James Madison and Millionaires in Congress

I saw this image about rich people in Congress on the Internet recently, and it brought to mind a passage from The Federalist Papers that I recently re-read -- with underlining from my undergraduate days at the University of Oklahoma in 1983 or 1984.

See!  It pays to keep all of your college textbooks!

In #10, James Madison writes about the sources of conflict in society.  He writes that "factions" are inevitable, and so government must be designed to limit the potential damage from these conflicts.  Some of this should be accomplished, he says, by limiting the amount of governmental power obtained by any particular faction.

He cites several sources of conflict, but he says "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distributions of property."

This unequal distribution for Madison does not seem to mean only the difference between those who have property and those who do not.  He seems to also mean the competition that exists among factions that derive their property from different sources or activities.  However, I think we would agree that the difference between those who have and those don't is a major source of conflict in the political arena today.

Regulating these competing interests "forms the principal task of modern legislation."

To assure the fair and effective regulation of these competing interests, Madison states something is essential:

James Madison

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. 

He immediately backtracks, though.  He knows that the people elected to government are citizens too.  They are not monks, removed from society.  It is inevitable that they will be involved with legislation about issues impacting them personally.  Sometimes those elected officials can be trusted to set aside their personal interests for the public good.  But not always.

This can be managed so long as those personally interested in the legislation are not in the majority.  The power of the majority keeps the influence of the self-interested "judge" in check.  The problems come, Madison says, when a majority of the officials have their judgment biased by self-interest. 

When that happens, that majority can "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."

As the cartoon's caption states: "There's Your Problem."  It is hard to argue that the personal wealth of those in Congress does not influence their actions on legislation; it also is hard to argue that their actions on legislation do not influence their personal wealth ("How Members of Congress Get Rich Through 'Honest Graft' ").  They have a vested interest in many of the bills on which they act as judge, and their vested interest is many times different from the interests of their constituents.

As the cartoon graph indicates, the wealthy constitute a sliver of the population but a large portion of  Congress.  How often are the interests of the minority (regardless of party affiliation) ruling the majority?

Swoosh! There It Is. What's Up with Car Designs?

I wish I had patented the car swoosh.  It is everywhere these days.

"Swoosh" is the name of Nike's logo, perhaps the most successful logo in advertising history.  The sign became so closely associated with the company, its products, and the ideals it wanted to associate with its products that in some Nike advertising campaigns there was no need to include the company's name.

The swoosh said it all.

Nike Culture: The Sign of the Swoosh is a book by Robert Goldman and Stephen Papson that discusses the evolution of Nike's global marketing strategies.  According to that book, the swoosh's creator was a Portland State University art student who was paid $35 for her design, which the company's founder was not enthusiastic about.  He wanted something more closely resembling the stripes on the sides of shoes from Puma and Adidas.

Goldman and Papson state the swoosh was initially "an empty vessel -- a visual marker that lacked any intrinsic meaning" (17).  The swoosh's meanings came only through its repeated use in Nike messages, where it became associated with the ideals of "athletic excellence, a spirit of determination, hip authenticity, and playful self-awareness (1).

I do not know that they are right about the swoosh not having an intrinsic meaning.  First, can any sign have intrinsic meaning?  The meanings for all signs seem created by consensus, convention, and relationship to other signs.  Second, I think the swoosh conveyed some meaning before it was deployed in Nike ad campaigns -- otherwise, why would Carolyn Davidson have created it?  Nike founder Phil Knight told her that he wanted something to suggest "movement" and "speed,"  so she had some meanings in her mind when she created the swoosh.

Hyundai Elantra

One possible way the swoosh suggests movement and speed could be this: It echoes the wings on the shoes and/or hat of Mercury, the speedy messenger of the Olympian gods.

Also, the swoosh looks like a check mark, which is a sign of approval, fulfillment, accomplishment, or success.  And Nike is the Greek goddess of victory.

I think we can see echoes (conscious or not) of the swoosh in the recent designs of many cars -- cars from different classes and from different manufacturers.  Somehow the inverted swoosh found its way into the automotive world's zeitgeist.

Mercedes Benz CLC

Look at new cars and you can see an inverted swoosh in the panels, starting at the front wheel and extending toward the rear wheel.  When I drive on the freeways of Los Angeles, I see them everywhere on all kinds of cars -- Toyota Pruis, Mercedes Benz CLC, Ford Escape, Hyundai Elantra.  The list is long, and I don't have room to show all of the design variations here.

Ford Escape

Since the swoosh is inverted, it no longer resembles a check mark, so I think those associations are not at work when one views (or reads) the automotive designs.  But I think the auto swoosh does suggest movement and speed.  It resembles the side view of an airplane wing, suggesting flight and successful movement.  Also, think of images from cars in wind tunnels and how the smoke makes visible the movement of air over the car body.

Toyota Prius

The auto swoosh seems to be making visible the otherwise invisible movement of air over the car.  The auto designer would also want to suggest that air movement is smooth and free of turbulence, aiding the speed of the car.

But when you are driving the car you cannot see the auto swoosh.  So how does it work to please the driver?  First, the driver was a buyer.  So the auto swoosh was seen on the road or in ads, and it gave the potential buyer positive associations about the car.  Second, the auto swoosh suggests the smooth movement of air even when the car is parked.  The driver can be reassured of the quality of the car when it rests outside of his/her home or work.

Air foil

Just as the Nike swoosh would have created positive associations of speed, movement, and success for its wearer (even though the swoosh is not very visible when you are wearing the shoe), so too the auto swoosh creates positive associations for the car's owner.

I think the auto swoosh can be decoded in this manner, and I have no larger point to make.  I do not think there are hidden contradictions within this sign -- in semiotics we frequently look for such contradictions.  But I do think it is interesting that so many different auto designers came up with this same decorative element.

I call it decorative because I do not see much aerodynamic benefit from this element on the panels (but then I am not an engineer).  In theory, all cars should look exactly alike, in that there should be one ideal aerodynamic design.  And there was a time when cars were all starting to look alike.  Compare images of a Ford Taurus, a Toyota Camry, and a Honda Civic from 1995, for example.  They all resembled each other, I believe, because their designers were all in pursuit of the same thing: aerodynamic design to improve gas mileage.

Since then, advances in engine and transmission technologies have given much larger fuel efficiencies than were being achieved with body shapes.  So the designers became free to give autos more stylish flare.  Interesting that so many have chosen the same flourish.

Outrage at Outsourcing -- Does It Make Sense?

President Obama recently released an anti-Romney ad that seems rather effective.  In it, Romney is criticized for his part in outsourcing jobs to Mexico, China, and India and for having tax-haven accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands.


I believe Obama's attacks on Romney have been effective.  I believe Americans are generally unhappy with American jobs going overseas.

But this outrage puzzles me.

Sending jobs to where labor costs are the lowest should be an expected consequence of the "free market" capitalism many Americans believe in.  Or think they do.  Many Americans express a kind of cognitive dissonance in this regard.   On the one hand, they staunchly defend capitalism as the greatest economic system in the world, and on the other hand they want that capitalist system to be loyal to them.  That is, they want markets to be free, but they want those markets to play favorites.  They do not seem to notice the contradiction.

This demonstrates a flawed understanding of the principles of free-market capitalism.  Capitalism recognizes few loyalties other than profit, perhaps no loyalties other than that.  Capitalists seek to maximize their profits, even if that means sometimes taking jobs overseas.  The principle of maximized profit, the supremacy of self-interest, encourages this.

In this regard I find the behavior of many American companies similar to the behavior of many American consumers, and so I am puzzled when those consumers get upset at the makers of the merchandise they buy.  The practice of Americans companies seeking the lowest possible labor costs is similar to the practice of American consumers seeking the lowest possible prices for goods. 

If you can get tube socks for $9 or $3, which are you more likely to buy?

If you can hire one person to make tube socks for $9 an hour or another person for $3 an hour, whom   are you more likely to hire?

I know some people will claim they cannot afford the $9 tube socks.  The MUST buy the $3 tube socks.  But this is not true for everyone in Wal-Mart.  There are many people there who can afford the $9 package that was made in America -- but, they would argue, why should they pay an extra $6, when they can get the Chinese package?

Maximizing one's savings is a motivation similar to maximizing one's profits.

And there are companies who would say they MUST reduce their labor costs if they wish to remain in business.  They are like those consumers who plead poverty when asked to justify their shopping choices.

In some ways the two practices -- seeking cheaper goods and seeking cheaper labor -- are linked.  The greater the downward price pressure American consumers placed on American producers of consumer goods, the greater the incentive for those American producers to shift their production overseas.

The habits of shoppers and employers may also be linked in this regard: People who lost their jobs to outsourcing often found new employment that paid less; this meant more people buying the cheaper, foreign-made goods, which increased the price pressure on American manufacturers, which, in turn, sent more jobs overseas.  Rinse and repeat.

The solution to some of this concern about outsourcing is a kind of protectionism -- protecting American manufacturers from foreign competition through tariffs and quotas.  But economists generally have told us that protectionism is bad.  It leads to inflation, and it blunts the benefits of competition; the protected companies get lazy and stop innovating.  However, I think many Americans would accept some inflation if it meant better-paying jobs in America, and some protectionism does not necessarily mean the end of innovation. 

I think many Americans, despite their advocacy of free markets, prefer an economic system that has loyalties to people and not just profits.  They just haven't figured that out yet.

Spectacle vs. Character in War Horse

War Horse -- Nick Stafford adapted Michael Morpurgo's novel.

A basic question in studying literature is this: Do readers and audiences follow a narrative for the plot or for the characters?  That is, do we read a story or watch a play in order to enjoy the unfolding of events or the intrigue of human personalities?

Of course, we follow narratives for a mixture of both.  It would be hard to have interesting events taking place without interesting people involved in them.  It would be hard to have interesting people without interesting events that reveal their personalities and relationships.  Henry James describes this interaction most famously in his essay "The Art of Fiction": "What is character but the determination of incident?  What is incident but the illustration of character?"

An example of character-over-incident is the TV series Psych.  The mystery solved each week is perhaps the least interesting thing about the show.  I watch because I want to see the interaction of the characters.  I want to experience the quirky relationship between our heroes, Shawn and Gus.  Similarly, does anyone watch a rerun of Monk because the storyline is intriguing?  Or do we watch spend some time with Tony Shaloub's character?  This is especially illustrated when discussing reruns.  We know who the guilty party is -- there is no mystery -- so why watch?  Because we like the characters.

Jose Ortega y Gossett discussed this phenomenon in an essay on the development of the novel -- "But soon adventures by themselves lose attraction, and what then pleases is not so much the fortunes of the personages as their self-presence.  We enjoy seeing those people before us and being admitted to their inner life, understanding them, and living immersed in their world or atmosphere."

One can see some of this in the summer's biggest movie, Marvel's The Avengers.  Reviews of the film consistently praised the interaction of the characters and their development rather than the spectacle of its special effects.  When I saw it, I grew impatient with the extended battle sequences.  I wanted the film to get back to the personaities, to, for example, the bickering between Captain America (good cop) and Iron Man (bad cop).

This events-or-character issue came to mind when I recently saw the stage production of War Horse in Los Angeles and found myself getting increasingly frustrated with the show.  I was impressed with the puppetry, and I enjoyed seeing the audience become emotionally involved with Joey the horse as if they had forgotten there were men inside the rig/costume.  However, as the play progressed I grew tired of its spectacle and wanted more from its characters.

(I had skipped the film version because I was familiar with what happened to horses in modern combat, and I didn't want to see any of that depicted realistically.)

Charging into battle.

For me the play became a series of events rather than the revelation of anyone's "inner life."  Look!  The horse is pulling a plow!  Now it is charging into battle!  Now it is jumping barbed wire!  Now it is pulling an ambulance!  Now it is pulling a cannon!  Now it is challenging a tank!  Now it is trapped in barbed wire again!

Finally I was watching with my arms crossed.  I didn't want more events.  I wanted some characters that I could get to know, through which I could experience human emotions and psychology.  I wanted to see some humans grow and change.  I didn't want to simply watch people experience the trials of love and loss and war; I wanted to experience it too, and that is done, as Ortega y Gossett and other critics have said, by allowing me into that "inner life."

In between the scenes of Joey in the war, we meet a parade of characters who enter and die rather quickly.  We do not get to know any of them well, and almost all of them are flat, including some rather important ones.  The novelist E.M. Forster is much quoted about "round and flat characters."  He defined flat characters as having just one particular quality that is repeatedly emphasized by their actions or by the narrator.  They have little in the way of complicated motivations.  He wrote, "The test of a round character is whether it is capable of surprising us in a convincing way.  If it never surprises, it is flat."

We do not get to know the people in War Horse largely because there is no time -- the play is too busy rushing to the next spectacle to develop its characters.

Unfortunately, this problem includes the play's human protagonist, Albert.  Granted, he takes a great risk in going to war to find his beloved horse, but the play does not explore more about the nature of that bond.  He runs about the battlefields talking about his horse and how determined he is find it.  Yet he starts the play as the somewhat whiny 16-year-old son of an overbearing father and doesn't change much by the end of it -- despite the passage of four years and a world war.

But I seemed to have been alone in my unhappiness with the play.  My audience gave the cast a standing ovation.  They enjoyed the parade of spectacle, and I am not criticizing them for their enjoyment -- even Forster says flat characters can be quite effective.  The audience members seemed satisfied that sentiments were depicted for us rather than recreated for us.  For me, that is a key difference between events and character.  Events can show me the appearance of sentiments (love, hate, sorrow, grief, joy, etc.), but it is through character that I can experience those sentiments myself.

Crazy Like a Fox or an Evil Wizard

I live in Southern California, which has a large Spanish-speaking population.

Incluyendo mi esposa, por ejemplo.

So, Spanish-language television has a large presence here, and I have been seeing billboards for a  venture started this year by Fox Television: MundoFox.  Thirty-four stations around the country are signed up to carry its programming.  But I am puzzled by the logo.

When I saw my first MundoFox billboard I thought it was announcing the grand opening of a Target in Mordor. 

I realize the logo is most likely intended to look like the "on" button for an electronic device.  You know, in binary code 1 is "yes" and 0 is "no," so 1 = "on" and 0 = "off."  So Fox is announcing that it is "turning on" its Spanish-language network.

However, my initial association is with the much-more famous Target logo and the fiery eye of Sauron from the Lord of the Rings films.

And even though I know what the billboards advertise, that logo makes me curious less about watching futbol or telenovelas and more about whether I can buy orc-sized tube socks.