"The Next Big Thing" or "The Next Lamar Alexander?"

What to make of Jon Huntsman's candidacy?

I'm intrigued. Politically, I actually think his service in China will be more of an asset than a liability. He could frame it the way Petraeus might have described his service under President Obama. Even his civil unions stance isn't the liability it would have been in 2008 (my sense is that most in the party realize the country has turned a corner in that regard). Compared to Romney, he is less plugged in to the Church of LDS (those who know Mormons say Huntsman is like the University of Utah and Romney is BYU) and perceived as more down to earth. Like Romney, he's palatable to Republicans who are embarrassed by (but occasionally sympathetic to) the Tea Party crowd. Style-wise, I could see him getting along with the rust-belt Saul Anuzis set more easily than Mitt Romney has and  I can imagine him doing much better in NH than T-Paw.

He doesn't have a specific affiliation with any of the major primary constituencies, but this issue could be mitigated if he deploys his wealth to shore up influential supporters, to build a large ground operation and "reassure" the chattering class of his viability.

Also consider who he's up against. I still consider Mitt the frontrunner, but he does have some major liabilities. As a candidate, Pawlenty looks okay on paper but there is the "yawn factor." If he was going to be the belle of the ball, I think more establishment figures would have signed on with him by now (Dole, McCain and Bush all attracted big name campaign talent early on).

Of course, there's a lot to be seen. Huntsman certainly hasn't gotten the scrutiny that others have. You know--not that it's relevant--but I'd be interested to hear how just far his youthful rebellion went: was it like rebellious for Salt Lake City or rebellious for, say, anywhere else?

Also:
If you don't think Huntsman has a natural constituency, consider George Pataki, who (shockingly) might throw his hat in the ring!

Also:
How long will it be before we get a fawning Huntsman profile from David Brooks? A week? A month?

Does the Third Way Lead Straight to the Bank?

Stories like this make it more difficult for pragmatic progressives to defend against charges that they aren't just "corporate Democrats."

Hey GOP, Why No Love for the Donald?

I'm a little confused why the GOP establishment is acting like Donald Trump is not a serious Republican candidate.

Is it because he proposes fiscally untenable tax policies?

Is it because he occasionally panders to birther paranoia?

Is it because he's unapologetic about his messy personal life?

Is it because he's flip-flopped on major issues like abortion and gay rights?

Is it because he makes funny but off-color jokes?

Is it because he enthusiastically embraces corporate interests?

Beats me.

Why (Self-Identified) Conservatives Are Rare in Academe

At a recent social psychology conference, UVA Professor John Haidt made a familiar point about ideological diversity by asking conservatives and moderates in attendance to raise their hand. This exercise touches on an interesting, perennial question: why are so there so few conservatives in the academy?

Among “movement conservatives,” it is practically an article of faith that liberal bias discourages right-leaning students from pursuing careers in academia, particularly careers in the social sciences and humanities. But is this just right-wing paranoia, or worse, a politically-convenient way for conservatives to diminish the standing of potential ideological foes?

A working paper by sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse suggests that the widespread liberalism is largely the result of self-selection. The authors identify several characteristics that predispose one towards liberalism and find that they are disproportionately present amongst academics. Specifically, when compared with other Americans, professors:

- tend to have higher income and education levels
- are less likely to be theologically-conservative Protestants
- are more likely to be Jewish or non-religious
- are more tolerant of controversial ideas
- have a greater disparity between their income and educational levels

Gross and Fosse argue that the ubiquity of these liberal-friendly characteristics in the professorate has gradually resulted in academia being “typed” as a liberal profession, in much the same way nursing has been typed a “feminine” profession. They cite research by Amy Binder and others showing that conservative students (of all ability levels) are less likely to feel ideological kinship with their professors and thus are less likely to aspire to join academia.

To me, their argument sounds reasonable: if a top student thinks the private sector promotes innovation and raises living standards, he's probably more likely to accept its generally more lucrative and flexible offerings than one who frowns upon “big business." This probably holds true for undergrads and grad students alike. And the private sector isn't the only other option for cerebral conservatives.

For secular folks, the academe is one of relatively few fields where an individual can devote his or her professional energies to contemplating and propagating his or her conception of the “Truth.” Religious conservatives can also consider the clergy (there are roughly 500,000 members of the Protestant clergy in the US and about 25,000 philosophy professors, per the AP and the BLS, respectively) or any number of faith-based organizations. Conservative think tanks probably took an ideological bite out of academia early on, but by now I suspect their impact is canceled out by left-leaning think tanks. The Defense sector probably absorbs more conservative thinkers in the aggregate.

These factors seem to go a long way towards explaining the relative rarity of conservative academics, but political bias still plays a role in some cases. In some disciplines, influence will be harder to come by for those who don't take certain political views for granted. Likewise, at some institutions, conservatism is stigmatized and so challenging sensitive liberal shibboleths might open you up for professional or even personal criticism (I have Pat Moynihan in mind on this issue).

Of course, it's also worth remembering that "liberal" and "conservative" can be unstable terms in academia. Greg Mankiw, Andrew Bacevich, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Francis Fukuyama could all be called conservatives and yet could all have different views on any given issue. Foreign policy and economic conservatives probably meet the least resistance in most disciplines. Likewise, the term liberal is similarly pretty expansive; it's just as likely to be used for a free trade-backing Clinton fan as it is for an avowed Marxist. Given their backgrounds, I'd wager most academics who identify as liberal in the US aren't that in favor of challenging the status quo.

 

Here's the working paper. Here's a NY Times article that does an okay job discussing it.
Some of this was adopted from a previously deleted blog post.

"Chicago School" of 80's Cinema

In any genre, it's hard to make a movie that will age well, but it's particularly difficult to make a mainstream comedy that lasts. Some jokes lose relevance and Hollywood is by no means averse to recycling successful gags, characters, set-ups and plot devices. A few great movies can survive this borrowing (e.g. "This Is Spinal Tap"), while some good ones lose a bit of their luster (I think I would have enjoyed "Risky Business" more if I hadn't seen its premise copied and updated by "The Girl Next Door").

Now, I've heard the criticisms about 80s pop culture, but, in my view, the decade produced a remarkable number of mainstream comedies that stand the test of time. Flicks that come to mind include "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Farris Bueller's Day Off," "Trading Places," "The Blues Brothers" and of course, "Groundhog Day." One of the reasons I think these movies last is that they tend to couple sarcasm with an essentially optimistic view of the human spirit.

These movies were not generally heavy on political content, it would be a mistake to consider them to be totally sympatico with the "Morning in America" thing going on. The dean in "Animal House" (okay, technically 1979) is basically a Nixon figure. The protagonists in these movies are often savvy, worldly types given to making sarcastic jokes. You could maybe argue that these movies dealt with big issues superficially, but I have yet to see a PSA that hits me like the end of "Planes, Trains..." They aren't perfect or even that elegant, but I think these movies tend to hit on something resonant.

"Groundhog Day," in my view, is one of the best of this genre. Here's an interesting article that talks about how adherents of various religious traditions (Eastern and Western)  find echoes of their philosophies in the film.

Then again, maybe, as a Reagan baby, I'm just being sentimental...

* I used the term "Chicago School" because many of the people involved have Chicago ties (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, the brothers Belushi, John Landis, John Hughes).  Even some of the relevant Canadians (John Candy, Dan Ackroyd) have ties to the Toronto satellite of Chicago's "Second City" troupe. This also has a useful connotation: the Midwestern and Canadian cultures are stereotyped as earnest. And for those keeping track, they also have strongly Progressive elements.

A Sign of the Times

I said it during the end of his presidency and I'll say it again now: I still like George W. Bush more than I like most prominent Republicans these days.  This is more a comment on the state of the Republican Party than it is on his Presidency.

At least Bush tried in earnest (relatively speaking) to do something about issues like immigration, prescription drugs for seniors, and AIDs in Africa. He was pragmatic in improving our relationship with India (and handled the Tsunami relief very well), and he helped curb prejudice against Islam in the wake of 9/11. 

Like most Democrats, I disagree with him on a lot of issues (particularly domestic ones) and I'm not convinced his temperament was the best fit for the job. But compared to Rick Perry, Pat Toomey, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry, he isn't looking so bad.

Enter Ambien Man

Congratulations Dick Gephart, you're off the hook. This profile seems to confirm suspicions that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is now the most boring Presidential contender in recent memory.

What a line-up...

So the GOP's midterms lineup now includes:

• Nevada's Sharon Angle (Senate) who thinks black football jerseys are "thoroughly evil"
• Kentucky's Rand Paul (Senate) who supports the right of private establishments to discriminate based on skin color (and who apparently forced a coed to pray to "Aqua Buddha" when he was in college)
• Delaware's Christine O'Donnell who's so nutty that the Weekly Standard (!) won't even endorse her
• Arizona's Jan Brewer, who lied was mistaken about her dad's WW2 death survival and about Border Patrol finding decapitated bodies in the desert. She also canceled all debates after bombing the first one.
• Michigan's Andrew Raczkowski (Congress), who's a birther
• Arizona's Ben Quayle- see last post.  Imagine Stifler from "American Pie," only more entitled and much less charming
• Texas's Rick Perry- he's expressed secessionist sympathies, but he's not totally averse to government regulation; he mourned the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas

There are general election nominees. From both coasts and the middle. Most, if not all, of the above have actually won primaries and some are current officeholders.

Around the Web

• An interview with Contested Will  author James Shapiro (the Shakespeare guy from the previous post)
• NY Times article on the passing of H. Edward Roberts, the inventor of the personal computer (and an alumnus of Oklahoma State University)
• Joshua Green (at The Atlantic) suspects Larry Summers is on his way out
• Senator Coburn (R-OK) surprises the folks back home with interesting thoughts on Speaker Pelosi and Fox News

Judging Characters

Some of these are kind of late.  I blame my work schedule.

•  This profile certainly makes Janet Napolitano seem like one of the cooler cabinet secretaries("Napolitano has been known to close down a bar or two in her time") 
• Brendan Nyhan easily deflates the Obama as "Polarizer in chief" narrative (credit Gary Jacobson with an assist on this one, or vis versa)
• Being a Blue Devil can be hazardous to one's political ambitions in the Bluegrass state
• It's about time somebody speaks up about the absurd growth of unpaid internships
• Jeff Toobin's article on John Paul Stevens (At the moment, most succession speculation revolves around Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood.  Tom Goldstein, who knows a lot about this sort of thing, is betting on Kagan. I like Garland's chances and I like what I've heard about him so far. I haven't read as much about Diane Wood but I like her Texas ties and I hear she's brilliant. She would definitely be the most interesting pick of these three.

I still have some friends on the hill and was able to get some hidden camera video of Democratic leaders' efforts to get Bart Stupak and his group to vote for the health care bill.


Bluto's Speech

Tyler Burch | MySpace Video

As you can see, it was a closely run thing.

Like a Kid in a Candy Store

I think Democrats will ultimately get the votes they need to pass the health care bill. At this moment, it seems very likely they are going to take a beating in the elections either way.

I'd compare their situation to the kid who gets caught shoplifting a candy bar from a store and, realizing the jig is up, has to decide what to do next.

I think that the Democrats will conclude that they may as well eat the candy bar.

Whether that applies to them individually as well as collectively, I'm not sure.