No Left Turns - The Ashbrook Center Blog

Published in Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Tocqueville on Julia

By now everyone has met Julia, the lucky woman in the unusual Obama campaign commercial who is looked after from cradle to grave by a compassionate federal government.  With the help of the government, Julia is educated, gets free health care, free birth control, and subsidized student loans.  When she decides to have a child (with no significant other, of course), government is there to help with health care and school programs (but no daycare?).  When Julia retires, Medicare and Social Security look after her needs.  And so on.

This happy story made me wonder what the difference is between Julia and the people Alexis de Tocqueville calls "place-hunters" (see Democracy in America, Vol. II, Part 2, chapter 20).  The place-hunter is someone whose ambition finds its primary outlet in seeking a government job, a type that Tocqueville fears will arise in modern democracies.  True, Julia seems to be on her own when it comes to choosing a job (she's a web-designer), though she does get government subsidized small business loans and tax credits to get started.  But when so many of the major problems in life are solved by government, don't you become something like a place-hunter?  At the least, you rely on government almost as much as someone who does have a government job.

So what's the problem with that? Here's our French observer, writing in the 1830's, long before the full-blown welfare state had developed:

"I shall not say that this universal and immoderate desire for public offices is a great social evil; that it destroys the spirit of independence in each citizen and spreads a venal and servile humor in the whole body of the nation; that it suffocates the virile virtues; nor shall I have it observed that an industry of this kind creates only an unproductive activity and agitates the country without making it fruitful: all that is easily understood."

No, the real problem Tocqueville sees is more political.  In a "people of place-hunters" (think about that awful idea!), there can never be enough government jobs to satisfy the ever growing number of people who want such a job.  And this creates a permanent class of discontented people who demand change "solely out of the need to make some places vacant", or, we may add, solely to acquire more benefits.  And can there ever be enough money to satisfy the ever growing demand for more government assistance? Whether out of compassion or the desire to win political support, governments try to attract partisans by giving people jobs (or healthcare, retirement and vacation benefits, etc.); but instead, Tocqueville thinks governments end up endangering themselves, as we perhaps see in places like Greece. 

Tocqueville concludes that it would be "more honest and more sure" for governments to teach each citizen "the art of being self-sufficient."  Wouldn't that be better than a "people of place-hunters"?

Categories > Pop Culture

Men and Women

Defending Julia

Defending these other Julias--and not the woman in Orwell's 1984. From Robert Herrick:

WHENAS in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

... Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free ;
O how that glittering taketh me !

You really wanna get rough with Julia, try John Donne's "Julia," Elegy 14:

Her hands, I know not how, used more to spill
The food of others than herself to fill ;
But O ! her mind, that Orcus, which includes
Legions of mischiefs, countless multitudes
Of formless curses, projects unmade up,
Abuses yet unfashion'd, thoughts corrupt,
Misshapen cavils, palpable untroths,
Inevitable errors, self-accusing loaths.
These, like those atoms swarming in the sun,
Throng in her bosom for creation.
I blush to give her halfe her due ; yet say,
No poison's half so bad as Julia.

Finally, try Julia Shaw, who unfavorably compares Obama's Julia to Tocqueville's American woman, whose superiority was responsible for American greatness.

Categories > Men and Women

Political Philosophy

Leon Kass on the Real War on Poverty

At the AEI annual dinner Dr. Leon Kass explains life--work, love, service, and truth. He concludes with the need for hope:

In this most fundamental sense, hope is not a hope for change, but an affirmation of permanence, of the permanent possibility of a meaningful life in a hospitable world. Hope in this sense is not only a Judeo-Christian virtue. It is not only the most essential--and abundant--American virtue. It is the condition of the possibility of all human endeavor and all human fulfillment. Yes, there is still much spiritual poverty in America. But we go forward with confidence that our spiritual hungers can yet be nurtured in this almost promised land, provided that we have the courage to insist that the well-being of the spirit is central to our notion of national success and personal flourishing. This war on poverty--on our spiritual poverty--will not add a cent to the deficit. It can enrich our lives beyond measure.

Today, poverty, like pollution, needs a deeper understanding.

Politics

What's Right about Kansas

Tim reposts a thumbnail portrait showing what's right about Kansas (other than some silly regulation), on the day of the Kansas primary-caucuses. This reminds me of my quick visit to Russell, KS in 1996, home at various points of both Bob Dole and Arlen Specter. Be sure to hit the A&W Root Beer when driving through Russell!
Categories > Politics

Health Care

In re Rush

We misheard Rush on the 30 year-old law student demanding free contraception, via Obamacare mandate.

UPDATE: Now he apologizes.

Categories > Health Care

Leisure

Stormy Weather

Fred Astaire called this dance routine the greatest to ever be caught on film. The Nicholas Brothers, Fayard and Harold, were tap dancing stars of Vaudeville and the Harlem Renaissance, their careers continuing well into the 1990s. While the 1943 film "Stormy Weather" was primarily about its star, Bojangles Robinson, the "Jumping Five" sequence by the Nicholas Brothers really steals the show.
Categories > Leisure

Sports

Lin-colnesque

NY Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin exhibits American virtues, not Chinese ones. One could conclude this from simple observation as well from this book on Chinese (PRC) professional baseketball. "Why are there no Jeremy Lins [point guards] coming out of China?" The answer lies in politics--the sports of a free society and those of a totalitarian one.

Speaking of Lincoln, note this 1860 cartoon of the presidential candidates, featuring baseball metaphors. Lincoln installed a baseball diamond on the White House grounds, as Diana Schaub relates in her classic essay on the All-American sport.

Categories > Sports

Pop Culture

Nostalgia Playing in Hollywood

Two of the top contenders for film awards this year are focused on the early years of cinema-- Martin Scorsese's Hugo and The Artist, by French director Michel Hazanavicius. The former leads the pack with the most Oscar nominations, while the latter is sweeping awards for direction, writing, and acting--and picking up a few Best Picture trophies, including one from the British equivalent of the Academy Awards. Both films have been described as "love letters to cinema" by their creators, and both are charming in that regard.

Hugo is focused on the birth of film and the crossroads of science and storytelling that gave the movies their magic, and it is unlike anything else I've seen by the normally-gritty Scorsese. The film pays homage to Georges Méliés, the great French illusionist who pioneered special effects at the turn of the last century and is regarded as the father of the science fiction and horror genres of cinema. Méliés and his work had a tremendous influence on other wizards like Thomas Edison and Walt Disney, who would help America to become the leader of filmmaking. Most of the Méliés films were lost during the Great War, and the man spent much of his later life in obscurity, selling toys and magic tricks in a Paris train station--where Hugo picks up his tale. Eventually, interest into the innovations of Méliés and his surviving films began to pick up, and in 1931 he was awarded the French Legion of Honor (presented by none other than Louis Lumiere), and Méliés spent the rest of his life teaching the next generation of filmmakers. As he sat in a hospital bed losing a battle to cancer, he invited some friends to his bedside to show them the final picture he would draw--a champagne bottle with the cork popping off. "Laugh, my friends. Laugh with me, laugh for me, because I dream your dreams." This sentiment was shared well in the film.

The Artist is a fantastic example of filmmaking. The movie is about the death of silent films and the rise of the talkies, and it is itself both black-and-white and silent. The silence of the film forces the actors to use their abilities to tell a story through actions and expressions alone, and they are magnificent at it, especially lead actor Jean Dujardin. The Frenchman plays George Valentin, king of the silent silver screen, who resists the rise of sound in film, initially shrugging it off as a passing fad and then falling into despair as a new generation of actors with voices steals his limelight. While I was originally skeptical that a full-length silent movie could completely keep my attention in this day and age, I found myself loving every minute of it--the movie was great fun. Though I have yet to see The Help and The Descendants, I expect this film to win the Oscar for Best Picture (though some people tell me The Help and The Descendants are as good if not better than The Artist).

Both movies capture pivotal moments in the history of cinema, and in the process allow the artists to express their own thoughts on their craft. It is no surprise that Hollywood is in love with these love letters, and I think this could be a good thing; they capture the essence of what makes movies fascinating, fun, and sometimes even important. Films can make us laugh or cry, get us to think about things we normally would not, and allow us to escape the world for a few brief moments and let our imaginations play in the fantasies that these wizards conjure up. It is no coincidence that many of the earliest pioneers of cinema were also great scientists and magicians. Hugo plays with a well-reported scene from one of the first movies: the Lumiere brothers had taken a brief shot of a train coming down a track, and were showing it on the carnival circuit. When people watched it and saw that train come towards them on the screen, legend says they all panicked and began ducking for cover, fearing that the train was actually coming at them and would leap off of the screen to crush them. It was magic that it did not. From the pioneers like Méliés, Lumiere, and Edison to the titans like Disney, Hitchcock, and Welles to the plethora of great storytellers and technical wizards over the last century, they continue to entice us. It is good for Hollywood to explore its roots now and then, to remember where it came from and why it went that way, and to continue looking to the future for new ways to divert us and new magic to conjure up.
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Iowahawk Revisits "Halftime"

It made my day. "Halftime in America"--"Goddammit, somebody get me a throat lozenge."

Update: This one is my favorite (obscenity alert)--Obama does Henry V.

Categories > Pop Culture

Politics

$15,000 Food Fight?

Plastic cutlery at the Ayers-Dohrns?  This is a sign of cultural rot.  Why is bankrupt Illinois still funding this outfit?

Or maybe plastique?

UPDATE:  State Humanities Councils receive support from the NEH.  The House should put the NEH Chairman before an oversight Committee.

Categories > Politics

Pop Culture

Art as Monkey-Business

Abstract art is easy to denigrate and abuse. But sometimes one must wonder if the folks who report on the laughable craft truly appreciate its many ironies. Today, CNN "reports on an unusual Canadian artist whose vivid abstracts are making a big splash." The artist, of course, is a painting monkey. He's a hit in the art world and is presently opening his first exhibition in Toronto. (You can't make this stuff up.)

Earlier in the year, a study was celebrated by the artistic community as confirming the objective worth of abstraction. Participants in the study were shown works of abstract art by celebrated artists and works by ... monkeys. 

The non-art majors preferred the artists 56% of the time, whereas the art majors preferred them 62% of the time. When it came to judging what was art (i.e., "better"), the non-art majors picked the artists a whopping 65.5% of the time, only slightly topped (67.5%) by the art majors. "In the aesthetic domain," the researchers concluded, "people can recognize that a work is good, but still not like it." In other words, people might dislike abstract art, but they can still tell when it belongs in a museum versus a kindergarten or a zoo. (You can take a version of the test here.)

While the distinction between personal preferences and artistic aesthetics deserves closer appraisal, that is for another day. At the moment, I'd simply point out the incredibly low standard of the art community - when only slightly above half of the general population prefers the craft of a professional, master abstract artist to the work of a monkey, it requires a particularly skewered perspective to claim victory. Even the artistic community can only identify their own work about two-thirds of the time.

I actually appreciate the impressionist movement's visual critique of the cold, heartless propensities to which realism was susceptible. The origins of abstraction were noble and timely - but the point of the movement might just as poignantly been summed up in a few journal articles and op-ed pieces. The point was to sacrifice craft for meaning, perfection for emotion - they were intentionally suppressing the prevailing obsession with procedural skill in order to expose a painting's soul. They wanted to breathe life into art again.

The heirs of the movement lack the underlying and verifying skill which provided their predecessors with credibility, just as they lack an appreciation of aesthetics capable of appealing to an unpretentious soul. Scripture defines man as "only a little lower than the angels" and the ancient Greek concept of metaxy locates man between beasts and gods. By these standards, the abstract artist's craft seems to be quite a bit lower than that of the angels and heavily favoring the beast side of the god-beast ledger. It has been argued that a monkey with a typewriter and an infinite amount of time would produce Shakespeare. That may be true, but it seems a monkey with a paint brush can produce abstract art in a matter of minutes. 

Categories > Pop Culture

Political Philosophy

Churchill and Coriolanus

While reading this essay by Jaffa on whether or not there could be another Churchill, a good thing to do on the statesman's birthday, I came across a line that reminded me of something:

"A world made by tides and tendencies, and not by wisdom and virtue, is a world [Churchill] repudiates. He does not really say that it does not exist; on the contrary, he finds that this is the kind of world which, in ever increasing measure, we find ourselves inhabiting. But he does not accept it; he will not accept it. Churchill looks at this aspect of the modern world much as Coriolanus looked at Rome. Rather than submit to it, or acknowledge its power, he will banish it."

Shakespeare's Coriolanus is set to hit the big screen for the first time this coming January. Here is the trailer. Directed by and starring Ralph Fiennes, it maintains a cast of actors well-known for their abilities-- Brian Cox as Menenius, Gerard Butler as Aufidius, and Vanessa Redgrave as the paragon of Roman mothers, Volumnia. This is notable for the primary reason that few people have read this first volume of Shakespeare's Roman trilogy, and even fewer have ever seen it performed. In the study of statesmanship, understanding Coriolanus and his relationship with the common man and his country is a useful thing to do, and may help us to understand Churchill's great virtues even more.

Literature, Poetry, and Books

Othello, who did "the state some service"

The Washington, DC Folger Theater presented a noble rendering of Shakespeare's Othello (through December 4). This tragedy deals with race, religion, tolerance, and the costs of living in a diverse society and serves as a companion to The Merchant of Venice.  Stagings of both often suffer from our contemporary views of these issues, which undermine Shakespeare's tragedy and quasi-comedy.  (For a contrast, see Dennis Teti's astounding study of the Merchant, which uncovers Cathollic themes.) The Folger's rendition does not condescend and brilliantly emphasizes the depravity of Iago in the last few seconds of the play--I won't spoil it for now by revealing the technique.

I can rarely think of the play without also recalling the old Redd Foxx Sanford and Son spoof on it.  Howl with laughter:  Part 1, part 2, part 3.  Instructive in its own way, as well.

The Founding

Dilbert on iPhone Government

Almost everything Dilbert creator Scott Adams says here is wrong--it's supersized Progressivism--but he makes a host of wise and witty comments along the way.  Examples of what I mean: 

If James Madison came back, he'd be peeved that he was the primary author of the Constitution and we honor his memory by not caring when his birthday is. When he stopped whining about that, and noticed that the system he designed has turned into a congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape, he'd probably be more humble about his contribution.

I'm fairly certain Ben Franklin wouldn't be impressed by our pace of innovation. He invented the post office and showed us electricity, and it still took us 200 years to come up with email. We're not good at connecting the dots.

RTWT.  For a closer look at Madison principles see these newly published brief essays, especially this long one by Tony Peacock and this short one

Categories > The Founding

Pop Culture

The Reactionary Left

A song for the Lefties protesting Capitalism. Heighten the contradictions!
Categories > Pop Culture

Shameless Self-Promotion

Occupy Wall Street: Facts and Fictions

Daily Caller has posted an article of mine tackling the truths and fictions of Occupy Wall Street coverage.

"Occupy Wall Street" has captured global attention and become the darling of the world press. CNN hosts a "Meet the 99%" webpage advertising the movement on cnn.com. MSNBC's praise of OWS has approached religious awe. Yet for all the attention, many assertions about the movement are flatly inaccurate.

I address fictional media accounts which report OWS as having a "global span" and "global importance," being a "historic movement" (in the image of the Tea Party, Arab Spring and civil rights movement) and having achieved "effectiveness." An example:

Global Span: Claims that OWS has spread to countries around the world - that is, Europe - fail to recall that circuses of this sort have been common in Europe for years. The OWS brand of demonstrator belongs to a quasi-professional cadre of anti-everything crusaders who follow protests like a Grateful Dead tour. Euro-protesters launch copy-cat OWS rallies because that's what they do - they follow protests, not issues. Euro-protests have now reached America, not vice versa.

Several factual accounts are also considered, such as the group promotion of "direct democracy," and projection of "diversity" and "independence." Of course, all of these qualities prove to be liabilities when explored rationally. An example:

Direct Democracy: Commentators report that OWS presents an alternative to established republican government and reacquaints Americans with a strain of direct democracy. This is true, but confuses virtue and vice. OWS looks like direct democracy because it is disorganized, leaderless, inefficient, susceptible to demagoguery, overly influenced by passions and incapable of articulating a coherent philosophy or forming a consistent governing policy. These are precisely the reasons the Founding Fathers prudently rejected direct democracy in favor of representative government.

As always, I hope you'll RTWT.

Literature, Poetry, and Books

What Fools These Mortals Be

In his latest motion picture, Anonymous, apocalyptic film director Roland Emmerich brings to the big screen a conspiracy theory so lunatic that it is widely dismissed by the vast majority of scholars and historians in the world. His tale of William Shakespeare being a sham, the great bard's works written by some nobleman instead, should be treated with just the same incredulity as some of Emmerich's other blockbusters, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 B.C.

While the authorship of Shakespeare's plays was never questioned during his lifetime or in the centuries following, a small number of individuals have begun to question that he actually wrote his great works within the last hundred years. They insist that the son of an illiterate glove-maker from some bumpkin village is incapable of showing us the ambition of Julius Caesar, the love of Romeo and Juliet, the intrigue of Macbeth, and the tragedy of King Lear. How could someone from such a humble beginning know royalty well enough to bring to us Hamlet or Antony and Cleopatra?

Though the conspiracy theorists insist that someone like Shakespeare could not have written the plays, the answer as to who did is still up in the air, splitting the Shakespeare-deniers into various camps. The dozens of potential alternatives include Francis Bacon, Miguel de Cervantes, Walter Raleigh, Jesuit priests, King James I, Queen Elizabeth I, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford whose candidacy Anonymous supports. The reason that there are so many potential alternatives is because there is no actual evidence that Shakespeare did not write the plays himself, thus making it difficult to declare outright that someone else must have.

The Oxfordian theory is based on a 1920 publication by J.T. Looney, "Shakespeare' Identified," which tells an unproven tale of how the Earl of Oxford was not only Queen Elizabeth's son, but her lover as well. In this fantastical explanation of events, the Earl of Oxford had to give up credit for his plays and poems because a nobleman could not degrade himself to join the lowest possible level in society--that of actor and playwright.

Why indulge in this delusion when there is no evidence to support it? Is it really that much easier for people to believe in such a conspiracy than to accept the genius of a common man? Is it so hard to believe that human beings, regardless of circumstances, are able to rise up from nothing to greatness? Are not men able to understand things without necessarily having experienced them firsthand? There is something rotten about beating up on a man's legacy centuries after he has been taken by that fell sergeant, death, no longer capable of defending himself against such slanderous conspiracy. His words and genius will live on, but we owe the Bard respect for what he was able to accomplish. Let us be honest about the legacy of he who wrote these masterpieces.

Anonymous will surely be an entertaining and well-written film, with tremendous visual effects, intricate costumes, and decent acting. It may even have the great benefit of pushing people to revisit the works of Shakespeare, and get close once more to tragic Othello or knavish Puck. However, people should watch the movie with the same kind of incredulity as when they watched Emmerich's The Patriot--a film that tried to capture much of the detail and narrative of the time period, and laid forth some of the feelings and ideas of the American Revolution, but which was nonetheless a made-up story based in unserious history.

William Shakespeare was a genius, and held a greater command of our English language than anyone before and after him. He understood the human mind, heart, and soul, and knew not only how to make people laugh and cry, but how to get them to consider great and noble things. A Hollywood blockbuster will not be able to discredit this genius; it cannot take away what he gave us. But, in today's conspiracy-loving society, it can plant a poisonous seed of disbelief in certain minds. We must do what we can to protect the memory of Shakespeare and his legacy. Allow people to admire the fact that he, a simple peasant from an illiterate family, was able to rise to such genius and beauty. To rob people of the idea of such possibility does a disservice both to Shakespeare and humanity in general. Taking that away would be the most unkindest cut of all.

Pop Culture

Mr. Smith and The Ides of March

George Clooney's latest film depicts for us the cold, cruel, and calculating side of campaign politics. In it, Ryan Gosling is an idealistic young man working for an idealized presidential candidate, and the young idealist gets buried in a scandal that makes him forevermore see the world through jaded eyes, indulging in the cynicism that plagues so many in the public sphere. The title of the film draws the mind towards the tale of Julius Caesar. He, too, was a great politician capable of doing great things for his people. Yet Caesar was also corrupt, and the corruption of this great man led an idealistic young man who loved him to betray him--Brutus. The tale of Caesar is one of a republic's dying breaths, drowned for decades in a sea of decadence, corruption, and cynicism.

Compare, then, The Ides of March with Frank Capra's timeless classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In the film, Jimmy Stewart plays an idealistic young man who is thrust into the midst of a scandal in the United States Senate, and overcome with grief upon learning that his idealized senior colleague, whom he saw as a mentor and friend, was actually a corrupt pawn. Mr. Smith presents to us a Senate filled with greed, deception, and vanity, with one man standing alone against a seemingly insurmountable political machine.

While both Clooney's and Capra's films depict a political system rife with corruption, there is a hugely important difference between the two. Clooney's dark and pessimistic tale brings no closure to it, and no hope; one leaves the theater with a bitter sense of disappointment and cynical contempt for our political process. It is a tragedy where everyone loses, much like the tale of Julius Caesar that the title alludes to.

Mr. Smith, though, has a far different, more lasting, and more important tone. It depicts one decent and determined common man, surrounded by petty bunch of political thugs, who nonetheless makes a difference. This is not to say that its title character, Jefferson Smith, is alone in his feelings--the people support him, and there are even members of the Senate who likely support him as well, but are yet complicit with the villains through their silence. Smith still wins in the end, though.

Perhaps this is too idealistic. Perhaps the cynical transformation of Gosling's Stephen Myers is closer to the real thing than the determined support for lost causes exhibited by Stewart's Smith. If that is the case, though, then the fault is not with our system of government, but with us. We are the government.

Many Americans over the past few years seem to see our country through the same jaded vision of The Ides of March, and are tired of it. Perhaps, then, now is the perfect time to revisit the 1939 classic, which came out just in time for Nazis, Soviets, and Fascists to all ban it for its dangerous idea. When Hitler banned American movies in France, one Parisian theater played Mr. Smith nonstop for the month leading up to the ban. Tyrants are threatened by the idea that individuals have power; mortified by the possibility that one single person has the power to change the world. The reason they fear this is because it is true: good men, armed by the truth and common decency, can do more to change the world than all the armies and propaganda of tyranny and corruption in the world combined. It just takes hard determination in face of the harshest adversity.

Though our nation appears full of the broken hope in politics given to us in The Ides of March, we still have the ability to ensure that we remain a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is within our grasp if only we have a rebirth of understanding our good old American principles, a support for our constitutional institutions, and a renewed emphasis on the importance of the individual. Then, if we are lucky, perhaps we can also find a Mr. Smith or two to send to Washington in order to remind them of these things too. "Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!"

Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Leftism Pays

Are the cause kids (as we called the people living the Lefty cliche when I was in college) being paid to protest?  Looks like some of them are. 
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

D.C. Occupants

Enjoying the lovely weather of yesterday in Washington, I went out to go see some of the Occupy D.C. protestors who were planted downtown in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Tents were set up in Freedom Plaza, not too far from the White House, and an eclectic group of people held varying signs while people took turns speaking atop a stage set up in the far side of the plaza. Of late the Occupiers in town had gone about protesting at all sorts of various things--the World Bank, the Federal Reserve, K Street lobbying and non-profit organizations, the Treasury Department, the White House, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. They even laid siege to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, leading museum security guards to employ the use of pepper spray after one of them was rushed by a group of protesters (no doubt giving the museum guards one of the most exciting days of their careers). Startling absence of protests on Capitol Hill though; not quite sure why Congress is currently being spared. (Update--Word is that OccupyDC and the AFL-CIO will be protesting Congress on Tuesday now).

What struck me most about my visit was how exceedingly unorganized they were--and a different type of unorganized than the Tea Party. The Tea Party was successful in large part because, though decentralized and lacking any sort of leadership, it still maintained a general message and goal: stop President Obama's healthcare law and reign in the size and spending of government. Thus, while there was often a lot of variety among Tea Party crowds and disagreement over how far it was appropriate to shrink government and how to accomplish that, there was nonetheless a sort of unifying message. I saw no such thing among the Occupy D.C. group, save for them wanting to send the message that they are currently unhappy with the way of things today.

Most complaints were focused on the stale economy and our continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and the other countries that we are routinely bombing people in. While open socialists and hippies (for lack of a better word) did seem to make up the more visible bits of the group, there was also a mixture of other types--libertarians railing against the Federal Reserve and the War on Terror, unemployed people from out of town expressing their frustration with the job market, peace activists, even a few Tea Partiers, and a handful of not-volunteers. Some of them were normal people just frustrated with things, some of them were young people who just think it's cool to go out and yell about things and pretend like they're making a difference, some people were crazy people. It was just a conglomeration of people venting whatever they felt like venting, and I do commiserate with some of them. I understand the frustration with the economy; there are people very close to me who are unemployed and near-homeless despite years-long efforts to avoid such a sad state. But blocking traffic in the streets and camping out on public land to get out incoherent and angry messages it not the way to resolve this situation.

Due to this lack of a central message and the general chaos associated with these rather rambunctious gatherings, I think that this "Occupy" movement will burn itself out rather than go on to the type of electoral success that the Tea Party had last election. The Taste of D.C. Food Festival, taking place on the street just beside occupied Freedom Plaza (pure coincidence, no doubt), ends today, and the weather is going to start getting colder soon. Judging from the looks of some of these people, they won't be out yelling once it gets uncomfortably cold. After all, it's hard to text or tweet on an iPhone when you have to wear mittens (though I'm sure that the market has noticed this demand and is already working to invent a way to solve that problem if it has not already done so).

The group in D.C. in particular does seem to find one common denominator: they are angry that the banks got bailed out. Of course anger at the bank bailouts has been a staple of the Tea Party for two years, but who's paying attention? Overall, Reason TV's ever-clever Remy Munasifi has the best description yet of the protests. Enjoy.
Categories > Pop Culture

Technology

Steve Jobs

Only a short time after turning over the day-to-day operations of his company, the man who brought us the Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Pixar, has died. Truly one of the most remarkable innovators of our day, he transformed the way we shop, the way we obtain media, and the way we interact with each other. For the past decade, Steve Jobs has created for us something totally new, and while others scrambled to catch up with him in competition, he was already moving on to newer and better things. A meticulous inventor and clever businessman, he brought Apple from scruffy 1984 start-up to one of the best companies in the world, his unbridled genius attending to every detail and challenging others to think different about technology and comfort and commerce. I draw your attention again to Julie's wonderful homage to Jobs just last month. The man was a titan of industry, a visionary genius, a man who exemplified the American dream, and one who helped improve the lives of millions with his inventions. He will be missed
Categories > Technology

Economy

A Cultural Watershed?

Ford's new commercial might represent a cultural milestone.

"Chris," the character in the commercial, does not want to buy a car from a company that the government has bailed out.  Moreover, Chris attacks the basic idea of the entitlement state when he says "that's what America's about."  We try our best. "When you fail, you've got to pick yourself up, and go back to work." 

Behind the veil of ignorance, an American wants the opportunity to succeed or fail on his own merits.  That implies that failure has real consequences.  Hence the strictures against bailouts.

Since the 1960s, when commercials touched political themes they have tended to reflect Lefty themes, since, as a rule, Progressivism has had chic cachet.  That has not always been the case, but it has been the general rule.  But this commercial goes after the bailout state.

Categories > Economy

Leisure

Salvatore Licitra

A tragedy in Italy this week. Tenor Salvatore Licitra, seen by many as the successor to Pavarotti, has died in a terrible motorscooter accident. He was 43 years old. Licitra gained his big break in 2002 when he had to sub for Pavarotti in a performance of Puccini's Tosca, and absolutely wowed the crowd. The tenor and his voice represented much of the beauty of Italy. Here he is singing the classic O sole mio--a fitting song for the heir of Pavarotti--and here he is again performing Nessun Dorma in Moscow.
Categories > Leisure

Foreign Affairs

We're Still Cool

Americans are still cool people, according to the rest of the world, and that is problematic for China. A recent poll asked 30,000 people across fifteen countries to list the coolest nationalities. Americans topped the list, followed by Brazilians, Spaniards, and Italians. All the way at the bottom were Belgians, marginally better than Poles, Turks, and Canadians. Kudos to Canada, typically regarded as home of the uncool, for pushing ahead.

A more serious indicator of America's desirability--and the belief that people who say they are from here are just, well, cool and successful people--is coming from China. Though the Eastern dragon is continually touted for its growing economy and presence in the world, there is sweat upon the brows of the communist leaders. Those titans responsible for the booming Chinese economy all seem to have one long-term aspiration in mind: leaving China. Their top destination of choice? The United States.

China's wealthy certainly live far better lives than the vast majority of their compatriots. They realize, though, that the lives they live are not near the standards of living they could achieve in the West. While the country's economy is slowly liberating, the government clamps down even harder on any cries for freedom from their oppressive yoke. So while the affluent in China have money, they would like other things-- they would like to have more than one child, they want their children to go to better schools, they are jealous of American healthcare standards, they want to breathe air that isn't poisoning them, they want to be able to speak their mind without threat of retribution. Importantly, they want their property protected as well--China's innovators and businessmen know that, at the end of the day, the communist government will claim all of their assets. They want to be able to buy a home and own that home, and for their children to be able to own that same home, and their children after that.

We can say what we will about America today, but the rest of the world still looks at us with envy, and yearns to have what we have. China may be catching up to us economically, but so long as they continue to oppress their people, as rich as they are, they will still see us as the best example of pushing the bounds of human potential. Not too bad.
Categories > Foreign Affairs

Politics

Hazy Shade of Winter

Chance of an additional stimulus passing, "less than zero," says a GOP aide.
Categories > Politics

Pop Culture

Change I Can't Believe In

Never content to leave anything untweaked or untouched, Star Wars creator George Lucas has apparently made even more changes to his space saga in the upcoming release of the series onto BluRay. He is renowned for making tweaks any time he does something, constantly seeking to improve upon what he has already created in order to justify it more to his artistic vision. Some of these changes are good ones--editing out some bloopers, enhancing lightsaber images, solving the Yoda-looks-weird problem in The Phantom Menace. Other changes are based more on content than quality, which is where he starts to lose people. While Lucas has notoriously made tweaks and changes that have riled up the fanbase (inserting Hayden Christensen's ghost in Return of the Jedi, having Greedo shoot at Han Solo first in A New Hope, cursing us with Jar Jar Binks), I've usually not really cared too much. One of these new changes, though, is quite disappointing.

In the climatic final battle between hero Luke Skywalker and the evil Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader has an epiphany and famously saves his son by picking his master up and throwing him down a seemingly-endless pit. It is a powerful scene, and tremendous that there is so much feeling in it when you can neither see Vader's true face nor listen to him say anything. It is a wordless sacrifice of the father for the son. Apparently, though, Mr. Lucas does not think that we are capable of understanding that Vader suddenly disagreed with the Emperor's electrifying his son. As a result, dialogue has been inserted to have the Dark Lord of the Sith yell, "Nooooo!", as he throws Palpatine down the pit. Silence is often far more powerful than words. An auteur like Lucas should have known that.

What is the worst of it? Rumors are circulating that Lucas has given Ewoks in Return of the Jedi the power to blink. That sounds terrifying, and is a line too far, Mr. Lucas. Sometimes, George, you just have to let go and let your creation wander free. If it's been successful this long, there is no need to dramatically alter such things. While some change is certainly for the better, a blinking ewok is change I can't believe in!
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Mama Bears and Feminists Unite?

I bring this story of a supremely stupid t-shirt offered by JCPenny to your attention merely to note how interesting are the kinds of things that arouse the permitted indignation of the mama-bears of today.  Of course, there is always a similar outcry from conservative and religious mothers when a Miley Cyrus poses for seductive pictures called "art" or a clothing company mass produces push-up bras for girls as young as 7 or 8 . . . but those who express outrage on those occasions are roundly sneered by the knowing laughter of the more "sophisticated" and told to get with it.  I would venture a guess that every sensible mother who condemned those two things I mentioned happily joins the brigade of feminists now irritated by this t-shirt.  We would not buy it, cheer it, or allow our daughters to be caught dead in it.  We would support all efforts to keep our daughters focused on more elevated and worthy occupations and decry efforts of the popular culture to distract them from those purposes.  So why don't many feminists join us in this good faith effort when the rot being peddled is not academic but moral decay?  Fill in your own blank.  You are probably right.
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Exonerating Beauty

Picking up on Justin's post below, I bring your attention to this recent post on the Economist's blog.  It is an uncommonly good and interesting reflection on why it is that an enterprising and ambitious capitalist, Steve Jobs, has been able to escape the snares of the prevailing brand of class warfare animating our popular culture--especially given that so much of Apple's core customer base is comprised of people inclined to be active on the other side of these battles.  Bill Gates of Microsoft was able to purchase his indulgences with his Bill Gates Foundation.  Mr. Jobs, on the other hand, has inspired a kind of prayerful and silent indulgence with the beauty of his products. 

You see, under the direction of Mr. Jobs, Apple has brought to market products that, "add a dash of elegance to the lives of consumers by selling them gorgeously refined devices at a premium."  (Not to mention that cute little Apple sticker you can put on your car and, thereby, telegraph to the world that you are part of the "cool" club . . .)  Not everyone can or chooses to make the financial sacrifice in order to be part of that club.  But everyone is enticed by it and, on some level, they admire it.  All have a sense that there must be some superior mind at work behind these products--a mind that is, in some sense, in better tune with the eternal order of things

So no matter the lack of what our culture considers ordinary philanthropic commitment on the part of Apple.  Their gift to mankind is the fulfillment of their artistic mission and their continued success in the marketplace.  People cheer true excellence even when they are otherwise inclined to scorn the merely "successful."    Whatever the political or economic inclinations of a person, his experience with an Apple product is generally one of those few times in this world where a thing just works precisely as it was intended to do.  It is a symphony of order in the universe.  And he is grateful for it.  It is--perhaps on a less breathtaking scale--akin to what Pope Benedict described feeling when he heard Bernstein conducting Bach in Munich.  It is something like what I feel when watching an effortless and graceful double play or an over the fence, bases loaded, home-run in the bottom of the final inning with the score tied and a little boy catching the ball in the stands.  It is an experience of the "is" and the "ought" coming together for one, all too brief, interlude.  And maybe it is a promise of something better, deeper, and eternal. 

If, as a people, we were more thoughtful, less petty, and less inclined toward envy, we would reflect that we honor true philanthropy when we admire the accomplishments of a company like Apple.  And, as fine as the work of the Bill Gates Foundation is, Bill Gates would be more celebrated for his humanitarian accomplishments in building a successful business like Microsoft than he is for killing mosquitoes in Africa.  But, then, it is sometimes very difficult to see beauty that does not announce itself in arias. 
Categories > Pop Culture

Race

The Martin Luther King Memorial Opens

This Sunday the Martin Luther King memorial officially opens, though beginning yesterday the grounds were open to the public.  I am skeptical--it seems too grandiose--but I withhold judgment on the 30-foot sculpture until I get a chance to view it:

The design gave form to a line from Dr. King's "Dream" speech -- "With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope," said Mr. Jackson. In the memorial, he noted, Dr. King is seen emerging from the stone of hope. The two towering mounds set slightly behind him, forming a sort of passageway to the statue, are mountains of despair.

Some visitors said they did not like the fact that Dr. King was facing the Jefferson Memorial, not the Lincoln Memorial, but Mr. McNeil said he did not mind.

That Dr. King looks at Jefferson raises a few questions:  Is he acknowledging Jefferson's good start?  Is he reproaching him for the incompleteness of his achievement?  Is he recognizing the thralldom of blacks to FDR's memorial and the Democratic party? 

There is another angle on Dr. King that demands reflection:

A bizarre paradox in the new secular order is the celebration of Dr. King's birthday, a national holiday acclaimed as the heartbeat of articulated idealism in race relations, conscientiously observed in our schools, with, however, scant thought given to Dr. King's own faith.

This is Willliam F. Buckley, Jr., from his speech in response to an Oct. 20, 1999 tribute by the Heritage Foundation.  H/t Lucas Morel. 

  

Categories > Race

Presidency

What the Candidates are Reading

The Republicans' reading lists (as compiled by Tevi Troy) confirm one's prejudices about them--though in the case of Michele Bachmann, one is pleasantly surprised:  She attributes her conversion from the Democrats to having read Gore Vidal's Burr--a "snotty little novel" that "mocked our Founding Fathers."  

Obama's summer reading list is literary, as one might expect of the author of Dreams From My Father.  Among his reading is The Warmth of Other Suns, an account of the Great Migration of blacks from the South to, among other places, Chicago.  Its author includes a mention of having met Barack Obama and then voting for him.

Having toiled in the Washington bureaucracy, I most emphatically endorse non-policy wonk reading for our politicians (provided they have some clue about public policy).  And I like the idea of the political class reading sophisticated fiction to give them moral and intellectual depth, plus some imagination--though one would like to see less contemporary work and more classics on those lists.

BTW, I do not begrudge Obama his vacation.  He should tend to his family's well-being and his own re-energizing.  But what of the manner and mode of his form of vacationing?  My own view is that he treats his presidency with the same ironic mockery that he displayed in his autobiography.  From the first page of chapter 7, p.  133:

 In 1983, I decided to become a community organizer.

There wasn't much detail to the idea;  I didn't know anyone making a livng that way.  when classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly.  Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change....

That's what I'll do, I'll organize black folks.  At the grass roots.  For change.

What Obama's friends and most of his critics don't see is that this sardonic cynicism has carried over into the White House.  When I read his book the summer before his election, I thought that the insouciant attitudes it betrayed alone disqualified him from being President.  Now we can add his deeds to the word.  Politically, this means he doesn't care.  He's having the time of his life, and he gets to golf and party too. 

No leftist who read Obama's autobiography can possibly feel snookered, and no conservative who read it could be more outraged. 

Categories > Presidency

Pop Culture

Morality: A Luxury Item?

How our would-be elites see it:

It was startling to hear what local broadcaster Steve Adubato, who has done informative programming, had to say with regard to the news that young women are hooking up with older men to exchange sex for payment of their college loans. He thought it perfectly fine. When asked if he would like to see his daughter do that, he said that she would not have to because of her higher socioeconomic status, but that for women of lower means, he thought it was fine. Pressed by his co-commentators to show more democratic spirit, he added that if his daughter were at a reduced socioeconomic status, unlikely to happen, it would be fine then too. It was really cringe-making to see a man reveal such an absence of values so absolute.

I am reminded of Irving Kristol's famous quip:

The liberal paradigm of regulation and license has led to a society where an 18-year-old girl has the right to public fornication in a pornographic movie--but only if she is paid the minimum wage.  Now, you don't have to be the father of a daughter to think that there is something crazy about this situation.

The class dimension, however, might be new, or at least more explicit.

Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Western Civ Story?

Arthur Herman's post arguing that John Dollard is the real man behind the riots, reminds me that roughly the same idea was set to music a few years ago:

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punks!  . . .

Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset;
We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get.
We ain't no delinquents,
We're misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good! 

Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Weekend Fun

Jack Benny v. Groucho.
Categories > Pop Culture

Foreign Affairs

"Rioting Mainly for Fun and Profit"

In light of the London violence, Kevin Kosar (a frequent Weekly Standard contributor) reminds us of the late political scientist Edward Banfield's sly--and revealing--comment on urban riots.  It's not a lack of government spending, discrimination, poverty, etc.  Often young men riot because it's fun to do:

Often, though, people riot "mainly for fun and profit," as Banfield put it in The Unheavenly City. Riots, as he reminded us, have been around as long as there have been cities. "In Pittsburgh in 1809 an editor proposed satirically that the city establish a 'conflagration fund' from which to buy twelve houses, one to be burned each month in civil celebration."

Kosar concludes, "[O]ne sure accelerant to riots present and future, Banfield explained, is the widespread belief that one can get away with it."  RTWT for clear thinking and illuminating links.  Kosar's website, covering higher education, reviews, Banfieldiana, and whiskey, can be found  here

Categories > Foreign Affairs

Pop Culture

For the Dog Days of August

Meet the world's biggest pooch.
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Box Office Magic

The final motion picture installment of the Harry Potter franchise opened this weekend to the most stunning film totals ever, garnering over $300 million worldwide in just the weekend (with it not even showing on Chinese screens yet!). Through midnight showings alone it flew past records and made $43.5 million. It is the best weekend ever for Hollywood, which is fitting for one of the most profitable film sagas in history. While the movie was not by any means a feat of greatness (I managed to go hide out in a theater for a few hours on Saturday), and certainly did not hold up to other saga endings (though Alan Rickman certainly merits some praise for his Severus Snape, and the special effects ought to get an Oscar nod), Harry Potter gave Hollywood a story that it loves and has figured out how to do well: the tale of a young and reluctant hero coming to age amidst tragedy and seemingly insurmountable odds. Like other sagas such as Star Wars, The Matrix, and The Lord of the Rings, this is a story that Hollywood likes to tell and sells well.

And this is a good thing. Saying nothing about other messages hidden within these films or issues with their presentation, the fundamental issue of these films moves beyond just good versus evil, getting to the fundamental issue at hand: choice. A common argument I run into against people with good hearts but a certain near-sightedness is that some individuals cannot be held fully accountable for their actions because they were forced into them; a criminal steals because society has made him impoverished, or a person is violent because they were abused as a child. Monsters like Hitler and Stalin, though they should be held accountable, should at least be given some understanding for the hardships in their early lives that made them who they are.

But, at the end of the day, there is always a choice. Every man chooses whether to commit good or evil. For some, because of their circumstances, this choice can be harder-- there is no denying that. But it is still a choice. The heroes in these sagas that make Hollywood rich are often humble people who have dealt with terrible things in their youth and are asked to accomplish really hard things, whether it is overthrowing an evil Galactic Empire or resisting the temptation of the One Ring or finding out how to finish off Lord Voldemort once and for all. If anyone has any reason to be angry at the world or seek the easy way out, it is our heroes in these franchises. Their insistence on always trying to make the right choice vexes their enemies, frustration visible in the eyes of Agent Smith and Voldemort as they come up against this resistance. Evil is there, for all of them, tempting them with the ease that it brings; good is harder to maintain, comes with more pain and suffering, and is almost always on the brink of being extinguished. In the end, though, after great sacrifices, the odds are overcome and the good guys make the right choices and thus win-- Frodo finds his peace, Luke dances around with the Ewoks, Zion is saved, the Boy Who Lived can send his own little wizards to Hogwarts. They are good people, and can see evil for what it is. They make the right choice. The tale is simple, the principles rigid, but Hollywood likes it because people like it and will pay to see it. Good for us.
Categories > Pop Culture

Progressivism

Progressivism and Fascism

In a breathtaking essay Joshua Lerner uses the concept of the political from Carl Schmitt to illustrate the radicalism of Progressivism.  Schmitt was the German legal theorist whom Leo Strauss critiqued in an essay central to his return to the ancients.  See his early work and Strauss's here.  Schmitt became a supporter of the Nazis. 

Lerner does not engage in drive-by slander of the Progressives as Nazis.  Rather, he paints a compelling portrait of the perilous parallels between the two radical movements:

In many ways, seeking redemption via politics is the quintessence of the primacy of the political. But once we have established that politics is of at least some primacy and provides a meaningful source of ethical values--again, think of any number of liberals or leftists who feel the need to politicize even the most mundane of consumer activities--we must move on to another very powerful conclusion: political primacy means the irrelevancy of the practice of politics.

       It is rather well known that Progressives were rather contemptuous of common politics; they hoped to replace it with scientific administration of essential tasks....

Lerner is the co-editor of Counterpoint, the undergraduate University of Chicago conservative journal, where his essay appears.  The current issue features a symposium on conservative films, including Diana Schaub on Shane, Abe Shulsky on Casablanca, and Thomas Pavel on Bladerunner.  

Categories > Progressivism

Pop Culture

Give War a Chance?

John Lennon, the right-wing, reagonite war-hawk? So say's Lennon's last personal assistant:

John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

...

I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete.

I don't know if Lennon's alleged conservative conversion is genuine, but it would make listening to Come Together all the sweeter.  

Categories > Pop Culture

Political Philosophy

Chicago Vistas

Chicago has long been a favorite city--not exotic in the way San Francisco and New York are, with less history than comparatively tiny Boston, but even so it has a character that still speaks to us.  This came to sight as I sunned on Ohio Beach, next to the Navy Pier.  From this vantage point the city's vista is spectacular.  Vision, ambition, low politics, greed but above all pride created such a scene.  The skyscrapers are the sensuous products of these noble and base passions.   One cannot look at Chicago without being affirmed that this is a country full of ambition, a great country bent on even greater things.  

But the perspective from the water taxi into Michigan Avenue notes weaknesses in the facade.  The local Trump Tower lacks the seriousness of the older buildings, some with Gothic pretensions. 

I am staying in the "Dick Tracy" house, in the Chicago suburbs, the one in which the young Chester Gould got his family and cartooning career started.   How appropriate that the always proper Dick Tracy was given birth in mob-fascinated Chicago.  Contrast the steady Tracy with our psychically tortured Batman.  Shouldn't virtuous acts be done with pleasure, in order to be virtuous?

All this puts into perspective the strange case of our Chicago-based President, who has brought to the national scene all that is low about Chicago and who seems intent on suppressing all the grand motives that made America a great nation.  His vision of American destiny would rob America of all its distinctiveness.

Pop Culture

Peter Falk, aka Socrates, RIP

Lt. Columbo's character was modeled on the detective in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.  And he in turn was drawn from what we know of Socrates--a shabby, obnoxious inquisitor, who always has just one more question (cf. Nero Wolfe).  One caution:  Why don't we know Columbo's first name?  The best of popular entertainment draws from the best in western civilization.
Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Happy Birthday, Star Wars

34 years ago today, in a galaxy far, far away, Star Wars hit the silver screen.

Just for perspective, I was 3 months old.

Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Mourning the Macho Man

Columbus' own "Macho Man" Randy Savage died today. To loyal fans of the legendary faux wrestler, our most respectfully over-the-top and larger-than-life condolences. He was a colorful entertainer who helped define an entire genre.

Categories > Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Music And Society

Political scientist and all around smart guy Carl Scott explains how "Time of the Season" expresses either deep ambivalence about, or a warning against, the sexual revolution.
Categories > Pop Culture

The Family

Tocqueville on the Wedding

Married to a commoner Englishwoman himself, Alexis de Tocqueville would have approved of the latest royal union.  Using insights from Democracy in America, Julia Shaw argues the splendid moment was "quite an American affair."  What the visiting, onlooking Americans "were watching was not some imaginary fairy tale or even a typical lavish royal wedding. It was another American love story."  They went abroad to meet themselves.

My favorite commentary on royalty in the modern world is on a less fortunate royal couple. Mark Helprin's splendid comic novel, Freddy and Fredericka, describes Charles and Di romping incognito across America and acquiring its virtues to make them fit for the royal throne.

Categories > The Family

Education

The Old College Try, rev.

The college admissions craze according to Andy Ferguson.  I've started his new book, which resembles in style, wit, and ultimate seriousness his wonderful book on Lincoln popularizers. Lincoln is a far more noble subject than contemporary higher education, so a certain drop-off is to be expected, but he makes the most of a target-rich environment.
Categories > Education

The Founding

Your Reaction to PBS Hamilton?

I'm of two minds on last night's Hamilton documentary.  What did you think, those of you who watched it?
Categories > The Founding

Education

The New College Try

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams explains how to get through the bureaucracies of college and employers.  He misses the heart of education, though.
Categories > Education

The Founding

TV Guide: Hamilton Monday PBS

Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton via Richard Brookhiser and assorted others, Monday night PBS.  Michael Knox Beran reviews.
Categories > The Founding

Politics

In Politics the 'Manager Fetish' Leaves Much to be Desired

John Podhoretz writes some biting commentary in today's New York Post which justly condemns New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, for the intellectual folly (not to mention the self-righteous arrogance) of "managerial fetishism." Bloomberg's latest manifestation of the syndrome was in his appointment of a heralded "manager" and businesswoman, Cathie Black, as Chancellor of New York City schools.  While there (a mere three months), apparently, nothing garnered in her years of experience or education in management could be counted upon to be useful in helping her navigate the inevitably stormy political waters associated with the job.  Instead, she found skills that served her well in "management" cast her as "acting highhanded and condescending" when she was confronted with people who--like parents, teachers, and principals--have more of their own skin in the game than the posterior waxing, soul-selling and ladder climbing subordinates she was probably more accustomed to confronting. 

Examples of this kind of craven worshiping at the altar of the MBA and other demonstrations of managerial "competence" abound in American political life and--like their most adept priests--they have no permanent home on either the right or the left.  It's a perfectly bipartisan and, even, schizophrenic, sort of foolishness.  And there is good reason for this.  When one lionizes the skills or tools of "success" over the substance and meaning of "success," one always sacrifices that substance to those skills and tools. 

Those who suggest that we need to "run the government more like a business" think that what they are calling for is more accountability to the bottom line and responsibility for results.  But, in fact--if they thought a bit longer--they would realize that this is a false assumption.  A business is incorporated for the purpose of success with respect to profits.  Put simply, a business exists to make money.   We can argue until the cows come home about what the meaning of success in education or war or a Congressional budget may be, but the fact that we would be arguing only strengthens my point:  this is a political conversation, not a conversation about management.  The question of what makes for success in any of these things it is not as clear cut as the goal of making money is.  People will forever disagree about these things.  Persuasion is, therefore, always necessary.  Managers may have many virtues but, if among those virtues are a power to see the right and a facility in making a persuasive case for it, then these are absolutely incidental and apart from any training he had as a manager.  More often than not, however, the successful "manager" is going to be inclined to imagine that the question of ends is a settled one and he--as Cathie Black did--will proceed without a care in the world with respect to the need for garnering consent and building trust.  He may also be inclined to think that every kind of push-back he experiences can be countered with a PowerPoint presentation of "the facts" . . . as if "facts" were all that mattered.

A better case for all that I (and John Podhoretz) say above is presented here by Charles Kesler.  It also demonstrates why the last thing we should look for in a 2012 Presidential nominee is some indication--MBA or otherwise--that he has been a good "manager."
Categories > Politics

Technology

State Politicians and Social Networking

DCI Group has a fantastic new web tool out called Digital America. It links you to the Facebook and Twitter feeds of state lawmakers, allowing you to be able to both keep track of your state-level politicians and have another way of trying to contact them. Using the 2010 Census information, it provides a bunch of other interesting statistics as well. Of the 7,381 state legislators in the nation, 761 (10%) are on Twitter and 2,931 (40%) are on Facebook; correspondingly, 40% of Americans are on Facebook while only 1% is on Twitter. 49/50 governors are on Facebook-- only West Virginia's Earl Ray Tomblin is not, but he's new and probably will be soon. The state with the most legislators on Facebook is Washington; the state with the least is New Mexico. Most Twitter-users belongs to Nevada, while the least is Utah. It's a convenient (and cool) tool that shows how social networking is being utilized by politics in America.
Categories > Technology