Author Archives: Jack McCool

Please Vote For Me

Posted on by
1

The film ‘Please Vote For Me’ observes the evolution of a seemingly innocent third grade class monitor election into a cutthroat political battle. Two candidates, Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng transform from harmless young children into ruthless political masterminds in the blink of an eye, while a third candidate, Xu Xiaofei, maintains her innocence at the cost of becoming irrelevant in the final voting. The election becomes seemingly a microcosm of a modern presidential election, or even just election in general, in the United States.

Machiavelli would probably take a liking for both Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng. Cheng Cheng becomes a very devious young child in his quest to usurp the position of class monitor from Luo Lei, as well to suppress Xu Xiaofei. He employs his classmates to deride the performances of his opponents. He also promises to give positions to undecided classmates in attempts to sway voters. Luo Lei, on the other hand, matches Cheng Cheng’s deviousness and then some. Luo Lei’s use of force, while it may seem like a hinderance to his campaign, actually helps him in a few respects. As class monitor, his use of force keeps the students in line and affirms his position of power. In his campaign, his use of force helps in that students are too scared not to vote for him. Luo Lei’s best move however, is using his father’s connections to bring his class on a field trip on the monorail, effectively buying the votes of his classmates.

Xu Xiaofei is the one candidate who would not fall in the good graces of Machiavelli. However, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Xu Xiaofei does not resort to the conniving tactics employed by her opponents. She essentially acts as one would expect a normal third grader to act in that situation. However, her approach to the campaign is not effective in terms of garnering actual votes, and she quickly becomes an afterthought in the election.

The Survival of Democracy

Posted on by
2

In his interview with Sean Illing, Fareed Zakaria makes a very important distinction between a democratic society and a liberal society. While the two very often coexist, they are not codependent. For example, Vladimir Putin is technically a democratically elected official, Putin’s Russia is not exactly the quintessence of a liberal society. Zakaria argues that the United States, a nation founded more on the ideal of liberty than democracy, is experiencing an increasing shift towards illiberality; a phenomenon that is threatening the democracy of the United States. One of the trends Zakaria points to is the erosion of what Tocqueville called “intermediary associations,” which are what Zakaria describes as “groups in between the government and the family that exist as arbiters and regulators of society.” These associations, which Tocqueville observed in US society and which are so crucial to a liberal democratic society, have become highly competitive businesses managed by entrepreneurs. This leaves no institutions to serve as the vital intermediaries between the family and the government, which in turn has given Congress much more free reign to do as they please, and leaves no one to look out for the long-term interests of society.

The distrust of the people in Congress observed by Foa and Mounk also display more disturbing signs regarding the strength of democracy. The article offers a glimpse into the minds of the citizens. They note that faith in Congress is at an all-time low, with numbers sitting in single-digits. They also observe that more people than ever are becoming warm to a system where a single strong president can make decisions without having to worry about Congress, which sounds more like a monarchy than a liberal democracy. The increased polarization and perceived ineffectiveness of the government is causing people to reexamine the merits of democracy, and begin to seek better alternatives.

While the readings of Linz, Zakaria, Foa and Mounk, and Yglesias might be scary and eye-opening, it is important to note that the United States is not exactly on the brink of collapse. The country is no doubt going through a trying and stressful time. However, it has been tested before, and it will be tested again. While people are becoming increasingly weary of the government, a majority of Americans still believe democracy is the best form of government. It is also critical to take into account the role the media plays in the polarization of society, as well as the over dramatization of the country’s current issues. As Zakaria notes, everyone is competing for eyeballs, and a little bit of over exaggeration often provides exactly that.

Lerner’s Ideas of Modernity

Posted on by
2

Daniel Lerner begins his essay “The Grocer and the Chief” by recounting the interviews of the Balgati by Tosun B., a young scholar from Ankara. Lerner is critical of Tosun in many regards, including Tosun’s ideas of modernity. Lerner is critical of the fact that Tosun’s notion of the village “was clearly more sensitized to what he saw than what he heard,” going on the claim that the “import of what had been said to him, and duly recorded in his reports, had somehow escaped his attention.” Lerner is critical of the fact that Tosun is basing his opinion of Balgat simply on what he sees- the lack of roads and electricity, for example- rather than the mindsets of the villagers. Tosun even develops a dislike for The Grocer, because he does not conform to Tosun’s notion of what people from a village like Balgat should look like, specifically regarding The Grocer’s propensity for wearing a necktie.

Lerner himself is also slightly guilty of judging the modernity of Balgat. When he visits the village, he notes the road and bus from Balgat to Ankara, the apparent addition of an electrical grid, and the opening of six new grocery stores as evidence of the “modernization” of the village. However, unlike Tosun, Lerner also takes into account the mindsets of the people. Lerner sees significance in the addition of a bus line because, just as The Grocer wished for, “the villagers were getting out of their holes at last.” No longer are the villagers staying in their little bubble and shutting themselves off from the rest of the world. The bus line not only signifies the ability of the villages to venture out of Balgat and experience new things, but also represents the villagers newfound receptiveness to new ideas, to new cultures, to change. Lerner’s conversations with The Chief further display the changes in Balgat and its people. Lerner notes that The Chief, “of a lineage that had always been Muhtars and land- owners-was no longer a farmer.” In fact, there are only four farmers left in a village that was once comprised only of farmers. As Balgat modernizes, its people transition from the ways of the past and start to explore new and more bountiful opportunities, a scenario similar to the American “utopia” that The Grocer longs for. Lerner is completely convinced of the modernization of Balgat when a few of the local villagers as “a prophet.” The Grocer saw long before others that the modernization of Balgat would be for the betterment of the people. He had a vision of Balgat that he believed would improve the lives of its people, and while he was not alive to see it, his vision eventually became reality.

 

 

Hedgehogs and Foxes in “The Dying Russians”

Posted on by
1

Masha Gessen’s essay “The Dying Foxes” is a textbook example of two varying theories and methods of social science both attempting to solve the same solve the same problem; in this case the trying to identify a cause for the alarmingly high death rates and low life expectancies in Russia, as well as the unusually low birth rate in the country. Gessen summarizes the work and theories of Michelle Parsons and Nicholas Eberstadt as they navigate this conundrum. The methods used by Parsons and Eberstadt perfectly align with the two categories of writers outlined in Isaiah Berlin’s essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox.” Parsons, an anthropologist who lived in Russia during the height of the population decline, is a quintessential hedgehog. Parsons focuses solely on “what she calls ‘the cultural context of the Russian mortality crisis.'” She interviews survivors of the crisis in an attempt to get inside the mind of a Russian citizen at the time. She also examines the upbringings of her subjects, as well as economic shifts in the country brought on by the rise and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. However, while Parsons examines many different aspects of the lives of Russians during the time of the crisis, her research focuses solely on the psychological condition of those Russians. She views the crisis only through that lens, and doesn’t necessarily entertain the notion that there could be other factors involved in the crisis. Eberstadt and his methods, on the other hand, align perfectly with Berlin’s definition of a fox. As Gessen notes, “Eberstadt is interested in the larger phenomenon of depopulation, including falling birth rates as well as rising death rates.” Also, Eberstadt focuses on “Russia’s half-century-long period of demographic regress rather than simply the mortality crisis of the 1990s,” as Parsons does. Another difference between the two is that Eberstadt is not necessarily theorizing on potential reasons, as Parsons does at times. Rather, he takes somewhat more of a scientific approach, in that he tries to find “hard data” that clearly identifies a specific reason or reasons as to the cause of the mortality crisis. While Eberstadt admits that he can’t pinpoint a culprit, he examines a long list of potential cause of the demographic regression, and he “is thorough in examining each of them.” So while Eberstadt is unable to solve the problem of Russian demographic regression, his methods are much more effective and examine a much wider range of potential causes than Parsons does.

Power in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”

Posted on by
25

In George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant,” from the outside looking in, it would appear that the white man, specifically Orwell and his fellow police officers, hold the power in Burma. However, it soon becomes clear that this is not the case. Orwell recounts the time when an elephant got loose, going on a sort of mini-rampage, destroying a hut while also killing a cow and a person. Orwell sets out to locate the elephant and handle the situation. However, when he asks and receives an elephant rifle, the townspeople expect to see the elephant killed. Not only do they want to observe the spectacle of the elephant being killed, but they also want the meat of the dead elephant. When Orwell locates the elephant, he comes to the conclusion that it is no longer and danger to society, and it need not be killed. Orwell also realizes, though, that the 2,000 townspeople expect to see the elephant killed. Through this encounter, it becomes evident that it is not the white man who holds the power in Burma. Rather, it is the people who hold the power, whether they know it or not. Orwell explains how he did not see the need to shoot the elephant, but “suddenly [he] realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of [him] and [he] had got to do it; [He] could feel their two thousand wills pressing [him] forward, irresistibly.” The phenomena that Orwell describes is a perfect example of domination. He did no want to kill the elephant, but he felt he had to do something against his will due to the wills of other people. Orwell himself recognizes this when he says, “Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd — seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” In this instance, Orwell recognizes the power that the people of Burma have over him, despite the fact that he is an authority figure. It becomes very clear, both to Orwell and the reader, that the real power in Burma lies with the people.