The Values Voters Summit of this past weekend featured an introduction of Texas Governor Rick Perry by a grand poobah of the Southern Baptists who declared Mitt Romney's faith affliation to be that of a "cult." This has long been the position of the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant organization in the country, and its roots and prevalence in the south make it far from a fringe element. To his credit, Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China, who also happens to share Romney's LDS faith, referred to Perry's introducer as, in effect, a bonehead. Romney, for his part, has remained silent while he and his advisors try to chart a path to the nomination by downplaying Iowa and South Carolina, where the numbers of Southern Baptists in the caucus and primary electorate are sufficiently high to dim Romney's prospects on grounds of the Mormon question alone.
It's a sad -- and interesting -- commentary that the gumbas that have been so unfairly anti-Obama, in the process abandoning policy positions held by Republicans for decades, to deny a political victory to the object of their derision would so blatantly self-destruct on a petard of religious bigotry. But if you live by the sword of intolerance you may well die by the sword of intolerance. Among the current field of GOP candidates for the nomination, Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama in 2012. Americans are not ready for Rick Perry or any other of the far-right ayatollahs as their president, so Democrats and Obama supporters shouldn't feel too sorry for the Republican intolerance turned inward. Nevertheless, it's hardly a source of pride that the best thing the Democratic party and candidates have going for them in 2012 is their Republican opposition.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Ninety-Nine Percenters
The Occupy Wall Street moment continues into its third week, growing in numbers in lower Manhattan and in kindred demonstrations across the country. Still not a movement, it resists efforts to categorize and pigeonhole protestors into some preconceived categories. What is going on is a reawakening -- failing to find from Democratic leaders a populist strategy for countering the effects of four decades of organizing and building by Republicans, these early efforts are aimed primarily to provide an opportunity to realize they are not alone in seeing the system we have as a rigged game. The presence on Wall St. , symbolizing wealth aplenty, undermines the official "scarcity" narrative that is used to quiet the discontented who realize the "scarcity" ruse is merely a diversionary maneuver to turn attention away from questions and questionable practices in re: distribution.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The baneful effects of partisanship . . .
The phrase used as a title for this post is borrowed from George Washington's farewell address, and it is as relevant today as it was when he warned his colleauges of the ill-effects of putting party ahead of country. To get us past this moment of paralysis, we need an accurate diagnosis of the cause of the current debilitating polarization, and that itself is far beyond the influence of toxic partisanship to sustain a consensus on how we got here, let alone how to get unstuck.]
Let's begin with the few held by the White House to a great extent: that the problems inherited by the Obama Administration were of such number and severity that their solution would take a 5 to 6 year period, thus making Obama's first term pretty much an iffy proposition. History suggests that economic downturns rooted in financial free falls take longer to repair than do regular recessions. So, in fairness, Obama does have a disadvantage he had little hand in creating. He bears some responsibiliy by hiring the very economic aids whose ideas contributed to the financial break-up in the first place -- Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in particular. And Obama demonstrated a deferential attitude to experts on economic issues that diminished confidence in his ability to see how the times called for bolder action than we got.
Meanwhile Republicans coalesced around a refusal to allow Obama's campaign promise of bipartisanship come to pass; instead, they vowed unanimous opposition to any proposals favored by Obama and Democrats. They deprived the President of a single vote for the Stimulus Package and the President helped them in this regard by turning the spending targets to Pelosi and Reid who had fellow Democrats lined up as recipients, giving Republicans good reason to be unsupportive of the Keynesian effort to prime the pump.
What might the President had done differently to secure Republican voters and yet get a stimulus in action:? Tthat is our next post's topic.
Let's begin with the few held by the White House to a great extent: that the problems inherited by the Obama Administration were of such number and severity that their solution would take a 5 to 6 year period, thus making Obama's first term pretty much an iffy proposition. History suggests that economic downturns rooted in financial free falls take longer to repair than do regular recessions. So, in fairness, Obama does have a disadvantage he had little hand in creating. He bears some responsibiliy by hiring the very economic aids whose ideas contributed to the financial break-up in the first place -- Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in particular. And Obama demonstrated a deferential attitude to experts on economic issues that diminished confidence in his ability to see how the times called for bolder action than we got.
Meanwhile Republicans coalesced around a refusal to allow Obama's campaign promise of bipartisanship come to pass; instead, they vowed unanimous opposition to any proposals favored by Obama and Democrats. They deprived the President of a single vote for the Stimulus Package and the President helped them in this regard by turning the spending targets to Pelosi and Reid who had fellow Democrats lined up as recipients, giving Republicans good reason to be unsupportive of the Keynesian effort to prime the pump.
What might the President had done differently to secure Republican voters and yet get a stimulus in action:? Tthat is our next post's topic.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Welcome Back!
Greetings, Obamadogs members!
Here we are at the outset of a new academic year in the fall of 2011, after months of a much-needed hiatus from national and presidential politics. In the interim since our last series of comments, we have survived -- barely -- the summer's debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling. Depending on one's perspective, this was not our finest hour politically. From the standpoint of the White House, it was a tough slog. The President's approval rating has dipped into the icy depths of the high 30's/low 40's, and his disapproval rating is as high or higher. More importantly, the unemployment rate remains above 9% in formal terms, above 15% when we factor in those who are under-employed and those who've given up a search for a job. Meanwhile, picking up the thread we left with, Republicans convinced the media and the country that our nation's debt is a more pressing public problem than our jobless and tepid recovery from the Great Recession. Obama meakly allowed this to happen.
We are now several weeks into the Republican presidential nomination contest, with the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, now leading in the national polls as the GOP's front-runner despite his relatively late entry into the race and his penchant for launching verbal scuds. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry has single-handedly and rapidly deflated the balloon of Michele Bachmann's once-bouyant candidacy.
Today Obama outlined his proposal for addressing the long-term debt issue. The "controversial" part is the call for tax increases or the elimination of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Passed off as "the Buffett Rule," after Warren Buffet because of the iconic investor's call for increasing marginal tax rates on people like him so that he paid at least as much percentage-wise on his income as his secretary, this is classic Obama: a late in-the-game oratorical effort to reclaim disheartened supporters from 2008 who are deeply disappointed in the president despite the tough hand he was dealt in the economic tsunami that accompanied the formal end of the recession that nearly metastasized into a global depression before June 2009.
Well, fellow Obamadoggers, what should the President do?
Here we are at the outset of a new academic year in the fall of 2011, after months of a much-needed hiatus from national and presidential politics. In the interim since our last series of comments, we have survived -- barely -- the summer's debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling. Depending on one's perspective, this was not our finest hour politically. From the standpoint of the White House, it was a tough slog. The President's approval rating has dipped into the icy depths of the high 30's/low 40's, and his disapproval rating is as high or higher. More importantly, the unemployment rate remains above 9% in formal terms, above 15% when we factor in those who are under-employed and those who've given up a search for a job. Meanwhile, picking up the thread we left with, Republicans convinced the media and the country that our nation's debt is a more pressing public problem than our jobless and tepid recovery from the Great Recession. Obama meakly allowed this to happen.
We are now several weeks into the Republican presidential nomination contest, with the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, now leading in the national polls as the GOP's front-runner despite his relatively late entry into the race and his penchant for launching verbal scuds. Nevertheless, Mr. Perry has single-handedly and rapidly deflated the balloon of Michele Bachmann's once-bouyant candidacy.
Today Obama outlined his proposal for addressing the long-term debt issue. The "controversial" part is the call for tax increases or the elimination of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Passed off as "the Buffett Rule," after Warren Buffet because of the iconic investor's call for increasing marginal tax rates on people like him so that he paid at least as much percentage-wise on his income as his secretary, this is classic Obama: a late in-the-game oratorical effort to reclaim disheartened supporters from 2008 who are deeply disappointed in the president despite the tough hand he was dealt in the economic tsunami that accompanied the formal end of the recession that nearly metastasized into a global depression before June 2009.
Well, fellow Obamadoggers, what should the President do?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Telling the Wartburg Story
I just learned that the campus-wide theme for next year is the heading of this post. This creates ambivalence on my part. On the one hand, I'm a firm believer--as a veteran Q sorter--in the proposition that he who controls the narrative (or tells the story) wields the power. On the other hand, I'm not sure that upper-Midwesterners are comfortable, in the Garrison Keillor caricature, of "telling their own stories." It's a cultural no-no, bordering on bragging,and it's an overall attractive feature, in my view, of life in this part of the country. But, on yet another hand, if the theme is an invitation to do better than "Being Orange" as a marketing way of selling the value of a Wartburg education, then I'm all for the possibilities that this opens. So, in a bit of an offbeat thread on Obamadogs, here's the call for a better -- more honest, more effective -- alternative to "be Orange" as a way of attracting the interest of the better students soon to be in the process of deciding which colleges to attend. Please feel free to nominate your creative suggestions for a new marketing theme to replace "be orange." If we generate a sufficiently diverse and defensible set of alternatives, I'll compile them into a Q sample and we can undertake a study that we may want to present to the Powers that Be.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Where's Waldo... er, I mean Where's Obama?
One of the most powerful and depressing stories in Winner-Take-All-Politics (WTAP) is the weak opposition to the political freight train of big business over the past three decades put up by the Democratic Party. A party whose origins are in the working class and its efforts to gain a political voice in the depths of the Depression when collective bargaining was claimed as an essential equalizer in the battle with the wealthy should be deeply and energetically motivated by the recent chain of events: a capitulation of the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those at the top, the movements against public-employee unions in Midwestern states with strongly progressive histories, the outsourcing of virtually the entire manufacturing sector's labor force, the weak-tea responses to the financial industry's looting of our economy in the wake of mindless government deregulation and/or failed enforcement of existing laws -- all of these should stir the ire of a party purportedly dedicated to leveling the political playing field between the haves and the have-nots.
Meanwhile, where has President Obama been? He has repeatedly passed up golden opportunities to counter the weak arguments of the free-market fundamentalists, as if he's a puppet on the string of corporate campaign contributions or has no faith in the common sense of ordinary citizens--or both. It's a distressing sign, but it's an encouraging one to Republicans who had concluded earlier that Obama is too popular personally to take on in 2012 with a top-tier challenger. My view: Don't be surprised if Jeb Bush is persuaded to allow himself to be "drafted" as a late entry into the nomination fray after the first few events fail to produce a front runner and intra-party squabbles threaten to blow GOP prospects of a big win in the House, Senate, and White House. Granted, many regard another Bush as toxic in the wake of Bush fatigue from W's two terms. But Jeb is no W, and he alone in my view has the capacity to fuse the two wings of the Republican party that are represented by the traditionalists and the Tea Partiers.
Whether this suspicion bears fruit or not, Obama is not performing in a manner that will excite his 2008 voters, especially those who remain Independents, to cast a second ballot on his behalf. I'm not saying a Republican Tidal Wave in 2012 will solve our problems. Indeed, they will likely worsen the condition of the middle class, strengthen the debilitating addiction to imported oil, and rollback the tepid promises in health care coverage for those without health insurance contained in the Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act. The tight grip of the very wealthy on our politics will become even tighter; and, quite possibly, it will be the Democratic Party that undergoes a transformation akin to the one underway among Republicans now. One would hope so; what passes for a party of the not-so-well-off now is pretty thin gruel indeed.
DT
Meanwhile, where has President Obama been? He has repeatedly passed up golden opportunities to counter the weak arguments of the free-market fundamentalists, as if he's a puppet on the string of corporate campaign contributions or has no faith in the common sense of ordinary citizens--or both. It's a distressing sign, but it's an encouraging one to Republicans who had concluded earlier that Obama is too popular personally to take on in 2012 with a top-tier challenger. My view: Don't be surprised if Jeb Bush is persuaded to allow himself to be "drafted" as a late entry into the nomination fray after the first few events fail to produce a front runner and intra-party squabbles threaten to blow GOP prospects of a big win in the House, Senate, and White House. Granted, many regard another Bush as toxic in the wake of Bush fatigue from W's two terms. But Jeb is no W, and he alone in my view has the capacity to fuse the two wings of the Republican party that are represented by the traditionalists and the Tea Partiers.
Whether this suspicion bears fruit or not, Obama is not performing in a manner that will excite his 2008 voters, especially those who remain Independents, to cast a second ballot on his behalf. I'm not saying a Republican Tidal Wave in 2012 will solve our problems. Indeed, they will likely worsen the condition of the middle class, strengthen the debilitating addiction to imported oil, and rollback the tepid promises in health care coverage for those without health insurance contained in the Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act. The tight grip of the very wealthy on our politics will become even tighter; and, quite possibly, it will be the Democratic Party that undergoes a transformation akin to the one underway among Republicans now. One would hope so; what passes for a party of the not-so-well-off now is pretty thin gruel indeed.
DT
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Governor Haley Barbour in Iowa
'Iowa feels a whole lot like where I'm from'
"I look forward to getting to spend time with people who care about their schools, care about their kids and go to church on Sunday," Barbour said in Des Moines, among three stops during his swing through Iowa.
"I look forward to getting to spend time with people who care about their schools, care about their kids and go to church on Sunday," Barbour said in Des Moines, among three stops during his swing through Iowa.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sane Energy Policy
Check out the NY Times editorial today regarding the insanity of a country with 2% percent of the world's oil reserves using 25% of the world's oil, most of it imported from a politically volatile region where the cost of our imports, under current inflated prices for crude oil, are just under $ 1 trillion annually. Consider that we pay the same amount to defend our access to the same original sources -- from Saudi Arabia to the Gulf States to Iraq -- and the completely irrational nature of our absence of a decent policy to transition to a non-petroleum-based energy system gains clarity. And so, frankly, does the idiocy of the House Republicans' declaration of war on the EPA, coupled with their call for drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere. Obama, for his part, has said all the right things, as is usually the case. Unfortunately, he quietly tip-toes away from the fight following his impressive oratory. The Times editorial correctly points out that inspiring words are not enough to ween us away from an addiction to other countries' oil and from a view of the energy future that is thoroughly irresponsible.
The President's approval ratings have been receeding again after the bump following the "compromise" on extending the Bush tax cuts. To be sure, he has a full plate: a Republican full-court press on the deficit as Public Enemy No. 1, not only on Capitol Hill but in the thirty states with Republican governors and state legislative majorities, a current crisis in Libya, the potentially catastrophic effects of the nuclear meltdown stemming from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. But even so, Republicans have calculated that the president can be rolled, and the evidence unfortunately seems to support such a view.
Politics ain't a walk in the park, and this president has walked away from too many promises made during his campaign for change. He promised to close down Guantanomo within a year of his inauguration; it's still open for business, and the Administration has stated that military tribunals can go forward with the enemy combatants still incarcerated there. He promised as well "to put on a pair of comfortable walking shoes and walk along with union workers" forced to strike by union-busting corporations, including presumably public-employee-union-busting governors in states like Wisconsin. But the President has been disappointingly silent on matters that were once litmus tests for Democratic Party leaders. Instead of the unimpressive crop of Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012, perhaps what this president needs is a challenge from a real Democrat within his own party. Anything short of that will not apparently get his attention: nice words are not enough!
The President's approval ratings have been receeding again after the bump following the "compromise" on extending the Bush tax cuts. To be sure, he has a full plate: a Republican full-court press on the deficit as Public Enemy No. 1, not only on Capitol Hill but in the thirty states with Republican governors and state legislative majorities, a current crisis in Libya, the potentially catastrophic effects of the nuclear meltdown stemming from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. But even so, Republicans have calculated that the president can be rolled, and the evidence unfortunately seems to support such a view.
Politics ain't a walk in the park, and this president has walked away from too many promises made during his campaign for change. He promised to close down Guantanomo within a year of his inauguration; it's still open for business, and the Administration has stated that military tribunals can go forward with the enemy combatants still incarcerated there. He promised as well "to put on a pair of comfortable walking shoes and walk along with union workers" forced to strike by union-busting corporations, including presumably public-employee-union-busting governors in states like Wisconsin. But the President has been disappointingly silent on matters that were once litmus tests for Democratic Party leaders. Instead of the unimpressive crop of Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012, perhaps what this president needs is a challenge from a real Democrat within his own party. Anything short of that will not apparently get his attention: nice words are not enough!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Wisconsin, Act II: Collective Bargaining Goes Caput?
Tonight Republican Senators in Wisconsin, in a controversial maneuver that may be overturned by the judiciary, split apart the collective bargaining provisions from the fiscal parts of the "Budget Repair" bill that has been stalled for three weeks due to the departure of Senate Democrats from the state so that a quorum -- required to act on any spending bill -- could not meet to consider Governor Walker's divisive budget proposal.
The action began by the formation of a sham "conference committee" with representatives from the two legislative chambers acting as if to reconcile conflicting versions of the same bill passed by the two chambers. In this Republican-only committee, the spending and the collective bargaining provisions in the original bill were separated into two separate bills. The committee then "reported" the non-spending provision as a separate bill to the Senate, convened with a lower quorum threshold because no spending was in the bill to strip public employee unions of their ability to collectively bargain for salary or benefit increases beyond cost of living increases in the former.
Critics have reacted in an understandably hostile way, pointing to the demonstration this action gives to the governor's motives in busting unions all along rather than solving a budget crisis.
The online fundraising arms of the progressive left have launced drives to raise a half million dollars overnight to fuel the recall drives underway to remove Republican control of the Senate. Michael Moore, fresh from an appearance in Madison over the weekend, called upon supporters of the unions to travel to Madison to demonstrate in a nonviolent way their strong disagreement with the actions of the Wisconsin Republicans.
Does this mean the impasse over the issue of workers' rights is over? No, this effort may actually activate pro-union support rather than tamp it down. Public opinion had already changed against Walker and the Republican legislators. As the details become known of the manner in which this measure was addressed, the odds are that the Republicans will pay a very large political price.
The action began by the formation of a sham "conference committee" with representatives from the two legislative chambers acting as if to reconcile conflicting versions of the same bill passed by the two chambers. In this Republican-only committee, the spending and the collective bargaining provisions in the original bill were separated into two separate bills. The committee then "reported" the non-spending provision as a separate bill to the Senate, convened with a lower quorum threshold because no spending was in the bill to strip public employee unions of their ability to collectively bargain for salary or benefit increases beyond cost of living increases in the former.
Critics have reacted in an understandably hostile way, pointing to the demonstration this action gives to the governor's motives in busting unions all along rather than solving a budget crisis.
The online fundraising arms of the progressive left have launced drives to raise a half million dollars overnight to fuel the recall drives underway to remove Republican control of the Senate. Michael Moore, fresh from an appearance in Madison over the weekend, called upon supporters of the unions to travel to Madison to demonstrate in a nonviolent way their strong disagreement with the actions of the Wisconsin Republicans.
Does this mean the impasse over the issue of workers' rights is over? No, this effort may actually activate pro-union support rather than tamp it down. Public opinion had already changed against Walker and the Republican legislators. As the details become known of the manner in which this measure was addressed, the odds are that the Republicans will pay a very large political price.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Rise of the Religious Right
This may be getting a bit ahead of the curve, but Trevor's post on the dispirited politics of the spiritually enlivened members of the East Saint Louis community raises in my mind the role that the religious right has played in the past thirty years in American politics. Rather than spawning or energizing a mass movement of Christians appalled at the politicization of their religion to serve blatantly un-Christian ethics, we witnessed a self-proclaimed "Christian" effort that is far from the teachings of Jesus: from increasingly childhood poverty rates to killing doctors who've performed abortions to pushing imperialist foreign policies, to supporting capital punishment, to denigrating the worth of those who serve others as public employees, teachers, and community organizers on behalf of the poor--how is that Christian teachings have been hijacked to serve the self-serving political views of a partisan effort which has concentrated wealth in the hands of the few and demonized those who've sought to utilize government leverage to help the least of us?
What happened to the New Testament? To the Sermon on the Mount? To the beatitudes? Whatever happened to the ethic of service that is pilloried as inferior to a life's journey in the private sector where the acquisition of wealth and things is given a sanctified status that borders on idolatrous?
What happened to the New Testament? To the Sermon on the Mount? To the beatitudes? Whatever happened to the ethic of service that is pilloried as inferior to a life's journey in the private sector where the acquisition of wealth and things is given a sanctified status that borders on idolatrous?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Why not mass movements in US?
Hey PS 460 class - It has been odd not seeing you all the past week, I hope you are having great breaks!
While finishing up the "Mass Movement" book on long car rides on my service trip to St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis, I have had the time to observe, work with, and speak to many people who live in the most desolate parts of these cities and try and relate their experiences to this book. One experience that has had me thinking the past few days is one that our group had in East St. Louis on Monday. We worked at a thrift store and a food kitchen in the heart of East St. Louis, Illinois, a town that is consistently rated as the poorest city in the United States. The people that I spoke to have absolutely nothing. No money, no home, and no job. Not only do a majority of the people not have jobs, but there are no places for these people to work. E. St. Louis was once a roaring factory city that boasted a population of 80,000 people, mostly white workers and families. When the factories began closing, the white population moved out, and the town became a ghost town with no employment opportunities and very cheap housing. The current ethnic breakdown is 98% African-American and it has the highest murder and rape rates in the country.
In all, it seems as though the people of this community have nothing to look forward to. I was told by a man that they have "no hope for change," and that he lives every life "prepared to get caught in a shoot out." My question is why are these people not rising up and trying to change the suppression that they have been put into? Why are they simply compliant with the way of life they are living if they are "prepared to die."
One possibility that I have noticed is a very strong faith in this community. I have not spoken to one person in East St. Louis that did not tell me about their love for Christ. They have nothing, but they are so hopeful for redemption in Christ, but have no hope for change from the government leaders that are not changing their situations or creating jobs.
Is this what is stopping a movement, that they are hopeful of what they believe is to come in the afterlife and they are not concerned with changing their current situation?
Sorry if this does not make sense, haven't been getting much sleep.
While finishing up the "Mass Movement" book on long car rides on my service trip to St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis, I have had the time to observe, work with, and speak to many people who live in the most desolate parts of these cities and try and relate their experiences to this book. One experience that has had me thinking the past few days is one that our group had in East St. Louis on Monday. We worked at a thrift store and a food kitchen in the heart of East St. Louis, Illinois, a town that is consistently rated as the poorest city in the United States. The people that I spoke to have absolutely nothing. No money, no home, and no job. Not only do a majority of the people not have jobs, but there are no places for these people to work. E. St. Louis was once a roaring factory city that boasted a population of 80,000 people, mostly white workers and families. When the factories began closing, the white population moved out, and the town became a ghost town with no employment opportunities and very cheap housing. The current ethnic breakdown is 98% African-American and it has the highest murder and rape rates in the country.
In all, it seems as though the people of this community have nothing to look forward to. I was told by a man that they have "no hope for change," and that he lives every life "prepared to get caught in a shoot out." My question is why are these people not rising up and trying to change the suppression that they have been put into? Why are they simply compliant with the way of life they are living if they are "prepared to die."
One possibility that I have noticed is a very strong faith in this community. I have not spoken to one person in East St. Louis that did not tell me about their love for Christ. They have nothing, but they are so hopeful for redemption in Christ, but have no hope for change from the government leaders that are not changing their situations or creating jobs.
Is this what is stopping a movement, that they are hopeful of what they believe is to come in the afterlife and they are not concerned with changing their current situation?
Sorry if this does not make sense, haven't been getting much sleep.
Friday, February 25, 2011
The Politics of Hope vs. False Hope
Mr. Fonck's view of the parallels between the political zeitgeist of Hoffer's time and the present has forced me to think more deeply about the matter. I may have been too quick to run to the defense of Obama's politics of hope as a healthy and natural reaction to the Bush-Cheney politics of fear that Obama's supporters desperately sought escape from. My second look is occasioned by a reminder that in PS230 we read an article -- a Q article, in fact -- entitled "Emotional Experiences in Political Groups: The Case of the McCarthy Phenomenon," by Brown and Ellithorp. The McCarthy in this case is not Senator Joe from Wisconsin, but Senator Gene from Minnesota, the initial anti-Vietnam War candidate of 1968. The theory that Brown and Ellithorp are working with is Wilford Bion's. Bion was a psycho-analytic disciple of Melanie Klein, who incidentally was William Stephenson's analyst when he underwent pscyho-analysis early in his professional life -- before he left the UK to take a position at the University of Chicago. Bion's theory of groups distinguishes between the "work" group or the above-board task that any group is formed to address, on the one hand, and "basic assumption groups," the anxiety-driven, latent (typically unacknowledged) emotional needs that give rise to and are served by membership in the group, on the other hand. In the Brown-Ellithorp case, the McCarthy Movement would qualify as a social movement in Hoffer's sense and a work group, in Bion's terms, formed to win Eugene McCarthy the Democratic nomination in the 1968 primaries.
At the emotional level, Bion's work with groups at the Tavistock Institute in the UK lead him to postulate three different types of basic-assumption life: (1) "Fight-Flight," in which the group's manifest behavior can be best understood as if it is acting upon the assumption that it exists primarly to fight or flee from a common enemy; (2) "Pairing," in which the group is inclined to splinter into dyads, usually of the opposite sex, and to manifest a hopeful, forward-looking looking view of the future. Of Bion's types, pairing is the most difficult to comprehend, in part because of the alleged sexual undertones, and in part because the manifest optimism and hope is, in reality, a reaction-formation defense against the anxiety borne of despair in the present; and (3) "Dependency," an orientation which manifests itself as an immature, passive, and overly deferential zeitgeist on the part of group members toward a single leader. The group behaves as if its purpose is to worship and obey without question the dictates of its leader.
Those having had PS230 two Mays ago will remember that we incorporated some "Tavistock Groups" into the class meetings, and the so-called Study Groups were able to see fairly clearly these dynamics as they manifested themselves in a college classroom. For our purposes, here, however, the pertinent point is Bion's notion of the "pairing" group: its overt expression of hope is perhaps what Eric and Hoffer see as the common denominator in Hoffer's True Believer and contemporary social-movement politics, the 2008 campaign of Obama included. If excessive, "hope" -- or any other "positive" emotion for that matter -- may well be the manifestation of its opposite: in the midst of crushing despair, the attractiveness of hope -- excessive, unbalanced hope -- is that it's a strong defense against its opposite. It may also be that it's particularly so in the upper Midwest, a possibility that any reader of Garrison Keillor would sense immediately. If so, it might be at issue in the streets of Madison, Wisconsin now on the part of the anti-Walker forces particularly. But that is not to say the other emotional orientations described by Bion are not involved in that impasse. Clearly, all three and in all valences -- positive and negative -- are involved. Only time will tell which is the stronger.
At the emotional level, Bion's work with groups at the Tavistock Institute in the UK lead him to postulate three different types of basic-assumption life: (1) "Fight-Flight," in which the group's manifest behavior can be best understood as if it is acting upon the assumption that it exists primarly to fight or flee from a common enemy; (2) "Pairing," in which the group is inclined to splinter into dyads, usually of the opposite sex, and to manifest a hopeful, forward-looking looking view of the future. Of Bion's types, pairing is the most difficult to comprehend, in part because of the alleged sexual undertones, and in part because the manifest optimism and hope is, in reality, a reaction-formation defense against the anxiety borne of despair in the present; and (3) "Dependency," an orientation which manifests itself as an immature, passive, and overly deferential zeitgeist on the part of group members toward a single leader. The group behaves as if its purpose is to worship and obey without question the dictates of its leader.
Those having had PS230 two Mays ago will remember that we incorporated some "Tavistock Groups" into the class meetings, and the so-called Study Groups were able to see fairly clearly these dynamics as they manifested themselves in a college classroom. For our purposes, here, however, the pertinent point is Bion's notion of the "pairing" group: its overt expression of hope is perhaps what Eric and Hoffer see as the common denominator in Hoffer's True Believer and contemporary social-movement politics, the 2008 campaign of Obama included. If excessive, "hope" -- or any other "positive" emotion for that matter -- may well be the manifestation of its opposite: in the midst of crushing despair, the attractiveness of hope -- excessive, unbalanced hope -- is that it's a strong defense against its opposite. It may also be that it's particularly so in the upper Midwest, a possibility that any reader of Garrison Keillor would sense immediately. If so, it might be at issue in the streets of Madison, Wisconsin now on the part of the anti-Walker forces particularly. But that is not to say the other emotional orientations described by Bion are not involved in that impasse. Clearly, all three and in all valences -- positive and negative -- are involved. Only time will tell which is the stronger.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Hoffer and Politics Today
I'm enjoying reading Hoffer, knowing his own personal story and realizing that this was Dwight Eisenhower's favorite book. This alone adds a touch of irony since the closest thing in today's politics -- or so it seems to me -- to the worrisome "true believer" is the radical right deniers of all that contradicts their dearly-held and unwavering faith: that, e.g., evolution and climate change are fictitious ploys of the left, abortion is murder while the death penalty is justice, healthcare reform is a threat to individual liberty while the Patriot Act is, well, patriotic. There is no doubt in my mind that Hoffer's ideas fit these folks pretty well: they are, at bottom, an unhappy lot--with the present, with themselves and with those who are less in need of the doctrinaire ideology of certainty they subscribe to. While I buy Hoffer's argument that these folks derive some psychic benefits from this mindset despite losing out in real benefits because their politics essentially strengthens the grip of the wealthy on our politics at the expense of most of the non-rich.
That said, I do believe that ours is an age where politics has been largely relegated to the margins and social movements of the left, notwithstanding the paranoid delusions of Beck and Limbaugh, are pretty much moribund, being replaced by a strange kind of estranged disengagement. In class, I likened this to the cumulative effects of all the psychotropic drugs -- xanax, prozaic, ritalin, etc. -- that didn't exist when Hoffer was writing. Sean's point about the effect of technology -- cell phones, email, texting, twitter and the like -- altering or defining down our social capital these days is well taken, and I think that might be part of it. If nothing else, it adds a distraction of gadgetry that makes political pursuits -- and any pursuits that demand concentrated effort -- difficult to sustain at the level that a social movement would require.
The events in Tunisia and Egypt (and perhaps Libya) are timely reminders that power is a relationship between the leaders and the led. And when the latter withdraw their support from the former, even when the Mubaraks and his ilk control the armed services, the fragile nature of the leaders' power is illuminated. So it is here. If we are ruled by an oligarchy of immense wealth, we have to admit that we are, to a degree, complicit in their power inasmuch as those who wield power are empowered by those over whom the power is wielded. The religious right's complicity here is fairly evident given the role of the religious right in the Republican base. But the absence of a real left, a progressive politics with the energy if not the numbers to take on the oligarchy is, in its own way, an element in the story of the unchallenged oligarchy. Tonight I blamed "biochemical desocialization" -- i.e., pharaceutical dependence -- for the pervasive levels of disengagement politically in the US today. You feel powerless and unhappy, tired and irritable? Take a pill -- or self-medicate with illicit drugs or alcohol. We see our lives as atomistically separated from one another, not as connected by economic or social forces, and if we suffer we do so as individuals, as Mr. Muldoon has reminded us from time to time. But we pay politically for these views and these habits. You might say that the result is not what worried Hoffer; instead of mindless social movements submerging the identities of individual members, we have what is basically a "zombie politics" -- pretty much dead from the neck up. As lost individuals we look for the elixir that will dull our pain, thereby perpetuating the political order that imprisons us under the rules that allow those with the gold to make the rules. I may feel otherwise upon finishing Hoffer, but for the time being, I'm inclined to see a deficit in the energy that got translated into social movement politics after WWII.
That said, I do believe that ours is an age where politics has been largely relegated to the margins and social movements of the left, notwithstanding the paranoid delusions of Beck and Limbaugh, are pretty much moribund, being replaced by a strange kind of estranged disengagement. In class, I likened this to the cumulative effects of all the psychotropic drugs -- xanax, prozaic, ritalin, etc. -- that didn't exist when Hoffer was writing. Sean's point about the effect of technology -- cell phones, email, texting, twitter and the like -- altering or defining down our social capital these days is well taken, and I think that might be part of it. If nothing else, it adds a distraction of gadgetry that makes political pursuits -- and any pursuits that demand concentrated effort -- difficult to sustain at the level that a social movement would require.
The events in Tunisia and Egypt (and perhaps Libya) are timely reminders that power is a relationship between the leaders and the led. And when the latter withdraw their support from the former, even when the Mubaraks and his ilk control the armed services, the fragile nature of the leaders' power is illuminated. So it is here. If we are ruled by an oligarchy of immense wealth, we have to admit that we are, to a degree, complicit in their power inasmuch as those who wield power are empowered by those over whom the power is wielded. The religious right's complicity here is fairly evident given the role of the religious right in the Republican base. But the absence of a real left, a progressive politics with the energy if not the numbers to take on the oligarchy is, in its own way, an element in the story of the unchallenged oligarchy. Tonight I blamed "biochemical desocialization" -- i.e., pharaceutical dependence -- for the pervasive levels of disengagement politically in the US today. You feel powerless and unhappy, tired and irritable? Take a pill -- or self-medicate with illicit drugs or alcohol. We see our lives as atomistically separated from one another, not as connected by economic or social forces, and if we suffer we do so as individuals, as Mr. Muldoon has reminded us from time to time. But we pay politically for these views and these habits. You might say that the result is not what worried Hoffer; instead of mindless social movements submerging the identities of individual members, we have what is basically a "zombie politics" -- pretty much dead from the neck up. As lost individuals we look for the elixir that will dull our pain, thereby perpetuating the political order that imprisons us under the rules that allow those with the gold to make the rules. I may feel otherwise upon finishing Hoffer, but for the time being, I'm inclined to see a deficit in the energy that got translated into social movement politics after WWII.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Politics in an unlikely venue
As I was sitting through Mass on Saturday evening, I never imagined I would hear a sermon about the political mess that we are involved in currently in the United States and what implications it has for spirituality in the country. Although I have never heard a Catholic Priest discuss politics (I believe they are "required" not to speak about the matter altogether). The Gospel reading was Matthew 18:9, not a very uplifting text that begins with, "And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." The Bible goes on to establish many laws and rules that people should follow in society in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
While I was unsure what the Priest would preach about, I never imagined he would indirectly link the Gospel to politics by claiming that most elected officials, namely the Republicans, have views on some subjects that are not congruent with their views on other subjects. His theory is that Conservatives are very focused on talking about being "Christian to the core," and very "God-loving" people, while in reality, the views that they have on the elimination of social programs, and opinions on military spending and torture in Guantanamo Bay, are tearing apart religion because of the mixed messages that they send to their base. He also used the example of Conservatives who are "pro-life through and through," only to be strongly in favor of the death penalty and military operations.
It does seem that future generations might have a personal quarrel with Conservative beliefs that have been taught to them by their parents, and what the church and Bible have to say about the same issues.
An interesting thing to think about.
Trevor
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Is Madison, WI: "Cairo of the Midwest?"
The current showdown in Madison, Wisconsin has generated a good deal of verbiage and rightly so: The newly elected Republican governor and the large Republican majorities in both state houses have proposed a draconian measure for dealing with a projected budget deficit of $137 million for the current fiscal year. The bill would essentially require state employees (members of AFSCME, which was formed in Madison in the 1930s, the state teachers' union and other state employees to pay for the deficit by having their pension and health care benefits cut by as much as $12,000 per individual per year; but the biggest issue is that the bill effectively curtails the collective bargaining rights of state workers and would require annual votes by workers to endorse their union and its leadership over the small remants that would be negotiated in the state employees' contracts.
When Scott Walker was elected in November, with big corporate funding courtesy of Citizens United, he called for a special session of the legislature to pass tax breaks for those coporations who'd helped him by ads. In fact, the money spent in these tax expenditures is almost exactly the size of the deficit that Walker is trying to pay for on the backs of state workers. Teachers in Madison called in sick in huge numbers on Thursday and Friday, and today, the crowds grew to a size of about 70,000, most of them supporting the workers but some, bussed in today by Tea Partiers and the Club for Growth, supporting the governor. Given the record number of Republicans elected to state gubernatorial and legislative offices in November, the situation in Wisconsin is duplicated elsewhere or is on the docket, waiting to see what happens in the Dairy State. Prostests by teachers and state workers are in the offing for tomorrow in Indiana and Ohio. Given the upper distribution of wealth in fewer and fewer hands over the past 12 years, and the prolonged recession that has depleted state treasuries, these states have become the new battlefield for the soul of our politics. If Wisconsin goes the way of the governor, the middle class members of the public service sector will be everywhere under threat. In a post Citizens United World these unions are the only political foroces standing between complete corporate control of the campaign cash playing field and the uneven playing field we already have.
Seldom do our politics get so graphically displayed and the class warfare that has been concealed by most press accounts of the past ten years get the exposure that Wisconsin's case provides. It's a big deal.
When Scott Walker was elected in November, with big corporate funding courtesy of Citizens United, he called for a special session of the legislature to pass tax breaks for those coporations who'd helped him by ads. In fact, the money spent in these tax expenditures is almost exactly the size of the deficit that Walker is trying to pay for on the backs of state workers. Teachers in Madison called in sick in huge numbers on Thursday and Friday, and today, the crowds grew to a size of about 70,000, most of them supporting the workers but some, bussed in today by Tea Partiers and the Club for Growth, supporting the governor. Given the record number of Republicans elected to state gubernatorial and legislative offices in November, the situation in Wisconsin is duplicated elsewhere or is on the docket, waiting to see what happens in the Dairy State. Prostests by teachers and state workers are in the offing for tomorrow in Indiana and Ohio. Given the upper distribution of wealth in fewer and fewer hands over the past 12 years, and the prolonged recession that has depleted state treasuries, these states have become the new battlefield for the soul of our politics. If Wisconsin goes the way of the governor, the middle class members of the public service sector will be everywhere under threat. In a post Citizens United World these unions are the only political foroces standing between complete corporate control of the campaign cash playing field and the uneven playing field we already have.
Seldom do our politics get so graphically displayed and the class warfare that has been concealed by most press accounts of the past ten years get the exposure that Wisconsin's case provides. It's a big deal.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Were We Duped?
To finish up the comment on Eric's question, I will say I feel duped by Obama's economic policy, in spite of the changed circumstances I'd cited earlier. The disappointment was not just mine. Most progressive Democrats, from Paul Krugman to Robert Kuttner, have written about Obama's appointments of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as key economic advisers as terribly "Rubinesque" (after Bob Rubin, the Clinton Democrat guru of Wall Street that championed the scuttling of the Glass-Steagle separation of commercial and investment banks in 1999). The President had different economic campaign advisers, including Paul Volcker, the former Chair of the Fed before Greenspan, a huge critic of Rubin's policies. So I and others have a deep sense of being sold a bill of goods, that Obama ran as a populist and has governed as a Eisenhower Republican or a Rubin Democrat, bowing to the wishes of his biggest campaign contributors, namely the wizards of Wall St. who sent us into this never-ending recession.
But there is another side even to this story. The Court ruled on Citizens United and, like it or not, Obama has calculated that he needs to raise $1 billion for 2012 to be reelected. He will not get that kind of money from people like you and me. Here, the 2010 spending records are instructive: 7 of the 10 biggest spenders for the midterm election were rightwing corporations. The only pro-Democratic contributors in the top ten were unions, AFSCME especially. That's why what's happening today in the streets --actually on State Street -- in Madison, WI is so important. What happens or not with the proposed budget-balancing bill in Wisconsin is the most important political outcome in our history in decades. If the Governor wins, public-worker unions will be busted and, in a post-Citizens United world, the dominoes will fall in those states with Republican governors and legislatures were elected. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. That is the world we are facing now as voters, or non-voters. So were we duped? We frankly don't have many choices before us until corporate money is re-regulated and that won't happen with this Supreme Court and this House of Representatives without massive efforts from the grassroots demanding that Congress fix this. For suggestions how, check out FixCongressFirst.Org and write your congressperson.
But there is another side even to this story. The Court ruled on Citizens United and, like it or not, Obama has calculated that he needs to raise $1 billion for 2012 to be reelected. He will not get that kind of money from people like you and me. Here, the 2010 spending records are instructive: 7 of the 10 biggest spenders for the midterm election were rightwing corporations. The only pro-Democratic contributors in the top ten were unions, AFSCME especially. That's why what's happening today in the streets --actually on State Street -- in Madison, WI is so important. What happens or not with the proposed budget-balancing bill in Wisconsin is the most important political outcome in our history in decades. If the Governor wins, public-worker unions will be busted and, in a post-Citizens United world, the dominoes will fall in those states with Republican governors and legislatures were elected. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. That is the world we are facing now as voters, or non-voters. So were we duped? We frankly don't have many choices before us until corporate money is re-regulated and that won't happen with this Supreme Court and this House of Representatives without massive efforts from the grassroots demanding that Congress fix this. For suggestions how, check out FixCongressFirst.Org and write your congressperson.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Poltics of Hope vs. Fear
I'd take issue with part of Eric's assessment: Of course Obama's campaign incorporated hope as a key ingredient and emotional draw in 2008. After all, we'd all suffered through eight years of lies and bullying and loss of respect in the world at large, a world that was rightly mystified by the descent of our politics into a cesspool of fear and paranoia. If the Bush era didn't beget a social movement buoyed by hope, nothing could. Obama simply rode the wave into the White House.
My own problem with Obama is that there wasn't much politically underneath the hope. By that I mean I from the get-go had deep suspicions about Barack Obama's politics. If he truly believed that talking up a post-partisan version of politics could put an end to the poisonous polarization, then he ought not to have been elected. What troubled me then and troubles me more now is that Obama seems not to have much in the way of a policy foundation or objective to his notion of politics: it's all "process," lovey-dovey "hold hands and march off into the sunset, singing kumbaya" understanding that, by its very nature, is anti-political. And to the effect that the hope he embodied invited us to "escape from politics" as a conflict-laden, heavy-lifting endeavor, I'd agree with Eric to a point. But the agreement is not that hope is by itself a bad thing; it's that it's not enough; and when it's used to disguise the fact that there are few if any policy ends that Obama sees as worthy enough not to trade away -- tax cuts for the rich, a public option for health care reform -- it's a problem. But by itself, hope is certainly preferable to fear as a emotive frame for political leadership.
In my view the hope that Hoffer is referring to is more aptly embodied by the Tea Party types who insist that Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, or Richard Lugar aren't purely conservative enough to run again under their party's banner. It's more true of what Krugman calls the "Free Market Fundamentalists" -- i.e., the true believers in an economic mantra that has failed repeatedly in thirty years since it was introduced by Ronald Reagan. The kind of hope that energizes the true believers in this snake oil is, in my view, not even real hope. Instead, it is a selfish, intolerant alibi that offers yet another escape from politics and demonizes public life while worshipping at the alter on a non-existent free market that exalts privatization -- in public policy and in political psychology, where a turn away from politics to an embrace of the hallowed private sector produces a psychic privatization that is far worse than the hope Obama embodied.
My own problem with Obama is that there wasn't much politically underneath the hope. By that I mean I from the get-go had deep suspicions about Barack Obama's politics. If he truly believed that talking up a post-partisan version of politics could put an end to the poisonous polarization, then he ought not to have been elected. What troubled me then and troubles me more now is that Obama seems not to have much in the way of a policy foundation or objective to his notion of politics: it's all "process," lovey-dovey "hold hands and march off into the sunset, singing kumbaya" understanding that, by its very nature, is anti-political. And to the effect that the hope he embodied invited us to "escape from politics" as a conflict-laden, heavy-lifting endeavor, I'd agree with Eric to a point. But the agreement is not that hope is by itself a bad thing; it's that it's not enough; and when it's used to disguise the fact that there are few if any policy ends that Obama sees as worthy enough not to trade away -- tax cuts for the rich, a public option for health care reform -- it's a problem. But by itself, hope is certainly preferable to fear as a emotive frame for political leadership.
In my view the hope that Hoffer is referring to is more aptly embodied by the Tea Party types who insist that Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, or Richard Lugar aren't purely conservative enough to run again under their party's banner. It's more true of what Krugman calls the "Free Market Fundamentalists" -- i.e., the true believers in an economic mantra that has failed repeatedly in thirty years since it was introduced by Ronald Reagan. The kind of hope that energizes the true believers in this snake oil is, in my view, not even real hope. Instead, it is a selfish, intolerant alibi that offers yet another escape from politics and demonizes public life while worshipping at the alter on a non-existent free market that exalts privatization -- in public policy and in political psychology, where a turn away from politics to an embrace of the hallowed private sector produces a psychic privatization that is far worse than the hope Obama embodied.
Interesting Paragraph from The True Believer... Did we fall for this?
I got bored and started reading The True Believer, this was certainly a part of the book that stood out to me:
"On the other hand, extravagant hope, even when not backed by actual power, is likely to generate a most reckless daring. For the hopeful can draw strength from the most ridiculous sources of power- a slogan, a word, a button. No faith is potent unless it is also faith in the future; unless it has a millenial component."
Page 9 of True Believer
My first instinct when looking at this section of the book was "did we fall for that?" I will be honest with you, everything in this chunk of the book certainly fits in well with the Obama Campaign that a good majority of us did vote for in either the caucus or election. In my opinion, I feel like we had a great amount of extravagant hope that something could be changed so quickly, when in all reality, the previous 8 years had made sure that that was not going to happen. I also greatly agree with the part of the paragraph that speaks about how the hopeful cling to sources of power. I believe that people were motivated by the thought of "change", a word thrown around so frequently during the election. I can certainly say that looking back on it now, I can definitely see how this makes sense.
The main reason I wanted to post this blog was to see if anyone else had a standpoint on what is being said here. I will be honest with you, political party aside it is something that concerns me when I look at the amazing parallels here, even with the book being from the 50's. I will admit, if this is truly the case (which I have a very good thought to believe it is), that is a very scary thought. It only further proves that people are not voting on the issues, they are voting on the motivation factor, and what they can hang on to.
Scary Stuff.
"On the other hand, extravagant hope, even when not backed by actual power, is likely to generate a most reckless daring. For the hopeful can draw strength from the most ridiculous sources of power- a slogan, a word, a button. No faith is potent unless it is also faith in the future; unless it has a millenial component."
Page 9 of True Believer
My first instinct when looking at this section of the book was "did we fall for that?" I will be honest with you, everything in this chunk of the book certainly fits in well with the Obama Campaign that a good majority of us did vote for in either the caucus or election. In my opinion, I feel like we had a great amount of extravagant hope that something could be changed so quickly, when in all reality, the previous 8 years had made sure that that was not going to happen. I also greatly agree with the part of the paragraph that speaks about how the hopeful cling to sources of power. I believe that people were motivated by the thought of "change", a word thrown around so frequently during the election. I can certainly say that looking back on it now, I can definitely see how this makes sense.
The main reason I wanted to post this blog was to see if anyone else had a standpoint on what is being said here. I will be honest with you, political party aside it is something that concerns me when I look at the amazing parallels here, even with the book being from the 50's. I will admit, if this is truly the case (which I have a very good thought to believe it is), that is a very scary thought. It only further proves that people are not voting on the issues, they are voting on the motivation factor, and what they can hang on to.
Scary Stuff.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Course-Based Projects
Along with the active "democratic deliberation" that is supposed to lead to our reading for Part II of the capstone, we are obligated or empowered -- depending on your angle of vision -- to design from scratch "original research projects" on issues of interest. For reasons of practicality as well as epistemology, the prevailing practice is to conduct a series of Q studies, in the process learning about the logistics and concrete steps taken to identify a problem, sample theoretically from a "concourse" (the term was used by Dryzek; it simply refers to the volume of subjective discussion surrounding a given topic) to construct a Q sample (to be administered to members of our class and to other selected respondents, known as a P-set in Q), enter data and oversee its analysis in available freeware designed specifically for the analysis of Q sorts, how to write up a study, and share the findings with classmates and others who may be interested.
The range of topics is virtually infinite since subjectivity is everywhere in the political and social worlds. Some have expressed an interest in the issues -- or raw nerve -- struck by the "Academically Adrift" book claiming to document the failure of college for a huge percentage of students in critical thinking, analytical reasoning and writing. This volume has spawned a vast concourse of commentary--one in the Room for Debate section of the New York Times that has six pages of online comments added by readers, too--and it cries out for a Q study. Others have expressed an interest in several other topics that are well-suited for Q studies, e.g., the nature of the Tea Party (from the inside out), why Sarah Palin fans are drawn to her, where the Republican (and Democratic) party is or should be at this point in time. What, from the standpoint of ordinary citizens, is at the root of the US's current "governing crisis?" What is distinctive, if anything, about liberal learning--in principle, and/or in practice here at WC? What can we discover about the nature of student expectations about their educations here -- what they'll study, how, with what levels of rigor, with what pay-offs? And how do these expectations differ across and within majors, how do they get "communicated"?
All of these are off-the-top suggestions. There are dozens more of possibilities that we can devise and execute in the time remaining. In the event that two persons -- no more that two -- wish to pursue a collaborative inquiry, I'm open to the possibility providing the problem is clearly defined and can profit from a genuinely collaborative examination.
For those not familiar with Q at all, except perhaps from performing Q sorts for the Intro class, I will be sharing some brief primers electronically. For those whose curiosity is endowed with motivational energy, I'd recommend Steve Brown's Political Subjectivity (Yale, 1980), or Bruce McKeown & Dan Thomas, Q Methodology (Sage, 1988), copies of which are in the library or available for loan by me.
Think about behavior that's of interest to you and it's more than likely amenable to study by Q.
The principal organization that fosters professional conferences on Q is simply QMETHOD.ORG, and you can browse the link to the journal published by the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity (ISSSS), Operant Subjectivity. There are some 34 issues with abstracts online to give you an idea of the sort of stuff that has been done. My guess is that there will be some of you who "get it" even though Q represents an alternative approach to science than that discussed by Ricci and featured in most textbooks.
The range of topics is virtually infinite since subjectivity is everywhere in the political and social worlds. Some have expressed an interest in the issues -- or raw nerve -- struck by the "Academically Adrift" book claiming to document the failure of college for a huge percentage of students in critical thinking, analytical reasoning and writing. This volume has spawned a vast concourse of commentary--one in the Room for Debate section of the New York Times that has six pages of online comments added by readers, too--and it cries out for a Q study. Others have expressed an interest in several other topics that are well-suited for Q studies, e.g., the nature of the Tea Party (from the inside out), why Sarah Palin fans are drawn to her, where the Republican (and Democratic) party is or should be at this point in time. What, from the standpoint of ordinary citizens, is at the root of the US's current "governing crisis?" What is distinctive, if anything, about liberal learning--in principle, and/or in practice here at WC? What can we discover about the nature of student expectations about their educations here -- what they'll study, how, with what levels of rigor, with what pay-offs? And how do these expectations differ across and within majors, how do they get "communicated"?
All of these are off-the-top suggestions. There are dozens more of possibilities that we can devise and execute in the time remaining. In the event that two persons -- no more that two -- wish to pursue a collaborative inquiry, I'm open to the possibility providing the problem is clearly defined and can profit from a genuinely collaborative examination.
For those not familiar with Q at all, except perhaps from performing Q sorts for the Intro class, I will be sharing some brief primers electronically. For those whose curiosity is endowed with motivational energy, I'd recommend Steve Brown's Political Subjectivity (Yale, 1980), or Bruce McKeown & Dan Thomas, Q Methodology (Sage, 1988), copies of which are in the library or available for loan by me.
Think about behavior that's of interest to you and it's more than likely amenable to study by Q.
The principal organization that fosters professional conferences on Q is simply QMETHOD.ORG, and you can browse the link to the journal published by the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity (ISSSS), Operant Subjectivity. There are some 34 issues with abstracts online to give you an idea of the sort of stuff that has been done. My guess is that there will be some of you who "get it" even though Q represents an alternative approach to science than that discussed by Ricci and featured in most textbooks.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
I just ran into this idea -- the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect -- about a cognitive bias that operates with great frequency among the less competent among us. Its dynamics are such that their incompotence is matched with paradoxically elevated self-confidence because they are clueless in processing feedback that is accurate about their actual comptences.
It seems perfectly sensible to me: so many of those people who demonstrate so much confidence in themselves often seem the least qualified to hold such high self-confidence whereas those with the most grounds for self-cofidence based on their competence often fall paradoxically short of the cluelessly self-confident.
This notion offers a way to look at the earlier conundrum regarding the apparent willingess of Democrats to compromise when Republicans won't. It's kind of saying, "beware of those who have no reason to doubt their own competence and self-confidence." If you google it, the wikipedia article in resonably informative. Is this something you've encountered in you psych classes Mr Engeset?
It seems perfectly sensible to me: so many of those people who demonstrate so much confidence in themselves often seem the least qualified to hold such high self-confidence whereas those with the most grounds for self-cofidence based on their competence often fall paradoxically short of the cluelessly self-confident.
This notion offers a way to look at the earlier conundrum regarding the apparent willingess of Democrats to compromise when Republicans won't. It's kind of saying, "beware of those who have no reason to doubt their own competence and self-confidence." If you google it, the wikipedia article in resonably informative. Is this something you've encountered in you psych classes Mr Engeset?
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Future of PS460, 2011
Today I was informed by several members of this term's PS460 of some crucial details implicit in Mr. Engeset's summary of what transpired in the seminar's meeting last week in my absence. My curiosity is particularly focused on the "pods" proposed in Mr. Engeset's summary. By pods, I'm referring to a proposal from the group that the post-Ricci future of this capstone be divided in such a way that different factions of the eleven members of the class will each read different volumes and after completing them "report" their learnings to others who will reciprocate by reporting on their selected volumes.
This, folks, is simply a non-starter. The "pod" approach is unacceptable. It's been tried and it's failed on both occasions I mistakenly consented to it. It's an "excuse" for not doing the work that is "required" to pass or earn a grade higher than a D in this course. And apparently I've not made it clear enough to all members of the seminar that the PDF grading format is not one that I shy away from utilizing for those who, for whatever reason, feel that they can hide in the woodwork, let others carry the load of interrogating Ricci, Lindblom, Walker, or Dryzek -- or anyone else in the class for that matter -- and receive a P for essentially going through the motions without so much as giving a thought to one's own obligation to the class as a whole other than to gripe at the few proposals that have been put forward. This won't do. We've had serious nominations of volumes by only Isaiah; a mention of one by Trevor, and none from anyone else. The old adage that attends the choice of non-voting is applicable here: if you don't put any ideas on the Table, you don't have the right to bitch about the ideas that have been proposed. The IR faction is understandably interested in having our reading represent international politics and rightly so. But not a single title has been proposed by the IR folks in more than five weeks. Likewise, with those of you who've chosen to by-pass entirely or virtually entirely the Obamadogs forum for posing possibilities: Not a word on where we might want to devote our collective energies in the bulk of 460--either in reading or writing.
Which makes me wonder: Is it assumed that the "negotiated" nature of the undefined part of the class is something beyond the role of students to play? That I'm not serious about enforcing the rules--i.e., submitting D's and F's for those who have shown hardly any evidence of having read let alone having understood Professor Ricci's claims. We have had at least one member of this class lament the fact that he's not really been challenged in his years at Wartburg and therefore feels cheated. We've had a thread online pertaining the the pathetic findings that nearly half of college students make no measurable progress in critical thought, analytical reasoning or writing ability in their first two years and over a third make no measurable progress over four years. My question is: where have those of you who have reasons to share this disappointment been on Tuesday evenings from 6:30 to 9:30? Where have you been in struggling with the readings to prepare yourself to at least be responsible for your own learning and thinking -- leaving aside for the moment whether we all have obligations as class members to anyone other than ourselves?
It's no secret to me that, so far, this year's experiment has fallen way, way short of expectations of what is capstone-level participation, engagement and learning. My best guess is that this is no secret to you either. What is most disconcerting about that is that it is not inevitable -- indeed, just as Ricci's "tragedy" need not be so, simply because in a democracy the citizens exercise free agency and make of their freedom what they will, so it is with higher education when it reaches, allegedly, this level. It is, to put it in cliche terms, exactly what you make of it: nothing more, nothing less. Having been fortunate enough to have "negotiated" with groups that have realized this on their own, it's disappointing in the max to witness those groups unwilling to extend the little bit of personal effort and, perhaps discomfort, that it takes to make this an educational experience worthy of pride rather than embarrassment in retrospect.
Kapiche?
DT
This, folks, is simply a non-starter. The "pod" approach is unacceptable. It's been tried and it's failed on both occasions I mistakenly consented to it. It's an "excuse" for not doing the work that is "required" to pass or earn a grade higher than a D in this course. And apparently I've not made it clear enough to all members of the seminar that the PDF grading format is not one that I shy away from utilizing for those who, for whatever reason, feel that they can hide in the woodwork, let others carry the load of interrogating Ricci, Lindblom, Walker, or Dryzek -- or anyone else in the class for that matter -- and receive a P for essentially going through the motions without so much as giving a thought to one's own obligation to the class as a whole other than to gripe at the few proposals that have been put forward. This won't do. We've had serious nominations of volumes by only Isaiah; a mention of one by Trevor, and none from anyone else. The old adage that attends the choice of non-voting is applicable here: if you don't put any ideas on the Table, you don't have the right to bitch about the ideas that have been proposed. The IR faction is understandably interested in having our reading represent international politics and rightly so. But not a single title has been proposed by the IR folks in more than five weeks. Likewise, with those of you who've chosen to by-pass entirely or virtually entirely the Obamadogs forum for posing possibilities: Not a word on where we might want to devote our collective energies in the bulk of 460--either in reading or writing.
Which makes me wonder: Is it assumed that the "negotiated" nature of the undefined part of the class is something beyond the role of students to play? That I'm not serious about enforcing the rules--i.e., submitting D's and F's for those who have shown hardly any evidence of having read let alone having understood Professor Ricci's claims. We have had at least one member of this class lament the fact that he's not really been challenged in his years at Wartburg and therefore feels cheated. We've had a thread online pertaining the the pathetic findings that nearly half of college students make no measurable progress in critical thought, analytical reasoning or writing ability in their first two years and over a third make no measurable progress over four years. My question is: where have those of you who have reasons to share this disappointment been on Tuesday evenings from 6:30 to 9:30? Where have you been in struggling with the readings to prepare yourself to at least be responsible for your own learning and thinking -- leaving aside for the moment whether we all have obligations as class members to anyone other than ourselves?
It's no secret to me that, so far, this year's experiment has fallen way, way short of expectations of what is capstone-level participation, engagement and learning. My best guess is that this is no secret to you either. What is most disconcerting about that is that it is not inevitable -- indeed, just as Ricci's "tragedy" need not be so, simply because in a democracy the citizens exercise free agency and make of their freedom what they will, so it is with higher education when it reaches, allegedly, this level. It is, to put it in cliche terms, exactly what you make of it: nothing more, nothing less. Having been fortunate enough to have "negotiated" with groups that have realized this on their own, it's disappointing in the max to witness those groups unwilling to extend the little bit of personal effort and, perhaps discomfort, that it takes to make this an educational experience worthy of pride rather than embarrassment in retrospect.
Kapiche?
DT
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Injustice with Underwear is Injustice Every Where
Well, he we are on Thursday of a week when the Trumpet announced days ago that the "Underwear Thief" has been apprehended. The article does not identify the alleged culprit by name, but Chief of Security John Meyers is quoted as saying, in effect, "it's not someone you'd imagine would being doing such a thing." Which naturally leads me to wonder: who among the students I've had in the past two or three years is someone I'd not be surprised to discover was the perpetrator? And, why is the community so steadfastly committed to keeping anonymous the identity of an individual alleged to have stolen some 350 or so pairs of (mostly women's) underwear? It may be admirable that the journalists who broke this story were protecting sources, i.e., persons who, if identified, would be put at risk of retaliation and persecution by vigilantes in the community who regard panty thefts on a par with felonious assault. But is that really a prospect?
Is it really violating an unwritten ethical obligation -- or a legal coda -- to publicly name the accused perpetrator? If so, why? For fear of embarrassment--of the perpetrator and/or the identifier? I know that we are confronted with a host of heavy issues and dilemmas on this blog, but we're also members of a committed colony of behavioral scientists and, well, we're confronted here with a case of unusual, perhaps disturbed, behavior. Not knowing the accused's identity makes it hard to speculate on whether this is an instance of unusual behavior rooted in dispositional eccentricities or even more eccentric environmental pressures. Moreover, don't innocent members of the community have a right to know if and when and who when it has been determined that a particular member of the same community poses a threat to their intimate apparel's safety?
Inquiring minds may or may not want to know.
Is it really violating an unwritten ethical obligation -- or a legal coda -- to publicly name the accused perpetrator? If so, why? For fear of embarrassment--of the perpetrator and/or the identifier? I know that we are confronted with a host of heavy issues and dilemmas on this blog, but we're also members of a committed colony of behavioral scientists and, well, we're confronted here with a case of unusual, perhaps disturbed, behavior. Not knowing the accused's identity makes it hard to speculate on whether this is an instance of unusual behavior rooted in dispositional eccentricities or even more eccentric environmental pressures. Moreover, don't innocent members of the community have a right to know if and when and who when it has been determined that a particular member of the same community poses a threat to their intimate apparel's safety?
Inquiring minds may or may not want to know.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
College Today, cont'd.
I tried to comment on Dani D's comment on this post, but it wouldn't let me comment--only edit the post. So I'm posting to comment on the issue she and Trevor raised about the role and import of extra-curriculars in college today. Since our youngest daughter is a high school senior and her school was cancelled today and now for tomorrow as well due to weather, she is "lost." Now, this is odd to me. She used to use spare time to read (voraciously) for pleasure. But as a dual-enrolled HS senior taking classes at UNI as well as rehearsing for the Spring play, and working parttime at Porter's Camera, her days go from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and sometimes later. She has apparently become addicted to this crazy every-minute-accounted-for schedule, so that she no longer seeks the free time out that allows her to read (or even to write). This is scary to me. If she's accepted to one of the top schools she hopes to attend in the fall, I'm fearful she'll be like many of the students I get in IS101 in their first term of college: they're so used to having their days filled up with scheduled activities, they don't know what to do with their "free time." They certainly, in most cases anyway, don't use it to study, at least judging from their performance on class-based appraisals. And apparently a good deal of time is spent socializing in one form or another -- whether it be XBoxing to binge-ing, the inability to handle the transition is too often the sad story of those who are among the 45% who allegedly make slight progress in academically-related skills during the first two years of college.
Now, this situation is a bit different than the one Trevor and Dani are describing. They're talking about students, I think, whose days are patterned like theirs: booked from morning to night with classes, student senate, work-study, play or choir practice, performances, etc. with precious little time left that might be called "free." I know their pattern is not uncommon for many students at Wartburg. Just try to schedule a meeting for a May Term group or a honor society with a dozen students during the term. Faculty are the same way: no time works for everyone. In our visits to college campuses starting last year with our daughter, we discovered that the very best schools had class schedules that required less in-class seat time than Wartburg by far. In fact, two of the highest ranked schools had first years taking only three classes per term rather than four. The time in class was far less per course than here; the limits on students per class were at 14 or fewer and the reading and writing requirments were higher as well. The idea was that class time would NOT be used to repeat what was in the texts, a wise policy in my view, and students would be expected to assume a lion's share of the time ensuring their own learning agendas were addressed in the class discussions. There was clearly an "ethos" in the air that said "this is how we do it here" and we're proud of it.
One of those schools, Sarah Lawrence College, by the way, does not give grades for classes. Rather they use the written assessments that the old Chrysalis program at Wartburg did. And yet the workload and the ethos were so proudly anchored in a sense of challenge and rigor, grades were seen as superfluous if not insulting.
What I want to suggest is that maybe Wartburg's ethos is a bit out of whack. I am not against extra-curriculars. I went to college to play basketball, not to study political science. But I am amazed at how little "free time" our students (and often faculty) actually have. And I'm curious: Are we somehow afraid that, if left to their devices, the faction that can't make the shift to college because they have too much free time on their hands is watching opportunties slip by because they are not ready to be free any meaningful sense. If they were, they'd be availing themselves of the reading they're not doing or the study groups they're not forming. But they think to be free is to party and play XBOX--or so it seems. Likewise, for some, like our daughter who has been conditioned to have every moment of every day filled with somekind of obligation or scheduled activity, how are you supposed to learn to be free? If there is a part of all the busy-ness that is aimed at perpetuating habits in school, it's no wonder our first two years are having so many adjustment issues. Young people aren't apparently used to being free in any meaningful sense and so some react by overdoing it with scheduled activities that are indivdidually valuable, but added together, take a toll on academic progress; others who haven't know real freedom try Eric Fromm's "escape from freedom" by overpartying and dulling the pain that accompanies guilt over irresponsible choices one isn't used to making. In either case, it's a source of drag on what this school could be if we had more of the ethos that here is where community norms require that I hold up my end of the bargain in sustaining a genuine learning community worth its name and its commercial cost. DT
Now, this situation is a bit different than the one Trevor and Dani are describing. They're talking about students, I think, whose days are patterned like theirs: booked from morning to night with classes, student senate, work-study, play or choir practice, performances, etc. with precious little time left that might be called "free." I know their pattern is not uncommon for many students at Wartburg. Just try to schedule a meeting for a May Term group or a honor society with a dozen students during the term. Faculty are the same way: no time works for everyone. In our visits to college campuses starting last year with our daughter, we discovered that the very best schools had class schedules that required less in-class seat time than Wartburg by far. In fact, two of the highest ranked schools had first years taking only three classes per term rather than four. The time in class was far less per course than here; the limits on students per class were at 14 or fewer and the reading and writing requirments were higher as well. The idea was that class time would NOT be used to repeat what was in the texts, a wise policy in my view, and students would be expected to assume a lion's share of the time ensuring their own learning agendas were addressed in the class discussions. There was clearly an "ethos" in the air that said "this is how we do it here" and we're proud of it.
One of those schools, Sarah Lawrence College, by the way, does not give grades for classes. Rather they use the written assessments that the old Chrysalis program at Wartburg did. And yet the workload and the ethos were so proudly anchored in a sense of challenge and rigor, grades were seen as superfluous if not insulting.
What I want to suggest is that maybe Wartburg's ethos is a bit out of whack. I am not against extra-curriculars. I went to college to play basketball, not to study political science. But I am amazed at how little "free time" our students (and often faculty) actually have. And I'm curious: Are we somehow afraid that, if left to their devices, the faction that can't make the shift to college because they have too much free time on their hands is watching opportunties slip by because they are not ready to be free any meaningful sense. If they were, they'd be availing themselves of the reading they're not doing or the study groups they're not forming. But they think to be free is to party and play XBOX--or so it seems. Likewise, for some, like our daughter who has been conditioned to have every moment of every day filled with somekind of obligation or scheduled activity, how are you supposed to learn to be free? If there is a part of all the busy-ness that is aimed at perpetuating habits in school, it's no wonder our first two years are having so many adjustment issues. Young people aren't apparently used to being free in any meaningful sense and so some react by overdoing it with scheduled activities that are indivdidually valuable, but added together, take a toll on academic progress; others who haven't know real freedom try Eric Fromm's "escape from freedom" by overpartying and dulling the pain that accompanies guilt over irresponsible choices one isn't used to making. In either case, it's a source of drag on what this school could be if we had more of the ethos that here is where community norms require that I hold up my end of the bargain in sustaining a genuine learning community worth its name and its commercial cost. DT
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obama: "Prophet of American Exceptionalism?"
On Chris Matthews' weekly news show on NBC this evening, Richard Stengel of Time magazine pointed to the similarities in style between Ronald Reagan, ever the sunny optimist and political "evangelist" for America's favored position as a beacon of light as the "shining city on the hill," and Obama's "Winning the Future" State of the Union address Tuesday night. It's an intriguing comparison, especially given the parallels in political time between early 1983 after Republicans took a shellacking in the 1982 midterms and 2011 after Democrats suffered the same fate in November. The economy was in tough shape then as now, and Reagan had been forced by the failure of his tax-cut enactment of 1981 to produce expected federal revenues to agree to the biggest "tax increase" -- mostly in non-income tax fees so as to keep his reputation alive as a tax cutter -- in history until then. In part, this "move to the center" on Reagan's part was dictated by the Fed's policy, under the direction of then-Chair Paul Voelcker, of tight money--which was pursued to curb inflation--was directly at odds with the stimulus effects of fiscal policy. In part, it was pure politics: a result of the substantial losses Republican candidates for the House and Senate incurred.
Obama's so-called "move to the center" -- signalled initially by his concession to Republican demands that the Bush tax cuts on the high end incomes be extended -- is arguably anchored in similar circumstances now. The new and substantial Republican majority in the House is certainly a strong political presence. The precarious state of the economic recovery and the painful persistence of "structural" -- as opposed to cyclical -- unemployment is loud music on the policy side. The real point, however, is the political appeal of the president's upbeat SOTU in current circumstances and whether this can accurately be characterized as an echo of Reagan. That Obama's speech was popular is undeniable: polls had it rated positively by majorities ranging from 84% to 91%, virtually unprecedented approval levels in recent history. And given the actual state of the union -- bulging deficits, crumbling infrastructure, partisan rancor, unrelenting unemployment, poor performances by our youth on standardized math and science tests, lurking suspicion about the role of investment bankers in instigating the financial meltdown, talk spurred by a presidentially-appointed deficit commission of the need to scale back entitlement spending -- the President's call to "seize this generation's Sputnik moment" and act as the country that we are: The home of big dreams, big ideas, and big accomplishments -- this, well, it had a ring of Reagan's undaunted optimism, if not outright denial, reverberating throughout. The bright and sunny tone was made all the brighter for listeners who took in the rebuttals of Republican Paul Ryan and Tea-Party spokesperson Michelle Bachmann. Both cast the state of the union as perilous and its future as dark unless drastic measures are undertaken in the near future.
The Obama speech made no mention of the poor, despite the fact that we now have record numbers of households falling beneath the federal poverty threshold. And despite calling for government reform, it contained no reference to campaign finance in the wake of the Citizens United case. Granted, the President did promise that seed money from the federal government would go to converting to a post-petroleum energy policy by curtailing the subsidies to big oil and transferring them to efforts to innovate in green technologies. But the corporate subsidies benefitting the big oil companies are embedded in the mountains of loopholes carved out by corporate lobbyists in the tax code. In all, it was a strange speech: delivered with a kind of upbeat, can-do spirit that would appeal to the true believers in American exceptionalism. But isn't our current sorry state of the union in no small measure a consequence of American ignorance and arrogance regarding our exceptionalism? We can't be like the European socialists. Nor can we embrace a non-profit healthcare system despite the fact that all other OECD countries do with better healthcare at half the price as a percentage of GDP. In brief, isn't the whole notion of "American exceptionalism" at least partly to blame for our ills? Why is that? Or maybe it's not the case after all. What say those of you who've considered this too?
Obama's so-called "move to the center" -- signalled initially by his concession to Republican demands that the Bush tax cuts on the high end incomes be extended -- is arguably anchored in similar circumstances now. The new and substantial Republican majority in the House is certainly a strong political presence. The precarious state of the economic recovery and the painful persistence of "structural" -- as opposed to cyclical -- unemployment is loud music on the policy side. The real point, however, is the political appeal of the president's upbeat SOTU in current circumstances and whether this can accurately be characterized as an echo of Reagan. That Obama's speech was popular is undeniable: polls had it rated positively by majorities ranging from 84% to 91%, virtually unprecedented approval levels in recent history. And given the actual state of the union -- bulging deficits, crumbling infrastructure, partisan rancor, unrelenting unemployment, poor performances by our youth on standardized math and science tests, lurking suspicion about the role of investment bankers in instigating the financial meltdown, talk spurred by a presidentially-appointed deficit commission of the need to scale back entitlement spending -- the President's call to "seize this generation's Sputnik moment" and act as the country that we are: The home of big dreams, big ideas, and big accomplishments -- this, well, it had a ring of Reagan's undaunted optimism, if not outright denial, reverberating throughout. The bright and sunny tone was made all the brighter for listeners who took in the rebuttals of Republican Paul Ryan and Tea-Party spokesperson Michelle Bachmann. Both cast the state of the union as perilous and its future as dark unless drastic measures are undertaken in the near future.
The Obama speech made no mention of the poor, despite the fact that we now have record numbers of households falling beneath the federal poverty threshold. And despite calling for government reform, it contained no reference to campaign finance in the wake of the Citizens United case. Granted, the President did promise that seed money from the federal government would go to converting to a post-petroleum energy policy by curtailing the subsidies to big oil and transferring them to efforts to innovate in green technologies. But the corporate subsidies benefitting the big oil companies are embedded in the mountains of loopholes carved out by corporate lobbyists in the tax code. In all, it was a strange speech: delivered with a kind of upbeat, can-do spirit that would appeal to the true believers in American exceptionalism. But isn't our current sorry state of the union in no small measure a consequence of American ignorance and arrogance regarding our exceptionalism? We can't be like the European socialists. Nor can we embrace a non-profit healthcare system despite the fact that all other OECD countries do with better healthcare at half the price as a percentage of GDP. In brief, isn't the whole notion of "American exceptionalism" at least partly to blame for our ills? Why is that? Or maybe it's not the case after all. What say those of you who've considered this too?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Is Egypt Going the Route of Tunisia?
Welcome back to Obamadogs to Mr. Erickson, whose comment was duly noted on the worries of even law schools like U of M in keeping students around for ratings reasons may be a factor in the diminished emphasis on intellectual investments by students, as measured by student study hours per week, in the present as opposed to the past. Welcome also to Chris Liebig, aka Abhay's law school professor, who has commented in response to issues raised by Joe Muldoon and others regarding the goals of formal schooling. Prof. Liebig is concerned, reasonably, about the emphasis in Iowa City schools on championing "odedient" -- quite, compliant, passive -- behaviors in the elementary classroom in which his own children are students. This is an issue none of us has addressed directly, even though the Radicals from Lindblom's account would not be suprised that such norms operate in public schools regarded among Iowa's -- and hence the nation's -- finest. Most of our critical observations have been aimed at college and/or high school; but the primacy principle reminds us that what is learned earliest, even if it's to keep quiet and back away from raising questions, is learned best. I guess I'd presumed that elementary classrooms had become much more active and project- or inquiry-based than in the old days when I was a student. At least that seemed to be the case for our three daughters.
Before speaking to the title in this post, I feel compelled to mention a little-emphasized finding from the brouhaha-inciting study claiming to show that college's first two years are wasted on 45% of today's students. The finding in question -- or the truth-claim in question -- is that these hideous numbers are not nearly so severe for undergrads at traditional liberal arts colleges taking traditional arts and science classes where lots of tough reading and lots of analytical writing are required. In the big research universities, according to the report's authors, a silent bargain has been struck between professors whose principal efforts are in furthering their research and writing agendas and students who won't complain if they're not asked to do much--at least as first and second-year students. But this too is a claim subject to challenge, as indeed are much of the truth claims from the "Academically Adrift" study, based as they are on a single performance measure (the CLA). Remember Popperism: testability, falsifiability, tentativity, yada, yada.
As for this post's title, what are the odds that Mubarek's government will survive the growing expressions of mass protest? When you have 87 million people, half of whom fall short of the UN poverty theshhold of 2 bucks a day and 30% of whom are illiterate, in a country only a couple doors down from Tunisia, the odds-makers would not likely share the optimism of the authors of The Civic Culture. For starters, I'd put the odds of a change of government at even money.
Before speaking to the title in this post, I feel compelled to mention a little-emphasized finding from the brouhaha-inciting study claiming to show that college's first two years are wasted on 45% of today's students. The finding in question -- or the truth-claim in question -- is that these hideous numbers are not nearly so severe for undergrads at traditional liberal arts colleges taking traditional arts and science classes where lots of tough reading and lots of analytical writing are required. In the big research universities, according to the report's authors, a silent bargain has been struck between professors whose principal efforts are in furthering their research and writing agendas and students who won't complain if they're not asked to do much--at least as first and second-year students. But this too is a claim subject to challenge, as indeed are much of the truth claims from the "Academically Adrift" study, based as they are on a single performance measure (the CLA). Remember Popperism: testability, falsifiability, tentativity, yada, yada.
As for this post's title, what are the odds that Mubarek's government will survive the growing expressions of mass protest? When you have 87 million people, half of whom fall short of the UN poverty theshhold of 2 bucks a day and 30% of whom are illiterate, in a country only a couple doors down from Tunisia, the odds-makers would not likely share the optimism of the authors of The Civic Culture. For starters, I'd put the odds of a change of government at even money.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
College Life Today, cont'd.
From the aforementioned "Room for Debate" blog in yesterday's NY Times comes this factoid from Prof. Phillip Babcock of UC-Santa Barbara.
"Full-time college students in the 1960s studied 24 hours per week, on average, whereas their counterparts today study 14 hours per week. The 10-hour decline is visible for students from all demographic groups and of all cognitive abilities, in every major and at every type of college. . . .
. . . Most of us in higher education believe that the skills that are truly worth acquiring involve hard work. Put simply, thinking requires effort.
If colleges no longer require this kind of effort, how could students hope to acquire these skills and how could colleges hope to instill them?"
Prof. Babcock's piece in the exchange is appropriately entitled, "An F for Effort."
Thoughts?
"Full-time college students in the 1960s studied 24 hours per week, on average, whereas their counterparts today study 14 hours per week. The 10-hour decline is visible for students from all demographic groups and of all cognitive abilities, in every major and at every type of college. . . .
. . . Most of us in higher education believe that the skills that are truly worth acquiring involve hard work. Put simply, thinking requires effort.
If colleges no longer require this kind of effort, how could students hope to acquire these skills and how could colleges hope to instill them?"
Prof. Babcock's piece in the exchange is appropriately entitled, "An F for Effort."
Thoughts?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Does College Make You Smarter?
Check today's "Room for Debate" blog on the New York Times online. It's based on the above question, and has half-a-dozen contributors who focus on the why behind the evidence of paltry progress learning-wise for first and second-year college students. As such, it traverses much of the ground that recent posts on Obamadogs have covered.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The State of the Union
Tomorrow night we will use part of our scarce class time to listen to President Obama's State of the Union address. There is no shortage of commentary on what the president might or should say, but apparently -- if Paul Krugman is right, and he usually is -- the theme of "competitiveness" will be prominently featured. Normally, this is a theme that one encounters in the SOTU addresses of Republican presidents, and this is not lost on Mr. Krugman. As such, it doesn't mean that Obama's not-so-subtle move to the center is actually crossing the partisan divide and ditching Democratic policy tools in his efforts to reconnect with the Business Community. But it's a bothersome ploy, even if it's just a public relations tactic, to Krugman. I'd recommend your reading of this argument at the following link as it lays out clearly why this is an irksome choice on the president's part in the mind of the nobel laureate economist from Princeton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&hp
Otherwise, what would you recommend that the president say if you were a member of his speech-writing shop?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&hp
Otherwise, what would you recommend that the president say if you were a member of his speech-writing shop?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Mr. Engeset's "Challenge"
We have an interesting seed for a significant thread in the comment supplied by Mr. Engeset yesterday -- following on the earlier comments by Messers. Corbin, Muldoon, and Nadipuram. From my reading, the discussion seems to feature two paths familiar to students of attribution theory from social psych: the "external" attributionists, i.e., those who see individual behavior as primarily determined by situations, are represented by Mr. Nadipuram and, to a more nuanced degree, by Mr. Muldoon. Mr. Corbin and Mr. Engeset, by my reading of their comments, seem to share the "dispositional" path in attribution theory: the behavior of an individual, or in this case a generation, can be best ascribed to "internal" factors of those behaving. In this instance, the dispositional attributions to GenYers with respect to public life and engagement with it vs. detachment from it are, if nothing else, direct and pablum-free. Overly compressed to some degree, GenY is removed from political life by "choice" -- for the lazy, less-demanding option rather than the tougher choice. In fairness, neither Mr. Engeset nor Mr. Corbin are blaming their generation entirely without taking into account the considerations noted and explicated by Mr. Muldoon, namely a pre-collegiate (and collegiate) educational system that is standardized-test-based and indifferent, at best, to the idea of multiple intelligence or the value of creativity, individually or socially.
My questions about these disparate assessments are twofold. First, what do others on Obamadogs among GenY think? Are you and your peers defined by your music and your choice of "distractions"? Are you "lazy"? Or are you victims of a so-called "educational system" that is fundamentally what one would expect if the Radical View of American democracy is correct: a system of control aimed at producing unquestioning cogs for the Corporate State, not independently-minded, articulate citizens whose search for genuine solutions to vexing problems takes them, comfortably, out of the box?
Second, if this line of attributional thought is correct -- i.e., if GenY is fundamentally a bunch of couch potatoes in public life -- what does such a diagnosis mean for our collective endeavor in designing via democratic deliberation a culminating capstone experience that is satisfactory to the quality-conscious and productive in generating the elusive qualities -- analytical reasoning, critical thinking, clear and purposive writing -- that research has recently found to be a very short supply among today's college students?
My questions about these disparate assessments are twofold. First, what do others on Obamadogs among GenY think? Are you and your peers defined by your music and your choice of "distractions"? Are you "lazy"? Or are you victims of a so-called "educational system" that is fundamentally what one would expect if the Radical View of American democracy is correct: a system of control aimed at producing unquestioning cogs for the Corporate State, not independently-minded, articulate citizens whose search for genuine solutions to vexing problems takes them, comfortably, out of the box?
Second, if this line of attributional thought is correct -- i.e., if GenY is fundamentally a bunch of couch potatoes in public life -- what does such a diagnosis mean for our collective endeavor in designing via democratic deliberation a culminating capstone experience that is satisfactory to the quality-conscious and productive in generating the elusive qualities -- analytical reasoning, critical thinking, clear and purposive writing -- that research has recently found to be a very short supply among today's college students?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Ricci and The So-called "Tragedy . . ."
Since the White House failed to check with us to clear the date, they mistakenly designated the State of the Union address for 8 pm CST Tuesday night, halfway through our previously-arranged class time. This poses a problem: On the one hand, we don't want to miss President Obama's remarks in the golden opportunity he's been afforded by political time to finally establish a "narrative" that will legitimate well-designed and sorely-needed efforts by the federal government to step up its intervention in the mythical free market to use fiscal tools to hasten the recovery, accelerate job creation, and stave off the collapse of revenue-starved state and local governments with badly-needed infrastructure projects as well as plain-old revenue sharing over the objections of Tea Party-type deficit hawks in the Republican party.
On the other hand, we don't want to slide further behind in the communal read and dissection of the Ricci volume. Recall that as a partial concession to this worry, Tuesday is to be devoted to chapters 3-5 rather than 3-6. For those who are just receiving their copies of Ricci, it will mean chapters 1-5, a tall order for a volume of such density as this. However, deferring any further the time allocated to the "mandated" portion of the capstone is simply not acceptable. The prospect of carving out a collectively negotiated, from scratch capstone experience, replete with appropriate rigor in readings and (inquiry-based) writing in fewer than the two-month window that is available is dim indeed.
Accordingly, I propose that we use this medium to facilitate the effective attention to course obligations in the time and space we have available. Specifically, that means using Obamadogs as the forum for class-related conversations it is intended to be: a way of communicating between class members between classes so as to relieve the pressures created by a once-weekly formal class meeting. Therefore, anyone with a question -- which should be everyone in the class -- about Ricci's argument(s) should feel free to post it on the blog. Also, since we did not have volunteers to serve as "discussion guides" for chapters 4 and 5, perhaps four class members yet to do so, would step forward via this blog: two to guide the 4th chapter and two the fifth chapter discussions. Since we have eleven members and six have stepped forward already for chapters 1-3, that leaves five members from whom these four roles are to be filled: Messers Lusamba, Woodin, and Fonck; and Misses Dohlman and Brown. Volunteers can do so individually or in pairs, either in this forum or via email to me. I will ensure that there are no duplications.
Finally, we have yet to see overt demonstrations of interest in directing the post-Ricci focus in one direction or another. If specific volumes are not proposed, perhaps topics or problems can be identified. One way or another, we need to begin the deliberative process that is required for a genuinely democratic and educational experience of this magnitude (i.e., where ALL voices are heard and no one is permitted to "opt out" of a decisionmaking role).
We have thus far heard from only Trevor and Isaiah in this forum; that leaves nine of eleven so far choosing to sit on the sidelines.
DT
On the other hand, we don't want to slide further behind in the communal read and dissection of the Ricci volume. Recall that as a partial concession to this worry, Tuesday is to be devoted to chapters 3-5 rather than 3-6. For those who are just receiving their copies of Ricci, it will mean chapters 1-5, a tall order for a volume of such density as this. However, deferring any further the time allocated to the "mandated" portion of the capstone is simply not acceptable. The prospect of carving out a collectively negotiated, from scratch capstone experience, replete with appropriate rigor in readings and (inquiry-based) writing in fewer than the two-month window that is available is dim indeed.
Accordingly, I propose that we use this medium to facilitate the effective attention to course obligations in the time and space we have available. Specifically, that means using Obamadogs as the forum for class-related conversations it is intended to be: a way of communicating between class members between classes so as to relieve the pressures created by a once-weekly formal class meeting. Therefore, anyone with a question -- which should be everyone in the class -- about Ricci's argument(s) should feel free to post it on the blog. Also, since we did not have volunteers to serve as "discussion guides" for chapters 4 and 5, perhaps four class members yet to do so, would step forward via this blog: two to guide the 4th chapter and two the fifth chapter discussions. Since we have eleven members and six have stepped forward already for chapters 1-3, that leaves five members from whom these four roles are to be filled: Messers Lusamba, Woodin, and Fonck; and Misses Dohlman and Brown. Volunteers can do so individually or in pairs, either in this forum or via email to me. I will ensure that there are no duplications.
Finally, we have yet to see overt demonstrations of interest in directing the post-Ricci focus in one direction or another. If specific volumes are not proposed, perhaps topics or problems can be identified. One way or another, we need to begin the deliberative process that is required for a genuinely democratic and educational experience of this magnitude (i.e., where ALL voices are heard and no one is permitted to "opt out" of a decisionmaking role).
We have thus far heard from only Trevor and Isaiah in this forum; that leaves nine of eleven so far choosing to sit on the sidelines.
DT
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Yet Another State of Mind
Not to worry, this is not another reference to Lindblom's essay. In a class discussion this morning with students taking ID309 Probs of War & Peace, we revisited the study mentioned Tuesday showing that 45% of college students make no measurable progress in analytic reasoning, critical thinking, or written communication during their first two years of college and the percentage declines only to 36% for four-year students. Interestingly, after class one of the students shared an insight based on the reading that had nothing to do with the College Learning Assessment research, but yet did--in a way. The reading was on WWII, particularly the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, signed in August, 1939, only to be broken in the Spring of 1941 by the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa. That the invasion had to be postponed five weeks due to circumstances beyond Hitler's control meant that the German troops were defeated before they reached Moscow by the Russian winter, an intervention by Mother Nature that probably spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Third Reich in the larger war. The question we were addressing concerned the popular support Hitler enjoyed by the German people. They were not idiots, yet they empowered and followed a mad man in perpetrating unprecedented evil upon humanity in pursuit of an insane ideal of global dominion.
The author's suggestion was borrowed from Erik Erickson, who saw Hitler as the internalized version of the rebellious male child in the prototypically authoritarian German family dominated by a stern and emotionally-challenged patriarch: submissive to those in authority, hostile and dismissive to those without power. Hitler offered an object of identification that gave the German youth, especially the males, a way of escaping the guilt-ridden pattern of complying with the domineering father figure while feeling self-loathing for doing so. By identifying with Hitler and his over-the-top challenge to existing patterns of authority, German boys could feel a sense of power and "autonomy" by, in effect, relegating their conscience and thus their guilt to the Fuhrer. The student after class wanted to share his appreciation of the Milgram experiments on obedience, which showed -- before they were canceled by the APA as constituting a violation of ethical research guidelines -- that German subjects were more apt to go all the way in obeying commands from an authority figure to administer severe punishment (high voltage shocks) to other subjects who failed to perform a memory task adequately.
This prompted my recollection of a discussion of the Milgram experiments as demonstrating the difference between the effects of two states of mind: the first, the so-called state of "autonomy," the other referred to as the state of "agency." In the latter, officers in the death camps served as examples: "I was just following orders. The decision to villify and execute Jews was not mine, but the Fuhrer's." The former state, autonomy, is one in which we recognize that our choices are no one's but ours: we refuse to follow orders just because a person in a position of authority issues them. We consider, on our own, the consequences of our choices and their ethical grounds. We are captains of our own ship, masters of our own fate. Americans are rightly proud of the emphasis given to this state of mind in our culture. But here, finally, is my question: Does our educational system now -- particularly our system of higher education -- serve to suffocate this state of mind? Are students so accustomed to "following orders" that they find themselves mindlessly going through the motions rather than actively asserting that part of their character that we know of as the "autonomous" state of mind? If so, could this be an enemy of this class, or the opportunity this class provides for defining the content of the major portion of the capstone? How do we find out? And what actions are in order if the enemy diagnosis is on point?
The author's suggestion was borrowed from Erik Erickson, who saw Hitler as the internalized version of the rebellious male child in the prototypically authoritarian German family dominated by a stern and emotionally-challenged patriarch: submissive to those in authority, hostile and dismissive to those without power. Hitler offered an object of identification that gave the German youth, especially the males, a way of escaping the guilt-ridden pattern of complying with the domineering father figure while feeling self-loathing for doing so. By identifying with Hitler and his over-the-top challenge to existing patterns of authority, German boys could feel a sense of power and "autonomy" by, in effect, relegating their conscience and thus their guilt to the Fuhrer. The student after class wanted to share his appreciation of the Milgram experiments on obedience, which showed -- before they were canceled by the APA as constituting a violation of ethical research guidelines -- that German subjects were more apt to go all the way in obeying commands from an authority figure to administer severe punishment (high voltage shocks) to other subjects who failed to perform a memory task adequately.
This prompted my recollection of a discussion of the Milgram experiments as demonstrating the difference between the effects of two states of mind: the first, the so-called state of "autonomy," the other referred to as the state of "agency." In the latter, officers in the death camps served as examples: "I was just following orders. The decision to villify and execute Jews was not mine, but the Fuhrer's." The former state, autonomy, is one in which we recognize that our choices are no one's but ours: we refuse to follow orders just because a person in a position of authority issues them. We consider, on our own, the consequences of our choices and their ethical grounds. We are captains of our own ship, masters of our own fate. Americans are rightly proud of the emphasis given to this state of mind in our culture. But here, finally, is my question: Does our educational system now -- particularly our system of higher education -- serve to suffocate this state of mind? Are students so accustomed to "following orders" that they find themselves mindlessly going through the motions rather than actively asserting that part of their character that we know of as the "autonomous" state of mind? If so, could this be an enemy of this class, or the opportunity this class provides for defining the content of the major portion of the capstone? How do we find out? And what actions are in order if the enemy diagnosis is on point?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Aversion to Public Life and its Controversies
Our discussion tonight about the large and growing portion of the younger generation's aversion to public life, particularly when the prospect of conflicting viewpoint beckons, is a huge unsolved mystery to me. So is the notion, so clearly expressed by several seminar members, that remaining "insulated" from contact via news sources from public life requires no special effort by young people today; indeed, it's easy -- apparently given the wide range of gadgets (XBOX, Facebook, cells, etc.) that provide alterative sources of attraction or distraction. Also disturbing is the virtual disappearance of diads composed of individuals holding differing political views, as in the day when Don Canfield and I would look forward to mixing it up and learning from one another over coffee before he moved on to St. Olaf and the political environment changed. I talk about the value of learning from those who see the world differently; Wartburg promotes the idea of diversity in part for its educational benefits: we might have our opinions validated by others who think like us, but John Stuart Mill had a good point when argued that individuals who'd not had their opinions challenged by those with differing views could not be said to truly know what they actually believed or why. I can't be sure, but I'm inclined to suspect that in this group of a dozen people, counting me, there is a reasonably wide range of attitudes present. The common denominator, presumably, is an untypically strong interest in public affairs; beyond that, I suspect, we adhere to different political-economic-international worldviews. Hopefully future class sessions will provide ample opportunites for probing and exploiting these differences, as sources for learnings and/or sources of inquiry projects later this term. And, speaking of later this term, it's not too early to float a trial balloon for a topic or book for our post-Ricci sessions.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A Tale of Two Moralities?
Paul Krugman's Friday column, from which the title of this post is taken, spoke to President Obama's call for a more civilized discourse in his well-received remarks at the memorial for the victims of the Tucson shootings Wednesday evening. Krugman's column can be found at:
the New York Times online under the Opinion section for Friday, Jan 14th. The gist of Professor Krugman's remarks was to take issue with those who, like Morris Fiorina in his widely read volume Culture War?, argue that the popular view that we are a nation deeply divided and that the sharp partisan polarization is a reflection of those deep difference is, on close scrutiny, wrong-headed. Instead, says Fiorina, we are a "closely divided, not deeply divided" nation: the differences between red and blue states are such that we will have closely contested elections into the near future, but the partisan differences between members of the "political class" do not extend deeply into the population. Data supporting this skeptical view of the political divide and its depth are taken from surveys on issues running the gamut from guns, gays, and abortion to a host of other policy issues. As it happens, there are no aggregate differences in the opinions of voters from red and blue states on these matters. Consequently, the "culture war" argument that Krugman and others embrace is a mythical product of a public-affairs media that pays many of its "commentators" to rip apart partisan opponents.
For Krugman, the polarized political rhetoric has far deeper roots. After all, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would not pull in big salaries without harvesting large audiences that allow their shows' sponsors to sell advertisements at a premium. In the Krugman analysis, the deepest root for the climate of polarization is the recent history of the Republican Party. Prior to the Reagan Presidency, Republicans accepted the realities of the "mixed economy" that produced in the wake of the New Deal and Great Society an American version of the welfare state. Though quite different than the welfare states of Western Europe, it provided a safety net and entitlement programs that were funded, without major attacks on their legitimacy, by a tax system that was progressive in principle and practice. Now, says Krugman, a Republican Party has arisen that challenges the legitimacy of the welfare state on moral grounds, claiming in effect that it is based on theft: those who are winners in the capitalist game are expected to pay for the welfare benefits of those who are losers. Hence the ugliness of the so-called health care reform debate of last year where Republicans unanimously opposed a reform measure that, less than twenty years earlier, they embraced when Bill Clinton's effort at reform crashed.
Beneath the surface manifestation of the new Republican Party is an altogether different kind of morality than the one that persisted through Democratic and Republican Administrations alike following FDR and going through the 1970s. According to Krugman, this morality is essentially one of "I've gone mine and I deserve it; it's immoral to punish me for my hard-won success by taxing me more heavily than the lazy, the losers, the irresponsible and subsidizing their very slothfulness in the process." Needless to say, this is a deeply-felt belief--witness the inability of Obama to budge Republican leaders on allowing the "Bush tax cuts" to elapse on the upper 2% of incomes in the US. For Krugman, the depth of this belief is such that anyone who sees things differently -- e.g., our life chances in terms of income are affected more than by ability and effort alone -- are not only wrong, they are immoral. Hence the prospects of civil conversation, let alone policy compromise, are nil--notwithstanding the elegance of Obama's call to reconciliation so as to honor young Christina-Taylor Green's pride in her democracy, avidly expressed before her life was taken by a madman in Tucson.
For 460-ites, I draw attention to this issue -- along with the aforementioned question, Why do Democrats compromise when Republicans won't? -- as a personal puzzle that I seek your wisdom on -- if not answers, suggestions for how one would push the envelope research-wise to provide evidence on these matters. In short, how can we possibly pursue such questions in the yet to be defined portion of this semester's class?
the New York Times online under the Opinion section for Friday, Jan 14th. The gist of Professor Krugman's remarks was to take issue with those who, like Morris Fiorina in his widely read volume Culture War?, argue that the popular view that we are a nation deeply divided and that the sharp partisan polarization is a reflection of those deep difference is, on close scrutiny, wrong-headed. Instead, says Fiorina, we are a "closely divided, not deeply divided" nation: the differences between red and blue states are such that we will have closely contested elections into the near future, but the partisan differences between members of the "political class" do not extend deeply into the population. Data supporting this skeptical view of the political divide and its depth are taken from surveys on issues running the gamut from guns, gays, and abortion to a host of other policy issues. As it happens, there are no aggregate differences in the opinions of voters from red and blue states on these matters. Consequently, the "culture war" argument that Krugman and others embrace is a mythical product of a public-affairs media that pays many of its "commentators" to rip apart partisan opponents.
For Krugman, the polarized political rhetoric has far deeper roots. After all, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would not pull in big salaries without harvesting large audiences that allow their shows' sponsors to sell advertisements at a premium. In the Krugman analysis, the deepest root for the climate of polarization is the recent history of the Republican Party. Prior to the Reagan Presidency, Republicans accepted the realities of the "mixed economy" that produced in the wake of the New Deal and Great Society an American version of the welfare state. Though quite different than the welfare states of Western Europe, it provided a safety net and entitlement programs that were funded, without major attacks on their legitimacy, by a tax system that was progressive in principle and practice. Now, says Krugman, a Republican Party has arisen that challenges the legitimacy of the welfare state on moral grounds, claiming in effect that it is based on theft: those who are winners in the capitalist game are expected to pay for the welfare benefits of those who are losers. Hence the ugliness of the so-called health care reform debate of last year where Republicans unanimously opposed a reform measure that, less than twenty years earlier, they embraced when Bill Clinton's effort at reform crashed.
Beneath the surface manifestation of the new Republican Party is an altogether different kind of morality than the one that persisted through Democratic and Republican Administrations alike following FDR and going through the 1970s. According to Krugman, this morality is essentially one of "I've gone mine and I deserve it; it's immoral to punish me for my hard-won success by taxing me more heavily than the lazy, the losers, the irresponsible and subsidizing their very slothfulness in the process." Needless to say, this is a deeply-felt belief--witness the inability of Obama to budge Republican leaders on allowing the "Bush tax cuts" to elapse on the upper 2% of incomes in the US. For Krugman, the depth of this belief is such that anyone who sees things differently -- e.g., our life chances in terms of income are affected more than by ability and effort alone -- are not only wrong, they are immoral. Hence the prospects of civil conversation, let alone policy compromise, are nil--notwithstanding the elegance of Obama's call to reconciliation so as to honor young Christina-Taylor Green's pride in her democracy, avidly expressed before her life was taken by a madman in Tucson.
For 460-ites, I draw attention to this issue -- along with the aforementioned question, Why do Democrats compromise when Republicans won't? -- as a personal puzzle that I seek your wisdom on -- if not answers, suggestions for how one would push the envelope research-wise to provide evidence on these matters. In short, how can we possibly pursue such questions in the yet to be defined portion of this semester's class?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Lindblom-inspired speculation
Here's a thought-in-progress: Suppose that the vitriol and anger that almost all agree is a big part -- in the view of most, too big a part -- of our political discourse of late is the semi-conscious consequence of a dim sense that the Radical View Lindblom speaks of is sensed by many of our citizens. I'm wondering if, at some fuzzy level, a large fraction of our population suspects that our system is no longer the proud republic it once was, the shining city on the hill that Reagan spoke of, and that the "powers that be" -- be they banks or members of Congress, or special interests (other than the gun lobby) -- do "govern" in a way that mimicks the brutush yet subtle processes of repression that the Radical View pointed to some thirty years ago.
I will confess that my initial -- and still dominant -- view of the Tea Party is that its populism and sense of indignation are misdirected in as much as they are targeted on Obama and the Democrats now, though many would add George W. Bush's brand of borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as alien as well. The problem, in my mind, with such thinking is that it is tone-deaf on the workings of crony capitalism -- i.e., unregulated, untaxed, unproductive wealth creation that occurs at the expense of genuine free enterprise where liberty is preserved and enhanced and economic wellbeing is maximized. That kind of free-market fundamentalism is far from the realities of Wall St and the big banks today. Concentrated corporate power is as big a threat --if not bigger -- to individual liberty and equal opportunity than so-called Big Government. To be sure, government has grown in a Big Brother kind of way over the past decade, but the growth has been in Homeland Security and Defense, areas that conservatives generally have few problems with. Corporate political power is no longer as invisible as it once was before the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United. US corporations are said now to control between two and four trillion dollars in cash, waiting to see where investment opportunities will present themselves -- in our out of the country -- in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in 2008. Were they to invest in US-based businesses, the stock market would rebound and, provided that the financial system began to loan money to small business again, it's possible that economic growth would exceed 3% over the next year, making a reduction in the unemployment rate a real possibility before the 2012 election. Now, the Tea Party has been silent on the threats to liberty posed by this concentration of wealth; indeed, they were largely opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the superrich.
What is the view of others on this basic question? Is it possible that the Radical View -- stripped out its Marxist origins -- is one that intuitively appeals to the many voices that have gravitated toward the Tea Party? If so, how should the two major parties respond to this? I'm wondering what others make of the views that many have of our politics these days? Is it fair to surmise that they don't buy the benign, common benefit society conception of the Conventional View?
Does that mean they have a dim suspicion that the Radicals are right?
Finally, having watched the Tucson Memorial tonight, I'm wondering what the view is of President Obama's remarks. He had a tough challenge, and by most accounts, his speech struck the right tone. Thoughts?
I will confess that my initial -- and still dominant -- view of the Tea Party is that its populism and sense of indignation are misdirected in as much as they are targeted on Obama and the Democrats now, though many would add George W. Bush's brand of borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as alien as well. The problem, in my mind, with such thinking is that it is tone-deaf on the workings of crony capitalism -- i.e., unregulated, untaxed, unproductive wealth creation that occurs at the expense of genuine free enterprise where liberty is preserved and enhanced and economic wellbeing is maximized. That kind of free-market fundamentalism is far from the realities of Wall St and the big banks today. Concentrated corporate power is as big a threat --if not bigger -- to individual liberty and equal opportunity than so-called Big Government. To be sure, government has grown in a Big Brother kind of way over the past decade, but the growth has been in Homeland Security and Defense, areas that conservatives generally have few problems with. Corporate political power is no longer as invisible as it once was before the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United. US corporations are said now to control between two and four trillion dollars in cash, waiting to see where investment opportunities will present themselves -- in our out of the country -- in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in 2008. Were they to invest in US-based businesses, the stock market would rebound and, provided that the financial system began to loan money to small business again, it's possible that economic growth would exceed 3% over the next year, making a reduction in the unemployment rate a real possibility before the 2012 election. Now, the Tea Party has been silent on the threats to liberty posed by this concentration of wealth; indeed, they were largely opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the superrich.
What is the view of others on this basic question? Is it possible that the Radical View -- stripped out its Marxist origins -- is one that intuitively appeals to the many voices that have gravitated toward the Tea Party? If so, how should the two major parties respond to this? I'm wondering what others make of the views that many have of our politics these days? Is it fair to surmise that they don't buy the benign, common benefit society conception of the Conventional View?
Does that mean they have a dim suspicion that the Radicals are right?
Finally, having watched the Tucson Memorial tonight, I'm wondering what the view is of President Obama's remarks. He had a tough challenge, and by most accounts, his speech struck the right tone. Thoughts?
The Tucson Shootings
A reminder that tonight, 7:00 pm cst, the memorial service for the victims of the shootings in Tucson this past weekend will take place. I would encourage you to tune in and to pay particular attention to President Obama's remarks. Many observers have noted the similarities in "political time" between the situation now and the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. Clinton was credited at the time of setting the right tone in calling attention to the pervasive and powerfully destructive effects of heated anti-government rhetoric and hostility. President Obama faces a similar opportunity, but in some ways his task is more challenging than was Clinton's. Why? Because now, unlike 1995, "hate speech" is arguably much more integrated into the mainstream partisan political discourse of the time. Those on the right -- particularly Sarah Palin and Tea Party candidates -- have been using language to refer to the President and Democrats that is "borderline" for some time now. Sharron Angle, the Tea Party Senate candidate in Nevada, talked of "Second Amendment remedies" in the event that she and her followers didn't get their way at the Ballot Box. Sarah Palin's infamous, "don't retreat, just reload," coupled with the crosshairs targeting those Democrats she actively campaigned against in 2010 (including Gabrielle Giffords) is pointed invective, despite the difficulty of drawing a clear line of causation from such speech to the evil acts of Jared Loughner. Rush Limbaugh, predictably, has accused Democrats of using the tragedy to score political points, in the process "blaming everybody and everything except Loughner." In this environment, the President and his speech-writers face a challenging task.
DT
DT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)