I doubt there are very many people who would think it was a good idea to add trial lawyers to the mix of pain and suffering in Newtown, Connecticut. But I find myself hoping there will be at least one good litigator on the scene in the coming months.
I am a political science professor. I am 56 years old, so this was my 15th presidential election, although I was born in the lull before the party conventions in 1956 and don’t really remember anything substantive about any of the elections before 1968. I have now run at least 5 prognostication contests related to presidential elections, that I can remember.
This fall I ran another one. It was gorgeous, perfectly calibrated to be fun even if the election got lopsided. It was fun. We had 25 participants.
I came in 22nd.
“Your teeth are a fascinating case!” is not a phrase you want to hear from your dentist.
The day I heard it I was visiting a new orthodontist. His face was alight, his eagerness to apply all his talents to my messed up teeth all too obvious. I was going to give him things to talk about with his colleagues for years.
I went to a different orthodontist to get my care. I found someone who wasn’t so excited about the train wreck in my mouth.
So I will certainly understand if some of you are put off by what I am about to say, but here goes anyway: 2012 may be a political scientist’s dream come true.
I am certainly no one to talk. When it comes to my work habits, the habitual parts about them are not the parts where I am actually working. I am distractable. My students pay a price: I am behind on my grading — again!
So I empathize totally with Barack Obama.
Yesterday when I was supposed to be grading (actually, I was grading! Just taking a break…) I ran across this article on the London Daily Mail’s MailOnline site. Toby Harnden describes Obama has having trouble focusing on his debate preparation homework in the days leading up to last week’s fateful encounter with Mitt Romney. His staff had taken him off to Henderson, Nevada, away from the media and the demands of office, so he could put in a couple of days’ serious preparation undistracted.
But Obama still got distracted. (Oh, yes, I know how easy it is.) Harnden quotes an unnamed Democrat “close to the campaign”:
President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else – anything – but debate prep,’ the Democrat said. ‘He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event.
What could POSSIBLY be distracting in Henderson, Nevada? Among other things, Hoover Dam, sitting there only 20 miles away!
According to Harndon, on the day before the debate a staff member mentioned that Hoover Dam was nearby. Obama decided he’d take another break from debate prep and visit the Dam. He’d never seen it, and this was his chance.
After all, his schedule that day only had one thing on it.
Here I am again. I have grading to do. The same grading I had to do yesterday when I was reading about Obama’s Hoover Dam road trip. Now I am writing about it. So I am definitely not saying I am any better than Obama when it comes to buckling down and getting the hard work done.
But is it possible that the story of Obama’s indiscipline on the day before the debate is more damaging to him than his lackluster performance in the debate?
I watched the debate with about 50 other people at George Fox, preparing to be on a faculty panel afterwards. I wasn’t sure I could believe my eyes. At several points Obama seemed to be caught entirely off guard when Romney said perfectly predictable things — like Romney’s promise not to permit a tax cut to add to the deficit; his explanation that his tax cuts would actually reduce the deficit because a) he would set them off against eliminated deductions, and b) the economy would resume growing; or his promise to make sure the rich did not pay a lesser share of the tax burden than they do now. These are obvious comments, anyone who had listened to Romney could see them coming. But Obama clearly could not believe his ears. And he had no response.
But anyone could be caught flat-footed if they just made some poor assumptions in preparing for the debate. Did Obama believe his own campaign ads a little too much? Well, at least he was being consistent! It was embarrassing for him, I thought, and a bit of a black eye for his debate coaches, but not really a big deal. So while I mentioned Obama’s seeming surprise in my remarks to the GF students after the debate, I did not dwell on the topic.
But now it turns out that it wasn’t just poor work by Obama’s debate coaches. It was also Obama goofing off when he was supposed to be doing his homework.
A day or two ago Obama urged his supporters to be obsessive about campaigning right up through election day. Harnden has a photo of Obama sightseeing at Hoover Dam, playing hooky from debate prep — is that what he means by “obsessing” over the campaign?
People can forgive having a bad day at the debate podium. Can they forgive it as readily when the bad day was the result of lack of discipline the day before? Will Obama buckle down to the task now that he’s had a taste of the costs of distraction? And even if he does, will he be able to erase the image of a man with important work to do who can’t always get serious about getting it done?
Which reminds me: I have some grading to do. Somewhere around here.
Note: This note was written by Laura Jane Gifford, an adjunct professor of politics at George Fox University.
I was saddened to learn that former federal tax court judge, Nixon administration official and president and CEO of the World Wildlife Federation Russell Train died last week at the age of 92.
No, none of those job titles are typos. And yes, he was a member of Nixon’s party as well as his administration.
In this era of fractious political disagreements—disagreements that threaten to create an ever-widening chasm in place of the historically fertile grounds of compromise—it is easy to forget that men like Russell Train once existed. Train’s interest in environmentalism stemmed from his experiences on African safari in the 1950s and grew to encompass a strong conservationist ethic. Channeling the gospels of efficiency and expertise that characterized his Progressive Republican forebears, Train began by helping to create the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, charged with training postcolonial Africans to professionally manage their wildlife resources; by 1965 he felt sufficiently committed to the conservationist cause to resign his position as a judge and become head of the Conservation Foundation. As his biographer Brooks Flippen put it, “He did not share the attire—or the youth—of many of the new environmentalists but, like them, questioned traditional assumptions. He may not have recognized it at the time but he stood at the fore of a revolution in American attitudes.”[1]
Train believed in conservation; he was also profoundly pragmatic. Placed in charge of a transition team researching environmental policy, Train discovered he’d been seated next to the incoming president at a dinner a few days before Nixon’s inauguration. He seized his opportunity to make a case for the environment in terms he knew Nixon would find compelling. “I knew I couldn’t talk him into becoming an instant environmentalist,” Train recollected, “but it seemed entirely possible that he could become an effective proponent of environmental programs if it seemed to him good politics to do so. I have never for a moment doubted the wisdom of that decision.” Train spoke of how environmental issues touched a broad spectrum of the electorate, about how they could serve as a unifying issue in their era’s fractious political climate. “Quality of life” issues, he convinced the new president, were important—and politically advantageous.[2]
The years of the Nixon administration, then, were also the years of the Clean Air and Water Acts, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and governmental cooperation in observation of the first Earth Day. Train worked in the administration as Under Secretary of the Interior, in the executive office and then as head of the Environmental Policy Agency, a role in which he continued under Gerald Ford. Train did not always find administrations hospitable to his plans; following the 1972 election, in particular, Nixon soured somewhat on environmentalism’s political possibilities and the energy crisis began to overshadow other efforts. Still, Train described himself as a “moderate conservative,” committed to working within his party and his ideological framework for environmental protection. His commitment displays the potential that existed in the 1970s for Republican—even conservative Republican—political philosophy to follow an environmental track. “To my mind,” he explained, “to oppose environmental protection is not to be truly conservative. To put short-term financial gain ahead of the long-term health of the environment is a fundamentally radical policy, as well as being unethical. Conservation, which is essentially no more and no less than protection of the natural capital with which we have been endowed, should be seen as truly conservative.”[3]
Today, the lines between left and right have become more firmly drawn—and environmentalism appears squarely on the left. This was an outcome with which Train was profoundly unhappy. Torn between loyalty and irritation during the Reagan years, he preferred to remain aloof from politics, prompting criticism from other environmental leaders. Train found his longtime friendship with George H. W. Bush strained when, already concerned by the “mystifying and frustrating” ascendancy of neoconservative positions during Bush senior’s time in office, he felt compelled to speak out in opposition to George W. Bush’s environmental policy in the early 2000s.[4]
Train was as proud of his religious legacy as he was of his Republican heritage. Train was a leader in St. John’s Episcopal Church on Washington’s Lafayette Square, following in the footsteps of his father. His worldview was shaped by his faith, leading him to articulate a profoundly humane conception of environmental protection’s importance. “We don’t really have the option of not paying pollution costs at all,” he reflected. “The only question is in what form we pay them—in higher electricity bills or in higher doctor bills and higher rates of mortality and morbidity.”[5]
Thoughtful Christians can reach very different conclusions regarding how we should serve as stewards of God’s creation. Train’s life prompts careful reflection, however, upon the dichotomies we so often construct. “Conservation” does, after all, share a root with “conservative.” “Republican” need not sit in opposition with “environmentalist” (and “Democrat” is not necessarily an equivalent term). Train thought deeply and acted intentionally across boundaries. Our own careful consideration might illuminate new opportunities for enlightened stewardship.
[1] J. Brooks Flippen, Conservative Conservationist: Russell E. Train and the Emergence of American Environmentalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006), 6.
[2] Russell E. Train, Politics, Pollution and Pandas: An Environmental Memoir (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003), 10.
[3][3] Train, xi, xiii, 332.
[4] Flippen, 10.
[5] Train, 189-90.
Anthony Gill, host of the podcast Research on Religion, interviewed me on September 14 on the topic of Christian responses to terrorism. Our conversation was particularly timely considering the wave of outrage across much of the Muslim world in response to the “Innocence of Muhammed” video.
Dr. Gill has posted the interview at the Research on Religion site. You can access it here. The podcast lasts 72 minutes. I hope you enjoy it.
Chief Justice John Roberts aimed very high in his opinion on the Affordable Care Act Thursday. He may have hit his target.
John Roberts is a) the smartest member of the Court, b) way way way smarter than any of the zillion pundits who didn’t see this particular ruling coming, and c) perhaps in John Marshall’s class. I say this even though I was hoping the Court would declare the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Roberts clearly defended the two biggest principles in the case — that there are limits to the commerce power, and (a pleasant surprise!) that the spending power does not give Congress the right to dragoon the states by threatening federal funding which the states have no realistic choice to forego. And most of all he clearly articulated a principle that many of the elites in our legal and political system have long ignored — that the Constitution matters, it is the bedrock of our system of laws, and you cannot transform a government of enumerated powers into one of plenary powers by majority vote.
(Editor’s Note: The author of this post, Clint Baldwin, wears several hats at George Fox University: Assistant Professor of International Studies; Director, Center for Global Studies; and Director, Center for Peace and Justice.)
My faculty colleagues and I in History and Political Science all recently read a disconcerting article offered in The Daily Beast titled, “The 13 Most Useless Majors from Philosophy to Journalism.”
Without doing too much of an injustice, I think that it is fair to distill the article’s message down to the simple formula, “liberal arts bad; professional programs good.”
Now, if you’ve ever read the “comments” section at the end of online articles, you’ll understand the radical nature of my next statement. I actually found a lot of the comments on the article offered at the end by readers rather astute – some significantly better than the article itself.
The peanut gallery seems more coherent than the article itself.
Perhaps such an occurrence actually is an argument in favor of the article’s diatribe against the efficacy of journalism and other such liberal arts endeavors as beneficial majors. 
Not really; but the clarity of some of the thoughts in that section in comparison to the article’s line of reasoning did make me think of it.
I agree in general with the article that it should be of reasonably significant consideration that one be able to earn a viable, living-wage (however we want to define such a thing – and this is no small consideration in and of itself) in relation with the studies one is pursuing. However, suggesting that somehow the majors noted in the article are akin to “useless” because of a perceived or actual lack of procuring immediate employment amounts to a grossly inadequate understanding of the necessary and diverse socio-political competencies that are vital to creating and maintaining some semblance of a healthy and stable civic order.
If we want to mount a defense of the necessity of such liberal arts oriented disciplines as history and political science, we could do far worse than beginning with the various studies relating to social capital that have been undertaken over the years by Robert Putnam — Harvard’s political science and public policy professor in the Kennedy School of Government. His body of work is both deeply scholarly and immediately pertinent as relates to showcasing the need for exactly the kind of skills that The Daily Beast article suggests are circumspect.
(See for instance Putnam’s: Making Democracy Work; Better Together; Bowling Alone [both the Bowling Alone and Better Together texts have websites full of material beyond the texts themselves]; and E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century)
As well, another recent article that offers vital and healthy countering perspectives to ideas put forth in The Daily Beast is located in the Spring 2012 edition of the journal Advance published by the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) which has 116 member universities and 69 affiliate member universities in 25 countries. The article, “Not Your Grandmother’s Future: The Tension of Preparing Liberal Arts Graduates for Tomorrow’s Careers,” showcases commentary from various vice-presidents, provosts, and campus directors advocating for an engaged liberal arts education.
Again, however, interestingly enough we don’t need to range that far or that deeply to obtain such helpful answers. As was noted in the beginning of this piece, at the time of its being written, though perhaps a bit self-serving at points, the readers of The Daily Beast article almost to a person recognized the inanity of the argument being made. My above suggestions simply underscore an understanding they have already recognized.
It is intriguing that we also read this article during a time when it has still recently been recognized by medical schools that they often prefer well-educated liberal arts majors to straight science majors due to liberal arts majors having an ability to extrapolate from data they receive and effectively interpersonally communicate it with patients and colleagues around them. That is to say, it’s not only what you know, but your ability to apply it well that matters.
This orientation related to medical schools is actually also a noted preference by law and business schools too. James Engell, Gurney Professor of English and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University, offers this understanding in an essay he writes. In the essay, Engell refers to and quotes some significant professional figures and professional associations specifically arguing exactly for the efficacy and necessity of the liberal arts that I am purporting in my response here: James Freedman, Harvard College alumnus, former Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and former president of Dartmouth; Linda S. Doyle, a former dean at Harvard Business School and former president and CEO of Harvard Business School publishing; and The Association of American Law Schools. Engell moves towards ending his article by offering a thought that includes reflections by the eminent Harvard educated sociologist Robert Bellah – elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1967, received the National Humanities Medal in 2000, and received the American Academy of Religion Martin E. Marty Award for the Public Understanding of Religion in 2007. Engell writes that whatever utilitarian functions higher education possesses, “it is crucial to combine and integrate that function with other aims and ends, with what Bellah calls “education for the development of character, citizenship, and culture.”
Finally, I looked at the data related to the Georgetown Study from which the article in The Daily Beast culled much of its materials. If one looks at just page 4 of that study, the whole thing seems rather ridiculous as it showcases that essentially majors from all across the spectrum (professional and liberal arts) are suffering significantly and they only speculate as to who might fare well in the future. What the data does actually show as immediately pertinent is that the unemployment rate for all college graduates is at 8.9 % and for non-college graduates it is at 22.9%. Hmmmmm. I think I’d stick with going to college and note that while the college vs. non-college data is statistically significant the other factors largely add up to falling within statistical margin of error.
Actually, the data for majors all fall closely within statistical margin of error unless you want to become an architect. This “architect factor” adds a significant anomaly to their interpretation of the data in which they suggest that majors more closely aligned with specific occupational employment experience less risk of unemployment post-graduation. That is, an architectural major is considered a “professional” oriented major as opposed to a “liberal arts” major and yet has less prospects of employment based on the data than a liberal arts major.
In light of what seems to be a lack of any positive data backing their positions and seeing the advice above that is offered in this reflection of significant professionals in major fields advocating for the importance of liberal arts learning, it seems both wise and logical to bet on historic precedent rather than unsubstantiated, seemingly random speculation.
So, unless we really want to move specifically toward giving up ancient commitment to liberal arts and its virtually limitless gifts to society and move toward becoming solely vo-techish in our pursuits in the academy, I would think we would want to take articles like the one offered in The Daily Beast with a significant bit of skepticism, with that proverbial grain of salt.
Instead of abandonment of millennia of tradition, why don’t we instead simply make sure to teach our students that it is holistically a compilation of what-you-know, how you apply what-you-know, and who-you-know that are important factors in becoming fully immersed members of society? This certainly seems a reasonable enough approach.
And, really, aren’t we already doing this…isn’t this the whole point of adding/requiring/encouraging internship components alongside theoretical study? Theory and praxis meet. Thinking and action belong together.
Editor’s Note: This is another guest article, this time by Paul Otto, Professor of History at George Fox University. This article originally appeared in Capital Commentary, a a weekly current-affairs publication of the Center for Public Justice in Washington, D.C. You can find the original article here.
Most Republicans and Democrats know that they associate with their parties because they are conservative or liberal, respectively. A close scrutiny of each party actually demonstrates that neither the party nor the conservative and liberal ideologies feeding them are monolithic entities–a diversity of opinions can be found among members of both parties. Yet compromise between members of the two parties and constructive dialogue between their followers often seems impossible to accomplish. Why is this? I posit that, despite the nuances within each group, broad generalizations about the underlying commitments of each party are possible. In fact, those broad commitments operate as fundamental beliefs. Understanding them clarifies the conflict and distrust between the two major political groups and points to the difficulties in pursuing justice in the current political environment. Continue reading