Nationalism, populism, and the changing scene

An interesting point from Daniel Larison:

One of the many important observations John Lukacs has made about nationalism is its role in the presidential politics of the United States, and he has speculated that the reason why Republicans tend to prevail in these contests in the postwar era is that they represent the more nationalist of the two major parties.  Post-1968, this was usually defined in terms of national security policies, and we saw a resurgence of this again after 9/11, and this also relied heavily on the use of nationalist language and imagery apart from any substantive policy disagreements.  While both parties are split between what Brooks has called “populist nationalists” and “progressive globalists,” the Republicans remain, at least when it comes to their supporters, the relatively more populist-nationalist party.

However, as a corollary to this, it’s worthwhile to point out that while populist-nationalists are the stronger electoral bloc, it is the progressive globalists that are stronger when it comes to actual policy formation. Ultimately, the country has broadly progressed towards this pole, towards a more engaged liberal internationalism than a domestically-centered nationalism. Bush gave lip-service to “family values,” but pushed hard on free trade and pro-immigration reform. Clinton cast himself as a working-class man who was one of the people, but his greatest success was NAFTA and a resurgent global economy, while health care was his biggest dud. Bush, Sr. was almost exclusively a foreign policy president. The nearly annual Israeli-Palestinian summits are a manifestation of this tendency.

What matters is not what they ultimately do, but how they cast themselves. The ultimate conclusion is that Republicans are perceived to be more populist-nationalist. Yet this too poses problems for McCain. If the debate ultimately centers on McCain on Iraq v. Obama on the economy, then McCain is as dead in the water as he appears. While we’re used to applying nationalism exclusively to the military, this is only because the economy has been flying high since the early nineties (The exception, of course, being the recession in 2001-2002. This was so conflated with the militaristic tenor of the time, though, that it had almost no bearing on political perception).

There was once a time when populist economics were the emphasis of the broad Progressive-Nationalist axis point; in fact, this force was so strong that it held the entire legislative branch for forty consecutive years. When Clinton came into office, he ultimately opted to side with the Progressive-Globalists, epitomized by Robert Reich. While successful at the time, it left Democrats in a nasty place when it came to trade, and ultimately led to the fall of the Clinton liberal consensus. Now, it would appear that full-fledged populist economics, with a nationalist tint, are back in force.

There was once a time when populist economics were the emphasis of the broad Progressive-Nationalist axis point; in fact, this force was so strong that it held the entire legislative branch for forty consecutive years. However, when Clinton came into office, he ultimately opted to side with the Progressive-Globalists, epitomized by Robert Reich. While successful at the time (helped mostly by a combination of a setting Soviet empire and technological progress), it left Democrats in a nasty place when it came to trade, and ultimately led to the fall of the Clinton liberal consensus. Nationalism, and its stepsister militarism, came back in force, but have ultimately bankrupted themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. A tired nation, still tied relentlessly to its own land, seeks an alternative; it would appear that full-fledged populist economics, with a nationalist tint, are here to stay.

Strife in the Subcontinent

Things have been relatively quiet between India and Pakistan since the flare-ups in Kashmir in the early 2000s. However, it would appear that confrontations between the traditional rivals are flaring up again:

Indian and Pakistani soldiers traded fire across the heavily armed Kashmir frontier for more than 12 hours overnight and into Tuesday in what the Indian army called the worst violation of a 2003 cease-fire agreement between the neighbors

These confrontations come after a few years of intense wheeling-and-dealing in the subcontinent by the United States. President Bush made a high-profile visit to the region in March, visiting both India and Pakistan. He has also just hosted the new Pakistani prime minister Yusuf Gillani. Yet in midst of all the hand shakes and photo ops, nothing even close to a coherent policy has emerged.

The region is a tricky issue for the United States; certainly, it is more complicated than the Israel-Palestine situation, where our interests are obvious and the main goal is achieving an optimal solution by which to achieve them. In the subcontinent, however, things are not nearly so clear. Both countries have had historically good relations with the United States. For all of its faults, Pakistan has been the most willing and cooperative Middle Eastern nation in our wars over there, and while relations were awkward during the Cold War, India is still the Great Democracy of Asia, and by nature is very closely allied.

Thus, the reaction of the Clinton administration to the twin nuclear tests by Pakistan and India, which consisted of little more than shaking his head and drawling, “Shame on you.” For what can you do? You alienate Pakistan, and lose control of the eastern frontier in the Middle East. You alienate India, and it might very well swing back towards its warm and fuzzy relations with China, an alliance that does not bode well. Meanwhile, the two are constantly rattling sabers, and during their worst moments make the dilemma a zero-sum game.

The Bush Administration has attempted to mitigate the problem by giving everybody involved a hell of a lot of goodies, and hope that their fealty to us outweighs the enmity they hold towards one another.

Thus, our love and support for Gen. Musharaff; dictator though he was, he was firmly under the U.S.’s thumb, and able to accede to our demands. Gillani, however, must be also take into account domestic politics, much as Sharif did when holding domestic concerns over international cajoling when it came to nuclear tests in 1998. Furthermore, Pakistan can’t be thrilled with the fact that India, viewed as the instigator in the nuclear tests, will be allowed legitimate nuclear relations with the U.S. and the I.A.E.A., while Pakistan, only trying to defend her national sovereignty, is excluded. The civil nuclear program agreement with India is, political implications aside, a good idea. Better to bring a nuclear program to the light than to let it fester in the dark. Yet the deal nearly sank the standing Singh government, and the ugly implications of vote bribing and swindling by the ruling coalition will by no means vanish by the elections set to occur within the year.

To placate this issue, the Bush administration supported a deal upgrading the F-16s that were granted to the Pakistani military in 2006. Ostensibly for fighting terrorists in the Northwest Frontier regions, it’s fairly obvious that they won’t be nearly as useful there, unless bin Laden is furiously constructing an Air Force, or in any case an imitation Iron Man (in which case, the planes will be pretty useless anyways). Perhaps there are other targets that Pakistan has in mind.

These broader issues have been compounded by other destabilizing factors:  for starters, the horrific bombing in Ahmenabad, which is now believed to be a result of Islamic terrorists. Indian inflation is at nearly 12 percent, and the central bank is raising interest rates quickly in an attempt to mitigate the effects. Meanwhile, Pakistan is still dealing with continued Taliban influence in Baluchistan and the Northwest, a result of Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. Then, of course, is the Gora Prai air strike, a U.S. ordered attack that resulted in the death of 11 Pakistan troops.

It’s a wonder, given the high-profile diplomacy in the region, that a broad summit on Kashmir hasn’t been attempted as one last salvo from Rice’s State Department. As opposed to Israel-Palestine, this border dispute is one with a foreseeable agreement. The countries no doubt have their issues, but both are ambitious powers seeking to consolidate control in the Middle East and Central Asia (Pakistan) and South Asia (India). Pakistan needs shoring up and a backing of legitimacy, while India wants to fulfill the potential promised as an emerging BRIC. For these goals to be accomplished, however, there needs to be a broad consensus, a heady settling of many scores (no international agreement will settle all scores), and acceptance from the G8 powers.

Art and the Internet

Patrick Appel, guest-blogging at the Daily Dish describes what he calls the Internet aesthetic of art. I wouldn’t go so far as to call this sort of gimmick Art, though; if it were, then what is the broad idea, whence the cultural values being expressed? Appel is right to call these works “visual tricks,” which itself explains why they are held in higher esteem on the web: they are Web 2.0 versions of chain emails, easy to digest and simple to understand.

The problem with this trend is this superficiality inherent in it. If the message can be transmitted in the course of a hundred word blog post, then there can’t be much there. Ultimately, it’s tongue-in-cheek, but as a convention. Andy Warhol’s sacrilege may have been edgy in the 1950s, but today the opposite is true: Warhol’s acolytes reign supreme, and any who fights for genuine artistic value is mocked derisively.

The way the Internet conflates the problem is in the breaking down of access barriers. We’re used to this issue in the Media (“Bushitler hacks” v. “leftie loons”), but because of this constant battle, readers are generally better able to discern reputable sources from the crazies. However, there’s no sense of what the “truth” is in art, and there hasn’t been since, say, World War I. Previously, museum selection broadly dictated the general sense of acceptability in art. Yet as art becomes transmitted across the Internet, viewers have difficulty discerning this from the works of the Met, as far as quality is concerned.

I also wouldn’t be so quick to confine this trend to the Internet; from NY Mag’s blog, we have the artist Anni Ranjora:

Anni Rapinoja’s International Shoes are crafted out of red whortleberry, a spongy green shrub that, when not stripped for the sake of fashion, shrouds a red berry said to have medicinal benefits, like enhancing night vision and lowering blood pressure. Knowing, as we do, that shoes are a girl’s best friend, could this salubrious pump, seemingly crafted by wood sprites, have pumped a few lifesaving beats into the fatally broken heart of Liv Tyler’s Arwen Undomiel?

Get it? Get it? The message practically threatens to beat you over the head. For some reason, I’m vaguely reminded of the Guerilla Girls, feminist pranksters who had the audacity to call this art. The difference is not in the ultimate effect, but in the tone; where once it was requisite to yell louder than everyone else, today everyone has a voice; thus, the wittiest voice comes out on top (insofar as its not so sly as to escape the broader American populace; after all, they are trying to make a name for themselves. Thus, the tired cliches that are ascendant).

The inalienable right to show that mower who the boss is

So it’s not easy to defend a guy with a mug like this. He doesn’t seem like the nicest guy, and “appeared to have been drinking.” In the land of CCTV, this is naturally being told as an off-beat story, in the sense of, “Oh, look at those wild, woolly, inbred Yanks, at it again!”

However, there seem to be some vaguely serious implications here, found in the crime-and-punishment section:

Keith Walendowski was charged by police in Milwaukee with disorderly conduct and possession of a sawn-off shotgun.

He could face a fine of up to $11,000 and a maximum prison sentence of six-and-a-half years if convicted.

This is ridiculous. If the conduct was truly disorderly, a fine is in order, or maybe even a warning if he has a clean record. If the gun was illegal, confiscate it and fine. But this really is throwing the book at a guy who posed no immediate danger to anyone else, and who is merely struggling with the frustration of technological failure as we all have, even the most famous among us. Prison time is simply not warranted, especially when prisons are already overcrowded. Even a fine seems unnecessary; the cost of a new lawnmower will more than teach the lesson that anger may be warranted, but the cost of destruction (almost) always outweighs the fleeting satisfaction of humiliation. Yet ultimately, America should rally around the fact that you have the right to be stupid — this seems pretty universal, no? Perhaps it’s not in our history textbooks, but the freedom to shoot your own lawnmower is about as inalienable a right as you can get.

Also inexplicable is the requiring of a permit on sawed-off shotguns. I can understand the governmental premise behind this, but this definitely falls into the “If you criminalize sawed-offs, then only criminals will have sawed-offs” fallacy. This control is even worse than assault weapons, because although possessing the actual shotgun is legal, the act of shortening them – a service easily rendered – is not. Thus, the ban is useless, unless you’re trying to lock up an angry man trying to mow his lawn.

All this aside, you have to love the British sense of humor, dry as their gin and encapsulated in these final sentences:

A local retailer said that Mr Walendowski might now have difficulty getting his lawn mower repaired.

“Anything not factory recommended would void the warranty,” said Dick Wagner, of Wagner’s Garden Mart in Milwaukee.

War and Sport

A tempest in a tea-pot is brewing over the fact that Caleb Campbell, the seventh round draft pick of the Detroit Lions (not a wide receiver!), will be forced to serve in the Army, a decision which seems to run contrary to the 2005 Army policy allowing members with “unique talents and abilities” to engage in those skills.

However, it’s wise to remember that troop recruitment and retention has been a problem at the core. The military is stretched to its breaking point. Campbell may be “just one cadet”, but the Army needs every cadet it can get. Popular reaction seems to indicate that this is a capricious move by the Army and unfair to Campbell, but I would find it even more irresponsible if West Point said it was OK for one of its cadets to go play football while the military was bogged down in two conflicts, and dancing the macabre with a third.

Interestingly, this news story comes on the same day as the report that Iraq will not be allowed to compete in the Olympics, as the Iraqi government dismissed the IOC-approved committee and installed in their place political cronies. Even more interestingly, the reaction is parallel: “It’s not fair to the Iraqi athletes.” Of course it’s not fair, but it’s hardly the most egregious thing that has happened in that country. Again, though, its even more absurd to ignore the political cronyism that is still rather rampant in the Maliki government. The rule of law must stand where it can.

These two anecdotes seem to point towards the same message on the Costs of War. The fact that Iraq ranks behind the cost of fuel as an issue, with Afghanistan entirely off the radar, is a luxury of empire; namely, that war is so distant (“fighting the enemies where they are”) and relatively inexpensive (i.e. no command-and-control economy a la FDR), that we can afford to ignore it.

Yet when it sneaks back through the sports world, which holds through the best and worst of times, it hints at the broader issue and we find ourselves remembering the old battles, the “No Blood for Oil” chants and the “Support the Troops” bumper stickers. Then, the conscious realizes that this is still happening in real time. That thought alone should seriously shake the foundations of anyone who has found him or herself angrily engaged in an argument over the appropriateness of a visit to Berlin.

This is mostly unrelated to the new peak in public interest concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, even this ‘peak’ played second fiddle to the New Yorker non-issue. Still, if there is ever a re-consciousness regarding the wars, then the recent furor over a resurgent McCain will look rather ridiculous.

Is this on purpose?

(Presumably) unintended irony from the “Hot Seats” section of the print edition Politico:

The Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee holds the first-ever hearing on the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy banning openly gay service members from the military. 2 p.m., Rayburn 2118

. . .

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John A. Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Jim Clyburn host an event commemorating President Truman’s executive order 60 years ago that integrated the armed services.  11 a.m., Capitol Rotunda

Bizarrely Irrelevant

From the AP:

Republican White House hopeful John McCain’s campaign on Tuesday lashed out at the US media’s “bizarre fascination” for Democrat Barack Obama with a new Internet advertisement.

Yes, in the same way that media outlets have a ‘bizarre fascination’ with Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, the same way that they have a ‘bizarre fascination’ with local murders involving soldiers, children, or coded messages. It’s not the media, though, that’s obsessed with this stuff; after all, they are businesses, and are merely supplying a demand (it’s what we call the economy, Senator). It is Americans that are fascinated with Amber Alerts, Americans that want to know who will have custody of Britney’s kids or Anna Nicole’s money, and ultimately it is Americans that are fascinated by the campaign of Barack Obama.

Not all of this fascination is supportive, but even Obama’s opponents are more interested, whether or not they admit on, on him than his opponent. The Politico already caught onto this:

“There has never been a major party candidate less relevant in an election than John McCain,” said Democratic strategist James Carville. “It’s all about Obama.”
To Obama right now, McCain is indeed almost incidental.
. . .
“It’s Obama against Obama—and Obama’s narrowly winning,’ [Doug] Schoen said

Bob Dole strikes me as slightly less relevant, but that’s quibbling. However, reality has never been an issue in this campaign, so the McCain camp decided that it would be wise to release an ad on this non-issue:

In the Internet video, the 1960s hit song “Can’t Take My Eyes Off Of You,” plays in the background as journalists are shown describing their feelings for the Illinois senator, interspersed with a video collage of news reports about Obama and his wife, Michelle.

You try to show that you’re still relevant by playing a Frankie Valli song? Even “Every Breath You Take” is new and modern next to that. If you really wanted to make a point, why not use Tupac’s “All Eyes on Me”? OK, I know why not. But still.

Long Tail University

The New York Times has a piece about Berea College, a small school in North Carolina that emphasizes its fiscal tightness, forgoing new renovations in exchange for more aid for students. The ultimate drive of the piece comes in the concluding paragraph:

You see some of these selective liberal arts colleges building new physical education facilities with these huge sheets of glass and these coffee and juice bars, and charging students $40,000 a year, and you have to ask, does this contribute to the public good, or is it just a way for the college to keep up with the Joneses?” [Larry D. Shinn, president of Berea College] said. “We are a tax-exempt institution, so I think the public has a right to demand that our educational mission be at the heart of all of our expenditures.

I’d rather not go too deeply Mr. Shinn’s attitude towards renovation; suffice to say, his philosophy towards the public good forbids the construction of stained glass in churches and every building on the National Mall (too be fair, not the worst sentiment), and seems to even hint at a begrudging respect for the slow gray death that is Soviet architecture. Frugality can go too far.

Schools like Berea have their appeal to a demographic, but certain schools will always have their appeal to another demographic. I’m tempted to argue that this is a manifestation of the Long Tail phenomenon. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale remain the elites among elites, but the quality of state schools and other private institutions has skyrocketed to such an extent that a driven student can get an amazing undergraduate education just about anywhere. The line between the students at elite schools and elite students at non-elite schools is graying very quickly, which will lead to more and more competition amongst the schools for quality students, ultimately leading to more and more opportunities for students overall. Furthermore, as the niches of schools continue to specialize (i.e. less focus on the broad ‘liberal arts’, more emphasis on strong East Asian Studies or a top-ten Astronomy program), these schools will become more and more specialized in their appeal.

College has not been solely focused on education for a very long time. I agree with Mr. Shinn that education must be “at the heart” of these expenditures. But if it were merely about intellectual education (in contrast to the education of, say, Snoop Dogg), then the best use of government support for colleges would be direct subsidies to programs such as Phoenix or DeVry Universities. These institutions are quite simply the most effective ways of providing information.

Of course, this makes no sense, because education is more than a simple information dump. How often do universities deliver platitudes about “learning environment,” “professor-student contact,” “a community of inquiry,” etc.? There is a kernel of truth in that cliché of the college “experience.” And “experience” and “environment” are very broad words, allowing for millions of varied methods of best perfecting this environment.

Berea’s role, then, is providing a new kind of ‘experience,’ one that eschews the dreaded juice bars and emphasizes frugality. In fact, this could be combined on a broader scale with some kind of Brooksian focus on personal fiscal responsibility, and maybe even incorporating the homegrown food movement discussed at length in a recent edition of American Conservative.

This is only one of a million ways for a school to spend their cash. Some students will find this appealing; others will be inclined to enjoy the relatively new pool at Pomona College. Rather than being seen as a call for a sudden sea change in the way that colleges spend money, this is a new product in the college market seeing if the demand is there In economic times such as these, the message might appeal and be adapted broadly, especially at state schools that must fight tooth-and-nail as their governments face serious budget problems. In the end, it is developments like these that exhibit the ultimate superiority of the (relatively) choice based college education market to its less free counterpart at the K-12 level.

Sarah Jessica Parker’s Factory

From Hollywood Reporter:

Sarah Jessica Parker’s art competition reality show has found a home at Bravo.
. . .
The hourlong show has been described by the Elves team of Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz as a “Project Runway”-style competition series that takes on the art world. Aspiring artists compete to produce various styles of artwork (painting, sculpting, etc.), which is then judged by a panel of experts. The network declined to comment.

There’s been a conversation making its way on the Internets about modern art, and I think that this pretty much puts an end to the idea that modern art, broadly, is anything more than a vestige of the Style section.

However, I would like to clarify my use of “broadly.” Indeed, the Damien Hirst stunts of the world are nothing but Dada chic, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. This does not mean that art is dead; it simply means that an aristocratic taste for art is dead. I went to the Hirshhorn museum earlier this month, where the feature exhibit on “The Cinema Effect” dealt with the very serious idea of the relationship between reality and film. I knew absolutely none of the artists’ names, but most of the pieces were effective, making their point without pretense. This came in sharp contrast to much of the rest of the museum, which has an extensive collection of the Modern art masters. This aspect of the collection is appreciated because of the artist, not the art; it is very much a manifestation of the religiosity of art that Andrew Sullivan links to.

The problem in the art market is that the higher sense of art – art as an idea, not a status symbol – is available cheaply. Zoomable Mona Lisas are available online. YouTube video artists provide their work for free. The access factor is virtually zero. Furthermore, not only is consumption virtually free, but production is as well. No one was a video artist in the 1980s, but a large plurality has created YouTube videos. This is the Art World’s reformation. Now, everyone is an artist, and naturally everyone is his or her own favorite artist.

This is why Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons are the flavor of the era. They are the exposure of the upper-class art market as the status symbol shopping market that it is. The diamond encrusted skull that James Poulos hates so much is the pefect manifestation of this phenomenon, the obvious wealth (diamonds) intersected with the less than obvious (Hirst product), a Status Symbol amongst status symbols.

The art world aside, I’m dangerously fascinated by the idea of this show, in the same sense that Tila Tequila won me over. Who are these ‘experts’? ‘Project Runway’ burnouts? And how in God’s name does someone ‘win’? Or lose? I have this strange image of Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, and Jasper Johns, standing in front of the star of Sex in the City, eagerly presenting their projects for her approval. (Obviously, Warhol wins. This is Bravo, not Sundance.)

The left-wing REAL ID

Matt Yglesias has been making a case for a national system for transit systems, a voluntary system that would help streamline the various nuances of local systems into one nice, shiny universal card.

Matt admits that the benefits would be “non-enormous”, but this seems to be a euphemism for negligible. He claims that it would reduce the burden on visitors to use local transit options, but when it comes to public transport I have trouble seeing what these burdens are. How hard is it for a tourist to get a pass for, say, the DC Metro for a few days?  The convenience of “a single card and single account [that] could get you on the train or the bus all across America” is only convenient for those who are routinely going back and forth between major cities, which is less than one percent of the population. Most everyone else makes a few trips to major cities a year, and the “inconvenience” of having to get a new bus or train pass is pretty minimal. This really sounds like one of those “I’d really like it if I didn’t…” posts filed under the guise of “the government should enact…” pretense. How long until NetRoots gets a lobbyist on K street whispering in the ear of the Transportation Committee chair?

Playing a bit of what-if, though, suppose that this system was enacted. All the transportation information in the country would be filled in one, universal database, funded for in part or entirely by the federal government. That’s not tempting at all for federal authorities, is it? Perhaps Michael Chertoff should pick up on this argument, and make the point  that the REAL ID would not be safer, but would be more convenient. Start harassing, hypothetically, Michiganders about their non-compliant IDs when traveling on plane or Amtrak, forcing the state to comply to satiate citizens furious about their three hour delays by TSA officials.

Or, we could keep the current system of locality-by-locality implementation, with its minimal external costs, and keep personal transportation information as decentralized and private as possible in the Age of Google. Just saying.