Cocktail Fodder

Statistics = Power.

As we have already discussed on the Fodder, we live in a modern America that thrives on hot button issues, attacks and diatribes. All of these are inevitably propped up by statistics cut from the cloth of conservatism, liberalism and every other conceivable “ism” under the Sun. So where do politicians, lobbyists and activists get these statistics? One word: polls. In life, statistics are power. Secularity demands it. Although it is an overwhelmingly positive progression in society, there still lie serious pitfalls in this mindset. The most prominent is the unfortunate reliance on pollsters. The vast majority of pollsters are performing a vital function of civil society. Not all are, however. What happens when a polling organization goes rogue?

Luckily, we happen to have a lovely little case study unfolding before out eyes. The Daily Kos, a liberal political blog, recently filed a law suit alleging that the polling firm, Research 2000 (R2K), skewed and possibly fabricated statistics used in Daily Kos stories. For over a year, the Daily Kos ran weekly opinion polls administered and researched by R2K. After R2K received a terrible ranking in comparison to other polling firms in early June, the Daily Kos terminated its partnership with the firm. Soon afterward a group of well-known, reliable pollsters came forward to question the overall validity of the numbers R2K was producing. Submitting a preliminary analysis of R2K’s methodological results, the group found there there was almost no statistical chance that the numbers produced by R2K were reliable. In turn, Markos Moulitsas (founder of the Daily Kos) filed the lawsuit referenced above. R2K vehemently denies any wrong doing. (For more information, Pollster.com ran an informative and scathing piece on the case this past weekend.) While this is clearly an extreme example of probable statistical tampering, it still shows the relative ease in which a person or group can change the way others argue and back up their claims. It is a growing and unnerving trend in today’s political landscape.

This is not the first, nor the last, discussion that will be had about the accuracy of polling in America. Case and point: the 2008 Presidential election. From the McCain campaign staking claims on questionable polling data to sweeping analysis of the pollster landscape, the 2008 election was riddled with whispers of inaccuracies and discrepancies. While these whispers never turned into anything meaningful, it is important remember that they were there. Furthermore, this discussion is not restricted to the 2008 Election. Who can forget the media travesty of 2004? Why did the major news networks erroneously call the election in favor of Senator John Kerry? Exit polling. Admitting flaws in 2005, these exit polls led a myriad of people, including former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, to believe Senator Kerry won the Presidency. We all know the story of what ensued after the election night controversy.

The point of bringing this developing story to you is this: be careful where you get your statistics and of seemingly problematic numbers. Before you use them to make an argument, solidify a research paper or impress a member of the opposite sex, make sure they are from a reliable source. Next time you see a graph in USA Today, on Foxnews.com, in Time, on CNN or in a textbook; check the fine print. Google the firm that is providing the numbers for that chart. It might give you pause. Always see where the numbers are coming from because in this world statistics are power.

Always the impassioned orator.

On Monday, at the age of 92, the Senate’s President pro tempore and most senior member passed away. Senator Robert C. Byrd, during his record setting 51 year tenure, was a respected, influential and controversial lawmaker. Elected as a Representative in 1952, Senator Byrd spent the entirety of his political career crafting a spot inside the Congressional walls as a powerbroker and staunch Senatorial defender. Dogged by, at most generous, a pointedly misguided membership in the Ku Klux Klan during his youth; Senator Byrd had an eternal, negative first impression to shed. Because of that, he became a political shapeshifter; someone who changed his mind on issues, people and policies over time. In an age of political rigidity, Senator Byrd was a uniquely fluid political entity.

All you have to do is look at any political race in the past decade to find the rigidity that runs the current political system. It happens on both sides of the aisle. During the 2008 Presidential primaries, former Massachusetts Govenor Mitt Romney was labeled a “flip-flopper” by every conceivable liberal outlet. Change your mind on an issue or three and get labeled with the American political kiss of death. Senator John Kerry went through the same labeling game during the 2004 Presidential election. The fact of the matter is this: Americans, on whole, find those that change their position over time to be weak. Politicians know this and use it to win votes and campaigns. What would Senator Byrd have to say about this? I’m sure he would have a strong thought or two on the matter.

The politics of flip-flopping.

At the very least, it is worth thinking about why, when a legend leaves us we stand and applaud his fluidity in the political realm yet lambast possible legends in the making for the same trait? Yes, I know, it might not be the same. Mr. Romney nor Mr. Kerry were members of the KKK; but, maybe, just maybe, that’s what makes Senator Byrd’s reversal of course all the more poignant. From KKK member to civil rights advocate is not a tiny shift in philosophy; it is monumental change in fundamental beliefs. From ardent supporter of the Vietnam War to an outspoken detractor of the War in Iraq; time, mitigating circumstances and understanding changed his views over the years. These are, of course, the starkest and most blatant of Senator Byrd’s political changes during his time in Congress. There were others as well. Some may call him a flip-flopper or a political transient. I call him something else: human. We learn, we adapt and we change our views. That is the course of everyday life for every American, European, African or South American. Why should it be any different for those who make our laws and are accountable to the very people that are continually politically fickle?

So please, read about Senator Byrd and his political and personal struggles and successes. We can all take a lesson in humility and the understanding that passions, views and convictions change as we experience life’s bumps and bruises. His did. Yours will too.

Senator Byrd will lie in state in the Senate on Thursday, July 1st, 2010.

Elena Kagan's new office?

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan began the arduous process of Senate confirmation yesterday. On May 10, President Obama nominated Ms. Kagan to the High Court. As potentially the fourth female and eighth Jewish justice in the 221 year history of the Court, Ms. Kagan is already a historic appointment. Currently, as the United States Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is arguing cases in front of her future colleagues. With an impressive resume – Princeton, Harvard Law, Dean of Harvard Law Review, President Clinton’s White House – Ms. Kagan seems like an ideal choice to help craft the law of the land. There is, however, one tiny detail that has been, and will be, drawn out during the confirmation hearings: Ms. Kagan has never, at any level of the judicial system, sat on the bench.

As President Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee in the last year, we can clearly see a trend developing in the Administration’s ideal judicial personality. While Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a discernible judicial record at the time of her nomination, she was known in legal circles as a free thinker who used her personal life experiences, understanding of the average American and intuition to help guide her decisions. What we know of Ms. Kagan’s legal views almost certainly point to her being of the same mold as Justice Sotomayor. While the fact that Elena Kagan has never sat as a judge may be a “red flag” for some, history completely nullifies this argument against her nomination. In fact, of the 111 Justices in the history of the institution, 40 have never had any judicial experience before ascending to the Court.

Today is the second day of the Senate Judiciary hearing in which Ms. Kagan will be extensively questioned on every conceivable topic. The first day was exceedingly uneventful. Other than Ms. Kagan promising a “modest” tact if confirmed, Senators spent most of the day decrying the current Court rather than grilling Ms. Kagan on any subject. The overall expectation is that she will likely endure a relatively smooth process. There will, of course, be tough questions. For example, Ms. Kagan is an ardent admirer and supporter of the Israeli judge Aharon Barak. Mr. Barak, who advocates for a stronger Israeli judiciary, has become an enemy of the conservative base in America that has such strong ties to Israel’s establishment. For this reason, Ms. Kagan is sure to answer a myriad of questions on the subject.

We will see how the process progresses. If Elena Kagan does end up sitting for the Court, we will see a new breed of Associate Justice established before our eyes. Two justices, within a year, that use real life experience rather than that accrued at law school, to power their judicial oversight. We’ve heard enough about the Court and its Ivy league leanings. Its time we look towards the Obama Administration’s idea of a new kind of High Court Justice and see if it, in fact, changes the way the Court does business.