13 Votes Short

In a surprising decision, the 700 billion dollar bailout was shot down (at least for now) by Congress. Instead of acknowledging the awful economic oversight of the Bush administration, many Republicans were quick to blame Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) showed his own misguided partisan views when he said that “I do believe that we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House. I mean, we were -- we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get to go south.” (Watch it here!)

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) further avoided the real issues as he stated that “Right here is the reason, I believe, why this vote failed, and this is Speaker Pelosi's speech that, frankly, struck the tone of partisanship that, frankly, was inappropriate in this discussion.”

Many were quick to point fingers at Pelosi, yet she had every right to criticize the Bush Administration and the mess they have made of this country. After all, it is very important to analyze what led us to this economic crisis, as well as to take the necessary steps to solve it.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) got a rise from the crowd as he poked fun at the Republican’s lame attempt to point the blame for the failure. “But think about this. "Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country." I mean, that's hardly plausible. And there were 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer. Give me those 12 people's names, and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them.”

Right on Barney. It is ridiculous for the Republicans (and anyone else for that matter) to point a finger at Mrs. Pelosi, who was clearly just getting off her chest what many other disgusted Americans have felt for quite some time. Instead of blaming others for the failure of the bailout, perhaps you should focus your attention on the corrupt administration which led us down this path.

As for the bailout, I have my doubts. I am hesitant of hastily handing over the Bush Administration 700 billion dollars, adding to the whopping $9,898,738,907,211.78 of debt this country already has. I am also hesitant to allow a former CEO of Goldman Sachs to have so much input, when more likely than not, there’s a conflict of interest (buddies on Wall Street?). But if the choice is inaction, then what? Do we simply let the whole system collapse and enter the second Great Depression, creating a worldwide domino effect? Must everything collapse so we can start ‘fresh’ and rid the system of greedy businessmen and politicians?

Either way, the outlook looks gloomy. Perhaps Americans should have focused on electing a president with the intellectual capacity to keep America running smoothly rather than the man they’d ‘like to have a beer with.’

Gee America

As I look through the list of the ‘most viewed’ articles on Newsweek, I am saddened to see that the top 5 are:

(1)The National Enquirer: Ur-Text of the Tabloid Age

(2)Surprises at the Emmy Awards

(3) Anna Quindlen: This is Important

(4) Anne Hathaway Grows Up

(5) Robert Wagner reveals love affair with Stanwyck

Only one of these deals with issues that will actually affect our lives, which is Quindlen’s thoughtful column, which encourages voters to pay close attention to the election and the unfolding political events. But sadly, her voice will fall on deaf ears as the designer gowns of the Emmy’s trump the soon-to-be economic depression and the historic upcoming election. Perhaps it is easier to turn a blind eye to the mess that America has gotten itself in. Perhaps ‘Ignorance is Bliss.’ Perhaps Americans will continue to ignore the magnitude that politics plays in society and turn to US Weekly instead of the various political debates. Well, I guess there is no choice but to let America learn the hard way. Things must get worse before they get better.

So brace yourself, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Brazen Blankenhorn

“I’m a Liberal Democrat” is how David Blankenhorn of the Los Angeles Times begins his narrow-minded op-ed, arguing that marriage “is primarily a license to have children.” I don’t think claiming to be a Liberal will veil your true feelings Mr. Blankenhorn, nor excuse you from the fallacies you conjure up. Apparently, studying a year of anthropology now entitles anyone to scientifically support their homophobia, asserting that marriage should only occur between men and women. Interestingly enough, I think you missed a few things while “studying” anthropology. According to the American Anthropological Association,

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Blankenhorn goes on to cite anthropologist Helen Fisher’s 1992 (outdated) claim that “People wed primarily to reproduce.” I must have missed the memo regarding procreation as the number one reason to marry a significant other. Perhaps it is too idealistic to assume that people marry one another because of a deep love they share. Blankenhorn’s main argument supporting a ban on gay marriage is to ensure the healthy development of a child, which is best achieved through biological parents raising the child. Well, certainly Blankenhorn would oppose adoption and divorce. Adopting would be out-of-the-question since a child would be “denied his birthright to both parents who made him.” And divorce would also be outrageous, since he believes (with his heart, of course) the right of a child to the mother and father that made him. In following his reasoning, a child that is raised by two abusive birth parents is better off than being raised by a loving and successful gay couple. More than fifty-percent of marriages end in divorce, and many children are being raised by single parents. Adoption of children from all different regions of the world is common and accepted. The “traditional” family unit no longer exists, and there are no conclusive studies that prove that gay couples would raise a child any different, or less ‘healthy,’ than a man and woman. We pride ourselves on equality, yet don’t practice what we preach.

Instead of hiding behind the pretext of child rights, Blankenhorn is better off admitting his blatant ignorance and joining the likes of Palin and Bush Jr. (and Sr. too I suppose).

The Public Intellectual

A public intellectual is a classification which carries as much ambiguity as it does influence. Rather than focusing on the precise definition of a public intellectual, it is more intriguing to analyze the particular role they play in society, and whether or not there has been a decline of their presence in recent history (as discussed in Stephen Mack’s article “The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals?”). Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, is a working example of the public intellectual’s influence on society, frequently commenting on current political debates. Despite his own turbulent political career, saturated with corruption and hypocrisy, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion through his commentary in major media and various authored books. Gingrich’s political catastrophe in the House of Representatives begs us to question whether the public intellectual should be involved in political office, or disengaged to ensure that the quality of there work is not altered for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, Gingrich’s rigid political views call to attention the dangers of the public intellectual who is completely obdurate and inflexible to alternate ideas and opinions.

First, we must look at what exactly classifies a person as a public intellectual. It seems that a person must be (a) highly educated, and (b) in the public domain in order to be considered a public intellectual. While these are both two important characteristics, it is also important that the public intellectual be influential in the opinions they express. More often than not, public intellectuals are removed from a political office, which enables them to critique various issues in a totally open-minded manner. Newt Gingrich crossed into the political realm, which definitely affected his views as a public intellectual. As Stephen Mack points out in his article “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals,” the public intellectual’s function is criticism. It is the duty of the public intellectual to stimulate public discussion and draw attention to various societal issues. But what happens when a public intellectual is completely inflexible in their views? Is it necessary for the public intellectual to entertain the idea that they might not necessarily know all the answers? In examining Newt Gingrich, it is clear that his unbending views ultimately led to his demise.

Gingrich is credited with uniting the Republican Party and ending forty years of a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives in 1994. One of the major factors helping Gingrich rise to Speaker of the House and ushering in a Republican majority was his Contract with America, which presented welfare reform, tougher crime laws, term limits, and a balanced budget law. During his time as Speaker of the House, Gingrich was involved in various scandals and became a very polarizing figure in the Republican Party, which caused him to resign in 1998. He was sanctioned for $300,000 for ethics violations tied to federal tax violations and providing false information to an ethics panel. He was also directly responsible for a federal budget shutdown in 1995, when he halted the release of funds due to a disagreement with President Clinton (many claiming due to a personal and superficial feud). Gingrich was a very loud-mouthed and opinionated politician, and his inability to adapt to changing conditions ultimately turned many of his own Republican colleagues off. Since leaving political office, Gingrich has gone on to continuously comment on current political issues with various media outlets, particularly Fox News Channel. He has worked with various political think tanks and founded a non-partisan group called American Solutions for Winning the Future, which aims to transform all levels of government. Gingrich has written many books, including Rediscovering God in America, in which he attempts to explain the necessity of the Christian religion in various aspects of American society. Despite his clear shortcomings in politics, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion.

In examining the catastrophic outcome Gingrich had in politics, the question of the role of the public intellectual must be addressed. Although Mack points out that it is the duty of the public intellectual to criticize, this can be especially dangerous when this criticism is transferred to politics. No matter what the character of the public intellectual, it is inevitable that once they become a political official, they are not able to make decisions from an impartial standpoint and will conduct their duties to favor their own agenda. As Jean Bethke Elshtain points out,

A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism. . . .

After Gingrich became involved in politics, it changed his ability to approach issues in an intellectual manner. To truly be a public intellectual, mustn’t a person be able to see both sides of an issue objectively and not worry about how this will affect his work? Gingrich was committed to exposing former Speaker of the House Jim Wright’s suspicious financial dealings, which forced him to resign. Yet only a few years later, Gingrich had his own crooked financial dealings that were exposed. Additionally, Gingrich was one of the organizers calling for the impeachment of Clinton and criticized his extra-marital affair. Yet years later, Gingrich was involved in his own affair. It is difficult to determine whether these deceitful actions are just inherent qualities of Gingrich, or whether being involved in politics influenced some of these actions. But it is certain that serving a political role transformed Gingrich into something other than a public intellectual.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Gingrich was notoriously known for having a very strong personality and very resolute opinions. Should a public intellectual be steadfast in their opinions? The answer to that is simple- certainly. However, there is a fine line between being firm in one’s opinions and being stubborn and unable to entertain possible alternative views. What distinguishes the public intellectual from a public commentator is the intellectual’s ability to critically think and approach various issues in an inventive manner. Obviously, public intellectuals should have strong opinions. But there needs to be a bit of permissiveness to allow for the growth of new ideas. Gingrich is a very opinionated man, and his inability to tolerate alternate ideas seriously affects his credibility as a public intellectual. When Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he had approval ratings in the single digits, as noted by the New York Observer. Gingrich’s low approval ratings would seem to suggest that perhaps the public intellectual is better off taking a back seat when it comes to getting involved in political office.

Another issue of particular interest is whether or not there has been a decline of the public intellectual in society. As John Donatich noted during a panel discussion,

…I might as well admit that I've been worried about making the slip, "the future of the public ineffectual."... It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?

The anti-intellectualism that Donatich speaks of is a bit exaggerated. If this were truly a country of people convinced they knew best, then books by public intellectuals, such as Gingrich’s Rediscovering God in America, would not continuously be on best-seller lists. With the internet and the accessibility of information, public intellectuals can thrive in modern society. If anything, it could be argued that there is actually an increase in the presence of the public intellectual. Donatich makes the argument that public intellectuals such as Erikson and Freud no longer exist. But we are no longer living in the 1950’s- it is the 21^st century and technology, as well as the types of public intellectuals, has transformed to keep up with the changes. It is no longer as easy to pinpoint the exact definition of the public intellectual because it has evolved and morphed over time. But certainly, the public intellectual is still very influential, shaping our views through various books, newspapers, and television commentary.

By using Newt Gingrich to explore the definition and characteristics of the public intellectual, we see that it is really difficult to narrowly classify these individuals. Gingrich is an excellent example illustrating many reasons why public intellectuals need to remove themselves from inside the political realm. It is also important that the public intellectual leave a bit of leeway for new ideas, contrary to their own, to flourish. In a technology-driven age, it seems only rational that the public intellectual will continue to have a place in society and remain a foundation for public awareness and debate.

Down Girl!!

Woah there! Was I watching the Republican National Convention or an episode of Jerry Springer? The claws came out last Wednesday night when Sarah Palin took the stage to accept the Republican nomination for vice-president. “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities,” she announced to the geriatric crowd, referring to the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama. She continued to unleash her cleverly-written speech, continuously attacking Obama to divert attention away from the clear lack of substance her speech contained. “…there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate,” she continued. Was I fascinated and engrossed in her speech? Absolutely. Was I convinced that Palin has an ounce of capability to salvage the mess that is the United States? Absolutely not. Although she skillfully delivered nasty one-liners, she failed to mention her and John McCain’s plans to improve the dwindling economy, her radical pro-life stance (anti-abortion even in cases of rape? Seriously?), or the appalling commander-in-chief, who we might as well refer to as Voldemort (He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named). But she did employ the vital Republican tactics in her speech: (1) Let’s support our troops! She even added a touching personal narrative about her soon-to-deploy 19-year old son. (2) Democrats will raise your taxes! And of course (3) Strong family values! (Having a child with down-syndrome will certainly solicit a few votes).

When I first heard Palin’s name announced, I was indeed surprised. But after reading about her credentials (or lack thereof), McCain’s reasons became all too clear. She is more of a “conservative” and “classic” Republican (although I hate using these terms as they’ve became increasingly distorted over time) and will appeal to Republicans that don’t align with McCain’s more moderate views. She is a woman, which will hopefully capture some of the staunch Hillary supporters. But most importantly, like everything else in this excessively-greedy country, she has a tie to oil and supports domestic drilling. Great idea Sarah. Let’s just drill to our hearts content and get that instant-gratification price decrease at the pumps. Who cares? It won’t be our generation left to clean up the mess (literally and figuratively), right? And as far as capturing Hillary supporters, Gloria Steinem expresses my views perfectly when she says “Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive, and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

So thank you, Mrs. Palin. Thank you for reminding me why I would never vote for two candidates that clearly have no idea how to resolve the serious economic and international issues that are facing our country. But hey, at least your speech was 1,000 times more interesting than McCain’s!