Hiatus

Dear fearless reader,

I want to apologize for being remiss in my updates. I assume that the legions of readers I once had have dwindled since I more or less went on unannounced hiatus. Unfortunately, I know not when I will be back in true form, if ever. This indefinite pause in my online life is a result of a number of factors - both personal and intellectual, and as usual, there's a connection between the two.

On the intellectual side, I think I've become even more of a Luddite, in the actual original sense, rather than the contemporary misappropriation sense. While the term is casually tossed around to mean somebody opposed to the modern or the future - somebody hidebound, somebody stuck in their ways, tradition for tradition's sake and conservative in outlook, I use the term in its revolutionary sense, for the Luddites were people who recognized that the introduction of machine was a direct attack on the community, a direct attack on the value of human endeavor, an attempt at control. In other words, I've decided that the relationship I have with you, fearless reader, is one mediated by a screen, which creates distance, while giving us a false sense of immediacy. As a society we've somehow come to believe that Facebook can replace face-to-face conversation. That blogs can replace actually getting to know each other as real, flesh-and-blood human beings. On that note - if you want to get together, call me. Or email me. Let's do lunch - it'll taste better, anyway.

On the other note, it turns out that there has been a radical shift in my own personal life that has caused me to pause and take stock. It's one of those events that will probably keep me thinking, and reflecting, and attempting to understand, and otherwise feeling like I have no clue as to the answers and therefore nothing to share for the next 18 years. Some big questions have been raised about life and soul and society and community and how to relate to one-another, and I don't see any path towards answers to those questions on the horizon. If I come up with anything, perhaps I'll pop back in here, but I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

So, to those of you left - who've had faith that I might actually have something to say, but was just too lazy, thanks, but you may go about your business. Nothing to see here, for the foreseeable future.

The Disconnect

I find John Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be pretty funny guys. And I think that much of what they have to say is actually important.

On the other hand, I also think that maybe, just maybe, it's a little too cool.

Supposedly, there were 200,000 people at the Colbert/Stewart rally in DC. Which is cool. But where were they a few weeks earlier? You know, at the "One Nation Working Together" rally?

Janet Malcolm makes a good point in the New York Review's blog:

The signage from the Stewart/Colbert rally:

WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF AND SPIDERS
MODERATION OR DEATH
JEW AGAINST INVOKING HITLER FOR POLITICAL POINTS
ATHEISTS FOR MASTURBATION
GAY MAYLASIAN MUSLIMS FOR SARAH PALIN
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS A WHITE SOX FAN? HITLER
SUPPORT SEPARATION OF HEAD FROM ASS

The signage from the Working Together rally:

GOOD JOBS NOW
STOP CORPORATE GREED
GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER EQUALITY
I WANT SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE
GET OUT AND VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS

The point being that while the bourgeois liberal youth continue to use snark, sarcasm and irony in a bid to be political without having to actually be political, real people with real needs are getting ignored.

There's something more important happening in America besides a crappy media culture. Stewart and Colbert have hidden behind the excuse that they are "just a comedy show," but they are clearly no longer that. They've started a "movement" - as pathetic and wayward and selfish as it is - and now they've got a responsibility to do more than cry about rhetoric and the system. How about organizing and mobilizing against the class war that the right-wing bourgeoisie, via the Tea Party, is currently perpetrating against the working classes of America in the name of freedom (for some)? The problem, of course, is that the audience for Stewart/Colbert isn't really interested in recreating a society that might not fuck people over in the name of freedom to amass wealth (for some); isn't really interested in doing some soul-searching about how their own actions within the system further the exploitation of human beings in the name of cheap consumer goods.

Here We Are Again

With the election results in, it's time for those of us on the Left to pause, take stock, and make some hard decisions. In some ways, I think this election couldn't have turned out better. I have the suspicion that secretly many hoped that Obama would represent a new, Democratic hegemony to replace the conservative hegemony that has dominated American politics for the last forty years. This election, then, would represent a slap in the face from reality.

It strikes me that the whole problem is that we put all our faith in this one guy, but we don't have a coherent political platform. Who's the conservative wunderkind? The closest you get is Sarah Palin, but she doesn't even really fit the definition. What the conservative's have is a narrative - a story about who they are and what they believe about government. The Left has lost that. Perhaps we want to be Big Tent - and I think that's important. But we also have to balance that with core values. Otherwise, we fall victim to what the Right paints us as.

Why do we concede the argument about Big Government? Surely, government has been and continues to be a problem and a danger - but that's only because the government is a tool, and has been misused. The Left should stand up for Big Government, because who else is going to protect us from Big Business? (This is the Progressive platform going back to Teddy Roosevelt.) Who else has the resources to protect the weak from the strong? What happened to the American Dream of a society based on values of equality? Why can't we portray the Right as the people who support selfish, hateful policies? Why can't we build a real movement around real values?

Of course, we lose the argument the minute the Democrats get into bed with Big Business - see the Wall Street bailout. Which brings me to that constant question from my end of the spectrum - to support or not to support the Democratic Party? Do we continue to try to work within the system to force the Democratic Party to the left? Or do we work to build a third party? I think it's time to acknowledge that the Democratic Party has broken with the left - it recognizes that we represent the base, but it cannot effectively champion our cause because it embraces capital. The Democratic Party can't have it both ways - it's either for the people, or for business. By trying to be both, it loses both.

It's time to build a third party - at least on the state level. I'm not sure the Green Party is it, though. The restive, independent, left-wing unions like UNITE/HERE and SEIU should be looking into the myriad of small third parties to support. Then we should begin organizing in districts with a natural constituency that is represented by tools of the traditional Democratic Party. We can leave the Lefty Dems alone (see: Barney Frank), but we need to take out those that bought into Clinton's centrism. We've got to start getting people to think of themselves as ______ whatever, and we've got to do it now - so that by the 2012 election we can win a few seats, build some momentum, promote our agenda. We also need to look into building a broader movement in rural areas: we need to unite on economic issues, can we find ways to build bridges across the social issues that divide us? Can we talk more about religious values of love and care, than about the religious values that divide us?

We need to find another message and another medium. The Democratic Party is dominated by the liberal, middle-class that cares more about individual rights than it does about the collective welfare. It's time to build another voice.

NPR - Keep Mr. Williams Fired

This started out as a comment to my friend Harold Clemens @ ghettouprising.com, but then it got kinda out of hand and I decided to publish it here instead of leaving a really long and rambling comment that started going off in crazy directions.

The OP argues that NPR did wrong by firing Juan Williams for prejudicial comments Mr. Williams made on Fox television - "The O'Reilly Factor" was the show in question, I believe. Mr. Clemens makes an interesting suggestion: that keeping Mr. Williams on the payroll and then creating some sort of open forum or debate in which Mr. Williams's ideas would be show to be the bigoted comments they are would do better for the public discourse than merely firing him. Mr. Clemens contends that the firing forces Mr. Williams to a shadow discourse which feeds itself. Perhaps my biggest issue with this idea is that the Fox network is somehow shadowy - it is as mainstream as one can get, if only mainstream in an excruciatingly stupid, biased, demagogic way. Juan Williams is going to be paid well to opine on issues which he has lost all rights to opine on, sense his burden of proof appears to be his emotional reaction to that of which he is ignorant.

Anyhoo - my comment:

I dunno - seems like giving bigots access to legitimate media sources only legitimizes them. It's my problem with all the so-called non-mainstream media sources (Fox, Rush, etc.) that legitimize the most illegit shit (Obama's a non-American muslim).

Anyway, doesn't NPR have the right (and responsibility) as a business (although non-profit) to let go of employees that don't further the mission statement. I gotta say, I kinda buy their argument that they are trying to foster intelligence and Juan Williams seems to be getting in the way.

CNN of all places (one of my personal least-faves) published a coherent article defending NPR on this one (wish I had saved the link). Hate-mongering is not a valid opinion. Opinions are only valid (and Juan Williams should know this) if they are based on facts. Fact: none of the terrorists that have attacked airplanes have been in so-called "muslim dress". Fact: Timothy McVeigh often dressed in camouflage. If our fears were one iota justifiable, we should freak out every time we see an army vet, not every time we see a Sikh.

I don't think NPR did wrong by firing Mr. Williams for being an idiot. It might have been better to create the hypothetical debate you call for, but then again, people being stupid, fearful and cowardly, it probably would have resulted in Mr. Williams only reinforcing the very ideas we acknowledge as baseless.

Which brings me to John Stewart, who makes me laugh, though he does it from such a protected space, it seems somewhat cowardly as well: he is a source of news for way too many people who are disaffected by real "news" (although if you ask me, they haven't tried very hard to find news if they think there's nothing better out there than the networks, CNN or Fox. How about Democracy Now? More on this later . . .) And yet his reaction to attack by idiots in the media is always the safe and easy: we're a comedy show, we don't have a journalistic responsibility. This is true, but still . . . maybe his audience doesn't want to plug into "real" news because it's too serious? Which raises serious questions about how serious the audience is.

Which brings me to the American middle-class: particularly the so-called "liberal" middle-class. The liberal middle-class simply doesn't understand how serious shit is for those who are actually suffering in the recession. Middle-class college graduates who can't find a job have somebody to fall back on (better thank your mom and pops) when they can't pay the rent. But they won't get involved politically - it's not entertaining enough. Why get involved in fighting for workers' rights, more government spending to create jobs, and universal healthcare? It's so uncouth. It's so serious. It's such a downer, man. Why march in the streets when you can be a moral hero by watching John Stewart?

Meanwhile, the Right has rallied around the most simplistic, stupid, small-minded of issues: government spending is like a household budget (even though Keynes disproved this and the experience of the Depression and WWII showed otherwise), muslims are the enemy (see the so-called Ground Zero Mosque Controversy), immigrants are also the enemy (see the Minutemen, Arizona, etc.), etc. etc. etc. And then complain that they don't get fair play when their ideas are disparaged for being as stupid as they are.

So, to try to bring some coherence to this (though I will probably fail): 1) Juan Williams is an idiot who deserved to be fired. 2) Right-wing fear- and hate-mongers should be called out for what they are. 3) The American middle-class should worry less about being fair and more about being smart.

Mott's Workers Win

Hey everybody,

Thanks for boycotting Motts, but you can stop now. We won!

In other upcoming events:

1st: There's a major rally in DC on October 2 (for those of you in the Boston area, there's a fundraiser at BelaLuna in JP on this Thursday, Sept. 16 from 6-9. Also, 9/16 is Mexican Independence Day, so you can celebrate mi patria and support US labor at the same time!

2nd: Today was primary day in MA. How many of you eligible voters actually voted? Turnout was pathetic in my precinct, but at least it meant that I had that much more power! Suckers. Don't blame me when you don't like the government, you had your chance. Seriously, though, there are some pretty important things on the ballot in November - in particular Questions 1, 2, and 3. Those, I tell you, you should vote No on, if for no other reason than it makes no sense to write tax policy through the initiative process. You don't know what the MA budget looks like, why are you voting about how to the balance it? How about I decide that you can't afford that donut you're eating? How does that sound? Pretty stupid, eh? So is eliminating the alcohol tax (Question 1). Or reducing the sales tax by 60% (Question 3). And as for Question 2: if you support cutting affordable housing, then I guess you're just a heartless bastard who cares more about having a few bucks more so that you can buy a few more donuts to stuff into your fucking craw than other human beings having a roof over their head in which case maybe you should just kill yourself now and let the rest of us figure out our society you heartless motherfucker.

Seriously, though, maybe you should do your own research rather than taking my word for it, but vote NO on 1, 2 and 3.

Thanks. You may go about your business.

American Flag

My esteemed colleague, Somebody's Daughter, recently posted on her viscerally negative reaction to the American flag.

And there is a lot of sense in that reaction as well as emotion - the flag's represented a lot of pretty evil stuff over the years.

But it was funny because I read the post the day after I particpated in a Labor Day march for jobs and justice and was thinking to myself - why isn't there a single American flag? There should be tons . . . well, maybe not, I find that to be rather tacky - at least several and maybe one at the front would be tasteful. But, it gets complicated.

Here's take #1:

How the fuck can we let the Right (and/or specifically, the KKK) determine the definition of the American flag? If we want to engage in the (culture) war, if we want justice in America, then we need to be fighting about the definition of the flag, not conceding the definition. If we define the flag as representing the ideals of America, it's that much easier to call to account those who fail to meet those ideals. In reality, the stars and stripes are nothing more than stars and stripes, we create the meaning.

I wanted flags at the march because I wanted to challenge Glenn Beck's accusation that the only "true" Americans are WASP conservatives - I wanted to say that socialists and communists and unionists and Black nationalists and (do I have to say it?) liberals are Americans (I'd include anarchists, but I'm pretty sure by definition they aren't) and our values and beliefs are the real America.

Perhaps it's time I went out and bought me a flag . . . now if I could only buy one secure in the knowledge that my money wasn't going to the John Birch Society. (I say this in jest, not having looked into it yet, but with the experience of going to order pocket Constitutions for my students and discovering that all the reasonably priced ones were published by groups I cannot feel comfortable giving money to.)

Here's take #2:

One argument against the flag that I find to be somewhat persuasive is the argument that such symbols become a replacement for actual thinking, leading to the abuse of symbols in creating the quasi-religious veneration of the state (which is why I think the Supreme Court was right in Texas v. Johnson). It's a danger. It's why Katha Pollit is opposed to patriotism. (See my previous attempt at dismantling this argument.) But, on the other hand, the flag is certainly not the only symbol that invites this problem. Ultimately, it's humanity's propensity/need for belief that creates the problem, not the flag per se.

So, how do you deal with the fact that people tend to go a little nutters when it comes to beliefs? I've always thought that was the primary purpose of a good liberal arts education. You know - the kind of education that's gotten pushed aside for the more important stuff: test prep. The 3 Rs. Like education was in the good ol' days (see 1950s). That blissful American Eden where McCarthy was saving the country hunting Commies, Blacks knew their place, women were happy changing diapers and everybody was straight.

Which is all to say, let's take back the flag, but not go overboard. We don't need to wrap ourselves in it and we don't need to use it to replace thought. But we shouldn't let the Right use it against us, either. It doesn't have to be the focus of sycophantic veneration, but perhaps it can stand unostentatiously in the corner; present, but it's power tamed.

Boycott Dr. Pepper Snapple

Some stuff just makes me want to scream. Literally. My wife has to often ask what's wrong with me, since I start reading stuff on the web and the stupidity and/or greed of people provokes angry and loud outbursts of frustration . . . but enough about me.

The latest news that has raised my blood-pressure and brought me closer to a heart-attack is about Mott's Apple Juice.

It all started with an email from Massachusetts Jobs with Justice that announced the labor dispute and asked people to boycott (more on this later).

Then I read this article that connected the struggle to the wider labor movement, in particular teachers' unions, which makes sense. The article goes on to critique a certain segment of the left, pro-corporate liberals (do these folks count as left?).

The example the author cites is this article. And this is what got me so angry: 1) that Dr. Pepper Snapple is defending their wage cuts not on the fact that they are struggling to maintain profit (which might be excusable - hard to pay the workers if you don't have any money), but rather on the fact that other companies are struggling and paying their workers less. This is a bullshit argument - if you have the money, pay your workers. I then got doubly angry at the author of this one for writing, "both sides are right." What? The only interpretation that makes the company right is one that views this issue through the lens of an economist and puts profits over people - which is a morally compromised interpretation.

What can you do about this situation? Support the workers by boycotting the following products (heck - if you want, you can even think about how it will impact you: the higher workers' wages, the more they buy, the better the overall economy!):

• Mott’s Apple Sauce
• Hawaiian Punch
• Margaritaville
• Mr. and Mrs. T Products
• Rose’s Lime Juice
• Snapple cans
• Mott’s Fruitsations
• Mott’s Garden Cocktail
• ReaLemon/ReaLime
• Holland House

Park 51

Ignorance breeds Fear

Fear breeds Hate

I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised, but I'm pretty flabbergasted at the way the so-called controversy around the so-called World Trade Center Mosque (really an Islamic center proposed for 2 blocks away) has been portrayed in the media. For one, I can't believe that anybody even takes the argument seriously enough to report about it. I've railed about it before, but ignorance and stupidity doesn't count as an "opinion". When the media attempts to report even-handedly, it should be reporting ideas that have weight, not bullshit. Perhaps the news outlets are afraid to further alienate the Tea Party people who hate anything that doesn't agree with them, even if it is the truth.

The way I see it the protests are clearly un-American. After all, what could be more important than the 1st Amendment? (You know, that quaint idea of freedom of religion.) There's a lot of ignorance and fear and hate wrapped up in these protests that conflate all the world's roughly 1 billion Muslims with the handful involved in al-Qaeda. It's not disrespectful to build a mosque at ground zero (even if that were in fact the case) - certainly no more disrespectful than building a church. Would it be disrespectful to build a mosque on the sites of mosques al-Qaeda has attacked in Iraq? There were, in fact, Muslim victims of 9/11. America is not a Christian nation, despite what some of these folks would believe or desire.

Karen Hughes, writing in The Washington Post, makes the galling suggestion that the planners of the Islamic Center cave-in to the protestors and just move the center; she wishes to make the controversy go away by advising the planners to take the high-road. I disagree, completely. Because this has become an issue of hate, the Islamic center should be built exactly as planned. To give in to hatred is only to encourage it. Hughes' refusal to condemn the protestors for the hatred they endorse (despite disingenuous claims to the contrary) is a failure of responsibility of the highest order.

A New Marxist Paradigm (Perhaps)

I consider myself a Marxist despite the facts that 1) I haven't studied Marx in-depth enough to be able to claim it, and 2) I don't think KM was infallible. What I found bedrock in Marx, though, was the idea that there are different classes that are in contest with each other and that ultimately it's a struggle between the owners of production (capital) trying to exploit the means of production (labor) and the means of production trying to keep as much of their creative value for themselves (and not to profit the owners).

According to (my understanding of) Marxist theory, the workers should eventually win out over the state and, enlightened by their experiences of state power, abolish the state altogether, creating in its wake the ideal: communism. I agree with the premise and I tend to agree with communism as the ideal. It's the how we get from exploitation to communism that clearly has not turned out.

Instead, labor got control of the state - at least sort of. In the wake of the Great Depression and WWII, Socialist parties in Europe and the Democratic party in the US won elections. Perhaps the fears provoked by the crises of the times made it obvious to the ruling classes that some redress of proletarian grievances were necessary in order to avoid calamity. In any case, the control of the state was then claimed by those who either in word or in fact represented the interests of the proletariate. As much as the radical left talked about the wool being pulled over the eyes of the workers, working-class people understood that state power was a tool for meeting at least some of their needs.

But where there is a state there is control and a reaction against that control. James Scott points out in The Art of Not Being Governed that the power of the state extended along with technological innovation in transportation, communication and weaponry. But if we look at where the state continues to project power, we find where it is weakest, today: the urban ghettoes and rural spaces of America. It is not accident, for example, that these are the places that have the most limited educational success. In part it has to do with money invested, perhaps, but in part it also has to do with the fact that some of the people in these areas reject the power of the state. Disconnecting themselves from the political system, they look with cynicism on both political parties that would have them educated and accepting of the state, only to be exploited.

Republicans would prefer to use the stick: why bother spending money on schools for people who don't/won't/can't learn - the money is better spent on the prison system.

Democrats would prefer to use the carrot: build schools to teach them the tools they need to succeed in our society, (forgetting/ignoring all the while that the capitalist system which they uphold will relegate most, even the well-educated, to poorly paid, life-draining service sector jobs with no benefits (somebody has to make the fries)).

This anti-statist attitude isn't held by all - some see the state as a means to personal power, but some too see the state as a threat to their personal power. Being the king of one's block has more attraction than being a wage-slave for a multinational corporation. So anti-state communities exist and are in competition with the state power. Republicans tend to take an aggressive, offensive, hawkish approach. Democrats tend to take a defensive, tolerate-it-as-long-as-the-violence-doesn't-spill-into-the-pacified-areas-(read: bourgeois neighborhoods) approach.

Where does that leave me? I have issues with the state - I am a communist, after all. But I also know that anti-state societies often are capriciously violent, inhumane and unjust, ruled by the local strong-man (usually, though perhaps strong-person would be more inclusive), not by law.

So, do I paraphrase Churchill and say that states are terrible things, but better than the alternative? Well, not quite. I still believe in non-state societies, organized on principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood (to borrow a phrase from the French Revolution). I'm not sure how to get there, but it is an ideal worth pursuing. In the meantime, I want the state to work for the good and to work well.

My new Marxist paradigm sees the function of the state as much more complex, since it is a tool that is at least partially up for grabs, but also a dangerous tool that must be wielded carefully and with consideration and ultimately, hopefully, a tool that becomes obsolete. The way to get there is to organize politically within the state in order to pursue progressive policy to ameliorate the effects of capitalism: pursuing a more equal distribution of wealth - this can be done the old-fashioned way via unions (we need to organize the sales clerks, btw). But we also need to start building a parallel movement to create communist communities at the ground level - political control is ephemeral, social change is lasting.

A final reflection: "dropping out" of the system does not constitute a revolutionary act. By this I refer to all those bourgeois who fancy themselves anti-state, but in reality depend on the state keeping the "low-class savages" from looting and pillaging. Also, too, even real leftists tend to preach to the converted and revolutionary communities end up being cloisters rather than integrated into the proletarian community. We need to do better than this.

Our Stagflation

We've hit (again) a period of stagflation and reached the limits of a certain kind of economic growth. I, as much as anybody, would like to see the economy "back on track". But I'm also a realist, and I think we need to take a realistic look at what we mean by "back on track". Really, what we are all pining for are the pre-recession years, when we lived in an atmosphere of ever increasing value and wealth, with jobs aplenty. It became a norm, as it lasted for about a generation (say, roughly 1985-2005).

My thesis rests on the belief that this generation of economic boom was based on the rise of the computer (aka - technology). Sure, actual economists will point to the recession in the early 2000s and the housing bubble in the mids, before the bust we find ourselves in now, but I tend to look at the longer historical trend and I think the housing bubble can be explained by the increase in expendable wealth that we saw happen in the 90s. Now, that money has either been lost to bankruptcy or otherwise been accumulated in the hands of the financiers and there is no engine of wealth development as the computer revolution has run its course.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have drunk the free market kool-aid, to use a really annoying phrase of contemporary (particularly, rightist) rhetoric. It seemed that with the end of the Cold War and the latest economic boom that capitalism was the answer to society's ills. However, what capitalism depends on is innovation: the boom-bust cycle is endemic to the system, the booms are dependent on technological innovation that then transforms society (steel, electricity, etc.).

But my contention has always been - there's an ultimate limit somewhere: eventually we run out of transformative ideas. There are only so many elements in the universe and they can be arranged in only so many ways. Of course, I'm sure there have been prognosticators in the past that have declared the end of transformation at whichever point and been proven wrong. And I'm not willing to declare that we've reached that point yet (because I'm never wrong - I'm only opinionated on stuff I'm pretty damn sure of), but the logical conclusion is that we are now at a historical point which may at least turn out to be a lull. There's not much the government can really do to spur the economy (though Obama's investment in green technology may prove to be the catalyst he hopes it to be). Really, we as a society should be thinking about how to make the most of what we have, economically, rather than seeing the wealth accumulated in the hands of the few and hoping that innovation will solve the unemployment problem (and meanwhile blaming the government for not "fixing the economy").

A Problem with American Education

One of the many problems with American education is that we've split policy decisions from what actually happens in the classroom. I just finished reading Diane Ravitch's The Death and Life of the Great American School System, and while I found much of the discussion interesting and even aspects illuminating, what really got to me was that there were no classrooms in the book. Teachers and students were almost completely absent - referred to, at times quoted, but never manifested. This is tragic for me, because it means that ultimately the book is still part of the top down model that has frustrated so many teachers in the last round of education reform. Maybe the book is a necessary corrective to the muckity-mucks who seem to have a life mission to destroy education in the name of saving it, but it left me feeling hollow.

The books about education that I like are based on describing schools, children and adults. They peek into the lives of the people and their schools and examine what's working and what's not working. This is why I like Jonathan Kozol, who writes stories about children with policy implications, never policy books with child implications (which is putting the cart way before the horse, don't you think?). I even liked the Thernstroms' book No Excuses though I thought it was limited in certain ways. Although it seemed heavy-handed in the policy lessons they drew, at least there were children and schools and a sober look at what was working and not working.

I can't understand why so much in education seems to be drawn from non-educators from both the right and the left. In the 1960s, the sorts of education reform programs that were instituted (instead of experimented with) were top down affairs that forced teachers to, for instance, create "open classrooms," which any experienced teacher is likely to see off the bat is a bad idea from a purely logistical perspective. Or, these days, we have the right-wing business model people who insist that we can test our way out of the problem.

I've been in three urban schools now, and they've all had their problems, but they've also all had a large number of committed, even passionate, competent teachers. Yes, there are teachers out there that need to get out of the classroom (and please, dear God, keep them out of administration as well - why does it seem that the most incompetent people get the promotions?). But there are way more good teachers and great teachers out there. Why isn't the nation identifying these people and asking them what the school districts/school administrations can do to make things better/easier? After all, good and great teachers are teaching because they love children - they want the system to work for children, they don't have the ulterior motives (promotions, political power, fame) that administrators have.

My two-cents on the policy front: Everything that happens outside of the classroom should be designed to make the job of a teacher easier. Principals should be creating systems that support teachers: school discipline, culture, tone, supplies, books, etc.; Districts should be figuring out how to support principals in making these things happen. Teachers serve the students, principals serve the teachers, superintendents serve the principals. The power and the money make it feel like the students should serve the teachers, the teachers serve the principals, the principals serve the superintendents and so because of the way power works (corrupting, and so forth) the flow of service gets all mucked up.

(Caveat: serving students best needs means that teachers have to be demanding, and it might in the short term feel like an inverse power relationship, but if teachers start from the perspective of "I'm doing this because it is in your (student's) best interest because you are immature", then the power is limited to some extent and not abused - the other relationships are between adults and thus cannot be subject to the same rationale).

Ultimately, what education policy books lack, even Ravitch's, which claims to understand and make a case for a liberal education (as in: more than just reading, writing and arithmetic) on humanistic grounds, is an understanding that what takes place in the classroom is really about relationships. Education happens in that space between an adult and 30 or so young people. It is about human beings and communities and any policy that discounts and ignores that fact is a policy that is bound to fail.

The Revolution is in the Labor Movement

Perhaps I'm biased in that I come to revolutionary politics through Marxist theory, but I've believed for a while now that what hope there is for our society is to be found in the labor movement. MLK realized this (and some conspiracy theorists claim this is the reason for his assassination) - he was killed while in Memphis working in support of a sanitation workers' strike, part of a developing Poor People's Campaign.

For various and sundry reasons, I've largely been disconnected from the labor movement since my move to Boston from Los Angeles in 2004. Today, I dipped my toe back in the waters and it proved to be a cool and refreshing experience.

According to the Hotel Workers Rising website, "On August 31, 2009, Hyatt fired its longtime housekeeping staff at its three Boston-area hotels. Many of the fired housekeepers worked for their hotels for over 20 years. Many were required to train their replacements before being fired. Their replacements are being paid minimum wage." UNITE-HERE has been trying to establish itself as the hotel workers' union and to get the jobs back for the "Hyatt 100" and for over a year, the Hyatt has refused. It's downright shameful.

Today, UNITE-HERE and allies targeted 15 cities for demonstrations, Boston was one of those cities and I was one of the marchers. It was an hour of carrying signs, marching a picket line, and shouting slogans (No Justice, No Peace; Bring back - the Hyatt 100; Shame on the Hyatt - Boycott the Hyatt; etc.). One of the things that struck me, was that here, on the picket line, was the real America - a diverse group of some 200 people, young and old, of many ethnicities, of various political persuasions, united behind one cause: justice for hardworking, poorly paid workers who got the shaft by rich people because the bottom line was more important than the livelihoods of their fellow human beings.

The experience for me was also somewhat transformative, in the sense that I began to feel connected to the whole. I've been thinking a lot about the individual and the group, and it is this sort of experience in which one's individuality becomes swirled together into the collective, and one has the experience of being part of the collective - united together in common, righteous purpose. It is a heady experience - though one that can be difficult to achieve if the individual is not ready to surrender a bit of his/her individuality to become part of the whole.

Anyway, it gave me a little bit of hope - if we can grow that movement, without getting divisive, perhaps we'll get back on the path. In the meantime - boycott Hyatt, and get involved!

I took some pictures:

My Wife Rocks My World . . . and other thoughts

I've been a huge fan of the poem, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by Gil Scott-Heron for as long as I can remember; certainly at some point around my revolutionary epiphany in high school I heard this poem on the radio (God bless WZBC). Somehow or another my wife found this CD of Scott-Heron's work called Small Talk at 125th and Lenox, which includes the afore-mentioned poem. Fucking brilliant.

It's much in keeping with a conversation I had with Somebody's Daughter about the lamentable state of today's youth and the forestalling of the revolution. My hypothesis has recently been that the end of the Cold War seems to have made communism disappear as a theoretical objective on the basis of the failed experiment that was the Soviet Union. This seems crazy to me, since the US has been a failed (though improving) democracy for the last 200 years. I don't really understand how the philosophical ideal gets completely rejected because the practical applications didn't meet the ideal, but that's not the point. The real point is that without the ideal of communism (people should be equal and our human relationships should be based on the recognition of that equality) people have nothing to turn to, no belief structure that provides hope, other than a disturbing, conservative, selfish, inward looking, me-first (or, perhaps worse, "my group" first) mentality. The belief in a greater humanity is seriously lacking.

The poem reminds me of another facet of the problem, which is that to a large extent it would seem that we've replaced revolutionary action with revolutionary posturing - being a revolutionary on television and making public pronouncements is somehow more important than the quiet, private work of taking care of the people around us, in our communities, and the people we encounter in our private lives, even when they are strangers. The revolutionary potential of our personal lives are way more important (which is why I have more respect for SNCC than for MLK or Malcolm), if less celebrated.

Among Scott-Heron's other poems is one called "Brother", which in a similar vein, takes the posturing revolutionaries of the 1960s (this album was released in 1970) to task for the tropes - afro, dashiki, standing on the street-corner proclaiming the revolution, while ignoring the actual needs of the people and moreover, berating those who attempt to get their needs met by "working for the man".

I was talking with another friend, who unfortunately does not blog - or I would send you to her, who was discussing a co-worker. My friend works at a progressive childcare center and her coworker is a two-year teacher who has just recently been turned on to the progressive philosophy of the center and thinks therefore, she knows more than my friend who has 9 years of experience and has been a self-taught progressive educator for 9 years. The coworker makes comments that are rooted in her understanding of the philosophy, but her application of the philosophy to the real world only exposes her ignorance. But the frustrating thing, of course, is that the coworker believes that she is being smart because she knows the lingo. It's the worst brand of political-correctness all over again.

Finally, I should probably warn my fearless readers of a rather controversial poem among this collection called "The Subject was Faggots". On face value it is as bad as it sounds. I did a google search and found some attempts to defend the poem as anti-homophobic based on the single line "Digging what I was digging, as I did" which is actually a misquote (it's really, "sitting on the corner digging all that I did as I did"). The defenses are pretty weak, in total. Perhaps a better defense (because it deals with something more problematic and essential to the poem's core structure) is that the repetition of the word "faggot" is an attempt to de-fang the term, somehow, but contextually that doesn't make a lot of sense. For what it's worth, Scott-Heron appears to have matured and his later work places him squarely in the anti-homophobic camp.

The New New Left is . . . Pathetic.

I supposed it could be called the New New Left, though I don't know if it really should be called that. It's more like the New Center That Pretends It's Left But Is Really a Bunch of Bourgeois ex-Hippies that Like to Pretend They Were Leftists in College and Are Now Comfortably Ensconced In Their Suburban and/or Trendy (Expensive) Urban Communities Where They Can Pretend that Democracy is the Answer to All Life's Problems and Now Believe There is Just Something Wrong or Off about the Working-Class and Disenfranchised Americans Who Just Won't Get with the Program.

Seriously, what is it with the latest attack on Communist ideology that seems overwhelmingly to be the perspective that I've noticed in intellectual circles? It's not like Communism is a threat to entrenched bourgeois interests anymore, and yet the attacks seem to only have gotten more intense. Apparently the New New Left (to use the shorter euphemism rather than the more accurate, but way-too-long title that I've bestowed on them) feels the need to distance themselves from Stalinism in order to get taken seriously by the other anti-communists: the Right.

Now, I'm no Stalinist and I will readily point out the failures/frustrations/and downright evil that was done in the name of Communism, but I don't think this is reason enough to discount the whole philosophy. A couple of counter-points and then a final, conclusive point:

Counterpoint 1: Plenty of nasty and evil things have been done in the name of all sorts of ideologies (by extremists and moderates, alike). I've been reading a British-written history of Iran, which lauds Reza Shah for modernizing his nation (which happened at the expense of the nomads of Iran). And what about the Native Americans? Sure the anti-communist left might admit that this is an evil, but will they condemn America, or democracy, or modern culture in the same terms that they condemn communism? Not at all. What about slavery? (With the same response from the anti-communist left.)

Counterpoint 2: Some of the most intelligent, compassionate, interesting people I've met have been Communists - Old School (which these days means, just plain old). This counts a lot in my book. Stalin was a thug (literally), but he hardly represents all Communists. The problem was that once he became the figurehead of international Communism, the rest of the movement felt compelled to go along with him for the same reason that plenty of people respected Nixon, GW Bush, or any President because he is the President. You don't have to necessarily agree with the leader to understand that internecine squabbles are more likely to hurt the long-term future. Whether Communism had a long-term future after Stalin is a whole other question, but is ultimately beside the point. The issue isn't so much with Communism as an ideology, but more the nature of groups.

Concluding Point: I am a communist (small "c") and a democrat (small "d"). As I see it, democracy is ultimately about the individual, while communism values the group (or community). We need both. The New Left strayed from the underpinnings of true communism and fought for the rights of the individual in a society that culturally demanded conformity. This was a noble fight that was ultimately won. Unfortunately, the parallel fight - for the economic rights of the people as a whole were never realized: either because the enemy was successful at defending their power, or because the college-student activists didn't have the same commitment to the economic rights of the dispossessed communities that they had for their right to "be themselves" culturally. As long as the left continues to play the anti-communist game of the Right we will never achieve the world we claim to hope to achieve. Equality is not something that can happen through an appeal to individual rights, it must be seen as a good in its own right and something that is separate.

In the end, I think we need to find a way to be self-critical and avoid the mistakes of Communism's past, while at the same time still holding on to the basic tenets of the ideology: true equality, valuing of all members of the community, and an end to exploitation.

On a separate, though related track: I was buying CDs the other night and looking in the Hip-Hop section and was struck by the overwhelming vibe of capitalist accumulation. I know there are conscious rappers out there, but I wondered why there is just so much shit that buys into the system. I'm going to go ahead and postulate that it's because of the relative youth of the art form. Older forms of music had a period where it was cool to be conscious. It seems to me that early rap was more conscious (ie-Public Enemy, KRS-One), but the bulk has been written in the last 10 years (ie-end of the Cold War, distancing from Communism of the Left, etc.) and looking at all forms of music it mostly seems that there's a lot of stupid, egotistical, masturbatory crap.

Waiting for the world to get its collective, revolutionary-self together,

DJO

The Latest

So, now I teach in an "urban" school - which is to say that the school I'm at is urban, but functional, and really diverse, which is to say, urban, but not 90% Black or Brown, which I know a lot of you (might) assume from the descriptor "urban".

It's interesting, in a whole lot of ways.

But, to be honest, I miss my previous school which was "urban" in the more traditional sense of urban - it was mostly Black and Brown children and 99% were struggling-working-class. The teachers had experience working with this population and it seemed, well, way-more real than the faculty and students of the school I'm currently at.

Which isn't to disparage the students or faculty of my current school - kids are kids, and to be quite frank, well, the faculty on the whole is also way more competent than the faculty of my previous school. I can't think of a single teacher at my current school to which I would just shake my head. But I also have questions about the "competent teachers' " abilities to deal in the environment of my previous school. Does this make sense? In a really weird and fucked up way, I wish I still had the opportunity to teach at school #1 (which is to say, I wish, but don't feel the compunction to actually pursue, the possibility).

I'm currently reading William Julius Wilson's latest tract and so far it makes a lot of sense (except for a quibble I have about the role of the state - and state-rejection - in his theory.) And so far, I feel like his thesis doesn't really apply to the majority of the students I now teach, but did at my old school, where students typically felt at odds with "the system" and therefore rejected a simplistic approach to education.

- - -

I was recently listening to a college radio station on which they were interviewing a participant in the US social forum. As much as I admire the folks involved in the USSF, I wonder how many of my students (at my previous school) would see USSF as representing their interests or issues. Somehow, I think very few, if any. And what does that say about the Left in America today? To what extent is it a whole lot of energy and organizing and effort around important issues that ultimately ignore the basic issues of "the people"? How can we build a movement that is more than anti-corporate, but that deals intimately with the issues that we, the people, in the urban-core (aka - the ghetto) are facing?

A politics that is grounded in what are the ultimately easy issues of the middle-class (environmentalism, corporate-greed) cannot also appeal to those of us that deal with street-violence, statist-targeting, and cultural disapprobation. Which isn't to say that the political issues of the middle-class are unimportant or don't affect the working-classes of America, but rather that those effects are less perceptible or imminent than a lot of other negative pressures both endemic (cultural) and imposed (structural) - with the emphasis necessarily on the imposed issues, since the endemic issues are mostly a response to the structural ones (incidentally, this is what I've argued forever, but the recent impetus behind this argument is all Wilson).

The Gender Wars Continue

Seriously? If there is no other evidence necessary that sexism is alive and well - how about this story. I should probably apologize in advance for the idiocy of the whole thing, since one of my attempts with this blog is to raise the level of discussion and debate. And it's not like I'm a pop-culture trawler - I swear that I got to this via a series of links that started with the Huffington Post (though they've got some celebrity bullshit, too).

Anyways - here's the link.

This is the kind of bullshit that I thought died with the 90s. Dumbass-old-white-middle-class guys making stupid comments (and as an old-white-middle-class guy, I take offense at that). Though, I guess some things never go out of style. I noticed a couple of things in the second clip that struck me -

#1: asshole dude is wearing an American flag tie. This makes me laugh in that such articles of clothing were considered sacrilegious in the 60s (as a desecration of the flag) and were this the 60s asshole dude would be totally against such an idea. Also, this seems to me to be his shield against the shit he must know he's going to take about what he said the day before. Seems pathetic, but also telling that literally wrapping oneself in the flag is considered a defense of bullshit sexism.

#2: asshole's comment re: PhD - since when did "You have a PhD" become an ad hominem attack? In what world is being smart and educated a liability? What does it say about who you are and what you stand for that you are threatened by smart people?

#3: victim's suggestion that they compete in some sport to see who wins. Really? Okay - I understand that she's probably a little emotionally off-balance because of the bullshit her co-worker, who she sits next to on national television on I presume a daily basis, pulled. And perhaps she can be forgiven for attempting to be gracious about being a public victim of sexism. But it's a bad joke and it undercuts both the seriousness of what was done to her and her original position, that graciousness should win out over competition - that there is something beautiful about how the baseball bad call was handled. It reminds me of the GI Jane type of feminist that takes a social-political position that a woman can be as violent as a stereotypical man, which is true and fine in a sense, but one thinks there's more to it than as well as that the pressure should also be on men to be as nurturing as the stereotypical woman.

Which is to say that perhaps the contradictions are where the truth and beauty lie - we can all be strong and nurturing. Strength doesn't mean being an asshole, nurturing doesn't mean wilting.

What I've Been Saying

I have a pretty good opinion of my ideas - I guess if I didn't then I wouldn't be bothering to maintain a blog. On the other hand, often enough I find myself reading something that says exactly what I've been trying to say, but much better.

I had that experience today on the Dissent blog.

Nelson Lichtenstein analyzes the prospects for a rejuvenated Left within the context of a rejuvenated labor movement, which makes a lot of sense. He argues for an expansive and inclusive unionization (when I was in college, I was involved in a number of labor campaigns, although I was affiliated with a radical student group, not a union per se - I think this is an example of what Lichtenstein is promoting. For what it is worth - the Graduate Employee Organization welcomed us, while the more traditional unions such as SEIU and AFSCME looked at us like we were crazy - which I suppose we kinda were, but it could have been a fruitful, interesting, learning experience for all involved had those connections been made).

He also points out that the movement will only have power in as far as it is only loosely united with mainstream politics - we should be allies of the Democratic party, but not beholden. This was my gripe as a member of the house of representatives of the United Teachers Los Angeles early in my career - we seemed to be too often adopting a Democratic Party political line, even if it didn't really dovetail with our interests.

Lastly (or really firstly, since I'm addressing Lichtenstein's arguments in reverse order) he makes the point that the right has a history of getting more aggressive when the left is in ascendancy. This is a relatively new idea for me, so I'm not sure I agree yet, though I tend to reject this notion - he points to the 1930s and 1960s as times of right-wing aggression, though if you look at the periods that immediately precede those eras, you see the 1920s and 1950s - both decades known for anti-communist witch hunts and ascendant eras of the KKK. Next to those decades, the right of the 30s and then the 60s looks beleaguered and drawn out.

I suppose there could be an argument that the 2000s were the right-wing ascendancy and the 2010s will be a period of reprieve (God, I hope so) but the cynic in me also warns that the modern period started with the French Revolution and ended with the Cold War. We may have entered a new paradigm and can't really use the old patterns as a basis for understanding where we are and where me might be headed.

Israel and America

I wouldn't call myself a Zionist, but I understand the impetus and support the idea of Israel. I definitely support the ideals of many of the founders (many of the kibbutzim, for instance), at least the liberal humanists that sought to create a peaceful nation, modeled on the principals of equality, respect for the minority, liberty and human rights.

Unfortunately, the latest actions by the Israeli government have belied those ideals. I don't believe that Netanyahu and the ruling party really are interested in peaceful coexistence with the people that undeniably were living on that land when Palestine became Israel. The politics of fear and cynicism have triumphed in Israel (and quite frankly in a lot of other places, perhaps most relevantly in the United States).

But I can't, for the life of me, understand why Helen Thomas, a 90-year-old venerated and respected journalist, has been repudiated and condemned in some of the most forceful language because of her stated feelings that Israelis should leave Palestine and "go home - to Germany, Poland or the United States" (that's a paraphrase). I honestly don't see the problem with this point of view, although I don't agree with it, completely.

I understand that it is politically unwise to make anti-Israel statements in the US, for various and sundry reasons, but Ms. Thomas is a journalist, not a politician. Never mind the fact that if we in America can't have a rational, open discussion of Israeli policy, not only are the Israelis doomed, we are too.

Another Tea Party Analysis

I read this article in NY Review of Books today . . . it pretty much meshes with my analysis, though I think mine has the added advantage of seeing the Tea Party movement within the context of power. It's kinda long, but quit being so intellectually lazy, goddamit. (Hopefully they don't limit it to subscribers only.)

Memo to the President

I know you read my blog, Mr. Obama, so please listen up.

A piece of advice: whenever a calamity happens - like, oh, I don't know, the BP oil spill disaster, you're first priority is to let people know that you care and are involved and doing all you can. We (the voters) don't care nearly as much about whether it works or not, but care more that you try and we don't know you are working on our behalf unless you are publicly seen to be doing something. How different the national reaction to your response would have been if

1) you had immediately flown down to Louisiana and held a press briefing personally letting the public know that you were just about to head into a meeting with BP officials to find out what the fuck was going on and what they were going to be doing about it and if it didn't get fixed in, I dunno, a week? heads were going to roll.

2) When it didn't get fixed in a week you wield that executive power you have under some sort of emergency mandate and take control of the situation. I don't know - nationalize the US operations of BP or something (lol - that sure would piss off the Tea Party people, but if it got the job done, it would win you much respect from the sane constituency who would then see BP as the culprits instead of blaming you for not doing anything except working with the people that caused this mess).

Your biggest mistakes -

1) Holding a meeting on Day 1 of the emergency in your office in the White House where nobody could see you.

2) Claiming in retrospect that you've been doing something and getting pissy with people who question your commitment. You're the President, and as such you need to be in the public eye doing stuff, not just being a celebrity.

Also, it doesn't seem to be your rhetorical style, I guess, but really, your "let's-be-reasonable" rhetoric isn't working for the American people anyway. Historically, it's the politicians who make declarative, forthright, uncompromising statements of action and belief, and then use the "let's-be-reasonable" take w/ the other politicians that win the respect and confidence of the American people as a whole - FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, hell - as much as I disliked him as President, Clinton: who managed to make different declarative statements to different publics . . .

With all due respect Mr. President - get on the ball.

(Oh - and kudos (w/ all appropriate reservations) on healthcare, the nuclear reduction treaty, and saving the economy from utter collapse)

Thanks for reading,

djo

Black Panthers v. Tea Party - An analysis

Once upon a time in high school I got really into leftist movements of the 1960s (what seemed to me, my antecedents, though despite thinking my actual parents were totally square it turns out my Mom was partially involved with organizing mill workers in NC and my Dad was involved in protesting the US attacks in Cambodia - much respect to my parents for putting up with my naive teenage bullshit). I read everything I could get my hands on re: Black Panther Party, Weathermen, Yippies, Che, Sendero Luminso, Ho Chi Minh, etc., etc., etc. My thought was that if the system didn't want me to know about them, I wanted to know.

Apparently, some idiots are comparing the right-wing anti-statists with the left-wing anti-statists and so the Tea Party has become comensurate with the Black Panther Party. Seriously? Please see my last post for my take on this, or see this post for Crystal M. Hayes' take.

The Creeping Police State

It's one of those tropes that the radicals (Left and Right) are always going on about - we're slowly but surely becoming a statist society in which the haves have and the have nots are controlled.

I was reminded of this when I read this post from a colleague and fellow blogger. I think our analyses are somewhat different, but the point is unmistakably clear and the conclusions, I believe, are ultimately parallel.

It also reminded me of the conversation I had with a student the other day about how the nature of schooling itself has changed. I can't speak with any real authority on the conditions of the schools in the city in which I teach from 20 years ago. I grew up in a liberal bastion and received all of the benefits of the education such a bastion might bestow - a liberal arts curriculum that encouraged thinking, a stable teaching core of qualified, competent teachers that cared about children and could make it happen. We had open campus, free periods, common spaces, and so forth. By the time I graduated, all that had begun to change. Open campus was restricted to Seniors (and for all I know, no longer exists), free periods had become study halls, commons spaces were walled off and became offices. Students were no longer asked to be responsible, students were walled in because the system no longer trusted them to be responsible - they were forced to "do the right thing", but since the students lost their agency, their ability to make their own decisions, they were no longer responsible, but rather were dependent on the school to make the decisions for them.

I'm not trying to compare this experience to police brutality, but only to point out that the police state is a creeping thing. After the Rodney King beating, police brutality was something that people I knew talked about. Why aren't we even talking about the killings? What I'm suggesting is that the fact that statist control is creeping into the bourgeois-bastions has made a situation where a constituency that might otherwise have been incensed by police violence against innocent people will only shrug their shoulders.

Which brings me to the right-wing anti-statists and why in some ways I think there is a similar analysis of the state, but that ultimately we are still standing on opposite sides of the spectrum. Firstly, I have a hard time believing that the bourgeois conservative anti-statists are really concerned about the rights, human or civil, of poor people.

Arthur C. Brooks recently argued that we face a culture war in the US - that this is really what the Tea Party is about. I think his analysis of the Tea Party folks is entirely too narrow, but I also think his argumentation misses something essential by those of us who see the socialist states of Europe as having something we don't have. Really, his argument isn't about culture, it's about power. Those who argue that the state should be smaller are in a position where they don't depend on the state - they are the beneficiaries of a society in which some win and many lose. They don't need the state for college tuition, or healthcare, or what have you. The state they are arguing against is the state that provides the proverbial safety net.

Ironically, well, not really, but . . . the state they support is the state that protects them from the rabble, the state that shoots innocent people, the state that controls, rather than the state that provides. They argue from a position of "freedom", but they only want a particular kind of freedom for a particular segment of the population.

And thus, while it would appear that right-wing anti-statists and left-wing anti-statists might be saying a lot of the same things, the implicit meanings of those things is quite different. The left wants a bigger state that is more responsible, the right wants a smaller state that uses power more efficiently.

Intellectuals in America part 8

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor at New Republic, and at first I thought his entry for the Dissent symposium would be overly literary, and in some ways the perspective is informed by literature, rather than political concerns. But I've come to feel that this is an important perspective, at least, since literature tends to be more humane than politics. Wieseltier only makes one major error in my opinion.

Let us begin with the error so that we can concentrate on what is worthwhile. The major gaffe is to flub the question about the academy - does it further or retard the engagement of intellectuals with American society? To which Wieseltier asks to take an incomplete for the intellectually dishonest reason that his "rant . . . might wound some people I admire and even adore." If intellectuals are to be truth-tellers, silence for the sake of propriety is hardly acceptable.

Overall, however, I find Wieseltier's take valuable, and largely in line with my own ideas. For instance, he slams American mass culture "for its transformation of a citizenry into an audience" among other things (perhaps the most entertaining line of the rant is: "for its grotesque sexualization of an entire society, which has the effect not least of degrading sex, even dirty sex").

But Wieseltier believes intellectuals can have it both ways, to be objective analysts as well as subjective participants. This isn't the only answer that Wieseltier proposes that refuses to take sides, but I think his suggestion of how to enjoy the proverbial cake works best in this regard. And his reasons for intellectuals to engage with popular culture are strong: 1) humanism: mass culture is still culture and so says something about our humanity; 2) criticism: in order to be able to critique the culture one has to understand the culture; and 3) hedonism: usually mass culture is about just plain fun. Or as Wieseltier puts it: life.

As for participating in American politics, he lays out a forthright pragmatism that is perhaps a little too pragmatic. He encourages intellectuals to engage in policy, since that is ultimately what affects people, but it's also what people don't get and I am afraid that we are already overly wonky - we need to work on communicating with the masses, so to speak. I happened across the website of the Iranian Communist Party the other day and I was struck with the way that language is used and how different it is from the American left today (though perhaps if I compared it to the CP-USA there wouldn't be much difference). The Communists tend to talk in language people understand - politics rather than policy (even if they sometimes go on and on, which can be alienating in its own way). Left intellectuals in America have distanced themselves from this, in part because the anti-Stalinist left always celebrated humanism and populist rhetoric can be very much anti-human, especially when it preys on fear (Exhibit B: The Tea Party). But it is one of the things that makes us seem like high-minded, ivory-tower academics that don't understand reality. But, I think Wieseltier's ultimate point is to again have it both ways - policy and politics, though I think the case is weaker here.

Lastly, he wants to be "both patriot and world citizen." I think there might be an argument here, but Wieseltier never fully engages with the issue. He imagines a world in which certain times he can be a patriot and other times he can be a world citizen, but the real question is: what do you do when these two frames come into conflict with each other. The sort of question that the Vietnam War posed to young people in the 1960s - a patriot supports their country, a world citizen condemns the United States for aggression. Which takes precedence? Wieseltier never explains the path which helps us to resolve the difficult questions.

Overall, his essay is hit and miss - his main theme is to celebrate the fullness of life and humanity and as such he refuses to take sides. This is laudable in some circumstances, but it can also be morally problematic when it becomes a refusal to engage in the issues seriously.

---

In some ways, this post is an accomplishment for me (yay me!). I set out to do this project over the course of a week and it's only taken me the better part of 6 months or so. The project, if you will remember and have been keeping up, was to respond to each of the participants in Dissent's symposium on the role of intellectuals in America. This post concludes the original 8 essays that were written as part of that project and were published in the Winter 2010 issue of Dissent. The Spring 2010 issue contains three more, and so the project continues, but this is a milestone.

The Principled Center

I'm a radical left-wing anarcho-communist in personal philosophy, but I'm also a democrat (small 'd') that believes that 1) it is inhumane to force people to accept political philosophies they disagree with (I'm doing a terrible job of referring to the failed Communist experiment in the USSR) and 2) it doesn't work anyway - thus, why the USSR failed.

So, what does that mean? It means that I believe that my vision of a just, peaceful and caring community (and how to get there) is the best vision and what needs to happen is that other people need to believe in it too. This is basically an exercise in cultural change, which is exceedingly slow, since we humans like our cultures the way we understand them. We don't like them to change on us because, well 1) it means a shifting balance of power which is scary and 2) our cultures are also markers of identity - they belong to us, they inform who we are, and that is something deeply valuable.

Anyhoo - all of this to say that while this is my long-term goal, I also am working on short-term goals: making the most of what we've got at the moment. So, what would make the US a better place today? Well, among other things, if we could maybe have a rationale conversation across the ideological divide. But there doesn't seem to be much of a moderate movement anymore - and while I would hardly call myself a moderate, I respect moderates. I might not respect the Sean Hannitys, but I do have a lot of respect for folks like Lincoln Chafee, ex-Republican Senator from Rhode Island, who was essentially chased from his party for being too moderate.

But I think part of the problem is that moderates are often seen as being unprincipled - they don't seem to have Republican principles, and they don't seem to have Democratic principles. Of course, there's also so-called moderates like Arlen Specter, who really are just unprincipled and don't seem to have any basic values from which to reach conclusions. (Is anybody really surprised that he lost the PA primary?)

Is there a moderate ideology? I suppose the kind of moderates I'd like to see are people who are socially liberal (I just don't think you can be moderate on human rights); fiscally responsible and economically centrist - they should respect workers' rights, but they don't have to be necessarily anti-corporate. I would think that this is enough to wrap principles around. Maybe the antidote to crazy Tea Party people is a nice, rationale Center Party movement.

Moderates - get thee to a convention hall.

Power All Alone

I started subscribing to the White House blog and they posted this recently.

Is it just me or does Obama seem supremely alone? I suppose it is a commentary on the human condition that the more publicly that one is popular (ie - celebrity) and appears to be surrounded by people, the more existentially alone a person really is.

I can't decide what this says about our President. Is this a sign of weakness? Of being ill-suited to the role? Or is it a sign of honesty and truthfulness? At least he doesn't hide his discomfort (though obviously he has to make the motions like we all do - you can't not give your secretary a gift on Secretary's Day, or whatever, especially when you are a President whose every nuance is scrutinized - remember the flag pin incident?

I still think he is a great man who is immersed in a political culture that is exceedingly trying. Our failure as citizens hardly makes his job any easier. He may not be the messiah some of us hoped for, but he certainly could be a lot worse (cough - John McCain (not to mention Sarah Palin) - cough). At least he hasn't given into/pandered to our basest instincts and the lowest common denominator.

(I suppose, you know you are failing as a political movement when you have to argue from a position of: "at least." The lesser of two evils has never been a potent rallying cry . . . oh well. Again, I blame it less on the politicians and more on the jaded, sarcastic, ironic, unpolitical "citizenry" who don't understand the meaning of the term.)

Intellectuals in America part 7

Katrina vanden Heuvel's contribution to Dissent's symposium is a disappointment. Vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation magazine and she seems to flub every major issue she claims to address. She spends much of her argument debating about how to label herself - first rejecting "intellectual" and later embracing it. There is so much here that explains precisely what's wrong with today's intellectuals - quibbling over definitions, refusing to come to definitely conclusions, and ultimately, degrading intellectualism itself. It's kind of pathetic, really, and I blame it all on post-modern relativism. I suppose I've been guilty of some of the same, but I like to think the issues I can't find an answer to are actually difficult ones that bring up human frailty and complexity and not something stupid like what it means to be an intellectual.

Beyond this, she seems to misunderstand the concept of popular culture. Just because its on television, doesn't make it popular culture. Mad Men, Perry Mason, Law & Order, 24: none of these are really popular television series, with the possible exception of 24 (I should probably admit that I don't have a television, which may disqualify me from having an position here, but I don't think I'm wrong). How about American Idol? Or Dancing with the Stars? Those of us worried about the state of popular culture are going to have to realize and come to grips with the fact that the most popular things in our culture are precisely those that require the least amount of thought and have the least amount of meaning. The real question for me is why - why do we seem to have become a less interested and less interesting society? Why are we getting dumber and getting prouder of our stupidity?

Vanden Heuvel does make some insightful comments that help to frame thinking about these issues, which is the silver-lining. For instance, she points out that Michael Moore seems like a left-wing, thinking populist that can really speak the people's language, that takes intellectualism and distills it into language that is easily digestible.

The proliferation of technology has allowed the creation of multiple masses that, as vanden Heuvel points out, "has of course increased the dangers of only listening to oneself." And made it more challenging, if not impossible, for intellectuals to communicate in any meaningful way with the broader public. She quotes Noam Chomsky as saying, "the responsibility of intellectuals was to tell the truth and expose lies." But if nobody's listening then the impact of truth-telling is limited. Worse, the nature of "the truth" is challenged by post-modernist relativism from one direction and by technology which creates a vortex in which lies spoken loudly are mistaken for truth.

US Education, Zambia and the State - A Reflection

Life is too funny, sometimes. Like when I was at home reading a piece about the American educational system that got me thinking about the New Left, the rejection of the state, and the influence on education; and not 10 minutes later was sitting at a table in a pub and talking to some dear friends who have lived in Zambia for the last few years and have gotten to be really frustrated with the lack of a system.

The essay that got started on this train of thought was E. D. Hirsch's review of Diane Ravitch's new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. I have issues, of course. I've balked at both Mr. Hirsch's and Ms. Ravitch's contributions to education theory and reform. If Mr. Hirsch represents the center, Ms. Ravitch's new book apparently (I think I'm going to have to actually read this one) has tossed her from his right to his left. He's not too thrilled with her swing, though he condescends to find some merit in her argumentation.

In truth, though, his review seems to be an embittered diatribe against what he frames as "child-centered" (as opposed to "community-centered") education. These are his terms, and he attempts to load them with all sorts of illegitimate connotations, but that's beside the point. The real point, for me anyway, is that I hate to admit it, but I think he's got a point . . . but I also feel that he only has a point if you accept his assumptions.

For instance, he claims that when the US moved (in the 1960s) to a "child-centered" education that sought to build on a student's intrinsic interests, test scores dropped. This, supposedly, means that education got worse. In fact, it wouldn't be that surprising, since a child would be learning what they wanted to and not what was necessarily on the test. (I think this sort of education takes a particularly sophisticated educator to pull off well too, so it's possible that good intentions got in the way of good education). But the real question is, why do we educate? Is it about the development of the human being? Or is it about the development of the community? Or is it about getting a job? Or is it about the economy? (Please note: these are four different questions NOT 2 different questions asked in different ways.) If we value the state, then the question we are looking to ask is #2 (for lefties like me, anyway - for other people it might be question #4 . . . but, let's not go there). If we think the state pernicious, we would go with #1 (or #3, depending, again).

So this line of thinking got me wondering about how education went from #3 to #1 in the 1960s and that got me thinking about my frustration with the New Left (not all that new, anymore, I guess) which started all this modern anti-statist stuff. The Old Left were good communists that saw the value of the state, but I guess Stalin killed the enthusiasm for the New Lefties. Making connections . . .

And then I got into a conversation about Zambia and how life is so unpredictable because the state has so little real legitimacy. As my friend said, people make the system work for them, which is understandable, but also is a problem since it means that the system doesn't really work at all. It becomes an abuse of power by those who can claim it.

Which now brings me back to the old debate between Hobbes and Locke: what is the purpose of government? Why do we have a state? Is it about creating a system of power to be used to create access to certain people? Or is it about creating a system that limits power? Ultimately, how do you have something called "The Rule of Law"? And how do you make sure that those laws respect the individual and uplift the community at the same time? These last questions assume a statist perspective, and the whole concept of public education, and arguably, education in general, assumes a statist perspective. Hirsch has irked me for a long time now, and it's a bitter pill to swallow (is that cyanide?), but perhaps I should pay him more mind.

War and Defense

I've been thinking a lot about the Cold War recently, and coincidentally also read a number of pieces that critique American foreign policy and the way that war has been framed.

It occurred to me that the Defense Department used to be called the War Department. And it turns out that the name change happened in 1949. Just as the Cold War kicked off and American foreign policy became even more aggressively imperialist (in the name of defending the nation from imperialist Communism).

The particular article that got me thinking about this irony pointed out that the rhetoric of US foreign policy today is based in a language of fear, despite the fact that we have the most powerful military, by far, on the planet. Americans are afraid and politicians feed that fear. In the pre-Cold War era, we didn't have the biggest military in the world, but we had the courage to call our military the war machine which it is, rather than hide behind the language of the cowardly bunker-mentality.

Intellectuals in America part 6

Michael Tomasky’s submission for Dissent’s symposium on Intellectuals and Their America is ultimately disappointing - I feel like too many intellectuals misunderstand their role in American society (as in - they over-estimate their ultimate impact) and over-estimate the importance/role/significance of popular media and its connection to popular culture.

In fact, I would say that most intellectuals would say that popular media defines/creates popular culture, rather than seeing it as a feedback loop wherein popular culture defines popular media which re-emphasizes/redefines popular culture (all of which cuts out the role of the intellectual and disempowers cultural criticism more broadly).

More specifically I am disappointed with Tomasky’s response to question 2 (Does the academy further or retard the engagement of intellectuals with American society?). I mean, as an intellectual I don’t see how you can’t have a take on this question, which means Tomasky (and other commentators) is being disingenuous when he says that he is unqualified to answer the question, which means that he is failing at the number one role of the intellectual, which is to search out and tell the Truth about one’s take on the world. Tomasky’s dissembling is a total violation. I would guess that he is a member of the academy that recognizes that the academy hurts the role of the intellectual because it means that the intellectual has become part of the system; however he doesn’t want to admit it because to admit it means that he has to admit to himself that he has compromised the values that he claims to uphold.

Much of the rest of Tomasky’s reflection doesn’t hold much water for me either. First he suggests that we embrace popular culture/technology as inherently liberating, where it seems obvious to me that culture and technology are tools and not inherently anything - the Internet and the culture spawned by the internet are only as liberating as the people who use it. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. And Tomasky’s embrace of the Internet because of the information that can be accessed ignores the fact that disinformation is also easily (perhaps more easily) accessed. Furthermore, there’s the problem of source material that circles back on itself - a self-reinforcing loop that limits the perspectives to which people are exposed.

Where Tomasky and I tend to agree is when he urges intellectuals to engage with popular culture: to go to Home Depot, Applebees, etc. I agree, since one has to have actual experience in the culture in order to have a basis from which to critique it and be taken seriously. On the other hand, engagement with popular culture cannot be merely consumerist. There are good television shows, but merely because something is on television, doesn’t make it good. And furthermore, we should recognize that the medium has had profound impacts on the way that human beings relate to each other - not all of which are positive.

Making Kids Crazy

So, I dunno if I told you yet, but I've been seriously considering exiting the teaching profession. After all that's happened both personally and professionally in my life, I decided that I just couldn't do it anymore. I mean, I know to some of my friends I've sounded like a broken record - every year I go through a rough patch where I feel like a total failure and want to do something else - but this was on a whole other level. Really.

But, I've started falling in love all over again - it really is kinda like I've just had my heartbroken and sworn off love forever and now I'm swooning again. The problem is that I really do love teaching or, maybe better put - I love making students think.

I'm sorry, but I have to brag a little . . .

My latest indication that no matter all my mistakes, I'm doing something right happened today when one of my students told me I should be a psychologist because I put ideas in people's brains that make them crazy. I'm pretty sure she was joking (even though she said it wasn't a compliment and said it all totally straight), but either way it made me proud. If there's one thing I want my students to believe when they get out of my class it is that there are no easy answers, that life is complicated, that we need to struggle for the right answers, but they are rarely very obvious, that we should forgive those who struggle and get it wrong, but that we should never respect those who don't even try.

My current mantra: I hate my students for making me love teaching again. Stupid kids.