Baby Boomers in American Academia

After the American Century

Yesterday the New York Times ran a long story about the coming change in American academia, as a large cohort of teachers begins to retire. (See it at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/arts/03camp.html.) There recently have been similar stories about Norway and Denmark, and indeed for much of the Western world, as the huge number of teachers hired in the 1960s and early 1970s starts to move out of their offices. As one who saw this transformation up-close-and-personal, I want to add a few observations.

It is not exactly the "baby boomers" who are retiring, at least not yet, for they are mostly too young to afford it. The baby boom began in 1946, when one million more children were born than during 1945. This means that all of the boomers are 62 and under. Anyone in this group who is retiring now got a BA, MA, and Ph.D. as quickly as possible, working steadily from kindergarden on up, with no breaks. The first boomers graduated from college in 1968, and the first to get Ph.D.s emerged perhaps as early as 1972 or 1973, but many more starting in 1974. For those who served in Vietnam, were conscientious objectors or worked after college, add several more years. The people who are retiring this year at 62 would be from the very start of that generation, which includes all those between 50 and 62. Any American retiring who is over the age of 62 is not a "boomer" but comes from the smaller cohort of babies conceived during World War II. They were over-represented on faculties, while the huge cohorts born from 1946-1957 ran into the terrible job market of the recession that lasted from c. 1973 until the early 1980s.

Any academic who lived through the 1970s can tell you that this generation had a hard time. Those just before them - who got PhDs between 1965 and 1970, still experienced a booming job market for their services, and they got tenure relatively easily. By the time the boomers were emerging from graduate school, however, the job market was shrinking. I know, because I was one of the job seekers. More than half the PhDs from my particular year never got academic appointments at all, and even those who did get jobs often saw them disappear due to the slumping economy. They were excellent scholars and teachers who deserved better, and the selection process was by no means an illustration of "the survival of the fittest." When reading about all the baby boomers who are retiring, remember, then, that a huge number of PhDs from that generation never got into academia in the first place. This does not mean they did poorly elsewhere. In general, these clever people made more money than those of us lucky enough to get tenure and the low salaries of the university.

So what? Given the actual hiring that went on, the idea that thousands of student radicals moved from protest to paper grading is a bit suspect. Indeed, I knew many who became disillusioned with academia during the turbulent anti-Vietnam years, and never finished at all. Those who stayed in the libraries and kept writing were not the most radical, and even the most radical PhDs were not always hired. Colleges and universities were not seeking to employ fire-breathing Marxist intellectuals calling for revolution. In short, only a few people shifted from the barracades to the faculty club.

However, after a generation passed, faculty who had been around during the turbulent decade were hardly averse to claiming a radical past. I know several people who seldom marched or sat in or attended anti-war rallies back then, who now talk nostalgically about those days of political engagement. When a reporter turns up looking for the last hippies and revolutionaries packing up their offices, many are only too happy to oblige with stories.

Don't be taken in. I "saw the best minds of my generation destroyed" by the contradictions of that time. They were drafted and sent off to Vietnam, went to Canada to avoid the draft, got drawn into fringe movements that took them forever away from the universities, or threw themselves full-time into the anti-war movement. The boomers who will retire from academic during the next 15 years were not the most radical. Rather, they had the perseverance to write their PhDs during that distracting time. They did so even though the job market was terrible, and they often spent years in short-term or part-time positions before landing in a tenured position. The few who succeeded, did so against great odds, through hard work and a bit of luck. Their story is not the one in the New York Times, which wants to paint a picture of retiring fire-breathing radicals being replaced by young moderates.

The new academics emerging now are not moderate compared to those actually hired in 1974. In fact, in many areas they probably have views that are at least as radical. The Times is right that they have not been embroiled in political struggles in the same way, but their dislike of George W. Bush is just as intense as ours was for Richard Nixon c. 1972.

Costly Oil: The Return of Stagflation?

After the American Century

Today the European Bank is widely expected to raise interest rates. The mantra of economists remains that inflation must be controlled through higher rates. In "normal times" this seems to be the case. Raising interest rates makes money a bit more expensive, curbing consumer spending, slowly down the economy. The usual metaphor is that the economy is "overheated," like an engine pushed too hard. But "normal times" are those when the cost of raw materials remain reasonably stable, especially the cost of oil, coal, and other fuels.

Back in the 1970s the American Federal Reserve kept raising interest rates, because of inflation. But the remedy did not cure, because the cause of inflation was higher energy prices. What resulted was absurd. The interest rates went up to almost 20% to combat inflation while the economy stagnated. The pundits called this "stagflation" and we may be about to see the same thing happen again.

As of this morning, the price of oil has reached $145 a barrel. In the United States and in Europe consumers have been protesting, to no effect, because they are complaining to their national governments. But in a globalized economy, no prime minister can control the price, except by lowering gasoline taxes. This would stimulate consumption, however, and be bad for the balance of trade in an oil-importing country. Nor will raising interest rates lower the cost of oil, except marginally, by reducing economic activity.

Wise leaders - unlike George W. Bush - might respond to this new situation in the following way.

(1) Tax vehicles not by weight but according to how much oil they use, i.e. very low taxes for the most efficient vehicles and punitive taxes for those that are not.

(2) Halt road-building and invest the same money in public transit.

(3) Permit some rezoning of cities, so that population density can be increased. Deconcentration of American cities, which began in the 1920s and 1930s, has created a sprawling energy-inefficient economy, making it harder for mass transit. Rezoning might be modeled on the fine exampleof the Dutch.

(4) Give tax-incentives to energy conservation of all types, including building insulation, heat-pumps, and better architectural design.

(5) Restructure utility prices so that there is a financial reward to the companies that reduce consumer demand.

(6) Invest in alternative energy R & D and in its installation.

These are not new ideas. They are the ideas which most governments have ignored, in practice, for the last two decades.

The current high prices signal the need for a new energy regime. This is not just another economic storm that can be survived by raising interest rates.

If you want to know a bit more about the history of US energy consumption, see
David E. Nye, Consuming Power: A Social History of American Energies (MIT Press).

Obama Takes the Center, Perhaps Florida

After the American Century

In the last few weeks Senator Obama has performed the classic manouevre required of successful presidential candidates. He has moved toward the center. During the primaries the voters are all in the same party, but to win the general election, a candidate usually shifts policy positions a bit. In 2000 George Bush managed to convince some Democrats and many Indepndents that he was a "compassionate conservative." In 1992 Bill Clinton likewise danced a bit toward the middle.

When candidates do this, ideologues become upset, because the candidate no longer seems a person of principles, but an opportunist. However, I have become somewhat more tolerant of these policy position changes, which also suggest pragmatism and flexibility. Candidates thereby suggest to the public that they listen to the popular will. Obama has recently endorsed private gun ownership, for example. Personally, I wish he had not taken that position, but if he wants to win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and many western states, this is a good idea. In any case, the president will not likely be able to change the liberal laws on gun ownership., which have just been supported by the Supreme Court. It overturned a Washington DC law to control carrying handguns. There was little point in Obama attacking the Court, and he will focus on the battles he can win.

Obama likewise made clear his support for Israel, which is important to carry certain key states, notably Florida. This support should be balanced, however, by his repeated declaration that he would seek an open dialogue with many groups and governments that the Bush Administration has refused to talk to, including many in the Arab world.

Less predictably, and far more interestingly, Obama has made a sharp break with the hard-liners on Cuba. For fifty years the US has enforced an economic embargo against Castro's regime. Support for that policy is weakening, however, due to several factors. First, Fidel Castro is now too ill to run that country, and his more pragmatic and reform-minded brother has made many small steps in the direction Americans would like to see, giving a modicum of democracy to the country. Second, the hard-liners themselves are dying off, and the second and third generation Cuban-Americans can see the potential economic and personal benefits in re-engaging with Cuba. Third, the EU does not have an embargo against Cuba, and the US is cutting itself out of a market. When Obama spoke to Cuban-Americans in Florida last week, they applauded his call for dialogue and economic engagement. Since the Bush White House apparently has little historical memory, it is worth emphasizing that the Cold War was "won" without a shot being fired, because of constructive engagement.

In short, while Obama is moving to the center, he is not simply repeating old policy positions. His approach to Cuba seems far more sensible than McCain's, who has embraced the old hard-line view. Obama is going after the younger Cuban voters, making himself the candidate of the future and of change. Coupled with his more moderate views on immigration, this should play well with the Hispanic voters generally, who are less prone to be hard-liners on Cuba in any case.

If Obama can successfully hold Jewish voters and pull some of the Cubans away from the Republicans, he will have a much better chance to win Florida, and with it, the White House. He is being adventuresome where it can pay off, but not on gun control, an issue where the Supreme Court has spoken, and one that will drive the white working class into the arms of McCain.

Will it work? During April and May every poll on Florida put McCain ahead, often by as much as 15%. But in the middle of June, even before Obama announced his new Cuban policy and support for Israel, two polls put him ahead of McCain. Even if Obama ultimately loses the state, if he can force McCain to use time and money to defend it, he will have fewer resources to put elsewhere.

Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dylan, and the 2008 Election

After the American Century

Thanks to Rolling Stone, we now know that Barack Obama's literary taste runs to Shakespeare and Hemingway. The big news, of course, is that he admits to reading books, perhaps a dangerous admission in these media-saturated days.

These are pretty safe choices. Shakespeare was the most popular author in the United States during the entire 19th century. People from all walks of life really knew the Bard's works, and could quote large portions from memory. As Lawrence Levine revealed in a classic article, small traveling troupes of actors never had a problem filling the small parts with local thespians. Shakespeare was so well-known that Mark Twain knew his readers of Huckleberry Finn would laugh at the garbled lines delivered by "the King" and "the Duke." Obama's choice is more than mainstream; he's traditional in naming Shakespeare. But compared to the public of Twain's day, the average American almost certainly has a less detailed knowledge of the plays. File away this literary connection for future reference. We may one day have to decide which play most closely resembles Obama's first term as president. Presumably not King Lear or Macbeth, both of which seem more suited to McCain. Perhaps All's Well that Ends Well?

Hemingway gives Obama a bit of a modernist edge, though it depends on which works (and passages) he finds speak most powerfully to him. Given his views on Iraq, one assumes that he likes A Farewell to Arms. In contrast, John McCain is on record as very much liking For Whom the Bell Tolls. Does McCain see Iraq in terms of the Spanish Civil War? Does either candidate like the most uncompromising Hemingway short stories, such as "A Clean Well-Lighted Place"? Or the more experimental work that only came out after he died? I suspect we have pretty mainstream Hemingway, in either case.

Rolling Stone further reports that Obama has an ipod, and that he has a lot of Stevie Wonder and also Bob Dylan songs on it, including most of "Blood on the Tracks." The "Oldies" for him are from the 1970s. In contrast, Senator McCain admitted to a Politco reporter that he loves the movie American Graffiti and that his musical tastes are rooted in the 1950s and 1960s, up to the moment when he was shot down in Vietnam. Despite the generational difference, there is some overlap. I doubt that Senator McCain can listen to Dylan with the same enthusiasm as Obama can, particularly the early songs like "World War III Blues," and "It's a Hard Rain Gonna Fall." And how many Republicans can enjoy the searing irony of "With God on Our Side"?

If I could give the same oral examination to both candidates, we might know what they really think about Hemingway. This being unlikely, at least we know that they are representative of their musical generations.

Will Americans Get an Accidental President?

After the American Century

In 2000 Americans did not elect the president, the Supreme Court did, by a vote of 5-4. For democracy to retain legitimacy, it was crucial that the 2004 election ended with a clear result, which it barely did. However, there were charges that Republicans played games with the balloting in Ohio, and the contest was close. This time around, Americans rather desperately need a clear choice that will give a mandate to the winner.

If the candidates have their way, the election will be decided by clever advertising campaigns and speeches. But accidents and unforeseen events may play a decisive role. For example, if John McCain has health problems between now and November, it would devastate the Republicans. If either of the presidential candidates collapsed from exhaustion on the campaign trail, such a small health failure could undermine them. But let us hope and assume health will not be an issue. In that case, there are four categories of disaster that are beyond the candidate’s control: economic collapse, natural disaster, a terrorist attack, and bizarre events. Let us look at all four, to see who might have an advantage in each case.

The worst disaster for the Republicans would be massive economic failure. The American economy is teetering between recession and recovery, the most dangerous possibility is a stock market collapse, perhaps caused by the persistent housing crisis. Historically, the American market has not been strong in October, and twice it has crashed in that month. In late October, 1929, the market collapsed, devastating the economy for years, and dooming Herbert Hoover to be a one-term president. Likewise, in October 19, 1987 the New York Stock Market lost 23 percent of its value in two days. Nothing quite like that has ever happened in an election year, but McCain would almost certainly lose if it did. Al Gore’s campaign was hurt by the rapid fall in computer technology stocks in March 2000. When the dot.com bubble broke, many realized that the “new economy” was over. Had the market kept surging until after November, Gore presumably would have won more popular votes. If stocks fall in the month before the election, expect Obama to win, assuming he has not made a major mistake.

Natural disasters can also play a role in the campaign. September and October are huricaine season, and anything remotely resembling the Katrina (mismangement) disaster would also hurt the Republicans. However, in general, natural disasters tend to help the party in power, assuming it makes the most of the opportunity to show compassion and leadership. Just as importantly, a disaster can release huge sums of money to help an afflicted region, while the party in power can tour the area to inspect the damage, sweeping opponents off the front pages of the newspapers. The current floods in the Midwest thus favor the Republicans if they respond credibly to the disaster. As fate would have it, at least two swing states are affected by the surging waters, Missouri and Iowa.

The most unpredictable event would be a terrorist attack. Potential terrorists might try shape the outcome of the election, as they did in Spain with the Madrid train bombings. Depending on the target, the timing, and the administration’s response, would an attack strengthen McCain or hurt him? To put this another way, would an attack be more like an earthquake, giving the Republicans a chance to look heroic and sympathetic in the face of adversity, or would it be more like a stock market crash, a sign that the party in power is incompetent and unable to preserve the nation from harm? These are not easy questions to answer, and each party would try to put political spin on any attack. However, assuming that an attack did not reveal an egregious, gaping hole in Homeland Security (in which case Republicans get the blame), any terrorist activity would make national security, not the economy, the main issue. This presumably would favor McCain, because of his military background.

Finally, in America one cannot rule out the bizarre event. Any number of things might take everyone's mind off the election. A major sex scandal; a police case resembling the O.J. Simpson murder, chase, and trial; a major riot in an American city; a high-profile disaster in the space program; some new Brittney Spears antics; the authentic return of Elvis to a major shopping mall; a surreal hostage drama involving Osama bin Laden himself in Pakistan - who knows? A bizarre event that distracts the voters could have unpredictable consequences. One should even include the weather. Generally speaking, bad weather means a lower turnout, which is good for the Republicans, who as a group are wealthier and more able to get to the polls. An early blizzard sweeping through the "blue" states would not be good for the Democrats.

In a close election extra-political factors could be decisive, and the result might be an accidental president. You think this is impossible? Before the 2000 election, who thought the hanging chads in Florida was possible? This time around, what if the new computerized voting machines are erratic? We must hope for a decisive victory, not a roll of the dice. After Bush, Americans need a new president with unquestionable legitimacy.

Financing Obama and McCain

After the American Century

From abroad, the cost of American elections is unbelievable, appalling. In 2008 more than $1 billion will be spent just on the presidential primaries and general election. But I will spare readers a sermon on this matter. The media world has been actively discussing Senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing, established back in the 1970s to eliminate fund-raising and create a level playing-field. It has never worked well, but it seemed a step in the right direction. All along Obama has refused to accept any money from lobbyists (in contrast to McCain), but he apparently accepted the idea that campaigns should be financed by the government. Taking public money means accepting a cap on spending, however, and Obama has found that he can raise vast sums from private donors. He does not need public financing, which would cap his spending.

Obama is the first candidate who has understood how to use the Internet to reach potential donors, and to involve them in his campaign as partners. Anyone who gives begins to receive a regular stream of emails with information about campaign events, opportunities to join others in raising money, and chances to meet fellow supporters (both on-line or in person). So while Obama himself seldom needs to eat a rubber chicken and make a speech in person, the virtual Obama has been prodigiously successful at eliciting donations. By comparison, McCain is computer illiterate. For more on how Obama raises money, see Joshua Green, "The Amazing Money Machine" The Atlantic.com Alternately, give Obama $10 or more and you can experience it first-hand.

Obama presented his campaign funding decision not as a change of heart about campaign reform, nor as a proof of his on-line wizardry, but as a recognition that the public financing of campaigns has not worked. It has not worked because it is too easy for an "independent" group to raise money and spend it lavishly to help a candidate, who thereby can get both the public financing and the benefits of private funds. Anyone who looks at how John Kerry was "swift-boated" in 2004 knows that this is true, yet a surprising number of commentators, such as John Brooks in the New York Times, are taking Obama to task. They want him to play by the Washington rule book. But he has decided not to work with an ill-conceived, broken system.

Fortunately for Obama, most voters seem to agree with him. Indeed, his fellow Democrats are most likely to be upset that he has abandoned public support, while Republicans have never supported it much. So the decision might even help him with swing voters. In any case, subsequent polls have not detected any loss of support since he decided not to take public money. In fact, most voters are not that interested in the issue. Americans generally do not mind if a candidate says he is independent, can stand on his own, needs no assistance, or is individualistic.

The irony is that for decades the Republicans have always been better at fund-raising that the Democrats. McCain is the first GOP presidential candidate I can remember that has had trouble getting contributors. That is what derailed him last year, when it looked like his campaign was over, due to near bankruptcy. Even now that he has been the nominee for months, he has raised less money than either Obama or Clinton. As of May 31, McCain had raised $121 million, only a little more than Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race long ago. By comparison, Hillary Clinton barnstormed for $221 million by the same date, and yet had run out of funds even as she lost the nomination to Obama.

By the end of May the Senator from Illinois had put together contributions of $295 million, all of it from small donors. He has also shown good financial management, keeping costs under control. He has a rather tidy surplus, too, with $43 million in cash at the end of the primary cycle. McCain was almost as well off, however, because he sewed up his nomination much sooner and could use far less of his money against fellow Republicans. At the end of May he therefore had $31 million - less than Obama, but not so much less.

So no one should be surprised that Obama has decided not to subject himself to the restrictions of public financing, when he does not need it. That leaves the Internet-challenged John McCain to take the government handout, like a charity recipient, because he has not been able to motivate his base.

The Curious Un-Democratic Secrecy of Vice-Presidential Selection.

After the American Century

One of the most curious practices in world politics is the selection of American vice-presidents. While literally millions of people choose the presidential candidates in the bright glare of constant scrutiny, a tiny handful of advisers and a candidate chooses each of the running mates. In a parliamentary system like that in Britain, Denmark or Germany, the "crown princes" in each party are observed for years in key cabinet positions, and constantly evaluated by the press. But in the American system the vice-president is chosen in secret from an unknown list of candidates, and may not be terribly well-known until after the announcement is made.

This procedure and the selection of possibly unknown candidates means that there can be unpleasant surprises after the formal announcement has been made. In 1972 George McGovern selected a well-educated and promising younger Senator - Eagleton was his name - to run with him. But his staff had not vetted their choice thoroughly enough, and it came out that Eagleton had undergone electric shock treatment some years before. You can decide for yourself whether or not this disqualifies someone to be next in line for the presidency, but Nixon's reelection campaign had a field day with it. McGovern was also the victim of Watergate, which is another story, but after he had to "un-choose" Eagleton his campaign never really recovered. Walter Mondale also sank his chances against Reagan in 1984, when he chose Ms. Ferrarro, without noticing that her husband had some dubious business connections in New York. The idea of choosing a woman was perhaps a good one, but that uproar was pretty much the undoing of his campaign.

McCain and Obama are now making the most crucial decision they have yet had to deal with, and it is one which they make alone, in secret. Voters regard this as a test of their judgement, and a clue to their core values. Has the person chosen really got the qualities needed to be president, if need be? Or has the person been selected mostly to "balance" the ticket? Or, occasionally, is the selection proof that the candidate just lacks judgement? Dan Quayle comes to mind. Was that mentally challenged, vapid, individual really just a heartbeat away from the presidency? The spectacle of seeing him blunder around from 1988 to 1992 certainly did not improve George Bush Sr.'s credibility. Quayle once apologized during a Latin America n trip because he did not speak Latin.

If the president remains healthy, the vice-president remains a minor figure. But the four (or eight) years waiting in the wings make these secret selections into leading contenders for the presidency in later elections. Since World War II, the following vice-presidents, all initially singled out by a handful of people, eventually became president: Truman, Nixon, Johnson, Ford, and Bush Sr. That is one half of the total. The others who emerged chiefly through the electoral process were Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Admittedly, Bush Jr. is a disaster, but he did not win the popular vote, either. So leave him out, and what anyone can see is that the former vice-presidents were clearly less popular than those who were first vetted by the press and public. In short, I trust an open democratic process to choose leaders more than a few experts meeting in secret.

It is, in theory, easy to change the selection system, for nothing in the Constitution dictates the present arrangements. Only custom says that Hillary Clinton cannot run an active campaign for the second spot. Indeed, why should not anyone interested in the job be required to declare themselves a candidate, so the public can at least discuss them? The current system is mere bad habit. Some might argue that it is prudent to defer to the nominees and their need to find someone they feel is compatible. But it seems like a curious - and serious - failure of democratic principles. If the US ever decides to write a Constitutional amendment that gets rid of the strange Electoral College system - which led to the unfair selection of George W. Bush instead of Al Gore - at the same time it would be a good idea to require that the selection of vice-presidents be more open. In the meantime, there is nothing that says that either of the two parties will abandon this vestige of pre-democratic times.