Political Roundup: Superdelegates and Oratory
* Clinton’s campaign is setting the stage for a protracted battle, at least publicly. In the link, her campaign manager claims she will have a delegate advantage by around June 7th, the end of primary season. The campaign is also fighting a battle in the media about the role of superdelegates, both arguing that they should exercise their own judgment (i.e. not mirror the wishes of voters, who have given Obama an edge so far) and that they shouldn’t be called superdelegates but rather “automatic delegates” because…I honestly forget.
I agree in principle with them that superdelgates should exercise their own judgment. That’s the whole raison d’etre for superdelegates. In the “should have though of this beforehand” category though, if the superdelegates actually selected a party candidate with significantly less popular support, the rift would severely damage the party, making one wonder why superdelegates exist in the first place.
* People have an intuitive but misleading idea that you can’t be a good orator and knowledgeable about policy at the same time. It’s the same thought process behind the idea that a gorgeous woman can’t be brilliant, or a professional sports player can’t be intelligent. What’s the basis for this idea? I believe it’s primarily two concepts: limited focus and necessity. Expert skill takes many years to develop, so we assume that the star running back doesn’t have the time or resources to become well-read, and since he’s already successful in one area, what’s his motivation anyway? If you are gorgeous, the thinking goes, sure you can become thoughtful and well-read, but you don’t need to because you can get by on your looks. So why bother?
A third reason is that there is no overlap between the skills of policy wonk and orator, so it’s more difficult to believe the same person can possess those two skills. In contrast, it would be easier to picture a construction worker skilled working on cars rather than one talented in writing poetry, although if you think about it, are there really any skills in common between building a house and working on a car, besides being able to lump both of them in the category of “manual labor”?
Related to all of this is the Academy Awards. Seriously. Comedies almost never win Best Picture at the Academy Awards, if one is even nominated at all. For most people, moments of happiness or light-heartedness are fleeting, and the rest of the time is spent in a neutral or negative emotional state. We then engage in temporal reasoning and conclude that because pleasant moments are rare and fleeting, and make up a small fraction of our experiences, they are outliers and not “real life”. In other words, anything that makes you feel good can’t have lasting meaning, because we can’t help defining “meaningful feelings” as the ones that stay with us the longest. If one believes that a Best Picture needs to say something meaningful about life, it becomes easy to dismiss any comedy solely for being a comedy. Here’s some advice for any comedy trying to win a Oscar for Best Picture: don’t be too funny, and make sure to include some depressing moments as well.
The dynamics of inspiring rhetoric are different from those governing movies like “Juno”, but what they face in common is an almost insurmountable suspicion of the value of anything that is fleeting and makes one feel good. It’s a justifiable suspicion in many cases, like eating junk food or a juicy hamburger, but not always, and that’s what most people don’t get. Something can make you feel good and have deep value as well.