A Hearts and Minds Strategy

Paul Rahe:  "Above all, Montesquieu presumes that men in commercial societies will have a long time horizon. Businessmen plan ahead. They do not lose themselves in present pleasures. They habitually forego today's delights for those of tomorrow. They pursue self-interest, yes, but the self-interest that they pursue is what Tocqueville calls "self-interest rightly understood," and self-interest rightly understood quite frequently comprehends the long-term public interest." 

This excellent piece on the insights Rahe gleaned from results of the 2012 election is part of a growing conversation about self-regulation as an anti-poverty program.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte Takes the Baton From Lieberman

Preparations for Susan Rice nomination are bearing little fruit for the administration.  But, what is more interesting here is the closeness between Sens. Ayotte and Lieberman.  Known as a deeply religious and thoughtful man and one of the "cleanest" politicians of our age, Lieberman's anointing has to say something about Ayotte's qualities in these same areas.  Is she a new Republican standard-bearer?  Sens. McCain and Graham are sure pushing her forward as the young/female face in the Rice/Benghazi matter.

They Don't Make Them Like They Used To

Wing Commander Ken Gatward, an RAF pilot in WWII, made a senseless gesture of defiance during the Nazi occupation that inspired both the British and French in June 1942.  Un homme audacieux!

Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy

Legal review of drone strikes could have been completed long ago, apparently.

A $150 accounting certificate

While the higher education model is still essentially the same as it has been for a century, there is little chance that the model survives the next century.  Reason: price and quality.

A Narrow Moral Horizon

I have just read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (Free Press, 2010).  If you are hoping to find in it an alternative to the doctrinaire portrayal of "religion bad -- science good" formula that has flourished in recent years, don't bother.  As is common with commentators who compare religion and science (Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, et. al.) religion is portrayed here as dogmatic and obscure.  This makes the science part looks great by comparison.  In fact, Harris prefers to look at morality as "an undeveloped branch of science," (4) and not as a central problem in the broader philosophical, theological, social and cultural contexts that would have formed for Harris' book a broader horizon.  The morality Harris trumpets is based on a combination of Western, upper-middle class materialism and friendly Dr. Phil psychology.  "Well-being," the goal at which morality strives, is reported here to be simply something "like the concept of physical health," (11) as "perpetually open to revision" and "good." (12)  OK, this is close, but exactly what is it?  Aristotle's remarkably durable definition that happiness is virtue seems if not more accurate, at least more daring.  In a revealing footnote, Harris admits that he did not analyze Aristotle's definitions because he did not want to be "beholden to the quirks of the great man's philosophy." (195n9)  Nor does he allow that religion is worth wasting much time on.  For him, religious belief is merely self-deception and no self-respecting scientist should ever utter religious nonsense, even in private life. (162-176)  One must choose either religion or science.  One cannot have both.  What seems especially unscientific about this is the abandonment of skepticism, leaving us potentially with scientists who no longer view religion as worthy of being doubted.  Instead, such claptrap should be permanently off-limits to scientific skepticism, Harris would probably argue, because some ideas do not deserve to be kept alive in this way.  But scientists are supposed to be skeptical about everything, including such "settled science" as the definition of gravity, which we still don't really fully understand, or theories about the limits of the velocity of matter, which may now be in jeopardy.  With all that said, science seems much less firm a foundation for morality than Harris would admit.  At the same time, religion is not quite as dogmatic as he claims.  Broad swaths of Christian and Jewish scholarship are founded on the notions that the Garden of Eden was symbolic, that Job never really had it out with God, and that Luke did not videotape the Sermon on the Mount.  Furthermore, the Ten Moral Principles of the Torah trace the contours of a very satisfying and stable moral landscape, even if one does not consider them commandments.  Such propositions as these make religious faith as intellectually stimulating as it is emotionally satisfying, and yet the enduring moral principles of religion are not diminished by considering them.   It is too bad Harris did not take a more enlightened view of religion or a more skeptical view of science, because both attitudes are important for enduring and practical moral reasoning.  Such reasoning is needed now as much as ever.

Measuring Real

In a report from the Center for American Progress, four authors propose a new way to think about measuring institutional success: the quality-value index formula. 

The "quality-value index formula," as they call it, would rate an institution on four measures:

• Its 90-day job-placement or school-placement rate.
• A ratio determined through dividing the increase in its students' salaries over a period of time after leaving the college by a measure of students' cost (such as the total cost of attendance or revenue per student).
• An alumni satisfaction rating ("would you repeat your experience at X university?").
• Its cohort default rate.

This model provides a novel way of thinking about how prepared students are to put what they learn to work.  It makes no distinction between technical, liberal arts or professional fields, and provides a way of measuring the creativitity of graduates in building their careers.  

Measured against these standards, professors would be encouraged to teach students in a manner that is relevant to the real world while avoiding very narrow, idiosyncratic courses and methods.  Could this measurement be applicable to philosophy majors?  Art history majors?  Nursing majors?  One would certainly hope that faculties in every department give this question serious consideration.