Last week, The Chronicle of Higher Education waded headfirst into the culture wars by terminating one of its bloggers for a column excoriating the black studies discipline and calling for its end. The saga around Naomi Schaeffer Riley has ignited a predictable back-and-forth, from the partly organic, partly organized attack by the left on the original piece, to conservative bloggers who have defended her against political correctness run amuck.
I’m of two minds about the controversy. Most of the assault against Riley does seem like shop-worn viewpoint censorship. As even a liberal critic like Eric Alterman has pointed out, labeling the essay as “hate speech” is a frivolous, overwrought charge, and Alterman is right to recognize that a formal response by the black studies faculty at Northwestern which alludes to past discrimination against black college applicants seemed simultaneously pointless and defensive about the capacities of some of the department’s students—who, of course, are not even all black.
But the Riley essay does not strike me as the best line of defense for admirers of intellectual candor. It is not exactly an exercise in rhetorical grace: there is a talk-radio style bluntness to its 500 odd words that is dependent on name-calling: “left wing victimization claptrap”, “liberal hackery”, a parting shot that practitioners of black studies should defer to “legitimate scholars”. Substantively, the essay’s thesis, that a Chronicle article exposed an intellectual sloppiness in the black studies field, is overly reliant on examples from three dissertations to make a vastly more far-reaching point. Even if two of the papers seem hopelessly polemical and one of them sounds hopelessly opaque, it’s a stretch to indict an entire discipline on such a thin foundation. The whole thing feels like an impressionistic hit dashed off to meet a deadline.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: The Blogger and Black Studies
By Jordan Stivers, on Tue May 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
Last month, we introduced a new feature at The Recovering Politician: the Gen Y “He Said; She Said” debates.
“He” is Zac Byer, a longtime staff contributor at the RP, an outspoken Republican, and currently works for one of the leading minds behind GOP national strategy, Dr. Frank Luntz. “She” is Jordan Stivers, a passionate Democrat who currently serves on the communications committee of the newly formed Young Democrats of America Faith and Values Initiative. As you might be able from the picture at left, “He” and “She” are dating. Or talking to each other. Or in a relationship. Or whatever Gen Y calls these types of relationships.
Anyway, enjoy their debate about Hope and Change:
JORDAN: This week, I read an article by the senior editor of The Atlantic in which he explains why he thinks Obama is losing, though the election is six months away. He says it’s not because voters don’t like Obama, or don’t think he is qualified, but because he has “simply failed to bring the change he promised.” I’ve heard this argument quite a few times, mostly from Republicans, who, as soon as President Obama was elected made it their main objective to create as many obstacles to bipartisan success as possible. My Senator, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is one of these. He openly stated that he planned to do everything in his power to make President Obama a one-term President. What a winning attitude.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama in 2008 in part because of the bipartisan environment he wanted to create, but also because I trusted his instinct to lead us in a direction that would make the United States more of a place of opportunity for young people like me, and for the many people that were used to finding themselves without any power in the political process. I believe that in that second objective, he has delivered the change he promised. Through health care reform, the JOBS Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and now his open support of marriage equality, he has brought more positive change to this country than President Bush did in his two terms.
Of course I wish that Congress could actually function and compromise the way the founders intended, but why their dysfunction is being laid entirely on President Obama’s shoulders I don’t understand. The people who should be held responsible are Speaker John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid. The politicians and pundits who are complaining that not enough change has happened are the same people who were actively trying to prevent change from happening, for purely political reasons. Any sucess for Obama meant a loss for them. What they did not consider is what would be a success for Americans as a whole. Instead of mocking the words “hope” and “change,” Republicans should realize that those words mean a lot to people. The only way things can change for the better and people who are downtrodden by the economy can have hope again, is for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
ZAC: Working in language and message consulting, I agree that words “mean a lot to people.” And clearly, in 2008, “hope” and “change” carried a particular significance surpassing any presidential campaign mantra. But here’s the issue — words can only take us so far. There must be actions to bolster the message, otherwise the latter only amounts to hollow rhetoric.
The JOBS Act was a rare symbol of bipartisan cooperation…but it started as a House Republican priority that Senate Democrats and the President realized they couldn’t say no to without falling on the sword.
To say Obama has delivered the change he promised through his health care reform is tantamount to a baseball owner saying the new pitcher he signed has changed the franchise before he has even thrown his first pitch. Nancy Pelosi herself said it’ll be a matter of time before anyone truly understands the consequences of the legislation, and I don’t expect the Supreme Court to go quietly into the night.
And I applaud Obama for finally putting principle before politics and admitting that he supports same-sex marriage. An evolutions? Good grief! If I was a Democrat who cared strongly about that issue, I’d be downright angry that the only reason why Obama made his declaration of support two weeks ago was because Biden did what he’s been doing for over thirty years. Real courage would have been an announcement in support of same-sex marriage in 2008, no matter the electoral consequences. Be that as it may, I don’t expect his announcement to change much at all, as this will remain a states’ issue (as even Obama desires it to be).
Ultimately, we head into November 2012 staring down $5 trillion more in debt, unemployment stuck above 8%, and a failed $800 billion stimulus.
I’ll be the first to admit that the cooperation from the congressional Republicans has been minimal at best. But, when you look back at Obama’s first two years in office, what’s your assessment? He worked with Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, and rode a wave of public support into the White House. Are you truly satisfied with how he and his counterparts prioritized — Cash for Clunkers, health care, and Solyndra instead of legislation aimed at relieving the burdens on small business owners and job creators, or incentivizing businesses to keep jobs in America, or tackling entitlement reform?
Vibe magazine ran a fascinating profile on contributing RP and former RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Here’s an excerpt:
MICHAEL STEELE, THE FIRST BLACK CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, HAS BEEN PILED ON AND PUNCH-LINED BY HIS OWN PARTY. NOW OUT OF POWER, STEELE REVEALS THE BACKSTABBING, THE MONEY GRABS AND RACE TROUBLES AT THE RNC. BUT CAN THE HIP-HOP-LINGO-SPEWING POLITICO FIND HIS WAY BACK IN THE HEEZIE?
MICHAEL STEELE, THE CONTROVERSIAL former head of the Republican National Committee, folds his tall frame into a booth in a Midtown Manhattan hotel restaurant. Before he can complete his thought—one of the many bits of evidence he’ll stack against the Republican establishment he picks the fruit out of his oatmeal and sighs. “I’m sorry,” he says, with a shake of his head. “I don’t know why people put shit in oatmeal.” He fishes out a few more pieces. “I don’t even know what this stuff is. And why is it in my oatmeal? Ugh.”
It’s just after 9 a.m., a few days away from Christmas, and Steele has been up since some ungodly waking hour. He spent the first part of the day on the alarmingly tame set of MSNBC’sMorning Joe—a political gabfest for early risers and cable news junkies. All the pieces of the man were on full display: the pinstripe suit, the broken wreath of hair trimming his crown, the wire-rimmed glasses, the grizzly mustache and the penchant for lacing his talks with hip-hop vernacular.
By Artur Davis, on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Who knew that Massachusetts provides an opportunity to add a touch of color to the almost all white US Senate?
Who knew that when Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren tailored her professional biography to cultivate ties with people who are “like I am”, she had in mind not left-leaning academics, or advanced degreed professional women, or bankruptcy policy wonks, but Oklahoma Cherokees? There is a rich vein in humor in the Boston Herald’s revelation that Harvard Law School touted the clearly Caucasian Warren as a Native America and that for nine years, Warren listed her ancestry in the same manner in official law school directories.
To be sure, the Warren campaign handled the damage control front with a skilled deflection: Team Warren has professed much outrage over any insinuation that her climb up the academic ladder was lifted by affirmative action (a claim her Republican opponent, incumbent Senator Scott Brown, has not remotely raised) and the New Republic has equated the whole thing with far-right birtherism regarding Barack Obama’s background. It’s a clever dodge that minimizes Warren’s creative accounting of her ancestry while reviving the liberal meme that Republicans have a beef with achievements that don’t belong to white men.
Here’s one hope that Warren doesn’t get away so easily. For all the mirth that has greeted the disclosures, there is a serious thicket of questions here for the professor and an embarrassing glimpse into the East Coast elite liberalism that she represents. One appropriate line of inquiry is whether Warren’s drive to reestablish her Cherokee roots manifested itself in any more tangible outreach to Native Americans in, say, her home-state of Oklahoma, who may not have perused law school association guides. The marginalized young adults in that community would certainly have relished a connected, powerful role model, and it is fair game to press Warren on whether the ethnic pride she described last week ever led her to be that person. And it is equally legitimate to ask whether Warren ever used the Native American identification in any context other than a directory that would have been a primary resource for law school recruiters and head-hunters.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Elizabeth Warren, Minority Crusader?
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri May 18, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
The RP’s column this week in The Huffington Post centers around a special organization that promoted bipartisanship, and how its mission is not being fulfilled…yet.
It’s not just that Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is a great guy: a warm, humble, often hilarious teddy bear of a man who’s the type of person you’d be proud to represent you in Congress.
It’s also because Bruning was our last great hope to break the infernal “Aspen Curse.”
Never heard of the “Aspen Curse”? Don’t worry; only a few dozen sorry sorts have been tracking its metastasization…until now.
The “Aspen Curse” refers to a plague that’s infected the membership of the Inaugural Class of the Aspen Institute’s Rodel Fellowship program. The initiative was launched in 2005, with a stated goal “to enhance our democracy by identifying and bringing together the nation’s most promising young political leaders … committed to sustaining the vision of a political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue; and to help America’s brightest young leaders achieve their fullest potential in public service.”
Eighteen young mid-level elected officials– nine Democrats and nine Republicans from across the country — joined together for a series of events, seminars, and visits to places ranging from New Orleans to Beijing to Jerusalem. (Don’t worry — your tax dollars were not involved.) We studied, debated, argued, drank, told jokes, and built some long-lasting friendships. And when our program ended, we promised to use our bi-partisan spirit and relationships to advance the country’s interests as we moved toward higher office.
And then…the Curse. One by one, we ran for more prominent elected positions. And one by one, we lost.
Yesterday, the RP was back on Wall Street Journal Radio’s “The Daily Wrap with Michael Castner” to discuss John Boehner’s recent threat to tie any debt ceiling modifications to spending cuts.
Congressmen Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Scott Rigell (R-VA), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Reid Ribble (R-WI) today appeared together in front of the U.S. Capitol to send a clear message to America: Congress is broken, and we’re ready to fix it.
“The American people recognize that Washington is broken,” said Congressman Scott Rigell, a Republican from Virginia Beach. “This is underscored by the fact that the 112th Congress has an underwhelming 12 percent approval rating. It is a sobering reality that Congress is, indeed, in need of reform, and it’s time we do something about it.”
At a press conference Wednesday, Rigell, Schrader, Ribble, and Cooper formally launched the Fix Congress Now Caucus, a small but committed body of like-minded, reform-driven Members — seasoned and new to Congress. Their mission is simple: “We will identify, agree upon, and move forward legislation and rule changes that will fix this institution to such a degree that we are able to fully meet our deep obligation to our fellow Americans — and to our children and grandchildren. And we will be bold in our efforts to truly make a difference.”
The top priorities of the Caucus are reforming the benefits of Congress, addressing the inefficient and unaccountable budgeting process that leaves the country without a budget year after year, and finally, elevating the debate from the bitter partisanship now rampant in Washington.
As the first practical expression of that goal, the founders, flanked by other Members who have signed on to support their efforts, announced their unanimous support for HR 3643, ‘No Budget, No Pay,’ a bill introduced in the House by Cooper and in the Senate by former House Member Dean Heller of Nevada.
The bill essentially establishes ‘pay for performance’ in Congress. It prohibits payment to any Member of Congress if both houses of Congress have not approved a concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year before October 1 of that fiscal year and have not passed all the regular appropriations bills for the next fiscal year by the same date.
Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon agreed: “One of the fundamental responsibilities of Congress is to designate a fiscally responsible budget for which the Federal government has to operate. If we cannot perform this most basic task, we have no right to be collecting a paycheck from hardworking American taxpayers who rely on us to do so.”
“Diagnosis is the first step to treatment,” said Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee who has long advocated for Congressional reform. “So I’m glad my colleagues are recognizing that Congress is broken. By tackling reform, this caucus will push for medicine – like No Budget, No Pay – that Congress could actually swallow.”
Ribble, a Wisconsin freshman who sits on the House Budget Committee, said: “I ran for office for the same reason that I helped start the Fix Congress Now Caucus. I want to ensure that my children and grandchildren can experience America as it should be: the land of opportunity.
“We want the Fix Congress Now Caucus to be a vehicle to correct the systemic dysfunction that has plagued Washington – regardless of party affiliation,” Ribble continued. “If our colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand with us and work toward commonsense solutions, then we can make sure that generations to come have a chance at the American dream.”
Rigell also stressed the importance of elevating the tone of the debate in Washington from partisanship rhetoric to a more civil debate.
“We must strive for a civil tone in Washington. In all debates we have here, we must seek the true facts and not question each other’s motives,” Rigell said. “But do not mistake civility for weakness. Each of us is firmly rooted in our principles, but we are also committed to seeking the common ground that Americans expect us to find to address this nation’s great challenges.”
By Artur Davis, on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Mark Schmitt has just written a solid critique in the New Republic of the failing political enterprise that is Americans Elect. On this site and elsewhere, I’ve echoed Schmitt’s point that the putatively grassroots organization has turned into little more than a society of well connected K Street/Wall Street donors and establishment types who are steering toward some amorphous “center.” I‘ve also argued that this center is a socially liberal, deficit conscious, selectively pro big business zone that reflects the worldview of any lobbyist-paid lunch table at the Palm or Bobby Vann’s. In other words, less a coherent middle ground than a hodgepodge of views that are already well represented in American discourse, especially at elite levels.
As Schmitt documents, the group has lagged in its audacious plan to elevate a third party presidential candidate. Its goal of securing ballot access in 50 states, which was supposed to have been accomplished last fall, has barely crossed the halfway point. The top contenders in their online virtual primary—Buddy Roemer and an unauthorized rump of Ron Paul diehards– are compiling embarrassingly low numbers that look like single precinct caucus totals. And the veil of indifference about the identity of an eventual candidate has been lifted in favor of a not so covert push for former Comptroller General David Walker, a serious man but one whose flirtations with running have yielded 360 online votes and an occasional Google alert.
The failure is not surprising: the two occasions in which a third party has genuinely broken through in our politics have involved either a national catastrophe—the Republicans who were born from the disintegration of the country over slavery in the antebellum era—or the galvanizing presence of a charismatic former president, Theodore Roosevelt, who was denied a comeback by his party’s retrograde machine. For all of the angst over our current partisanship, America circa 2012 is not remotely a nation in fundamental disarray, or one whose political institutions are unraveling. The Tea Party on the right has already realigned into what amounts to a populist wing within the Republican Party while Occupy Wall Street on the left has quickly faded into irrelevance and incoherence.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Americans Elect, Going, Going, Gone?