Democrats Must Choose Kennedy Successor

The choice of Democratic primary voters in a special election to fill Kennedy’s seat should be easy. Although all of the candidates are good and accomplished people, Congressman Capuano IS ALREADY ON THE JOB. There is absolutely no mystery about his legislative record, skills, or prowess. Despite their impressive credentials, none of the others has even one day of legislative experience and their campaigns show it.

All the other candidates are running for Senate as if it were an executive position. It doesn’t appear that any of them bothered to investigate the actual job for which they are running. The AG would be angling for governor if Kennedy were still in the Senate. She has and is, for all practical purposes, running a generic campaign that could be for either job. Her blatant pander to women on the healthcare reform bill is a GLARING red flag that should signal to informed Democratic voters that she is NOT a team player, which is essential for legislators. Her position on habeas corpus was obviously taken with an eye on executive office. She is clearly willing to sacrifice big picture goals for short term career gains. This is not a good quality in a junior senator.

If Democrats focus on the job at hand and the consensus goal of insuring that the new junior senator can legislate and fight for progressive causes effectively BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, then Congressman Capuano is the obvious choice. The entire congressional delegation is supporting him because they already know his work and already work closely and well with him. In effect, Capuano is the highly talented applicant for promotion in an organization in which he’s spent decades working hard and effectively. He’s the guy who would win in a walk if the position was chosen by “peer review.” The others are the outside candidates hoping to step in at the top by dazzling the crowd. If Democratic primary voters in a special election (i.e. most committed, knowledgeable) fall for the slick, big name, outsiders, then we are really in trouble.

Congressman Capuano is the choice of committed progressives who also understand how the US Senate actually works. Ted Kennedy was both a shrewd legislative tactician and a committed advocate for progressive causes. Among the present field, only Capuano has already proven to be both of these things. I say Vote Capuano for continuity, conviction, and proven capability.

Let’s hope the party’s primary voters are up to the task.

The Tortoise and the Hair

At present, the public relations war over health care reform appears to be going badly for President Obama's health care reform approach, at least if you consider public opinion polls as the definitive word on such things. Pundits from across the political spectrum have begun to pronounce the president's effort a political failure for having failed to heed the number one rule in marketing - "keep it simple, stupid." President Obama has not only refused to develop effective sound bites and slogans, he has even had the audacity to use a primetime news conference to actually discuss and explain the provisions of a health care reform bill he would like to sign.

Is he over estimating the capacity and/or willingness of Americans to understand both health care issues and the legislative process? Maybe. Have the Republicans jumped at the chance to exploit this "rookie" mistake by executing a classic misinformation and scare campaign against any reform of Health care? Yup. Could their hyperventalated and credibility challenged execution of this campaign be setting them up for failure? You betcha.

Maybe its naive, but I still believe that reality-based ideas do eventually win out over intentional misinformation campaigns. The precarious nature of American support for health care reform is, in my opinion, not due to right wing hysteria or intentional distortions like the "death panels." It is due to the fact that most Americans do not have health insurance problems. Most Americans have not faced the problems that reform is designed to correct. At best, most Americans see health insurance issues as "potential" problems they may face in the future. The larger stats regarding the costs and ineffectiveness of American health care are abstractions for most Americans and its too easy to brand those who brandish these system-wide deficiencies in a debate as "socialists."

President Obama has refused to go with the political S.O.P. in this fight, which would be to exagerate the crisis and fight hyperbolic opposition rhetoric with equally attention grabbing claims. Instead, The Obama White House has remained calm and reasonable, allowing increasing liberal frustration and hand ringing, and the domination of the late summer media stage by Republicans waging a classic "mediscare" campaign, much of which could have been taken from Democratic campaign scripts from the past.

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT THINKING!?! While I cannot answer this question definitively, I can offer a theory that justifies my own confidence in the viability of real health care reform. The farther away from the media wars of the past month we get, the more rediculous the anti-reform claims are going to look, but because the White House refused to participate in the day-to-day media battle, Obama will have lots of dry powder, while his critics will be low on ammunition and credibility.

Obama has goaded the Republicans into over reaction and into a hastily fast-tracked rhetorical and media strategy. By putting so much emphasis on health care reform and by setting deadlines with a "line-in-the-sand" quality, Obama has exploited the chaos in the Republican Party by giving them the stage, but not giving them a clear health care reform target to campaign against. The lack of a clear, consistent message from the White House on health care reform has been criticized by liberals and conservatives, but it has also denied opponents a clear, legitimate target. Because the Republican Party is in disarray, and being dragged through the mud by folks with high visibility and low credibility, Republican opposition to a fuzzy plan was sure to be a circus and when you are being opposed by clowns, the last place you want to be is on stage with them.

I will pretend to have known all along next year when the President signs a health care reform bill that DOES include a public option. It it doesn't workout, I'll simply go with the wisdom ofthe great Roseanne Roseannadanna, and say "never mind"

Teachers? Students? Or, Scholars all?

The "teachable moment" presented by the Gates-Crowley affair has now become fodder for virtually every commentator. While listening to the radio yesterday I heard an insightful point (sadly,I missed the identity of the insight's author). The gentleman on the radio program argued that the problem with teachable moments is that everyone thinks that it's a time for their perspective to be taught to others. In other words, everyone recognizes the utility and potential of a teachable moment, but thinks themselves teachers, rather than students. The success of such a moment then would be measured by the degree to which other Americans become convinced that my perspective was the best one all along.

I don't think one needs a Ph.D. to see the problem with a simple teacher-student education model here. What we need to sell to each other (the American people) before we can have a useful national conversation is the concept of learning that is professed in the mission statements of most American colleges and universities; which amounts to a definition of scholarship. Professors, school teachers, cops, business people, doctors, lawyers, engineers, trades people, and laborers all need to operate in such a conversation as "scholars" who neither transmit or receive wisdom exclusively.

On the first day of my introductory course, I warn the largely first year college students that I have no licence or formal education or training as a teacher. I remind them that their high school teachers were required to earn a state licence and to engage in ongoing education and training to keep their jobs, while I as a tenured college faculty member need neither a licence nor formal training in the art and science of teaching. To further make my perspective clear I tell the students not to call me Mr. or Dr. or Prof. Duquette, but rather to use my first name, Jerold. Although I do usually admit that I'll respond to "your Grace," "He who must be obeyed," or "my captain-my captain" as well.

Why do I do this? Well, in addition to making clear my super coolness, I do it because at a university everybody is engaged in scholarship, which involves investigation and learning. Those paying and those being paid are all working together to understand and develop knowledge and to refine their knowledge acquisition skills in the process. There is plenty of teaching going on (we hope), but it is not a unidirectional phenomena. Students who expect me as a professor to transmit information to them and then to simply verify that they got it by testing them have probably underestimated the dynamism of their high school teachers' job and completely misunderstand their relationship to me as their professor. I have always said that I've been a student all my life; I just went pro after college.

If Americans are going to benefit from a national conversation, they must first acknowledge that each of us comes to the table with important knowledge and that the success of the conversation depends on each of us being willing and able to transmit our knowledge clearly and civilly, as well as to comprehend, analyse, and evaluate the knowledge being transmitted by others. If anyone thinks or is thought to be merely teacher or student (in a college seminar room or a serious national conversation), then neither teaching or learning can be optimally achieved.

Does this mean we have to give serious attention to absurd perspectives by extremists? Essentially, yes. We do have to try to understand what pushes some folks to extreme beliefs. While this won't likely rehabilitate their beliefs, it should reduce our animus toward the extremists. It is important to stress that understanding, in and of itself, is in no way equivalent to endorsing.

How long is a "teachable moment?" & Who's willing to learn?

The debate surrounding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates has created an unprecedented opportunity to engage in national conversations about the age old question infamously articulated by Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along?"

The confrontation between Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley is an example of two men who failed to get along. The debatable questions about the incident, those questions that will ostensibly be examined during this "teachable moment," are many, but the immediate reactions of whites, blacks, cops, civil rights activists, media commentators, politicians, political partisans, and the public-at-large (via polling data)do not bode well for either the quality or duration of this "teachable moment."

There are some types of reaction that we as a community of reasonable people should set aside as "unreasonable," at least for now. For example, if you are convinced that either man in this confrontation is completely right or completely wrong, I would suggest that you are not going to be helped by or helpful to a serious discussion of the matter and its larger lessons. This does not, however, preclude reasonable, evidence-based analysis that focuses only on the actions, behavior, and decisions of one man; Gates or Crowley. Indeed, If we are discussing police procedure, policies, or professionalism (as I have been), it is perfectly appropriate to analyse Crowley's performance in this incident. If we are discussing the way a responsible citizen should interact with police officers, then an examination of Gates' actions, behavior, and decisions in this matter are a reasonable focus of analysis.

Conclusions that one man's conduct in this matter was more irresponsible or inappropriate than the other's should not be dismissed as unreasonable, partisan, or counter productive. In fact, the inference that is most unreasonable and counter-productive is the idea that they were both equally blameworthy and we should call it a draw and get past it. Indeed, this might be the most nefarious of all the postures being taken on this matter because it alone judges the incident unworthy of critical examination.

What about racism? Should this "teachable moment" be centered on this phenomena? Not necessarily, for two reasons: First, the terms "racism" and "racist" have been so abused in America that they no longer represent the systemic issues to which they actually refer. Racism is NOT defined as hatred of or discrimination against those of another race. A racist is NOT (necessarily) one who hates or intentionally discriminates against someone based on their race. Racism is the widespread presence of disparate treatment in society that contributes to a reduction of opportunities for a group of people of a certain race. A racist is someone who's actions, behaviors, decisions (consciously or unconsciously/intentionally or unintentionally) contributes to, or fails to mitigate, the negative effects of this disparate treatment.

If this rather clinical and impersonal (and debatable) understanding of racism is not widespread in America, then any efforts to make race and racism the central and exclusive focus of discussion will undoubtedly get bogged down by definitional debates, which is why this "teachable moment" should probably be diverted from an explicit effort to educate Americans about race.

Can we have a useful national conversation about the lessons of this incident that avoids the nonrational assumptions and convictions that so many Americans believe and/or espouse on racial issues? I think we can have a couple of them. I also think that most of the folks whose minds were made up about this incident as soon as they heard the initial press accounts will be dead weight in this conversation; hecklers at best.

The first order of business ought to be an effort to lay out "facts" that are beyond reasonable dispute. It doesn't matter what the motives of the proponents are, only that the facts they identify are accepted by reasonable people on all sides. For example, in the largely uncritical opinions espoused to date there are plenty of "facts" about which everyone could agree. Consider the following list:

1. Crowley was responding to a valid call and had a valid reason for engaging Gates.
2. Gates was at his own home throughout the incident and was not aware of or involved in any break in.
3. Crowley did not overstep his authority by asking Gates for ID, or by entering the home without Gate's expressed permission.
4. Gate's behavior led Crowley to report on his radio that Gate's was being "uncooperative."
5. Crowley called for the Harvard Police to come to the scene, as well as other "backup."
6. Gate's did provide ID and his innocence of any crime related to the investigation was established on the scene.
7. The security of the house, Gates, and Crowley was established at the scene.
8. Sergeant Crowley made the decision to arrest Gates for "disorderly conduct."
9. Other police on the scene supported Crowley's decision and assisted in the arrest.
10. At no time was Gates a physical threat to anyone during this incident (not required to charge disorderly conduct).
11.Gates' behavior prior to following Crowley out of the interior of the house onto the porch was NOT the basis for Crowley's decision to charge him with disorderly conduct.
12. At no time while in the interior of the house did Gates' conduct violate the law.
13. At no time while in the interior of the house did Crowley's conduct violate the law.
14. Gates' alleged disorderly conduct occurred after the on scene investigation of a possible break in at Gates' home had been completed.
15. The charge against Gates was dismissed by the District Attorney.
16. Crowley has conducted training for police officers on "racial profiling."

While all of these factual claims are individually less significant to the broader discussion that this incident might spawn, obtaining consensus on them will accomplish two important things. First, it will debunk many of the politically motivated falsehoods being propagated by those who are willfully or unconsciously incapable of participating in a reasonable dialogue about this matter or the lessons it may hold. Second, It would provide common ground and agreements on which additional common ground may more easily be found and it would help to highlight the factual claims that remain reasonably in dispute.

The Gates Arrest: Its about Professionalism, not Race

The following discussion of the incident will proceed with the facts as described by the police report. In other words, the testimony of the arresting officer will, for the purposes of this analysis, be taken as entirely accurate. Based on the report filed by Sergeant Crowley, I believe that his conduct did not meet the standards of professionalism expected of him as a sworn law enforcement officer.

This conclusion in no way implies support for the "loud and tumultuous" behavior of Professor Gates, nor does it even imply sympathy for him. It rests entirely on my expectations of professionalism from police officers. In fact, I have personally been treated with considerably more professionalism by police officers toward whom I was "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" while they were responding to a complaint.

Professor Gates yelled and screamed and said mean things to Sargent Crowley, before, during, and after Crowley elicited his identity as the home owner. The report makes clear, however, that Crowley's decision to arrest Gates was based on behavior exhibited AFTER his identity as the homeowner was established. It further states explicitly that he (Crowley) simply warned Gates to calm down or he would be arrested. He never, by his own accounting, expressed any sympathy for Gates' position even after it was clear that Gates had been inconvenienced by a police investigation through no fault of his own.

When Crowley made the decision to hand cuff and arrest Gates, he describes his actions as follows: "I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly... I warned Gates to calm down a second time while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case...I informed Gates that he was under arrest." Between these "warnings" Crowley describes Gates' behavior as increasingly loud and tumultuous and as drawing attention from passersby.

It's crucial to understand that Crowley was not dealing with a criminal suspect at this point. He was dealing with a law abiding citizen, a rude and offensive law abiding citizen to be sure, but one who had just been inconvenienced by a police investigation. Despite these facts, Crowley's demeanor never changed from confrontational and unsympathetic. This was not cold professionalism. Professionalism would have dictated that Crowley treat Gates with courtesy even before realizing he was innocent of wrongdoing. The courtesy expected of professional police officers does not simply mean an absence of literal malice toward citizens, it means deferential and respectful treatment of those whom you are sworn to protect.

According to his own report, Crowley never expressed sympathy or regret for having intruded on Gates in his own home. Crowley's report intentionally expresses his lack of emotion throughout. It is as if Crowley equates professionalism with insensitivity and a total absence of empathy. The problem is that when a police officer treats a citizen without emotion or empathy, he/she is also treating them without respect. This unyielding and insensitive demeanor is very unpleasant for the person on the receiving end and while it could be forgiven when a subject is a suspect, it seems clearly inappropriate and unprofessional after that same subject is found to have been both innocent and inconvenienced by a police investigation.

What's worse is that instead of leaving the scene and letting other officers (with whom Gates was not so angry) deal with the situation, Crowley stayed and kept responding to (and thereby encouraging)Gates' angry taunts until Gates' behavior had risen to what Crowley considered "disorderly conduct." Crowley knew that he was the source of Gates' anger and that, justified or not, calming him down was, or should have been, important to the successful conclusion of the matter. Had Crowley either used empathy or apology as a tactic, or simply left the scene after completing his mission, the exchange that resulted in Gates' arrest would not have happened.

The rest is just politically motivated spin on all sides and the incident is another example of the folly of umbrage and the value of understanding. We need a lot less of the former and a lot more of the latter, especially by public servants in the conduct of their duties.

I call'em like I see'em.

The metaphor of a neutral umpire or referee is never far from the surface of any public policy debate. The politically immunizing aphorism, "I just call'em like I see'em," concisely conceals and perpetuates an assumption that is both ubiquitous in its practical adherence AND demonstrably impossible to achieve. Neat trick, right?

Political actors of all kinds, including judges, judicial nominees,and yes, even voters, operate on the assumption (whether they believe it or not)that objective truth, objective right and wrong, exist and "should" control in questions of law and policy. The only arena where this "common sense" is thought not to pertain is "politics." Indeed, to be political is effectively to pursue subjective goals, like "subjecting" people to your self interested definitions of reality in order to shape public policies in your own favor. From this viewpoint, there are right and wrong answers to EVERY important question and if you are not supporting objectively true answers, you are engaging in "politics." By implication, if you are supporting objective truths, then you are NOT engaging in "politics," which, when defined in this way, is literally fraudulent.

Does this mean that political activity is always subjective? Yes. Does it mean that political behavior is always fraudulent? No, but it is always politically useful to equate the views of opponents as "political" because it implies that your own (political)cause is a non-political pursuit of the truth, the facts, or what's right, and that you will never let "politics" [i.e. the pursuit of narrow self interest] influence your work as a public policy maker.

Americans have always accepted and even celebrated political "horse trading" when the stakes are merely materialistic, or commercial. In other words, when different interests, none of which is inconsistent with the general interest (as defined by a broad consensus on objective truths), compete for power (or market share) the result will be a competitive political/commercial economy. The problem arises when political/commercial competitors seek to promote or impose different definitions/ interpretations of objective reality, or "the facts," in an effort to increase their own influence/ market share. Politics then, moves from the consensual realm of material exchange among equals to the existential and epistemological realm where no definition or interpretation (however popular) is indisputable. This frustrating situation is the inevitable result of increasing competition in politics and business. When you are losing, change the rules, norms, or expectations. If your goals don't fit the process, redefine the process to fit your goals. In other words, re-frame the competition in ways that will bring the perception of "reality" and of the "facts" more in line with your interests.

American liberals and conservatives are not shy about employing science and religion, respectively, in an effort to frame or define reality (understood as objective truth) in ideologically friendly ways. Science and religion are useful props precisely because they have credibility as non-political, truth seeking arenas. Nonetheless, the left and right in America assumed by most Americans to be engaged in a narrow, self serving campaign to impose their own subjective definitions of reality on the American people, contributing to the conventional understanding of partisan viewpoints as subjective by definition as well as an understanding of "actual" reality as having no partisan biases and as politically neutral, objectively verifiable, universal truth[s]. This means that "truth" can only be discovered by disinterested and dispassionate inquiry.

In democratic politics then, partisanship and politics, understood as entirely subjective, are fair game in political arenas like elections where voters choose like-minded folks to govern, but should have no place in the actual decision making in government or any other venue where it is important to make the "right" decisions for all interested parties. In government, the right decisions are the one's best for all citizens, no matter who they voted for, right? Therefore, politics should never be allowed to intrude on policy making, administration, or adjudication. These activities must be conducted according to THE merits (you know, those universal politically neutral standards for measuring the relative quality of competing policy ideas)!

If there are no such standards, how's a poor lone voter supposed to judge the performance of office holders and the content of public policy in a democracy? It would be bedlam! Hopeless relativism! dogs and cats living together! Right!?!?

Healthcare reform debate

How can proponents and opponents of the president's healthcare reform proposal make the same claims about the advantages of their preferred approach? Because the only structural difference between them involves the inclusion of the federal government among the competitors in the health insurance market. There are no proposals in Congress for a government run healthcare system. Democrats and Republicans are committed to the private market for health insurance. A government run system (i.e. socialized medicine) is not favored by the Democratic Party. It is an approach favored by social democrats, not Liberal Democrats.

Why do both sides make the same claims about their preferred approach?

Prponents of a public insurance option can claim that patients would have more choices and less hassels because the government plan would increase competitve pressure on all health insurance providers to be more responsive to their customers (i.e. patients). Opponents of the public plan option can claim that it would put government bureaucrats between them and their doctors because all insurance companies get between patients and their doctors when they deny a treatment option, or require generic drugs over name brand drugs even if the doctor prescribes the latter. So, since the government will be insuring those who chose the public option, it will be intervening in patient care. Making all the big brother fear mongering at least plausible.

The question is: which big brother are you more afraid of, insurance company bean counters or government bureaucrats? The President's proposal wouldn't prevent all abuse from either one of these unpleasant characters (or characitures). Instead it would increase your choices as a consumer in the health insurance market and force all insurance companies (public or private) to work harder at earning and keepiing your business.

I wonder how long it will take proponents to make their own commercials with the same scripts as the opponents of the public option in which the government bureaucrat is replaced by the private insurance company bean counter?

Parallel Universe Simulation

I would like to see (and participate in) a simulated confirmation hearing in which academics played the parts of the nominee and the Senators. Ideally, there would be at least two such simulations; one with a liberal jurist and conservative senators and one with a conservative jurist and liberal senators.

Ideally, these would be broadcast during the actual confirmation process in order to help Americans understand the real debate and the real issues in contention. The absurdity of a nominee pretending that there really is such a thing as neutral jurisprudential philosophy and opposition senators struggling mightily to maintain the same fiction even as they seek to reveal the nominee's infidelity to same is almost too much to bear.

What can't Sotomayor explain and defend her liberal jurisprudential philosophy? Why can't conservative senators attack her arguments with conservative jurisprudential arguments? Why must each side pretend that their perspective represents neutrality and unassailable objectivity, while the other is the dreaded "activism?" The answer is really quite simple. All of the players in the real life drama of these hearings have to avoid short term political damage to their points of view. Sotomayor can't give Republicans ammunition with which to turn public opinion against her or her President and the Republicans can't pass up an opportunity to score public opinion points for their views. Asking the real players to ignore potential public relations disasters would be akin to asking for unilateral disarmament.

So, why not produce a parallel confirmation process in which liberalism and conservatism can contest for adherence on their philosophical merits? Too boring? I don't think so. We don't have to constrain the actors. We, in fact, would be freeing them up by removing short term political costs and benefits. I can assure you that professors can be as obnoxious and entertaining as politicians. In the setting imagined here, they would surely be MUCH MORE obnoxious and entertaining.

So who's with me? We need willing academics, video production folks and equipment, as well as a venue. Let me know will ya? Email me at jeroldduquette@comcast.net

Principles ARE Political

Will Sotomayor’s inquisitors focus on the kind of Justice she would be, or will they use her hearings to advance political agendas? This question pervades much of the analysis of the Sotomayor nomination and confirmation process, but is it a fair question? Why do we assume that the members of the US Senate are supposed to put their political philosophies, agendas, and interests aside when providing “advice and consent?”

In fact, the two major political parties in America disagree on what makes a “good” justice. They disagree, in fact, on the very definition of justice itself. This disagreement is both principled and political. Why shouldn’t this very public confirmation process be used as a venue for a deliberative debate between liberal and conservative theories of justice? Why do we persist in the pretense that the Constitution and our nation’s laws have objective and universally accepted interpretations, or even that they ought to? Why must we prop up the fiction that all 100 Senators (and all Americans) share the same definitions of the Constitution’s most cherished principles? Why must we endure the intentional obfuscation by Senators’ of their ideological assumptions; something they do in order to avoid being criticized for allowing partisanship to intrude on this supposedly non-partisan process?

In reality, this process is and ought to be an opportunity for Americans to judge the relative merits of two distinct approaches to government, politics, and the law. Why can’t we use these unique opportunities to highlight the contrasting definitions, liberal and conservative, of our creedal principles; equality, freedom, and even democracy itself.

When Sotomayor is attacked by conservative Senators, their criticisms are actually principled disagreements based on disputed definitions. Conservative attacks on Affirmative Action, for example, are based on a particular definition of constitutional equality. For conservatives, the government’s obligation to protect and advance political equality requires that it [the government] always treat individual citizens in exactly the same way. No government action which treats one American differently than another American can be constitutionally justified. This is a “de jure” understanding of equality. The government’s obligation to the principle of equality is fulfilled to the degree that the laws and policies of the government make no distinctions between individual citizens. The government makes one set of rules to which all are bound in exactly the same manner. By this definition, the government has no direct policy making role in the mitigation of social inequality. Any such inequality should be dealt with in civil society, which is to say, non-governmental settings.

Liberals, in contrast to this procedural definition of constitutional equality, adhere to an understanding of this creedal concept that requires governmental interference in the lives and decisions of all Americans. Liberals believe in a “de facto” interpretation of constitutional equality that requires the government to take affirmative steps to protect, and even create, equal opportunities for Americans suffering from systematic discrimination. For liberals, through the identical treatment of all regardless of individual circumstances, the government would be effectively condoning and even perpetuating systemic discrimination in American society.

These are principled (though conflicting) interpretations of constitutional equality that interact with every American’s self interest and conception of the public interest in a dynamic and complicated way. Americans who adopt one of these principled approaches without clear and careful consideration of both, do so at their own, and indeed our nation’s, peril.

If the Sotomayor hearings fail to present these two competing constitutional perspectives openly and with appropriate deference to the internal consistency of each, they will have been yet another missed opportunity to educate Americans about the role of the government in our society, a role that far from being eternally fixed, is the actual and the appropriate stuff of partisan politics in our democracy.

Overheated Rhetoric: Does it work?

The unhinged rhetoric of present day Republicans and conservative public figures generally may represent a fairly simple misunderstanding on their part. The last couple of elections have seen the convincing rebuke of Republicans and conservative ideas and rhetoric. I suspect the present conservative rhetorical offensive against the Obama Administration and Democratic congressional leaders is based on the assumption that the electoral decline of Republicans was the result of overheated liberal and Democratic rhetoric during the Bush Administration, rather than the perception of voters that Republican policies have failed.

By this logic, it is sensible to employ extremist attack rhetoric against the Democrats with the expectation that this will turn Americans against their candidates and their policies. There are some serious potential flaws in this approach, however.

What if the overheated attacks against Bush and Republicans merely coincided with the public’s rejection of Republican policies based on perceived failure? What if the political decline of Republicans would have happened (maybe more gradually) even if liberals had not employed crazy, over the top, rhetorical attacks? If this is the case, then the present administration will not be damaged by extremist rhetoric, at least until there is credible evidence that its policies are not succeeding. Staying with this assumption, the present conservative approach may only be succeeding in damaging the credibility of conservatives, who are not savaging a president with 30% approval ratings, but rather are savaging a president with approval ratings consistently in the 60s whose programs are not (at least not yet) perceived as failures.

I am reminded of a similar miscalculation by Republicans under the leadership of then House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In a budget showdown, Gingrich calculated that allowing a government shutdown would benefit Republicans because Americans would blame President Clinton for the impasse. The Speaker’s logic was based on the fact that a similar showdown between a Democratic Congress and President Reagan had redounded to the benefit of the congressional majority. Americans blamed President Reagan for the shutdown, not Democrats, forcing the White House to back down. Gingrich (a history professor) had made a common mistake in his use of historical analysis. He failed to adequately account for changed contexts and ultimately relied on what was an “apples and oranges” comparison. Republicans and conservatives in 2009 may be making the same type of miscalculation.

Conservatives trying to “give as good as they got” over the last eight years is understandable, but might me ill advised. President Obama is VERY unlike George W. Bush in some very important ways. Bush was easier to savage because of his ideological rigidity and his less than sterling communications skills, neither of which were made up for by his vice president, or Republican leaders on the Hill. Obama, on the other hand, is clearly not the radical liberal that Republicans paint him to be. His preference for moderation is everywhere on display. In fact, many conservatives have tried to use his moderation against him despite having campaigned against him with claims that he would radically liberalize federal policy. Hoping to score points on character attacks and with no apparent concern for consistency, Rush and company have tried to claim that his moderation on national security and even healthcare reform represent evidence that he’s a liar and a flip flopper, rather than an open minded moderate.

What if the Republicans are right about the role of extremist liberal rhetoric being a prime cause of their party’s decline? Would this justify their present assault? I don’t think so. In politics, when a party escalates its political attack operation, there tends to be a fairly limited window for the use of such escalation, a window made even shorter by the explosion of mass communications via the internet. Just four years after the (perceived) success of “swiftboating” the tactic, and even the term, became a highly unpredictable political strategy. In other words, even if Bush and Republican policies were successful and would be favored by most Americans in the absence of concerted liberal attacks, the employment of similar attacks against Obama may well be seen as more of the same negativity. It may be like the shoving match in a football or basketball game; the ref only sees the push back, not the one that started the conflict.

Democratic Theory and Local Government

Are the people of Longmeadow united by their membership in a community where citizens have broadly shared values, institutional obligations, and economic interests? Or, is Longmeadow a town where residents share resources, have overlapping cultural values, but see their relationship with town government as economic; the way consumers see producers in the marketplace, or employers see employees on the job?

My sense is that the latter better describes the perspective of most Longmeadow residents. Unfortunately, this model of citizenship is starkly at odds with both the actual form of government in Longmeadow (the New England town meeting) and its attendant theory of democratic citizenship; a theory to which virtually all of Longmeadow's 11,932 registered voters probably aspire and (ostensibly at least) subscribe.

We are not practicing what we preach. We conceive of "ideal" democratic citizenship as involving broad and active citizen participation in community governance, and the willful subordination of personal interests for those of the community by citizen and elected official alike, but we operate in our daily lives as if democratic citizenship is confined to a supervisory, even transactional, role in which citizens hire and fire elected policy makers whose job involves satisfying constituency demands and delivering public services. We justify our operating assumptions as necessary concessions to reality without ever really questioning the appropriateness of our idealized criteria for judging political reality in the first place.
We behave as if politics is a job (a dirty job) and politicians are used car salesmen. Every public utterance from a "politician" is a career enhancing effort to make a sale. This disgusts us because we judge this "reality" against the "ideal" of the self sacrificing, community oriented statesman and citizen, without any awareness of our own role in the realization of this self fulfilling prophesy.

It's hardly surprising then that many withdraw from politics in order to avoid what they see as its moral hazards. Ironically, this understanding of "realpolitik" depends almost entirely upon the unconscious assumption of classical (read participatory/community first) notions of democratic citizenship and community. In Longmeadow, this counterproductive, but ubiquitous, cognitive dissonance is further encouraged by the survival of a quintessentially participatory and communitarian form of democratic government - the New England Town Meeting. Even the physical layout of the town bespeaks adherence to a participatory model of citizenship. Town greens provided the physical space for community life, a life that centered on collective action and governance.

When the Long Meddowe Days Committee tried to eliminate political signs from the green during their event last year, it was a vivid reminder of the disconnect between our town's political forms and our residents' perceptions of the town's political functions. The committee's insistence that politics was not appropriate at a "family friendly" event represents a profound and alarming obliviousness to our town's founding principles, as well as its present day institutional forms. Imagine if fans at a baseball stadium tried to discourage players from playing on the field because doing so would corrupt or interrupt their enjoyment of buying hotdogs and paying attention to the sights and sounds of the jumbo-tron. Political form and function have been divorced in our town and most folks haven't even noticed.

I believe our town needs to reconcile its political values and its political institutions. We should not continue to expect professional governance from a form of government designed to prevent that very thing. Nor should we expect governance that is acutely sensitive to the people's will if we refuse to express that will thoughtfully, routinely, clearly, and collectively. There are certainly credible intellectual arguments for trying to close this gap by either reforming our governing institutions to reflect our individualistic, market mentality or by campaigning to educate town residents about the advantages of modifying this dominant approach in an effort to resuscitate the participatory and communitarian norms of citizenship that formed the philosophical and even cultural foundations of our present system (i.e. a town meeting form of government). But, because moving in either direction too deliberately might prove "a cure worse than the disease," I propose we meet in the middle, incrementally modifying our governing institutions while simultaneously attempting to convince Longmeadow residents that participation in town politics can and should improve their lives.

I think a conversation about charter reform should be a high priority. Unlike last time, this conversation cannot bypass the conceptual foundations of democratic governance, but rather must make our contradictory and competing notions of democratic citizenship the centerpiece of the conversation and the conceptual road map to institutional reform. Our latest charter change was, no doubt, at least partially (though not explicitly) driven by these fundamental philosophical issues. I suspect, however, that this conceptual rift was never properly identified and explored for its potential role in the design of a more "effective" town government. It seems to me that our new charter's marginal modifications were primarily based on the desire for increased "efficiency" in the "delivery of town services." This type of language is itself evidence of a more limited notion of citizenship and community. Can you imagine family members using these terms when referring to the accomplishment of household chores? To the degree that "effectiveness" was considered in the latest charter reform, I don't think it was consciously addressed within the context of Democratic theory. In other words, I don't think the conversation clearly addressed the competing, but unspoken, assumptions of town residents regarding their responsibilities as citizens, or their definitions of community.

I believe a new conversation about charter reform must begin with a very clear and very public effort to educate residents about the two incompatible approaches to participation (and by implication, community) at play in our politics. I consider such an effort to be an essential component of any move toward institutional reform. If we hope for such reforms to better reflect a town-wide consensus on democratic values, then residents must be willing and able to clearly identify, articulate, and distinguish their values premises.

A "representative town meeting" form of government might be a reasonable and positive reform idea for our town that would represent an acknowledgement of both our participatory aspirations and our practical need for some degree of professionalization in 21st Century town government. Indeed, the present disagreement among active townspeople about the conduct and purview of our newly created Town Manager position is very likely a product of these conflicting (and sadly unconscious) assumptions about the locus of decision making power in our present form of government.

Obama's National Security Policy Approach

President Obama's speech on national security this week drew more criticism from the left than it did from the right, despite the fact that he eviscerated the previous administration on its handling of national security affairs. After decisively declaring an end to the Bush era of national security ineptitude and moral depravity, the president did not then throw red meat to his liberal base.

President Obama could have promised to reverse every constitutionally suspect Bush policy or tactic with civil libertarian bravado. He could have said that freedom must always trump fear and that security purchased at the price of justice is no security at all. Make no mistake, the president was eloquent and his rhetoric was soaring, but his substantive policy approach appears to be something much different.

President Obama seems to understand the danger of the wholesale rejection of a predecessors national security regime. Just such a rejection by George W. Bush of the Clinton taskforce on Al Queda, among other things, likely contributed to our failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. President Obama also seems intent on making good on his promises to put partisan ideology aside when he believes that mission accomplishment requires it. The liberal constituencies at the base of the Democratic Party view national security and civil liberties, not unlike their Republican counterparts, in absolute terms. Effective presidents must resist the politically and morally self satisfying approach of pandering to the base. President Bush chose to pursue a national security strategy that replaced ethical and constitutional imperatives with an aggressively utilitarian approach cloaked in nationalistic and moralistic rhetoric. Reversing course 180 degrees would only amount to choosing a different poison and it would have the same limited shelf life as did the Bush Doctrine.

So what should the President do? He seems to have chosen on a sort of Nixon/China strategy. Just as a stalwart cold warrior was required for détente with communist china, a liberal internationalist may be the best man to protect Americans from "Islamo-fascists" without abandoning our principles or jeopardizing our security. Liberal pundits have already begun to mock President Obama for suggesting that we really do need a new legal framework to deal with terrorism. They see this as a tacit endorsement of Bush's abuses and an effort to claim that as long as he - President Obama- was in charge of such efforts, they would not be allowed to get out of hand. The thing is; that claim may well be the most legitimate one in the mix right now. The President seems to be acknowledging a hard reality, namely that 21st Century national security cannot be maintained with 18th Century legal frameworks, but that at the same time, any new framework must be constructed transparently and with very significant attention to our values and to the principle of checks and balances.

When I teach public sector ethics, I assign an article called "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands" by Michael Walzer. He writes that "The notion of dirty hands derives from an effort to refuse "absolut- ism" without denying the reality of the moral dilemma." Walker's exploration of moral hazards of political leadership is now a classic that I am certain has been read by Barack Obama. Ultimately, Walzer praises an approach to dealing with the security/freedom dilemma that seeks to marry effective security policy with clear accountability AND even public atonement on the part of leaders who, after clear and transparent deliberation, choose an action that would otherwise be unacceptable. In the article, Walzer illustrates this approach with the help of Camus' "The Just Assassins," in which the protagonists do their duty reluctantly and then accept the consequences necessary to protect the integrity of moral and ethical reflection and deliberation - their own execution.

The biggest problem with the Bush approach was its failure to engage in honest moral and ethical deliberation. By framing their efforts as a sort of moral utilitarianism, the Bush Administration made morally treacherous decisions a simple matter of mathematical calculation. Many have charged the Bush Administration with adhering to an "ends justify the means" approach, but this may be too kind. This Machiavellian construction clearly implies the need to "get your hands dirty" for a greater good. The Bush Administration's defenders of late have cast their morally and constitutionally questionable actions as moral goods in and of themselves. They were moral actions because of their motivations. While the utilitarian lifts the psychic and intellectual burden from the moral dilemma, these folks have gone even farther, replacing these morally useful burdens with moral and political praise of the Administration's decisive actions.

For Walzer, this is calamitous because it not only removes incentives for and encouragement of ethical and moral reflection and deliberation, it actually discourages such prudence and encourages immoral and unethical conduct cloaked in the robes of moral and political courage.

Before liberals condemn Obama's betrayal and conservatives spin his decisions into an endorsement and vindication of the Bush/Cheney approach, I hope our leaders, pundits, and public intellectuals will demand the inclusion of the insights of moral philosophy in our national debate, and not allow us to retreat into the familiar, but very counter-productive world of black and white rights and wrongs, political wins and losses.

If Barack Obama can effectively articulate his consciously and transparently philosophical approach, I believe average Americans will respond positively. The likelihood that left and right will be unable to resist the urge to compare (unfavorably) the president's efforts to their dogmatic "principles" may even prove useful to the President in the long run.

The Theory and Practice of American Politics

People constantly ask me about the differences between left and right in American politics; what divides us as Americans? In some ways its an easy question to answer. The difficulty is, in fact, that there are so many useful (if incomplete) ways to explain it. The tricky thing is that every American can identify with elements of both wings of the American Eagle. Left and right revolve around the same fundamental philosophical/moral tenant, born of the Enlightenment, that each person possesses -or is endowed by their Creator with- individual freedom and self determination, natural rights thought justly limited only when they encroach on those of another.

Individual liberty and self determination are creedal principles to which we all, as Americans, pledge allegiance. This fundamental philosophical, even epistomological, consensus both shields and exploses our politics to conflict. Though shielded from revolutionary or truly illiberal social and political ideas, Americans are exposed to the rhetorical ferocity of the family squabble. Our political cleavages pit one interpretation of individual freedom and self determination against the other.

Those with multiple siblings can recall that childhood conflicts tended to divide the family in two, rather than three or four, and that the coalitions on either side had fairly durable memberships, though the questions at issue varied. It's also clear that cruelty knows few bounds among family members. The American family has always divided into two dominant interpretations of our creedal "truths." Third and fourth interpretations simply cannot be sustained without breaching the boundaries of our liberal individualism, and thereby (re)uniting the American family against alien influences. Brothers can be at each other's throats, but if a third party takes a side or enters the fray, the intramural scrimmage comes to an abrupt end.

Scholars, artists, and journalists of all kinds have weighed in on the nature of our enduring family squabble, producing voluminous theories and claims. Ironically, many of these efforts have born fruit and yet the pursuit continues unabatted as if the soil lay barren. It's a disagreement about the role of government. It's a disagreement about morality. It's a disagreement about the definitions of creedal principles like freedom, equality, and democracy. These are all useful and insightful approaches to understanding our political differences.

At the on ground, where the scufflers actually get their hands dirty; it's a fight between south and north, rich and poor, coutry folks and city folks, God fearin and heathens, the moral majority and the counter culture, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. It is both interesting and relevant to note that despite deep generational differences, American politics has never divided in any meaningful or durable way between young and old, something faintly illustrated by President George W. Bush's failure to reform Social Security despite ensuring that the changes would not impact current or imminent retirees.

At the theoretical/ideological level the argument over the interpretation and application of our universal truths - individual freedom and self determination - is rich and deep. It is nourishing and illuminating. It is an argument from which every American would benefit from joining. If conducted among people of good will and open minds, it is more conversation than conflict; it is an argument designed not for resolution but for continuance, growth, durability. Indeed, victory in the internal struggle over our creedal principles would strike a death blow to these cherished precepts. In Madisonian terms, it would destroy the marketplace of ideas designed to regulate and perpetuate our "conflicts within consensus." The Framers sought to create a competitive economy and political system within an immutable moral/ philosophical consensus. The competitiveness of the economy and political system AND the immutibility of the moral/philosophical consensus are essential for the preservation of the Framers' handiwork, and the continuance of what some call the "American experiemnt."

At the political level, where interpretations are hardened and applications are at stake, conversation yeilds to combat and the combatants disguard Socrates and Montesquieu, turning instead to Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great for counsel. While intellectuals examine and choose evidence to test propositions and ideas, politicians, clerics, and businessmen manipulate evidence to support preconcieved or mandated conclusions.

Our politics was conceived and designed to operate as a perpetual argument in which the contestants played by civilized rules in exchange for the guarantee that opportunity was aboundant and "final victory" was impossible, leaving one and all to live to work, compete, and win another day. Increasingly, however, the contestants in our liberal democractic society have abandoned the metaphor of reason and dialogue in a free market of ideas and adopted methods designed for the battlefield, for war, a state of conflict wholey incompatible with the faithful application of our creedal principles.

Someone once said "you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight." Less self evident in America today apparently is the more profound advice for us; you shouldn't bring a gun to a family squabble.

Republican Identity Crisis Worsens.

Arlen Specter's surprise defection from the GOP should give the Republican Party just the kind of wake up call it needs. When Al Frankin gets to Washington, the Democrats will now have the magic number of 60 votes in the US Senate.

What does it all mean for the Democratic agenda, the survival of the Republican Party nationally, and the public policy making process in the short and long run?

Obviously, Democrats are pleased, though having a filibuster proof majority isn't always a good thing. Conservative Democrats will now be exposed to greater scrutiny by the national press, limiting their ability to vote their districts (so to speak) when doing so would not impact the fate of legislation. With a strongly united Republican Party, the Democrats will need "all hands on deck" to further the Obama agenda. In other words, the purging of moderates from the Republican Party could put moderate Democrats at risk of similar alienation from the Democratic leadership. On the bright side, it should provide a good test of the Obama agenda's mainstream support. The new president's pragmatic approach thus far seems particularly well suited to the emerging partisan political landscape.

For the Republican Party, this surprise move should be seized on as an opportunity to expedite the Party's identity crisis. Can the party shed its current brand of cultural populism without losing its soul?

What about the precious "checks and balances" of our legislative process? Will a filibuster proof majority in the Senate turn that body into a pale imitation of the House? Is the Democratic Senate of 2009-10 going to devolve into something akin to the Republican House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich? Neither grim scenario is likely. First, President Obama's "post partisan" theme will allow him to have his cake and eat it too. He can support progressive reforms and serve as the Congressional Democrats' pragmatic and magnanimous leader, allowing the legislative party to play bad cop to his good cop. In other words, over the last 14 years Republicans have toyed with and in some cases changed the process to align it to their political and policy needs. Thanks to the confluence of many factors, Obama and the Democrats will likely have the luxury of pursuing their agenda without need of process reform.

If Arlen Specter is a Democrat, then already strained claims that we live in a center-right nation, are now on life support.

Politics v. Policy

Although I often cringe at the commonplace notion that politics and policy are mutually exclusive, there is a good reason for this common misconception. In Massachusetts politics today we have a Democratic governor and a legislature overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats at a time when the Republican Party and its fiscal policy agenda is in shambles and crippled nationally. The Massachusetts Republican Party couldn't get Mother Theresa elected Miss Congeniality. And yet, the Beacon Hill line on the state's fiscal policy is NO NEW TAXES! Why are our Democratic legislators acting like the anti-tax crackpots in last week's Fox News Tea Party protests?

What our Democratic legislators are saying is that we have to "reform" a bloated state bureaucracy before we even look at increasing revenue. This would be objectively stupid and a profile in political cowardice in a competitive state. In Massachusetts in 2009, it's a colossal embarrassment.

Conservative anti-tax populism works on talk radio, but no one is going to lose a Massachusetts legislative election on this issue, right?

Sadly, this bout of fiscal irresponsibility and political cowardice looks to me like more evidence of why our Democratic incumbents do not face serious Republican challengers - Why buy a Republican who might have annoying and unsavory social issue positions when you can extort conservative fiscal policy from socially-sane Democratic legislators?

In a less severe fiscal situation, this subtle quid pro quo would not be so destructive, but our present revenue problems simply cannot be adequately addressed by legislators who won't raise taxes or cut the programs that bring money home to the district.

If there really is "bloat," then why are there so many cuts into services everyone considers appropriate and necessary? The reason is that "bloat" in a public budget is not the same as "bloat" in a private budget. The 2008 election included a lot of talk about "earmarks" and "pork" as waste, which everyone agrees should be limited. But in a democratic society budget decisions are by definition political decisions. Political decisions rarely if ever turn on static cost/benefit analyses. Indeed, in politics, costs and benefits are rarely measured in simple dollars and cents.

This ignorance (willful?) is frequently flaunted with rhetoric about families having to tighten their belts and government having to do the same. It's an analogy that makes no actual sense, unless you are trying to de-legitimize the democratic process by which public policy, including public budgets, are made. If the family looses revenue, it should not simply cut spending; it should also seek to increase revenue, right? If you lose your job, do you pull the kid out of college and make him get a job? Only if you are an idiot! This is precisely the time when education and other activities with long term benefits should be protected and preserved.

Its easy to make fun of Massachusetts Republicans at election time, but considering that Bay State Republicans are much more likely then their Southern brethren to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I think they actually get to have their cake and eat it too in the Massachusetts legislature. Our Democrats are clearly afraid of the Rush Limbaugh crowd from below, and corporate interests from above. Why else would all rational tax proposals be dead on arrival? Why else would closing corporate tax loopholes be so difficult in a liberal Democratic state?

Here's the thing, Massachusetts legislators, you are vastly overestimating the electoral threat and under-estimating your own capacity to win competitive elections. Your pay masters are on the wrong side of history right now. If you don't smarten up, you'll get caught out there with them.

Republican Party in Trouble

It's April Fools day but there's nothing funny about the ongoing self destruction of America's conservative political party. The Republican Party has had a really bad decade or so. The gap between the Republican Party's principles and its performance in office makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole. What is needed is some serious soul and mind searching by the party whose job it is to caution against over reaching. The real life failures of conservative public policies were the result of the abandonment of intellectual conservatism.

From 1994 to 2008 the Republican Party had unprecedented opportunities to put its principles into action. Unfortunately, they pursued conservative policies far too liberally, leaving our economy in disrepair and our place among the international community of nations diminished. Unregulated markets are not any better than over-regulated ones. In fact, it turns out they cost taxpayers even more. Cowboy unilateralism and American empire building don't make America stronger; they make it weaker.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post today that vividly illustrates the road map to Republican extinction. It it he simply pretends that the last decade or so did not happen. He repeats tired lies long disproved. For example, it seems that no amount of reality can stop some conservatives from claiming that "small businesses" will be crippled by Obama tax hikes. This lie didn't fly in the election, why does anyone think it will fly now? Who is the audience for this claim? It's not actual small businesses, because they know very well that their tax burdens will decrease, not increase. Does Gregg and other like him really think small businessmen are all as dumb as Joe the Plumber?

Gregg warns ominously that Obama wants to take the country "sharply to the left." Once again, I wonder who is he talking to? Sharply to the left is the only way to get back to the middle, isn't it?

Gregg does provide some reasonable analysis though, writing "The president's budget makes clear that a huge expansion of government is not just about today's economic downturn. Once the recession is behind us, this budget will continue pushing for more and more government in our everyday lives. Instead of tightening Uncle Sam's belt the way so many American families are cutting back these days, the president's proposal spends so aggressively that it essentially adds $1 trillion to the debt, on average, every year." This take is essentially true, but for the exaggeration about our "everyday lives" and the analogical head fake about Uncle Sam's budget. Despite dogged faith-based protest from the rigid right, government spending can and does stimulate economic activity. But then again, what do nine out of ten economists know anyway?

Obviously, the Democratic agenda includes increases in economic regulation and in government economic assistance. The only people to whom such promises seem onerous are those who benefit from economic inequality and those fooled into thinking they would be hurt by increased regulation of the economy. Since real small businessmen know they won't be hurt, the Republicans must be talking to big businessmen when they intone against a 3% increase in income over $250,000 (which is actually just a return to Clinton Era tax rates). So small businesses and "job creators" must be poll tested code words that really mean large businesses and wealthy individuals. By the way, if employers are "job creators" then workers must be "business creators." When a baseball team wins the World Series, does anybody really believe that the manager deserves more credit than the players?

I think Americans need to be very patient with the Republican Party these days. They are floundering and in serious denial. Until they get past this stage of grieving and on to a more productive one, it may be best just to gently nudge them along. Without a reasonable opposition party, the Democrats could go just as nuts.

Why Fiscal Conservatism is now an Endangered Species

It's April Fools day but there is nothing funny about the self destruction of America's conservative political party. In today's Washington

Free Speech on Campus

Last fall at CCSU a student was asked to come to the police station for questioning about firearms possession after he had given an oral presentation in a communication class in which he argued that students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The CCSU police were alerted by the professor of the communication course, who apparently was concerned that this student might present a danger to the campus community.

The student in question cooperated with the police and no action was taken. Following the incident, though, the student gave interviews to the CCSU Recorder and a reporter from FoxNews.com in which he complained about the professor’s action. He believed that he should not have been brought to the attention of the campus police. The student’s comments conveyed the impression that he was being punished for expressing an unpopular opinion.

Despite the lack of information about what actually triggered the professor’s action, to say nothing of the CCSU police’s actions, many in the media and the blogosphere chose to adopt the student’s characterization. Lou Dobbs, legal talking head Jonathan Turley, and CCSUs own Professor Jay Bergman, commented on the incident as if it were a clear example of speech suppression. The conservative blogosphere embraced the Dobbs, Turley, Bergman view and ran with it. Gun rights bloggers called for everything from firing the offending professor to lynching her.

The silence of the student, professor, and university, posed no obstacle to the formation of definitive conclusions and condemnations of the university’s “speech police.” Facts and evidence (or the lack thereof) would not stop the crusaders from going after a favorite target. Passionate advocates for gun rights may be forgiven for pouncing on an opportunity to advance their policy perspective, but what about the journalists/ pundits and the professors? Shouldn’t these folks employ higher standards of inquiry? When a nationally recognized legal scholar and media analyst like Jonathan Turley blatantly assumes facts not in evidence something is not right.

I believe that we should seize the learning opportunity presented by this incident at CCSU. All those who have postured on this matter should come to campus (sans the righteous indignation) and participate in an open and open-minded discussion of the issues at stake in cases like this one. Where do we draw the line between fostering free and open dialogue and protecting public safety? How do we protect student and faculty expression and avoid even the perception of intolerance of ideas on campus? How do we channel students’ free expressions into responsible critical perspectives, without discouraging them from exploring unconventional or controversial ideas? If you have definitive (one size fits all) answers to these questions, then you are part of the problem.

Let’s drop the marshal metaphors and leave the special interest politics to others. We are a university and every potential angle on cases like the one should be fully articulated and subjected to critical scrutiny. Simply allowing interested parties to feel aggrieved and even more comfortable with knee-jerk/arm chair analysis would be wrong. Academics should more assertively model reason-based analysis and deliberation for the “real world” where it seems that combat too often trumps contemplation.

Cases like these should not be seen merely as opportunities to make (or score) a point, but rather as opportunities to initiate thoughtful discussions about salient and important matters.

It's the Ideas, stupid!

Readers of this blog can be forgiven for rolling their eyes as I write yet another post bemoaning the fixation of just about everyone with the who, rather than the what, of politics. In Washington, DC today everybody is killing themselves to avoid blame for the current economic crisis and when real issues do get some airtime, such as the contending economic theories regarding the appropriate role of the government in regulating the economy, debate quickly turns to the advocates and away from the arguments.

Should the government attempt to stimulate the economy by spending money? Or, should the government reduce spending and taxes in order to free up capital in the private sector for productive investment leading to economic growth? Stripped of the characters and recriminations, it seems we have an argument about economics that can and should be conducted with an eye toward data and evidence. By the same token, it is also important that we acknowledge that this debate, like virtually every political debate is NOT an argument between right and wrong. Neither economic approach can lay claim to or be authoritatively brand either way. Economics is known as the "dismal science" for a reason.

What is necessary, in my opinion, is more acknowledgment that whatever approach is taken is really experimental. Dogmatic condemnations of anything resembling socialism, like dogmatic condemnations of private sector greed, deserve to be seen for what they really are: products of intellectual rigidity and fear.

I want to be perfectly clear here, I'm not arguing that extremists should be silenced, but rather that Americans, in their capacity as political consumers, should invest prudently. Our economic meltdown is the product of dogmatic certainty in our economic decisions. Let's not compound the problem by matching our economic dogmatism with political dogmatism.

Scepticism and Progress

Readers of this blog know that David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists. His latest column was a gem, though I do have quibbles.

Brooks worries that the Obama Administration is moving too fast, that it is falling into a trap to which liberals are more susceptible. He characterizes Obama's bold plans as government designed "top-down transformational change" and argues that if it "mostly" works, "the epistemological scepticism natural to conservatives will have been discredited." If it "mostly" fails, "then liberalism will suffer a grievous blow and conservatives will be called on to restore order and sanity." Never mind the obvious reality here that it was conservative reliance on old ideas that got us into this mess, that's not actually my quibble here.

The problem is that Brooks' language (despite his conspicuous use of "mostly")oversimplifies things and rings of cynicism instead of the much more laudable scepticism about which he writes.

It's a small quibble about a thoughtful essay that spells out for readers the yin and yang of liberal and conservative thinking, both of which serve valuable functions in our intellectual and political life.

WMass Reader-Specific Post

The editors of the Springfield Republican have a bad habit of writing bad editorials. It’s not their perspective that is bad; it’s their arguments. In the Thursday edition of the paper, the editors set out to defend the decision of the Springfield Finance Control Board to use a Boston law firm to help deal with labor issues in the city, at a cost of approximately $1.8 million.

Many in Springfield have been critical of using a Boston law firm because there are many law firms in Springfield that could have done the work equally well at a lower cost. The editors’ defense of the FCBs choice consisted of one unsupported claim; that hiring the Boston law firm was a “prudent action.”

The problem with the editors’ method of choice, “argument by assertion,” is that it relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and scapegoating instead of evidence. In this case, the Republican has thrown Springfield’s labor lawyers under the Peter Pan bus along with the city’s Mayor and labor leaders. The editors claim that Springfield’s labor leaders don’t care about keeping Springfield’s money in Springfield, or about saving taxpayer money, rather according to The Republican, their real motive is to get the city to hire “cheaper lawyers” so its “legal representation” will be “less effective.” The fact that hiring Springfield lawyers would save money primarily due to reduced billing for travel to Springfield didn’t find its way into the editorial.

The editors seem to have decided that implying that Boston lawyers were better than Springfield lawyers, to say nothing of savaging Springfield’s teachers and police officers, was a small price to pay for the opportunity to defend the control board brought to Springfield by Mayor Charles V. Ryan, a close friend of the Republican’s David Starr defeated for re-election by Mayor Sarno. For those scoring at home, I have just employed an “argument by innuendo.” Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Sarcasm alert!

I wonder how the editors would react to the notion that if they are right about Boston’s lawyers, maybe the same is true of Boston’s newspapers. Maybe Springfield residents should listen to The Republican’s implied advice and begin getting their news from the Boston Globe or Boston Herald? It’s a bit more expensive, but I’m sure the Republican editors would agree that it would be a “prudent action.”

Obama's Approach

The following Obama quotation is from an interview with several syndicated columnists recently. In it he clearly and concisely describes his vision of "post-partisanship."

I made every effort to reach out to Republicans early to get their input and to get they buy-in. I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don’t believe in Keynes and they’re still fighting FDR. And no matter what we did, said, whatever the process was, they just don’t agree that this is the best prescription. And I think we can disagree without being disagreeable on that front.

What the president makes clear here is that bi or post partisanship is not about splitting the ideological difference. It is about pursuing the agenda that got him elected without ignoring or attacking Republicans. It's about giving them an opportunity to contribute to his agenda, not an opportunity to enact a Republican agenda. Obama is offering Republicans a chance to help him recognize "unintended consequences" of liberal policy prescriptions in order to avoid them. He is essentially asking them to play the role of loyal opposition, rather than that of obstructionist.

The difficulty is that his vision of post-partisanship is daily distorted by folks on both sides; conservative and extreme liberal ideologues have an interest (a genuine and legitimate ideological interest by the way) in resting control of public opinion from Obama.

By speaking much more often and much more substantively to the press about the substance of policy, Obama is effectively blunting his critics' efforts. It is very hard to distort a president's objectives and perspective when that perspective is regularly explained and discussed with the public by the president himself, rather than "administration officials."

Post-Identity Politics

President Obama's efforts to bring about a "post-identity" politics is rightfully praised by one and all, right? That depends on what is meant by the term "identity" politics. It appears that most consider it a synonym for "partisan" politics, which is why Obama has used the term "post-partisan" politics as well. Should we be willing to cast off partisanship? Should we, as is constantly advocated by partisans on all sides, "put partisanship aside to do what's right for the American people?"

If partisanship and "identity" politics refer to what has come to be called "the politics of personal destruction," then good riddance to them. However, if these terms apply to "ideological" politics and debate, then we would surely be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Despite being horribly misunderstood in the public mind, ideological politics and politicians are exactly what we need. Ideological politicians arguing about policy from ideological perspectives, rather than the emotional, irrational, and personal prejudices that frequently animate political debate would be marvelous. Unfortunately, it may also require divine intervention.

Washington Post columnist Michael Kazin, in a column called A Liberal Revival of Americanism wrote the following, "But if Obama believes one can enforce a truce in the long battle over how to apply the founding ideals of the nation, he will be disappointed. Since the 1790s, when Vice President Thomas Jefferson accused President John Adams of betraying the republic's "true principles" with his Alien and Sedition Acts, this conflict has been a vital matter in our politics." Kazin's caution speaks directly to the danger of further burying from public view the real and appropriate intellectual (i.e. ideological) cleavages in American politics. If the labels "post-partisan" and "post identity" politics are used to mean (and demean) ideological disagreement and debate, rather than what they really describe (the battles between the personal prejudices that form parts of everyone's identity), then hopes for a smarter, more civil political discourse will have been squandered.

The fact that politicians routinely equate ideological and partisan politics is ironically both appropriate and disastrous. It's appropriate because real partisanship is based on (or at least motivated by) ideas and philosophical preferences, which should be encouraged and nurtured both for the attendant productivity in policy making as well as the potential to more productively educate citizens. It is disastrous because virtually everyone thinks that ideology means "a selfish view of how we should be governed that necessarily conflicts with the public interest." The assumption, though profoundly out of step with our democratic principles, is that the public interest exists as an objective reality realizable only when everyone puts aside their personal views and interests.

If more Americans realized that partisan attacks on the character or personal conduct of political opponents was actually a strategy to enhance the power position of an "ideological" approach, not just to gain power for power's sake, they may be able to minimize petty personal attacks in politics the old fashion way; by reducing the effectiveness of such tactics. For those who play it at the highest levels, politics is NEVER about character or personal conduct. These things only become relevant when they present opportunities to reduce the power of competing ideas by reducing the credibility of those who espouse those ideas (i.e. "attack the messenger"). Whenever you hear someone link corruption or some other bad behavior to a particular party or group of people, you should understand that the speaker is either just trying to create controversy to sell books or commercials, or they are really employing a tactic in the service of an ideological agenda. The ideological agenda is legitimate, as long as it is held up to public scrutiny and debate. Efforts to forward ideological agendas by making the messengers for and against them the subject of public debate are neither legitimate nor in the long term interests of American democracy.

If Americans can be awakened from their cynical slumber and convinced to see politics as more than a battle between good and bad, smart and dumb, people or groups, but instead as something driven by competing ideas, then we would definitely look back at the present time as one of profound change in America.

Bush's Ex-Presidency

George W. Bush gave his final press conference this morning. He was probably more relaxed and in control than ever before at such an event. While his presidency was undoubtedly less than he had hoped for, there is no reason why his ex-presidency need be.

Freed from the shackles of the White House and his overbearing handlers, I think President Bush has quite a bit to offer. I think he has learned a great deal in the last eight years, but has not had the opportunity to make use of his increasing capacity to see the big and the little picture. For George W. Bush, life after Karl Rove could be very productive and useful. Though reflectiveness has not been his strong suit, I am guessing that he will want to do quite a bit more of this now that he will have the time and incentive to do so.

How will history view his tenure? Probably not as well as he hopes, but he need not settle for history's judgement on his time on the Oval. Like Jimmy Carter, he could choose to become an outstanding ex-president. He could become an active participant in the efforts to learn valuable lessons from his experiences as President.

Despite his reputation for anti-intellectualism, I happen to think he would make a great political science professor. Now stop laughing. I'm not suggesting he go teach at Harvard. I am suggesting that he would be a great professor at one of the colleges and universities where 95% of Americans actually go. I teach at just such a university. My classes are not filled with over-achieving geniuses (though we have a few). They are filled with average kids who lack an appreciation for their own intellectual potential. One of the most precious and valuable skills a professor can have in these average classrooms is the capacity to engender trust. Despite my disappointment with his policies and their results, I think President Bush does possess superior communications skills. I think he has enormous capacity for genuine/authentic communication, something indispensable in engendering the trust necessary to show young people the benefits of high level analytical thinking.

I think his sometimes comical inability to communicate with Americans in the last 10 years was due more to his own lack of commitment to what he was saying. It seems to me that when his comments are clearly his own, he rarely stumbled.

My advice to George W. Bush is to take time off to think about the lessons he's learned. Don't waste your own time trying to manipulate history. Others will no doubt do that for you. When you are ready, Mr. President, I would love to see you tour the nation's colleges and universities, the one's educating the vast majority of young Americans, and give lectures, talks, and workshops on the lessons you've learned. If you can do this without allowing yourself to be shackled by efforts to write the history of your administration in a favorable light, I think you will bring enormous value to the education of the students you touch.

I would be thrilled to have President Bush speak to my students in this way because while political outcomes are very important, they pale in comparison to the importance of political skills, knowledge, and experience. President Bush has an abundance of these things, and he should use them to help educate a new generation, rather than simply campaigning for the same generation's positive judgement in their old age.