David J. Williams

There’s a line out there, and McCain/Palin have crossed it. Calling the Democratic candidate unprepared for office is one thing, but whipping up the faithful into a frenzy where cries of “terrorist” and “kill him!” aren’t even being challenged by those at the podium is quite another. And as McCain continues to flounder in the polls, the mood among his supporters is turning so nasty that the press aren’t even being allowed to interview folks at rallies.

The really disquieting thing about all the rhetoric is that it doesn’t actually seem to be working from a tactical perspective.  It galvanizes the die-hards, but it may even be accelerating the shift of swing voters to the Democrats.  The question, then, is why it’s continuing.  There may be no rationale; it’s entirely possible that the campaign is locked into its own rage at this point.  The Rovian schoolyard bully/frat-boy mindset is not one that’s disposed to lose gracefully, and it should come as no surprise to see them choking on their own bile as they confront the growing possibility of an Obama landslide.

And yet there remains one very concrete reason to keep the inflammatory speeches going.  I don’t seriously think that John McCain has it in mind, but as the rallies get uglier, I’m starting to think that someone might.  Simply put, the more that undereducated/confused/racist rednecks hear about how Obama’s a menace to the nation, the more likely it becomes that one of them will take matters into his own hands.  Everyone’s saying the GOP need a game-changer to shake up the race; someone taking a shot at Barack Obama would certainly fit that bill.  We are entering some very dangerous terrain now.

Paolo Bacigalupi fielded a question posed by a commenter on his blog recently that continues to make the rounds: whether or not SF writers “undercut their fiction by talking about the election” on their blogs. He gave a good answer that’s worth reading in its entirety, as is John Scalzi’s response. But it’s left me thinking that in some ways, the very fact that someone could even ASK this question is a measure of just how fucked up our political discourse has been getting—or maybe how isolated/out-of-touch certain portions of the SF community have become, and how deep our heads are buried in the sand.

Because as troublesome as I find the question, it gets at a very real problem.  I see lots of authors’ blogs out there; some of them are great, some of them less so; some of them post every day—many (like Making Light) make politics an ongoing focus . . . but there’s a lot of them out there that never, EVER post on the election or on politics.  Presumably some of them don’t care (in which case I can’t help but wonder how they came to write SF in the first place), but one can only assume that others care too much:  they’re worried that they’ll turn off the right, or the left, or whatever, and it’s safer to just talk about their latest book or some Youtube video or a bunch of fucking LOLCats.

And they ought to reconsider.  One of the things that happens in fascist societies (or in societies in which the rule of law is unraveling) is that people become afraid to talk about politics for fear it will impact their livelihood.  Our society feels on the brink to me in ways that it hasn’t previously, and this should concern us all.  We’ve got secret prisons; we’ve got enemies lists that no one can get off of; we’ve got unprecedented surveillance of the homeland; we’ve got an election about to take place amidst horrendous economic conditions and growing accusations of vote fraud . . . and we’ve got far too many people on the sidelines in silence or denial.  And way too many of them are writers.  People, wake up.  Speak up.  You may not have another chance.

And suddenly space elevators are back in the news, with a couple of articles getting circulation in anticipation of a conference to be held in Japan in November (someone’s PR dollars are getting results). Not much that’s new here, though I should note that Brian Turner of the Kansas City Space Pirates managed to get on Conan O’Brien, so not bad. The KC Space Pirates, in case you’re wondering, are one of the groups that’s competing for the equivalent of the Space Elevator X prize (actually a series of prizes), so we might here more from them soon.

What I’m still not seeing, though, is anything on LEO elevators. Quick refresher: the holy grail of space elevators is a mega-structure rooted to the equator and extending all the way out past geostationary orbit, whereas THE MIRRORED HEAVENS features a low-orbit elevator, a four thousand kilometer structure that orbits Earth.  What’s the advantage?  Well, a LEO elevator isn’t as tough to build as a GEO elevator, but it’s still pretty useful, since it allows attainment of orbit via suborbital speeds.  More specs are at this NASA paper here, btw (search under “leo space elevator”).  I ripped them off pretty much verbatim for the book, but keep that one to yourself.

And of course none of these great plans and prizes for elevators focus on blowing them up, but I’m sure we’ll get there in due time.  Stay tuned.

Palin came out swinging last night, and won the first part of the debate hands down. Some of her language about a “whole team of mavericks” was pretty laughable, but it was effective, and Biden had his work cut out for him to avoid losing the debate altogether. Ultimately he beat her in the post-debate polling, largely because the more the debate wore on, the more obvious it became just how scripted Palin was. Still, the debate was definitely a strategic win for her, in the sense that she avoided meltdown and ended any chances of her being removed from the ticket.  (Indeed, the rumor that keeps on circulating is that Biden will the one who steps down; this is almost certainly disinformation, but then again, the VP candidate has yet to release his medical records, so it can’t be ruled out.)

Meanwhile the bailout bill has passed both Senate and House and is headed for the pen of the Decider even as I write this.  After that, Paulson can start spending like there’s no tomorrow.  And there may not be, since at least one school of thought says that the bailout could be the very thing that delivers the coup de grace to the economy, undermining the only thing propping up what’s left of the world financial order:  the once mighty dollar.  In which case, we officially become the butt of the joke of the gods, and Paulson and Bernanke will both spend the rest of their lives in prison, along with anyone else various torchlit mobs can round up.

But as to how likely a Shock Medicine Kills the Patient Scenario is . . we’ll just have to see.  My instinct says that when you’re in a giant bubble, the last thing you do is inflate it still further.  But the real problem is that economics is fraught with all the uncertainty of any open system, particularly when you get down to the system’s axioms (e.g., is a Keynesian approach even valid anymore?).  Were the next great depression to begin tomorrow, everyone would have lots of reasons why, but no one could have predicted it with 100% surety.  And if things turn around and cruise back to normal, same thing:  lots of reasons will be handed out, but there’s no way anyone could have known for sure in advance.  Some say that capitalism is an awesome thing; I prefer the word “precarious.”  And getting ever more so.

If ever there was a wild-card debate, it’s this one. Everyone’s expecting Biden to mop the floor with Palin, but I’m not so sure. First of all, Biden’s prone to gaffes, and has a motormouth that may as well be powered by the Energizer bunny. The more he talks, the less Palin has to say.  Which is exactly how her handlers want it: as of a few days back, the word leaked from the McCain camp was that the debate prep for Palin was going less than stellar (astonishing as that may sound), but keep in mind that prepping for a debate is different than prepping for an interview. What’s been killing Palin are the follow-up questions that take her out of the Land of Prepared Scripting, and there’s far less opportunity for that kind of cross-ex in a debate.

Nonetheless, it’s clear that the odds against her are as long as a candidate at this level has faced. There’s a reason why the McCain camp was trying to postpone this one, and it’s the same reason why moderator Gwen Ifill is being subjected to an unprecedented pre-emptive attack in the name of expectations management. There may even be scenarios where Palin cancels the debate altogether and flies back to Alaska to deal with the sudden health problem of a family member (my money would be on Trig).  But . . .  there are also scenarios where Biden comes off as an arrogant prick, and Palin as a likeable Annie Oakley, dispensing frontier justice and witticisms from her quiver of pre-fabricated (yet potentially world-class) sound-bites, thereby arresting the free-fall into which her poll #s have gone into.  Stranger things have happened in American politics, that’s for sure.  Tonight is going to be a don’t-miss-it circus.

The possibility of an October surprise has never loomed so large over an election, partially because there are just so many possibilities this year. The following is by no means an exhaustive list, but I think it does cover the major categories.

1. War with Iran. This is far less likely than it might have seemed a few months back, as this article in the Guardian attests.  It would be sheer insanity for the U.S. to start anything, since Iran’s capability for retaliation (both in Iraq and in the Gulf) is considerable.  Nonetheless, it would be to McCain’s electoral advantage, and is impossible to discount altogether.

2.  Bin Laden found. Bin Laden’s capture/death would go a long way toward vindicating Bush II in the eyes of the American people, though (in stark contrast to 04) such an event wouldn’t automatically redound to the benefit of the GOP candidate. Nonetheless, this may be why the temperature on the Pakistani border has been increasing so dramatically (note I said “may“).

3. War with Pakistan.  Caught between the U.S. and its own militants, Pakistan may lash out in unpredictable ways.  There’s also the (remote) possiblity of an Islamic coup.

4.  Al-Qaeda launches attacks in U.S.   It’s no secret that Al-Qaeda would love to disrupt the U.S. election, and the internet traffic predicting such an event is growing (as it usually does at this point in the election cycle). There are too many intangibles here to anticipate how this would impact the election; also of note is that in 2004, second-tier U.S. officials discussed postponing the election entirely in the event of such an attack (for which there is no legal basis).

5. Catastrophic incident against a candidate.  I’d be reluctant to even mention this, were it not for the fact that Senator Clinton has already gone on record about the issue, and had not one plot already surfaced.

6.  U.S. dollar meltdown. This would seem to be more of a medium-term scenario than an immediate possibility.  But we are very much in uncharted economic waters now, and anything could happen.

7.  Bristol Palin’s wedding. Well, this surprised me, that’s for sure.  It’s not on the same level as the items above, but apparently it just might happen, and if so, it’d be a #$# media circus.  How many more plot twists can one election take?

The Romans understood that politics is a particularly weird/brutal kind of sport (check out Tom Holland’s brilliant Rubicon for specific analogies vis-a-vis chariot racing), and they wouldn’t have been surprised in the slightest by our presidential debates, where a single false move could cost a candidate the election. Neither candidate made such a move last night; indeed, Jim Lehrer’s decision to open things up at the start paradoxically seemed to make both Obama and McCain more careful in navigating their way forward. Which made for a somewhat boring first 15 minutes as the two men gingerly maneuvered around each other, neither wanting to start debating the specifics of a bailout bill that changes with every passing day . . .

But hey.  I just read John Scalzi’s latest post, and he’s got all sorts of advice for those who would comment on the debate, in particular the injunction to STAY AWAY FROM VIOLENT SPORTS ANALOGIES.  (Yawn.)  Though I do think he raises a good point in wondering why the “real people” scored the debate so differently from the pundits.  John thinks that’s because the voters are concerned with “steak not sizzle”; I gotta admit that’s news to me.  Because I didn’t hear a whole lot of substance last night.  What we got was the standard thing we get in every debate:  two candidates eager to allow the American people to continue in their delusion that fiscal questions can be addressed without hard decisions vis-a-vis military spending and entitlements.

No, I think the gap between the pundits (who rated the debate as even) and the independent voter/focus groups (most of whom scored it for Obama) has nothing to do with what was said and everything to do with what was seen.  Obama simply looked more presidential; he looked McCain in the eye, he didn’t cringe when the other guy was talking, and his posture was confident throughout.  McCain couldn’t even make eye contact in the initial handshake, and that says volumes to the voters.  Palin said she watched Tina Fey impersonate her with the sound down; anyone who did that to this debate knows exactly who won, and why.

McCain’s done nothing so far but (potentially) gum up the works of the bailout package, and now he’s going to be heading to Mississippi after all. His dashing back and forth (along with his fake campaign suspension) may look like a far cry from statemanship, but that doesn’t mean he’s not capable of winning the debate tonight and regaining the momentum his campaign was enjoying only a couple of weeks back.  Here’s what to look for when the two candidates get in the ring:

Soundbites beat speeches:  Obama is going to have to curtail his tendency to come across as pedantic, and that’s not going to be easy for him.  McCain is definitely more likely to say the line that wins (or loses) the debate, particularly because:

Debates tend to turn on (often unscripted) moments:  something that Reagan knew all about (“I’m paying for this mike”).  An off the cuff response (or what looks like it) can be all that people remember twenty minutes (or twenty years) later.

Watch the emotion: Obama has the edge on this one.  If he can get McCain angry, he’s won.

What the hell are they discussing?: No debate has ever been held under stranger circumstances.  Obstensibly this is a foreign policy debate, but how far will moderator Jim Lehrer tilt the entire thing toward the economy?  (And yet, Pakistan and the U.S. were #$# SHOOTING at each other yesterday. . . proof that the prez will indeed have to worry about multiple things.)  And to what extent will the debate reference McCain’s actions across the last few days?

Keep an eye on Capitol Hill:  It’s still entirely conceivable that McCain can show up tonight able to “claim” credit for a bailout deal.  And if it doesn’t happen that way, it won’t be because he didn’t do everything in his power to ensure it.

Bottom line: it’s highly likely McCain will attempt some kind of surprise maneuver/ambush.  His campaign has been full of them so far, and tonight won’t be an exception.  This is gonna be interesting.

First of all, the “suspension” is nothing of the kind. McCain’s surrogates will continue to stump for him, the 527 ads like this one will continue, and so will the massive undercurrent of email invective insinuating that Obama’s a Muslim, that he hates Christianity, etc., etc. Sure, I know McCain can claim he’s not directly linked to any of this: but that’s the point.  You can’t just turn a presidential campaign OFF.  Except as an exercise in political theater.

Second, McCain’s move will take the oft-heard “Obama’s playing politics with the issues” argument to reductio ad absurdum levels, since it literally will no longer be possible for Obama to discuss the issues (ANY issues) without getting accused by the GOP of playing politics.  Meanwhile McCain can grandstand all he wants.

Third, while the suspension is an act of total cynicism, it may actually work.  But don’t look to today’s polls/tea-leaves to see whether it is.  We’re entering uncharted waters now, and God only knows how all the intrigue on Capitol Hill across the next few days is going to look to confused centrist voters.  They may yet hail McCain as a statesman.

3bluedudes.com has a fascinating article on what’s arguably the worst electoral situation of all: each candidate gets 269 electoral votes apiece. In which case the election would move to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would get one vote, meaning that New York and North Dakota would be on equal footing and the political wrangling would be absolutely off the charts. And since the Senate picks the VP, we could even conceivably see a president from one party and a VP from another.  Assuming the country didn’t disintegrate into civil war in the meantime.

What’s of particular interest to me as a D.C. resident is the ambiguous role of the nation’s capital in such a scenario. D.C. gets 3 electoral votes, but has a non-voting presence in the House.  (well, they get to vote in committees, as long as their “vote” isn’t the decisive one).  So would D.C. be allowed to play a part in a House election?  Turns out it’s up to the Supreme Court.  And their verdict’s easy to predict.