Gary Gutting was a leading authority on Michel Foucault; it doesn't follow that shared all (or any) of Foucault's beliefs.
This is incredibly obvious, and you know it.
I'ld be interested in what "indoctrination" might have taken pace.
from her (click through my prior post on this from a few weeks ago to get the link):
"I am very grateful for all those who encouraged me to apply for the scholarship at Stanford and for my close friends and mentors who have supported my growth at Notre Dame and beyond,” Doyle said. “In particular, I am profoundly grateful for the support of Notre Dame professor Dr. Joseph Buttigieg, whose recent passing has left many reflecting about his remarkable impact on our lives. I wish that I could continue to converse with him in the years to come regarding what I will learn in medical school, but I hope that my life’s work will honor his extraordinary legacy and his own work for justice.”
He was a brilliant prof and a fundamentally decent person.
I had him for a freshman seminar - not focused on Gramsci or Marxism, just an English seminar. If he was going to indoctrinate people, that class of new freshmen would seemingly be the place. He did not indoctrinate anyone, but he did inspire several classmates to attend grad school. They texted me when he passed - he had an impact on them like the one described by the Rhodes Scholar at the link.
The line of argument being put forward by Hipster (and the other 'intellectuals' advancing it like Rush Limbaugh) is dumb and disingenuous and does nothing but drag a good man and a great asset to Notre Dame through the mud.
It's what I expected to hear, but I wanted to have a source to back me up when the Dittoheads and lesser beasts attack.
screaming about for the 15 or so months.
...from the boomer generation think of that term--that is, the USSR and its regimes; or possibly also the cultural determinism linked to Marx.
Gramsci had many good ideas based on careful analysis of historical and then-current facts; what has attracted academics since then is not necessarily the fine-grained substance of some of his edicts, such as the one you cite about socialism and Christianity, but by his philosophical method and how its informs modern political science/philosophy. He was not opposed to capitalism tout court, and his concept of cultural hegemony has never been convincingly contradicted. He has many intellectually important descendants including people you'd never reasonably call communist or Marxist...like Joe Buttigieg, for example.
Before you decide that espousal of Gramsci's political philosophy is a red line that no politician can cross if they want your vote, I'd suggest reading some of his stuff with an open mind. The fact that an autocratic ruler like Mussolini didn't like him (an understatement, since the fascist dictator imprisoned Gramsci, who died after 11 years in prison at the age of 46) has to count for something!
EDIT: I must say that knowing Pete Buttigieg's father was an expert on the thought of a leading figure in our western intellectual history earns him points in my book. I'd feel the same way if the child of Tom Werge, Ralph McInerney, or Arturo Caponigri were running for office (or even a grandchild, maybe).
What I read about Gramsci's beliefs on achieving the cultural hegemony or “Supertructure” necessary to make changes to the means of production. As the quote I originally posted suggests, He apparently felt that this begins in the educational domain. I am not naive enough to think that if one party promises a debt free college education, that the education will not in fact become an indoctrination.
provides tuition-free education, the students will become indoctrinated Communists?
Incidentally, if you'd been following Pete Buttigieg at all you'd know he's one of the few Dem candidates who is opposed to universal free college tuition.
But I don't think it's an extreme position to say that universities have become an echo chamber of progressive liberal ideology or that increased role of government would continue to politicize education even further than it has over the past few decades. And Pete's position on "debt-free college" that relies on loan forgiveness, greater state funding and debt re-financing rather than his opponents knee jerk promises of "free college", is simply a watered down version of "free college".
...In 1976 as I was getting ready to embark on a grad school jaunt at the University of Chicago, I was at an extended family BBQ, sitting around drinking beer and having a good time, when one of my great-aunts asked where I was heading. When I told her, she said, "Oh, that communistic, atheistic institution!"
I arrived to find that the largest building on campus was a Gothic cathedral-like chapel, that one of the most active academic departments was the School of Divinity, and that it was home to the Chicago School of Economics, with Milton Friedman often spotted walking around campus.
If you look at the course catalogs of most colleges, the content is very free of partisan ideology. Calculus? Physics? Astronomy? Finance? Not sure how you'd make those "liberal" or for that matter "conservative." In the humanities you'll probably find more liberal mindsets on balance, but it doesn't prevent the persistence of Young Americans for Freedom, college Republican clubs, and so forth.
Free college is a shocking concept to many, I'll admit. But free high school isn't--public high schools across the nation rely on public tax support, and we are all pretty used to it. Apart from the cost issue--which is very significant--I wonder what constitutes the conceptual divide between free high school and free college?
...The wider public policy debate would be on what degree of education (and across what range, e.g. from science/tech to business to trades) we wish our populace to have, and how that wish balances with our desire to fund.
subsidized - including vocational education. I'm not sure about "free", but I'm open to suggestion.
Take Georgia as one example: only a third of their operating budget comes from fees and tuition (interest rate subsidized). The rest comes from the state (obviously subsidized), the feds (subsidized), private grants (subsidized via tax code), etc, etc.
at a time of soaring income inequality fed, in part, by a historically large gap between the income of those who go to college and those who don't, we're discussing a massive transfer to the former.
and debt re-financing is just watered down "free college"?
The truth of the matter is that very few states have kept up funding public higher education in this country at rates close to inflation. Public colleges would be much more affordable today if states had simply kept up with inflation...that doesn't seem like a radical position at all. And is hardly a watered down version of "free college" since people would still have to pay for college.
It’s no accident that as one has soared, the other has fallen.
If the chattering class is rolling this out.
I can't wait to see what gets dug up in 2020.
"fruit", so we should be hearing some interesting chants at Trump rallies, followed by some interesting posts about Trump not having a homophobic bone in his body.
Joe Buttgieg is not running.
This is absurd and you should really take a break.
But it is interesting and I don’t see why it can’t be discussed. The candidate is pretty new on the scene and He doesn’t have a voting record on matters of national economics and the role of government in social structure. I’m sure he respected his father as a scholar, so I’d like to know if he believes the country needs to become more “democratic” by implementing programs that are associated with more socialist leaning governments. I think it’s a fair question. Or are questions not allowed regarding unknown candidates?
It is a discussion of his father's academic career. Completely and utter irrelevant. So no, it is not worthy of discussion.
Pete is running for president of the United States. Pete's father, Joe, by his own admission, was a big influence in his life. Joe's most noteworthy scholarly output was the translation and publication of the political philosophy of the founder of the Italian Communist party, Antonio Gramsci.
But asking a question about Pete's political philosophy relative to his father's is utterly irrelevant even though he's running for president?? C'mon. Your profile indicates you benefitted from a Notre Dame education. If you don't have more faith in your own ability to flesh out or refute a position, perhaps you ought to go to Wal-Mart and buy a bullhorn and a can bear of spray.
The fact that a presidential candidate is the son of the founder of The International Gramsci Society may not be a big deal, but it *is* at the very least interesting and if it is "irrelevant", then tell me why at least.
Joe Buttigieg was by all accounts a respected and accomplished faculty member, mentor, and father. He was at most an academic neo-Marxist, something that has about as much to do with establishing Communism in America as Boris and Natasha cartoons.
Your premise is stupid, ill-intentioned, and smears the memory of a member of the ND family who, incidentally, just passed a few weeks ago. Since your profile indicates you benefited from a Notre Dame education, I'd expect better.
I hate when posers under the cloak of "intellectual curiosity", troll the Board.
like healthcare, taxes, border security, national security, infrastructure, etc. Maybe it will come in time, but "medicare for those who want it" is not a policy position, it's a sound bite.
As much as I completely disagree with Warren, at least she has the fortitude to lay out what positions she stands for.
specific legislation. So, you might like Elizabeth Warren's specific policy positions (I like many of them too), but if you're going to vote for her because you think her policies will be enacted into law, you'll likely be disappointed.
He's going to spend a lot of time talking about policy priorities, but not how to get there. He's actually written that he believes it is a mistake that too many campaigns have made to be overly specific in policy/platform details.
Trump: “How much will Mexico pay for folks?”
[inaudible response among cheers]
Trump: “That’s right! All of it! One. Hundred. Prevent!”
Platitudes and sound bites don't interest me too much.
I want to eliminate global warming, poverty, discrimination, war, and have excellent healthcare, freedom, jobs, education, a chicken in every pot, and ponies for everyone.
Doesn't make me a good candidate for President.
the garbage being peddled on Fox and by the right-wing.
It starts with getting the platidudes right. These elections are not determined by the best wonk, as DJT had proven.
his father's academic interests? In his interview with CNBC he stated he was a capitalist and talked about how well capitalism has worked in the United States. Pete has separated himself from his father in a number of important ways. I think this academic interest of his father is irrelevant.
What you're going to hear about Joe is endless personal testimonies about a dedicated professor and teacher.
If Pete's smart (and he's nothing if he isn't smart), those testimonials are already in the can waiting for the appropriate moment. Check out the link to a Feb article in Nation from a colleague of Joe's to get a preview.
The most amazing thing about Pete's rise is the degree to which he has been left alone to define his own message and profile. That phase will end before long, and then we'll see another side of Pete which, I think, will serve him well.
How about a link to your source?
he weighs in on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and can claim he can shoot someone at Eddy St Commons and not lose a vote.
probably kill someone and the national media would love him. He's clearly the darling of the NYC-Wash DC salons. They had to wipe the drool off the commentators on Morning Joe this morning. Now Eddie Glaude tried to toss in Kamala and Corey with Pete during one conversation, but the rest were not biting.
As writer/pundit (and Senator's daughter) Alicia Menendez said a couple weeks ago on MJ, it is so wild to think about that a guy I went to college with (at Harvard) is now running for President and really in the race.
police chief as the result of the chief secretly recording rank and file police officers.
That still needs to get vetted, and he has generally failed at nauancing it locally.
Let competence rule.
We've had our fill of releasing a Balrog.
would have been worth looking at Fred when assessing his offspring. There was that GI housing scam that set Ike off, among other things.
or one where the OP was suggesting only Buttigieg's father is relevant and others are not.
This is just exhibit #5,387
Unless one of them has advocated for the nationalization of the means of production, then the progressive left are Social Democrats.
course people both sides love to use incorrect labels to inflame passions.
Nor does making statements that we need more immigrants from Norway and fewer immigrants from shit hole countries.
He damns himself with his own words daily.
Groucho on it.
I'll go to the nerd corner
That's a REALLY useful invention.
That's an interesting interpretation of Marxism.
that Pete is a closet communist. I'm not claiming that Pete is a communist; I'm just pointing out that some people are saying that he is.
Or do I need to check my batteries?
... interests them them, not because they necessarily agree with the subject.
I'm sure she is interested in him as a subject.
I will under no circumstances cast my vote for Joseph Buttigieg.
Obama's dad in terms of past elections even as some tried to make them issues (or Cruz's father). Now The Bush family legacy definitely made me less interested in Jeb! so family history can have a negative impact. But I suspect in most cases it is not a negative.
I did hang out for a semester in London with Joe B back in 1985. He didn't strike me as very communist. As I somewhat recall his wife (and I now realize) little Pete were there. Pete must have been about 3. Joe enjoy hanging out at the ND "campus" in Mayfair just like the rest of us. Who wouldn't.
Joe Buttigieg would be younger than Trump, Biden, and Sanders. But we shouldn't worry about electing a septuagenarian to run the country or have an age limit or anything like that.
What is your point, exactly? Are we only allowed to talk about candidates for whom we are voting? If so, I'll assume you and several others hear will cease and desist from commenting on Trump.
He's want to know more before voting for Mayor Pete. Given that Hipster is a pretty rabid Trump fan, he's being disingenuous by feigning interest in Buttigieg as a candidate, when he's actually just trying bring up a negative issue about the mayor.
I'm fine with the negative issue being discussed, but I think we can all do without disingenuous posting.
What I said was that I could not vote for him unless I knew he didn't espouse Gramsci's philosophy. I also said very clearly, That Pete is not responsible for his father's views just because his father held them, but that I think it's worth knowing if he does or does not. I think its actually a pretty good question for a new candidate on the scene who clearly has some academic and philosophical depth to him.
However, just asking such a question clearly vexes some folks here.
I actually would vote for a Democrat if I thought they were the best candidate for the country, and if I did, it would be someone with some depth to them who didn't come from the elite echelons of the party. Someone like Pete Buttigieg. But I'd need to know more about them first.
Posters may think I love everything about Trump, but they'd be quite mistaken. He is a narcissist, no doubt. But the one thing I *do* love about him is the fact that he drives upper middle-class Democrats, beltway liberals and coastal elite....absolutely bat-shit-crazy.
It's like watching a talking cat lunging at a laser dot over and over and over...while assuring everyone how smart they are and how stupid the guy with the laser pointer is.
What a philosophy to live by.
this issue. On one side, a renowned and beloved scholar and his Rhodes Scholar son. On the other side, a dude calling the first guy a commie lover while bragging about owning the libs...
He wrote a book about him as well. She would be worried about Mayor Pete's views of the Irish?
Sure, I suppose it's worth a brief "Can you talk about your dad's views on Gramsci, and what your take is?". I'm not saying you are doing this, but people should not really worry about something like this until Pete begins to personally espouse it.
Will the Cubs still be your preferred team? I'm struggling with this now.
No, it's nowhere close to official. I know a number of people close to the Diamond Project. One in particular who would know said "gun to my head, I think there will be MLB games in Portland within five years".
Just took a look, right now they’re at 30 even.
Would they go to 32 and do 8 divisons of 4 teams?
The Cubs love runs too deep for me to just hop teams. The PDX team will likely become a strong second team for me, but nowhere close to how I feel about the North Siders. Ideally PDX will be an American League team(and I think this is likely). That way, I would only have to cheer against them in a World Series. On the other hand, if they were an NL team I could see the Cubs 6+ times a year or so. That would be nice.
Are you a Midwest expat in Portland too?
And agree with you that the PDX team will have to be runner-up, although with time that may change (like switching allegiances from the Pacers to Blazers).
And would love to see the PDX team in the American League for the same reason you just mentioned.
People talk all the time about the influences of people around a candidate, whether it was George Sr.'s influence on GWB, or Joe Kennedy's influence on JFK, or Trump's apparently German born father, or Pres Obama's father. These are major and lasting influences on people.
That doesn't mean he agrees with his father, or that we should judge him solely by his father's actions. But he should be questioned about it. The questions may be uncomfortable, but especially when assessing a young candidate with no national experience who still lives and works near his father, I think they are fair game.
He should be questioned on his views on economic matters, including views on socialism, regulation, safety net size, taxation, etc.
I don't see what we learn from a comparative examination of his and (his version of) his father's views.
judge him at all by his father's actions?
This is a simple matter to address. He was obviously close with his father, and fathers tend to have strong influences on their sons. That doesn't make him his father, nor does it make at least asking about the issue "embarrassingly stupid."
take meetings with Russians or get West Wing appointments with no relevant public service experience, I'll note that they have poor judgement or a glaring lack of qualifications for the role. When they retweet white supremacists, I'll note that it's unfortunate to see the son of a sitting President amplifying white supremacists and racists and wonder why Republicans don't denounce it. When it's revealed that they were almost indicted for fraud for lying to investors about a property they were hyping, I note that such people should not be in positions of power within the government. None of those critiques have anything to do with their father - they involve criticism of immoral, inept or possibly illegal behavior on their behalf.
This was a really poor analogy to make if you were trying to get to some "gotcha" moment.
And I think the initial question is unfair. Do you really want to align yourself with Dinesh D'Souza's third rate hackery? Because this whole questioning is a lame imitation of the pseudo- intellectual garbage he was throwing out about Obama a decade ago.
Edited to be less caustic - no need to call things embarrassingly stupid, but I think it is unfair and poorly considered.
I don't see the need for the comparison to Dinesh D'Souza. My questions and comments were fairly straightforward, and have yet to be answered.
What is the big deal with simply asking about whether his father's views have influenced him? Do you not think Trump's views have affected his children? Did your father not impact your world view? He could simply say "My father was an extremely thoughtful man, and I have tried to imitate him in that regard. I don't share some of his fondness for Antonio Gramsci, but his views, like mine, have evolved over time."
Should he be judged by his father's actions and words? No. Are they utterly irrelevant to evaluating a man without a long national resume that might otherwise inform us about his stated views? No, I don't think so. If your only response is to call that a "lame imitation of the pseudo- intellectual garbage D'Souza was throwing out about Obama a decade ago" I'd call that a weak response.
The other people commenting about his father's views and how they impact his worldview are Rush Limbaugh and the wing nuts at PJ Media. These are the types of people asking this question - you don't usually seem to be reading off of their playbook, but the reason I made the Dinesh comparison was that he was the person leading the charge last time. I don't think it's a weak response - it's an apt comparison for the type of people asking these questions or making these statements.
What questions weren't answered? I said I judge the Trump kids on their own words and behaviors and not their father's - I'd encourage you to do the same for both the Trumps and for Buttigieg. I don't judge the President on Fred's behavior - again, I evaluate him on his own.
MoCo said it well at the outset - "people should not really worry about something like this until Pete begins to personally espouse it."
I agree with ufl, who noted - "He should be questioned on his views on economic matters, including views on socialism, regulation, safety net size, taxation, etc. I don't see what we learn from a comparative examination of his and (his version of) his father's views."
It looks like you've toned down your argument from he shouldn't be judged "solely" on his father's actions and words to he shouldn't be judged by his father's actions and words - and that's the right answer.
There's plenty that Buttigieg has said in interviews over the past months that you can easily access. John Harwood of CNBC just did an interview with him a few days ago on his views on capitalism. The point of this being ill considered - and I'd note that most everyone here has responded that his father's views are irrelevant - is that it looks like an exercise in red-baiting and is completely unnecessary when his own views are out there for evaluation or can be easily ascertained as he's been very open for interviews (he's actually been the only Dem to go on Fox News thus far).
I'd also note what Raoul said above - his father was not very communist when he studied abroad under his supervision and I can say he wasn't some radical when I had him for class at ND 15 years later. It's unfortunate, but he's going to be dragged through the mud and turned into some Bill Ayers clone on right wing media as Pete continues to be in the spotlight.
You haven't even established that Joe was a Communist, much less that he influenced his son into being a Communist, and that because of that Pete is secretly a Communist.
put forth here. "Obama's father was an anti-colonial Muslim Marxist so Obama is too." It's not well thought out and, as you succinctly note, falls apart upon a minute's worth of thought and analysis...
Edited for tone.