Politics Around Ending the Filibuster

    The argument against ending the filibuster is that Democrats will not always be the majority and would then want to use the filibuster themselves. This is not the way to think about it, I will explain. It is all about ownership and accountability. Republicans know most of their policy proposals are unpopular and, if they were ever to enact them, then the truth of their unpopularity would be unmasked. So they rely upon the excuse that Democrats provide them “Well we tried to do this unpopular thing that is popular with our base voters, but the Democrats filibustered.” This allows them to campaign on things and then run away from them. To not own their own policies. To not being held to account and maybe being forced to adapt their policies and change them under electoral scrutiny. Allowing the Democrats to filibuster provides cover to the Republicans for not enacting their unpopular agenda items.

    Democrats do not have this problem. Most of their policies are popular it is just that they are prevented from enacting them by the Republicans #TyrannyOfTheMinority. For this reason they can be labeled #FecklessForks, no one can see their agenda. Democrats would want to own their agenda and be held accountable. The filibuster prevents this. So getting rid of the filibuster would increase accountability for both parties. It would be easier to see who is doing what. Yes, it may mean that sometimes a Republican majority would be able to pass things in the Senate because their ability to obstruct would be gone. But this is part of the passive resistance governing philosophy of any minority party. Make the majority own what you believe are bad policies, trust the argument that they are bad policies. Let people see what is being done by those who are in power. This is particularly effective in a two party system like our own. So end the #TyrannyOfTheMinority by ending the filibuster, stop being #FecklessForks, and make the Republicans own when they are putting #PartyBeforeCountry.

A Conversation Between Political Generations

    I would like to share a conversation I had through email with a student of mine. It encapsulates much of how I am processing current events and I hope it provides some comfort, or at least hope to those I can reach. 

Student, 

    It feels like yesterday when we were discussing in POLS301 how abortion was a hot topic word used during Republican campaigns, but that Roe v. Wade would likely never be overturned. With the republican majority senate prepared to fill her seat (despite blatant hypocrisy & RBGs dying wish), our SC would be 6/9 minority majority. I am fearful now more than ever about what will happen to the rights of women, LGBTQ+ community, POC, as well as religious freedoms (threatened for all non-Christians). I am scared of so much of what I am seeing because that is the cost of looking for the truth: being uncomfortable. I am overwhelmed with the amount of danger I see on America’s horizon. I see that we have not, & do not live up to the “worlds moral authority” label that we put on ourselves. I feel like I am living through a pre-revolutionary war. I see the changes that NEED to be made & I understand how what is better for the common interest is often not what is best for the self interest of the few that hoard power & wealth. So I understand why the push back on The People & our Will is so great. But as a single human, it makes me feel powerless & cynical. How are the people with power & ability to do what is right, choose not to? I know this is a lot to hit you with out of nowhere. But I was wondering if you have any tips on how to cope with the anxiety that comes with paying attention? It is definitely easier to be oblivious. But the truth is worth seeking. This year I have often let my passion get the best of me & burn me out. I thought you might have some good tips.

My Response,

    I deeply empathize with you. If you have noticed I have been posting less if at all on Twitter, then you can see why I know what you are feeling. I also have difficulty dealing with the anxiety associated with the broken nature of American politics right now. I have tried to share in both my initial lecture and subsequent announcements how difficult times are right now for Political Scientists. Take a look at my blog if you have not. There is no easy way of comforting you. I will say this is the burden placed on those who are educated and concerned, which you obviously are. I have been waling my student through these issues for decades now and I used to predict this exact moment for them in order to help head it off. Politics began to go off the rails with the Republican Revolution of 1994. The nastiness can be laid at the feet of Republicans and Newt Gingrich. I failed. I did not do enough. I too am anxious and depressed. Maybe we should both embrace the coming storm as an opportunity. These are the tipping points in history and we can tip them in our favor. This may lead to a Civil War at the worst and structural reform at the very least. I for one would be happy being part of an independent California.

    The thing that keeps me going is of course students like you. When I was prognosticating for the last couple of decades I would get some pushback from my students because American generally have a short attention span when it comes to politics. I got some of that this semester as you can read in the comments section of the First Lecture. I also got some parents of students going directly to my Deans and Vice Presidents and even directly to the President of Folsom Lake College. They expressed concern about my approach to these issues through tough love. They complained and threatened to go to the media because I was not going to go easy and play the game of bothsidism. We can only get through this if we are willing to be honest to a fault as I attempt to be in the course. I responded with a post on my blog. Now the problems that existed in the long-term a long time ago are the current problems that have us both anxious and depressed.

    However, now the problems that existed in the future are here and I see the students in my courses and really all young Americans as problem-solvers. They are rising to the challenges facing our country and I will tell you I am hopeful that they will be the next Greatest Generation. This is partly because of circumstance because we can no longer kick these problems into the future. It is also the result of agency as young American are rising to the challenge and engaging on these issues. They will save us. YOU will save us. What the world and America looks like in the future is in good hands. The only problem is the obstacle of today's old farts (I am getting up in the years but my students keep me young). The current leadership is plagued by hypocrisy and power-seeking Republicans (#PartyBeforeCountry, #PartyBeforeLives, and #PartyBeforePlanet) and feckless and scared Democrats (#FecklessForks and #TrueDivide). I hope the United States of America and the Earth can hold on while these older folks die off. I say that with a relatives still alive that are older than myself. I am fifty-two.

    There is change afoot. More young American are running for office, more are protesting and willing to lay it all on the line to effect change. Again they and you really have no choice. But you and yours give me hope we can navigate these treacherous times.

Political Science Stressors

     As America prepares for the Presidential Election of 2020 a less visible groups is experiencing more anxiety than others. While all American are under extreme duress, there is one group that is being hammered because of our unique knowledge and expertise. I am speaking of course about Political Scientists. Political Scientists are the experts that both know and understand the nature of our current political crisis to a degree shared by few. This is most evident when it comes to how we are asked to comport ourselves in our classrooms. We are often asked to do some things that are asked of no one else and act in ways that are impossible. I attempt to address this throughout my courses and am lucky because I can rely upon my superpower of being born without the "Give a Frak" gene. I have problems with "social niceties" that make it possible to function in "polite society." While this is a hindrance in most contexts, it does enable me to be the master of the uncomfortable conversations that can occur in Political Science courses.

    I emphasize that I am a Political Scientist with emphasis on the Scientist. I see in my media consumption that fellow political scientists are also experiencing stress in navigating a political world of "alternative facts" and "post-truth politics." By emphasizing the Science part of our discipline I am able to note that, as a Scientist, I am bound to the truth. That truth holds no matter if those in my courses will be offended or not because the truth is bad for their own personal politics. As a Political Scientist I must be a Truthteller even when that causes some problems both inside and outside of the classroom or virtual environment. I have now started my Fall Semester online at Folsom Lake College and my first lecture focused on being honest and open with my students. I am going to take this opportunity on my blog to offer additional conversations on what was discussed and respond to some of the responses of my students.

    One important thing to get out of the way is bias in a Political Science course. I hear this all the time at conferences and student evaluations and rating sites. The expectation is that somehow we are supposed to teach our material in an unbiased manner. This is nonsense of course but deserves some exploration. The expectation of non-biased instruction is designed to cower us to give validity to all possible human politics, even the most distasteful. It is akin to the constant claim of "liberal bias in the media' and I address it the same. The bias is really to the truth, or at least it is supposed to be. As is a common parable in journalism, a journalist's job, when told by one person it is raining and by another it is not raining, is not to present both individuals perception of reality but to walk outside and see if it is indeed raining or not. A very common definition we have of politics is "the authoritative allocation of values." That means values are front and center in our curriculum. We in political science can no more avoid a values discussion in our courses than economist can avoid talking about value, or sociologists avoid discussions of organization. Yes the goal is to be able to discuss all values, but it is not to place all values as equal. When discussing racism in the class, I am not going to place value on pro-racist arguments even if there are racists in my class who expect it. I am not bound to give credence to misogynist arguments because there are misogynists in the classroom. There are sometimes clear superior value positions in politics and we must take them and teach them. Political scientists are sometimes loathe to remember the praxis of our discipline. We are the experts. We can take sides even in the face of the plague of both-sidesism. 

    I experience this all the time and am not alone. Wanting a non-bias instruction is used as a cudgel against us to make those who have objectively distasteful politics avoid the consequences and truths about those politics. That is no good teaching. I have a hashtag on Twitter, #CowedMedia, to highlight what has become of the media that has been cowed into submission. The media now succumbs to both-sidesism because of their constant fear of being called a biased actor. To avoid this name-calling the media has been complicit in validating alternative facts and post-truth politics. In my own small way I try to encourage the future Political Scientists in my courses to steer clear of this fear and embrace the praxis of our discipline. If we become cowed, then truth will not matter and our politics will continue to be toxic and grow even more toxic. In addition, just the whole notion of a non-biased person is a non-starter for me. I understand that bias is the result of perceived interest, whether self-interest or common-interest. Every human is trying to navigate their time on Earth and live a life that is meaningful to them. As long as a human is drawing breath they will have interests. Receiving a graduate degree in Political Science does not mean I become a walking robot, devoid of my humanity, with no interests other than conveying instruction. This holds true no matter the context or career. The goal of becoming a judge, a journalist, or a political scientist is not to eliminate bias but to minimize it through understanding and exploration. If in our exploration we find truth, then truth is exposed and remains.

    This is important in today's political climate. There is a need for we experts in Political Science to be open and honest with our students. We understand that the current Trump Administration and current Republican party is wrong. It is a threat to both the republic and a threat to which it stands. There is no both-sidesism on this. We understand both what the Framers were trying to accomplish in this Great American Experiment. We have knowledge and understanding of authoritarianism. We understand not just the rule of law but the political theory behind the concept of the rule of law. These are the truths that we should all hold as self-evident but no longer do. Partly this is by choice. Americans have not risen to the Utopian spirit of the early political theorist and chosen to inform themselves about the common interest and how it can be balanced with all of our many self-interests. We are avoiding our responsibilities of being informed. Instead we adopt what I term K.I.S.S. strategies (Keep It Simple Stupid). We look to the easiest way to inform and participate. The most common in America now is the tribe. We no longer need or want to know things other than what side to root or vote for. Americans have opted to extend their tendency to become fans of sports franchises into politics. "I don't need to know much, just what team to root for in the NFL, or NBA, or whatever. So we end up reversing what we Political Scientists understand is the role of parties. Now our parties are our tribes, our teams. Political parties are supposed to represent the people who comprise them. Instead now we represent our team. This is how I understand how people continue to vote against their own interests in America. they take their cues from whichever of the Two Parties they cheer for and vote according to the party's interest. 

    A good example if climate change. Listen I understand why the Republican Party wants to maintain their ridiculous argument that climate change is a hoax. Some of their biggest donors, that help them win expensive campaigns, are fossil fuel companies. I do not understand what the general Republican voter gets by having ridiculous arguments about climate change. I only understand through the lens of tribalism. They are simply rooting for the Patriots so need to make the argument that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time as opposed to a San Francisco Forty-Niners fan who will argue for Joe Montana. Again, they must represent their tribe rather than having the party represent them. 

    This lead to another stressor; debating facts. We in the social sciences are well suited to make the difference between natural facts and social facts. Natural facts are true regardless of the opinions and positions of human beings. Take gravity. Gravity does not care whether a person believes it or not. IF one could fly just by stating "I don't believe in gravity", then we would have a much different world. However you will remain on the Earth whether you believe it or not. Climate change is a natural fact. I emphasize in my classes that I do not debate natural facts. I tell climate change denialists they have are not going to get that side from me, because I am a scientist and accept natural facts. Social facts are different as the only truth we can attach to them is what we have socially constructed around them. Most political issues swirl around social facts. We can argue until we are blue-in-the-face, from now until doomsday, about when life begins. Does it begin at conception or does it begin at birth? No resolution. So social facts will always have some politics swirling around them. Social facts are at the heart of current event discussions in my class. 

    However here I must return to praxis. Within social facts there are some truths. We Political Scientists must be comfortable with those truths. We are the experts. Recently a student challenged me and said "You are a political scientist and have no right to classify anybody as “wrong” or “bad” for not affiliating with any party, because it is not just one party that is “broken,”  No. It is precisely because I am a Political Scientist that have the right to do these things. This is part of the larger death of expertise (#DeathOfExpertise) that is part of our toxic politics. We Political Scientists cannot be cowed away from our expertise. 

#SelfVsCommon #SomeClarity

I have always attempted to be as humble as I can while knowing that this is somewhat paradoxical. Bragging about being humble? For me though humility is a process and not a characteristic i.e it is something I am always becoming, not something I am. What this means is I do not want to draw attention to myself but rather to be part of a larger process of bringing attention to other people or other things. Somewhat hard then for me to navigate the world of social media.

@Castabulan

As you can see from just looking at the dates of these posts, I am not comfortable with posting on a blog because it becomes something about yourself even if you try to make it about others. I am more comfortable extolling the virtues and accomplishments of others and also supporting the opinion of others. This is evident by my Twitter feed of @Castabulan. I do not usually have my comments but amplify others' thoughts and opinions. It is a bit uncomfortable for me to presume I can say things others are not or cannot. I believe most people are better than me and am proven right everywhere I turn.

But there has been a shift in my motivation and understanding given the current state of affairs in both America and the world. There are historical and monumental happenings everywhere that will be important to understand for future generations. I want to write to those people who will be looking through the historical record of this time two hundred and fifty years from now. I want them to know that people were fighting and struggling to make the future a better place.

My Current Shift

The shift occurred because of much of the reading I have been doing during the Coronavirus Pandemic Lockdown we are experiencing right now. I am still reading the Malazan Books of the Fallen and my comic book of the moment is the delightful Rat Queens. Both these fantasies have something in common that has inspired me to frame my blog and Twitter in a new way. At one point in Rat Queens, the female adventuring heroes are in a bar getting drunk (a common occurrence in Rat Queens). One of our motley crew is hit on by a man. She lets him know she does not date bards and bards are not welcome in their adventuring party, the eponymous Rat Queens. He then explains that he is not a Bard but a Chronicler. A Bard creates his own stories, a Chronicler records others' stories for posterity. This reminded me that one of my favorite characters throughout the Malazan Books is the Imperial Historian who chronicles the stories within Steven Erikson's Malazan series shared with the reader. So this has given me a better way to find peace with being more active online. I was never comfortable being a Bard, but I do see the import of being a Chronicler.

Twitter as a Chronicle of the Times

So this then is the way forward. My Twitter can be best seen as a chronicle. I, like most, do not post original content but pass around already existing content created by the Bards throughout America and the World. And the Bards I listen to reflect who I am. Some of this will become more clear when I continue the task I am setting for myself; explaining the hashtags I have created on my Twitter for the students in my classes. That way the Bards and just the general audience they tell the stories to can have insight into at least my chronicle.

#SomeClarity

As we in higher education continue to experience the necessity of moving things online, I still have a lot of residual resistance. I am not alone. I am really a lecturer, needing to be in front of and with my students in order to help them learn and grow. I joke that I feed off of the energy of my students. Behind every joke though is some truth and my students are my energy, my motivation, and the source of my eternal life as they keep me young. I craft my lectures around providing #SomeClarity during a time in the political life of the planet that is very difficult to understand and stress-inducing. What this means in our current context is that this is all new to me but I will do my best to move my lectures, or at least some of the understandings of the chronicle I may have.

So I will use this forum to explain my hashtags that you can then explore on Twitter to come to your own understandings. I encourage you first to simply search @castabulan and then the hashtag or hashtags that may interest you. Then drop my delimiter and look at what others have crafted around the hashtags that currently occupy the comfort of your mind.

#SelfVsCommon

There is some method here about the order of presentation of the hashtags. Bear with me and let us get started. My broadest possible hashtag is #SelfVsCommon. This identifies debate and discussion items. I teach at Folsom Lake College and am the Chair of the Department of Political Science. I am the only full-time faculty being supported by many accomplished adjuncts. Through the years, I have been fortunate to teach across our discipline and have taught all core sub-disciplines, American Politics, InLabels
ternational Relations, Comparative, and Political Theory. The common teaching thread throughout these courses and, in Political Science in general, is how we as a species make decisions together. When we do so we are confronted with the reality that we are all self-interested actors.

We are alive; there has never been nor will there ever be people exactly like ourselves and, while we are here, we hope to have a meaningful life. We have dreams and aspirations. But we do not live in a vacuum. We are surrounded by other self-interested actors and that fact compels us to also process how we want others to be treated and ho we want to be treated by others. Hence the necessity for always balancing the self-interest with the common interest. All political science explores this from different perspectives and frames. It certainly unites all my classes and I hear from old students it gives them a good way to understand their other political science courses when they leave Folsom Lake College bound for larger schools and departments.

So when using the #SelfVsCommon hashtag I want to open the topic for discussion. What is your self-interest (needing to go out and get a haircut)? What is the common interest (continuing social distancing and obeying our stay-at-home orders)? I am usually not one to put much of my own opinion as a Chronicler using the hashtag #SelfVsCommon. Sometimes I do want to insert an item that I think needs to be part of balancing the self-interest with the common interest or believe that there is a crucial missing issue within the broader issues being discussed. And this is not a way to delimit discussion nor is it vetted or screened by anyone else. It is just I from the future prospective of trying to help others form their own opinions on things that I often do not understand entirely or understand differently than most.

Addendum: My hashtags are designed to be accessible and that is why I write them as I do. Computer readers for the visually-impaired need to have the capitalization that you may encounter. When you use my hashtags or any other hashtags, I ask that you know and follow this. And yes I know not all the hashtags I use are "mine."