MAAS: Master Program in American Studies
  • Home
    • Events
  • Courses
    • Overview 2015-2016
    • General courses 2015-2016 >
      • Methodology of Trans-Atlantic American Studies
      • American History, Politics, Economics I & II
      • American Culture : Regions and Ethnicities
      • U.S. Law and Justice in an International Context
      • Master Thesis
    • Electives 2015-2016 >
      • The American Way of Religion
      • Literary Journalism Across Cultures
      • America and the Challenge of Terrorism
      • Postmemory and Postmodern: Third-Generation Jewish American Trauma Narratives (MA English)
      • European Union Trade Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Agricultural Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Foreign & Security Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • Internship
    • Course Schedule 2015-2016
  • Staff
    • Professorial staff >
      • Gert Buelens
      • Philippe Codde
      • John Dick
      • Ken Kennard
      • Rob Kroes
      • Isabelle Meuret
      • David Woolner
  • Housing etc.
  • APPLY
    • Overview
    • Admission requirements
    • Request an application form
    • Additional application materials
    • Submit your complete application
  • FAQ
  • Testimony
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Blog

The Court Jester verses the Ice Maiden

26/9/2016

0 Comments

 

As we look forward to the first televised debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton it might be instructive if not informative to consider why two of the most unpopular political characters in the country are being 'permitted' to fight for the most powerful position in the United States.

Firstly, You might reasonably want to focus on the policies that these two presidential candidates will expound on looking to take a rational view of how they might act in step with the significance of this highly sought post. Secondly, you also might consider the experience that these two would bring to the White House that is relevant to the very real challenges that this nation faces, yet, paradoxically in this 'Age of Mistrust' that we are all living through it seems that many will not rely or give credence to the 'evidence' that these two very different players present, but more on what they see and feel when making up their minds as to who to vote for or more worryingly for Clinton, whether they will vote at all. In other words, the visual and often superficial characterisation of these two protagonists can have more of an effect on the outcome of this presidency than any really considered understanding.

Throughout history the Court Jester has had a special place in 'mature' societies; the one person permitted or allowed to be irreverent, discordant, dissenting from the accepted view. In other words, expressing the fears and frailties of others through the comedic abuse of the establishment. Trump takes on this role with relish, hence for some he is entertaining, for some he is clown like, and for some he is just plain ridiculous but the key issue surrounding the Jester's 'jokes' are that his punchlines are not funny and they are not meant to be. They are extremely serious and representative of thought for a large numbers of citizens within the United States. (As we go into the first debate and only 44 days away from the election Clinton has a marginal and somewhat soft lead in the national polls of just 2%).

Conversely, the Ice Maiden - a carefully constructed fairy tale character that provides an opportunity to promote a particular image whilst being in actuality someone else. Clinton has adopted and adapted this role because similarly to Trump her assumed character suits her personality. Her primary instinct has always been to tightly cover up her frailties and therefore, her 'real self' whilst promoting and projecting her effectiveness and experience, in other words, her political beauty. After all her supporters somewhat bizarrely argue that her presented persona represents the true 'nature and nurture' of the US.

For all this adoption of 'attractive' façades does the US really trust either of them! A man who wishes to build the 'New Wall of China' to keep the undeserving out or a women who would blow up the disintegrating walls of Aleppo to keep the undeserving in!   

What does the existence of these two characters extolling the virtues of fiction not fact tell us about present day America? For some is the true reality of life too painful to consider so a character offering relief however fanciful is easier to swallow? For some is it that as individuals they feel victims in a insensitive uncaring World that no longer listens, understands or represents them? Is it that for many the sureties and securities of their atavistic societal understanding have all gone south? All these observations have some ring of authenticity across the whole socio/political spectrum in the US - and of course in Europe -  but in essence many citizens of the United States do not want to hear the 'truth' since the 'solutions' often suggest and demand time, patience and a new understanding, what they want instead is to see and feel that life will once again instantly become safer, happier and successful, far more gratifying... but of course ultimately ephemeral (the American Dream). That in large part is why there are two 'unloved' fictional characters playing out their roles on the political stage to packed audiences all looking for a moment of national theatre, a moment of escapism from their 'real' World. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny!    

KK
               
             

0 Comments

The New Age of Extremes

23/9/2016

0 Comments

 

Public Lecture TODAY - Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome


As historians, political and cultural commentators we spend a considerable amount of time healthily disputing the claims of others in terms of cause, effect and the subsequent outcome of events that underpin our World. But this continual intellectual competition seems very muted over the re-entry of the above. However, where discord still sits is in why this 'New Age of Extremes' has occurred within a modern international system that apparently was constructed, reconfigured and now managed in a way that looks to tease and squeeze out the extremes of society. In other words, why is our collection of national, supranational and international organisations that look to provide a more reasoned if not fairer distribution of care, development and wealth throughout the World failing us? 

To best consider this question we turn to domestic America since at present there sits evidence as to our international malaise as the three main ingredients that offer us extremism - inequality, ignorance and inhumanity - have not only bubbled to the surface but are now in danger of materially changing the face of American society. 

The polarisation of the 'economic haves' verses the 'have nots' continues a pace in the US. Income differences have become so pronounced that the nation's top 10 percent now average nearly nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent. Americans in the top 1 percent are stunningly higher. They average over 38 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. But even this disparity pales into insignificance when you compare US's top 0.1 percent with everyone else. This economic elite are taking in over 184 times the income of the bottom 90 percent. Critically, these frightening figures translate from a quantitative reading to a large qualitative effect. Since this economic disconnect is not just played out in Wall Street but on Main Street via the societal issues of  housing, health, education and employment. Up until the 1970's the notion and acceptance of a mixed economy as it implies offered a rough balance within private and public economic activity and therefore, acted as a 'regulator or corrector' so that the differentials between the poorest and the richest did not lose sight of each other; the growing American middle classes acted as the economic and aspirational bridge between these two extreme groups. But the 1980's changed all that as neo-liberal economics was 'adopted' to reflex the growing opportunities created by globalisation. Reagan and Thatcher were determined to leave their socio-economic footprint in the sand - it has yet to be washed away.

As US society began to be stretched throughout the 1990's because of the adoption of this free wheeling economic understanding spaces began to appear in the political spectrum as politicians failed to keep up with the changing societal condition. The failure of government to provide the American working classes with any real advancement in their earnings during a period spanning 30 years, was masked to many outsiders by the headline grabbing events of the End of the Cold War, the First Iraqi War, and of course 9/11. But to keen observers of US domestic well-being Bill Clinton's balancing of the federal budget in the mid nineties was just wallpapering over the real effect that a no holds barred 'free market' was having on the real economy. As Wall Street got grossly richer Main Street started to quiver but no one was really looking and listening. Then 2008 struck.

The economic meltdown that resulted from this largely unregulated economic system pushed the federal government into supporting the very same banks and financial institutions that had caused this disaster in the first place. Public money was now being used to bail out private profligacy. In other words, tax dollars from the working classes were being used to underpin and shore up high earners. The subsequent damage to Main Street has been extensive as many lost their jobs only to be re-employed on a small percentage of their original wage. At present official unemployment figures in the US sit at around 5% but this number disguises much. Many in the US do not register unemployed because there are few benefits or welfare support. The number of self employed in the US now sits at 3 in every 10 jobs while many exist in a low wage economy that fails to pay their bills. 47 million people now live in poverty with 44% of all homeless actually having jobs.  No wonder many look to support extreme left and right wing understanding since the centre ground has effectively left them for dead. No wonder violence in the towns and cities is in the ascendency. No wonder the use and abuse of race is once again being utilised and manipulated as a indicator of societal breakdown. 

Both Trump and Clinton are representations, illustrations and products of this disintegrating domestic condition. Why else would the US listen to let alone vote for two of the most unpopular and damaged political figures in American contemporary history! Trump attempts to represent the victims of this unfair and unjust economic system. Many are frightened that they have no future so they cling onto a man whose grasp of reality seems wishful. While Clinton represents the middle classes who are also frightened of falling into the very same disadvantaged and largely disenfranchised group that Trump looks to support. Both candidates are good at feeding into this notion of 'victim-hood' - the people (the outsiders) who are to blame for this growing crisis. But of course the truth sits closer to home, as the very same economic system that made Trump a billionaire and allows Clinton to sit very comfortably in amongst her property portfolio is the real igniter of this New Age of Extremes.        

KK

Public Lecture TODAY Tuesday 18th October at 7pm, the Blandijn in Auditorium C, Ugent
TRUMP v CLINTON - All welcome




                     
 

             
0 Comments

    Author

    Dr J Ken Kennard Professor of Politics and History - Master Program in American Studies - Universiteit Gent

    Archives

    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.