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
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.
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.