Which One Is Ed?

I have finished reading The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker and have been recommending it to the few of my friends I think might read it. Pinker convinces me that violence has declined and he convinces me about the reasons it has declined. Neither my view of human nature nor of our future are the same as they were before I read the book.

The two most immediate concepts impacted for me: political correctness and the evolving sense of decency. The evolving sense of decency will take a little more work, so I'll comment on political correctness.

I have for the most part viewed what we call political correctness as an irritating interference with free expression: Who cares if I say "stewardess" or "flight attendant?" (Apparently a lot of people). I heard a slight quibble this weekend over the use of "Comanches" as a sort of a mascot for a professional organization. The organizer who liked the name because it was Texan and Native American argued that the name was being honored and not ridiculed. The politically correct objector said we should not use any racial or ethnic monikers because it promotes stereotyping. I'm not sure who wins this in the long run, but after reading Pinker's book, it occurs to me the advocate of the name may be dating himself (and me, since it sounded fine to me) whereas the PC objector may be right about where we are going in society.

When I was in high school, it was perfectly polite to make fun of homosexuals. I did not hear the word "gay" used in that sense until later. Then, I thought a perfectly good word (Like the Gay Nineties) had been ruined. Much the same about jokes about violence against women. A man would discipline his wife, much in the way of Kate in "The Taming of the Shrew." Cruelty to animals was much more acceptable when I was young, now it leads to Dahmerism.

Now, these things have changed. And violence has also plummeted. Pinker makes a connection. If he is right, good riddance to bad jokes and welcome PC. We can call the group The Fat Old White Men Pretending to be Young and Energetic Like a Band of Plains Indians Warriors.

Dano dreams about the Newt

I had been a steadfast believer that Newt Gingrich was politically dead, and even when it became apparent that he would be the next in line after Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain to have a bubble that seemed to threaten Romney, I initially assumed that his bubble would burst on the basis of his massive negative political baggage. For the first time, today, I am beginning to entertain the thought the Newt may actually get nominated. There are a few reasons for this. First, the Rupert Murdoch machine seems to be for him. Fox News is treating Romney harshly and Newt with kid gloves. The Wall Street Journal editorial board seems to be pro-Gingrich. That Murdoch machine is very powerful in the R selection process. The entire Republican family gathers around Fox every night. On the other hand, I still think the R electorate is having amnesia about Newt's history. Some people say, "well, everyone knows about all that stuff." But it is hard to over estimate the stupidity of the American electorate. I think the R voters have forgotten most of it, and Newt still remains vulnerable to someone exploiting it effectively against him. Nonetheless, his lead, at the moment, is large. In Florida, the biggest state which votes in January, three polls showed him with 42%, 47% and 50% in quick succession. All those still have Cain showing up in the teens (Romney in upper teens), and if you assume that Cain withdraws or completely implodes, those figures for Newt go to about 50, 55, and 60. Now, those numbers are, quite frankly, staggering. Maybe he has a fall in his near future, but it is going to have to be a very long, large fall. Of course, when the states start voting, the states farther down the list are affected by the earlier voting states. Right now, regarding the first two, it looks like Newt in Iowa and Romney in NH, although Mitt is only slightly ahead in NH, which is a tailor-made state for him. If that's how it comes out, then it would seem that South Carolina (the other January state) and Florida will feel free to vote as they choose. Now, if Mitt somehow wins in Iowa, which seems unlikely now, and then adds a win in NH, he might stop the Newt surge and get a bandwagon effect. I guess that has to be his goal.In all the head to heads I have seen pairing Obama against Newt or Mitt, respectively, Obama does about 6 points better against Newt. That seems believable to me, and, as I have said, I do not think the other candidates have sufficiently exploited Newt's weaknesses, as of now, and so that number could get wider. Obama is running anti-Romney ads in the primary states, in effect,trying to help the non-Romneys, or, perhaps, just Gingrich. They do that sort of thing a lot in California. I have not seen it here or nationally before, but California has perfected the art of one party's candidate invading the other's primary to try to influence it. Of course, Romney is making the obvious point to the voters--Obama does not want him to be the nominee--but I am not sure the voters are sufficiently sophisticated to realize what is happening. So, a perfect storm seems to be gathering around Romney. Before today, I never wavered in my expectation that he would be the R nominee. Now, I think there is substantial doubt.