Christopher Schroeder

Author: Christopher Schroeder

  • Holding Hope

    Last week affirmed an uncomfortable reality: more American voters chose an insurrection instigator to lead us.

    People can legitimately disagree I believe over legislative intervention for example or judicial activism. At the same time, they need some shared principles, such as the belief that convicted criminals are unfit for public office.

    Other politicians have committed crimes. Propaganda especially today can be convincing, or at least challenging.

    At the same time, everyone had access to the facts. Multiple officials, including the person whom he selected to be his senior military advisor, and the highest ranking military member, warned us that he is a fascist.

    As a result, the next four years will be a regular reminder that some, including his Republican enablers, are willing to reject accountability and other shared political principles. This reality represents a challenge to American democracy.

    Now isn’t the first time I realize that these principles have been challenged, or that such inconsistencies were acknowledged. Such conditions have existed since the founding of the United States when for example only some, and not all, people were considered equal.

    The lack of progress is perhaps more discouraging. Even more alarming could be the effects of outcome, such as withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, which endangers our future existence, or pardoning the Silk Road founder and other convicted criminals, which reinforces the racial biases in the legal system.

    Regardless, hope can be found beyond our borders. South Korea for instance finally arrested and later indicted its president, who initially resisted such efforts and others.

    This situation is most likely messier than it might seem, but it illustrates that accountability despite its absence here is still possible. Some in other words still insist upon foundational democratic principles, which given the political differences might make this message even more heartening.

    Liberals must find better leaders. These leaders must be people who can convincingly and consistently challenge these conditions and all others that threaten the narrative of the United States both at home and abroad and who can call for basic political principles articulated in foundational documents and landmark rulings.

    Until then, we must hold onto hope wherever we can find it.

  • A Need to Read?

    Gloria Edim’s (2024) new memoir is a project in search of a problem.

    The book is a series of thematic chapters loosely organized in chronological order. These offer clusters of experiences, and the ways that reading helped her think through and about these.

    Edim’s claim to fame is the the Well-Read Black Girl organization, which began with a birthday t-shirt from her ex- that enabled her to escape her social isolation and connect with others. She used these casual conversations to launch a book club with friends, which she has developed into an organization that uses storytelling to advocate for social change.

    An account of its origins, and a justification for such a life, might make for relevant reading. The latter could be especially engaging in this era of digital culture, and its attendant challenges to previous justifications for reading, and the humanities.

    The problem is that it never quite gets there. Instead, it focuses more on who Edim has become and how she got there, which is obviously important to her but not necessarily at least as the way these are treated in this book to others.

    A second problem, which emerged after I finished it, is missing information. The timeline is somewhat unclear although I had attributed that to artistic choice. However, it omits details that if included could create challenges at least to the story as presented and promoted in it.

    A good example is her missing father, and he and their subsequent reconnection in Nigeria play prominent parts. However, the book is somewhat unclear that he had previously left for Nigeria, and that her mother and she had reportedly accompanied him when she was younger and frequently visited him, which suggests a somewhat different perspective on for example the house he built there, and left after his death for her brother and her.

    This issue, which is more a challenge for the genre, has little impact on the central limitation. That for me is how books justify their existence, and made this one less satisfying than I expected and hoped.

  • No NPR No

    NPR reported this morning about Univision CEO Daniel Alegre’s recent public observations about presidential campaigns. Alegre has argued that successful campaigns will do more than offer ads in English and must engage Spanish-language media.

    Part of this interview involved a question about whether Univision should be more critical of Trump’s claims, including on air with him. This question emphasized that its one of its most prominent journalists has been critical of the way Univision has covered this politician.

    Alegre in the interview this morning was allowed to sidestep the question and offer some platitudes about the organization he leads. The interviewer asked no follow-ups, and didn’t even note that Alegre hadn’t answered the question, were presented.

    I was dismayed but not surprised. I’ve noticed that NPR often allows its interviewees to avoid answering questions, including and especially more challenging ones.

    I should first clarify that I generally agree with Alegre that multilingual campaigns will likely be more successful because they’re more inclusive, and that American attitudes about multilingualism are surprisingly uninformed and embarrassing provincial. At the same time, I’m increasingly aware of the need for a shared cultural context, which could include a shared language, for successful communication and full participation.

    My bigger concern this morning is this seeming strategy to placate anyone who agrees to go on the air with NPR reporters. Some seem more willing to challenge responses than others, but most seem reluctant to do so, which makes me wonder whether this non-confrontational approach is an organization-wide strategy.

    Such a strategy clearly contrasts I believe with many BBC interviews I hear, which on my local NPR station are broadcast after the NPR morning news program. Those BBC interviewers don’t always elicit answers to their questions but seem relatively willing to confront interviewees who refuse to do so.

    Perhaps the NPR reporter asked follow-up questions and even confronted Alegre in the actual interview, and some editor or producer decided to remove that part for the on-air account. That however would suggest a bigger problem I believe.

    A functioning press has long been a central component in successful democratic societies. This need is greater now in this misinformation and disinformation era more than ever.

    NPR must do a better job of confronting public figures, and reporting the results of such efforts. That, especially if direct yet dignified, could provide a model of all of us who aspire to such conversations in our everyday lives.