This is more of a rambling reflection than a properly composed piece, but I wanted to share something that blew my mind the other day -- even though it really shouldn't have. The information wasn't anything new; I'd known for years, and yet: you know how sometimes knowledge you already possessed can suddenly hit you with particular and even personal force? This was one of those moments. I was talking with my 6-year-old daughter about voting. I can't even remember specifically how the subject arose -- probably something to do with the election and her interest in the "olden days" -- when I commented that women couldn't vote in national elections until 1920.
1920.
My grandmother -- who, I'm blessed to say, is still living -- was four years old. My daughter, whose personality resembles her great-grandmother's so strongly it would force one to believe in reincarnation were the elder representative not still with us, is only two years older than that. The time when she would not have grown up with a right to vote... when I, the political historian (not that I would've been one then) would not have the right to vote... is in living memory.
Ninety-two years. That's not very long ago. I've taught many students about suffrage, but somehow it hadn't struck me so personally before now. My daughter's presence in this conversation probably had a lot to do with that. It was one of those moments when the professional becomes personal and for a moment I could glimpse just how important it was -- it is -- to protect, to defend and to advocate women's rights... and just how important it is to teach these things.
My students read several excerpts of documents written by women's rights advocates during the antebellum period in preparation for class last week. In one of them, Sarah Grimké spoke of "the disproportionate value set on the time and labor of men and of women"* -- in other words, of wage inequality. In 1837. The work continues.
* Sarah M. Grimké, Letter VIII, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman (1837), in Isaac Kramnick and Theodore J. Lowi, American Political Thought (W.W. Norton, 2009), p. 520.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
A few historically-related thoughts on the first debate
I spent the first presidential debate with an enthusiastic group of GFU students, preparing to be an "expert" on the talk-back professor Q&A panel that followed. Our subsequent conversation was a rich one, and as consequence of all this I took a few notes that might perhaps be worth sharing as one historian's take...
ROMNEY: Proposed returning responsibility for job training to the states.
This sounded much like the "new federalism" of some Nixon era policies--and like the type of thing Mitt's dad, George, would very much have favored. This concept of devolving power to the lowest practical level is nothing new (indeed, it's been part of the American political dialogue since our founding). George, however, was equally concerned with fostering interactions between business and government that emphasized mutual responsibility. Talking about devolution is all well and good (and we do need to keep trying new ideas); how do we put policy into practice? This is the essential element I felt was missing. It's an easy sell to small-government advocates to talk about devolution, but without accompanying structure they're just words. Perhaps the structure of a debate does not allow for such detail, but it was a recurring theme for me, and not necessarily limited to one candidate or the other.
ROMNEY (but Obama didn't challenge this, so in a sense it refers to both): Three percent of small businesses employ half of all small-business employees.
If they employ that great a percentage, how can they still be considered "small businesses"? Here's an example of where rhetoric (again, not necessarily limited to either side) overshadows critical thinking. Small businesses are essential and should be protected and encouraged; "small business" has become a shibboleth.
OBAMA: A drop in revenues would lead to severe hardship for people, "but more importantly not help us grow."
Whaaaa?! I'm sorry, but hardship trumps growth. Taking care of the least of these is more important than an upward line on the stock market charts. (I realize one can lead to the other, but the present "recovery" is a good demonstration that the correlation is far from absolute.) Severe hardship should be a paramount concern for both parties. Both Roosevelts (TR and FDR) are spinning in their graves...
ROMNEY: "Expensive things hurt families."
Here he was referring to something like taxes, and I'm sorry I don't remember the specifics... but what about such "expensive things" as Social Security and Medicare--each of which he'd spent the past several minutes defending in context of his programs proposals' ability to provide for their longterm stability. Simplicity in everyday living = good. Simplicity in politics = often problematic. The world is more complicated than that.
BOTH: "Middle class families" [times a jillion]
Gee... what about the poor? What about the working class? What about single people? What about empty nesters? See above comment re: oversimplification.
I realize this is predominantly a list of quibbles, and while critical analysis is important I suspect we'd all be better off if we spent more time appreciating the positive. In that spirit, here are a couple observations...
ROMNEY: That joke about how delighted Obama no doubt was to be spending his anniversary with him.
I see it as an unmitigated good that with this comment, well delivered and without a hint of malice, Romney demonstrated he has a sense of humor. Obama has done so on other occasions. Lightheartedness is, for me, an essential element in a president. Nobody who can't take or make a joke should have their fingers anywhere near the nuclear trigger codes.
OBAMA: Health care rates have gone up less per year over the past two years than the average rate of increase over the previous 50 years.
First: yay for any deceleration in the rate of health care cost increases. Second: a long-term historical view! This pleased me greatly. Our tendency to see the past as irrelevant to the present and the future harms humanity so. Any time a politician of either party draws on historical context to give us a deeper and more relevant understanding of the present, I am a very happy camper.
ROMNEY: Proposed returning responsibility for job training to the states.
This sounded much like the "new federalism" of some Nixon era policies--and like the type of thing Mitt's dad, George, would very much have favored. This concept of devolving power to the lowest practical level is nothing new (indeed, it's been part of the American political dialogue since our founding). George, however, was equally concerned with fostering interactions between business and government that emphasized mutual responsibility. Talking about devolution is all well and good (and we do need to keep trying new ideas); how do we put policy into practice? This is the essential element I felt was missing. It's an easy sell to small-government advocates to talk about devolution, but without accompanying structure they're just words. Perhaps the structure of a debate does not allow for such detail, but it was a recurring theme for me, and not necessarily limited to one candidate or the other.
ROMNEY (but Obama didn't challenge this, so in a sense it refers to both): Three percent of small businesses employ half of all small-business employees.
If they employ that great a percentage, how can they still be considered "small businesses"? Here's an example of where rhetoric (again, not necessarily limited to either side) overshadows critical thinking. Small businesses are essential and should be protected and encouraged; "small business" has become a shibboleth.
OBAMA: A drop in revenues would lead to severe hardship for people, "but more importantly not help us grow."
Whaaaa?! I'm sorry, but hardship trumps growth. Taking care of the least of these is more important than an upward line on the stock market charts. (I realize one can lead to the other, but the present "recovery" is a good demonstration that the correlation is far from absolute.) Severe hardship should be a paramount concern for both parties. Both Roosevelts (TR and FDR) are spinning in their graves...
ROMNEY: "Expensive things hurt families."
Here he was referring to something like taxes, and I'm sorry I don't remember the specifics... but what about such "expensive things" as Social Security and Medicare--each of which he'd spent the past several minutes defending in context of his programs proposals' ability to provide for their longterm stability. Simplicity in everyday living = good. Simplicity in politics = often problematic. The world is more complicated than that.
BOTH: "Middle class families" [times a jillion]
Gee... what about the poor? What about the working class? What about single people? What about empty nesters? See above comment re: oversimplification.
I realize this is predominantly a list of quibbles, and while critical analysis is important I suspect we'd all be better off if we spent more time appreciating the positive. In that spirit, here are a couple observations...
ROMNEY: That joke about how delighted Obama no doubt was to be spending his anniversary with him.
I see it as an unmitigated good that with this comment, well delivered and without a hint of malice, Romney demonstrated he has a sense of humor. Obama has done so on other occasions. Lightheartedness is, for me, an essential element in a president. Nobody who can't take or make a joke should have their fingers anywhere near the nuclear trigger codes.
OBAMA: Health care rates have gone up less per year over the past two years than the average rate of increase over the previous 50 years.
First: yay for any deceleration in the rate of health care cost increases. Second: a long-term historical view! This pleased me greatly. Our tendency to see the past as irrelevant to the present and the future harms humanity so. Any time a politician of either party draws on historical context to give us a deeper and more relevant understanding of the present, I am a very happy camper.
Friday, September 28, 2012
A remembrance of Russell Train
Click here for a post I recently wrote for the "Politics Among Friends" blog of the politics department at George Fox University.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
A few thoughts on the Federalists
Life gets busy and suddenly I realize it's been ages since I've posted. I've been reading through several of the Federalist Papers in preparation for class this evening; my American political theory students have been assigned factional affiliations and will have to rehash the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debate over ratification of the United States Constitution. A worthy enterprise (I hope)... we can always do with a reminder of why our government looks like it does.
I was especially struck by James Madison's commentary in Federalist 51. Arguing that "Ambition must counter ambition," he asserts the need for checks and balances -- interactions among the various branches of government that were intended to keep any one of the three branches from gaining too much power. (The Federalists were most concerned about the potential for legislative authority to grow too strong -- see Federalist 48, among other sources. I look forward to polling my students on the subject of which branch(es) have in practice posed the greatest "threat," if any, throughout our history.) "...what is government itself," he argues, "but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Humans not, of course, being angels, the checks and balances of the Constitution are vital.
Perhaps my favorite line in Fed 51 is this: "Whilst all authority in it [government] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." A few observations: first, the powers of government are derived from society. Second, minority rights matter; this isn't just an argument for the will of the majority. Finally, all of this indicates that compromise was literally built into the fabric of our constitutional republic.
Some among us keep fussing that we need to "get back to the Founders." Others scoff at the idea. Perhaps the best approach might be to look at what the Founders actually said. They weren't oracles. They had no powers of prediction. They were in many ways deeply flawed (see the abhorrent slavery clauses, among other examples). They were also, however, brilliant for their time... and cautious about the future. The Federalist Papers -- and, to give full credit -- the arguments of the Anti-Federalists were about care and stewardship. What would best provide for a bright future? How could any power in society be prevented from gaining the excessive control that leads to tyranny? Important stuff. I'm blessed to have the motivation to go back and look at some of these things. I hope it's a useful evening for my students, as well.
I was especially struck by James Madison's commentary in Federalist 51. Arguing that "Ambition must counter ambition," he asserts the need for checks and balances -- interactions among the various branches of government that were intended to keep any one of the three branches from gaining too much power. (The Federalists were most concerned about the potential for legislative authority to grow too strong -- see Federalist 48, among other sources. I look forward to polling my students on the subject of which branch(es) have in practice posed the greatest "threat," if any, throughout our history.) "...what is government itself," he argues, "but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Humans not, of course, being angels, the checks and balances of the Constitution are vital.
Perhaps my favorite line in Fed 51 is this: "Whilst all authority in it [government] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." A few observations: first, the powers of government are derived from society. Second, minority rights matter; this isn't just an argument for the will of the majority. Finally, all of this indicates that compromise was literally built into the fabric of our constitutional republic.
Some among us keep fussing that we need to "get back to the Founders." Others scoff at the idea. Perhaps the best approach might be to look at what the Founders actually said. They weren't oracles. They had no powers of prediction. They were in many ways deeply flawed (see the abhorrent slavery clauses, among other examples). They were also, however, brilliant for their time... and cautious about the future. The Federalist Papers -- and, to give full credit -- the arguments of the Anti-Federalists were about care and stewardship. What would best provide for a bright future? How could any power in society be prevented from gaining the excessive control that leads to tyranny? Important stuff. I'm blessed to have the motivation to go back and look at some of these things. I hope it's a useful evening for my students, as well.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
George Romney and Voluntarism
I've had an article published on the History News Network regarding George Romney's commitment to voluntarism... and some implications for his son's presidential campaign. Click here to take a look.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Duffers
Seems the GOP conventioneers have been having a go at the current president and veep for their golfing enthusiasm (and, in Vice President Biden's case, alleged lack of veracity regarding his scores). There is a certain historical irony in this, insofar as (Republican) President Dwight Eisenhower was routinely lampooned by liberals for his enjoyment of a jaunt around the greens. Also, anyone supporting Mitt Romney for president really shouldn't be calling extra attention to the pastimes of the well-off in America -- just as anyone who voted for John Kerry might do well to step off the Mitt-has-a-wooden-personality bandwagon. These people are people, and if they don't do something in addition to their political work they will keel over before a four-year term is up. They tend to be well-off people, because it's ridiculously expensive to run for office. This means, in turn, they do well-off-people things like golf. If they weren't raised well-off, they've probably become so through some combination of intellect, talent and gift for gab. This might not be ideal, but at present it is the way our political system works.
The preoccupation with golf, however, leads me to a fun little story about the Mittster's dad, Michigan Governor George Romney. Seems he was quite a golf enthusiast himself -- and he was hardcore in his devotion to the sport as a sport. No "19th hole" devotee was George. He made a regular morning habit of rising early and heading for the course, where he would run from shot to shot, pausing only long enough to slap a club in the general direction of the ball before he was off and running again. Biographer T. George Harris reports he was invariably dripping by the end of his "game."
(T. George Harris, Romney's Way: A Man and an Idea [Prentice-Hall, 1967])
The preoccupation with golf, however, leads me to a fun little story about the Mittster's dad, Michigan Governor George Romney. Seems he was quite a golf enthusiast himself -- and he was hardcore in his devotion to the sport as a sport. No "19th hole" devotee was George. He made a regular morning habit of rising early and heading for the course, where he would run from shot to shot, pausing only long enough to slap a club in the general direction of the ball before he was off and running again. Biographer T. George Harris reports he was invariably dripping by the end of his "game."
(T. George Harris, Romney's Way: A Man and an Idea [Prentice-Hall, 1967])
Friday, August 17, 2012
Reflections on Virginia #4
One last thought on our time in Virginia. I know and teach about the incremental development of slavery in North America over the course of the 1600s. I realize that early in the century, African slaves and white indentured servants sometimes formed alliances and viewed their plight in class rather than racial terms. I understand that the institution of hereditary, racially defined chattel slavery did not land fully realized on the North American coast. In short, I've read my Edmund Morgan* (and I recommend him).
That said: it's highly disturbing how often tours, museums and other institutions refer to those who worked on southern plantations, or doing menial labor in southern towns and cities, as "servants." They weren't "servants," by and large -- and certainly not after the late 1600s. They were slaves. It existed. It was profoundly wrong. Yes, it wasn't just a southern phenomenon (in the pre-Revolutionary period, especially) and northerners would do very well to recognize this more openly. To refer to "servants," however, is to gloss over the past in a way that does damage to our understanding of American history. We need to know these things. Ignoring them runs that familiar risk of succumbing to the damaging myopia of the "Lost Cause."
(It's worth noting that some places were far more forthright about slavery than others. The Shirley Plantation in Charles City, VA, for example, dealt with its legacy well in a permanent exhibit -- all the more honorable given that the property is still in the hands of the antebellum [indeed, pre-Revolutionary] family owners. Credit where credit is due! If you're in the area, give it a visit.)
* Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975)
That said: it's highly disturbing how often tours, museums and other institutions refer to those who worked on southern plantations, or doing menial labor in southern towns and cities, as "servants." They weren't "servants," by and large -- and certainly not after the late 1600s. They were slaves. It existed. It was profoundly wrong. Yes, it wasn't just a southern phenomenon (in the pre-Revolutionary period, especially) and northerners would do very well to recognize this more openly. To refer to "servants," however, is to gloss over the past in a way that does damage to our understanding of American history. We need to know these things. Ignoring them runs that familiar risk of succumbing to the damaging myopia of the "Lost Cause."
(It's worth noting that some places were far more forthright about slavery than others. The Shirley Plantation in Charles City, VA, for example, dealt with its legacy well in a permanent exhibit -- all the more honorable given that the property is still in the hands of the antebellum [indeed, pre-Revolutionary] family owners. Credit where credit is due! If you're in the area, give it a visit.)
* Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (1975)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)