Dadsplaining: Primaries

Quit fighting with someone you should care about! I'm trying to explain primaries!

All right Nonvoters, listen up. There's another election coming. Nonvoter 1, you know the score. Except now you can run around shouting like a lunatic. Go right ahead; you're no worse than the median volunteer. Nonvoter 2, you're a bit younger but bear with us here. It's a ritual that employs your dad, weird though it is.

Last time I had some thoughts for Nonvoter 1, all full of reflection about civic responsibility. But this time it's different.

This time it's a primary.

Of all the democratic rituals we grownups engage in, primaries are the dumbest. They're also, coincidentally, the most profitable for your dad.

See, the grownups have already organized themselves into animalistic tribes over how to boss each other around. It's a pretty simple question: elephant or donkey, this team or that. Not a lot of heavy thinking required.

But sometimes we fight over who will be the tribe leader. It's really silly; everyone already agrees on what we want to do. There's no real disagreement or difference in the end result.

So of course we fight harder over it. We're not sure what we disagree on, but we're sure going to pound the crap out of each other to sort it out. When you don't have a lot to fight about the fighting gets bad fast.

It's kind of like when you, Nonvoter 1, smack your brother in the head over getting too much attention from Mom (also, I saw that. I always see it. Your Dad sees all). You're stressed out and worried about who you are and whether we love you as much.

And that is silly. Of course we love you. You're the same special little dude you were before Nonvoter 2 came along. You think that he changed who you are, but he didn't.

Neither does voting.

Some people, particularly the sort who keep buzzing our house and calling us, think voting does change who you are. That it's about the heart and soul of the party or whatever. These people are crazy. A party is just a bunch of people who vote the same way. It doesn't say anything about you to vote Democrat. Or Republican (yes, I will love you even if you vote Republican).

Voting doesn't make you a good or bad person. Politics can drive you crazy, but it's not going to make you good or bad either.

That's not how it works.

Voting is just saying what you want. Maybe you want good things or bad things, but voting isn't going to change that. And there are any number of better ways than elections to express your values.

So enjoy the touchscreen, boys. Your dad will probably mutter bad words if crazy people give him cards telling him how to vote. We'll talk about why some other time.

For now, just remember: we're doing this because we want to, not to be good people.

Things Best Left at the Office: Precious

A possibly ongoing feature wherein I catalog the many parts of my job best left unseen by the Nonvoter.

Fact check: Not actually Precious.

It was about a month into my first job as an opposition researcher. I was still learning the ropes, so I got assigned campaign finance. It's a pretty boring job: look at every single entry in a long spreadsheet, assign it an industry, and Google it a bit to see if the person is corrupt. Or an ax murderer.

Or a sodomizer of an 80 pound Rottweiler named Precious.

Yeah, that happened. The name, city and street name matched for an individual who...well I'll let Lexis do the talking:

A 39-year-old city man accused of sexually attacking his neighbor's dog has been ordered to turn over his passport and allow the home where he is living to be inspected for animals before his trial on animal-cruelty charges gets under way.
Jose Rodriguez, dressed in khaki pants, a plaid shirt and tan sweater, stood before Municipal Court Judge Emery Toth yesterday morning as the judge set up a schedule for the case, which has been before the court for several months. Rodriguez failed to attend last week's court session.
Maritza Rosario, owner of Precious, a 5-year-old female Rottweiler allegedly sodomized by Rodriguez, said she was glad some progress was being made in the case. Rosario has been in Municipal Court five times on the matter. [Home News Tribune, 2/4/05]

Obviously I was pretty excited. One month on the job and I had possibly found out that an opponent's contributor (and fundraising host!) sodomized dogs. Yes it was a common name, it was probably a long shot, but who cares! Precious!

So I spent the next eight hours trying to find out the former home address of that guy.

It turned out they were not the same people after all. One Jose Rodriguez, the one who gave money to various politicians, lived four blocks up the road from the Jose Rodriguez who gave illegal carnal attention to Rottweilers. I was so angry at the mismatch that I spent another hour trying to prove that he could have, like, moved up the road to escape notice the first four times he assaulted Precious.

But no. Different people. The campaign won, but in the usual way involving having more money and votes and such. There was no spectacular canine-related meltdown.

It was only when I relayed this tale to a friend later that I realized I was deeply upset that someone had not raped a dog.

Teachable Moment: Don't Play Can You Keep A Secret

There is no shortage of teachable moments for the Nonvoter in professional politics, probably because almost everyone in professional politics acts like screaming toddlers.

For example, let's hear from Frank Luntz, professional crybaby extraordinaire:

Following Mother Jones' publication of remarks GOP message man Frank Luntz made to University of Pennsylvania students about conservative talk radio, Luntz has decided to withdraw funding for a university scholarship named after his father that sends students to Washington, DC, according to the Daily Pennsylvanian, an independent student newspaper at the school.
While Luntz is scheduled to speak on a panel at the University during graduation weekend, he said that he would never return to speak after this incident, and would discourage others from speaking here.
[...]
A student had asked Luntz a question about political polarization, and Luntz had responded by blaming conservative talk radio, saying, "They get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it's really problematic." Luntz had asked for his answer to be off the record, and although the student who asked the question agreed to those terms, Aakash Abbi, the student who made the recording and provided it to Mother Jones, did not.

There's an adage among researchers: "Don't do anything you don't want to read about in the papers." It applies to all consultants; researchers just say it more because we're the ones everyone expects to be revolting for money. It's just good business practice: the best way to avoid trouble for doing bad things is to just not do them. Better for you, better for your clients, better for the voters who have to put up with your clients.

And it's also good personal practice. Sure, everyone has secrets. Some people also keep secrets for other people. The latter group is a lot smaller than the former. So if you must take something off the record, or ask "can you keep a secret," or whatever, it's best to think out beforehand what you get out of it, and what the person listening to you will get out of silence as opposed to snitching.

For example: A reporter calls me for comment on something or other. Being a self-promoting sort I am happy to talk with him. I say something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense without some knowledge that involves an active campaign, which I don't comment on as a rule. So I say this up front and offer to explain it off the record. If the reporter agrees, s/he gets an amusing anecdote and a consultant happy to provide future comments. I get some publicity without throwing the current client off message. We both get something out of it, and we both lose something if we don't respect the convention: I lose publicity by taking everything off-record and I lose clients by saying things that are not just time-sensitive but damaging. The reporter loses a friendly process quote source by burning me. There's still a risk, of course. The reporter might be an asshole, or not think my story is really worth holding convention. I moderate my comments accordingly.

That's how grownups handle sensitive information and conversations in confidence: with caution and thinking about whether it's worth it before talking. Of course a lot of stupid grownups don't do that, usually because they're bragging. And honestly, that's what Luntz was doing. Look at me, I'm a smart consultant. I don't really believe all the crap I say on cable news. Bask in my duplicitous glory. Say that to a room full of college students and that's asking for trouble.

And that's the second lesson: don't play can you keep a secret in the middle of bragging. There's nothing wrong with self-promotion, but it necessarily relies on maximum publicity. When you mix self-promotion with secrecy, bad things happen.

So there you go, Nonvoter. People are neither trustworthy nor snakes. They're just people. They do things they think will be beneficial. Remember that and you'll be a better person than Frank Luntz.

The White House Correspondents' Dinner Versus My Son Going to Bed

I really, really do not get the White House Correspondents' Dinner. All day and night in Washington, DC politicians and reporters snipe at/congratulate/laugh with/laugh at each other. But apparently they also need one night out of the year to explicitly do all that or something. Anyway, I didn't watch it before, and I sure as hell won't watch it now that I have a toddler to coax to sleep. And that brings me to tonight's adventure.

So without further comment, I present to you my son going to bed:

Have Baby, Want Case File

If you research for a living you go into a lot of courthouses. Perhaps one of ten of these courthouses is a positive experience. You walk in and it's clean, well-lit, has computers purchased within the past five years and helpful staff.

The rest of the time it's a nightmare. It's hard to even get in to the courthouse, because the metal detector doesn't work. The computers are ancient abacuses with software that makes no sense. The staff...are there even staff? There are a lot of people just milling around behind the counter, but they're not there to, like, sort case files or get what you want. What should be a thirty minute trip turns into a two-hour trip and even then you probably don't get the material you want.

That is, unless you're a man with a baby.

Now let's get the standard disclaimer out of the way. Yes this is all very sexist and wrong. Moms with babies don't get the time of day from your median public servant/clerk/passerby. People see women with children and shrug, or even grumble about noisy kids. No big deal, joys of motherhood, societal role, etc. But a man with a baby, now that's impressive. I don't even have to do anything with the Nonvoter. Just standing there and not accidentally strangling him makes me a paragon of virtue. It's a terrible behavior pattern and it should change.

In the meantime, the Nonvoter is awesome to take to the courthouse. I zip right through, the Opinion Leader gets some time to herself, everyone wins!*

It's a breeze from start to finish. At the metal detector, people wave me through in line. Some of the lawyers even look vaguely guilty while doing it. That's right ambulance chaser, when was your last father-son work day, hmm?  People get out of the always-jammed elevators. They coo and compliment me on my awesome son and parenting while doing so! Yep, there he is, still not murdered, parent of the year right here.

And once I get to the office? The people there help me. They wave me over and look things up themselves. They double and triple check the files I want. They make faces and wave at the Nonvoter while I sort through the files. Hell, once they even offered to make copies for me!

It's like magic. These very same people go right back to staring dully at people behind me and mumbling that they can't read the file request/aren't supposed to give legal advice/are on break the moment I'm on my way.

And I feel slightly bad about it. There's a lot of people there who do need help, help of the getting screwed and needing legal redress variety. And of course, there are a lot of women with kids who don't get the same treatment, particularly in the domestic division- divorce, deadbeat dads, et cetera. It's unfair bordering on heartbreaking.

On the other hand, a three hour trip with the Nonvoter maybe making things difficult for the Opinion Leader has now turned into a one hour trip that the Nonvoter loves. I just have to keep him from chewing on the case files.

*Well except my targets. But they shouldn't have driven drunk/beaten their wives/not paid their taxes/gotten parking tickets and then run for public office to begin with.

Flashback: The First Few Months

No rest for the wicked. Or the parents.

Every so often another cable news anchor has a baby and throws a huge fit at the state of parental leave in the U.S. And then those of us who don't make enough money to keep half a dozen nannies on retainer point and laugh. A for effort, you have approximated human emotion!

The Nonvoter was born in April of 2012, and that meant no leave. You can't just take off of consulting in April of an on-year. That's game time. That's when everyone buys research. They've had their one decent quarter of fundraising and have a bit of money to spend and oh god the election is in six months we need research! If he had arrived in April of 2011 or 2013 I could have taken as much time as I wanted, because no one hires anyone in April of odd-years. Alas, working like crazy during the on-year is what pays the mortgage in the off-year. So work it was.

It didn't even stop while he was being born. There were calls, there were emails. The only reason I didn't get calls in the middle of making all the family and friends calls was that he was born fairly early in the morning. There was work to do, and I was the only one around to do it. After we visited the Nonvoter in the NICU* for the first time, my wife kissed him and whispered "Daddy has to go hurt bad people now."

It was theoretically going to be okay. We had planned for it. I had moved my schedule and production around, let the appropriate clients know. Because planning is totally a game-changer with babies.

Of course it all went to hell.

2012 was the worst year of my career. It was even worse then 2009, when no Democrat thought they had to spend money on research and no one had money to give them for research anyway. I blew leads. I blew sales. I blew deadlines. I blew one job because I wrote the whole proposal up, carefully proofread it, then forgot to click "send." I found the email three weeks later.

I don't even know how I managed what work I did do. The parent books might be crap but they get one thing right: the first few months sink into a blur pretty quickly. Sometimes I worked during naps. Sometimes it was after bedtime. Sometimes I crawled off to a coffee shop and felt like a total heel. A lot more times than I care to count I wound up throwing myself on the mercy of the client, especially if the client also had kids. I remember exactly one specific thing- the Nonvoter falling asleep in my arm while I read through county board minutes from I forget where with the other. I mostly remember it because I wanted to fall asleep too.

I have no lessons learned here. It sucked, I floundered around a lot and lost potential clients and money. It also worked out okay, which is not nothing. The Nonvoter eventually was okay for minutes and minutes and the Opinion Leader and I learned how set a sort of schedule and otherwise work around him. It wasn't great, but it could have been worse. In the end it was inertia that kept me moving at work. I had been around for two cycles and two cycles is half a career in politics. You can do the job in your sleep after that.

And that's a good thing, because I'm pretty sure that's how I did most of my 2012 work.

*Yeah, there was a trip to the NICU. Thank you American health care system. Seriously.

No You May Not Watch West Wing

Wah waaaaaah

All right let's get this out of the way. Someone asked so I'm just going to clear it up. To hell with the West Wing. I hate it. The West Wing poisoned an entire generation of mostly Democratic television watchers. Campaigns are the worse for that show. So the real answer to this stupid question is "Nonvoter why don't you watch something a little less inappropriate and vulgar, like hardcore pornography?"

But since it was asked, here are my thoughts on characters on the West Wing and the acceptability of the Nonvoter liking/emulating them:

UPDATE: All right folks, I got schooled on this and rightfully so. Almost all of the original characters I wrote up were white men. That's on me. I could put it on Sorkin's writing, but I won't. So I added a few more. However I am not writing about Charlie, because being the explicit token black hire as a personal valet is a depressing career choice.

Bruno: I have no idea what this ULTRA TEEVEE CONSULTANT did to earn his multimillion dollar contracts, so I'm going to just assume it was nothing, and that he got paid eight figures to do crossword puzzles at White House senior staff. Also, he switched parties as a retirement gesture. That's pretty boss if you can pull it off.   ASSESSMENT: Go forth and make me proud, son!

Joey: I would rather the Nonvoter give consulting and politics a pass entirely, but if he must follow in my footsteps, and he must do honest work for market-rate pay, I'd rather he take after Joey. She does a job, she does it well. She has corporate clients as well as political ones. She doesn't get into the ego soothing game. She just shows up and polls and that's that. Job well done. ASSESSMENT: Just so long as you don't do something stupid like vote.

Sam: We're getting into sketchy territory here. Sam was a regular offender in the soaring bullshit tearjerker speech that inexplicably makes things happen. Also, he went to run for Congress (blech) in Orange County (gag). But on the other hand Sam did make his fortune before he went to go play at politics, and he managed to step right back into making stupid obscene money working for deeply awful people. I can respect that. ASSESSMENT: If you must.

CJ: CJ is not that bad, grading on the terrible curve of show characters. She's good at her job, she has a conscience but isn't too loud about it, and anyone who has to deal with the press all day always has my heartfelt sympathies. On the other hand, she went about it all the wrong way, only making a little money before getting into politics and cashing in after rising to the top. That's respectable, but the safer bet is always money first, freakshow-as-government after. So if the Nonvoter really wants to do it the hard way, sure. ASSESSMENT: I guess it will build character.

Leo: In the same category as Sam, in that he made his money before getting into elections and all that nonsense. But he also had a pretty crummy personal life, got picked for vice president basically to just piss everyone else off, and died an early death from a bum ticker. ASSESSMENT: Quit while you're ahead. Also watch out for fried foods.

Ainsley: I mean...sure. Being the token hire from the other party is an entirely respectable career decision, and there's decent enough money in it. But if that's the way the Nonvoter wants to go, I'd recommend holding out for something higher and better than assistant associate counsel or whatever. After all, she gave up a pretty great gig as a cable news shouter for that. ASSESSMENT: Just stick with the cable news gig! There's no shame in it!

Louise: No! No no, NO! Snapping off internet burns is not good consulting! It isn't even consulting at all! We have Twitter for that! And that meeting where everyone was just blowing smoke up Josh's ass to get a piece of the media buy? WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT A PIECE OF THE MEDIA BUY? ASSESSMENT: Get a real job, son.

Josh: Um. How to say this. He opens by offering his ex-girlfriend a job just so he can boss her around (complete with taunting her about writing an organizational chart that just says he gets to boss her around), he gets another girlfriend fired for the high crime of doing her job and promoting women's health, and the top of his self-actualization pyramid is fucking his assistant. ASSESSMENT: Son we need to talk about women and relationships.

Toby: Everyone, EVERYONE hates Toby. Even people with the bad sense and taste to like the West Wing hate Toby. Because he's an asshole. Not even a funny one or a smart one. He's just mean. And he's not the "idealist." Good grief, the whole cast fits the "misunderstood idealist" billing. He's a self-pitying martyr. And he committed treason! Treason isn't okay! Even if budget cuts mean some astronauts are going to die! And setting all that aside...he's a real jerk to his father, who comes off as a decent sort even though his job was pretty lousy/evil/etc. :( :( :( ASSESSMENT: Don't be like Toby.

Bartlet: Having worked in professional politics for many years now I'm kind of horrified at the thought that a parent would want his child to grow up and be president. You want your offspring to spend at least four years begging rich people for money, promising favors he will never be able to deliver, getting screamed at by everyone from Twitter to [cable news station in opposition to your preference], marked for death by various lunatics and requiring round the clock protection? But even setting aside the, like, actual job...Bartlet? Really? Covering up a severe, erratic mental disability, killing heads of state during diplomatic excursions, chickening out from doing his damn job when his daughter is kidnapped, and responding to members of Congress and your own staff getting blown to bits with a peace summit? Forget bad president, that guy's a self-indulgent psychopath. Don't run for president, but if you do, aim higher than Sorkin Jesus. ASSESSMENT: YOU ARE NO LONGER MY SON!