Springsteen's music, for good reason, is often associated with progressive politics. However, it plainly resonates with conservatives as well, for equally good reason: The values of Springsteen's protagonists are frequently conservative values -- faith, community, courage and work.
Along these lines, was the famous faux-controversy, when Reagan was criticized for saying "America's future rests in... the message of hope in the songs of... Bruce Springsteen." -- however Springsteen may have intended the message of "Born in the U.S.A." (and the most likely intention was simply "to sell") -- Reagan did not mis-characterize the message (most of) its mass-audience heard.
Bruce's latest release, performed last night at the Grammy's, and seemingly written for the Obama 2012 campaign is an open attempt to bridge these poles. The song argues for progressive social policy ("We take care of...") on the basis of conservative, nationalistic, values ("...our own; Wherever this flag's flown...").
While this is, perhaps, savvy messaging, it has to be said that the combination of Nationalism and Socialism is, at the very least, in-artful and unfortunate.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Brooks and Krugman
David Brooks hypes Coming Apart. He describes it as arguing "the country has bifurcated into different social tribes... the educated upper tribe (20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the country)... the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities, more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese." They are also much less likely to work. He claims that this disproves the arguments of both parties "in which the problems of the masses are caused by the elites" (Wall Street/Media). He argues that this calls for "a National Service Program."
Krugman, of course, argues that causality is reversed: "young men, confronting the reality that they won’t earn anything near as much in real terms as their fathers did... don’t marry and raise families the way the previous generation did"
Krugman's argument is stunningly besides the point. It should go without saying both that the more financial comfort one has the easier it is to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities and that the more people uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities the better off economically they are likely to be. If the reality of an increasingly competitive world in which the US controls a shrinking share of the global economy, (amongst other factors) is a toughening economic outlook for under-skilled labor, then it is more important now than ever for people to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities.
Brooks' argument is stunningly blind. It may well be that the "20 percent" "live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses", but the 1 percent that dominate the media clearly do not. To the degree that the left fancies itself as standing for social responsibility, it is hard to understand why they are so resistant to the argument that our cultural elites have a responsibility to our most vulnerable countrymen who lack the personal and communal resources to resist -- as the "20 percent" do -- the economically destructive messages which flood our airwaves.
Krugman, of course, argues that causality is reversed: "young men, confronting the reality that they won’t earn anything near as much in real terms as their fathers did... don’t marry and raise families the way the previous generation did"
Krugman's argument is stunningly besides the point. It should go without saying both that the more financial comfort one has the easier it is to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities and that the more people uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities the better off economically they are likely to be. If the reality of an increasingly competitive world in which the US controls a shrinking share of the global economy, (amongst other factors) is a toughening economic outlook for under-skilled labor, then it is more important now than ever for people to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities.
Brooks' argument is stunningly blind. It may well be that the "20 percent" "live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses", but the 1 percent that dominate the media clearly do not. To the degree that the left fancies itself as standing for social responsibility, it is hard to understand why they are so resistant to the argument that our cultural elites have a responsibility to our most vulnerable countrymen who lack the personal and communal resources to resist -- as the "20 percent" do -- the economically destructive messages which flood our airwaves.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Paterno and Pedestals
One irony of the firing of Joe Paterno was that, in the end, it served to protect his legacy. It allowed him to be held to account for the scandal he did not do enough to stop, enabling the story-line "He made a grave mistake, for which he accepted, with grace, his [ultimate] punishment, but look at all the good he did..." Another irony is, in contrast, how self-serving, hypocritical and without grace the Penn State trustees who fired him appear.
Also not in a good light, are those who, at the beginning of the scandal, seemed to take perverse joy in the take-down of JoePa. And while there is an obvious accomplishment gap, Paterno and Tebow shared this sort of critic. The ones who finds Virtue and Character threatening rather than inspiring. To whom the need for "everybody does it" self-affirmation overwhelms any desire for self-improvement.
Also not in a good light, are those who, at the beginning of the scandal, seemed to take perverse joy in the take-down of JoePa. And while there is an obvious accomplishment gap, Paterno and Tebow shared this sort of critic. The ones who finds Virtue and Character threatening rather than inspiring. To whom the need for "everybody does it" self-affirmation overwhelms any desire for self-improvement.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Intellectual vs Intelligent II
The Time's Room For Debate, bravely considers research by conservative think tanks that argue that taking into account "standardized tests of cognitive skill" teachers are paid "roughly 50 percent above private sector levels."
Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.
Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.
It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.
Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.
Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.
It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Mis-Understanding Debt
In a column ironically titled "Nobody Understands Debt", Krugman argues that national debt is not "like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments" for at least two reasons: "Governments don't [have to pay back their debt] -- all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base," and "an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves"
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Tebow Time
Tim Tebow presents an interesting rorschach test. To his detractors, he lacks the basic skills his job demands and why can't he curb the Jesus. To his defenders, his faith is a virtue, his character compensates for lack of skill, and, besides, the only true demand of the job is winning.
Those who question whether a team can win a super bowl with Tebow at QB willfully ignore the statistics. Consider the following total yardage season stats, the first three by recent super bowl winning QBs, the fourth Tebow's year to date:
Finally, to those those who would credit Von Miller, rather than Tebow, for Denver's surge, that Denver started winning only when Tebow started starting is dumb luck. More attentive observers would note, whatever else, the affect a QB tougher than Chuck Norris has on his team-mates play.
Those who question whether a team can win a super bowl with Tebow at QB willfully ignore the statistics. Consider the following total yardage season stats, the first three by recent super bowl winning QBs, the fourth Tebow's year to date:
Year Ply/Gm Yds/Gm Yds/Ply TO/Game 2000 33.6 180.3 5.4 1.6 2007 36.6 199.3 5.4 1.7 2008 34.3 194.9 5.7 1.4 2011 34.4 187.7 5.5 0.4Those who insist that Denver's rational way forward is drafting a "franchise" QB also disregard history. There are only 6 current super-bowl winning quarterbacks, and two of them, E. Manning and Roethlisberger did so with mediocre season stats displayed above. Of the remaining 4, only 2 -- P. Manning and Rodgers -- won for the team which drafted him as its the QB of the future. Brees was acquired as an unwanted-elsewhere free agent and Brady was drafted well past "of the future" territory. Similarly, looking historically at QBs taken in the first round, about a quarter developed into stars and more then half, more or less, bust. In other words, drafting a franchise QB is easier said than done.
Finally, to those those who would credit Von Miller, rather than Tebow, for Denver's surge, that Denver started winning only when Tebow started starting is dumb luck. More attentive observers would note, whatever else, the affect a QB tougher than Chuck Norris has on his team-mates play.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)