Protocol: 2.17.2011

As the class collected in the circle of desks, and quietly chatted, shared media, and waited, Ben wrote the program for the day on the board:
1) Housekeeping
2) Tea Party Propaganda!
3) Reacting to Rand
4) H
[at this point he considered the "H," erased it, and then rewrote:]
4) What can we learn from Rand (about the T.P., for instance?)

When finished, he turned around, sat down, and class began. To start, he passed around a bright yellow-orange sheet of paper he had ripped off of a campus kiosk, which asked in a large font, "Is Your Degree Worthless?" and advertised a meeting sponsored by the student group CFACT, which according to Ben is (at least one of) the highest-funded group(s) on campus, receiving $100,000 per year from student activity fees -- and which (also according to Ben) seems to often promote Randian ideas. Hallie noted that they were offering free pizza -- and Ahmed pointed out that it's not free! because you have to attend. This prompted Ben to briefly explain opportunity cost.
As the flyer was circulating the room, Ben held up a blue spiral notebook which someone had forgotten last class; no one claimed it, but Kate G. said it looked like Elissa's. There was also a forgotten course packet; when that, too, was unspoken for, Ben put them aside and took attendance. (Both Brittany and Elissa were absent; Elissa had already told Ben that she was not feeling well.)

After attendance, Ben launched into Housekeeping. The first item was a reminder that our external writing assignment is due tonight; the second, a brief description of this weekend's blog post on Hayek, which Ben said will basically be text analysis, and therefore a bit different from the "go-out-in-the-world-and-find-stuff" approach (as one could characterize the Loughner and Tea Party posts). Ben commented that the Hayek text is 'funny', because you wouldn't think people would want to read it, but last year it reached #1 on Amazon's bestseller list -- thanks to Glenn Beck, no doubt. He then promised to send the class some internet links on Hayek, and pointed out that we have almost encountered him already -- although he is not mentioned in the Zernike article by name, he is referred to on page 218 of the course packet, in the description of Brendan Steinhauser, who "could quote from the classics of Austrian economic theory" -- Hayek is one of those Austrian economic theorists. Ben instructed us to search around for more info about him, because much of it is creepily relevant to the stuff we have been reading -- in Hayek we will find echoes of Arthur Jensen's speech to Howard Beale in Network (and here Ben employed his deep dramatic Jensen voice): "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale!" Also, Ben told us, Ayn Rand was very much out of the same school as Hayek. And just in case we were afraid we'd left Hitler behind, he will resurface when Hayek warns us that if we don't follow his prescribed economic principles, we will end up in Nazi Germany. Ben had considered assigning all of Hayek, but then decided that would be too sadistic, and instead has assigned selected chapters, "selected of course with significant care".

At this point, Ben regretfully observed that he had talked much longer than he'd wanted to, and went on to indulge in one further comment, which was that there was a YouTube video on Hayek made by an educational company that had gone viral, titled "Fear the Boom and Bust"; it is a video about the theories of Hayek and John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was Hayek's theoretical opponent, and we should also find out background information on him.

Having finished Housekeeping, we moved on to "Tea Party Propaganda!" Ben directed us to reconvene, into our groups from Tuesday, and prepare our mini presentations.

After a few minutes reviewing talking points and deciding how to present, "Propaganda!" began with a pro-Tea Party group, who held up a big sign -- the top read in huge capital letters, "KEEP AMERICA FOR AMERICANS!". Underneath the headline were various things they opposed, all under "anti-" signs: Pell Grants, Obamacare, Dream Act, Gays, Bailouts, Baby Killing, Welfare Queens, and Anchor Babies. On the bottom they had written "Socialist Commie Fascists". For their propaganda they had drawn from the quote in Zernike which reads, "Tea Partiers tended to believe that they had done all the right things in life: they had gotten married and had children, they went to church once a month or more, they paid their taxes... They had earned their place in the middle class, and they were out to protect what they saw as theirs." They said they were upset about how America is being taken away. Then Ben opened the floor for questions, and Mandi pointed out that Obama is actually cutting Pell Grants (she saw a headline the other day). Hallie said, Yes! And they're really excited about that. Ahmed expressed doubt that it would actually pass. Then Marika commented that society needs poor people to function; there need to be people working in fast food restaurants in order for the economy to work. Hallie, again playing the Tea Party role, said, Yeah, but we're not going to give them our money....
Ben observed that there seemed to be a note of sarcasm or irony in the presenters' tones, and wondered if anyone in the class was offended at all by this; if anyone in fact supported any of the ideas on their poster. Liz hesitantly offered that she actually agreed with a few of the things. Ben asked if she'd be willing to share, although she certainly didn't have to if she was uncomfortable. After a slight pause, Liz said that because of the way she was raised, she didn't, for example, support abortion -- and she was opposed to the universal healthcare plan. Ben seemed to recognize that this situation was potentially very delicate, because people often feel so strongly about these issues, and because they can be so personal. He emphasized that we have hopefully established relationships of trust, so that we all feel comfortable speaking. Liz went on to say that she opposes universal healthcare because people who don't have healthcare usually can't afford it, or don't have jobs which provide the opportunity -- and that the government shouldn't force them to get it, because that could (financially) take away other possibilities from their lives. Ahmed countered that if people really can't afford it, the government already gives them healthcare at a really low rate. Marika then told a story about her brother, who discovered when looking at his paycheck that part of his income was going toward Medicare and Social Security -- and was rather indignant, because he didn't want to be paying for other people's Medicare. Marika said she had to remind him that they had grown up on Medicare and Social Security checks, and observed that even if you have benefited from the system, it's still hard to want to pay for someone else. Ben interjected that if we were noticing Randian connections, that was good. Mandi commented that for the system to work, somebody is always paying for it, and Hallie pointed out that it was basically just the question of collectivism versus individualism; leaning more towards collectivism herself, she said that you pay for it when you're young, and reap the benefits later. Ben said it's the question, Who is responsible for whom? Rand would say, 'I am responsible for me and no one else, and no one else is responsible for me.' Ben stressed that, at least in his mind, this is a belief, something you feel -- and that in contrast to this charismatic belief, Liz had a more practical argument about how low-income people can afford it (healthcare). Mandi asked how doctors' and nurses' wages were being effected by "Obamacare"; Ben said he didn't know, and asked if she'd be willing to investigate. (She said she'd try.) He then said to be aware that "Obamacare" is a marked word, and went on to say that studying the history of words can be interesting. For example, the word "slacker" was originally a derogatory term for men who refused to fight in WWI (and Ben now refuses to use it).

The second pro-Tea Party group stood up, and began chanting, "Don't let our hard-earned money go to their milk and honey!", and Ben ended with a cheer: "T-E-A Party! Whooo!" They cited the "Pick up thy bed and walk" technique from Adorno, which depicts the unemployed as lazy, and claims that people should have to work to eat. Their supporting fact from Zernike was Rick Santelli's rant against the use of his tax money to help his neighbors pay their mortgage. Marika contributed the first question/comment, saying that no one but the upper classes actually buy houses. Mandi, who has been studying finance, explained that rates had dropped really low, which allowed people who normally couldn't afford a house to buy them. Ben explained further, saying that predatory loan lenders had created mortgages with low introductory rates -- and then hidden, further down in the contract, that the introductory rates would only last a short while, and then the rates would increase dramatically. Once this happened, the people who had taken out those mortgages couldn't pay, and had to foreclose on their houses.
At this point Ben noticed that the presentations were taking much longer than he had expected, but that it was okay because this discussion was important -- we were 'establishing stakes'. In any case, he said, Rand and Hayek go together very well. The Ahmed commented that whenever he sees APR rates they seem to be 9% -- why?! -- and Mandi pointed out that anyway, APR rates are different than the actual rates, once you calculate them (she had the formula in her notebook!). APR rates are misleading, because they tell people they'll be getting a higher return than they actually do. Ahmed said that Wall Street reform had been good for similar reasons, and Ben seemed skeptical about the actual effectiveness of the reforms, but agreed that yes, in principle, they could have been good.

The Anti-Tea Party propaganda then began with a sign protesting, "Selling a Car to Buy Gas". Their corresponding quote was from page 114 of the Adorno, which reads, "Every expenditure is likely to appear as "waste" to the little man who must pay taxes without being able to see how this money works for his immediate advantage." Marika and Rachel explained that they were trying to point out how many Tea Party supporters want smaller government, but also want programs like Medicare -- and also, how they want to cut spending but want to finance enormously expensive wars. Ben asked if there was any response? -- and was met with silence. He said we'd heard little from Hillary and Emily; did they have anything to say? Hillary said that wars were necessary for national security, and Ben countered, But how can you wage war without increasing taxes? Hallie suggested that you cut spending. Ben suggested, why not just cut services? Rachel said that cutting services was too selfish. Hallie, ever the good Tea Partier, said, What about all those bailouts for car companies that were only in trouble because of taxes and those unions anyway?

Ben was suddenly inspired and said, I'm changing the blog post! Pay attention to these issues, because I'll ask you to tie one of them in to Hayek and Rand. Then he commented on Hallie's bailout argument by pointing out that if the government hadn't bailed out all of those car companies, the entire global economy would have collapsed -- and that maybe she thinks that would be a good thing, but..... Then Ahmed argued that it wouldn't have been bad for the global economy -- just for the American economy. Foreign companies would have flourished. The bailouts were to serve our own interests. Ben then turned to the presenting group and, channeling Tom Grimes from the Zernike article, said, The problem here is that you're trying to sell this on facts! How can you convince us, the voice of the angry people (versus you elitist liberals)? Marika said that just because you're yelling and screaming doesn't mean you're right. Mandi commented that not every Tea Partier is so radical -- you just don't see those other people, because they're not crazy enough to be put on film. Ben thought this was a good point, and admitted that he questions himself when he watches Network, because he empathizes with Howard Beale -- he'll even sort of overlook the racism against Arabs, and justify it as "racism for a good cause". He said, If I'm not ready to condemn Howard Beale for that, then how can I necessarily condemn or say I can't understand the Tea Partiers?

Kate G., going back to Mandi's comment about the over-representation of radical Tea Partiers, argued that no one was representing the Tea Partiers but the supporters themselves -- so even if they were radical, you couldn't discount them, because that was the Tea Party. Marika elaborated on this by pointing out that no one in the Tea Party has distanced themselves from the fringe, or tried to exclude the fringe from the Party -- which is a contrast from the Democrats and Republicans, who are constantly on television, saying that so-and-so isn't really affiliated with them. So until someone comes out and says that those people don't represent the Tea Party, it isn't unfair to judge them. Rachel suggested that they probably don't want to exclude the fringe because they don't want to create internal conflict. Hallie connected this with the younger Tea Partiers' methods of learning from the left, who were fragmented. Lindsey then brought up an interview with Michele Bachmann that she had seen, in which Bachmann was asked, directly, whether or not she believed that Barack Obama had been born in this country and was a Christian. Lindsey said that she had been asked several times, and each time diverted the question into some other topic. Ben said that that was interesting, because she was such a prominent member of the Tea Party; in fact, she was on the very first page of the Zernike article, ranting against "gangster government". Marika shared something that her uncle always says, about how the real gangsters aren't selling dope on street corners; they're wearing pinstripes and sitting on TV. Ben then brought up an interview with John Boehner that he'd seen, in which Boehner claims that it's not his responsibility to tell the American people what to think (in this case, whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States, and is a Christian). Ben said that this really pissed him off, and that it's a classic example of liberalism -- because everyone's entitled to their own opinion. (Even though, in this case, Ben would argue it's not an opinion. It's fact.)

The last group, the other Anti-Tea Party group, stood up with a poster reading, "LIONS LEADING THE LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER". They cited Zernike, the scene in which a young organizer lectures on the importance of media like YouTube, and an older lady writes down "U2". They argued that the older people don't know what the younger people are leading them to; they don't know what they're getting into. Ben thought it was interesting they were suggesting that the old people were being deceived, and Kate G. said she didn't really understand how they were being deceived; that she knows the younger people were better educated, but that it seemed like the old were equally firm in their beliefs. Rachel said it wasn't necessarily that the young people were deceiving them -- rather, they were leading them, and the older people followed them because they used language that was familiar, i.e. conservative language. Someone suggested that maybe it was actually the other way around, that the younger generation had been taught conservative views by their elders, and now the younger generation was carrying them further. Ben disagreed slightly, pointing out the young people were the organizers, and that they had read more -- Alinsky, for example -- and (quoting Zernike) it was for them a "matter of ideology". (He noted that if we don't know what "ideology" means we'll talk about it more in the future, and we should look it up.) He also brought up the observation that the first Tea Party rallies (organized by people like Keri Calender) channeled literature, like Rand's "This is John Galt speaking," but the later rallies were more visceral, demanding that the government get out of Medicare. He also brought up that there was a significant age disparity in Network, that generational differences were a major theme in the film -- there were Howard Beale and Max Schumacher, and then there were the young cynics who were just out to make money, like Diana Christensen and Frank Hackett. He then shared an observation he'd made on his fifth (?) viewing of the movie: that in each of Frank Hackett's offices was a placard, which read, "Thank you for not smoking". This contrasted with Beale and Schumacher, who were constantly drinking and smoking. He tied this into James Bond (because he's a James Bond fan) -- in the first James Bond film, Dr. No (which Ben was very disappointed more people hadn't seen), Bond is introduced with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth (that was in 1962). In one of the more recent Bond films, with current Bond Pierce Brosnan, an initial scene shows a villain smoking a cigarette -- and then Bond comes up behind him, smacks his head (/the cigarette out of his mouth), and says, "Filthy habit."

With about seven minutes remaining, Ben said he wanted to preserve our first thoughts about Ayn Rand. He asked us to take out a piece of paper and write a line down the center. On the left side, we were to write down initial reactions to Ayn Rand, in whatever form we wanted -- words, phrases, emotions, whatever. We wrote for a minute or two, most ideally without stopping. Then, on the right side, Ben instructed us to write down questions that we thought would help us understand Ayn Rand. If we had trouble thinking of some, he said, we should look to the left side and think of those reactions as answers -- and then compose questions leading to them. For example, if we wrote "pissed off," then a possible question could be, "What about this text pissed me off?"
Once we were finished, we stood up in a circle and went around, clockwise, saying one word from the left column. After that we repeated the process, but with a question from the right side.

Once the exercise was over, the circle disbanded, and class was over.