Morning Fog

What Zola Knew

Germinal is by some accounts still the most widely read of Émile Zola's novels, and at least two films have been made based on its story.   It is in part an exposé of the bleak world of late-19th-century French coal-mine workers and their strike, in part a story of a love triangle.   Oh, and by the way these days, to this American reader, it's also a bore.  Yet it's always possible to find interesting, even enlightening, tidbits in even the least likely of places.

When Étienne, the novel's protagonist and strike organizer, recites his arguments aimed at persuading the colliers to strike, the first step in realizing workers' rights is to destroy "the state."  And though this coalminer is channeling Marxist dogma here, I was struck by the paradoxical similarity between him and those contemporary rabble-rousers who want to "starve the beast" of government.  Of course in both cases the desire is only only replace it with one more to their liking.  

Today's extreme conservatives might be surprised to learn how much they share with Marxist theoreticians and activists of 150 years ago.  Yet, reading Zola's novel the day after my last posting ("The Shared Nuttiness of Right and Left") the comparison was stark.  In both cases, the solution to the excesses of capitalism is to blame government. 

In Germinal, the miners' strike doesn't end well.  And as we now know, communism was not the answer - whatever the question may have been.  "Communist" governments nearly everywhere have gone out of business, and those that survive have transformed themselves into capitalist societies hiding out in Maoist clothing.  The willful effort to force government into atrophy for temporary political gain is no less a dead-end path into the future. 

In Zola's time, the excesses of profit-seeking behemoths were easily hidden and needed to be brought to the attention of an ignorant public.  Today, the excesses are well known, recent, and highly publicized, so there is little excuse for ignoring them or (worse) putting them on a pedestal.  Like Zola, we should be focusing on identifying the real causes of our ills, rather than undermining the institutions that act as a counterweight to them.  

The Shared Nuttiness Of Right And Left

If the feature story for news cameras last year was angry, shouting right-wingers disrupting politicians' home-district town hall meetings, this year's equivalent may well be angry, shouting left-wingers occupying Wall Street and other urban premises. 

Both groups propose extremist solutions for remedying (their perceptions of) our social and political ills.  For the right, the enemy is government, even though it is dominated by their party these days; for the left, the enemy is private enterprise, especially its more gigantic, global manifestations.  One of the deceptive conventions of political science is that we posit the system as a "spectrum," but a spectrum is really a continuum:  its right and left "ends" eventually meet.  There is some evidence that's happening now, as tea-party faithful ventured out to mingle with the occupiers last week, and found that their complaints aren't all that different, even if their solutions are.

The communality of the two extreme groups is not in their solutions, but in their inchoate dissatisfaction with what is (or isn't) happening at the center of the political stage.  They share the view that "things" generally are terribly wrong and need correction.  Although they propound extremist, one-sided ideas as solutions, they are  - so far -  just as blind as the traditional politicians they rail against in perceiving the real need:   A return to the center.  Or as columnist Dana Milbank lately put it in a piece otherwise devoted to the resurgence of the birther paranoia, "The higher prominence of loons of all stripes is a natural consequence of a political system that has lost every last vestige of a political center." 

I suspect that both extremist groups realize this intuitively, if only subconsciously at the moment.  Unable to figure out how we got so far out of balance, they're still seeking to place blame somewhere - on the "others" - for what went wrong, and that only exacerbates polarization.  With a little more seasoning, they may come to realize that their respective one-sided platforms are impossible, and that only a blend of both is attainable.

 We've always had two basic streams of political thought in the U.S.  There's no reason to think they will disappear.  But for most of our political history, with a few exceptions, we have learned heuristically that for political reasons, if not practical ones, the best course is a mix of the two fundamentally different concepts.  Our unity depends on a pragmatic mix of both government and private enterprise that can attract the support of a large majority -- something that works, even if we're all a little uneasy about one or another aspect of it.   This is why our two main parties have tended historically toward the center, often with only very nuanced differences between them.  This natural tendency to the center got off course in the mid-1990s.  It's time to get it back.  

Moderation isn't just for moderates any more.    

 

 

 

Historectomy

There is a huge contingent of malevolent forces at work in the land, bent on persuading us that black is white, and that known historical events never occurred.  One such event, for example, is the entire eight years of George "Dumbya" Bush's Presidency, which according to certain elements, never actually happened.   They seem so entirely convinced of it that we who retain normal memory function must suppose they're either suffering amnesia or have had history surgically removed from their brains. 

How else can we explain the constant drumbeat of articles and opinions from business interests and their representatives in Congress, to the effect that Obama is responsible for the current economic stagnation; that measures that were successful in the past in reviving economies are now "job-killing" wastes of time; or that the real path forward is to double down on the laissez-faire approach that led us directly into the slump we're now in?  (Oh, about that last point, I forgot - of course that eight years of free rein for business never actually happened...)

In a world where the only solution conservatives can offer is of the "same-song, second-verse" variety, while hoping that nobody will recognize the tune, it's instructive and useful for us to hear from Senator Christopher Dodd, in the Washington Post, regarding "Five Myths About Dodd-Frank."  Dodd co-sponsored the subject legislation, more formally known as the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010," which sought to end some of the worst and most irresponsible practices of self-enriching financial wizards.  

As he correctly points out, critics who are now attempting to roll back that legislation are "launching false attacks" against it.  He is too polite by far in allowing that the critics might be just "misguided" rather than "intentionally misleading," but most readers will know which motivation is the real one.   I'll leave you to read the article, but would just emphasize Dodds's opening comment under the first "myth" he deals with:

Critics who charge that the law is aggravating the recession have forgotten where our economic woes came from in the first place.

Well said!  When a Senator defends legislation he authored and sponsored, we can expect there may be a grain or two of exaggeration in the details.  But at least Dodd hasn't totally forgotten his recent history.

 

   

Mobs and Mugs In DC

The Washington Post hit the nail on the head with two different editorials this week.  Both concern local, Washington-DC issues, but have implications for many other parts of the country too.

Exhibit A:  "Maryland Democrats Stack the Odds."  This one makes very valid points about the increasingly extreme gerrymandering that is so common everywhere these days.  It deals with mainly-Democratic Maryland and its Democratic governor; but just across the river, in purple Virginia, the current Republican governor has recently engaged in a similar effort to perpetuate a Republican advantage.  As the Post says, when the politicians choose their voters, instead of the other way 'round, there's something seriously wrong.

What we need for the reapportionment process that occurs every ten years is some sort of apolitical commission, along with a few rules such as "respect existing local boundaries where possible."  Some of the trouble began with civil rights laws in the 1960s that actually required gerrymandering to establish seats where minorities had a good chance to win; this encouraged politicians to think about gerrymandering and provided a shield behind which to do it.  My guess is that if we work on the basis of existing boundaries, and seek contiguous election districts based only on population, the minority problem would take care of itself. 

Mr. Language Man: Overall, my only quibble with this editorial is that you can't "stack" odds; you can stack a deck, or fix odds.

Exhibit B:  "For Freedom Plaza Protestors, Freedom Reigns."   This item rightly praises the National Park Service decision to extend the permit for the anti-Wall-Street protestors.  They technically should have vacated on Monday; they didn't; the NPS worked out a few rules to ensure that other groups who have been assigned space at other times will still get it, and has extended this group's stay to four months.  This successfully defuses tension and obviates highly public scenes of demonstrators getting hauled off to jail kicking and screaming; it's predictable that four months from now (February?) or even one month (November), few of them will remain.

We who live here have to make our way around them, but we're pretty much used to a half-dozen concurrent events anyway; a march here, a demonstration there, a marathon in a third place, a nut case over on the Mall threatening something or other, so we'll adjust to this, too.

Religion And Politics

We know things are getting desperate, and that the Republican field of candidates for President are on the verge of frantic to distinguish themselves in some way that will appeal to the Republican base.  Nevertheless, in the long run, a party that picks its candidates to appeal to a "base" runs a big risk of defining itself out of the race.   Political bases tend to be extreme; the great mass of American voters is not.

This is particularly true with religion.  We all make our judgments about a candidate's religion, I'm sure, and it's not unusual for religious figures to proclaim that a candidate of whom they approve is a right thinker.   But it's another matter when religous bigots attack a candidate they don't like, attempting to disqualify him/her in the eyes of a group of voters.

That's what pastor Robert Jeffress recently did, professing doubt that Mitt Romney is a Christian, and claiming that Mormonism is a "sect."  This accusation rings especially hollow coming as it does from another sect.   It also sounds manipulative, when you reflect that there is no requirement in the Constitution that the President be a Christian! 

The irony, however, is that more often than not, such accusations help rather than hurt the targeted candidate.   I wasn't yet a voter when John Kennedy ran for office, but even as a 15-year-old, I can recall there was a great deal of controversy about his Roman Catholic faith, some of it put in play purposely by political opponents.  The election results tell the story. 

I believe most voters resent being told what to think about a candidate's religion, and they object to obvious attempts to manipulate them.  They'll make up their own minds about that, thank you very much.      

Lake Wobegon And Corporate Genius

I had never heard of anything called the "Lake Wobegon Effect," but the article so entitled was a fascinating eye-opener.  Its theme is twofold:  That corporate CEOs' salaries have skyrocketed in the past 15 years because every year, each corporation tries to outdo its rivals to give its own CEO the highest salary in the industry; and that there is little relationship between the CEO's results and his reward.  As a result, salaries jawbone upward, uncontrolled by any realistic measure, as Company A gives its top man 20 mil, and the next month, Company B feels it has to give its guy 21 mil, just to keep him hanging around (and to give Company B boasting rights - until Company C comes along...)  Taken together, these trends are what Whoriskey calls the "Lake Wobegon effect."

Corporate boards do this, they say, because they believe it's the way to hold on to the "best" execs; and even if the company had a terrible year, the CEO is likely to get a boost for that reason, and because the typical board is stacked with the CEO's wimpy personal buddies, who couldn't care less about stockholder interests.

This explains a lot.  It clarifies why, to the puzzlement of the average onlooker, a chief exec who failed to achieve the goals he was hired for, or who saw the company's stock decline by 50% during his last year, might nevertheless get a big raise.  

To an extent, yes, it's up to the corporation to pay its people as it sees fit.  The irony is that these people who are looked up to by some as paragons of effective, tough, results-oriented management don't seem to be able to see the dysfunction in the way things are working.  What would these guys (and the very rare gal in their midst) say if the same "system" applied in government?    How can they justify rewarding a non-performing exec for achieving nothing (or even taking things in the wrong direction)?  What are they thinking when they are concerned about keeping "talent" that hasn't demonstrated any accomplishment? 

One clear need is for some rules to prevent too much coziness between execs and the Boards who are supposed to oversee them in the stockholders' interest.   A government regulation might do the trick; but remember, these are the fellows who are so efficient and smart; regulation would just get in the way of their self-regulating drive toward efficiency.

It's a good channel for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement to explore.  And a good reason for them to be in the streets. 

 

Fix The MLK Monument

I'm not sure why it took them so long to reach what I think is the only possible conclusion, but the Washington Post editorial today finally offers the opinion that the bowdlerized quote on one face of the monument should be corrected.

Otherwise, we condone in big, bold, chiseled letters the kind of sloppy literacy that is such a problem among so many of our college graduates these days.

Education For Everyman; Democratizing The University Degree

Kathleen Parker writes recently of the failure of U.S. higher education to deliver graduates who are truly ready to enter the work force.   She relies on a recent study by some education-oriented organization, but who needs a study?   It's common knowledge that too many grads are deficient in math skills, English language skills, or even just plain critical/analytical thinking which is supposed to be the objective of a college degree.  But if we had any doubt, we can look at these two astounding statements from the study Parker quotes:

●Gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills are either “exceedingly small or nonexistent for a larger proportion of students.”

●Thirty-six percent of students experience no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) over four years of higher education.

Parker examines some of the reasons for the failure, but I think she overlooks one big one:  University is the new high school.   

As the university degree has gradually become the essential credential for nearly any white-collar job, the system has adjusted to ensure that only a relative few who enter college will fail to come out with that critical sheepskin in their hand.   Standards inevitably have been lowered.   Of course there are still better schools and worse schools, yet I can't help but point out that Yale produced a U.S. President who seemed to have a lot of difficulty with standard formal English.

It's not colleges that should be blamed, it's us.  The credential is the important thing, whether there's anything behind it or not.  (We did the same thing with drivers' licenses a couple of decades ago; everybody has to be able to drive, so we make sure 99% can do so by teaching them less.)  This has been going on for some time now in education, as evidenced by the fact that we are even talking about basic math and language skills as a college accomplishment.  At the time when I finished high school, it was generally supposed the average freshman came equipped with those skills, and would only polish them a bit during his/her first year. 

We pay a price for valuing the symbolic achievement over the real.  It may have some bearing on such weird phenomena as the head of the Martin Luther King monument commission having been willing to "paraphrase" a quote from a King speech, to be set literally in stone on the memorial -- and seeing nothing wrong with that.

 

Walmart Art

Walmart Art.  Does that sound like a bad idea?  Well, it depends on how you mean it.

The good meaning, to my mind, is the new Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, financed by the Wal-mart fortune, and located in the Arkansas town where the giant discount merchandising firm first saw light of day.

I think it's a very positive development that the new museum has chosen to focus on American art; that by all accounts, it's "doing everything right" in terms of building its collection; and perhaps best of all, that it is located in a rural setting, far distant from any major city, much removed from the places where we expect to find "important" art collections. 

Here in the Washington DC area, it seems a new museum opens its doors about every other week.  In only the past decade or two, we've seen the Spy Museum, the Newseum, and the National Museum of the American Indian.  Pending now is construction of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture.  And these are only the blockbusters; I'm sure I've neglected to mention several score of smaller museums that have popped up in the same period. 

It's too much.  The overconcentration of museums in a few major urban areas gets to the point where it's impossible to take everything in.   Also, it seems to me to create a downward cycle of less and less interesting special exhibits, as each museum feels the need to try to grab its share of the museum-visiting public by having a new "attraction."   

Let's hope that the Crystal Bridges museum will become a success, expanding the audience for worthy art beyond the usual jaded clientele.  I wish them well.   

Whacking "American Citizens"

Just yesterday, I mentioned that there might be cases where it's legitimate for immigrants not to have exactly the same rights as U.S. citizens - but equality under the law  wasn't one of them.

Now let's put the shoe on the other foot.   Do U.S. citizens have superrights that grant them some godlike status to enjoy even when they themselves have spurned the protections of the U.S. Constitution?   That's really the argument that the ACLU and other critics are making regarding the nonaccidental droning death of Anwar al-Aulaqi (or al-Awlaki - it seems we can take our pick of spellings of Arabic names these days) and his pal Samir Khan, both of whom, apparently, were at one time American citizens.

I say "at one time," because surely even the ACLU does not suppose that either of these gents was really an "American" in any but the most meaningless, bureaucratic, de jure sense, i.e., by virtue of having been born in the U.S.  (Incidentally, very few countries of the world choose to define citizenship by place of birth; most define it by the nationality of the parents).

U.S. citizenship law is complex, and I know it has changed in some ways since the days when I was schooled to interpret it as a consular officer, but I do recall there are provisions for a citizen born in the U.S. of foreign parents to choose his citizenship at age 18; there are provisions for any U.S. citizen to renounce his citizenship.  Bureaucrat-lawyers may want to argue that because Anwar and Samir had not stopped by their local U.S. consulate in Sanaa to fill out the paperwork for that, they were still "Americans."  But I think realistically we all understand how this pair of terrorists probably couldn't find time in their busy schedules to make the trek to the Yemeni capital from their mountain hideout.  I think we also understand that fulfilling the niceties of U.S. regulation probably was not high on this dynamic duo's list of priorities.  (Or shall we suppose that they treasured their U.S. citizenship and planned to come back and live in the U.S. after it became a Muslim state?)

In fact, both had clearly chosen to define themselves as belligerents in the war of terror against the U.S.  That to me is all we need to know.  In World War II I'm certain there were some American-born Germans fighting on the German side; I'm going to go out a limb here and guess that our troops storming Omaha beach did not wait to return fire until they had seen the passports of the soldiers firing at them.  The ACLU's concern for legal niceties may be valuable at times but it seems out of place here: quixotic but not noble, pedantic and not useful.