Inactive Rebunk
Entries by Stephen Tootle
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Research Trippin'
This Rebunker is coming to a town near you. I leave on Monday for a whirlwind tour of archives and libraries. If you live in KS, MO, OH, DC, IA, or IL you should let me sleep on your couch. My research stipend should cover about 1/4 of my fuel costs. But we don't do this stuff for the money anyway, right? I like driving across the U.S. every year or so. I am reminded just how much I love every part of this country. I get to be the first guest in Tom's new place. I get to utter the immortal phrase "We're getting the band back together" during my stay in Ohio. I get to feel like a real historian for a whole month. I can't wait for the archivist to start dragging out boxes for me. God help me, I love my job.
Friday, July 1, 2005
Rebunk Indie Rock-o-mmendation
I don't know that these kids still qualify as Indie Rock but I have been listening to Eisley and Wolfmother. More proof that indie rock is not really a style of music as much as it is a way of doing business.
www.eisley.com
www.wolfmother.com
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Listmania
Spin's top 10 records since 1985:
1. Radiohead "OK Computer"
2. Public Enemy "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back"
3. Nirvana "Nevermind"
4. Pavement "Slanted and Enchanted"
5. The Smiths "The Queen Is Dead"
6. Pixies "Surfer Rosa"
7. De La Soul "3 Feet High and Rising"
8. Prince "Sign o' the Times"
9. PJ Harvey "Rid of Me"
10. N.W.A. "Straight Outta Compton "
Discuss.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Tagged
Getting Tagged
John Moser at No Left Turns has “tagged” me with some hard-hitting questions. I have been out of town (still out of town—I am writing this in a coffee shop in Athens, OH) so I haven’t been able to respond. Due to the wonders of the internet I have been able to get most of the needed information by looking at my purchase history at Amazon.com.
Here goes:
1. How many books do I own?
Hard to know. I have a couple thousand books that never made the move to Ohio or Colorado and reside in boxes at my dad’s house. I probably have about 500 at home at around 700 in my office.
2. What’s the last book I bought?
According to Amazon.com I went on a book-buying binge on March 28 and purchased:
The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made by Walter Issacson and Evan Thomas
Kennedy Versus Lodge: The 1952 Massachusetts Senate Race by Thomas J. Whalen
Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents by Donald A. Ritchie
Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America by Keith W. Olson
The Vietnam War Files: Uncovering the Secret History of Nixon Era Strategy (Modern War Studies) by Jeffrey Kimball
Nixon’s Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy by Dean Kotlowski
3. What’s the last book I read?
--Press Gallery by Donald Ritchie. I had been waiting for that book to come out and couldn’t wait to get my hands on it. Ritchie didn’t disappoint me either.
4. What are the five books that mean the most to me?
This is the toughest question. Some of the books are obvious.
Alonzo Hamby’s Man of the People is the book that made me want to move to Ohio and study under the man. I got a Ph.D., met my wife and changed the course of my life because of Hamby. He remains the single most important intellectual influence in my life. I could easily add Chester Pach’s and Charles Alexander’s Eisenhower books for the same reason. I met my wife in Pach’s class and Alexander is one of the greatest men I have ever known. He used to overpay me to clean the rain gutters at his house and his wife is and was wonderful to my wife and me. But this is supposed to be about books.
This next one might not be too hip a choice in certain circles but Stephen Ambrose’s two-volume biography of Eisenhower is the book that got me thinking about the subjects I still work on. I would be lying if I denied its influence on me.
Isaiah Berlin’s The Proper Study of Mankind is probably the book that most influenced my ideas about relativism, truth, totalitarianism—you name it.
Edmund Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom is just about the most perfect history book ever written.
I read Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece in his class and have admired him and his work since then..
Monday, February 28, 2005
Hold That Gripe: Rebunk Word of the Day
I was about to post a complaint about the use of the word "myriad" as a noun, until I ran across this entry from www.m-w.com:
"Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."
It still sounds wrong to me to use it as a noun, but live and learn.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Gay Marriage
Some of the comments and discussion surrounding the Bush tapes have again focused attention on the issue of gay marriage. Let me state my position at the outset:
I support gay marriage.
I got married in June of last year and I am a big fan of the institution. I know committed gay couples with children (from previous relationships or adoption) who have happy, relatively normal family lives. These people are not activists. They do not march in parades. Their sexuality does not define them. I have some lesbian friends who have been together almost ten years. I have some gay friends who have been together for more than two decades. In my mind they are already married. If they wanted to have a ceremony I would go. I would buy them a gift. I would hold the pillows with the rings. I am trying to make this as clear as possible. And I don’t think that this position in any way compromises my beliefs or makes me ideologically inconsistent. As Dick Cheney said: “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” If an initiative appeared on the ballot to make gay marriage legal I would vote for it. If I found myself in Congress I would vote for legislation recognizing gay marriage.
But…
I also understand that marriage has both a public and private dimension. In private, a gay or lesbian couple could have a marriage ceremony witnessed by friends and family, perhaps even sanctioned by some kind of religious authority. The government would not prohibit this ceremony. They could not. Nothing could prohibit that couple from being as committed to each other as they wanted to be. No government could ever exercise any power over two people who are in love and committed to one another. The government can protect public rights through legislation and the enforcement of laws. Love is a different thing. Just as the government could not legislate man to love one another, the government could not prevent two people from loving one another. The state has no say in either circumstance.
But marriage is also the public, civic recognition of a private relationship, and many Americans do not want to recognize marriages between same-sex couples. Many Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, or immoral. While I do not share this belief I recognize other Americans have the right to hold it. Opponents of gay marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay marriage. Meanwhile, it is also important to understand that non-recognition of the public aspect of marriage does not constitute a denial of civil rights. The public component of marriage makes the institution of marriage unique, and leads to a conclusion that one cannot get around no matter how much one would wish to:
Marriage is the public recognition of a union. If the public does not recognize the union, the public component of marriage cannot exist.
So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, we are left with some unsatisfying solutions. The government could get out of the marriage business, ending thousands of years government support for a unique institution. Allowing for so-called civil-unions is a half solution that would not address any of the fundamental issues.
The only real solution, then, is public acceptance of gay marriage. This was coming before the actions of the San Francisco mayor and the Massachusetts Supreme Court aroused the public. It will come with time. Shrill denunciations of your opponents will not bring any kind of resolution. If Americans continue to treat one another decently, we will work this out. It seems like most of my own views on this issues were informed by my experiences with gay and lesbian couples. After a while you start to think of homosexuality like one might think of left-handedness. It is a mildly interesting non-character-defining trait that has little to do with anything that concerns me.
Of course, there is much more to be said about this issue. I understand that my position is unpopular with both supporters and opponents of gay marriage. Such is life. I look forward to reading and responding to your comments.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Bush Tapes
The New York Times has the tapes (here). Doug Weade, an aide to President George H. W. Bush made secret recordings his conversations with George W. Bush as the Texas governor began thinking about national office. The complete set of recordings will not be available for many years, but the excerpts that Weade has made available indicate that many common assumptions about Bush are incorrect. Some of the information is merely interesting. Some of it is revealing.
First, Bush is intimately involved in campaign strategy. The idea that Karl Rove has been the puppet master pulling Bush’s strings overstates the case by a long shot. Bush was willing to be patient with the challenge from John McCain, believing that McCain would “wear thin” with time. He was correct. He let the McCain bubble develop, then burst as Bush collected delegates in the 2000 Republican primaries.
He also knew how to strike the right balance with evangelical Christians. He wanted their support but he would not bend to their most extreme demands or worst impulses. His religious beliefs were authentic and he understood the “code words” that he had to use to be effective: “There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I’ve accepted Christ into my life. And that’s a true statement.” Bush spoke of how the Bible and his wife gave him humility. He would talk about the turning points in his life, including “accepting Christ,” in order to get the support of Christian conservatives. He apparently felt that this was fair, since he was not lying about it. Despite his faith, or perhaps because of it, he knew how some of his cabinet choices would face opposition. He did not want to turn anti-abortion voters against the ticket by choosing Colin Powell or Tom Ridge for the VP slot, but he was willing to put them into high-profile positions in the cabinet.
As someone who knew the how some evangelical Christians viewed homosexuality, Bush worried about how his refusal to “kick gays” would hurt him. But he repeatedly said he would not attack homosexuals. It was a good show of decency and more in line with how most evangelical Christians I know deal with the issue. After one meeting with a Texas minister, Bush said: “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals.” Even in meetings with religious leaders behind closed doors Bush would not bite: “… because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?” Bush was clearly worried about how to handle the issue. He knew that it was an issue that some religious leaders used to energize their constituency. He criticized the Christian Coalition: “This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.” Later: “This is an issue I have been trying to downplay.” Again: “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.” He was against gay marriage because he considered it to be “special rights.” But he bristled when Wead suggested that Bush had said that he would not hire gays: “No, what I said was, I wouldn’t fire gays.”
Of course, given the historic nature of these recordings, one would expect other news organizations to scrutinize their content and deal with their revelations in a serious way. Nope.(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=516718) But there is more smoke than fire in the stories about Bush’s “wild behavior.” He said that he had some fun in the past. He thought that the more sensational rumors were coming from political opponents. He wasn’t worried about stories from the past: “If nobody shows up, there’s no story, and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up.”
Bush would not admit or deny any specific behavior out of a fear that “some little kid” would do something because he thought the President had done it. He mocked Al Gore’s statement on his past marijuana use. The audio of this tape is more revealing than the text. He actually mocks Gore’s voice and delivery. Bush was also obsessed with the idea that his generation had failed. It was a theme in the campaign of 2000 and both inaugural addresses. In the tapes, this disdain for his own generation comes through in how he describes how parents should talk to their children about drugs: “Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don’t do them.” He sympathized with how the press had attacked President Clinton’s private life but believed that his predecessor had “disgraced the nation.”
In the end, Bush settled on his strategy for dealing with rumors about his past: “I think it is time for somebody to just draw the line and look people in the eye and say, “ am not going to participate in ugly rumors about me, and blame my opponents, and hold the line, and stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on.” He thought his refusal to answer questions might cost him the election, but he held firm.
He also knew how to play hardball politics, reward friends and punish enemies. He was willing to “sit on his hands” if Steve Forbes (“He’s too preppy” and “mean-spirited”) played too dirty and ended up winning. Bush would not work for a Forbes victory in Texas and his brother Jeb would do the same in Florida: “He can forget Texas. And he can forget Florida.” “Steve Forbes is going to hear this message from me. I will do nothing for him if he does to me what he did to Dole [in 1996]. Period. There is going to be a consequence. He is not dealing with the average, you know, ‘Oh gosh, let’s all get together after it’s over.’ I will promise you, I will not help him. I don’t care.” By the same token, he would not attack John Ashcroft: “He wouldn’t say ugly things about me. And I damn sure wouldn’t say ugly things about him.” He though Ashcroft was a good man, and he would put him in some office even if he had to pay some kind of political price or fight for his nomination. In the general election versus Gore, Bush was willing to “get a little rough for a while” if that was what it took to win. He thought Gore was a “pathological liar.”
The overall picture is better than I expected. The tapes reveal Bush to be sincere, blunt, tough, politically shrewd, and within the context of his own beliefs, remarkably principled. He would use his faith to his political advantage as long as he was being honest. He would say what he needed to say to please religious groups, but he would not attack homosexuals for political advantage. He would bend on most issues, but he would not compromise his core beliefs. He actually did believe he was campaigning to restore dignity and responsibility to the presidency.
Update Links to Google News: here
Senators on Meet the Press
I am watching Senators McCain and Clinton on Meet the Press. Damn, she is good. Russert asked McCain if Clinton would make a good President. McCain said, "Yes" but he would support any Republican nominee. Good show of humor and decency from both.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Sharing Fears with Charles Kesler
I have been thinking about Charles Kesler lately. I am a big fan of his. Kesler’s particular gift, I think, is his honesty behind closed doors. I suppose I should explain that last phrase. Many conservatives (and liberals for that matter) are quite good at saying the right thing in mixed company, but fall to the temptation to tell friendly crowds what they want to hear. Not so the editor of the CRB.
I was at a conference a few years ago and heard him speak. He was a conservative speaking to a room full of conservatives, but he gave a critical talk about how conservatives and Republicans needed to change. I won’t bother going into the content of his talk, but he did not shy away from saying some things that made some people in the room uncomfortable. He impressed me as a man of integrity.
His recent article for the Claremont Review of Books, “Democracy and the Bush Doctrine,” ( http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2004/kesler.html ) does a pretty good job of summing up my own hopes and fears about the Bush Doctrine. Kesler rightly describes the Bush Doctrine as firmly within American foreign policy traditions, but he points out some important differences between the Reagan and Bush Doctrines. Reagan’s formulation aided “captive nations” held under the thumb of Soviet oppression without a promise to help them on their path to democracy once they were freed. During the Cold War, it mattered whether a regime was allied with the Soviet Union or merely “authoritarian.”
Now, that distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is less important. Kesler worries that this process of supporting democratization is giving the United States too much responsibility for helping others “realize their democratic entitlement and destiny.” If I understand Kesler, he believes that the administration uses too much rhetoric about freedom and could lose sight of our own national self-interest and security. He rightly praises “Bush’s revival of natural or human rights as the foundation of political morality” but is concerned about potential “confusion between the natural right to be free and the capacity to be free. The two are not quite the same.” When Bush said that people need freedom, Kesler wrote that the President had gone too far. Yes, people want freedom, but to assert, “this love [of freedom] is the main, or, more precisely, the naturally predominant inclination of human nature” is not accurate. To my mind, and presumably to Kesler’s, this is a shade too optimistic.
Kesler’s final words sum up his point nicely. “…[L]et us not expect that they [the people of Iraq] will reform themselves—much less that we shall transform them—all at once up to the standards of the Gettysburg Address.”
I suspect that Bush and his advisers know the limits of their Doctrine. I am guessing that they use the rhetoric of freedom because they know that an argument emphasizing national self-interest and security would draw much criticism. A darker view of the potential for peoples to reject democracy, whatever the reason, is less appealing than the assumption that people need freedom as they need air to breathe. But peoples and nations act foolishly all the time. Thus far the administration’s actions indicate that they understand that every circumstance requires a unique response. They have had priorities, in other words. I suspect that Bush is a Theodore Roosevelt-William McKinley Republican who uses Wilsonian rhetoric because it goes down easier. We will know the answer in thirty or forty years, I suspect.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
The Story of Lukerism
It begins innocently enough. The thoroughly reputable historian Thomas C. Reeves wrote an article on his own weblog (9:16 AM, January 12) arguing that requiring uniforms in schools might be a good idea. I don’t have an opinion on the matter, myself, but in the middle of his article Reeves wrote:
For solid studies of this issue, see www.geocities.com/school_uniforms.
This apparently enraged Ralph Luker of the weblog Cliopatria. He commented on the Reeves article on January 19, 2005 at 3:56 PM with the statement:
“Since Professor Reeves pays _no_ attention to what his readers have to say and apparently does not bother to read the sources he cites before claiming that they say what he wants them to say, I have called this to the attention of the Editor at HNN. This isn't an error of Bellesilesian proportions, but it is a Lott.”
Comparing Reeves to two historians who have had their work questioned/discredited did not satisfy Ralph Luker, however, and he followed up with what he called an “Ooops Alert” on Cliopatria (posted at 12:05 AM, January 20). Luker asked:
“What should happen when an academic blogger delivers himself of opinionated pieces of his mind, but ignores everything said by readers of his blog? He has the option of disabling comments, but he ignores both it and the comments posted there. Consider further: what if said blogger has a well established reputation as a historian and feels himself qualified to deliver himself of opinions on a whole range of social issues? You are re-assured if, in support of his opinions, he offers sources that confirm them. But, what if one of his readers actually bothers to look at the sources said historian/blogger cites? And what if the reader in question notes in comments that the sources he cites actually say the opposite of what the historian/blogger claims they say? Do you: a) rush to the library to check the endnotes in his books and articles, perhaps thinking that you've got the next Michael Bellesiles or John Lott expose? or b) do you suggest that the blogger's platform should be dismantled? I'm not sure, but we have a case at hand. Is an apology to readers sufficient?”
By asking the question of “What should happen…” Luker implied that something should happen to punish Reeves for his terrible crime of failing to respond to reader comments. Luker then asked his readers to consider a further set of questions that imply that Reeves has misrepresented his evidence (which he did not) and we should think about questioning all of Reeves’s work and “dismantle” the “blogger’s platform.” At this point Luker claimed that he was not sure how to respond, but he was quite sure that (at the very least) Reeves owed his readers an apology. Luker’s use of leading questions and innuendo had already reached the point of absurdity, but he was about to top himself.
On January 23 Luker posted “Why You Aren’t Being Misled by Thomas C. Reeves,” finally naming the historian explicitly after his implicit smear of Reeves three days earlier. First he mocked Reeves for not generating enough web traffic, implying that Reeves had only one admirer. He then stated, “most reasonable people stopped” reading Reeves “quite some time ago. Luker then went on to claim credit for welcoming Reeves as if that gave him some kind of special credibility to judge his work. After noting that Reeves has a considerable body of scholarship, Luker made sure to mention that Reeves was a conservative, and that HNN editor had brought him on the team to “balance” the commentary.
Luker then reminded his readers of what he called a “bitter diatribe against his institution and his former students” and a response from some of six of the retired professor’s former colleagues. Luker wrote that HNN “might have taken note” of this exchange. How, exactly, did Luker want HNN to take note? Luker is implying that this exchange deserved some kind of disciplinary response from the editors, but his most absurd charge followed.
Luker cited a comment by Michael Meo that stated: “I am aghast to record here that the reference this writer provides to ‘solid studies' to support his encomium of school uniforms turns out to be dominated by authors and studies that find no correlation between school uniforms and any of the wonderful things this author claims they promote.” Luker and Meo should have read Reeves more closely. Reeves does want school uniforms. Reeves does cite a website. But Reeves does not claim that all of the information on the website substantiates his claims or his anecdotal evidence about school uniforms. All Reeves said of the website was: “For solid studies of this issue, see www.geocities.com/school_uniforms.”
Luker then launched into another series of questions designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Reeves had committed a series of crimes against the profession that called all of his scholarship into question. He asked; “How many times does a historian have to be accused publicly by his colleagues and peers of lying about how many subjects before his credibility on every subject is suspect?” This was followed by: “Is there any reason to believe that Tom Reeves did credible work in his books, when he has misrepresented primary and secondary sources repeatedly at HNN?”
Of course, Luker gave no examples of how Reeves had “misrepresented primary and secondary sources repeatedly at HNN,” but no matter. Luker then reminded his readers that HNN has refused to publish the op-eds of a historian charged with plagiarism. He then argued that “But in repeatedly publishing articles by Tom Reeves and then giving him a blog, HNN has raised up its own credibility problem. The problem isn't that Tom Reeves is a conservative. The problem is that he's a liar.” Of course, Luker had charged that Reeves was a liar without offering any evidence of lies. Luker had asked enough questions, though, to convince himself that Reeves was a liar and that was enough to publicly smear the man’s reputation.
On January 23 at 10:15 PM, I posted a two-word response to Luker: “Calm down.” This brought a charge from Luker that I was willing to overlook dishonesty in another scholar provided that I agreed with the politics of the historian. He claimed that seven of “my professional peers” had “made the call” on Reeves. Presumably, “making the call” is “deciding that Reeves is dishonest.”
At 11:47 PM, Luker amended his earlier count of historians who had “made the call” to eight. I replied at 12:37 AM on January 24:
I don't know any of their work, or yours. I don't care how many peers have various gripes about Reeves. What does that have to do with anything? If we look at the Amazon.com sales rank of his Kennedy book, would that indicate how many "fans" or "supporters" he has? Where would that get us? I am concerned that you are smearing a good scholar without cause. Unless you have some convincing evidence about his scholarship, I would hope that your sense of professional propriety would keep you from making further attacks on him, or hinting that his scholarship is suspect. You are making unprofessional and irresponsible charges about a serious scholar without any evidence. You are the one who deserves a reprimand from your peers, not Reeves. Consider this to be a public condemnation of you, by me.
That is one of your peers "making the call" on you.
Luker shot back his reply at 12:46AM that he stood behind his earlier comments and that he was not describing “various gripes.” He continued: “We are talking about misrepresentation of evidence. I've told you exactly what and where that evidence is and you have denied its existence. That's called being in denial. There is nothing in what I've done that is either "unprofessional" or "irresponsible" and, when you dry off behind the ears, I'll accept your apology.”
This is, of course, nonsense. Reeves had not misrepresented evidence. I never denied the existence of the link Reeves posted on the school uniform story. Luker’s attack on Reeves was unprofessional and irresponsible. Further, Luker’s assertion that “when you dry off behind the ears, I’ll accept your apology” was unprofessional and irresponsible. It was an attack on my relative youth (I am thirty years old). It was a personal attack. A reply in kind from me would have been something along the lines of: “You are old and senile.” I did not make that charge, however, and do not now. I only give that possible rejoinder in order to point out the lack of professionalism in the charge.
I then wrote the following post on Rebunk titled “Lukerism”:
“Lukerism is similar to McCarthyism except the stakes are much lower. Ralph Luker at Cliopatria is making wild charges about the scholarship of a fellow historian. Feel free to click over to Cliopatria (the link is on the right), read all of the evidence Luker presents, and decide for yourself. If you feel that Luker is unnecessarily smearing the reputation of a fellow academic, join me in publicly condemning Mr. Luker. He deserves our scorn.”
I returned to Cliopatria and told Luker to check my latest post on Rebunk and that an apology would not be forthcoming (January 24, 2005 at 12:50 AM). Luker replied at 12:58: “When you grow up, you will want to have apologized.” I am not sure if this was merely a further ad hominem attack on my age, or a veiled threat that he would somehow attempt to hurt my career over the next few years.
The next morning (January 24, 7:40AM), Luker attacked me and my colleagues at Rebunk, calling the blog “Re-buncombe” and claiming that our “strange” “ethos” required me to attack him in “a bid for acceptance as a full-fledged Re-buncombe.” He charged that he had been attacked “twice by Derek and once by Tom.” Luker then went on to point out that 1/3 of Rebunk’s traffic (he made sure to call it “modest”) came from Cliopatria. This fact, even if true, has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but he wanted to claim credit for helping us. He pointed out that he had nominated Derek for two historical societies (is that true and does it matter?) and that “_nothing_ satiates the felt need over there to attack me.” He claimed, “Tootle's cheap shot merely indicates that he refuses to understand that Tom Reeves created his own credibility problem.” Luker needs to realize that Tom Reeves does not have a “credibility problem.” If my colleagues have been critical of his work, it is because Luker is the one with a credibility problem.
At 9:20AM I replied to Luker with the following comment:
“Writing that I will rethink the matter "when I dry off behind the ears," and that I will apologize "when I grow up," Luker then wants to take credit for somehow promoting my career. I cannot speak for Mr. Bruscino or Mr. Catsam, but I do not want any help from the likes of Ralph Luker. I have never asked for you to read or promote anything I have written. Frankly I hesitate to even get involved in this matter regarding Reeves any further because I don't want my name associated with yours-- even in passing. Allow me repeat myself to be clear: Because I do not consider Mr. Luker to be an honorable person, I would not want his endorsement.”
Luker responded again (9:26AM) by attacking my colleagues at Rebunk, stating: “Bash away, Stephen. They give you points for that over at Re-Buncombe.” Derek Catsam or Rebunk responded that he did not appreciate the attacks on our blog (1:12PM) and Luker apologized, somewhat (1:23 PM) but wrote that he “intended to answer him [me] slug for slug.” He went on to write, “You [Derek] and Tom have taught Stephen that insult is the appropriate way to conduct a blog.”
His implication that he intended to answer me “slug for slug’ is not appropriate. His statement that Derek and Tom taught me “insult is the appropriate way to conduct a blog” is inappropriate. I am an adult. I have learned many things from Derek and Tom, but not what you charge. It is yet another example of Luker’s personal attacks on the members of Rebunk. In a different comment thread, at 12:57, Luker charged that I did not care about the maintenance of the credibility of our profession and that I should “sign on with the apologists” for other historians accused of plagiarism. At 2:21 PM Luker charged the bloggers at Rebunk with the very offense he had just committed. He wrote: “We are talking about a style of attack that is preferred at Rebunk. It's one in which ad hominem attack -- slurs against a person's honor, without reference to evidence -- are all a part of the day's responsibility.” But Luker had attacked Reeves, Bruscino, Catsam, and myself in the previous twenty-four hours. Of course, at 2:55PM Luker again charged that I had made an ad hominem attack on him.
At 3:31PM Luker addressed my use of the word “Lukerism” to describe his attacks on Reeves. He cleverly recognized that “Lukerism” includes his name and gave a pretty good summation of the term: “McCarthyism on the cheap.” Not bad, really. He then claims that unlike McCarthy, he offers evidence for his charges. It seems silly to even bother reminding readers, but Luker’s so-called evidence for smearing the reputation of a scholar was an email signed by some former colleagues and an empty claim that Reeves had misrepresented evidence (which he has not). Lukerism demanded, of course that the practitioner continue to question and smear the reputation of another person, make mountains out of molehills, draw incorrect conclusions about so-called evidence, then, when questioned, attempt to attack the questioner with the same tactics.
My evidence that Ralph Luker is a dishonorable person is (and was) the content of his posts, comments, questions, and assertions. I encourage any reader to check my facts, quotations, and timeline to see if I have misrepresented Luker’s words.
At 3:46, Luker claimed that I had “yet to say squat about the claims.”
So I prepared this response.
Three Apologies
First, I would like to apologize for the lack of style in this post. I did not vary my word choice much and I am sure it makes for a tiring read. Second, I did not use links to the various comments and posts on this matter. It should be easy enough to click over to Cliopatria and check my sources by date and time. Finally, I would like to apologize to our readers for dwelling on something that must seem awfully silly.
But Mr. Luker has charged another historian with misconduct, smeared his reputation, and attacked my friends and me. I would also point out that my charge that Mr. Luker is a man without honor is not one I took lightly. I have read and reread his writing and conclusions. I will not advocate that HNN censor him or prohibit him from responding. I will not call his past scholarship into question. That would be “Lukerish” of me. I consider this matter closed, as far as Mr. Luker is concerned. I will not respond to any of his comments on the matter.
Reeves said “For solid studies of this issue, see [the link].” What is dishonest about that? Are those not solid studies? With only the tiniest bit of charity we could also conclude that Reeves was acknowledging that it is a complex issue, and that he was linking articles that in large part disagreed with him to be even more intellectually honest.
A Last Minute Addition
I just got an email from a friend who would rather remain anonymous. He wrote:
“Also Luker’s list of people who have called Reeves out for dishonesty is than impressive. Both Luker and Meo are concerned with the post in question, which is open to interpretation. The post from his former colleagues at UW Parkside does say, “Every paragraph is replete with false, erroneous, misleading or outdated information.” What Luker didn’t note, convienently, is that the next sentence was “To refute each of these points would, however, take too long and try the patience of the readers.” In fact, the only fact they say he got wrong was that UW Parkside was not an open admissions college, as he claimed (of course he is pretty clearly implying that it might as well be since they accept 95% of all applicants). In the responses, both former students and other professors reply on both sides of the issue. It seems pretty clear that for a variety of reasons Reeves just stopped getting along with his colleagues and he became extremely unhappy at UW Parkside. He was probably less than charitable in his account of teaching there, but did not fabricate evidence. Never mind that. Never mind also that Ralph does not present even the slightest bit of evidence, nothing, that in any way impeaches Reeves’ scholarship, yet says he lacks credibility and should be in some kind of trouble with HNN. In the meantime, he has called Reeves Right Wing, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and a liar. Sounds pretty McCarthy-like to me, and I don’t toss that term around lightly.”
Monday, January 24, 2005
Lukerism
Lukerism is similar to McCarthyism except the stakes are much lower. Ralph Luker at Cliopatria is making wild charges about the scholarship of a fellow historian. Feel free to click over to Cliopatria (the link is on the right), read all of the evidence Luker presents, and decide for yourself. If you feel that Luker is unnecessarily smearing the reputation of a fellow academic, join me in publicly condemning Mr. Luker. He deserves our scorn.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
“Fisking” the Inaugural
Andrew Sullivan uses the term “fisking” to describe the process of doing a line-by-line analysis. If it is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. These are my first thoughts, and admittedly they are pretty sketchy. I assume we can flesh some of this out in the comments—Rebunk style. My apologies this is so late in coming. I have gone snowshoeing twice this past week.
The words in quotation marks are from the inaugural address.
January 20, 2005
“On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country.”
Defines the idea of America as a nation held together by tradition (ceremony), rule of law, and liberalism (Constitution).
“I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.”
Bush has a good claim having directed the nation during “consequential times.”
“At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together.”
President Bush is talking to the Americans who feel bonded to him because of the events of the past four years. This may also be a reference to his lack of rhetorical gifts. He is telling future historians that he would like to be judged by his actions.
“For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.”
He is explaining the logic of the Cold War defensive posture…
“We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source.”
… in order to then describe how things are different today.
“For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.”
It used to be safe to allow tyrants to oppress their own people. Now, the forces of modernity have brought made the world integrated enough that tyranny abroad is a security threat to the United States.
“There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.”
The only answer, then, is for the United States to promote liberal democracy abroad.
“We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
This phrase is the best answer to the question of whether Bush is a Wilsonian or a TR-style New Nationalist. Bush is a New Nationalist, and the next phrase nails it:
“America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”
That is perhaps the most important line of the speech.
“From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.”
Putting himself in the Lincoln tradition, Bush believes the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence to be as important as those in the Constitution.
“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
After twice stating that these ideals are in our national self-interest, Bush declares the “ultimate goal” without stating a timeline, pace, or course of action.
“This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary.”
This long-term effort will not be more in line with the execution of the Cold War.
“Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities.”
Read this as “they have to choose it for themselves, defend it themselves, and figure out that rule of law and protection of minorities are in their own long-term interest.”
“And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.”
We have to recognize that some of these democratic governments will do things we don’t understand or agree with. Prepare yourselves for free people making choices we think defy logic.
“The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it.”
Borrowing from Kennedy in phrasing, Bush is clearly referring to Iraq. The process of democratizing a region or the world is going to take time but “let us begin.”
“America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.”
We will still choose our battles (literally or figuratively) based on some combination self-interest, threat analysis, and idealism. We will treat every situation differently, based on what is possible, and not use the same tactics everyplace simultaneously.
“My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.”
This bit has a little red meat for the crowd, and (to mix metaphors) also serves as a shot across the bow to any potential adversaries.
“We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.”
This reminds me of the pre-September 11 policy that the Bush administration was experimenting with in Egypt. I have a feeling that the first test of this policy will come in Egypt. We’ll see how their next election goes. We should also start looking at the treatment of dissidents.
“We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.”
This might mean that we are not going to demand reform from dictators. Instead, the administration might not be happy with anything less than democracy. It may also indicate how we are going to treat Iran over the next year or so—a push for democracy instead of more concessions from the rulers. North Korea might fall into this category as well.
“Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul.”
This is another restatement of Lincoln’s interpretation of the Declaration combined with some optimism and a reminder to take a long-term view of developments.
“We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”
This is a more or less explicit reference to Lincoln.
“Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.”
This sounds like Reagan’s repudiation of détente.
“The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: ‘Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.’”
More Lincoln.
“The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.”
I have heard some musings that this was a section that President Carter could have written/would have approved of. I don’t think the comparison is appropriate. Carter’s formulation had him working at cross purposes with the Cold War. Bush is describing how his policies fit within the war on terror.
“And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.”
What will this mean for our relationship with India? Again, we’ll see where we go with this over the next four years. It should be interesting to watch Poland, too.
“Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.”
Nice rhetoric. Very well written. A call for patience, sacrifice, and hard work.
“A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.”
Fine.
“All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.”
This reminds me of Reagan’s farewell address. Reagan asked the children of America to demand to learn (at the dinner table, if I recall) that “America is freedom.” Bush has also absorbed some of John McCain’s campaign rhetoric from 2000.
“America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.”
Another nod to Reagan.
“In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.”
This is actually a nice summary of how Bush views the relationship between the individual and the government. Americans strive for economic independence, and there are ways that the federal government can help. Nice mention of the Homestead Act, too. Good to see that mentioned as part of the history of the Republican Party—serves as a good reminder. Bush also seems to be going back to an older tradition within the party by advocating reform of “great institutions” instead of abolishing them. Also note how Bush frames economic independence in terms of “preparing for the challenges of life in a free society” instead of emphasizing a government-provided safety net.
“In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
This is a nice rhetorical turn. First, Bush credits private character, defines it, then extends one’s individual responsibility to the whole community. The truths of the great faiths sustain the national character. The truths of American ideals are sustained by each generation’s commitment to them.
“In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.”
This is not just a sop to the idea of tolerance in a democratic society. Liberty has obligations, including an obligation to “abandon all the habits of racism.”
“From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?”
“These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.”
Unity of our ideals defines our national character.
“We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.”
Again, echoes of Lincoln. Bush begins with confidence before repudiating the assumptions of both Marxism and utopian progressivism. He reminds us that we cannot know God’s will, but we can have faith in the “permanent hope of mankind” that motivated our independence, and the sacrifices of soldiers and civil rights activists.
“When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.”
“May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.”
Of course.
Bush’s delivery did not do justice to the words. He should have read the speech as it was written and let the cadence of the words within the paragraphs build to climax and lead to the next idea. The internal logic of the speech (both within the paragraphs and as a whole) was flawless.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Biden
I have to get back to lecture writing, so I will make this quick. After watching the Rice confirmation hearings for two days I am struck by how much the Democratic Party would benefit from letting the country see more of Joe Biden and less of Barbara Boxer. I disagree with Biden on quite a few issues but I don't doubt his brains or his sincerity. He also has a good way of making principled objections to administration policy. I may return to this issue again, but I have to get ready for my 11:15 class.
The Best
Or, Another Rebunker Shows He Knows How to Win New Friends
I like to tell my students that my classes are the most important classes that they will take in college. In addition, I often express my sympathy for people forced to toil as practitioners of the lesser disciplines. I am joking, of course-- well, mostly joking.
Actually, it would be disingenuous of me to say that that history was merely different, and not better, than other intellectual pursuits. I think history books are better than non-history books. Political philosophy and literature run a close second, but I stand by my general assertion. I could soften the blow by adding an “in my opinion” or an occasional “from my perspective” but that strikes me as a needless gesture of therapeutic diplomacy. If I didn’t think history was better, I wouldn’t do it. The logic seems simple to me, yet I know it sounds offensive. I will probably keep these kinds of thoughts to myself at the next all-hands faculty meeting.
So I would like to make a blanket apology. For the record, I respect anyone who works hard. I respect people who write well, build, serve others, or create useful things.
For those of you stuck in inferior majors or teaching the lower subjects, take heart. You can still read our books or change your major. I run the risk of offending many people, but the upside is that I always rank very high in “enthusiasm for subject matter” on my evaluations.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Precision Language for Bumper Stickers
I have a request to make of both slogan-makers and slogan lovers. Please be more precise with your language. I understand that we have a longstanding tradition of saying and repeating nonsense in order to sound profound. Of course, the most famous example of this is Ghandi's statement that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Of course, "an eye for an eye" does not leave the whole world blind. It leaves the whole world without depth perception. Worse, Ghandi did not even entertain the thought that perhaps the inability to judge distance and depth would lead to world peace.
I passed a student today who was wearing a t-shirt that said, "Hate is not a strategy." It reminded me of that wonderful line from the movie Club Paradise. Twiggy tells Robin Williams that, "No man is an island." He responded: "No man is a woman, either. What the hell does that mean?" Of course hate is not a strategy. Pointing this out is not profound. Most world-famous haters would be hard-pressed to back a strategy of quiet, solitary hatred. I am sure the message the girl intended to convey was something closer to: "Hatred should not motivate one's strategy." Of course, this is not a true statement. Perhaps her t-shirt should have read, "I wish our government were nicer according to my definition of the word 'nice.'"
I like a good bumper sticker that has a clear message combined with a call to action, such as "Impeach Bush," or "Nuke the Whales." Let me know where you stand, and be clear about it.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
AHA
I am glad I am not desperate for a job this year. I am sure the AHA annual convention disappointed many job seekers this year. In my field, only four colleges collected CVs at the AHA. I heard plenty of rumors about why the pickin's were so slim. Some people blamed budget cuts, or the ever-glutted market. Others said that schools from the east coast would not travel to Seattle. Who knows? But it was depressing to see. Apparently this has been a trend for the past few years. If the AHA cattle call continues to shrink, it may be reduced to nothingness. I wonder if anyone would miss it. Just to make sure that all job seekers stayed truly miserable, the AHA split up the job board and the announcements in two different buildings. I am sure someone had a reason for making depressed, unemployed graduate students buy an expensive plane ticket to an expensive city, and stay in an expensive hotel, only to shuffle back and forth between buildings and find no openings in their field. I am not happy with that person.
That said, I had a great time. I got to meet Luker, Shenkman, and Dresner. Tom and I bonded with Dresner at the hotel bar-- good times. I went to panels, caught up with old friends, scoured the book exhibits, and pressed the flesh. I met approximately zero other people doing the same. Everyone I met was there as interviewer, interviewee, presenter, commenter, or moderator. Most of them complained of the drudgery of the convention. According to my unscientific poll, the convention was a smashing success for me, and an exercise in abject misery for everyone else.
Except Rick Shenkman, that is. He seemed to be having a good time. I like him.
Thursday, December 2, 2004
Becoming Uninteresting
I used to be a fairly interesting person. I talked to people who disagreed with me. I defended my ideas. I read terrible books because instructors assigned them. I "went out." Sometimes I would say things in order to force others to defend their own ideas. I entertained myself. I felt very alive when I argued with friends, family, and my colleagues in graduate school.
I realized that something had changed on Thanksgiving. I went to visit some family and friends in Denver. The conversations were good-- everything one could want in stimulating talk. Everyone had graduated from college. Half of the people in the room were in graduate school. We talked about the recent election and books. But I noticed that something about me had changed. I wasn't picking fights.
I had a hard time figuring out why one would bother to do so. The logic of fight-picking had seemed obvious to me for many years, but it escaped me on Thanksgiving as it escapes me now. I am a changed man.
As is the custom on Rebunk, I will relate this issue to a lesson my grandfather taught me one day while I was mowing his lawn. The lawnmower kept dying on me. The handle on the pull-cord had broken off and my grandpa had replaced it with a piece of wood. I had to restart the lawnmower so many times that my hand was blistering nicely. Of course, this was back in the days before I was a soft-handed historian, and blistering was much more difficult back then. It was also quite hot-- probably around 100 degrees. He had two huge lawns. It was frustrating. I asked my grandpa for permission to curse.
I was probably around seventeen at the time, and cursing had always come quite naturally to me (still does). My grandpa, on the other hand, frowned upon it. I am sure it must seem strange to imagine a teenager asking for permission to curse, but I did. My grandpa replied:
"No point."
I guess it took about thirteen years for that lesson to sink in.
At work, I steer clear of any potential controversy. My wife and I talk about issues, but we work through them together and the process is not adversarial. I will discuss my ideas with people who are genuinely interested, but I am not interested in engaging unreasonable people anymore. And after lecturing for four hours in a day, I really can't stand to hear the sound of my own voice. I don't have to read bad books anymore, so I don't. There are too many unread, good books sitting on my shelf to bother with the bad ones. I would rather stay in, and I have papers to grade anyway. Even reading the comments on Rebunk has become pretty distasteful to me.
So now I do something I would have never imagined a few years back. Sometimes, when people say stupid things, I don't bother to argue about it.
No point.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Karen Hughes on CNN
Hughes is cleaning Cahill's clock in the post debate spin also. This is not Kerry's night. Hughes is even better than Bush at explaining administration positions. This is a big, big win for the Bush campaign.
Debate III
And there are the wives. Two nice looking women. Michael J. Fox is sitting with Theresa Heinz. I am guessing that he will be used as part of Kerry’s stem cell answer: “With us tonight is Michael J. Fox….”
A hush comes over the crowd. Why am I so nervous? It is not like the fate of the free world hinges on this debate. Oh, wait, it does. I like Brit Hume, but am less fond of the Fox correspondents—Angle and Cameron—they are fine but pretty standard pre-debate patter. CNN is too noisy. They have drawn an outdoor crowd and I can’t stand to listen to the crowd. Chris Wallace is reporting that both campaigns are getting tired. Me too.
The quiet of the audience has been unnerving in each debate. I suppose I grew too used to the “Happy Days” studio audience erupting every time a new character was introduced. Kristol is predicting that Bush will win the election in this debate.
Here is the moderator. Looks just like “Face the Nation.” Schieffer looking good. Next time we should just have one, three hour debate. Kerry’s make up looks good. Both men looking relaxed.
Question 1 to Kerry on if children will ever know a safe world. Kerry: Going right after Bush. Not the best start. Bush looking good. Watching his reaction shots. Kerry’s answer unsatisfying somehow. Kerry mentioning Reagan again? Bush: Explaining comprehensive strategy. Afghan elections. Nice. Explaining the comprehensive strategy. Kerry’s reaction shot bad. Smug smug smug. He is under control. Kerry redirect: outsourced the war on terror line. Bush: Good, energetic. Point Bush
Question 2 on Flu season to Bush: Whoa. I was expecting a fumble. He knew what happened to the flu vaccine. Wow. He has an actual answer and a good one. Makes a call to fellow Americans. Nice. Knows about CDC priorities. Compassionate, knowledgeable. Turned the question to lawsuits. Very good form. Kerry response: American health care system is not working. Not answering the question so far. Turned the answer into health care but did it crudely. Mentioning battleground states one by one in answer. Bush good on reaction shot. Standing taller somehow. Kerry is fumbling. Bush answer: A plan is not a litany of complaints. Kerry is off balance in response. He can feel it slipping perhaps?
Bush
Question 3 on economic security to Kerry without debt: Kerry’s answer is unsteady. Jesus, is the fix in or something? Kerry would have nailed this question in the first debate. What is wrong with him this time? Did Karl Rove slip him a mickey? It is like Bush and Kerry have switched personalities. Did Bush know the questions beforehand? Kerry’s voice is even breaking up. Bush: Rhetoric doesn’t match record. Good line from the stump speech. Kerry looking smug again. Bush nailing it again. How could he have been prepared for each of these questions?
Bush
Question 4 on jobs to Bush: Answer is continue to grow the economy and retrain. Good. Sensible. Education answer. Bush has some spittle in the corner of his mouth. Will someone give him a signal to take care of it? Kerry: not answering the question but goes to a Sopranos line. Kerry, you are losing me. Fumbling again and vague.
Bush
Question 5 on jobs to Kerry: Not connecting. He is all over the map. Bush still good in the reaction shots. Bush response: Increased Pell grants. Tax cuts. Good without sounding cliché but he can only use this answer once. He had better not return to this answer later. Kerry: anybody can play with these votes. Not a good answer. Answer the charges.
Bush
Question 6 on gay marriage. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? Great question. Bush: good answer. Respect rights and tolerance without changing views on marriage. I disagree with the position but it is a good answer. Turn it on “activist judges.” Involve citizens in the process and not judges. Marriage should not be defined by courts. Kerry’s answer is not so good. Mentioning Cheney’s daughter again. Is anyone else offended by this? Kerry is making me mad now. Pandering. Terrible. Fumbling. Now getting to his areas of agreement wth Bush. We have an “unbelievable” constitution?
Bush
Question 7 on Catholics not voting for Kerry because of abortion and stem cells to Kerry: These questions are catching him off guard. Again, his answer is all over the place. Talking about growing up Catholic and the doctrine of works. Puritans world over are outraged. He is talking about fighting for truth and justice? Bush: talking about promoting a culture of life. Good, moderate answer. Understands the differences and try to put law in place to reduce the number of abortions. Pointing out another position where Kerry is out of the mainstream. Promote adoption.
Bush
Question 8 on health insurance costs to Bush: Who is responsible for high costs? Good question. Bush’s answer: systemic problem. Need consumer choice. User of health care is not the purchaser of health care. Good, reasonable answer. Medical liability reform. Need more information technology into health care. Generic drugs. Good answer. Kerry: Health care costs are high because of Bush? Canadian drugs? Bush’s redirect will be critical. Will he get one? Will he let it go? Bush: Kerry has no record on reforming health care. No record of leadership. Kerry answering like he wasn’t ready for the charge.
Bush
Question 9 on extending health care to children and catastrophic bills. Kerry: Bush is lying about my record and you can choose a doctor. Is that an answer? The question was about costs. He is doing what Bush did in the first debate and resorting to his stump speech. Kerry had better hope that nobody is watching this debate. So far at least. Geez, now he is talking about diabetes. Bush: Good answer but watch the smirk. He might be feeling like he is winning now. He needs to watch the overconfidence here. OK. Back on track. Kerry on redirect: VA health care is poor. Bush: Wow. Bush nailed the redirect on veterans health care. I was about to give the point to Kerry but no.
Bush
Question 10 on social security and privatization, where do you get the money? Bush: honor our commitment. Bush needs an answer. Fine. We need a new strategy. Ok the plan is good but the question was about the costs. Kerry on redirect: Bush’s plan is an invitation to disaster. Good Bush cutaway. Kerry raises a good question about the transitional money. Where does it come from? Kerry stop talking!
Kerry
Question 11 on making benefit payments, will Kerry leave this problem? Kerry: No structural changes to social security. Why did Kerry just mention that Alan Greenspan agrees with Bush? He just scored a point for Bush. Not answering the question except to attack the tax cut again. Now he is talking on stump points again. Bush: Kerry has no plan and has taxed social security. Kerry in cutaway is smug again. Defending the tax cuts and reminding people about recession. Good. “I acted.” Sounds presidential.
Bush
Question 12 on immigration. Bush: Good answer. Border security beefed. New equipment. Economic opportunity. Temporary worker card and program. Good, spirited defense of worker program. Don’t back amnesty or reward illegal behavior. Kerry backed amnesty. Kerry: talking about the middle class but not immigration. Fumbling again. Is this the same guy I saw in the other debates? I will do something about the borders but I won’t tell you what. Bush redirect: fine. Manpower and equipment. Kerry: Iris recognition?
Bush
Question 13 on gap between rich and poor—minimum wage? Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage. Republicans are keeping Democrats from voting on the minimum wage. (Holy smokes! Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage to $7.00/hour?! I had no idea. That sounds like a terrible idea. Everyplace outside of a city would have to fire half their employees.) Bush: redirecting to education again. This is not going to work. Kerry’s answer was bad but Bush is not putting him away or calling him on it. He must not want to touch the minimum wage issue. Bush’s education answer is good though, even if it is off topic. Who wins the point?
Bush… barely, with a bad answer
Question 14 on Roe? Bush: No litmus test. He stopped talking good. Cheney-style. Kerry: I will not appoint a judge that would overturn a right. Now he is talking about inner city kids? Mentioning battleground states again. Bush: nailed Kerry on litmus test and education funding. Kerry: You don’t measure it by a percentage increase (??!!). Kerry just lost half of America.
Bush by a mile.
Question 15 on draft and national guard being held beyond enlistments: This is a softball for Kerry. He should hit it out of the park. Kerry: he is talking stop-loss gobbletygook. Why isn’t he nailing this? Ok. Back on track somewhat but he should have hit this one out of the park. He could have just gone back to his stump speech on this and been fine. I swear Kerry is throwing this debate. I know he has a better stock answer than that. Bush: Best way to take pressure off our troops is train Iraqis. Good personal story. He clearly feels this. Bush is back on the “global test.” He had better not dwell to long. Make the point then get off. Kerry redirect: Answered the global test but not in a convincing way. Truth standard? Bush: Here it is! Kerry voted against the use of force in the first Iraq war.
Bush by a mile.
Question 16 on assault weapons ban. Bush: Go after gun crime. Kerry: This is a failure of presidential leadership. Good. Steady. Talking about experience. Good story. Kerry is getting his footing. He may be losing on substance but winning this question on style for sure.
Kerry
Question 17 on affirmative action to Kerry. Kerry is for it, but acting like he is hearing this question for the first time. Does he have a reply for this? Has he thought about it before? This is really really bad for Kerry. Surely he must have known that something like this would come up. Kerry people must have their heads in their hands right now. Where is he going with this? Bush: No quotas. I have met with Black Congressional leaders. Talking about education again. Believes in acces to education. Helping minority ownership of business. Minority home ownership up.
Bush
Question 18 on faith and policy decisions. Bush: I pray a lot and my faith is personal. Mindful that people can worship or not. Equally Americans, all. Prayer and religion sustain me. Calmness. He loves that people pray for him. Make decisions based on principle. Faith based initiatives. God wants everybody to be free and that informs his foreign policy. Good. Calm. Kerry: Respects President’s faith. Good. Good answer. Both mentioned golden rule. Separate and unequal school system? Seems out of context.
Bush barely
Question 19 country coming together after 9/11 and polarization. Kerry: compliment Bush on days after 9/11. Honerable but bad strategy. He should not remind Americans about 9/11. That was Bush’s greatest moment. Now need to change polarized culture. No secret meetings in the White House with special interests? Work with John McCain? Bush: lack of bipartisanship is the biggest disappointment. Entrenched special interests. Bush mentioned that McCain backs him.
Draw
Question 20 on strong women and daughters. Bush: What have you learned from these strong women? Stand up straight and not scowl. Good humor. Bush gets teary-eyed when he talks about his wife. Kerry can’t match that. Ooh. Talking about his mom. Good answer form Kerry. But no match for the backyard barbeque story.
Bush
Closing statements
Kerry:
Did Kerry just say “idear” for “idea”… three times? Addressing global test. Mentioning Vietnam, God. This statement has no pace. Bad tempo.
Bush:
Painting of West Texas. Optimism. We have been through a lot together. Just the right theme. Good tone. Economy, education, health care, armies of compassion, terror, firm resolve, spread freedom and transform societies. Asking for vote and God bless.
Bush
By the way, Sheiffer’s questions were first rate. He is really forced both men to get beyond the first level of sound bites.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Rebunk Gets Results
In a campaign speech, Cheney used those three Kerry lines from the debate. Can an ad be far behind? I first saw the comparison in an email from a reader at National Review's weblog "The Corner." From email to blog, to blog, to campaign speech in a matter of days.... Such is the speed of modern politics.
Saturday, October 9, 2004
The Next BC '04 TV Ad
The next Bush-Cheney '04 should feature the following video clips of Kerry from the last debate (all quotations taken from debate transcript):
"So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind."
"Well, let me tell you, straight up, I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat - believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president"
"And what's interesting is it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat."
[insert woman's voice with smarmy remark]
Friday, October 8, 2004
Debate
Somebody needs to fix Gibson’s microphone. Kerry has the bigger smile. He is feeling good. Bush looks ready also. First question about wishy washy: Kerry sounds good. Good answer. Bush is frozen. No expression from the President. Advantage Kerry.
Question 2, Iraq. Bush is yelling too much. He sounds exhasperated. Kerry keeps making charges. Bush needs to answer them. He sounds like he is tired. Kerry has gotten the best of Bush on the first two questions.
Question 3, the Kerry plan for Iraq. Kerry sounds logical and reasonable. Bush has gotten control of his tone. Sounds good talking about reconstruction. The “follow me into a mistake” line still works. Kerry’s response to reply with Afghanistan sounds hollow. Bush reply: Finally! An explanation of how Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Question 4, anti American feeling abroad. Bush fumbling. Sounds like he is hectoring the audience. Defensive. Defensive. Defensive. Stop shouting! It sounds bad on TV. He sounds like he is on the stump talking to the people in the back row. Kerry’s response sounds quiet, calm, reasonable, and presidential. More Kerry charges. Why doesn’t Bush answer them one by one? Bush redirect was good. Kerry came back though, blaming Bush for losing the peace.
Question 5, Iran, if sanctions don’t work: Will Kerry answer? No, redirect to Bush. He is staying focused. Blame Bush for Iran and N. Korea. Just said he would lead the world to fight proliferation. Says he has a plan, but doesn’t say what it is. Said he would get tough, but not sure what that means. Bush’s reply is starting well. Needs to keep his tone under control. Whoah! Just saw a Kerry smug snarl. Draw.
Question 6, maintain forces without a draft. Bush answers that the volunteer army works. Needs to answer how. Why not be specific? Don’t need mass army. Ok. Move troops. Ok. Reassess goals. Sounds good. Technology saves manpower. Kerry response starting flat. Naming generals, who cares? Armed forces overextended. Hitting his point about the “backdoor draft.” Not sure if this is resonating.
Whoa! Bush needs to settle down. He cut off Gibson. This is bad. What is he thinking? Kerry just needs to keep his temper and say he would do a better job. Can Bush recover? Kerry is clearly feeling that he is winning. Gaining confidence as the debate goes on. He hammers but seems reasonable. He is for alliances and intelligence.
Bush redirect on defending America is good, but not enough to make up for this series of bad answers. The biggest problem for Bush is that Kerry is not making mistakes, and Bush is. Oh no! Bush talked about people working overtime to keep America safe.
Question 7, importation of drugs from Canada. Good Bush answer so far. Product safety. Look at other ways to make drugs cheaper. Drug discount cards. He can sell this. Nice to see him on another issue. Great Kerry response though. Another draw. Bush can’t win a point.
Question 8, vp choice and medical costs. Defended John Edwards well. Says he supports tort reform. Good reminder about costs. Related it to MO. Says he has a plan. Again, sounds reasonable. Even asking for a tax increase he sounds reasonable.
Bush response is that Kerry is a liberal. Ok, better in answer but still not in control of the tone.
Question 9, Republican majority and spending, $700 billion approved and not paid for. Bush answer good so far. Good defense of the tax cut. Bush needs to get in control of the format. Kerry answer is wrong, but sounds good.
Redirect a draw.
Question 10, Kerry on taxes. He looked into the camera and promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000/year. Kerry even made a joke. Some humor would be nice from Bush. Bush’s answer is good. Bush seems to be getting his footing.
Redirect: Kerry now sounds a little defensive.
Question 11, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? Offroad engines, wetlands, clear skies initiative, inner city, farm bill with acreage set asides, healthy forest bill. Now looking toward the future and technology. First really solid Bush answer. Accomplishments, forward looking, and solid. Kerry response is flat. Even the Bush redirect was solid. Strange, who would have thought that the environment question would break for Bush? Advantage Bush.
Question 12, jobs, how can the U.S. be competitive in manufacturing given wage expectations? Kerry: tax loopholes for business and health care costs. Not answering the question. I think there is a good response in there somewhere, but he didn’t put it together well. Education, health care, tax loopholes. Bush answer is more to the point. Solid. Good tie in with the tax increase and small business. Taxing job creators. Good point. Advantage Bush.
Question 13, patriot act, rights being watered down? Bush: rights aren’t being watered down. Good, reasonable answer. More importantly, he is quiet and calm. Good examples. Kerry: fine. Draw
Question 14, stem cell research? Kerry, first shows respect. Good. Good way to keep calm. Deflect with a story. Good. Keeps looking optimistic. Bush response: cool, calm, asking for balance, sounds reasonable. Talks about solid accomplishments, sounds humble. Kerry redirect angry. Bush shouldn’t bite on this. Didn’t. Advantage Bush.
Question 15, supreme court? Bush: started with humor. Now talking about who he wouldn’t appoint. Not sure if this is hitting home, but fine. Kerry response: Fine. Draw.
Question 16, tax dollars for abortion? Kerry: Starts by saying he respects beliefs. Good answer. Talking about a responsible society, and respecting others. Bush: reduce the number in this country. Parental notification and partial birth abortion. Unborn victims of violence laws. Promote a culture of life. Every child protected by law and welcomed in life. Adoption, maternity group homes. Kerry redirect reasonable. Bush’s redirect lost him the point. Should have kept his mouth shut.
Question 17, three instances where Bush had made mistakes? Bush: Ugh! Get off Iraq. He is starting to repeat himself. Tax cut, fine. Appointments? Kerry: Now he is on Iraq. Kerry is spinning out a little, but not bad.
Closing statements:
Kerry looks good, relaxed. He is speaking to the “global test” question. Talking of his plan and killing terrorists. Vague, but I am sure it sounds good to someone. I have a plan… refrain.
Bush closing statement is good. He got some good momentum in his speech.
Bush started poorly and couldn’t get any momentum between his good moments. Kerry didn’t make any mistakes. No home runs for either.
And I hate this format. Watching presidential candiates run around like Donahue is unseemly.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Alternatives To Textbooks
Given the success of our recent discussion about improving history education, perhaps it is time to address one of my specific criticisms. That is, we should start a discussion about which history books we should be giving to high school students. Because of the expertise of the Rebunkers and most of our readers, perhaps we should limit our discussion to American history.
Just to make it interesting, I think we should give ourselves some limits. Assume that you can get a high school kid to read 4-6 shorter books per year. Try to think of books that you could get for between $5-$15, and they have to be in print. If you would rather have a little more play, give yourself a $50 limit (per student). What would you assign?
You have to cover the whole span of American history. Think cheap. Think page-turning good. We have a couple of high school teachers, and aspiring teachers who read this blog. This could be a very good thing.
I might edit this post later with my own list.
This might also be a good time to plug a great site for history teachers: teachingamericanhistory.org
Monday, September 27, 2004
The State of Civic Education
The state of civic education is horrible, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Students come from homes where parents do not encourage reading or learning about the past. The go to schools where, in the primary grades, they read from terrible, watered-down textbooks. Their elementary school teachers don't know much more than what they teach out of those textbooks. Conditions don't improve much at the middle and high school levels.
The standard curriculum in history classes in all ages seems to be:
A) The stupidity of the President
B) The hopelessness of trying to achieve anything, since the system is stacked against you
C) The evil of the American government through time
D) How teachers are overworked and underpaid
Students read terrible books. They are taught by people who have little or no subject expertise. They learn that "educated" and "cynical" are synonymous from teachers who would rather hide behind sarcasm than engage the great issues and ideas of the past.
Universities don't get off the hook either. Students are demanding that universities become trade schools. Universities should resist. If students want the prestige of a university degree, they must get a university education. Universities need to show their values in their requirements.
All is not lost, however. There are changes (many of which have been discussed on Rebunk) that can happen in public schools within a matter of years.
1. Require that high school teachers have a major and (eventually) an advanced in the subject that they teach.
2. Get rid of the (or cut back on) advanced degrees in education. Administrators can get degrees in management, or other advanced subjects.
3. Until and unless history textbooks improve, teachers should assign narrative history texts and primary sources.
4. Teachers should be given budget authority and control of their own book-buying. They could buy better books off amazon.com for a fraction of the cost of a class set of terrible textbooks.
5. Students should be required to write one five paragraph essay every week.
6. History class should never be broken into groups, engage in "history learning games," or otherwise engage in so-called "active learning."
7. Require an exit exam for high school students. High school students should be able to list all of the Presidents, in order. They should know the amendments to the constitution. They should required to get a perfect score on this portion of the test. In addition, they should be able to pass a test on the Constitution.
8. Accept a Ph.D. as an alternative to a teaching credential.
9. School districts should be able to fire demonstrably bad teachers.
10. Teachers should avoid sarcasm. If you need to, keep telling yourself, "I am not as smart as Alexander Hamilton, therefore I should not make fun of him."
I am forgetting hundreds of details, I'm sure. I have the feeling that the comments to this post will be substantial, and I will have to flesh out many of these ideas in response to comments. But these are my first thoughts on the subject.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Look out Alan Keyes, Here Comes...
Barack Obama. He has just come out against gay marriage (check it: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040924obama,1,3472496.story?coll=chi-news-hed ). He supports civil unions but he won't go the extra mile. In addition, he cites his religious beliefs in his opposition. In an interview broadcast on the radio, Obama said: "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Obama is so far ahead of his opponent that this statement must be made from conviction. He would have paid no political penalty for supporting gay marriage. It would have required no special courage. On one hand, I admire his candor. But I disagree with his position.
Positive By-Product of the War on Terror
India and Pakistan are talking. (See the BBC story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3685418.stm ) Forcing Musharraf to choose sides has moved Pakistan into the civilized world and led to this tremendous news. It is hard to imagine this happening without the series of tough meetings between the Bush administration and Pakistan just after September 11. Pakistan is not wholly free, nor wholly secure, but this is a step in the right direction. Both sides are hopeful. So is the rest of the world.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
If Voting Is Too Hard, Don't Bother
I have lived and voted in three states: CA, OH, and CO. Registering and voting, in all three states, has been very easy.
I turned 18 in California. On my 18th birthday I went to the downtown Post Office in my hometown of Visalia, California. I registered to vote, and for the selective service, at the same time. Since my birthday is in June, I couldn't vote in the primary, but I voted for the first time in the fall of 1992. Of course, I could have registered in civics class, when my teacher passed out voter registration cards and told us how it was our civic duty to make sure George Bush did not win a second term because he hated teachers. But I wasn't 18 when I graduated.
I moved to Ohio in 1998. I walked into the court house on, um, Court Street and registered to vote as soon as I had a valid ID. It was not an inconvenience, it was a priority. Of course, I could have registered to vote when I walked past the assorted activists assaulting me on my way to work every day.
When I moved to Colorado in July (July 4th even) I registered to vote when I got my driver’s license. In fact, it was part of the same form. I just had to check a box at the bottom of the form. I know where I am voting. I don’t anticipate any problems, because I have never had any problem voting, and never met anyone who has. But I always vote in the morning, in case of a problem. I know the alternate polling places. I bring plenty of identification. In California, Ohio, and Colorado, the State sends out voting guides. They also send out postcards with the locations of polling places. In Ohio and Colorado, they give you little cards that you can keep in your wallet with your voting information.
Sometimes I had to ask for time off work to vote. My employers have always complied. Sometimes I had to wake up an hour early and vote before class. Sometimes I had wait in line. I voted when I didn’t have enough money to put gasoline in my car (I rode my bike once too, but that was by choice so it doesn’t count as a hardship). Yet I always managed to overcome these obstacles, minor as they were. I haven’t missed an election since my eighteenth birthday. I don’t deserve to be applauded for this. I always looked at it as the least I could do to honor the people who won and protected our civil rights and political traditions. Voting certainly isn’t as difficult as standing in front of a water hose, or, you know, dying in the Revolutionary (or any other) War.
So here is the good part. I am going to make some controversial, categorical assertions.
If you have to be convinced that voting is important, don't vote. If you think registering to vote is too difficult to be worth the bother, don't vote. If taking time out of your day to figure out where, or how, to vote seems like an awful chore, don't vote. Stay home or do whatever you do. People who want to participate in civic life should be allowed to participate. But if someone is too stupid to realize why they should vote, I really don’t want them voting. I don’t stay up nights worrying about voter apathy, or the youth vote. If citizens opt out of civic life, they deserve to have other people make decisions for them. Just for good measure, I will also add that I do not have to listen to the opinions of any American citizen who chooses not to vote.
And by the way, I am watching Ferris Bueller’s Day Off as I write this, and that scene with Ben Stein teaching history is still brilliant.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Honor
In teaching the first part of the American survey, I occasionally go back and read sections from "classic" history texts to brush up. Last night, I was struck by a very unoriginal thought. For many of the American founders, ambition was inextricably linked with honor. To be more precise they were very ambitious about their honor. They wanted to be known, famous, and judged by it. Certainly, many other historians have gone over this well-trod territory, and I am not a specialist, so I make no claims to have a special insight on the matter, but I take historians such as Wills and Morgan at their word.
I began to wonder how many of my students (or my colleagues, or people on the street) would want to be judged by, or famous for, their honor. It is no small thing to welcome public scrutiny of one's public actions. Honor, fame, reputation-- these are all slippery terms. And one must be careful to define them precisely.
In warning my students of the various forms of academic dishonesty, I put it to my students in this way:
You must recognize that you are no longer preparing to live your life. You are, in fact, already living it. You are responsible for your actions, and your actions define who you are. It is absurd to claim: "I cheat, but I am not a cheater." It makes about as much sense as: "I rape, but I am not a rapist." "I steal but I am not a thief." Or, "I smoke, but I am not a smoker." In matters of the soul, I cannot judge, but as far as the world is concerned, you are what you do. If you do dishonest things, I will not respect you. In fact, I will hold you to be a dishonorable person, worthy of contempt, or perhaps pity.
Sometimes, comments like these will end up on evaluation sheets. Often they are misheard, misremembered, or misinterpreted. They end up in letters of application to law, professional, or graduate schools. Without fail, students find it harsh that I would dare to judge them by their actions. Is it harsh? I think I am simply stating the obvious. Have they never heard (from anyone!!??) that they are judged by their actions? A mother loves unconditionally, but I not anyone's mother. (Insert bad-pun/joke here)
I have been asked, on occasion, what holds the Rebunkers together. It is certainly not our political views, temperament, tastes, or common pasts. We do not agree on much, actually. Instead, strange as this may sound, I have always been impressed with my fellow Rebunkers' honor and loyalty. I have never doubted their motives or intentions. I respect them, because they are respectable. They are, in fact, two of the most respectable men I have ever known.
The other thing we have in common: All of us are prone to crying (but not crying prone) during the national anthem.
Oh, and we are all really attractive.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Save Me, Ari Hoogenboom
I am not an expert on the life and presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, but Ari Hoogenboom is, and I need his help. I have read two of his books and reviewed an edited collection with one of his essays on Hayes. His research and scholarship are beyond reproach.
But I went to something advertised as a faculty mixer last week, and the talk about Hayes became quite heated. I was talking to someone from another department about underrated, forgotten Presidents, and I mentioned Hayes. From the other end of the table a voice shouted out, "Hayes was a racist a--h-le!"
I replied, "No. In fact, when compared to the times in which he lived, Hayes was among the most progressive Presidents, if not the most progressive President in matters of racial justice for African Americans." (insert more shouting from the end of the table in response).
His arguments were interesting. He claimed Hayes was a racist BECAUSE he (Hayes, that is) had been a supporter of the Tuskegee Institute. That is not a typographical error. My reply could have been better. I shook my head quite a bit and said, "everything you just said is wrong."
I wasn't looking to start a fight at my first faculty mixer, but I had just gone over my Hayes lecture (which I will be giving Monday) and was pretty sure of my facts on the matter. I also thought I was keeping the conversation innocuous. I was remarkably unsuccessful on both counts.
But I couldn't laugh it off or let it go. I thought about Mr. Hoogenboom, whom I have never met or had any communication with, and the hours, days, years, decades of work that has gone into his scholarship. I thought of the reviewers of Mr. Hoogenboom's works, and the demands of our discipline. And now this guy, from another department, dismissed it all.
Perhaps the worst part about this exchange was the realization that my colleague from another department would teach his students that Hayes was a "racist a--h-le" and probably has been doing so for many years.
I do have a dream, though. I wish that somehow this blog entry would make its way to Mr. Hoogenboom, and that Mr. Hoogenboom would ship twelve large boxes of evidence proving my colleague wrong. I would then take those twelve large boxes to my colleague's office, and tell him that he has to go through that evidence carefully and write two or three well-reviewed, award-winning books on the topic before he can presume to disagree with Mr. Hoogenboom.
If you believe that President Hayes "stole" an election, or is a "racist a--h-le," please read Mr. Hoogenboom's books.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Tis the Season
When does the Rebunk fantasy football league start, and where do I sign up?
Friday, August 13, 2004
Loving My Job
Do I realize how lucky I am? Every G--D---- day. As we get closer to the start of the academic year, I am reminded how wonderful it is to actually enjoy one's work. I enjoy everything about being a professional historian... except grading. Studying the past gives me a special appreciation for living when and where I do. I study the past, and it was terrible.
I read good books, write about important things, and teach the best subject. We read about history, write about history, and talk about history. And I haven't had to read any bad books for a long time. It is not a bad life. Of course, my wife makes more than me, and did not have to do a nationwide job search to get her job-- or go to school for twelve years on the people's dime, and it is not a tenure track job-- but it feels like I am living in a wonderland. I can see why historians don't retire.
I was staring at my bookshelf yesterday trying to decide which book to assign for my US since 1918 class, getting my syllabi ready, working on some reviews, and it was great. I like the anticipation of wondering about the chemistry of my classes. Will they like the books? Every quarter/semester, it seems like a couple of students will shock me with their intelligence and/or their ignorance. How will I be shocked this year? What is important to students who were only 15 on September 11, 2001?
I am looking at my "To Do" list, and I am not dreading any of it. I am not rich, but I can pay my bills and manage my debt. Living in Northern Colorado doesn't hurt either. It is hard to be in a bad mood after watching a few sunsets over the Rockies or after a few good hikes. I don't have to deal with smoking, humidity, or totalitarianism on a daily basis. I did work hard to get where I am, but in many important ways, I just got lucky. Meeting my fellow Rebunkers in graduate school was luck. Being born in the United States in 1974 was luck. Family? Luck.
Now, back to work.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Obama
Barack Obama’s speech to the 2004 Democratic convention represented a dramatic break with the past. With the exception of the Kennedy and Johnson years, the Democratic Party has been content to be a coalition of interest groups, while the Republican Party, even in its leanest years, aspired to be a party of consensus. Barack Obama might represent a new direction for the Democratic Party—one where the Democrats could make a legitimate claim to be the keepers of a great American vision for the future.
It was a patriotic speech filled with traditional, Republican themes, as well as Democratic ones. The first politician he mentioned in his speech was Lincoln. His description of his background was moving, appropriate, and contained the elements of a workable vision for this country. America, for Obama, is the land of opportunity. He remarked on the help his family received along the way. His father had a scholarship. Members of his immediate family benefited from FHA loans and the GI Bill. His family dreamed of home ownership, education, and tolerance. He realizes his debt to the past. He acknowledged that his story was only possible in America and that he owed “a debt to all of those who came before me….” Disregarding the economic determinism and conspiracy theories that have infected his party for so long, he argued for the value of the founding ideals. The great events of American history provided the foundation for the opportunities in his life, rather than excuses for his failure.
Of course, the Democrats, and Obama himself, could veer off this admirable path. There are hints that they will. First, Obama’s speech was unique at the convention. Despite his reception, there have been no initiators. Obama’s reference that “our votes will be counted- or at least, most of the time,” was beneath him. The description of the conditions of the working class dipped into some unnecessary demagoguery. But he saved himself (partially) with tributes to hard work, national defense and unity, thrift, patriotism, and community.
But Obama’s sincerity was undeniable. He had an authenticity to him that will cross partisan lines. If he sticks to the ideas enunciated in his speech, he will have a future in American politics without limits.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Rise of the Vulcans
I bought it when it came out, but I just started reading James Mann's _Rise of the Vulcans_. I get the impression that many people love/hate Bush without any understanding of him. Ditto Neoconservatism. If you have friends who are reading right wing or left wing trash, buy it for them. Every American intending to vote in the November election should read it before going to the polls. Know what you are voting for or against. Perhaps, after some of our readers have had a chance to get into it, we can discuss it.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Why I am A Democrat/Republican
In one of the comments to a recent post, Derek mentioned writing a "Why I am a Democrat" column. I have been thinking about doing something similar for some time. I have always liked Arthur Larson's writings on Eisenhower and the Republican Party in the 1950s, and I have been thinking-- literally for years-- about doing something similar. It is well beyond time for another "A Republican Looks At His Party." So many terms-- Liberal, Conservative, Neoconservative, Left, Right, New Left, New Right-- get tossed about so much that they have become meaningless. Actually, to be more precise, the words have simply come to mean different things to different people. When some people hear the word "conservative," they think of Rush Limbaugh, or, God forbid, some televangelist. William Howard Taft was a conservative. Limbaugh is not. At any rate, it would be interesting to know if any of our regular readers would like to suggest which beliefs they would define as "Republican." Perhaps reader responses will motivate me to get beyond the outline stage.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Rebunk Gets Results
The www.nytimes.com website has listed not one, but two stories describing how Bush would roll out the proposals for his second term agenda in the near future. As the Cliche' goes, the proof is in the pudding. Both Kerry and Edwards are determined to avoid any kind of legislative fight. They are wise to do so. Their caution remains good strategy as long as they are ahead. Bush should counter with something similar to the "Contract with America." If he can't be Clinton in '96, Gingrich '94 might do the trick.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Getting Beyond Iraq
Just a quick thought about the campaign: The Bush team needs to get beyond Iraq and articulate a specific set of initiatives for the next four years. They can't let Kerry make the case, "I would have done it better, and here is what I will do if I am elected." Bush will lose if he does not come up with a positive, specific agenda. I assume he will do so after the convention, but Kerry may have opened up too large a lead by then. Kerry is going to come out of the Democratic convention about 6-7% ahead of Bush. That margin will be tough enough to overcome. If Kerry pull ahead by 15%, as the Bush campaign is predicting, that may be too much. The country is not convinced that democracy would not survive a Kerry administration. Flip-flopper? Who cares? The Bush campaign hasn't found its footing yet. They aren't setting the agenda or using the advantages of the office. Bush could propose some meaningless, popular, symbolic legislation (a la Clinton 96) that Kerry would be forced to oppose, but I don't see that happening. No more playing to the base. The campaign starts this week.
Sunday in Greeley
I am enjoying a lazy Sunday afternoon in Greeley, Colorado. I like the town. It reminds me of my hometown in California (except the mountains are on the wrong side). No humidity. The Mexican food is good. The smoking laws are stricter than those in Ohio, but not quite up to California standards. The Methodist Church here meets all of my requirements. We sing some good hymns, the minister tells us to be nice, and we go home. Baptist by birth, Methodist by marriage-- insert literacy joke here. I have been reading Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide." I might have the title wrong, but the book is in the other room and I don't want to get up. It is pretty good. I am thinking of assigning it to my upper division foreign policy class in the Spring. Any thoughts?
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Back
I am back, sort of. For those of you who aren't my best friends, I have had quite a month. I wrapped up teaching in Ohio, finished my dissertation, turned thirty, got married, went on my honeymoon, defended my dissertation, and moved from Ohio to Colorado. Oh yeah, my truck also broke down just outside Fort Wayne, Indiana. My new wife and I bought another truck just like it and pushed on. I think we lost about four hours total. She is a trooper. So much has happened to me I am not sure where to start. Perhaps I should begin by stating that I have pretty much ignored politics, the news, history, and anything else that might be blogworthy. I am trying to catch up on things. Give me a few days.
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
Schlesinger Quotation
D-Cat. I have that Reagan book at work. I will check the source of the Schlesinger quotation tomorrow.
Update. The quotation is correct and in the proper context insofar as Peter Schwizer's use, but Schweizer does not give his source for Schlesinger's words. And Schweizer also does mention Schlesinger as an anti-Communist liberal from the 1940s earlier in the book.
Joseph Alsop on Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Liberals, and JFK
Here is what Alsop, who was much closer to Kennedy than Schlesinger, had to say about the historian-in-residence and Liberals:
""Liberals" more generally did not have much influence on the president--at least in foreign policy matters. On this topic, it is wise to read with cynical care my friend Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s elegant and generally thorough account of the Kennedy administration.... Throughout his book, a body Arthur refers to as "the liberals" keeps cropping up with good advice on foreign policy. Care in reading is desirable because the fact is that the advice offered by these liberals was almost never taken."
Joe Alsop, I've Seen the Best of It, 449.
I have read everything by Schlesinger with cynical care since Robert Sobel called him on the carpet in _Coolidge: An American Enigma_. I am not sure I would want him as a standard-bearer.
Sunday, June 6, 2004
Sad