In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.

Tags:

barack obama, mitt romney, MSNBC, political apathy, Politics, Presidential Election of 2012

1. 

   • Flatiron
   • Colorado

   Not only that, this “winning message” of repeal health care is about as winning as take away women’s birth control. The GOP doesn’t have solutions but they still are able to access capital and funnel it to themselves. Citizens United is goods in that it allows these guys to make millions without sending other people to fight foreign wars.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
2. 

   • Alexis
   • Buffalo Commons

   To paraphrase the Great Communicator, “Apathy is not the solution. Apathy is the problem.” Politics has become a spectator sport in which most of us settle for the cheap thrill of demonizing the poll-readers we send to Washington. It’s a pathetic exercise in which we citizens take no real risk. I am knee-jerk liberal who chose to make my home in the solid-red heartland. The challenge that I see is the need to re-engage with our neighbors, our communities and family members with whom we do not see eye-to-eye. Reject politics; embrace civics.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
3. 

   • Flatiron
   • Colorado

   The election season is too long and the story gets boring. Shorter elections might help. At this point I am so glad that the same people are in charge of GPS Crossroads and other Republican SuperPAcs that allowed the billions to be squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan. As each dollar flows from the Koch bros to Rove to the various underlings and operativesmany pockets will be lined and poor Mitt won’t have too much bang for all the buck.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
4. 

   • David
   • Toledo

   The “better way” of Gail’s last sentence has to be Congress’s passing campaign-finance reform that is even better than what we had in 2009. And a Supreme Court that upholds it.

   Or a Constitutional Amendment on the subject. Or revolution.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
5. 

   • HG
   • Califormia

   I am beginning to think that turning voters off is the goal of many campaigns. High turn out of your core constituency and low turn out in the general public is the winning formula.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
6. 

   • Mikey41
   • Ohio

   While the GOP is stoking the Fear Fire again this year, what scares me is hearing what the GOP has to say and the fact that they do nothing or are incapable of any work for the good of the country. My wife & I spent a week in the Caymans in 2000, and I wonder how close I came to “Mitt’s Millions”? Even Grand Cayman is not that big of an island.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
7. 

   • Jan
   • Florida

   David, you ignore the fundraising stories?!!
   In the last several decades, has a candidate with less campaign money ever won?
   (I thought the winner of the flow of money into his campaign fund was always the winner …

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
8. 

   • Freychenet
   • Coconut Grove, Florida

   Mr. Brooks,

   Please do a little more homework when you cite to historical examples.

   One doesn’t even have to scratch at the surface to find that the 1950′s were about a lot more than suburbanization. Truman told the AEC to develop the hydrogen bomb. Eisenhower completed integration of the military, which helped to buttress the civil rights movement. There was a little thing called the Red Scare, which included McCarthyism in D.C., but spread throughout the country. And of course it was in 1954 that the Supreme Court issued Brown v. Board of Education.

   Ah, yes, a peaceful time. The horror is that the people in power at that time probably did think it was all about suburbanization, and that we were otherwise carefree. We need to set the record straight, even in columns in which this is hardly the point.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
9. 

   • RealCalGal
   • West Marin

   “David: I think you’re a bit over the top here.”

   No, David, she is not being over the top at all. The Republic Party becoming a host to the Tea Party infection (due no doubt to the GOP’s courting of and reliance on bigots) has made governance of, for, and by reasonable human beings impossible.

   • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
   • Reply
   • Recommend
10. 

    • C. ANDERSON
    • SONOMA,CA

    When private businessmen and public politicians work hand-in-hand to unfairly game the system, is it political or not political?

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
11. 

    • Fred
    • Up North

    So many of the problems that beset us are economic. Contrary to much opinion, economic problems are not intellectually intractable. However, they may be intractable politically.

    In his 1935 book, “The Lords of Creation” Allen wonders why so few people seemed to be interested in the machinations of the J.P. Morgan and friends. His answer, “After all, there are few things as dull as greed.”

    While greed (in all its forms) may be dull, we ignore it at our peril

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
12. 

    • JW
    • tEXAS

    yeah just watch fox and get the straight scoop do you have a triple digit iq? sure don’t show it so I guess you don’t

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
13. 

    • RitaG
    • New York, New York

    I suspect that one reason young adults are not so interested in this election, or politics for the most part, is because they haven’t been primed for engagement. Wasn’t there a time when high school students had an obligatory course in Civics? True, the material may have gone in one ear and out the other, but at least there was a moment when attention was paid to the way government works or should work, in its Constitutional glory. Ditto for an examination of what it means to be a good citizen, just at the age when young people, on the cusp of adulthood, are leaving the nest and getting on with life, either to college or work.. And it was delivered by adults who were not the students’ parents (you know how well teenagers listen to their parents). This was done in earnest . . . but now we live in a time of great irony.

    Of course, this is a general statement. There must be plenty of families that discuss the issues of the day, speak of current events, etc.

    The absence of an “initiation” to citizenship can only leave the younger generations less educated as citizen consumers. To say nothing of the amount of distraction they have from technology and media culture, which just fills up all the hours in multiple parallel universes.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
14. 

    • Marcus Meade
    • Nebraska

    I think you’re a terrific writer and as balanced a political analyst as there is Mr. Brooks, but you’re a little of the mark here. It’s not apathy that has driven people from the political conversation. It’s disillusionment. People feel powerless to change anything in this country. So many young people, like myself, have opinions but feel like there is no way to get them heard in a meaningful way. Add to that a stretch during the 90s when times were so good people felt safe putting political interest on autopilot, and we have a generation of people who not only feel powerless in this giant political arena but also do not know how to participate in it. I teach Composition at the University of Nebraska, and when this topic is brought up I see blank stares and confusion staring back at me. The idea of writing a Congressperson is totally foreign to them (and it may be justifiably so as so often it feels like the words of constituents pale in comparison to the desires of campaign financiers).

    Why wouldn’t they drop out of the conversation in a country where access is granted to people with large bank accounts and the thoughts of a 23-year-old middle class college senior mean absolutely nothing? “Apathy” is the wrong word because it places the blame for inaction entirely on the silent. Let’s also look at the people, systems, and political influences doing the silencing.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
15. 

    • Alex
    • Chicago

    Most people have already made up their minds. I do not believe there are many undecided left. It will all come down to voter turnout to decide which candidate wins. That’s why the Republicans are trying mightily to disenfranchise as many voters as possible.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
16. 

    • John Repp
    • Pennsylvania

    Anymore, Ms. Collins is barely preferable to Mr. Brooks, though she defers to his fake reasonableness when it gets right down to it. At least she mentions actual depredations suffered by actual humans in contrast to Brooks’ relentless recycling of cherry-picked sociological abstractions.

    Mr. Brooks never, ever responds to any mention of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the widely shared responsibility for same. He was an apologist then and continues to be a silent enabler now. He could be journalism’s version of William Proxmire vis a vis Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.

    It’s not a Fox News world. Do a cursory reading of history and it’s painfully clear that President Obama is Richard Nixon without the paranoia and Romney is whatever he needs to be to satisfy (or at least condescend to) whomever he’s talking to.

    A pox on national politics, no matter how “fascinating”

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
17. 

    • Mike
    • Cleveland

    They don’t care because the guy they cared about, Obama, has successfully turned an entire generation of kids into the same cynics their parents are. Hope and Change indeed. How about a new entitlement in the middle of the worst financial crisis in a generation when we can’t pay for the ones we have? how about getting young people to pay for old people’s health care? How about crowing and taking credit for assassinating our enemies? How about accusing a cop of being racist while doing his job? How about castigating millionaires? How about proposing a new top tax rate that would only generate enough revenue for 8 days of government spending? how about supporting gay marriage 7 months from an election? how about a promise to be the most transparent president in history and then negotiate with Big Pharma in secret?

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
18. 

    • M
    • Dallas, TX

    David Brooks, feminism was (and is) very much political. Would you argue that the civil rights movement was not political? Feminism sought to end both de facto and de jure sexism in government, corporations, education, and society. Its leaders fought for and won some legislative protections and a whole lot of changes in what was considered possible and acceptable for women.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
19. 

    • William Scarbrough
    • Columbus Indiana

    I’m not bored by Obama … I’m bored by Romney.
    I’m not bored by Gail Collins … I’m bored by David Brooks.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
20. 

    • NA
    • New York

    Suburbanization was important, but it’s debatable that it was the most important event of the 50s. The Cold War, McCarthy and the HUAC hearings, the battle among moderates and right-wingers within the Republican party. I think a reasonable case could be made that it was a political decade.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
21. 

    • HJ
    • Albany, NY

    I will agree with David that people underestimate how hard it is to govern well. It is much harder than running a business where your ultimate mission is clear; to make money. The president cannot simply order that things be done. He has to face Congress, the courts and the populace.
    But, it is an error to compare the size of government under Paul Ryan’s proposals to the size in 1932. Goverment is more complex, and business is more complex. I one heard a statement attributed to Teddy Roosevelt ( I cannot verify this) that government has to be a large as the entities it has to regulate. As corporations have grown, so must government grow to be a counterweight for social good. In a world of giant multi-national companies and globalization, the economy may now be beyond the control of any single national government. That is a cause for concern.
    Much of voter apathy comes from a sense that for many of us our votes don’t matter as our states are spoken for. Also from a sense that moneyed interests in the end dominate both parties. But, all the same, the Democrats have some concern for the middle class and the disadvantaged. The Republicans once did, but that has long since been lost.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
22. 

    • Jim
    • Gainesville, Florida

    Here we go again with the “apathy” insults. You think that people are not paying attention? I think you are wrong. We’re just laying low, tired of the craziness, tired of the energy drain caused by outrage. Rather than write one more letter to my congressman, only to get a response that clearly indicates he didn’t bother to read it, I’ll send him a message with my vote. And many others will do the same thing. We’ll see how apathetic people are in November.

    And don’t let the lack of insulting political bumper stickers on cars lead you to believe that the drivers are apathetic.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
23. 

    • Van Verre
    • NY

    David: Feminism. Not political. “One has to draw lines”.
    WHAT? I guess David wasn’t paying attention…

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
24. 

    • pat penn
    • poughkeepsie

    I am
    so sick of Republican mendacity that I have to tell myself frequently that things will get better. We are just in a longer than usual bad patch. People will come to their senses. They will, won’t they? Won’t they? ..And David, for cryin’ out loud, stop with the false equivalency; it is the Republicans causing virtually all the trouble in Congress.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
25. 

    • Laurence Glavin
    • Methuen, MA

    The suburbanization and ensuing prosperity of the 1950s was in fact political: President Eisenhower decided that “superhighways” would be a good way for Americans to get out of town if we were ever invaded. In other words, they were considered part of MILITARY preparedness. Then chains like Sears and later new entrants into the big box stores univese plus industrial and office parks ensued. On most sitcoms of the 1950s, the breadwinners, mostly if not all male, drove to and from work. The only one to ride the bus was Ralph Kramden, and he was a bus driver.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
26. 

    • Dave Buell
    • the Great State of NJ

    Young people should pay attention because the policy of the Republican party is to preserve all government benifits for Baby Boomers and seniors through borrrowing and then fixing the mess by reducing every future generation’s benifits. They cut taxes under Bush and at the same time increased entitlments to seniors(drugs). Their budget model is to continue all SS and Medicare benifits for seniors and boomers and fix through reducing future generations benifits (Ryan budget). We entered into two wars and cut tax rates deferring payment. It would be one thing if Republicans said what is good for the goose is good for the gander and pushed for all reduced benifits, and reduced spending now accross everything. But they don’t, propose that they push for tax deferments, they call tax cuts, increased spending (defense), and no current cuts to SS or Medicare. The Republican policies are to have the young pay for the old.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
27. 

    • Marjie
    • Callaway, VA

    1970s – Seamus hitches ride to Canada.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
28. 

    • David Chowes
    • New York City

    NOT BEING INTERESTED IN POLITICS?

    As our educational system has (practically) omitted the teaching of civics and history, the elctorale has become to a large degree almost totally ignorant.

    [In S.C., a random sample of voters were asked the name of the vice-president. Only half could respond correctly.]

    How many people know about the three branches of the federal government and the checks and balances they are to provide? For a republic to be effective, it is obvious that they must be informed.

    The Supreme Court decison of Citizens United has ceded power to the upper “1%” and is aided by Rush, Murdoch and Ailes’ Fox News Channel so the
    Koch Bros. and their ilk can use propaganda to fool the many ignorant.

    I read the comments on the NYT blogs (offered by readers): I don’t always agree — but they are, in the main, well written and evidence knowledge and intelligence. As an example, if one reads the opinions on the CBS blog,
    one can discern mostly comments by the uniformed and emotional.

    My mother was a high school graduate and yet knew the rudimentary understandings of government and politics.

    I have taught at a CUNY senior college and during my first class (in attempting to set up a lecture), I asked a class of about 30, ‘What is the population of the U.S.?’ All the eyes of the students avoided me. I waited and said, ‘Don’t worry, if you don’t know — well just guess.’

    Finally a brave young girl said. ‘Gee a lot! Maybe a million.’

    Interesteed? Most know nothing!

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
29. 

    • Matt S.
    • NYC

    I get the feeling that the apathy is due to the belief that neither side will fix the real problems, they’ll just do what they must to get reelected and kick the can down the road until it’s so big that it rolls over on us.

    I’m generally not that big of a pessimist, and who wins is important to me, but then I know who I’m going to vote for. People seem entrenched and unwilling to be convinced of anything that they don’t already believe, so me trying to debate or “enlighten” them will only dig them in deeper.

    Well, there’s that and the fact that everyone is busy either looking for work or working two-people’s jobs because their company is too scared or lazy or greedy to hire a second person, since the people you have will kill themselves working twice as hard. Who has time to care about Obama vs. Romney except the idle rich?

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
30. 

    • prj
    • Ruston, LA

    This election will be won on voter suppression and/or apathy in a few key states.

    As a liberal in Louisiana I feel my vote is already wasted, although I will add mine to the popular vote total in November just in case. In the last few years the Democrats here haven’t even bothered to put serious candidates in many races, including the most recent gubernatorial one.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
31. 

    • Patricia Caulfield
    • Satellite Beach Florida

    David needs to try and be as polite and civil to Gail as she is to him. Lately his standards are slipping,

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
32. 

    • chickenlover
    • Massachusetts

    I am very curious about David’s definition of what is political and what is not. As Gail points out, feminism is a political issue. And, what is the basis for describing the Reagan decade of the 80s as semi-political? As far as I can tell, it was all political, and downhill from there onwards. We are still reaping the reward of St. Reagan’s infalliable faith in lowerin taxes that would make us all rich and go to heaven. Th sad part is that even as he uttered these falisities, Reagan raised taxes. Try that one for sainthood today!!

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
33. 

    • M Davis
    • St. Louis

    My personal feeling is that most politicians view voters with enormous contempt. People tend not to be interested in those who dismiss them.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
34. 

    • wyn
    • Atlanta GA

    How about:

    1970′s: Watergate. Very political.

    • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend
35. 

    • Linda
    • Oklahoma
    • Verified

    I thought the fifties were the McCarthy era. Weren’t the Communit witch hunts political?

    • July 11, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend16
36. 

    • pja
    • Baltimore, MD

    The reason there is such apathy is that we have been hearing (and experiencing) bad news for so long that what we crave is a message of hope. But all we hear is the horrible unending mud-slinging that started with the tea party, continues with the election and does nothing but add to the general malaise.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend18
37. 

    • Peter
    • Encinitas, CA

    I care a lot about politics because it does make a lot of difference to my life. My particular problem is that I’m a liberal in what will be Darryl Issa’s district. If he’s not enough to make me disgusted with politicians there’s always Mitch McConnell. The fact that David can find any decade that he thinks was non-political is nuts. Suburbanization was surely politicalbecause it was the result of the enlargement of the middle class. Feminism not political ? I have to agree with Gail there for sure. Where did Nancy Pelosi come from ? Silicon valley not political? The personal computer changed the way we live. If silicon valley did nothing else it enabled the budget surplus years of Bill Clinton that enabled Geo Bush to go to war with no regard for deficits. Which is why we are economically *&^%%$ today.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend39

    1. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       Nancy Pelosi trumps them all, and then some.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    2. 

       • jmc
       • Stamford

       Agree with you. Further on Suburbanization, you have to add to that the Interstate highway system pushed through by Eisenhower which had the effect of a Robert Moses in almost every urban area.

       And Eisenhower wanted cities decentralized to lower the threat level from Soviet Atomic bombs. Such a fine time as McCarthy opened the door to the idiots of today who claim a communist under every bed.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
38. 

    • Paul R Cooper
    • Yellow Springs, Ohio

    Brooks reminds me of my recent past when I thought politics mainly interesting and I was puzzled that everyone didn’t agree. Brooks will grow up when he has the epiphany that politics is more than interesting, it is about his own hopes and his days of making a living. Collins is from my state where people sense that New York, D.C. and Los Angeles don’t sense how deeply their failures bite us out here. I have a scholarly friend who still says he is merely an observer and doesn’t admit how his 1950′s claim of detached objectivity is useless when the radical masses don’t know what negotiation means. The barrel with us in it is headed for the waterfall and too many don’t notice.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend10
39. 

    • Petey Tonei
    • Massachusetts

    If you want peace of mind, get rid of cable TV! No more ad tsunami.
    David, somewhere did you forget Korean war? Never mind.
    Imagine how many poor countries in this world could benefit from all that money spend on ad campaigns. Of What use?

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend11

    1. 

       • Mark
       • Denver

       Hence the title, “the forgotten war”

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    2. 

       • Jeanette
       • TX

       And how about the Great Depression in the ’30′s — which led to the New Deal. It should certainly be on the list of significant events of the decade.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:19 p.m.
       • Recommend
40. 

    • Phil Hefner
    • Chicago

    So, the view from the Beltway is that we are apathetic–a premise that could be contested, in my mind. ” You have the dramatic change-guy who didn’t seem to change anything”–so equality for gays isn’t a change, the proposals for civil courtrooms for trying alleged terrorists, executive orders for Dream Act provisions and the like–these don’t count? Perhaps this column was a the backup that Gail speak of–but it didn’t work, either.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend20
41. 

    • Victor
    • Chicago

    Although I’m certainly not apathetic about the outcome, I’m apathetic about the race. I’ve known that I’ll be voting for Obama since the Republicans made it clear that they have nothing to offer, and that they intend to block anything he proposes simply because HE proposes it. There is nothing that Romney or Obama could say that would change my mind. So I’m just passing the time until Election Day.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend57

    1. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       And the democrats have “Blame Bush” to offer?

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
42. 

    • Paul
    • White Plains

    An attempt at rational discussion by Brooks, accompanied by facts. The usual sound bite responses by Collins, demonizing anayone who disagrees with the standard liberal line. In other words, more of the same as in previous columns.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend3

    1. 

       • Annette
       • New York

       You don’t have to read them but why do you still?

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    2. 

       • Tommy Tunatuna
       • heaven on earth

       Brooks may sound rational because so much of what he says is not true:
       1. “If there is anybody who wants to eliminate entitlements, I haven’t met that person.” (Does he know who Paul Ryan is?)
       2. “These people (run for political office because) they are emotional freaks (O.K., I grant that) but also because they want to do good for the country.” (Do good for the country? If that is Romney’s noble aim, then why is he so silent on everything?)

       Accept the fact that they, you, and myself are partisan freaks. I know I am voting for Obama; you for Romney. David for Romney; Gail for Obama. We have our reasons as to why we vote the way we do, and this is based on our view of what American should look like and operate.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    3. 

       • steven c
       • n y

       if you look at the column brooks was the initiator and Collins the reactor so probably Brooks had researched (a little bit anyway-this is not lincoln-douglas) . so, of course she’s sound bitey.
       ps: getting 2 of the decades wrong- 50s also included Brown v Board and Korea.
       Yes Eisenhower’s was a less contentious presidency, but plenty of politics there too.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
43. 

    • Richard
    • Wynnewood PA

    The electoral votes of most states have already been counted by the pollsters — so those states are off the campaign map. But if you live in a swing state, as I do, your individual vote is being counted based on what you click and say on the web. I’m being inundated with Obama fund raising stuff — including endless ads on the NY Times webpages — because I’ve said some nasty things about Romney on the web so I’m off the map so far as his campaign is concerned. But if I start saying nice things about Romney — like how great he looks in designer jeans and how clever he was to set up his leveraged IRA in tax-free Cayman — you can bet I’ll get back on his map.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend9

    1. 

       • steven c
       • n y

       blame madison-he set up the electoral college- a somewhat anti-democratic idea!

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
44. 

    • Diana Moses
    • Arlington, MA
    • Verified

    Do students in elementary school still do things like weekly current events assignments and electing classroom officers and holding weekly class meetings? Or have those activities fallen by the wayside because they don’t directly relate to material being tested on standardized tests? It’s probably harder to develop an interest in politics from scratch as a young adult, is why I’m wondering.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend20

    1. 

       • RealCalGal
       • West Marin

       Wayside for sure. Another casuality of No Child Allowed Ahead.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
45. 

    • John LeBaron
    • NC

    We might be bored by Obama and Romney, but we should’t be bored by Obama or Romney, especially by young people who can no longer use their student ID caeds to vote.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend20

    1. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       Obama & Holder have declared ID cards unconstitutional. Don’t worry, anyone can vote as often as they like.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
46. 

    • Dude
    • Philly

    ” You have the dramatic change-guy who didn’t seem to change anything”

    One person can only do so much in the face of an opposition party that controls the House is committed in lockstep to opposition his every proposition so that they can spin the narrative you have just spun…

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend52
47. 

    • Pauline
    • NYC

    Get rid of the electoral college.

    Have each party’s primaries in day, nationwide.

    That will reenergize the electorate; take the pork and fat out of the early primary and swing states; and put true democracy on the map in the USA.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend56
48. 

    • aprp6d
    • Glenmoore,PA

    I rather think Gail is right — if you believe as the Tea-party does in a government that is so shrunken that it can be kept on your mantelpiece, what role is left for politics? David, true to form, talks about entitlements and charter schools in response.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend35

    1. 

       • RealCalGal
       • West Marin

       And doesn’t seem to realize that charter schools are the Wal-Mart of education, minimizing quality to maximize profit.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    2. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       Yep, you’re right. Greece, Spain and most of the European countries, have big governments, big government programs, and have spent themselves into bankruptcy.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
49. 

    • Chris M
    • Stamford, CT

    David – the job of being a senator just stinks? on what planet? Because here in earth, it is the best job on the planet. You don’t have to actually accomplish anything but getting bribed by lobbyists, you lie through your teeth, regurgitate the talking points of the people funding your party, make millions through insider trading and expense account ripoffs while in office, and as a lobbyist afterward, need i go on?

    Why do you think people run for this exalted office? Because they want to help their fellow citizens? 2 words: Pull-leaze..

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend60

    Read All 4 Replies

    1. 

       • RS
       • Austin

       The job stinks but the benefits are too good to give up.

       • July 11, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
       • Recommend8
    2. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       Obama has never been anything but a politician and now he’s a millionaire. Go figure.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
    3. 

       • Know Nothing
       • AK

       If the job ‘stinks’ why does it seem to run in so many families ? And with federal jobs passed on to other family members.

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
50. 

    • Gail
    • Ridgefield, CT

    I agree with David and Gail that if there is apathy among young voters, we are all in big trouble.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend6
51. 

    • Donald Quixote
    • NY, NY

    The basic problem is that there is no way to vote against congress. People are apathetic because congress is dysfunctional and there is nothing they can do about it. They can vote against their guy, but that won’t fix the institution, and they might even like their guy.
    If there was an Amendment that let voters give congress as a whole an “up or down vote” and then if say 66% of the people nationally voted down every single incumbent in congress lost we would see a lot more action and a lot less apathy.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend25

    1. 

       • avatar666
       • Jacksonville, FL

       Ever heard of “term limits”?

       • July 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
       • Recommend
52. 

    • William Quick
    • Charleston SC

    Definitely agree with Gail’s comment that “Folks in the true-blue or really-red states feel as if their votes don’t matter, and they’re sort of right – it’s as if they’ve already been counted.”

    Here I am, a liberal Yankee from New England, now transplanted to the reddest of redstates – home of Jim DeMint and “You Lie” Joe Wilson, represented (ha!) by a T-party fanatic, and in a state that will refuse Medicaid funding.

    The upstate rednecks outnumber the Yankee transplants, and I don’t have any reason to vote…

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend19

    1. 

       • J.M.
       • Kansas

       Register republican (as my husband and I recently did), do some research, and then vote in your primary to help elect moderate (read: sane) local republicans in your red state! We liberals must do whatever we can to defeat tea party candidates, even if it means having the R-word printed on our voter registration cards.

       • July 11, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
       • Recommend8
53. 

    • Technic Ally
    • Toronto

    I have heard that Romney now keeps his dog in the Cayman Islands to avoid the taxes on dog food.

    • July 11, 2012 at 2:04 p.m.
    • Reply
    • Recommend35

Molly Ball – Molly Ball is a staff writer covering national politics at The Atlantic.

• All Posts
• Email Ball

Romney spoke to the annual gathering of black leaders, but the president is sending lower-ranking officials. There’s no obvious political explanation for the dis.

President Obama is going to win the African-American vote. By a lot. Let’s just get that out of the way. Even so, his decision not to speak at this week’s NAACP convention is perplexing.

Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, spoke at the annual gathering of black activists on Wednesday, and while he was booed for his trouble, he was also widely praised for making a symbolic gesture of outreach and braving the hostile crowd. Obama, on the other hand, sent two lower-ranking Democrats in his stead — Attorney General Eric Holder spoke Tuesday, and Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to speak Thursday. The official explanation from the White House was that Obama had “scheduling” issues.

When the president is invited and sends an underling instead, that’s an undeniable dis, especially when his opponent shows up in person. Obama, who won 95 percent of the black vote in 2008 (and who, you may have heard, is America’s first black president), may believe he can afford to take black voters for granted. But that’s not at all clear.

There are numerous states where black voter turnout could be crucial to Obama’s hopes. The Southern swing states — Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida — are the most obvious, but African Americans also make up a substantial portion of the electorate in Rust Belt swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Black voters in those states probably aren’t going to vote for Romney, but Obama needs to make sure as many of them come out to vote for him as possible.

Obama has spent recent weeks revving up other elements of his base — youths, gays, Latinos — with both campaign events and election-year policy interventions. But African Americans haven’t gotten any conspicuous outreach. Meanwhile, the president’s decision to come out in favor of gay marriage has the potential to alienate at least a few black voters. Romney’s comments in favor of preserving “traditional marriage,” between a man and a woman, were applauded by the NAACP audience Wednesday.

Obama’s decision to forgo the convention would make sense if there were an obvious political downside, but I can’t think of one. Is he afraid it would remind white voters that he’s black? It seems a little late for that. If anything, such a speech would contrast Obama’s presumably warm reception with Romney’s chilly one. It’s hard to see how that’s a bad thing for the president.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

• 20
• Disqus

• Like
• Dislike
• • 1 person liked this.

Logout

	SiDevilIam ( edit profile )
	120 comments 79 likes received

Share on

Showing 47 comments

Sort by   Subscribe by email   Subscribe by RSS

Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)

2 new comments were just posted. Show

• SiDevilIam 0 minutes ago

   I am sorry. I am recycling my already published comment, Source: Bloomberg

  SiDevilIam, 0 minutes ago

  President of USA, is neither a white, nor a black. He maybe a
  Republican or a Democrat. He is the president, at least for a minimum of
  four, guaranteed years, not considering an occasional, impeachment.
  I do not like Mitt Romney being booed for what he, truly, believes
  in. Republicanism, aka conservatism. Not yet outdated, out of reach or
  totally dilapidated. Though Barack Obama may assume so.
  It is not NAACP to show such a total disregard to someone, who may,
  actually, be good to them. Obama’s avoidance to address NAACP, this
  time, proves that he has nothing better to say. Promises of the past,
  did not materialized in his term, why would further promises in his
  (unlikely) second term would?
  Think about it.
  We, the voters, black, white, women, Hispanic or east Asian want to
  know more in the presidential debates. Maybe, earlier than that. Only
  short time to wrap up this show of strength, or the lack of it, Mr
  (presumptive friend of NAACP) Mitt Romney, Sir!

• …and I am Sid Harth@webworldismyoyster.com

• IheartTesla 4 minutes ago

  Meanwhile, the president’s decision to come out in favor of gay marriage has the potential to alienate at least a few black voters.

  Its like all the articles the Atlantic printed on how it didnt affect jack didnt happen.

• cristo52 12 minutes ago

  “Obama’s decision to forgo the convention would make sense if there were an obvious political downside, but I can’t think of one.”

  How’s this, the last thing the Obama people want to give the Romney camp is a video clip where the president mentions the nearly 15% of blacks who are unemployed and the NAACP crowd answers with a disapproving chorus of boos. Or when he lectures the audience on gay marriage and it responds with a resounding chorus of boos. Or when he tells black folks just how hard he’s working for them and that he’s increased the funding to HBCs and they should be happy with that, but they respond with boos.

• Democrits 20 minutes ago

  I have new admiration for Romney for speaking in front of the NAACP
  despite the hostility toward him in that demographic.  The closest
  analogy I can think of is if Obama were to speak before the KKK.

• Mickey Bowles 25 minutes ago

  The first 2 sentences answer the title question!  Period.

• Mabool 29 minutes ago

  If you will notice, Romney got booed for saying he won’t go on borrowing a $T every year and therefore Obamacare has to go.

  What would the President say?  That we go on borrowing a $T or two every year?

  Has anybody run this by the Chinese?

• jesuswept666 26 minutes ago in reply to Mabool

  I do NOT approve of greed, wars…I do approve of health care for all.    You judge selectively when you read my book!
  I have spoken.

• Nevis07 30 minutes ago

  He’s sending Biden, because he wants to make it like it is not about race.

  But I think this is a distraction.  I can understand the 95% of African Americans voting for Obama in 2008.  But having just watched ABC News’ report on Romney appearance, they reported that essentially the same percentage will be voting for him again.  So it begs the question, is it really not about race?  Obama’s healthcare bill is very popular with African American’s likely because they would be net beneficiaries of the bill; but as I understand it, Romney actually dis gather some applause for other issues.  And lets be honest, with so many people out of work (the African American population worst hit), it’s difficult to make an economic argument for Obama.

  And yet when Caucasian’s voted in the many elections before Obama was on the national scene, voting was fairly down the line and has been for several decades.  I have to ask then, is the African American demographic really voting for Obama because they specifically like his policies?  I feel I might be branded a racist for questioning, although I am trying to be sensitive.  All the same, it seems to me that the African American vote is much more about race than the MSM is willing to take on and anyone who does – would be branded as a racist.

  1 person liked this.

• nsc20 22 minutes ago in reply to Nevis07

  The liberal definition of racism is that only whites can do it. Seriously. There’s a whole power-dynamic leftist argument behind it, arguing that only the privileged can wield racism to keep down victim groups. So when blacks hate whites or openly say that blacks are genetically different from whites in important ways (see Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan) it is by definition, not racist.

  Or when the Attorney General orders the DOJ never to prosecute Voting Rights infringements against minority defendants. Also not racist, by liberal definition.

• cristo52 5 minutes ago in reply to nsc20

   Your “liberal” definition of racism may not go far enough. I would argue that there are some who feel that whites are inherently racist. That they don’t even know they are racists. And that there is essentially nothing they can do to change this. In fact, “liberal” whites are as racist as any other whites. Racism is not affected by party affiliation. Some “liberals” might think they are open-minded and free of racism, but the reality is that because they are white, they can’t help but be racist.

• Mermaiden 33 minutes ago

  JC on a bicycle……..JOURNALISM HAS BECOME A SYNONYM FOR POT S-T-I-R-E-R.  Ask yourselves, who has the most to benefit by dividing the country?   Molly Bolly, as in Bollywood, would be a better handle.  Listen, she’s actually very mild compared to some of the real shills out there, to be fair.  JUST. STOP. IT. RIGHT. NOW.

• Mtwtf 40 minutes ago

  Obama is the master of being vague and uncontroversial.  This way everyone can impose their hopes onto his image.  Many people hope Obama is like this or that, but he doesn’t want to challenge  their personal hopes of who he is, so he simply takes no stance.  Therefore no one can put him in one category, broadening his appeal to different groups.

  1 person liked this.

• jay_see_are 42 minutes ago

  Because he’s not interested in trolling them, a la Romney?

• Damiana Swan 46 minutes ago

  Maybe it’s because, oh I don’t know, he was flying all over the country yesterday?  And maybe he has, you know, work to do?  As President?

  Unlike the Mittster, he does have a full time job that he’s responsible for, in addition to the campaigning stuff.  I’d be willing to bet the folks at the NAACP might understand that.

  1 person liked this.

• Nevis07 23 minutes ago in reply to Damiana Swan

  I don’t buy that Damiana.  Obama has been on the campaign trail for months.  He could have or can schedule time any time he wants.  He may be busy, but he’s obviously been stumping elsewhere.

• Democrits 49 minutes ago

  It is apparent that today’s NAACP bears more in common with the KKK than with any actual civil rights groups.  Romney however showed grace and eloquence  in the face of incivility and apparent anti-white racism.

• Vindel 38 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Apparent? Get back to me when booing = lynching.

• Democrits 34 minutes ago in reply to Vindel

   It’s not the booing per se, but the racist mind set.

• Vindel 31 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Like I said above: Explain, please, how exactly the NAACP is racist.

• Democrits 22 minutes ago in reply to Vindel

   Explain why NAACP is  not racist?  Is your only criteria for racism is a lynching that happened like 150 years ago.  African Americans commit murderous atrocities in cities everyday.

• Vindel 16 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Actually there were lynchings that happened less than 100 years ago, but you being such a student of history probably know all about it.

  My criteria for racism includes things like Jim Crow laws, which were overturned (after much resistance) within living memory and trying to disenfranchise black voters, which is something that is happening RIGHT NOW.

• Democrits 25 minutes ago in reply to Vindel

   They have no relevance in today’s world and have evolved as race hustlers.  It’s also apparent in the hateful and rude way in treating a white guest.  I can go on and on, but won’t.  Therefore, there is no difference:  KKK=NAACP.

• Archdukechocula 14 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  I would highly recommend looking up “false equivalency” on google.

• Vindel 20 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  “ It’s also apparent in the hateful and rude way in treating a white guest. ”

  I see… so in your view, because their guest is white, they should show him deference and applaud when he advocates policies that they disagree with. I have to tell you, if you actually think that way, then you are the one that is being racist.

  “I can go on and on”. Please do, because you are so very wrong and misguided about this, and I’m sure myself or someone else here could set you straight.

  Here’s a tip: go out and learn what racism actually IS, before you start using it as a cudgel against others.

• jesuswept666 54 minutes ago

  Did the writer suffer from a vaginal probe gone terribly wrong on another planet or what?

  Is this a stupidity race to the dollar line on who can be the most controversial (Coulter has you beat honey!)?

  You have some balls Mrs Ball.   Have a transgender day and go away (NAACP has already endorsed the gay)!

  1 person liked this.

• Mermaiden 39 minutes ago in reply to jesuswept666

  Normally, I don’t like to encourage this type of snark………but, damn, it’s just too funny to let it go.

• Democrits 46 minutes ago in reply to jesuswept666

  I’m guessing you are also a member of the racist NAACP?

• Vindel 38 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Explain, please, how the NAACP is racist.

• jesuswept666 42 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Dude, I am Jesus…I have to be liberal!

  1 person liked this.

• MatterOverMind 47 minutes ago in reply to jesuswept666

  Dude that probe to Uranus is sending the wrong signal to your brain! Leave Ms. Ball alone already, she’s a fine journalist.

• jesuswept666 40 minutes ago in reply to MatterOverMind

  On Uranus she is, perhaps.

• Salvador Eggs 1 hour ago

  “When the president is invited and sends an underling instead, that’s an
  undeniable dis, especially when his opponent shows up in person.”

  Um, how ’bout no and no?

  Here’s a hint about how politics works in an election year: Look no farther than the current headlines of the top articles on Google News and you will clearly see exactly why Mitt spoke to the NAACP today, (It had nothing to do with “reaching out” to a voting block that he will never have the ability to chip away at in a thousand lifetimes of campaigning). The long and short of it is he’s taking the “high road”, High Class/High Money. He’s playing to his strengths trying to rally the GOP base and doing pretty well at it. Over the weekend he scored some high end cash and earned some red meat points in response the the outrage demonstrated by the “liberal” press and today he scored some sweet base riling points by getting booed and jeered by a stalwart block of the opposition’s traditional base.

  So the real question seems to be not the one you’re asking but who you’re asking it to. Presumably it’s to an audience who’s interested in election year politics but if that is indeed the case color me confused because this stuff is campaigning 101.

  1 person liked this.

• northernobserver 1 hour ago

  Optics and the nature of the median swing voter.

• midwest norwegian 1 hour ago

  Because they’re “in the can”.   Duh.

   

  2 people liked this.

• lib1 1 hour ago

  You answered your own question Ms. Ball.

  “President Obama is going to win the African-American vote. By a lot. Let’s just get that out of the way”.

  If President Obama’s approval ratings amongst African Americans slid to 70% or less then it would be in his best interest to attend the NAACP rally. Yet, that is not the case as roughly 90% of black voters approve of the President. He knows who his bloc is and he knows who he must reach out to. He needs to reach out to some portion of white working class voters. Though at this rate he can slide by with support he already has.

  3 people liked this.

• Democrits 1 hour ago

  I have new admiration for Romney for speaking in front of the NAACP despite the hostility toward him in that demographic.  The closest analogy I can think of is if Obama were to speak before the KKK.

  2 people liked this.

• jay_see_are 41 minutes ago in reply to Democrits

  Congrats, you won the internuts.

  1 person liked this.

• jeffinohio 1 hour ago in reply to Democrits

  That’s the closest? I was thinking Obama addressing the Aryan Nation. Isn’t the NAACP just the Negros version of the Aryan Nation? ‘Cause the KKK does civics stuff like picking up highway trash and helping people across the street. What did the NAACP ever do?

  5 people liked this.

• bonneville 39 minutes ago in reply to jeffinohio

  Awesome post. Who knew you get a keyboard that far up your butt and still type. Hats off to you!

• jeffinohio 0 minutes ago in reply to bonneville

  Goatse by any other name would still stretch as far.

• MatterOverMind 1 hour ago in reply to Democrits

  You must be really ignorant, stupid, or both to compare NAACP to the KKK.

  11 people liked this.

• Democrits 1 hour ago in reply to MatterOverMind

   What’s the difference?

  2 people liked this.

• jeffinohio 1 hour ago in reply to Democrits

  ignorance is making a choice not to see a distinction, stupid is not possessing the mental capacity to make the distinction.

  5 people liked this.

• Buckland 1 hour ago

  Obama doesn’t want to be seen as the left/liberal candidate.

  His dilemma — go to the NAACP and give lots of liberal red meat or give a middle of the road message and risk getting booed.

  Instead of choosing, he voted present.

  5 people liked this.

• nsc20 27 minutes ago in reply to Buckland

   Doesn’t explain it, since Obama has already given up the middle. He’s runny a rally-the-base campaign. So why not the NAACP?

• Miranda 1 hour ago

  Have you heard of this little organization called “The National Urban League”? yeah, the President is speaking there on the 25th…maybe you should look it up!

  7 people liked this.

• Chunk063 1 hour ago

  yeesh. This is just silly.

  “widely praised for making a symbolic gesture of outreach and braving the hostile crowd.”

  Not saying this isn’t true necessarily…but is there…ya know…a source of some kind? As it stands it means  about as much as “Chunk063 was widely praised for going to work today.”

  “sends an underling instead”

  I mean, he is the Vice President…

  “There are numerous states where black voter turnout could be crucial to Obama’s hopes.”

  In what world does someone vote for Romney (or…okay…more likely just stay at home) because Vice President Biden is speaking instead of Obama at the NAACP convention?

  “The official explanation from the White House was that Obama had “scheduling” issues.
  ”

  I’m not sure why you put that in quotes other than to be facetious. But, I had a thought on this. Maybe…just maybe…as leader of the United States…something came up that prevented him from being there. I’d also like to point out that he (and Romney for that matter) have an army of schedulers in charge of this–so it’s not like Obama himself made some kind of crazed, unilateral decision to ignore the NAACP convention.

  There are many, many, many reasons to vote for or against Obama or Romney. I’m not sure this cracks the top 1,000.

  17 people liked this.

2 new comments were just posted. Show

blog comments powered by Disqus

Just In

Voices

Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Lovely Sky Monsters

Jul 11, 2012