Web Browsing- Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not - NYTimes.com 3 November 2008Do liberal faculty affect the political leanings of students? These people say no. But let's look a little deeper. One author says "it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15." Does this mean that the average American thinks about politics now the same way he did when he was 15? Yikes. It appears to imply that political opinions are not firmly rooted in ideas, but in feelings and prejudices. The article also suggests that the real problem is that students aren't actually being educated. They aren't getting the "good stuff." In fact, this may be the root of the problem. Even if students don't buy the liberalism of their teachers, they don't get much else either. Notable deficiencies appear in political and military history, especially of the West, but also include traditional literary criticism (and probably content), civics, and economics.
- Obama, Shaman by Michael Knox Beran, City Journal Summer 2008 3 November 2008Beran brilliant combines culture, religion, and literature into a powerful commentary on the religious aspects of Barack Obama's candidacy. The article is rich (and lengthy), but certainly worth digesting.
- Obama and the Politics of Crowds - WSJ.com 30 October 2008Fouad Ajami offers a rich and culturally insightful glimpse into Senator Obama's magic. He draws upon broad themes and key historical features of American cultural history to make his case for caution. Perhaps most telling is his observation about an American distinctive. Whereas the rest of the world champions equality, American has championed liberty. Obama offers the former, and the current financial panic has suspended Americans' faith in the latter. Consequently, we are on the verge of electing someone who inspires in the way a relgious leader, a messiah, does. But the religious hype quickly fades and people realize too late that they have been fleeced.
- America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree - Chronicle.com 24 October 2008Chronicle of Higher Ed points out the pointlessness of most bachelor's degrees.
- Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not - NYTimes.com 3 November 2008
Nov
7
Good things (and bad) about Obama’s win
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts | 1 Comment
There are a couple of things about Senator Obama’s win that make me happy — or at least optimistic.
1. Race was an issue in the campaign. As much as people try to say otherwise, it mattered. I am genuinely glad for black people that this is so. It affirms what they’ve been trying to say for over a hundred years–that their skin color doesn’t make them less important. But now that we’ve elected a black man into the White House, the “American is racist” argument will lose a lot of its clout. Of course, those who really believe it will find some way to keep it alive, but I don’t think it will be nearly as persuasive.
Further, Obama will ultimately prove the equality of the “races” when he makes a mistake and has to pay the consequences. Just as the media’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primaries proved that women have an equal right to criticism, a strong opposition to Obama’s policies will show that black people really do get treated the same way as white people.
2. Campaign finance whining might go away. Obama raised an enormous amount of money. If McCain had raised that much and won, the media would have accused him of buying the presidency (and in a sense, he would have). But they won’t criticize Obama for his financial success. In the future, Republicans should feel free to raise as much as they can (legally), since any media criticism of their success would be obviously disingenuous. I realize that the media’s ability to spin things to fit their narrative will still be powerful, but I think the “buying the election” epithet will lose some of its power.
3. Republicans should know how not to run a campaign. McCain’s campaign was pretty sorry. He survived on people’s hesitancy about Obama and a few spectacular successes — the “surge,” Gov. Palin (a mixed blessing, more below). His response to other issues, e.g. the economic “crisis,” was pretty bad. It took a plumber from Toledo and a slip from Obama to focus the message on the obvious. McCain and Co. were just flopping around, and it hurt them. In fact, McCain and Palin never really explained any of their positions very well.
Voters reminded the GOP that ideas do matter, and if you can’t express them cogently, you won’t win.
4. A young rising star in the GOP got national facetime. Gov. Palin has been a touchstone for the debate within the GOP about the party’s direction. She represents one vision of Republicanism (I think the more conservative side). It was nice that she could be introduced to the country to remind young conservatives that they can actually go places in politics, and that people really do care about conservative values. To be sure, certain aspects of her candidacy were badly handled, and she may not have been ready to be president (I’m not sure that Obama is either). But she could represent a future GOP that a lot of its younger members would like. She may not be a good candidate for president, even in the future, but her success should remind the movers and shakers that they can’t ignore the right.
5. Conservatives aren’t whining. When Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004, there was lots of griping about all the unfair things that happened. Most conservatives are pretty prosaic about this campaign. Many see it as a deserved punishment for a party that has behaved badly. Further, they think it proved that moderate Republicanism doesn’t work very well against “moderate” Democrat-ism. The introspection may be very healthy.
Some not-so-good things and observations:
Nov
3
America’s Sins and Salvation
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment
The recent political season, coupled with current economic instability, has revealed that Americans have lost any pretense of righteousness.
Over at least the last two generations, and particularly the last two decades, America has enjoyed, yea championed, the vices of Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, and Greed. Look at the news stories that tell what Americans are complaining about now. They resent the loss of their luxuries–those things that they had no right to but have pursued to excess. They dislike the fact that excess, combined with laziness, eventually leads to want.
Perhaps I should say “we.”
But now they have a savior. He promises them relief from the loss of their pleasures. He offers ease from the hardship that they have brought on themselves. He claims that they need not suffer for their own sins.
How does he do this? By telling us that our previous sins are not our responsibilty and by calling us to Pride in our own worthiness, Envy of those who have succeeded, and Wrath against people who expect us to take care of ourselves.
In short, he tells us that we have not sinned enough.
This is the job of a “community organizer” (probably better labeled “agitator”). Stanley Kurtz at National Review has documented Senator Obama’s positions and activities. Obama’s MO basically motivates sinning people to sin more so that they can keep sinning. He wants to remove the law of sowing and reaping. Unfortunately, his opponent doesn’t clearly disagree.
Speaking of sowing and reaping, the American public has long elected politicians who have stayed in power by appealing to the basest instincts of their constituents. It works to do so. But the state shapes the people, so as the politicians themselves are vicious, the people become so too. And then the people turn around and elect more vicious politicians. Many polls and news stories suggest that Americans have lost their faith in their government. Considering the kind of government we have, it’s about time they stopped believing.
Government is not our salvation. Usually it tends merely to delay the consequences of vice. Now, more than ever, our government is actively and unashamedly trying to absolve the sins of the people. And the people are poised to elect someone who will add more sins, not remove them.
Salvation requires repentance and faith. With a faithless government that doesn’t demand repentance, it’s hard to imagine how government could do anything but make things worse. But then, that might be a good thing. The sooner people remember the law of sowing and reaping, repent, and put their faith in something more substantial and transcendent, the better off we’ll be.
Oct
30
Did anyone find this insulting?
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts | 5 Comments
I didn’t watch Senator Obama’s infomercial last night. I get the impression that I didn’t miss much. I also don’t feel like trying to refute all of the absurd things he said. But after seeing the video below, I feel compelled to comment briefly.
I don’t want to bash the family at the beginning, and I wouldn’t wish economic hardship on them. But if their difficulty is limited to fewer snacks (or rationing them out over a week), I confess that I’m less sympathetic. In fact, the suggestion that this is the kind of economic hardship going on is insulting. It insults both the viewers’ intelligence and those who really are getting hurt by the downturn. Sure, things aren’t as smooth-going as they were, but at least the family in the video is frankly a long way from starvation.
I think the average person out there knows full well that this family isn’t getting hurt too badly. Are all these plans Senator Obama suggests intended to help out these kind of people at the expense of those of us who are little closer to subsistence living? I fear so. But the pretense of the video is spectacular. The remainder of the infomercial doesn’t get much better.
Is it just me, or was the live portion of this video kind of odd? He returned to the “hope and change” lines from early in the campaign. If he had clearly discussed policy in the previous 25 minutes, that might have been one thing. But instead we got a list of sob stories that seemed a little contrived and some vague promises to fix their problems. We want to know how he’s going to fix the problems — but once we know, we might not like it. I guess the question is whether the hope and change mantra will survive until Tuesday.
Oct
2
The Experience Canard
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment
There has been a lot of talk in the last few days about Gov. Sarah Palin’s experience–whether she has enough to be vice president or not. Even some conservative writers suggest that she just doesn’t have what it takes.
The whole discussion is silly. Experience is important, but we need to understand what experience we’re talking about. Usually people compare her to Biden or McCain and point out her relative youth and provincial attitudes. In reality, if she should be counted out for not measuring up to their tenure, then the top of the opposite ticket is out of luck too.
But what about this whole “experience” thing in politics anyway? Is experience really necessary? Gov. Palin’s critics seem to be equating experience with knowledge. She supposedly hasn’t been around long enough and therefore doesn’t know enough. But does experience always lead to knowledge?
I say no. And here are three arguments:
First, the kind of experience matters. It’s one thing to get to sit in on a board meeting of a major corporation. You might learn a lot. But it’s quite another thing to run the meeting. No amount of watching can fully prepare you to actually run the thing. Likewise, many Americans have the “experience” of watching politics (filtered by their televisions). But relatively few could actually do what politicians do (or ought to do). Teachers know that teaching a subject requires far greater understanding than just soaking it up in a chair. We can over-emphasize the value of “hands-on” experience, but we cannot deny that doing is not the same as watching. Governor Palin is the only candidate with actual political executive experience. Does that make her qualified? Not necessarily, but her experience of running things is somewhat different than the others.
Second, the content of the experience matters. We could find some aged musician with lots of frequent flier miles, but he wouldn’t necessarily be a reliable source on foreign policy. (Then again, he might be.) If a crime boss ran for political office, he might be able to claim lots of executive experience, but it isn’t quite the executive experience that most people are looking for in a leader.
Third, and most important, experience doesn’t necessarily produce knowledge. We could take a behaviorist tack and claim that, after a while, everyone can be trained to do certain things. But this is not the kind of knowledge we want in a leader. We want someone who will learn from mistakes (both theirs and others’). Moreover, we want someone who can learn without experience–i.e. by direct instruction1 . When someone persists for years in foolishness, they probably aren’t qualified for public office. This would be a problem for Senator Biden. His weath of “experience,” particularly in foreign policy, has managed to land him on the wrong side of nearly every major foreign policy issue in the last decade. Further, he doesn’t seem to have learned that when he doesn’t know what to say, he shouldn’t say anything at all. For all his “experience,” his knowledge, judgment, and wisdom are certainly in question.
Governor Palin needs more knowledge, as we should expect. (She is, after all the governor of one of the states furthest from Washington D.C., and governors aren’t always in the “need-to-know” loop of national security and foreign policy.) But as I anticipate tonight’s debate, I hope Gov. Palin will have an opportunity to demonstrate that she learns quickly and that she can draw on the wealth of knowledge among her advisors. If she does so, she will further convince me that the media doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about. She can’t attack “experience” per se, since her running mate is running on that very thing (in an earlier post I suggested that this might not be all good). But she can attack Biden’s knowledge and judgment, and I hope she does.
It would be great to have someone with real experience in the White House again.
- Consider how often the book of Proverbs connects wisdom, understanding, and instruction with “hearing.” back↩
Sep
24
Statistics and political rhetoric
Filed Under News, Random Thoughts | 1 Comment
Lincoln recently put a link on his blog to a post on EdWired about computer visualizations of text. Actually the site that does these visualizations will do them for nearly any data set. One of the highlights I found quite interesting was the visualization set for the recent party conventions.
I decided to try something. I pulled up a word tree of Obama’s convention speech and one of McCain’s speech. I then searched for the word “I” in each speech. The results intrigue me. McCain uses “I” more often, but it is most frequently followed by “was” and “know.” Obama most frequently said “I will.”
Obama and McCain's use of "I"
This seems to bolster the sense that Obama can say little about his past that wouldn’t disqualify him for public office, and that McCain has had a storied past with lots of varied experience. Obama’s emphais on the future may be not only politically shrewd, but practically necessary. Further, his characterization of McCain as a relic of the past seems justified by McCain’s own rhetoric.
There is the problem, however, of politicians saying “I will” (or “I will not”). McCain will need to get away from his historical narrative at some point, but the alternative is not Obama’s grand declarations of future accomplishments. Politicians promise much during campaigns, but the return on their promises is usually pretty poor.
I think a stronger rhetorical stance for a presidential candidate would emphasize statements of moral fact. If Senator McCain wanted to highlight future policies, but do so without making promises that political necessity might later overturn (George H.W. Bush, anyone?), he could cast his ideas this way: “We should ________,” or, “We ought to _______.” By doing so, he doesn’t actually promise anything, but instead identifies the “right” course of action.
Of course, McCain may be prone to overdo this kind of rhetoric. William McGurn and John Fund both recently noted in the Wall Street Journal that McCain already tends to shoot from the hip for moral judgments. If he’s going to adopt the rhetoric of moral principle (as opposed to Obama’s “ruthless pragmatism“), he needs to decide what he thinks–or at least what he wants people to think that he thinks–and stick to it. I think he would be much more convincing.
Sep
4
They don’t get it: More musing on Sarah Palin
Filed Under Ideas, News, Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment
The media was doubting whether Sarah Palin would actually appeal to women. They failed to realize how effectively she could appeal to mothers. In the typical modern feminist mindset, women are not mothers, at least not primarily. But Mrs. Palin demonstrated last night that she can be a mother and a vice president — that in fact it would be good for American mothers if she becomes VP.
Sarah Palin with family (TimesOnline UK)
I think there were at least a half dozen specific references to “motherly” issues in her speech last night. But they didn’t seem forced or invented the way you’d expect from someone like Hillary Clinton or even Cindy McCain. Her comment about special needs children probably won the Republican ticket a few hundred thousand votes on its own. But to reinforce her comments about motherhood, her family played their parts perfectly. Her youngest daughter is delightfully cute, but did you see how she followed her mom around on stage after the speech? And that her mom actually paid attention to her? I don’t think people should worry about her ability to be a mother and a VP.
Daniel Henniger of the Wall Street Journal had a great piece today that addresses some of these issues. Mrs. Palin is far more convincing as an American mom than nearly any other woman in politics.
An MSNBC show this morning also included some talk about her appeal to mothers. Generally, the “oracles of political wisdom” thought she’d appeal very strongly to moms. Of course, if they had said otherwise, they’ve have lost what shreds of credibility they still have.
Populism
It’s nearly axiomatic in American politics that in order to get elected, you have to play the “average Joe” card frequently. Read more