The "Political Divide", what it is and what it's not.

Been busy with the other blog and contractors, hence the lack of posts lately.

In all the blather over the Wisconsin recall, which I will give my take in another post, once again the pundits lazily went to the "Americans are all deeply divided" theme.  Yeah, all Americans are unflinching partisan liberal/progressive Democrats or conservative/Tea Party Republicans, just like we're all either Baby Boomers or Millenials (another theme of the pundits, must be some cognitive defect that doesn't allow them to consider more than two things). Oversimplified as that idea is, it is true that political power is controlled by only two hostile camps. But IMHO the origins of the differences between the two have little to do with the usual suspects put forth.

In my mind, politics is increasingly driven by the threats to the modern lifestyle generated by the lifestyle itself.  In the United States today, the dominating culture is the extended suburbia and exurbia. This culture is totally dependent on the car for mobility, consumes vast amounts of open space and energy, generates tremendous amounts of CO2 in the process and is economically supported by conspicuous consumption, construction, finance and marketing.  The last two have gone from becoming a means to an end to an end itself.  For many people, this is a seductive, easy and gloriously self-indulgent lifestyle.  And it has political power, enough to have warped our politics to suit it's needs.But as many have noted in the past, it's not sustainable and has hit the limits. Hence, the housing crash, corruption of the state so as to serve the financial industry, energy crunch and climate change.

Because this lifestyle is so important to so many people, the very concept of adaption and change needed to address these problems is viewed by it's defenders as an existential threat. Hence the emergence of the new reactionary "conservatives", who also engage in paranoia and religious fundamentalism as populist glue to bind themselves to the have-nots.  That's you modern Republicans.

What is the opposition? Well the Democratic party and liberalism/progressivism is still molded by late-60's New Left.  As I wrote about earlier, this mindset is generally anti-populist while considering itself the advocate of the people. In other words, the stereotype of an Ivory Tower liberal.  As such it is overly analytical, deliberately indecisive, condescending and tainted by new-jerk anti-Americanism.  Not a very good model for getting the votes of, you know, other Americans.  It doesn't matter if your ideas are right if you act like a stuck-up prick.  Now the Democrats are not monolithic like the Republicans and you have Clintons, Obamas and others who challenge this mold in one way or another, but that mindset I just described dominates the liberal/progressive talking heads and blogosphere. These folks remind more of some strident faculty I know who constantly criticize and rail against department leadership, yet who cowardly balk when offered the opportunity to step up to the plate themselves. All this results in a Democratic party that is ineffectual and incompetent with a stunning inability or unwillingness to make a genuine 21st Century populist appeal for reform.

The real problem though is not that all Americans fall into one of these two camps, many if not most of us don't.  The problem is they are the only game allowed in town.  Democrats and Republicans get preferential ballot access, taxpayer-subsidized primaries, control of districting and massive financial and media support.  Until this paradigm is broken, we can never get meaningful reform, our politics will remain paralyzed, and the looming challenges will not be met.

Higher Education Woes Part I: More Funding Alone Won't Help

Colleges and universities in the U.S. have become less and less able to provide the courses and faculty expertise they have in the past, while at the same time tuition and fees have skyrocketed.  Over time, the quality of course content has declined as the pressure to enroll and graduate more students has increased. This problem poses a threat to rational research and problem-solving that will be need in the coming decades of change.
The blame for this is usually leveled at cuts in state budgets, but the problem exists in private institutions as well.The real culprit is the ever-growing, highly paid, non-educational administrative beast that must be fed by increased student payments (hence higher enrollment), less staff and less upper-level classes with small enrollments. Marketing is key in bringing in more money to feed the beast and eventually marketing becomes an end unto itself. College athletics is also part of this paradigm. All this was well-detailed by Bob Samuels in an April HuffPo piece that looked at the stressed UCal system. My favorite parts of his article:
"In 2008, there were 397 staff and administrators in the over 200k club making a collective total of $109 million, and in 2006, the same group had 214 members for a collective gross pay of $58.8 million."
and
"In other terms, the increased expense of administration not only takes money away from the instructional and research budgets, but it also gives power to people who have no connection to education." 
In short, the former supporting actors of educational institutions, administration and athletics, are now the prime reason for the existence of many colleges and universities. IMHO the problem is compounded by many self-righteous, tenured and ensconced baby-boomer faculty who are more concerned with their perks and retirement benefits than the future of their departments and the graduate students they keep running through the system.
Update: the Boston Globe had a piece today on the digs of college presidents at prestigious Boston area institutions and how the IRS is pushing to have them considered compensation. Now college president is a needed admin. position and one would expect that Harvard would put theirs up in one of the stately properties they own. But in any school, once you start adding more high-end administrators (usually to oversee some trivial matter that could be handled by existing mid-level offices) they require staff, swank offices, staff and housing.  You can see how the money will then flow away from education and research to support the compensation we are told such administrators require. Things do not have to be at the level of what is offered at MIT etc. for this to occur.