• Home
  • About Us
  • Guest Posts

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Exiting Neo-Hoover

I'm really starting to like Robert Cruickshank at Calitics. Michael sent me a link to a piece that uses my beloved term "death spiral" to describe California budgeting, and then tops my claim that Arnold S is Hoover reincarnated with this: "But we must also work hard to stop the 121 Herbert Hoovers in Sacramento from doing further harm to an already stressed state."  121! Even worse than I thought.

Cruickshank also notes the pointlessness of all the Dem compromising, and here we would have to include UCOP and the Regents who aren't simply members of Team Schwarzenegger:
We've tried Republicans' neo-Hooverite solution. Democrats have insisted we had no choice to go along with it, but they have instead caused untold suffering and pain to the people of California without gaining anything in return.
and then he says:
 the first step toward fixing those structural problems is to articulate a clear vision for a fairer, more prosperous, and more economically secure California.
 Absolutely. Transformative vision comes before reform.   Ironically that is the Yudof Challenge: "if you have a better idea let me know." Until we do we are going to get more of the same.

5 comments:

Gerry Barnett said...

In the states of Washington and Iowa, at least, the budget cutting is led by Democratic governors. Something else is going on, not just isolated with Republicans. And the signaling of university presidents in response follows some repeated themes. Look at Sally Mason's (translated in to Piscopo).

State revenue down! Budget cuts! Difficult decisions! Big hurt! Quality! Research up! ARRA funds! Donations!

But sad! Instruction down! Funds lost! Restructure! Change strategic plan!

More tuition! More research! Grad programs! Interdisciplinary clusters! Strengths! Resilience! Commitment! Sacrifice! Excellence!

This speech could not be better planned to tell the legislature that the university will get by without them, core instructional programs are neither core nor strong, and no fundamental restructuring is planned or needed, just tactical expansion of what has gone before, now with younger staff, higher tuition, and more emphasis on research. There is no room in this kind of framework for "better ideas". This rhetoric cuts them off. There are only "more ideas like the ones we already have, which we have deployed for a decade." The challenge in "better idea" is not to have one, but to demonstrate that it is not possible. That, more than Republicans and the ghost of Hooever, is the problem.

Chris Newfield said...

too true, and 100% agreement on the Dems role as co-conspirators. Look at Willie Brown's idiotic column in the SF Chron (equally senile about Obama's Oscar and Arnold's appearance at a Dims fundraiser. Look at the UC participation on the Schwarzenegger-Parsky tax "reform" commission, the absence of Dems proclamations for higher ed in sacto, etc. etc. this is the core political problem, though for me the cure still starts with being able to repaint Arnold as attackable. His celebrity status with insiders seems to totally neutralize his abysmal poll ratings, which would have killed off Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, et al.

Gerry Barnett said...

It is fascinating to think that Hoover, that perhaps first student at Stanford, the humanitarian geologist that saved millions in Europe ("winning war with food"), has become such an emblem for government futility in a time of financial crisis. Really, we are here dealing more with Andrew Mellon-oma. According to Hoover, here was the advice of his Secretary of the Treasury:
"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

The Mellonomic premise is that government can "purge the rottenness out of the system" by sitting on its hands and instilling a new efficiency by letting things get rough,which in turn will encourage a new morality of hard work. That's what you are up against, an attack on the standard of living and immorality fueled by an easy living.

If these are extended to UC, we can see that the UCOF opening discussion of the need for "data" from Wellman is well within the Mellon tradition. UC is asked to document the rottenness of the system. Then, stop kicking your dog.

The framing Mellon dichotomies are (with the expected university response)self-reliance: state v other funding (=ramp up research, donations, and tuition) and purging rottenness: efficiency vs inefficiency (commissions, data, reorganization).

If people are not going to end up on the wrong side of these Mellonomic dichotomies that presently frame the debate, they had better come up with new dichotomies.

Chris Newfield said...

Gerry - you're right about the Mellonic logic. I'll try to get more comfortable with the word. The reduction of costs via furloughs, cuts etc and the "new smaller UC" has its huge advantages from the Mellon p.o.v., which overlaps with the ongoing right-wing sense that we're still paying way too much for fat 1960s era public sector stuff, from govt pensions to UC.

Chris Newfield said...

Gerry - you're right about the Mellonic logic. I'll try to get more comfortable with the word. The reduction of costs via furloughs, cuts etc and the "new smaller UC" has its huge advantages from the Mellon p.o.v., which overlaps with the ongoing right-wing sense that we're still paying way too much for fat 1960s era public sector stuff, from govt pensions to UC.

Join the Conversation

Note: Firefox is occasionally incompatible with our comments section. We apologize for the inconvenience.