Alternative Political Parties

After a screening of "The Corporation," someone approached me asking to sign a petition to include Green Party candidates in the Pennsylvania ballot this November. The Green Party candidates would include three state offices and their presidential candidate. I signed the petition.

A great friend of mine expressed his disappointment at my choice and even though we have not had a chance to discuss it, I wanted to solidify my thoughts. So you, dear reader, get to endure the initial rough draft.

The groundwork:

1. I will vote for John Kerry this November.
2. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
3. I despise what the George W. Bush administration has wrought.
4. I believe that an increased plurality of parties and options on our ballots is, for the most part, a good thing in the long-run
5. Ralph Nader is not the presidential candidate for the Green Party this election.

View 1:

Allowing alternative parties to have a presence in the ballot is tantamount to allowing the possibility of votes moving away from John Kerry and Democrat candidates. This shift in votes presents the clear and present danger of tipping an important state toward George W. Bush and toward Republican candidates for other offices.

There has been no wider chasm, in my lifetime, between voting for the Democratic and Republican parties. The infestation of certain policies and views into government agencies and courts has had and will have an impact on government policy for years to come.

Because of this, it is wiser to put aside more theoretical views endorsing an increased plurality of parties in the long-term and choose the more pragmatic, immediate need of supporting the party that has the best chance of dislodging the present, despicable administration. A stronger formulation: it is irresponsible to make it easier for the present administration to rule another four years and continue placing their policies into our government agencies and courts.

See, for instance, The Nader Factor: a site founded by "a group of Democratic strategists" dedicated to winning over "Nader Democrats," according to the Washington Post.

View 2:

A central tenet of democratic principles includes providing access to as many government options as supported by a society. In order for an option to be viable in a democratic process, it is acceptable to require a minimal threshold of support to be met for such an option to be available to the entire populace (thus the petition signing drives).

If non-traditional parties ask for support to be considered an option during an election, authentic adherence to democratic (little "d") principles should lead one to, at the very least, consider whether that party's platform should be available for evaluation and selection during an election. Choosing to support a party's access to a ballot should not be confused, obviously, with choosing that party during an election.

Even if the presence of those parties creates the possibility of eroding support for the party one supports, principled adherence to democratic principles should lead one to risk that possibility. After all, one should support giving voice to sectors of the populace and the minimal threshold has been met.

The presence of these options should make the political discourse richer -- traditional parties are now pressured to evaluate the positions of those additional parties and choose to incorporate them or offer their own explanations of why and how they differ from those views. The electorate receives an improved spectrum of discourse. Well, one would hope!

My view:

Of course, there are more than those two views and you are welcome to add subtleties and variations I chose to omit. My view is very close to View 2.

I wrestle with View 1 all the time and I do have retrospective regrets for having chosen Nader in 2000. However, this particular case is different. The distinction is between allowing options on the ballot and choosing the option in the ballot that weakens the party that has the best chance to remove George W. Bush.

Is endorsing more theoretical, foundational democratic principles a naive, dangerous position given the contrast between Democrats and Republicans in 2004? I do not think it is naive, but it is dangerous. But this danger is inherent to any system where you allow the populace to decide what people and principles will guide a society.

If the presence of these parties in the ballot results in a GWB victory, I will feel awful. But I will not target the alternative parties as the source of the catastrophe. I will look first at the failure of the Democratic party to appeal to this growing dissatisfaction in the populace and I will look at the electorate's poor judgment. However, I will not regret allowing the options to exercise this judgment to be present in the ballots.

Political Pragmatism:

Some may say that an adherence to abstract and vague "foundational democratic principles" have to be put on hold when the effects of such adherence will have a pivotal impact on whether we will have a better, more humane and sensitive party in power. The pragmatic pull is a strong one and it has swayed me to vote for Kerry.

This pragmatic pull, however, does not sway me when it comes to ballot accessibility by legitimate parties that are trying to meet the threshold lawfully.

Tough cases?:

Case 1: Well, given your principles, would you sign a petition asking for ballot access to the Nazi Party of the U.S.A.?

No. The difference lies in the fact that such parties have platforms that run counter to fundamental democratic and human right principles. There is no contradiction in not choosing to support their presence in a ballot. If they manage to meet the required threshold for presence in ballots, then I worry about the kinds of people in my society.

Perhaps this tough case is a bit of a straw man -- it will get more difficult with less extreme cases that are despicable yet where it is not immediately evident that they violate fundamental democratic and human right principles. Can anyone think of less extreme cases?

Case 2: Some reports have suggested that activists from some alternative political parties have been presenting their petitions as voter registration drives, covering up the language in the petition that makes it clear that it is a petition to give the party presence in state ballots.

| Dems challenging Nader's bid in Pa. |

Despicable behavior that must trigger investigations to determine whether this is party sanctioned behavior or horrible tactics by foot soldiers. If true, either way, those parties should be sanctioned. Though I must admit that I am undecided whether the sanctions should include something as severe as removal of the party from the ballots. Without a doubt, the fraudulent signature should not count toward that end.

-----

If you have other tough cases, please feel free to set them out. There may be tougher ones I have not thought of.

So, given that I have often told people that I am an "apolitical" being and that a central tenet of Elliptic Blog is to pursue "economy of oral or written expression," I seem to have run counter to those statements. I guess I have changed.

Thanks for enduring this.

| Public Agenda |
| League of Women Voter's Democracy.net |
| CNN's "The Issues" - for what that's worth |

Philadelphia's Center City Demographics, continued

The Center City District and Central Philadelphia Development Corporation have made available another report that presents a wealth of demographic, economic and cultural information about Center City Philadelphia.

Here is a sample of some of the illustrations / charts in the reports to give you a sense of what to expect:

| State of Center City 2004 (PDF) |
| Philadelphia's Center City Demographics - Elliptic Blog posting; 1/1/2004 |

"Creating a Competitive Destination City"

The Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau has released a report designed to target investment and development initiatives in Philadelphia within the next five years with the aim of enhancing "the visitor experience in Center City Philadelphia." The report was prepared by the Center City District with MGA Partners, Architects.

One of the most interesting aspects of the report involves the discussion of "Gaps in the Fabric of the City" and the recommendation of treating a "Y" shaped area of Center City as top priority when it comes to substantial capital investments. The "Y" pattern is formed by:

• The Benjamin Franklin Parkway
• Market Street East / Center Square
• Broad Street (north and south of City Hall)

It also discusses longer term development in, what it calls, the "Centennial District" and "Independence Harbor" -- the latter including Camden, NJ.

| "Creating a Competitive Destination City" (PDF) |

Slots in Center City?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a good article by architecture critic Inga Saffron on the impact of proposed casino/slot construction in the Market East area.

A few observations:

• One proposal would like to demolish the entire block between 11th and 12th / Market and Chestnut.


• The proposed building in the article’s illustration is a travesty. Do we really need another concrete box on Market East? Isn’t the Gallery enough damage?


• Can you imagine what adding slot machines to service up to 40,000 people a day will do to that already unappealing area?


• Will the $160 savings in wage taxes per $40,000 of income be worth this?

If we must accept the existence of slots in Center City, couldn't we think of better spots for it? One that comes to mind: Tie them in to the Convention Center area without disrupting Chinatown. Focus on the area between North Broad and 13th Street / Arch and Callowhill.

Even more disturbing:

But the city will have to pay dearly for this infusion of revenue. The slots bill, which was rushed through the legislature without the usual opportunities for public comment, strips Philadelphia of planning and zoning powers over its future casinos. Instead, a seven-member, state-run gambling control board will decide the big design issues, from the location of the casinos down to the location of their garage driveways.

Before Sunset & Armond White

Saw this film at the Ritz recently and was enchanted and moved by it. For the most part, critical reception has been quite positive. I did bump into Armond White's negative review in the New York Press and felt the need to jot down some responses to that review. Here are some excerpts:

Now comes Before Sunset, a so-called love story that encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences. Our cultural divide can be felt in the very concept of this movie about the mutual attraction of two navel-gazers: Ethan Hawke as an American novelist and Julie Delpy as a French environmentalist, the same pair that met nine years ago in Before Sunrise. Not just thirtysomethings, now they're smug thirtysomethings; other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon.

I do not think that Before Sunset "encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences," but, if it did, it is not clear whether this is a criticism of the aesthetic merit of the film or a scolding for not undertaking a noble sociological goal. It is true that there are plenty of art critics that include the social value of a work of art as part of the evaluation of the work's merit, but Armond White's review does not provide the necessary arguments to support that view.

When he mentions that Jesse and Celine are "smug thirtysomethings" and that "other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon," he is correct. However, he seems to treat this as premises in support for the bad quality of the film. The representation of smugness and solipsism is, in my view, part of the intended characterizations. The audience is intelligent enough to realize that they may be witnessing a pair of smug people carping on about love, memory and other philosophical topics and still find their characters appealing and valuable. A representation of smugness does not necessarily make a film smug. Granted, Linklater may be extremely sympathetic to his characters, but the audience is given the space to dislike aspects of Jesse and Celine's personas.

Everything wrong with today's movie culture can be found in Before Sunset. Not to exaggerate this pipsqueak movie, but its very "smallness" is symptomatic of the diminished expectations and paltry substance that have become standard. Linklater's screenplay collaboration with his performers enshrines the indie audience's solipsistic taste. Their nonvoluptuous love story reduces courtship rituals to talk—and unexciting talk at that. The woman is slyly aggressive, and the man is abashed about his desperation. Linklater, Hawke and Delpy are not rejecting the screwball comedy model so much as indulging their own lack of imagination. (Any episode of tv's Elimidate or Blind Date tell us as much about how men and women feign and risk.) It's a grim joke that anyone took this method seriously the first time around, and the sequel will feel superfluous to anyone except those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy. The sign of Linklater's facetiousness is that his couple comes off as over-sincere and pretentious rather than embarrassingly real.

"Not to exaggerate." Whenever a film critic resorts to dysphemisms and ridicule ("pipsqueak"), one should be immediately suspect of the critic unless the film is obvious garbage or the critic provides strong arguments supporting the ridicule. Neither is the case. The movie will not be superfluous, according to White, for "those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy." Jesse and Celine's self-absorption and vanity may resonate strongly with my particular generation (in their 30s), but I find it hard to believe that those qualities are not found across the spectrum. Eric Rohmer films, which Linklater is obviously riffing on, can be equally as vain and solipsistic. The ultimate point is that a representation of those features in characters, by themselves, does not constitute an aesthetic flaw. Viewing representations of character flaws and flawed choices have been an integral component of storytelling for a long, long time.

It's a Sundance fallacy that Linklater (and Kevin Smith's execrable Chasing Amy) gets the precise tone of modern lovers. Loving doesn't change, but how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion, and Linklater is practiced at hipster intellectuality. (Waking Life was a snooze.) A screenwriter as gifted as Whit Stillman can show how lovers avoid talking about themselves, but all Hawke and Delpy do is parade their obnoxiousness. When he says, "I'm designed to be dissatisfied with everything," and she boasts, "I'm a romantic," it's a meeting of non-minds. This couple and their enabler are really stuck on themselves. By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs.

When White writes that "how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion," he gets close to what I believe to be a central theme of the film. I do not think that Linklater, Hawke, Delpy et al. want us to think that their characters represent some intelligent and charming lovers -- I believe they are trying to represent the struggles and temptations all people have to face when trying to take stock of their lives and their romantic emotions. Jesse and Celine often say silly, pretentious things, but to take that as evidence that the entire enterprise is silly and pretentious is a classic error.

"By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs" -- I am not sure what the audience's romantic needs are but I am pretty sure that Armond White cannot be the repository of that knowledge.

Before Sunset's key insult is its pretense of realism. Starting with Linklater's long-take, dollying-camera scenes (a favored trope since Slackers [sic]), the eavesdropping technique can only fool the most naive spectators. Linklater's real-time fascination is not fascinating; he insists that audiences acquiesce to his refusal of wonder; he films Paris like Hoboken.

Frankly, relying on the long take as a showy sign of technical prowess is a common ploy used by many filmmakers. But when considering the merit of that technical choice, one should ask oneself: "Did the filmmakers have good reasons to rely on the long-take? Was the choice well motivated?" The answer is "yes" in Before Sunset. The essence of the film is the conversation (spoken and unspoken) and body language of two characters trying to determine the depth of their romantic attachment. If a filmmaker had chosen not to rely on long-takes but, instead, chosne to pepper the film with more cuts, the addition of these cuts would raise at least two issues: (1) The film could lose the ability to study, in a sustained fashion, a character's behavior and mannerisms over extended periods of time as the conversation develops and (2) the choice of an editing cut often adds psychological or interpretative meanings to what we are witnessing.

By relying on long, uninterrupted takes, the audience can choose who to focus on and can see a wider range of their physical behavior with each other and with their environment. The point is this: criticizing a long-take, dollying style by stating that it can "only fool the most naive spectators" is not criticism in the classic sense of the word. It is a rhetorical ploy appealing to peer-pressure: "Oh, I must be naive if I admire Linklater's long-takes." But he does not provide authentic reasons for rejecting this technical choice.

Back in my days as a philosophy teacher, many principles guiding intellectual evaluation and criticism were part of my daily life. Two in particular come to mind when I read many of Armond White's pieces: (1) Straw Man arguments and (2) The Principle of Charity.

Straw Man arguments occur when we distort our adversary's claims or works to such an extent that it becomes easier to reject or critique their views. The Principle of Charity suggests that when you are faced with a claim, argument or work, try to understand it as best as you can and identify the strongest features of it before beginning a critical assessment. I find Armond White having fun with straw men all the time but I rarely see him applying charity.