American Politics: The Real and the Unreal

American Politics: The Real and the Unreal

P. Schultz

May 11, 2014

            Here’s the thing: Today as I was surfing the net, I looked at a web site I have bookmarked, “The American Conservative,” where there are published essays some of which are devoted to understanding the American political order and, most importantly, its underlying principles. For example, there is one entitled, “Recovering the Founders’ Foreign Policy.” There are others devoted to distinguishing between the progressives and the founders. And they are or can be interesting.

            But they seem to have nothing to do with understanding what is really going on in America’s political arena. For example, I am currently reading a book entitled The Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals and Reagan’s Rise to Power,” by Seth Rosenfeld. In this book, which is based on a bevy of documents the author got via a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit and interviews with participants, it becomes clear that the FBI, with the full cooperation of the established political class, not only spied on but actively sought to “neutralize” what it deemed “political radicals,” socialist, communists [allegedly], black power groups, hippies, and the New Left. In fact, the FBI planted undercover agents in some of these groups, agents who then took the lead in moving these groups toward violence, which of course was then blamed on the “radicals.” For example:

            “[J. Edgar] Hoover order his agents to investigate the TWLF [the Third World Liberation Front] on the ground that it potentially threatened internal security and civil order. But one of the strike’s most militant leaders had a long – and until now secret – history of working as a paid FBI informant. His name was Richard Aoki, and at the bureau’s direction he had infiltrated a succession of Bay Area radical organizations. He had given the Black Panthers some of their first guns and weapons training, encouraging them on a course that would contribute to shootouts with police and the organization’s demise. And during the Third World Strike, he encouraged physical confrontations that prompted Governor Reagan to take the most severe law-enforcement measures against the Berkley campus yet – ones that ultimately would have fatal consequences.” [pp. 418-19]

            So, in the 1960’s, the FBI or, more precisely, the national government was involved in activities meant to neutralize political activity that was otherwise legal that it thought would “combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.” [p. 414] In this particular case, the FBI worked with Ronald Reagan, a man who claimed as a conservative to distrust “big” or “intrusive” government, to infiltrate and neutralize political groups that threatened the status quo. And, just as troubling, this activity had the support of the prevailing political class, both “left” and “right,” both “liberal” and “conservative.”

            What do the alleged “founding principles” of our political order have to do with any of this activity? Put differently, why should we wile away our time discussing those “founding principles” when such activities are taking place? There can be only reason, as near as I can tell: To direct attention away from these activities, to make them disappear into the background while we try to determine whether the “founders” were “progressives” or “natural law” proponents or some proponents of some other political category that has no relation to what is actually transpiring in this nation.  

            Look at this way: What sense does it make, i.e., in what way is our situation clarified by labeling Ronald Reagan a “conservative,” an opponent of big, intrusive government if he was willing to form an alliance with the head of the FBI to suppress political activity with which he disagreed? I submit such a categorization of Reagan – or any one else, even the alleged “liberals” – just obfuscates our situation. It is as if we live in the presence of giant and constantly running fog machine, which renders us almost blind when it comes to what is actually happening. And then, when something happens, say something like 9/11 or the assassination of JFK, we are shocked and we are unable to do more than shake our heads in disbelief that such a thing could have happened. And, heaven forbid, for anyone to say something like, “Well, the chickens have come to roost’ for we didn’t even know we had any chickens or that they were in danger.

            It is a most interesting state of affairs and it is nice to think that it cannot go on for very long. But I am afraid that too is as thought that the fog machine contributes to. Because as it does go on, and on, and on, it is harder and harder to persuade people that they are not in touch with reality. 

Blood on Our Hands

Blood on Our Hands
P. Schultz
May 10, 2014

Blood on our hands.
Who’d of thunk it?
What’s that you say?
Some blood is from your dead son?
Gee, so sorry, but it had to be done.
Even if the war couldn’t be won!
Here's a flag for when your spirits sag.
We give it with our thanks, no gag.

"Condi" A Poem

“Condi” A Poem

P. Schultz

May 7, 2014

Condi proves that

The shuck and jive

Is still alive.

And for thousands, say, thirty-five,

You can see it live

And surely not in some dive.

Condi will speak

But it’s not cheap,

For after all, she is a “Doc.”

So if she speaks ad hoc

We should not mock,

But, really, applaud her schlock.

So when Condi speaks

Just send this tweet

“Bullshit never sounded so sweet.”  

Education Exchange

-->

Education Exchange

P. Schultz

May 5, 2014

Here is an email exchange about education that was the result of a posting of mine on Facebook. First, you have my friend’s contribution and then there is my response. Enjoy.

“Our kids have jobs that keep them in the public eye so I can't comment on Facebook. 

“””I went to a public college for undergraduate and private for graduate school.  I graduated in 1974 so my experience is as old as yours.  Our kids went to private and public colleges for daughter and public then private for son.  Both finished their doctorates about 5 years ago.  Daughter from University of Virginia and son from Harvard.  Both got an excellent education and are married to folks who went to public university for daughter and private university for son. I frankly don't see any difference between the level of education that each received at any point of their education.  Because of strides in affirmative education and pushes by the institutions to diversify, there is much more integration of social and economic groups than you infer, in my opinion.  

Our daughter-in-law worked for several years in admissions at Tufts and said that their push to diversify was real and strong.  Our son's classmates at Harvard throughout his years there appeared to be very diverse as well.  We spent several occasions with these folks and they seemed pleased with where they were and cognitive of the doors they would open for them.  (our son) feels that his engineering degree from West Point and PhD from Harvard got his foot in many doors but (our daughter ) feels that her pure math degree from Bentley and PhD from University of Virginia in research methods and pure math did the same for her.   Both have zoomed up through their professions at what I view as the same rate.  Both left me in the dust years ago.

So....although I think you may be correct in some cases I think you are far from the reality of it in the small cohort of our family.  I think that you may be right with the few who think the institution is more important than the education received but that doesn't last long in the real world which relies on results more than pedigree.

“I will now descend from my soap box.  Harrumph .”

My response:

I may be incorrect, as this has happened in the past, once or twice. ;-) [A joke, I say, as humor doesn't always play well in this virtual world.] It would be nice to think that this country is not becoming increasingly inegalitarian but most of the stats don't support that conclusion. Also, while colleges and universities have shown increasing concern for diversity, at the same time they have gone up the socio-economic ladder in their search for students. I saw this at Assumption, know it was happening at places like Boston College and Holy Cross, and see it clearly here at my alma mater, Wake Forest. As one of my classmates posted on Facebook, the Wake Forest we went to doesn't exist any longer and I am pretty sure I would not be as happy today at Wake as I was from 1964-1968. But I suspect this trend is just a reflection of what has been happening for past 50 years or so in our society, which has become increasingly unequal as the middle class and lower class move further and further away from the upper class, a trend which in my opinion is facilitated by both Republicans and Democrats, with no end in sight.

C. I did not mean to impugn anyone's efforts to fight this trend nor to belittle efforts, which work, to increase diversity. In this regard, Wake Forest is a much different place than it was all those years ago, when there were very few blacks on campus and no other minorities at all. Today, Assumption College looks, racially, like what Wake looked like in the 60s. But Assumption, which began as all male institution, is now about 2/3'ds women and 1/3d men. In that regard, things are much better than they were. So, yes, I would agree with your daughter that the push for diversity is real and strong, and has been successful. But it does not seem to extend to much socio-economic diversity and at times is sacrificed for the sake collecting the better off. Why?  

D. I  suspect that much - and personally I would say a lot - of this at the college and university level is due to the fact that most of them have become merely business enterprises, more concerned with the bottom line than anything else. They go where the money is. Up the socio-economic ladder and big time athletics, the latter of which impacts greatly on quality education. This is just the way it is. It does impact these institutions, however. Some years ago, it was said that Holy Cross and Boston College decided to keep their admissions at 50% male and 50% female. I suppose they did this because they were concerned with donations later and history indicates that males give more than females. While I thought this was short-sighted given the changing roles of women in our society, it was fine with me because it meant Assumption got some women students we would not have gotten otherwise. But more often than not I think it is the bottom line that dictates policy. Another example: Now more than 50% of the professors in the US are adjuncts or in non-tenure track positions, which is also economically "efficient" and, of course, empowers the bureaucrats at the expense of the faculty, as intended. These positions, adjunct and non-tenure track, usually amount to little more than exploitation and will impact the quality of education. And the bureaucratization of colleges and universities has increased exponentially, again, with not an insignificant impact on the quality of education. All of this will then be hidden by what are being called new measures of "assessment" which are being imposed on colleges and universities by federal law. Just another part of the plan to make colleges and universities businesses and serving businesses, as if that were the goal of "higher education."

Debate Over "Privilege" at Princeton

Debate Over “Privilege” at Princeton!

P. Schultz

May 3, 2014

            Below is a link to an article from the NY Times about some guy at Princeton University who, apparently, “ignited” a debate over “privilege” because he wrote an essay objecting to someone else who, allegedly, told him to “check his privilege.” He seemed to take this as the ultimate put down, leading him to describe his family’s history going back at least as far as World War II.

            Now, to me, this is weird for a couple of reasons. First, why was Tal Fortgang so riled by being told to check his privilege? I mean, is his ego so fragile that this “request” rattled it significantly? I know or read that he is not from Jersey, but he is in Jersey, where put downs are far more brutal than this. I don’t know what New Rochelle, N.Y. is like but I guess it doesn’t help young people develop thick skins.

            But, of course, Mr. Fortgang isn’t really in “Jersey,” is he? He is attending Princeton University, one of the most elite universities in the nation, to say nothing of what it is in New Jersey. There is something almost inexplicable about saying that there is or even could be a debate over “privilege” at Princeton, at least such a debate where someone was participating who could be said not to be enjoying the privilege of a Princeton education. Why should anyone take this particular debate seriously? It would be a lot like taking seriously a debate over torture between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Not much of a debate.  

            After I retired from Assumption College, a small, allegedly liberal arts Catholic college in Worcester, Mass., I did a “part-time” gig at Bridgewater State University in Bridgewater, Mass., which is part of the Massachusetts state university system. I had been at Assumption for 21 years and was aware that when I left the students were no longer part of the same socio-economic class as when I started. But it was my experience at Bridgewater that brought home to me just how different, how “elitist,” Assumption and its students had become between 1989 and 2010. This is, I suspect, OK but I wondered if I was witnessing what in fact was happening throughout our society, a “segregation” of citizens into two distinct classes whose interaction is, to say the least, limited and whose experiences are as different as night and day.

            If we are going to have a “debate” over “privilege” then it needs to be a real debate, not a debate among the privileged over who, within their ranks, are “privileged” and who are not. If Mr. Fortgang wants to think he is not “privileged,” and that others should not tell him to “check his privilege,” he is free to think that way. But that doesn’t change the fact that so long as he has the privilege of a Princeton education, this privilege distinguishes him from a great many others who never even had a chance of enjoying this or other privileges Tal Fortgang has enjoyed and will enjoy. Rather than “checking his privilege,” I would recommend that Mr. Fortgang “check his [alleged] outrage” at being, as he put it, spoken down to.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/nyregion/at-princeton-privilege-is-a-commonplace-b-misunderstood-or-c-frowned-upon.html?hp&_r=0

Patrick Deneen and Allan Bloom

Patrick Deneen and Allan Bloom

P. Schultz

December 24, 2013/May 1, 2014

“Today we live in a different age, one that so worried Bloom—an age of indifference. Institutions of higher learning have almost completely abandoned even a residual belief that there are some books and authors that an educated person should encounter. A rousing defense of a curriculum in which female, African-American, Latino, and other authors should be represented has given way to a nearly thoroughgoing indifference to the content of our students’ curricula. Academia is committed to teaching “critical thinking” and willing to allow nearly any avenue in the training of that amorphous activity, but eschews any belief that the content of what is taught will or ought to influence how a person lives.

“Thus, not only is academia indifferent to whether our students become virtuous human beings (to use a word seldom to be found on today’s campuses), but it holds itself to be unconnected to their vices—thus there remains no self-examination over higher education’s role in producing the kinds of graduates who helped turn Wall Street into a high-stakes casino and our nation’s budget into a giant credit card. Today, in the name of choice, non-judgmentalism, and toleration, institutions prefer to offer the greatest possible expanse of options, in the implicit belief that every 18- to 22-year-old can responsibly fashion his or her own character unaided.”

                  These passages are from a review by Patrick Deneen of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, long after its publication. I believe Deneen is wrong in the following ways. First, this is not “an age of indifference.” That institutions of higher learning are no longer interested in certain books and authors is not due to indifference but rather to a commitment to a “practical” education, or what might be called an “economically” driven education. It is not that the colleges and universities are not interested in a particular kind of curriculum; rather, it is that they are interested in curricula that serve the interests of our corporations or the globalized economy. Call it what you will but this is not indifference.

                  Hence, the conflicts over curriculum that once described the institutions of higher education have been short-circuited, as it were. Like tenure, they are being undermined indirectly, as it were. Evidence of this is the degree to which now administrators, bureaucrats who have never been in a classroom or taught, have assumed so much power in these institutions that it is all-too-common to hear pleas for “shared governance” in these institutions, pleas most often or always heard coming from the faculty, not from the bureaucrats. And both of these developments, the rise of a bureaucracy not populated by former faculty members and the demise of tenure via adjunct and not-tenure track positions, are in the service of an education that serves the interests of our corporations.

            So, when Deneen writes that “Today, in the name of choice, non-judgmentalism, and toleration, institutions prefer to offer the greatest possible expanse of options, in the implicit belief that every 18- to 22-year-old can responsibly fashion his or her own character unaided,” he is wrong. What he sees as “the greatest possible expanse of options” is actually a tremendous narrowing of the options thought respectable at our institutions of “higher learning.” It is not relativism that is undermining our institutions of “higher learning.” Rather, it is capitalism or the alleged demands of globalization. It is not that these institutions think the young “can responsibly fashion [their] own character unaided.” Rather, it is that these institutions will fashion their characters for them and that these “characters” will be thoroughly bureaucratized so that they will fit into the “globalized” world, the “capitalized,” “corporatized,” or “bureaucratized” world we live in.

                  I believe what Deneen fails to appreciate is how hard it is for humans to embrace what he calls “relativism” or what Bloom called “nihilism.” Both seem to think that relativism or nihilism are easy pills to swallow for human beings when in fact they are not. Yes, humans may say relativistic things, but saying and doing are two different things and when humans do something, they have to justify those doings. This is, it seems to me, just human nature. Hence, when Americans held slaves, they had to justify that and, as a result, they came up with “theories” of racial inferiority and superiority. And when Americans had to deal with having “nuked” the Japanese, they had to embrace notions of Japanese inhumanness. Or to take a simpler example: One of my professors said, a long time ago, that no one is a relativist after a dinner guest has stolen some of the family’s silver, no matter how committed they might be to tolerance or relativism in the classroom! One could see the same phenomenon occurring after 9/11, when there were no relativists in the U.S. that I could see.

                  So, I am skeptical when I hear people speaking about alleged relativists or nihilists who are taking over our institutions of higher education. And it is not that these institutions are not in danger; they are. But the danger does not arise today, as it did not arise in the past, from relativism or nihilism. Rather, it arises from prejudiced or parochial notions of what is the just way for human beings to live. We now have embraced, some of us anyway, the idea that those in the business of business are the virtuous ones, and the larger and more profitable the business, the more virtuous are those who control or own it. It is even said, over and over, that business virtue is political virtue. So why shouldn’t it be confused with intellectual virtue as well? This is, as strange as it may seem, what is endangering that which is or should be “higher” about our educational institutions.

The US and Terrorists: And the Beat Goes On

The US and Terrorists: And the Beat Goes On

P. Schultz

April 28, 2014

            The “realistic” shape of United States foreign policy is evident in this activity, which helps to illustrate an argument I have made previously, viz., that “realism,” while it pretends to be an alternative to “extremism,” is or supports extremism. And yet, it is only those who our “realists” are fighting who are labeled “extremists.” Why is that? [Rhetorical question.]

“Clearly, the US military and the US government were both well aware of the heavy Al Qaeda presence in Cyrenaica since as early as 2007. When violence flared up in 2011, it was clear to many geopolitical analysts that it was the result of Al Qaeda, not "pro-democracy protesters." The US government, its allies, and a complicit Western press, willfully lied to the public, misrepresented its case to the United Nations and intervened in Libya on behalf of international terrorists, overthrowing a sovereign government, and granting an entire nation as a base of operations for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

“A similar scenario is now playing out in Syria, where the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militants, and the exact same networks used to send fighters to Iraq, to flood into and overrun Syria. This, after these very same Libyan militants were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.”

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood.html