A lot of people have asked me (as the token Army guy) what I think about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Without giving a concrete answer to this which might spoil any thought provoking commentary, I can see why both sides of the argument work. For getting rid of DADT, it is prejudicial and prevents the military from tapping into a huge resource pool of quality recruits. One of my best friends from West Point, who would have been a phenomenal officer, was discharged under this policy and it was simply a waste of talent. On the keeping it side, you have to realize where the main recruits for the Army are coming from - they're 18 year old kids with different backgrounds than you and I have. These sort of people may not have been exposed to the variety of folks that we have and without judging their views, may have a different thoughts on homosexuality than we have. Add this problem in with the close quarters and other issues that the Army presents (sharing sleeping bags for warmth in Ranger School, open gang-style showers after pt, the macho factor etc.), some people may not feel comfortable working with homosexuals, and this can lead to problems.
Either way, one of my classmates (who is also doing a MPP program right now) posted this article and I found it very interesting. It puts a human face on the policy, and while the author is coming from one side, remember that whether or not you agree with DADT, the side advocating to keep the policy makes valid points as well. So enjoy the article and make your own judgment call. If you're really interested in my opinion, we can talk offline.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-be-all-you-can-be/
-Matt
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Hollow Hope?
Hi,
Long time reader, first time blogger here.
Although I have not yet finished the reading, the topic itself is galvanizing for me and of what I have read so far, I felt I had to post.
I am under the impression, so far, that Rosenberg is under the impression that courts (and the Supreme Court) have not been and are currently not a good vehicle for social change, using, among other things, the notion that courts are "political" institutions and are therefore not influenced by the public (at least in comparison to other institutions). He may be accurate to some extent, but he seems to suggest that our understanding of courts and their abilities to create social change is overestimated/exaggerated and should be disabused. Of course, Rosenberg shall be the great disabuser... Yikes, not for me he won't. (I will continue to have an open mind though as I read further)
Perhaps he starts to cover it in the reading, but right now I several criticisms.
First, the SC is not necessarily intended to function as a means for social change. Its simply not its purpose. So, to suggest that the Court is not good at it, or has dne a poor job of it in the past, is rediculous to me.
Secondly, as it turns out, and Im sure Rosenberg is well aware, the Court created its own role in Marbury v. Madison (1803) essentially giving themselves the power to strike down federal legislation. We have since accepted this role, and for the most part, like it. My point is that its very essence is about NOT allowing certain legislation to pass when it (legislation) stomps on the faces of the minority. At least, this is what "active" courts have done, and this, in my humble opinion, is what they SHOULD do. i.e. be active only when the majority, with their elected officials, decide to pass legislation that tramples on the minority in horendous ways. Segregation is an example that comes to mind.
Third: The Court has indeed created Social change. Rulings have had unintended consequences of course, but nevertheless, they have been "active" when necessary (and perhapds not enough) and created social change. The Miranda ruling, for example, had immediate effects on police departments and the justice process. I will hold off for now, because I am probably digging a deep hole for myself, but if people are interested, I highly rec. a book called "The Least Dangerous Branch?". This covers several public policy areas where the Court indeed had an impact and created social change (along with a lot of consequences) but it also discusses how such rulings disabuse the majority and our represetatives. I hope I made some point in this rambling, however "hollow" it may be. See everyone in class.
Davey
Long time reader, first time blogger here.
Although I have not yet finished the reading, the topic itself is galvanizing for me and of what I have read so far, I felt I had to post.
I am under the impression, so far, that Rosenberg is under the impression that courts (and the Supreme Court) have not been and are currently not a good vehicle for social change, using, among other things, the notion that courts are "political" institutions and are therefore not influenced by the public (at least in comparison to other institutions). He may be accurate to some extent, but he seems to suggest that our understanding of courts and their abilities to create social change is overestimated/exaggerated and should be disabused. Of course, Rosenberg shall be the great disabuser... Yikes, not for me he won't. (I will continue to have an open mind though as I read further)
Perhaps he starts to cover it in the reading, but right now I several criticisms.
First, the SC is not necessarily intended to function as a means for social change. Its simply not its purpose. So, to suggest that the Court is not good at it, or has dne a poor job of it in the past, is rediculous to me.
Secondly, as it turns out, and Im sure Rosenberg is well aware, the Court created its own role in Marbury v. Madison (1803) essentially giving themselves the power to strike down federal legislation. We have since accepted this role, and for the most part, like it. My point is that its very essence is about NOT allowing certain legislation to pass when it (legislation) stomps on the faces of the minority. At least, this is what "active" courts have done, and this, in my humble opinion, is what they SHOULD do. i.e. be active only when the majority, with their elected officials, decide to pass legislation that tramples on the minority in horendous ways. Segregation is an example that comes to mind.
Third: The Court has indeed created Social change. Rulings have had unintended consequences of course, but nevertheless, they have been "active" when necessary (and perhapds not enough) and created social change. The Miranda ruling, for example, had immediate effects on police departments and the justice process. I will hold off for now, because I am probably digging a deep hole for myself, but if people are interested, I highly rec. a book called "The Least Dangerous Branch?". This covers several public policy areas where the Court indeed had an impact and created social change (along with a lot of consequences) but it also discusses how such rulings disabuse the majority and our represetatives. I hope I made some point in this rambling, however "hollow" it may be. See everyone in class.
Davey
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Breaking it down
I just had to share this link. For those of you who haven't seen it, King Abdullah II of Jordan was on John Stewart last night. They were discussing the complexities of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the dynamics in the Middle East. Abdullah does a fantastic job of giving rational, institutional, and symbolic arguments for why serious efforts need to be made (by the US, Israel, and Arab leaders) to resolve the conflict.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/09/24/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-jordans-king-abdullah-ii/
Anna
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/09/24/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-jordans-king-abdullah-ii/
Anna
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Gun Registry Vote in Canada
For those in the 1:15 section --
I want to provide a few links to articles for any of you who may want to further explore the current gun registry legislation in Canada. As a reminder:
- the Coalition for Gun Control is the leading Canadian interest group supporting the gun registry
- legislation was introduced in November, 2009 and calls for a repeal of the registry for long-gun owners (does not affect handguns, which is only 6% of the total number of firearms)
- debate on the bill occurred today and the vote is expected late afternoon tomorrow
Links
An MP's Change of Heart
A Mother's Battle
Women Firing Shots in Debate
I want to provide a few links to articles for any of you who may want to further explore the current gun registry legislation in Canada. As a reminder:
- the Coalition for Gun Control is the leading Canadian interest group supporting the gun registry
- legislation was introduced in November, 2009 and calls for a repeal of the registry for long-gun owners (does not affect handguns, which is only 6% of the total number of firearms)
- debate on the bill occurred today and the vote is expected late afternoon tomorrow
Links
An MP's Change of Heart
A Mother's Battle
Women Firing Shots in Debate
The Expanding Reach of the NRA
Just a quick link to a NY Times article from back in July regarding the NRA. The main point is that the group has been able to expand its impact of late because direct gun control legislation has become so politically unlikely. This has allowed them to focus their efforts on ancillary issues, sometimes gun related and sometimes not, such as when they convinced "Congressional Democrats to carve out an exemption tailor-made for the group to exclude it from the so-called Disclose Act, requiring disclosure of donors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/politics/13nra.html?_r=1&ref=national_rifle_association
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/politics/13nra.html?_r=1&ref=national_rifle_association
Sunday, September 19, 2010
"In the 10th Year, a Harder Army, a More Distant America"
As future policy analysts and hopefully makers, we need to pay attention to all types of trends and problems in society. One issue which is going to play a huge role in future policymaking are those of our Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs.
In my little circle of friends from West Point and the Army, a recent article titled "In the 10th Year, a Harder Army, a More Distant America" has been floating around and getting a lot of approval for its overall message (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/). The central theme of the article is that as the wars drag on and only 665,000 people out of a population of around 300 million have deployed as active duty soldiers to either Iraq or Afghanistan (many of us in that group multiple times), people who serve or have served feel more and more separated from society.
Why do people in the armed forces feel different about civilians? It's simple - civilians have never seen or done the things that the soldier has seen and done. When soldiers come back from war and see people arguing or stressing over the smallest things in life, they laugh. Very rarely is any choice in America a life or death decision, and overseas those choices come every day.
I find myself totally agreeing with the article. There are things that I can talk about with my Army friends that I could never talk about with, for instance, everyone in politics class. I certainly feel, and my friends who have just left the Army and gone on to grad school have all agreed with this, that my experience separates me from anyone who hasn't served and that there is a figurative wall that will always exist between us and you.
On the policy making front, this will be a huge issue to deal with. The government is going to be paying for the injuries (both physical and psychological) that many have suffered in these wars for years to come. We are going to need to find ways to reintegrate soldiers who leave the Armed Forces (either through retirement or choosing to get out like I did) back into society so that they can be productive. Post-vietnam, a lot of veterans ended up homeless and on the street - is that going to happen again? On the front of psychological issues mentioned above, what are the prospects for increased alcoholism, spousal abuse, or using other forms of violence for a person suffering from the effects of war. What happens to the children of parents who have been kiled overseas, does the government owe them a paycheck and psychological counseling, or a one time payment like they do now? These are all examples of social ills we are going to have to face more and more as the wars drag on.
Another policy issue is whether the growing "warrior class" who fights these wars is a good thing or bad thing. Is it ok to let one group of Americans fight our wars while the rest sit on the sidelines? Is it ok to have politicians who are increasingly made up of less veterans make decisions on war without having served?
All of these are issues we'll be facing and we as policy makers will have to find ways to fix these problems.
In my little circle of friends from West Point and the Army, a recent article titled "In the 10th Year, a Harder Army, a More Distant America" has been floating around and getting a lot of approval for its overall message (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/09/in-the-10th-year-of-war-a-harder-army-a-more-distant-america/). The central theme of the article is that as the wars drag on and only 665,000 people out of a population of around 300 million have deployed as active duty soldiers to either Iraq or Afghanistan (many of us in that group multiple times), people who serve or have served feel more and more separated from society.
Why do people in the armed forces feel different about civilians? It's simple - civilians have never seen or done the things that the soldier has seen and done. When soldiers come back from war and see people arguing or stressing over the smallest things in life, they laugh. Very rarely is any choice in America a life or death decision, and overseas those choices come every day.
I find myself totally agreeing with the article. There are things that I can talk about with my Army friends that I could never talk about with, for instance, everyone in politics class. I certainly feel, and my friends who have just left the Army and gone on to grad school have all agreed with this, that my experience separates me from anyone who hasn't served and that there is a figurative wall that will always exist between us and you.
On the policy making front, this will be a huge issue to deal with. The government is going to be paying for the injuries (both physical and psychological) that many have suffered in these wars for years to come. We are going to need to find ways to reintegrate soldiers who leave the Armed Forces (either through retirement or choosing to get out like I did) back into society so that they can be productive. Post-vietnam, a lot of veterans ended up homeless and on the street - is that going to happen again? On the front of psychological issues mentioned above, what are the prospects for increased alcoholism, spousal abuse, or using other forms of violence for a person suffering from the effects of war. What happens to the children of parents who have been kiled overseas, does the government owe them a paycheck and psychological counseling, or a one time payment like they do now? These are all examples of social ills we are going to have to face more and more as the wars drag on.
Another policy issue is whether the growing "warrior class" who fights these wars is a good thing or bad thing. Is it ok to let one group of Americans fight our wars while the rest sit on the sidelines? Is it ok to have politicians who are increasingly made up of less veterans make decisions on war without having served?
All of these are issues we'll be facing and we as policy makers will have to find ways to fix these problems.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Withering Branches?
In class we said the best we can do – the most rational course – is to take the political structure as given and to work at the margins, to incrementally change the branches. Many of us with backgrounds in complicated, fast-paced worlds of various kinds have felt how painfully true this is. The speed of information, the ever-rising expectations of stakeholders, and the interconnectedness of the world don’t provide the luxury to massage the roots.
Contrast this with Founding Parental-Figure George Mason, who said that to ensure the “blessings of liberty” we must commit ourselves to a “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Steeping themselves in the historical lessons of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London/Edinburgh and Paris, Mason and crew reflected on America's own future. They knew the U.S. would evolve; to keep perspective they believed its leaders must thoughtfully and regularly consider the fundamental ideals that birthed the nation. Or else, they argued, the country would fall into the quagmire of great nations of the past. It was a very rooty perspective.
The global economic crisis was fundamentally a problem of increments. At most every step, actors like the Fed, finance corporations and home-buyers acted in very rational ways. With a handful of reprehensible exceptions, the increments weren’t horrible, unethical decisions; they were small, gray-area choices easily justified in their short-sighted contexts. Fast-forward several years and incremental change amounted to enormous ethical deviations and suffering around the world, even for many who made those decisions.
Is the political realm insulated from such problems? The article Kate sent around for the Gridlock initiative describes Washington's systemic problems that forestall real progress. Its author writes:
The author implies that, contrary to the hopes of our founders, we are incrementally tiptoeing down the roads of Rome and London. He asks the reader to consider whether or not we're past the point of no hope in Washington.
How do we balance the rational with the circumspect, or is that even possible in our world today? Living in the roots would be political suicide for an individual, but might living in the branches result in a slower but equally harmful and much broader disease?
Dean Kuniholm’s talk highlighted the importance of looking to the past to understand the present and shape the future. I wonder what a generation of political leaders steeped in a practical yet historical perspective would look like. It shaped the Constitution. Does it still apply today?
-Jake T.
Contrast this with Founding Parental-Figure George Mason, who said that to ensure the “blessings of liberty” we must commit ourselves to a “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Steeping themselves in the historical lessons of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London/Edinburgh and Paris, Mason and crew reflected on America's own future. They knew the U.S. would evolve; to keep perspective they believed its leaders must thoughtfully and regularly consider the fundamental ideals that birthed the nation. Or else, they argued, the country would fall into the quagmire of great nations of the past. It was a very rooty perspective.
The global economic crisis was fundamentally a problem of increments. At most every step, actors like the Fed, finance corporations and home-buyers acted in very rational ways. With a handful of reprehensible exceptions, the increments weren’t horrible, unethical decisions; they were small, gray-area choices easily justified in their short-sighted contexts. Fast-forward several years and incremental change amounted to enormous ethical deviations and suffering around the world, even for many who made those decisions.
Is the political realm insulated from such problems? The article Kate sent around for the Gridlock initiative describes Washington's systemic problems that forestall real progress. Its author writes:
“Like many changes that are revolutionary, none of Washington’s problems happened overnight. But slow and steady change over many decades—at a rate barely noticeable while it’s happening—produces change that is transformative. In this instance, it’s the kind of evolution that happens inevitably to rich and powerful states, from imperial Rome to Victorian England. The neural network of money, politics, bureaucracy, and values becomes so tautly interconnected that no individual part can be touched or fixed without affecting the whole organism, which reacts defensively.”
The author implies that, contrary to the hopes of our founders, we are incrementally tiptoeing down the roads of Rome and London. He asks the reader to consider whether or not we're past the point of no hope in Washington.
How do we balance the rational with the circumspect, or is that even possible in our world today? Living in the roots would be political suicide for an individual, but might living in the branches result in a slower but equally harmful and much broader disease?
Dean Kuniholm’s talk highlighted the importance of looking to the past to understand the present and shape the future. I wonder what a generation of political leaders steeped in a practical yet historical perspective would look like. It shaped the Constitution. Does it still apply today?
-Jake T.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Macaca Moments
In class, we discussed political frames as strategic vehicles of persuasion in campaigns. Political candidates seek to use the appropriate choice of words to elicit a profound and sustainable response. Because the media can further politicians’ messages and shape public attitudes and behavior, contending parties are quick to target various media communication. Republicans dominate the talk-radio sphere and the Obama campaign claimed ownership of text-message transmission. However, in our digital era, media and especially social media can become a double-edged sword. When candidates commit a gaffe, it goes viral. Even seemingly benign political messages become old news as the sensational macaca moments take center stage.
With modern technology, media and politics are indeed inseparable. We are bombarded with high-speed information in real time, and campaigns do what they can to keep up. By keeping up, I mean that each opposing party is eager to catch the other in campaign flubs. By playing up on the flub, the opposing party breaks down a noble political frame to its more sinister underlying premises. Macaca moments begin to take on the form of Twitter updates… and float around Youtube… Public attitudes toward political candidates indeed change, independent of the effect from political frames.
While candidates cannot afford to concede the digital battlefield, they must also be wary of their ability to say stupid things.
- Susan Chen
McCain's Macaca Moment:
With modern technology, media and politics are indeed inseparable. We are bombarded with high-speed information in real time, and campaigns do what they can to keep up. By keeping up, I mean that each opposing party is eager to catch the other in campaign flubs. By playing up on the flub, the opposing party breaks down a noble political frame to its more sinister underlying premises. Macaca moments begin to take on the form of Twitter updates… and float around Youtube… Public attitudes toward political candidates indeed change, independent of the effect from political frames.
While candidates cannot afford to concede the digital battlefield, they must also be wary of their ability to say stupid things.
- Susan Chen
McCain's Macaca Moment:
AIDS in South Africa: A Problem Not in the "Realm of Human Control"
In considering what makes ideas powerful today, one of the criteria we were given was that ideas, to inspire action, must be in the realm of human control. In America, HIV is a problem within human control: we can practice safe sex and avoid infection, we can get tested to verify it, and if that test is positive we can seek treatment and live for decades more. In South Africa, this is not the case; though condoms and testing are readily available,HIV is not seen as a problem society or individuals have any control over. Instead, it is a silent, pervasive killer, rarely called by its real name, and terribly fraught with stigma. In his book Three Letter Plague, Jonny Steinberg argues that this is because of a lack of resources available for treatment, and that once treatment is available the problem will be perceived as controllable/defeatable and therefore people (not activists) will act to defeat it in their personal lives. However, other than the one MSF-run clinic Steinberg studies, no such thoroughgoing treatment is available in South Africa except to the rich, who also of course are least likely to be infected in the first place.
A friend of mine is still working in South Africa and blogged today about how a hospital she works with shut down for several weeks during the recent workers' strikes, leaving a huge population without care of any kind: http://bethinsa.blogspot.com/2010/09/settling-in.html
Strikes, education, unemployment, patriarchy, homophobia, internalized oppression, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependence, racism, single-party rule, corruption...AIDS in South Africa exists in a web of social problems. Why seek treatment if you have nothing to live for but unemployment? Why trust the government to make change if everyone is corrupt? Why use a condom if getting pregnant is the one way you can find to value yourself? Why get tested if everyone will find out and ostracize you? Activists reframe with the best of intentions, but they have come up against a wall. The frames are right, but the resources are lacking.
Jade Lamb
A friend of mine is still working in South Africa and blogged today about how a hospital she works with shut down for several weeks during the recent workers' strikes, leaving a huge population without care of any kind: http://bethinsa.blogspot.com/2010/09/settling-in.html
Strikes, education, unemployment, patriarchy, homophobia, internalized oppression, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependence, racism, single-party rule, corruption...AIDS in South Africa exists in a web of social problems. Why seek treatment if you have nothing to live for but unemployment? Why trust the government to make change if everyone is corrupt? Why use a condom if getting pregnant is the one way you can find to value yourself? Why get tested if everyone will find out and ostracize you? Activists reframe with the best of intentions, but they have come up against a wall. The frames are right, but the resources are lacking.
Jade Lamb
Framing
I was thinking about the question someone posed today asking why, if TAC was successful in framing the AIDS debate, the AIDS crisis was not getting any better. Framing an issue well doesn't mean you have the best policy option to address the issue; it means you have done the best to mobilize people to support your cause because your framing showed them why they should support the issue. Although TAC had good intentions, they many not have a broad enough response to the AIDS crisis. Good framing helps to implement the good policy by gaining support for and acceptance of the policy. The good policy needs to be there in order to have a real effect on the problem.
Amy Kochanowsky
Amy Kochanowsky
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Arnold, Term Limits, and the failed Republican Revolution
I should have posted this last week to keep current with class content, but since I need a break from figuring out how to cut 171 words from my global policy paper, here goes an old thought.
Arnold's framework ran a lot more true to me than the other things we've read because you can see his theory in action every day. As much as we'd like to believe that Congressmen and women are in Washington to make a positive change for all, it isn't true a lot of the time. Why else do we not have any serious attempts being made to fix our deficit, debt, and unsustainable entitlements spending. Whether you come from the left or the right, this is one of the top problems our country faces and it can be solved if a consensus could be built in the middle. But no politician wants to be the middle guy who either cuts programs or increases taxes (lets face it, we need to do one or the other) because they will have to face re-election. This is where Arnold is 100% correct (and the poitical scientists who he built off of are as well) - politicians think about re-election first and foremost.
One case study where this rings true is the 1994 Republican Revolution. Without going into the history of it, the Republicans finally had the Congress and Clinton, being the master politician that he is, saw the writing on the wall and worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget. All of a sudden we were running government surpluses and had an economic boom. Then Clinton decided to lie and the Republicans decided they were more concerned with playing impeachment than fixing America's problems. Soon enough, Bush was in office and the Republican government was spending away and racking up debt. So how did the party of less become liberal-like in their spending habits while still playing the tax cutting game? It's simple - the Republicans got comfortable in DC and wanted to stay in power. So they spent money and cut taxes to please their constituents back home and ensure re-election.
Not all Republicans were like this. If you examine when this spendaholism happened to the GOP, you'll see that it coincides with many young hawks leaving office because the term limits they set for themselves in 1994 were up. So these part time politicians left government for their homes, a la Cincinnatus, while the ones who didn't take term limits fell in love with power and did everything to stay. So are term limits the answer for Washington?
Think of it; politicians only have a shelf life of 6 or 8 years in the House, and 12 in the Senate, then time's up and you go back home. With a short period of time to do something, you'll feel the push to make a positive difference. Also, since you can only spend a limited time in government, you hopefully won't be as concerned with re-election, so instead of spending money America doesn't have to please your constituents, you'll try to do the right thing (WOW!!!).
I'm not saying this is the answer, but it's an idea, and we need something to fix DC because the people up there right now sure aren't doing the right thing for the people of this nation.
-Matt Vigeant
Arnold's framework ran a lot more true to me than the other things we've read because you can see his theory in action every day. As much as we'd like to believe that Congressmen and women are in Washington to make a positive change for all, it isn't true a lot of the time. Why else do we not have any serious attempts being made to fix our deficit, debt, and unsustainable entitlements spending. Whether you come from the left or the right, this is one of the top problems our country faces and it can be solved if a consensus could be built in the middle. But no politician wants to be the middle guy who either cuts programs or increases taxes (lets face it, we need to do one or the other) because they will have to face re-election. This is where Arnold is 100% correct (and the poitical scientists who he built off of are as well) - politicians think about re-election first and foremost.
One case study where this rings true is the 1994 Republican Revolution. Without going into the history of it, the Republicans finally had the Congress and Clinton, being the master politician that he is, saw the writing on the wall and worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget. All of a sudden we were running government surpluses and had an economic boom. Then Clinton decided to lie and the Republicans decided they were more concerned with playing impeachment than fixing America's problems. Soon enough, Bush was in office and the Republican government was spending away and racking up debt. So how did the party of less become liberal-like in their spending habits while still playing the tax cutting game? It's simple - the Republicans got comfortable in DC and wanted to stay in power. So they spent money and cut taxes to please their constituents back home and ensure re-election.
Not all Republicans were like this. If you examine when this spendaholism happened to the GOP, you'll see that it coincides with many young hawks leaving office because the term limits they set for themselves in 1994 were up. So these part time politicians left government for their homes, a la Cincinnatus, while the ones who didn't take term limits fell in love with power and did everything to stay. So are term limits the answer for Washington?
Think of it; politicians only have a shelf life of 6 or 8 years in the House, and 12 in the Senate, then time's up and you go back home. With a short period of time to do something, you'll feel the push to make a positive difference. Also, since you can only spend a limited time in government, you hopefully won't be as concerned with re-election, so instead of spending money America doesn't have to please your constituents, you'll try to do the right thing (WOW!!!).
I'm not saying this is the answer, but it's an idea, and we need something to fix DC because the people up there right now sure aren't doing the right thing for the people of this nation.
-Matt Vigeant
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Lately I've been thinking about the Vanity Fair article called "Washington, We Have a Problem" that Daniel Schanzer mentioned briefly to us during orientation. (He said it helped inspire his "Is Government Dysfunctional?" speaker series.)
While I think there has been a longstanding public perception that Congress has always been paralyzed, dysfunctional, gridlocked, etc, this article makes the point that obstructionist politics have truly risen to new heights during the current administration. Bolstering this claim with the evidence of the legislative record, the article says, "Democrats and Republicans in Congress now vote against one another more regularly than at any time since Reconstruction."
I saw a clip earlier in the summer where Harry Reid shrugged off his inability to push a bill through the Senate by saying, "60 is the new 50," effectively suggesting that the Constitutionally-mandated simple majority (51 votes) would no longer be sufficient for passing most (or any) significant legislation. Instead, Democrats must now assemble a supermajority to invoke cloture just to bring bills to the floor for debate.
It seems to me that obstructionism as a deliberate partisan strategy must play at least some role in explaining legislators' policy votes today -- it certainly gives the minority party a strong incentive to ensure the majority party has its hands tied when it comes to delivering on major platform promises. And in a roundabout way, I think this fits with Arnold's notion that politicians calculate their votes with an ever-watchful eye on the next election cycle.
Liz S.
I want to be your new treasurer
I hope he wins. I couldn't find where he got his mpa, but I'd love to know if any of you are able to find out.
Edit: It appears he didn't win the nomination
Jon P
Arnold's underlying principle
In The Logic of Congressional Action, Arnold states that the underlying principle in his theory is that members' primary goal is to be re-elected and not to do what is right for the people. This is easy to believe in our current atmosphere of political scandal and government mistrust. However, it almost seems too easy to believe. I would agree that reelection is a huge component of politicians decision making process, but it does not seem to sufficiently explain things such as why legislators would draft legislation in the first place.
Amy Kochanowsky
Amy Kochanowsky
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Generational Divide - Is Lakoff Still Relevant?
So we said in class yesterday that our generation challenges Lakoff’s binary worldviews. I wonder if this questioning is indicative of an altogether different perspective fairly unique to young people today.
If worldview is a pair of glasses – ones we rarely notice until they're knocked off by guys like Lakoff – we’ve been raised with post-modern, x-ray specs designed to hone in on underlying motivations and power structures. One of our strongest generational morals seems to be evaluating why things are, and of course questioning others who are too confident in their own answers. Strict fathers or nurturing mothers? Maybe we’re the new parents who don't know exactly how our babies are still in one piece, but we're not content trusting the advice of mothers-in-law we know didn't do it perfectly (until we're sleep deprived and at wits end).
Through his description of the extremes – one subtly caricatured, the other obviously supported – Lakoff invokes a dualistic gravitational pull of ideas. He describes an ossified political system that may care more about ideological loyalty than about the meaning and impact that our generation craves. I believe we're characterized by idealism like that of the 60s, but with a grounding rooted in worldwide travel, access to information, and other facets of a shrinking world. The status quo of prior generations – lifelong career ladders, loyalty to a bloc just like me, etc. – and the secondary status quo of objecting to that one hold little allure in themselves.
So getting to my point, I think Lakoff's description is helpful in understanding a powerful bloc of voters, but ours may be a transitional generation. One of the few concrete, testable notions Lakoff offers is that his model’s value will be tested in so far as it describes the future. Political ads like those from class target established (i.e. baby-boomer) constituents and seem to pat Lakoff's categories on the proverbial backs. But messages to our generation offer more of a challenge.
“Social justice” is no longer the rally cry of progressives, but of The Heritage Foundation's recent curriculum. It encourages young conservatives, through personal giving and relationships, to help those living in poverty flourish as complete human beings. And in a presentation by the American Enterprise Institute to a group of young DC elites last summer, a scholar explained that capitalism is king but that the king should serve the people. Social enterprise and harnessing market forces to care for those in need were the topics of keynote addresses.
Other examples are just as stark. And even if they're just well-aimed rhetoric, major parties have, to some extent, altered their messages to meet the criteria of our generation. Maybe our worldview - as it questions the norms and seeks deeper meaning - could soften ideologies and shape them into something fresh. We don’t know where it'll all lead, but hopefully we won't drop the baby. In the meantime, there's a lot of interesting groping in the darkness.
Just some thoughts for what they're worth. And I’m absolutely certain of my generalizations and anecdotes. I’ve seen nothing on television or in the news that proves my system wrong :).
Jake T
If worldview is a pair of glasses – ones we rarely notice until they're knocked off by guys like Lakoff – we’ve been raised with post-modern, x-ray specs designed to hone in on underlying motivations and power structures. One of our strongest generational morals seems to be evaluating why things are, and of course questioning others who are too confident in their own answers. Strict fathers or nurturing mothers? Maybe we’re the new parents who don't know exactly how our babies are still in one piece, but we're not content trusting the advice of mothers-in-law we know didn't do it perfectly (until we're sleep deprived and at wits end).
Through his description of the extremes – one subtly caricatured, the other obviously supported – Lakoff invokes a dualistic gravitational pull of ideas. He describes an ossified political system that may care more about ideological loyalty than about the meaning and impact that our generation craves. I believe we're characterized by idealism like that of the 60s, but with a grounding rooted in worldwide travel, access to information, and other facets of a shrinking world. The status quo of prior generations – lifelong career ladders, loyalty to a bloc just like me, etc. – and the secondary status quo of objecting to that one hold little allure in themselves.
So getting to my point, I think Lakoff's description is helpful in understanding a powerful bloc of voters, but ours may be a transitional generation. One of the few concrete, testable notions Lakoff offers is that his model’s value will be tested in so far as it describes the future. Political ads like those from class target established (i.e. baby-boomer) constituents and seem to pat Lakoff's categories on the proverbial backs. But messages to our generation offer more of a challenge.
“Social justice” is no longer the rally cry of progressives, but of The Heritage Foundation's recent curriculum. It encourages young conservatives, through personal giving and relationships, to help those living in poverty flourish as complete human beings. And in a presentation by the American Enterprise Institute to a group of young DC elites last summer, a scholar explained that capitalism is king but that the king should serve the people. Social enterprise and harnessing market forces to care for those in need were the topics of keynote addresses.
Other examples are just as stark. And even if they're just well-aimed rhetoric, major parties have, to some extent, altered their messages to meet the criteria of our generation. Maybe our worldview - as it questions the norms and seeks deeper meaning - could soften ideologies and shape them into something fresh. We don’t know where it'll all lead, but hopefully we won't drop the baby. In the meantime, there's a lot of interesting groping in the darkness.
Just some thoughts for what they're worth. And I’m absolutely certain of my generalizations and anecdotes. I’ve seen nothing on television or in the news that proves my system wrong :).
Jake T
Hello, Strict Father
When I got home yesterday and was unwinding in front of MSNBC, I found myself face-to-face with someone spewing Lakoff's "Strict Father Morality" on a cable news network that is not often counted among the more "conservative" outlets. Here's a link to the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#39046090
The commentator, Cenk Uygur, is a progressive talk radio host and it was very interesting for me to see someone who would probably never identify himself as a conservative fit nearly perfectly within Lakoff's model of a Strict Father. In this clip entitled "Grading America's Parents", Uygur argues that ultimately it is parents who should be held responsible for the quality of their children's educational performance - not teachers, school districts, social policies, etc.
-Patricia Liever
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#39046090
The commentator, Cenk Uygur, is a progressive talk radio host and it was very interesting for me to see someone who would probably never identify himself as a conservative fit nearly perfectly within Lakoff's model of a Strict Father. In this clip entitled "Grading America's Parents", Uygur argues that ultimately it is parents who should be held responsible for the quality of their children's educational performance - not teachers, school districts, social policies, etc.
-Patricia Liever
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Little More Lakoff
I'm not sure how much more appetite anyone has for The Great Lakoff Debate but I found this critique of Lakoff's work very clear and level-headed. It talks about the Pinker-Lakoff debate that Matt V. brought up but is from a third party at The New Republic and therefore is not mired in personal attacks:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/open-university/frame-game
The points that are brought up at the end speak to something that troubled me about the implications of Lakoff's theories. These metaphors not only try to link seemingly disparate policy preferences but also contend that the roots of those policies stem from two diametrically opposed moralities. I'd be really impressed if anyone could find a way to link Lakoff's two sides in any kind of meaningful dialogue on issues based on his moral frameworks which sound to me to be opposites on pretty much every issue. As the blog post above notes at the end “once you start thinking of liberals and conservatives as distinct kinds of people, divided by deep moral differences that grow out of their early family experience, then it's easy to fall into the hyper-moralizing rhetoric of political polarization.” Maybe it's the idealist in me, but I'm personally repelled by a theory that has no interest in paths to agreement or negotiation and is more concerned with defining which set of metaphors is the “right” one. True, Lakoff talks about being able to understand what the other side is really saying when using the language the main metaphors provoke, but it seems like an understanding with a tactical view to fighting the other side's language, not one of empathy and communication. Of course, all that desire from empathy could just be because I'm a nurturing parent.
-The Other Matt (Schuneman)
Messaging in the Current Election Cycle
Here's an interesting blog post by Nate Silver, a dreamboat of sorts for politically-minded stats nerds everywhere, in which he looks at the issues that Republican and Democratic Congressional candidates in toss-up districts are focusing on in the run-up to the 2010 midterms. He notes that (as is par for the course) Republicans seem to have the more coherent and consistent message--they'll repeal health care reform, secure the border and shrink the size of government--while Democrats are having a harder time articulating why it is that voters should vote for them.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/democrats-arent-running-from-health-care-but-what-are-they-running-on/
Check it out. There's a sweet graph...
Evan K.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/democrats-arent-running-from-health-care-but-what-are-they-running-on/
Check it out. There's a sweet graph...
Evan K.
Language as a Symbol
As a linguist, Lakoff makes some interesting comments about the way we use language in political discourse. A relevant example he makes is his observation that both liberals and conservatives think conservatives are against big government. In reality, conservatives use the term "big government" as a marker for conservative values of the role of government. He shows how liberals and conservatives each favor government regulation for different issues (liberals for healthcare, education, and the environment, conservatives for military, intelligence, and prisons). When conservatives use the term "big government" they don't mean it in an absolute sense, but they are conveying the conservative take on the role of government with this simple term. This is a useful example of why liberalys and conservatives can have trouble communicating - they are using terminology differently - but also provides us a way to look for these differences to help people understand opposing viewpoints.
This leads me to a question. If conservatives and liberals do favor government regulations, even though they are over different issues, how have conservatives become branded as the party that opposes "big government?" This seems like a conservative success as there is often fear or mistrust of the government.
Amy Kochanowsky
This leads me to a question. If conservatives and liberals do favor government regulations, even though they are over different issues, how have conservatives become branded as the party that opposes "big government?" This seems like a conservative success as there is often fear or mistrust of the government.
Amy Kochanowsky
Monday, September 6, 2010
Pinker v Lackoff
When I read the Lackoff book this weekend I was so outraged at his blatant bias being called "cognitive science" that I knew someone out there would be slamming him in the press. So I googled Professor Lackoff's name (he's a Professor at Berkeley where he's been in academia since 1972...and a former Chomsky protege...draw your own conclusions from that association) and right away the controversy over this article appeared. It seems that Lackoff and Steven Pinker, a fellow cognitive scientist/psychologist who is at Harvard have been engaging in quite the debate which has ranged from the serious to the seriously ad hominem. It all springs from an article Pinker published in the New Republic criticizing Lackoff's work (Note:Pinker is not a Republican, he's a fellow liberal).
Pinker's main problems with Lackoff's work can be summarized as such:
-Lackoff believes that people are not rational or thinking actors and instead refer to metaphors which were somehow formed in time without and rational thought ...so the metaphors basically appeared out of thin air? That's impossible because someone at some point used their reason to define the concept that created the metaphor and we need reason and cognition to understand and use metaphors in everyday life
-His usage of cognitive science goes way beyond any claims that a scientist in that field would make, and he makes his claims without citing any other works, only himself. So there's no empirical evidence, only his thoughts. In addition, he totally misunderstands the brain science concept of framing that he uses to establish his ideas
-His political bias (this is coming from one dem to another) clouds everything he does
Pinker calls Lackoff's work a "Lollapalooza" and a "Train-wreck." I happen to agree with Dr. Pinker.
In addition, I have my own reasons for doubting Prof. Lackoff. Obviously as a moderately conservative person, I abhor his model which repeatedly uses the idea of racism as a practical outcome of the conservative world view. I also don't prescribe to invented abstracted systems used to show how people act. Whether it's positivism, Hegelianism, or any other ism, abstracted systems over time have not accurately described human behavior because we don't fall nicely into set categories.
Since I for some reason can't paste into this page, I encourage you to google Pinker, Lackoff and enjoy the reading.
-Matt Vigeant
Pinker's main problems with Lackoff's work can be summarized as such:
-Lackoff believes that people are not rational or thinking actors and instead refer to metaphors which were somehow formed in time without and rational thought ...so the metaphors basically appeared out of thin air? That's impossible because someone at some point used their reason to define the concept that created the metaphor and we need reason and cognition to understand and use metaphors in everyday life
-His usage of cognitive science goes way beyond any claims that a scientist in that field would make, and he makes his claims without citing any other works, only himself. So there's no empirical evidence, only his thoughts. In addition, he totally misunderstands the brain science concept of framing that he uses to establish his ideas
-His political bias (this is coming from one dem to another) clouds everything he does
Pinker calls Lackoff's work a "Lollapalooza" and a "Train-wreck." I happen to agree with Dr. Pinker.
In addition, I have my own reasons for doubting Prof. Lackoff. Obviously as a moderately conservative person, I abhor his model which repeatedly uses the idea of racism as a practical outcome of the conservative world view. I also don't prescribe to invented abstracted systems used to show how people act. Whether it's positivism, Hegelianism, or any other ism, abstracted systems over time have not accurately described human behavior because we don't fall nicely into set categories.
Since I for some reason can't paste into this page, I encourage you to google Pinker, Lackoff and enjoy the reading.
-Matt Vigeant
Energy Independence Revisited
I would like to return to last week’s discussion on energy independence to question our urgency in seeking energy independence, as if it is a goal to be desired in its entirety. Such a goal seems very noble but has deep repercussions upon closer examination. I would like to highlight a simple cost-benefit analysis regarding energy independence in hopes of our collective reassessment of its exigency toward nation building. Let's look at the form of energy that many Americans want independence: oil.
Currently, the United States imports about 60% of its oil and petroleum products. Had the dreams of our leaders been realized, the United States could be self-sufficient in oil production by the time aforementioned. I have a naïve perspective on oil self-sufficiency but I believe that it is not a trying task. Banning imports or imposing a stiff tariff on oil can greatly reduce imports closer to zero. The resulting reduction in domestic supply will increase prices. Americans would end up paying a much higher-than- world market price for oil.
Energy “dependence” appears to be a much more cost-effective option. Why would we want to pay more for oil than we need to? We can apportion our income toward the consumption of other goods. “Dependence” is not a one-way street—Americans become reliant on foreign oil and foreign countries need the earned income from oil. It is a matter of comparative advantage. The oil market is a mutual trade in which both parties end up better off.
Sure, there is the risk of dependency and poor relations coming to blows. We worry that foreigners will cut off ties with us and impose an embargo on oil. If this oil-supplier nation decides to sell oil to another country, the other country’s old suppliers would seek alternative channels for provision. The U.S. has just found itself a new supplier.
Energy independence has its appeal in driving innovation and job creation, national security and domestic GDP, among others. However, it is a pricey ambition worth the wait and further deliberation.
- Susan Chen
The President's Speech on Iraq
So for some reason I can't copy and paste on this, so to check my post, go to my blog I created by accident....
http://mattvigeant.blogspot.com
http://mattvigeant.blogspot.com
Lakoff Moral Politics and the Middle East
I found the reading for this week (Lakoff's Moral Politics) incredibly interesting and informative as I have constantly struggled with understanding the differences in thought processes between liberals and conservatives. I must say I was pleased to read his discussion of how cultural knowledge is an important factor in determining how people formulate their worldviews (pg 147). I believe that the founding of America as a "land of opportunity"--the more self-disciplined and hardworking one is, the more successful s/he will become--created a cultural foundation ideal for a conservative worldview. This goes along with what many have been saying about how conservatives are able to adopt very strong, traditional symbolism in their messaging.
As I was reading this, I also began to wonder how these differing worldviews may be seen in America's relationships with other parts of the world. My immediate thought was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Has Israel adopted a similar worldview to American conservatives in their approach to the conflict? Can we relate America's role in this conflict to that of a conservative nature, while relating other European nations' perspectives and criticism of America's role to a liberal worldview?
I realize this is a sensitive topic and could bring about some strong discussion, but thought I would share as I think that Lakoff's models are incredibly powerful tools.
~Anna Kawar
As I was reading this, I also began to wonder how these differing worldviews may be seen in America's relationships with other parts of the world. My immediate thought was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Has Israel adopted a similar worldview to American conservatives in their approach to the conflict? Can we relate America's role in this conflict to that of a conservative nature, while relating other European nations' perspectives and criticism of America's role to a liberal worldview?
I realize this is a sensitive topic and could bring about some strong discussion, but thought I would share as I think that Lakoff's models are incredibly powerful tools.
~Anna Kawar
Op-Ed on Symbolism, Name-calling, and Extremism
This morning I was catching up on the day's news and stumbled upon an interesting op-ed in the New York Times that falls in line with our discussion last Thursday. Douthat points out the commonality of using symbolism and exaggerated adjectives to make the "other side" appear extreme.
Educated people who care about politics typically aren't fooled by claims from the "left" that President Bush bombed the levees in New Orleans or conspired to have 9/11 occur or claims from the "right" that President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and is a Muslim socialist. However, those claims at least garner credibility in the masses--even if they simply cast doubt on a leader's honesty or capability. Knowing this point, political leaders then make a rational choice to use symbolism and scare tactics rather than intellectual argument to promote their policies. After all, that's what gets the votes and keeps them in office. This reliance upon symbolism looks ridiculous to people who see straight through it and may cause them to question their political leader's intelligence. However, most politicians aren't dumb--they just know that it's better for the general public to like them than a few people who don't get scared by the words "socialized medicine" or "financial catastrophe."
-Sam Rauschenberg
Sunday, September 5, 2010
"America's History of Fear" - Kristof
I read an op-ed this morning that hit on a lot of the themes we discussed in the afternoon section last Thursday. I thought I'd pass it along:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Kristof runs through a number of historical examples of the politics of fear as witnessed throughout American history, drawing parallels between these historical examples and current-day examples of Islamophobia in America (especially as seen recently with the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy/hysteria).
He notes that he doesn't see those who oppose the proposed Islamic center as bigots (I think there's definitely room for argument there, but I digress...), but rather as "well-meaning worriers" who fall in a long line of xenophobic Americans who are simply troubled by unfamiliarity with other cultures/religions/beliefs:
"The starting point isn’t hatred but fear: an alarm among patriots that newcomers don’t share their values, don’t believe in democracy, and may harm innocent Americans."
While fear-stoking politics and the use of wedge issues to achieve electoral gains is obviously nothing new, I've been struck--particularly in the context of recent debates--by how inconsistent those who "boldly" speak out can be (often without political penalty). For example, were you to ask an average Tea Party activist why they oppose recent health care reforms, you'd likely hear the phrase "unconstitutional" more than once. If you then were to switch to the topic of the "Ground Zero Mosque," adherence to the Constitution--and that pesky "freedom of religion" thing--all of a sudden becomes less important. How the Constitution can matter in one instance and not in the next is, I think, a signal of the fact that the symbolic can (and will) often trump the institutional, at least in the mind of the average American.
I also wanted to share a link to a blog posting from a couple of weeks ago concerning the Islamic centre controversy:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/ground-zero_mosque_1
The post provides commentary and links to information about other mosque protests taking place around the country, and it also points to some interesting survey results hitting on the issue of constitutionality and freedom of religion:
"...as this week's Economist/YouGov poll shows, slightly more than half of those identifying themselves as Republican do deny that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site, as do a quarter of those identifying themselves as a Democrat or Independent. Moreover, groups of Americans have been protesting the construction of mosques in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Temecula, California, none of which are mere blocks from ground zero."
In general, this blog--The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog on American politics--is by far the best political blog I've found, and it's one of the few I follow regularly. It's more commentary than hard news, well-written, and often hilarious. I'd highly recommend reading it as often as possible; it always provides an interesting and well-informed take on the politics of the day:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica
Evan K.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Kristof runs through a number of historical examples of the politics of fear as witnessed throughout American history, drawing parallels between these historical examples and current-day examples of Islamophobia in America (especially as seen recently with the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy/hysteria).
He notes that he doesn't see those who oppose the proposed Islamic center as bigots (I think there's definitely room for argument there, but I digress...), but rather as "well-meaning worriers" who fall in a long line of xenophobic Americans who are simply troubled by unfamiliarity with other cultures/religions/beliefs:
"The starting point isn’t hatred but fear: an alarm among patriots that newcomers don’t share their values, don’t believe in democracy, and may harm innocent Americans."
While fear-stoking politics and the use of wedge issues to achieve electoral gains is obviously nothing new, I've been struck--particularly in the context of recent debates--by how inconsistent those who "boldly" speak out can be (often without political penalty). For example, were you to ask an average Tea Party activist why they oppose recent health care reforms, you'd likely hear the phrase "unconstitutional" more than once. If you then were to switch to the topic of the "Ground Zero Mosque," adherence to the Constitution--and that pesky "freedom of religion" thing--all of a sudden becomes less important. How the Constitution can matter in one instance and not in the next is, I think, a signal of the fact that the symbolic can (and will) often trump the institutional, at least in the mind of the average American.
I also wanted to share a link to a blog posting from a couple of weeks ago concerning the Islamic centre controversy:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/ground-zero_mosque_1
The post provides commentary and links to information about other mosque protests taking place around the country, and it also points to some interesting survey results hitting on the issue of constitutionality and freedom of religion:
"...as this week's Economist/YouGov poll shows, slightly more than half of those identifying themselves as Republican do deny that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site, as do a quarter of those identifying themselves as a Democrat or Independent. Moreover, groups of Americans have been protesting the construction of mosques in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and Temecula, California, none of which are mere blocks from ground zero."
In general, this blog--The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog on American politics--is by far the best political blog I've found, and it's one of the few I follow regularly. It's more commentary than hard news, well-written, and often hilarious. I'd highly recommend reading it as often as possible; it always provides an interesting and well-informed take on the politics of the day:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica
Evan K.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Environmental Policy
After reading the article on the BP spill, one of the author's comments struck me: "a much bigger misstep has been to talk about climate change as an 'environmental' problem." As someone interested in environmental policy, I first worried the only hope was to frame all environmental issues as some other type of issue in order to gain public support. I realized that environmentalism is a relavitely new topic and has not been established as a political institution.
Many scientists and organizations have been feeding us scientific evidence to appeal to our rational sides, but because environmentalism is still seen as a special interest and not a political mainstay, we don't have the institutional framework in which to put all of that scientific information, no matter how persuasive it may be. Once enviroinmental policies no longer seem like such a fringe issue, politicians will not be so afraid to tackle them head on. Until then, we may have to refram environmental issues, but it is also important to aim for long term progress. That is to say solidifying environmental issues as important political issues so that people will automatically consider them important and a necessary part of politics.
Amy Kochanowsky
Many scientists and organizations have been feeding us scientific evidence to appeal to our rational sides, but because environmentalism is still seen as a special interest and not a political mainstay, we don't have the institutional framework in which to put all of that scientific information, no matter how persuasive it may be. Once enviroinmental policies no longer seem like such a fringe issue, politicians will not be so afraid to tackle them head on. Until then, we may have to refram environmental issues, but it is also important to aim for long term progress. That is to say solidifying environmental issues as important political issues so that people will automatically consider them important and a necessary part of politics.
Amy Kochanowsky
The Silent Tipping Point
Malcolm Gladwell in his book "The Tipping Point" tries to explain why certain events and trends spread so quickly and unexpectedly across a large population. He calls this phenomenon the 'social epidemic,' the way an idea, behavior or product can spread like an infectious disease. The example that resonates in my mind relates to the CROCS footwear, which (please skip this sentence if you like the brand) despite looking like giant clowns feet, suddenly exploded in popularity in the western world by 2006.
When I think of the issues related to the environment and climate change I try to think of what will be the tipping point to bring about more responsible behaviors and market economics. Our prior generation would have thought the tipping point was Rachel Carson's book of 1962, Silent Spring. Rachel brought to the attention of the world the dangers of pesticides to wildlife and our own health, which helped to galvanize public opinion, unite scientists and herald a number of environmental protection regulations including the creation of the EPA. We today may have thought the tipping point would be Al Gore's 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, or possibly the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but they collectively have not been enough to support the passing of cap and trade legislation in the US Senate.
I personally hope we don't wait for 'that' tipping point for the US to make a step forward in global environmental leadership and responsibility. I am assured by the fact that rationality returned to how we viewed the CROCS shoes, which this year I found were worn primarily by African children after being discarded and donated by western countries. I believe soon science will win over emotions and self interest and that we will act in the interests of all citizens, fauna and flora we share this planet with. I believe rationality will soon unite us all in how we manage our global environment.
Jamie
When I think of the issues related to the environment and climate change I try to think of what will be the tipping point to bring about more responsible behaviors and market economics. Our prior generation would have thought the tipping point was Rachel Carson's book of 1962, Silent Spring. Rachel brought to the attention of the world the dangers of pesticides to wildlife and our own health, which helped to galvanize public opinion, unite scientists and herald a number of environmental protection regulations including the creation of the EPA. We today may have thought the tipping point would be Al Gore's 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, or possibly the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but they collectively have not been enough to support the passing of cap and trade legislation in the US Senate.
I personally hope we don't wait for 'that' tipping point for the US to make a step forward in global environmental leadership and responsibility. I am assured by the fact that rationality returned to how we viewed the CROCS shoes, which this year I found were worn primarily by African children after being discarded and donated by western countries. I believe soon science will win over emotions and self interest and that we will act in the interests of all citizens, fauna and flora we share this planet with. I believe rationality will soon unite us all in how we manage our global environment.
Jamie
Friday, September 3, 2010
More Analysis on the Climate Bill
Hey everyone,
I read this article a while back and thought I would share. It goes into a lot of depth about how much blame each different actor in the process should take for the failure to pass the climate bill.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2299
Enjoy, or perhaps like me, get enraged,
TJ
I read this article a while back and thought I would share. It goes into a lot of depth about how much blame each different actor in the process should take for the failure to pass the climate bill.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2299
Enjoy, or perhaps like me, get enraged,
TJ
Thursday, September 2, 2010
US-China relation from the Chinese perspective (about Sep 2nd's class discussion)
Here is some thoughts about today's class.
First of all, honestly, non offense taken at all. What I was thinking is that those kinds of comments are very familiar to Chinese people so that we won't feel that bad when hearing them. There is a saying in China that every time when there is a big crisis in the US, the politicians always tend to talk about China to alleviate the domestic conflict.
Also, thanks a lot for all the understanding and encouragement from my dear friends. I am really happy to be here and have your guys around.
Claire
First of all, honestly, non offense taken at all. What I was thinking is that those kinds of comments are very familiar to Chinese people so that we won't feel that bad when hearing them. There is a saying in China that every time when there is a big crisis in the US, the politicians always tend to talk about China to alleviate the domestic conflict.
Also, thanks a lot for all the understanding and encouragement from my dear friends. I am really happy to be here and have your guys around.
Claire
Sociological Images
Symbolism played a heavy role in our discussion during class today, and I wanted to share a blog I love that chronicles visually the ways that (primarily Western) society is permeated with symbols that reinforce norms wherever we go. The blog, Sociological Images, primarily posts images (usually photos/scans of found media or charts of interesting sociological trends) that demonstrate how things we take for granted—art, advertisements, popular culture, signs, political statements—reflect existing norms of gender roles, racial stereotypes, family constructions, class judgments, and more, forcing the reader to look more critically at the politics of her seemingly innocuous environs. Each image is accompanied by some minimal commentary that explains where the image is from and what it means to the poster, but because Sociological Images is written for an audience with similar instincts when it comes to the politics of everyday life, the images do most of the talking. I think that this very nicely demonstrates the power of symbols and is worth taking a look at for anyone interested in the interplay of politics and social structures.
Here is the link:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/
Jade Lamb
Emotional Logic
In the 115 class someone commented on how Americans don't think and reason because they are not very highly educated. I countered that the problem is not that they don't think, but that thinking is impossible without the aid of our emotions and emotions run high on certain topics. I wanted to expound on this and do so below.
Mariana, you will find this is directly opposite of what you stated. Nothing personal. I simply disagree.
My primary knowledge of this subject comes from a speaker I heard on Alternative Radio (http://www.alternativeradio.org/) back in 2007/2008 in Athens. So it has been a while. The speaker was a well respected academic who was speaking largely on the topic of why the Democrats had done so poorly through the Bush years. My apologies for not being able to provide the name or a link to the original source.
In short, the speaker emphasized the failure of the Democrats to recognize and utilize a new area of cognitive science that the Republicans had latched on to. The science looked at how we conduct reason and logic and where our emotions come into play in these processes. One of the more empirical studies the speaker cited was particularly telling. It is nearly impossible to study the impacts of emotions and feelings on reason and logic in a perfectly normal human being. However, in an individual who has had their emotional process knocked out by some traumatic event, it is possible. What they found when they studied these people was that their ability to reason and logic was impaired. The speaker also cited studies about how people react strongly more strongly to certain words and how this can possibly impact their decision making process (we see truth of this in Stats when we talk about careful choice of words so as not to flavor a question). The Democrats, the speaker claimed (and I agree), naively chose to (there are two ways to frame this) 1) "not use this information to manipulate people"; 2) "believe that well explained reason and logic would rule over emotion."
So what does this mean to us? Well, when the Republicans rephrase Cap and Trade as "Energy Tax", it means they've won. For someone who understands cap and trade and knows what it could mean for the fight against global warming, they get warm and fuzzy feelings when they hear the words "Cap and Trade" as it signifies hope. For the rest of America that doesn't understand Cap and Trade, they don't get the warm and fuzzies when they hear the term. They definitely don't feel so hot when they hear Cap and Trade explained as a "tax" or that it could lead to "job loss". As an aside, I heard a lot back when Bush gained his second term that the Republicans did an excellent job playing on people emotions (mainly fear) with things like the constant use of the word "terrorism". In the opposite seat, the Democrats back then tried to appeal to people's ability to reason and logic. Big win.
For the Environmentalists, the above principle is the reason why they turned to polar bears. Polar bears are big, warm, fuzzy creatures that illicit big, warm, fuzzy emotions. Certainly much warmer than charts and graphs showing CO2 increasing, ice melt, temperature rise, etc. Of course, as folks were pointing out in class today, how many times can you look at a polar bear (or an oil-covered pelican) before you loose interest? I think the articles we read for the this past Monday very nicely captured the issue. To take it to its logical conclusion: the environmental movement needs to find a way to connect with folks emotionally and personally. Until people literally feel it, they won't care about it. This means finding the right words and the right issue, literally bringing the negative impacts of climate change into the home and directly relating it to the American family unit.
So in Mayer's terms, I am essentially arguing that symbolism, used by institutions, trumps reason and logic where complex, poorly understood policies and the masses are concerned. The motivations behind allowing or blocking a policy at the institutional level are reasoned through, however. The Republicans don't try to block everything the Democrats try to do out of spite (I'd like to think). They do it because it disagrees with their views and the views of their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, act in the opposite direction (pushing the policy) for the same reason. Where this whole thing starts to come full circle is when the Republicans tell the masses that Cap and Trade = "energy tax" (a strong negative symbol) and the Democrats suddenly find swing voters threatening to swing the other way. So the Democrats dropped the bill right before elections to try to minimize damage over the mid-terms.
Take 'em or leave 'em, those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear critiques as I definitely don't know this stuff half as well as most of yall.
Morgan Fleming
Mariana, you will find this is directly opposite of what you stated. Nothing personal. I simply disagree.
My primary knowledge of this subject comes from a speaker I heard on Alternative Radio (http://www.alternativeradio.org/) back in 2007/2008 in Athens. So it has been a while. The speaker was a well respected academic who was speaking largely on the topic of why the Democrats had done so poorly through the Bush years. My apologies for not being able to provide the name or a link to the original source.
In short, the speaker emphasized the failure of the Democrats to recognize and utilize a new area of cognitive science that the Republicans had latched on to. The science looked at how we conduct reason and logic and where our emotions come into play in these processes. One of the more empirical studies the speaker cited was particularly telling. It is nearly impossible to study the impacts of emotions and feelings on reason and logic in a perfectly normal human being. However, in an individual who has had their emotional process knocked out by some traumatic event, it is possible. What they found when they studied these people was that their ability to reason and logic was impaired. The speaker also cited studies about how people react strongly more strongly to certain words and how this can possibly impact their decision making process (we see truth of this in Stats when we talk about careful choice of words so as not to flavor a question). The Democrats, the speaker claimed (and I agree), naively chose to (there are two ways to frame this) 1) "not use this information to manipulate people"; 2) "believe that well explained reason and logic would rule over emotion."
So what does this mean to us? Well, when the Republicans rephrase Cap and Trade as "Energy Tax", it means they've won. For someone who understands cap and trade and knows what it could mean for the fight against global warming, they get warm and fuzzy feelings when they hear the words "Cap and Trade" as it signifies hope. For the rest of America that doesn't understand Cap and Trade, they don't get the warm and fuzzies when they hear the term. They definitely don't feel so hot when they hear Cap and Trade explained as a "tax" or that it could lead to "job loss". As an aside, I heard a lot back when Bush gained his second term that the Republicans did an excellent job playing on people emotions (mainly fear) with things like the constant use of the word "terrorism". In the opposite seat, the Democrats back then tried to appeal to people's ability to reason and logic. Big win.
For the Environmentalists, the above principle is the reason why they turned to polar bears. Polar bears are big, warm, fuzzy creatures that illicit big, warm, fuzzy emotions. Certainly much warmer than charts and graphs showing CO2 increasing, ice melt, temperature rise, etc. Of course, as folks were pointing out in class today, how many times can you look at a polar bear (or an oil-covered pelican) before you loose interest? I think the articles we read for the this past Monday very nicely captured the issue. To take it to its logical conclusion: the environmental movement needs to find a way to connect with folks emotionally and personally. Until people literally feel it, they won't care about it. This means finding the right words and the right issue, literally bringing the negative impacts of climate change into the home and directly relating it to the American family unit.
So in Mayer's terms, I am essentially arguing that symbolism, used by institutions, trumps reason and logic where complex, poorly understood policies and the masses are concerned. The motivations behind allowing or blocking a policy at the institutional level are reasoned through, however. The Republicans don't try to block everything the Democrats try to do out of spite (I'd like to think). They do it because it disagrees with their views and the views of their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, act in the opposite direction (pushing the policy) for the same reason. Where this whole thing starts to come full circle is when the Republicans tell the masses that Cap and Trade = "energy tax" (a strong negative symbol) and the Democrats suddenly find swing voters threatening to swing the other way. So the Democrats dropped the bill right before elections to try to minimize damage over the mid-terms.
Take 'em or leave 'em, those are my thoughts. I'd love to hear critiques as I definitely don't know this stuff half as well as most of yall.
Morgan Fleming
Messaging, institutions & symbols
This week's class discussions and readings made me think of a piece Lakoff recently submitted on disaster messaging. This article, combined with Schaller's similar point of view, argues that the Democratic party has increasingly failed in messaging its causes (particularly disaster) and the Republicans have consistently defended and argued their position more effectively. Tying this into our discussion of Mayer's framework, to me it seems that messaging and framing by political parties/movements (as institutions) have played a significant role.
Particularly in our class discussion today, it seemed to me that the progressive movement has been weakened because its messages have often been mixed between an attempt to make a rational appeal and more emotional/personal pleas. It also seems to me that quite often, NGO's are part of the progressive movement and they often attempt to connect to the individual through more of the emotional/personal appeal. On the other hand, even though the conservative movement continues to rely on the cultural values of society, it has done so mainly through arguments that touch on rational logic instead.
Mariana Kim
Particularly in our class discussion today, it seemed to me that the progressive movement has been weakened because its messages have often been mixed between an attempt to make a rational appeal and more emotional/personal pleas. It also seems to me that quite often, NGO's are part of the progressive movement and they often attempt to connect to the individual through more of the emotional/personal appeal. On the other hand, even though the conservative movement continues to rely on the cultural values of society, it has done so mainly through arguments that touch on rational logic instead.
Mariana Kim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)