Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Do you sodomize your wife?
Defect always wins over cooperate strategies
Last week I was watching a debate show where a (Swedish) labor party secretary (Marita Ulvskog) argued that labor union members who are working in the public sector ought to have a raise in their minimum wage (from today's standard of $13 an hour for anyone whithout a post high-school education). The reporter kept asking her how a country like Sweden would be able to afford such a raise for all employed in the public sector and the inevitable reply from the former cabinet member was to "raise taxes". Then came the blow. The reporter asked "How much do you earn?". "$150 000 a year", came the reply. "And how much are these publicly employed women worth?". "Well", Ulvskog hesitated "they are of course worth $150 000 a year too."
This is great! A politician who is called on her own salary in comparison to people who actually carry out a job in the public sector is a great bait for journalists. If they are willing to push the politician far enough (most journalists are afraid to get bad blood running).
When politics becomes micro-political, up close and personal, some of the policies are sometimes hard to discuss.
And the lesson we learn in political communication is - Attack is always the best defense! A politician might go on and on about the value of the publicly employed, unqualified jobs that someone needs to take care of et cetera. But calling a politician on what this really means opens up for a whole new perspective - where we can clearly see that he or she is not being very truthful, or honest in their assessment. A former cabinet member, like Mrs. Ulvskog above, clearly cannot present a valid case where she can argue that Sweden ought to pay $150 000 for a cleaning lady in a public school. Furthermore, it proves that she feels awkward about the salary she is making as a pro-politician while at the same time advocating high income taxes for everyone in Sweden - most of whom earn a lot less than she does.
And the attack (or in Game theory terminology - defect) alternative works just as well against journalists. CBS did the same kind of stunt on the 1992 Republican convention where they chased journalists around the convention floor to ask them if they had ever committed adultery (watch real-media clip here). Dan Rather is among the interviewed - and he was of course ... ducking. When journalists are faced with the same questions they hand out to politicians they aren't so willing to cooperate anymore. Public policies as well as journalist ethics definitely becomes more interesting on a personal level.
Sodomy and you
Last month, Antonin Scalia came to NYU Law School and in a seminar room packed with law students he was faced with the same kind of question as he advocated would be a proper way to confront homosexuals about their private lifes (i.e. the argument behind his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick concerning the the nation's sodomy laws). One student simply asked the Supreme Court justice: "Do you sodomize your wife?" The microphone was ripped from the hands of the student but the question was already out there, and Scalia couldn't run away. The student later defended his question on his blog. The Nation has a story on it here.
The moral of the story: When journalists or members of the public are defecting - when they are in fact confronting politicians or public officials about their lip-service principles - then the attacked better know his principles, and stand by them. You can have any private morals you want. But if you try to make them public morals, like Scalia (and Mrs. Ulvskog above) has done - you better realize that you will have to defend not only your principles but also your personal life.
And like always - if you think that old morals will remain a social glue in society you better realize that you're fighting a lost cause. And that you're going to lose. And that it's going to hurt. A lot.
Last week I was watching a debate show where a (Swedish) labor party secretary (Marita Ulvskog) argued that labor union members who are working in the public sector ought to have a raise in their minimum wage (from today's standard of $13 an hour for anyone whithout a post high-school education). The reporter kept asking her how a country like Sweden would be able to afford such a raise for all employed in the public sector and the inevitable reply from the former cabinet member was to "raise taxes". Then came the blow. The reporter asked "How much do you earn?". "$150 000 a year", came the reply. "And how much are these publicly employed women worth?". "Well", Ulvskog hesitated "they are of course worth $150 000 a year too."
This is great! A politician who is called on her own salary in comparison to people who actually carry out a job in the public sector is a great bait for journalists. If they are willing to push the politician far enough (most journalists are afraid to get bad blood running).
When politics becomes micro-political, up close and personal, some of the policies are sometimes hard to discuss.
And the lesson we learn in political communication is - Attack is always the best defense! A politician might go on and on about the value of the publicly employed, unqualified jobs that someone needs to take care of et cetera. But calling a politician on what this really means opens up for a whole new perspective - where we can clearly see that he or she is not being very truthful, or honest in their assessment. A former cabinet member, like Mrs. Ulvskog above, clearly cannot present a valid case where she can argue that Sweden ought to pay $150 000 for a cleaning lady in a public school. Furthermore, it proves that she feels awkward about the salary she is making as a pro-politician while at the same time advocating high income taxes for everyone in Sweden - most of whom earn a lot less than she does.
And the attack (or in Game theory terminology - defect) alternative works just as well against journalists. CBS did the same kind of stunt on the 1992 Republican convention where they chased journalists around the convention floor to ask them if they had ever committed adultery (watch real-media clip here). Dan Rather is among the interviewed - and he was of course ... ducking. When journalists are faced with the same questions they hand out to politicians they aren't so willing to cooperate anymore. Public policies as well as journalist ethics definitely becomes more interesting on a personal level.
Sodomy and you
Last month, Antonin Scalia came to NYU Law School and in a seminar room packed with law students he was faced with the same kind of question as he advocated would be a proper way to confront homosexuals about their private lifes (i.e. the argument behind his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick concerning the the nation's sodomy laws). One student simply asked the Supreme Court justice: "Do you sodomize your wife?" The microphone was ripped from the hands of the student but the question was already out there, and Scalia couldn't run away. The student later defended his question on his blog. The Nation has a story on it here.
The moral of the story: When journalists or members of the public are defecting - when they are in fact confronting politicians or public officials about their lip-service principles - then the attacked better know his principles, and stand by them. You can have any private morals you want. But if you try to make them public morals, like Scalia (and Mrs. Ulvskog above) has done - you better realize that you will have to defend not only your principles but also your personal life.
And like always - if you think that old morals will remain a social glue in society you better realize that you're fighting a lost cause. And that you're going to lose. And that it's going to hurt. A lot.
