Stu's Views

I just finished watching the Kerry speech (had to tape it last night since I was at the Yankee game watching them get pummelled by the Orioles). It was probably the most passion I've heard Kerry voice which made him much more effective than he typically is. He was not on a par with the great speakers in the party such as Clinton, but the speech was better than the Gore speech in 2000 which was probably as much as could be hoped for.

Edwards on the other hand did a magnificent job. He gave a version of his "Two Americas" speech which was such a hit during the primary campaign. His evocation of what it is like for poor people living from paycheck to paycheck was particularly powerful. It evinces an understanding of what life is like for "normal" people that is absent in the speeches of Bush, Cheney, or Kerry. He is not as strong on foreign policy, but that is Kerry's strength, so Edwards can be left to discuss domestic policy and hopefully combat Republican attacks.

One fascinating thing about the two speeches and the convention as a whole is how the Democrats have appropriated Reagan's death to their advantage. Whatever criticisms of Reagan's policies were voiced last month, they were drowned out by paeans to his optimistic nature. The Republicans had hoped to paint Kerry as a dour pessimist and use the Reagan legacy as a major advantage.

The Democrats instead were relentlessly pushing a positive message during the convention. Of the two men on the ticket, Edwards did this most skillfully by talking about the American dream and showing what optimism really looks like. Kerry had to resort to telling us outright that he was an optimist. The Republicans have played into the Democrats hands by pushing a relentlessly pessimistic and negative message espousing fear and attacks against the Democrats. It will be fascinating over the next several weeks whether the Republicans will be able to turn this around and become optimists by the time their convention occurs.

It has been a mostly impressive two days for the Democrats in Boston.  I haven't seen all of the speeches but have seen the highlight each night and the highlight alone was sufficient to make the night a plus for the Democrats.  That's all you really need at a convention is one good speech a night to energize the audience and to focus the punditocracy's attention.

On Monday night, Clinton was downright spectacular.  Clinton has spoken at each of the previous four Democratic conventions, introducing Dukakis in 1988, as nominee in 1992 and as President in 1996 and 2000.  This was his best speech.  He was funny and inspiring.  He took down the Republicans without being mean-spirited.  He outlined what the Democratic party was about and did it all in less than 30 minutes.  I was ready to amend the Constitution so he could run for President again.

Last night the highlight was Barack Obama. I felt much about him as I do about Lebron James.  I had read so much about him, all of it positive, that it was hard to believe he could live up to the hype.  And while he was not Bill Clinton (or in Lebron's case, Michael Jordan) he was damn good.  Obama is blessed with a fantastic voice and he used it to deliver an inspiring message weaving together his background and the importance of the upcoming election.  Barring a scandal, we will be hearing much more from him.

One has to feel for Al Gore.  He delivered a fine speech on Monday night but he was overshadowed by his former boss.  He was wooden at times and a bit too wonky.  I am hoping that his speech does not presage what Kerry's will seem like.  President Carter was surprisingly powerful and did the best job of outlining the harm done by the Bush Administration.  Last night, Teresa Heinz Kerry was unfortunately boring and out of place.  I am not sure why a "nominee" for first lady must speak at the convention.

I am looking forward to Edwards tonight with excitement and Kerry tomorrow with trepidation.  Back on Friday to discuss.

Every time that you think that the rivalry between the Yankees and Red Sox cannot get more intense, they crank it up yet another level.  There is nothing in sports that even comes close to comparing.  Now that they play 18 times during the regular season (which harkens back to pre-1962 days when they used to play 22 times) and can meet each other in the playoffs (which has never been the case before the advent of the wild card), I think it is fair to say that the rivalry has reached new peaks.

Yesterday's brawl in Fenway was a perfect example.  After Jason Varitek picked a fight with A-Rod to fire his team up, the benches cleared and two players on each team were ejected.  The game became a seesaw affair eventually won by the Sox as Mariano Rivera gave up a walkoff home run for only the second time in his career.

Now we will be subject to countless articles about how the Red Sox got fired up by Varitek and are ready to finally emerge from their three month long doldrums.  While I will admit that the Red Sox, subject to the most exacting media coverage of any team in sports, are more subject to psychological factors than perhaps any other baseball team, those factors cannot help but being a minor part of the story. 

I've said this since the beginning of the season but I'll say it again.  The Red Sox have an immense amount of talent.  If they end up rallying and pushing the Yankees in the division and winning the wild card it won't be because Jason Varitek acted like a 12 year old yesterday.  It will be because Pedro and Schilling pitched great down the stretch and a lineup as good as any outside of New York was finally healthy and hit the ball like they should.

That said, I'm hoping that the Yankees crush them 11-0 tonight to break their spirit . . . just in case.

David Brooks can be a very frustrating op-ed writer.  Most of the time he is so absorbed with being a clever conservative that he stretches funny observations into overbroad generalizations and ends up making no sense at all.  Yet every once in a while he makes outstanding points about red and blue America, particularly some of the deceptions those of us in blue America perpetrate on ourselves to explain why we are right but no one agrees with us.

On Tuesday he had a column that was outstanding although only tangentially related to this point.  He writes about a much revered professor at Yale who has successfully moved in and out of academia and has helped students understand both subject material and how to think about big issues.

This resonated with me because it is that type of professor that I aspire to be. I feel to some degree apart from many of my academic colleagues because of the time I spent in Washington outside the hallowed groves of academe (I'm not saying the real world because I am aware that Washington is as unreal as academia for many).  I feel like this helps me inordinately in the classroom and in office hours as I feel confident giving career advice as much as I doing lecturing on economics or the public policy process.

This also set me thinking again about the definition of the job of a professor. Our universities (and professional schools) perform a different function than they did two generations ago.  Whereas one could thrive (or at least gain successful entry to the middle class) with a high school education in my parent's generation, it is nearly impossible to do so now.  College has become what high school used to be.  We may not be happy about it and we may want to change how high schoolers are educated but none of that changes this reality.

That means that universities need to not just serve as a passageway to arcane and fascinating knowledge but they need to teach kids how to survive in the real world.  The classic notion of a professor passing on to his or her students their specialized knowledge now only applies to doctoral education.  This is not a revelation to anyone who has attended college. The problem as exemplified by the rarity of Brooks' subject is that universities have not adjusted to this reality.

I have never taken a class in pedagogy.  No institution that interviewed me during my search for a faculty job would have dreamed of asking me if I had.  Whether or not I have skill as a teacher is basically random.  Many bored students can give examples of plenty of professors who don't have that skill (perhaps including mine).  If our universities are to be for educating young adults and preparing them for the real world then there is no reason to think they are capable of doing so.  What needs to be done?  That is the subject of another (or perhaps many more) essay.

(for a more satirical take on this same issue see this Onion article)

A few disjointed thoughts on politics and current events:
 
-- With the offensive (in every sense of the word) on gay marriage and Bush's recent schedule and advertising focus, it is clear he is still concerned about his base.  That is a worrisome sign for Republicans.  It is also possible that they think that pandering to the base while going incredibly negative on Kerry will ensure that conservatives vote while moderates stay home.  This is a very fine needle to thread and a risky strategy.  If he doesn't want to pin his hopes here he needs to move to the middle in a hurry.  The Republican convention lineup (Giuliani, McCain, Scwarzenegger) indicates he will move in this direction but it may be too late.
 
-- The Washington buzz that Bush would drop Cheney is silly.  Bush has portrayed himself as resolute and loyal.  He cannot dump Cheney at the last minute when things are looking bad.  A trumped up medical excuse would be transparent.  If Bush needed to bring Cheney with him to the 9-11 commission, there is no way he is leaving him off of the ticket.
 
-- Kerry continues to be a mystery to voters.  This is fine as long as the Bush campaign is imploding.  Right now a referendum on Bush is fine for Kerry.  However if circumstances change (huge job growth bursts or an attack on the US) Kerry may be unable to recover.  I think he will better define himself starting in Boston next week but I am a bit nervous about whether that definition will be a successful one.  One thing he needs to be concerned with is that with Clinton, Hillary, and Edwards preceding him to the platform, he may look like the weakest speaker in the party.  Mondale had a similar problem in 1984 when he had to follow Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson.
 
-- The 9-11 commission findings on Iran make for some interesting questions for both parties.  If Democrats argue that weapons of mass destruction and cooperation with the 9-11 terrorists would have justified invading Iraq, then do they favor invading Iran?  And how can the Bush Administration possibly justify invading Iraq over Iran?  It is becoming increasingly apparent that oil supplies and personal animus against Saddam are the only justifications left standing.--
 
If you want to see an entertaining cartoon video on the election, check out www.jibjab.com (thanks to a friend for the site).

I haven't blogged over the past few days because we have going through the hellacious process of moving. I've discussed before our decision to buy a townhouse but I haven't mentioned our decision to leave the city (albeit a small city) and move to the burbs. This is a decision that doesn't come easily as 33 of my 36 years have been spent in cities, and there is no small amount of guilt associated with abandoning what is a difficult situation.

While I've lived in cities most of my life, I have never lived in a downtrodden area before. My college campus was in a "bad neighborhood" but it was a college campus so that doesn't count. The real estate market has become such, that in order to rent even in a small city like New Brunswick, in this area of the country, on our income, we had to sacrifice some preferences such as neighborhood amenities. When we moved to New Brunswick, I don't think we understood exactly what we were sacrificing. The experience of living here for a year has been an education and I've learned more about urban issues just by living through them then I could have through the many urban planning courses my school offers.

Three factors made it difficult for us to feel comfortable in our neighborhood. The first one was the least crucial (in my view) but the most complicated. To put it mildly, there was a lot of noise on the block. Not just noise during the day but noise going until the late night. People revving their engines, people turning their car stereos up to to the highest possible volume, people honking their horns, and people shouting. The reason I say this is complicated is because the block is largely Hispanic. To some degree the noise is cultural. This is not something I am comfortable saying. I believe deeply in the value of diversity and know that my life has been immeasurably richer by the many cultures I have come in contact with. However, the complete acceptance of a very loud partying atmosphere is not something I am capable of. It is possible that we just lived on the wrong block. Driving around the neighborhood and anecdotes from others tell me this is not the case.

We never called the police about the noise because we didn't feel that was appropriate. When it was particularly egregious we would ask the neighbors to be quiet. They would without complaint. But we could not go out every time every day asking everyone to turn down their music. And we shouldn't have to. I found myself wishing that those people who we did not want to do the discourtesy of calling the police on would show us the courtesy of keeping the noise down voluntarily. It didn't happen.

The second factor is institutional. Our neighborhood got very poor city services. The streets were never swept. When it snowed our block was not plowed. The police did not patrol (more on that below). These were all things that I have always taken for granted. It is easy to understand how "bad neighborhoods" stay bad. Institutional efforts to improve them are necessary. A neighborhood that is dirty and in disrepair feels different. It feels worse. Poorer people whose days are devoted to scraping by (and who don't speak the language of those holding power) do not have the time or capacity to mobilize for institutional change. Only remarkable efforts or outside help leads to the small changes that would make a big difference.

The final factor is safety. Last winter, there was a murder five blocks from our house. Last fall there was a purse snatching on our block. This spring we saw the cops chase down someone on our street. Neither my wife nor I would walk alone at night. Too much energy was being spent worrying about being safe. That's energy that is not devoted to being productive, having fun, or spending time with your children.

I am lucky. I could afford to take the past year as an educational experience, perhaps allowing it to inform my policy perspectives for the rest of my career, and move out. Many people like those chronicled in Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" or David Shipler's "Working Poor" have to live with these issues for their entire lives. As those two books note, dealing with these challenges are some of the reasons that the poor stay poor. Any plan to deal with povery has to be much broader (and will be much more expensive) than increasing people's incomes.

Random thoughts as we round the midseason turn in major league baseball.

--As much as I would like to believe it, the Yankees are not six games better than the Red Sox. This race will get closer and both teams will make the playoffs. Deals between now and the end of the month could be crucial.

--Looking at the Yankees in particular, I am growing concerned. The team reminds me of the 2002 team that lost to the Angels in the first round of the playoffs. Right now there is no starting pitcher that I feel confident will throw a big game if necessary. Two months from now I may feel that way about Vazquez, Mussina, Brown, or Contreras but I don't right now.

-- The White Sox picking up Freddy Garcia was huge and I now think they are slight favorites in the AL Central.

-- The NL East scrum is very entertaining. The Phillies are the best team but seem incapable of proving it. Right now it appears that any of the four teams involved could pull it out.

-- I slighted the Cardinals in previous posts and they are making me look foolish. They are playing the best ball in the majors right now and it is increasingly appearing as if they will be heading to the postseason. Expect the Cubs to close ground in the central and be the NL wildcard if they don't catch the Cardinals. The Astros are in trouble.

--Midseason awards:
AL MVP: Vladimir Guerrero
AL Cy Young: Curt Schilling
AL Rookie: Bobby Crosby
NL MVP:Barry Bonds (non-Bonds mvp: Scott Rolen)
NL Cy Young: Randy Johnson
NL Rookie: Jason Bay

Biggest all star snub: Frank Thomas who is quietly having a great season.

Comeback team in the second half: Look for Oakland to have their typical August and September.

Team most likely to collapse: Texas, the pitching is mediocre at best and will wilt in the Texas summer.

We finally got around to seeing Errol Morris' documentary, "The Fog of War" the other night. For those who haven't heard of it, it is simply interviews with 85 year old Robert McNamara interspersed with old photographs and newsreels from his time as Secretary of Defense. McNamara served at the Pentagon for seven years through the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and most importantly through Vietnam.

The portrait of McNamara that one gets is of a man as inscrutable today as he was in the 1960s. He claims strong opposition to Vietnam and that Kennedy never would have allowed escalation to happen. At the same time he speaks of his admiration for LBJ and is unable to admit that his public support (and lying) about Vietnam during the course of his tenure was a mistake.

I came away from the documentary convinced that McNamara goes through the Vietnam debacle in his mind constantly, trying to find a rational explanation for his decisions. He is clearly a man who believes deeply in logic and rationality and cannot think that decisions arrived at through a logical process can be wrong. Yet he is confronted with what was clearly one of the "wrongest" decisions in US military history and the fact that he was an integral part of it.

The other striking thing in the documentary (I'm sure intentionally) is the parallels with Iraq. There was a President claiming our motives were pure and as soon as we prepared the natives for self government and self policing we would leave. There was a Secretary of Defense claiming that the media was reporting only the bad things about the war. And there was a slowly mounting toll of US casualties that eventually turned public support into widespread protests.

p.s. check out this piece for yet another disturbing revelation about the War on Terror.

Rumor has it that John Kerry will announce his running mate this week. Predicting vice presidential choices is always hard as many recent ones have come out of left field (Cheney, Kemp, Lieberman, Quayle)With that in mind here are my thoughts on the leading candidates as annointed by the punditocracy.

John Edwards: As regular readers know, I warmed to Edwards as the Dean campaign imploded during the primaries. While I worry that his lack of military experience and his vote for the war will compromise his ability to confront Cheney, I think his charisma would be a huge asset to the ticket. His message of "two Americas" will also help hold potential Nader defectors with the Democrats. I doubt he helps in the south as much as many think he might but I think he will help enough elsewhere to be a solid choice.

Richard Gephardt: Ugh. I'm not sure what he adds to the ticket. Like Kerry, he is a lifetime Washington insider. A Kerry-Gephardt ticket would accomplish the nearly impossible of allowing the incumbents to run against Washington. Gephardt doesn't even guarantee Missouri (a key swing state) since outside of St. Louis he is not particularly popular. The only asset he brings is that Kerry likes him. Lets hope that Kerry can look beyond that.

Tom Vilsack: I only know what I've read about him. He will help in Iowa (another swing state). But the media thinks of him as a Kerry clone, stiff, intellectual and not at ease witha audiences. His small town background will help but I'm not sure that this and helping with Iowa is enough to merit a vice presidential slot.

Wesley Clark: My personal preference for Kerry's choice. He is a stiff campaigner and was unimpressive during the primaries. However given that the Bush administration is going to make this campaign about security it helps to have two former Vietnam vets including a four star general on the ticket. He will help as much as Edwards in the south and probably more in the midwest. And, I love the image of chicken-hawk Cheney on stage with him for the vice-presidential debate.

Joe Biden: He is a latecomer to the pool. I've heard bad things about him personally and as a campaigner but he always struck me as a knowledgable policy expert, particularly in foreign policy. Another Washington insider.

Dick Durbin: Another latecomer, recently rumored to be under consideration. Yet another Washington insider who I am not particularly fond of because of his repeated attacks on OIRA, my old office. He is pretty lefty so he will help with wooing potential Naderites and he is from the midwest, the key battleground.

My preferences: Clark, Edwards, Vilsack, Biden, Durbin, Gephardt

My prediction: Edwards, Gephardt, Vilsack, Clark, Durbin, Biden.

Nearly everyone seems to have written an op-ed or blog entry on Fahrenheit 9/11 lately so I figured it is my turn. Those on the right have angrily denounced the movie, no surprise there. The reaction on the left has been mixed which is more of a surprise. Paul Krugman and Kevin Drum praise the movie while quibbling with it's excesses. Richard Cohen angrily says that those excesses drown the anti-Bush message.

My views come closest to those of Billmon. My wife and I saw the movie last night in a packed movie theatre. While, as someone who follows politics closely, I could find a dozen stretches of the truth, in the end I found myself saying who cares. The movie, particularly it's last half hour which focuses on Iraq, is compelling, and the message is simple, the Administration deceived the American public to go to war in Iraq and we will pay for that for a generation.

Did this deception take place to take the heat off of Bush's Saudi friends? As revenge for Saddam targeting Bush's father? For oil revenue? It doesn't matter. Because there was a deception, people will always have reason to question Bush's motives for propagating it. Even if his reasons were to create an outpost for democracy in a region barren of democratic values, it doesn't matter. Democracies don't go to war on the basis of a lie.

Moore makes this point forcefully. Yes, he exaggerates and pushes innuendoes which are questionable in their veracity. But there are fewer of these exaggerations and innuendoes in a two hour movie then there are in ten minutes of listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading Ann Coulter. When George Will, David Brooks, and William Safire start condemning the demagogues on the right, then I will start crticizing Moore.

Until then, Moore should be treated as a hero by the left. He (along with Air America) has filled a gap and begun to tilt the media balance away from Limbaugh and his ilk. The revenues for the movie show that there is a market there for vitriol from the left. Hopefully others will recognize this and take advantage of it. We can only hope that such entepeneurs have the talent and wit of Moore.