Sandel - America's Search for a New Public Philosophy

Sandel, Michael. "America's Search for a New Public Philosophy," Atlantic Monthly, March 1996.

http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/parsnk/Linked%20Readings/Citizens%20and%20Power/sandel.pdf

Writing in 1996, Michael Sandel explains an important change in America's public philosophy - the way we think about the role of government in our nation. Sandel argues we have drifted away from one of the key aspects of government envisioned by Jefferson - republicanism. A good government is one that is designed to foster virtuous citizens, which in turn can participate as educated members of civic society, to the benefit of all. Sandel sees republicanism climaxing during the Progressive Era, when reformers from the left (like Louis Brandeis) and the right (like Teddy Roosevelt) both sought to increase the size of the government in order to match up with, an balance public society against the dangers of big business.

Public philosophy changed during the Depression, as republicanism gave way to a belief, on both sides of the political spectrum, that government's primary role should be to protect citizens' liberty - liberalism. The welfare state (along with other federal programs throughout the century) was proposed by Liberals arguing that the societal inequalities hampered the freedom of individuals to pursue their own values and ends. Conservatives framed their opposition also in liberal, not republican, terms: big government itself threatened individual liberty.

Sandel's solutions are interesting and occasionally surprising, grand if a bit vague. Foremost, he would like to see a return to republicanism in public philosophy. The turn to liberalism has led to the sense, especially on the Left, that, out of respect for individual liberties, it is improper for government to take a moral stance. But a good government should be moral, so Sandel thinks politicians on both sides should bring morality back into the political arena, wrenching it away from the monopoly on moralism claimed by religious fundamentalists.

Just as Progressive Era republicanism sensed the need to increase government in the face of rapidly expanding businesses, today's good government should acknowledge that, in terms of economics, culture, etc, national boundaries no longer contain the limits of the public community. The government has to be active internationally, and thus (here's where Sandel gets pretty bold) must spread out its sovereignty. But Sandel wants to disperse sovereignty both up (to the international level) AND down (to the state and local level). Power should be more spread out, not consolidated at any one level. Put simply, government needs to feel NEAR to foster civic virtue. Though global boundaries continue to disintegrate, an ideal republican citizen will be most virtuous and civic-minded if he feels connected to his government's structure at a meaningful, local level.

Wilentz - The Age of Reagan

Wilentz, Sean. The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008. New York, NY: Harper, 2008.

Argument
Wilentz admits to approaching Reagan with a negative opinion, but his ultimate appraisal is that Reagan is both wrongly critiqued by liberals and wrongly loved by Conservatives. It's a fairly superficial synthesis, but one that is helpful in casting the period from 1980 to present as The Age of Reagan (although Wilentz admits that, if not for Watergate, it would have very likely been titled The Age of Nixon). Nixon consolidated the conservative South for the Republican party and appealed to a national electorate weary of the Vietnam, the Great Society, and the social upheavals of the 60s. Ford lost a narrow election to Carter, who ran successfully as an outsider. But Carter had a poor relationship with the media and Congress, and failed to succeed amidst the defeats of the 70s. Reagan attacked the New Deal, both its coalition and its apparatus, and turned the nation politically back to the right. George W Bush was seen as less an ideologue than a politician, and was never loved by the right. Clinton was hated by the right, but sought a third way through triangulation. George W. Bush proved to be a far more radical version of Reagan. Writing in 2008, I suspect that Wilentz was more approving of Reagan out of a desire to discredit Bush.

Key Quote
"In his political persona, as well as his policies, Reagan embodied a new fusion of deeply conservative politics with some of the rhetoric and even a bit of the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier... This is not to say that Reagan alone caused the long wave of conservative domination — far from it. But in American political history there have been a few leading figures, most of them presidents, who for better or worse have put their political stamp indelibly on their time. They include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt — and Ronald Reagan.”

Review
Douglas Brinkley - NYT
"the supposedly inflexible Reagan emerges here as the pragmatic statesman who greatly reduced the world’s nuclear stockpiles."

"The mistake many pundits and scholars have made, he asserts, is tattooing a convenient label on Reagan’s forehead, like “conservative,” “hawkish” or “pro-business.” One understands the man better, Wilentz says, by exploring the power of optimism and nostalgia. Drawing on psychological assessments of Reagan by Lou Cannon, Garry Wills and Edmund Morris, he concludes that Reaganism was never a party or a faction or a movement — it was the persona of an old-fashioned Midwesterner enveloped in the mythic tenets of Main Streetism."


Economy
Unemployment hit 9.7% in 1982, but drifted down thereafter. Still, the income gap expanded drastically under Reagan as it was a good period for the rich. Reagan claimed to be a fiscal conservative but government spending expanded drastically under his Presidency, much to the chagrin of David Stockman. Thus, Reagan's economic policies were essentially Keynesian.

Rolling back the New Deal
Reagan deregulation often consisted of putting deep conservatives in charge of administrations, such as the EPA. Early in his Presidency, many of these heads were caught in scandals. Reagan unsuccessfully tried to reform social security, welfare, and medicare.

Anti-Labor
Firing the air traffic controllers

Cold War
The idea that Reagan ended the Cold War by expanding the arms race to bankrupt the Soviet Union is ridiculous. Reagan was deeply concerned with the threat of nuclear war. SDI was initiated not out of a desire to create an arms race but because of Reagan's fear of nuclear attack. He was also something of an idealist toward human nature: ex. He loved to imagine how all nations would unite if faced with an extraterrestrial threat. Far from embracing Gorbachev's reforms, the Reagan administration was suspicious of the new leader from the start, expecting him to be a Stalin-like hawk. But Gorbachev's reforms, coupled with his excellent relationship with Reagan (credit both) led to the decline of the Cold War.

Iran-Contra
Politically, the Reagan administration successfully steered the scandal so it was about supporting the Contras, something explicitly denied by Congress (twice!). The focus never was on the fact Reagan had attempted to trade arms to the Iranians for hostages (negotiating with terrorists). Reagan and Bush certainly knew more about the efforts than they admitted at the time.

Bush I
The economy submarined the political gains Bush got from Gulf War I. But he never enjoyed the love from the right Reagan had.

Clinton
Suffered from attacks from the right throughout his Presidency, and disappointment from the left for his moderation. He stumbled early, notably with his cabinet appointments, especially attorney general where Janet Reno was third choice to be the first female AG. Put Hilary in charge of health care. Hilary failed to discuss plans with Congress, so when the time came to pass the proposal it lacked the support. The Insurance industry rallied against it (Harry and Louise ads). But Clinton did succeed with Welfare reform, taking credit for what might have been expected to be a Republican initiative. The 1994 midterm was a pivotal moment, as Newt Gingrich led a socially conservative Republican revolution, running a national campaign based on the Contract with America. But Newt underestimated Clinton, who successfully fought off their conservative ventures. Balancing the budget came down to a compromise, which Clinton managed to take credit for.

After Somalia, Clinton was hesitant to get involved in foreign conflicts, though he did eventually support efforts to solve the Yugoslavia crisis. He also bombed Iraq on several occasions, though he was often criticized for Wagging the Dog.

Clinton Scandal
There was nothing to Whitewater, as the first special investigator concluded early on, but Kenneth Starr investigated Clinton throughout his Presidency, egged on by conservatives. This led to Lewinsky.

Connections
Perlstein's Nixonland has a similar presence to Wilentz. Both claim one Republican President represents the turn away from the New Deal. Perlstein credits Nixon with seizing on the proper political formula, focusing on Law and Order, to capture the Silent Majority disgusted with the upheavals of the 60s. Wilentz sees the realignment delayed because of Watergate, and eventually leading to a President who was even further right of Nixon.

Feuer - Seeing Through the Eighties

Feuer, Jane. Seeing Through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995.

Argument
The contradictions in Reaganism of populism/elitism played out in the television of the period. In fact, the victory of Reaganism in the period came from the fact that left critics of television read programs from Dynasty to thirtysomething as presenting a dominant ideology, when in fact a closer reading reveals contradictions within them. Feuer's examination of these programs reveals a variety of subversive readings existing among fans of these shows. Her conclusion is that the left during the 80s failed to recognize the instability of Reaganism - her book is an attempt to belatedly reveal this instability.

She cautions against dismissing these programs as either "mere entertainment" or purely pro-Reaganism texts. She undermines these hasty assumptions not only with an examination of the shows as texts (within their flow, a la BT), but also looks at the promotional tie-ins and related "nonstory materials."

Nitty Gritty
Dynasty - The common perception which Feuer seeks to undermine places the show as a mere glorification of white heterosexual male excess. In fact, Feuer notes the two demographics that made up the strongest fan base for the show were heterosexual females and homosexual males (whose cultural identity was partly formed out of a co-opting of heterosexual female dress). These groups were attracted to the camp factor of the show's women. Thus, while Dynasty fan parties often saw viewers dressing up in second-hand clothing to mimick the style of the characters, an actual Dynasty consumer line was never a success. Feuer notes that from the very beginning the show's creators were aware of the camp aspect of their show, and thus consciously pursued excess melodrama in their plots. In this way, Dynasty thus became even more popular than its sister-show Dallas.

thirtysomething - Feuer points out that no one ever claimed to be a yuppie; it was a derogatory term for others, and it reflected the way thirtysomething became "the show you love to hate." She suggests the aesthetic of the show is "yuppie guilt," which stretches back to 1983's The Big Chill. It is a contradictory show, though, because even as the characters wrestle with the guilt of their compromised baby-boomer radicalism, they find contentment in the "nuclear family" made up of their social network of friends.

postmodernism - thirtysomething, Moonlighting, Miami Vice, and Max Headroom were declared to be cinematic in various ways and thus followed in the footsteps of ultimately modernist, self-reflexive cinema such as Woody Allen. However, they are postmodern because, as ad-driven TV shows situated within the flow of the medium they are referencing, they are simultaneously complicit with and critical of television.

LA Law - Also provides a yuppie for fans to "love to hate" in Arnie Becker. Feuer uses a sequence that seems to celebrate Arnie's yuppie California lifestyle (fancy apartment, fancy cars, corporate wardrobe) but ends with his secretary Roxanne noting the opposite, dark side of the Cal life, undermining Arnie's claim that life is figured out.

Trauma Drama - Realist made-for-TV dramas of the 80s went through a particular form that mirrored both the geographic and the ideological landscape of Reaganism (Sunbelt, Farm Belt, the west -populism, anti-govt, pro-family)...

1. Family represents ideal and norm of happy American life
2. Trauma occurs
3. Victims/parents seek help through institutions
4. Institutions fail to help
5. Victims take matters into their own hands
6. Join a self-help group or form a grassroots organization
7. New organization is better than established institutions
8. Normality is restored

Feuer notes that populism is not inherently right-wing, and raises a few examples of trauma dramas that retain a left-wing criticism.

Connections
Feuer disagrees with John Fiske's formulation of the relationship between politics and entertainment. Rather than merely seeing subordinate groups making a "resistive" reading of the dominant ideology, she sees them making a "subordinate" reading, which may not necessarily please left-wing critics. In an era when all but white male businessmen could be seen to be subordinate to the Reagan hegemony, this would explain how subordinates might read television shows like Dynasty without a resistance to Reaganism.

Interestingly, Feuer notes that the rise of Hall's theories of negotiated and oppositional reading (more broadly, a shift from theories of text to theories of audience) coincided with the Reaganism/Thatcherism hegemony, suggesting a sort of wishful thinking on the part of leftist critics during a period when they felt helpless to influence the production side. Feuer thus historicizes her project, suggesting a "silent majority" (from Jean Baudrillard) powerless to influence the production yet still able to quietly make a resistive reading. (A la Dynasty's camp reading.)

Hunter - Culture Wars

Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: BasicBooks, 1991.

I've hit a busy stretch with job search reading and grading, but I managed to grind out Culture Wars, so let's get right to it...

Scope & Argument (and connection to Election Night 2010)
Published about a year before Clinton's election and three years before the 1994 Republican Revolution, Hunter describes the cultural tension between conservative Orthodox religious groups (Protestant, Catholic, & Jewish) and Progressivists in America from the late-1970s. On its shallowest level, this is a book about the key political issues contested by the two sides. Going deeper, it is about the core Religious beliefs held by both sides that make it nearly impossible for both sides to engage in a constructive debate. (Using a broad definition, Hunter argues that even the moral framework under which the most secular Progressives act constitutes a Religious belief. p.119)

Hunter levels some criticism at the media, which boils dialogue down to short soundbites and thus adds to the polarity of cultural and political discourse. But most of all, the problems lies with the methods and language of both sides. Admittedly, it is difficult to foster a polite discourse between two sides with such drastically different core values. Nevertheless, Hunter shows how both sides seek to discredit the opposition rather than understand, de-legitimize rather than engage, and describe with hyperbole rather than fairness.

Indeed, it is ironic that I am writing this on the night of the 2010 election, one of the most bitter in recent memory. It feels to most observers that America has never been so divided. The campaigns seemed to emphasize this division, with ever-increasing negativity typifying races across the country. Furthermore in light of the economic woes, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood. The Tea Party seems to have taken advantage of the setting, channeling voter anger towards their anti-government, libertarian message. Conspicuously absent from the main Tea Party (and indeed, Republican) professed ideals is a strong emphasis on Orthodox religion. Their influence, even on the right, seems to have faded somewhat, perhaps after the failure of Bush II. Perhaps 1994 was their pinnacle, a point that supports Hunter's argument in 1991 that, contrary to what some observers believed and in light of the decline of the Moral Majority and televangelist scandals, the Orthodox right had not run out of steam.

Hunter correctly describes the important coalition between neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and the Orthodox (socio-cultural conservatives) that led to Ronald Reagan. I wonder if perhaps this coalition has re-aligned slightly, taking more of a libertarian stance in 2010. We shall see how the Tea Party candidates mesh with the Republican party once tonight's turnover is in place.

Key term
secular humanism - The Orthodox "dirty-word" for the Progressivist agenda which the Orthodox say is anti-religious belief and anti- moral absolutes. The Progressivists respond by saying they are merely upholding American ideals of nonsectarianism and individual autonomy and responsibility. (202-3, 206)

Outline
Hunter spends parts I-III describing the historical roots of the conflict, drawing the fault lines, explaining their respective moral visions, and comparing the discourse of the two sides. Part IV describes, in turn, five "fields of conflict" - family, education, media and arts, law, and electoral politics.

Critique
This is a splendidly written book, accessible to a wide audience. The introduction sets Hunter's balanced tone brilliantly, with a series of "dispatches" from the culture front, each revealing the background and beliefs of key actors on both sides of key conflicts. Thus, Hunter humanizes both sides, giving the reader a chance to develop sympathy and understanding towards the characters. The balanced tone continues throughout, as Hunter delves into both sides of controversies with fairness and understanding. The book is itself, thus, a model of a better discourse.

Recommendation
Most of my friends, from the more Orthodox who tend toward conservatism to the more Progressive, could learn from this book. I wonder what each side's reaction would be? My gut tells me an Orthodox reader would have a more difficult time with the scholarly tone, detached as it is from the Orthodox conception of a moral authority.

Putnam - Bowling Alone

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Related Simpsons Quote
"I haven't felt this energized since my last...er...boweling!" - Mr. Burns in the Pin Pals episode

Argument
Section II: Trends in Civic Engagement and Social Capital
Since the 70s, American participation in politics, civics, religion, community, and other social activities has decreased drastically, to the detriment of the society. Americans trust their neighbors less than they used to, engage beyond the nuclear family less than they used to, and give their time to society less than they used to.

Section III: Why?
The key factors are
pressures of time and money - only 10%, because while two-career families certainly was an important development in the period, in fact heavy time demands do not correlate to limited engagement in society - ie unemployed participate LESS than employed
suburbanization, commuting and sprawl - 10%, because disengagement is still seen in areas untouched by sprawl
electronic entertainment particularly television - 25%, because television sucks time and keeps people indoors
generational change - 50% (with overlap with TV). The generation that was born before the Depression were and continue to be more engaged.

Evidence
Surveys, group membership data, and other relevant quantitative data. The evidence is presented in countless charts and graphs that perfectly illustrate Putnam's argument.

Key Terms
Social Capital - (p. 19) the value society gets from connections among individuals
specific reciprocity - (20) "I'll do this if you do that for me (in short term)"
generalized reciprocity - (21) "I'll do this without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road." (Golden Rule)
bridging social capital - (22) inclusive. outward looking and encompass diverse social groups. ie Civil Rights movement, ecumenical religious orgs
bonding social capital - (22) exclusive. inward looking, reinforce exclusive identities and homogeniety. ie church based reading groups, restricted country clubs.
Long Civic Generation - (chapter 14) - the generation born before the Depression. More likely to have served in military. Lived through the depression.


Critique
This is sociology at its best. Putnam takes a commonly held perception or sense - that America is less-community oriented and less active in the community than it had been - and applies a thorough quantitative analysis to it. He offers explanations, but only as his "best guess," giving each a percentage of how much he thinks they are a factor. This is a tremendously useful book for historians and thoroughly convincing. Plus, he's a good writer.

The latter chapters are interesting, but less useful to historians, as Putnam offers thoughts on how to improve civic engagement, and argues that civic engagement has come in waves throughout American history. (The Progressive Era ended a long period of disengagement throughout the Gilded Age).