The "Two" Conventions

The “Two” Conventions

P. Schultz

September 13, 2012

            Below is an excerpt from a Ralph Nader column on the “two” conventions. This helps me understand why I found them so boring and even childish. But it is not just that the Democrats want “to continue dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars” that explains their behavior and that of the Republicans. This is certainly part of it. But it is useful to remember that as Nader says elsewhere in his column, we live in “an oligarchy greased by a plutocracy.” Obama and the Democrats, at least most of those who control the party now, are oligarchs, as are those who control the Republican Party. There will be no playing “offense,” as Nader said, or no “big proposals” but only “a protective agenda” as David Brooks said. And when you get these two guys to agree on what is happening, you can pretty much assume they have it right.

“Being on the offense with an agenda standing for and with the people who economically are being driven, along with their country, into the ground by unpatriotic global corporations and their political minions, should be easy. Unless, that is, the Democrats want to continue dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars.”

Ralph Nader, “Two Conventions: Profiles in Decadent Cowardliness”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/two_conventions_profiles_in_decadent_cowardliness_20120912/

Which Elephant in the Room?

-->

Which Elephant in the Room?

P. Schultz

September 12, 2012

Here is a link to a column by Ross Douthat entitled “The Elephant in the Room,” which both enunciates and illustrates the problems the Republicans are having in beating Obama. To put it most succinctly, Douthat’s column says that the Republicans have little to offer the American people, especially after the debacle of the Shrub presidency. To wit:

“A presidential nominee could have filled this breach [caused by the Bush administration] with fresh rhetoric and creative policy, but Romney, compromised and uncourageous, hasn’t been the right man for that job. On economics, he’s shifted awkwardly between a message that focuses (sensibly) on the struggles of the middle and working classes and a much more conventional right-wing celebration of entrepreneurs and “job creators.” On national security, he’s campaigned as a by-the-numbers hawk, with barely a hint that hawkishness might have delivered America into difficulties during the last Republican administration.”

            True enough. But what Douthat illustrates is that this is all the Republicans – or the Democrats for that matter – have as he does not say what this “fresh rhetoric and creative policy” would be. And there is a reason for this emptiness, viz., Douthat’s failure, again illustrated by both Republicans and Democrats, to see that the need is not for  “fresh rhetoric” or “creative policy” but for republican rhetoric and republican policy. But because they are not actually a genuinely “republican” party, all the Republicans – or the Democrats – could offer was faux republican sentiments like those of Ann Romney, who tried to make it seem that young students attending college and living like college students were real republicans. This is the equivalent of Sarah Palin’s claim that she understood the Russians because she could see Russia from her house.

            But this game is up. This race has been run already, as Douthat points out, and it led, through the Clinton administration, to the Bush administration which led to debacles both abroad and at home. Most people are sensing that our political class is all smoke and mirrors, e.g., that Paul Ryan is not in actuality a deficit hawk and certainly not genuinely interested in republican values and, therefore, not much different than Shrub or even Ronald Reagan. But as Douthat himself illustrates, the Republicans have nothing to offer because they are not interested in a genuinely republican politics, that is, a politics that seeks to preserve or attain some decent level of social, political, and economic equality, that seeks to create or return to a society that aspires to be, at bottom, basically but pervasively egalitarian even if this means a society that is not as wealthy at home or as powerful abroad as that which both the Republican and Democratic parties now aspire to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/douthat-the-elephant-in-the-room/?hp

Our Politics

Our Politics

P. Schultz

September 9, 2012

I have finally figured something out. What makes our politics farcical is the fact that those we consider “leaders” are just ambitious human beings who are willing to put on whatever disguise that promises to garner them power and fame. And in this regard, they are just like those we label “entertainers” or the stars of our “pop culture.”

George Will and Political Philosophy

George Will and Political Philosophy

P. Schultz

September 7, 2012

Here is an exchange that I had with a former student and friend on Facebook, dealing with a column by George Will on Obama as a “radical.” Enjoy.

“Did you see the op-ed George Will wrote for the Washington Post today? It was that same bs casuistry that flowed freely in the political science department at our former institution....that Obama is a radical because he wants to change the founding fathers' (pause for respect) vision for how citizens relate to the government........when in actuality he's a moderate Republican who wants to raise taxes slightly on the rich and use government money to stimulate the middle class instead of just the rich......how can educated people buy into this??? Two facebook friends of mine--currently in political philosophy PhD programs-- posted the article in complete support of what he was saying! They can probably recite CIcero and Rosseau in their sleep, but post this crap by George Will as if it's all encapsulated within the "natural right" paradigm! It's enough to make a cat laugh! I need a drink!”

Yes, Chris, I saw the Will column but refused to read it because it was just asinine! And, yes, it's premise did remind me of the Political Science Department at Assumption Collge, where "political philosophy" is taught not as a way to get the young to think, and especially to think about "our way" and it deficiencies and defects. Rather, "pol. philosophy" is taught as a weapon, to arm the young to defend a particular and peculiar oligarchic and nationalistic agenda, to make the young warlike, not thoughtful nor questioning. And, of course, like any attempt to make the young warlike, this one requires blinding them. It is really sad that this is what Strauss' and others' legacy has come to: Sophistry of the worse kind. It is no wonder that Professor Dobski had no problem with going to Israel one summer on an all expenses paid junket to "learn" about "terrorism" and "terrorists" from the Israelis in Israel - not Israeli terrorists of course but only "the other" kind. And the "price" for this junket was that Dobski agreed to create and teach a course on terrorism - not Israeli terrorism of course - which he did. Ah yes, no danger of propaganda being taught in that course. I would bet he sent his course to Israel as confirmation of his loyalty. And think of it: This is the man who felt he could comment on your character in an inappropriate and inaccurate way! Talk about needing a drink! How about two or three??

Funny story: Once in class, I was expounding on the current prejudice against alcohol and crazy stuff like what passes for a definition of "binge drinking" these days and a young women said, shyly and sweetly: "But Professor Schultz, you don't need to drink." Well, I paused, looked kindly at her, looked at the class, and then back at her and said: "I don't know what world you live in. But in the world I live in, I need to drink!" I must say, it was one of my best moments!! And this confirms its accuracy!!

Pro-Life Not Anti-Choice

Pro-Life Not As Anti-Choice

P. Schultz

September 6, 2012

            It has become commonplace for those who are pro-life to think that this means, if followed consistently, one must be anti-choice. That is, if one is in favor of choosing life, then that same person must be for outlawing abortion, perhaps even in cases of rape and/or incest. I submit that this is not necessary nor is it even admirable.

            As I listened to Rick Santorum speak at the Republican convention about his daughter, Bella, I was struck by his passion, his love for this daughter and the strength of the love they shared. I did not hear a politician; I heard a father, a man who loved with his whole heart, his whole being, his daughter. And not a word about limiting choice; not a word about outlawing abortion; not a word about regulating it in ways that stop just short of outlawing it. Nor, I thought, were such words necessary. Rick Santorum had done in those moments what I never thought he could do: He made me respect him, he made me admire him, he made me applaud his and his wife’s choice or choices. And in those moments he made me pro-life – or perhaps to be fairer to myself, he confirmed my pro-life preferences.

            There is, I was reminded then, a pro-life rhetoric that is as powerful as any rhetoric I have ever heard. It is the rhetoric that some like to draw on when they quote the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is the kind of rhetoric that moves people, that directs them and does so without the benefit of laws.

           

            But further this rhetoric need not lead and should not lead to an anti-choice imperative. This rhetoric is so powerful that, if repeated and spoken as Santorum did it, it need not lead to an anti-choice agenda. People will choose life more often than not – but only if we speak a language and practice a politics of pro-life not only consistently but freely. Hence, those who are pro-life should not be anti-choice because it is our choices that define us. The opportunity to choose is the opportunity to be virtuous, to practice virtue, here to choose life. A choice constrained by law is not equivalent to an act performed freely, without a legal obligation to perform it.  Hence, charity and welfare are two different phenomena because the one is given freely while the other is a legal requirement, a legal bequest. Similarly, as Aristotle noticed in his critique of Socratic communism, without private property, human beings cannot practice generosity, as they would have nothing to give to others freely and absent compulsion. Choice or freedom is absolutely necessary for virtue to be practiced, for human beings to be, well, human beings.

            There is something about a regime based on rights that propels a society toward legal regulations because there is something about rights that enshrines or fortifies self-interest. As a result it is thought that absent strong laws, self-interest will prevail. But this could be wrong. The power of Rick Santorum’s rhetoric makes me think it is wrong. If human beings are given a choice, a real choice, between life and death, between love and self-interest, they will almost always choose life and love over death and self-interest.

Ben Franklin and the Presidency

-->

Franklin on the Presidency

P. Schultz

September 6, 2012

            Here are a couple of paragraphs from a speech by Ben Franklin, given at the constitutional convention in 1787, a speech that was Franklin’s criticism of the presidency that was then being created. I like to read this speech every so often to remind myself of the character of the new government being created and proposed then and to remind myself that it is possible for some to see the future quite clearly. In another part of this speech, not copied here, Franklin predicts that at some time in the future, we the American people would have a king. As we endure another presidential campaign that is not being contested by “the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust,” it is safe to say that good, old Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about. I am tempted to write: Read it and weep but I prefer Willie Nelson: “I laugh when I can and I live with the rest.”

“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British Government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its Councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace. 

And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre- eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers. -And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the same motives will perpetually be endeavouring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.”

The "Static" Campaign

The Static Campaign

P. Schultz

September 4, 2012

"The truth is that for all the action-packed, content-free verbiage employed to describe it, the contest between Obama and Romney has been remarkably static." Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, today.

Why should we expect this campaign to be different than the politics it reflects and that it will be followed by?  "Static?" Of course it is. The whole point of this election is to short circuit any real change; hence, our two candidates are "Mr. White Bread" and "Mr. Almost White Bread."

Here is another way to judge how static this campaign is. Reflect on the number of “issues” that have arisen that are just not relevant to the state of our union today and those that have not appeared that are. For example, as outlandish as Rep. Akin’s comments on abortion were, there is no real issue there. Anyone who thinks that even a Republican Congress and President will pass an anti-abortion law of the kind that Akin and Ryan claim they want is mistaken. Romney’s religion? Obama’s religion? How these translate into real issues is beyond me. Both Ryan and Obama agree on reducing the monies spent on Medicare and even by the same amount. Could anything convey “statism” more clearly than this? And both parties speak about social security as an “entitlement,” surely a prelude to the taking of our retirement money in order to “save” social security!

And is anyone in a position of power, in either party, talking about Citizens United? Not within my hearing. Jon Huntsman did so on the Colbert Report the other night but then Huntsman is no longer in the race. Coincidence? Not really. Is anyone talking about Afghanistan or even Iran? Again, not within my hearing. And no one, more generally, is saying anything about changing – almost in any way – how we do domestic politics and how we do foreign policy.

You know, more and more, Clint Eastwood’s little thing with the empty chair seems more and more appropriate. This is not only a “static” campaign; it is also an empty one. Coincidence? I don’t think so.