Monthly Archives: January 2012

Rooting for Santorum

As the interminable GOP Presidential contests proceeds, I’m rooting for Rick Santorum.

Now, I realize that statement requires some explanation.

With the probable exception of Ron Paul, all the other candidates can be counted on to moderate their current positions if and when they cinch the nomination—to pivot from the shameless pandering to the nut-job base that has characterized the primaries thus far—in an effort to woo the sane Republican and independent voters needed for success in a general election. Since the great majority of Americans don’t really focus on the Presidential campaign until a month or two before the election, candidates can usually distance themselves from much of their more intemperate primary rhetoric.

A Santorum primary victory, however, would provide voters with a candidate who is steadfast in his extremism. A Santorum candidacy would be a golden opportunity for the public to really see and understand the fundamentalist Christians who, for all intents and purposes, now control the GOP, and who have recently come together to endorse Santorum in a (probably futile) effort to derail Mitt Romney’s progress toward the nomination.

What do Santorum and his supporters believe? Well, there’s the obvious hatred of gays—a hatred that has often seemed more of an obsession with gay sex than a policy position. There are the well-known quotes comparing homosexuality to “man on dog sex,” the frequently repeated assertion that same-sex marriage will “destroy the fabric of society,” and the “slippery slope” argument that recognition of such marriages would necessarily be followed by legalization of polygamy and incest.

But it isn’t just gay sex. A cursory review of his quotations paints a picture of a man who—not to put too fine a point on it—doesn’t seem too comfortable in the 21st Century.  Consider a sampling of recent quotes:

  • “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (October 18, 2011)
  • “In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism.” (From his 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good in which he decries working mothers).
  • “All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians. There is no ‘Palestinian.’” (On the campaign trail in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011). (Even the Israeli government doesn’t go this far!)
  • “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Iowa again, Jan. 2, 2012).

There is a lot more along the same lines.

Santorum is a poster child for the small but noisy segment of American society that is still fighting science and the Enlightenment—a spokesperson for the contemporary Puritans who reject evolution along with the idea that liberty means the right to live your life in accordance with your own conscience and beliefs. They believe instead that liberty means “doing the right thing” as they interpret their bibles to define the “right thing.”

They believe it is government’s job to legislate their version of  “Godly” behavior.

You have to give Santorum credit: unlike the other candidates, when he’s been challenged about his controversial views, he hasn’t evaded or backtracked. These are his beliefs and he’s forthright about them. He doesn’t “do” complexity, or nuance, and he obviously doesn’t see shades of gray. His views about the past may be ahistorical and retrograde, but he doesn’t let distractions like facts or evidence—or humility—shake his certainty in his own righteousness.

He’s the perfect representation of today’s Republican base.

Now, I don’t think Rick Santorum is going to be the Republican nominee, but what if he were? What if the American public had to choose between that black “elitist” Barack Obama, with his fancy Harvard education, and this anti-woman, anti-gay Christian Zionist who believes global warming and evolution are myths, and black people are taking “someone else’s money”?

Given the number of crackpots we’ve elected to public office, I’ve lost a lot of my previous faith in the wisdom of the American public. But I have enough left to believe that—given a choice between the 14th Century and the 21st—Americans would overwhelming choose the latter.

Wouldn’t we??

Comments

Not-So-Private Enterprise

This morning’s New York Times has a story about Mitt Romney’s campaign-trail praise for a “private” enterprise that–just coincidentally–happens to be owned by one of his largest contributors. It’s a story that could undoubtedly be written about several of the other candidates in an era when money makes the political world go around, and it wouldn’t merit much more than a sigh and a shrug if it weren’t for two things: the enterprise in question and the increasingly dishonest characterization of what constitutes “private enterprise.”

The business that Romney praises as a “cost-effective” alternative to soaring tuition rates is a for-profit college in Florida named Full Sail University. As the Times points out,

“Mr. Romney did not mention the cost of tuition at Full Sail, which runs more than 80,000, for example, for a 21-month program in ‘video game art.'”

Nor did he mention the institution’s 14% graduation rate.

In fact, there has been a growing recognition that many, if not most, for-profit colleges are royal rip-offs, promising students credentials that prove worthless in the marketplace and vastly overcharging for poor-quality instruction. In response, President Obama has proposed new regulations that would make it much more difficult for students attending such institutions to receive federal aid.

And that leads to the problem of mis-characterization. The reason so many of these for-profit colleges are lobbying so frantically against the Obama proposals is that they are “private” enterprises in name only. They depend almost entirely upon the financial aid available to students courtesy of the American taxpayer.

I’m told that for-profit colleges got their biggest boost in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the availability of the GI Bill promised quick profits to educational entrepreneurs who could best market their programs. Today, most of them would disappear without the ability to tap public funds.

We have a long history in this country of politicians extolling the virtues of those who fund their campaigns, and we have an equally long history of people railing against “socialism” and “bailouts” and “welfare” while happily sucking at the public you-know-what. (Remember Ross Perot, that apostle of private-sector “can do” attitudes who made his fortune contracting with the government?)

As the Times article points out, the for-profit college industry has “been the target of withering criticism in the last few years in the wake of federal investigations into fraudulent marketing practices, poor academic records and huge loans assumed by students ill-prepared for the expensive programs.”

Bottom line: these enterprises are not examples of private entrepreneurship. And what they are offering bears little resemblance to an education.

Crying Wolf

Not being a fan of right-wing conspiracy blogs/commentators, it was only a couple of days ago that I became aware of the latest “outrage” perpetrated by the Obama Administration–a Halloween party kept secret until now, where liberal Hollywood stars mixed with costumed members of the First Family and Staff in an expensive, decadent party paid for by our tax dollars.

I saw a clip of Rush Limbaugh–red-faced and shouting, vein in neck throbbing (okay, that’s his normal look)–accusing the White House of cavorting at taxpayer expense while average Americans suffer through the recession, and darkly asking “If they hide these extravagant, indulgent parties from the American People, what else might they be hiding??”

I consulted the Google oracle to find out more, and discovered that those crafty Obamas managed to “hide” the fact of this party, which turned out to have been held for the children of veterans, by posting about it on the White House Web site, Facebook and Twitter, and inviting the media to attend.

Oh, those crafty Obamas–it’s the Purloined Letter all over again! Hiding in plain sight!

It’s tempting to simply dismiss this silliness as another manifestation of Obama Derangement Syndrome, but there’s a darker side to these constant attempts to demonize the administration. Remember the Boy Who Cried Wolf? He was a shepherd who kept insisting he saw a wolf menacing his flock. When the real wolf came, no one believed him.

When everything Obama does–including, apparently, breathing–prompts accusations of high crimes and misdemeanors, what happens if and when the administration actually does engage in behavior that we really should worry about?

When the level of outrage is set on maximum all the time, how do we distinguish between a Halloween party for the children of our fighting men and signing the Defense Authorization Act?

Comments

Can We Spell Clueless…

The persistence of bigotry in society is widely acknowledged, and there are plenty of examples of people who are just plain hateful. There’s a robust literature that tries to explain the roots of prejudice, and a lively debate about what constitutes an appropriate response to its expression.

But how should we react to behavior that isn’t motivated by animus, but is just stupid and/or insensitive? What do we do with the clueless?

There are a couple of videos that have been going around the internet that address this issue. One compiles embarrassingly dumb remarks white girls say to black girls, and there’s another doing the same with “shit” gentile girls ask Jewish ones. (As someone who was a Jewish girl, I can attest to the accuracy of the latter one; I still remember a high school “friend” who asked me in all seriousness whether Jews had tails.) These videos are being shared for their comic value, and maybe that’s all we can do–laugh.

But an article shared by a colleague yesterday points to some of the less laughable consequences of clueless behaviors.

In Norcross, Georgia, a third-grade math assignment used slavery as a basis for story problems–as in “If Frederick received two beatings each day, how many beatings did he get in a week?” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one of the math teachers decided to use a social studies lesson on Frederick Douglass as a basis for a series of story problems that were–to be kind–incredibly inappropriate. Inexplicably, his worksheet was then reviewed and used by three other teachers.

Here’s a math story problem: if one third-grade teacher has no common sense and three of his colleagues don’t notice, how many third-grade teachers are clueless?

Parents in this racially-diverse school district were understandably outraged, and the school is “investigating” the incident. But this is one of those times when people of good will are really at a loss to suggest appropriate action. Some parents are calling for the teachers to be fired, but in the absence of intentional animus, that is probably an over-reaction. (Of course, if this incident is an indication of pedagogical competence, perhaps not…)

There are things we can do to combat bigotry and racism. Combatting well-meaning ignorance is a lot harder.

Comments