Search This Blog

About this Blog

During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of American politics, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges. This blog is on the open Internet, so post nothing that you would not want a potential employer to see. Syllabus: http://gov20h.blogspot.com/2023/08/draft-introduction-to-american-politics.html

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Quotes from Pitney

Re: Memorable Class Moments

(quotes in order of occurrence)

- "that's why you go to law school"

- after watching a clip of Tom Delay on "Dancing with the Stars":
"you have just witnessed the beginning of the decline of the west"

- "I can define AAPR this way: the folks who want to screw you [young people]...I'm a member...we're evil"

- "Republicans endorsing Scozzafava is like endorsing whiskey at a Christian Science meeting"

- in reference to a speaker at Scripps who argued Obama was not born in the US:
"there's no rule that says every person who speaks at the Claremont Colleges has to be same"

- after the in-class computer crashed:
"this computer is illustrating the problems with touch-screen voting"

- "just about everything in the 1970s was bad. [pause] Except for the movies...the movies were great"

- "two things I believe for sure: 1) dual majors don't help your job prospects, 2) Oswald acted alone"

- "George Washington knew that if he kept the Revolutionary War going, King George would eventually say [said in an English accent] 'aw, screw it.' [pause] And that's how we won our independence."

- As a demonstration of how "unexpectedness" is a part of good speeches:
[Pitney ducks behind a podium, and then jumps up] "Boo!"...(followed by "see? that was the only part of today's class that you'll remember")


Who else has memorable moments/quotes to share?

How is Obama being viewed in Europe

I came across this article on CNN which directly correlates with chapter 20 of Schuck and Wilson. While chapter 20 addresses how Europe views America as a whole, this article examines Europe's fascination with Obama. It also addresses such key points as Obama's Nobel Prize and the Afghanistan surge from a European perspective. It is an epilogue of sorts, as this information was not yet available at the time of printing.

The United States and the World




Religion





Tuesday, December 8, 2009

International Climate Change Awarness

I thought this was interesting since the UN is meeting regarding climate change in Copenhagen. This poll amongst the top 5 greenhouse emitting nations( Japan, the United States, China, India, and Russia) that only Japan and the United States have a majority among their populations that aware of climate change and consider it a serious personal threat. India is the least concerned nation and China is behind it, while Russia is in the middle of the five nations.

Know Thine Enemy-Alinsky

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23alinsky.html

This article from the New York Times touches on the fact that many of Alinsky's most devoted followers are Conservatives, as discussed in class on Monday. Especially in the context of the healthcare debate, many of the industry-sponsored groups that Alinsky would approve least of rely on his Rules for Radicals as a playbook in disrupting town hall meetings. The article analyzes how, in shutting down these meetings, Conservative activists have employed many of Alinsky's signature techniques, such as attracting media attention, intimidating your opponent, and living in a "radicalized dream world."

August 23, 2009
WORD FOR WORD | SAUL ALINSKY

Know Thine Enemy

Saul Alinsky, the Chicago activist and writer whose street-smart tactics influenced generations of community organizers, most famously the current president, could not have been more clear about which side he was on. In his 1971 text, “Rules for Radicals,” Mr. Alinsky, who died in 1972, explains his purpose: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

It is an irony of the current skirmishing about health care that those who could be considered Mr. Alinsky’s sworn enemies — the groups, many industry sponsored, who are trying to shout down Congressional town hall meetings — have taken a page (chapters, really) from his handbook on community organizing. In an article in The Financial Times last week, Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader, now an organizer against the Democrats’ proposals on health care, offered his opinion: “What I think of Alinsky is that he was very good at what he did but what he did was not good.”

The disruption of the town hall meetings has many Alinsky trademarks: using spectacle to make up for lack of numbers; targeting an individual to make a large point; and trying to use ridicule to persuade the undecided. Here are excerpts from “Rules for Radicals.”

Mr. Alinsky observes that “any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical”:

One of our greatest revolutionary heroes was Francis Marion of South Carolina, who became immortalized in American history as “the Swamp Fox.” Marion was an outright revolutionary guerrilla. ...Cornwallis and the regular British Army found their plans and operations harried and disorganized by Marion’s guerrilla tactics. Infuriated by the effectiveness of his operations, and incapable of coping with them, the British denounced him as a criminal and charged that he did not engage in warfare “like a gentleman” or “a Christian.”

Don’t worry, Mr. Alinsky advised, if they call you names:

The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ... Here again we find that it is power and fear that are essential to the development of faith. This need is met by the establishment’s use of the brand “dangerous,” for in that one word the establishment reveals its fear of the organizer, its fear that he represents a threat to its omnipotence. Now the organizer has his “birth certificate” and can begin.

The first step:

The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.

Being on TV can be empowering:

A man is living in a slum tenement. He doesn’t know anybody and nobody knows him. He doesn’t care for anyone because no one cares for him. ...When the organizer approaches him part of what begins to be communicated is that through the organization and its power he will get his birth certificate for life, that he will become known, that things will change from the drabness of a life where all that changes is the calendar. This same man, in a demonstration at City Hall, might find himself confronting the mayor and saying, “Mr. Mayor, we have had it up to here and we are not going to take it any more.” Television cameramen put their microphones in front of him and ask, “What is your name, sir?” “John Smith.” Nobody ever asked him what his name was before. ... Suddenly he’s alive!

Make yourself look as big and scary as possible:

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.

Find a single person to focus your energies on:

It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy — purposeful, and malicious at times, other times just for straight self-survival — on the part of the designated target. The forces of change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.

In one of his sharpest passages, Mr. Alinsky tells his readers, living in their “radicalized dream world,” not to ignore the lower-middle class:

They are a fearful people, who feel threatened from all sides: the nightmare of pending retirement and old age with a Social Security decimated by inflation; the shadow of unemployment from a slumping economy, with blacks, already fearsome because the cultures conflict, threatening job competition; the high cost of long-term illness; and finally with mortgages outstanding, they dread the possibility of property devaluation from non-whites moving into the neighborhood. ...Remember that even if you cannot win over the lower middle-class, at least parts of them must be persuaded to where there is at least communication, then to a series of partial agreements and a willingness to abstain from hard opposition as changes takes place.

His final rule is that there is no handbook for life:

I hesitate to spell out specific applications of these tactics. I remember an unfortunate experience with my “Reveille for Radicals,” in which I collected accounts of particular actions and tactics employed in organizing a number of communities. For some time after the book was published I got reports that would-be organizers were using this book as a manual, and whenever they were confronted with a puzzling situation they would retreat into some vestibule or alley and thumb through to find the answer!

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Reaction to Alinsky

Re: Alinsky's Rules of Radicals

Personal Reaction
The description of some of Alinsky's more colorful tactics, including the idea for a "shit-in" at O'Hare disgusted me. Though I found the proposal intelligent and creative, I immediately classified such techniques as crude and vulgar. That Alinksy later warns potential radicals that the middle class has an "aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict" is proof of the continued relevance of his work. The book, however, is not perfectly relevant. The language of the radicals in Alinsky's book - the suburban habitant is referred to as a "square" - seems so dated as to be unreal to the modern college reader, and there are many references to Vietnam and other topics which are now consigned to the staid atmosphere of the history classroom. In contrast, Alinsky's argument about the need for radicals is timeless. His statement on the first page of the book that "evolution is merely the term used by non-participants to denote a particular sequence of revolutions as they synthesized into a specific major social change" complements his statement that "the most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means." Though American history reveals a trend of increasing freedoms for its oppressed peoples, the American people have always had political "radicals" acting to change the status quo. Alinsky uses his own recommended method of "with us or against us" reasoning to argue that those who are not activists stand against the ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity. Despite being a member of that prudish middle class, I believe him. If Alinsky's argument was ineffective in convincing me that his methods were appropriate, he was utterly effective in reminding me that one should not be a mere audience member in the political process.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Alinsky Thoughts

One of the things fascinating aspect of Alinsky is his somewhat Machiavellian advocation of using the people (which often means fooling them) as a means of accessing power. He professes a very Marxist disdain for the materialism that defines the bougeois lives of the middle class, yet he recognizes them as the next resource to tap for organizers. I think an interesting topic for discussion would be to what extent his prediction that "organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class" became a reality. I think the rise of interest groups since the 1970s is a good example of one way the prediction played out.

One other point I would like to make is that even though Alinsky claims the purpose of an organizer is to "seize power and give it to the people", his real purpose seems to be to amass people in great numbers and control the power which follows by manipulating them. His organizers seem like an elite class. They may not have an inherited status of privilege (Alinsky describes them as rebels against their middle-class backgrounds), but they distinguish themselves in subtle ways from the people they lead. The attitude of Alinsky's great organizers reflects their special status: they constantly rely on superior wit and ingeniuos tricks to rile the passions of the people and spur them to action. (i.e. when Alinsky got an entire neighborhood to march downtown and demand a new clinic that they need only request in order to build the confidence of the people). Even the most well-intentioned organizer can't help feeling smarter or better qualified to lead than those he manipulates. Similar to the idea that a priveleged class has the responsibility to govern those less fortunate, Alinsky believes that the ends the organizers hope to achieve justify their more dubious means.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

No "Stories" in Obama's Speech on Afghanistan

Re: SUCCES in Communication

The New York Times live blog analyzing Obama's Afghanistan speech last night found that "the speech was notable for Mr. Obama because unlike most of his other major addresses, it did not include any personal anecdotes. There were no specific stories of soldiers he has met or families he has consoled."

Perhaps the Obama speech writers found that stories were not appropriate for the complexity and serious tenor of the topic. The New York Times reported that the speech instead "braced Americans for the difficulty ahead and sought to put the fight in the context of history."

Cheney's "warm fuzzy" side

Alinsky and Communication

Aristotle spoke of ethos, pathos, and logos.

SUCCES is a mnemonic for success in communication

  • SIMPLICITY
  • UNEXPECTEDNESS
  • CONCRETENESS
  • CREDIBILITY
  • EMOTIONS
  • STORIES

Afghanistan and American Politics



Founding Principles and Civic Culture:
"In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth."
Constitution and Presidency
"And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan."
Federalist 8: "It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority."
Democracy in America: "If executive power is weaker in America than in France, the reason for this lies perhaps more in circumstances than in the laws. It is generally in its relations with foreign powers that the executive power of a nation has the chance to display skill and strength. If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."
The Courts
"That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay."
See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld