The Gatsby trial

Instead of finding another current debate in the news, I decided to focus in this post on a fictional debate we've been reading about and discussing in class. In Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran, the author stages a trial for the book The Great Gatsby in her college literature course, hoping to demonstrate the book's merit to students who have reacted to it with hostility.

The prosecution is led by Mr. Nyazi, a student who staunchly supports the Islamic regime in Iran. Nyazi has several objections to Gatsby: first, that it promotes decadent western values in what he sees as a "cultural rape" of the Islamic Republic. Nyazi is particularly offended by what he sees as the book's promotion of adultery. Nyazi also abhors Gatsby's character, portraying his attempts to "earn money by illegal means and...buy the love of a married woman" as the embodiment of an immoral American dream.

Zarrin, a moderate student not associated with any of the class's political factions, leads the defense of Gatsby. Zarrin turns Nyazi's critique of the book on its head, contending that, far from promoting the decadent lifestyle that horrified Nyazi, Fitzgerald's novel is a crushing condemnation of the dishonesty and carelessness of America's rich.

Of the two sides, I found Zarrin's more compelling - we read Gatsby last year, and it certainly did not portray the rich favorably. But Nafisi's point - when briefly given the chance to comment - changed the way I thought about the Gatsby debate: "You don't read Gatsby to learn whether adultery is good or bad but to learn about how complicated issues such as adultery and fidelity and marriage are." For Nafisi, the whole question of Fitzgerald's agenda and the "moral of the story" is beside the point - the goal of literature is not to provide a powerful argument in favor of a particular agenda, but to force readers to think about and deepen their understanding of the issues discussed.

This is obviously a criticism of Nyazi's search for western decadence in Gatsby, but I think it undermines Zarrin's argument as well: the question of whether the book is pro- or anti-rich is more or less irrelevant. The book's merit is not based on whether it took the right stance on important issues, but whether it provided a powerful and insightful exploration of those issues.

Another post about Iran

The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program has prompted a fierce debate in the US about which policies should be adopted to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The debate has divided policymakers and experts into two camps - those who support a focus on intensified sanctions and diplomatic pressure to dissuade Iran, and those who believe that military action against Iran to try to destroy the infrastructure of its nuclear program is necessary.

While Obama has not taken military options "off the table," he appears to be pursuing a strategy more focused on sanctions, meeting with Chinese and Russian leaders over the weekend to try to build support for greater pressure on Iran. Obama defended this approach, saying "The sanctions have enormous bite and enormous scope." James Traub from Foreign Policy appears to agree with this approach, arguing that Obama's broader commitment to nonproliferation and his early attempts to negotiate with Iran have also contributed to his ability to build support for global pressure on Iran. Traub also dismisses the utility of military action, arguing that it would likely be ineffective while also prompting backlash and undermining American standing in the region.

Some GOP politicians appear more open to the possibility of military action. Romney and Gingrich both endorsed military action as a last resort if other strategies fail. Bret Stephens laid out the arguments in favor of military action in the Wall Street Journal, contending that sanctions and other measures short of attack have already been proven ineffective and that a strike against Iran is the only way to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. According to Stephens, failing to stop Iran would make many of the potential consequences of an attack inevitable, meaning we have little to lose by attacking before it is too late.

In reading about this debate, I was struck by the lack of good options: all potential policies seem to suffer from both limited effectiveness and the possibility of unintended consequences. As a result, I have some sympathy for the view that "everything should be on the table." It's possible that, given the uncertainty and difficulty of dealing with this situation, the best way to respond is to maintain the flexibility of all possible actions. That said, I think I'm persuaded by the objections to military action - the chances at success are far from clear, whereas the immediate backlash is certain. The best thing to do now may be to hope that sanctions and diplomatic pressure succeed before considering such measures becomes necessary.

Herman Cain

A series of posts on Nate Silver's blog about elections and polling examined Herman Cain's chances of winning the GOP nomination. Silver criticized pundits who dismiss Cain's prospects, arguing that historically, there have been few candidates analogous to Cain, who is doing well in public opinion polls but lacks the support from the GOP establishment that is generally considered necessary for victory. According to Silver, this lack of historical precedent undermines the ability of pundits to predict Cain's chances with any certainty. He argues that pundits generally fail to adequately acknowledge this uncertainty when they make predictions.

Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein countered that the dismissal of Cain's chances was justified, given that he lacks qualities that have seemed to be necessary for success in the past - such as establishment support and experience in national or state government. Bernstein goes on to argue that, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is unlikely that the rules governing primary success will simply cease to apply for this election. He further states that, even if this campaign is unexpectedly favorable for unconventional candidates, there is no reason to believe that Cain in particular will benefit - another candidate like Bachmann might gain an advantage instead.

While Silver's argument is technically correct - the chances of Cain winning the nomination are not actually zero - Bernstein makes a persuasive case that the numerous obstacles in the way of a Cain nomination allow us to be fairly confident in predicting that he will not win. However, I'm not sure Bernstein responds effectively to Silver's argument about the unpredictable combination of strong public support and limited establishment support - Bernstein's explanation of why we can assume that old rules do apply didn't really seem adequate to me. It will be interesting to see, over the next few months, whether public support will be sufficient to sustain Cain's campaign.

Note (11/13) - I meant to post this 2 weeks ago when these articles were written, and found today that I left it as a draft. The accusations about Cain that have emerged since these articles were written would seem to reinforce the claim that he has little chance of winning the nomination.

Iran

The discovery of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington, DC, last week has led to heated debates both over who is responsible and how the US and other countries should respond.

While it was clear that the plot involved Iranian nationals - including a member of the Iranian special forces - it's not as clear who in the Iranian government knew about or approved the plan. Part of the reason the attack was so surprising is that it didn't seem to serve the Iranian government's interests - a former Iranian assassin has objected that attacks on American soil gain Iran little while running the risk of provoking war with the US. Others have pointed to the incompetence with which the plot was carried out, which would be a departure from the usual competence of Iran's special forces. The Obama administration claims to have clear evidence that the upper levels of the Iranian government were aware of the plot, a claim seemingly reinforced by Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Feinstein's confidence that Iran was responsible for the attack. The administration has not revealed what evidence it has for this claim, and while such secrecy may be necessary for security reasons, it may also make it more difficult to make the case for an aggressive response to the plot.

The German response to the assassination illustrates this difficulty: politicians have shown a reluctance to commit to drastic measures against Iran without clearer information about who was responsible. Interestingly, this reluctance seems not to have been present in the debate within the US government, which has focused less on whether to respond harshly and more on just how harshly to respond. Feinstein has called for harsher economic sanctions against Iran while opposing the option of military action - arguing that it would be imprudent to add another war to those that the US is already engaged in. Mike Rogers, her GOP counterpart on the House intelligence committee, has said that the use of force should not be "off the table." The differences between the internal American debate and the international one could be explained by speculating that officials in the US just have information the other governments do not. They may also stem from the fact that the plot was planned and meant to be carried out on American soil, making it seem far more of an outrage for Americans than for Germans and others.

The Jobs bill debate

One of the main political stories over the past few weeks has been President Obama's jobs bill, a $447 billion package of measures meant to boost the economy. Obama has pressured Congress to pass the bill, traveling nationwide to build support and calling for its passage in his weekly radio address on Saturday. The bill faces steep opposition from the GOP, leading Senate Majority Leader McConnell to push for an immediate vote on the bill last week in an attempt to call Obama's bluff and demonstrate a lack of Congressional support. While debate over the bill has been heated, its supporters and opponents have made largely unrelated arguments; neither has really responded to the other side's objections.

Obama's case for the bill has focused on the urgency of the current situation, which he has called "an emergency," and the lack of a GOP alternative. He has portrayed the bill as providing a much-needed "jolt" to the economy, pointing to analysis by independent economists indicating that the bill would boost employment and growth in the short term. In his speeches supporting the bill, Obama has painted the Republicans as obstructionists placing political gain ahead of the interests of the country.

Paul Ryan is a leader and expert on policy among Republican representatives, and his arguments are representative of the Republican case against the jobs bill. Republican have contended that stimulus policies like Obama's bill have been ineffective in the past - Ryan accused Obama of proposing measures “that have proven to fail.” They have countered accusations of partisanship by criticizing Obama's approach, arguing that far from attempting to solve economic problems, he himself is "embracing conflict" by "campaigning on a bill that he knows won’t pass."

Both sides have been relatively ineffective in responding to their opponents' arguments. The 69 percent of Americans who say that Obama has not made real progress in fixing the economy imply that he must take claims that the new bill is just a continuation of old, failed policies seriously, yet Obama has done little to respond to these accusations or distinguish the new bill from the previous stimulus. Republicans, meanwhile, have failed to present an effective alternative to Obama's bill, making opposing it more difficult given the public demand for improvement in the economy. Instead, they have focused on deregulation, free-trade deals and spending cuts as more effective approaches. Yet they have failed to address Obama's objection that such measures promote growth only in the long term, while the jobs bill will produce immediate results. It will be difficult to successfully oppose the bill without responding to these arguments.

First Post

As I was considering the possible subjects for this blog, one of my starting points was the activities I'm involved in, since they seemed like good examples of topics that I would know about from experience and that I could write about for a while. There were two main options: band and debate.

I was reluctant to focus on band or music, not because I don't like it as much, but because the opportunities for talking about other topics seemed limited - there isn't really a clear connection from marching band to Hamlet, for example.

At first, debate didn't really seem any more promising - I would probably enjoy writing about my experiences in debate, but a blog about the details of the activity would not have been particularly accessible or interesting to anybody who wasn't already familiar with policy debate. So rather than writing a blog about debate, I considered what I felt I had learned from debate over the last two years. While I like to think that debate has made me better informed about politics and current events, its main benefit has been teaching me to think about and make argument, a set of skills that seems both more accessible and more applicable to English class.

I'm hoping I can apply some of these skills by writing about various issues from the perspective of a debater. This does not mean that I will focus on the specifics of the activity of debate like giving speeches and writing files. Instead, I plan to write about how different sides of an issue make their arguments, what their arguments are and whether those arguments are compelling.