I was reading Stanley Fish’s opinion piece in the New York Times about the University of Colorado’s plan to create a Chair of Conservative Thought at their Boulder campus. The reason? To address political imbalance at the university. Does this mean that they are also going fund a Chair of Liberal Thought? You know, in the interest of “balance”? Probably not.

But does this mean that only a conservative can teach a course in conservative thought? If that’s the case, then how do you explain the wealth of academic knowledge on conservative thinkers like Plato and Aristotle published by individuals who fundamentally disagree with the object of their study? Have those academics (not schooled by Leo Strauss or any of is disciples) been less informed on Platonic or Aristotelian thought? Is there one way, and only one way, to read a text?

You see, just bringing up these questions starts a line of inquiry that leads to a less politically charged atmosphere. I should amend that last sentence to say that while questions of politics are discussed, they are not the end-all and be-all of the discussion. Those whose credentials reflect a life not devoted to the pursuit of money or power, but rather to the rather solitary and tedious study of ideas, will often teach with an eye toward the critical analysis of political ideas — and that includes those which one holds dearly. (more…)

I’ve been reading The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 by Sean Wilentz, and it covers historical ground that most historians don’t want to touch for a good 30 years. Having spent a good deal of time with U.S. historians, the old adage that “history is argument without end” is fairly accurate when it comes to the interpretation of what constitutes historical fact. But historians like to wait for a good chunk of time to pass before digging into the archives of events. That’s why it’s surprising that a noted historian like Wilentz ends his study of the recent past by talking about the present. He may be premature, but Wilentz is ready to bookend “The Age of Reagan” with the end of the George W. Bush’s presidency rather than wait and see who becomes the next president. Just as New Deal liberalism had pretty much crumbled by the beginning of the 1970s, Wilentz thinks that Reagan Republicanism is now in its twilight. This bodes well for a resurgence of liberalism in the future, but it’s instructive to see how a revamped GOP was able become a dominant force in American politics from mid ’70s to the present.

Having a few large-scale events befall the GOP’s political opponents was extremely helpful in the rise of Reagan (i.e., Vietnam, civil rights movements, the counterculture, student protests, and urban riots). But it took a long-term palace revolt within the GOP during the ’60s and ’70s to slough off some of the Midwest and east coast Republicanism that kept the party center-right for a long time — far too long for those who were in love with Barry Goldwater’s ideology. In a way, Goldwater Republicans were cut from the same cloth as their New Left counterparts. The same “no compromise” attitude pervaded both camps, and while the New Left (a loose amalgamation of groups who could never really unite under a shared ideology) imploded by the beginning of the ’70s, “Phase II” of the countercultural revolution pushed forward until the mid ’70s (i.e., “Women’s Lib,” gay rights, the ecology movement, and sexual liberalization). Standing athwart history yelling “Stop!”* was the other counterculture: the New Right. Like I said, these two movements were cut from the same cloth, but while the New Left and its scions pointed out the injustices in the United States and sought to address them through protest, policy, and legislation, the New Right proclaimed their undying love for the United States while actively trying to destroy the very governmental institutions that helped to create the post WW II affluence they grew up in. In short, there was a tremendous amount of resentment in both camps, but the New Right used that resentment in a much more effective way — politically speaking, that is. (more…)

I don’t know if bad news has reached critical mass this past week, but it seems that the last few days of newspaper reading has engendered a great deal of doom and gloom for yours truly. I should probably read the sports pages and maybe the comics section more often, because many news stories this week have me feeling like I’m reading a modern day version of “Day of Doom” by that Puritanical poet, Michael Wigglesworth. And because I’m a giving person, I thought I would drag you down with me!

1. The Politics of Power When Death is All Around You. If nature’s fury wasn’t enough to remind the people of Myanmar of cruelty, they have to suffer the tortures of the damned with a military government whose obsession with power and control stifles the assistance offered by relief agencies and nations. According to a report by the Associated Press, even though relief is getting to some people, we get this behind the scenes peek at what’s really going on: “The government is very controlling,” said U Patanyale, the abbot of a monastery in Kyi Bui Khaw village. “Those who want to give directly to the victims get into trouble. They have to give to the government or do it secretly. They follow international aid trucks everywhere. They don’t want others to take credit. That’s the Myanmar government,” he said.

2. Suburban Bust. A local story that’s a microcosm of the real estate woes the United States is experiencing centers on the city of Brentwood, CA. No, not the famous Brentwood in So Cal, the “other” one that used to be a farming community in Nor Cal, and was , in the last real estate boom, the fastest growing city in California. A lot of that great farmland was transformed into McMansions, tract homes, and strip malls for those who could “creatively finance” their way into the “home of their dreams.” Now that we’re in Act II of the real estate meltdown, where foreclosures are rampant, what happens to a community like Brentwood when vacant houses dot the landscape? That’s right, crime goes up, blight increases, and because some folks have been laid off, they turn to their second careers as suburban pot farmers — a la Weeds, but without the comedy.

3. Endless Night. Vets who served in Iraq are committing suicide at a higher rate due to PTSD. What’s worse is the cover-up by VA officials, who publicly dispute the suicide rate stats among Vets, while their own documentation tells a far more grim tale. There is a 24 hour suicide prevention hotline the VA set up, however: 800-273-8255 and press 1. Also, despite the C.Y.A. mentality that pervades the upper echelons of the VA, rank and file VA workers are doing a good deal to train people on responding to vets who are so messed up that they are thinking of ending it all.

4. The Earth Gets Pissed Off. A 7.8 magnitude earthquake leads to the death of almost 10,000 people in China, a volcano in Chile erupts spewing ash into the atmosphere eight miles high, and since I’m in Puritan mode, I see environmental red flag warnings as sign ‘o the times.

5. Apocalypse Now. Finally, in the U.S. postal rates went up on Monday (and will go up again next May). It begs the question: if the USPS has planned rate increases, why don’t they find an amount (say, 75 cents for a 1st class stamp) and keep it there? Whatever “profit” they get from this rate can go into a fund to offset any future price increases in stamps. Too forward thinking for the USPS? Yeah, I thought so…

Lulu Belle and Scotty (A sample of) “That Crazy War” (Download)

In the realm of public speaking, it’s tough for anyone (even accomplished speakers) not to make mistakes. In my current line of work (radio) I have to voice commercials, promotional spots, and public affairs features. Every year, someone at the radio station assembles a “blooper reel” for our annual Xmas party (which, oddly enough, takes place in June). When the blooper reel is played, we all laugh at the flubs, the mess-ups, and the insane amount of swearing that occurs when so-called professionals screw up. If you want to try it at home, take any piece of ad copy from a newspaper or Internet site and read it like you’re a spokesperson for the product. Need some help? Okay, here’s what we in the biz call a “straight read” ad. No sound effects, no multiple voices, no characters, just an announcer getting people interested in buying tickets to a live show at a local theater:

VALLEY PERFORMANING ARTS 4/21/08 TO 5/1/08

1X30

“Ed Garpo Inflatable Theater Co.”

(MUSIC SHOULD BE UPBEAT AND COMICAL)

HILARIOUS … FAST-PACED … AND OH, SO CLEVER! YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY WILL LAUGH AND BE AMAZED AT THE FANTASTIC VISUAL COMEDY OF THE “ED GARPO INFLATABLE THEATER COMPANY.” YOU’LL LOVE THE JUGGLING, DANCING, AND AMAZING INFLATABLE SUITS WORN BY THE PERFORMERS THAT BLOW UP INTO ALL KINDS OF SHAPES AND SIZES! ONE PERFORMANCE ONLY ON APRIL 27TH AT 2PM AT THE RIVERHEAD THEATER IN THE VALLEY! PURCHASE TICKETS ONLINE AT “VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS DOT ORG.” DISCOUNT TICKETS FOR STUDENTS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR 11-DOLLARS AT “VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS DOT ORG.”

Give it a shot and see if you can read it without blowing a word, a line, or even losing the flavor of the read. Some of you will probably do just fine, while others will clearly see that it’s not easy to do this in one take. If this commercial was done live, then you would have to rehearse your script over and over prior to the “On Air” light going on. (more…)

Ronald Reagan asked that question when he was running against Jimmy Carter in 1980. It’s a question that goes to the heart of what many of us believe is the American Dream: to live a materially richer life than the generation before. It’s a progressive dream that measures “happiness” in terms of wealth. For example, for your parent’s generation, their wealth is measured based on one segment of a line (T1). Your generation’s wealth is then measured on its own line segment (T2) and compared to T1. How does your current wealth compare? Are you living a monetarily richer life than your parent’s generation at the same age? Are you better off? Are you “making it?” Are you living the American Dream?

Maybe you can point to certain material comforts as indicators that, yes, you have more than your mom and dad had when they were your age. However, if you’re like many Americans, the “Dream” has been realized through a highly addictive drug called “easy credit.” Easy credit is only one factor in achieving the current incarnation of the American Dream. One can also factor in the housing bubble, and the ease of which people were able to get home loans — no matter their credit score — relatively cheap oil prices, and a consumer economy that thrives when a nice combo of these factors are going at full throttle. If the things are humming along with nary a care for how shaky this house of cards is, one can easily delude themselves into thinking that the good times are here to stay.

At the political level, it’s not any better. Low taxation coupled with deficit spending on credit lines from foreign creditors keeps popular government social programs solvent in the short term, but the center cannot hold if the we continue with these policies. The distractions on the political stage continue, but sometimes you can’t ignore what’s right in front of you: the declining standard of living for middle class people. Every now and then, you’ll see newspaper stories, books, and even the occasional “talking head” on TV showing us how rich folks are getting richer, while the middle and lower classes are making less money, or their wages are stagnant. I don’t know how long I’ve been hearing a variation of this message, but it’s finally starting to sink in. Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle devoted the “above the fold” story to the economic realities for many middle-class Americans who live in a part of the country that is considered quite wealthy (i.e., the San Francisco Bay Area); a place where the American Dream can happen because of the high number of so-called “good paying jobs.” Because it makes for an eye-catching graphic, the Chronicle put the following on the front page: (more…)

We’re at a point in the presidential election when reporters, news directors, anchors, and all the other media powers who help frame election issues are getting weary. Weary of the back and forth, the up and down, and the he said/she said of the Democratic race for the nomination. Feeling like there is very little to talk about, Old Media have, by and large, resorted to promoting the cheapest form of news programming, the Freak Show. If you’ve had a chance to read The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 by John Harris and Mark Halperin, you’ll know what I mean by Freak Show. However, you don’t even have to open Harris and Halperin’s book to know what it is. All you have to do is channel-surf between the three 24-hour cable news channels to see it for yourself. Every now and then there are actual debates over political issues. Nowadays, however, it’s an endless variation of the Freak Show — which elevates trivial political matters into the only issues that matter by shouting, gossip mongering, spewing half-truths and bald-faced lies with a blurring rapidity. Matt Drudge, 24-hour cable news, talk radio, and political blogs are purveyors of the Freak Show, and it would be easy to dismiss if the Freak Show’s formula for getting people to pay attention if it weren’t so effective. Old Media outlets are now eager to jump on the bandwagon. Why? Because if they can get ratings by serving up trash, then why not serve up a steaming pile of it and see if the piggies will come to feed.

The Freak Show is only part of the story, though. Another part is how our esteemed media (Old and New) quickly crown the new prince/President before people have had a chance to vote in the general election. If you’re in the media’s good graces, they will shower you with love — even if you’re routinely making gaffes and saying things that are patently false. Sure, political gaffes will make the news, but it will usually be relegated to middle of the newspaper, programmed deeply in a nightly newscast, or briefly mentioned as a headline news piece. Case in point: John McCain. Those in the press who travel with McCain generally like the guy. They like his humor, they like the fact that he invited the press corp to his house for a BBQ, they admire his bravery during the Vietnam war, and they the see him as our next president. When he makes a gaffe like the one below, it’s reported, and then quickly forgotten.

However, if you’re Howard Dean, an odd victory yell plays over and over for weeks - if not months: (more…)

History-altering events produce consequences that are sometimes unintended. In our post-9/11 age, the political landscape has quickly altered, from the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years to perpetual war in the Bush years. Laws have changed to promote greater “security,” and liberties that were once taken for granted have been eroded all in the name of protecting “us” from terrorists. The swiftness with which the PATRIOT act was passed, the illegal wiretapping that has gone on, the way in which electronic voting can be manipulated to change the outcome of an election, lying about the threats the county of Iraq posed to the United States, and on and on is quite prevalent in the newspapers. So it’s of little surprise to see that in the popular culture, the post-9/11 culture of war, paranoia, threats from “The Other,” and the like have been a source for fiction. Fans of 24 know the world of appearance, and the “real” world underneath the gloss, are polar opposites. Fans of Battlestar Galactica can see our own cultural and political issues being played out in a drama where the protagonists and antagonists struggle with not only their identity, but also life in a state of war where the battles are frequent, lives are lost, and enemy and friend have a shared history.

Out of this cauldron comes a new novel by Betsy Hartmann. Deady Election is a political thriller about consequences (intended and unintended) that takes place in a United States very much like our own. The president is a recovering alcoholic/”Born Again” Christian who’s not too bright when it comes to affairs of state. His closest adviser, Lyndon Tottman, is a Machiavellian of the highest order who uses whatever unsavory means he has at his disposal to keep the president in power. And very close to Tottman is the First Lady, whose Southern-gal charms mask a hunger for power that matches Lyndon’s ability to secure it. (more…)

Elections are about priorities. What kind of world do we want to live in? What kinds of things are important for our government to spend money, time, and energy on to realize what we value; what do we think are priorities in the short and long run? These are things I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of us don’t ponder as we listen to candidates ask us for our vote. This weekend I had a chance to sit down and go over the foreign policy priorities of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It wasn’t hard to find because last year all three candidates contributed pieces to Foreign Affairs about their foreign policy priorities, should they become the next president.

All three candidates agree on one thing: that freedom/liberty are paramount when it comes to foreign policy ideals. What those terms mean to each candidate, however, is somewhat different. For John McCain, liberty is attained through the dominion over others. This means never being in a position of weakness as it relates to the world at large. His view also means taking a very hawkish stance in current and future conflicts. Regarding the War on Terrorism, McCain believes that the U.S. must increase troop levels in order to thwart a civil war in Iraq, decrease the presence of Islamic extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and provide a strong-arm counterpoint to the influence of Iran in the region. Moreover, McCain seeks to decrease Iran’s influence in the area by increasing economic sanctions on their gasoline exports, divestment of capital, and using a military option (i.e. war) if the economic sticks are ineffective.

But wait, there’s more!

(more…)

In an election year, candidates often want to talk about “the issues,” but more often than not, campaigns will ditch the boring talk for talking smack about each other. It’s a game of misdirection based on a good reading of what captures the imagination of the typical voter. Like many political watchers, I’m atypical when it comes to TV news, reading the paper, or which sites I regularly read for what I consider good political analysis. Yes, I read the New York Times almost every day, and yes I would rather watch The Newshour with Jim Lehrer than my local TV news or the nightly news from the Big Three. And yes, I read academic journals for the really geeky stuff. However, staying too long in the realm of political junkies comes at a cost: alienation from the political mainstream, and frustration with the way people are easily manipulated.

Case in point: there’s quite a bit of hot air about the presidential race and how the lack of a presumptive nominee in the Democratic Party is hurting the chances of Hillary or Barack to become the next president. We’re at the beginning of April, the Republican and Democratic conventions haven’t even happened, yet there’s a lot of nervous nailbiting among Democrats who think the election is already lost.

McCain is many things, but he’s no idiot when it comes to politics. The hand-waving from Karl Rove after McCain reached the magic number of delegates to secure the nomination was a Three-Card Monte move to give Dems a false sense of security. What was it that Rove said (and was repeated in the echo chamber)? His view was that because McCain was now the frontrunner (sorry, Ron Paul supporters), his coverage in the media was going to wane as the American Idol competition between Barack and Hillary continued. Ha, bloody, ha. If anything, it has boosted McCain’s profile as many in the media have grown tired of writing the ongoing saga of “who’s up, who’s down” between B and N. Lately, there have been a number of “McCain as presidential” stories floating to the top of the political pages. McCain in Iraq … McCain talking about the economy … McCain talking about public service, and it all comes without much criticism from the press. Sure, Obama responded to McCain’s policy prescriptions to the economic recession we’re in, but what is happening right now is that many in the media are looking at McCain and framing a story that goes something like this: “Chapter 1. McCain is the 44th President of the United States.”

For Hillary or Barack to turn this story around, they are going to have to split their attack strategy and remind voters why another Republican administration is going to be a horrible thing for the country, hammer home the fact that the last 7 years under Bush have been a boon for everyone but vast majority of Americans, and then start talking about the following issues: (more…)

A friend of mine from grad school came to town for an academic conference in San Francisco this week. It was the annual meeting of the Popular Culture Association, and while I generally find these conferences extremely boring, I decided to tag along with my friend and attend a panel discussion.

He asked me to pick a panel I thought would be interesting, and I found one that fit right in with my love for shows like the X-Files, movies like The Matrix, and the weirdness of David Lynch movies. The topic of the panel was “Conspiracy Theories and Beliefs in the Paranormal II: 9/11 and post-9/11,” and while it was quite interesting in terms of the topic, the delivery by the presenters made me realize why I can’t stand academic conferences: these people have poor public speaking skills.

Not to dwell too long on the mechanics of oration, but some academic folks really need to take a speech class. Talking too fast, pelting the audience with information in a shotgun style, or stammering, um-ing and ah-ing throughout a 20-minute speech engenders the exact opposite of what is intended in sharing knowledge. However, once I got past the barriers to effective public speaking, I was taken with a paper given by a professor at UC Davis (Magid Shihade). His paper was entitled “Orientalism as a Conspiracy Theory and the case of 9/11.” Seems a bit daunting at first, but what he did was connect what Richard Hofstadter called, in 1964, the paranoid style of American politics, to the post-9/11 view of “The Other.” (more…)