1. So you blog. Why?
I think online communities are good at filling gaps in personal lives. Very few of my friends hold a common interest in the current affairs and social thought that interests me. It’s like if a Brit wanted to engage me about Premier League Soccer – I know nothing about it and have no interest in learning. But by coming to BMG I can scratch an intellectual itch without having to get new friends.
2. You’ve chosen a pseudonym on BMG. Any particular reason? And why “tblade“?
In a word, Google. I know if I hired people, I’d fish on Google beforehand just to see what turns up. There are plenty of people in the MA blogosphere as commentators and bloggers whose body of writing would make me think twice about hiring them. It’s not necessarily about political views – although if I perceive someone as a bigot it would be about views – it’s how I perceive that person’s ability to reason, gather facts and think critically.
And I’d expect the same standard to be applied to me. I bet there are people on BMG that would say “you know, looking at this guy on BMG, there’s no way I’d hire tblade for certain positions”.
Also, my mind changes. I leaned right and I supported the invasion of Iraq and said so online. I don’t want to have to defend something I wrote online 6 years ago that could be taken out of context and with which I don’t agree anymore. And I wouldn’t want a potential employer to use my political opinions, past or present, in evaluating me as a job candidate.
I want to remain as Google-anonymous as possible, but I do publish an email address on BMG, and for the most part I have no problem disclosing my real name. I just don’t want it searchable.
I use tblade because it’s a nickname I was given.
3. You’ve said that you’re not a registered Democrat. Yet your posts indicate a clear preference for that party. What message or messages from folks such as yourself does the Democratic Party need to understand?
I’m a hard core lefty, but Democrats won’t automatically get my vote and support just because there is a (D) next to their names.
It seems to me that Pelosi, Reid, and other Dem leaders have been inactive/ineffective either because, as Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi said, they are amongst the “biggest pussies in U.S. political history,” they’re phony, or they’re inactive because they feel keeping Bush in office unchecked will reap political gains in November 2008. In other words, by actually doing the right thing it could cost them votes.
One thing that would have attracted me to register as a Democrat would be if the Democratic Party leaders actually led. And if the third hypothesis ends up true, that they are placing partisan gains ahead of the country’s best interests, I want just as much a part of that as I do the ultra-partisan GOP. Machine politics are a big turnoff for me.
I have little faith in politics, and I’m more cynical than I choose to betray with my online persona. If the Democrats want me as a member, show me results.
4. I see that you embed a lot of visuals such as video and photographs in your comments and posts. Does blogging take enough advantage of the multimedia approach in conveying its messages?
Well, like everything there’s room for improvement. But the more free and open source stuff we can integrate into our information sharing, the better it will be. My traffic to the New York Times website has increased since they’ve gone totally free. Before, I’d use LexisNexus. I can’t wait for the day things like LexisNexus, the Oxford English Dictionary, television archives, etc. are open source.
Conversely, I expect to see YouTube-like videos and other bloggy-type apps available in newspapers and magazines within ten years.
There’s too much ingenuity and originality in everyday people not to make a level playing field of information and media.
5. What kind of long-term effect (if any) do you think this Obama v. Hillary sniping will have on the general election campaign?
It’s becoming personal between the supporters. When it becomes personal, people who support the candidate who doesn’t win become offended at the idea the other person won. My friend the Hillary supporter swings from preferring Hillary to disliking and resenting Barack. I don’t want to see a winner-take-all result in which the fervent Hillary supporters or the enthusiastic Obama supporters decide to sit out the campaign. These are two dynamic political machines that, if combined and focused on November. have potential to be a political juggernaut unlike any we’ve seen this generation. I have no doubt that one or the other could win the presidency without the other’s momentum, but a combined momentum will be more beneficial to the progressive movement as a whole and have more positive effects on getting other Democrats elected in congress and in local elections across the country.
Someone is going to lose. We need to foster an atmosphere of post-nomination good sportsmanship to make our agenda more achievable. The problem with charismatic leadership is that it obfuscates the movement. We on the left are united on issues like Iraq, healthcare, poverty, education, New Orleans, cleaning up our image abroad, etc. Let’s come back to earth and recognize no one person is bigger than the party. Neither candidate is that much better or that much worse to elicit such hard feelings for the opposing candidate. It’s Hillary vs. Obama, but people act as if it’s Leona Helmsley vs Barry Bonds.
6. Name two heroes…why them?
First hero is Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson hails from a Detroit ghetto, became a teenage father, working, fighting his way through with WIC, didn’t enter college until 21, was first a Baptist Minister and then went on to get his Ph. D. in religion from Princeton. But that’s not the main reason I like Dyson. This guy writes for popular audiences and scholars with books and essays on MLK, Malcolm X, Marvin Gaye, Black Women, Tupac Shakur, race relations, Bill Cosby, sexuality and homophobia in the Black church, hip hop, Whiteness, OJ, women and literature and so on. Aside from his work’s diversity, his prose is uniquely engaging. And, given that he is a Baptist preacher, his speaking style is sublimely captivating. He’s a brilliant rhetoritician who can quote the Bible, Donne, Tupac, Hegel, at the top of the hat while bringing fresh and convincing arguments to the table. People who read this guy will see things in ways they’ve never seen before. He sets my mind on fire.
My second hero is a controversial pick. And in fairness, he’s not that high on my list; there are many heroes I rank higher. I gotta say Kanye West here because it’s more interesting then the clichéd picks.
I know he behaves like an ass and I won’t defend all his behavior. I know people can’t stand him. Yet, while critics see that “crazy” Kanye West, I see passion to be envied. Passion exists in Kanye as a raw, unapologetic burn. This same burn that’s fueling Kanye’s visionary sound explodes and singes through his flesh. Kanye pursues the defense of his music with the tenacity of an addict desperate for a fix. Right or wrong, I wish I were as passionate and unafraid about my talents as Kanye West is about his. The people that succeed in life aren’t always the most talented, they are the most driven and most passionate.
7. What would be the top two things on your agenda as Massachusetts governor? How about president?
In my fantasy role as Gove
rnor, I’d want my legacy to be about bringing fairness to property taxes and fairness in education, from pre-school through post-graduate degrees. As president, I’d want to radically change the public education system and put the best, state of the art schools with the most innovative academic and extra-curricular programs in the poorest districts. I’d also reform college financial aid and fix the student loan crisis.
Of course I don’t have a plan for these nearly impossible ideas, but the beauty of a hypothetical is that you can define any parameters you want.
8. You’re a college student. Do you think the perception among politicians, and among the general population, of modern university education is accurate?
How do they perceive it, lol? Well, there are a lot of “spoiled” kids in college right now that expect their professors to bend over backwards to accommodate the students. One professor I had made us come to her office, pick up reading packets that we were to make photo copies of, and return the copies for others to do the same. She did this in lieu of making students purchase a $60 anthology, but students still complained “why didn’t she scan these documents to a .pdf so we could just download them?” Talk about ungrateful.
So if their perception is that college students feel entitled and want to be coddled – their perception is often, yet no always, accurate.
On the other hand, UMass Boston is underrated for its bright and hungry talent fighting their way into the work force and top-notch grad programs/fellowships.
9. What are some things that you do when not blogging?
School and part-time jobs first and foremost. I love HBO’s “The Wire” on TV and wish everyone would go out and rent the series. I like to bike in the good weather but I’m not dedicated enough to go year-round. Other than that, reading and trying new beers.
10. On tblade’s “list of recommended blogs and books”, we’d find…
Online: Crooks and Liars is a lot of fun. Soul Sides is a great music blog for fans of old-school soul and funk and the hip-hop it inspired. I came to BMG through Adam Gaffin’s Universal Hub. I’ve been lurking/posting on Adam’s sites (starting with his boston-online.com) for over 10 years.
Books: lefty types should pick up MLK’s Testament of Hope. I also enjoyed Sylvia Plath’s Ariel, Michael Patrick McDonald’s All Souls, Guns Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond, the play “Fences” by August Wilson, Tufts’ professor Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell, and loved the French version of Camus’ The Stranger, but I don’t know if it is as good in English. [Ed note: It isn’t.]
10 1/2. Lightning round: A. Favorite flavor of ice cream? B. Word you have the hardest time spelling? C. #1 person who should be banned from public life? D. Favorite insult? E. Last purchase you made?
A.) JP Licks’ Coffee Oreo
B.) Necessarily
C.) Benny Hinn
D.) Reality-challenged *uck-wit
E.) Cadbury Cream Egg (why are they so small now?)
<
p>You’ve got it backwards. If you want to see results, get involved. Registering as a Democrat lets you participate in things like state conventions and town committee meetings where you can influence other party members. The Democrats aren’t some “other” you have to observe from the sidelines until “they” do what you want; the Democrats are an organization of people who have similar values and does what those people make it do. If you share those values, you ought to be part of that organization. Waiting on the sidelines is less effective.
<
p>….. it is letting both sides know they speak for less and less of Americans and hopefully will be a wake up call for the moderates of both parties to jump ship and form one in the middle.
<
p>It is an absurd notion that only two parties can speak for all the voices in a democracy.
Cos’s point – that it’s less effective. Being turned off by the political process makes you more likely to be ignored than listened to, especially when people on the town committees and state committees and volunteering for campaigns/running for office are getting to actually decide how things work.
My experience is Political Parties don’t want to see it.
<
p>Besides it is Independents that will decide the next president not the Dems or the GOP. That is a lot of influence in my book
The letter attached to someone’s name isn’t really all that important. There is no Independent Movement in this country. Most Independents tend to vote one way or the other, so whether they’re officially a member of that party or not, campaigns know exactly how to target them – just as they would an official member of their party. Also, keep in mind that Independents are often less in tuned and vote less frequently… and, for certainly, aren’t represented in electoral politics (if there’s 5 independents elected to the US Congress/Senate, I’d be mildly surprised and perhaps shocked).
this idea that “such and such a group” will decide the election.
<
p>White people will decide the election.
People over 29 will decide the election.
Right handed people will decide the election.
Women will decide the election.
Native English speakers will decide the election.
Heterosexuals will decide the election.
People making under $200,000 a year will decide the election.
People who own at least one car will decide the election.
<
p>Every person who votes will have 1/n influence over the outcome for his state’s electoral votes. This idea that one particular subgroup decides the election presumes that the remaining people don’t get to decide their own votes. I find that rather insulting and quite nonsensical.
but one large identifiable group goes 90/10, then you can say that group decided the election.
… neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have enough registered in their parties (the point of this thread) that they will decide the outcome. This will leave all of us who are active but chose to be not affiliated to make up the difference of who wins whether we are black, white, brown, straight, gay, male, female, 18 or 81. What we are is neither Republican nor Democrat and someday as membership continues to stagnate the moderates of both parties will wake up and realize that Socially Progressive but Fiscally Conservative is the most under represented group in the country and come together to form the party in the middle.
But I’m not active in politics and have no current plans to be active. If I were to become active in politics, I’d probably register as a Democrat.
<
p>Another reason I don’t register is because I have a deep philosophical disagreement with the two-party system. I don’t think it’s working, so I feed the beast as little as possible. I think it is a good idea for people who are active in politics to be registered, the people apart of town state party committees, the people who show up to the conventions, the people who are always at candidate forums, the people who are involved. I would like to see the people that are like myself, who show up to the polls every two years (sometimes I show up for city council races – if I remember that they’re being held) divest from the party.
<
p>I do agree with what your saying. I just don’t fancy my self as someone actively involved with politics beyond my online participation. But I am thankful there are progressives who do believe enough in their causes to make the Democratic party better.
… party system is likely an inevitable side effect of a one-man, one-vote, non-parliamentary republic. If true, then there is no need to worry about feeding the beast since the only thing that will likely ‘starve’ it is some kind of alternate voting system such as preferential voting.
…if there is the option of reforming the parties. I don’t know how it would work, but it seems that every single issue is politicized and the parties have to make a position on it. I wish, like in other countries, some issues were declared – I forget the real term – neutral and neither party took a stance on it. That way people could work on stuff across the aisles with out voting down party lines.
<
p>Gov Schwarzenegger’s California health care bill (killed by the CA senate) was approved by the CA Assembly with every single Republican voting against it. Maybe the bill sucked, but I highly doubt everyone that happened to think the bill was good was a Dem and everyone who think it sucked was a Republican. I’m not saying that declaring healthcare non-partisan would have changed things, but the way the two-party system works now it seems as if it prevents far too many good and competent legislators from voting their conscience and their districts’ best interests in favor of party solidarity.
When you’re not a part of a party, or actively seeking to become so. I think you should give it a shot: there are lots of great local candidates out there and we need to get them elected. Many of them will even do strange things like vote their conscience. Go forth and be the change you want.
A point I didn’t make myself clear on above is that I shouldn’t have said “reform the parties”, rather I should have said I want to see reform of the two party system – reforming the way both parties doe business with each other and do business for the people, not just reforming the party to which one belongs from within. I agree that I could, if active, work for the change I want to see. And I am partly to blame for my own inaction.
<
p>Still, I don’t believe in the current two party system and I don’t believe in the national Democratic party. There are Democrats in whom I believe. There are big D Democratic ideals in which I believe. But I’m not sold on the idea that the parties do the people’s work.
<
p>It’s a difficult intellectual trick to get me to invest myself into something that I strongly disagree with.
I’d suggest staying out of party politics and instead getting involved with individual campaigns you really care about.
… that united front tactics are a natural byproduct of a two-party system. It’s no surprise either that the party that seems to do it better seems to have an easier time holding on to power despite polling data that indicate that they are on the wrong side of so many issues.
<
p>Further reading: Off Center by Jacob S. Hacker and, Paul Pierson. This amazon reviewer gives a pretty good breakdown.
…whereas parliamentary systems have multiple parties, our system has primaries, and for exactly this reason. I once heard someone say that in a parliamentary system the Democratic Party would probably be five different parties. Then they would have to form an ad hoc coalition each time if they had any hope of governing. In parliamentary systems, including the UK’s which is effectively two-party, the leadership in parliament hand picks the candidate based on party loyalty. (Think about that next time anyone is tempted to gripe about superdelegates.) In our system anybody with Green sympathies, for example, stands a much better chance of running in a Democratic primary than being on the general election ballot separately. Also, the parties are polarized precisely because the liberal activists vote in the Democratic primaries and conservative activists vote in the Republican primaries. If more moderates chose the major party with which they most closely agree and voted in primaries the vital center would develop and hold on its own.
or Libertarian or whatever. You don’t have to vote that way in a general election, but padding their numbers will help those parties get on the ballot with fewer hurdles, and gain traction with their issues.
Philosophically, I’m against libertarianism in the current, modern US . I think libertarianism works great for raural areas where everyone is starting with approximately the same amount of land, wealth and resources, but I don’t think it works across the whole US. And I don’t want to be associated with Mass Green-Rainbow’s Palistine/Isreal ideas that they inserted into their platform.
This was my favorite part:
<
p>
<
p>For myself, even though I support Obama I will certainly support Clinton if she wins the nomination. Both Obama and Clinton are miles better than McCain.
And I thin a few Hillary or Obama supporters will sit out election day. But it be a shamed to have a high volume of sour grapes voters when we could have a high volume of people who are positive and passionate about the dem ticket and who talk to their friends and co-workers with enthusiasm, possible motivating people who would vote Dem otherwise.
I just got back from a coupla days in Vermont (funny story, ended up meeting the governor while there, sporting my HIllary button and all), so sorry I haven’t replied.
<
p>This answer really stood out at me too, and I should probably put it on my desktop for the next month. Also, as petr says, neither one is “going away” anytime soon.
<
p>Thanks to tblade for being such a sport, and thanks to the folks who’ve given me their contact info. But please, let me know if interested. I hesitate to name names of people I’d like to “talk” with for fear of playing favorites. However, you best believe that I have a list…and I will start publicly pursuing people soon! (hints: snvrihke, cneeeuprtpoi, ruella, and eutnrihbsabnbe)
…to give this post a recommendation since it’s about me?
<
p>Anyway, thanks sabutai for taking the time to do this; great idea. It was fun. I look forward to reading about other BMGers.
I don’t recall a post so highly recommended as this one.
thanks for the post, tblade (and the questions, Sabutai)
<
p>The phrase “Someone is going to lose,” is, it seems to me, the pivot around which the melee turns. And not in the way you think…
<
p>Other than some excess fatigue and a probably quite overwhelming learning experience, neither candidate will, in any way be personally diminished nor lacking.
<
p>What ‘loss’ is suffered here? Will they be poor afterwards? Hardly. Will people stop taking them seriously? I doubt it. Where are they diminished?
<
p>Senators before, they’ll either be President or Senator after. The rather rank elision of public service in favor of some personal prize to be gained is distasteful to me. As the man said “If you’re not good enough without it, you’ll never be good enough with it…”
<
p>Unfortunately for both parties, since Reagan, the person has indeed been bigger than the party. This is the central reality of politics today. George Bush is SO MUCH bigger than the party that he can trump the parties wishes AT WILL. Nothing he has done has been, at all, in keep with basic Republican principles. And the party worships him for it. In this instance, the party is just apparatus for the person: not a party that is too strong, but one that is not strong enough. You can trace that back to Reagans’ “Eleventh Commandment”.
<
p>On the flip side, Democrats are excorciated for being fractious, contentious, disagreeable and bumptious… Sounds like a real party to me. Not so long ago, and for most of the history of the Republic, Republicans could be described thus as well… It’s actually the norm in a Democracy and the environment in which the party system evolved. It’s not, per se, a bad thing. Republicans must, if the Republic is to be saved, return to acting like the Democrats. Democrats must not, under any circumstances, continue to try and act like the Republicans…
<
p>This goes to the larger point: it’s clear to most people here that if a Democrat doesn’t win, we all lose. And not because the Democrats are automatically better, but precisely because the Democrats are fractious, contentious, deisagreeble and bumptious. They’re the real democrats here and no one person nor personality can trump that. Republicans, right now, are vaccilating somewhere between monarchists and fascisti. That’s been clear since Dec ’00.
<
p>Because of this we keep losing ground. And not just the ‘we’ on the left, but the honest and earnest voters on the right as well. It’s not their fault they’ve been lied too… And it speaks to a basic decency of character (however naive) that many are unwilling to believe that they’ve been lied to… Such is the foundation of dictators since the word was coined. But even the conservatives who know, in their deepest hearts, that they’ve been lied to, and approve out of some machiavellian pride and hunger, have lost. When the worm turns, it’ll turn on them too…