it’s all about the culture

I swear that I haven’t been looking for this evidence—which happens to support my thesis that infotainment rules—but all of my casual reading in the last ten days has led to the same conclusion: culture is a far more influential force than politics in campaign ‘08.

[[You'll have to bear with me, though, if you want to get my argument. I'm not in Sound Bite Territory here. This blog is my playground for the ideas I've been thinking about for more than a decade. So if you're with me, read on. If not, skip to the next post.]]

Let’s back up a minute and think about culture and how it influences many domains in our lives and in our society. Here’s Peter Wood, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, about “How Culture Keeps Students out of Science”:

The precipitous drop in American science students has been visible for years. In 1998 the House released a national science-policy report, “Unlocking Our Future,” that fussily described “a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with training.”

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market’s demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off — often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren’t very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, “Why bother?”

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of “Science as a Vocation,” and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as “whole persons” — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren’t among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who “feel good” about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

One of the things that I really like about Barack Obama is that he addresses these kinds of cultural issues head-on:

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama took a “tough love” message to African American youth, telling that finishing high school is a better route to success in life than an unlikely trip to the NBA or the top of the rap industry.

“You are probably not that good a rapper. Maybe you are the next Lil’ Wayne, but probably not, in which case you need to stay in school,” Obama, D-Ill., told a cheering crowd, brought to a standing ovation at a town hall meeting in Powder Springs, Georgia.

The presumptive Democratic nominee was speaking about high school drop out rates and the need for people to be committed to working hard in school so they can get a job after school.

Obama said he knows some young men think they can’t find a job unless they are a really good basketball player.

“Which most of you brothas are not,” Obama, who played basketball in high school, a sport he continues to play to this day, said jokingly. “I know you think you are, but you’re not. You are over-rated in your own mind. You will not play in the NBA.”

Obama’s number-one Internet fan has often claimed that he loves his idol precisely because Obama will put the culture war to rest.

What a crock!

Baby, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

In case you haven’t noticed, this election is about the quintessential “Jacksonian” *** versus the quintessential post-Jacksonian (excuse me: I mean post-partisan) American.

———-

*** It would be paranoid to note [Kaus's "paranoia" continues here ---ed.] that Walter Russell Mead’s article is no longer available at the CFR’s site.

Not to worry! It’s available here. And here’s a link to the book where he lays things out in detail.

Would it be paranoid to wonder why conservative ideas don’t get a lot of traction in our culture?

Adam Bellow doesn’t sound too paranoid [e.a.]:

[N]o matter what happens to those [failing conservative] imprints, conservative publishing will certainly survive—and thrive. If liberals continue to ignore the power of conservative books, moreover, the losers will not be conservatives—who cannot help but be endlessly exposed to left-wing views through the networks and leading newspapers—but liberals themselves, complacent in their ignorance of the other side. “There’s always another side, that’s a classically liberal argument,” observes Bellow with a laugh. “The problem for contemporary liberals is that they really don’t understand it applies to them.”

Onward, and may the best ideas win!

And may some strong, righteous characters with a strong moral compass continue to press on fighting the good fight even when the odds and the currents are strongly against them:

Approached at a park in Moscow, Taisiya Gunicheva, 17, a college student, said she had heard of Mr. Solzhenitsyn, but could not name any of his books.

She said his work was largely absent from her school curriculum. “Can you imagine, there is nothing about it at all,” she said. “It is sad, but unfortunately, it’s true.”

Nearby was Anton Zimin, 26, an advertising copywriter, who said he was quite familiar with Mr. Solzhenitsyn but doubted that others in his generation were. He said people his age had lost touch with the struggles of their parents and grandparents.

“The problem is that now, it’s all about consumption — this spirit that has engulfed everybody,” Mr. Zimin said. “People prefer to consume everything, the simplest things, and the faster, the better. Books are something that force you to think, reading books requires some effort. But they prefer entertainment.”

Andrei V. Vasilevsky is accustomed to such sentiments. Mr. Vasilevsky, 52, is editor in chief of Novy Mir, the magazine that published Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s first major work, “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” in 1962.

Mr. Vasilevsky said on Monday that young people considered figures like Mr. Solzhenitsyn to be artifacts, and that Russian society in general was no longer interested in towering cultural or social figures.

“There is no demand for great people,” he said. “I can’t say why, but this fact is simply obvious to me. Famous, notable, popular — yes. But not great, in the fullest sense of the word.”

And that, dear readers, is what McCain’s ad campaign of the last week was about: fame versus character. And it will stick, because people get that argument.