Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Would you take a course from the Odd Couple—two profs with entirely different approaches, ideas, and temperaments?  Does this further the ideal of teaching effective communication, especially when disagreement in part of the equation?

We could not be more different. Mel Seesholtz has a reputation for criticizing the dogma-based sociopolitical agenda of organized religion; Bryan Polk is the chaplain at Abington College. Mel is a James Joyce scholar; Bryan prefers to study Neolithic stone circles in England. Although we both teach English classes, Mel focuses on literature and courses on science, technology, and society; Bryan teaches religious studies and mythology. Mel is a laid-back facilitator of classroom discussions; Bryan is a more formal lecturer. Mel is a vegetarian (heading toward vegan); Bryan is a gourmet cook who enjoys virtually every kind of meat. …

But our version of team-teaching is expensive. Do its benefits outweigh its costs? Aside from students liking the approach, clearly it has helped them understand how to disagree without becoming inconsiderate, ranting bloviators. Based on student feedback and evaluations, campus administrators have agreed to continue the course for at least another year, and in response to student requests, we are writing a textbook that presents the material in a framework reflecting the modeling goals that inspired the course.

via Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Additional Reading on the Cuban Missile Crisis

Want to dig deeper into the causes, processses, and various possible outcomes from the crisis? (Remember that case studies, by their nature, have more than you can ever read or digest….that is part of the game.)  But assuming you want to learn more….First, its helpful to know that this is an oft-studied case in schools of public policy–so much so that Eliott Cohen wrote a much noted article in The National Interest in 1986 arguing “enough!” [Google book version here]

Further, take this worthy rebuttal to Cohen in this review of Michael Dobbs’ book and discussion of the demythologizing of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as a brief by Dobbs for the US Institute of Peace [PDF].  (The latter argues several reasons for the continued study of this case–including the fact that it demonstrates how personality in leadership matters.  With a different president we very well would have obtained a different result.)

Now, go back from the future and consider these sources, thanks to Future State:

Primary Sources

Kennedy, Robert F. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, History Staff. CIA Documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. Washington, DC, Central Intelligence Agency, 1992. http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/cubamis/book1.pdf

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, vol. VI, Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996. http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/volumevi.html

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, vol. X, Cuba, 1961-1962. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1997. http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/frusX/index.html

U.S. Department of State. Office of the Historian. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, vol. XI, Cuban Missile Crisis and Aftermath. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996. http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/frusXI/index.html

Secondary Sources

Allison, Graham T. and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.

Fursenko, Aleksandr and Timothy Naftali. One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997.

May, Ernest R. and Philip Zelikow, eds. The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1997.

Nash, Philip. The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957-1963. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

National Security Archive. “The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: The 40th Anniversary.” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

Paterson, Thomas G. Contesting Castro: The United States and the Triumph of the Cuban Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Thirteen Days (movie). Dir. Roger Donaldson. New Line Cinema, 2000.

Need to Know | Richard Holbrooke, Diplomat Over Decades

The foreign service never looked so literary in the elliptical career of Richard Holbrooke, peacemaker and headbreaker–who now draw on the parallels of his Vietnam experiences in the modern-day crucible of Af-Pak.

The Obama adviser said, “There’s almost an inevitability or gravitational force that pulls Holbrooke into relevant circles, because he makes himself indispensable.”

A worthy eight-page biographic read on Holbrooke by George Packer is now available online via the New Yorker. His latest job:

When Holbrooke was in his mid-thirties, he had been the youngest ever Assistant Secretary of State, for East Asia, under Jimmy Carter. Two decades later, in his mid-fifties, he had served as Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary for Europe. Now, another decade on, he was to be a de-facto Assistant Secretary again—he described himself to me as “a junior, non-Cabinet-level official.” Holbrooke’s career appeared to be charting one of the longest plateaus in the history of the foreign service. In fact he took the mandate from Obama and Clinton and defined his role in a way that has made it unprecedented in American diplomacy.

One useful insight Packer mines is to disabuse would-be diplomats of the notion that diplomacy is all wine and roses.  Some people really don’t like Holbrooke, which works to his advantage regularly.  Consider a wonderful example:

In August, 2008, at a writers’ conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, Holbrooke shared a stage with Shashi Tharoor, the Indian diplomat, who lost out to Ban Ki-moon in the competition to succeed Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of the United Nations. The topic—the future of the U.N.—could not have been more anodyne, and Tharoor’s opening remarks made the familiar point that the Security Council is outmoded and needs to be enlarged. Almost instinctively, as if he needed to shatter the polite mood and dominate the stage, Holbrooke systematically exposed the conflicting national interests that would arise, until Tharoor’s suggestion had been demolished. Tharoor mustered a diplomatic smile as Holbrooke concluded, “In thirty years, there will be a committee still studying the issue, and you, Shashi, will be on it.”

Diplo Demeanor | Lessons from Job Interviewing

How should a diplomat be seen and behave?  Aside from stuffy protocols–which are certainly part of the job–comportment is key.  Think of a diplomat’s demeanor as something akin to a job interview:  no set rules, but qualities such as punctuality, courtesy, and body language matter a lot.  So does the ability to read people and understand cues.

She says she and her colleagues apply “the airport test” to candidates. They ask themselves: “Would I want to be stuck in the airport for 12 hours with this person if my flight was delayed?” It seems that just being yourself — albeit a formal, polite, alert and attentive version of yourself — is the best way to behave during interviews.

via The Search – The Cues in a Job Interview That Say ‘Hire Me’ – NYTimes.com.

Grading the Obama Health Care Speech

Let’s look at President Obama’s speech for how it measures up on the standards of  effective oratory (and what you’ll learn more about in class next week)–organization, content, and delivery.

1.  Organization:  A

I didn’t listen to it contiguously, so this is a mashup of my observations and others’ commentary:

• Framing is an important part of a speech–something that you’d look for at a more advanced level of analysis.  Andrew Sullivan muses in his live-blogging discussion:  “His description of the public option – that it can provide more efficient treatment because it doesn’t need to make large profits and because it will have less overhead – is the best framing I’ve heard… He’s framing the public option in the conservative language of competition and consumer choice. Smart move. And he isn’t demonizing the insurance companies: he’s saying they are merely encouraged by the system to over-price and under-deliver.”
• Pivots are words pundits love to use but really are just transitions designed to draw contrast in order to make your original point.  Sullivan, again: “Classic Obama pivot: describe the right and the left and then say he is in the middle. And the Burkean twist: “I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.“”
• Anticipating objections are a key rhetorical device, but complementing old enemies and even chastising friends (in what may be a straw man attack) can be useful to show you are really serious about trying to forge consensus. From Slate.com: “Twice Obama referred to Republican ideas. He praised John McCain’s idea of providing catastrophic care for those who’ve been denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. He also said he was looking into medical malpractice reforms considered by George Bush. He made a detailed appeal for the public option, a favorite of liberals, but then downplayed it, saying it would cover only 5 percent of the uninsured.“

2.  Content  B+

• Good lines make for good speeches.  According to the Economist live blogging of the speech, this one worked:  “No one should go broke because they get sick.” That was a Facebook meme this week, turned into the “status message” of thousands of liberals. Mr Obama’s speechwriter is not yet 30, and it shows sometimes, not in harmful ways.
• Ultimately you have to say something–have a message.  Ed Rollins, Republican strategist on CNN.com sees that Obama “laid out his goals, he laid out his key objectives. The details will come from Congress” but failed to provide the full answers many sought.  “There’s a lot in this that could be challenged tonight.“
• Who is the audience, Congress or the people? (the latter).  Liberals or conservatives? (base + middle).  And in this sense, he didn’t have a lot new to add.  As John Dickerson in Slate.com notes,  “As for the substance, there were some new nuggets. But mostly the president sought to reiterate what he’s been saying for months.”  The problem:  he needs to reach that audience, and get them to vote his way.  And, more importantly, as David Gergen observes on CNN.com, “We saw the Obama we elected.” … “But for a lot of others, I don’t’ think it move them very much…the people he needed to move to reverse the tide.”  Hugh Hewitt agrees.
• Facts are useful things, but prone to misuse.  Politicians and diplomats employ information to their own ends.  Its always good to use them in your own speeches–but its also nice as a consumer to consult a factchecker, such as the NYT in this case.  (Summary: Obama isn’t perfect.)
• Summed up nicely by the oddball conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan:
  

  A masterful speech, somehow a blend of governance and also campaigning. He has Clinton’s mastery of policy detail with Bush’s under-rated ability to give a great speech. But above all, it is a reprise of the core reason for his candidacy and presidency: to get past the abstractions of ideology and the easy scorn of the cable circus and the cynicism that has thereby infected this country’s ability to tackle pressing problems. This was why he was elected, and we should not be swayed by the old Washington and the old ideologies and the old politics. He stands at the center urging a small shift to more government because the times demand it.

  And he makes sense. And this was not a cautious speech; it was a reasoned but courageous speech. He has put his presidency on the line for this. And that is a hard thing to do.

  via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

3.  Delivery:  A-

Tough to compete here–even if you’re a hard-core conservative.  This is Reaganesque, Kennedyesque, and whatever adjective you want to invent.  We are living with a U.S. president who happens to be a pretty amazing public speaker.  (Get over it/enjoy it.)

Still, one laugh line (or was it?) fell flat.  He seemed off on timing with the teleprompter on a few occassions–perhaps a tough critique but not typical for this amazing orator.

Conclusion?   A-  He has to do the work now.  Speechifying is just one part in politics or diplomacy.  Maureen Dowd turned another clever phrase in relating what Obama had to do tonight with what he tried to do in the ‘controversial’ school speech this week:

The president told students on Tuesday that “being successful is hard” and “you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.” He should take his own words to heart. He can live long and prosper by being less Spocky and more Rocky.

But the fact is, making your speech turn into reality is tough. Dickerson summed it up best:

Barack Obama must envy Steve Jobs. In a speech Wednesday afternoon, Apple’s CEO unveiled several spiffy new product updates, and within hours, on millions of computer screens across the country, little windows popped up asking users if they wanted Apple’s new software. If they did, it was seamlessly a part of their lives in just minutes.

Pushing Peace One Meeting at a Time

Its a tough job for George Mitchell, but he’s seen this once before.  How to push for peace– a process and a destination–one meeting at a time?

Even the Saudis, he said, “want to be helpful. They, like everyone we’re talking to, want a peace agreement that will lay the foundation for the end of this conflict. I truly believe that’s what they want.”

The trick, analysts said, is persuading both sides to act simultaneously when each wants to see the other move first.

via Diplomatic Memo – U.S. to Push Peace in Middle East Media Campaign – NYTimes.com.

On another front, how should the U.S. deal with Iran?  Another NYT report observes: “The question we have to face,” one American diplomat said, “is whether any sanction at this point can really deter them, given how close they are now.”

The approach would be to empower President Obama so he would be able to forge a multi-nation sanction:

In a visit to Israel last week, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James L. Jones, mentioned the prospect to Israeli officials, they said.  The White House refused Sunday to confirm or deny the contents of Mr. Jones’s discussions. But other administration officials said that they believed his goal was to reinforce Mr. Obama’s argument that the Israeli government should stop dropping hints about conducting a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities if no progress is made this year, and to give the administration time to impose what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calls “crippling sanctions” that might force Iran to negotiate.

Big Dog Diplomacy | Bill Abroad

I usually agree with the writer David Denby that too much snark is a bad societal thing–and thus agree with him that Maureen Dowd generally serves no larger social purpose. Think of her as the TMZ for intelligent NYT readers, a kind of grammarporn. But I must give credit where it is due–her analysis, yes, once you punch through all those clever wordages–is the best one then on Bill Clinton’s successful meet n’ greet.

Maybe it was some clever North Korean revenge plot, giving the limelight to Daddy to punish Mommy. Just as Hillary muscled her way back into the spotlight, moving past her broken elbow and grabbing the focus from her bevy of peacock envoys, she was blown off the radar screen again by an even more powerful envoy: the one she lives with.

It was a moment unique in the annals of diplomacy. Bill was being hailed as a dazzling statesman who might have changed the stormy weather between the U.S. and North Korea, just as Hillary was beginning an 11-day trip to Africa designed to highlight the subjects she most cares about: do-gooder development and women’s issues.

Another fine take on the experience (best headline ever: “Bill and Kim’s Excellently-Posed Adventure“) comes from the renowned designer Ken Carbone:

The real star in this picture is the tremendous painting in the background. It dominates this cast of characters. Is it a raging symbol of strength? Is it a tsunami of power? If it’s to send a message that North Korea is a force to be reckoned with, they should probably lose the tacky casino carpeting in the foreground. I love this painting. It lends energy to a pose that could serve as a model for a wax recreation in a Pyongyang Madame Tussaud’s.

UPDATE | Another Big Dog of foreign policy, Dr. Henry Kissinger himself, weighs in on the diplomatic winners/losers in WaPo.  His take:

The root cause of our decade-old controversy with Pyongyang is that there is no middle ground between North Korea being a nuclear-weapons state and a state without nuclear weapons. At the end of a negotiation, North Korea will either destroy its nuclear arsenal or it will become a de facto nuclear state. So far, Pyongyang has used the negotiating forums available to it in a skillful campaign of procrastination, alternating leaps in technological progress with negotiating phases to consolidate it.

Anti-Public Diplomacy Campaign | “Tweaking” the Zimbabwean Dictator

The “Trillion Dollar Campaign”–by TBWA/Hunt/Lascaris’s South African office for The Zimbabwean newspaper–was aimed at wrongs committed by Robert Mugabe’s regime. So they plastered billboards with a potent artifact of Mugabe’s corruption and incompetence: The Zimbabwean trillion-dollar bill, whose printing was the result of spiraling inflation.The campaign was a bit more complex than a simple promo of The Zimbabwean. The newspaper is actually based in South Africa, after Mugabe exiled its publishers for exposing the corruption of his government. He then placed a 55% import tax on it, to make it unaffordable to average citizens. So the newspaper responded by trying to build up enough of a readership base in South Africa to subsidize its distribution in its home country.

From FastCompany

Experts Say Full Disclosure May Not Always Be Best Tactic in Diplomacy – NYTimes.com

What’s wrong with being open? A lot, according to the NYT today.  Some of the dangers for Obama’s “candor in American diplomacy”:

• He risks forsaking the advantages of “constructive ambiguity,” the diplomatic practice of fudging differences, credited to Henry A. Kissinger
• Public pronouncements may limit private negotiation options.  “There are two home truths in diplomacy,” said Thomas R. Pickering, one of the nation’s most experienced career diplomats and a former under secretary of state. “One is, don’t tell lies. The other is, you can say more in private than you can in public, but they have to be consistent.”
• Certain situations require certain approaches.  How does candor fit with the challenges of dealing diplomatically with North Korea, Israel/Palestine, Iran, or even Russia?  “There are times with authoritarian regimes that you are trying to nudge in a positive direction when you do not want to say things too publicly,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former under secretary of state for political affairs, who handled the talks on Iran’s nuclear program during the Bush administration.

Bottom line:  the President is trying to build up his chips for an even bigger game.

“Most Palestinians and many Arabs have lost faith in the peace process,” he [Burns] said. “One of the major issues for the United States is to regain credibility. This is a down payment the Obama administration is making with the Arab world, and they’re saying it publicly.”

Book Review – ‘Benjamin Disraeli,’ by Adam Kirsch – Review – NYTimes.com

On the novelist, politician and celebrated statesman:

Kirsch acknowledges his [Disraeli's] political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents, both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

via Book Review – ‘Benjamin Disraeli,’ by Adam Kirsch – Review – NYTimes.com.

BENJAMIN DISRAELI  by Adam Kirsch, Illustrated. 258 pp. Nextbook/Schocken. $21