The Journal of Idiocracy

Christian Extremism: Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and Identity

2012-05-14T13:13:00.001-05:00

Timothy McVeigh

Considering what has been discussed in the post Defining Extremism and Terrorism, the task of identifying extremist/terrorist individuals and organization is made much easier. The United States has a long and turbulent history as pertains to fringe groups, and while it is not possible to consider the variety and organizing principles of each within this brief post, we will give attention to three major groups which have developed since the turn of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Dominionism, and Christian Identity. Taken together, these three provide a rough outline for understanding the development of other groups within the genera of extremist, terroristic behavior. Discussion will also add breadth and depth to the forthcoming post on the last three decades of ultra-right extremism and terrorism. According to Berlet & Lyons (2000), Christian Reconstructionism is:

a postmillennial theology that argues that the U.S. Constitution is merely a codicil to Christian biblical law. It is rooted in militant Calvinism and the idea of America as a Christian redeemer nation. Among the leading Reconstructionists ideologues are R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, and Greg Bahnsen. (248)

Postmillennialism rejects mainstream theological concepts which assert there will be a rapture of believers before God establishes the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Under the auspices of this view, postmillennialism argues the return of Christ must be triggered by the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by Christians.[1] As such, Christian Reconstructionists argue that in order to obtain this goal, the United States should be governed by Christian men with adherence to Christian Biblical principles. The goal is to eliminate sin within the United States by using Biblical Law to direct U.S. law. Reconstructionism, though having a varied development is perhaps best attributed to Rushdoony's (1973) Institutes of Biblical Law which literally suggests that Biblical Law, such as the 10 Commandments, should be used as the foundation the U.S. legal system.

This group is extreme for two reasons: (1) they actively propose the Bill of Rights should be supplanted with Christian law as described in the Old Testament and (2) believe forcing these religious views on others is an appropriate measure to be taken in order to eliminate sinfulness. In general, there are two types of Reconstructionists ideologies: Hard and Soft. Soft Reconstructionists are more open to working with the current system by way of compromise and negotiation, and often encourage Christian leaders and Christian peoples to take an active role in politics. The underlying plan to supplant constitutional amendments is often not mentioned, but it remains an important part of their overall goals, and obtaining positions of power facilitates the process.[2] It is easy to think of Reconstructionism in this way: Christian people do Christian things, therefore, having Christian people in places of power will induce Christian behavior. An excellent example of "soft" Reconstructionism involves former Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's "2.6-ton 10 Commandment monument." (Hedges, 2006, 28). The monument, placed outside the Alabama Supreme Court was forced to be removed, but not without backlash from Reconstructionists. If we hold that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, the removal of the monument serves only to strengthen the belief many Reconstructionists have that Satan is actively working to degrade the United States by way of secularism, historical revisionism and ultimately reducing their ability to mitigate the presence of sin in the United States.

"Hard" Reconstructionists are similar to soft Reconstructionists in terms of beliefs, but their actions differ significantly. Termed, Christian Dominionists, this group of people take their name from a verse in Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (KJV). While certainly believing United States law should be founded upon Biblical principles, Dominionists are far more extreme as relates to all social areas. In the broadest sense, this group believes they not just root out and admonish sin, but rather defeat it. As such, strict adherence to this system entails harsh punishment for violations of Biblical law, including execution for homosexuality. More importantly, this group is comfortable with acts of violence which, according to the definition considered in the post on extremism and terrorism, brings adherents very close to the line distinguishing eliminationism from outright domestic terrorism. Dominionists are unhappy with the pace of the Reconstructionism movement and believe violence is necessary to facilitate postmillennial objectives.[3] At this level, scholarship finds proponents to be more comfortable with traditional conspiracist theories surrounding topics such as "New World Order," "Dual Seed Lines" and extreme historical revisionism which frames the founding of the United State as the explicit act of Christians fleeing a Satanic monarchy; an historical recollection which is thoroughly biased.

Unfortunately, even hard Reconstructionist rhetoric and behavior has not been quite enough to satisfy the most extreme. While a much smaller group, Christian Identity proponents are by far the most dangerous. According to Berlet & Lyons (2000), "Christian Identity grew out of an earlier religious movement called British Israelism [. . .] based on a racialized view of history and religion [. . .]." (270). In its hardest sense, Christian Identity proponents believe the United States is the "promised land" and that White-Americans are the true chosen people (Ibid.). As such, much of this groups historical position is rooted in early Nazism, white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and the beliefs championed by groups such as the Posse Comitatus. Unlike soft Reconstructionism, Christian Identity members are awash in conspiracy theory; actively believing the government is hell-bent on violating their rights, that powerful secular (and Jewish) elites are working to create a New World Order, and that Second Amendment rights will be abolished in order to facilitate a transition from democratic behavior to totalitarian dictatorship, and that Christianity will be outlawed and supplanted with some other religion (currently, Islam is viewed as the usurping religion, but previously it has been Judaism.).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (1989) has stated that "Identity is an ideology that combines religious concept with elements of racism." and that "The proponents of Identity often quote and provide explanations for Biblical passages; however, these explanations have a racist slant, and they differ significantly from the interpretations of more mainstream religions and religious organizations. Christian Identity members are more likely to follow the "leaderless resistance" ideology of Louis Beam, which makes tracking their exact number and influence somewhat difficult to gauge. Nonetheless, a number of terrorist organizations have at least close ties to Christian Identity adherents. Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a Federal Building in 1995 killing 168 people, had known connections with this movement.

References

Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. N. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1989). "Christian Identity Movement: Right-Wing Terrorism Matters."

Hedges, C. (2006). American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York, NY: Free Press.

The Last Cattle Drive in Kansas or How The Times Are a-Changin'

2012-05-10T15:21:00.000-05:00

If John Ise's (1996) Sod and Stubble is about what early Kansans share in common with modern Americans, Day's (2007) The Last Cattle Drive is about what has changed as our nation, and especially Kansas, developed. While a work of fiction, Day's story considers how reality has been altered from the days of the early frontier to a more modern landscape. The novel, set in 1970s Kansas recounts the invigorating and often hilarious tale of a dynamic cast of characters who decided to organize one last cattle drive from Turkle Ranch near Hays, Kansas to the stockyards in Kansas City, Kansas. Working through the hilarity, the difference between medicinal sex and indiscriminate screwing, a cat which may or may not have rabies, the annoyance of Hollywood types, lame heifers, and difficult police officers, we find that Day's book is telling us another, even more important story: life in Kansas, while similar to its Homestead Years, Railroad Booms, and now renowned cattle drives from Texas, has changed immensely in a variety of ways. This book is about those changes and how Kansas has not just coped with but grown into them. This brief essay will consider what changes are underway in 1970s Kansas, how the lives of Kansans are being transformed, what cultural artifacts are being retained, and how the early/modern transition has created an observable degree of tension.

If we are to probe these questions adequately, we must have some sense for how early life in Kansas was. What was a cattle drive like in early Kansas? How did ranchers bring their beef to market? How did they feel about that process? What was the political atmosphere like? What were their beliefs and values? While each of these questions warrants expansive explanation, we have not the time for it here. Instead, we will explore a broader picture, one painted by referring to specific instances of the cattle drive as recounted in Day's novel in an attempt to create a sense of juxtaposition between early and modern.

According to Washburn University Historian Bruce Mactavish, the glory days of the Kansas cattle drive were between 1867 and 1885 (2012, March 8). During this period Kansas served as a vital artery for bringing cattle to a meat-hungry market in the Eastern United States from as far South as Texas. To this point, the Railroad had only been completed up to Sedalia, Kansas and upwards of 50% of the beef market was filtered through this area (Ibid.).[1] While there may be no literal "normal" for a cattle drive, most at least shared some common characteristics: they began in March or April, included 2-3,000 steers, required 10-15 Cowboys and utilized 100-150 horses. On average, a single drive took 3-4 months to complete (Ibid.).[2]

Comparatively, the Turkle drive was quite different both in size and scope. In Day's story, only three men, Jed, Spangler and Leo, and one woman, Opal, were present throughout the drive. In total, the group drove only several hundred steer, utilized only three horses (without death), had a truck to shore-up the back of the herd (often driven by Opal), and moved the cattle approximately four hundred miles over a period of sixteen days. The reason for the cattle drive was also different from what is found in our past. In the early boom-years, cattle was moved great distance because there was no other way. As mentioned earlier, the Railroad to 1865 only traveled as far as Sedalia, Kansas. Ranchers wishing to get their beef to market had no choice but to drive cattle to it. In the modern 1970s, cattle was shipped via truck over roads and, at least in the case of Turkle Ranch, those trucks would retrieve cattle on site, thereby eliminating the need to drive them to market. The natural question then, is "why would Spangler choose to drive his cattle all this distance, risk degrading their meat, and lose some in the process when he could have had a truck pick them up?" Fortunately, Spangler provides us with an answer in a telling exchange with Leo. Spangler remarks:

"Dumb sons-of-bitches. All the fences and loading pens of mine they've busted into kindling with their fucking trucks. I think I'd rather work with the railroads. They're dumb sons-of- bitches too, but at least they had to deal with me when I wanted them."
"Won't the truckers take your cattle? Money's money," I Said [Leo]
"Oh, they'll take them all right. They might get to them by Christmas. Then they want an arm and a leg as pay. And a left nut as a bonus. Shiiiiiiit." Spangler always pronounced shit with seven syllables. (Day, 2012, 47)

Spangler's chief complaint, and what appears to be at least his original motivation for the drive, is that the truckers charge too much and destroy too much; "He thought they were leechers on the ranchers [. . .]." (46). This sort of sentiment is not a new one in Kansas. We find in Ise's (1996) Sod and Stubble that farmers during the 1860s and 70s also felt as though their profits were being eaten up by middle men, shifty bankers, and a railroad which was gouging them for prices.[3] In the simplest terms, Kansans don't take well to being mistreated or coerced.

But being overcharged is not the only reason for the cattle drive. We learn that in addition to his moodiness on the issue of price, Spangler is also reaching back to his Kansan roots as a concerns the mistreatment of ranchers and farmers, and his desire simply to be a part of a cattle drive if only for one last time. As the title of the work suggests, Spangler, Jed, Leo and Opal are open to the prospect of a cattle drive not just because they can "stick it" to the truckers, but also because they see that times have changed. With the development of major highway systems after World War II and under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the need to follow trails and rely upon railroads for transportation was dwindling. Indeed, as the trucking industry developed it also began to outshine an aging railroad empire. Ranchers had new options, and most, Spangler included, utilized them to get meat to market.

It is within the realm of "new options" that we find a cultural tension. Throughout the drive, the group is beset with difficulty. But it is not difficulty which a cattle drive of the mid to late 19th century would experience. Indeed, the group encounters a Tornado west of Eskridge, Kansas which scatters the herd and costs several head, and encounter several farmers who are concerned the herd might trample their crops, but the similarities end there. Early on five of the herd are killed by a unobservant motorist, who is more concerned with his slightly damaged Motor Home than five dead (and thereby valueless) cattle. Later, while nearing Kansas City, Spangler is confronted by a group of Police Officers who, despite being commissioned to assist in moving the cattle through a bustling downtown, are obviously not pleased with the assignment:

"Now, as we told your wife [Opal] last month, this cowboy-cattle drive of yours puts us in a difficult situation. We'd rather you just load these cattle up here." Spangler frowned. "But I don't guess you plan to," Becker said. "Got to take them all the way. Right? Just like the old days."
"What kind of bugs you got in your ass?" said Spangler.
"Mainly you. And the morning paper," said Becker. "That's why we can't let you sink or swim out there. Or the headline tomorrow would be POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNS BACK ON RANCHER/CATTLE SCATTER THRU CITY." (Day, 2012, 201)

The cultural tension in this situation is twofold: (1) by choosing to drive cattle in lieu of shipping them, he has violated what has become a new cultural norm; mainly, that ranchers ought to utilize modern forms of transportation and (2) that despite the cultural norm, a collective appreciation for Kansas history - of the "golden years" - leaves many to believe that not allowing the drive would be a significant cultural tragedy. In the end, the decision to drive the cattle all the way to the Stock Yards wins out, and it does so in a fairly fantastic way:

We didn't know it, sleeping out with the herd and not reading papers and getting to bed before we'd watch television, but the whole city had been hearing about us coming across the state. [. . .] We were what they had always threatened to be in the grumble-gripe-talk of coffee breaks and back-of-the-store gossip sessions. They were glad to see us. We were a parade. (208)

A parade, indeed. But not a parade in the usual sense of enjoying a holiday or a return from war. This was a parade in the sense of a funeral. It was a moment for Kansans to see part of their collective history being relived - if only for one last drive.

In many respects, the drive in the midst of Kansas City, and the crowd which formed to see it was a symbolic gesture; it was a way for Kansans to say goodbye to a part of their history, and yet allow it to live on symbolically. What the cattle drive represents in this context is a melding of the old and the new. It was an inspirational moment, much like the recent Washington, DC flyover for the retiring space shuttle Discovery. While contemporary Kansan ranchers may drive their cattle to market in trucks, Kansans are still driving cattle to market nonetheless. The method has changed slightly, and it may have lost some of the "romance," but ranching isn't all romance: it's a lifestyle and a means to build a future.

References

Day, R. (2007). The Last Cattle Drive. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Ise, J. (1996). Sod and Stubble: The Unabridged and Annotated Edition. V. Rothenberger, (Ed.).
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Mactavish, B. (2012, March 8). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Mactavish, B. (2012, March 27). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Defining Terrorism and Extremism

2012-05-07T13:21:00.001-05:00

Mixing a post 9/11 worldview with the expedient and consumer driven nature of the twenty-four hour news cycle has confused the definitions of terrorism and extremism to some degree. While the two terms, or behaviors, may share some similarities, they differ nonetheless in ways which are important not to misunderstand or misapply. According to White (2002) some of the confusion is contextually based; having historical, political, religious and cultural influences. But more often than not, it is confused on account of highly generalized definitions. For example: is a bank robber a terrorist in the same sense as the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993? In either case there is little doubt that innocent people were struck to their very cores with feelings of having been terrorized by some individual, but are the situations not categorically different in nature? How are we to separate ordinary criminals from the special case of terrorism? White argues that in distinguishing events, there is need to identify major differences. Ordinary criminals (our bank robbers) are often "opportunistic, uncommitted, self-centered," lack a clear cause, remain untrained, and are "escape oriented." (2002, 23, figure 2.1). On the other hand, terrorists are "fighting for political objective, motivated by ideology or religion," are "group focused" even in the case of berserkers such as Timothy McVeigh, and are "trained and motivated for the mission" at hand (Ibid.)

But what of extremists? Does holding an extreme political position necessarily entail terrorism? After all, it is reasonable to attribute "fighting for a political objective, motivated by ideology or religion" and "group focus" to a variety of organizations. According to Washburn University Political Scientist Chris Hamilton, extremists are to be distinguished from terrorists by their unwillingness to commit acts of violence (2012, January 19). Considered another way, all terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists. In general, extremism may be divided into two categories: Neiwert's (2009) eliminationists and Hamilton's (2012, January 19) part-timers. According to Neiwert, eliminationism is:

[A] politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and rejection, or extermination. (2012, 11)

In the hard-sense, the difference between and extremist and a terrorist hinges upon the willingness to commit acts of violence against a group or individual. An eliminationist, while openly calling for the suppression, expulsion or elimination of a group or individual, would not actually commit an act of physical violence. The call for such behavior in this sense is more a call for others to perform violence.[1]

But a call to violence, suppression, expulsion or elimination are not the only means by which interested parties may identify extremists in action. Hamilton (2012, January 19) notes that extremists may also be identified by observing whether a person or group is "taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of unrealities, or feelings to the contrary," and "[intolerant] of all views other than one's own." He adds further that extremists have a tendency to constantly interrupt others when alternative perspectives are being considered.

The latter category of extremists, part-timers, consist of "people who can become 'sucked in' to the Eliminationists Extremist movement and provide it growing power by 'voicing & spreading the message' but are less extreme [. . .] supporters who have sympathizing but limited violent of bigotry attitudes." (Hamilton, 2012, January 19). This group contains our friends and family who may sympathize with the motivating factors of major extremists (even though surface factors are almost always diluted into generalizations to disguise underlying value systems; e.g. "states should decide the question of segregation" which is coded language for "blacks should be segregated in order to maintain purity of the white race.).

Distinguishing between domestic terrorism and international terrorism is a relatively straightforward task, but it too has a slightly confounding nature. After all, is it not reasonable to call an attack such as September 9/11 a domestic attack? If so, what is the difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism? Despite the terms, the words "domestic" and "international" do not address the location of an attack but rather its origin. Unfortunately, less attention is given to homegrown domestic terrorist threats than international in the mainstream media. Although most Americans associate terrorist activity with groups such as Al-Qa'ida or the Taliban, loosely organized "leaderless resistance" movements such as the Sovereign Citizens, Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, and the Posse Comitatus are equally dangerous, and often pose an even greater domestic threat.[2] According to Lauren O'Brien with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, since 2008 the number of domestic Homegrown Violent Extremist (HVE) plots foiled by the organization has totaled nine specific incidents, while the number of international plots (Al-Qa'ida and its associates) has totaled only four (2011, September).

With this in mind, it is useful to consider extremism (eliminationist and part-timer) and terrorism (domestic and international) in linear form:

[1] Not surprisingly, this sort of rhetorical ploy allows the transmitter of a hate-filled message to claim plausible deniability when someone, being inspired by that message, commits an act of violence. In more ways than one, this is how William Pierce has avoided prosecution for writing The Turner Diaries; a book which domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh was fond of, and obviously inspired by.

[2]"Leaderless Resistance" is a method advocated by infamous neo-Nazi leader Louis Beam in the early 1980s. The method encourages groups to act according to certain unifying principles (hate for Jewish people, African Americans, Hispanics, etc.), but allowed for independent action. In essence, if caught or prosecuted the diffusion of association makes it more difficult for investigators to understand key relationships between groups/people and thereby increases the effectiveness of certain terrorist/extremist behaviors. See Berlet & Lyons (2000), pp. 266-69, in the references.

References

Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. N. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hamilton, C. (2012, January 19). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Neiwert, D. (2002). The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. Sausalito, CA: PoliPointPress, LLC.

O'Brien, L. (2011, September). "The Evolution of Terrorism Since 9/11." The Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Retrieved May 1, 2012.

White, J. R. (2002). Terrorism: An Introduction. Canada: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Ise's Sod and Stubble Or The American Dream in Kansas

2012-04-24T14:05:00.001-05:00

Originally published in 1936, the content of Sod and Stubble may lead readers to wonder "How is a book concerning events now over one hundred years past relevant to modern Kansans/Americans?" The common answer, I think, is that any book with such longevity must contain a certain degree of uniqueness. But, as Thomas Isern observers in the foreword of the 1996 edition, that is not the case here:

If something is unique, then it is one of a kind, it happened but once, and so who cares about it? We need not know about what is unique, because that experience is of no use. We need to know about what is common, about the things that happened over and over. This is valuable experience we can use. We should study the things that are prosaic, common, everyday. (xiii)

John Ise's book is not read today because it is filled with unique characters and unique events. On the contrary, what sets Sod and Stubble apart from other books in this genera of early American life is twofold: while written in the same vein as more traditional historical novels, it is really a memoir recounting the life of the Ise family in early Kansas, and it is a story which focuses not on what made this family unique, but rather what made it entirely banal. Regardless of a readers background and life experience, the book portrays the daily life of this early Kansan family in such a way as to draw out what a number of us often taken for granted - the everyday tasks upon which we build the "American Dream."

This story is not just about a family moving to Kansas and building a life - it is a story about the development of the United States. It is a story about our collective values and beliefs; about the best and worst of living; and perhaps most importantly, it is a story which demonstrates not how contemporary Americans differ from those in our collective past, but rather how very much we have in common despite colloquialisms which falsely suggest otherwise. This brief post will consider the broadest theme of this book - constructing the "American Dream" - and attempt to answer (1) what Ise wants modern readers to understand about his family and other farmers of this generation from hardship and challenge through values and goals, and (2) how the dynamic nature of life on the Great Plains helped shape the "American Dream" of the modern United States. While the novel is filled with plentiful examples, the scope of this post will be limited to considering only a small selection for the sake of brevity.

Married in May of 1873, Henry and Rosa Ise wasted little time in getting to work on establishing a home of their own (12).[1]. The fast start which the two desired was made possible in large part by the Homestead Act of 1862, which allowed the newlyweds to acquire a one-fourth section of land upon which, with some hard work, a productive farm could be established and a family reared.[2] From the outset, it becomes clear to the reader that while Rosie and Henry may be filled with a sense of adventure and having an eye toward the future, creating a new life in Western Kansas would not come without its share of difficulty and the necessity of hard work and unrelenting determination.

Interestingly, Rosie and Henry's move to Western Kansas is not all unlike the move experienced by many young Americans today. People are married everyday in the United States, and then promptly set out on the exact same adventure: to earn a living and raise a family. While the two may have done this in a different setting, the modern-day experience is nonetheless identical in its fundamental nature. Indeed, within the first several chapters, we find the dispositions of Henry and Rosie are very similar to modern Kansans. Rosie is a sentimental young woman, but she retains a steadfast sense of practicality; Henry is older and may not appear outwardly sentimental, but he remains a kind, gentle, and devoted man - granting Rosie nearly everything he possibly can. Henry, in this respect understands that happiness is not just about hard work and earnings, it is also very much about cultivating relationships. In other words, the values both Henry and Rosie exude in the early chapters - and adhere to throughout their lives - are straightforward: kindness, compassion, and neighborly interaction pay the greatest dividends.

To drive this point home, it is useful to flash-forward to a time when the couple had a reasonably established home, and consider how the family interacts with other people, and how they incorporated a sense of existential hard work into their daily lives. One of the more memorable moments, I think, involves Rosie acquiring a sewing machine of her own. Until this point in the story, Rosie had always crafted the family's clothing by hand with thread and needle. It was an arduous but necessary task, and only on occasion did she make the trip to a neighbor's home to use a sewing machine. [3] While she was always sure to provide her friend with some form of compensation for the use of the machine, it is not until later that Rosie learns a sewing machine can be as much a burden as it is a blessing:

[. . .] but she presently found that the machines was a nuisance in one respect. It was the only good one in the neighborhood, and neighbors from every direction brought their sewing to her. Most of them did not know how to operate the machine, so she found it best to do the work herself. Some of them offered to wash dishes or do other work for her in return, and of course some of them had done her many a kindly turn, but it was often inconvenient to drop her work and so someone else's sewing. The sewing machine was in a real sense a community institution. (109)

What is telling about this situation is the balancing of necessary work on the farm with the fostering of relationships with members of the community. Those neighbors who offered to exchange their labor for Rosie's time obviously understood that a farm was not merely a place to live: it was the very lifeblood of Homestead life. For those who could not make an exchange, Rosie understood that providing her time would foster positive interpersonal relationships. In either case, Rosie's concern is for both her immediate family and those around her. Is this a challenge common to modern Americans? Certainly - there are few moments in the book where Rosie is not working on or toward some goal, but she never appears ungrateful for the experience, and I believe this is why Ise has gone to such great lengths to tell readers about what might otherwise been recounted as the benign tasks of daily life.

It is within these seemingly benign tasks that we find a thread which binds us all, and the foundation upon which we construct relationships with others. These moments, whether it be the construction of a new well, acquiring a new bed mattress with springs, or merely enjoying a monthly picnic with neighbors speaks a great deal to what matters in the Ise family, and more importantly, what matters to us. Ask any person, be they friend or stranger, and you will find a slew of stories relating to these very activities - and they are often recounted with a certain sense of joy, of "the good times."

But life on the prairie, as with modern life, is not always filled with "good times." Henry and Rosie had their fair share (if not more!) of hard times as well. There were a number of years where crops were destroyed by roving swarms of grasshoppers, years of drought, and years where despite good crops, the market price was very nearly less than the cost of production. [4] There were also Prairie fires and tornadoes to contend with, and while the Ise family managed to avoid disaster in at least these two areas, many of their friends and neighbors were not so lucky. An extraordinary number of families lost their farms and were forced to return to their home states in search of work.[5] With the national unemployment rate currently at 8.2%, this variety of disaster has not gone unnoticed by a significant number of contemporary workers ("Gallup Daily," 2012, April 7). Again, while the setting may differ, modern-day experience is nonetheless identical in its fundamental nature.

But the difficulties do not end here. There was also the need to avoid bad investments (which Henry had unfortunately involved himself in at least once), vouching for the wrong people on bank notes, fending off horse thieves, and keeping teenagers from involvement with the wrong sorts of people.
But for all this difficulty, Henry and Rosie managed, and they managed quite well in retrospect. In contemporary terms, this is what we might call having a "strong work ethic." Henry and Rosie were by no means lazy people, and they seem to straightforwardly despise moments of idleness. So much to the extent that even on his death bed Henry:

One day [. . .] heard a great commotion among the wrens, and forgetting his weakness, hastened out to see what was the matter. There was a big bull snake, climbing along the rafters toward the nests! The mother birds - there were several of them - flew to meet him as he stepped out into the yard, and buzzed frantically about his head, so obviously trying to tell him of their danger, while he got a stick and killed the snake. (291-2)

Henry died from cancer not long after this event, and while it is obvious that Rosie missed him dearly, she never complained about the work which had to be done. She simply did it, and required the children (many of which were now in college and mid-teens) to do the same. The family endured, and despite the occasional squabble between siblings, the times slowly began to improve yet again.
Many years later, Rosie would auction the:

[ . . . ] home to which she had as a girl of seventeen, where she had born her twelve children and reared all but one of them [ . . . ] the home that was almost a prison sometimes, yet so full of precious memories, where every stick and stone, every tree and shrub and flow was partly her own planting and her own work - the home that was her life! (310) [6]

Why would Rosie, so attached to her home and its memories, choose to auction it and move to Lawrence? The answer is a matter of what Rosie values. The home, though it was their home, was not built for the sake of itself. The home was a symbol of something more powerful: the desire to create an environment for building relationships and creating a life. With her children grown and excited to seek their own adventure in life, Rosie realized that what matters most is not the brick and mortar, nor the soil upon which the foundation of her family was built, but rather the mere being with her family. And this, I think, is the real story of Henry and Rosie's American Dream.

While the story of Henry and Rosie is old, it is by no means archaic. On the contrary, the story of the Ise family is alive and well within every modern American: to build relationships, to be with our families, and most importantly - to persevere in the face of great difficulty in order to obtain this goal. While the American Dream and our collective values may have become the cannon fodder of persuasive messages pushed by pundits and politicians, the "American Dream" is not something which we can speak - it is something which must be told in the living of it, and the story of Henry and Rosie, the homesteaders from Kansas, is an example of this truism.

References

"Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment." (2012, April 7). Gallup Inc. Retrieved April 9, 2012.

Ise, J. (1996). Sod and Stubble: The Unabridged and Annotated Edition
. V. Rothenberger, (Ed.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Isern, T. (1996). Foreword. In J. Ise, Sod and Stubble: The Unabridged and Annotated Edition
(pp. xi-xv). V. Rothenberger, (Ed.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Mactavish, B. (2012, March 3). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Mactavish, B. (2012, March 27). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Bleeding Kansas: Popular Sovereignty and the Slavery Question

2012-04-09T16:52:00.001-05:00

As Morgan (1975) has shown, the paradox of slavery in a free democracy was lost neither on the Framers nor the American populace both preceding and following the ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, our most iconic President, George Washington, owned 277 slaves at the time of his death (Ibid). With that in mind, how do we:

. . . explain how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day. (5)

It is a vexing observation, and whatever the complexity of its answer, Etcheson (2004) has shown that the paradox came to literal bloodshed in the 1850's territory of Kansas. Kansas, despite its modern day domestication, was not always a place where citizens could retire to a romanticized and idealized American life on sprawling prairie. This brief post will consider (1) why Kansas bled, (2) what conflict in the territory was about, (3) the issues surrounding conflict, (4) what beliefs divided the territory, and how those beliefs and values changed toward the onset of the American Civil War.

Until the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the violence which the question of slavery was capable of producing had been mitigated through a series of compromises. The slavery question, to this point, had been distilled into two very broad positions concerning varying definitions of personal liberty. Pro-Slavery Southerners claimed that interference with slavery was a de facto assault on property rights justly earned during the American Revolution and further solidified in the United States Constitution. A government which deprived its people of their property (or refused to protect it) was no government at all.[1] Anti-Slave (Abolitionists), on the other hand, claimed that human beings were not, nor could ever be, a form of property, as the individual was an end in himself. For many years, compromise and a relative balance of Congressional power had kept quarreling to a minimum between the groups. The Southern controlled Senate could prevent the House from passing legislation which harmed the institution of slavery, while the Northern-leaning House could prevent the Senate from expanding slavery (legally or otherwise).

However, the opening of new land in the west seriously worried both sides. Would new states formed within the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo be free or slave? The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed Missouri to enter the Union as pro-slave, but prevented further expansion above that line, and while the Compromise of 1850 allowed California to enter as free, it opened the New Mexico and Utah territories to slave (Etcheson, 2004).[2]

While the Compromises were not entirely enjoyed by either side, they did manage to maintain a traditional balance. Nonetheless, the power stalemate which had kept the slavery question from boiling over was shaken to some degree (Etcheson, 2004). In particular, the Compromise of 1850 left perhaps too many people displeased, and it also gave signal that Stephen Douglas of Illinois would later present the concept of "popular sovereignty" as a solution to the slavery question.[3] This worried both sides.

As Etcheson asserts, Kansas "bled" because of popular sovereignty. In 1854, Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a method for bringing the territory into statehood (and constructing a railroad for the transportation of goods). The measure was signed into law, but only after it had managed to severely fracture both Northern and Southern Democrats. The concept of "popular sovereignty" was born from the democratic ideal that states entering the Union ought to be decided as free or slave by the inhabitants thereof. In other words, the people, and not the legislature, would determine the future balance of power: "all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories and the new States to be formed, are left to the decision of its population to be voiced through their appropriate representatives." (Etcheson, 2004, 14). With the Kansas-Nebraska Act in full force, the settlers began pouring in - each side hoping to capture the soon-to-be state for one side or the other:

[. . .] by the first territorial census, there were over 8,000 white settlers with 192 slaves in Kansas. Almost fifty percent of those settlers came from Missouri and another seven percent from other southern states. Northern states provided almost a third of the settlers, with the majority coming from the Midwestern or mid Atlantic states. (29)

This was a dramatic increase over the "fewer than 800 white settlers" only nine months before (Ibid). The race was on.[4]

With a Governor appointed to the Kansas territory, A. H. Reeder, the first election was scheduled to establish a delegation tasked with drafting a constitution. Reeder implemented some fairly strict voting requirements, the most notable of which asserted voters must be residents of Kansas and intend to reside in the state thereafter. In other words, rules were set up to prevent Missourians and other from crossing into Kansas for the vote, and then returning home later in the evening.[5]

Unfortunately, lax enforcement during this time opened the doors to massive amounts of fraud, and many Missourians did cross the border to vote. A voter during the period reported:

The whole country was overrun on the day of the election by hordes of ruffians from Missouri, who took possession of the polls in almost every district, brow-beat and intimidated the judges, forced their own votes into the ballot-box [. . .], and crowded out and drove off all who were suspected of being in favor of any other candidate [free-state]. (Etcheson, 2004, 53)

In total, a Congressional investigation determined that nearly 1,700 votes had been cast illegally (2004). Nonetheless, the pro-slavery faction had won a clear victory, and the delegation was formed accordingly. While free-staters were obviously outnumbered, the instance of fraud led many to wonder if popular sovereignty would really allow their voice to be heard.

Wasting little time, Governor Reeder called for an election of the legislature in March of 1854, and asked for more responsible voting than was seen only several months before.[6] Despite the calls for honest dealings, this election also turned pro-slavery and only solidified the idea that elections were not representative:

The territorial consensus earlier that month had found 2,905 voters in the territory, but over 6,000 men voted on March 30. Proslavery votes totaled 5,427. The Missourians had simply gone too far." (Etcheson, 2004, 59)

While the legislature was still pro-slavery (even after fraudulent votes were discarded), many Kansans felt they were being swindled by a pattern of ongoing voter fraud and abusive pro-slave Missourians. Even some Southern, pro-slave proponents shamed the election fraud taking place (2004).

At this point, the pro-slave, anti-slave division became fairly irrelevant, as many residents felt the election of a delegation and a legislature so ensconced with fraud was an assault on genuine [white] liberty. In the mind of the budding free-state movement, the enemy was not slavery per se, but rather being forced to live under an illegitimate pro-slave agenda. The concern was that Kansas risked becoming a "vassal province" of Missouri on account of ruffians (59). One Kansan during the period, Sara Robinson remarked: "The question is, shall the laws, whatever they may be, be boldly repudiated as no laws for us, the makers being not of us; or shall the matter be delayed until the so-called Legislature meets? (61).

In fact, the situation upset both pro-slave and anti-slave groups. Governor Reeder eventually threw out some of the results of several counties, and called a special election for May, 22. This upset pro-slave groups who felt their vote had been denied, and upset anti-slave who felt an illegitimate legislature was being installed despite evidence of rampant fraud (Etcheson, 2004). In either case, the temperament of Kansans switched from being upset about the pro-slave/anti-slave situation and more upset about having their votes denied and silenced.[7] In a strange turn of events, the issue at hand in Kansas suddenly became the denial of voting rights for white men at the hands of those who wished to force the issue of slavery upon them - despite what they felt politically or morally about the matter.[8]

Kansans were upset, and anti-slave members who had been elected to the legislature were called on to resign in protest of the fraud. All eventually did just that. The question then turned to the establishment of an extralegal government which would ensure the "true" Kansan voice was heard at the poll. Each government called the other illegitimate and requested federal assistance. In the end, it was not the issue of slavery which divided Kansans, per se. Rather, it was the idea that a pro-slavery agenda was being forced upon them by pro-slave interferers. Despite what we might recall of John Brown's infamous murders and crusading, the real issue at hand, the real reason Kansans fought with Border Ruffians, created extralegal governments, took to welcoming free-blacks, and bled for liberty had less to do with slavery, and a great deal more to do with what they believed was an assault on their Constitutional (and God given) right to make their desires known through the ballot-box.

Interestingly, the fight over the ballot box did lead many Kansans to question their beliefs concerning the institution of slavery. And while not all would give up outright racism, they certainly took major steps toward incorporating former slaves into Kansan life. A large number of black Kansans served in the Civil War, and were recruited in Lawrence, Kansas. After a tumultuous several years, Kansas was admitted to the Union January 29, 1861 a Free State. Today, our battle with the "border ruffians" is limited to a sincere desire to see the Jayhawks win a basketball game in place of burning down homes, destroying farmland, and stuffing ballot boxes.

References

Etcheson, N. (2004). Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Morgan, E. (1975). American Slavery, American Freedom. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Cats Have No Sense of Humor

2012-03-01T14:19:00.001-06:00

After reading a number of his books, I cannot help but think that perhaps Robert Heinlein has a thing for cats. After all, he mentions the beastly critters frequently in his work (although sometimes indirectly). The most recent encounter I've had with his cat-wit is one which I think is funny enough to be appreciated here - especially for my fellow cat people. Enjoy.

From The Door into Summer:

But liking cats is hard to fake to a cat person. There are cat people and there are others, more than a majority probably, who "cannot abide a harmless, necessary cat." If they try to pretend, out of politeness or any reason, it shows, because they don't understand how to treat cats - and cat protocol is more rigid than that of diplomacy.

It is based on self-respect and mutual respect and it has the same flavor as the dignidad de hombre of Latin America which you may offend only at risk to your life.

Cats have no sense of humor, they have terribly inflated egos, and they are very touchy. If somebody asked me why it was worth anyone's time to cater to them I would be forced to answer that there is no logical reason. i would rather explain to someone who detests sharp cheese why he "ought to like" Limburger. Nevertheless, I fully sympathize with the mandarin who cut off a priceless embroidered sleeve because a kitten was sleeping on it.

Belle tried to show that she "liked" Pete by treating him like a dog... so she got scratched. Then, being a sensible cat, he got out in a hurry and stayed out a long time - which was well, as I would have smacked him, and Pete has never been smacked, not by me. Hitting a cat is worse than useless; a cat can be disciplined only by patience, never by blows.

So I put iodine on Belle's scratches, then tried to explain what she had done wrong. "I'm sorry it happened - I'm terribly sorry! But it will happen again if you do that again."

"But I was just petting him!"

"Uh, yes...but you weren't cat-petting him; you were dog-petting him. You must never pat a cat, you stroke it. You must never make sudden movements in range of its claws. You must never touch it without giving it a chance to see that you are about to...and you must always watch to see that it likes it. If it doesn't want to be petted, it will put up with a little out of politeness - cats are very polite - but you can tell if it is merely enduring it and stop before its patience is exhausted." I hesitated. "You don't like cats, do you?

What? Why, how silly! Of course I like cats." But she added, "I haven't been around them much, I suppose. She's pretty touchy, isn't she?"

"'He.' Pete is a he-male cat. No, actually he's not touchy, since he's always been well treated. But you do have to learn how to behave with cats. Uh, you must never laugh at them."

"What? Forevermore, why?"

"Not because they aren't funny; they're extremely comical. But they have no sense of humor and it offends them. Oh, a cat won't scratch you for laughing; he'll simply stalk off and you'll have trouble making friends with him. But it's not too important. Knowing how to pick up a cat is much more important. When Pete comes back in I'll show you."

But Pete didn't come back in, not then, and I never showed her. Belle didn't touch him after that. She spoke to him and acted as if she liked him, but she kept her distance and he kept his. I put it out of mind; I couldn't let so trivial a thing make me doubt the woman who was more to me than anything in my life."

lulz. He could be describing my cat . . . If you want to know what comes of Belle and Pete, you'll just have to purchase the book.

Proof that cats have no sense of humor.

Trending on Facebook: President Obama and Gasoline

2012-02-29T22:34:00.000-06:00

This image has been making the rounds on Facebook the last day or so, and I don't have any reason to believe it will cease anytime in the near future. This will be especially true if the price of gasoline continues to rise (and it will; summer is coming).

In a sort of confounded way, the message is both positive and negative. Positive because it demonstrates that people (well, at least this person) believe a president is capable of accomplishing fantastic feats in the face of unfortunate situations. In many ways, it demonstrates that, while not necessarily believing in a particular president, we still believe in the presidency. In this case, belief in a president has been lost, but the belief that the next one will "make things right" is strong.

But, the message is also exceedingly unfortunate. I say "unfortunate" because it demonstrates the general lack of understanding a large portion of our population has concerning presidential power as expressed in Article II. Despite what we may desire as an electorate, no president will be able to save us a few bucks at the pump without taking extraordinary measures (discussed momentarily).

No, what this sticky note really does is transmit a message which is patently false. Consider it for yourself. Wouldn't a president want lower gas prices if it meant a happier electorate? Of course. So, if "lowering" or "controlling" the price of fuel were a presidential power, don't you think we'd have free gasoline by this point?

But fuel isn't free, and the simple reason is because a president has no control over it. Not even one-iota of legitimate influence. zilch. Complaining further that a president's general approach to free-market principles or burdensome regulation is the problem is equally dubious. Rolling back some random regulation (or all regulations, for that matter) would have little impact both in the short and long term.

The reason for this is straightforward: gasoline is a commodity subject to the law of supply and demand. The price of fuel is increasing because more people are using more of it (remember, both population and industry are continuing to grow - hello China! hello 16 year-old Americans!)

So, what could a president do? A president has two options for mitigating increased costs: (1) release oil from the U.S. strategic reserve. We actually did this in June-August of 2011. do you remember the change in fuel prices? Probably not, and that's mostly because even a massive release will only destabilize the market for so long. It'll recover, and fuel prices will go up again (and we'll be out a strategic reserve.) This option is called market interference, and it was done to mitigate a fluctuation in trading prices on account of a disrupted oil supply in Libya ("U.S. to Release 30 Million Barrels of Oil from Strategic Reserve." 2011)

The second option is the more extreme form of market interference: direct regulation. In this scenario, the president could cajole congress into simply setting a price limit on fuel, and then absorb the associated cost to prevent Exxon from closing shop (you want higher taxes or a higher national debt with that sammy, chief?). But did you catch it? I had to mention Congress . . . at the end of the day, the only body capable of having profound impact on the price of fuel is the United States Congress. If you really want a lower fuel price this way, tell your Representative (but don't expect Exxon to take it lying down - that'll be at the Supreme Court in a heartbeat.)

But we all know that isn't going to happen, and that's because most American's support the free-market system we utilize.

So, what are we to do about increased fuel costs? First - thank people who utilize public transportation, as they prevent demand from being higher than it already is. Second - consider public transportation yourself. Third - trade in that 2000, four-door, 4x4 Ford Explorer for a more efficient vehicle (full disclosure - I drive the Ford, and it's expensive.).

* * *

As a final note, I'd like to point out that leaving a sticky note with a persuasive message encouraging people to connect the president with high fuel prices is not a "clever" or "creative" marketing tool. It is misleading, unethical, and thoroughly undemocratic. Don't forget: democratic exchange is not about winning, it is about engaging honestly with one another in the pursuit of creating a more perfect Union.

Reference

"U.S. to Release 30 Million Barrels of Oil from Strategic Reserve." (2011, June 23). Fox News. Retrieved February 29, 2012.

For further reading, see:

Brent, R., Orr, L. and Baker, R. (2002). Energy: Science, Policy, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Washington: Island Press.

Take Your Democratic Ideals Elsewhere

2012-02-28T17:32:00.000-06:00

Surely one of the great ironies of the modern world is that democracy, imperfect as it is in the political realm, seldom extends to the workplace. In fact, most U.S. citizens do not even question the fact that they are required to "check their voice at the door" of the shop or office.

- George Cheney

Reference

Cheney, G. (1995). "Democracy in the Workplace: Theory and Practice from the Perspective of Communication." Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23: 167-200.

Give Them Internets IRL

2012-02-24T16:54:00.002-06:00

College isn't all research and paper writing; on occasion it's actually quite a bit of fun . . .

A few days ago in a course surveying U.S. Hate and Extremist Groups the professor mentions that every year in August some White Nationalists and Ayran Nation members meet outside of Springfield, MO for a big'ol hate festival.

Dr. Hamilton: Would any of you be interested in seeing this for the educational value?

After no one really responds . . .

Me: I'd do it for the lulz, man.

Suddenly, an otherwise quite classroom bursts into laughter . . .

PRO TIP: Give undergraduates some internet speak IRL, and they'll go nuts.

Unrau's Indians of Kansas: Considering the Origin and Transformation of Native Life

2012-02-22T15:37:00.000-06:00

Kansans recently celebrated the state's sesquicentennial, and while one hundred and fifty years may seem a long period of time for a people to inhabit a single area, the historical and social roots of many Kansans extend much deeper. This brief post will analyze the transformation of the lives of the Native Peoples of Kansas by considering (1) their historical arrival within what is now called "Kansas," (2) how their society and civilization changed over time, (3) the cause(s) of change, and (4) the native response to these changes. This post will cover these topics only very broadly, but should nonetheless assist readers in forming a more coherent picture of Native American life in Kansas from arrival in the area between approximately 11,000 and 12,000 years ago to near present day.

Forgetting the arbitrary lines which form the boundary of our state, the land and soil on which many modern workers labor has known the presence of Native Peoples for many thousands of years. The first inhabitants of what are now the Great Plains likely made their way into the territory by route of naturally occurring land bridges which formed after a minor Ice Age extending from the Rocky Mountains and into modern Canada (Unrau, 2001). The emigration of native peoples from high latitude northern areas into the lower portion of North America was largely in response to a climate-induced transition of the habitable zones of major game.

That being the case, the early occupation of Kansas by natives was not an occupation in the sense that permanent homesteads were established upon arrival, but rather in the sense that early inhabitants were following the migratory patterns of a food source [1]. Interestingly, this near constant travel allowed early native peoples to explore the land of contemporary America quite extensively. As such, the idea that North America remained a largely unexplored and desolate area until the arrival of Western nations in the 15th century was mostly a European notion.

While hunter-gathering amongst various native peoples remained a primary moving force for many years, continuing climactic shifts, particularly the Atlantic-Altithermal Interlude approximately 8,500 years ago, brought warm pacific air into the region, which encouraged the development of an environment more similar to the Kansan Plains with which readers today are most familiar. The arrival of this warm air caused a shift in the flora growth in the region, and paved the way for the development of societies which could rely primarily on farming and agriculture for sustenance (Unrau, 2001). From approximately 1,000 to 1450 AD, native peoples in the territory began to establish a more permanent residence, relying more heavily upon agriculture development than in centuries past.

The importance of agricultural development during this period should not be taken lightly. Whereas the Paleo and Archaic peoples relied extensively upon the hunting of game and gathering of available flora, these new native peoples, the Plains Woodland Village Farmers, gained immensely in the area of leisure insofar as their food source no longer required extensive amounts of time to obtain (Ibid).

Having not to worry as much about food production as in the past, the new method of subsistence farming provided native peoples with the time and resources to explore technological, religious and social development. It is within this period we find what is no less than a literal boom in the complexity of native life from sophisticated tool development, evidence of communal burial sites, the development of trade networks reaching as far south as modern Mexico, and the planting of complimentary crops including corn, beans and squash (Mactavish, 2012, January 25)[2]. For all intents and purposes the later Western account of these peoples as "savages" is highly inaccurate and shamefully biased. The natives living in modern Kansas during this period where a vast and thriving peoples with some tribes numbering 1,200 individuals by 1601 and others nearing 5,000 (Oñate)[3].

While relatively undisturbed for many thousands of years, the first Western groups to encounter native peoples were the Spanish. After conquering much of South America in search of riches, religious converts and national glory, the Spanish turned any eye toward the vast uncharted lands of North America. As early as the 15th century, various Spanish explorers traveled through the lower parts of the what is now the United States reaching as far East as modern day South Carolina.

However, Kansans will be most familiar with the explorer Francisco Vásquez de Coronado who in 1541 set off in search of the mythical seven cities of Cibola, crossing the border into modern Kansas in June of 1541 near what is now Liberal, KS (Mactavish, 2012, January 25)[4]. The pursuit of Spanish exploration was not so much to explore the land for the sake of adventure (though, certainly there is some credence to this notion). Instead, Spanish exploration centered primarily around the prospect of discovering wealth and creating powerful trade networks with native peoples whom they had learned about from their activities in the region near modern Mexico. Hitherto, Western influence amongst the Plains Indians was relatively sporadic, but despite having found no source of immense wealth in gold, the Spanish nonetheless recognized the area as being very similar to the climate in Spain, but with an abundance of large game (bison) which would have great value in the fur trade. For that reason, the Spanish began to seek beneficial and friendly relations with various tribes, trading alcohol, gunpowder, weapons and various technologies in exchange for fur. Unfortunately for the natives of Kansas, the Spanish also traded a variety of diseases which the native immune system was unprepared to combat with great success. Contact with the Spanish brought not just weapons and alcohol, but quite literally death (Unrau, 2001). The relationship was also disconcerting insofar as native peoples did not have a sense of capitalist (private) ownership, nor the highly individualized nature of Western culture. In many ways, the native peoples of Kansas lived communally (and with great success) solving issues between tribes via means other than outright warfare over what was perceived to be territory not owned by a single group [5].

But Spanish influence would not reign in this region for long, as by the 17th century the French had made their way into the territory; intent on expanding their own fur trade with native peoples [6]. Although the Spanish were arguably not entirely cruel (but certainly coercive at times), the French demanded even less of natives. In fact, Unrau (2001) demonstrates the French managed to push-out Spanish influence (and simultaneously create tension between natives and the Spanish), by providing the tribes of Kansas with better trade agreements, including better alcohol and firearms. Unfortunately, the British had also begun to trade with Indians during this period, and the fierce trade style between the three larger nations carried over into the tribes of Kansan Indians to such an extent that hostilities began to grow amongst native peoples. Unrau writes:

Worse, warfare broke out between the Kansas and Osages in the late 1790s over what they viewed as the cutthroat practices of all traders, regardless of their European background or affiliation. (40)

From first contact until this point, the native population of Kansas had been exposed to and become reliant upon the aggressive trade practices of European nations. Unfortunately, this was not to be the worst of it, as concerns the change style of Native American life in Kansas.

After a long period of trade degradation on account of French, Spanish and British warfare across the Atlantic, the United States had formed a desire for Westward expansion. In 1800, Napoleon sold a vast tract of land (including modern Kansas) to the United States in what is called the Louisiana Purchase. With French and Spanish trade at an all time low and the area relatively unexplored by members of the newly formed country, it became the basic goal of the United States to expand into and settle the newly acquired lands, as well as to build and maintain a positive trade relationship with the American Indians living in within this area (Unrau, 2001) [7].

Unfortunately, the worst of westward expansion was not to be heralded by the French or Spanish invaders of early years. With an eye toward manifest destiny and a promise to bring Americans untold riches in a vast new land, the United States became the sorriest abuser of native peoples in this region in history.

During the period of the great American expansion, native peoples in Kansas were, by and large, coerced into giving up traditional lands and encouraged to seek assimilation into "modern" society. It might have been enough for some natives simply to resist the onslaught of expansion, but in reality the prospect was relatively improbable. As Unrau (2001) has shown, the culmination of harsh trade practices, a dependence upon foreign technology, rising group tensions and decreased populations on account of exposure to disease left a number of native peoples at a clear disadvantage. For many, the prospect of obtaining a "reservation" with annual allotments of cash of varying size seemed a clear way to maintain what little land/culture had not already been affected by Western practices:

In 1808, it will be recalled, the Osages ceded nearly all their lands in Missouri and Arkansas, thus forcing them into future Kansas and Oklahoma. That treaty also provided that the government factory at Fort Osage would operate for their benefit. The total abandonment of the factory system in 1822, however, led to a second treaty with Osages that same year, resulting in their trade being turned back to the private entrepreneurs. At the same time pressure was mounting for the Kansas to make room for the emigrant tribes. (51)

In many respects, native peoples, not just in Kansas but in the United States as a whole, were effectively caught in a Catch-22 with little room to make decisions without a certain degree of obvious coercion. Unfortunately, these pressures led many tribes and native groups to make decisions which were not in the best long-term interests of their people.

Although a native response was difficult (and led to warring with the United States on a number of occasions), not all is lost for the Native Peoples of Kansas. Many years following the misguided, coercive and sometimes broken treaties, a resurgent interest in reclaiming Native American culture has found a strong grassroots support structure from the inhabitants of modern Kansas. There is also, as Unrau (2001) notes, an enlivened sense of shared histories developing amongst various native groups.

While this post has covered a significant amount of ground in only a few pages, it should be at least somewhat clear that native peoples migrated to and inhabited the lower parts of North American thousands of years before even the rise of the Roman empire, and that throughout this time a great deal of technological and sociological advancement was made in terms of food production, population growth and social interactions. It was not until the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century and their exposure to foreign trade practices and disease that we see a marked downfall in the stability of native life. This is especially evident when we consider how quickly the degradation occurred. In many ways it is both tragic and terrifying that native peoples could lose historical homelands, massive amounts of their population and cultural symbols developed over thousands of years in a matter of only several hundred.

References

Mactavish, B. (2012, January 25). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Oñate (1601). "Expedition to the North, 1601." Southwest Cross Roads. Retrieved February 7, 2012.

Unrau, W. E. (2001). Indians of Kansas: The Euro-American Invasion and Conquest of Indian Kansas. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Historical Society.

Aspirin Cures Computer Viruses

2012-02-21T20:14:00.000-06:00

A majority of computer users agree: viruses are bad. You know, like really bad. They hijack our beloved machines, spread our sensitive data across the web, and expose bank accounts and retirement plans to nefarious characters both abroad and at home. Most importantly, however, they seriously disrupt our ability to play Angry Birds or Stumble through the Cheezburger Network (let's not imagine what would happen if access to Facebook were cut off).

Now, I don't know about you, but that sort of displeases me. A great deal, in fact. But what am I to do? I haven't the wicked-awesome hax0r skills to mitigate this shit before it happens, and I really dislike having to pay $10,000 per year for an anti-virus subscription which seems only to slow down my entire machine and send emails from my friends to the local spam folder. MOTHERF**KER - I COULDN'T EVEN INSTALL ZOMBE'S FLY MOD ON MINECRAFT THE OTHER NIGHT!1! You know why? Norton kept deleting the damned file and giving me some flack about it being a "security risk." Horseshit.

It's seems that your average non-skilled computer user (viz. ~l33t h4xor) is in a bit of a Catch-22. It works like this:

If I surf the net for wicked awesomeness and use the Facebooks, my shit is going to get a virus and explode and/or vomit lag onto my desk. Life is bad, and now I can't run the software I wanted to buy (I'm looking at you Sims Medieval).

To avoid this, I purchase expensive, super-fantastic anti-virus protection with firewall shit I'll never use; ultra deep-web email attachment scanning functionality; and a wicked-sweet complementary Yahoo search bar. Life is good, but now I can't afford the shit I wanted to buy (I'm looking at you Amazon Instant Videos).

Unfortunately, we're not finished. While the wicked-awesome anti-virus keeps the rig clean as my whistle, it also causes the machine to explode/vomit lag onto my desk. Life is bad, destruction is ever present, and I still can't buy the shit I want (I'm looking at you Spotify Premium).

You see what I'm getting at here? Life is bad no matter what I do. So what do I do? What do we do!?!?

Fortunately, Foster Friess, "a top donor to a Rick Santorum-aligned super PAC," had a brilliant idea (Johnson, 2012, February 17). Apparently, women have this sort of problem too. But with babies and health-related issues. In order to solve the reproductive/health conundrum, Friess recalls an era of simplicity (analogous to our era of virus-free computing on windows 3.1 or some shit):

This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly. (Ibid)

No bullshit. This dude is a literal edifice of wisdom. Honestly, he's like some giant-golden-multi-windowed-super-baby-jesus-man. Dude has honestly solved both our problems with one witticism: aspirin between the legs keeps chicks from getting spaghetti-saucy. Why should the same not hold true for computer users? There's no reason for it, so without further dilly-dallying, here are the instructions for preventing the development of an explosion and/or projectile vomiting lag-factory via the Friess Theorem:

Installation Instructions For Laptop/Notebook/Netbook Users -

Place a single aspirin upon the keyboard of your laptop/notebook/netbook. Center of keyboard is preferred, but not required. (The science is out on whether location impacts efficiency)
Softly close the lid.
Set machine aside.

Installation Instructions For Desktop Users -

Place a single aspirin upon the keyboard of your desktop machine. Center of keyboard is preferred, but not required. (The science is out on whether location impacts efficiency)
Rest your computer monitor on top of the aspirin.
Set to side.

Perfection. The problem of epic lag/viruses has been solved, and ladies don't have to worry about getting babies and shit. It's been a good day.

* * *

So . . . after thinking about this for the better part of thirteen seconds, it occurred to me that if we do the aspirin anti-virus protection thing, we shan't be able to use our computers, which is sort of an enormous buzzkill. Not only that, but the aspirin thing is equally bad for women, as it deprives them of medicine used in the treatment of various conditions and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

As it turns out, you can't always address your needs by stuffing aspirin between your legs. Cuss.

Reference

Johnson, L. (2012, February 17). Foster Friess, Rick Santorum Super PAC Backer, Talks Contraception. The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 21, 2012.

Rick Santorum, Robert Heinlein . . . and Porn

2012-02-20T20:29:00.000-06:00

It's a truism that one ought to consider a candidate's position on "the issues" before voting. So . . . HIDE YO PRON and have a look at what Rick Santorum thinks:

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture.

For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail. ("Enforcing laws against illegal pornography")

lulz - I can't help but wonder if he's still mad about that whole "Santorum" thing . . . [NSFW]

On a more serious note, reading this brought a poignant Robert Heinlein quote to mind, and I think we would benefit in pondering it:

The churches had a thousand rationalizations to prove that their nosey-parker interference was necessary for the welfare of all. For example, Brown must be stopped from peddling pornography, because, if he does, he will harm the purchaser, Smith. But note that Smith is to be saved from harm for the good of Smith's soul, as defined by the churches. Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but in every case you will find at the end the churches attempting to use the state to coerce the citizen into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading the citizen to accept without coercion. Whenever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a powerful underworld which will seize the local government, and frequently, through control of local political machines, seize state and national governments as well. (2003)

References

"Enforcing laws against illegal pornography." (n.d.). Rick Santorum for President. Retrieved February 20, 2012.

Heinlein, R. (2003). For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
*This was written originally in 1938 but remained unpublished until after Heinlein's death.

Are Corporate Taxes Bad For Consumers?

2012-02-10T16:59:00.001-06:00

A recent letter to the Topeka Capital-Journal, brought up a point which I hear expressed more often than not. The author writes:

Take, for example, Washington’s recent effort to raise energy prices by increasing taxes on U.S. oil and gas companies.

Policies such as this are simply another tax on the public because energy costs directly influence the price of everyday goods. Everything from a hamburger to a pair of shoes will cost more for families in Kansas. I simply don’t understand how our leaders expect America’s businesses to be competitive or our communities to prosper under these circumstances. (2012, February 9)

PRO TIP: If you believe in free market principles, the author's assertion is false.

Now, I realize this variety of thinking is not only contagious, but seemingly filled with "common sense." Unfortunately, it cannot be true if we accept free market principles and the framework which ensures the fair/competitive behavior of for-profit organizations.

Here's why the assertion is flawed: If organizations/corporations pass the taxes incurred on to consumers in the form of higher energy prices, those organizations/corporations will necessarily harm their consumer appeal. In other words, if you pass a tax along to consumers (which you are welcome to do), your customer base will inevitably seek out a competitor who offers a lower price on whatever good/service is desired.

Such behavior would necessarily harm the interests of the organization, which is to produce an income which exceeds operational/production costs. (no customers = no income)

The only way in which such behavior could be possible without degrading a customer base is to remove the need for competition. This could be achieved by "price fixing," but as I'm sure many of you know, that is illegal.

To Sum It Up: assuming the rational self-interest of corporations obtains, taxes do not affect the price of consumer goods: supply and demand does. It is in the best interest of the organization/corporation to either absorb the cost of the tax or find a way to offset it without increasing the price of goods/services.

Just Sayin' . . .

2012-01-31T20:02:00.000-06:00

I'm always a little amazed when the teleprompter "issue" comes up. Seriously? We're still doing that?

Gov. Scott Walker Recall: Democrats Submit One Million Signatures

2012-01-17T15:47:00.001-06:00

According to The Washington Post, Democrats in Wisconsin have submitted over a million recall petitions against Governor Scott Walker (Weiner, 2012, January 17). If you're keeping track, that's nearly 500,000 more than required to force a recall; which should give Democrats a bunch of wiggle room should some signatories be deemed ineligible.

But all that aside, here is what I find really interesting: Walker's 2010 victory of 52.25% over Barrett brought out only 1,128,941 Republican supporters ("2010 Fall General"). While 128,941 is still a great deal, that's essentially the group of people the recall will be fought over. Whether or not Democrats will be able to increase the independent vote in its favor or shave moderates off the Republican side is still up for grabs, but at least one thing is for sure: this is going to be an exceedingly interesting and lively recall.

Get your popcorn!

References

"2010 Fall General Election Results Summary - Post-Recount [PDF]." (2010, December 1). Madison, WI: Government Accountability Board.

Weiner, R. (2012, January 17). Over a million signatures filed to force recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The Washington Post.

Achievements and Weaknesses: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan

2012-01-12T19:00:00.000-06:00

From conception through modern times, the office of the Presidency has come to symbolize a variety of American values. For some members of our polity, the President is the de facto leader of the American people, despite Constitutional limitations. For others, he is our representative abroad, director of the Armed Forces, and for others still he is the man who turns his eye not to wealth and power, but to those who suffer in poverty.

Whatever the Presidency may or may not be for the American people, Lyndon B. Johnson rightly observed while speaking to a long-time friend and advisor 1960 that “The presidency, is a man.” (Busby, 2005, p. 47). The Presidency, despite what we may be drawn to think at times, is still the endeavor of an imperfect soul. From George Washington to Barack Obama, the history of the American Presidency has been fraught with both moments of supreme greatness and times of tribulation. Presidents are men, and as such, the Presidency experiences both strengths and weaknesses. This brief post will catalog some of the more extraordinary achievements and weaknesses of modern Presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, James E. “Jimmy” Carter and Ronald W. Reagan.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

(1933 - 1945)

Among political scientists and historians, Franklin Roosevelt is often ranked alongside Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as one of our country’s most influential and impactful leaders (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). While leadership may often rely to some degree on innate factors, it is more often crisis situations which draw powerful leaders into their greatest moments. From his inauguration in 1933 until resignation in 1945, FDR, our country, and the world, was beset with catastrophe. FDR had to deal simultaneously with the single greatest economic meltdown in U.S. history to that date (and even now), as well as the looming threat of Nazism and a direct attack on American soil by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in 1941. In order to restore American hope and push back the forces of foreign invaders which threatened our liberty and the liberty of our allies, FDR, pushed for and obtained some of the greatest and most expansive social/economic programs proposed in the history of the United States.

In order to restore faith in the American government and ourselves, Roosevelt is to be remembered for having created and implemented: Social Security, which ensured disabled and elderly Americans would not have to worry about their financial future should they become faced with unfortunate circumstances; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which ensured that Americans would not lose their life savings if banks failed; and he provided economic grants to cities across the country (primarily in the South) so that new roads, schools, housing, infrastructure and hospitals could be built (Hamilton, 2011, October 11). This influx of federal money served to accomplish two memorable goals for FDR. Firstly, it put unemployed men to work. It provided them with a decent paycheck and the ability to feed their families. Secondly, the newly paid workers were now free to consume those items they felt necessary, which further stimulated the economy. These policies, taken together, are generally seen as having reduced unemployment from 30% in 1932 to 16% in 1938. Overall, historical economists agree that New Deal policies shortened the Great Depression (Whaples, 1995).

If FDR has any weaknesses, they are to be found in his handling of the War effort. However, it was not his behavior abroad which was cause for concern. Rather, it was policy at home which harms his historical stature. Believing that Japanese Americans may be cause for concern, FDR issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed local government/military leaders to imprison, without habeas corpus, Japanese members of our society. His reasoning, I conjecture, was similar to Lincoln’s imprisonment of some 20,000 Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. FDR likely feared the Empire of Japan would use Japanese-Americans to undermine the war effort. While FDR may be forgiven for being a victim of the beliefs of his time, forgetting the unlawful imprisonment of citizens based solely upon ethnic association must not be allowed to pass into our history without apology, recognition, and education.

John F. Kennedy

(1961 - 1963)

John F. Kennedy’s Presidency was cut tragically short in 1963, but it was not without its profound moments. Aside from supporting Civil Rights legislation – which would be passed under Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and 1965 – the plan to send Americans to the Moon, and strong use of The Peace Corps to introduce greater assistance in 3rd and 4th world countries, Kennedy’s greatest achievement was the avoidance of destroying all human life on planet Earth with his extraordinary handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1963. He is also responsible for working closely with Russian leader Khrushchev to eliminate the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

Although Kennedy’s time was cut short, there is at least one weakness which may be attributed to his presidency: secrecy as concerns abusive behavior towards women. Although it is not likely that Kennedy beat women, as “abusive behavior” might connotation, it is certain that he was unfaithful. While this has little bearing on his ability to perform well as President, such things have an effect upon the symbolic nature of the Presidency as concerns the understanding of the President’s role as moral leader in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Lyndon B. Johnson

(1963 - 1969)

Lyndon Johnson was a staunch admirer of FDR, and certainly considered the former President a close friend and hero. As such, Johnson carried much of Roosevelt’s New Deal progressivism with him into office (Busby, 2012). Johnson did not see the presidency as an office which merely executed the law, but rather as a position which required activism on behalf of the people. Even today, his greatest accomplishments can be seen at work in our nation. This reverberation is tied directly to his status as a master legislator. While in office, Johnson managed to propose and see passed over three hundred pieces of legislation (Hamilton, 2011, October 21). That legislation included: student aid, transportation, public housing, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, and Affirmative Action (Ibid). No president before or since has matched his legislative success.

Indeed, Johnson was an active president, and one who took his job quite seriously. However, and true to his own observation, the President is still a man. Johnson’s greatest weakness (viz. failure) was his policy in Vietnam. Not only did Johnson lie to the American people about Vietnamese aggression, he pursued a war effort which was both inhumane (viz. napalm carpet bombing) and devastating to the social order at home. This was true to such an extent that race riots and massive anti-war protests broke out across the United States. Devastated that his "imperial presidency" had caused more harm than good, and no doubt feeling as though he betrayed FDR, Johnson refused to run for reelection in 1968. While he administered and ushered in a great era of social change, he will likely continue to be remembered by many in the next several generations as the man who instigated America’s first lost war.

Richard M. Nixon

(1969 - 1974)

Nixon, like Johnson, was also a strong leader and utilized the powers of the imperial presidency. Even to his own demise as evidenced in the Watergate scandal. But also like Johnson, Nixon oversaw several powerful legislative measures, one of which has been almost consistently under attack by the Republican Party for the past twenty years: the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the achievements as concerns the EPA, Nixon supported the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and signed the associated act into law when presented with it (Hamilton, 2011, October 21). For all of Nixon’s achievements, his behavior as concerns the Watergate scandal is a great weakness, and it is a weakness which may have damaged the office of the presidency. Historian C. Vann Woodward writes:

Heretofore, no president has been proved to be the chief coordinator of the crime and misdemeanor charged against his own administration as a deliberate course of conduct or plan. Heretofore, no president has been held to be the chief personal beneficiary of misconduct in his administration or of measures taken to destroy or cover up evidence of it. Heretofore, the malfeasance and misdemeanor have had no confessed ideological purpose, no constitutionally subversive ends. Heretofore, no president has been accused of extensively subverting and secretly using established government to defame or discredit political opponents and critics, to obstruct justice, to conceal misconduct and protect criminals, or to deprive citizens of their rights and liberties. Heretofore, no president has been accused of creating secret investigative units to engage in covert and unlawful activities against private citizens and their rights. (as cited in Pfiffner 2011, p.236)

The issues Woodward addresses are expansive but related. In each case, it may be argued that the President failed to fulfill his oath in Article II, Section I, Clause VIII. In doing so, Nixon caused harm to the office of the presidency. He resigned his position August 9, 1974 before impeachment proceedings began.

James E. Carter

(1977 - 1981)

While the country was still recovering from the abuses of power perpetrated under Nixon, James “Jimmy” Carter was elected. While perhaps not always remembered for obtaining great legislative success, Carter was nonetheless the 3rd most legislatively successful president after Wilson and Johnson (Hamilton, 2011). Until the expiration of his term in 1980, Carter nearly doubled the amount of protected wilderness in the United States, established a coastal park off the shore of North Carolina, passed the Civil Service Reform Act, and began the buildup of cruise missiles which Reagan would later both exacerbate and reduce (Ibid.). While Carter was not an overtly or outwardly powerful man, he was quite successful with the legislature on account of his extensive experience as a member of Congress and the relationships he built with others (Bell, et al., 2008). For the most part, Carter is remembered not so much for his outstanding policy work – though it was obviously beneficial – but rather for his good nature, finalization of diplomatic relations with China, and the reframing of Cold War behavior by refocusing nuclear weapons on strategic Russian locations and away from civilian areas.

As we have seen with other Presidents, weaknesses have come primarily from policy decisions – FDRs internment camps, Johnson’s Vietnam policy, Kennedy’s secrecy, and Nixon’s disregard for the law. Carter’s weakness, however, was perhaps more unexpected. Following the Watergate scandal, and Nixon’s general dislike for the media, major news sources, for the first time, had become openly hostile toward the Office of The President. Carter’s weakness comes from his inability to anticipate this change and adapt to it accordingly. Although he improved this relationship in his last two years, relations certainly could have better – relations which would no doubt have seriously impacted the public perception of his presidency as being productive and beneficial.

Ronald W. Reagan

(1981 - 1989)

Finally, we arrive at the presidency of Ronald Reagan. As Reagan is still fresh in the minds of many Americans, it should come as no surprise that he is still viewed with a certain degree of mythology and contempt. Nonetheless, there are several policy areas where Reagan was quite successful. Firstly, Reagan solidified and empowered the voting coalition Nixon managed to grab from southern Democrats while Johnson was in office. This bolstering of support, coupled with extremely high name recognition, enabled the Republican Party to reassert its dominance by winning the presidency consecutively, gaining seats in the Congress and supporting a resurgence of Republican Governors and Republican-run state governments (Hamilton, 2011). Reagan was also successful insofar as negative media attention was generally rebuffed and silenced. Chris Hamilton, professor of political science at Washburn University, notes this may have been accomplished on account of Reagan’s “grandfatherly” attitude (Ibid).

In addition to these alterations, Reagan experienced great success in reducing the number of nuclear arms around the world with his Arms Reduction Treaties in the late 1980s. While not directly responsible for the fall of communism in Russia, it is hardly arguable that he did not have significant impact on creating a safer, less nuclear world (Ibid). We all are better-off for it.

Unfortunately, while Reagan’s foreign policy issues may have been excellent as concerns the reduction of nuclear arms around the world, his greatest weakness comes to us in the form of the Iran-Contra affair. Pfiffner (2011) writes:

There was no doubt about what the law prohibited; there had been a high-level public debate over aid to the contras throughout the 1980s, and the administration had not been able to convince a majority of the Congress that continued military aid to the Contras in 1985 was essential to U.S. security. (238)

Despite the wishes of Congress, Reagan aids and Lt. Colonel Oliver North devised a way to obtain money for funding by selling arms to Iran. In any case, it is very difficult to argue that Reagan did not willfully and knowingly obstruct the will of the Congress and degrade the balance of power in our Constitutional system. Ultimately, and as with many presidents, Reagan’s administration was fraught with both moments of masterful statesmanship and periods of poor decision making.

* * *

While exceedingly brief in discussion, this post has drawn out at least several of the major strengths and weaknesses the modern presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, James E. “Jimmy” Carter and Ronald, W. Reagan exhibited. Some are greater than others, but we cannot deny that each has contributed immensely to the evolution of the Executive Office, its impact on foreign/domestic policy, and the ways by which the American voter relates to it. For better or worse, each of these men has left their mark on our country, and future Presidents will likely look to them for guidance in time of need. Let us hope that attention is given to their weaknesses, and an effort made to avoid repeating history’s mistakes.

References

Bell, L.C., Conners, J, and Sheckels, T. (2008). Perspectives on Political Communication: A Case Approach. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Busby, H. (2005). The Thirty-first of March: An Intimate Portrait of Lyndon Johnson's Final Days in Office. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hamilton, C. (2011). Presidential Records [PDF]. Topeka: Washburn University

Hamilton, C. (2011, October 11). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Hamilton, C. (2011, October 21). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Milkis, S. M and Nelson, M. (2012). The American Presidency: Origins and Development, 1776-2011. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency. Boston: Wadsworth.

Whaples, R. (1995). Where is There Consensus among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions. The Journal of Economic History, 55(1).

Bellamy’s Allegory of Capitalism

2012-01-06T18:23:00.000-06:00

Looking Backward: From 2000 to 1887

(Reading Selection)

By way of attempting to give the reader some general impression of the way people lived together in those days, and especially of the relations of the rich and poor to one another, perhaps I cannot do better than to compare society as it then was to a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsomely along a very hilly and sandy road. The driver was hunger, and permitted no lagging, though the pace was necessarily very slow. Despite the difficulty of drawing the coach at all along so hard a road, the top was covered with passengers who never got down, even at the steepest ascents. These seats on top were very breezy and comfortable. Well up out of the dust, their occupants could enjoy the scenery at their leisure, or critically discuss the merits of the straining team. Naturally such places were in great demand and the competition for them was keen, every one seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat on the coach for himself and to leave it to his child after him. By the rule of the coach a man could leave his seat to whom he wished, but on the other hand there were so many accidents by which it might at any time be wholly lost. For all that they were so easy, the seats were very insecure, and at every sudden jolt of the coach persons were slipping out of them and falling to the ground, where they were instantly compelled to take hold of the rope and help to drag the coach on which they had before ridden so pleasantly. It was naturally regarded as a terrible misfortune to lose one's seat, and the apprehension that this might happen to them or their friends was a constant cloud upon the happiness of those who rode.

But did they think only of themselves? you ask. Was not their very luxury rendered intolerable to them by comparison with the lot of their brothers and sisters in the harness, and the knowledge that their own weight added to their toil? Had they no compassion for fellow beings from whom fortune only distinguished them? Oh, yes; commiseration was frequently expressed by those who rode for those who had to pull the coach, especially when the vehicle came to a bad place in the road, as it was constantly doing, or to a particularly steep hill. At such times, the desperate straining of the team, their agonized leaping and plunging under the pitiless lashing of hunger, the many who fainted at the rope and were trampled in the mire, made a very distressing spectacle, which often called forth highly creditable displays of feeling on the top of the coach. At such times the passengers would call down encouragingly to the toilers of the rope, exhorting them to patience, and holding out hopes of possible compensation in another world for the hardness of their lot, while others contributed to buy salves and liniments for the crippled and injured. It was agreed that it was a great pity that the coach should be so hard to pull, and there was a sense of general relief when the specially bad piece of road was gotten over. This relief was not, indeed, wholly on account of the team, for there was always some danger at these bad places of a general overturn in which all would lose their seats.

It must in truth be admitted that the main effect of the spectacle of the misery of the toilers at the rope was to enhance the passengers' sense of the value of their seats upon the coach, and to cause them to hold on to them more desperately than before. If the passengers could only have felt assured that neither they nor their friends would ever fall from the top, it is probable that, beyond contributing to the funds for liniments and bandages, they would have troubled themselves extremely little about those who dragged the coach.

I am well aware that this will appear to the men and women of the twentieth century as incredible inhumanity, but there are two facts, both very curious, which partly explain it. In the first place, it was firmly and sincerely believed that there was no other way in which Society could get along, except the many pulled at the rope and the few rode, and not only this, but that no very radical improvement even was possible, either in the harness, the coach, the roadway, or the distribution of the toil. It had always been as it was, and it always would be so. It was a pity, but it could not be helped, and philosophy forbade wasting compassion on what was beyond remedy.

The other fact is yet more curious, consisting in a singular hallucination which those on the top of the coach generally shared, that they were not exactly like their brothers and sisters who pulled at the rope, but of finer clay, in some way belonging to a higher order of beings who might justly expect to be drawn. This seems unaccountable, but, as I once rode on this very, coach and shared that very hallucination, I ought to be believed. The strangest thing about the hallucination was that those who had but just climbed up from the ground, before they had outgrown the marks of the rope upon their hands, began to fall under its influence. As for those whose parents and grand-parents before them had been so fortunate as to keep their seats on the top, the conviction they cherished of the essential difference between their sort of humanity and the common article was absolute. The effect of such a delusion in moderating fellow feeling for the sufferings of the mass of men into a distant and philosophical compassion is obvious. To it I refer as the only extenuation I can offer for the indifference which, at the period I write of, marked my own attitude toward the misery of my brothers.

If you're interested in reading Bellamy's book, you may find a free version courtesy of the University of Virginia here. If you would rather read this on a kindle, try this free version.Happy reading, and feel free to share your thoughts in the section below!

Miguel de Unamuno Quote

2012-01-02T21:42:00.000-06:00

de Unamuno (1864-1936) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist. This quotation is taken from his work Tragic Sense Of Life

For if a man should tell you that he does not defraud or cuckold his best friend because he fears hellfire, you may depend upon it that he would not do so even if he stopped believing in hell, but would instead invent some other excuse for not transgressing. And this is to the honor of the human race.

Quick Reference: National Security and Foreign Policy Approach (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and G.W. Bush)

2011-12-30T16:57:00.000-06:00

Of the powers available to a President, none are more powerful than his command of foreign policy. While Article II may be vague as concerns domestic issues, his position as commander and chief compiled with the ability to make treaties with other nations (with the approval of 2/3 the Senate) is significant. But they were not always significant; in fact, much of the foreign policy Presidents enjoy today is the result of precedent set by other Presidents. George Washington no doubt set the grandest precedent of all when the United States became “the first nation to receive an emissary from the new Republic of France,” ambassador Edmond Genet (Milkis & Nelson, 2012, 83). This moment is important because it set the stage for how the United States was to involve itself with other nations around the world, and also provided that Presidents, without the express consent of Congress, could receive foreign heads of state (and in essence thereby recognize a foreign nation).

Since then, and with the development of the party system, foreign policy has been essentially divided into two fundamental camps: isolationism and internationalism. Isolationism is the position “defined by a general desire that the government avoid any ties or entanglements with other countries, whatever the relationship.” (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1987, p. 1108). Internationalism, on the other hand, is essentially the opposite position: that the United States ought to be concerned and involved with the affairs other nations. In general, the latter view has been the position of the United States throughout history, from our involvement in the War of 1812 through the World Wars, but each presidency approaches the role of the United States abroad somewhat differently. Consider President Barack Obama’s foreign policy statement:

President Obama has committed himself and his Administration from the beginning of his presidency to a foreign policy that ensures the safety of the American people. But he also refuses the false division between our values and our security; the United States can be true to our values and ideals while also protecting the American people. We will use all elements of American power to achieve objectives, and consult closely with the Congress so that our policies may have the broad and bipartisan support that makes them most effective. Finally, while there are instances and individuals who can be met only by force, the United States will be prepared to listen to and talk with our adversaries in order to advance our interests. (“Foreign Policy,” 2011)

With that statement in mind, let us consider the foreign policy perspectives of various modern Presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and G. W. Bush. In doing so, it should be possible to highlight the development of foreign policy power from one President to the next, and see how they differ from one another.

Eisenhower

By the time Eisenhower took office the Cold War was beginning. For that reason, it was necessary for a President, who had no doubt had his fill of war, to ensure a buildup sufficient enough to deter other nations from attacking the United States. On the one hand, the buildup would not have to be extreme, as the United States had and recently used the world’s first nuclear weapon. However, relying solely upon nuclear weapons as a deterrent was dangerous business, and Soviet buildups occurred almost in proportion to our own reserves.

If anything is to be said of President Eisenhower, it is that he was not an isolationist. While he may have opposed progressive (domestic) policy at home, he worked quite hard to open a dialog with the growing power of the soviet union and Khrushchev – at one point even proposing the two nations allow an “Open Skies” initiative, which would allow both nations to utilize air surveillance to monitor military buildup (“American President: A Reference Resource,” n.d.).

Eisenhower’s major policy positions include: maintaining a productive economy while allowing for buildup as deterrence against the Soviet Union, avoid overt aggression with reliance upon nuclear weapons as a major deterrent, and utilize intelligence gathering and align with other governments (Ibid.). Overall, Eisenhower’s use of the powers of the presidency (as developed during Roosevelt’s presidency) are fairly limited, though we do see an expansion of intelligence gathering, including the use of newly developed satellite technology such as CORONA (“Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-61,” 2008, July). In this regard, Eisenhower deserves credit as significantly expanding the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as a force in the world. This was an interesting expansion because it allowed the President to engage in covert military action without utilizing the military, and thereby decreasing the need to inform the Congress. Later Presidents would also claim an executive privilege as to information obtained from individuals investigated by the agency, and their use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Kennedy

While Eisenhower certainly had his hands full with the Soviet Union, he never had quite the difficulty Kennedy experienced in October of 1962. During this period, the Soviet Union and United States had continued in their arms race, but after the United States moved weapons into Turkey (a strategic location), the Soviets feared they might have come too close. As such, the Soviets dispatched nuclear weapons to Cuba in order to ensure a formal deterrent. Unfortunately, however, it seems that Field Castro had persuaded some leaders in the Soviet Army to give him control over several weapons.

Kennedy, fearing the Soviet move in Cuba would involve an attack, did two things in response: (1) he informed the media that he intended to use the United States military to arrange a blockade to prevent the shipment of missiles (which, in fact, were already there) and (2) privately intended to invade Cuba. As the situation grew direr, it became clear to both Kennedy and Khrushchev that a nuclear war could and most likely would break-out if something did not change.

Ultimately, nuclear war was avoided, but only after Khrushchev managed to make a radio broadcast with literally only minutes to spare, informing Kennedy that nuclear weapons would be removed from Cuba. The United States Navy, which was near invading Cuba, turned around and came home (McNamara & Blight, n.d.).

The foreign policy of Kennedy drives home the exceedingly important position Presidents play in the world around us – and sometimes without our true understanding. The immediate results were the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the extreme buildup and sale of weapons worldwide (not just nuclear). Although catastrophe had been avoided, it did not end the Cold War – it simply reshaped it. The situation also scared the Congress quite a bit, which led to a sort of strengthening of its own power as concerns military oversight; however, the fuller development of these powers would not come to fruition until the Johnson Presidency.

Johnson

While the Cold War was still very much alive, Johnson had involved the United States more fully in a war in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was never actually declared by the Congress, so in many respects it stood out as an example of Presidential power pushed to the maximum. Although our force started out somewhat small, by 1967 the quota had reached 500,000 men (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). As the Congress had not declared war, many naturally began questioning the power of the President to persist in the endeavor. The State Department stated:

There can be no question in present circumstances of the President’s authority to commit U.S. forces to the defense of South Vietnam. The grant of authority to the President in Article 2 of the Constitution extends to the actions of the United States currently undertaken in Vietnam. (Ibid, 347)

The Johnson Administration was expressing what has become known as the imperial presidency in political science. This position grows out of the idea that the President is the sole arbiter of military action as described in Article II of the constitution. However, it is often argued that Presidents do not have the ability to declare war, only to make war. James Madison declared as much during debates over the formation of the Constitution:

That the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature, that the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the right of convening and informing Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right with the Constitution had deemed requisite or proper . . . [for the President]. (Pfiffner, 2011, 188).

Alexander Hamilton, a strong supporter of a powerful executive, writes in Federalist No. 69:

It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as the first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. (Ibid, 189)

There is little doubt what the Framers intended here, and Johnson, alongside other Presidents have in no short order claimed powers for their office which are simply not afforded by the constitution. Under Johnson, the president became the de facto declarer of war.

Nixon

Nixon also utilized the imperial presidency, but not to the extent to which Johnson had deployed it. In many respects, Nixon is often remembered for being the President who “lost” the Vietnam war, while his foreign policy achievements go unnoticed. Perhaps most interestingly, Nixon implemented a “madman” strategy in order to keep enemies of the United States confused as to just what our policy moves would be (“Foreign Affairs,” n.d.). What is truly amazing about Nixon’s foreign policy is his extremely tactful use of the carrot and stick approach. While certainly an outstanding policy President himself, he enjoyed the advice and counsel of Henry Kissinger, who was, and is, known for brilliance in matters of foreign relation.

Nixon also realized that in order to threaten the Soviet Union (and bring the arms race to a halt), it was in the nation’s best interest to make friends with countries which – though ideologically opposed – might also threaten the Soviet Union directly or otherwise. In order to keep the Soviets from becoming too worried (and launching nuclear missiles at us), Nixon behaved strangely toward them to such an extent that they were never sure exactly what he might do. in other words, the Soviet Union was afraid he might launch weapons at them.

Nixon also deserves outstanding credit for creating a viable trade market with China (which now produces a significant amount of the items American’s consume). It is also a source of export for the United States. In the end, Nixon did not so much expand Presidential powers as concerns the foreign policy President, but he certainly deepened the degree to which they could be utilized to the advantage of the United States.

Carter

Where other Presidents boldly led with military action and “madman” philosophies, President Jimmy Carter is perhaps best known as the humanitarian President. As President, he relinquished control of the Panama Canal, gained peace in the middle east via the Camp David Accords, and implemented the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II), which sought to reduce the production of nuclear arms. Unfortunately, the United States Senate never ratified the treaty; however, both nations abided by its rules nonetheless. Despite the United State’s failure to ratify the treaty, Carter pressed on in his dedication to peace, and redefined the U.S.'s policy role in the world:

For too many years, we’ve been willing to adopt the flawed and erroneous principles and tactics of our adversaries, sometimes abandoning our own values for theirs. We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water. This approach failed, with Vietnam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty. But through failure we have now found our way back to our own principles and values, and we have regained our lost confidence. (Carter, 1977)

In the eyes of Carter, the United States must not be just a military force, it must be a force for peace, and throughout his administration he sought just that. Perhaps his most notable (or remembered) foreign policy accomplishment involves gaining peace in the middle east via the Camp David Accords. Under the accords (briefly), Israel agreed to withdraw troops from Sinai if Egypt would agree to diplomatic relations. The peace treaty still exists today, with the U.S. government providing continued subsidies (“Background Note: Egypt,” 2010, November 10). While tensions in the middle east are still quite high, the accomplishment is unprecedented. Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for this achievement.

Reagan

The Cold War was not to end until Reagan came to The White House. In general, he is often given credit by the American people for bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the credit is misplaced. As political scientist Chris Hamilton notes, the real accessories to its fall are Poland, the Pope and Jimmy Carter (though to a lesser extent for the tertiary). Nonetheless, Reagan’s foreign policy will always be associated with this historical event.

Notwithstanding, Reagan did make great strides late in his presidency in terms of reducing the number of nuclear arms present in the world. Interestingly, political scientists often discuss Presidents in terms of having “two presidencies:” those which serve constituents and those which serve the nation. Reagan appears to have had two additional ones: those who escalate nuclear arm buildups, and those who reduce them significantly (Hamilton, 2011, November 2).

During the early stages of the Reagan administration, the President pushed the false idea that the Soviet Union had become militarily superior. Using this information, he convinced the Congress to invest in a massive $2 trillion buildup, and he proposed the development of at least two strange weapons of mass destruction – the neutron bomb and star wars. Ultimately, this degraded the United State’s image abroad, as a number of countries began viewing us as a nation filled with people who feared so much, they were willing to create weapons found – to this point – only in science fiction novels.

Ultimately, however, Reagan saw the film The day After and apparently had a change of heart concerning nuclear proliferation (Ibid). The threat of a nuclear holocaust scared the nation and Reagan significantly, and in 1986, Reagan met with Soviet leader Gorbachev to discuss the reduction of nuclear arms held between the two. By 1987, both nations had agreed upon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which required the “destruction of the Parties’ ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.” (“Treaty,” 1987).

Finally, he Iran Contra-Affairs caused some difficulties in foreign policy relations for Reagan, although not abroad. In general, the Reagan Administration was accused of bypassing an embargo which the Congress had implemented which strictly forbade the sale of arms to Iran. While disturbing of itself, the behavior drove home the point that Congressional oversight was still needed in order to ensure the Executive Branch did not lapse into a “unitary executive” position and straightforwardly violate the express position of the American people in order to gain in the realm of foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Iran-Contra affair was exactly the type of behavior Jimmy Carter was addressing in his Notre Dame Commencement Speech.

G. W. Bush

The final President under consideration here is George W. Bush. Perhaps more so than any President since Lyndon Johnson, the Bush administration pushed the idea of the “Unitary Executive” to its most extreme position yet. Not soon after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration took a variety of steps to escalate the “war on terror,” and in doing so developed and expanded Presidential power to a degree heretofore not seen. In arguing that aggressive interrogation was necessary, the administration invalidated the Geneva Convention, and was accused by Congress of usurping its power “To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,” as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution (Pfiffner, 2011, 246).

The Congress further accused the Bush administration of usurping its power when they suspended writ of habeas corpus for detainees. The complaint here was not so much that it was not afforded to prisoners of war, but rather that Article II (the Executive Branch) has no power to do so. The language describing when such an event may occur is found within Article I, thus giving Congress the authority to decide the matter (Ibid).

As a sort of final note, the Bush Administration is also accused of using Signing Statements to decide which provisions of law it will or will not follow. For many, this is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which provides that any law passed by the Congress is the law of the land, and that the Executive will:

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Section 8)

The Bush administration argued the Congress was not permitted to legislate as concerns a unitary executive branch, and that, in essence, the President is free to do whatever he wishes, so long as it serves the greater good of the nation – e.g. defending against terrorist attacks or pursing terrorism at-large. When compared alongside the development of power under other Presidents, none comes even close to the expansion experienced under George W. Bush

References

“American President: A Reference Resource.” (n.d.). University of Virginia Miller Center.

“Background Note: Egypt.” (2010, November 10). U.S. Department of State.

Carter, J. (1977). “Human Rights and Foreign Policy.” [Commencement Speech]. Notre Dame University.

“Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953-61.” (2008, July). Central intelligence Agency.

“Foreign affairs.” (n.d.). Public Broadcasting Station.

“Foreign Policy.” (2011). The White House.

Hamilton, C. (2011, November 2). Personal Interview. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (1987, December). “How Are Foreign policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model.” The American Political Science Review, 84(4): 1099-1120.

McNamara, R. S. & Blight, J. G. (n.d.) The Miracle of October: Lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis
[Unpublished].

Milkis, S. M and Nelson, M. (2012). The American Presidency: Origins & Development, 1776-2011 (6th ed). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency (6th ed). Boston: Wadsworth.

“Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.” (1987). U.S. Department of State.

Tucker, B. N. (Ed.). (2005). Dangerous Strait: The U.S. – Taiwan-China Crisis. West Sussex, England: Colombia University Press

The Kansas State Constitution

2011-12-29T20:50:00.001-06:00

Recently I've been reading through The Kansas State Constitution by Francis Heller for a bit of insight and direction as concerns my graduate thesis, and I have to say: if you've any interest in Kansas history, its constitutional development, and curious legal issues over the years, this is an excellent resource. As the book is fairly expensive, I recommend trying to find a copy of it at your local library in place of buying the thing.

Happy Learning!

Robert Heinlein Quote

2011-12-29T00:56:00.000-06:00

The churches had a thousand rationalizations to prove that their nosey-parker interference was necessary for the welfare of all. For example, Brown must be stopped from peddling pornography, because, if he does, he will harm the purchaser, Smith. But note that Smith is to be saved from harm for the good of Smith's soul, as defined by the churches. Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but in every case you will find at the end the churches attempting to use the state to coerce the citizen into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading the citizen to accept without coercion. Whenever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a powerful underworld which will seize the local government, and frequently, through control of local political machines, seize state and national governments as well. - For Us, The living: A Comedy of Customs

Book Sample: For Us, The Living - A Comedy of Customs (Robert A. Heinlein)

2011-12-26T22:06:00.002-06:00

I'm a huge fan of science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, and seeing as how I have a few weeks of freedom before it's time to return to the world of thesis statements and coursework, I took up reading For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs (Kindle). Although it was originally written in 1938 - making it his first novel - the book was not published until 2003.

For fans, this is an excellent opportunity to view the germ of what would later become some of Heinlein's most thought provoking ideas. For readers who haven't yet encountered Heinlein, here is an excellent opportunity do to so!

As such, please enjoy the following selection.

_______________________

Context: Our protagonist, Perry, has recently found himself transported from the year 1939 to the year 2086. As social customs have changed significantly, it is necessary for him to take up a study of the history which has filled the intervening years. In this scene, Perry is speaking with an historian by the name of Cathcart about a major war and its consequences. The female character, Diana, is Perry's rescuer, caretaker and love interest. The men are having this conversation in what is perhaps best described as her living room.

_______________________

"Five out of six of the heads of the leading international banks were killed in the raid on Manhattan, not to mention the destruction of a large part of the records of the financial dealings that had started the trouble. And of course, hundreds of the small fry in the banking racket. With the ring leaders gone Congress listened to the people of the country who had never wanted a war in the first place. An armistice was declared in 2004 February. The terms of the peace included moratoria on international obligations which was a polite word for cancellation, and established a Pan-American export-import bank to provide for resumption of trade on what amounted to a cash and carry basis."

"Anything else?"

"That was about all. The destruction of Manhattan was checked off against the raid on Rio and Buenos Aires. But the most important result was the twenty-seventh amendment."

"That's the war referendum amendment, isn't it?"

"Yes. Did the records tell you how it works?"

"Well, I gathered that it was an arrangement whereby the people had to vote on it before war could be declared."

'That is true as far as it goes. In effect the amendment states that, except in case of invasion of the United States, Congress shall not have the power to declare war without submitting the matter to a referendum. The article sketches out briefly the machinery for holding the referendum and sets a time limit in which to accomplish it. But the most amusing feature is the provision saying who shall vote in the matter."

"Doesn't everybody?"

"No, only those persons who vote are eligible for military duty."

"Aren't women permitted to vote?"

"Yes and no. If the current laws make women eligible for combat duty, they vote. If not, they don't vote."

Perry whistled. "I'll bet that caused an uproar."

Cathcart grinned as if savoring the joke. "It certainly did. Militant feminists screamed and frothed at the mouth. Then it was pointed out to them that the proposed amendment made no mention of sex and that they could, if they chose, make women eligible by including them for military service in the implementing bill."

"But that isn't practical."

"On the contrary. As a matter of fact the law did include women for a number of years. Women can be used in the place of men in practically all military positions. Not as effectively in many of them, but they have been used many times. Your military history should have told you that."

"I guess you're right. Yes, I'd forgotten the Battalion of Death. And they make very good pilots of course."

"At the present time a limited class of women are eligible for service and would consequently vote on a war question."

"But see here. It seems to me that it is unfair to leave it in the hands of those who are eligible to go into the service. If there is any one thing I've learned from history I've studied today it is that war affects everybody in the country, that it can kill off an entire population. Why we knew that even in my day."

"What you say is true. But the non-combatants don't expect to be killed - not seriously. In the A.-B.-C. war if those bankers who were killed in the raid on Manhattan had expected to be bombed and gassed, there wouldn't have been any war. But they didn't. They thought the war would be fought far away by the professionals. No, the great mass of civilians never see war as anything personal to themselves, unless it is brought home to each on that he, John, will have to fight in person. That is why nations used to declare war so easily and then be forced to use conscription to fight the war. The country wants to go to war. Oh surely, 'John Brown's Body.' 'Make the World Safe for Democracy.' 'Britons never will be slaves.' But if the war is more than a skirmish you have to draft men to fight it. With all due respect to you, Diana, women were worse than men about it. It's always possible to get women stirred up to war fever. Half of the men who do volunteer in a war instead of waiting to be conscripted, do so because some woman who thinks it's glorious and romantic is urging them or shaming them into it. In peace time women are emotional pacifists, but when the band starts to play, they are much more easily stampeded than men. What's on your mind, son? You look thoughtful."

"I was thinking of an organization that used to give me the cold shivers, the Gold Star Mothers. They were formed after the World War and a woman had to have had a son killed in the war to be eligible. They had meetings and officers and conventions and national presidents and so forth, just like a lodge. It made my flesh crawl."

Diana interposed. "But, perry, I should think such an organization could be a powerful force for good."

"It could have been, but it wasn't. If they had devoted themselves to making another war impossible, it would have been fine. But it was just another lodge, just another woman's club. But let's get back to the subject. I'd rather forget it."

Cathcart resumed his discourse. "I haven't told you about the neatest feature of the amendment. As we have said, only those who could fight could vote. Those who voted to declare war automatically enlisted for the duration of the war. The ballot even told them where to report the next morning. Those who didn't vote were the next draft, and those who voted no the last draft."

Perry looked puzzled and slightly annoyed, "But that puts a premium on cowardice, doesn't it? If war is declared, they should all have to take the same chances. If I had my way, I would just reverse the scheme."

"Don't be hasty, Perry. Stop and think. Is it a premium on cowardice? Perhaps it is. But isn't it just as likely to be a premium on common judgment? Perhaps the war isn't worth fighting. I've studied history all my life and I can remember but two or three wars that seemed to me to be worth fighting, and I have my doubts about those. In any case, if a man takes the responsibility of voting to plunge a country into a situation that may destroy it and is bound to kill and maim a lot of citizens, shouldn't he have to accept the consequences of his decision by being in the first line of fighting? There is a stern justice about it. Under this rule no man could cast a vote that would send a fellow human being out to face poisonous gas and shots and burning rays without being ready to stand alongside him and suffer the same fate."

"but see here, in a democratic country, we are all in the same boat. Why shouldn't everybody have to defend the country alike?"

"Your reasoning is sound, Perry, but it doesn't apply to the case. You have forgotten that if the United States is invaded, no referendum is necessary. The be exact if any part of the North American continent is invaded, or if a fleet approaches our home waters with evident hostile intent, Congress can act without consulting the people. The referendum applies to situations such as the First World War, or the Spanish-American War or the War of 1812 or the A.-B.-C. War. As a matter of fact the President has ample power to act, even without the consent of Congress, to repel invasion or to succor our nationals abroad. No, the purpose of this amendment is to permit the people to decide for themselves whether or not an incident or series of incidents constitutes sufficient reason for them to want to go outside our own country and fight someone else. Of course the munitions makers didn't like it nor a lot of the financiers and industrialists, but it was democratic and reasonable and the people voted it in anyhow, once they understood it. But the munitions makers fought it tooth and toenail and eventually cooked their own goose in the process."

"How?"

"At the next session of Congress there was the usual bill introduced to take over the entire arms industry and make it a government monopoly. But this time the munitions men were in bad repute and Congress passed it."

Perry laughed. "Served 'em jolly well right, didn't it? But seriously, while this scheme seems to fit modern conditions, I don't believe it would have worked in my day."

Cathcart's shaggy brows lifted. "Why not?"

"Too cumbersome. It would take weeks to get ready for the election and weeks more to be sure of the count. By that time the whole strategic situation could have changed and lost us the war, if we went into it."

"I think you overrate the difficulties, Perry. I believe that I know your period as well as an historian can for I have made a special study of it. If Congress was debating a war resolution, wouldn't everybody in the country know about it? The President habitually spoke to the country by radiotelephony, correct? So if he were to address the country announcing the outcome of the congressional vote and calling for a war referendum, everybody would be listening, would they not?"

"Ninety-nine per cent or better."

"Very well then. Calling the election is easy. How soon could it be held? No need to wait for the people to inform themselves and consider the merits; if the situation is actually grave, they will have been following it for weeks and probably have made up their minds long before Congress acts. The next question is how long would it take to do the physical acts necessary to conduct a balloting? Everybody in the country of voting age knew or could find out very quickly the location of his usual precinct election polls. And each of those polling places had official designated at the last regular election. Printing the ballots would be fairly simple, there being but one point to vote on, or they could be kept printed at all times, and let the name of the enemy be written in or assumed. Counting the ballots in each precinct would be a simple matter as well, twenty minutes at the most. The only new technique would be in collecting the returns. Tell me, there were telegram dispatching bureaus all over the country, were there not?"

"Oh yes, probably one within ten minutes of every polling place. I begin to see your point."

"Then let telegraph clerk in the country be considered a special election official. With a reasonably efficient system of intermediate clearing and tabulating, the final figures should be in the President's hands within an hour after closing the polls. "

Perry nodded his head. "Yes, that is feasible, entirely feasible. You made me feel rather stupid that I couldn't see it."

"You needn't feel so. I have simply described with a few minor changes some of the provisions of the original implementing act. You had adequate and sufficiently rapid communication in your day. All that was needed was the decision to use them. As a matter of fact the method has worked practically perfectly since it was adopted."

"It has been used, then?"

"Three times since it was adopted. Each time the people rejected war and each time, in my opinion, history has justified them. And so the United States has not committed suicide. Yet in each case you may take it for granted that Congress would have plunged us into war. The simple fact is that it called the referenda indicated that. You made another point, however, the point about the strategic necessity for a quick decision. This arrangement no only lost no time, valuable in strategy, but actually gained time."

"How do you figure that?"

"Because the first draft is mobilized the day after war is declared. That saves at least six weeks over all previous methods of conscripting an army. Furthermore adequate preparations could be made in peace time to provide fully for such an arming that prudence indicated could be undertaken without fear that arming itself would lead us into war. It was a means whereby a peaceful, non-imperialistic, civilian-minded people could be fully prepared for any possible war."

Perry nodded his head vigorously. "It certainly sounds like a foolproof scheme. I admire the professional features about it quite as much as the political. I'm glad you pointed them out. There were a lot of peace plans afoot in my day, but I didn't have much use for any I ever heard about. Most of them seemed to be based on the notion that the United States being unarmed and untrained would keep us out of war. I've read some history, and I was convinced that it was the one sure way to get into a war."

"I believe you are right, Perry. Of course there is one objection to the referendum plan that was made by a number of people."

"It appeared in many different forms, but it always boiled down to the same thing. A contention that the people didn't know what was good for them and were too stupid to be trusted with so much power. It amounts to a total disbelief in the democratic form of government. Strangely enough it came from the very groups who are the loudest in their protests of affection for the American form of government, and 'Americanism' whatever that is, if it is not democracy. The people who made this objection were schoolteachers, preachers, officers of veterans and patriotic organizations, professional demagogues et cetera. Interestingly enough the army and navy did not oppose the scheme, even though they were denied the right to vote in the referendum."

"I'm pleased to hear that but not surprised. The professional military man is the last to believe any romantic nonsense about war, even though he may be calloused to it." (Heinlein, 2004, 85-94

Thanks for reading, and be sure to buy the damned book! It only gets better!

Reference

Heinlein, R. (2004). For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs. New York, NY: Pocket Books.

“Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom," Presidential Biography Review

2011-12-26T17:19:00.001-06:00

Community Contribution:

In this post I will review the Presidential Biography Roosevelt: The Solider of Freedom by James MacGregor Burns. Thomas E. Cronin, in his article "On The American Presidency: A Conversation with James MacGregor Burns" Presidential Studies Quarterly, Summer of 1986, interviews Burns as Burns prepares to retire from teaching after forty years. In Cronin’s foreword to the interview he states: "Burns has been one of the most prolific writers on the American Presidency. His biographies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Kennedys have won wide acclaim" (Cronin, T.E. 1986: 528). I too, have nothing but praise for Mr. Burns in his writing of Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom. Burns knowledge of President Roosevelt and of the office of the presidency is supreme. Others agree; according to Amazon.com: “In 1971, Burns received the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for history for his biography of America's 32nd president, Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, 1940-1945". The man behind the book is as much an intellectual leader as the man the book is written about. Burns leads his viewer to a large extent like Roosevelt led America in the 1930’s and 1940’s. To quote Burns during an interview with Professor George R Goethels, Jepson School of Leadership Studies, Burns says: “Leadership is follower-ship and follower-ship is Leadership." Roosevelt followed American lives, joys and hardships and in return America followed him. I followed Burns through this book, and what I learned from him will follow me throughout my life.

James MacGregor Burns was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts and graduated from Lexington High School in 1935. He attended Williams College in Williamstown and graduated in 1939. From there he earned his PhD at Harvard. Burns returned to Williams as a political scientist to teach, become an authority on leadership studies, and to write (Cronin, T.E. 1986: 528). And write he did. Burns other contributions to the literary world have been: Leadership (2010), Government by the People (2009), Transforming Leadership (2004), George Washington (2004), Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court (2010), The Three Roosevelt’s: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America (2002), State and Local Politics: Government by the People (2011), and many, many others.

As mentioned above, due to his diligent research and study, Burns is an authority on leadership studies. He discusses in his leadership books the difference between what he calls "transactional" and "transforming" leadership. Scott London in his book review on Burns' book Leadership describes Burns’ analysis on the subject. According to London, Burns states that transactional leadership takes place when "one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things" such as when a public official promises something in return for votes. In contrast, there is a moral aspect to transforming leadership. Burns states it is when "one or more persons engage with each other in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality." Although the leader originally wanted personal recognition, he or she turns to a collective purpose by listening, acknowledging and attending to his or her followers (Ibid).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a leader in both meanings of Burns leadership definitions. He promised a better America if he was elected, and although he did like recognition, he listened to what people had to say about what and how he was doing and if needed he would change directions. I will attempt to summarize this book, mentioning a few details I found interesting, but unfortunately due to page and time constraint, I will have to leave out many other significant factors of Roosevelt's life and presidency.

Burns begins Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, on election night November 5, 1940. Burns states: “It was a moment of enormous relief for Roosevelt” (Burns, J.M. 1970: 3). Roosevelt, after worrying about his chances of remaining president had been re-elected. Burns continues in the prologue with a brief look at Roosevelt’s time before the forties: his marriage to Eleanor, his love affair with Lucy Mercer, and the United States non-involvement in the war. America had been denying pleas from Britain for destroyers and only offering moral support to France. However, on December 16, 1941, Roosevelt uncovered his new plan for aid to countries such as Britain. “Lend-Lease” was developed in which the United States could send weapons and other military aid without charge to help Britain in the war, and after the war was over the aid could be repaid in kind, although it was doubtful that Britain could re-pay what America would loan to them, and if they did, the repayment of military items would be useless for the United States. To get people on board with his program Roosevelt gave an analogy that common folk could understand:

Suppose my neighbor’s home catches on fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now what do I do? I don’t say to him before that operation, ’Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it.’ What is the transaction that goes on? I don’t want $15. - I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right. If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for the use of it (Burns, J.M. 1970:26).

With this aid program, Roosevelt felt that America’s involvement with the war would be limited. He claimed to the American people “there is a far less chance of the United States getting into war, if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:28). The Lend-Lease program now rested in the hands of the people for approval and funding. Roosevelt had to make amendments to the program for congressional approval, such as a limitation of the period he could authorize agreements and giving up presidential discretion over appropriations. The bill was passed somewhat easily in the House, and strongly fought against in the senate, but eventually was approved with revisions. Although Roosevelt kept claiming that the United States would not become involved in the war, he had played a crucial card in the dangerous poker game soon to be called World War II.

The White House was a charming place for visitors under Roosevelt’s reign as well as was the master of the house. Modestly decorated it appeared to members of the staff and others that “there was an air of small town friendliness” (Burns, J.M. 1970:59). Eleanor was busy in social welfare and liberal politics and in addition to her role as first lady she served as a very special presidential aide. Other aides were important and indispensable to Roosevelt. Harry Hopkins lived in the White House and beside Eleanor, was Roosevelt's closest aide. Roosevelt was so convinced of Hopkins abilities that he put Hopkins in charge of Lend-Lease in April 1941.

Although technically not "involved" directly in the war, Washington and London were sometimes divided on how to run the strategy. When the British wanted America to stage naval demonstrations in the East Atlantic to show strength, Washington was hesitant for fear that it would antagonize other countries. Internally Washington was divided as well. Roosevelt wanted to proceed much slower than many felt he should have, which led people close to the administration questioning the leadership of Roosevelt. They were mistaken to question his leadership. As Burns states: "Roosevelt would lead - but not by more than a step" (Burns, J.M. 1970:66). Roosevelt's concern over public opinion and its "rapidly shifting optimism and pessimism" kept him cautious in his proceedings in the war. He had to convince his administration and the public that the "war would be won...not by one sea fight" but by keeping the "main existence of the main defense of the democracies going" (Burns, J.M. 1970:66). Roosevelt had to keep the scales of optimism and pessimism balanced and his method of accomplishing this was to proceed slow and calculated.

Hitler, was an uncompromising force Roosevelt had to deal with during his presidency. Claiming Hitler to be an “enigma” Roosevelt kept a close eye on the man. Burns states: “Roosevelt followed Hitler’s chess moves with deepening anxiety” (Burns, J.M. 1970:64). In return, Hitler felt that "Roosevelt was simply crazy...he behaved like a 'tortuous, pettifogging Jew' because there was Jewish blood in his veins, and the 'completely negroid appearance of his wife showed that she too was half-caste'" (Burns, J.M. 1970:68). Hitler's power in Europe was astonishing and Britain was worried that they too would succumb to his forces. In England's attempt to have the United States more involved in their fight against Hitler it was Churchill's main policy "keeping Roosevelt informed and sympathetic" (Burns, J.M. 1970:73). Although Churchill and Roosevelt had not personally met, they had already developed a diplomatic friendship.

In addition to British pleas for help, other countries such as China and Russia were constantly asking Roosevelt for aid to fight the Japanese and Germans. The amount of aid to be given to these countries was always an issue. Roosevelt was bound by neutrality agreements that precluded the United States from offering help, and the State Department did not want to divert weapons from Britain. When needed, the President created a work-around to assist other countries. In order to provide more help to China, Roosevelt promised it would be eligible under Lend-Lease for weapons and he also signed an unpublicized executive order in April 1941 that allowed American airmen to resign from their posts and form a volunteer "civilian" group in China to help the Chinese fight (Burns, J.M. 1970:83). While the President had mixed feelings about the Kremlin and its policies, he ignored the neutrality act against them and provided them aid by allowing them to stay open for American shipping (Burns, J.M. 1970:103).

In domestic arenas during 1941, Roosevelt had, like all Presidents, to deal with interest groups. The National Negro Council wanted to abolish discrimination in all Federal Agencies by executive order (Burns, J.M. 1970:123). They threatened that if this order was not signed thousands of blacks would march into Washington, which would provide a negative image of the national unity Roosevelt was trying to portray. Roosevelt was afraid that an executive order would "set back the progress which is being made in the Army at least, towards better opportunities and less segregation" (Burns, J.M. 1970:124). Roosevelt tried every compromise he could think of, but eventually gave in and signed an order that labor unions were "to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in defense industries, without discrimination because of race, creed, color or national origin" (Burns, J.M. 1970:124). This is one time of many, Roosevelt had to face the discrimination of black people.

The first meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill took place in August of 1941, not only to discuss the war, but also to discuss the roles of both countries post-war. Under the guise of an extended fishing trip with advisors and friends, Roosevelt sailed to the coast of Newfoundland (Burns, J.M 1970:126). On board the two ships Augusta and the Prince of Wales, the Atlantic Charter was formed which set forth guidelines and goals for the two countries to work together after the war. Roosevelt was not comfortable about this document, because to discuss post-war meant that there had to be a "war" first (as of this time the United States was still officially on the side-lines), and this alliance between Britain and the United States could be seen as a threat to countries such as Japan and Germany. Burns reveals that Roosevelt told Adolf A. Berle, a U.S. Diplomat and member of Roosevelt's administration, in June of 1941, "I have not the slightest objection toward your trying your hand at an outline of the post-war picture...But for Heaven's sake don't ever let the columnists hear of it" (Burns, J.M. 1970:129). Roosevelt remained cautious with the United States involvement in the war. Burns states "He was waiting on events to propel the nation toward full intervention in the Atlantic" (Burns, J.M. 1970:104). Intervention began with the invitation from Iceland for United States occupation. It was at this point Burns felt Roosevelt crossed the line between staying out of the war and aiding Britain by joining in the war (Burns, J.M. 1970:105). For Roosevelt more intervention was on the horizon.

It appears that Japan did see the charter as a threat, for during the summer of 1941, it was discovered that they had begun making plans to strike Brittan and the United States. Roosevelt kept his usual stance of keeping talks open with Japan, playing for time to try to diffuse any explosive situation with the country. But he did let everyone know that although America would not strike first, if provoked it would respond. The provocation came not from Japan, but from Hitler in the form of a German torpedo attack on the American destroyer Greer. Burns claims: "At last Roosevelt had his incident" and continues "shots had been exchanged in anger, and Roosevelt felt that here was his chance to dramatize the Nazi menace that he had long been picturing" (Burns, J.M. 1970:139). And dramatize he did. In his fireside chat he let the Americans know that "The time for active defense is now" and protecting the United States was his job as President (Burns, J.M. 1970:141). He was ordering the navy to "shoot on sight" to protect America and her citizens.

The war continued to escalate, and Roosevelt continued to delay the United States involvement. But on October 16, 1941, the USS Kearny south of Iceland was struck by a German torpedo killing eleven of her crew. Roosevelt was livid. He claimed "America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearney is not just a Navy ship. She belongs to every man, woman, and child in this Nation" (Burns, J.M. 1970:147). Even though Roosevelt was upset about the Greer and Kearney incidents and had called his Nation to their battle stations, he was still hesitant to commit the United States to the war. As Burns states: "now he could only wait on events" to happen to justify further involvement in the war (Burns, J.M. 1970:149). Roosevelt was waiting on Hitler to make a deadly move, miscalculating the other lethal force that was preparing to attack.

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, while hundreds of American service men slept and relaxed, the Japanese made the fatal move that threw the United States into the war; the bombing of Pearl Harbor. According to Burns, Roosevelt had made a "massive miscalculation as to where the Japanese would strike first" (Burns, J.M. 1970:160). Roosevelt had assumed that Japan would follow Hitler's method of conquering smaller countries to begin with. With the news of the bombing Roosevelt felt a heavy burden was lifted as it stood clear what America's next move would be. Across the ocean, Churchill was overjoyed; now he had the United States not merely backing Britain, but fighting alongside her. On December 8, 1941, Roosevelt stood in front of congress with the appeal "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire” (Burns, J.M. 1970:167). After 33 minutes of debate in Congress, the United States officially joined World War II (Burns, J.M. 1970:171).

Christmas in 1941 was solemn at the White House; no children or grandchildren being present. Roosevelt's sons James and Elliott were shipped off to war leaving Eleanor in tears. Churchill spent Christmas at the White House, and he and Roosevelt plotted war strategies throughout Christmas night. The two countries had differences as to how long to prepare and where to strike. Churchill wanted a North African invasion but Roosevelt felt that the Americans taking over North Ireland at this point in time would be more beneficial, freeing up British units to go elsewhere. Another problem was what would be the command, and who would be the commander, over Middle-Eastern forces. Roosevelt suggested a British commander Archibald Wavell, which left many in Britain worried about a "British scapegoat." However, trusting Roosevelt and his staff, Churchill agreed with the appointment (Burns, J.M. 1970:182).

On January 6, 1942 during his state of the union address, Roosevelt laid out what was seen as impossible goals for war production. Burns commented that Roosevelt realized the tremendous weight he was putting on the nation by saying to Congress: "I realize this is a terrific directive" (Burns, J.M. 1970:191). Terrific is an understatement. Roosevelt knew supplies for war production needed to be stepped up and so he demanded:

"to increase our production rate of airplanes so rapidly that this year, 1942 we shall produce 60,000 planes...next year, 1943, we shall produce 125,000 airplanes, including 100,000 combat planes" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190). He continued, "to increase our production of tanks so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 25,000 tanks; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 75,000 tanks" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190).

And his demands did not end there: "to increase our production rate of anti-aircraft guns so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 20,000 of them; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 35,000 anti-aircraft guns" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190) and finally, "to increase our production rate of merchant ships so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall build 6,000,000 dead-weight tons...and continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall build 10,000,000 tons of shipping" (Burns, J.M. 1970:190). To accommodate these goals Roosevelt created the War Production Board to oversee the production and set in on labor disputes to keep peace among laborers and their bosses.

There were, as Burns called it, “The Endless Battlefields” (Burns, J.M. 1970:198). The Philippines, a commonwealth that Roosevelt had "promised independence" was a battlefield to be lost, although Roosevelt with the direct help of General Douglas MacArthur was able to save its President. There were battlefields at home as well; people loss confidence in Roosevelt within three months after the war began. To help ease the strain, Roosevelt announced an upcoming fireside chat in which he wanted all Americans to have in front of them a world map. Burns states: "He asked his listeners to take out their maps and follow with him the references to the world-encircling battlelines of war" (Burns, J.M. 1970:212). Roosevelt's intention was good to include the American citizens in the some of the strategies of the war, and the response to his message was favorable, but his plan backfired a bit. During the speech a Japanese submarine was sighted off the coast of Santa Barbara firing a few shells, but not causing any serious damage. This as Burns noted taught Roosevelt "never again to announce his speeches more than two or three days ahead of time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:213). This proved to be too much time to give the enemy notice that the President was going to address the nation.

According to Burns “one of the sorriest episodes in American history” had occurred at this time (Burns, J.M. 1970:213). Due to fear and suspicion from many California residents and others in Congress, Roosevelt had ordered the Japanese-Americans to leave their homes on the West Coast and report to concentration camps to be watched and guarded. In the Pacific, Japan was basically conducting the same strategy; it appeared they were attempting to control the United States by trying to enter America through Hawaii. Roosevelt wrote to MacArthur, “It looks, at this moment, as if the Japanese Fleet is heading toward the Aleutian Islands or Midway and Hawaii” (Burns, J.M. 1970:226). It was true, Japan attacked Midway, but MacArthur and his troops prevailed and the battle at Midway was won by the Americans. This was enormous victory by the United States, but as Burns commented: “Roosevelt did not exaggerate its effect” (Burns, J.M. 1970:226). America’s Commander-in-Chief was well aware of what was ahead.

The time had come for the United States and Britain to address Russia and their request for a second-front to help with the battle of Germany. In an attempt to keep Stalin and the Russian government somewhat an ally, Roosevelt agreed to a second-front 1942. Therein lies what Burns calls “the fateful pledge” (Burns, J.M. 1970:234). Roosevelt had his reasons for his promise, one being guilt that the United States had not been able to fulfill Russia’s requests for munitions because America put Britain’s need first. In addition, Britain’s need became justification for postponing the second-front as Burns states: “Every ship shifted to England...brought the second front closer to realization and that the second front would be stronger is the first front still stood” (Burns, J.M. 1970:234). Roosevelt may have promised a second-front in 1942, but Britain did not. Churchill told Russia that a second-front would be more plausible in 1943, after an African invasion could be made to fight opposing forces there. Roosevelt finally gave into British pressure that an African landing would be more beneficial at the time than a second-front tactic in the Soviet Union. Stalin was furious: “I state most emphatically that the Soviet Government cannot tolerate the Second Front in Europe being postponed till 1943” (Burns, J.M. 1970:237). In lieu of a second front, Roosevelt was determined to keep peace with Russia and demanded that the munitions promised to Russia was kept up. The agencies listened and by midsummer 1942 military deliveries to Russia were catching up.

In the summer of 1942, there became a prospect more frightening than Russia being taken over by the Nazis. There was fear that Germany may be building the atomic bomb, and this fear led to the United States to take control of the joint atomic project with Britain, a program that was begun years before, in order to develop the bomb before Germany. The President ordered the Army to undertake the project hence, The Manhattan Engineering District was created in August 1942.

Late in the summer of 1942, Roosevelt went out visiting the country on a two week trip trying to keep it as unpublicized as possible. He visited the Chrysler Tank Arsenal in Detroit and the Willow Run bomber plant with Henry and Edsel Ford. He inspected Naval training stations, the Boeing plant in Seattle and managed to spend a little time with his children and grandchildren. He visited the Higgins Navy Yard in New Orleans and reviewed infantry divisions at Fort Jackson. In his recap to the American people about his trip he made the observation that the war dominated everything. Burns speaks of this observation: “People were singing ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition...Theater marquees featured Remember Pearl Harbor, Flying Tigers...and Sergeant’s Flea Powder showed ‘Old Sarge’ exclaiming ‘Sighted flea-killed same’” (Burns, J.M. 1970:271). The trip was good for Roosevelt and showed his popularity still remained high with the public.

Early November 1942, the attack Roosevelt had ordered against the advice of his military advisors, called TORCH, to invade North Africa side-by-side with Britain, was underway. This would be an attack against Germany as well as German influenced forces in France. Which country would be visible first and when the attack would take place posed problems between the United States and Britain. Roosevelt wanted to have American forces show up first and he wanted to be the one to talk to the French after the landing. Burns notes that intelligence performed an opinion poll of French attitudes and it indicated that “the American voice most known and respected in France - that of Franklin D. Roosevelt - speak to the French just after the landing” and that an “American landing would meet less resistance than an Anglo-American invasion, because of Vichy suspicion of British imperialistic aims and memories of Anglo-French rivalry” (Burns, J.M. 1970:290). The invasion went well for the American and British troops, and in the early hours of November 8, 1942, the French people heard President Roosevelt, speaking in French, “My friends, who suffer day and night, under the crushing yoke of the Nazis, I speak to you as one who was with your Army and Navy in France in 1918...’Vive la France eternelle!” (Burns, J.M. 1970:292). France soon broke relations with the United States, and continued to suffer unrest amongst their own government.

Russia was pleased with the invasion of North Africa, however the issue of the second-front was still at hand. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to a conference to be held at Casablanca where the United States military had a large air base to discuss the two-front strategy. According to Burns Roosevelt “would be the first President to fly, the first to leave the United States in wartime, and the first since Lincoln to visit an active theater of war” (Burns, J.M. 1970:316). Although he could not visit the front, he did meet and lunch with servicemen and inspect a few military bases telling reporters he “felt closer to having tears in my eyes than any other time” knowing these men were heading to the war front (Burns, J.M. 1970:321). In Casablanca, Roosevelt had managed to make the government of France come to some sort of united agreement about their leadership, but the timeline of the two-front strategy was still up for debate. This fact made Stalin angry in which he sent a cable to both Churchill and Roosevelt after the conference stating: “I must give a most emphatic warning, in the interest of our common cause, of the grave anger with which further delay opening a second front in France is fraught...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:327). Stalin’s mood was only made worse when convoys to Russia were being postponed for possibly four or five months to help beef up the African front. Still, Hitler’s people were being stopped making Stalin smile, and remaining hopeful of a second-front involving Russia, he sent a congratulatory note to Roosevelt: “I congratulate you and the gallant U.S. and British troops on the brilliant victory...” (Burns, J.M. 1970:330). Stalin at this point would take any stopping of Nazi forces.

Back on the home-front Roosevelt was once again facing challenges regarding labor. According to Burns: “In 1943 hardly a week went by without a crises” and "As usual the President waited for a crisis before acting" (Burns, J.M. 1970:335, 342). Not only were factories producing less than a desired amount of war material, the workers wanted a pay increase. It didn’t help that John Lewis the leader of the Coal Miners Union would not cooperate with Roosevelt and was behind the miner’s revolt. When the coal miners went on strike, Roosevelt addressed the miners calling on their sympathy to not let down American soldiers - soldiers that may include their own sons. The miners went back to work temporarily only to strike again when they were denied a pay increase. Roosevelt was beginning to lose his patience with the miners and their employers and wanted his administration to “start drafting striking miners between thirty-eight and forty-five years old” (Burns, J.M. 1970:337). Miners began to return to work only to walk out again later in the year. Even after the Labor Board offered more money to workers the coal troubles stayed with Roosevelt for about another year.

In addition to problems in the coal sector, the railroads were just as troublesome. As of Christmas 1943, Roosevelt had set in on railroad labor meetings and finally, two days after Christmas, Roosevelt gave orders for the government to take over the railroads. This lasted only briefly as Roosevelt had finally mediated a deal. It is true Roosevelt would wait until the boiling point to turn down the fire, and he would be the one in charge of the flame, but by the end of 1943 things began to change in the Presidency. Although Roosevelt was still Commander in Chief, he began to let his office staff take over more responsibility for policies and agencies, a practice that is common today. As Burns states: "During World War II, indeed, the modern presidency was created" (Burns, J.M. 1970:343). Presidents from this point on would learn to use their staff, not out of weakness, but out of a need for a stronger Presidential office.

Roosevelt was a unique leader. He did not follow the principals of an orderly administration. He liked to run the show and did not mind being in the spotlight. Roosevelt was a planner, but there was a time limited for planning. He did not like to plan very far ahead. Burns points out: "Repeatedly he restrained the military from making commitments more than six months or a year ahead" (Burns, J.M. 1970:353). Roosevelt like to deal with one set of problems at a time, but to keep someone else from stepping in and creating a long-term plan that people could like that was not his idea, Roosevelt would always include minimal future planning. Despite his planning faults and unorganized administration practices, the way Roosevelt led the country during the war would continue to have impact on the lives of Americans after the war was over. Because of Roosevelt and the war, women were now a major working force. Blacks were leaving rural areas and moving into cities. Education became vast as did social welfare agencies. Unemployment dropped and income grew. Even though these were good steps for the country they created new problems such as discrimination and housing shortages in the cities, which in hindsight may have been prevented had they been given more thought to possible consequences. Burns claims: "The burning of cities in 1967 and 1968 were not wholly unrelated to steps not taken, visions not glimpsed, priorities not established, in the federal agencies of 1943 and 1944" (Burns, J.M. 1970:355). It could have been that Roosevelt and his administration could not foresee the possibility of future problems; they were happy at the time with the situation, and the war took precedent over most things.

During 1943 Roosevelt continued a bit to plan for life after the war. The President helped create the "GI Bill of Rights" for veterans after the war to become educated and trained for occupations post-war. He helped plan for post-war life for other countries as well. Roosevelt and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden from Britain spent long hours considering "who would retain what" as far as land went. Poland should have East Prussia, Austria and Hungary should be independent states, and so on. It was hoped that the United states would be in Germany when Hitler fell to help prevent anarchy, but if not it would be wise to have an agreement with Russia and to where "armies should stand" (Burns, J.M. 1970:366). The President seemed to enjoy this game of divvying up the world, but others had reservations about how his mind worked in this area. Burns notes: “There was something almost alarming in the cheerful fecklessness with which the President seemed to dispose of the fate of whole countries" (Burns, J.M. 1970:366). Although Roosevelt had the post-war world planned, he still had a formidable force to deal with in Russia especially regarding the two-front strategy. Now it appeared that a cross-channel attack would not be possible until the spring of 1944 and Roosevelt knew he and Churchill would have to tell Stalin. Roosevelt attempted a face-to-face meeting with Stalin (Roosevelt always felt that if he could meet someone face-to-face the outcome would be favorable) but Stalin eventually declined after Roosevelt's letter to him stating "Under the present plans, there should be a sufficiently large concentration of men and material in the British Isles in the spring of 1944 to permit a full-scale invasion of the continent at that time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:371). Stalin felt he had been betrayed for a long enough time and ordered his people back from Washington. At this point in the text, Burns brings up the issue of just when the cold war began. Historians have debated that it possibly was a number of events, but Burns believes: "perhaps the most determining single factor was the gap between promise and reality that widened steadily during 1942 and 1943" (Burns, J.M. 1970:374). Stalin felt that he and the country were left out in the cold to fend for themselves, leaving them with icy feeling towards the countries that abandoned them. The three commanders, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin did finally meet in November 1943 at the Russian Embassy in Teheran. After quite a bit of talk and teasing at Churchill's expense, Stalin's coldness began to thaw as Roosevelt remembered: "From that time on our relations were personal, and Stalin himself indulged in an occasional witticism. The ice was broken and we talked like men and brothers" (Burns, J.M. 1970:412). Roosevelt's charm had worked on the Kremlin’s leader; Stalin had seemed to be settled on the second front strategy and was willing to work out post-war arrangements regarding other countries and how their governments should be formed and ran.

1944 arrived as a full force election year and with it the problem of service men not in the country being able to vote. Burn states that Roosevelt asked Congress to "enact a pending administration bill that would provide quick and simple voting for federal candidates" (Burns, J.M. 1970:430). Some in Congress took this as a measure for Roosevelt to sew up the military vote and others worried that this would allow Negros to take part in an election. In the end, the Senate and House won the battle by passing a bill that barely addressed the situation and disgusted Roosevelt so much he did not sign. Other disagreements between Roosevelt and Congress broke out during this time. In order to prevent Congress from not allowing the President to aid the Jewish refugees, albeit probably in hindsight too late, he simply took steps to bring Jewish refugees for Italy to New York, then announced his plan to Congress.

In March 1944, the president's health was in question. After being convinced to have a check-up, the prognosis was not good for the President. Burns mentions the doctor's findings were grim: "Hypertension, hypertensive heart disease, cardiac failure" (Burns, J.M. 1970:449). It seems that no one in Roosevelt’s administration could bring themselves to tell Roosevelt about his condition - they didn't and Roosevelt did not ask - he simply accepted the fact that he had to take more pills and rest. And although many remarked on his appearance - he appeared more gaunt and wasted- he would still put on his gallant face and raise the voice America knew and loved. Roosevelt was not finished being president as D day had not yet come.

Across the Atlantic, Hitler and his men waited for attack. Hitler had ordered that every beach be secure against the enemy and that enemy "must be liquidated within a few hours" (Burns, J.M. 1970:474). It was hoped that the liquidation would be enough to keep Roosevelt from being reelected and put an end to Churchill as well. Hitler’s plan failed as Burns proclaims: “The Germans were not only overwhelmed; they also were deceived, outwitted, and caught flat-footed" and “Roosevelt watched with admiration" (Burns, J.M. 1970:477). Once again, as it was in the beginning of the war, differences surfaced between Churchill and Roosevelt. Churchill wanted to divert some of the forces to the Balkans, but Roosevelt wanted to concentrate on Germany and was concerned over the Americans reaction to some of the military forces being used for a Europe adventure. Churchill capitulated and Roosevelt and his planners felt justified. In the Pacific MacArthur and his troops were taking over Saipan; victory for America and Britain was beginning to come into view.

Although the war was not yet won, Roosevelt was certain to run for re-election in November 1944 choosing Harry Truman as his running mate. He would accept the nomination of the Democratic Party, but gave a speech to let the delegates know how things were going to proceed: “I shall not campaign, in the usual sense, for the office. In these days of tragic sorrow, I do not consider it fitting. And, besides, in these days of global warfare, I shall not be able to find the time" (Burns, J.M. 1970:506). Roosevelt would run for office, and keeping with the Rooseveltian attitude, he would do it his way. Roosevelt's campaign carried the hope for a United Nations agency to have power to keep world peace, along with more jobs, better hospitals, highways and aide to small businesses.

Throughout the rest of Roosevelt's presidency he still encountered continual problems with Stalin, China, and his dear friend Churchill as well as questions as to what would become of Poland, and when would Japan be invaded? While the President's health was failing he still worked on war strategy. He continued to address Congress and during one speech it was noted that many of his words were slurred. Burns states: "his voice almost gave way at one point; and throughout there was a repeated tiny faltering in his emphasis, as though his mind could not sustain its grip on the speech" (Burns, J.M. 1970:582). Roosevelt was losing the war of his body. Too much had been pressed upon him, and at this point the matters he held dear such as his trust in Stalin and Russia was coming undone. Russia’s promises for post-war, especially in regard to what shall happen to Poland were changing, and to Roosevelt it was not a change for the better.

At 3:55 p.m. April 12, 1945, President Roosevelt suffered a fatal stroke while resting at Warm Springs in Georgia. The news came as grief to some; Churchill and Stalin held hands, saying nothing. In China the Generalissimo left his breakfast at the table untouched. In Germany Hitler was given the news while he was in his bunker that "My Fuhrer! I congratulate you. Roosevelt is dead" (Burns, J.M. 1970:601). As the train left Warm Springs carrying the President the world was trying to come to grips with his death. The train stopped at the White House for the President to be honored in the East Room where Lincoln was brought after his death. Later the train left on its last leg of its intended journey. On Sunday, April 15, 1945, the train finally rested at the President's home of Hyde Park, New York. Burns closes the book with a sentence that brought tears to my eyes: "The soldier was home" (Burns, J.M. 1970:612). The great man that became President and began a great legacy, had now left it for others to follow.

In conclusion, during my reading of Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom, I did not find many weaknesses and I did not discover any biases. Knowing what I do about Burns and his reputation as a scholar, and knowing that this book won a Pulitzer Prize, I would expect nothing less than the quality the book contains. The only weakness I found is that Burns often included a lot of information about other governments and what they were doing, which seemed in my opinion to take away from Roosevelt as the main subject of the book. Burns was incredibly fair when talking about President Roosevelt. He mentions personal flaws the President had, such as the love affair with Lucy Mercer and how hurt Eleanor was about the relationship. Burns pointed out errors Roosevelt had made in military planning as when he miscalculated the Japanese. Burns was not afraid to say when Roosevelt was mistaken; the Japanese internment camps disturbed Burns, and promising Russia, supplies and a second-front when Roosevelt knew he could not fulfill the pledge was in Burns’ words "fatal." Burns was quick to mention Roosevelt's love of the limelight, but I never found an instance in which Burns had nothing but respect for the President. After reading this book, I too have nothing but respect for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In addition, James MacGregor Burns is a brilliant scholar and writer; my respect for him is as vast as the amount of books he has published. My only regret is that I cannot do him justice in this post or any possible paper I write in the future. I feel that Burns probably would not care about this issue; he would just be happy that I followed his leadership, and that I will lead others as well with the information he has given me.

- Penny

List of Sources

Amazon.com. James MacGregor Burns. Retrieved from

Burns, J. M. (1970). Roosevelt: The Solider of Freedom. New York: Konecky & Konecky.

Cronin, T. E. (1986). On The American Presidency: A Conversation with James MacGregor Burns. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 16, 528-542.

James MacGregor Burns on Leadership. (Video file).

London, S. ‘Leadership’ by James MacGregor Burns – A Book Review.

Features of the Recent Institutional Presidency

2011-12-26T16:02:00.000-06:00

Constitutionally, the powers of the President are not only vague, but also very weak when compared to the powers vested in the Congress and Judicial Branch. Nonetheless, the American populace often believes the President is exceedingly powerful, highly influential and capable of inducing significant change. It seems that even candidate for the presidency believe this, and often center their campaign on ideas and programs which are, to say the least, quite infeasible. Consider for example, the rising popularity of 2012 Presidential Candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 economic plan. In simple terms, Cain’s economic plan would institute a flat tax. The idea of a flat tax appeals to a significant number of American voters on account of its seeming simplicity. In place of a complicated tax code, American families would pay a 9% individual rate, businesses would pay a 9% rate, and a federal sales tax of 9% would be instituted on all goods purchased by consumers. The plan sounds wonderful, but in reality it raises significant questions not often addressed on the campaign trail. Will consumers be paying a Federal and local/state tax for goods? Will the sudden loss of work for tax attorneys and employment giants such as H&R Block negatively impact the economy?

Regardless of the answer to these few questions, the larger point is that many times there is a fundamental disconnect between what Presidents want to accomplish and what they can accomplish. Despite a desire for reform, Presidents must learn to cope with the fact that our system of government utilizes (and generally with success) a system of checks and balances. Oddly enough, many Presidential contenders focus their energy on domestic/social issues – areas where Presidential power is often at its very weakest. Strong Presidential powers are related primarily to foreign policy issues such as: starting wars, altering military tactics, conducting covert operations (much like the one surrounding the killing of terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden), negotiating treaties and making appointments to the White House staff (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Even within these few areas of strong power, Presidents are still occasionally required to inform Congress or make reports.

Presidential power, it would seem, is something which must be earned, or in less ethical situations, dictated. Nonetheless, the basic goals of all Presidents appear to be fairly stable over the modern era. Presidents wish to increase their power in order to pursue their goals (usually campaign promises), they desire strong public opinion support (as it increases power to pursue campaign promises), they wish to represent the party support groups which helped them become elected, they wish to fight for their vision of the United States, influence the economy, and in some instances serve the national interest as they see fit (Hamilton, 2011b)

The quest for Presidential success (goal obtainment) often begins very simply. If a candidate is elected by a large margin, such as Johnson’s defeat of Barry Goldwater (61%) or Nixon’s defeat of McGovern (60%), Presidents can claim public support for their policy (Milkis & Nelson, 2012). If an election outcome is large enough, Presidents almost always experience what is known as the “Honeymoon” period. During this period:
A new President usually enjoys a “honeymoon” with the public at the beginning of an administration, when the country wants to see the new President succeed. This feeling of goodwill is often reflected in Congress, which is willing to be more open-minded about Presidential proposals than later in the term. Presidential popularity almost inevitably falls after the beginning of an administration, and as the midterm elections approach, members of Congress will begin to get nervous about their reelections and will be less likely to be sympathetic to Presidents. (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 147)

As such, many Presidents seek to continue the honeymoon as long as possible, and with as much energy as possible. Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said:

I keep hitting hard because I know this honeymoon won’t last. Every day I lose a little more political capital. That’s why we have to keep at it, never letting up. One day soon, I don’t know when the critics and the snipers will move in and we will be at stalemate. We have to get all we can, now, before the roof comes down. (Ibid.)

If the honeymoon goes well, Presidents may experience a very successful first 100 days, and enjoy reporting to their constituents and party support groups that campaign promises have already begun to be filled. But taking advantage of perceived public memorandum cannot be a Presidents only method, and for the most part, it certainly is not. Early in his Presidency, President Obama is reported to have utilized a “tracking system” with which the Executive Office could keep track of which members of Congress had been invited to the White House (Ibid. p. 149). Although it may seem trivial, inviting an opposing member of Congress to Presidential functions can have a profound persuasive impact, and in some instances, endear a political adversary. The important point to take is straightforward: inviting adversaries to social functions begins the process of building rapport, which Gass and Seiter (2011) note is an exceedingly important part of persuasion at times.

Pfiffner goes on to suggest that rapport is also built during the signing of significant legislation. Most Americans who have watched a bill signing will have noticed the President uses more than one pen to officiate the document. Not only that, but he is often surrounded by large groups of people – sometimes the opposition. Again, the reason for this is simple:

“It was unbelievable, “ said [Senator] Jeffords, “No matter how long we’ve been around the Hill, there’s nothing more exciting than a call from the President.” (2011, p. 150).

Contact with the President, when used appropriately, is an exciting and rewarding moment. Whether it be on the telephone or at the signing of a bill, the moment can make the difference between a vote which would have been “Nay” but is now “Yea.”

And so we see that when it comes to Presidential power, real power for this office comes not from constitutionally vague and weak language, it comes from persuasive leaders. Of course, that is true only in times of relative prosperity and peace. There are extenuating circumstance – crises situations – which occasionally create environments of high acceptance as concerns Presidential behavior both abroad and at home. Without the crash of the stock market and the looming threat of Nazism coupled with the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Empire, it might reasonably be argued that FDR’s progressive New Deal would not have gained the votes to pass.

In times of crises, the American people look to the Office of the President for leadership and direction – they look, more or less, for someone to make wrong, right again. But these situations do not always arrive, and sometimes, they last longer than the term of the President who saw them started.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the country rallied fiercely behind then President George W. Bush, who saw his approval rating bounce to nearly 90% (Benedetto & Page, 2003, January 13). Such strong support gave him the leeway he needed to convince the Congress to significantly restructure our national security agencies (bringing them under the newly formed Department of Homeland Security), institute an aggressive plan of action concerning airport security, and justify invading Iraq (he also secured unrelated changes in education and significant tax cuts). However, by 2003, Bush’s ratings had dropped to 58%, and continued to decline until his term expired in 2008 (Ibid.). During the period of decline, Bush began to lose traction with the Congress, and eventually midterm elections of 2006 secured a Democratic majority in the House and Senate (Shear & MacGillis, 2006, November 10). Facing opposition, Bush pursued a new tactic in order to ensure his policies continued to be implemented. While it is true that President Clinton issued more signing statements than President Bush, it is the nature of Bush’s signing statements which are cause for concern for a number of legal and political scholars (Pfiffner, 2011).

In traditional terms, President’s extend their power by using Executive Orders, Determinations and Memorandum (signing statements). Executive order directs agencies to pursue some course of action pursuant to the law, Determinations elaborate what the President believes the law to be, and signing statements, when used appropriately, comment on legislation which has just been signed; usually in order to “comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing need.”

In the case of President G.W. Bush, signing statements were used to comment on portions of laws which his administration would not be enforcing because they were interpreted as a threat against the “unitary executive” (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 248). This behavior is controversial, as Woolley (n.d.) notes, because “Some critics argue that the proper Presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to ‘faithfully execute’ the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).” By claiming constitutional authority, the Bush administration was effectively saying it would continue torture of military prisoners, required reporting to Congress, whistle-blower protections, and illegally gathering intelligence (wire tapping of U.S. citizens) (Pfiffner, 2011). While certainly unethical, this sort of behavior did increase the President’s ability to continue exercising power, but ultimately is cost him significantly in public approval, and may have significantly damaged good-faith in our constitutional government.

So, it is possible for a President to increase constitutionally weak powers in a variety of ways, and generally, those ways implicitly, if not explicitly, involve the use of persuasion and a sense of Realpolitik. Unfortunately, however, there are instances where even the most persuasive and well-meaning President may come up against a wall. That wall is ideology, and it leads almost inevitably to certain gridlock. Ideology has always played a part in the American political system, and it is unreasonable to think that it will not continue to do so for many, many years in the future. For all intents and purposes, ideology in its most benign sense means having a clear vision of what the moral vision of this country is. By and large, ideology has played its role in American politics without seriously damaging progress since it became a major organizing force in the early 1990’s (Humphreys & Kropf, 2004). Today, however, ideologically grounded groups such as the Tea Party, have brought American political discussion to a near grinding halt. To add to the mess, extreme behavior by one political group often inspires extreme behavior by others. This is to say that as one group takes a hard-stand on a particular issue, it becomes more likely that the opposition will respond in kind. The result? Near government shutdown in the late summer of 2011, which resulted in the United States losing its AAA credit rating – and during a period of extreme recession.

Dealing with a highly partisan Congress can be a literal nightmare for Presidents, as the public looks to them as a national symbol – as a problem solver. And yet, without Congressional action, almost nothing on the domestic policy side of governance can be accomplished. In times like this, it seems wise for the President to reinstitute FDR’s Bully Pulpit. Instead of focusing persuasive prowess on a largely uncooperative group, the President could see power increased substantially by focusing his attention on the public, and using them to turn the tides of Congressional behavior. It would be a difficult task, but certainly not impossible; especially in a time when Congressional approval is 13% (Muskal, 2011, August 16).

Ultimately, a President’s greatest power rests not in Constitutional authority, but in his ability to be persuasive. If he is able to wield it well, he will have great success, and the United States will be better for it.

References

Benedetto, R. & Page, S. (2003, January 13). Bush’s job approval lowest since 9/11. USA Today.

Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (2011). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining (4th ed). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Hamilton, C. (2011b). Presidents.Basic.Goals [PDF]. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Hamilton, C. (2011c). Presdential.BasicInfluencesOnAgencies [PDF]. Topeka, KS: Washburn University.

Humphreys, Z. and Kropf, M. (2004) Hustle, Attention to Constituents, and a Little Bit of luck:
Moore Defeats Kobach in Kansas’ Third Congressional District. Ahuja, S. and Dewhirst, R. E. (Eds.) The Road to Congress 2004. (25-38). New York: Nova Science publishers, Inc.

Muskal, M. (2011, August 16). Gallup poll: Congressional approval ties lowest numbers on record. Los
Angeles Times.

Shear, M. D. & MacGillis, A. (2006, November 10). Democrats Take Control of Senate as Allen Concedes to Webb in Va. The Washington Post.

Woolley, J. T. (n.d.) Presidential Signing Statements: Frequently Asked Questions. The American Presidency Project.

Presidential Powers and Limits in Controlling Bureaucracies

2011-12-24T20:32:00.000-06:00

A common misconception shared by many Americans concerning presidential powers and influence, centers on the idea that the president is not just the Commander and Chief, but also the “boss” of the country. Despite what we may like to believe, the president is not the “boss” of our Union; and aside from foreign policy issues, he has very little power outside the Executive Branch. Specifically, he lacks power as most notably concerns the Congress, the Judicial Branch, Regulatory Commissions, Government Corporations, and other Independent Bureaucracies. Of course, this limited power is precisely what the Framers had in mind when they instituted a system of checks and balances. After all, a president with absolute power over the other branches, and their associated agencies, is little more than a dictator masquerading under some other name.

Of the approximately 3.6 million government employees, only 3,000 positions fall directly within the purview of the president. Of those 3,000 positions, many are filled as a result of the “spoils” system, which rewards party members for their loyalty, and those who assisted the president during the election. The remaining numbers of government employees are hired according to merit and report primarily their superiors within a given bureaucracy (Hamilton, 2011, September 26).

In total, there are five varieties of government agencies: the Presidential Staff, Cabinet Departments, Government Corporations, miscellaneous Independent Bureaucracies, and Independent Regulatory Commissions.

Presidential Staff

The vast majority of presidential power is focused in the Presidential Staff and Cabinet Departments. The president’s personal staff numbers around 500 individuals, is generally filled with party loyalists, and devotes it’s time to ensuring the president's goals and/or vision remain a focused part of legislation. The presence of the Presidential Staff was instituted under Franklin D. Roosevelt and later strengthened under Truman. While well utilized by most presidents following FDR and Truman, Richard Nixon stands out as the President who turned it into a tight hierarchy of influence. According to Nixon Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, one designed to “[. . .] get the work out to where it belongs – out to the departments.” (Pfiffner, 2011, p. 67).

Executive Office and Cabinet Departments

The Executive Office is an area Presidents have rather strong control over; however, that power may ebb and flow according to how well presidential policy coincides with professional/political realities. In recent media reports, these positions have been discussed in terms of policy “czars.” It is important to note these positions are often (though not always) filled with Congressional approval, lack legal authority over Cabinet Departments, and serve almost entirely as an advisory position with ready access to the president. The primary difference between the Executive Office and the Department of the Cabinet is the location of presidential power and influence. While “czars” may have easy access to the president, their role often has very little actual impact on the direction and decision making process of the Cabinet Department. So, the next time you hear Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann bantering on about policy "czars," remember they don't have any power outside the power of offering opinion.

Although not mentioned in the Constitution, George Washington was the first president to suggest a formal advisory board be established so the Chief Executive would have access to expert information supplied by a deliberative body of advisors. The Congress understood this need and formally established three cabinet positions in 1789: Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Treasury (Pfiffner, 2011). Today, the Cabinet Department has 15 positions: Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security. Each position may be filled by the President with the consent of the Senate. Oversight is present in order to ensure that knowledgeable individuals serve in these positions, thereby decreasing the likelihood that an unqualified individual would gain appointment on account of the spoils system (Ibid).

The Executive Office has been important for many presidents, as it brings them more control in terms of formal policy proposals or the directing of agencies. While secretaries may be appointed by the president (and confirmed by the Senate), they remain somewhat independent. The power vacuum in this area occurs because secretaries often have a powerful sense of devotion to their field of expertise. As such, their loyalty to president and party often comes second to their loyalty to the institution(s) being represented. While a president will depart after two terms (or one), the agency represented by a particular cabinet member will remain. Secretaries often develop a sense of organizational continuity, and behave in order to see organizational values are upheld. In some instances, this means resisting the president’s request to take certain actions – which necessarily reduces his power.

Government Corporations and Independent Bureaucracies

Government Corporations, such as the Post Office and the Tennessee Valley Authority, operate primarily via Congressional approval. Presidential powers in this area are exceedingly weak, if not straightforwardly non-existent. In general, government corporations are formed when a service is required, but providing it is not seen as profitable by the open market. These entities are managed almost entirely by the Congress.

Miscellaneous independent bureaucracies, such as NASA, also do not fall directly under the purview of presidential power. By and large, NASA receives its directive and funding through Congressional Committees (and reports to them often). For an interesting example of how President George W. Bush influenced an independent bureaucracy see the post Suppressing Climate Change Science and Information.

Regulatory Commissions

The final bureaucracy is known as Independent Regulatory Commissions. These commissions, as the name suggests, are entirely independent of presidential influence and almost always report to a specific House Committee. In this area, the president has absolutely no power, and may in fact gain trouble from Congress and the Courts if an attempt to influence them is made (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Several well known Independent Regulatory Commissions are: The Environmental Protection Agency, The Federal Reserve, The Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In Summary

As has been only briefly discussed, the majority of presidential power is focused in the immediate office of the president in the form of the Presidential Staff (including Executive Office “czars”), Cabinet Appointments and other miscellaneous appointments. The reason for this is simple: the connection to the President himself is more direct. The further one moves away from the Office of the President, the more difficult it is to be influenced by its power.

So what can a president do? It is possible for the president to assert some control on far-removed bureaucracies via Formal Executive Orders, Presidential Determinations and Presidential Memorandum (signing statements). In the case of an Executive Order, a President may exert control over an agency if it becomes a matter of law that he should do so (Article II). Determination is not legally binding, but represents an enumeration of what the President believes to be required under the law and in accordance with previous executive orders. Memorandum, or signing statements, are also not legally binding, but represent a public – and unofficial – veto or definition of a particular law (Hamilton, 2011, September 29). Agencies may or may not abide by Presidential Memorandum. For example, a President could issue a Presidential Memorandum calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to shutdown, even though it is highly unlikely the EPA would do so, or that the President would fare well with the Congress for having behaved in in such a way.

Although the President may be able to exert some influence over government agencies, the further removed they become, the less likely success will be. In general, the President has very little power in the areas of Government Corporations, miscellaneous Independent Bureaucracies, and Independent Regulatory Commissions because (1) those agencies are far removed and (2) those agencies are responsible to some other Branch (most commonly the Congress).

Interestingly, there are instances where Presidents gain control of a bureaucracy and it resists his agenda. In general, resistance occurs for several reasons: agencies care more for enforcing the law than listening to a President who will soon be gone, (2) some agencies see presidential behavior in terms of political behavior not concerned with reason or efficient operation, (3) the agency has a strong culture, (4) they believe they are upholding laws administered by the Congress and (4) bureaucratic discretion. Of these, the most interesting is bureaucratic discretion. Although a President may come to control an agency, he is not always present at the “lower” discretionary levels. Discretion represents decisions made which might violate the law (or Executive Order), but serve the better functioning of a group. An example of low-level bureaucratic discretion: You are pulled over for speeding (and are completely guilty), but the officer writes you a warning instead of issuing a ticket. In any sense of the law, the warning the officer issues is a itself an abrogation. However, in exercising this discretion, he has likely accomplished two things (1) you have now slowed down, and (2) you will be more likely to behave in the future because the officer “took it easy.” Government agencies can, and sometimes do, behave in the same fashion – despite what a president may or may not desire.

A final note on presidential power in the realm of bureaucracies relates to the current global recession. Despite the fact that a president has very little control of or impact on domestic policy issues, a large portion of the American polity and current Congressional Republicans and Republican candidates for president argue that President Barack Obama is responsible for high unemployment and high national debt. Pfiffner (2011) writes:

One of the most important determinants of presidential popularity is the state of the economy, especially inflation and unemployment. Presidents have very little short-term control over these factors. All presidents want a healthy economy, and they do what they can to strengthen economic performance. The problem is that even if most economists agree on the right prescription, presidents can affect economic performance only marginally. (50-1)

Domestic policy issues such as high unemployment are difficult tasks for a president to tackle because he has no constitutional authority to interfere with matters falling under the purview of the Congress. Recall that even though FDR’s New Deal was highly successful, it still had to pass through the Congress. In terms of what a president can do, the answer is perhaps not as reassuring as some might like: the president can speak with cabinet members and obtain the advice and expert opinion of economists in order to develop measures which might help reduce rising unemployment or hold back the tide of depression. Ultimately, however, that plan must be presented to and passed by the Congress. The president does not have a great deal of discretion in this area, and despite what we might like to think, a president cannot make great strides in leadership without the support of the other two branches.

References

Hamilton, C. (2011, September 29). Personal Interview. Topeka: Washburn University.

Pfiffner, J. (2011). The Modern Presidency (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.