Obama and Academic Reason

Like millions in the U.S. and abroad, Obama's election has given me a profound surge of hope. This hope doesn't come from the idea that an Obama administration will implement policies that will make everything better right away. I'm tempted to say it's hard to believe in the prospect of policy changes by themselves doing all that much to improve life. Yet even though "policy" may in general have such a sterile connotation seeminging incapable of generating felt responses, I realize that my own position from which policy changes are not likely to have an near-term felt impact is a particular one. My dismissive attitude towards policy-centricism was certainly humbled yesterday talking with a good friend who told me that his number one electoral concern was health care -- because he knows the pain for his mother and many of the poor folks he works with who are unable to afford it now.

That said, for me hope about Obama's victory has been more a sense that this will signify some exciting changes in American culture. On one hand I think there will be a new energy and vigor among progressives here, perhaps also an expansion of alliances among white and minority progressives. Obama will "disappoint" I'm sure in making certain decisions and not pushing forward some urgent issues. Still, my bets are that his administration will make progressives feel like they have more of a shot at being heard. Large-scale grassroots mobilizations on issues from poverty to media policy to war just might be able to wield a political pressure that hasn't even seemed to be a possibility in the recent past.

Even more narrowly focused, this Obama and Democratic victory are likely to make this a better time to be a publicly-engaged intellectual than any time since the 1960s. Let me offer just one example. A couple years ago I worked for a media activist/reform organization called Free Press (www.freepress.net). Throughout the Bush years, this organization experienced increble growth (after its founding in 2002) and played a large role in holding back some of the pro-media monopoly policies that Bush folks wanted to pass through Congress and the FCC. Still, the Free Press was a sidelined player in media policy, mostly working on the defense. Now their role is likely to be much more constructive. There's a good change that some of the visions for a more democratic media that Free Press advocates have in mind might actually get put in play. Tim Wu, the current chair of the Board at Free Press, has already served as an advisor to Obama during his campaigm. I happen to know media policy better, but I imagine in all sorts of sectors of government we're going to see new opportunities arise for progressive thinkers and advocacy groups to have a larger role in shaping policies -- the EPA, HUD, transportation, perhaps even the Treasury department.

As a graduate student, this makes me think that there are going to be new opportunities for scholars to play a role in shaping some of these debates and policies. Certainly academics and scholars are not always going to bring the best goods to the table - legacies of the likes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan should give us pause in any sort of unbridled celebration of rule by academics. But certainly I'd much prefer to have Robert McChesney drafting media policy than lobbyists for Time Warner or AT&T.

Econ at the Bowling Bar

The Gazelle had taken a mighty long nap in a faraway pasture, but now she has arisen again!

Last night I went to the Bryant Lake Bowl to see "Cafe Scientifique: Principles of Economics." According to the UMN website, where I learned about this event, it was to be a lecture-performance. The sole author, performer and lecturer Andrew Cassey just recently completed his economics Ph.D. at UMN. Apparently Cassey first put this kind of performance together, based on years of teaching intro to econ, during a fringe show event when he "conceived of the notion of teaching economics as 'a performance art.'"

I posted this event on the Big Tent and got several takers right away, all perhaps with different reasons for wanted to see The Principles of Economics. Foremost for me, I wanted to see the adaptation of the lecture form to the theatrical situation. Somewhat to my surprise, there really was not that much adaptation. Cassey was full of energy, he dropped a few 'f-bombs' and he made a some irreverent asides. But all in all, this could have been a lecture taken right out of his intro to econ class. There was a way in which Cassey was able to distance himself from the serious and official demeanor associated with the classroom at the same time as he drew charts of GDP-and-CPI curves on a green chalkboard center stage. Was this position achieved through Cassey's own inventiveness, or did it at least partially have to do with economics place in our culture today? Can economics today claim a certain position of common-sense logic that more "critical" schools of thought would have difficulty achieving?

The audiences' response was the most interesting part of the whole event. They were not entirely compliant with all the demands of the lecture scenario, though they were to a large degree. There were side conversations, and a few challenging questions (None of these questions, however, really aimed at revealing the ideological assumptions encoded into the strand of economic thought Cassey was espousing. I didn't see a good chance to offer such a question myself). No one really heckled him nor was there any sort of revolt by audience members bored by the didactic nature of the lecture. Most everyone seemed in good spirits and thankful for their entertaining knowledge-nourishment. Maybe it was the peculiar self-selected crowd (not many academics, I suspect, but more middle-age good-citizens types), or maybe the lecture as a form is not so antithetical to popular culture as we might think.

I