Collectively Shooting Oneself in the Foot

Absolute power does seem to corrupt absolutely!

I was perusing a BBC reporter's blog of American political undergoings today, and I must say I was rather shocked at her analysis. Apparently conservatives in this country, seeing the political implosion that their party is currently undergoing, have decided to do the exact diametric opposite of what makes sense.

Social conservatives fear, actually fear, the prospects of nominating John McCain for the 2008 Presidential Election. And why do they fear this? Essentially, because McCain would win. They fear that he will not be true to "conservative values" and will say anything to get elected (I am not sure how this sets him apart from any politician, including the social conservatives' darling George W. Bush...remember that Constitutional Amendment on marriage kicked around in 2004?).

Basically, what these political types fear is that a man would be elected President who would essentially represent the political Center, rather that a more extremist and activist viewpoint. And of course, one cannot have that! They would apparently prefer Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney, who has recently been burnishing his social conservative credentials (despite governing Massachusetts) by denouncing gay marriage and the "terrorist" ex-president of Iran Mohamed Khatami (hmmm, who is a relative political liberal...). Well, let me say that even if social conservatives pull off a religous coup by averting evangelical warfare (traditional Christians frown upon Mormons) a Romney 2008 campaign would fall flat on its face. It would be like Bush 2000 with hindsight, without a President dad and even without the attempt to be a "compassionate conservative."

I would rather a McCain candidacy were run, and not just for the Republican Party, whose fortunes I could care less about. As I see things, the most likely 2008 race would be Hilary Clinton versus John McCain. I think Clinton would lose, and that is not due to any personal grudge, but in large part because I just do not think Americans would stomach Bill back in the White House in every way but name (by the way, the Democratic establishment also feels Hilary could not win, but probably will support her anyway, as seen in this article). But at least a McCain vs. Clinton race would be between two centrist candidates who actually have some ideas of substance to propose, discuss and debate. And that would certainly be better than a race of the least-worst candidates. Unfortunately, the latter seems more common than the former.

America Reaches 300,000,000

Today is the day that the population of the United States is estimated to reach 300,000,000. This is noted in an Economist article, and is viewed rather positively by the article's author. However, for a rare occasion, I must say that I do not agree with the esteemed British newspaper.

I find this article too optimistic, especially in how it states that the expanding US population will solve more problems than it creates. The US is unique among developed countries in that its population is rapidly expanding, growing at about 1% annually (by contrast, the Russian population is decreasing by .4 percent annually). The Economist argues that such a population expansion arises from America's religiosity and optimism (although I've seen different causes in different sources, including greater patriotism!). Population growth will allow the US to avoid problems paying public pensions, as the graying European states and Japan are facing. The American population is even expected to reach 400,000,000 or more by 2043, a doubling in less than 80 years! The article closes with a look at Houston, a city with no zoning laws, gated communities with relatively affordable housing, and a growing population, one that is increasing mixed and Hispanic. The America of the future will look like Houston, the article proclaims. Let us rejoice!

Well, nonsense I say. Let us at other elements in the picture. First of all, there are environmental concerns, issues that are poo-pooed by The Economist. Americans already consume vast quantities of resources and energy in a very inefficient manner: should we be thrilled that such a population will rampantly increase?

Furthermore, the article notes that America has wide-open spaces, perfect for child rearing and much more desirable than Japan and Singapore. True...but once again, what does this mean, really? Half of overcrowded China is unpopulated because it is mountain and desert, seventy percent of Japan is unpopulated because it is mountainous, and likewise most of the American West is arid and rugged terrain. The coastal areas are overcrowded because quite simply those are the places most suitable for habitation. How many Las Vegases and Phoenixes can America realistically support?

Further, there are economic considerations that are overlooked. I will admit that by economic calculations are a little hazy, but I know this much: as Paul Kennedy pointed out, growth in GDP only has real meaning in relation to its per capita increase. While the American economy continues to grow, so does its population. The American economy grew quickly in the 1990's, but how many times can the Internet be invented? The average annual GDP growth in the US since 1945 has been about 1-2%. If that trend continues, it looks to me like economic growth could be nullified by population gain (although admittedly I'm not sure how to compare the two...any assistance would be appreciated).

Other economic concerns are such: it seems to me that the statement that a young population will help pay for pensions is a cop out. America and other industrialized economies need to reform their public pensions so that it is less like a "pyramid scheme", as a friend of mine pointed out. Currently younger workers pay the pensions of retirees in the hopes that when they retire there will be enough workers to pay their pensions, etc. etc. Saying America is strong because its population is rapidly increasing and will not face this problem in the near future is a fudging of the fact that someday it will have to deal with pension reform (or massive overpopulation!).

Then there are social concerns. America may have, in the optimistic macro-picture, a young and relatively well-educated workforce, but what sections of the population are growing the fastest? Mostly immigrants and poorer classes and regions. It's not the lawyers in New York or the accountants in California that are having five children (although it's not unheard-of). Considering that America is less socially mobile than European countries, and that social stratification is hardening, will this increasing population actually have access to the social infrastructure and education that they will need to be really competitive? I question whether they will.

Finally, there is the aesthetic argument. Riding the subway in New York already reminded me of New Delhi...do we really need to make America that overcrowded? And yes, America can look like Houston, but do we want the model of the future to be such a reviled and soulless city? What about a more enjoyable, higher-quality life? Can megacities with gated communities, hourlong commutes and Mcmansions give us that?

I think these are all questions that need to be asked. And therefore I think we need to be sceptical in our assessment of how wonderful unchecked population expansion in America will be.

High Entertainment

This is another diversionary post. I found out about this French guy who climbs the world's tallest structures without any equipment. It's pretty impressive, and he has quite a track record. Naturally his climbing in the States leads him to be arrested from time to time, but obviously our judicial system cannot tolerate such acts, and needs to prosecute them at the expense of, I don't know, acts of violence and the like.

As a mild acrophobic, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by such people. Enjoy!

A Pointless Piece of Trivia Solved

I am about to share with you, dear readers, a small piece of personal trivia that will have no bearings on your lives, despite its interest to me. But then that is the internet and blogs in general, so here we go.

It has occasionally been a matter of some debate among my family and Bostonian friends just as to where I grew up. Now, of course, for the non-Bostonians the answer is very simple: Boston. But of course as any locals know, nothing is more important in Boston (and Massachusetts if not much of New England) than knowing exactly where you come from. "Boston" isn't good enough among this society: one has to state their neighborhood of origin.

The debate has been thus: did I grow up in West Roxbury, or in Roslindale? Objectively, the debate is rather academic, as not only are the two neighborhoods part of Boston, but they have always been part of the same town, whether Roxbury (from 1630 to 1851) or West Roxbury (1851 to 1874). But this is Boston, the city that gave birth to the phrase "all politics is local", and so the hair must be split. West Roxbury will conjure up images of genteel parkways and golf courses, as well as a lovely colonial village center mostly destroyed (much like the rest of Boston) to satisfy the needs of cars in the 1950s. Roslindale, of course, conjures up more of a down-to-earth, working class feel, or perhaps something of a gritty urban "keeping it real" heritage. Neither of these stereotypes are exactly true, although from looking at the US Census figures West Roxbury is whiter and richer than Boston as a whole, and Roslindale relatively poorer (but average compared to Boston's overall income) and more racially and ethnically diverse (although once again close to Boston's overall figures). However, at the end of the day, I've told different people different answers as to where I'm from, depending as to which I think will produce a better reaction (ironically when speaking with people from "near abroad" New England, who have only a vague understanding of Boston's geography, West Roxbury can be misinterpreted as west Roxbury, which of course has completely different connotations).

But ultimately I wanted to get a firm answer to this question. I consulted the 2000 US Census, as posted by the Boston Mayor's Office, and a ZIP code map. What is the answer as to where I grew up?

It depends. According to the Post Office, my childhood address is in Roslindale. The US Census' information on my street was compiled with Roslindale's (it has a Roslindale census tract number). However, the City of Boston says that the address is in West Roxbury, and even the US Census tabulations ultimately include my area in West Roxbury. So I guess while I have my question answered, I still can say I'm from either Roslindale or West Roxbury, depending on the audience, of course!

The Decline and Fall of the English Language?

I have finished reading a Doing Our Own Thing, a recently published work by noted linguist John McWhorter. I have had some previous exposure to his written works, and listened to him plugging this book on the radio some years ago, so I decided to have a look.

The main thrust of his book is so: in all languages there develops a difference between casual languages and ceremonial languages. Certain occasions demand a more formal type of speech, often using more complex grammar and vocabulary. Nonetheless, purely oral languages, while often being extremely complex grammatically, have a limited vocabulary range: any given person can only remember a few thousand words in their head at any time.

Written languages (such as French, German, Russian or English), on the other hand, can reach higher levels of complexity in vocabulary, as well as more complex sentence constructions. This is so because in writing, one has the luxury of consulting multiple sources for words beyond the memory, and can edit, lengthen and refashion expressions that in speaking would be broken up into simpler packets of information. Written languages can have a more “polished” feel, and often it is this use and mastery of reading and writing that allows for more complex constructions, more conventions and rules for language use, and more detached and studied forms of expression. Speaking is something more than just talking, rhetoric is more than just getting up and shooting off your mouth. Poetry, classical and classically-structured music in the Western sense are likewise forms of expression requiring attention to conventions and great skill in both reading and writing.

McWhorter then presents us with a dilemma: while most other literate languages have maintained a complex and polished written language quite distinct from casual spoken language, American English has largely lost this attribute. George Washington probably cussed and jawed more casually than he wrote, but for his society (as well as English-speaking society down to forty years ago), the written language and such forms of expression that rely on the writing were meant to adhere to rules of form and to a more complex vocabulary even by those users who possessed a relatively low level of education. Good language was a skill that was appreciated by many, even if they did not practice it on a daily basis. However, since sense of love and respect for the formal English language seems to have disappeared: where is the modern equivalent to illiterate Maine farmers listening to a recitation of Shakespeare? Mozart, or even Rogers and Hammerstein, are something on a higher level of complexity that “pop” music, whether Dylan or even Webber, yet the former have definitely lost out to the latter in public society. Poetry, for the common man, is largely dead, and anyway what of it that still exists is freeform largely based on casual speech.

And here is the rub of McWhorter’s argument. He states that it is the Countercultural Movement beginning in the late 60’s that fundamentally changed Americans’ use of and attitudes to the English language. No native speaker is praised for “speaking beautiful English” these days, as conventions and forms are seen as imposed restrictions to be shed in favour of “keeping it real” and “saying like it is”, ie casting aside written conventions and vocabulary in favour of casual speech. George W. Bush is just one of a society that values such “Let’s roll” talk over something Roosevelt, Churchill or Kennedy would have written. Americans are taught to distrust “false” sounding words and sentences, as well as the English language as something negative (in an extended aside he mentions how English-speakers are unique in demanding that opera not be translated into something that they can understand). Individuality is prized over form and structure, and casual talk is considered more genuine than reserved talk. However, a major negative of this development is that Americans lose not just love for their language, but a more complex language in general, one that is capable to deliver complex arguments that can persuade rather than just preach to the converted. We lose room for objective debate and appreciation.

Overall, I think that this is a powerful argument. I would strongly agree that Americans have lost a love for the more complex elements of their language, and that by extension they have lost something even while making gains in terms of free expression. Popular culture and expression, while meaningful, is simply not on the level of classical writing, speaking, poetry and music: it’s easier to do, and while this may democratize it to a certain extent, it also cheapens the culture. To take an art analogy, Picasso learned to paint like a Dutch master before becoming bored and attempting to press the limits through cubism. By contrast what artist today even needs to meet such classical skills when they can throw elephant dung on a painting, create a public controversy (anyone remember this one?) and become famous? All art, including poetry, literature and rhetoric, is expressive, but historically most of it hasn’t been in-your-face. McWhorter rightly points out that while we don’t have to tolerate generalized, sanitized, saccharin popular tunes like Americans did in the 1920’s, we still have lost a level of craft in putting words to melody that no rock star really has been able to reach.

Unfortunately, McWhorter leaves us hanging. He sees this decline as inevitable and unstoppable. But then, if it really is, then why should we care? He doesn’t make a very convincing argument to me about why, if the culture has been changed once in the 1960’s, it cannot change again. Likewise, his insight on the topic seems to be spoiled by (ironically) an overly casual and anecdotal tone: his writing sometimes seems to be more Dave Barry than that of a serious linguist. While I appreciated his diversity on sources of language use, I got bored with his personal asides into his love of musical theatre and the kinds of clubs he goes to in New York (I’m happy to see that U. of Cal. Berkeley’s money is well spent!). The structure of the book is also too sloppy for my taste, and I think I might have summarized his argument in 2 pages better than he did in 200. But then, this is the modern world, and a catchy, casual writing style with lots of “relevant”, already outdated anecdotes about 2003 politics is what sells books, rather than a finely-crafted argument.