I am preparing for my last session of American political thought this semester (!). We will focus this week on the 1960s, examining texts of the New Left, civil rights and women's rights movements. No wonder each week feels like a 2.5-hour whirlwind...
I'm enjoying the opportunity to read again through texts like Martin Luther King, Jr.'s moving "Letter from Birmingham Jail." The power of his prose and the eloquence of his arguments is fresh and invigorating -- and deeply troubling -- every time I read it. When in the course of this response to a plea from fellow clergymen for "moderation" he begins to write of what it's like to see the injustices and pain of segregation mirrored in the faces of your children, the personal torment of racism leaps from the page in a flurry of searing, semi-coloned clauses. I'm sure it's the most masterful piece of prose ever smuggled out of a prison on the margins of old newspapers; I suspect it is one of the more masterful ever written in America on paper of any variety.
Today, though, I was especially intrigued by a sentence from a Commentary journal article written by civil rights leader and King ally Bayard Rustin in 1965. Rustin was speaking to the structural problems remaining in American life even as de jure, or legalized, segregation crumbled to oblivion. In contrast to some in the broader civil rights movement he favored alliances with other progressive groups, arguing that strength and, thus, political power would come only in numbers. He cautioned against equating compromise with disavowal of core values. His words rang true for me in a manner that transcends the context of his movement:
"...the difference between expediency and morality in politics is the difference between selling out a principle and making smaller concessions to win larger ones."*
Our contemporary political leaders would do well to heed Rustin's words.
* Bayard Rustin, "From Protest to Politics: The Future of the Civil Rights Movement," quoted in Isaac Kramnick and Theodore J. Lowi, American Political Thought: A Norton Anthology (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009), p. 1337.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
on the election
While yesterday's presidential election wasn't the squeaker some predicted, Americans clearly differ in their views regarding the direction our country should head. I realize not all readers of this blog will be pleased with President Obama's reelection, and that's okay. Regardless of one's views on the parties or the candidates, however, I think we can all be very pleased by the reality that prompts my reflection this morning:
Last night I led a bunch of (very squirrelly, excited-about-their-first-presidential-votes) students through a discussion of the political thought of three important African American leaders at the turn of the 20th century: Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey. Each of these men grappled deeply with the question of how best to protect and develop the rights and aspirations of their people in a desperately oppressive environment.
Then, I came home (having let the squirrelly enthusiasts go forth and celebrate or mourn as the occasion required) and watched an African American president deliver his reelection speech. These United States have elected a black man to the presidency. Twice.
I suspect that even today, Washington, Du Bois and Garvey would find themselves with different political priorities. But boy, would they be proud... and amazed.
Romney's election would not have meant Americans were opposed to the reelection of an African American president -- not in most cases, although I suspect we can all point toward instances in which race played a role in voting decisions. In this election, of course, we faced the unusual -- and in itself, horizon-broadening -- situation of having a Mormon candidate representing the other party, and it's safe to say the odd individual refused to support Romney for those reasons, too.
That said, the very fact that a black presidential candidate was nominated, and did win, and now has been reelected, speaks volumes for the distance we have traveled.
And I think that's something we all can be proud of.
Last night I led a bunch of (very squirrelly, excited-about-their-first-presidential-votes) students through a discussion of the political thought of three important African American leaders at the turn of the 20th century: Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey. Each of these men grappled deeply with the question of how best to protect and develop the rights and aspirations of their people in a desperately oppressive environment.
Then, I came home (having let the squirrelly enthusiasts go forth and celebrate or mourn as the occasion required) and watched an African American president deliver his reelection speech. These United States have elected a black man to the presidency. Twice.
I suspect that even today, Washington, Du Bois and Garvey would find themselves with different political priorities. But boy, would they be proud... and amazed.
Romney's election would not have meant Americans were opposed to the reelection of an African American president -- not in most cases, although I suspect we can all point toward instances in which race played a role in voting decisions. In this election, of course, we faced the unusual -- and in itself, horizon-broadening -- situation of having a Mormon candidate representing the other party, and it's safe to say the odd individual refused to support Romney for those reasons, too.
That said, the very fact that a black presidential candidate was nominated, and did win, and now has been reelected, speaks volumes for the distance we have traveled.
And I think that's something we all can be proud of.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Informal reflection on women's rights
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)