The next section of the book addresses different local political systems in different nations. The authors' main point in this section is that elected local offices are far more streamlined in foreign nations than they are here, there is typically a "town council" or equivalent organization and sometimes a mayor but not a confusing combination of town meetings town councils, selectman, electors and others as there is here. This substantially more confusing system, in the author's opinion dissuades people from participating in local government because they do not know what any individual body does. While I understand that such confusion is a problem here the author presents no evidence that participation in local government is higher in other countries and I would imagine that part of the reason that local government is so convoluted here is that not many people care, the true cause is hard to separate from the effect. Despite my objections to the authors' theories I agree with them that local government should be streamlined, standardized, and shrunk. One way to do this would be for the federal government to mandate a structure for all town governments, for example a city council and a mayor but no town meeting, board of selectmen etc. It would also help if geographical distinctions were simplified, for example some local services are run through the state, some through the town, some through the country etc. A simpler system could abolish intermediary levels between states and towns and make local government responsible for more services as well as simpler.

The next section of my book spoke about what the author refers to as "long-term significance" of local government and the reason, over and above previous reasons, why he believes local government to be so important. The primary manifestation of this theory is that local government serves as a "testing ground" both personally and ideologically for state and national politics. That is to say that many national level politicians began their careers at a local level, they would fall into the author's second category of local politicians: those that are using local government as a stepping stone to higher office. For these individuals local politics acts as a screening process that prevents incompetent or dishonest officials from rising to higher office (at least theoretically). If people are less aware of local politics than it is far easier for unsavory individuals to climb the ranks of local politics until they reach higher office. The same process repeats on a theoretical level with many federal and state government policies originating at the local level before spreading. Furthermore, many political parties ideologies and movements originate at the local level before eventually having national or even international significance. The author's view of this phenomenon, one I agree with is that the direct importance of local government is not the only reason why people should participate, its long-term importance alone provides a reason for increased awareness.

The next section of the book that I read focused on how participation in local government can be improved. The author’s recommendations focus upon increasing awareness though the ways suggested in the book: publicly financed television ads and more advertised (through flyers) town meetings seem somewhat underwhelming. We are already bombarded by so many political television ads and flyers that we mostly tune them out. This is one area where I feel my senior project could make a real difference. Educating students about the role and value of local government could increase citizen participation from an early age. One challenge that the author mentioned was that local officials (as you mentioned in your comment) may not be in favor of increased voter awareness/participation. The author argued that there exist three types of local government employees. The first category is those who are using local office as a stepping stone to fulfill greater political ambitions. The second category are those who genuinely want to help a community in which they have a personal stake. These first two categories both want increased participation, in order to increase their personal publicity and increase the profile of issues they care about respectively. The third category of official is the problem. This category consists of elected officials who are not genuinely invested in the community and do not want career advancement. They merely want the power, influence (and often salary) that comes with a local government position. There is no incentive whatsoever for these people, and they are often the most powerful, to increase citizen awareness of local government.

Mr. Fischer, the next section of the book provides one possible answer to your question. According to the authors people have no power in local government because they choose not to participate in it and they chose not to participate in it because they are under the impression (whether it is right or wrong) than local government is not important. The authors maintain that there is somewhat of a paradoxical quality to this situation. in many cases local government is not important because no one cares, no one cares because they do not think its important, no one participates so they have no power and no-one has any power because there is no power to be had in an impotent government. While this section was interesting it failed to enumerate what powers local governments actually have. Most school functions (I think) are controlled by local government and as these control not only the value of education but also the value of property I would think they would stimulate interest in local government. I also received the general impression that it is ordinary people and not politicians who drive local decisions. People who run for school board do not typically have high political aspirations, as a result they are unlikely to affect dramatic changes. It is only in communities where people are invovled and where they push their officials that real acitvity occurrs on a local level. To me, communities with lots of children (and a higher emphasis on education) would be a primary example of this phenomenon. However, Brookline is such a community and to my knowedge there is very limited involvement in local politics. It would be interesting to delve further into this topic and discover if people in Brookline are involved in politics but more subtly than I had first imagined.

For my senior paper project I am reading the book "Local Politics" by Terry Christensen and Tom Hogen-Esch. In the first hundred pages the book describes the basic structures of town governments: town meetings, mayors, town councils, school boardse etc. It drives home the point that town governments are arguably one of our most idiosyncratic governing institutions. Depending of the town real political power may rest with any group or individual. Some towns have even created unique institutions with seemingly random distribution of authority. However, while the distribution of local legal political power might seem random the authors do point out that there are some common denominators. The first of which is that political power in towns is determined not so much by what position one holds as by how much one cares to exert influence. In most town governments very few people bother to vote let alone run for office. From my experience Brookline seems to mirror this trend. Many Brookline town officials ran unopposed in the last election. According to Christensen and Hogen-Esch this means that holding elected office is not a prerequisite for holding and wielding political power. Showing up at a town meeting with two a handful of friends and supporters can be enough to alter a local policy. Such a situation exists because most people don’t care about local governance. Whether this is important is an issue that I hope will be addressed later in the book. If nothing of consequence is decided in local governmental institutions that there is no point in caring. However, if important decisions are made the increased participation in local governance would be beneficial to all.

For this blog post I would like to address a theory posited in several of the articles in the Bell Curve Wars: that racism is essentially a problem that will go away if it is ignored. This theory is based upon the idea that it is much harder to combat racism at all levels of society if statistics concerning it are publicly known. For example there is a well-known study in which applicants with identical resumes but different names (ones more common to white populations and ones more common to African-American populations) are given interviews at dramatically rates based solely upon the "race" of their name. The primary reasons for this, according to the studies authors is negative subconscious associations with certain races triggered by the names of that race. The authors of several articles in the Bell Curve wars reject the subconscious part of this theory with the argument that at this point almost everyone has seen statistics about higher rates of crime and violence among the African-American population. Armed with such knowledge employers cannot be blamed for hiring individuals from groups less likely to engage in illegal behavior. The problem with this scenario is that deprived of work African-Americans are more likely, like any other group, to engage in criminal activity, increasing the crime statistics and starting the cycle all over again. According to some the best way to stop this cycle is to prevent the statistics from ever being collected. I generally agree with the principle that some statistics do more harm than good. Many nations, most notably France have forbidden demographic surveys on the basis of race. While I believe that is a little draconian I would not be opposed to some measure in the United States restricting the collection of data on the basis of race. I believe that it is far easier to look at problems of inequality in the both the workplace and the classroom through the lens of class. For one thing the issue is more direct. Some people have less money, they can give fewer advantages to their children, their children do less well in school and the cycle continues. The past majority of disadvantaged African-Americans are poor and looking at them solely on the basis of class would eliminate any residual racial bias. It would also transform African-Americans from a tiny oppressed minority to one part of an oppressed majority.

For this blog post I read the conclusion of the Bell Curve Wars written by the books editor that addressed on a macro-level the controversy surrounding the Bell Curve. This section attacked the violent personal attacks used by both the defenders and detractors of Hernstein and Murray. It mentions that many have tried to censor the ideas of the Bell Curve rather than rebutting them with sound and calm intellectual arguments.The author attacks these individuals on the grounds that they cannot aspire to a higher intellectual plane if they refuse even to discuss the ideas they agreed with in a civilized manner. The ideas of Hernstein and Murray could, in the words of Stephen Frazer (the editor) "still have merit" even if they are not "correct" in the traditional sense. Frazer goes on to state that the oppressive and intolerant thinking of which Hernstein and Murray are accused is used by their very accusers when they refuse to consider ideas that they disagree with. He adds that no work however, heinous should be dismissed out of hand but instead should by carefully and examined in an intellectual light. I agree with Frazer that it generally a good idea to examine every new idea and theory in a critical light and that no idea should be dismissed completely out of hand. However, upon further consideration I do tend to agree with some of the Bell Curve's harsher critics. While the work should not of course be banned or overtly censured it is important to remember that it contains highly-controversial and in many ways repellent ideas and that it includes policy recommendations that could, if implemented affect millions of people. The very appearance of an equal weighing of the Bell Curve's ideas with those of its opponents elevates them to the same level as any other theory. However, the ideas of the Bell Curve are in many ways dangerous and could, in theory, be used to justify any number of inequities and injustices in society.