I hadn't planned on writing a post tonight, but perhaps now I can get out of writing one tomorrow (although I may anyway). I was trying to think of a good way to introduce an interesting argument, a very compelling one in my current opinion. So wasn't there a famous Bill Nye segment called "consider the following?" Well do it. Consider the following:
The lack of recognition of common humanity is the base of all problems in society. I hope I don't have to explain this, but just in case, I'll take a common example. A 50 year old woman develops breast cancer. She doesn't have health insurance because her 55 year old husband just retired. She's refused treatment on the cancer because she can't pay for it. (This is not an uncommon occurrence.) If we had a recognition of the common humanity of everyone, we would not claim rights to health care for ourselves while denying them to others. Similarly, we wouldn't have genocides, and the number of wars would be greatly reduced. But this begs the question, "why do we not consider our common humanity in these situations?"
I believe that the cause of this obliviousness is capitalism. Suppose we were to undertake an economic analysis of the potential value-added to society of the average person born in a wealthy suburb versus someone born in rural Pennsylvania. The potential economic value-added to society of the person born in suburbia is much higher. Why? She has access to, most importantly, better education. (These are generalizations, obviously. Not all people from suburbia produce more value-added to society than rural Pennsylvanians, but generally speaking this is true.) Consider the differences, then, between the average American and the average African. They are extraordinarily greater. This is a very strong argument (although I disagree with it) for non-intervention in Sudan.
So how do we grapple with economics? It's quite difficult really, and involves a moral philosophy argument. The above argument for why we are inherently unequal, is an economic one (obviously). The moral philosopher, however, asks the question, "are we not all morally equal?" In other words, before, we measured people based on their economic input into society, but now we are measuring people based on their ability to choose right from wrong. Now, before someone jumps on me for ignoring moral relativism, let me brush that argument aside. The morally relativistic viewpoint is somewhat irrelevant here. It doesn't matter in what moral system people are acting, their equality is based solely on the concept that they have equal ability to judge right from wrong. My suggestion then, as I mentioned before, is that we judge people based on their morality instead of their economic output. Hence, one African, one uneducated American, and one highly educated American could have any relative moral worth.
Am I suggesting a weird moral calculus by which we have some governing body that determines how much health care each person is entitled to based on her moral decisions? No, absolutely not. I am suggesting that to truly break with the current system by which we measure human worth, we need to break with the current ideology surrounding capitalism. This is not necessarily a rejection of capitalism, however. In the United States, we view capitalism as individually based. The ideological conception most Americans have of capitalism involves the base assumption that when I pursue what is in my best interest, the entire society benefits. I would suggest a more Rousseau-esque version of capitalism (perhaps a more Eastern philosophy) whereby we pursue our capitalist actions not in what is in our own best interests, but rather in society's best interests (see Rousseau's discussion of the General Will). When our decision making becomes humanitarian-centered rather than individual-centered, we provide both an incentive for people to act in society's best interest and a moral rationale for why they should. In this sense, morality and economics are aligned - a person's commitment to society could be measured by her economic output. Moral righteousness and economic output become the same thing.
A couple things necessarily involved and assumed to be the case. National boundaries cease to exist. We must live in a world community free of political borders. All people must have access to the same basic education/health care (anything used to calculated the Human Development Index). Most importantly, we must all recognize our common humanity. None of this could ever happen (perhaps obviously) without this recognition.
Disclaimer: I am grappling with big ideas. I do not profess to fully understand any of them. In this sense, then, I make it fully transparent that the beliefs expressed here do not represent the beliefs of mine from several years ago, nor will they, I presume, represent my beliefs some years from now. I have used "I believe" to present an argument - one which I currently find compelling. This is by far a better stimulant to discussion than a distant, "they argue." I hope that my readers will challenge the position I have adopted here so that we may all come to a fuller understanding.
Friday, March 20, 2009
MLS First Kick
It began yesterday. No, not March Madness you silly Americans, MLS, a professional sport. The first game pitted the expansion franchise Seattle Sounders against MLS Cup runners up NY Red Bulls. I don't generally expect a lot out of the quality of the American game, but I figured I should support MLS, so I watched.
The game was actually pretty good, minus a few bad touches here and there, and a few passes gone astray. I was pleasantly surprised at how much the game resembled the European game. Rojas continually dropped deep into midfield to collect the ball for NY, filling a Xavi-like role. He was supposedly playing off of Juan Pablo Angel as a second forward, but that just didn't happen. I think that's probably part of the reason for NY's struggles. Seattle played a more direct game, firing long balls up to the towering Nate Jacqua, who looked surprisingly good at controlling the ball.
One man stole the show, however, and that man was rookie Freddy Montero. Montero played with great vision, constantly hassled the NY defense, and showed sublime skill in finishing. He had a hand in all three Seattle goals, scoring the first and the third and setting up the second with a beautiful reverse ball. The 21 year-old's got talent - it's undeniable. The goals were well deserved by Montero. The third was unassisted, and he put himself in perfect position to score the first. I wonder if he'll hit the twenty mark this season. I wouldn't be surprised.
On top of the quality of the match, the atmosphere was great as well. Well, great might be a bit of stretch because the fans still don't understand that much (contrary to what Eric Wynalda thinks, but I've never agreed with him, so who cares). The were cheering raucously when Keller made a great save late in the second half. Typically, European fans would be booing their defense for allowing a goalscoring opportunity (I think). Regardless, there were 32,000 fans in attendance - a fantastic number for MLS, and Drew Carey (the minority owner) has managed to sell 20,000 season tickets. That's fantastic. If the atmosphere is as great for every game as it was for the first one, Seattle will undoubtedly become the best footballing franchise in the United States.
I'm now excited for the season to get into full swing. I plan on actually following MLS this year, so expect a fair bit of it in my blog. Consider it my way of supporting the world's game in this country - making my voluntary readership read about it. I'll be starting my Sunday Morning Football post again this weekend hopefully, so check back for some more football news then.
The game was actually pretty good, minus a few bad touches here and there, and a few passes gone astray. I was pleasantly surprised at how much the game resembled the European game. Rojas continually dropped deep into midfield to collect the ball for NY, filling a Xavi-like role. He was supposedly playing off of Juan Pablo Angel as a second forward, but that just didn't happen. I think that's probably part of the reason for NY's struggles. Seattle played a more direct game, firing long balls up to the towering Nate Jacqua, who looked surprisingly good at controlling the ball.
One man stole the show, however, and that man was rookie Freddy Montero. Montero played with great vision, constantly hassled the NY defense, and showed sublime skill in finishing. He had a hand in all three Seattle goals, scoring the first and the third and setting up the second with a beautiful reverse ball. The 21 year-old's got talent - it's undeniable. The goals were well deserved by Montero. The third was unassisted, and he put himself in perfect position to score the first. I wonder if he'll hit the twenty mark this season. I wouldn't be surprised.
On top of the quality of the match, the atmosphere was great as well. Well, great might be a bit of stretch because the fans still don't understand that much (contrary to what Eric Wynalda thinks, but I've never agreed with him, so who cares). The were cheering raucously when Keller made a great save late in the second half. Typically, European fans would be booing their defense for allowing a goalscoring opportunity (I think). Regardless, there were 32,000 fans in attendance - a fantastic number for MLS, and Drew Carey (the minority owner) has managed to sell 20,000 season tickets. That's fantastic. If the atmosphere is as great for every game as it was for the first one, Seattle will undoubtedly become the best footballing franchise in the United States.
I'm now excited for the season to get into full swing. I plan on actually following MLS this year, so expect a fair bit of it in my blog. Consider it my way of supporting the world's game in this country - making my voluntary readership read about it. I'll be starting my Sunday Morning Football post again this weekend hopefully, so check back for some more football news then.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Spanish Media and Spainish Cultural Controversy
I periodically read El Pais, the Spanish daily newspaper. I find it useful to get news from a non-Anglophone perspective (BBC and the New York Times are my main sources for news). I actually hadn’t been to El Pais for a long time, but I had a low key evening last night, so decided to see what was up in el mundo hispanohablante. Needless to say, I was a bit surprised when one of the main articles on the webpage was about an American news story I had heard nothing about!
The headline read, “Bill Richardson firma la derogación de la pena de muerte en Nuevo México” (Bill Richards signs the repeal of the death penalty in New Mexico). This article was nowhere to be found on the homepage of the New York Times or BBC either last night or this morning, although I did via a search find that the article appeared buried in the first section of the NYTimes today. So why is there such a focus on this in Spain? Why is it front page news for El Pais but on page 17 of the NYTimes?
I see two possible explanations. El Pais certainly has a strong focus on the Spanish speaking world. While I might suggest that in the United States are news order is 1) US, 2) Europe, 3) China/East Asia, for El Pais, the news order is 1) Europe/United States, 2) Latin America. The focus on Latin America could have something to do with news from New Mexico. There are a lot of hispanohablantes there, and it would not be unsurprising that given their coverage of this region of the world, New Mexico becomes a hotspot of news reporting.
I find the second explanation more likely, however. Spain is a Catholic nation. As such, despite its leftist tendencies (this is not a bad thing) in other areas, about death issues, it tends to be a bit more conservative. (Please feel free to contradict me here; this is a hypothesis, not fact.) It will be interesting to see when I arrive there in five months (!!!) how natives feel about abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty – the typically hot issues for Catholics in this country.
Coincidentally, while I was perusing news sources last night, I found an article on the NYTimes website about bullfighting controversy in Spain. In Spain, bullfighters are celebrities. Paparazzi follow them to bars and other places they go. They are always in glossy photos, advertising this, that, or the other thing. And there is a particularly attractive bullfighter who has become very popular. The Culture Ministry awarded him a medal commending him for his bullfighting.
This is not unusual. It happens frequently. Bullfighting is an essential piece of the culture in Spain, and so the ministry wants to reward those people that do it well. Only one problem: he doesn’t do it well. This has sparked a traditionally over-romanticized response the other bullfighters – several returning their medals from the culture ministry because they feel it is too politicized (which it certainly is).
I simply find the other bullfighters’ responses entertaining. It is not as if this is an injustice, and we should move on. No, we have to engage in especially inflammatory behavior to get the most passion out of the situation as we can. I will certainly be an anomaly there. Called a “hyper-rationalist” (not philosophically speaking, I assure you) by my friends here, it will be fun to throw that out the window and become a romantically charged Spaniard for a year.
Here's a link to the bullfighting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/europe/19matador.html?scp=1&sq=madrid&st=cse
The headline read, “Bill Richardson firma la derogación de la pena de muerte en Nuevo México” (Bill Richards signs the repeal of the death penalty in New Mexico). This article was nowhere to be found on the homepage of the New York Times or BBC either last night or this morning, although I did via a search find that the article appeared buried in the first section of the NYTimes today. So why is there such a focus on this in Spain? Why is it front page news for El Pais but on page 17 of the NYTimes?
I see two possible explanations. El Pais certainly has a strong focus on the Spanish speaking world. While I might suggest that in the United States are news order is 1) US, 2) Europe, 3) China/East Asia, for El Pais, the news order is 1) Europe/United States, 2) Latin America. The focus on Latin America could have something to do with news from New Mexico. There are a lot of hispanohablantes there, and it would not be unsurprising that given their coverage of this region of the world, New Mexico becomes a hotspot of news reporting.
I find the second explanation more likely, however. Spain is a Catholic nation. As such, despite its leftist tendencies (this is not a bad thing) in other areas, about death issues, it tends to be a bit more conservative. (Please feel free to contradict me here; this is a hypothesis, not fact.) It will be interesting to see when I arrive there in five months (!!!) how natives feel about abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty – the typically hot issues for Catholics in this country.
Coincidentally, while I was perusing news sources last night, I found an article on the NYTimes website about bullfighting controversy in Spain. In Spain, bullfighters are celebrities. Paparazzi follow them to bars and other places they go. They are always in glossy photos, advertising this, that, or the other thing. And there is a particularly attractive bullfighter who has become very popular. The Culture Ministry awarded him a medal commending him for his bullfighting.
This is not unusual. It happens frequently. Bullfighting is an essential piece of the culture in Spain, and so the ministry wants to reward those people that do it well. Only one problem: he doesn’t do it well. This has sparked a traditionally over-romanticized response the other bullfighters – several returning their medals from the culture ministry because they feel it is too politicized (which it certainly is).
I simply find the other bullfighters’ responses entertaining. It is not as if this is an injustice, and we should move on. No, we have to engage in especially inflammatory behavior to get the most passion out of the situation as we can. I will certainly be an anomaly there. Called a “hyper-rationalist” (not philosophically speaking, I assure you) by my friends here, it will be fun to throw that out the window and become a romantically charged Spaniard for a year.
Here's a link to the bullfighting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/europe/19matador.html?scp=1&sq=madrid&st=cse
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Map of Knowledge
A recent New York Times article discussed a new mapping of human knowledge based upon the movement of academics between journals. Using quantitative data about the journals viewed consecutively, scientists mapped the relation of different disciplines of knowledge. A link to the article (from which you can get the map) is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/science/16visuals.html?scp=1&sq=map%20of%20knowledge&st=cse.
Now, I don’t really think that this mapping of knowledge is definitive, nor perhaps even remotely accurate. It is interesting, however, to examine it, and to ponder the implications of this layout of human knowledge.
The first place to look, of course, is the center. What we find there is unnamed – simply a cluster of data points from a variety of disciplines. But what are the disciplines which are close? Anthropology is close to the center. As are philosophy, religion, and sociology. Is there something that would combine all of these disciplines? It just so happens to be my self-declared discipline – cultural history (of which intellectual history is a branch). Am I bragging? Yes, of course. It is always rewarding to see one’s discipline valued, and I feel this does that for mine, given the centrality of where I would locate cultural history. Overall, the social sciences and humanities are in the center, and the sciences are around the outside.
On a different know, it is extraordinarily refreshing to see economics relegated to the periphery. If not as peripheral as the sciences, economics is still on the outside of the hub and wheel diagram created – almost at the connecting point between the wheel and the hub. This makes sense given its position (with psychology) as the most scientific of the social sciences. Interestingly, psychology is in a bit of no man’s land in between the hub and wheel. As is (also interestingly), music.
Anyway, I found the map very enticing, and thought you all might enjoy it as well.
Now, I don’t really think that this mapping of knowledge is definitive, nor perhaps even remotely accurate. It is interesting, however, to examine it, and to ponder the implications of this layout of human knowledge.
The first place to look, of course, is the center. What we find there is unnamed – simply a cluster of data points from a variety of disciplines. But what are the disciplines which are close? Anthropology is close to the center. As are philosophy, religion, and sociology. Is there something that would combine all of these disciplines? It just so happens to be my self-declared discipline – cultural history (of which intellectual history is a branch). Am I bragging? Yes, of course. It is always rewarding to see one’s discipline valued, and I feel this does that for mine, given the centrality of where I would locate cultural history. Overall, the social sciences and humanities are in the center, and the sciences are around the outside.
On a different know, it is extraordinarily refreshing to see economics relegated to the periphery. If not as peripheral as the sciences, economics is still on the outside of the hub and wheel diagram created – almost at the connecting point between the wheel and the hub. This makes sense given its position (with psychology) as the most scientific of the social sciences. Interestingly, psychology is in a bit of no man’s land in between the hub and wheel. As is (also interestingly), music.
Anyway, I found the map very enticing, and thought you all might enjoy it as well.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Muse and Sigur Ros
I have not written at much length about music so far on my blog, and I regret this to some extent. I love music. It is a tremendous passion of mine, and I should spend more time discussing it. Here, I wish to highlight a couple of my favorite bands and why I find them so wonderful to listen to.
First, Muse. Muse is a British band that came onto the pop/rock/alternative scene in the late nineties but who has continued to produce good music throughout the past decade. While I sometimes list them among the new wave of Britpop bands such as Keane and Coldplay (two of my other favorites), Muse’s work is more complex than Keane’s and deeper than Coldplay’s. It has a gritty quality about it that tears life apart and reveals something deep inside all of us.
A few of my favorite Muse songs are: Falling Away with You, Hysteria, Butterflies & Hurricanes, Exo-Politics, and City of Delusion. Butterflies & Hurricanes features what is effectively a piano cadenza while City of Delusion features a trumpet solo. Both are, obviously, unusual features for rock songs.
Second, Sigur Ros. Sigur Ros is an Icelandic band who is most frequently classified as post-rock. Post-rock is a type of popular music characterized by rock instrumentation of classical chord structures, harmonic patterns, and melodies. Unsurprising, then, that Sigur Ros has become one of my favorites, given my background in classical music.
Of particular note about Sigur Ros is their album, (). Yes, the name of the album is simply an open and closed parenthesis. Oftentimes in modern day popular music, an album is merely a collection of tracks. It is highly infrequent to see something such as the B side of Abbey Road where all the tracks are tied together. Even a common theme on an album can be rare these days. But Parentheses, as it is commonly called, is a complete album. The first half, the ( side, if you want to think of it that way, attempts to capture all of the positive emotion of life. The ) side, unsurprisingly, attempts the reverse – the capturing of all negative emotion in life. All the songs flow together, and the entire album is done in the key of E (major for the first half, minor for the second). It is a truly spectacular album with the climax coming about 2 minutes from the end of what is a monstrous CD – over 70 minutes.
A few of my favorite Sigur Ros songs are: Untitled Tracks 1, 3, and 8 on Parentheses, Saeglopur and Gong on Takk, and Ara Batur on Med Sud… (their most recent album). Agaetis Byrjun is also a great album, but I don’t find any particular tracks to stand out.
There will be more to come on the music front, I promise.
First, Muse. Muse is a British band that came onto the pop/rock/alternative scene in the late nineties but who has continued to produce good music throughout the past decade. While I sometimes list them among the new wave of Britpop bands such as Keane and Coldplay (two of my other favorites), Muse’s work is more complex than Keane’s and deeper than Coldplay’s. It has a gritty quality about it that tears life apart and reveals something deep inside all of us.
A few of my favorite Muse songs are: Falling Away with You, Hysteria, Butterflies & Hurricanes, Exo-Politics, and City of Delusion. Butterflies & Hurricanes features what is effectively a piano cadenza while City of Delusion features a trumpet solo. Both are, obviously, unusual features for rock songs.
Second, Sigur Ros. Sigur Ros is an Icelandic band who is most frequently classified as post-rock. Post-rock is a type of popular music characterized by rock instrumentation of classical chord structures, harmonic patterns, and melodies. Unsurprising, then, that Sigur Ros has become one of my favorites, given my background in classical music.
Of particular note about Sigur Ros is their album, (). Yes, the name of the album is simply an open and closed parenthesis. Oftentimes in modern day popular music, an album is merely a collection of tracks. It is highly infrequent to see something such as the B side of Abbey Road where all the tracks are tied together. Even a common theme on an album can be rare these days. But Parentheses, as it is commonly called, is a complete album. The first half, the ( side, if you want to think of it that way, attempts to capture all of the positive emotion of life. The ) side, unsurprisingly, attempts the reverse – the capturing of all negative emotion in life. All the songs flow together, and the entire album is done in the key of E (major for the first half, minor for the second). It is a truly spectacular album with the climax coming about 2 minutes from the end of what is a monstrous CD – over 70 minutes.
A few of my favorite Sigur Ros songs are: Untitled Tracks 1, 3, and 8 on Parentheses, Saeglopur and Gong on Takk, and Ara Batur on Med Sud… (their most recent album). Agaetis Byrjun is also a great album, but I don’t find any particular tracks to stand out.
There will be more to come on the music front, I promise.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Real Return of Zumoman
So I've been sick for about two and a half weeks now. Sorry about the lack of posts, but the mind hasn't been functioning all that well. I've prepared one for today (written yesterday on the train), and plan to continue with my everyday routine, so please keep checking in. Here it is:
I feel that I should write a post about Sudan. It’s been in the news for so long, and is such an important topic that I would be doing a disservice to my readership, however small, if I did not discuss it.
Recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguably one of the more progressive branches of the United Nations, issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir. My immediate reaction was a positive one – finally, a branch of the world government established particularly for the purpose of fighting acts of the inhumanity like the ones taking place daily in Sudan was doing something to stop these atrocities. What could have been a moment of triumph for everyone at the world government has turned into an utter debacle.
While the ICC has more independence than many of the other bodies of the UN, it lacks any means military means to pursue its desires. Thus, although it set a new precedent by issuing a warrant for a sitting president, the ICC cannot pursue his arrest. This presents a significant issue, especially given Mr. Bashir’s response. Instead of laughing at the warrant (which may have been appropriate), Mr. Bashir responded angrily – throwing out all foreign aid workers from the country. Estimates are that the expulsion of aid workers could result in several million refugees losing access to basic food, clean water, shelter, and medicines.
The ICC has done its job. Mr. Bashir should be arrested. He should be tried. And when found guilty, he should be put in prison for life, if not executed. Unfortunately, the rest of the world government – namely, its least effective body, the Security Council – has not picked up where the ICC left off. Rather than understanding the consequences of inaction in Sudan, the Security Council has pretended it doesn’t support what the ICC has done. In this case, much of the blame falls on China and Russia, but there have been other instances in which American interference has prevented the Security Council from acting when it should have.
Through its inaction, the Security Council could indirectly cause the deaths of these several million refugees in Darfur, and perhaps Eastern Chad as well. Some reports have suggested that Mr. Bashir has instructed the rebel forces (under Sudanese control) in Chad to attack the refugee camps there as the Sudanese flee the camps in Sudan due to diminishing supplies of food and water.
Unfortunately, it seems the world economic collapse has taken the focus off of international relations and the great inhumanity abroad. Instead of waking up, reading in the newspaper about the refugees in Sudan who are now starving, we are reading about middle class families in this country whose homes have been repossessed and who are living in motels. I’m not taking anything away from the struggles of those families. Their situation is most unfortunate, and highly distressing. Yet as our contributions to charities abroad decrease, it is important to remember the struggle of families in rural Africa surviving on our aid.
I’m writing this post sitting on a train, and etched into the rock wall alongside the tracks, we just passed a piece of creative graffiti that read, “we shall overcome.” Yes, we shall, but it will be much easier if the Security Council steps up and does the job for which it was created.
I feel that I should write a post about Sudan. It’s been in the news for so long, and is such an important topic that I would be doing a disservice to my readership, however small, if I did not discuss it.
Recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguably one of the more progressive branches of the United Nations, issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir. My immediate reaction was a positive one – finally, a branch of the world government established particularly for the purpose of fighting acts of the inhumanity like the ones taking place daily in Sudan was doing something to stop these atrocities. What could have been a moment of triumph for everyone at the world government has turned into an utter debacle.
While the ICC has more independence than many of the other bodies of the UN, it lacks any means military means to pursue its desires. Thus, although it set a new precedent by issuing a warrant for a sitting president, the ICC cannot pursue his arrest. This presents a significant issue, especially given Mr. Bashir’s response. Instead of laughing at the warrant (which may have been appropriate), Mr. Bashir responded angrily – throwing out all foreign aid workers from the country. Estimates are that the expulsion of aid workers could result in several million refugees losing access to basic food, clean water, shelter, and medicines.
The ICC has done its job. Mr. Bashir should be arrested. He should be tried. And when found guilty, he should be put in prison for life, if not executed. Unfortunately, the rest of the world government – namely, its least effective body, the Security Council – has not picked up where the ICC left off. Rather than understanding the consequences of inaction in Sudan, the Security Council has pretended it doesn’t support what the ICC has done. In this case, much of the blame falls on China and Russia, but there have been other instances in which American interference has prevented the Security Council from acting when it should have.
Through its inaction, the Security Council could indirectly cause the deaths of these several million refugees in Darfur, and perhaps Eastern Chad as well. Some reports have suggested that Mr. Bashir has instructed the rebel forces (under Sudanese control) in Chad to attack the refugee camps there as the Sudanese flee the camps in Sudan due to diminishing supplies of food and water.
Unfortunately, it seems the world economic collapse has taken the focus off of international relations and the great inhumanity abroad. Instead of waking up, reading in the newspaper about the refugees in Sudan who are now starving, we are reading about middle class families in this country whose homes have been repossessed and who are living in motels. I’m not taking anything away from the struggles of those families. Their situation is most unfortunate, and highly distressing. Yet as our contributions to charities abroad decrease, it is important to remember the struggle of families in rural Africa surviving on our aid.
I’m writing this post sitting on a train, and etched into the rock wall alongside the tracks, we just passed a piece of creative graffiti that read, “we shall overcome.” Yes, we shall, but it will be much easier if the Security Council steps up and does the job for which it was created.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Conservative Rhetoric
About 18 months ago, I talked in a meeting about the need for the conservatives to change their rhetoric if they wanted to be successful in the 2008 presidential election (not that I desired this by any stretch of the imagination). I would argue that they were largely unsuccessful in creating a new image for themselves through new rhetoric. Senator McCain's inability to distance himself from the Bush administration is consistently listed among the highest reasons for his defeat.
But the rhetoric is clearly changing now. Whether as a kind of shock reaction after their overwhelming defeat in both the presidential and congressional races, or as a methodical way of reinventing themsleves, conservatives have exchanged the negatively connoted "liberal" with its further-left brother "socialist." A recent article in the NYTimes discussed this phenomenon. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html)
What surprised me about this article is that there was relatively little discussion of the significance of this switch. There was a discussion of how brandishing "socialist" is less potent now than it was in the days of FDR, when the USSR was a serious threat, but no discussion of the significance of the switch from brandishing the left as "liberals" to brandishing them "socialists."
The shift seems of paramount importance in understanding the "center" of the country's political spectrum. I think part of the reason for the shift stems from the fact that brandishing someone a "liberal" has lost its potency. Liberalism is now okay by general standards. Liberalism is a recognized acceptable alternative to the Bush years, which were an extension of Reagan's trickle-down economics - in effect, the anti-socialism. Conservatives, then, have had to turn to what they perceive to be a more loaded word - "socialism." By brandishing socialist they are, however, still attempting to connote Stalinist Sovietism and Maoist China.
It is, of course, ludicrous to suggest that the United States will ever reach anything like Stalinist Russia with its current constitution, but three questions remain: To what extent is what the Obama administration is pursuing socialist policy? To what extent does the American public believe it to be socialism? To what extent does the American public care if it is socialism?
First, we have lived in a semi-socialist country for a long time. Since the progressive movement in the first decade of the 20th century, clear limits have been placed on the many-headed hydra of capitalism (thanks to Marcus Rediker for the metaphor). Once businesses have begun to have limits placed upon them, we have ceased to live in a fully capitalist society. We are then living in a country which, to some extent is socialist. The question, then, lies in the degree to which we are socialist.
Clearly, the Obama administration's push to semi-nationalize the banks represents a much more socialist society than what we have been living in. As does his push for a more graduated income tax. Yet even with these reforms and nationalized healthcare, we would not be to the level of socialism achieved by Western Europe. So social? Yes. Socialist in the sense of downfall of capitalism? Absolutely not!
The last two questions are harder to answer. Sociologists will attempt to answer them now, and historians will attempt to answer them in the near future, but I dare not attempt. Obama is in a grace period. He has been granted a certain amount of room to maneuver the country however he feels fit. Can he push us towards a radically more socialist society permanently? Time will tell.
But the rhetoric is clearly changing now. Whether as a kind of shock reaction after their overwhelming defeat in both the presidential and congressional races, or as a methodical way of reinventing themsleves, conservatives have exchanged the negatively connoted "liberal" with its further-left brother "socialist." A recent article in the NYTimes discussed this phenomenon. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html)
What surprised me about this article is that there was relatively little discussion of the significance of this switch. There was a discussion of how brandishing "socialist" is less potent now than it was in the days of FDR, when the USSR was a serious threat, but no discussion of the significance of the switch from brandishing the left as "liberals" to brandishing them "socialists."
The shift seems of paramount importance in understanding the "center" of the country's political spectrum. I think part of the reason for the shift stems from the fact that brandishing someone a "liberal" has lost its potency. Liberalism is now okay by general standards. Liberalism is a recognized acceptable alternative to the Bush years, which were an extension of Reagan's trickle-down economics - in effect, the anti-socialism. Conservatives, then, have had to turn to what they perceive to be a more loaded word - "socialism." By brandishing socialist they are, however, still attempting to connote Stalinist Sovietism and Maoist China.
It is, of course, ludicrous to suggest that the United States will ever reach anything like Stalinist Russia with its current constitution, but three questions remain: To what extent is what the Obama administration is pursuing socialist policy? To what extent does the American public believe it to be socialism? To what extent does the American public care if it is socialism?
First, we have lived in a semi-socialist country for a long time. Since the progressive movement in the first decade of the 20th century, clear limits have been placed on the many-headed hydra of capitalism (thanks to Marcus Rediker for the metaphor). Once businesses have begun to have limits placed upon them, we have ceased to live in a fully capitalist society. We are then living in a country which, to some extent is socialist. The question, then, lies in the degree to which we are socialist.
Clearly, the Obama administration's push to semi-nationalize the banks represents a much more socialist society than what we have been living in. As does his push for a more graduated income tax. Yet even with these reforms and nationalized healthcare, we would not be to the level of socialism achieved by Western Europe. So social? Yes. Socialist in the sense of downfall of capitalism? Absolutely not!
The last two questions are harder to answer. Sociologists will attempt to answer them now, and historians will attempt to answer them in the near future, but I dare not attempt. Obama is in a grace period. He has been granted a certain amount of room to maneuver the country however he feels fit. Can he push us towards a radically more socialist society permanently? Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)