Roundup: Historian's Take
This is where we place excerpts by historians writing about the news. On occasion this page also includes political scientists, economists, and law professors who write about history. We may from time to time even include English profs.
SOURCE: Atlanta Journal-Constitution (9-2-10)
[Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University.]
A little-known politician emerges from Illinois to capture the White House during a time of national turmoil and unrest. Critics whisper that he’s a secret member of a dangerous minority religion, which flouts the norms and traditions of democracy itself.
Barack Obama, in 2010? No, Abraham Lincoln. In 1860.
That’s right. Just as Obama’s enemies call him a closet Muslim, Lincoln’s opponents hinted that he was ... a closet Catholic. And in each case, the reason was exactly the same: millions of Americans feared, derided or despised these faiths. The important question isn’t whether Lincoln and Obama actually practiced Catholicism or Islam; it’s why so many of us have cared. And the answer is right before our eyes.
The whispers about Lincoln’s religion began right after he was elected president. The “evidence” was simple, and altogether spurious.
Jesuits were active in Lincoln’s region of Illinois, so he must have been baptized by them. Oh, and Lincoln had once defended a prominent priest in a slander lawsuit.
But there was more. Lincoln also denounced the bigotry and prejudice of the Know-Nothings, America’s most vehemently anti-Catholic political party. “If the Know-Nothings get control,” Lincoln warned in 1855, “the Declaration of Independence will read: All men are created equal except for Negroes, foreigners, and Catholics.”
Pretty suspicious, no? Remember the old adage about your enemy’s enemy being your friend? Why would Lincoln criticize the anti-Catholics, unless he was Catholic himself?
And here’s why it mattered: Across the political spectrum, including Lincoln’s Republican Party, Protestant Americans assumed that Catholics were disloyal to the Republic. “We” respected individual rights, liberties and freedoms; but “they” took orders from the Vatican, an authoritarian menace that spread its tentacles across the globe.
A little-known politician emerges from Illinois to capture the White House during a time of national turmoil and unrest. Critics whisper that he’s a secret member of a dangerous minority religion, which flouts the norms and traditions of democracy itself.
Barack Obama, in 2010? No, Abraham Lincoln. In 1860.
That’s right. Just as Obama’s enemies call him a closet Muslim, Lincoln’s opponents hinted that he was ... a closet Catholic. And in each case, the reason was exactly the same: millions of Americans feared, derided or despised these faiths. The important question isn’t whether Lincoln and Obama actually practiced Catholicism or Islam; it’s why so many of us have cared. And the answer is right before our eyes.
The whispers about Lincoln’s religion began right after he was elected president. The “evidence” was simple, and altogether spurious.
Jesuits were active in Lincoln’s region of Illinois, so he must have been baptized by them. Oh, and Lincoln had once defended a prominent priest in a slander lawsuit.
But there was more. Lincoln also denounced the bigotry and prejudice of the Know-Nothings, America’s most vehemently anti-Catholic political party. “If the Know-Nothings get control,” Lincoln warned in 1855, “the Declaration of Independence will read: All men are created equal except for Negroes, foreigners, and Catholics.”
Pretty suspicious, no? Remember the old adage about your enemy’s enemy being your friend? Why would Lincoln criticize the anti-Catholics, unless he was Catholic himself?
And here’s why it mattered: Across the political spectrum, including Lincoln’s Republican Party, Protestant Americans assumed that Catholics were disloyal to the Republic. “We” respected individual rights, liberties and freedoms; but “they” took orders from the Vatican, an authoritarian menace that spread its tentacles across the globe.
Posted on: Thursday, September 2, 2010 - 21:17
Comments
SOURCE: The New Republic (8-31-10)
[Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War.]
...After seven-plus years, Operation Iraqi Freedom has concluded. Operation New Dawn, its name suggesting a skin cream or dishwashing liquid, now begins. (What ever happened to the practice of using terms like Torch or Overlord or Dragoon to describe military campaigns?) Although something like 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, their mission is not to fight, but simply to advise and assist their Iraqi counterparts. In another year, if all goes well, even this last remnant of an American military presence will disappear.
So the Americans are bowing out, having achieved few of the ambitious goals articulated in the heady aftermath of Baghdad’s fall. The surge, now remembered as an epic feat of arms, functions chiefly as a smokescreen, obscuring a vast panorama of recklessness, miscalculation, and waste that politicians, generals, and sundry warmongers are keen to forget.
Back in Iraq, meanwhile, nothing has been resolved and nothing settled. Round one of the Iraq war produced a great upheaval that round two served only to exacerbate. As the convoys of U.S. armored vehicles trundle south toward Kuwait and then home, they leave the stage set for round three.
Call this the War of Iraqi Self-Determination (2010–?). As the United States removes itself from the scene, Iraqis will avail themselves of the opportunity to decide their own fate, a process almost certain to be rife with ethnic, sectarian, and tribal bloodletting. What the outcome will be, no one can say with certainty, but it won’t be pretty.
One thing alone we can say with assurance:As far as Americans are concerned, Iraqis now own their war. “Like any sovereign, independent nation,” President Obama recently remarked, “Iraq is free to chart its own course.” The place may be a mess, but it’s their mess not ours. In this sense alone is the Iraq war “over.”
As U.S. forces have withdrawn, they have done so in an orderly fashion. In their own eyes, they remain unbeaten and unbeatable. As the troops pull out, the American people are already moving on: Even now, Afghans have displaced Iraqis as the beneficiaries of Washington’s care and ministrations. Oddly, even disturbingly, most of us—our memories short, our innocence intact—seem content with the outcome. The United States leaves Iraq having learned nothing.
...After seven-plus years, Operation Iraqi Freedom has concluded. Operation New Dawn, its name suggesting a skin cream or dishwashing liquid, now begins. (What ever happened to the practice of using terms like Torch or Overlord or Dragoon to describe military campaigns?) Although something like 50,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, their mission is not to fight, but simply to advise and assist their Iraqi counterparts. In another year, if all goes well, even this last remnant of an American military presence will disappear.
So the Americans are bowing out, having achieved few of the ambitious goals articulated in the heady aftermath of Baghdad’s fall. The surge, now remembered as an epic feat of arms, functions chiefly as a smokescreen, obscuring a vast panorama of recklessness, miscalculation, and waste that politicians, generals, and sundry warmongers are keen to forget.
Back in Iraq, meanwhile, nothing has been resolved and nothing settled. Round one of the Iraq war produced a great upheaval that round two served only to exacerbate. As the convoys of U.S. armored vehicles trundle south toward Kuwait and then home, they leave the stage set for round three.
Call this the War of Iraqi Self-Determination (2010–?). As the United States removes itself from the scene, Iraqis will avail themselves of the opportunity to decide their own fate, a process almost certain to be rife with ethnic, sectarian, and tribal bloodletting. What the outcome will be, no one can say with certainty, but it won’t be pretty.
One thing alone we can say with assurance:As far as Americans are concerned, Iraqis now own their war. “Like any sovereign, independent nation,” President Obama recently remarked, “Iraq is free to chart its own course.” The place may be a mess, but it’s their mess not ours. In this sense alone is the Iraq war “over.”
As U.S. forces have withdrawn, they have done so in an orderly fashion. In their own eyes, they remain unbeaten and unbeatable. As the troops pull out, the American people are already moving on: Even now, Afghans have displaced Iraqis as the beneficiaries of Washington’s care and ministrations. Oddly, even disturbingly, most of us—our memories short, our innocence intact—seem content with the outcome. The United States leaves Iraq having learned nothing.
Posted on: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - 18:42
SOURCE: Truthdig.com (8-31-10)
[Stanley Kutler is the author The Wars of Watergate, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, and The American Inquisition: Cold War Political Trials.]
Thomas Jefferson periodically expressed support for a free press as essential to an “enlightened citizenry,” but when the reality of political life settled on him during his presidency and beyond, Jefferson had harsh words for it. The newspapers, he complained in 1803, “present only the caricatures of disaffected minds.” In his “retirement” a decade later, Jefferson deplored the “putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.” The press’ capacity for mischief was ravenous, Jefferson complained. The media of the day, he said, were “like the clergy, [who] live by the zeal they can kindle and the schisms they can create.”
Jefferson never met 21st century radio and television, with their volatile contributions to the media mix. Today, the media largely offers us the irresponsible, shoddy, pernicious zeal and schisms he so deplored and feared. Recently, Maureen Dowd channeled Jefferson’s criticisms with her searing characterization of her colleagues as “spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment.”
The mainstream media marches on, duly disseminating all the managed news fit to print or speak. Witness the reporting on the forthcoming November elections. “Forthcoming elections” have equal urgency, whether we are talking 2010 or 2012, and the electoral process provides fertile feeding grounds for the media. “Politics all the time,” MSNBC trumpets in promotional spots, while arch-rival Fox merely politicizes everything. The marathon that was the 2008 election might have left us politics-exhausted, but did not.
Since 2008, the media have relentlessly pursued political happenings (and non-happenings), with reporters duly repeating partisan handouts as if they offered “news,” reading tea leaves or ratcheting up the noise and placards of tea parties. We are bombarded with tales of unrest, anger and disaffection among the natives, anxious to march to polls to toss out the “rascal,” that is, incumbents.
All this, we are to believe, is grass-roots democracy, with folks spontaneously gathering to air their grievances. It offers all the spontaneity of a pointillist painting.
A year after Barack Obama’s election, a year of apparent grace for the president, media pundits turned attention to the 47 percent who did not support him. His victory left many angry and disaffected, and their hostility soon turned to a visceral hatred, quite often blatantly predicated on race. What else could be the meaning of all the signs and speeches proclaiming a determination “to save the Republic” and “to get our country back?” And along came “tea parties,” a symbolic heralding of “revolution,” not out of nowhere, but well-funded and choreographed by familiar political operatives and ideologues in search of a new vehicle. Pros, not amateurs, lead this movement. They well know that hostility, disaffection and anger are red meat for the media, anxious to pursue “new” story lines, and an easy avenue to disseminate their anti-Obama line. Glenn Beck, of course, provides a divine afflatus. He would have us believe that he decided to hold a “political rally,” but “God dropped a giant sandbag on my head” and told him he had to awaken America.
Relatively predictable, our recent minor primary elections largely resulted in victories by familiar or very wealthy faces, and largely devoid of the doomsday scenarios as promised. The opponent of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, profited from internal Republican feuds and from well-financed marginal groups, particularly the anti-abortion crowd, who made their clout count within the confines of a primary. Silly Sarah’s endorsement of Murkowski’s opponent seemed inconsequential during the campaign; now, of course, her role has been puffed out of proportion.
The elections largely reflect local contexts; nevertheless they fuel shrill, raucous and often wrongheaded media rants that dominate the national conversation. Meanwhile, more weighty matters go unreported or escape any critical analysis. The media obscures and ignores important stories, with little reporting or understanding of facts, their meaning and their significance. We have no facts, only shrill opinions.
How are we so easily fooled, so easily deluded? Media obsessions provide the media with an ability to ignore more momentous events. The media fostered a raging obsession over a New York real estate problem, elevating it to national importance and tying it to the electoral fortunes of congressmen, governors and even state representatives.
And at what cost to an “enlightened citizenry”? Consider the pattern of reporting on the recent withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and the linkage to the Forever War in Afghanistan. MSNBC, our “liberal” channel, carried live broadcasts of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to compete with their Fox News Nemesis, and dutifully reported that the “last” American combat troops had left Iraq and crossed into Kuwait. The television moment provided a triumphal exit.
Those troops will not return to the United States as conquering heroes in “victory parades.” Will they remain in Kuwait? Perhaps; after all, we never know when our Kuwaiti “ally” and its sea of oil might be threatened again. More likely, the combat troops will be distributed to Afghanistan or sent to reinforce some of the 800 or so American bases abroad. And what of the more than 50,000 American troops still in Iraq, left behind ostensibly to “train” Iraq police and militia, and—surprise—protect the new American bases in Iraq? We are to believe that these “noncombatants” are out of harm’s way and free from casualties by roadside bombs, suicide bombers or open hostilities.
A year after Barack Obama’s election, a year of apparent grace for the president, media pundits turned attention to the 47 percent who did not support him. His victory left many angry and disaffected, and their hostility soon turned to a visceral hatred, quite often blatantly predicated on race. What else could be the meaning of all the signs and speeches proclaiming a determination “to save the Republic” and “to get our country back?” And along came “tea parties,” a symbolic heralding of “revolution,” not out of nowhere, but well-funded and choreographed by familiar political operatives and ideologues in search of a new vehicle. Pros, not amateurs, lead this movement. They well know that hostility, disaffection and anger are red meat for the media, anxious to pursue “new” story lines, and an easy avenue to disseminate their anti-Obama line. Glenn Beck, of course, provides a divine afflatus. He would have us believe that he decided to hold a “political rally,” but “God dropped a giant sandbag on my head” and told him he had to awaken America.
Relatively predictable, our recent minor primary elections largely resulted in victories by familiar or very wealthy faces, and largely devoid of the doomsday scenarios as promised. The opponent of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, profited from internal Republican feuds and from well-financed marginal groups, particularly the anti-abortion crowd, who made their clout count within the confines of a primary. Silly Sarah’s endorsement of Murkowski’s opponent seemed inconsequential during the campaign; now, of course, her role has been puffed out of proportion.
The elections largely reflect local contexts; nevertheless they fuel shrill, raucous and often wrongheaded media rants that dominate the national conversation. Meanwhile, more weighty matters go unreported or escape any critical analysis. The media obscures and ignores important stories, with little reporting or understanding of facts, their meaning and their significance. We have no facts, only shrill opinions.
How are we so easily fooled, so easily deluded? Media obsessions provide the media with an ability to ignore more momentous events. The media fostered a raging obsession over a New York real estate problem, elevating it to national importance and tying it to the electoral fortunes of congressmen, governors and even state representatives.
And at what cost to an “enlightened citizenry”? Consider the pattern of reporting on the recent withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and the linkage to the Forever War in Afghanistan. MSNBC, our “liberal” channel, carried live broadcasts of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to compete with their Fox News Nemesis, and dutifully reported that the “last” American combat troops had left Iraq and crossed into Kuwait. The television moment provided a triumphal exit.
Those troops will not return to the United States as conquering heroes in “victory parades.” Will they remain in Kuwait? Perhaps; after all, we never know when our Kuwaiti “ally” and its sea of oil might be threatened again. More likely, the combat troops will be distributed to Afghanistan or sent to reinforce some of the 800 or so American bases abroad. And what of the more than 50,000 American troops still in Iraq, left behind ostensibly to “train” Iraq police and militia, and—surprise—protect the new American bases in Iraq? We are to believe that these “noncombatants” are out of harm’s way and free from casualties by roadside bombs, suicide bombers or open hostilities.
Thomas Jefferson periodically expressed support for a free press as essential to an “enlightened citizenry,” but when the reality of political life settled on him during his presidency and beyond, Jefferson had harsh words for it. The newspapers, he complained in 1803, “present only the caricatures of disaffected minds.” In his “retirement” a decade later, Jefferson deplored the “putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.” The press’ capacity for mischief was ravenous, Jefferson complained. The media of the day, he said, were “like the clergy, [who] live by the zeal they can kindle and the schisms they can create.”
Jefferson never met 21st century radio and television, with their volatile contributions to the media mix. Today, the media largely offers us the irresponsible, shoddy, pernicious zeal and schisms he so deplored and feared. Recently, Maureen Dowd channeled Jefferson’s criticisms with her searing characterization of her colleagues as “spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment.”
The mainstream media marches on, duly disseminating all the managed news fit to print or speak. Witness the reporting on the forthcoming November elections. “Forthcoming elections” have equal urgency, whether we are talking 2010 or 2012, and the electoral process provides fertile feeding grounds for the media. “Politics all the time,” MSNBC trumpets in promotional spots, while arch-rival Fox merely politicizes everything. The marathon that was the 2008 election might have left us politics-exhausted, but did not.
Since 2008, the media have relentlessly pursued political happenings (and non-happenings), with reporters duly repeating partisan handouts as if they offered “news,” reading tea leaves or ratcheting up the noise and placards of tea parties. We are bombarded with tales of unrest, anger and disaffection among the natives, anxious to march to polls to toss out the “rascal,” that is, incumbents.
All this, we are to believe, is grass-roots democracy, with folks spontaneously gathering to air their grievances. It offers all the spontaneity of a pointillist painting.
A year after Barack Obama’s election, a year of apparent grace for the president, media pundits turned attention to the 47 percent who did not support him. His victory left many angry and disaffected, and their hostility soon turned to a visceral hatred, quite often blatantly predicated on race. What else could be the meaning of all the signs and speeches proclaiming a determination “to save the Republic” and “to get our country back?” And along came “tea parties,” a symbolic heralding of “revolution,” not out of nowhere, but well-funded and choreographed by familiar political operatives and ideologues in search of a new vehicle. Pros, not amateurs, lead this movement. They well know that hostility, disaffection and anger are red meat for the media, anxious to pursue “new” story lines, and an easy avenue to disseminate their anti-Obama line. Glenn Beck, of course, provides a divine afflatus. He would have us believe that he decided to hold a “political rally,” but “God dropped a giant sandbag on my head” and told him he had to awaken America.
Relatively predictable, our recent minor primary elections largely resulted in victories by familiar or very wealthy faces, and largely devoid of the doomsday scenarios as promised. The opponent of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, profited from internal Republican feuds and from well-financed marginal groups, particularly the anti-abortion crowd, who made their clout count within the confines of a primary. Silly Sarah’s endorsement of Murkowski’s opponent seemed inconsequential during the campaign; now, of course, her role has been puffed out of proportion.
The elections largely reflect local contexts; nevertheless they fuel shrill, raucous and often wrongheaded media rants that dominate the national conversation. Meanwhile, more weighty matters go unreported or escape any critical analysis. The media obscures and ignores important stories, with little reporting or understanding of facts, their meaning and their significance. We have no facts, only shrill opinions.
How are we so easily fooled, so easily deluded? Media obsessions provide the media with an ability to ignore more momentous events. The media fostered a raging obsession over a New York real estate problem, elevating it to national importance and tying it to the electoral fortunes of congressmen, governors and even state representatives.
And at what cost to an “enlightened citizenry”? Consider the pattern of reporting on the recent withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and the linkage to the Forever War in Afghanistan. MSNBC, our “liberal” channel, carried live broadcasts of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to compete with their Fox News Nemesis, and dutifully reported that the “last” American combat troops had left Iraq and crossed into Kuwait. The television moment provided a triumphal exit.
Those troops will not return to the United States as conquering heroes in “victory parades.” Will they remain in Kuwait? Perhaps; after all, we never know when our Kuwaiti “ally” and its sea of oil might be threatened again. More likely, the combat troops will be distributed to Afghanistan or sent to reinforce some of the 800 or so American bases abroad. And what of the more than 50,000 American troops still in Iraq, left behind ostensibly to “train” Iraq police and militia, and—surprise—protect the new American bases in Iraq? We are to believe that these “noncombatants” are out of harm’s way and free from casualties by roadside bombs, suicide bombers or open hostilities.
A year after Barack Obama’s election, a year of apparent grace for the president, media pundits turned attention to the 47 percent who did not support him. His victory left many angry and disaffected, and their hostility soon turned to a visceral hatred, quite often blatantly predicated on race. What else could be the meaning of all the signs and speeches proclaiming a determination “to save the Republic” and “to get our country back?” And along came “tea parties,” a symbolic heralding of “revolution,” not out of nowhere, but well-funded and choreographed by familiar political operatives and ideologues in search of a new vehicle. Pros, not amateurs, lead this movement. They well know that hostility, disaffection and anger are red meat for the media, anxious to pursue “new” story lines, and an easy avenue to disseminate their anti-Obama line. Glenn Beck, of course, provides a divine afflatus. He would have us believe that he decided to hold a “political rally,” but “God dropped a giant sandbag on my head” and told him he had to awaken America.
Relatively predictable, our recent minor primary elections largely resulted in victories by familiar or very wealthy faces, and largely devoid of the doomsday scenarios as promised. The opponent of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, profited from internal Republican feuds and from well-financed marginal groups, particularly the anti-abortion crowd, who made their clout count within the confines of a primary. Silly Sarah’s endorsement of Murkowski’s opponent seemed inconsequential during the campaign; now, of course, her role has been puffed out of proportion.
The elections largely reflect local contexts; nevertheless they fuel shrill, raucous and often wrongheaded media rants that dominate the national conversation. Meanwhile, more weighty matters go unreported or escape any critical analysis. The media obscures and ignores important stories, with little reporting or understanding of facts, their meaning and their significance. We have no facts, only shrill opinions.
How are we so easily fooled, so easily deluded? Media obsessions provide the media with an ability to ignore more momentous events. The media fostered a raging obsession over a New York real estate problem, elevating it to national importance and tying it to the electoral fortunes of congressmen, governors and even state representatives.
And at what cost to an “enlightened citizenry”? Consider the pattern of reporting on the recent withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq and the linkage to the Forever War in Afghanistan. MSNBC, our “liberal” channel, carried live broadcasts of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to compete with their Fox News Nemesis, and dutifully reported that the “last” American combat troops had left Iraq and crossed into Kuwait. The television moment provided a triumphal exit.
Those troops will not return to the United States as conquering heroes in “victory parades.” Will they remain in Kuwait? Perhaps; after all, we never know when our Kuwaiti “ally” and its sea of oil might be threatened again. More likely, the combat troops will be distributed to Afghanistan or sent to reinforce some of the 800 or so American bases abroad. And what of the more than 50,000 American troops still in Iraq, left behind ostensibly to “train” Iraq police and militia, and—surprise—protect the new American bases in Iraq? We are to believe that these “noncombatants” are out of harm’s way and free from casualties by roadside bombs, suicide bombers or open hostilities.
Posted on: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - 18:35
