Valerie K's Open Salon Blog

Palin Deploys Bush Doctrine

Fri, 3 Oct 2008 00:10:50 -0400

Okay, so Governor Sarah Palin may not be able to explicate the "Bush Doctrine" (and in fairness, one wonders whether George W. Bush could explain it either), but she deployed it perfectly during her one and only debate with Senator Joe Biden. And when I say Palin's the inheritor of this doctrine, I'm not talking about a foreign policy initiative. I'm talking about a public relations strategy. She used three of Bush's signature moves:

1. Steered all questions to her carefully prepared talking points.

2. Spent half of her allotted time making broad, platitudinous appeals to the American public for common ground so as to avoid utilizing details, specifics, or "evidence," as it is sometimes called, to propose or support a plan or position.

3. Attempted to blame the media for all of her prior nonsensical comments, by stating that in "this forum" she could speak "directly" to the American people, as though this pre-organized, pre-negotiated, pre-strategized, national television appearance more closely resembled the "heart to heart" straight-talking conversation with the public she so desperately wanted, but had been denied by the liberal, elite symbol of journalistic ferocity, Katie Couric.

As the charismatic, pretty Palin entered her post-debate party, televised live on CNN, the Elvis song, "A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action" was playing. This song summarizes the Bush Doctrine: say a lot, get away with nothing, but say little, and get away with murder.

Of course, this strategy of Bush's might easily be called the Reagan Doctrine, and one can almost picture Palin being forced to watch "Stand Up Reagan" between memorizing the deck of Hostile World Leaders Trading Cards.

In a larger sense, Palin has adopted one of Bush's other strategies by teaming up with a running mate who by virtue of his experience, intelligence, and ruthlessness, will actually run the country. Unfortunately, the similarities between McCain and Cheney do not end there: both are power-hungry, impulsive, irratic, ethically compromised, and physically ill.

Hands down, Palin is the prettiest of the bunch running for national office, but this voter is hoping we never get to the action.

Eyeball to Eyeball: Ethos in a Culture of Simulation

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:09:52 -0400

Civil Rights activist and icon Rosa Parks tried for over ten months to get arrested by riding in the front of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, before she made history. Professor Keith Gilyard of Penn State explained, during Friday’s keynote speech at the University of New Mexico’s Civil Rights Symposium, that Rosa Parks was selected by her peers to become the symbolic instigator of the legendary boycott because she had an unimpeachable character. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his colleagues understood the importance of heroes and villains in the unfolding of history.

Dr. King was not the first to recognize the role the leader’s character plays in mobilizing a movement. Aristotle explained that to sway an audience, a speaker or writer would need to understand logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is an appeal to logic. Pathos is an appeal to emotion. Ethos is about character: to influence people, Aristotle argued, one needs to construct a persona endowed with certain desired characteristics. In this election season, we have seen both major party contenders struggle to establish and maintain presidential ethos.

Of course, what the candidates say to establish credibility is only part of the story. What they don’t say -- how they dress, how they interact with the crowd, and how they carry themselves are considered in advance. One might argue that the vast majority of a campaign’s time and resources are devoted to constructing a candidate’s ethos and “spinning” discordant information into a form that is harmonious with the constructed persona.

While, then, the trend seems to be to prevent candidates from any unscripted or unplanned moments and to use all media and means of communication to reach at-home viewers with the candidate’s “message,” there seem to be an increasing incidence of unscripted and unplanned communiqués furnished not by campaigns or members of the press, but by citizens who have access to the internet. On the one side, we are bombarded with synchronized, planned speech events from campaigns and their political allies; on the other side, we are bombarded with alternative interpretations, voices, and reverberation speech events that sometimes echo and sometimes mock respective claims to presidential ethos.

Recently, I was sent a “flame” email about Senator McCain’s unseemly behavior while on vacation in the Galapagos in 2000. The alleged writer of this email is a professor at UC Santa Cruz who is married to a wealthy investment fund manager. Found not in the body of the original email itself, but as an “add-on” from an early recipient who then forwarded both texts on to others, the writer should be regarded as “acting” against her own financial self-interest, as she is part of the 1-2% of those in the population who would benefit from McCain’s tax plan. It is a separate point that the recipients of this flame might have inferred the writer’s wealth and status from the description of the resort - not to mention the fact that the McCains vacationed there, if in fact they did - but that someone outside the writer’s family is claiming intimate knowledge of her finances. Thus, a “someone else” is vouching for the original writer’s credibility. Hmmmm.

The email itself, about the writer’s encounter with Senator John McCain (Cindy appears only once, as the object of her husband’s scorn, for eating dessert), was detailed and salacious. All claims shall not be described here, but they were largely of a personal rather than political nature. The author accuses McCain of being a pompous bore who read favorite quotes from Faulkner aloud during dinner. When he was not reading aloud at mealtime, he complained about the figures of American women, and compared them unfavorably to those from Southeast Asia. In the account, McCain flirted with and even touched a Thai woman who was on vacation with her husband. According to the account, the couple asked to be moved to a different table. The fact that McCain is a lecherous blowhard with a thing for Southeast Asian women makes him sound more like one or two men I encountered college and many of our “esteemed” former politicos than any mysterious monster. I think it’s important to mention Bill Clinton here because Republicans do not have the market cornered on narcissists who make inappropriate come-ons.

The most disturbing aspect of the account of this Galapagos vacation comes when the author describes an exchange with McCain about his adopted Bangladeshi child, who was there with them on vacation (although, ostensibly not present during this alleged conversation): "Oh, that was Cindy's idea – I didn't have anything to do with it. She just went and adopted this thing without even asking me. You can't imagine how people stare when I wheel this ugly, black thing around in a shopping cart in Arizona. No, it wasn't my idea at all." One doubts that these were his exact words. However, one also wonders if all of this - including the implication of his words, if not the words themselves - should be completely disregarded. Should this account be discarded in favor of the message he is producing and distributing? Can some sliver of the meanness displayed here (not to mention racism) be considered in light of both his false allegation that Obama supported legislation to teach sex ed to kindergarteners or the fact that he refused, during the debate, to look at his opponent? Should it be considered in conjunction with an assumed reaction from the McCain campaign (“I love all my children including my adopted Bangladeshi child, and how dare anyone say otherwise! This is truly the most despicable allegation in the history of any political campaign!”)?

Plato was skeptical of writing as a form of communication precisely because he saw that writing enabled a self-conscious construction of ethos. He recognized the potential for miscommunication and deception, and (correctly) believed this potential would increase as distance between interlocutors also increased (a recent study from Lehigh University overwhelmingly supports this). Plato therefore believed that words should remain as close to the person uttering them as possible. Plato’s perspective on electronic communication - instantaneous, malleable, anonymous, faceless - is easy to imagine. He’s probably rolling in his grave as I type this.

In Carolyn R. Miller’s piece, “Writing in a Culture of Simulation,” Miller explains that in order to function in the world (that is, conduct any business), we adhere to the “cooperative principle,” whereby we “need to posit a rational interlocutor.” Her research findings further indicate, “we assume that our partners [in communication] are trying to contribute to an ongoing joint effort to interact meaningfully.” This doesn’t mean that we do not bring some skepticism to the table - especially where politics are concerned - but as functioning members of society, we must allow some of what we hear as truth (or at least a speaker’s best interpretation thereof).

McCain, who doesn’t claim to have much use for the internet, seems to agree with Plato: the best way to judge a person is by sitting down face to face. In last week’s debate, McCain discussed his experience staring deeply into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and seeing “three letters: a K, a B, and a G.” McCain’s psychic friends-y phrasing here aside (that would be weird if he actually saw letters appear), he wants the opportunity to have live, unencumbered interaction with those who will factor on his presidency and in his foreign policy decisions.

Rhetoric, by definition, concerns in Aristotle’s words, matters on which “there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt.” Miller states that for this primary reason “ethos is the default appeal, a kind of presumption: an appropriate, trustworthy character lightens the burden of proof.” As the claims in this election mount and the burden of investigating their merit increases, we will likely turn more and more to the question of character. Which is the more presidential? Who do I trust? Who merits the greater respect?

Most of us will not have the opportunity to look into the eyes of the candidates and see what the letters spell. Instead, we will have to rely on each candidate’s ethos as constructed in conjunction with each account as presented which means negotiating a culture of simulated space, anonymous speakers, approximate language, and disembodied voices.

In his remarks, Professor Gilyard asked whether Civil Rights Acts exist only where the cameras are. Everyone who is electronically engaged in this election is participating in a kind of civic literacy, many with the express purpose of bringing civil rights issues to the fore. This participation in civic literacy does seem removed from cameras (I’m wearing flip-flops today, not marching shoes) and which floats in a kind of imaginary medium (Plato’s problem precisely). What are the grounds upon which we are building this discourse? Eyewitness accounts? Second-third-fourth-hand news? Outright lies? It’s not enough to charge that the campaigns engage in knowing obfuscation, or that individuals outside the political establishment have an axe to grind. Knowledge must not conceal the grounds of its own foundations, Gilyard argued. But in this day and age -- who sees and who knows?

Why McCain's T.O. is B.S.

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:09:30 -0400

As any quasi-literate sports enthusiast understands, when the opposing team starts to run away with the game you call a "Time Out" in the hopes of halting the momentum. McCain's campaign correctly perceives that as concerns over the health of the US economy swell in voters' minds, McCain's chance of becoming the next president sinks. The McCain camp doesn't know how to win on this issue because McCain doesn't "know much" about the economy -- and he has the record to prove it. With this crisis, he has an opportunity to take a public stand and be a leader on this issue. Instead of showing initiative, he's hoping his rival falters.

Hypothetically, the McCain camp's suggestion that he and Obama suspend their respective campaigns in "Time Out" for the rest of the week might be a relevant one if either McCain or Obama were themselves involved in writing the so-called bail out legislation. In practical terms, no one in any branch of government is counting on them to architect this plan or speak to it except in the most general of terms. McCain's implication that he is going change the direction of this bill by spending Friday night in Washington, DC instead of Oxford, MI, is absurd. Both McCain and Obama have been campaigning for last eighteen months, not versing themselves in the local and global implications of banks betting two trillion dollars on low quality mortgages.

While it's doubtful that in the immediate future (Thursday and Friday) either McCain or Obama will make a meaningful contribution to the legislation under debate, it's guaranteed that whichever of them wins the election will, by necessity, contend with the fallout from this crisis. The reason the debate should go on is we American voters need insight into how these respective candidates will seek to remedy America's financial woes in the coming four years.

By "postponing" the game under false pretenses, McCain may be indicating that the words this country most wants to hear today, like "regulation" for example, are anathema to him and the economic invisible hand mantra he's staked his career on. Even more worrisome, the "Time Out" may signal he doesn't have any ideas about how he'll proceed as US President and wants more time to learn something about the economy and prepare his responses. Either way, the crises that emerge both at home and abroad when one is serving as President of the United States of America do not announce themselves in advance.

Even if McCain and Obama don't have the answers today, seeing their thought processes, how they understand and frame the problem, what possible avenues they might explore to prevent future market meltdowns - in short, how they would deal with similar crises as President and how they might solve this problem starting January of 2009 - is valid. The President won't get a "Time Out" -- and neither, I argue, should John McCain.

The Super Value Meal Does Not Include a College Degree...Yet

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:09:05 -0400

My students' first assignment in my sophomore-level Technical & Professional Writing course was to write a complaint letter. Based on my previous five years' teaching experience in introductory English & Composition courses, I had reason to be nervous. Many students entering large, public universities have trouble presenting their ideas in writing.

I was thrilled with the results: my students organized their thoughts, provided logical arguments, and wrote (mostly) correct, clear sentences in Standard American English. Students may struggle with five paragraph essays, but they are master-complainers. This is not a slight on their writing skills: I was truly delighted with the results. It is, however, a commentary on a mentality.

The object of the students' wrath was, for the most part, parking. Students wrote to argue forcefully over tickets they'd received on campus. They fought passionately to ask the head of parking to lower the cost of parking permits. They articulated the profound injustice inherent in parking a half-mile from campus and taking a shuttle to and from class everyday.

I bring up the point of these letters for two reasons: first, the majority of undergratuate and graduate students on campus are commuter students -- they live off-campus, often at home with parents, significant others, or relatives -- and must therefore "drive and park," and second, to underscore the theme of my essay. These students are veteran consumers. In fact, some see themselves as consumers before they see themselves as students.

Since the 1970s, populations at universities have swelled. Most public universities are (rightfully) accessible to the communities they serve. This democratization has had an interesting and profound impact in the classroom. One result is that entering university students are less invested in the idea of achieving academic excellence. Mastering school and its conventions (including the five paragraph essay) is less important than mastering life and its conventions (complaint letters).

A second, more interesting implication is that the current generation of "traditional" college students (eighteen to twenty-five year olds) may be the first generation to be so forcefully preyed upon by advertisers. The members of this generation view themselves as empowered -- not because they have access to educational opportunities that did not exist twenty years ago (at least in New Mexico), but because they are consumers of education. They see themselves as having choices when it comes to college (and therefore able to their business elsewhere) and entitled to the rights afforded s buyers/purchasers. If and when the college experience does not meet their expectations, they ask (and sometimes demand) the university-as-seller will make adjustments accordingly.

Along with this assumptive role as buyer, comes a set of expectations: students want to know the relevance of every assignment. Students want transparency in grading. Students view instructors as agents of the university to be responsible and responsive to them. Students want and expect convenience. If lines are too long at the Bursar's office or in the Advisement center, students complain of poor "Customer Service." In essence, students expect universities to be run as the businesses because their conditioning has led them to perceive the world as one of capital exchange.

Certainly, students are not entirely without reason for wanting greater transparency, accessibility, and accountability. However, I argue that this subtle but important shift in attitude from student to consumer-student has potentially troubling implications. Student-consumers are quick to determine for themselves whether or not a given assignment or course is relevant to their university experience. If they do not deem it so, they are quick to protest -- either verbally to advisors/instructors or nonverbally by refusing to participate. Often, the purpose of specific assignments and/or core courses may not be immediately apparent to students, but only evident in retrospect. I do not mean to take a patronizing position, but the classes students are most adamant they do not need are often the core writing, math, and science courses that reveal their weaknesses and thinkers and writers.

In short, student-consumers have been raised and trained to expect immediate results. Immediate results are anathema to a university education because the university experience is designed to offer both a breadth and depth of knowledge built, step by step over time. Moreover, if a university did not ask its students to challenge their thought processes and assumptions - difficult tasks for everyone, not only students - its existence would be unjustified in society.

The responsiveness and instant gratification student-consumers expect when they purchase a car or cell phone cannot be duplicated in a college setting. Professors and instructors cannot justify their every move or assignment, or live under threat of retaliation for assigning students grades they more than likely earned (I will spare my readers the multiple cases of students threatening law suits against TAs and Adjuct Faculty who rightly accused them of plagiarism). Ultimately, the university degree remains meaningful only if it cannot be bought.

In my view, one sacrifice students may need to make is to let go of the idea that their relationship with college ought to look exactly like their relationship with Target. Students pursue degrees - although they may not be hyper-aware of this fact - precisely because degrees are not for sale.