Cambridge Common

"It's become time to define a Schwarzenegger Republican . A Schwarzenegger Republican is a Bush Republican who says he's a Schwarzenegger Republican," Beatty said. "Can't we accept that devotion to the building of the body politic is more complex and a little more sensitive than devotion to body-building?"

Witheringng! I love it. Beatty's a smart guy and an experienced political operative. Who knows whether or not he'd be a good Governor, but I wouldn't mind a few more of those speeches...

Alright, first you can watch the press conference (parts one, two and three). It's a haphazard but nice little thing with each Senator speaking for a few sentences. You can also watch Frist try to save face on the floor of the Senate. When I was watching all I could think is "who advised him to do this? He looks desperate!" You can also watch Leader Reid's press conference and speech on the floor. Both are measured but happy.

But the fault lines are starting to show. Social (very) conservatives, who claim ownership over George W. because they (wrongly) claim they got him reelected, are cashing in their favor cards. The want Schiavo, they want judges, and they place their goals in the apocalyptic terms of Christians versus the World. But they may be overplaying their hand (I love bad metaphors). In USA Today (yesterday), Trent Lott has to defend his Christian cred to the Christian Right's new leader, James Dobson:

"James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?" Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. "Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don't appreciate it," the senator said.

When Trent Lott is at odds with the right wing of the Republican Party, you know other people are squirming. And the fact that 6 GOP Senators may (let's hope) jump ship to maintain the filibuster in the face of incredible pressure from the base and the White House doesn't speak well.

Then you have Pat Buchanan who, while all put kicked out of GOP in 2000, is declaring conservatism dead,and a war a-brewin over the remains:

"The conservative movement has passed into history," says the one-time White House aide, three-time presidential candidate, commentator and magazine publisher. "It doesn't exist anymore as a unifying force," he says in an interview with The Washington Times. "There are still a lot of people who are conservative, but the movement is now broken up, crumbled, dismantled."

It hard to ignore his claim that he lost the culture war, when you see that folks like these are going to be going to dinner with Bush:

“I’m honored to be invited to this event,” Kulkis said. “Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won’t find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year.”

Cognitive dissonance anyone? And best of all, a Presidential campaign is coming up! How many times do you think Frist or Santorum will hint that McCain is un-Christian?

I'm not trying to say that the UC, or the journalistic practices at the Crimson are unimportant. They're not, both affect thousands of lives in small, but occasionally significant ways. But, regardless of who is right, who benefits from Lurie's OpEd or my post impuning it? We will both claim to personal knowledge of Truth (which hopefully in time will be further established), and point to "the people's right to know," "to be represented," etc. etc. But the people don't give a shit. They just want a hundred a fifty bucks for a dinner they're throwing and an occasional cheap movie. None of them care about the bickering, the politicking, or any of our accusations. As my roommate's girlfriend said, in the end, it's just "entertaining breakfast reading."

So, if everyone wants to keep debating, attacking each other and whatnot, I guess that's your perogative. I, for one, am tired, and need to try to pass Kloppenberg's class.

Good luck on your finals,
The Editor

Now, before you try to answer that question let me warn you of a few things: I am friends with the leaders of all five of those groups, and I followed (and even participated in some of) their elections. In all five cases, out of the people running for the offices I believe that they were each undoubtedly the most qualified candidates. But, of the ten Presidents and Vice Presidents (or comparable second in command at the Crimson, the Managing Editor), only two are woman and all are white and all are straight. So, rather than asking why it is that people elected these 10 in particular over others (I would argue it's because they were the best suited people who ran for the job), it might be more interesting to ask: why were there not more women, more people who are not straight, and people of color in positions where they could have been qualified?

Now, I admit, I'm conflating a lot of different problems in very different groups. For instance, the opponents of those who were elected in the cases of both the GOP and the IOP were either both women or led by a woman (all four of whom who had significant institutional qualifications). The question of female representation seems in many ways to be a fundamentally different one than that of ethno-racial diversity. Heteronormativity (sorry, big word: it means structures or behaviors that assume heterosexuality) seems to be even more difficult to address in some senses. In addition, while both the President and Vice President of the UC are white men (in both the old and new form of the Glazer administration), the Council itself is actually a fairly representative body in terms of women and people of color (I don't know about sexuality), largely because of proactive work done to encourage underrepresented groups to participate. Maybe in the case of the UC, then, if that representativeness continues future candidates will have the qualifications regardless of their gender, race, sexuality, etc. But, I see little evidence of that kind of effort or diversity in the ranks at any of the other four groups: the Dems, the GOP, the IOP or the Crimson.

Why is it that until the last year in the UC, and continually in each of these other four establishment groups, whites, straight people, and men continue to dominate at what is supposed to be such a liberal and tolerant institution?

Two more caveats before you start to answer this question or consider it. First, the biggest mistake I think people make in the process of answering these questions is playing the blame game. The language of blame seems inadequate in the sense that those who benefit now should be "blamed" for the problem. That does not, however, mean that they are not a part of it and have responsibilities to do something. Second caveat, I do not think that people should consider this problem and, if you agree with it simply say "ok, next time I'll vote for a woman/a person of color/someone not straight etc." Support of someone who wouldn't otherwise be considered may occasionally be necessary to correct such problems (see: affirmative action), but it seems like a wholly inadequate response to what might be more complicated causes. Alright, that's my long, loaded question.

Who's got answers?

Gerry Leone, former First Assistant US Attorney to Michael Sullivan, has taken a private sector job so that he can run for Middlesex DA (which he could not do if he were still a US Attorney). Leone has a long and successful track record as a prosecutor and will be a strong DA candidate (I confess some puzzlement as to why being Middlesex DA is so preferable to him than being First Assistant US Attorney, but he obviously thinks it is). I also confess some puzzlement as to why Jarrett Barrios is determined to quit his Senate seat to run in a crowded field for Middlesex DA, but there's no accounting for taste.

There are murmurings here and there that US Rep. Michael Capuano has not ruled out running for Governor after all, despite his earlier statement that he wasn't interested (which followed a rather public flirtation with the idea). Anybody have the inside scoop?

It's a good blog, I recommend it for locals dems/liberals.

The premise of the entire article is, well, wrong. The whole thing is premised around the idea that the problem was one of interpersonal conflicts of style and personality:

The decision by Ian W. Nichols ’06 to resign on Sunday as Undergraduate Council (UC) Vice President was the best possible outcome for both the UC and the student body at large. As expected, Nichols turned out to be a contrarian Vice President, with a vision for the Council that did not line up with what the rest of the UC Executive Board had in mind.

I'm sorry, what exactly was his alternative vision? Why is this the first time anyone is hearing about it? When, do tell, exactly was there this clash of visions and styles? I've never, ever, heard of there being conflicts of opinion on the Exec Board or the UC of this type. Hell, I'm not sure Ian went to enough Exec Board meetings for that to even happen.

Next, as Jamal has pointed out at the end of what is undoubtedly the most hilarious string in Cambridge Common's long and illustrious three week history, is the idea that "UC representatives should remember that the student body voted a split ticket into power for a reason." Maybe I'm the only one, but to the best of my memory Ian won by 50 votes out of 4000, yes 50, because the Crimson endorsed him! As Jamal also points out, I'm not sure the Crimson wants to get into the conversation of why exactly the Crimson endorsed him.

Finally, the huge extent to which the Crimson skims over the issue of Ian's gross negligence and lack of effort points directly to the way that they are trying to save face to the student body who remembers that they endorsed him in December. Only three sentences in a five paragraph OpEd address the actual source of conflict and the reason that he resigned: his complete and utter lack of effort. The first two sentences, toward the beginning of the OpEd:

He failed to communicate effectively or forge common ground with his peer officers on the UC, and he missed Springfest, an event organized in the past by the Vice President and an event for which Nichols himself voted to allocate funds.

This is laughably dishonest and incorrect. It's not only "traditionally organized" by the veep, Ian agreed to organize it. The idea that him promising to be the lead organizer of an event that cost students tens of thousands of dollars, then neither organizing nor attending it, should be criticized in the context of "tradition" or that "he voted for funding" intentionally skims over the more painful, obvious reality.

If the Crimson were honest with its readers and really wanted to regain whatever legitimacy it once had on the issue of UC politics it should have said: "We endorsed Ian in December under unprecedented circumstances thinking he was something he was not. We made a huge mistake that we now regret, let's hope that whoever is elected as the replacement vice president does a better job than Ian did." But, unsurprisingly, they didn't say that. Instead, they tried to revise history and obscure the fact that they made a huge, embarrassing mistake.

Next, a few things about the religious right. First, an AMAZING clip of Pat Robertson that does more to show the true motivations and mentalities of him and some members of his wing of the party than anything I've ever seen. Also, a fascinating story about a religious leader kicking out members of his congregation because they voted for John Kerry. Finally on the religious thing, a great article(registration required, email me if you aren't registered and want to read it) in the New Republic about the Frist Filibuster thing:

Frist's cry of religious bigotry is particularly ironic: What could be more religiously bigoted than claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must not be a true person of faith? How audacious--and repugnant--of Frist to claim that his political constituents have a monopoly on devotion to God. Many Senate Democrats are themselves devout Christians. And Democrats routinely win the votes of about half the nation's Catholics, over half of its religious Jews, and nearly one-third of its evangelical Christians.

The last, and best: a random guy is traveling the country having dinner with strangers. He sees the project as artwork that brings up the importance of conversation, the individual and meeting people. Robert Putnam eat your heart out!

April 26:

8:17 a.m.—A report of a stolen home plate led an officer to a baseball field in Allston. The officer found that, in addition to the theft, a few sand bags and a tarp had been dumped onto the field.

An actual report about a stolen home plate? Sometimes, they make my job too easy...


(Even though the Police Log provides us with a hilarious insight into the dark underworld of Harvard crime, here at Police Blog we always appreciate the work and dedication of the HUPD officers)

"His shadow is dark enough," Mr. Colbert said. "I don't want to ask the source of darkness for help. I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment."

"We're going to deal with truth on my program," Mr. Colbert said. "We're going to catch the world in the headlights of my justice."

Wow. I may cry with happiness.

Clear examples of these types of courses are Moral Reasoning 22: “Justice,” Science B-62: “The Human Mind,” and Historical Study A-12: “International Conflict and Cooperation in the Modern World.” In “Justice,” students read the works of a variety of philosophers and then apply these theories to modern day controversies and debates. “The Human Mind” introduces students to the main theories of psychology and then delves into some of the more interesting problems and controversies about human action, taking students through basic genetics, biology, and neuroscience along the way. Historical Study A-12 mixes political history with theory, using each component to complement the other through case studies. All three of these courses are highly regarded by students for both the knowledge and the analytic tools that they teach.

I'm partially persuaded by their approach, and their call to action instead of continuing the debate that will not lead anywhere. However, I'm not sure there wouldn't be something healthy about having a longer, continued debate-even if no consensus could reasonably be found-about what kind of philosophy should drive the Harvard College education. I think very few of us are particularly thoughtful about our education. We complain about the core, but mostly we just go on our way, find our area of interest and go to work. But this process can shake us loose from that unthoughtful tendency. Even if the process isn't necessarily going to lead anywhere, might there be value in the process?

A newcomer to American politics, after observing this strategy in action in 2004, would have been justified in believing that the Democrats were the party in power, so complacent did they seem and so unwilling were they to criticize the actual occupant of the White House. Republicans, meanwhile, were playing another game entirely. The hallmark of a "backlash conservative" is that he or she approaches politics not as a defender of the existing order or as a genteel aristocrat but as an average working person offended by the arrogance of the (liberal) upper class. The sensibility was perfectly caught during the campaign by onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who explained it to The New York Times like this: "JoeSix-Pack doesn't understand why the world and his culture are changing and why he doesn't have a say in it." These are powerful words, the sort of phrase that could once have been a slogan of the fighting, egalitarian left. Today, though, it was conservatives who claimed to be fighting for the little guy, assailing the powerful, and shrieking in outrage at the direction in which the world is irresistibly sliding.

I guess none of this is particularly new, but I think that another way of stating the same ideas is perhaps more provocative: conservatives are better at sounding like liberals than liberals are. And that is why a lot of people vote for them. (By liberal here I simply mean advancing the interests of and empowering and enfranchising individual people who are not currently so empowered, which is by and large what Democratic policies do and Republican ones don't, despite the rhetoric). When President Bush can successfully masquerade as the protector of the people and make Kerry seem hopelessly aloof and cold, it must mean that policy doesn't matter at all in elections, but that rhetoric (broadly defined) means everything -- and that liberal rhetoric wins. And this means two things: we liberals have to turn the debate into a policy debate, because then we win. And it means that we have do much better about making our rhetoric/packaging/image/whatever more aligned and indicative of what policies they are promoting. Frank has a brilliant example:

It didn't matter that the accusations angrily advanced by the "Swifties" (as they are fondly known on the right) crumbled under the slightest scrutiny, just as it didn't matter that the principal members of the Bush administration had actively avoided service in Vietnam while Kerry had volunteered for it, and just as it didn't matter that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had botched the nation's current military effort and even sent insufficiently armored soldiers into action. The backlash narrative is more powerful than mere facts, and according to this central mythology conservatives are always hardworking patriots who love their country and are persecuted for it, while liberals, who are either high-born weaklings or eggheads hypnotized by some fancy idea, are always ready to sell their nation out at a moment's notice.

Given that, there is a hard road to hoe in order to redefine the Democratic Party, but an essential one. Also, Thomas Frank is going to be speaking in the Kirkland House JCR on Thursday afternoon at 6:45. Hopefully see y'all there. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Let's rock some comments!

Also, there's a great article in today's NYTs about liberal strategists and organizers (notably my old boss at both the Dean Campaign and the DNC Karen Hicks) going over to Britain to work for Tony Blair and the Labour Party. It's an interesting piece.

What blogging is not is a replacement for mainstream media. Whether on campus, nationally or internationally, the rise of the "blogosphere" has been viewed with envy or suspicion, as if blogs are trying to overtake mainstream media as the arbiters of social or political truth, the producers of reporting, or the guides of dialogue. This conception, while understandable, is widely off-basis.

One of the primary tenants of blogging is the self-conscious realization that the blogger is but one voice, and that commenters and members of a blogging community are in a conversation. The blog is an aspiring democratic tool for dialogue, for engaging mainstream media to improve, deepen and broaden context. Blogging, in this sense, is an inherently alternative source of information. Someone (in our case The Crimson) has to be doing the real journalistic work that produces common knowledge to be considered, augmented, criticized or supported. Blogs, with few exceptions, cannot do that. The hope of a blog like this is that it begins to construct a conversation that's occurring on campus by linking sources together, different forms of commentary, different ideas, different communities. Blogging is the act of trying to create synthesis by being an antithesis, pushing the thesis beyond its own previous conceptions and being pushed back in turn. You can't really have synthesis, however, without something that represents thesis.