The Culture/Politics Thing (again)

Posted on November 18, 2010 by David S. Meyer

I thought that I was done writing about either Bristol Palin or Dancing with the Stars.  Dancing voters, however, sent her along to the show’s final round, at the expense of singer, Brandy, a somewhat older single mother.  The decision shocked many Dancing fans, who angrily noted that Bristol had survived much longer than many contestants with higher judges’ scores.  And the real fans make their own judgments about the quality of dancing as well.

Clearly,  Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin fans were among those voting for Bristol, maybe even gaming the producers’ rigorous voter voter fraud obstacles to overvote.  It will take a few seconds online to find a conservative site offering instructions on how to vote (example).

Bristol’s victory was apparently the last straw for Steve Cowan, a 67 year old man in Wisconsin who sat down with a few drinks to enjoy the show, and ended up shooting his television.  Others may have been no less outraged, but a little more tempered in their reactions.

It’s understandable, I guess, that people who care about Bristol, Sarah Palin, or the Tea Party more than ballroom dancing might take on this cause.  They are trying to translate their political passions into a miniature culture war.  But even if this passionate support succeeds in gaining Bristol the coveted mirrorball trophy (and I doubt the show’s producers would let this happen), it won’t do anything for the Tea Party, the federal budget deficit, or even Bristol’s (more than a little ironic) cause of preventing teen pregnancy through abstinence.

People try to use cultural commonalities for political efforts as well.  This morning NPR’s  Morning Edition ran a story on Andrew Slack, a Harry Potter fan who is trying to build a political movement among fellow Potter enthusiasts.

Tapping into a fan base even larger than that for Dancing with the Stars, Lack started the Harry Potter Alliance.  He explains:

“There are so many of us who love Harry Potter and want to do more for our world,” Slack told an audience of several hundred at a recent HPA event in Somerville, Mass., that marked the group’s fifth anniversary.

About 100,000 Harry Potter fans have been mobilized by HPA for causes including marriage equality, genocide prevention and literacy. They raised enough money to send five cargo planes to Haiti bearing medical supplies after the earthquake there, and they’ve bought thousands of books for libraries in Rwanda and the Mississippi Delta.

But any substantial cultural project has to reach beyond those who sign onto the political program.  Even writers with as well-developed a political approach as E.L. Doctorow or Saul Bellow reach audiences who might find their political views offensive.  We can listen appreciatively to the music of Bruce Springsteen or Richard Wagner without signing onto their political programs.  Can we expect any less of an artistic commitment from J.K. Rowling or Dancing with the Stars?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Activist Daughters

Posted on November 14, 2010 by David S. Meyer

If Bristol Palin’s activist resume is rather thin, there are notable famous daughters who made serious commitments and took risks to advance their views.  Certainly, they benefited from their parents’ visibility, but they also did their own activist work.

Amy Carter and Daniel Ellsberg, 1987examples of famous daughters who became real activists. I know nothing about their dancing abilities, but their commitments are well established.

Amy Carter, daughter of President Jimmy, grew up in the White House and attended public schools in Washington, DC.  During the 1980s, as a student at Brown University, then the University of Massachusetts, Amy was arrested several times protesting against apartheid in South Africa, United States involvement in military action in Central America, and CIA recruitment in Amherst, Massachusetts.  In November of 1986, for example, Carter and fourteen others were arrested for taking over a building at UMASS.  They presented a “necessity defense” at their trial several months later, arguing that the CIA’s violations of law represented an imminent harm that justified taking direct action.  Daniel Ellsberg and Howard Zinn testified, and the protesters were acquitted.  In recent years, Amy’s politics have been less public, although she illustrated a children’s book by her father, and serves on the board of the Carter Center.

Jenna Bush signing books

Jenna Bush grew up in the White House with her twin sister, Barbara, when father George W. Bush was president.   After graduating from the University of Texas, Jenna became a teacher at a charter school, but took a leave of absence to intern for UNICEF’ s Educational Policy Department in Latin America.  Jenna wrote Ana’s Story: A Journey of Hope, about a young mother with AIDS in Paraguay, directing her share of the proceeds to UNICEF and to Ana.

With her mother, Jenna coauthored a children’s book to encourage reading, and has returned to a career as a teacher.

To date, neither Amy Carter nor Jenna Bush have tried to make a living from their political views, but have dedicated serious time to promoting their views on critical issues.  This is what activists do.  (Both dads, by the way, have consistently expressed pride.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bristol: Tea Party Test of Strength

Posted on November 12, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Is the fix in for Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars?  Despite notching relatively weak scores from the judges, the viewers’ votes have kept Bristol on the dance floor–and the show–week after week.  She is now one of the final four.

The judges’ scores suggest that it’s not her dancing that’s keeping her in the competition.  The Washington Times reports:

“There’s a strong popular movement behind Sarah Palin at the moment and she’s receiving a lot of support from the Tea Party,” said Conrad Green, executive producer of the program. “It’s entirely possible some of those people are behind Bristol for political reasons.”

Voting for Dancing is a great place for the Tea Party, which had, uh, mixed success, in the last election, to show its strength.  The percentage of Americans who vote for the reality/competition show is far smaller even than the percentage of Americans who turn out to vote in midterm elections.  (Bristol, it turns out, was also a no show at the polls.  Registered to vote in Alaska, she might have made a difference in an election where her mom’s efforts seem not to have been enough to help Republican/Tea Party candidate Joe Miller beat an old line patronage Republican running as an independent-M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I).

But Dancing with the Stars isn’t a democracy, or even a republic.  The producers of the show have less interest in rewarding exemplary ballroom technique than in protecting a very profitable show.  Judges’ votes count–as do the phone-ins from the public.  And the transparency of the vote-counting isn’t likely to match what we expect from elections elsewhere.

For this reason, Bristol and the Tea Party are likely to do better than the experts would like, but not well enough to satisfy the truly committed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is Bristol Palin an Activist (cha-cha-cha)?

Posted on November 11, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Bristol Palin is a nineteen year old single mother who has learned ballroom dancing on network tv.  The premise of Dancing with the Stars, her current network home, is that people will want to watch celebrities who have achieved notoriety in one field undertake the difficulties of learning another discipline.  ABC’s bet has paid off big, and many people tune in to watch.

Of course, casting the celebrities is the big trick, and putting Bristol on stage was a smart move.  But how to introduce her?  Dancing is generally filled with actors, athletes, and even an astronaut.  The “a” for Bristol is “activist.”  Add another A for abstinence.

It’s not a very good description for Bristol, but they may not have anything else (half-term governor’s daughter?).

Bristol’s activist resume is pretty thin–not surprising for a nineteen-year old mother.  (She hasn’t had time to do a lot.) For a fee, Bristol will speak on behalf of sexual abstinence.   Two issues: Bristol’s credibility on the topic; what do activists really do?

Bristol ostensibly learned about the wisdom of abstinence by abstaining from it.   As a high school student, she conceived her son with her on/off/on/off fiance, Levi Johnston (surely, every parent’s nightmare boyfriend).   Will her experience dissuade young people from having sex?  Bristol’s choices have given her a cute son, network television exposure, the chance to meet Tom Bergeron, and maybe even a source of income.  That’s not what the manual predicts for teen pregnancy, and it’s hardly a cautionary tale.

What about activism?

Working on a college campus, I see 19 year old activists all the time.  They hand out leaflets, organize events, attend demonstrations, ask questions at lectures (sometimes, not very politely), and issue demands on matters of policy.  Activists go door-to-door to meet people and talk about issues, they sell baked goods to raise money for causes,  they hold signs outside polling stations and on street corners, they write articles to promote their ideas, and they go to meetings. (Oh so many meetings!)

Activists work hard to try to change the world, often sacrificing time, money, and convenience in the process.

Most aren’t professionals, and some of the actors and athletes who might appear on Dancing devote some of their time to causes.  Last month, for example, I received robocalls from Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen, suggesting how I should vote in November.  Lady Gaga has been vigorous in pushing for the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell.  You can think of scores of other examples.  What’s notable is that these part-time activists is continue to derive their income and their reputation from their professional identities as actors or singers.  They’re amateurs, just like millions of other American activists who are far less visible most of the time.

There are, of course, professional activists as well.  They become expert in a set of issues, raise money, and organize, organize, organize.  It’s important and difficult work at the core of American politics.

“Activist” can’t just be a leftover category for people who have no other sign of gainful employment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Students protest against fee hikes

Posted on November 10, 2010 by David S. Meyer

The new Conservative/Liberal Democratic government in the UK has proposed very large hikes in university tuition, the New York Times reports.   University fees were first imposed by the previous Labour government.

Hiking fees makes sense as a way to control spending, but fighting against them makes sense for students who will now have to pay more than twice as much as they’d previously planned.

Paradoxically, the Labour government enjoyed more tolerance from its allies in increasing the costs of higher education.  Seeing a Tory government as completely unresponsive to their concerns, students activists see no hope for influence beyond making as much noise as possible, with the intent of fracturing the governing coalition.

Protests in the streets have so far led to property damage and great disruption.

Let’s see how American students respond to proposed tuition hikes here.  (The President of the University of California, my employer, has proposed 8 percent increases in tuition for the next school year.)  The LA Times reports:

Under the plan, undergraduate student fees for 2011-12 would rise by $822 to $11,124 annually — about $12,150 when campus-based fees are included. Some professional school fees would also rise, depending on campus and program. The fee hikes would generate about $180 million in annual revenue.

The UC Board of Regents will consider the plan when it meets Nov. 16 to 18 in San Francisco. The university raised fees 32% for the current academic year, sparking student protests.

Last year’s volatile student protests led to a California state budget that protected the university at the expense of many other programs.  But the state budget crisis, including funding higher education, is far from over.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Will Rand Paul deliver?

Posted on November 8, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Now that Tea Party candidates have won elected office, how do they work within a system they have described as bloated and corrupt.  Senator-elect Paul, who (probably accurately) describes himself as a Tea Partier before there was a Tea Party, has expressed a strong almost-libertarian commitment to forging a much more limited government.

On ABC’s This Week, Senator-elect Paul reaffirmed his commitment to shrinking government and balancing the budget.  This must include, he said, consideration of cuts to the defense budget and entitlement programs.  Of course, Paul is too smart to think that a budget can be balanced and taxes cut without dramatic reductions in what the United States government spends the most money on.  And it can’t help but strain a limited government to support hundreds of military bases around the world.

Other members of Congress must be smart enough to know this as well, but few Republicans (with the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul) have been willing to bring cuts in the military budget or overseas commitments more generally to budget negotiations.

In taking this libertarian view to Congress, Rand Paul is representing the beliefs he campaigned on.  It’s doubtful, however, that many of his Republican colleagues will join him.  (Ron Paul’s last ally on cuts to the military budget was Barney Frank.)  It’s also doubtful that his Republican colleagues will want Kentucky’s new senator to be out front publicly on foreign and military policy.

Will Rand Paul disappoint his colleagues or his Tea Party base?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Uses of History

Posted on November 6, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Boston Tea Party, 1773

It’s not that those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.  Rather, those who don’t know about the past become victims of the waves of enthusiasm perpetrated by others.  History provides context for the present; it’s not that history repeats itself in some predetermined line (or cycle or pendulum), but that what we live through now is never without precedent or analogue.  When we learn about the past, we see contingencies, things that could have turned out differently (We’d like to believe Martin Luther King that the arc of history bends toward justice, but we know it’s hardly smooth or static-free.)  Knowing history helps us make sense of the present, and to have a clearer view of possibilities for the future, and the difficult work that social change entails.

Alas, Americans are too often unduly proud about their shared ignorance of the past, and get sucked up in the overwrought urgencies of the moment.

The huge Republican victories have led even mass media commentary to turn back as far as 1994, when the Republicans made huge gains running against Bill Clinton, and gained control of both the House and the Senate.  But there’s good writing around the web last week that takes us back even farther and offers a better sense of how open the present moment is.

First, see the interview of historian Lucy Barber on Congress.org.  Now Deputy Executive Director of the National Historical Publications and Records, Barber wrote the irreplaceable history, Marching on Washington, which details more than 100 years

Coxey's Army marches in Washington, 1894

of demonstrations on the mall.  Protesters haven’t always been so polite, nor government so tolerant, as the last two months of demonstrations would suggest.

And Politico, seeking context and comparisons for the Tea Party movement, has published commentary from leading historians of twentieth century America.

Alan Brinkley, perhaps best known for his books

Huey P. Long

about Depression era politics in the United States, reviews the sometimes populist movements that Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced, including Huey Long’s Share our Wealth Movement, populist radio preacher Father Coughlin, and The Townsend Plan.  The campaigns contained all the optimism and ugliness of popular movements in America, and were far more volatile than the current Tea Party.  Roosevelt succeeded, in part, by harnessing the populist rhetoric and connecting it to his own policies for using government to help the American people.

Robert Dallek, author of many books, including at treatments of at least seven presidents since William McKinley, gives a brief survey of Populist movements and presidents, dating back to the Populist party of the 1890s and up through the reactionary John

John Birch Society

Birch Society of the late 1950s and early 1960s (whose ideas have found new expression in Glenn Beck’s lessons).

American populism has skewed both left and right over the generations.  It’s oddly ironic that a contemporary president can be condemned as elitist for proposing to guarantee health care for all Americans, and to tax the richest two percent of Americans at marginally higher rates.  The current Tea Party, fueled by very large business interests and animated by frustrated Americans at the grassroots, is an unstable alliance that offers rhetoric about government for all and policies that defend the interests of the very wealthiest.

Democratic politicians, including President Obama, and the mostly dormant movements of the left, will bear a great deal of responsibility for how well that Tea Party alliance holds together.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taking the Tea Party Indoors

Posted on November 4, 2010 by David S. Meyer

It was an extremely crappy election for Democrats.  The 60 seat loss (thus far) in the House is historic, but it’s not all.  Democrats lost seats in the Senate and across the states.   You may be able to find the crazy optimist sifting through the crap and hoping to find a pony, but not here.

But bad news for the Democrats isn’t necessarily good news for the Tea Party movement,  and you’ll certainly remember the triumphalist (and mistaken) rhetoric that followed big elections in, oh, 1992, 1994, and 2008–to name just a few.  History hasn’t ended.

In trying to explain the most recent historic rout, politicians and pundits think more about the present.  Republicans say that the public rejected President Obama’s policies on health care, or the environment, or the deficit, emphasizing what they want to work on in the future.  Democrats chastise the president for being too bold or not bold enough, or just not working enough on communicating effectively.  (I don’t think you can really outcommunicate 9.5% unemployment.)

Current recriminations offer a useful take on the dilemmas the Tea Party movement and the Republicans now face.  Organizer and author Marshall Ganz, writing in the Los Angeles Times, takes Obama to task for abandoning the movements that got him elected:

Obama and his team made three crucial choices that undermined the president’s transformational mission. First, he abandoned the bully pulpit of moral argument and public education. Next, he chose to lead with a politics of compromise rather than advocacy. And finally, he chose to demobilize the movement that elected him president. By shifting focus from a public ready to drive change — as in “yes we can” — he shifted the focus to himself and attempted to negotiate change from the inside, as in “yes I can.”…

… the president chose compromise rather than advocacy. Instead of speaking on behalf of a deeply distressed public, articulating clear positions to lead opinion and inspire public support, Obama seemed to think that by acting as a mediator, he could translate Washington dysfunction into legislative accomplishment…

Seeking reform from inside a system structured to resist change, Obama turned aside some of the most well-organized reform coalitions ever assembled — on the environment, workers’ rights, immigration and healthcare. He ignored the leverage that a radical flank robustly pursuing its goals could give a reform president — as organized labor empowered FDR’s New Deal or the civil rights movement empowered LBJ’s Voting Rights Act….

Finally, the president demobilized the widest, deepest and most effective grass-roots organization ever built to support a Democratic president.

I’m sure you’ve already heard arguments like this, as well as the opposite position, that Obama neglected compromise and the political center.  What I’m interested in here is Ganz’s implicit advice to the Tea Party: maintain a link to the movement at the grassroots.

Like the Democrats, however, the Republicans in Congress face competing pressures, and now that the election is past, there’s less pressure or incentive to rally around the “R.”  The dirty laundry is out on the front porch, and partisans are beating each other with it.

Republican senators are castigating Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina), and by implication, the Tea Party (particularly Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express), for saddling them with, uh, suboptimal candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Ken Buck–in races that Republicans could have won.  The leadership is visibly worrying about at least some of the Tea Partiers who have gotten in, notably Rand Paul, who endorses the foreign policy views of his dad–which would isolate the United States from international commitments–and have clearly isolated the Paul family from the Republican mainstream.

And in the House, Tea Party stalwart Michele Bachmann, founder of the Tea Party Caucus, has announced the she will seek a leadership position in the Republican Caucus.  Once the challenge is announced, there’s not really a winning position for the Party; either it rejects a visible symbol of the Tea Party–who raised and spent enormous amounts of money on like-minded candidates–or it puts a set of personalities and policies supported by a small, and very passionate, minority, at the center of its public agenda.  It’s hard to see that as a winning strategy.

The movements that inspire people to engage in politics often make for awkward and demanding allies after the votes are counted.  The Tea Partiers want at least some of what they worked for–just as Democrats who heard candidate Obama promise to close Guantanamo, end the wars, or lift don’t ask, don’t tell, expected him to deliver once in office.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is the (Tea) Party Over?

Posted on November 2, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Mostly, yes.  On election night, before any results come in, I feel confident in saying that the influence of the Tea Party as a mass movement peaked 6-8 weeks ago, with the end of the primary season. The Tea Party movement is one of the most attractive stories of the year: populist revolt against intrusive government, mobilizing previously dormant constituencies, and shaking up the political process.  It’s such an attractive story that it will be told over and over again, even if it’s only a (tiny) part of the truth.

Important elections came relatively early in the Tea Party’s development, confronting activists with the dilemmas Madison built into the Constitution.  Frequent elections, and lots of them at lots of levels, mean that there is almost always the promise of affecting influence by channeling your efforts through the electoral system.  Madison’s insight was that government became more stable when you brought conflict into it.

But that system, as Madison argued, promotes moderation.  Seeking majorities in single-member districts, candidates play to the center of the district (or state), and activists have to decide how much to compromise their ideals in pursuit of a victory.

Once elected, politicians have to compromise with others elected by different districts in order to get anything done.  At the grassroots, activists again have to come to terms with sacrificing purity for pragmatic gains on matters of policy.

In the primaries, where turnout is low and passion is a value, the Tea Party exercised serious influence.  A very passionate minority can sway such elections, and some of those Tea Party victors will win office tonight.   The Senate contests in Alaska, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Delaware were shaped by the Tea Party movement; you can credit or blame them for the results.

But this election is more about the recession and near 10 percent unemployment than anything else.  Political scientists using the simplest models were predicting massive Democratic losses in the House months ago, as Michael Wagner points out.  (Thanks to Maryann Barakso for the reference.)  The Tea Party offers a more colorful and contingent way of working through the election results tonight.  It’s just not as good an explanation.

The better the Republicans do tonight, the rougher it will be for the true Tea Partiers.  Most Republicans want to win elections, organize majorities, and make policy, and are willing to compromise to do it.  The Republican leadership has already promised to sell out the Tea Party in its Pledge to America.  They wanted to say something to the Tea Party, but avoid saying anything specific enough that it might fracture a broad electoral majority.  Predictably, it engendered ridicule from the Tea Party base.  As Erick Erickson blogged at Red State:

These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.

Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.

It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.

The election of a few true believers will not change the Republican leadership, nor more significantly, the electoral and funding constituency any set of Republican leaders will continue to need.  They will have to take positions on divisive issues the Tea Party has mostly avoided, including the role of social conservatives (anathema to libertarians) and foreign policy (Rand Paul’s stance on Afghanistan isn’t notably different from his father’s, and that was a non-starter for the Republican mainstream).  A Republican leadership concerned about winning elections will gesture to the radicals in the Tea Party rhetorically, and tack toward the mainstream where there are more votes.  (Jacob Weisberg makes this case clearly at Slate.)

So what will the Tea Partiers do?  The Tea Partiers have never rallied behind a clear agenda–beyond stopping President Obama’s initiatives.  The closer the Republicans come to running something, the more they will have to move beyond opposition to an agenda–and every initiative has the potential of fracturing their coalition.  And at the grassroots–and in the Tea Party organizations, some will swallow hard and endorse the party.  Others will grow disaffected and go home.  Still others will take the issues they care most about and continue to push them.  It’s not that it won’t matter, but it won’t be much of a party.

(More to come.)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Billions for Civility?

Posted on November 1, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Stephen Colbert proclaimed that Comedy Central’s weekend rally drew 6 billion participants.  He may believe this; he is not to be believed.  (In the same way, Rep. Michele Bachmann’s estimate of one million at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally shouldn’t be taken seriously.)

CBS News hired the same outfit that estimated Beck’s turnout at 87,000 to take aerial photos and count the crowds at Jon Stewart’s “Rally for Sanity.”  They came up with a count of 215,000.  (You can find methods and photos here; we discussed how these counts are done here.)

This doesn’t mean, however, that the Comedy Central fans are likely to be three times more effective than Beck’s fans from FOX.  A March isn’t a Movement.

I was surprised that so many people attended the Comedy Central rally.  Organizers picked a more difficult date (colder, and after school starts) and, because of the relatively tight time line,  had less of a chance to publicize their efforts and coordinate logistics–including transportation.

At the same time, Beck’s 9-12 rally-ers can sign onto an organization and an ongoing campaign.  Despite Glenn Beck’s claims otherwise, there was plenty of politics at the rally, with prominent Republicans featured in the program.

In contrast, nearly three times as many Americans went to see a Comedy Central performance.  The leaders explicitly rejected politics (although Jon Stewart railed against polemics and mass media coverage), and candidates for office didn’t appear at the mic.   Neither Stewart nor Colbert fronts a political organization, and attendees were left with little clear direction beyond a call to be civil.

Rob Kleidman, a veteran of many demonstrations and many comedy shows, attended the Comedy Central Rally, and posted in the comments section.  He reports a good show, but an older and whiter crowd than Stewart claimed.  Further, Rob says:

Aside from Stewart at one point asking us to vote, and Kid Rock asking us to ‘care,’ there was no call for action, no outcome.

I’m thinking that some good may come out of the rallies:  if one million people live more moral lives and restore honor, and another six billion work to promote tolerance and civility, life will be better for all of us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment