We’ve been doing a lot of radio lately, because radio news programs seem interested in CIRCLE’s data on young people and civic engagement. Just today, I’m scheduled for a station in Norfolk, Virginia, College Connection (a syndicated radio feed), and the Kojo Nnamdi show on 88.5 FM in Washington, DC. I mention all this because the last can be heard live at 1:30 pm eastern via WAMU.
(You can stream the archived show, for what that’s worth, by clicking here.)
People are interested right now in the “Straussians”–the somewhat cliquish followers of the late Leo Strauss, some of whom hold influential political positions in the Bush Administration. In my Nietzsche book, I argued that Leo Strauss was not the conservative proponent of natural law that he appeared to be on the surface; he was actually a secret Nietszchean with radical, “postmodern” beliefs. This interpretation became the basis of my novel Something to Hide. I’ve summarized the arguments in a previous blog. Recently, I was interviewed on the subject for an Australian radio program. The audio file is available here.
I’m a guest on NPR’s “On Point,” discussing the new survey of youth and the First Amendment that I described on Tuesday. At this moment, I’m listening to the show as I wait to participate.
(8:00 pm–I meant to add “come join us,” because it’s a call-in show, but now it’s too late. However, you can listen via the WBUR website.)
(8:09 pm–For a parody of the kind of discussion I just participated in–in fact, for a parody of people like me–read the Onion’s “Study: Watching Fewer than Four Hours of TV A Day Impairs Ability to Ridicule Pop Culture.” Thanks to LibraryChronicles for the lead.)
I was interviewed on New Hampshire Public Radio last Friday about the
different styles of the Gephardt, Edwards, and Dean presidential
campaigns (see an imperfect
and incomplete text transcript or listen to the audio here.) Actually,
the reporter, David Darman, asked a very interesting set of questions
(which didn’t come across clearly in the broadcast radio segment) about
what conception of the role of citizens is implicit in each campaign.
My quotes suggest that I’m biased in favor of Rep. Gephardt, which
is not really true. I do believe that if he fails, it will be symptomatic
of the collapse of mass mobilizing institutions, such as unions and
political parties, that used to multiply the power of ordinary people
and connect them to Washington. I do not believe that the Gov. Dean
style of campaigning, which is very “21st century,” offers
an entree to people near the bottom of the socio-economic heap. They
won’t be mobilized by listservs, blogs, and Meetup.com. This is
not only because they lack Internet access and interest in politics.
It’s also because of the basic logic of collective action, which tell
us that people won’t take costly action in the public interest unless
they are assured that others will also contribute. Voting is always
partly an altruistic act, because even if one votes in one’s own self-interest,
it’s more “rational” (meaning self-interest-maximizing) not
to expend the energy. Disciplined organizations such as unions overcome
this problem by guaranteeing that not only you will vote; so will many
like-minded people. Meanwhile, they lower the “cost” of voting
by providing free information. Wealthy and well-educated citizens find
that the cost of voting is relatively low, because they already have
much of the necessary information. Thus they don’t need unions and parties;
and they are adept at using voluntary resources such as listservs or
blogs. Poor and poorly education people are at a disadvantage in this
environment, and their disadvantage is worse than it was fifty years
ago.