Politics

Alpha: Newt Gingrich

If anyone doubts the power of an alpha response in the age of television, look no further than Newt Gingrich's opening salvo the other night.  It single-handedly won him South Carolina and revitalized his presidential campaign.

Let's analyze Gingrich's moment in light of what I recently wrote about the beta response of Michael Dukakis as well as the alpha response of Ronald Reagan during the New Hampshire debate.

Step 1: Acknowledge the challenge.  If you pretend that you haven't been challenged, but everyone else knows you have been, then not responding is a sign of submission and admission of defeat.  Therefore, you must acknowledge the challenge: clenched jaw, red face, flared nostrils, hands clenched or gripping the podium, leaning forward, gaze locked directly on the questioner.

Newt's confrontational and succinct response to whether he wanted to address the issue: "No.  But I will."

Create a moment of silence -- to allow fear to build and to give the challenger time to reconsider his challenge before the situation turns violent.  Grow larger in stature, puff out your chest, stand taller.

Newt was silent as the crowd roared, letting the tension build since everyone knew he was about to lay into CNN anchor John King.

Step 2: Growl.  Be loud, bellow, growl.  In a presidential debate, this would mean raising your voice and saying something to the effect of "How dare you ask a question like that.  Shame on you."

Newt chastised King: "...and I am appalled that you would begin a Presidential debate on a topic like that."

Use a deeper voice than you would normally use.  Point directly at the questioner.  Gesture forcefully.  Given this context, the questioner would probably be apologizing by now.  Physically, this would entail his voice getting softer and higher, and he would probably hold up his hands, palms open (both exposing his underbelly and unclenching his fists) in an instinctive attempt to indicate submission and that he didn't actually want to fight.

Take a look at 1:45, where John King tries to pass the question off on ABC.  Gingrich will have none of it, and yes, John King holds up his hands, palms open, while Gingrich gestures forcefully.

Step 3: Assert dominance.

Gingrich denies the allegations and slams the media: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

Compare with Romney's worst answer of the night, as to whether he would release his tax returns: Maybe.  Are you kidding me?  Go strong "No" or strong "Yes", but the most beta possible answer is a weak "Maybe".

Republicans want a fighter.  And whether voters are informed about the issues or not, they have millions of years of hard-wiring informing them which guy on stage is socially dominant.  During this debate, it was Newt Gingrich.

Beta: Dukakis's infamous death penalty answer

Below is a famous clip during the 1988 presidential election between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.  Forget political parties, forget where you fall on the issues, and just watch the clip in terms of social dominance.

Is this the behavior of an alpha male?  Alternatively, is it the behavior of a man who has the potential to be an alpha male when the situation calls for it?

It's painful to watch.

Can you imagine that?  Being a man, and having another man ask you to imagine your wife getting raped?  And to do it in an attempt to force you -- yes, force you -- into a lose-lose set of possible answers?  And to do so in a very public setting (i.e., the entire nation)?  When all your status is on the line?  This is as primal as it gets, folks.

After I watched this clip last night, I couldn't fall asleep.  I was too worked up from imagining myself in the same situation.  I probably would have lost it.

Commentators have said that Dukakis didn't show enough emotion.  Well, duh.  But it's not just any emotion, it's the right emotion -- and the right behaviors too.

Here's what an alpha (i.e., dominant) response would have looked like.

  • Step 1: Acknowledge the challenge.  If you pretend that you haven't been challenged, but everyone else knows you have been, then not responding is a sign of submission and admission of defeat.  Therefore, you must acknowledge the challenge: clenched jaw, red face, flared nostrils, hands clenched or gripping the podium, leaning forward, gaze locked directly on the questioner.  Create a moment of silence -- to allow fear to build and to give the challenger time to reconsider his challenge before the situation turns violent.  Grow larger in stature, puff out your chest, stand taller.

 

  • Step 2: Growl.  Be loud, bellow, growl.  In a presidential debate, this would mean raising your voice and saying something to the effect of "How dare you ask a question like that.  Shame on you."  Use a deeper voice than you would normally use.  Point directly at the questioner.  Gesture forcefully.  Given this context, the questioner would probably be apologizing by now.  Physically, this would entail his voice getting softer and higher, and he would probably hold up his hands, palms open (both exposing his underbelly and unclenching his fists) in an instinctive attempt to indicate submission and that he didn't actually want to fight.  However, given the highly public nature of this challenge, no alpha male who cares about his reputation could leave it at that, because reputation deters potential challengers.

 

  • Step 3: Assert dominance.  Given that it was a presidential debate, and a certain amount of decorum and restraint is required, it would have been too alpha to go physically assault the questioner -- though in times past (or even today), a question like that will easily earn you a shiner.  Men fight over far less.  After verbally putting the questioner in his place -- just to be clear, that place being lower on the hierarchy -- I would have said that I expect to receive my wife expects to receive a hand-written apology from the head of CNN by the end of the following day.  (The reporter asking the question isn't actually all that high status...much more effective to use the situation to assert dominance over his boss.)  Said forcefully enough with enough emotion to indicate that I wasn't bluffing, and my wife would have received a hand-written apology before the debate was over.  At that point, I could have either continued the debate, or simply stated "This debate is over" and just walked off the stage (possibly a bit much).

No matter what Kitty Dukakis believes on the issues, can you imagine how she felt at that moment?  The running joke was, for a second there, even Kitty Dukakis was undecided.

And understandably so.  Forget the exact wording of the question, that's not the point.  The question summoned the emotions of an intruder breaking into your home and attempting to rape your wife.  And are you the type of man who will risk his life to save your wife from a terrible fate?  Or will your heroics end at picking up the telephone and calling for help from other men who aren't afraid of using violence?  The intellectual aspects don't matter, the emotional ones do.

Pushovers aren't good leaders.  Michael Dukakis dropped from 49% to 42% in the polls that night.

Kissing babies and eating junk food: election season, food, and identity

Come election season, politicians don't just have to kiss babies -- they have to eat junk food too.  It's about more than just being polite -- anywhere on the planet, it's an insult to turn down food, so you can't turn anything down without being labeled a jerk.  It's also about identity -- what you eat is an indication of what tribe you belong to.  And so come election season, every damn politician starts eating whatever "ordinary folks" eat.

Pick your party, pick your candidate, it doesn't matter.

"[Candidate X] has tried the new $4.39 Carl’s Jr. jalapeño chicken sandwich (“delicious”), celebrated the Reagan Library debate with fast-food burgers and fries (again, Carl’s Jr.), and dug into a Subway flatbread sandwich while sitting in an airport terminal (“better than the usual campaign diet of morning donuts”)."

That happens to be Mitt Romney, but it could just as easily have been any number of political figures in recent memory.  Remember when Barack Obama tried to connect with people by complaining about the price of arugula?  Or when John Kerry's hotel requests were leaked, and it specified "No Evian", because he was fighting a French image?

Here's the thing.  To the extent that Republican and Democratic candidates went to Ivy League schools and were brought up in the same culture of privilege, then they probably eat more similarly to each other than to a blue collar person of either party.

Let's look at our three most recent Presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton came from a blue collar background (Arkansas), and only later rose up through the elite establishment (Rhodes Scholar).  His love of fast food was legendary -- he didn't have to pretend to "eat like the common man".  And yes, Clinton was always known for being able to connect, and a large part of that was his blue collar roots.  (Of course, now he's vegan.  Remember, veganism has a lot of identity value now that Clinton's world is the edgy and hip liberal, international scene.)

George W. Bush

George W. Bush is kind of the reverse of Clinton.  He started from a privileged background, but he had a blue collar temperament.  He was always good at connecting with a lot of folks, being a guy who people wanted to have a beer with.  And yes, he ate in a mainstream way too.  This is from a site on what foods various Presidents liked: 

"There was a handful of things that the President wanted for lunch, and he almost never deviated from that list. There was a BLT...He liked his grilled cheese sandwiches made with Kraft Singles and white bread."

Many people who didn't like Bush would criticize him for "faking it" -- putting on a Texan affect and pretending that he didn't come from a well-off background.  That may be so, what do I know -- but on the other hand, you can't fake eating Kraft Singles and white bread for lunch all the time, far away from the media's flashbulbs.

Barack Obama

Remember during the Presidential Beer Summit, when the President drank a Bud Light?  And honestly, it didn't quite seem like a beer he would actually choose?  That's because President Obama isn't blue collar.   

"For sweets, the Obamas eat Fran's Chocolates, an artisan chocolate brand from Seattle. The president-elect prefers Fran's Smoked Sea Salt Caramel in Milk Chocolate ($24 for a 16-piece box); wife Michelle prefers dark chocolate, says Sean Seedlock, Fran's marketing chief. *Drinks. Obama is a fan of Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. "

Does Fran's Smoked Sea Salt Caramel in Milk Chocolate sound blue collar to you?  That may be one of the reasons why the President continues to have difficulty connecting with a lot of folks.

Now, here's the million dollar question: what does an authentic blue collar candidate eat?  Moose stew.

Food and identity, people -- food and identity.  Food preferences become fairly ingrained after young adulthood, and those relatively-fixed preferences become good signals for what group you're from.

Personality plays a mediating role, but that's for another post.

Food and politics

 "David Wasserman, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, recently calculated that 89 percent of the Whole Foods stores in the United States were in counties carried by Barack Obama in 2008, while 62 percent of Cracker Barrel restaurants were in counties carried by John McCain." 

The full article is here, mostly about how more people have been choosing to live near others with the same views they do.

In defense of gourmet cupcake makers

You know my position on gourmet cupcakes: evil of the purest form.  Princess of Comfort Foods.  Harbinger of Civilizational (Tooth) Decay.  Which is why you may be surprised to hear me defend some cupcake makers.  Get this:

"When Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, two 13-year-olds from Chappaqua's Seven Bridges Middle School, set up shop at Gedney Park on a fall weekend last month, they were expecting a tidy profit.  Instead, the two wannabe entrepreneurs selling cupcakes, cookies, brownies and Rice Krispie treats baked by them for $1 apiece got a taste of cold, hard bureaucracy.  New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn came upon the sale and called the cops on the kids for operating without a license."

        

Welcome to the regulatory state.  Where you need a license to live.  What a great lesson to teach our children: don't bother.  Don't bother taking a risk, starting a little business, and learning how to turn a profit.  Pack up your enterprise, turn off your ingenuity, and go play some video games.

Shame on Michael Wolfensohn.  But Wolfensohn was just following the rules.  The rules are the problem.  A bad set of rules looks like this: everything is illegal, with the exception of complex specified licensed activities.  Good rules: everything is legal, with the exception of a few simple specified illegal activities.

You might say that this is an isolated incident.  It's not.  Burdensome regulations have shut down local farmers markets.  And if you want some horror stories that are happening all over America, visit the Institute for Justice.  IJ has done pro-bono work on economic liberty cases.

  • Taalib-Din Abdul Uqdah v. District of Columbia.  The DC Board of Cosmetology (whatever that is for) tried to impose the 1938 Cosmetology Code on Uqdah's traditional African hair-braiding business.  Something tells me the 1938 bureaucrats who wrote the code didn't have African hair in mind.  It's a Medieval guild system.
  • Kalish v. Milliken.  "Anyone in Virginia can do yoga, and anyone can teach yoga.  But, incredibly, it is illegal to teach people to teach yoga.  Yoga-teacher training is just the latest target of vocational school licensing laws that require countless entrepreneurs to ask the government’s permission before opening their mouths."
  • Meadows v. Odom.  "Why would the Louisiana Horticulture Commission force a florist to either throw away seven perfectly fine floral displays or be fined $250?  Because would-be Baton Rouge florist Sandy Meadows, like so many other women, has been unable to pass a highly subjective State-mandated floral exam—an exam graded by existing florists in the state who have a vested interest in keeping her out of work."

The DC Board of Cosmetology?  The Louisiana Horticulture Commission?  These bureaucracies are parasites.  And the people who work there are parasites.  It's terrible that we have to even assert this, but people have a right to make an honest living.  

 

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

 

As for the 13-year old cupcake makers?  I disapprove of what you sell, but I will defend to the death your right to sell it.*

 

* Except for Sex and the City gourmet cupcakes.  If you sell those, you're on your own, boys.  I may even tip off the officer myself.

 

Update: One reader, Bob Ewing, actually works for IJ.  Check out his comments, and this excellent video on all the crazy licensing regulations out there. 

Gisele Bundchen can be my benevolent dictator

Finally, a reason to write a post about Gisele.  Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen has been stirring up controversy -- in a recent interview with Harper's Bazaar, Gisele spoke about being a new mother, and made a strong statement in favor of breastfeeding:

"Some people [in the United States] think they don't have to breastfeed, and I think 'Are you going to give chemical food to your child when they are so little?' I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months."

Apparently, the "worldwide law" piece struck some women as a bit smug coming from a wealthy supermodel.

My reaction?  Puh-lease.  Here are 10 reasons why Gisele is in the right.

  • First, as Gisele clarified on her blog, she wasn't making a point about the law.  She was emphasizing the importance of breastfeeding and the strength of her belief.   
  • Second, she's absolutely right that breastfeeding is important, that more women should breastfeed their children, and breastfeed for longer.  (And yes, I said that. And I'm a man. Without any children. Boo ya!)  Just because it may be easier for Giselle to breastfeed than some women, it doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal.
  • Third, it's not as if every other celebrity doesn't sound off about, say, environmental issues every day -- but in that situation, they are actually advocating global laws (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol) to force people to behave a certain way.  So for consistency's sake, I hope you accuse every green-in-the-face celebrity for unmerited opinions and general smugness.
  • Fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth are attached below (with captions). 

Now that I have found a way to post about Gisele (and her breasts), I've accomplished all of the goals I had for this blog.  So I will be shutting down the site.  Thank you for coming.

Why America is the unhealthiest country on Earth...and the healthiest

 

Well, it's the Fourth of July, so I thought we'd talk about the US of A.  When it comes to America and health, we hear a lot of negativity and criticism.  Health and food activists like to pick on the United States as the epicenter of poor eating habits, unhealthy food, and sedentary lifestyles.  We hear a few reasons over and over:
 
 
  1. Culture - The U.S. lacks a national cuisine to act as anchor on our food and eating habits (as European countries have)
  2. Corporations - We aggressively create and market processed foods (fast food, HFCS, etc.)
  3. Government - Corn subsidies and other federal policies subsidize processed food
 
But is it all doom and gloom?  In many ways,  America can be the healthiest country on the planet:
 
  1. Culture - the lack of a national cuisine means Americans may be more open to experimenting with and developing a completely new healthy cuisine (like a hunter-gatherer diet).  We also have a tradition of wanting to be the best and strongest at anything.
  2. Corporations - The U.S. is the largest and most dynamic market for finding solutions for people's health problems.  All the food trends point to fewer ingredients, organic ingredients, and more health consciousness.  Grocery stores have gotten consistently better over the last couple decades.  Our companies respond to demand.
  3. Government - The historical errors of U.S. government health policy (encouraging low fat, high grain, wrong-headed subsidies) actually play quite nicely into the anti-government / anti-expert strain of American history.  We can be healthy in a distinctly American away -- despite the federal government, not because of it.
 
So on our Independence Day from those terribly unhealthy Brits, go get some grass-fed steaks and throw them on the grill -- and let's raise a fork to the US of A and to your health.  Happy Fourth of July.  
 
-------------
 
As a postscript, I'll add that in addition to the Declaration of Independence being an important historical document, it's also well written: clear, succinct, and moving.  For as long as I've been alive, my family has read the text out loud.  As a teenager, I found this a little hokey, but now I think it's pretty cool.  It's a bunch of dudes who essentially flipped the bird to the most powerful monarch on the planet.  Pretty bad ass.
 
Here's the full text, should you want to give it a try.  And don't forget to read aloud the names of the signers.

Can the government tell you what to eat?

Food is on the tip of everyone's tongue these days.  It even came up during Elena Kagan's Supreme Court hearings today.  You can watch the video below.  Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked if the government could pass a law mandating that people eat three fruits and three vegetables a day.

 
Coburn's question really was about the Commerce Clause, not food.  The Constitution gives Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes".  Despite the fact that the word "regulate" did not have the same meaning when it was written as it does today, the interstate portion of the clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court (most definitively during the New Deal) to mean that the Federal Government can regulate anything that might possibly impact interstate trade.  Essentially, anything and everything.  Even what we eat, is Coburn's point.
 
Health care and food taxes/regulations are deeply intertwined.  (Health and food are deeply intertwined.)  We're increasingly seeing calls for soda taxes here in New York City.  It's in line with other "sin taxes" (smoking, gambling), which politicians find easier to levy.  Congress definitely has the power to tax.   But the public willingness to accept food taxes and eventually, more restrictive federal regulations, will only increase as people feel that they are paying for other people's healthcare.
 
To a large extent we already do pay for other people's healthcare via Medicaid and Medicare -- and even through private health insurance (where I am pooled with others, many less healthy than I, to arrive at a group rate).  But the perception and reality of Peter paying for Paul's healthcare will only increase under the new health care legislation.  And the implications are pretty easy to follow: If I'm paying for your healthcare, you better believe I'm going to tell you how to eat.  This certainly won't come through prohibitions and mandates (no politician is that stupid), but through taxes and incentives.
 
What really scares me is that the long-time foundation of the USDA food pyramid has been a food group, grains, that humans basically did not eat prior to the Agricultural Revolution.  And don't forget the decades long and deeply misguided War on Fat.  Doesn't exactly inspire confidence!

The beauty of a system based more on individual responsibility is that people have the freedom to live as they please: healthy or unhealthy.  Of course, then you have to let people face the consequences of their decisions, as if they were fully capable adults.

Assorted links

1. Tanning is associated with optimal Vitamin D status and higher bone mineral density.  (NOTE: But as one commenter pointed out, most tanning salons try to sell you UVA, when this paper is talking about UVB.  Don't rush to the solarium.)  And this:

"There is increased concern about skin cancer, which has created a fear of causative sunlight exposure (9 –12). Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer. It should be recognized that most melanomas occur in areas that are not exposed to the sun (13) and that it is the number of lifetime sunburn experiences, the number of moles, and red hair that increase the risk of this deadly disease (12)."

2. Melissa McEwen's poetic description of learning to hunt, dress, butcher, and eat deer

"We carved the body cavity through and through, leaving bare ribs skinless so the light could shine through. The digestive system we left for the vultures, as it belongs to them. I read recently about one of the earliest religious sites, Göbekli Tepe, a marvel considering that hunter-gatherers had no cities, but they bothered to build this temple carved with vultures, lions, and other predators of humans dead...and alive. Some theorize that the hunter-gatherers left their dead here to be eaten by these fierce flesh eating creatures. The word for this is "excarnate," which is very beautiful to me, the idea of sharing your body with other carnivores. I think of then as a time when none owned another, except in death when it was an honor to be consumed and melded with others."

3. Tyler Cowen responds to fears that food markets will be turbulent in years ahead

4. Reasons for optimism: perch in downtown Milwaukee and tilapia in Colorado

5. I'll be in DC this weekend, and I'm looking forward to the well-regarded Mitsitam Cafe at the National Museum of the American Indian. 

"Mitsitam (pronounced Mit-see-tum) means “let's eat” in the Piscataway and Delaware language. The 350-seat restaurant is essentially an extension of the museum, specializing in authentic Native American cuisine. The seasonal menu changes on each equinox and solstice and is divided among five Native American regions: Northern Woodlands, Northwest Coast, Great Plains, Meso America and South America."

Race, Income, and the Child Obesity Task Force

First Lady Michelle Obama has taken on childhood obesity as her signature issue, and today her task force released its report and recommendations.  I have not had time to read it thoroughly, but from a quick scan, many of the recommendations seem pretty sensible: increase breastfeeding rates, encourage women who breastfeed to do so for a longer period of time (A+), improve the quality of school lunches, and get kids away from the TV set.

But I was struck by statistics on the relationship between obesity, race, income.  Most people probably think that obesity is a problem of poverty and socioeconomic status.  The reasoning goes that the cheapest foods are the least healthy foods, and so people on a budget are eating the worst quality foods.  And the higher your education, the more you know about what's healthy.  This is all true, to an extent.  But the report, to its credit, casts doubts that socioeconomic status is the primary driver of disparities in health outcomes.

In reviewing disparities in obesity rates, the report mentions race first:

"Childhood obesity is more common among certain racial and ethnic groups than others. Obesity rates are highest among non-Hispanic black girls and Hispanic boys. Obesity is particularly common among American Indian/Native Alaskan children. A study of four year-olds found that obesity was more than two times more common among American Indian/Native Alaskan children (31%) than among white (16%) or Asian (13%) children. This rate was higher than any other racial or ethnic group studied."

For anyone paying the slightest attention to obesity and diabetes, this should come as no surprise.  Obesity and diabetes is most prevalent among races, like American Indians, that have had fewer generations to adapt to the agricultural revolution and modern foods.  Yet it's amazing how this plain as day finding doesn't cause more people to take a longer historical perspective when evaluating the health benefits of grains or dairy, or whether eating meat and natural fats might actually be good for you.

The report continues on socioeconomic status (my emphasis):

"Among adults, obesity rates are sometimes associated with lower incomes, particularly among women.

...

The relationship between income and obesity in children is less consistent than among adult women, and sometimes even points in the opposite direction. Another study from the early 2000s found that only among white girls were higher incomes associated with lower BMI. Among African-American girls, the prevalence of obesity actually increased with higher socioeconomic status, suggesting that efforts to reduce ethnic disparities in obesity must target factors other than income and education, such as environmental, social, and cultural factors."

See page 62 for further discussion of  "Is Poor Diet a Low Income Problem?"  The answer?

"...the similarities are more striking than the differences..."

Income and poverty matter -- see the section on food deserts, for example -- but it's not the whole story.  Two key points:

1. Obesity is a national issue that is effecting everyone, rich and poor alike.

2. If we want to understand the underlying cause of obesity and diabetes (and heart disease and hypertension and, and, and), look where the genetic disparities point.

In general, foods that are new to the human diet are killing us.  In general, foods that have been apart of the human diet for the longest time make us healthy and vital.

Syndicate content