Category: Politics

Clams for Casinos

I’m not a gambler. I do have some money in mutual funds; I participate in a bragging-rights-only football pool; and at Christmas each year I buy a few lottery tickets to use as stocking-stuffers. If I tried gambling, I suspect that I’d enjoy it; and with my lack of willpower, within a few months I’d be living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.

But I have plenty of friends who love gambling. When the spirit moves them, they head off to Windsor, Erie, Kentucky, the Argosy, or Mountaineer–anywhere but Ohio–and they take their money with them. That’s part of the reason why I’ll be voting for Issue 6.

The other reason is that I really dislike the deception that’s being practiced by Issue 6 opponents. I don’t have a moral opposition to gambling, but I can respect those who do. What I can’t respect are the deceptive practices of the organized opposition, which is funded primarily by the owners of the casinos I mentioned earlier. They’ve exploited voter ignorance (never in short supply) with their argument that Issue 6 contains sneaky loopholes.

The reason we have to vote on Issue 6 is that it’s a constitutional amendment, not a piece of legislation. The reason it needs to be a constitutional amendment is that Ohio’s constitution now prohibits most gambling. The amendment would permit the passage of a state law permitting a casino, and sets some of the rules for that law.

In other words, if Issue 6 passes, it won’t create a single new casino. The next political battleground would be the state legislature, and any resulting legislation would require approval of a governor who opposes gambling.

The supposed “loopholes” the opponents are quacking about are actually items left for the legislation to deal with. If the amendment were to deal with all of them, it would have to be longer than the existing state constitution.

So I’ll vote for Issue 6. Partly I’ll do so because I’d like to see some of that money staying in Ohio, and it would be nice to attract some high-rollers from neighboring states. I’ll also be voting for Issue 6 to cast a vote against the deceptive practices of the out-of-state casino owners who are fighting against the development of any Ohio competition.

But maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on them. Even if gambling isn’t bringing out-of-state money into Ohio, at least this advertising campaign is.

Prejudice by Another Name

I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink! It reinforced what psychologists have been saying for years: sometimes we aren’t even aware of the reasons for our decisions. Gladwell writes about times when we make decisions literally within the blink of an eye. Evidently, those judgments sometimes turn out to be as accurate as those on which we spend a lot of time. (Or, as my former teaching colleague Jerry says, “When you study long, you study wrong.”)

This article is about what I believe is a form of prejudice. This is an area which I think it’s best to approach with humility: those of us who have our favorites in this Presidential campaign may have made up our minds months or even years ago for reasons we’ll never know. I’m pretty sure that the reasons why I’m supporting a white candidate have nothing to do with her race; but if Gladwell is right, I may never be sure.

It’s tempting to take the position that our true motives are unknowable, so any time spent on knowing them is time wasted; but I think we have an intellectual and moral responsibility to try to understand our motives. And I think that’s especially important for Democrats this year because the sex and race of the candidates are more important in this primary than they have ever been before.

This phenomenon is being called “identity politics.” The Web site dictionary.com quotes the American Heritage Dictionary as defining identity politics as “political attitudes or positions that focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” (It’s worth a trip to Wikipedia for more on this phenomenon.)

I must confess to some discomfort when I hear Hillary Clinton’s supporters pointing out how wonderful it would be to elect the first woman to the White House. To me, that was never much of an argument, and I’m equally unimpressed by the equivalent argument being made by Barack Obama’s supporters. Both arguments are appeals to identity politics.

Earlier in the primary when several white male candidates were still running, if supporters had ever suggested voting for one because he is a white male, observers would rightly have condemned the suggestion as racist and sexist. But political leaders and regular citizens alike say openly that they’re supporting Clinton because she’s a woman or that they’re supporting Obama because he’s black. Allegedly that’s identity politics and it’s OK, but to me it’s just prejudice by another name.

I wrote in a previous post that our challenge is to vote for the person we believe will make the best President. We can honorably reach different conclusions about whether that’s Clinton or Obama, but I think we are obliged, to the extent that it’s possible, to make that judgment independent of the sex and race of the candidate.

As someone who is neither black nor female, I hope a final observation will be appropriate. To me at least, it is clear that being a woman has been a far greater burden to Clinton’s campaign than being black has been to Obama’s. I have never heard anyone suggest that Obama’s race makes him unfit for the Presidency, but I have heard plenty of people suggest that Clinton’s sex is an obstacle. If she appears sensitive, she’s weak; if she appears tough, she’s a lesbian. Obama hasn’t had to contend with anything remotely like it. I have a friend who believes that many white voters who tell pollsters that they would vote for a black candidate actually won’t. He may be right, and racism may hide below the surface. But evidently sexism doesn’t have to stay below the surface: it can be indulged in openly and without penalty.

The implication–and it comes as a surprise to me–is that at this point in our journey as a society, sex is a far more potent political force than race.

This historic primary has revealed things about us that we might prefer to have kept secret; but we’re better off for knowing them, and we’ll be better off if we can acknowledge them honestly, openly, and fairly.

We’re Electing a President

I have a lot of friends (and at least one family member) supporting Barack Obama for President. That’s their right, and if the Illinois Senator becomes the Democratic nominee I’ll be happy to support him against either of the Republican candidates.

I went through a period of indecision, but everything became clearer when I realized that my choice was actually pretty simple. The choice we all face is simple and yet profound. Our responsibility is to vote for the person who will make the best President. Period.

  • We can’t vote on the basis of who’s more electable. To do so is to allow our political adversaries to make our decision for us.
  • We can’t be swayed by the chance to be “a part of history.” Any Presidential election makes history, and everyone who votes is part of that history. (I’ll write later about “identity voting,” which I think is simply prejudice dressed in political correctness.)
  • It doesn’t matter which candidate is perceived as more likable. Millions of people thought they liked George Bush more than Al Gore or John Kerry: how’s that working out?
  • Without attention to where it’s heading, why it’s important, and how it’s to be accomplished, “change” is an empty promise.
  • Substance is more important than style. Rhetoric is valuable only when employed to communicate a meaningful message. The best speaker isn’t always the best President.
  • Even the ability to run a good campaign seems to be a poor predictor of success in office. Bush ran a better campaign than Gore or Kerry, but has been a disaster in office.

Most of the people I know who are supporting Obama seem to be doing so for one of the reasons I’ve just listed; I seldom hear anyone suggest that he’s more qualified or that his positions on issues are superior to Clinton’s.

I’ll readily concede that Republicans and independents hate Clinton more than Obama and that he seems sincere and likable, promises “change,” makes great speeches, and has run a fabulous campaign. None of that matters, because on the basis of her experience and the substance of her proposals, Hillary Clinton offers a greater likelihood of success as President.

That means that she deserves–and gets–my vote.