Second, step back and appreciate the epic-ness of this particular contest. This is a clash in a primary between two massive, well-oiled, well-funded machines. (Obama supporters should not ignore how many establishment bigwigs bundle for, and otherwise support, Obama). It’s rare to see these levels of competence, funding, and organization in rival presidential primary camps. Regardless of who wins, the nominee is going to be well-prepared for the general given that each is doing daily battle with nationally-organized campaigns performing at the top of their respective games.
These are big-time organizations. That’s why, at least here, I enjoy even the “silly” horse race focus. On some level, sure, I wish that media coverage and political strategy were 100% policy-based. But in the all too human world in which we live, it’s impossible to fully separate these contests from the schoolyard fights that remain the highlight of my primary education experience. In short, perceptions of the horse race matter. And for this reason, how the campaigns drive – and respond to – these stories is part of the broader "fight" that makes for such compelling theater.
It’s also quite fitting that, in the week before Super Tuesday, both camps are humming on all cylinders. They truly are at the top of their games right now. The debate, for instance, quite appropriately shifted from schoolyard antics to high-level policy discussions. And though this sounds cheesy, it was an honor to watch it. I haven’t enjoyed the debates this year, but the “runoff” debate last night was a different story. To see candidates of this caliber engaging one-one-one in a high-level substantive debate about the great issues of our day (e.g., Iraq and health care) was political junkie manna.
Aesthetically, it reminded me of boxing at its best. The classic boxing fights (e.g., Ali’s classics) pit two freakishly talented athletes against each other to fight it out in mankind’s oldest sport. Some think it’s barbaric, and they may be right. But from an amoral aesthetic perspective, it’s a thing of beauty. And the better the athletes, and the higher the stakes, the more true this becomes. And that’s how I felt about the debate. I watched two freakishly gifted candidates with professional, efficient, hardened campaign organizations fighting it out one-on-one for the most powerful prize in the world (and maybe in world history).
At this point, I suspect some of you are annoyed that I’m focusing more on surface than substance. What we should be doing is focusing on policy, and ignoring these silly horse race/schoolyard fight dimensions. At the very least, we shouldn’t be romanticizing them the way I’ve done – i.e., reducing important political fights into narcissistic entertainment.
My response, though, is that I’m not ignoring substance when I admire the aesthetics. I completely agree that the stakes are high and that substantive policy disputes are at issue. But to me, the substance feeds the aesthetic. On some level, this is a fight. Try as we may, we can’t avoid conceptualizing it (at least partially) in those terms. But if it’s a fight, it’s a fight with enormous, world-historical consequences. And it's the underlying significance of the fight that makes the aesthetic so powerful.
Perhaps this is all silly narcissism. But if you’re reading this blog, chances are you’re as obsessed with politics as I am. And so, I think you – like me – would enjoy taking a step back and soaking in what we’re seeing. This particular fight is playing out on a level that we may not see again for some time. Enjoy it. I certainly am.
There's more to politics than policy. Policies have to change to meet circumstances -- otherwise, you get George Bush.
In addition to policy, you have to consider character. Not in the narrow sense of "would I like to have a beer with this guy?", but "do I trust this person to make appropriate decisions in unexpected situations?"
The primaries give us a look at both.
Posted by: lightning | February 02, 2008 at 01:56 AM
"Those changes were the product of blood, sweat, and tears over a long period of time."
I’d argue that those changes were the product of post-industrial cash surpluses, combined with a heaping helping of white guilt.
Problem is that those post-industrial surpluses have been spent. And my kids have been mortgaged for $200,000/ea. Come and collect it.
To an interesting 21st Century;
Posted by: Bill | February 02, 2008 at 02:28 AM
Oh, heavens, Bill. Of course they were the product of armies of activists. On the other hand, cash was around for a while without producing any such effect. Certainly the 50s were not exactly an impoverished era in the US, and yet, strange to say, not a lot happened as far as rights for women were concerned, other than backsliding.
Posted by: hilzoy | February 02, 2008 at 02:31 AM
"It confirmed how much I enjoy primaries – especially this one. Frankly, I’ve never agreed with those who belittle primary races, or feel above picking sides."
I'll be caucusing on the 5th, myself. I've never agreed with those who belittle caucuses. Why do people hate caucuses, and so rarely, if ever, admit they exist?
I blame hatred of America. And illegal immigration; I bet those people are stealing all the caucus references.
If people don't respect the caucuses, the terrorists will win.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 02:37 AM
The big picture is something to see. On a gut level, it's political history in the making. Yeah, yeah, I know I said the same thing (off-line) about how the Dem's pitched a shutout in 2006, Governors, House, and Senate, didn't lose a one. A historic moment, blah, blah, blah. I Might have jumped the gun, or the shark, on that one.
This time, the arguments against a popular public agenda are batted away so much easier, they are less compelling. And it seems like the two candidates on the Democratic side are on the right side of history. As a harsher on the Hillary campaign, I do got to say that you raise a good point about the quality of
the Democratic candidates. Even though she is the last one I would choose, Hillary looked decent in the debate, almost like a Democrat.
May you live in interesting times, they say.
Posted by: Trips | February 02, 2008 at 03:23 AM
I had the same thoughts on the debate. I think its quality was much more evident because there were only two people left standing, and these two are *extraordinarily* good at what they do. Even Edwards, who's not bad by any means, sort of diluted things. And by comparison the Republicans sound like a bunch of clowns, quibbling over who is more Reagan-esque.
It was easily the most captivating Presidential debate I can remember.
I wonder if this race will have any kind of small beneficial effect on the racism and sexism in this country. You have a woman and a black man, and they are just so clearly the intellectual heavyweights against three white guys on the other side, who just don't have the same intellectual firepower. Can't help but think this might be good for perceptions. It's just so clear. I guess I fear that this may not be self-evident to exactly those people who would be most benefited by realizing it.
Posted by: Ara | February 02, 2008 at 03:40 AM
Publius, I think you'll find that most of the annoyance being expressed about the horserace is that fact that the horserace is being covered to the exclusion of all else. There is no substantive media coverage of the issues -- it's all horserace, all the time. And that's bad.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | February 02, 2008 at 04:31 AM
Maybe it just says something about how the parties select their candidates.
being married to a president who happens to have been a genius and being a (half) black man who doesn't get weeded out by the system seems to be a better predictor of this sort of intelligence than being a rich businessman or a Vietnam vet/long term congressman or a whatever Huckabee is.
Posted by: GNZ | February 02, 2008 at 04:36 AM
Just another rewrite of a perennial, but still more true than not.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 04:39 AM
its funny, but i really did "enjoy" watching this debate, more than the rest combined.
i'm a big believer in letting as many different kinds of people get on the stage to run at the very beginning(hell, let there be fifty candidates!) but then once it starts shaking out, i wish more of them would get the hint and bow out.
i'm happy edwards dropped out when he did--this last debate would've been more of the same i think had he been there. i think it made both Obama and Clinton sharper.
Posted by: rob! | February 02, 2008 at 05:00 AM
Vindication and narcacism. Fantasy worlds. Kings and Queens. Camelot.
Kennedy. Peace Corps and Green Berets. Democrats. Civil rights. Minorities running for President. It's history.
Government employees. Agencies at Congress. Vindication and narcassim. It's federal service. Serving the country, but not in the military. Careers created and fantasies fulfilled. The US government does this for it's federal employees. Afghanistan is just a PC fantasy. It's not dems, but it is Camelot. NATO. Victoria Nuland and her career, falling apart as we watch. Vindication of narcassism. Plame. Vindication of mistakes. Fantasies for narcassistic jesters who use others lives to create their own Camelot.
The US is falling apart and the jesters are selling out their fantasies.
Who won't run? Jokers and entertainers.
Posted by: Viland | February 02, 2008 at 05:12 AM
The entire debate – certainly the most substantive one in my lifetime – was a collective advertisement for the Democratic Party. Whatever else it achieved, the clash of these Titans made the Republican field look small, petty, and tired.
And that last sentence really captures what's wrong with our politics today. Most progressive Democrats are perfectly satisfied so long as their party looks better than the Republicans. And they do. But that's a very, very low bar.
Clinton and Obama are nearly identical politically. Neither will even consider single-payer healthcare. Neither would dream of reducing our bloated defense budget or challenging the role of the military-industrial complex in our nation's life. Neither of them will call the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration what they are. Neither of them will speak semi-truthfully about the great class divisions in the U.S. as John Edwards was doing. Neither of them will even promise to be out of Iraq by 2013.
And yet because neither of them is promising to stay in Iraq for 100 years or to "double Guantanamo" we're supposed to feel good about them?
Posted by: Incontinentia Buttocks | February 02, 2008 at 06:32 AM
the clash of these Titans made the Republican field look small, petty, and tired.
Even David Brooks admited the same on News Hour last night.
And I'd have to agree with you on the statement about "armies of activists." They were the necessary ingredient for change to happen. And that's where I think Hillary's comment about MLK and LBJ missed the mark. She was right that it took a president to push and sign the bill, but Johnson wouldn't have been signing the bill if not for the hard and dangerous work done by a multitude of Civil Rights activists.
Posted by: tomeck | February 02, 2008 at 07:38 AM
I am a big fan of a single-payer health care plan and many other progressive issues that neither of the candidates we've got left have embraced. But I understand that if you come out of the gate talking about those things, you get laughed off the playing field. Universal health care in this country is going to happen gradually, because most people can easily be scared off by the word "socialism."
I was actually just remarking yesterday how much smarter and more compelling the Democratic candidates are. And you know, watching the early debates, the two of them were clearly the best back then, even with Mike Gravel yelling from one side and Bill Richardson overrunning his time on each question to interrupt them. They ARE the best two candidates.
Don't we all wish that this wasn't the primary, though? That our choice for president came down to a choice between Clinton or Obama? Damn, that'd be great.
Posted by: Sarah J | February 02, 2008 at 08:11 AM
because neither of them is promising to stay in Iraq for 100 years or to "double Guantanamo" we're supposed to feel good about them?
Good point and the answer is obviously "yes." Is there any doubt in your mind about that?
Clinton and Obama are already running a general election campaign where they want to get elected to be president of all the united states, not just the blue ones.
Political campaigns are not fought in a vacuum; you campaign to win against an opponent. If McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century or more, then god bless. Let's have an election and let the people decide.
Lastly I want to say that if Edwards was the candidate with the best ideas, that might be why he lost. Ideas don't "win." Candidates win. Ideas ignite the imagination and stimulate emotions. Emotions move people, they move people to vote for a candidate (or against another).
If Edwards lost because "they stole his ideas," then he wasn't a strong enough candidate to win in the first place.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan | February 02, 2008 at 08:22 AM
Marvelous post - thanks for helping us step back and take a longer & wider view. An excellent perspective. Have you also noticed how much the black & women issue has NOT been covered per se. That's an interesting indicator of progress. It's also an indicator of how much this election matters to people, especially younger voters. So are we at a cusp point where can return to focusing on substantive issues ?
Speaking of which let's give Edwards all due credit for forcing key issues and proposals onto the public agenda (as Krugman recently did). IMHO there are three critical factors that get tested: 1) Vision & Leadership, 2) Character and 3)Policy. A long sustained primary puts enormous pressures on the candidates and forces the person out from behind the personna which helps test #1 & #2. But neither Obama or Clinton have yet coupled a compelling vision to policies let along addressed the issues of workability.
FWIW these are issues I've been exploring on my blog as well.
Well done. Thank you.
Posted by: dblwyo | February 02, 2008 at 09:15 AM
Marvelous post - thanks for helping us step back and take a longer & wider view. An excellent perspective. Have you also noticed how much the black & women issue has NOT been covered per se. That's an interesting indicator of progress. It's also an indicator of how much this election matters to people, especially younger voters. So are we at a cusp point where can return to focusing on substantive issues ?
Speaking of which let's give Edwards all due credit for forcing key issues and proposals onto the public agenda (as Krugman recently did). IMHO there are three critical factors that get tested: 1) Vision & Leadership, 2) Character and 3)Policy. A long sustained primary puts enormous pressures on the candidates and forces the person out from behind the personna which helps test #1 & #2. But neither Obama or Clinton have yet coupled a compelling vision to policies let along addressed the issues of workability.
FWIW these are issues I've been exploring on my blog as well.
Well done. Thank you.
Posted by: dblwyo | February 02, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Wonderful post - I've been getting sick of reading all these posts about who won what and why, much of it sounding like any one of the pundits on TV that the blogosphere so often criticizes. I agree completely with the sentiments expressed here, and I can honestly say, I am proud to be american.
Posted by: jceo | February 02, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Who won't run? Jokers and entertainers.
ahem...
Posted by: cleek | February 02, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Publius:
Great post! Yeah, it could be all surface over substance but I'll take shiny and shallow over the mucky crap of the past month or so between Obama and Clinton.
I'm all for substance, but (he spreads his hands in front of him describing a panorama, palms out) without a little presentation, it was becoming a little gnarled, ingrown, and Republican.
Let's savor the moment.
P.S. "Armies of Katherines" Where's the first gig? After nearly 50 years in the studio, the band's CD release party is in early November. Then .... an 8-year tour.
Posted by: John Thullen | February 02, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Norm died getting Kofi over the oil for food.
He really should be President.
Posted by: DV | February 02, 2008 at 11:06 AM
And publius: this is a great post.
I have yet to watch a single debate, myself. This one sounds like one I should have seen. Generally, though, I find the format so infuriating that I end up throwing things at the TV set.
Posted by: hilzoy | February 02, 2008 at 11:21 AM
btw: La Opinion endorses Obama. This is big.
Posted by: hilzoy | February 02, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Don't we all wish that this wasn't the primary, though? That our choice for president came down to a choice between Clinton or Obama? Damn, that'd be great.
Considering the dwindling likelihood of the GOP candidate winning, isn't that essentially what it is?
Posted by: Sasha | February 02, 2008 at 11:59 AM
"Considering the dwindling likelihood of the GOP candidate winning, isn't that essentially what it is?"
No. That's over-confident and foolish. Things can change fast in politics, and events change things.
Neither do I see a Clinton/McCain contest as anything to relax about winning.
But regardless of the nominees, nothing is certain. Maybe a meteorite will blow up a city three weeks before the election, and suddenly the candidate with the best meteor-protection plan will be poised to win. Who knows?
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 12:04 PM
GF: "Maybe a meteorite will blow up a city three weeks before the election..."
You didn't hack NASA & NSF again did you, Gary?
About things changing fast in politics, why just a few months back...
And we all know what a good scandal can do to derail a candidacy.
Posted by: xanax | February 02, 2008 at 12:35 PM
And, criminy, the election isn't for nine months.
Not to mention, I've had a lifetime's fill of being assured that the Democrat was going to be a shoe-in this time.
I'm a former local delegate for Gary Hart. I remember vast confidence among huge numbers of Democrats that Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, would, with his logical and incisive mind, blow away the senile and rambling extremist Ronald Reagan in the general election. I remember plenty of people who thought Mondale could beat Reagan. I remember when Dukakis was the overwhelming favorite. I remember the wavelets for Bill Bradley, and Paul Tsongas (Tsongas won New Hampshire, beating Clinton, remember?; and Hart won in 1984; for that matter, Pat Buchanan won in 1996, as well).
So I don't have to go back to how Kerry was going to be a war hero knock-out to G. W. Bush, or to how Al Gore was going to crush the lightweight Texas governor. I have a longer memory than that.
I'll celebrate after Obama's sworn in, and that'll remain tentative for some time to come. For real confidence, get back to me after the end of his first, if not second, term.
I got some time to make up on this whole concept of political good news.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Universal health care in this country is going to happen gradually, because most people can easily be scared off by the word "socialism."
Nonsense. Heck, even Hillary Clinton disagrees with you on this. From the last debate:
But SarahJ's views on universal healthcare are entirely typical of the way progressive Democrats treat their own (supposed) political views. Progressives begin each campaign season by assuming that none of their actual core political beliefs are achievable and then ritualistically cut off their noses to spite their face by enthusiastically supporting yet another set of Wall Street Democratic militarists.
Compare this to conservatives, who in four short years between 2000 and 2004 managed to make support for torture a mainstream political position. Overton Windows don't move themselves.
You know what will guarantee that single payer will never happen? Refusing to propose it because it will never happen. The same go for sensible policies on drugs, poverty, the environment, the military, you name it.
This is why I never take seriously all the proud talk by progressives about reforming the Democratic Party. Not only are they not actually trying to reform the Democratic Party, they don't even believe in reforming the Democratic Party, because they simply assume that their own ideas can't win.
Posted by: Incontinentia Buttocks | February 02, 2008 at 01:23 PM
"btw: La Opinion endorses Obama. This is big."
Yeah, La Opinion's pissed off because Hillary backed away from supporting legislation to give illegals driver's licenses, and Obama in the debate supported the idea.
"...we were disappointed with her calculated opposition to driver's licenses for the undocumented, which contrasts markedly from the forceful argument in support made by Obama."
And once that's accomplished, I hope Obama will speedily back laws that require printing the info on the license in English and Spanish, to speed up the bi-lingual-ing of California, and the rest of the southwest, ASAP.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 02, 2008 at 03:23 PM
criminy - I finally agree with you on something…
So does Susan Estrich:
'In a year that feels like it should be bright Blue, the truth is that many Democrats I talk to are legitimately worried that, with either of the two candidates left in the race, we are venturing into the unknown, the black box of hidden prejudice and bias and Clinton-hating and racism, taking a chance at a time when the only way we could lose is by taking a chance. As a friend succinctly put it: This is the year for a safe white man. That is what Al Gore's supporters kept telling him, and why so many of them were so frustrated by his decision to sit out the race. A safe white man couldn't lose. Only a woman or a black could lose."
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 02, 2008 at 03:36 PM
"And once that's accomplished, I hope Obama will speedily back laws that require printing the info on the license in English and Spanish, to speed up the bi-lingual-ing of California, and the rest of the southwest, ASAP."
What's the link between driver's licenses and Spanish/English bilingualization, Jay? Can you expand?
As regards the licenses, is it your position that refusing to issue such licenses will keep illegal immigrants off the roads? Or is it your position that refusing to issue such licenses will lead to fewer deaths and more insured drivers?
Or do you feel that the increased number of people killed, and fewer insured drivers, are a worthwhile trade-off for not "sending a message"?
Since it's entirely possible you don't hold with any of that, what advantage do you believe makes it worthwhile to not issue licenses without proof of citizenship?
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 03:40 PM
"...that the Democrat was going to be a shoe-in this time."
"shoo-in," drat it. I don't know what a "shoe-in" would be.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 03:44 PM
What makes the horse race compelling is how MANY people care--& in a good way. democracy, baby.
but the dc press on crap like the "snub" drives me personally insane. What I enjoy most this week is the local coverage, especially the Obama rallies in Kansas & Idaho. Kennedy on El Piolin, too.
I have been a totally delinquent Obama supporter, but I am volunteering on the 5th.
Posted by: Katherine | February 02, 2008 at 03:59 PM
GF: " I don't know what a "shoe-in" would be."
A new episode of Sex And The City?
Posted by: xanax | February 02, 2008 at 04:02 PM
"A new episode of Sex And The City?"
Now you're just carrieing on. Don't make me have to read you your Miranda rights.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Samantha web you're spinning there, Charlotte.
Posted by: xanax | February 02, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Besides, who do you think you are, Mr. Big Shot?
Posted by: xanax | February 02, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Bravo IB.
I think it's worth reading again:
Progressives begin each campaign season by assuming that none of their actual core political beliefs are achievable and then ritualistically cut off their noses to spite their face by enthusiastically supporting yet another set of Wall Street Democratic militarists.
Compare this to conservatives, who in four short years between 2000 and 2004 managed to make support for torture a mainstream political position. (Or the way the Estate Tax became the Death Tax--nfs) Overton Windows don't move themselves.
You know what will guarantee that single payer will never happen? Refusing to propose it because it will never happen. The same go for sensible policies on drugs, poverty, the environment, the military, you name it.
Posted by: no fortunate son | February 02, 2008 at 04:33 PM
briefly, cause o'm on my way out to lunch:
I'm in favor of increasing bilingualization because I believe there's nothing we as a nation can do to prevent it. It's already a fait accompli here in California, and other southwestern states. And Hispanic migration will continue unabated for generations to come. I don't remember the specific percentages (I think you can find them at Pew) but coupled with the current inordinately high Hispanic birthrate they will probably comprise 30 or 40 percent of the U.S. population in the coming decades. But unlike previous immigrant languages that permeated neighborhoods in cities throughout the US during influxes of immigrate populations and then quickly evaporated from widespread use (you rarely hear Yiddish or German or Swedish or Polish spoken in public venues; or see storefront signs splashed in those languages; or newsstand shelves filled with their newspapers), those countries weren't contiguous to the US: there wasn't a continuous, unstoppable flow from any particular group that spoke a language other than English; and therefore none of those foreign languages ending up permeating our culture to the extent that Spanish now permeates the U.S.
Therefore, since Spanish is going to become more widespread in the decades ahead, you may as well capitulate to the inevitable. Comprendo? And after the Amnesty Bill is passed (the most likely candidates are all in favor of it) in addition to stipulating that those given Amnesty be encouraged to learn English, we need to pass legislation insisting that it be a prerequisite to High School graduation that all American students learn Spanish, so that they will be able to compete with bi-lingual Hispanics, who already far outnumber non-Spanish speaking Americans in almost every retail store, hospital, and government agency where they have to interact with the public here in L.A.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 02, 2008 at 05:12 PM
briefly, cause o'm on my way out to lunch:
I'm in favor of increasing bilingualization because I believe there's nothing we as a nation can do to prevent it. It's already a fait accompli here in California, and other southwestern states. And Hispanic migration will continue unabated for generations to come. I don't remember the specific percentages (I think you can find them at Pew) but coupled with the current inordinately high Hispanic birthrate they will probably comprise 30 or 40 percent of the U.S. population in the coming decades. But unlike previous immigrant languages that permeated neighborhoods in cities throughout the US during influxes of immigrate populations and then quickly evaporated from widespread use (you rarely hear Yiddish or German or Swedish or Polish spoken in public venues; or see storefront signs splashed in those languages; or newsstand shelves filled with their newspapers), those countries weren't contiguous to the US: there wasn't a continuous, unstoppable flow from any particular group that spoke a language other than English; and therefore none of those foreign languages ending up permeating our culture to the extent that Spanish now permeates the U.S.
Therefore, since Spanish is going to become more widespread in the decades ahead, you may as well capitulate to the inevitable. Comprendo? And after the Amnesty Bill is passed (the most likely candidates are all in favor of it) in addition to stipulating that those given Amnesty be encouraged to learn English, we need to pass legislation insisting that it be a prerequisite to High School graduation that all American students learn Spanish, so that they will be able to compete with bi-lingual Hispanics, who already far outnumber non-Spanish speaking Americans in almost every retail store, hospital, and government agency where they have to interact with the public here in L.A.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 02, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Speaking of learning Spanish, may I point out that "comprendo" is first person?
Posted by: Jim Parish | February 02, 2008 at 05:30 PM
It's already a fait accompli here in California, and other southwestern states
yup, from San Francisco to Los Angeles to San Diego, to Las Vegas, to Los Cruces, to Albuquerque, to El Paso to La Grange... the Spanish influence has been creeping in for a while now. ;)
Posted by: cleek | February 02, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Unfortunately for your argument, what you argue is not borne out by research. The linguistic assimilation of Spanish speaking immigrants to the US is as high as any of the groups you mention.
High immigration levels of the 1990s do not appear to have weakened the forces of linguistic assimilation. In other words, the incentives to convert to English monolingualism by the third generation do not seem to have changed. Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group during the 1990s, provide a compelling example. In 1990, 64 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children spoke only English at home. In 2000, the equivalent figure had risen to 71 percent. However, the level of English monolingualism dropped from 78 to 68 percent among third-generation Cubans between 1990 and 2000. link
Owing to the number and density of Spanish speakers in metropolitan Southern California, Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants retain a greater ability to speak their mother tongue very well compared to other groups, but, by the third generation at the latest, ability drops sharply and converges toward the pattern observed for white Europeans...Although the life expectancy of Spanish may be appreciably greater among Mexicans in Southern California, its ultimate demise nonetheless seems assured by the third generation. Like taxes and biological death, linguistic death seems to be a sure thing in the United States, even for Mexicans living in Los Angeles, a city with one of the largest Spanish-speaking urban populations in the world PDF PDF link
I believe the reason that Spanish continues to permeate our culture is that we have an underclass of people who we are unable to, for political reasons, grant the appropriate residency/citizenship. When placed in that situation, the logical response is to make damn sure you speak Spanish because you are constantly being threatened with deportation.
Unfortunately, suggesting that monolingual English speakers need to perhaps learn another language, and that they might have to accept that they will enter a linguistic situation where they are at a disadvantage is a threat to horrible to contemplate, which is why you see the reaction that you do.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | February 02, 2008 at 05:49 PM
"Hispanics, who already far outnumber non-Spanish speaking Americans in almost every retail store, hospital, and government agency where they have to interact with the public here in L.A."
It says here:
The first cite is to the census and the second also to the 2000 Census. A touch dated, to be sure, but not enough to support "far" outnumber.Without doubt, what you say is true of East LA. As regards Los Angeles as a whole, I invite your supporting cite (not to support a claim of Spanish-speakers outnumbering, but far outnumbering, and not in some of those locations but in "in almost every" location in all of Los Angeles).
As regards the claim that use of Spanish in the U.S. will increase, I won't argue. But you seem to be assuming that second, third, and fourth generation Hispanic immigrants won't, like all other immigrants before them, and following the studies of multi-generation Spanish-use in the U.S. that I'm aware of, take up using English as their primary or sole language. I'm unclear what proof there is to support such an assumption.
Pew:
Your turn.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 06:11 PM
"Hispanics, who already far outnumber non-Spanish speaking Americans in almost every retail store, hospital, and government agency where they have to interact with the public here in L.A."
It says here:
The first cite is to the census and the second also to the 2000 Census. A touch dated, to be sure, but not enough to support "far" outnumber.Without doubt, what you say is true of East LA. As regards Los Angeles as a whole, I invite your supporting cite (not to support a claim of Spanish-speakers outnumbering, but far outnumbering, and not in some of those locations but in "in almost every" location in all of Los Angeles).
Pt 2 next, to get around the spam filter, which rejected this comment.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Pt. 2: As regards the claim that use of Spanish in the U.S. will increase, I won't argue. But you seem to be assuming that second, third, and fourth generation Hispanic immigrants won't, like all other immigrants before them, and following the studies of multi-generation Spanish-use in the U.S. that I'm aware of, take up using English as their primary or sole language. I'm unclear what proof there is to support such an assumption.
Pew:
Your turn.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Small note about last night's debate:
So, y'know: more people paying attention than just us junkies.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 02, 2008 at 06:23 PM
The linguistic assimilation of Spanish speaking immigrants to the US is as high as any of the groups you mention.
A hearty yup to you! There's more continuity in the migration of people from Spanish-speaking countries; the reason you don't hear a lot of Swedish/German/Italian/whatever these days is that those migrations effectively stopped a while ago. You keep hearing Spanish because new native Spanish speakers keep moving here. They learn English with about the same success as earlier immigrant groups, and so do their kids.
Driver's licenses don't give anyone legal status to stay here, just the ability to secure insurance and be tested before driving. State issue, not federal.
Posted by: Cala | February 02, 2008 at 08:11 PM
publius, your post got me interested enough to watch the debate, something I have not had time to do in the last several months. Well, the first half. I'll try to find time to watch the rest soon. I was impressed, once again, by how much Hillary Clinton has improved as a politician since a few years ago. Warm, intense, confident -- she sounded Presidential. Very surprising.
I still think she can't overcome her pre-existing negatives in the general campaign. But if she becomes the candidate, I will support her with far fewer reservations.
As for Obama, he still stammers too much. It's nice to know he's thinking, but he ought to have some of these answers ready to roll off the tongue. Other than that, he's good.
Re policy -- the reason not to focus on policy is simple: the candidates themselves are hard-pressed to identify a policy difference. In fact, that was the first question in the debate, and it took them each about a full minute to explain the difference in the details of their respective health care plans. They didn't have much else to point to, either. Fact is, on policy these two are interchangeable for most purposes. They don't differ on anything very large or very core to their platforms, nothing they won't change if necessary.
That leaves us political junkies, even the policy wonks, focusing on personality/character and electability. As to those, I think Barack Obama has an edge, though not as big a one as I expected.
Posted by: trilobite | February 04, 2008 at 12:30 PM