I don't know what's in Ferguson's head, but I do have some understanding of how the process works for people who are paid to think deep thoughts.Stupid stuff by Ferguson, who, as you note, is not stupid. I suspect this comes from the pressure of writing a regular column for a non-academic audience, and Ferguson trying to force a shot this week when there was nothing there. You would know more about this than me, but why can't a newspaper editor say something like:
"We're hiring you to write a regular column every X, but if for some reason you come up empty that week (or month, whatever), that's OK, just let us know. We'll publish one of our outside submissions instead and just not pay you for that column. We'd rather have you write less frequently but write consistently good columns than try to force it."
When you are a young writer, editors are often skeptical of you. They generally don't believe you, and they shouldn't. Not in q "you're lying" sort of way--though there is that. But in a, "Are you really capable of doing what it takes to make this thing great" sort of way. If you are lucky this takes the form of them giving you room to write short, medium and long, but kicking the crap out of you the whole way. If you're unlucky, it just involves a lot of kicking.
Should you stay at it a while, and build some sort of name, editors generally back off. Part of that is trust--you're a known quantity. But part of it is also a change in the relationship. A guy like Niall Ferguson is a brand in a way that, say, Ian Parker isn't. I love Parker and will now take this opportunity to link, yet again, to his gorgeous Alec Baldwin piece. I am sure there are people, like me, who read the New Yorker waiting to see what Parker is going to do next. But not the way people wait to hear what Ferguson has to say. For whatever reason, there's a bigger audience for opinion journalism than there is for narrative journalism. Once you're a brand, your relationship with your editor often changes. It's almost--almost--irrelevant whether you are right. Masses of people will flock to hear what you have to say about the world. Plus, a lot of writers
Lastly, once you become a brand, you feel the need to feed the beast. But the beast isn't natural. You don't have something important to say each and every week. And you certainly don't have something important to say each week, at 800-1000 words. Yet the demand is still there. Look, I'm a sheep-herder in this wonderful corner of the grand meadows of Bradley-land. But I regularly get requests to speak on issues that I know very little about. I can't imagine what it's like for a star Harvard professor.
There are people whose whole business revolves around Big Ideas. For those folks, there is immense pressure to talk--and talk a lot. But "Big Ideas" are hard, and some days--nay, most days--you've got nothing. And the next thing you know, you're telling the most powerful man in the world that what he really should be doing is paying more attention to a cartoon that no one watches, anymore. Tough business, eh?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Niall Ferguson, as one-of-the-smartest-people-in-the-world, surely got that way as a result of dedicated effort and drudgery, countless boring quiet hours mastering his craft. Drudgery that surely would not be marketable.
The beast needing to be fed is therefore everything the 'road to greatest' isn't. Probably in some weird way the Felix the Cat thing seemed like it would work, maybe even to Ferguson's editors. But those aren't the perceptions that make one great, yes?
If anything, we should be amazed we don't get Felix the Cat moments more often.
Cleverness, being entertaining pays. There's hoopla in conflict; really saying something is prosaic; problem solving not only involves the less glamorous aspects of sausage making, but a lot of work, step by step as well. Every once in a while the wolf shows up at the door, so a lot of folks make their living crying wolf. Even with Obama--his campaign was exciting and excellent drama, but the work of governing; I believe the Tao Te Ching said it, as difficult as preparing a small bony fish well.
I would love it if we had a politics channel that like the food channel shows with chefs that are given boxes of impossible ingredients to put together into gourmet food, we had politicians in real time competitively solving problems.
Writing is much like pro sports; we all know playground players that never hit the big time (some of us are such folks); we all see hacks praised to high heaven. The problems we have in the world and the onus on our nation, thus our populace, to deal with these problems has led us to an out of control addiction to infomaton Tang jar journalism; we're all a bunch of rubbernecking junkies, and Obama has turned into the rohrshach for every bit of nutcase nonsense imaginable. George Bush is a hard act to follow, and Obama, while personally witty, is not really a funny poitician. He's Felix the Cat or Krazy Kat, a cool cat, meow, meow, meow.
I love CitizenE's posts. I hate when they follow mine. I like rereading my posts and imagining myself unusually witty...
"Cleverness, being entertaining pays'
Yeah, I saw that felix the cat stuff and thought it was an excercise in glib, self-indulgent cheekiness. And sometimes cheekiness sells.
Krazy Kat is in love with a mouse that throws brick at him/her. Not exactly a cool cat in my understanding of the term.
TNC:
I'd have to agree, but that doesn't explain away Felix the Cat type stupidity on Ferguson's part. Then again, he was writing for a Murdoch paper, right?
So Calvin. How is Rufus anyway?
I need to stop commenting. Dogma References are probably going too far.
Apologies.
The Financial Times is owned by the Pearson Group, not Murdoch.
There is, as you say a likely aspect of this kind of format/expectation that works against quality/big-ideas, but the difference here between being clever and being wise may have to do with knowing when to say no, or maybe no mas.
We are quick to judge teachings/explorations of a certain density/complexity as elitest (or merely academic) but perhaps part of the learning process of working through difficult/new/big ideas is a kind of humility and gratitude that isn't servile but does require a kind of surrender of ego.
Some things just don't work well as commodities and I'm thankful that something(s) can still provide enough gravitas to resist such market forces.
I'm not sure if I should be offended are just call it stupid. I remember at least equally dumb columns about Clinton. Why you'd call a president "lucky" when they had no choice but to start of their term with something as god-awful as the stimulus bill and inherent the disastrous mess left by the Bushies everywhere.
I will fully attest to being one of those grumpy white people who rolls my eyes at charges of racism with about the same frequency that I roll my eyes at FOX new but WTF? Tossing the word "black" in there along with Felix the cat doesn't make sense to begin with and its hard to red the column and come up with a reason that its not a gratuitous and pointless mention of race.
I really detest it when pundits call a politician "lucky" anyhow. Its just dumb, timing and strategy is everything. Its like calling a great comedian lucky for his excellent timing. Presented with the same opportunities 99.9% of us can't come close to pulling it off. Its just a way of discounting their talents I think. Tossed in with this it just looks really bad.
I guess I'm more inclined to see the excuse being offered here as more damming than the original assumptions. What you pop out under pressure is more of a straight line to the id. If you'd have to apply full consideration under the best of circumstances to not notice how this makes you look you have a problem.
Sheesh, the best excuse I could think of would be "Sorry, I was really stoned and watching Felix that cat and it seemed like a good idea"
Well that's good, because it isn't an excuse. It's an explanation of how the field works. This isn't to let anyone off the hook. Please--damn away.
TNC, I appreciate your insider perspective here but as I remember it you came to realize that it was not your job to think for other people, and Andrew S. is now obeying the anti-Siren voices that call one back to the real world, so there are thoughtful ways to play the game without becoming a caricature or a cartoon. Being a "star Harvard professor" may be part of the problem here as the academic star system is a sign of the top down capitulation of the academy to marketing interests, so it might be to some advantage after all to having worked one's way up from being a no-name outsider. If you would care to share more of your relationships with editors, and or the pressures to create/maintain a kind of name-brand character/identity, someday that would also be appreciated.
Almost always, I do love the thoughtfulness of this site, particularly the comments, an oasis in the internet sea of stupidity. And I could explain again that "luck is when preparation meets opportunity."
But today, nah--fuck it. Ferguson was doing exactly the same thing that other cynical, race baiting, profiteering pundits are doing:using the anti-Black racism which they perceive in their audiences, to spice up their offerings.
Notice I did not say Ferguson was a racist, because I don't know the dude. He very probably is not, (tho' the Biden/Casper observation is spot on) but this column is at best lazy and at worst, dangerous.
Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you.
It must be really hard to be a professional comment-journalist/writer. I mean it's hard enough to be a thoughtfull member of this blog. I could only imagine what it's like to be a professional opinion guy. It's a wonder people don't start repeating themselves.
It's a wonder people don't start repeating themselves.
that was a joke right?
:)
I've listened to some interviews with Ferguson, and I've read a little of his work. I would have to say that he has some very brilliant insights on economics and history, but that sometimes he feels the need to write in little gimmicks in order to make his work seem "relevant" - one example popping out to me being the opening of his history of the 20th century "War of the World" on the morning of Sept. 11, 1901, even though this date in itself has no significance whatsoever.
His column opener seems to be something along similar lines, basically: Ferguson is an expert on the Depression + Ferguson is writing about Obama and the current economic situation + Ferguson needs some attention-grabbing gimmick to tie the two together = Felix the Cat and the completely sloppy attempt at explaining what this has to do with pretty much anything. And the sad fact is that on a certain level, he has accomplished what he set out to do, namely to get people to talk about his column.
I go back to James Fallows' original criticism of the article, namely that it is weird for Ferguson, who expends no small ponds of ink defending his supposedly wounded academic integrity against Paul Krugman, the Economist, etc. to turn around and write something so monumentally mindless. But part of me feels that this is bait that has been intentionally planted: Ferguson has pounced on writers and academics such as Johann Hari and Priyamvada Gopal for accusing him of racism/unreconstructed imperialism before. He's an expert in counterfactualism after all...on some level he's playing the academic troll.
Now that I've said that Ferguson behaved stupidly, let me say that he is welcome to come up the street from his Harvard digs to my place to have a beer, but only if he agrees to sit down with Felix the Cat. And no Bud Lights at this summit please...
Ferguson reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, they are both white and use bad analogies.
One thing does stand out in Ferguson's attempt at edgy, insouciant hipness: Obama as "lucky".
In some respect, we all are lucky, right? But we have it on pretty good authority that Obama worked his a** off for a long time to get where he is, which sort of contravenes the version of luck Ferguson intended.
In any event, in a Presidential election cycle that introduced two 40-something media darlings, its quite something to look at *OBAMA* and see the luck involved.
That Baldwin piece owns. Easily the best celebrity profile I've ever read.
If you read Ferguson's account of the British Empire (esp. in Africa) and contrast it to, say, Caroline Elkins, you always get the sense that he is in some way engaged in salvaging the "good intentions" of colonization, in a way we're used to in white history. How much of this is strategy is hard to tell, but the outcome is that he is quite prepared to believe that he can describe the world however he likes, and call it like he sees it without needing to spend much time considering the different relationships audiences might have to his metaphors and descriptions. This is, as you suggest, also a relationship to the "big idea" - an idea that public culture is already comfortable with, as opposed to a big idea that people are uncomfortable with. Perhaps it's less a deliberate troll (though it is that) and more that the deep need to describe and domesticate blackness that runs through his work is not just the structure of public racism, but also something deeply embedded in his/our psyche...
After further review, it seems possible that Ferguson's invocation of Felix the Cat may be like a really smart guy version of that councilman in California, you know the one with those inappropriate emails and all those black friends.
If so, this reinforces something TNC says repeatedly about racism: its ambiguous. Regarding white folks who make derogatory analogies/comments about blacks, seems like they typically fall into two broad categories:
The first truly wants to live in a colorblind world, and they are uncomfortable with the baggage that comes with our shared history of discrimination, which they attempt to "blip" over by exposing blacks to the same off-color humor they would inflict on their white friends.
The second would join the KKK in a heartbeat if it had the same status as the Rotary Club.
As always, we don't know how many folks are in each group because, officially, everyone belongs to that first group.
The learning for white folks: if you really are uncomfortable with the baggage, work out your issues in a place like this, where the worst that can happen is you get banned (about which it seems like TNC is usually pretty gracious).
Professor Ferguson, by contrast, can look forward to submitting a paper 15 years hence, and having it returned with a snarky "Felix the Cat?" splashed in red ink over the front page by a rival reviewer.
Wow...all this talk and no suggestions for other politicians/parties and analogies to cartoons. I'm impressed. It's kind of like being in a room full of people who hear the WilliamTellOverture and DON'T think of the LoneRanger.
Myself, when I read the Ferguson column I immediately thought--yeah, and the Repubs are Wiley Coyote.
I think Elmer Fudd is much more apt particularly considering the prominence of the great white hunter and histrionics about their guns in the GOP and all.
Which leads us to Obama as Bugs Bunny which works. He's clever, charismatic, and its hard to be sure if his enemies blow themselves up solely out of ineptitude or they get helped along.
Then that reminds me of Brer' Rabbit. The brier patch does tend to pop into my mind every time I hear some bombastic threat of retribution from the right.
Considering what Disney did with it I suppose that somebody would find a reason to get offended about that. But with the full history of the trickster folk tales and all of the subtexts and fears paranoid and otherwise considered it would make a hell of lot more interesting meditation on Obama possible fortunes than Felix.
Remember (the) Bismarck!
"Bismarck said that in England progressive parties take power to introduce reactionary measures while reactionary parties take power to introduce progressive measures, and Disraeli's "Tory democracy" followed this rule (as did Bismarck himself when he pioneered the German welfare state in order to dish the Social Democrats)."
This comes from a review of a biography of Disraeli. The bio was written by an emerging intellectual superstar named Adam Kirsch. Google him for evidence. The reviewer is Geoffrey Wheatcroft, no dummy himself. The review is in the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22118, December 4, 2008.
Closer to home: affirmative action and the Environmental Protection Agency are Nixon-era creations. Clinton,for his part, opened the barn door and let the Wall Street horse thieves in.
This is not a pitch to support right wing candidates so they can fix the world. It's just a reminder that some years ago, the boxer-philosopher Leon Spinks, who once defeated Mohammad Ali and had gone from heavyweight champ to homeless in ten years, noted that "Life sure is a funny thing!" Wise words, indeed!
And Former 'liberal' President Clinton is now launching a challenge to Former 'liberal' President Carter for the title of Best Former President. In office, neither could get out of the way of his own ego. Former Heavyweight Champion Leon Spinks, for one, is probably not surprised.
This is all fine, but I think you meant to put this in the Open Thread.
Thanks for highlighting my comment, Ta-Nehisi. After engaging in a bit of Maoist self-criticism on my own blog earlier today, it's nice to see I got something partially right elsewhere. Good point you make, too, about how someone with a brand or reputation like Ferguson's will often get more leeway from his editors.
This discussion reminds me of something I wrote a couple of weeks ago, about another embarrassing (in a different way) piece from an established financial paper (in this case, Barron's, Dow Jone's weekly companion to the WSJ):
Yes, the only stuff really worth paying for at this point I think are sources like the Economist that have top people all over the world. I'm not much for the editorial content but they don't overdo it and you can know what's going on. I've been quite interested in Iran for a while and knew who Ahmadinejad was and had and idea what was coming down when he first ran years back from subscribing to that magazine. I recently read a book by and American-Iranian journalist who was living in Iran in '05' and apparently nobody there knew he was and it came out of the blue. None of the big American papers had the slightest clue and didn't again this year. I think one of the most telling events of the last several months was the wanna be comedian from the Post going off on Nico Pitney because he had the audacity to know what was going on and outshine the great insiders. The very same buffoon went way over the top with the Hillary "bitch" routing last week. The right wing media "alternative" media has far more PT Barnum in it than anything else. And there ,of course, FOX new's biggest draw is the guy who was apparently surprised that people in a fancy Harlem Resuraunt weren't acting all ghetto. It was the most blatant display of actual racism I've seen and it didn't matter since that's the clown show and all. We obsess more on celebrities and TV shows than what's going on in the world.
So what really stands out here to me is that with all this stellar communication technology we are a country obsessed with entertainment. Maureen Dowd ,in my view anyhow, writes utter dreck but gets a star spot in the NYT becuase she oh-so cleverly combines hackish political cliches with contemporary pop culture references. It doesn't matter if they actually make sense or not because its really the aesthetics that her readers like. Even this blog which consistently produces more enlightening output than most big papers editorial pages falls into a certain amount of that. (That's not a critique, just a point of who we Americans are).
After damning him as a racist it occured to me that it might actually be worse. However dangerous a racial rant shows somebody actually making an attempt to understand the world around them. Ferguson seemed to be shooting for the Maureen Dowd kind of thing here but did it with the flair of a high functioning autistic. This is sort of like that pointless knockoffs of Tarantino flicks that got pumped out in the 90's with all of the style and no substance. There is no real human or political understanding whatsoever in the column. Its the cliche ridden piffle of somebody with nothing at all to say. Whatever smarts he may have it is total vapidity this betrays. He's not thinking or coming to any particular conclusions and is in fact so utterly clueless about the culture he's writing about that he doesn't get that this sort of reference can blow up very badly on anybody in his position.
Don Imus was another example of this. He was never a racist, he treated everyone and everything with exactly that same crude level of disrespect. That was what brought him fame and fortune. For that reason the big shot clique stayed with him until Gwen Iffil wrote an editorial pointing out that words do in fact mean things and those girls did not deserve to have that said about them no matter what. Whatever he meant it was simply going to far. That brought out all of the critics who weren't quite speaking up at this pointed and silenced the big shots who had been. I get the impression that they still didn't get it though. Its as if they can't, this is all entertainment to them.