Historical analysis of the American presidency has focused largely on periodization. By chunking up our history, it becomes easier to interpret a president’s relative success or failure. So the theory goes, the times dictate the response; a president’s actions are more or less a reaction to the current political atmosphere. Perhaps not obvious to those immersed in political science, this presents a problem as presidential patterns are not congruent. If they aren’t congruent, how can one construct a scientific explanation for how presidencies function that withstands the test of time and general inference?

Another theory, championed by Stephen Skowronek, takes a more institutional approach to the presidency and looks instead at the different layers of power a president inherits upon entering office and how those layers interact with one another over time. The three layers or patterns Skowronek proposes are persistent patterns–allowable presidential actions as defined in the Constitution; emergent patterns–those dictated by the organizational structure surrounding the presidency; and recurrent patterns, which primarily encompass political coalitions such as parties and how they form and break apart. Each of these layers finds itself in a different position for an incumbent based on the former president’s actions resulting in differentiated performance.

What emerges from this second theory is a complex web of presidential actions and the reality of an executive’s decisions having long-term implications for the office of the president and the nation as a whole. George Washington’s choices, so this theory argues, would have resonated down the line of presidential succession via one of the aforementioned patterns and had a real impact on modern-day presidential opportunities. No president can be evaluated in isolation; consideration must be given to the impact of those that served before.

However, though each president finds himself laden with the judgments of his predecessor, he nevertheless flexes his power within the boundaries of these pattern to accomplish his political goals. After all, political actors are primarily, according to rational-choice theory, self-interested people. This boundary-pushing itself, while assuredly divisive, serves a beneficial role in a democratic society. We couldn’t be living in a better time in history to observe this.

George W. Bush’s presidency was unquestionably divisive. Though the nation remains divided over whether torturing terrorists is allowable, or whether a trickle-down economic policy is a superior one, I think one point we can all agree on is the previous administration succeeded in pushing the boundaries of our democracy in a host of new directions. For better or worse, this enabled our country to consider and debate whether or not we wish to weave these changes into our national fabric. In a governmental system such as ours where gridlock and cycling are inherent (see Arrow’s Paradox or Riker’s disequilibrium of majority rule) a disruptive force is required at times to advance the national dialogue. Our history is rife with examples, such as Jackson and the Bank Wars, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and FDR’s New Deal.

What results from this is an abstract conversation between our country and the presidency where the latter proposes or chases new frontiers while the former discusses the merits of them. This may seem suboptimal at any given moment (the Iraq war comes to mind), but in the long run, a president cannot escape the judgment passed by the citizens of his nation. Nor, for that matter, can citizens escape the benefit of a political actor who often pushes the nation to contemplate its sense of self.

I stole the title for this post from Skowronek’s book The Politics Presidents Make.

This is the second paper written for my American Political Institutions course. Our readings for this week focused on Congressional policymaking, namely the logic behind it. The prevailing theory for explaining legislators’ actions centers on rational decisions aimed at securing re-election. Many factors play into the decision making process, including constituent needs, personal policy preferences, and party alignment. But they all are weighed in accordance with their ability to get the legislator re-elected.

Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish their own procedural rules. Combine this with self-interest and you can imagine a framework would evolve that maximizes positive perception while minimizing costs of legislative decisions. There are specific tactics legislators employ to prevent their constituents from discovering the true, almost always negative, effects of a policy decision. The goal of any of these tactics is to reduce the traceability back to a particular legislator to avoid electoral accountability. What my paper focuses on is how citizens could use the Internet to maximize traceability.

I remember reading this article a few years back about a grad student (at Maryland, coincidentally) whose purse was stolen and with it the only copy of her nearly-finished master’s thesis. I was then an undergrad, but the impression of caution it left on me stayed over the years. I vowed then, if ever I was to go to grad school, to use all my technical chops to ensure I’d never have to root through a dumpster for my livelihood.

Thanks to the ridiculous pace of technological development, there are now far more effective ways of protecting your data than a USB or jump drive. In addition, these technologies offer a higher level of convenience and anywhere-access to your data, even when you’re not on your own computer. One member of this new class of software is Windows Live Mesh. If you haven’t heard of it or discovered its magic, you’re missing out. Wait, wait…before you click back mumbling “Microsoft shill…”, hear me out. Live Mesh is a software+service tool available for PC and Mac that syncs files between all the devices added to your “mesh”. All you need is a Windows Live ID and you’re ready to go. Installing the software is simple, and configuring which folders sync where is all but brainless.

I use Live Mesh to keep my OneNote notebooks and course documents in sync across my main laptop and netbook, which I use to take notes in class. It’s so useful to go home and have all my materials available on my other computer without having to do a thing. Even when you can’t install the desktop software, say on a lab computer where you don’t have adequate permissions, there’s a web interface that lets you access all your sync’d files (you can disable this if you prefer not to store your documents in the cloud).

The service is currently in beta, but trust me when I say it’s not going anywhere. If you’re a student, the days of bulky USB key chains and e-mailing papers to yourself are over; this service will show its value immediately. For everyone else, give it a try–there are plenty of potential uses for this technology outside academia. It’s free, what’ve you got to lose?

Events like September 11th are tough to talk about. Fortunately, time makes their memory less potent, which is important as it enables us to take another, more objective look at what happened to ensure our recollection of history is as it was–free from momentary emotion and passion. That day holds enough historical significance to us and the world that it is unquestionably worth analyzing again.

Some may take issue with this sort of invocation claiming it’s at worst a gross politicization of a tragedy or at best simply unnecessary. My intent, however, is to highlight what I found to be legitimate and logical inconsistencies and their implications, and to share what influenced my judgment with others. It’s up to the individual to decide if this falls in the realm of reality or conspiracy theory, but I will say that impossible doesn’t necessarily follow improbable or unbelievable. Our world’s history is rife with government abuse, especially of its own citizens or property for political purposes.

These documentaries call to attention the real possibility–one with precedent in our country, even–that our government committed, or was complicit in, such an act eight years ago. True, the past is just that, but we need to learn from it so atrocities like 9/11 don’t happen again; and if they do, so those responsible are identified and held accountable.

There’s nothing quite as tantalizing as instant gratification. Whether by self-help books or weight-loss programs, we’re easily drawn into the elusive promise of big results from little effort. But we’ve come to dismiss those toothy-covered tomes and magic slimming pills as hype with no delivery. It was with that learned skepticism in mind that I approached Tim Ferriss’ article “How to Read 300% Faster in 20 Minutes.” Grad school looming, a potential boost in reading speed seemed well worth a few lost minutes.

Indeed, it turned out that the tremor-inducing stack of papers eying me from my desk–and, I suppose, the infallible hope of immediate happiness–was what urged me on as I sat submerged in instructions with the likelihood of my gullibility crashing into and washing over me. My doubts be damned, I pulled out my trusty BIC pen and an undergraduate political science book, downloaded this neat timer app, and set to it. A half hour later, I emerged, results in hand.

My initial words-read-per-minute came in at an underwhelming 221, putting me squarely in that familiar range of the average American. After completing the drills (it took me more than twenty minutes since I repeated a couple tasks to get their timing right), I tested myself again and clocked in at 442 words-per-minute–a 100% increase! On top of that, I sufficiently retained what I read even though my speed had significantly increased. I didn’t achieve the 300% improvement heralded by the author, but I won’t turn my nose up at the doubling of my initial speed. I will readily admit, however, that I have doubts about the effectiveness of this approach when absorption, deep thinking and attention to detail are required. But, for now, I’m impressed and hope the change sticks as I tackle my coursework.

If you want to try this yourself, I’ll offer one piece of advice: Heed the big, capitalized reminders about ignoring comprehension. That uncomfortable feeling in your stomach will go away once you realize your newfound ability to re-read the same content multiple times in the same amount of time it took you to read it once before (repetition, repetition, repetition!).

Let me know if it works for you. I’d like more than just my results to validate this approach.

It happened too often during the 2008 election and continues today: accusations of socialism and fascism flung about without proper appreciation or knowledge of their historical gravity. Most, if not all, of the time, the charges have flowed in one direction from right to left. They’ve been cast haphazardly and without understanding of their true meaning, especially fascism, perhaps the eviler of two.

So what is fascism, or what does it look like? Israel Charny, a world-known and respected psychologist and genocide expert, compiled a list of typical fascist traits he observed through his study of genocides and detailed them in his book Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind. His juxtaposition of democratic traits effectively highlights the disparity between the two belief systems.

Fascist

1. Totality, final solutions, perfection
2. Overcertainty, absolutism, and magical thinking
3. Censorship and suppression of information
4. Obedience, conformity, intolerance of dessent
5. Superiority, excessive power seeking, and prejudice
6. Violence against self and/or against others, cruelty, sacrifice, and destruction of life
7. Denials of doing harm to self and others

Democratic

1. Processing and containing contradiction, diversity, and complexity
2. Acceptance of uncertainty, process, possibility, creative tension, and anxiety
3. Openmindedness to information, questioning, and use of scientific-like empiricism
4. Freedom, respect for dissent, and responsibility to make choices
5. Basic equality and respect, sharing power with checks and balances against excessive power
6. Nonviolence, conflict resolution, aggression for self-defense and seeking peace, kindness, belief in humanity, and goodness of life
7. Acceptance of responsibility for doing harm to self and others

What’s shocking about the fascist mindset Charny describes is that it resembles the collective mindset of many on the far-right who vocally and persistently oppose the current administration and the left in general. They are trying to extinguish what they believe to be fascism with fascism, and they’re doing so seemingly unaware and even in denial (try pointing this out to any patron of Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, for instance, and see what happens.)

This mode of operation is dangerous and one we have to do our best to derail. Failing to do so could result in serious consequences for our democracy. In fact, truthout.org wrote an insightful piece recently on that very topic that’s worth a read. Though I don’t have the solution to this problem, I believe the first step required is learning about it and thinking critically about what we can do as individuals.

Along the road to grad school, many people impressed upon me how crazy I was to leave a comfy, secure job in troubled economic times to submit myself to abject poverty. To each of them I’d spew the normal “I’m chasing a dream” bit after which they seemed satisfied, even supportive. What I didn’t tell them was that I was using grad school as an excuse to unveil a new website. So here we are.

Welcome to technolitics, pronounced tech-nahl-ih-ticks, which, as I’m sure you’ve gathered, is the coupling of technology and politics. It’s my goal to use this site as an archive of my grad school work, a creative outlet for my thoughts and ideas when I emerge from my books for air, and a way to improve my writing by practicing as much as I can (apparently writing PHP and English are significantly different).

Like the name and description imply, you’ll find posts here about technology, politics, my experiences as a grad student and the intersection of all three. At first, my friends, family and co-workers were shocked when I told them I planned to study political science as it seemed I was abandoning my undergraduate studies and career. But really it’s a logical continuation. I’ve always been interested in the social sciences, and now more than ever the presence of technology is expanding in government. During the 2008 election, candidates used Facebook and text messages to rally their bases. Senators and governors have gone head-to-head on Twitter over healthcare reform and stimulus spending. Why is it that some of these technologies succeed where others have failed? What are the implications for government of a connected citizenry and world? Questions like these are best answered by those with both political and technical depth, which is why I’ve chosen now to expand my knowledge of politics. Hopefully some good can come from the tumbling in my head.

How frequently I’ll update this is at best a guess. I’d love to post multiple times a week but I’m not sure ambition and reality will jive come the start of the school year. An easy way to avoid coming back only to find stale content is to subscribe to my RSS feed, accessible by clicking the little orange icon in the upper-right corner. That said, do stop by often as I’m sure you can poke around and find something entertaining (that’s my dream, at least).

If you run into problems with anything on the site please let me know. I’ve done my best to test this puppy in multiple browsers and resolutions, but as, well, everyone that knows me will attest, I’m not perfect. Any feedback you can give that helps improve this site is and will be much appreciated.

Oh, and go Terps!

This is the writing sample I cooked up for my grad school application. I’m embarrassed to say, before this, I hadn’t written a research paper in many years. For my first go in a while, I did alright. It was a lot of fun to write and I learned a bunch about present media consumption on the Internet. I may update it, but that depends on time.

This is the statement of purpose I included in my grad school application to the University of Maryland. Like most of my writings, as soon as I submitted this I noticed fifty things I would have changed about it. C’est la vie.

Especially when you see scenes like these. That the responsible parties for our economic disaster continue to kick people out of their homes and continue to show no compassion despite owing their existence to your and my tax dollars is heinous. I’m usually a fan of tolerance, but living with this kind of selective socialism seems un-American.