A community manager with a background in American Studies. My opinions and things that I find interesting in American politics, culture, history, and social media.
Picture: “Newspaper Line” by Genista / Kai Schreiber, flickr, (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/, text edit
Jorge Ramos, a popular news anchor for the Hispanic-oriented Fusion network, reminds us that the role of journalists in a democracy is not to write blowjob pieces, but to hold power accountable:
“The Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci used to say that for her, an interview was like a war [. . .] I get the sense that we’ve forgotten that here in the United States. You turn on the TV, and you see very bland interviews. Journalists in the United States are very cozy with power, very close to those in power. They laugh with them. They go to the [White House] correspondents’ dinner with them. They have lunch together. They marry each other. They’re way too close to each other. I think as journalists we have to keep our distance from power. [emphasis mine]” – Jorge Ramos, Fusion anchor
Recently, in a way validating his point, Ramos received criticism from exactly the kind of establishment journalist he was talking about after hammering Speaker of the House John Boehner for blocking a vote on immigration reform and not letting him divert from the issue.
The unspoken rule of providing groveling, uncritical reporting in exchange for access to politicians—i.e. ‘blowjob journalism’—is exactly what is wrong with contemporary corporate-controlled mainstream media.
Those so-called journalists enganged in this travesty are indeed a disgrace for the profession and corrosive to democracy as a whole.
Thank goodness there are still some brave individuals willing to go against the grain and ruffle some feathers.
According to the common stereotype, sexual morality in the US is still influenced by Puritan prudishness, while Europe prides itself on a more open attitude. One indicator of this seems to be the spread of abstinence-only sex education in the US.
But now a new sex education textbook aimed at five-year-olds has been published in Germany. Is this too young an age to educate children about how they came about?
TheLip.tv asked Americans on the street about their views:
I also demand a hearing into which hearings
I should have attended while demanding more hearings.
– Liberal blog Daily Kos summing up John McCain’s press conference on Benghazi1
Former GOP presidential candidate Senator John McCain recently gave a press conference on the Benghazi terrorist attack, demanding more investigation of the incident. When a CNN reporter pointed out to McCain that, instead of giving a press conference, he might be attending a confidential briefing at the Senate Homeland Security Committee, of which he is a member, McCain lost it. Oh my…
Tonight (October 22, 2012), President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney hold their third and final debate, this time at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, and with a focus on foreign policy. During the last debate, Romney already attacked Obama’s foreign policy to some extent, for instance by (falsely) claiming that the president had not called the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 an act of terrorism—the respective transcript produced by the debate moderator proved Romney wrong on this allegation.
Topics that will certainly be on the agenda tonight: Iran’s nuclear program and relations with China. Other issues which I assume will not be discussed, even though they merit serious debate: the expanding drone wars under the current administration in the ‘war on terror,’ in particular so-called signature strikes, and the conscious decision of the justice department not to hold accountable the architects and enforcers of the torture regime in said ‘war on terror,’ which sets a precedent for future administrations. So let us see what the two candidates have to say.
[Update: They did talk about drones and Romney agreed with President Obama’s current policy.]
You can watch the debate here:
The complete final debate on YouTube:
The YouTube election hub also has a plethora of political videos here.
You can also watch the complete third Obama-Romney debate at the New York Times, which has a handy running transcript next to the video.
You can also watch the complete third Obama-Romney debate at the Washington Post, which has a handy running transcript next to the video.
2012 Election Central has a schedule of all 2012 debates here.
[Podcast] “Red State Blue State.” (This American Life Episode 478, 11/01/2012) – This episode covers how the current hyperpolarized political climate in the US affects families and friends who find themselves in opposite political camps.
[Podcast] “All That Stuff Before The Debate.” (My History Can Beat Up Your Politics, 09/12/2012) – A discussion about the intensely scripted nature of presidential debates
[Podcast] “Das Streben nach Glück – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Amerika vor der Wahl.” (Deutschlandradio Kultur Lesart, 28.10.2012) – Die Diskussionsrunde nimmt Bezug auf Mark Twains kürzlich nach hundert Jahren der Geheimhaltung veröffentlichten “Geheimen Biographie” sowie David Remnicks Obama-Biographie “Die Brücke – Barack Obama und die Vollendung der schwarzen Bürgerrechtsbewegung”, im Original “The Bridge – The Life and Rise of Barack Obama” (2010).
[Video/Podcast] “Brennpunkt USA – Eine intellektuelle Spurensuche.” (Schweizer Fernsehen, Sternstunde Philosophie, 24.10.2012) – In der philosophischen Sendung des Schweizer Fernsehens interviewt Barbara Blasch amerikanische Intellektuelle wie Noam Chomsky, Katja Vogt und Michael Walzer zur Lage der Nation kurz vor der Präsidentschaftswahl 2012. Auch als Audioversion im Podcast-Feed der Sendung.
The second televised debate of the 2012 presidential elections is scheduled for tonight (Thursday, 11 October, 2012), featuring Vice President Joe Biden and challenger Paul Ryan. After the last debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, which a majority of commentators from all sides saw as a victory (at least on style) for Romney, it is going to be quite interesting to see, in my opinion, what debate strategy the Obama camp will choose this time around.
[Podcast] “When Veeps Attack.” (My History Can Beat Up Your Politics, 10/07/2012) -A discussion of the history of vice presidents and their challengers in American presidential debates
“Das Streben nach Glück – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Amerika vor der Wahl.” (Deutschlandradio Kultur, 28.10.2012) – Die Diskussionsrunde nimmt Bezug auf Mark Twains kürzlich nach hundert Jahren der Geheimhaltung veröffentlichten “Geheimen Biographie” sowie David Remnicks Obama-Biographie “Die Brücke – Barack Obama und die Vollendung der schwarzen Bürgerrechtsbewegung”, im Original “The Bridge – The Life and Rise of Barack Obama” (2010).
Fourty-seven years ago, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which strengthened the rights of African Americans to cast their ballot—after highly-visible violent crackdowns on peaceful civil rights activists in Alabama and immense pressure in their aftermath.1 Even though the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in 1870 as part of the Reconstruction Amendments shortly after the American Civil War, had on paper secured African Americans’ right to vote, the following century was marked by disenfranchisement through both legal tactics, such as literacy tests, but also mob violence, especially in the US South. In recent times, a push for stricter voter identification laws in some places has reignited the debate about voting rights.
Here is an excerpt of Johnson’s speech before Congress on the matter of voting rights in 1965:
Here is the full speech and its transcript at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.
On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s health care reform, stating that the individual health care mandate was a legal form of taxation. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. enabled the 5 to 4 vote by joining the liberal side of the court.
Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
– Chief Justice John Roberts
This article from Politico has a handy chart that shows how the health care law looks like after the ruling.
The cause of repealing ‘Obamacare’ had been a key mobilizing issue for the GOP and the Tea Party Movement since the law was enacted in 2010.
Here is an incomplete collection of news articles on the Supreme Court’s ruling:
NY Times here, Washington Post here, Huffington Post here, Wall St. Journal here, Politico here and here (key quotes from the ruling), SCOTUSblog here, Think Progress here, USA Today here, Daily Beast here.
Politico’s analysis of Justive Roberts’ motivations can be read here. In brief, some professional observers think that the conservative-leaning Roberts’ surprising decision has to do with creating his own legacy, a “Roberts Court,” and deflecting critics’ arguments about a Supreme Court characterized by conservative judicial activism.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who had introduced an almost identical individual health care mandate in Massachusetts as Governor, continues to campaign on repealing ‘Obamacare’ despite the fact that he had earlier advocated for the Massachusetts health care reform to become a model for national health care reform.
The Obama administration highlights this inconvenient fact in their campaign ads against Romney.
One of Romney’s arguments is that “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.” The fact-checking website PolitiFact rates Romney’s statement as ‘false.’
At Politiwhoops, a website of the Sunlight Foundation, you can read all the tweets deleted by politicians who were against the health care reform. Some of them falsely tweeted that the Supreme Court had repealed the individual mandate.
Firefighters: The most trusted professional group in Germany.
That is the conclusion you could draw from reading two recent polls, one from Gallup asking Americans,1 and a second one from GfK asking Germans 2 about their trust in various professional groups.
The five most trusted professions
United States
Germany
Nurses (84%)
Firefighters (98%)
Pharmacists (73%)
Medical doctors (89%)
Medical doctors (70%)
Post office workers (86%)
High school teachers (62%)
Police officers (85%)
Police officers (54%)
Teachers (84%)
The five least trusted professions:
The five least trusted professions
United States
Germany
Members of Congress (64% ‘Very Low’ or ‘Low’)
Politicians (91% ‘Distrust)
Lobbyists (62%)
Corporate Managers (80%)
Telemarketers 53%)
Advertising executives (67%)
Car salespeople (47%)
Marketing executives (62%)
Labor union leaders (41%)
Journalists (56%)
Conclusion
If you were a shameless impostor who wants to gain the the local population’s trust quickly (which I am certain you are not), you might go for the nurse outfit (in the US) or the firefighter look (in Germany). As an alternative, you could also consider wearing a white lab coat and/or a stethoscope (works in both countries). A police uniform might also help, although I do not recommend this—it is likely to be illegal. If you, American traveler, would like to enchant Germans, why not try post office chic? In both countries, If you carry around a few textbooks, you could pass for a teacher. People may like you for it.
Whether you walk the streets of Berlin or Washington, avoid looking like a person who just walked out of Congress or the Bundestag. And to you, German tourist, do not even think of starting the casual conversation by trying to sell a car!
Jones, Jeffrey M. “Record 64% Rate Honesty, Ethics of Members of Congress Low.” Gallup. 12 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 June 2012. ↩
GfK. “Vertrauen in Verschiedene Berufsgruppen.” Statista. June 2011. Web. 24 May 2012. ↩
Now that the Leipzig Book Fair 2012 (Leipziger Buchmesse) is over, I would like to share some thoughts about my impressions. There was so much to see that any attempt at catching everything of interest was doomed to failure. Nevertheless, I managed to attend some of the readings supported by the US Consulate Leipzig, as mentioned in my earlier post.
The book is based on a collection of interviews that Endler conducted with a variety American public intellectuals across the political spectrum. These public figures talked at length about how they imagine the role of the US as the remaining superpower after the Cold War.
Endler mentioned that the trauma of 9/11 is still present and informs national discourse in the US. He pointed to the 2012 Republican presidential primaries which had currently reached several Southern states in the US. Within the campaign rhetoric of the current crop of candidates, both the tropes of a potential Iranian nuclear threat and the fear of terrorism featured prominently.
Endler also talked about a specifically American “revolving door of public life,” a phenomenon wherein university professors often transfer to governmental posts, then to think tanks, and finally back to university or into journalism.
This mechanism, which is often difficult to understand from a German perspective, leads to a lively public debate in the US.
The discourses of public intellectuals in the US focus on such topics as the role of the US as a superpower, or the ability to survive crises.
Endler mentioned that in the public discourse, 9/11 entailed a sense of loss of the “free” US security provided by its geographic location. 9/11 was registered as the first attack on US territory since two hundred years, except for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.
Since 9/11, the US government has been willing to defend what it defines as American values with military force. This rationale has been put forward by the Bush administration, but also has been acknowledged by President Obama.
Endler mentioned that a look back at the past three years of the Obama administration reveals a shift towards “realism” in its foreign policy approach.
From a German perspective, he noted, US public debate often looks like a traveling circus, and seems rather strange. From the American perspective, on the other hand, this willingness to controversial discussion is seen as embodiment of democracy.
This also includes public opinion about the president, as documented by polls. Endler pointed out that recent polls show diverging evaluations of Obama as person and Obama as politician. While Obama as a person still gets relatively high approval ratings, Obama the politician is seen comparatively worse by the American public. The president also still has an image problem as he is seen as “elitist” by large parts of the population.
Endler also mentioned that in comparison, the political spectrum of the US is generally more to the right of Germany.
A few examples from the interviews with US public intellectuals underscored this point. For instance, he mentioned Michael Novak of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), whom he characterized as an archconservative Catholic who forms a bridge between the Christian Right and neoconservatives. Novak thought of Obama as an extreme leftist.
Endler described how many conservative public intellectuals in the US also see Obama as “great nibbler” who hesitates to tackle problems of foreign policy at the root.
On the other end of the left-right spectrum, Endler gave the example of MIT linguist and icon of the US Left, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky told Endler that there was no substantial debate going on in the US. In his opinion, the educated classes are indoctrinated. Chomsky noted broad support for the US invasion of Iraq, and the absence of a “principled objective” to invading other countries. According to Chomsky, there exists a double standard for other countries’ invasions of foreign countries. In Chomsky’s view, the nature of the discourse on the invasion of Iraq was such that the only question asked was “Does it cost US too much?”
Endler pointed out that foreign policy generally plays a small role in US elections and that war fatigue has risen among the US public. One case in point, Endler argued, was President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address, which did not discuss foreign policy matters.
In Endler’s opinion, the dialogue between the US and the EU has been set aback lately.
He concluded that there is by and large a consensus across the political spectrum in American public debate about the status of the US as a superpower and the benefit of exporting democracy.
I found the talk very interesting, but it was unfortunately a bit short, as the whole event including introduction and questions at the end had to fit into a thirty minute time slot. I certainly would have liked to hear more about certain aspects of current US foreign policy, especially the aforementioned ‘realist’ turn of the Obama administration.
As the audience of a reading at the Leipzig Book Fair is much broader than merely American studies people, it is certainly sensible to not dwell on details only of interest to (aspiring) specialists. I am of course biased here and would have gladly taken in some more information. Then again, I am probably a little spoiled by attending readings at my university, which usually have the luxury of a ninety minute time slot.
Overall, the talk got me interested and I will put the book on my to-read list.
