The Higher Pragmatism

The contest for the Democratic presidential nomination seems, at last, to have come down to the issue of pragmatism.

The party’s political establishment, bolstered by the mainstream media and the political science crowd – all keepers of the status quo’s flickering flame – want us all to understand that Washington’s a tough town.  You can’t get much done, and that little, tiny bit can only be accomplished by dealing with the powers-that-be.

By compromise.

Which is all true, except this.

Sometimes, revolution comes.

Sometimes, people get fed up and demand change in terms that cannot be ignored.

Sometimes...

As I recall, that’s how this country got started.

As I recall, that’s how an all-male American political system was persuaded to extend the franchise to women.  And how a white-dominated political system was persuaded to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

As I recall, that’s how India broke free of British colonial rule.  And how the Berlin Wall fell.

Of course, revolutions don’t always work.  The French Revolution turned into The Terror, and then into the Napoleonic Empire.

The Revolutions of 1848 turned into repression in Germany and the Hapsburg empire, though the resulting wave of educated, progressive-minded emigrants did wonders for the United States (and probably enabled the Union to win the Civil War).

The Bolshevik Revolution degenerated into Stalinism, and Mao’s Revolution morphed into the Cultural Revolution.

The Arab Spring turned into repression in Egypt, chaos in Libya, and a Hobbesian struggle in Syria.

Still, these revolutions happened.   Establishments every bit as corrupt and powerful as the corporate-controlled politics of 21^st century America have been challenged, and sometimes, overthrown.

It’s all a question of how fed up people are – whether and when they’re sufficiently fed up to reject further compromise.

In our own country, a major political party – the Whig Party – was shattered by the force of citizens who would no longer accept its inability to take a firm stand against the expansion of slavery.  A two-party system was broken, and an entirely new party, the Republicans, moved from third-party status to the White House in six years.

And gave us Lincoln.

And – perhaps the most heartening example of all – the Progressive movement took control of both the Democratic and Republican parties, when the people grew sufficiently frustrated with corruption and corporate control of politics.  That was a little over a century ago, right here in the USA.

Revolution can happen.  If things go wrong, for long enough, it’s almost certain to happen.

When a society goes off the rails – when it simply stops working – revolution is often the only alternative to decline, decay and dissolution.

But revolution can only happen when enough people say, in effect, “Compromise isn’t enough.  We keep compromising, and losing ground.  The system, itself, has to change.”

Revolutions happen when people realize that the “pragmatism” of playing within the rules just doesn’t work any longer.  When they demand that the rules themselves be changed.

Which, when you think about it, is another kind of pragmatism.

A higher pragmatism.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I know a thing or two.  I grew up in politics, and spent many years of my life in the “real world” of America's two-party Establishment.

And I’ve taught and/or studied history for more than forty years.

Speaking as one American, I think it’s time for a revolution.  That’s why I’ve finally decided to stop voting candidates of both major parties. 

No more "lesser of two evils" for me.  

I’m ready to start building a third party, anytime anyone wants to get to work on it.

In the meanwhile, I’m voting for Bernie Sanders – and sending him a little money, every now and then.  Because Bernie isn’t really a Democrat.  Bernie's a change agent, a revolutionary.

Bernie stands for the sort of revolution we need, to take this country back from the super-rich, the corporations, and their minions.

I support Bernie.  I'll vote for him.  I really hope he wins.

But I won't vote for Hillary Clinton, no matter whom the Republicans nominate.

Hillary’s a smart, capable, experienced woman.  In normal times, I’d be delighted to see her in the Oval Office.

But Hillary is not for revolution.  She celebrates her competence at working within the Establishment.  That's the main premise of her candidacy - her ability to work within the system.  Ultimately, she’s happy with the way things are.  She's at home there.

She just wants a promotion.

Ultimately, for all her many good qualities, Hillary is part of the problem.

Which is why, if she’s nominated, I won’t vote for her.  I’d rather vote for some obscure, third-party candidate than continue to lend my voice to the Establishment - and the two-party duopoly which works for that Establishment.

And I won't be "wasting" my vote.  The only waste would be to vote, yet again, for the way things are.

Revolutions demand a higher pragmatism.

Things won’t change until we stand up and demand it.

This is me, standing up.

The Thin Envelope

This is for every high school senior – or the parents, grandparents, or others who love a high school senior – who has recently received, or dreads receiving, the “thin envelope” from his or her college of choice.

I have a place for you. 

Unless you follow my writings very closely, you’ve probably never heard of it, but it’s one of the best universities I’ve ever seen.   (And, having taught for ten years at some pretty exceptional high schools, I’ve studied these things.)

This mystery school is still happily accepting applications.

It doesn’t require SAT or ACT scores (though if you have them, it will take a peek).

And it is, by today’s standards, remarkably cheap.  Cheaper than in-state.

It’s called Mount Allison University, and it’s located in the small, culturally rich town of Sackville, New Brunswick.

Yep.  Canada.  But listen.

First, Sackville isn’t absurdly far away.  It’s a five-hour drive ENE from Bangor, Maine, but if I were going there, I’d fly into Halifax, Nova Scotia, a wonderful city.  Sackville is 90 minutes from Halifax, by rental car or public transport.  (And if you’d rather, there’s an airport at Moncton, 20 minutes west.)

Sackville might sound like a place where hobbits live, but it’s very cool.  And incredibly safe.   There are only two stoplights.  It will probably remind you of a small, New England town – like, say, Stars Hollow.

The main thing in Sackville is Mount Allison, a superb, small liberal arts and science university of 2400 students.  The academics are terrific – at least as good as William & Mary or UVA.  That’s not easy to say (I went to college and law school at UVA), but I’ve visited MTA twice, and it’s that good.

Also, classes are smaller – much, much smaller than at most American schools – and students and faculty regularly interact on MTA’s intimate campus.

Here’s another metric:  Rhodes Scholarships.  In the past 14 years, MTA has produced 12 Rhodes Scholars.  Find a small college or university in the US that matches that record.  (You won’t.  Not even close.  Only big places like Harvard, Stanford and the US Military Academy regularly produce Rhodes Scholars.)

If you share my sense that American universities are too much about semi-professional sports, here’s another thing to like about Mount Allison.  Football is a varsity sport, but the Mounties play in a “stadium” surrounded by a waist-high, wrought-iron fence.  There are bleachers for maybe 200 people.  Most of the fans sit on a hillside.

And I’m told that any American kid who played high school football is pretty much a lock to make the Mounties.  At MTA, as at its big rivals – Acadia, St. Francis Xavier, and St. Mary’s – football players are students.  More-or-less regular-sized students.  The season is 8 games long, including home-and-away matches with all three league rivals.  They don’t fool with playoffs.  (Winter is coming.)

To my mind, that means MTA keeps sports in perspective, although I understand women’s varsity ice hockey generates a fair amount of passion during the long Canadian winters.  (Men’s hockey is only a club sport.)

But I mentioned money, and I suppose it’s time to get down to cases about that.

An “international student” – which means an American – pays a tuition of $16,420 for a year at MTA.   (It’s a good deal more for students who major in Aviation, because of the costs of airplanes and maintenance, but let’s skip that for now.)

Student activity fees are $544.50, and other fees (including technology) add up to $325.

Since American students aren’t automatically entitled to Canada’s free health care system, there’s a fee for that - $595 for a year.

Plus there’s housing.  Mount Allison’s dorms are modern and very nice.  Assuming you want a single room with its private bath, that’s $6426.  There are other options, of course – the lowest being a triple room with bath for $4,493.

Regardless of your room choice, there are residence fees.  These add up to $693.

And there’s food – which I’ve tried.  (It’s extremely good, with lots of healthy options.)  The cost is $4509 for the year.

So let’s add that up.  Assuming you pick the most luxurious housing, your total cost for a year, all included, would be $29,512.50.

In Canadian money.

That’s important.  At present, the “loonie” now worth 71 cents in American money, which substantially reduces the bottom line.  Tuition, fees, room, board, and Canadian health insurance will end up costing you about $21,000 American.

Plus a bit for extra sweaters and really good boots.

And that’s the pitch.  For $21,000, you can attend a university which has been ranked by McLean’s magazine (Canada’s equivalent of the US News & World Report) as Canada’s Number 1 small university for 18 of the past 25 years. 

You can live in a lovely, small, safe town, among the polite (and mostly unarmed) citizens of Sackville.  You can absorb the culture of a legally bilingual province.  (Even fortune cookies at the Chinese restaurants come with a fortune on each side – English in red, French in blue).

And you can live in a country where Justin Trudeau is prime minister.

Not bad, eh?

"I Am Most Seriously Displeased"

Nine days from the Iowa caucuses – and barely two weeks before the New Hampshire primary – the Establishment is most seriously displeased.

Despite repeated scoldings, the American people seem increasingly inclined to nominate a couple of rank outsiders – Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump – as the candidates of two parties whose elites regard them as entirely unsuitable.    

Yet, for Democratic voters at least, the scoldings go on.

The media wing of the Establishment has tried radically different strategies to quell the Sanders and Trump insurgencies.

With Mr. Trump, it tried over-exposure, providing him with a level of coverage an incumbent President could envy.  Every boast, every insult, every politically-incorrect utterance was broadcast and rebroadcast – presumably in hopes that Mr. Trump’s supporters would see their folly and repent. 

Thus far, of course, the blanket coverage has only saved Mr. Trump from having to dip into his personal billions to buy advertising.  The Establishment media have provided him with a king’s ransom in free PR, and his numbers have grown steadily as a result.

The Establishment media tried the opposite tack with Senator Sanders.  Focusing on the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton, they tried to ignore Sanders’ growing crowds.  As small-dollar contributions rolled in from hundreds of thousands of Bernie supporters, they sought to ignore that, too.

For as long as they could, they ignored polls showing that Bernie was catching up to Hillary in New Hampshire – then in Iowa.  Once those polls became impossible to ignore, they began trying to minimize the importance of the first two states, characterizing them as “too liberal” and “too white” to reflect the real Democratic Party.

Finally, when nothing else seemed to work, the media Establishment largely gave up on Mr. Trump.  They still cover him, of course, but without much apparent expectation that the Republican core voter will repent.  That voter doesn’t much care for the mainstream media, and not even the sternest lecture seems likely to deter him or her from anointing the Donald as winner in the first two contests.

On the Democratic side, the Establishment has redoubled its efforts to save the faltering campaign of Mrs. Clinton.  Having tried everything else, the Establishment has adopted the strategy best exemplified by Jane Austen’s creation, Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

For those a bit rusty on their Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine is a domineering old dowager who is determined to prevent the rumored engagement of her aristocratic nephew, Mr. Darcy, with the spunky, middle-class Elizabeth Bennet.

Her strategy involves paying a surprise visit to the Bennet home, where she confronts Elizabeth and insists that she give up all pretensions to marrying the very eligible Mr. Darcy. 

To relish the brilliance of this delicious scene, I refer the reader to Chapter 56 – or, if he or she has thus far neglected it, to the entirety of Pride and Prejudice.  But for a taste of Lady Catherine’s tactics, please sample the following:

“Obstinate, headstrong girl!  I am ashamed of you!  Is this your gratitude for my attentions to you last spring?  Is nothing due to me on that score? … You are to understand, Miss Bennet, that I came here with the determined resolution of carrying my purpose; nor will I be dissuaded from it.  I have not been used to submit to any person’s whims.  I have not been in the habit of brooking disappointment.”

Having thus begun, Lady Catherine goes on to alternate between insulting Elizabeth’s modest rank in society, and urging her to consult her own best interests by not antagonizing Mr. Darcy’s class-conscious friends and relations.

The result, of course, is the opposite of what Lady Catherine intends.  Elizabeth, who has given up the dream of Mr. Darcy, is encouraged to hope.  And when Darcy hears of her stubborn refusal to renounce him, he makes up his mind to propose. 

The Establishment media – bolstered by the political science establishment – are now engaged in precisely the tactics embraced by Lady Catherine de Bourgh.  With ill-disguised hauteur, they are warning those considering a vote for Bernie Sanders not to presume too far.  

The key word in the Establishment's arsenal is “pragmatic”.  Like Elizabeth Bennet, Americans are scolded not to hope for too much.  Universal health care, affordable college education, a living minimum wage, guaranteed parental leave, serious legislation to curb carbon emissions – these demands are not possible in the Establishment’s version of reality.

Tut-tut!   Remember your place.  Be patient.  Be pragmatic.  Trust the Establishment.  Accept incremental progress.  

Above all, listen to your betters.  This Sanders business has been all very well, but don’t even think about nominating him.

In departing from the unyielding Miss Bennet, Lady Catherine fired this Parthian shot.  “I am most seriously displeased.”

Do the American people dare to risk the serious displeasure of the Establishment?

Stay tuned.