Was Opting Out a Bust?

Posted on November 25, 2010 by David S. Meyer

Many people oppose the full-body scans now available at every airport, courtesy of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). There’s a lot to object to: inconvenience, cost, radiation, inefficiency, delays, embarrassment.

There are individual remedies available: don’t fly; opt for a pat-down instead.  Neither, admittedly imperfect, approach does anything to stop the TSA from subjecting other travelers to the same scrutiny.

Activists want to do more.  Yesterday, screening opponents hoped to expose the costs of the policy; using the virtual communication networks we hear so much about, they urged air travelers to opt for the pat-down, slowing the long security lines, and maybe leaving some passengers on the wrong side of the security check-points when their flights took off.  Most reports describe National Opt-Out Day as a massive disappointment, which created no visible disruption in the long lines on an always awful day to fly.

The idea is one with a long history in protest politics: raise the costs and visibility of unwanted policies; make it harder for your opponents to do what they want to do by refusing to cooperate.  This will, ideally, make the issue more salient, polarize and mobilize audiences, and encourage your opponent to back down.  Basically, this is the template pattern of strikes and boycotts, and even many civil disobedience efforts.

How many people would have had to opt out to create enough chaos to polarize the debate?  Probably not all that many; the lines are already long and people are already irritated.  Activists could claim credit for people who refused the scan for reasons of propriety rather than principle.  (Getting travelers to pass through the scanners wearing metal badges with anti-scanning slogans might have created far more disruption, and made it easier for the activists to claim credit.)

However many people needed to opt out, the campaign generated a smaller number.  Of course, the TSA put more screeners and friskers on duty (but this would happen on the day before Thanksgiving anyway).  Oddly, somehow air travel went at least as smoothly as it normally does on this day.

What went wrong?  The only people who could participate in the opt-out are those who already opted in, buying tickets and planning to stand in lines.  Those who wanted to protest the scan procedure but were already near their Thanksgiving destination, without air tickets, couldn’t get close enough to the lines or the scanners to disrupt them.  Those in lines, who had bought (expensive) tickets, knew they were risking disrupting their own travel plans, as well as those of everyone else in line.  Missing a flight on the day before Thanksgiving means taking the risk that you won’t get to Grandmother’s house.  (I suspect many of those who viewed that outcome as acceptable–or even attractive–didn’t buy tickets in the first place.)

That most Americans apparently support the screening wouldn’t stop the anti-scanners from staging a more effective protest.  It’s important to remember that many movements we now admire created a great deal of disruption and inspired activists to take much greater risks when they didn’t have majority support (think civil rights).  More significantly, activists would have to organize the truly committed to pick spots where their numbers could make a difference.  Airport lines everywhere is a tough hill to climb.

Meanwhile, the activists claim victory:

THANK YOU for making National Opt Out Day a success!

Despite claims to the contrary, National Opt-Out Day was a rousing success.  The entire point of the campaign was to raise awareness of the issues of privacy and aviation safety at TSA checkpoints, with the ultimate goal of influencing policy – to ask the question “are we really doing this right?”  In that, the campaign was a success.  It was always about getting attention to the issue, educating the public and putting pressure on to change the current procedures.  With near daily headlines on the front page of newspapers and debates on television and radio news, the mission was accomplished – our voice was heard.  By the time November 24 rolled around policy change had already been set in motion.

The argument: threat of disruption brought attention to the policy and led the government to move toward reform.  I’m not convinced, are you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is the Tea Party Over? (part 2)

Posted on November 22, 2010 by David S. Meyer

What was the Tea Party anyway?  We remember the costumes, of course, and the upset victories in primary elections by some, uh, unusual candidates, but what was it about?

Like all social movements in America, the Tea Party contains a great diversity of goals, including concerns about the deficit, taxation, intrusive government, (imagined) cuts in Medicare, preserving (or privatizing) social security–and much else.  There is rhetoric about Constitutional government, and some noise about repealing or amending amendments (17th and 14th respectively).  Tea Party activists were united in their opposition to the bank bailouts negotiated by Henry Paulson (under President Bush) and against President Obama’s efforts to reform health care.  There is a great deal of criticism of mainstream politics–and both political parties–and anger that has been harnessed only by Republicans.  Beyond that, however, there are great differences papered over by a shared antipathy to President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Opposition is a great unifier, but the world is changing.  With Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives, Tea Party activists want to see the politicians they supported try to deliver on some of what they want.  Every initiative, however, risks splitting the Tea Party movement.

In the last week, Freedom Works leader, Dick Armey (former Republican majority leader in the House) has been taken to task by the Tea Party Patriots on immigration.  Armey has argued that the Tea Party should stay away from the divisive issue–for political reasons–and that the United States should find ways to facilitate the movement of labor across borders–for economic reasons.  The Tea Party Patriots, a group that has prioritized grassroots activism, has organized to oppose the DREAM Act. Although activists point to budgetary concerns, this opposition campaign clearly feeds the nativist elements at the grassroots.

This fall’s Tea Party also put social issues on the back burner, keeping the libertarians in line with the social conservatives.  In response to a letter from a conservative gay group (GOProud), conservative activists have reasserted the importance of social issues, particularly opposition to abortion and gay and lesbian rights.  Judson Phillips, leader of Tea Party Nation, has released a letter in response, reminding Republican leaders in Congress that the true conservatives in the Tea Party produced the GOP’s large gains, and questioning the authenticity of GOProud as a Tea Party group altogether.  Phillips laid out an agenda for Congress that included tax and budget cuts, opposition to immigration, and staunch opposition to lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Meanwhile, even repeal of Obama’s health care reforms doesn’t provide the unity of the campaign trail.  NPR’s Julie Rovner reports that the large hospitals, health insurers, and drug companies are reluctant to give up all of the benefits and certainty they negotiated with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.  They want adjustments, to be sure, but they don’t want to give up the opportunity to sell insurance and drugs to another 30 million Americans.

The challenges are obvious: Republicans can’t lift and preserve Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, reject and pass the DREAM Act, or limit government while preserving services.  Someone in the Tea Party coalition is going to start counting losses and betrayals.

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

University Protests: Learning to Target

Posted on November 21, 2010 by David S. Meyer

University students everywhere are facing the fallout from the global recession.  In the United States, where public universities are supported (more and less) by state governments, higher education funding is on the table as states try to address their own ongoing budget crises.

Student activists are fighting back, and fighting back against different targets.  The target sets the bounds of the interests involved in a political movement.  In California, as noted in the previous post, student activists have been protesting the Regents’ decision to raise tuition.

In Louisiana, student activists–supported by many faculty–have gone after Governor Bobby Jindal.  Jindal, a rising star in the Republican Party, has been vigorous in promoting tax and budget cuts in Louisiana, hoping to set an example for the rest of the United States.  He has refused to consider any tax hikes as the economy faltered, increasing more demands for spending and diminishing state revenues.  Health care and higher education have endured particularly harsh cuts.

Business Week reports:

The governor adamantly opposes tax increases, but a battle is brewing for the 2011 regular legislative session as some lawmakers have said they’ll push for at least temporary tax increases to stop large budget cuts to colleges.

In recent speeches and editorials, Jindal talked of a need to stop whining and “do more with less,” saying colleges could deliver better results for students and higher education leaders should change their policies to be more efficient. He’s said tuition and fee hikes on students have offset a large portion of the budget cuts so far.

Neither students nor administrators buy the efficiency arguments.  Advocates for higher education who have seen budgets cut by hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two years say that reductions in spending–and tuition hikes–can’t be made without seriously damaging the universities.  They blame Jindal.

Targets create coalitions, broad or narrow.  The focus on the Louisiana governor has put students, faculty, and (more quietly) administrators on the same side of the political battle, winning support from the Democratic Party and the trade unions.  The focus on the Regents in California has made such broad coalitions more difficult.  Students resistant to large tuition hikes have urged the University to operate more efficiently, while administrators and faculty see the strains created by the budget cuts of the last few years.

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

Targeting: University Protests

Posted on November 19, 2010 by David S. Meyer

The global recession is still winding through government-sponsored programs in all of the rich countries.  When David Cameron’s government announced that it was tripling fees to attend university, students took to the streets–vigorously.  They knew who to blame; the Conservatives promised large spending cuts, and once in office, delivered them.  The government decided on the balance of fee increases and budget cuts, and was the obvious (and appropriate) target for protest.

It’s more difficult in public education in America, where administrators balance tuition, contracts and grants, and spending, with funding and expenditures from diverse sources.  It’s almost ancient history now, but California used to provide a top quality university education to its best-qualified residents virtually free.  It’s hard to remember now, when the Regents of the University of California have just voted to raise the current tuition 8 percent, that UC tuition jumped over 30 percent last year.  The Regents endorsed UC President Mark Yudoff’s proposal, including his promise to return 1/3 of the tuition revenues to financial aid for needy students.  Yudoff noted that UC’s tuition was still less than that of other fine public institutions, and argued that the revenues were essential to maintain the excellence of the institution.  He says that the UC has already implemented large cuts in spending (and services), and that the state of California has been cutting its funding for the university.  (He’s right on these counts.)

But students are taking a serious hit, and are well-educated enough to know that this year’s increase won’t be the end of it; rather, it will create the new larger base for next year’s tuition increases.  They’ve taken to the streets, albeit in smaller numbers so far than their British counterparts.  Students protested outside the Regents’ meeting, and ran into aggressive confrontations with police providing security.  (One police officer, separated from his colleagues, drew his gun on the students; everyone involved looks terrified in the video.) [Thanks to Kelly Ramsey for the link to ktvu.com.]

But are the Regents the real enemies here?  Yudoff and the Regents are charged with promoting access and excellence, and both cost money.  They can absorb the State’s budget cuts without raising tuition by cutting spending, taking the financial pressure off the students and the political heat off the legislature.  Cutting spending means cutting jobs in a university: landscapers, administrators, coaches, librarians, janitors, computer technicians, classics professors, and on and on.  While anyone wandering on a campus can find things he thinks are a ridiculous waste of money, everything is really more complicated, and consensus is elusive.  (Does a winning sports program support alumni loyalty and donations?)  The university can cut money spent on instruction by hiring more part-time teachers; you can call them “professor” and still issue degrees.  After all, for profit institutions can charge less and print degrees.  Is it the same thing?  Yudoff and the Regents claim to be sticking up for excellence, and thus looking out for the students’ interests.  Although this sounds incredibly condescending, it may be true.

Student activists face a dilemma in locating targets they can affect who can actually do something.  Yudoff and the Regents respond to a budget they get from the state, a budget that’s getting stingier and stingier as the state budget deficit grows; as long as appropriations decline, students will be paying more for less.  What about the elected officials?  They can say that they’re not forcing UC to raise tuition; they just can’t give them as much money.  Mixed models of funding and governance diffuse responsibility so much that accountability disappears. And oh so much more to come.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

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