Reading Break

Spring 2011 was looked forward to for two reasons.  First, it was to be spent in Cabo, Mexico.  Second, I finally had some free time to do some reading that didn't include PDFs or textbooks.  I read two books that upon first look seem completely different; "The Social Animal" by David Brooks and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

I started with Brooks, and found his book excellent.  It explored the inner workings of human beings and where they get their characteristics.  It was one of the most interesting books I have ever read.  It dug deeper than that, however; it dealt with why poverty exists in our society, how and why we fall in love, and even what gives us our politic ideals.  He even mentioned Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (despite this being "free" reading, I still couldn't escape every aspect of school!) I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in sociology and wanting to dig into the human psyche.

Ayn Rand came next, and I've never been so sucked into a book before.  Despite being quite hefty, I found myself speeding through it, and I think a big part of why that was was because I agreed with nearly every idea Rand wove into the plot.  Her small-government, free market, capitalist ideals are something I share with her, and to read a book devoted to those ideas was great.  Now, I didn't agree with everything, and am not sure how I feel about Objectivism, her philosophy, but I can say she's one of the best authors I've ever read.

Brooks focused on how humans work; I could almost apply most of his ideas to the actions of the characters in Rand's classic.  This speaks more to Brooks' work than Rand's, though there is no doubt of the important contribution Rand has made to literature.  I find Brooks' piece to be incredibly insightful and intelligent, and a must read for anyone with a marginal interest in human nature.

Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo

Tonight I attended the presentation of the Argentinean Madres de la Plaza, where they discussed the history of the organization and it's struggle for answers.  The Madres were started in the late 70s after 30,000 people were kidnapped and killed by the Argentinean government, which was at the time a military dictatorship.  The Madres, wanting to know what happened to their children and demanding justice, began their protests at the Plaza de Mayo in front of the Casa Rosa, the Argentinean White House.  They gathered every Thursday at 3:00 PM and protested for a half an hour, something they continue to do today.  The Madres themselves experienced threats, murders, and kidnappings of their own.

In December of 1981 the Madres had the first March of Resistance in la Plaza, where they along with supporters marched for 24 hours straight.  This too is a continued practice.  Come 1985, an elected president was in charge and the first trials of military officers began.  However, progress was halted when the president passed the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws, which restricted rights and made it more difficult for the Madres to get information.

Finally with the presidency of Nestor Kirchner did things turn around.  The Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws were found unconstitutional and annulled, and President Kirchner was the first president to acknowledge and fight for the Madres.  April 30th was named Day of Dignity for the Madres, as it was the first day back in 1977 that they marched upon la Plaza.

When I traveled to Buenos Aires and visited the Plaza I remember the feeling of raw emotion while watching the Madres continue their protest of over 30 years.  The pain, anger, sadness, and desire to know what happened to their children is evident, and surely a wound upon the country's history that may never heal.

National Identity: What's it good for?

While reading Steven Durlauf's response to Putnam's "Bowling Alone" entitled, "Bowling Alone: a review essay" (believe me, the contents of the paper are much more original than the title,) I came across an interesting idea I hadn't considered while reading Putnam.  Durlauf has issues with Putnam's discussion of social capital, particularly the two different types, bonding and bridging. Durlauf believes that there are aspects of our lives which do both, and national identity is just that.

National identity can bridge loyalties between different ethnic groups while bonding citizens in ways that may increase hostility towards foreigners.  Well, that was Durlauf's opinion at least.  I don't know about the whole "hostility" towards foreigners.  Maybe it's just my idealism peaking out through my hard, cynical outer-shell, but as a country built by foreigners, I would hope for some more welcoming attitudes.

That's not the case (that little spark of idealism faded quickly.)  Attitudes towards the Hispanic and Muslim communities have gotten increasingly negative this past decade.  Anti-Islam sentiments seemed to reach a boiling point last week, when Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King-R began hearings on what he deemed the "Radicalization of the American Muslim Community."  Reading this article:  King Hearings & Anti-Muslim Hate: A Citizen's Call to Action, makes it hard for me to believe this is really the type of thing Durlauf would refer to as a type of social capital worth believing in, or even acknowledging as social capital.

The Loss of Social Capital

Robert Putnam was right; America's social capital is evaporating at an intense rate.  I generally agree with what he sees as the causers for this occurring, such as women entering the labor force, the "re-potting" hypothesis, the transformation of the American family, and the influence technology has upon our lives.  I wonder if perhaps he left out an important causer; the major influence of corporations on today's politics.

American citizens didn't have powerful, multi-national corporations acting as master puppeteers on Capitol Hill.  Corporate influence in modern-day America is vast and free-spending.  After the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that spending by corporations in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, the influence, and spending, of corporations has exploded.  This is especially evident in the 2010 mid-terms, where spending records were shattered.  Check this link: Campaign cash: What Interest Groups Spent on 2010 Midterm Elections to see who spent what and where the money went.

The typical American citizen does not have billions of dollars to invest in political campaigns.  The typical American cannot pay for commercials advocating their views, or send a lobbyist to Washington to schmooze with politicians to forward types of legislation they like.  The social capital of the typical American has been usurped by corporations, and reversal does not look close.

Social Truce in 2012? Doesn't look like it.

The economy.  Jobs.  The unemployment rate.  These are the issues running through the mouths of every politician from our state houses to D.C.  Republican presidential candidates have declared a "truce" on social issues, instead focusing on something they could convince the American public they could execute better than their opponents.  But one Republican in particular seems to be unwilling to acknowledge the agreement.

Mike Huckabee, a favorite of social conservatives, is livening his base by invoking his pastoral past in condemning a number of social issues that he finds just a little too liberal for his liking.  Obama's recent announcement that the federal government will no longer defend the unconstitutional DOMA unleashed a one-man conservative firestorm.  His recent comments on a Fox News program showcased his strong distaste for the homosexual lifestyle.  He even felt the need to go after recent Academy Award winner Natalie Portman, who had the audacity to get pregnant out of wedlock.

If Huckabee has any true aspirations to reach the office of the presidency he needs to remember that he is no longer behind the pulpit of his church.  He is doing a different kind of preaching to a different crowd of people, and if he wants to be relevant to the American people as a whole, he needs to start adopting similar views.

Associations, Political and Otherwise

I found myself in unchartered territory earlier tonight; a political debate with my twin brother.  Up until now we had seen relatively eye-to-eye in that he would listen to what I had to say in our Poli Sci classes during high school and parrot what I had said, which I was fine with.  It always helped to have someone else on your side.

However, as I shifted away from my previous affiliation and became a bit more moderate, my brother has stayed put.  The information he receives is not filtered through me but rather those around him and the Internet.  Tonight I discovered that I have officially lost my influence over my brother's political association.  He is a stand-alone figure, a fact I find both perplexing and wonderful.

My brother and I have always had a little competitive flair in our relationship, and this political difference has opened up a whole new category.  We started our conversation off with discussion of the turmoil in Madison, our hometown, and our discussion got heated from there.

I found throughout our conversation that though our political association had changed, there was a deeper association underneath; family.  It's not voluntary, but the benefits and strength it has is essential to why America has become a success.  It held more weight with us than our political associations, as we did not dip into the vitriolic spew politics has become for most  (though I daresay that if he had not been as conciliatory as he had been there could, and would, have been a slight escalation in our rhetoric)  I think that de Tocqueville may have missed an opportunity in solidifying his claims by leaving this point out.

2012 and the GOPers vying to take on Obama

Presidential candidate speculation started after the Republicans got ransacked in the historic 2008 election. Americans do have a way at looking ahead, don't we?  Anyway, the Republicans have been throwing out names left and right, each with their pros and cons.  The speculated candidates include Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich.  A couple long-shots for the Republican nomination include Herman Cain, a radio show host and pizza corporation owner, as well as Fred Karger, a Republican operative who has worked in numerous Republican White Houses and is also gay.

To anyone who has stayed up on politics the past couple of years, the majority of those names should be familiar, most of all Palin's.  After losing the vice presidency in the 2008 election, she has been on a controversial media blitz ever since, dominating the airwaves with controversial comments while garnering a large, energetic following.  In my opinion, she's dangerous for the country, along with Michele Bachmann.  The fact that either of them pass the threshold for a viable Republican nominee astonishes me. I was reading an opinion page on the website Politico and read a response in which a political science professor said Bachmann was viable in that sense that she would be a good candidate for those of the public who find Palin "too intellectual".  Yikes.

Despite it all, the Republicans need to realize that no matter how vulnerable Obama appeared earlier, he is gaining strength.  Not only that, he is a sitting president with over a billion dollars in his campaign war-chest who does not have to go through a grueling primary before hitting the general election.  The Obama campaign will be going on all cylinders by the time the Republican nominee comes out bloody and beaten from the conservative dog-fight assured to take place.  

Depending where the country goes the next year and a half will play the biggest role in the outcome of next years election.  Will the Republicans continue the domination of the 2010 midterms or will Obama and the Democrats be able to reverse their fortune and return to the success of 2008?