Happy Anniversary, Free Speech Movement

This week, the University of California at Berkeley celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement. A listing of events on that campus can be found here.

The L.A. Times ran a story on Friday, "Free to Be Silent at UC Berkeley," wondering where all the student activism had gone on campus. This quote, found under the heading, 'Nothing but a Cafe?' was particularly annoying:

Faculty and students say that increasingly selective admissions standards, higher costs, onerous academic workloads and a largely apolitical Asian student population are some of the reasons behind the change in campus politics.

Call me crazy, but one would think that on the 40th anniversary of an event that so starkly showed how one generation can lose touch with another, the L.A. Times would have devoted more space to highlighting the role of alternative media in promoting free speech. The article comes close, with this passage:

But Kalin McKenna, 21, a combined history and premed major from Lake Forest, said busy students had found a new way to agitate.

"There's more online activism now," said McKenna, national outreach coordinator for Mobilizing America's Youth. " A lot of people know they can get the information they need from a computer. Rather than attend a forum for an hour, they read a synopsis of the forum on the Internet that takes 30 minutes."

Not to worry. There is a web feature on the Berkeley website highlighting the role of bloggers on the Berkeley campus. It makes for good reading. The Free Speech Movement hasn't died--it evolved and lives on.

Closer to home, Dartmouth also has plenty of interesting blogs, including Rockyblog, hosted by the Rockefeller Center.

1 comment(s)  

In Memoriam, David T. McLaughlin

Yesterday, Dartmouth held a memorial service for David T. McLaughlin, who served as its president from 1981 to 1987. I never had the pleasure of meeting him. It was during his administration that the Rockefeller Center was founded, and he was instrumental in supporting it during its early years.

On the program was a poem, adapted from "Remember Me" by David Harkins:

You can shed tears that he is gone
Or you can smile because he lived
You can close your eyes and pray that he'll come back
Or you can open your eyes and see all that he's left
Your heart can be empty because you can't see him
Or you can be full of love you shared
You can turn your back on tomorrow and live yesterday
Or you can be happy for tomorrow because of yesterday
You can remember him only that he is gone
Or you can cherish his memory and let it live on
You can cry and close your mind, be empty and turn your back
Or you can do what he'd want and smile, open your eyes, love and go on

I thought it was a wonderful way to honor someone. Here is a link to The Dartmouth's coverage of the event, which summarizes the many contributions he made to Dartmouth, the American Red Cross, the Aspen Institute, and others.

More on Krauthammer's February Speech

A comment on my previous post prompted me to say more about why I think Krauthammer's Irving Kristol lecture is required reading for the President's debate prep team. (Strange to have to remind them, since the Vice President introduced the speaker and a whole lot of them were in attendance.) The piece contrasts four schools of thought about how the United States could conduct itself as the only superpower: isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism, and democratic globalism. There are three reasons why I thought of this lecture as required reading for the Bush team:

1. It provides arguments to criticize "Liberal Internationalism," the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration and the one, from what we can infer about Kerry, that he would likely follow as President. The value of this part of the lecture to the President's debate prep would have been to counter the alternative strategy of returning once again to the UN or waiting for the French and Germans to join the coalition. For example:
   
   "Rogue states are, by definition, impervious to moral suasion."
   
   "Of course it would be nice if we had more allies rather than fewer. It would also be nice to be able to fly. But when some nations are not with you on your enterprise, including them in your coalition is not a way to broaden it; it’s a way to abolish it."
   
2. Later, in the part of his lecture where he discusses the elements of geopolitics that "Realism" gets right (and ultimately its unhopeful limitations), he provides the succinct statement of the problem of Iraq to which I referred in my earlier post and which (largely) answers the comment that I received:
   
   "Whether or not Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the very fact that the United States overthrew a hostile regime that repeatedly refused to come clean on its weapons has had precisely this deterrent effect."
   
   To make his point, the President has to focus on Iraq's refusal to comply adequately with previous attempts to get its leadership to disarm. This was one of the things the President tried and failed to do rhetorically on Thursday.
3. The entire section of the lecture on "Democratic Globalism" is relevant to providing a consistent statement of Bush's foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. Two particular passages caught my attention:
   
   "Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."
   
   "There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."

I think the last quote overstates it a bit (there is a whole lot of Osama bin Laden and his surrogates in this monster), but I think it is fair to say that the President's fortunes in the debate, evaluated as a debate, on Thursday would have risen had he made these points.

And a Thank-You to Powerline

Site traffic is up on my blog, thanks to a nice mention by Powerline.

With only a few days of this activity under my belt, I am now even more amazed by the top folks, particularly those who write more about mainstream political issues and real-time news coverage than I do.

The Presidential Debate, A Few Days Later

I decided to let a few days pass before adding my 2 cents about the first Presidential debate last Thursday evening. I wanted some time to reflect on the parts of it that would be of lasting significance.

My main reaction as I watched it live was to feel sympathy for President Bush, since he seemed to be so off his game. There is no doubt, even after watching the debate a second time, that Kerry scored a clear victory on style--appearing composed, articulating answers clearly, standing up straight, etc. Anyone who has seen the two of them speak before would expect Kerry to win on debating style. What was surprising was how wide the margin of victory was in this respect.

On the substance of the debate, and evaluating it as a debate, I can point to a few issues that Bush won and suggest that the rest went to Kerry (even though Kerry did little to convince me that he would improve the situation in Iraq). Surprisingly, Kerry allowed himself to lose ground on the North Korea and Iran questions. North Korea has to be dealt with through the multilateral talks first. Giving North Korea the option of simultaneously engaging in bilateral talks allows it to decide which forum it will favor on some issues. Since these negotiations are voluntary, that option has value. There is no reason to strengthen North Korea's bargaining position in this manner. And Kerry's responding to an either-or question with "both" gives a mild rhetorical victory to those who say he cannot make up his mind. On Iran, the President successfully deflected Kerry's accusations of having willfully mishandled the situation.

I thought that Kerry fared better than Bush on the Iraq questions, even though the President was able to (finally) call Kerry out on the way he has referred to the action as unilateral despite the presence of allies like the UK, Australia, and Poland. Bush failed to effectively rebut the argument that the situation in Iraq is spiraling out of control. He failed to appear composed enough to assert credibly that his war strategy would prevail.

He also missed two critical opportunities to go on the offensive against Kerry. First, he should have demanded that Kerry renounce the statements made by his campaign official, Joe Lockhart, that Allawi is a puppet of the United States. Regardless of whether Kerry thinks that is true, it is clearly contrary to the interest of the United States for Allawi to lose credibility in his country and region. The article linked above shows how the President has done this on the campaign trail.

Second, Bush should have reiterated more plainly that he faced a difficult choice and followed what he perceived to be the right course of action. He has done this fairly eloquently many times (in the part of his standard Iraq speech where he describes Saddam as a madman). He should also have listed some of the countries that we tried unsuccessfully to bring on board and explained why the price they demanded was too high to pay. I think most people would have understood him. May I suggest a re-reading of Charles Krauthammer's Irving Kristol lecture, "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World," which is the clearest rationale for the war in Iraq and the choice to "go it alone" that I have heard to date. (It was written before the insurgency gained as much traction as it currently has, and so it does not deal with problems in the conduct of the Iraq war.)

On the day the United States began military action in Afghanistan, the President closed his address to the Nation with the words, "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." At the President's choosing, Iraq is the next front in the War on Terror. The recent setbacks on the ground in Iraq suggest a waver. And on Thursday, the President himself appeared tired and he clearly faltered. For the sake of the United States and people seeking peace and freedom around the globe, let's hope that we and our allies do not fail in our efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Feynman on Teaching and Research

On a college campus, particularly one like Dartmouth where we are known for the quality of undergraduate instruction, one of the more widely discussed issues is the "balance" between teaching and research. The two activities are described as if they are in competition, and people worry that an emphasis on one will lead to the detriment of the other. That seems to be true only under extreme time pressure, and not, for example, over a whole career or even the periods over which faculty are evaluated (e.g., annual reviews or a tenure review after six years). And, although this is the converse of what would assure most outsiders that research does not crowd out teaching, I have noticed that among tenured or tenure-track faculty in my department, the best teachers are also exceptional researchers.

The best statement I have read explaining why the two processes really are complementary is from the New York Times bestseller by Richard Feynman, Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. The following excerpt is found on pages 165-166 of the paperback edition.

I don’t believe I can really do without teaching. The reason is, I have to have something so that when I don’t have any ideas and I’m not getting anywhere I can say to myself, "At least I’m living: at least I’m doing something; I’m making some contribution"—it’s just psychological.

When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don’t get an idea for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they’re not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come.

Nothing happens because there’s not enough real activity and challenge: You’re not in contact with the experimental guys. You don’t have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!

In any thinking process there are moments when everything is going good and you’ve got wonderful ideas. Teaching is an interruption, and so it’s the greatest pain in the neck in the world. And then there are the longer periods of time when not much is coming to you. You’re not getting any ideas, and if you’re doing nothing at all, it drives you nuts! You can’t even say "I’m teaching my class."

If you’re teaching a class, you can think about the elementary things that you know very well. These things are kind of fun and delightful. It doesn’t do any harm to think them over again. Is there a better way to present them? Are there any new problems associated with them? Are there any new thoughts you can make about them? The elementary things are easy to think about; if you can’t think of a new thought, no harm done; what you thought about it before is good enough for the class. If you do think of something new, you’re rather pleased that you have a new way of looking at it.

The questions of the students are often the source of new research. They often ask profound questions that I’ve thought about at times and then given up on, so to speak, for a while. It wouldn’t do me any harm to think about them again and see if I can go any further now. The students may not be able to see the thing I want to answer, or the subtleties I want to think about, but they remind me of a problem by asking questions in the neighborhood of that problem. It’s not so easy to remind yourself of these things.

So I find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would never accept any position in which somebody has invented a happy situation for me where I don’t have to teach. Never.

Carol Moseley Braun, and Women in Politics

We finished up a busy week at the Rockefeller Center with a visit from former Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun. She met with students and faculty and delivered an inspiring public lecture on her personal experiences.

She emphasized the need for women, particularly young women, to enter political life and suggested that it should be a priority for a woman candidate to run in every House and Senate contest. Good idea. More choice, particularly from groups that have been reluctant to run or discouraged from running in the past, can only strengthen our democracy.

In preparing to introduce her for that lecture, I searched through transcripts of the debates in the Democratic primary and her interviews over the last year or so. She and I don't often agree on the best remedies for social problems. We are far apart on things like her support for a single-payer health care system and my support for the war in Iraq. We are closer on things like the need for balanced budget rules for Congress and support for gay marriages.

My search revealed the following exchange she had with Bob Edwards, who interviewed her on NPR's "Morning Edition" on May 6, 2003:

EDWARDS: Are you in the race to dilute the support of Al Sharpton among black voters?

MOSELEY BRAUN: I'm in the race to dilute the support for every candidate among black voters.

Her A+ answer continues with other groups of people she would like to have supporting her. I tip my hat to her if this all transpired as it reads on the transcript.

Carol Moseley Braun has served in government at the local, state, and federal levels. Based on that experience, she was an order of magnitude more qualified to run for President than Al Sharpton. Leaving aside the bigotry inherent in the way the question is framed, how could anyone at that early stage of the campaign possibly insinuate that, of the two, she was the one who didn't really belong in the primary?

I am going to speculate that it might be because she is a woman. And this exchange illustrates just why her admonition for women to seek public office in large numbers is a cause we should all support.

UPDATE: Here is a link to The Dartmouth's coverage of the event.

Last but not least, Brad DeLong's website

But reading only Powerline, or only Powerline and Andrew Sullivan, would greatly underutilize the blogosphere. Unlike the mainstream media, bloggers are allowed to have a bias. The best ones are honest about it.

When I read Powerline, I am pretty sure that I am going to get a conservative opinion. Because of the way I am wired, I will often agree with it. We should all be candid and admit that a lot of us read them so intently because they say more eloquently what we were thinking individually. Okay, fair enough, but that shouldn't be the end of it.

Another blog that I read daily is run by Brad DeLong, a macroeconomist and economic historian at U.C. Berkeley who has produced some excellent scholarship, served in the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, and developed his talent for writing about economics beyond an academic audience. I read Brad’s blog because I know that he is a liberal, that he makes good points, and that, chances are, I am not going to agree with the political ideas that he espouses. But I see common ground with him on a lot of important issues—his “Why Oh Why Can’t We Have a Better Press Corps?” postings have much to recommend them as commentary on the weaknesses in our mainstream media enterprises. Responsible use of the blogosphere requires that I seek out people with whom I disagree and try to understand their reasoning.

I'll close with a "thank you" to Brad for mentioning my new endeavor on his website yesterday.

The first blog I ever read -- Powerline

I mentioned in my first post that I read three blogs regularly. Let me tell you how I became a regular reader of Powerline.

In the late spring of 2003, I heard a story about a study done at the U.S. Treasury Department about the unfunded obligations in the Medicare and Social Security programs. (I will blog much more about the substance of these issues in a later post.) There were some accusations being made by the Financial Times that the Treasury had “shelved” the report, and, as I was about to head off to DC to start work at the Council of Economic Advisers, I was curious. Because I know this issue and the authors of the study myself, I can tell you that Powerline got it right in its commentary.

It was clear to me upon reading that one post that the guys running the blog were pretty sharp—and they have continued to impress me in the intervening months. It should not surprise you to learn that Powerline is operated by three Dartmouth alumni. Nor should you be surprised that they, and their readers, were instrumental in exposing the recent CBS documents on the President's National Guard service as inauthentic. (Start with this post, and keep scrolling forward in time.) In fact, both the Financial Times and the CBS posts show what I like about Powerline--they are holding the established media accountable to be accurate.

More generally, as I noted in my introduction of Andrew Sullivan last evening, this is one of the chief virtues of the blogosphere.

In Praise of Andrew Sullivan

In July, when I returned from my stint in Washington, I had the good fortune to take over as Director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth. Last evening, we had our first public program of the fall, featuring Andrew Sullivan. He was an exceptional speaker and he stayed on to watch the debate with the students. Here is how I introduced him:

It is my great pleasure this evening to introduce Dr. Andrew Sullivan, who will be speaking to us about “American Politics” and “The 2004 Election.” I regard Dr. Sullivan as the one of the preeminent public intellectuals of his generation, and quite possibly of our age. His resume boasts a number of exceptional credentials, including his smashingly successful tenure as editor-in-chief of The New Republic, during which time he engineered the transformation of that magazine into a publication of relevance for his generation. He is an essayist for Time and the Sunday Times of London, as well as the author of several critically acclaimed books, including Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality.

Many people edit, and many people publish. For me, the appeal of Andrew Sullivan as a speaker at Dartmouth is all about the blog. Andrew Sullivan Dot Com. Of all the things to have appeared in the last decade that end in “Dot Com,” this blog and others like it may be the most important for the future of intelligent debate in our society.

Every technology can be used to spread wisdom or ignorance, to promote love or hate, to encourage democracy or tyranny. We see all of this on the Internet. Every revolution has its medium and its message. A tag-line at andrewsullivan.com used to read, “The revolution will be blogged.” (It has since been replaced by a quote, “Freedom means freedom for all.”) I think he was right about the medium—and I think that Dr. Sullivan’s message and his example will also prevail.

According to blogger.com, a blog, which is short for weblog, “gives you your own voice on the web. It’s a place to collect and share things that you find interesting— whether it’s your political commentary, a personal diary, or links to web sites you want to remember.” In an age when partisan politics may distract us and the world may disillusion us, the blog can inspire us. In the hands of an expert, this new technology can begin the necessary unraveling of the choke-hold that the mainstream media has on the dissemination of news and commentary. Let me explain.

I read three blogs on a regular basis—Powerline, Brad DeLong, and Andrew Sullivan. I can tell you about the others when I have more time. The genius of Dr. Sullivan’s blog is its honesty—its unashamed, unapologetic search for truth and reason to explain the world around us. In contrast to almost every other blog that deals so extensively with public policy issues, andrewsullivan.com does not begin the day looking for a way to support one candidate at the expense of another, or to attack one candidate in favor of another. The blog serves only to express his views with clarity, intelligence, and compassion.

Through his blog, Dr. Sullivan is an embodiment of the ideals Dartmouth President Jim Wright spoke of at our recent convocation:

"College years - and, ultimately, full lives - are about testing our convictions, exploring our doubts, and engaging in debate and dialogue; these years are about challenges to certainty. Often the most fundamental dialogue is, or at least should be, with oneself. But such introspection can only follow exposure to ideas different from the ones you have brought with you."

The blog works because of Dr. Sullivan’s agile mind and breadth of knowledge, the investment he makes in accuracy, the skill he displays in utilizing the web to link to primary sources to support his opinions, and the commitment he makes to his readers to accept feedback and to change his views when new (or old) facts demand it. This is the leadership in the search for truth and the documentation of that journey that are so astonishingly lacking in other media outlets, as well as political discourse more generally.

I have talked quite a bit about his medium. I now turn it over to him to tell us about his message. Ladies and Gentlemen, Dr. Andrew Sullivan.

Here is a link to The Dartmouth's coverage of the event.