The Kroc Institute has scheduled our peace studies conference very intelligently: recognizing that as much learning can take place through individual conversations as in lectures (“frontal instruction,” or Frontalunterricht, as the Germans call it), they’ve built in scheduled and unscheduled time for the participants to interact. Tonight, taking my place next to a “random” participant at a local pizza parlor, I found myself sitting next to Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. At some point in the conversation, he mentioned that he had run against Al Franken for Minnesota’s Democratic nomination to the Senate. He described his campaign as “movement building,” using a strategy he teaches in Peace Studies. He spoke at VFW halls across the state, making a pitch that went something like this: “We are a declining empire trying desperately to hold onto power through military might. If you had to decide right now whether to invest billions in this proven failure of a strategy, or to take that same money and build a real renewable energy program that would create green jobs, which would you choose?” He said that 10-15 years ago he would have been kicked out of most VFW halls with this speech; in 2008, though, this crowd was with him.
The “Peace Studies” folks at this seminar all seem to integrate theory, practice, and teaching in very interesting ways. Nelson-Pallmeyer has also written a book called Saving Christianity from Empire (available in the BGSU library, BR115.P7 N365 2005 ), in which he critiques the uses of Christianity to justify American empire-building, manifest destiny, etc. going back to the beginning of the republic. (He has an M.Div. from Union Theological Seminary, so this is neither a Bible-basher nor a Bible-thumper!)
All of us around the table talked about the still-fledgling Obama presidency. Some of my colleagues are disgusted with the new president already, while I remain hopeful (“cautiously optimistic?”). But I remember how hopeful I was during the first Clinton campaign; he promised healthcare reform, too! Jack outlined all the ways in which Obama has already gone back on campaign promises: a gutted version of cap and trade, a sustained presence in Iraq, a watered-down healthcare reform proposal that he already seems to be backing off of. It was sobering; I found myself wondering whether history will view Obama as a tragic figure (the true idealist ground down by the political machine) or as simply a masterful “player” who disappoints reformists because he knows how to be realistic about what can actually be accomplished. I’m kind of rooting for the latter.
Rarely, though, have I had such good discussions with academic colleagues as at this conference: disagreements are respectful, and these colleagues are truly more interested in asking the right questions to get at the core of the other’s ideas than in hearing themselves talk. Perhaps I can say that better: these people ask genuine questions, questions that show a real interest in the topic and in the interlocutor. Too often in “discussions,” questions are really meant to show off, disguise a speech as a question, or make the other person feel stupid. “Peace people” seem to have a knack for asking GOOD questions!
Time for bed if I hope to do it all again tomorrow!