Jack: Is America in decline? Do pundit
superstars like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore invite debate or just preach to
the converted? Is American culture fragile? Join me Jack Russell Weinstein and
my guest Mark Steven Jendrysik for a discussion on the so-called Decline of
America here on WHY - Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life
broadcast live on Prairie Public right after the news.
[Music playing 00:48 – 01:07]
Jack: Hello, everybody! Welcome to WHY –
Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life. I'm your host Jack Russell
Weinstein. Thank you for joining us. Today is Flag Day in the United States,
the day that commemorates the adoption of the American Flag in 1777. It is
appropriate then that our guest Mark Steven Jendrysik is here to talk about
America and its so-called decline so loudly proclaimed by many. We'll talk to
him soon and I encourage you to join in the conversation by calling
888-755-6377, that's 888-755-6377. If you prefer not to have your voice on the
air you can email your questions at
AskWhy@UND.edu, that’s
AskWhy@UND.edu.
We continue to have an exciting schedule. On July for the first time we'll
record the show live before an audience in New Rockford, North Dakota, and we
hope to do something similar in the fall in Wahpeton. All are invited to these
tapings and if you would like to hear about these events and other exciting
updates about the show join our mailing list at
WhyRadioShow.org. We're also available on Facebook, MySpace and even
Twitter. Details are available at the website.
As many of you know we were
expecting to have Senator Byron Dorgan on our show this month but he cancelled.
We at Why are disappointed for all the obvious reasons but besides for practical
matters we're sad because there really is no venue to have purely philosophical
discussions with our elected officials. As one person wrote me in an email,
“The idea of hearing Dorgan in an interview that's not immediately oriented to
the latest legislation or economic indicator was intriguing.” I think that's
the key point. The ground rules of the interview included no public policy
questions. That was my decision, not the Senators’. No one was going to ask
why he voted for one bill as opposed to another; instead I was going to ask
philosophical questions such as what is the purpose of government? What does
the word freedom mean? Does the senator represent people or desires? I was
interested in asking, what do you do when people claim to want one thing but
really want another or when they want something they shouldn’t have. And I'm
particularly interested in the dual natures of political life. Dorgan
represents North Dakota and sees himself justifiably of course, as an authentic
North Dakotan. Yet he no longer really lives here; he lives in Washington. How
does that change his understanding, his sense of self in place? This is an
issue that came up in the Institute for Philosophy and Public Life’s many
discussions about Governor Art Link this past spring. Governor Link was raised
as a farmer in Western North Dakota, but the majority of his life had been spent
in Bismarck in Washington D.C. Does that matter?
I'm not naive to take his
cancellation personally and I shudder to think that my comments right now would
be interpreted close to David Letterman’s anger at John McCain during the last
election or his current feud with Governor Sarah Palin about some jokes that he
made last week. This show is and will always be non-partisan and I have no
desire to effect elections in any other way than acting as a catalyst for
thought. But I really do wish the senator had been here to answer these
questions because they point to a central difficulty in our public discourse.
We have conversation about political positions and policies but we don't have
discussions about philosophies. While the media is a wash in accusations about
values and beliefs, these are neither theoretical nor are they ever required to
be consistent. A philosophy illustrates the connections between the different
positions. How can a politician hold to two particular beliefs at the same
time? How can one support family values for example but be opposed to extended
paid maternity leave or leaves that help us care for our loved ones? What does
family mean in the first place and isn't the term value neutral? We don't want
family values; we want good family values. You get the point.
Philosophy focuses on clarity and
consistency. It also focuses on evidence. Why does a representative think one
way and not the other? And answering “because I was brought up that way”
doesn't cut it even though this is the response we get most of the time. If we
all just argue in defense of our own lives we can neither persuade nor learn. I
love my parents and my upbringing had much to recommend it. But like all
parents, like me for example, my mother and father made mistakes and they taught
me things that I simply don't agree with. But to hold these positions during
any discourse even in a discussion with myself I must force myself to articulate
the reasons that I hold or reject a point of view. And with politicians where
the positions are necessarily both public and acted upon in the name of others,
there is even more reason to explain, clarify, justify and to change positions,
values and beliefs. Doing this requires a philosophy.
A public policy that offers no
foundational philosophy is guilty of what philosophers call arguing from a
conclusion. In such a case the reasons put forth are actually ad hoc claims
that are really just smoke and mirrors hiding the advocate’s truth
justification. Disposition is true simply because I believe it. We believe
lots of things for lots of reasons but the mere that we believe them is a
psychological reality, not a statement about truth or justification. This leads
then to political contortions, the desperate attempts to explain or justify
conflicting beliefs or gaps and policy. I believe that abortion is murder, for
example, becomes the starting point for political excuses that look like
gymnastics if there is no coherent and publicly accountable theory that
articulates the beginning of life, the injustice of murder, the justification
for exceptions, if there are any, and of course the complexities of invoking
scripture in public policy.
Obviously the reason assassination
of physician George Tiller brings in related questions whether one may force
their views on others, vigilantism and the rule of law and collective
responsibility. A recent interview with Bill O'Reilly for example put him in
the odd position of arguing that all pro-choice activists have blood on their
hands but excusing anyone who might have incited Tillman’s assassination. The
same is true of the opposing position as if they were only two, that every woman
has the right to do with her body as she wishes. Are we comfortable with the
notion of a woman as an object of ownership even if it's self-ownership? Are
all women always capable of making every decision correctly, no matter what
their state of mind or circumstance is? The same question applies to men as
well, of course. What do we mean by property? What do we mean by right? What
is the connection between body and mind?
I bring up controversial topics
intentionally because they inspire vehement and often uncontrollable emotions
instantaneously. And the role of emotion and reasoning is itself a subject of
a man’s discussion. We ought to demand philosophies from our representatives
precisely because our reasons need to be both rational and emotively
satisfying. Senators, Members of Congress, Mayors, Mr. President, why do you do
what you do? Why do you believe what you believe? Why should we be persuaded?
I know you have values and beliefs but do you have a philosophy?
I extend once again the offer to
come on to the show to Senator Dorgan but to others as well, Governor Hoeven for
example, and dare I dream the President Obama, wouldn't that be nice? All of
these people are forced to speak in sound bites on hostile shows that suggest
debate as yelling at one another or laughing with a host to who's playing the
role in a service of entertainment disguised as inquiry. I hope that our radio
show is entertaining of course but I hope that it's inquiry as well and I hope
that we are searching as partners not as competition. And that in the end is
the subject of today’s discussion, investigating political discourse that
exploits for its own end the ideal of American decline. I welcome then Mark
Steven Jendrysik, Associate Professor of Political Science of University of
North Dakota and author of the book Modern Jeremiahs: Contemporary Visions of
American Decline. Mark, thank you so much for being here today and for
doing so on such short notice.
Mark: Thank you, Jack.
Jack: If you would like to participate in the
discussion with Mark and I please do so. Call us at 888-755-6377. That's
888-755-6377 or you can send us questions at
AskWhy@UND.edu,
AskWhy@UND.edu. So the title of your book Mark is Modern Jeremiahs. What's
a Jeremiah?
Mark: Well, obviously the term comes from the
biblical book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah was a prophet who attempted to bring the
people of Judah back to their ancient faith in God and their ancient ways and
their ancient respect for the law and for themselves, I would argue. And you
know, you can argue that he was a bit of a failure in that. So it comes from
that and it also comes from a style of religious sermonizing that was very
popular in colonial New England as well. Puritan ministers would often call
their congregations to task when they saw backsliding from the high purposes of
the Puritan mission from the moral standards of the community.
Jack: Is a Jeremiah simply someone who's
chastising us when our parents punish us for doing something? Are they
Jeremiahs?
Mark: Well, I think it's - you would have me
pushing it a little. You know, I'd like to think that. I think a Jeremiah and
someone who practices a Jeremiad is asking us to reflect upon our actions,
asking us to think about why we are doing what we are doing and to perceive a
better path. At the same time they're pointing us to standards which we have
apparently agreed to uphold which we are failing to do so, so there's a broader
set of circumstances in there.
Jack: And in the title of your book, you tied
the concept of Jeremiah to the concept of a decline. What kind of decline is
this and why are we and what will we be?
Mark: Well, it's very clear if you look at
conversation about this country that there has been for quite some time, some
argue since the 60’s, some argue you know, since the Puritans arrived and you
know, Boston in 1636 that they have been pre-appointing to a decay from higher
standards. And I think that one thing that's occurred over the last 30 years
especially in American political discussion in popular culture is the sense that
things are slipping, that things are no longer what they should be, that things
are in a state of decline and decay and that we need to seek out the reasons for
this and take action to change them.
Jack: So when we hear on the radio or TV or in
a stump speech someone say, “When I was a kid it wasn’t like this; there was a
better time. We're going to hell in a hand basket...” All of these sorts of
things, that’s a Jeremiah.
Mark: To an extent, yeah. I mean there's perhaps
a difference than the biblical Jeremiah where the Puritan Jeremiah who would
speak to the congregation, the community, and say “You have slipped. You have
failed. You have come down from high standards.” I would say a lot of our
modern Jeremiahs say, “The nation is in decline and here's whose fault it is,”
and they speak to the converted as where they speak to their audience and say,
“You people are okay. You've demonstrated you're okay by listening to me on the
radio or buying my book or voting for me and it’s someone else who is to blame.
And I think that's a critical difference between the ancient and the Puritan
style which said to the people listening “you are to blame” with the modern
style which says “others in the community are at fault”.
Jack: So there are two divisions then, at least
for the modern Jeremiah. There's the “us” and “them”, right? We are not to
blame; they are to blame. But then there's also this division between the
preacher or the Jeremiah and the audience. Does the Jeremiah ever claim that he
or she has slipped as well?
Mark: Well, there's a sort of ritual style if you
read something like you know, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore or any number of
other people that I discuss in my book. There's a sort of ritual saying, “Well
I've slipped too. I'm not perfect, right? I'm a regular person like you. I've
fallen from my own high standards.” But it's more ritualized, because it's more
like, it's kind of like when a politician says, “I'm not perfect!” or “I'm a
regular guy!” that sort of ritualized style of saying well, “I'm like you.” But
there's a distancing between the author and the audience and others outside the
audience.
Jack: So you have in mind people as you say
like Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore and you talk about Allan Bloom who had a
very famous book in the 1980’s called The Closing of the American Mind which you
described as the book that starts the Modern Jeremiah. You talk in your book
about Hilary Clinton. But you also argue that this Jeremiad as it's called, has
a very long history, longer than America, paradoxically the American Jeremiad is
older than the country of America. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Mark: Sure, absolutely. I mean it's one of the
fascinating things. I remember this from many years ago when I first read the
speech by John Winthorp as the Puritans were coming to Boston to settle in 1636
John Winthorp gave a speech called The Model of Christian Charity and it was
about the social organization of the community they were going to found. And
let's imagine it that you are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean going to this
wilderness, you're basically fleeing where you've lived and John Winthorp gets
up and says, “We're going to build the city upon the hill.” And that's the part
we often hear spoken of an American political discussion, right?
Jack: This is a very powerful image and
something that inspires us all.
Mark: And Ronald Reagan said he had the “shining
city on a hill.” Well, what people don't quote is right after he says that “we
shall be as a city upon a hill” he then says “but if we fail in this mission,
God will drive us from the earth and make us a byword to everyone of failure and
of divine retribution.” So there is this, even before the Puritans settled in
Boston, there's this sense that we have a very high mission and if we fail it's
not just going to be a failure of a bunch of people who found a new colony; it's
going to be a failure of a idea, it's going to be a failure of a hope for the
world. So there's all this weight put upon it. And so he's giving us this
Jeremiad and he's giving us this “we need to do these things.” he has a list of
them in the speech, if we fail to do them we will be wiped from the earth
basically.
Jack: And Jeremiad isn't necessarily a negative
term or a condemnation. You talk about Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
even Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address used “Jeremiadic”, I don't
know what the term would be, rhetoric.
Mark: Sure. Oh, Absolutely! Absolutely!
Lincoln’s second inaugural is a great speech but everyone quotes the last part
with the charity towards none with malice towards... sorry, “with charity
towards all with malice towards none.” And people forget that before that he
says, you know, “If American slavery is a great sin,” and he says it is a sin,
“then if we have to be punished by having every drop of blood drawn by the lash
repaid with one by the sword till that is paid then so be it. God’s will is
just.” That's frightening. And that is very Jeremiah because it's telling
people we have sinned and we are going to face the punishment of a just and
righteous God which is very scary. You can't imagine a speech like that today.
Jack: I think our listeners should know that
you resided that by heart that you didn't read that off of paper. That was very
impressive. You call Jeremiahs in your book uncompromising detectors of
institutional corruption. This is a good thing, right? They point out an
issue, they point out issues that are bad.
Mark: Yes, but the problem is that solutions are
rarely put forward. It's very disappointing to read something, Michael Moore,
Bill O'Reilly, come to mind again. We have chapter after chapter of, “here's
problems with the media, here's problems with big business, here's problems on
education” and then you get half a chapter of solutions. And I think this is a
real problem with this. They're uncompromising detectors of institutional
corruption but they're not willing to suggest difficult or painful performance
for those especially if their own institutions are ones that they know are
strongly at [Inaudible 16:39].
Jack: We have our first phone call, Warren in
Foxholm, and we'll get to him in just one second. I do want to point out though
by bringing up these examples of Michael Moore as well as Bill O'Reilly, Hilary
Clinton as well as Allan Bloom, Jeremiahs are not just conservative or not just
liberal. They are both although you do think that liberals make worst Jeremiahs
than conservatives, why? And then we'll get to Warren.
Mark: Well, I think basically because liberals’
sounds very much like whiney scolders sometimes. (Laughs)
Jack: What do you mean by that?
Mark: Well, they come from - many people come
from what appears to be a position of superiority, right? There's a sort of
since many liberals don't speak with authenticity, right, which is interesting
because you have a lot of conservatives like William Bennett or Allan Bloom or
in no way they perform regular guys but they try very hard to speak with this
voice of, I'm speaking from inside the belly of the beast or I'm speaking from
inside in an institution and I'm daring and brave. But I think many people,
liberals especially come off as sort of small, petty in some ways and it's a
different style. And I think what people also expect that conservatives are
going to call you out on moral and social corruption more than liberals are.
You know, liberals seem to - the tradition is liberals like little social
disorder because it liberates people.
Jack: That's a very interesting thing and we'll
absolutely have to come back to that. Warren, Foxholm, North Dakota, thank you
for calling WHY - Philosophical Discussions about Everyday Life.
Warren: How are you?
Jack: I’m doing well! Thank you!
Warren: Boy, oh boy, I'm telling you. I don't know
where to begin here. I'm not educated. I'm old. Not that old, I'm 69 and I'll
be 70 in September but I've been around. I've worked in Saudi Arabia, New
Guinea, all over the US. I've taught school for a little bit. Couldn't get out
of that profession fast enough because I saw it as being involved in the
orchestrated dumbing up America; I'm not a liberal; I'm not a conservative. I'm
a United States citizen. I've lived all over this country. I'm experienced.
I
hate that this fellow is doing it now pointing fingers, liberals,
conservatives. If you open your mouth and say something that anybody doesn't
like they malign you in any way they can, they label you as a this or a that,
all that business has to stop. You started out talking about your, and I hope
I'm not ranting. I've got an awful lot to say and I know I don't have a lot of
time to say it in...
Jack: There's so much already in your question.
Warren: Well, no it's not a question. I'm making a
statement. You started out the program by saying you are going to discuss
what's wrong with this country. Let me... can I tell you what I think is wrong
and then...?
Jack: Well, actually let me clarify something
because perhaps I must speak. We're actually not going to talk about what's
wrong with this country.
Warren: Well, I didn't mean that you said...
Jack: What we want to do, and Warren I'd be
curious in your reaction to this, is what we want to do is we want to talk about
the people who are talking about what's wrong with this country because what
Mark is arguing is that there's a style and one of the questions I will ask Mark
later on is whether he agrees with this. But it is not us who are saying
there's something wrong with this country. We're asking is this a good
political tool, a good way to motivate people. It has clearly motivated you
because you hear this notion and you want to, I presume, argue in defense. And
I think that's one of the most important issues, important roles of a citizen.
Warren: Well, I don't know about Bill O'Reilly. I
wouldn't listen to him. I wouldn't listen to Limba. There are two in extreme
in my mind. I may be right. I may be wrong. I don't know. I do think Michael
Moore has validity in what he's trying to do. Put something out there for people
to chew on. From my experiences I haven’t seen anything out of line with what
Michael Moore has tried to make people think about.
Jack: Great, so...
Warren: But let me tell you this please. The fellow
just mentioned the Puritans. Now I've never lived in Australia. I would have
liked to have gone there. I worked with a lot of Australians. One thing about
them is they are fiercely proud of how their nation started. Did you ever hear
the expression POME?
Jack: No.
Warren: Well, it stands for Prisoner of Mother
England. That's what they call English people because those people did not get
sentenced convicts to the...
Jack: Warren, I'm going to ask you to wrap it
up. We're running out of time.
Warren: We in this country think that everything is
right because of what the Puritans said. Europe got rid of a bunch of nitwits,
sent them over here, Puritans, whatever. And our society hasn’t come very far
in a couple of hundred years plus as compared to places like France, Germany and
so on that have been a thousand years plus in evolving. So we're baby cakes
here. But everybody thinks that the United States is a way the world should be.
Jack: Okay, Warren, I'm going to have to
interrupt you.
Warren: Okay.
Jack: Thank you for calling. I think the
question that Warren offers or the answer that Warren offers of Michael Moore is
a really important one because he says Michael Moore offers us something to chew
on. But you actually argue in your book that the Jeremiahs do not want debate,
that they do not inspire discourse. So whereas there is this idea that they put
forth it's not an idea that at least according to you suggests debate and
discussion. Is that correct?
Mark: I think that's true. I think that's very
good summary of what I'm trying to say. Basically if you think about Michael
Moore people criticize him, don't criticize him on ideas, right? They say,
“He's a big fat guy. He looks silly.” You know, they criticize him for where
he travels when he goes to Cuba or something. So there's not in effort to
engage those issues. And his own works, all those other people in the genre,
they don't bring in - they're not debates; they are single, “I'm going to pound
you over the head with a singular idea until you sort of surrender.”
Jack: And you also argue that they preach to
the converted.
Mark: Yes.
Jack: What is the nature of the debate and why
did they preach to the converted? Is it more effective to get people who agree
with you or is it more effective to change people’s minds?
Mark: I would argue that a lot of people assume
you can't change people’s minds, that ideas are fixed, and that the only way to
effect political change is to rile up the people who already agree with you.
This is the idea of 50% plus one that you have with Carl Rowe, a very effective
strategy to win elections, right? You simply maximize the people that agree
with you. You get them out. You mobilize the ones who might not have voted.
And so I think the similar strategy is employed by Jeremiahs. You're trying to
rile up people who already agree with you and you're not overly concerned with
the bringing in the unconverted because you assume they already are as
vehemently connected to their ideas as you are to yours.
Jack: And so part of what's happening is you're
motivating the populous to advance your position and therefore Jeremiahs
according to you claim that the great public sin is apathy. Tell me a little
bit about that.
Mark: Well, apathy is not merely just you don't
care. Apathy is often seen as tolerating things that are wrong and toleration
carries a negative connotation, right? If you see something that's wrong it's
not just enough to say well that's happening down the street or this side of the
country, you have to be angry about it. And so apathy is basically a sin. It's
a sin of omission, right? Being apathetic citizen for these people is bad
because it shows that you don't care and you are part in parcel of the country’s
decline.
Jack: All right. We have to take a break but
while we're gone if you want to give us a call 888-755-6377, 888-755-6377. We'll
be back shortly with more conversation with Mark Jendrysik on the American or
the Modern Jeremiah.
[Music playing 25:08 – 25:29]
You're listening to
Prairie Public, a news information and music service in partnership with the
University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University.
[Music playing 25:38 – 25:57]
Jack: We're back on WHY - Philosophical
Discussions about Everyday Life on Prairie Public. If you want to give us a
call 888-755-6377 or
AskWhy@UND.edu; we're here with Mark Steven Jendrysik, Associate Professor
of Political Science and author of the book Modern Jeremiahs: Contemporary
Visions of American Decline. Mark, we were talking about Bill O'Reilly and
Michael Moore and you write explicitly in your book and I'm going to read this
out loud. “That they are basically analogous people that they're doing the same
thing.” you write. “Paradoxically for men who disagree so fundamentally about
the nature and causes of American decline, they both point backwards to the
world of the 1950’s. For Moore, it was a world of stable working class jobs and
upward mobility’s supported by organized labor. The world has been destroyed.
`These days everyone it seems lives in their own Flint, Michigan’” he writes.
“The promise of this American dream has been destroyed. Why is it,” excuse me,
“Why is it if they worked so hard for so long and played by the rules,” he asks,
“the reward is foreclosure and divorce, bankruptcy and the bottle. For
O’Reilly, the 1950’s were a world of order and clarity and moral values and
social hierarchy. It looks back to America where people took care of themselves
without waiting for government handouts. He contrasts this time with America in
the 21st century which can be a savaged place, full of ridiculous
situations and idiotic people.”
Now, there are two wishes here. The first is of course this interesting
comparison between the two who we see so differently but I want to bring in the
question of truth. Did this 1950’s ever exist and does it matter that it
existed? Certainly there were wonderful things about the 1950’s but there were
also terrible things and the 1950’s. Is this just rhetoric? Do they have to -
I guess, the question is two parts. First, do they have to follow the same
script? And second, what happens if someone says the 1950’s that you talk about
that never happened?
Mark: But it did happen. It did happen for
Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly. I mean they grew up in secure places. They
were bolstered by the incredible prosperity in the 1950’s. I mean, you have to
realize after World War II, people came home for the war expecting another great
depression or the great depression to continue or come back. And you said they
had a huge burst of prosperity and for large numbers of people especially people
coming from the working class and having upward mobility or secure jobs, the
50’s are great. I mean the 50’s were a wonderful time and certainly for some it
wasn’t obviously and we recognize the hypocrisy of much of that talk today. But
for many people the 50’s were a time of stability, predictability and a time
that really appeal I think to the inherent or conservatism in people for
stability and security, so for everyone not universally.
Jack: And there seems to be a paradox here
though because both Moore and O’Reilly and all the other people we talked about
are returning to a sense of community but what the 1950’s had was a very limited
notion of community. White kids weren’t allowed to talk to black kids. The
concept of marital rape hadn’t existed so a woman could be abused at will. We
could go through the list of the invisible people. And aren’t they just saying
then either of them, only our experience matters and only and if you identify
with our experience you're going to be part of my audience and I don't care
about anyone else. And therefore, are they just liars when they appeal to the
concept of community?
Mark: No, I don't think they're liars. I think
they think they're very truthful. I think they are speaking from their own
experience which for them is a validation of the world. I mean I think most
people look at their own experience as truth. I mean how I live and how I see
the world, this is my truth and then this is the truth which is, especially if
it's good if you believe it's good, if they both apparently had secure and
positive childhoods for the most part. So I mean this is their truth. And I'm
not suggesting this means that it just makes up as you go along or anything like
that but it is their truth and they hold to it very strongly and honestly I
think.
Jack: And we're going to come back to the
concept of truth. We have another phone call, Ron in Mina. Ron, are you there?
Ron: Yes, I am.
Jack: Thank you for calling WHY. I ask
that you keep your questions brief but I'm thrilled that you're calling. Thank
you so much.
Ron: Yeah, let me set a context. First I want
to connect three to us, I want to connect to fear mongering media in metaphor
and first, the media kind of thing. Even animals and children love attention
and the medium first cries on attention, they create attention. “Listen to me.
Listen to me.” I mean your dog, if you have a dog, they will do bad things just
because they want your attention. They will chew carpets, rags; get into
garbage because they want attention. Now, the media succeeds by getting your
attention and what they -I tend to think what Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore try
to do is play on our fears. And what I mean is our fears... oh, oh, you know,
we're going to become upset or angry or disturbed if somebody punches our fear
button. So there's the media, the media needs fear mongering to create that so
then what happens is they create metaphors that they metaphors may not be about
reality. The metaphors are “oh, on education!” and I'm an educator so I know
these metaphors quite well. “Shipwrecked! Our education system is
shipwrecking! The foundation is...” These are all metaphors. “The foundation
of our education is cracked.” These are all made by people who are not
educators. So we have politicians, we have media people, doing all these fear
mongering but the discussion is not by those who are educators. It's not by
those who are in the health care system and need health care. It's not by the
aged for the social security. It's by people outside these systems. And so the
media and the politicians are outsiders but they're going to run it and they're
going to use fear mongering and rhetoric as you guys have been saying. So
connecting these three dots, it's definitely not a truth but a figurative
language kind of rhetoric, fear mongering, attention giving, selling myself
being a celebrity...
Jack: Ron.
Ron: Okay, now I'll let it go...
Jack: You're getting excited and the sound is
breaking up but this is actually again we're seeing the amount of emotion that
is inspired by these people and I want to ask Ron’s question about fear
mongering and all of that sort of things but I also want to connect to this
something that you said in the book. You talked about how most Jeremiahs are
men but that female Jeremiahs play a very important role because they can attack
groups that the men couldn't attack. Anne Coulter can attack feminism in a way
that Bill O'Reilly perhaps can't. Hilary Clinton played a very special role
because you argue very interestingly that the first lady is a metaphor. So is
this lack of authenticity, this lack of knowledge a danger to the Jeremiahs?
The fact that they're criticizing education but they're not educators as Ron
points out. How do we pit or put all this together?
Mark: Sure, that's actually a very interesting
question. I think the answer for Ron’s question is in the democracy, everyone
thinks they know about things. So everyone has been to school so everyone
thinks they can speak well with education. Everyone has been to the doctor so
they have an experience with the health care system. And I think this goes back
way back in the history of democracy where people always complain that the
average schmooze is getting involved with things you knew nothing about. And
I'm very sympathetic to Ron’s view, I’m an educator. Both my parents were
school teachers, high school and elementary school and it's true. But everyone
believes they can comment and that's part of the nature of democracy I think
that we all see ourselves invested in public things and why shouldn't I have an
opinion on every public thing? I'm a citizen, right?
Jack: So there is this very important question
about the role of expertise in democracy and where knowledge fits in and not
just truth but knowledge. And this is the radical difference. You point out
between Allan Bloom and The Closing of the American Mind and Moore and
others, Bill O'Reilly and such, because Allan Bloom argues explicitly or
implicitly that only certain people should be educated. The rest of the people
don't know it. And in fact what's interesting about both, you argued that
Jeremiahs don't offer many solutions but whatever solutions they do offer
education apparently is both the cause of the decline and the solution to the
decline. Is everything in democracy just based on education? Is education the
cure-all as well as the disaster?
Mark: Well, to get back to Ron’s comment about
fear mongering I think the belief in an educated and informed citizenry, right,
if we educate and inform people they won't be subject to this terror and fear
mongering. So I think that's one key idea, the goal of the democracy is an
educated and informed citizenry. The problem is every generation sees the next
generation as less educated, less informed, less politically aware and astute
and this was a problem that goes back to ancient times in Athenian democracy.
Jack: It's in Plato. It's in Sanskrit text.
It's all over the place.
Mark: Yeah! So I think there's a sense that we
want an informed citizenry but we also believe that things are getting worse,
right? Part of this because we confuse our own personal declines with the
decline of the world.
Jack: I was having a conversation with my
father a little while back where he was talking about seeing me with my daughter
and saying how he's never seen parents of my generation focus so much on the
children and what's going to happen with the children. And I pointed out to him
that in Anna Karenina, one of the characters is walking through the hallway past
the nursery and lamenting almost the exact same thing. The verbiage was a
little more eloquent in Anna Karenina but the point is the same. Every
generation sees us. Now... yeah?
Mark: And I think in particular today and this
is... I have to be careful how I state this but we have a lot of talk and there
was a talk last week in the anniversary of The Day about the greatest
generation. And you know, all honor to them of course they did great things but
the problem is as we say one generation is the greatest generation, every
generation that follows can only be worse. And that's a mindset I think people
often forget that we're saying these people were great and unlike these noble
ancestors we are in decline. The Puritans in New England experienced the same
thing, the third generation, the people of the Salem Witch Trial era looked back
and looked at the founders as these gods who were you know, wonderful moral
exemplars and they were just worms in their site. And I fear that in our own
society we have this as well. We look back on the generation that when World
War II came back and built the amazing prosperity of the 1950’s and we see
ourselves as lesser.
Jack: Of course the greatest generation is
actually just marketing, a very successful marketing tool because Tom Brokaw
used it as the title for his book. It wasn’t a term until then. Scott via
email asks about the purpose of persuasive discourse and you and I have had
conversations about whether or not you can actually change Jeremiad’s minds. Is
it possible to change these minds and what's the purpose of these arguments?
Let me ask this in a different way as well. Is this discourse the end of John
Stuart Mill’s notion of democracy, this notion that we are all fallible that the
goal is to have a discourse about truth and that we not only have to know why we
are right but why other people are wrong and that we have to accept the fact
that as human beings any individual thing we believe might be wrong so we have
to listen to the opposition and we have to engage? Scott is bringing these same
questions up.
Mark: Sure.
Jack: Is this the end of persuasive discourse?
Mark: Well, that assumes that in democracy
there's ever been a persuasive discourse. I think Mill on Liberty is talking
about the theoretical idea of a perfected state in which there would be free
market of ideas. I think that if you look at politics in practice in America
since you know, the time of Andrew Jackson maybe, you had politics based not
upon a reason set of discourse, I mean not everything is Lincoln Douglas’
debate. But instead, we have mud-slinging and slugging and we had what's the
word I'm looking for... buzz words and bumper sticker politics even a hundred
and fifty years ago. So I think Mill’s view is an ideal which we should all
seek for. We should all seek to reasonably and rationally discuss the issues
before us but unfortunately I think that's an idea which is exceedingly hard to
attain. Maybe it will be easy to attain in a laboratory almost.
Jack: So now this is a longstanding problem in
philosophy. Do people change their minds? Can you persuade someone to change
their minds? Marketing in America can make us change our toothpaste; they can
make us change our potato chips. They can convince us that our marriage is less
than what we would have if we were young college students with sports cars and
good beer. But can you persuade someone to change their minds?
Mark: Well, I think in the recent times we've had
the view that says to change your mind is a sign of weakness, right? That real
men hold to their positions at all cost.
Jack: This was George W. Bush’s position,
right? Stay the course at all costs.
Mark: Someone made that argument certainly and I
think that to honestly say, John [Inaudible
39:30] said “When I'm wrong I change my mind,” is a very difficult thing
to do. It’s against our nature you know, to admit that I think because that
requires a very brave, brave stand. And that I think you have in our society I
think people will never change their views no matter what evidence you present
them with and you have other people who would change their views with the wind.
And I think the goal in a democracy would be to have people in the middle,
right, people who have strongly held reasonably these thoughts or views but who
are open to new ideas. And I think the Jeremiahs that I speak of in the book
don't encourage that. They want to reinforce people’s pre-existing ideas and
strengthen those.
Jack: Now there's a complexity when we talk
about persuasive discourse and it's the tension between the minority and the
majority. And one of the things you point out in the book, and I'm going to
read something else directly from the book, is that the Jeremiahs first they
have to leave Americans an out, their audience an out, and we'll talk about that
in a second. But in order to that they have to claim that the majority is
really with them and that it's the minority that has destroyed the country. So
you write, “All Jeremiahs believe our culture is fragile. They believe what
Victor David Hanson says explicitly, `A few malicious people can undo the work
of centuries, thus each time a university president, a small time politician on
the make or [Inaudible 40:47] liberal
journalist chooses the easy path of separation or separatism, he does a little
part in turning us towards Rwanda or Yugoslavia. The work of cultural unity is
of the ages, advancing racial and ethnic separatism is a gesture of the
moment.” So one person - there was that author, I don’ know his name I actually
think that you mentioned him in the book, who writes the list of the top 50
people who were messing up America. One person can just... we all work so hard
to make a good America and along comes one or two or three people they mess
everything up. How do we deal with this?
Mark: Well, actually this is interesting so I
talk about this in the ethics class I teach. We talk about the problem of
failures but we call it administrative evil in the public administration where
how do you pin the blame for a complex thing and I say this based on a challenge
blow up in 1986. Who's to blame? Its human nature to want to point to
individuals and say, okay this is the person who screwed up, right, or I'll pick
on someone like Osama Bin Laden and say he's the source of terrorism, while
eloquently he's not, right? So I think there's a sense that we give this power
to others, direct things, because it explains large often phenomenon easily,
right? Why do we have social upheaval in the 60’s? Well, a bunch of hippies,
right, decided to tear down the structures of society. And I think part of this
is also the nature of people who write these. Many of people who write these
are Jeremiahs are academics, college professors, who love to aggrandize their
own sort of social and moral power over the citizenry. So you go back to Allan
Bloom. He talks about how the universities are wrecking American culture at a
time when how many, what percentage of Americans even attended university,
right? So I think it's partially self-aggrandizement and partially a search for
scapegoats that its part of our nature as well.
Jack: I'm going to sound like a philosopher
here, but I guess that's what they pay me for. But I want to ask these people
whether they read Plato because Allan Bloom roots his discussion on Plato but in
the Apology Socrates engages in [Inaudible
42:53] and shows that it is not the minority that influences things, it's
the majority that, that I mean it's a little more complicated than that but he
has an example of a horse and how many people take care of a horse. What
strikes me in this discussion and as we go back to the question of truth is do
the facts matter? Yes, their experience matters but do the facts matter? Does
the tradition matter? Does the history matter? Is there any way again to go
back to one of the earlier questions; is there any way to change these people’s
minds? Is there any way to say to Michael Moore, to Bill O'Reilly, here is
incontrovertible evidence, you talk about the immigrants and the attack by the
conservative Jeremiahs against immigration and how immigrants are destroying the
unity of this country and you can show them all the studies that you site
yourself that by the third generation every immigrant child is speaking English,
yet they don't care. Is this... can you change someone’s minds?
Mark: Well, can you change someone’s minds? You
can change someone’s minds whose mind wants to be changed. You can change
someone’s mind whose pay check does not as Orwell said, you know, you can't
change a man’s mind if his pay check revolves around believing something false.
And so I think you know, empirical evidence is not powerful for many people
especially strong ideologues but the answer to the immigration example the
answer you get from people as well these current immigrants are different
because one they are so many of them or two because America has lost its ability
to assimilate people because we no longer believe in that mission, right? It's
a dirty word, assimilation. Now we talk about diversity infallibles and
multiculturalism. So they make the argument which is an improvable assertion
that new immigrants are different than the immigrants that came a hundred years
ago or fifty years ago.
Jack: Even though everyone felt that way about
those immigrants when they came. No dogs and no Irish allowed, right? I mean
when we talk about Europeans and what Europeans originally they don't mean the
Italians and the Irish and the Polish. They meant a much more narrow focus.
And so again is it just again returning to Scott, is this just... or I'm sorry,
Ron, is this just fear mongering? Is this just scapegoating? And I guess I
have another question which you might not be able to answer but does Bill
O'Reilly for example, really believe what he says or is he engaged in theatre
that makes him rich, that calls attention to himself? Is he a evangelical for a
political position or is he a showman who's figured out how to get rich? Are
we, are we, the manipulated Roman people or is he just a genuinely honest,
caring person who wants what's best for this country? I don't know if you can
answer that question but...
Mark: Well, the answer is quite bold. I mean I
think it's pretty clear that, honestly I'm not enough of a cynic to believe that
you can get up on television, radio, every single day and say things you don't
believe just for money. I think that you can't sustain that. I think it's
impossible. I think that you have to believe in what you're doing and whether
you agree or disagree with what the man says or what any of these people say, I
think that they're sincerely convinced of the fact that they're right. The
problem is if you're so sincerely convinced that you are right you are not open
to being shown you're wrong, you're not open to seeing the other person’s
position. And so John Stuart Mill’s views of how we should engage in political
discussion are thrown out the window.
Jack: And when I read your book I hear these
people I feel like we've lost the Western tradition of Socratic ignorance.
We've lost the presupposition that we're wrong and instead presuppose that we're
right and its other people’s jobs to change our minds even though in the end our
mind is unchangeable. You write and now I want to talk a little bit about your
personal attitudes. You write in your conclusion that we cannot have democracy
without demons. What does that mean?
Mark: Well, I think it's clear if you look at the
history of democracy even in ancient times that the people, the majority, needs
something to engage them in politics. They need an external threat as say
ancient Athenians had with the Spartans or we had during the cold war or they
need some call to arms, a crusade of some sort to use politically incorrect term
but a crusade against some problems, some crises. And unfortunately those
demons are often individuals, right, or groups, but you need something to get
most people like consider the last presidential election you need something,
declining economy for example to get people riled up to take part in democracy.
And these Jeremiahs play a role in that. Now they may rile up, they're already
committed but some of those people may not vote. And so I think one of the
things you look at in modern democracy is how do you get people out who might
vote your way or support you, how do you rile them up? And so democracy needs
its demons in order to have most people I think pay close attention to politics.
Jack: And so the role of the Jeremiah is to
identify the demons?
Mark: Yes. But the problem with this is demons
are often powerless groups, marginalized groups, Hollywood actors, college
professors, who are not as powerful as we all like to believe. We are, or as
you raise your ethic minority so it's a danger in that as well.
Jack: There's a fine line between demons and
scapegoat.
Mark: Yes.
Jack: So, all right, now I'm going to ask you
the question and this goes all the way back to the first caller. Mark, do you
believe that America is in decline?
Mark: No, I don't, not at all. I say in my last
chapter I believe the golden age lies before as if I might quote my fellow
Massachusetts resident Edward Bellamy, famous author of the 19th
century, I always never missed the chance to promote him. But I believe that
our elites I think have come to believe that America is in decline. I believe
that many of our elites especially the wake of 9/11 on a panicked quite
honestly. And many of them are in a mode of simply trying to maintain what we
have or in a preservation mode. They're not in a mode of trying new things or
trusting in this sort of genius in the American people. So I don't personally
believe America is in decline. I personally believe we’re a very dynamic
society we were still are still despite the immigration battles of the current
time, very open to new people and new ideas. But I fear that our elites on both
sides of political spectrum are buying into this rhetoric that they’ve heard for
so long. I mean if you use the casual statement public education is in terrible
shape, well in 1679 a bunch of Puritan ministers got together in Boston and
said, “Education is in a horrible shape in the Massachusetts Bay colony.” This
is like 40 years after they got to Boston. But I fear is that our elites have
come to believe much of this and they've come to believe that you know the only
thing they do is hunker down and bunker in and try to preserve what we have as
opposed to doing something new and daring.
Jack: Very quickly because we have a very short
amount of time. Do you mean by elites, what the Jeremiahs mean by elites,
because this is a word that Allan Bloom for example or Victor David Hanson, if
you would look at it honestly they would be referring to themselves. What do
you mean by elites?
Mark: What I mean is our political elected
officials especially in Washington and I believe people in American business
especially have become very conservative, have become very... I don't mean
conservative politically; I mean conservative in the sense of how they see the
future and what they see is possible.
Jack: So you don't mean Steven Spielberg and
Barbara Streisand?
Mark: No, I don't think they have that much
influence on people in general.
Jack: Okay. Great! Well, Mark thank you so
much. This was a great conversation. We got some phone calls, I'm thrilled. A
lot of emotion, a lot of excitement, the book is very, very interesting. It's
Modern Jeremiahs: Contemporary Visions of American Discourse. It's
available at all of the places you buy these sorts of things including Amazon
and Barnes & Noble, on Our Campus, not Barnes & Noble anymore. But we will
return right after this message. Mark, thank you so much for joining us today.
Mark: Great to be here. Thank you.
[Music playing 50:55 – 51:08]
The Institute for Philosophy
and Public Life bridges the gap between academic philosophy and the general
public. Its mission is to translate between academics and non-academics,
cultivating discussions between philosophy professionals and others who have an
interest in the subject regardless of experience or credentials. The Institute
is conceived on the premise that anyone can do philosophy and that the subject
relates to everyone’s daily lives.
Visit us on the web
at PhilosophyInPublicLife.org, the
Institute for Philosophy and Public Life - because there is no ivory tower.
[Music playing 51:47 – 51:59]
Jack: We're back. Thank you Mark Jendrysik for
joining us; it was a great discussion. His book Modern Jeremiahs:
Contemporary Visions of American Decline is available wherever fine books
are sold. WHY will return on Sunday... I don't have the date in front of
me. Sunday, July 12th I believe at 5 P.M. There's a typo on my
notes. I apologize. When our guest Paul Sum will be here to discuss exporting
democracy around the world. As always the Institute for Philosophy in Public
Life will be hosting its monthly Art and Democracy Film Festival in the last
Wednesday of the month, join us Wednesday at June 24th at seven at
the Empire Arts Center in Grand Forks for the movie Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington, a most appropriate film to see right before Independence Day and
Mark Jendrysik will be our guest for that as well. The movie is free. Bring
friends. That's Wednesday, June 24th at seven. If you're interested
in hosting a listening party let us know, we'll help you advertise. If you'd
like to join our mail list, write us at
WhyRadioShow@UND.edu or look at our schedule online and contact us that way
at
WhyRadioShow.org. Skip Wood is our Producer. Chelsea Stone is our new
Intern. Bill Thomas is our Executive Producer. Welcome Chelsea, by the way.
We're glad to have you. WHY theme song is was written and performed by
Mark Weinstein. More of his music can be found at
JazzFluteWeinstein.com or
MySpace.com/MarkWeinstein. I get to plug his music because I said he was
wrong in raising me.
Visit the Institute for Philosophy
in Public Life at
PhilosophyInPublicLife.org and consider reading, writing and talking about
philosophy will make your life better. Why is funded by the Institute for
Philosophy in Public Life, Prairie Public Broadcasting, the North Dakota
Humanities Council and the University of North Dakota, College of Arts and
Sciences. UND is a good place to do philosophy. Visit us on the web. But
philosophy is everywhere you make it and I hope that we've inspired you with
some of our thoughts today. Have a good month and we'll see you all in July.
