Friday, February 19, 2010
Thank You, Thank You
I would like to thank the single human being that attended my conference presentation today, even though I got the sense she wanted to leave after the first five minutes. Thank you good lady for pretending to be interested in group counseling for delinquent boys. Let me also thank the other woman who came in the room in the middle of the presentation in order to take a picture of the Mardi Gras beads hanging from the tree outside of the window and then promptly left. Sadly, this is not the lowest attendance I've ever had. In 1998 at the same conference 0 people attended my presentation. I need to work on my marketing strategies. These are the days that having spent 6 years in graduate school makes complete sense.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/what-republicans-believe.html
This is a really interesting analysis by libertarian/conservative and gay commentator Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan's thesis is that much of the conservative reaction to Obama is rooted in their own psychological inability to make sense of modernity (an uncomfortable parallel to the Muslim fundamentalists' dilemma), and their revulsion at Obama because he represents someone who ostensibly has lead a convention and responsible life, but who is still able to relate to the world with tolerance and pluralism. Sullivan is at his most devastating pointing out the fact that Obama's own personal and family history appears more "conservative" that many, if not most, of his most vitriolic critics (see Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, etc). For example I'm always fascinated how faithfully many follow people like Rush, who is a multiple divorce, former drug addict, and college dropout.
But despite my head nodding with Sullivan's basic idea here, and while I think Sullivan's point about how reactions to Obama may be more about the person and less about the president is true, it seems equally important to point out that this phenomenon is not behind every negative reaction to the president. There seems to be legitimate concern about the administration's leadership and policies that seems completely delinked from the processes of repression, paranoia and pining for a mythologized past that Sullivan is noting here. It worries me that critical reactions to the administration that come from an origin of rationalism are not being given voice. Rather, fear mongering by demagogues like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin is that main critique of the administration we hear. I think there is actually a rational basis for critique that focuses on the wisdom of deficit spending, and the lack of leadership from the president on healthcare (simply allowing congress to craft a twenty-headed monster piece of legislation). The budget that was just presented can be critiqued on a basis that is clearly free of identity politics or right wing wackery, but we're not hearing such critiques. So while Sullivan has a point (that reactions to the president are often originating from a certain type of psychopathology or the right), the presence of rational critiques of the president is a sign of progress that we should not ignore. We shouldn't ignore them both because they represent the capacity for even some conservatives to get beyond identity politics and engage in rational discourse about policy, but also because such rational critiques (in the end) may be important objectives arguments that will lead to true bipartisan policies and outright more effective legislation and governance. For example David Brooks and David Frum are clearly conservatives, but just as clearly free of the frothing at the mouth, tea party, dim witted and reflexive rejection of the administration's policies that Sullivan focuses upon in his piece. At the end of of the day, there are conservative critiques that are rooted in a genuine intellectual analysis of policy and the country's potential well being, and not rooted in identity politics. We should be listening to those voices, while rightfully critiquing and marginalizing the conservative critiques that arise only from self-serving fear and a limited intellectual capacity to grasp the modern world.
But despite my head nodding with Sullivan's basic idea here, and while I think Sullivan's point about how reactions to Obama may be more about the person and less about the president is true, it seems equally important to point out that this phenomenon is not behind every negative reaction to the president. There seems to be legitimate concern about the administration's leadership and policies that seems completely delinked from the processes of repression, paranoia and pining for a mythologized past that Sullivan is noting here. It worries me that critical reactions to the administration that come from an origin of rationalism are not being given voice. Rather, fear mongering by demagogues like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin is that main critique of the administration we hear. I think there is actually a rational basis for critique that focuses on the wisdom of deficit spending, and the lack of leadership from the president on healthcare (simply allowing congress to craft a twenty-headed monster piece of legislation). The budget that was just presented can be critiqued on a basis that is clearly free of identity politics or right wing wackery, but we're not hearing such critiques. So while Sullivan has a point (that reactions to the president are often originating from a certain type of psychopathology or the right), the presence of rational critiques of the president is a sign of progress that we should not ignore. We shouldn't ignore them both because they represent the capacity for even some conservatives to get beyond identity politics and engage in rational discourse about policy, but also because such rational critiques (in the end) may be important objectives arguments that will lead to true bipartisan policies and outright more effective legislation and governance. For example David Brooks and David Frum are clearly conservatives, but just as clearly free of the frothing at the mouth, tea party, dim witted and reflexive rejection of the administration's policies that Sullivan focuses upon in his piece. At the end of of the day, there are conservative critiques that are rooted in a genuine intellectual analysis of policy and the country's potential well being, and not rooted in identity politics. We should be listening to those voices, while rightfully critiquing and marginalizing the conservative critiques that arise only from self-serving fear and a limited intellectual capacity to grasp the modern world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
