Category Archives: Politics

New Essay for The Indianapolis Star – “Craft Beer Shows Why Americans Should Toast Deregulation”

Posted on by

I’m generally supportive of alcohol and tobacco. Even those that are not, however, might want consider the insights into politics and economics that the history of alcohol in America provides.

The transformation of the beer industry, for example, shows that governmental regulation often creates a monopoly supportive of big business, while deregulation and limited government empowers entrepreneurs, encourages cultural variety, and improves options for consumers. Needless to say, reality is opposite of the poison most pundits and politicians brew every day.

In my new article for the Indianapolis Star – “Craft Beer Shows Why Americans Should Toast Deregulation” – I take readers through the colorful history of beer in America, and I end with a toast to President Jimmy Carter, who was most responsible for the deregulation of the beer industry, and a tribute to small government.

beerBefore Carter deregulated the beer industry, there were 73 breweries in the United States. Right now, there are 2, 416. Consider all the tax revenue, jobs, and beer America would lack if proponents of big government interference in small business won the debate. For more on the history, and for the truth behind the numbers, read the full article.

Angry Reader #1

Posted on by

This is the first installment of a new feature on DavidMasciotra.com. Once every couple of weeks, I will post the content of an email I receive from an angry reader and write a brief response. Enjoy a look at the friendly correspondences I receive as part of my profession and trade.

Angry Reader #1 (In reply to “…Nanny State Attack on Freedom, Personal Choice”)

::Unaddressed::

Your awkward use of the term “socially inept” is what caught my eye.  Are those who dislike people huddling around the entrances of public buildings puffing on smokes the socially inept?  Are those who find it discomforting and bothersome to watch people who can’t eat a meal, have a drink, take a break, drive a car, or do anything for that matter, without lighting up a cigarette?  Are they socially inept because they don’t want their clothing smelling like smoke, because they find the littering of butts filthy, or because they don’t accept the compulsive, addictive habit of smoking  as socially acceptable?

Most importantly, you are talking about a school, an institution of higher learning (even if it is just Ball State).  And as such, schools have an additional responsibility to those who attend.  Schools have an additional responsibility to care for the health an well-being of those students who attend.

Freedom and independence are not the only values of a college education.  Structure, discipline, responsibility, thoughtfulness, creativity, learning how to learn, health, hygiene, respect, etiquette,  and many other qualities are just as important.  Learning good skills and habits, making good choices should be encouraged.

College is a transitional time. It is not a free for all.  It should provide a balance between a structured environment, and the freedom to make one’s own decisions.

Those who teach  should be held to a higher standard, too.  Just because class is over, doesn’t mean Professor Masciotra needs to rush out of the building to light up that ever relaxing cigarette, or pour that much needed glass of scotch.

::Unsigned::

 Dear Angry Reader,

The term “socially inept” came in a juxtaposition with the term “politically correct.” It was a tongue-in-cheek remark castigating the politically correct for their uptightness, lack of humor, and love for phony outrage that makes them socially irksome. The joke isn’t hilarious, but it is clear enough to anyone but the comically inept.

You might want to reorient the priorities of your life. Stop spending so much time watching smokers, especially if the sight of them lighting up infuriates you. The next time you see someone smoking, just look away. It really isn’t necessary for you to stop what you are doing and stare in silence, while your blood pressure rises and head begins to ache. Do yourself a favor and leave smokers alone. That’s one of the privileges of living in a free society. You can stay away from people engaging in behavior that bothers you. Similarly, why are you allowing the compulsions of strangers to upset you? If you’re only worry involves the addictions of people you hardly know, I envy you.

If my phrase “socially inept” caught your eye, then you gave yourself away with the phrase, “even if it is just Ball State.” I’m not sure if you received an Ivy League education or you just like to pretend as if you received one, but the next time you write an angry letter to a columnist who condemns the arrogance of “enlightened” elite, try not to expose your own snobbery. I have enough respect for students and employees at higher educational institutions – even ones like Ball State, and God forbid, junior colleges – to believe they should have the right to make their own decisions. When you insult an entire college, especially one that claims John R. Seffrin, the CEO of the American Cancer Society, Jeffrey D. Feltman – former ambassador to Lebanon, and David Letterman as graduates – you position yourself in the argument with the subtle tyrants who believe they are smarter than most people and can, therefore, impose their lifestyle choices on the masses.

The rest of your rhetoric is vague and bizarre. Sure, colleges should encourage their students to make good choices, but at what cost? You do realize that those students – all of whom are legally adults – are paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend classes. It would be more productive for the institutions of higher learning – even Ball State – to focus on providing the best and most cost efficient education possible for students, rather than policing the legal behavior of its students and employees. Brady Hoke – head coach of football at the University of Michigan, John Schattner – founder and CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, and Jim Davis – the cartoonist creator of Garfield, all seem unharmed by the presence of smokers at their alma mater, which by the way, is Ball State University.

I don’t drink scotch. I drink bourbon.

Cordially,

David Masciotra

New Essay for the Indianapolis Star – “…Nanny State Attack on Freedom, Personal Choice”

Posted on by

I’ve hated the nanny state since Illinois passed its indoor smoking ban in 2007. I wrote a column in the (Joliet) Herald News condemning the oppressive move as an infringement on freedom, personal responsibility and choice, and private property rights.

Since then, several more states has passed smoking bans, many cities and counties have passed transfat bans, Las Vegas and Orlando have criminalized feeding the homeless outdoors, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel has mandated that Chicago vending machines include “healthy snakes.” Marijuana and narcotics remain illegal, and there are many proposals in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere to expand restrictions on the consumptive and dietary habits of law abiding citizens.

In my new column for the Indianapolis Star, I write about the subtle tyranny of the nanny state, and I express contempt for “self-appointed school masters who satisfy their puny visions of grandeur by interfering in the lives of tax paying, free thinking adults, and believe those adults are too stupid to determine their own priorities and preferences.”

smokerHow, when, and why did liberals become the scolds? The same generation that took LSD, freely fucked in the mud, and played air guitar with Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock now lecture people for smoking Marlboros, eating doughnuts, and using plastic bags. Worse, they’ve raised generations of younger people who have the same bizarre insistence on interjecting their own pathetic dogmas into the lives of those in their neighborhoods and cities.

As my new article makes clear, anyone who believes these so called “minor” violations are unworthy of our attention are in for a rude awakening. The “enlightened” elite have an agenda, and it includes forcing the unwashed masses into compliance with their lifestyle.

Those of us who prefer to be left alone should make that preference clear. That’s what my new essay is about.

New Essay at The Atlantic – “Mark Sanford, Romantic Hero”

Posted on by

Mark Sanford won a special election for Congress in South Carolina this week after many pundits and politicians believed his career was over due to his irresponsible actions as governor. He left the state for six days to win the affection of an Argentinian journalist with whom he had fallen in love and exchanged emails for over a year. He left his wife and risked his political career in making the trip, and said that he did so, because “he could die knowing that he found his soul mate.” Sanford and the journalist are currently engaged.

I am not sure if it is politically good that Sanford now has a seat in Congress. I don’t really care. Culturally, however, it is very good.

American culture needs examples of romantic bravery and, instead of punishing those who risk everything for love, we should respond with empathy and even measured respect.

I make this argument in my new essay for The Atlantic – “Mark Sanford, Romantic Hero.” It is sad and unfortunate that Sanford hurt his wife and children, but those who understand and appreciate the power of love realize that it is a mysterious and frightening directive. It can inspire beauty, cruelty, and a combination of both. As the Rev. Al Green sings, “Love and happiness / It’ll make you do right / Make you do wrong.”

In the essay, I contextualize the Sanford affair by placing it smack dab in the middle of an American culture committed to denying the power of love – “Sanford’s display of romantic bravery that rivals the depiction of the mysterious directive in tragedies and epics is rare in politics. In fact, it is rare in American culture where more and more people prefer to play it safe. Hooking up, online dating, and resistance to the traditional date are simply ways of disguising a guardedness that betrays a fear of love. Real love will make people behave like Sanford, and that is frightening. As essayist Cristina Nehring points out, American culture offers the twin gods of ‘meaningless sex’ and ‘meaningless marriage’ in order to quiet such fear.”

Life is a complicated affair and those who live it on the emotional edges run the risk of creating messy and hurtful situations. To look at the general response to the Sanford affair, however – and the comment section of my article gives a good illustration – is to believe that everyone has lives that are neat, clean, and never marked by the foibles of love and lust. Human affection and intimacy are good, they have value in themselves, and they deserve honor and respect. Sometimes, they win the day, and in the process, leave a path of wreckage, but that wreckage is easier to manage than the quiet death of ignoring the dictates of the heart and the truth of the imagination.

Read the entire essay to learn how I separate Sanford from Clinton, Craig, Spitzer, and other public officials disgraced by sex scandal, and to learn how I would cast the romantic comedy inspired by Sanford’s story.

New Essay for The Indianapolis Star – Seeing the Debate on Taxes and Budgets Through the Eyes of Everyday People

Posted on by

In my new new essay for the Indianapolis Star – “Indiana vs. Illinois: Fiscal sanity reigns in one while the other has lost its mind” – I flip the script on the idiotic and shallow national debate on taxes, deficits, and balanced budgets. I stake out the uncommon and unlikely position of making the “social justice case” for low taxes and balanced budgets, and I do this by comparing Illinois and Indiana. In one state, working people lift a tax burden as onerous as a one hundred pound stone, and in the other, they enjoy greater freedom, mobility, and excess income.

taxes-1In Chicago and the rest of Illinois, it isn’t the billionaire or millionaire who is hurt by punitive sales taxes, property takes, and public transportation costs, it is the single mom, small business owner, working college student, and middle class two parent family. In Indiana, it is the same kinds of people who benefit from low taxes and low regulatory fees. Simplicity such as this is tough to find in the Washington D.C., but here’s to hoping an Indiana murmur makes its way to someone’s ears in the nation’s capital.

New Essay for The Indianapolis Star – The Reason Behind the Cost of Higher Education and The Fight Against It

Posted on by

The Indianapolis Star has run my new essay on the reasons behind the absurd and paralytic costs of higher education. In the op-ed piece, I indict and condemn the venal, corrupt, and cruel system of higher education in America, calling it a “lucrative playground for tenured faculty, many of whom make well over $100,000 per year for teaching two or three courses a semester, and administration, whose mysterious duties and invisible tasks earn some of them annual salaries over $200,000.”

As I explain in the article, multiple studies have connected “administrative bloat” with the exorbitant increases in college tuition. University employees are enriching themselves, while they scam students and their families, and pay adjunct instructors miserly wages for carrying the same work loads as their tenured peers. They pull off the heist all while congratulating themselves for advocating “social justice,” “diversity”, and “multiculturalism.”

The cost of higher education leaves countless young people paying off heavy debts for their entire lives. It has become one of the most important factors in the lives of millions of Americans, yet no major political figure or media commentator tackles the problem. Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana and current president of Purdue, has broken the trend of complacency, by announcing a tuition freeze and promising to cut the Purdue budget by $40 million. My article summarizes the situation and places the issue in its proper context. I call the Daniels story one of the most important in America.

bildeOn an interesting side note, I pitched the story to several other major publications – news and culture magazines, left wing websites, and right wing websites – but everyone passed. I’d like to thank The Star for its courage in spotlighting the story. It seems that issue of student debt is not yet on the nation’s radar. To put it simply, most people don’t care, but when the student loan bubble pops, everyone will be wondering what happened and why no one tried to stop it. The bleak outlook of the future is why Daniels’ new crusade is so important.

Front Porch Republic Runs an Excerpt from Against Traffic

Posted on by

The always excellent Front Porch Republic has posted an excerpt from my new ebook, Against Traffic: Essays on Politics and Identity, called “Deleting The Individual: Big Data and Presidential Campaigns.” The excerpt is a good introduction to the collection of essays.

Against_Traffic_book_cover

Major Announcement: New Ebook now available on Amazon – “Against Traffic: Essays on Politics and Identity”

Posted on by

Readers who have followed my work since the publication of my first book, Working On a Dream: The Progressive Political Vision of Bruce Springsteen (Continuum Books), in 2010 have likely noticed that my politics have shifted in various directions. The role of any thoughtful and thinking person must include closely observing new developments in history, politics, and sociology, obtaining new information and insights, and adapting accordingly. Citizenship requires the citizen to always move like a quarterback in a scramble – ducking and dodging oncoming opponents, reacting with agility and speed to changes in the play, and remaining steadfast in the commitment to advancing one’s priorities and purpose.

In my new collection of essays, Against Traffic: Essays on Politics and Identity, I write about my own personal and political development, and how I escaped from the enclosed ideological cell of big government liberalism to find the free territory of individual freedom, neighborhood empowerment, and communal enlivenment. The new and exclusive title essay deals with the events that shaped my politics, and shows how I became a proponent of what Norman Mailer called “Left Conservatism.” I now take equally from the left and right, and I criticize both left and right – in the process claiming the inspiration of figures as diverse in range as Cornel West, Bob Dylan, Albert Camus, Gore Vidal, Stanley Hauerwas, Pope Benedict, and the aforementioned Norman Mailer. The new collection of essays demonstrates how a strong individual can move against traffic – creating one’s own identity and using one’s own intellect, heart, and spirit as cartographer.

Against_Traffic_book_coverMost of Against Traffic is new material – the grand title essay and an introduction, but the book also includes my previously published letter challenging President Obama’s supporters, and my previously published essays on the death of American Empire, and the “dangerous alliance of big business and big government.” It closes with my eulogy celebrating the life and career of Gore Vidal.

The description on Amazon is as follows:

Against Traffic: Essays on Politics and Identity is a compelling and provocative collection essays from one of America’s most versatile and forceful young writers. David Masciotra, who writes about pop culture for PopMatters, literature for the Daily Beast, politics for Front Porch Republic, and religion for Relevant, turns his clear eyes, powerful intellect, and large imagination toward the fiasco of American politics. What follows is a blistering attack on the clichés of the left and right, and the superficiality, tribalism, and frivolity of the American political scene.

In the title essay, Against Traffic, Masciotra takes readers through his deeply personal and political travels from the ideological trap of big government liberalism to the open ground of neighborhood empowerment, communal enlivenment, and what Norman Mailer called “Left Conservatism.” The essay also deals with the importance of literature, the arts, existential Christianity, and localism in the formulation of an edifying politics, citing figures as diverse as Albert Camus, Cornel West, Gore Vidal, and Pope Benedict.

Masciotra shoots through the delusions of most pundits by indicting both big government and big business. President Obama, the liberals who have defended his disastrous policies, and the Republican Party are all undressed as equally culpable in the destruction of the American community and family. The political solution that Masciotra offers will surprise and please anyone concerned about the maximization of freedom and the empowerment of the everyday person.

Against Traffic: Essays on Politics and Identity not only issues brilliant commentary on American politics, but also examines how independence, rebellion, and liberty are possible in an American culture committed to groupthink, party loyalty, and conformity.

Against Traffic, which in addition to the grand title essay includes an open letter challenging President Obama’s supporters, an examination of the death of the American Empire, an exploration of the “dangerous alliance between big business and big government”, and a eulogy celebrating the life and career of Gore Vidal, is a must read book for Americans fighting to free themselves from the shackles of America’s dysfunctional, and often diabolical, political system and culture.

It is a unique work of insight into how Americans can resist the restrictions of American politics, and live with strength, courage, and conviction.

Buy it now

New Essay at Truthout – “America: What Happened?”

Posted on by

One of the reasons many formerly rational and moral liberals are so emotionally and intellectually invested in the advancement of President Obama, despite his war crimes, incompetence, and violations of constitutional law, is that the alternative is too frightening. It is too terrifying to admit that American civilization is in a state of collapse, and that there is no hope for recovery. The empire is crashing, the economy is hemorrhaging, the political system is eroding, and the culture is in a state of irreversible decay. President Obama is yet another technocratic corporate and Pentagon toady without the principles, integrity, or decency to serve the public interest and common good. Conditions may slightly worsen or slightly improve if he doesn’t win reelection, but it doesn’t really matter. As James McMurtry sang, “We can’t make it here anymore.”  All available evidence supports this bleak, but realistic evaluation of the American future, but acknowledging it calls into question the entire progressive project. So, why do it? Why not keep the illusion alive? The truth is always right. America and Americans are better off if we all recognize the reality of failure. The most powerful civilizations have always declined, and now it is our turn.

Very few people have the courage to state the obvious. Cultural historian Morris Berman is one of the lonely few – shouting into the dark, motivated only by his love for the truth. Berman is a brilliant thinker, thorough researcher, and wonderful writer. His trilogy of books on American decline is the subject of my new essay at Truthout - “America: What Happened? A Sneak Preview of the ‘Other’ Twilight Saga”. It is difficult to imagine a future in which historians do not dust off Berman’s books and conclude, “These explain what happened.” While everyone else was onanistically engaging in self-deception and fantasies of revolution, future historians will say, Berman had the intelligence, bravery, and values necessary to call it as he saw it and call it accurately.

Our lifestyle of endless hustling and rabid consumption, our cannibalistic individualism and narcissism, and our xenophobic and militaristic posture towards the rest of the world – all supported by both major political parties and the majority of the American people – has dug us a grave out of which we cannot climb.

My essay began as a review, but as a few readers have pointed out to me in emails, it turns into a manifesto for an alternative tradition and for detachment from the absurdity of the American political system as it is.

I have to take a moment to applaud and thank the Truthout staff for their courage. Several other “liberal” publications rejected the article for ideological reasons. One editor dismissed Berman as “sounding like a crank,” after admitting he had never read any of the books. Another editor asked me to rewrite the second half so that I would refute Berman’s argument and actually claim that America will come back better than ever. A third editor told me that I had no “historical awareness,” that Berman is nuts for claiming that his life in Mexico is happy – a good life in Mexico is nearly impossible, she argued, because of the drug cartels – and told me that the Occupy Movement, which no longer even seems to exist, is going to turn everything around. The Truthout staff deserves much respect for publishing the essay.

“America: What Happened?” is for starry-eyed realists who make the distinction between “hope” and “optimism” that Christopher Lasch elevated and defended. Optimism is a foolish belief in progress. Hope is the spiritual belief that even through collapse – even through cultural death – human goodness – a love and justice ethic – can occasionally emerge to make a difference.

Readers interested in Berman’s trilogy (Twilight of American Culture, Dark Ages America, Why America Failed) should also pick up his recent essay collection, A Question of Values. Regardless of where readers start, an investment in Berman is time and energy well spent. It will pay off in the forms of intellectual growth and clarity, and the improvement of life that results from the enlargement of the mind. It is certainly much better than being part of the delusional crowd clinging on to a weed growing out of the rock, believing it will hold and keep you from falling off the cliff.

I am happy and proud to be one of the few writers helping Berman get his tough, smart, and important message into the public mind.

What Are You Thinking?: An Open Letter to President Obama’s Supporters

Posted on by

Note: This letter also appeared on the political journal created and formerly edited by the late Alexander Cockburn, Counterpunch.

Dear President Obama’s Supporters,

I am writing this letter as a friend who believes in the same principles that you proudly trumpet: fairness, human rights, honesty, and communitarian commitment to the common interest and public good. Over the past three years, but especially during the past six months, I’ve grown increasingly bewildered over how you could support a President who routinely and flagrantly dishonors all of those principles. I remember our conversations during the horrific years of the Bush Presidency, and I recall how we spoke with shock and outrage over the crimes, abusive and exploitative policies, and sociopathic misdeeds of the Republican President. We were political allies – co-conspirators of democracy battling to bring peace, hope, and sanity to our country. Friendship supersedes politics, and regardless of what decision you make on Election Day, I will remain your friend if you will honor me with the same pledge. If you vote for Barack Obama, however, I am sorry to say that we will no longer be political allies. I fear that our priorities and values are so divergent that future association on political causes will no longer benefit either of us. You will have undermined your credibility on issues of the largest importance, and will therefore make political sympathy and cooperation impossible. I write this letter as a final effort to stop you from making a mistake that will cheapen your vote, degrade your politics, and hideously stain your principles. My words may be strong, but I write them with respect. If I didn’t respect you, I would not waste my time writing this letter. I ask only that you give the information I am about to present fair consideration and thoughtful deliberation. I ask that you vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party or Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party or that you withhold your vote. Please do not give your vote to a man who has done nothing to deserve it and has, over the past four years, shown he possesses far less integrity and intelligence than you.

Everything I am about to describe is verifiable in a variety of credible sources. If you question the sources that I provide to support my claims, I encourage you to research the stories independently. I trust you will find that I have taken nothing out of context, I have made no distortion to the record, and I have made no attempt at manipulation. I have no reason to defame or impugn President Barack Obama.

In the 2008 Democratic Primary, I voted and volunteered for Hillary Clinton. She earned my support because of her greater experience, her greater resolve, and in my judgment, her greater intelligence. I also had a bad reaction – like the one you have when fumes of a foul odor slither into your nose – to the hysteria surrounding the Obama candidacy. Many of his most ardent supporters viewed him as if he was surrounded by a Messianic light, and that he rode into Washington D.C. sitting on a donkey, while crowds of adorers waved palm leaves to greet his arrival. I thought it was unhealthy to cast a mere mortal into the role of Savior. He had not earned such devotion. Unearned devotion builds an ego to megalomaniacal proportions. The result is often a personality cult that empowers the recipient of cultish fervor to do as he pleases, because the devotees will excuse, defend, rationalize, and justify any error or sin, no matter how severe or costly. The object becomes the advancement of the personality, and not the progression of a policy.

When the general election campaign season commenced, I set aside my concerns and not only vowed to vote for Barack Obama, but donated a small sum of money to his campaign, worked the phones to convince undecided voters in the state of Indiana to go Democrat, and drove disabled Obama voters to the polls. He was speaking beautifully in a populist and democratic tongue, and he was speaking eloquently in an inspired rhetoric that energized black voters, young voters, moderate voters, and disenchanted Republican voters in unprecedented numbers. On top of the promise of his presidency rested the reality of his candidacy. He was the first African-American candidate to win the nomination of his party, and if elected, he would be the first African-American president. When he defeated Senator John McCain with authority, Barack Obama shattered one of the highest glass ceilings in the world, and he did so with eloquence and intelligence far greater than many of his predecessors. In his cleverly crafted slogan and with powerful symbolism, he brought hope and change back to America.

After the election of John F. Kennedy, Gore Vidal wrote that “civilizations are rarely granted a second chance.” Following the Bay of Pigs debacle and the invasion of Vietnam, Vidal mourned that “something mysteriously went wrong.”

I wrote those same words about Vidal and Kennedy in a column for the November 12, 2008 edition of the Herald News in Joliet, Illinois where I wrote a weekly column for a little over a year. The Obama victory column would be my last. My final words for the column were hopeful – “Whether something mysteriously goes wrong during Obama’s administration remains to be seen, but this feels like a second chance, and right now, that feels like enough.”

Something went wrong – catastrophically wrong. It is not much of a mystery. The seemingly unsolvable conundrum is why so many people refuse to acknowledge the wreckage lying at their feet, and why so many people refuse to identify the man behind the handle of the wrecking ball.

Continue reading →