The Charles I am responding to is Charles Riggs III who has a unique way to recalculate ALL the significant polls that come out. This morning he sees a significant shift that started Saturday and he expressed puzzlement as to why. My answer:
Good morning, I've only just recently gotten up so have a lot to catch up.
But, Charles, are you being intentionally dense? If you've been reading anything about recent brain studies, you know that it takes the brain a while to process new information, preferably during a good night's sleep.
Those of us who have been following the campaign since last May or June have had the chance to process everything many times over. There are all kinds of sorting categories in place, making the process faster.
Many people are meeting Dean as an idea for the first time. There is nothing to compare him to in their brain. Which is why all of that publicity about the scream was like mana from heaven. First there was name recognition, then there was specific information that was personally non-threatening and therefor aroused interest to find out more. Then people were presented with more information, most of which contradicted the first. Which meant that all of it had to be resorted.
Computers can do all this more efficiently--once the soft-ware has been written, tweaked, tested, and the information has been correctly submitted.
Once it gets going the human brain is much more efficient, but the initial steps have to be followed and a lot of "noise" and "clutter" has to be eliminated.
Not to mention that, much as we might like it, people do not react directly to an imput of information. Indeed, their reaction is just as likely to be indirect--a hated neighbor's dislike of Dean, for example, might speak in Dean's favor. Perhaps even louder than any thing Dean says himself. Sometimes people are motivated by events that have nothing to do with the object against which their behavior is directed. (We all know that some support Dean because they can't abide GWB)
The media response to Howard Dean is also a good example of the latter. While some of his positions may well be perceived by the media as threatening to their power base, at this point he has no power what-so-ever and the journalistic meme flows almost entirely from habitual behavior and ties to their corporate affiliation. Indeed, even when he is elected, the legislative changes that might directly affect corporate media interests will remain in the hands of their legislative minions. The only thing the executive can do is propose and carry out/or not legislative directives. The Bush administration is a good example where foot-dragging and specious interpetration are being used to resist doing what legislative directives have demanded. Redefining the components of industrial emmissions as non-pollutants is a recent example.
I think we are making a big mistake when we posit that the shrub doesn't know what he's doing. The administration is doing exactly what was promised to its supporters. People think bureaucratic jargon is mushy because they don't understand it. In fact, the jargon is very precise just because it is well understood that people will always be inclined to get around doing what they've been told, if they don't like the instructions. Everybody strives for autonomy, but that's no way to run a country.
Since I've run on so long anyway, let me just throw out a question I've been asking about the Patriot Act. Given its complexity and the short time between its presentation to Congress and its passage, what I want to know is by whom and when was this monstrosity actually compiled?
One of the generally overlooked but most negative consequences of our legislators' pursuit of finances to fund their next election is that they have no time to pay close attention, much less develop legislation. Not only do they not read what they are voting on most of the time, they don't understand the law's implications. If they don't know what they are doing, they obviously can't give direction to the executive. Thus the very foundation of our system of government is undermined, not because the legislators are beholden to the people who give them money, but because they do not know what they are doing and are therefor incapable of representing ANYONE effectively.
What do you want to bet that the Patriot Act was in the works just as long as the attack on Iraq--i.e. from the very beginning of the current administration. Executive privilege may keep us from finding out the time-line of the planning for war. The legislative history of the Patriot Act should be available to any legislator who asks.
Posted by Monica Smith at January 26, 2004 05:07 AM