It seems like the only way we can get our congress to actually be productive we either have to be heading for an iceberg (this week: Great Depression: Part Deux) or its election season. The best part is they do one thing that is successful and then pat themselves on the back but seem to overlook the fact that their quarreling and inability to work together for years has led to our currents chaos. If they're not patting each other's back they're pointing fingers and attempting to divide the nation to make us forget that they're responsible as a whole. It all makes sense though at then of it you just have to follow the money trail. It doesn't really seem like we have two parties, rather, what we have is two teams that once elected gains the endorsement of all the major corporations. That endorsement corrupts and slows down the legislative process especially if that legistion happens to favor the voters' interest over that of big business.
We can;t completely blame the money, its the combination fo its presence along witht he culture of polarizing that has developed within Washington in the last eight years. What we need this presidential election is a leader willing to fight this corruption but at the same time one that pushes for a new culture of collaboration in washington. It seems that obth candidates are offering this, hopefully, they're not just saying what we want to hear.
Recently I've been pondering what the concept of the modern "public intellectual" means to us today. In struggling to redefine the concept for modern times I've come to realize a couple of things. Technology has played a large role in giving many a voice but although times have changed there are still fundamental principles by which the "public intellectual" must operate. While these principles are still valid technology has made it more difficult in terms of making this into a black and white argument and it has really pushed the limits by creating grey areas under which one could still be classified as a "public intellectual."
These characteristics are numerous and can include or exclude elements such as education, sophistication of the works written, what audience the intellectual is targeting, experience in a field such as journalism, to what level their works have distribution and the list can go on. The fact that these various elements can be included or excluded show how the term definition is not an exact science.
Traditionally, the definition has been more exclusive. Public intellectuals were expected to have a certain level of education and were more respected if they came from an Ivy League institution. But in recent times the manner by which one arrives at this title or position in society has changed. Thomas L. Friedman is such a case.
Thomas L. Friedman is a clear example how experience in a field can eventually earn you the title of "public intellectual." Freidman, educated at Brandeis University, began writing for the New York Times in 1981 as a financial reporter. While reporting, Freidman has not only covered subjects on economics but has written on subjects such as the White House international relations, the Cold War and recently on terrorist threats. The New York Times has only made up a portion of his work. Friedman has also been highly successful as an independent author. His books have not only won multiple Pulitzer awards but they have served as influential pieces in their corresponding fields.
Whether writing about the shifting dynamics of globalization in our current world in the World is Flat or the need of our presidential candidates to propose real change, Friedman shows a depth of knowledge but also an accessibility to most readers. The combination is what makes him a successful writer and public intellectual. His work has great depth but the manner in which he writes and the vocabulary he uses still allows for the layman to easily understand. This effectiveness in clear communication allows his work to truly be understood by the general public and in turn be influential.
His influence is apparent in modern politics as he if often a guest on respected political talk shows like Meet The Press. But what is most important about this influence is that not only are people listening to what he says but the content which he puts forward is always relevant to the times and to issues facing our political and economic systems. As Stephen Mack in his blog "The New Democratic Review" notes, "if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy--and they do--it's simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work s not whether the people are listening, but whether they're hearing things worth talking about." By keeping the "pot boiling" Mack states what he believes the public intellectuals role in society should be and it is one who criticizes but also puts forward ideas for change. As I previously said Friedman has been on respected forums like "Meet The Press" and as seen below his criticism is always current and quite relevant.
It seems like everyday each candidate is trying to play each other off as being far from the center. But when you actually stop and look at both of McCain and Obama's policies it seems that there is very little that either has done that has truly strayed from the center. Sure their policies may function differently on their basic principals but neither is really pushing for radical change although their campaigns are all about "reform" and "change."
At this point we need to realize that our government has broken down and that the most radical thing a candidate can actually do at this point is push for bipartisanship. Our president has obviously been a failure in the last 8 years but let's not fail to see that our congress hasbeen equally ineffective. We've seen how easy it is to veto a law versus actually passing one. A real candidate for "change" or "reform" must realize the power that his office holds in setting precedents for bipartisanship no only within his branch of government but also within the the legislative.
