The nomination of Yusuf Islam--also known as Cat Stevens--for entrance into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame prompted some discussion on my Facebook page, and one good thing which came out of that discussion was a friend of mine sharing this wonderful version of the tune. Makes me want to hear a full-on gospel version of the song as well.
I don't know how many versions I've heard of this modern jazz-bluegrass-folk-pop classic since it was first released by Bruce Hornsby back in 1986, but this has to be one of the very best.
Simply tremendous. And with the exception of the computer game at 1:10 (which I have no memory of whatsoever), I can identify every single visual referent and character in these two minutes. And perhaps most importantly, they got the music right too.
This has apparently been bouncing around the internets for a while, and thus is probably fake, but I don't care. I've only just seen it, and it's a revelation. Now I know what I need to use as the key text for my next Topics of Political Theory course.
The New York Times has published a delightful interview with Malcolm Gladwell; it's all about books and authors and reading, and thus is, of course, perfect bait for the bibliophiles in the blogosphere. Rod Dreher has bit on three of the questions from that interview, and so has Noah Millman. So this Sunday afternoon, I think I'll do the same:
If you could meet any writer, dead or alive, who would it be? What would you want to know?
Hmm. Since my favorite bookish thing in the whole wide world is to argue politics and ideas with people, it would have to be some philosopher or activist or politician with whom I could lay out, at length, the current political state of this country and Western civilization in general as I understand it, and then let them tear apart me and the U.S Congress and whatever else they think deserves it. But Noah's warnings about choosing a writer that you'd actually like to talk with is important; as much as I'd love to have a conversation with Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Orestes Brownson or G.K. Chesterton or Winston Churchill or Michael Harrington or John Irving about all the above topics, I'm not convinced they'd actually want to talk to me about any of the above. So I'll have to go with one of two great writers who could not only speak with great insight and invective about contemporary politics, but who actually were real conversationalists: either George Orwell (my first choice), or Christopher Lasch. Both would almost certainly think I'm nuts, I suppose, but they'd be willing to explore why I'm nuts, or so I hope.
If you could meet any character from literature, who would it be?
Sam Gamgee, long after the conclusion of The Lord of the Rings, after he's served the last of his many terms as mayor of the Shire, after his children and grandchildren have grown and after Rosie has died, but before he left the Red Book behind with Elanor and departed Middle-Earth forever. I would ask him what had been left out of the books--because, you know they couldn't have included everything that happened.
What book have you always meant to read and haven’t gotten around to yet? Anything you feel embarrassed not to have read?
The Brothers Karamazov. I've started, and not completed, this book at least four times, and there is no other book that has been recommended to me more often by more people who I deeply respect as readers. It's probably also the only book (though I suppose I really need to extend this to everything by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, none of which I've read and all of which I feel as though I ought to have) that I actually feel embarrassed not to have read; as a scholar, there's always all sorts of works in political science and theory that I feel a need to read or re-read or just get familiar with, but Karamazov is the only book I've not read for which I feel some actual guilt over.
And you?
My old friend Matt Stannard (debater, law school graduate, rabble-rouser, one-time--and perhaps, in some ways, still--socialist revolutionary, and now an advocate of green communities and local sustainability and publicly-owned banks) sent me this, saying that every decade or so he seems to run across a song that I will "end up loving in a deep, foundational way." Yesterday he sent me this Jeffrey Lewis tune, and he's right: this song is gorgeous, and its lyrics are, I think, practically scripture. I can throw E.F. Schumacher and Matthew Crawford at my students, and I can take them to tour local farms and visit with local producers and craftsmen, and I can talk to them about simplicity and democracy and community, but really, maybe I should just play for them this song.
Time is gonna take so much away
But there's a way that time can offer you a trade
Time is gonna take so much away
But there's a way that time can offer you a trade
You've gotta do something that you can get nicer at,
You've gotta do something that you can get wiser at,
You'd better do something that you can get better at
'Cause that's the only thing that time will leave you with
'Cause time is gonna take so much away
But there's a way that time can offer you a trade
It might be cabaret, it could be poetry,
It might be trying to make a new happy family,
It could be violin repair or chemistry,
But if it's something that takes lots of time that's good
'Cause time is gonna take so much away,
But there's a way that time can offer you a trade.
Because your looks are gonna leave you
And your city's gonna change too
And your shoes are gonna wear through
Yeah time is gonna take so much away,
But there's a way that you can offer time a trade.
You gotta do something that you can get smarter at,
You gotta do something you might just be a starter at,
You better do something that you can get better at
'Cause that's the thing that time will leave you with.
And maybe that's why they call a trade a trade,
Like when they say you should go and learn a trade;
The thing you do don't have to be to learn a trade,
Just get something back from time for all it takes away.
It could be many things, it could be anything,
It could be expertise in Middle Eastern traveling,
Something to slowly sorta balance life's unraveling
You have no choice you have to pay time's price
But you can use the price to buy you something nice
Something you can only buy with lots of time
So when you're old you blow some whippersnapper's mind.
It might be researching a book that takes you seven years
A book that helps to make the path we take to freedom clear
And when you're done you see it started with a good idea
One good idea could cost you thousands of your days
But it's just time that you'd be spending anyway
You have no choice you have to pay time's price
But you can use the price to buy you something nice
So I've decided recently
To try to trade more decently
[Cross-posted to Political Context]
Well, we know where the New York Daily News stands today in regards to the current government debacle. As for me, well, I'm afraid I find myself thinking pretty much the exact same thing I thought back in 2011, the last time that the electoral structures which produce the incentives that give us the Congress (and, particularly, the Republican side of the House of Representatives) we currently have resulted in a series of pointless acts of gamesmanship that left our government unable to get anything as basic as paying for the services which the government has already approved done. Here's how I put it then:
This whole debate strikes me as having been taken over by two utterly maddening realities. First, there is a contorted and self-serving reading of the fiduciary responsibilities which the federal government is granted under that Constitution which is, from what appears to me to be any kind of sound accounting perspective, absolutely bonkers. Second, there is a game of political chicken driven by the mutual incomprehension possessed by two entirely distinct types of parties: the first, the one led by President Obama, being a historically normal American political party, with all its usual problems and dynamics, while the second, the one being led by Speaker of the House Boehner (if he is really in control, which ultimately may not be the case; some Republicans may simply have gotten to the point where they lack "the emotional capacity to accept any bargain that isn't a humiliation for Obama") that has apparently committed itself to an fiscal ideology that is, at the very best, seriously half-baked.
Of course, things aren't exactly the same as they were two years and two months ago, so perhaps I should amend the above sentiments a little bit. I'll try to keep myself to two points:
1) Speaker Boehner, it is more obvious than ever, absolutely is not in control of his own party, or his own branch of Congress; certainly he's in even less control than he was in 2011. I'll admit that the hand he's been dealt is a lousy one. After all, the government in Washington DC has not been able to come up with an actual budget since 2009 (or maybe, depending on how you define these things, 1997), and so with a government operating solely off continuing resolutions and various stopgap spending bills, it's not at all difficult to imagine that certain impassioned, Affordable-Care-Act-and-President-Obama-hating radicals (mostly associated with the Tea Party) could see this as good a moment as any to whip the Republican majority into refusing to vote on the Senate's multiple spending bills, and instead keep sending the Senate resolutions that offer to keep the government paying its bills for a year, or for 60 days, or for something, along as not a dime is spent on the Affordable Care Act. Which, of course, is impossible, because like Social Security (which, thankfully, will go forward during the government shutdown, unlike national parks and the Centers of Disease Control and salaries for our diplomats and State Department employees, etc.), the funding is fully protected by law. So, yes, I feel sympathy for him--but not too much. Because he could do the responsible thing: accept any one of the Senate compromises which have been sent his way in recent days (all of which are essentially austerity budgets, as they all have included dramatic cuts in the the levels of government spending from what President Obama and the Senate Democratic majority originally wanted), chuck the nonsense Hastert Rule, allow the non-Tea-Party-addled Republicans to vote along with the 200 Democratic members of the House, and thereby allow the damn government to pay for what it has already approved paying for. But of course, it is almost assuredly the case that Boehner's political self-preservation (like most of the rest of House, but particularly those diving overboard in the name of venting their spleen against a health care law they hate, he has managed to gerrymander himself into a conservative and white and wealthy enough Congressional district that more votes are likely to be won by ideological grandstanding than actual governing) will trump any such concerns over the common good.
2) During an earlier era of governing paralysis--the Clinton/Gingrich wars of the mid-1990s--the political theorist Sheldon Wolin made some important observations in an essay for The Nation, "Democracy and Counterrevolution":
Media observers suggested hopefully that the confrontation between Democratic President and Republican Congress might usefully be carried forward to November when “the people” could decide whether they wanted an interventionist or a greatly reduced government. That very formulation implied yet an other potentially dangerous conception: that national elections should not be primarily about choosing leaders or expressing party preferences but should serve to focus a Great Issue and force a crucial turning point. The correct name for that conception is “plebiscitary democracy,” and it represents an outlook that is profoundly anti-democratic. Consider what social and economic forces would frame the terms of the plebiscite, or the level of debate that would take place, or the inflated mandate that the victors would claim or the implications of such an event for reinforcing the idea of the citizen as a spectator ready to salivate at the mention of tax cuts. Unfortunately, plebiscitary democracy is not a farfetched notion but a short, highly cost-effective step from the “democracy” quadrennially produced by those who organize, finance and orchestrate elections. Given what elections have become, the effect of national plebiscites on the fundamental shape of government should give pause to anyone who cares about the prospects of democracy.
Arguably little has changed, both substantively and procedurally, between the two parties since then. Bill Clinton was product of the Democratic Leadership Council, the archetypical modern figure of neoliberal triangulation; this Wall Street-friendly dance on the corpse of the New Deal coalition has continued for twenty years within the Democratic party, and Barack Obama, contrary to the never-ending and paranoid accusations of "socialism" lodged at him, has only continued it. The Republican party, meanwhile, has followed the path Newt Gingrich charted, embracing an updated culture war template for Nixonian "Silent Majority" populism that laid the groundwork of the uninformed constitutionalism of the Tea Party. More importantly, as they have seen the demographics which most generally support conservative causes shrink, they have effectively pursued means of popular persuasion through redistricting, through the ideological capturing of political primaries, through undeniably effective media campaigns, through working through the courts to ensure their place at the table, even as their party's own general popularity plummets. That is, they have done all of this outside to the existing practices and structures of our constitutional system, or at least such as they have existed since the Progressive era.
On one level, I admire this, I truly do. Our "existing practices and structures" suited party coalitions and a political culture much more regional, much less disconnected, and much less ideological than America became through the 20th century. We are a more alienated, more globalized, more diverse, and generally more "winner-take-all" country than we used to be, for reasons both economic and social and cultural. For all those reasons, and more, I would be delighted to see radical changes in our constitutional system; I'd like to see us become more federal, more parliamentary, and more participatory. But as Wolin astutely observed, the constitutional fetishism practiced by part of one of our parties doesn't contribute to that kind of radical, foundational thinking; on the contrary, it points us in a "plebiscitarian" direction, in which each and every legislative debate is subsumed under a grand ideological narrative, the climax of which is a bitter--and apparently eternally delayed, so as to continue endlessly--contest between the leaders of unified party machines.
Party unity isn't to be discredited, to be sure; while the progressive solutions to the problems of a century ago may have been appropriate, today we can see the unfortunate consequences of candidate-centered campaign all around us, and a return to effective party precincts that can truly enlist people in contributing to unifying political movements which they can in turn hold accountable would be a good thing. But Boehner--and, for that matter, Obama as well, despite the hopes of many of his supporters, including to a degree myself--isn't contributing to that kind of unity. Instead, by caving in to the Tea Party, anti-ACA caucus, he is giving that much more legitimacy to the idea that "popular government" really just means endless elite plebiscitary contestation, without any interest in building real common accountability and democratic practice. Instead it all becomes a show, played out far above us--or at least far above those expecting WIC payments, or those expecting to be able to visit national parks, or those who need to obtain a passport, and so forth--seeking only the occasional validation through polls and electoral pluralities. Which, of course, thanks to gerrymandering, the culprits are pretty much guaranteed of. And thus is are polity pushed (or lured) even farther down a path away from genuine responsible democracy, and towards mere spectatorship.
Some people have more confidence in our system than I; they're just hoping that the Republicans will be able to marginalize the Obamacare-hating dead-enders and get back to compromising, as they believe our system was designed to encourage. I think we've traveled beyond that; the incentives which induced our elected representatives to compromise across party lines have been significantly reduced, and with every election cycle (especially post-Citizens United) are further structured out of existence. The plebiscitarian path we are on is likely to continue, I fear; much as I'd like to believe otherwise, it may well be that someday this particular shutdown won't be considered just routine mismanagement, but will be seen as one more step in our country's decline. But maybe I should wait until the upcoming repeat crisis about the debt ceiling to be sure about that.
