Wandering Reveries

Lyndon Johnson's Path to Power

2011-10-09T13:09:00.002-05:00

No one expected much of this boy from the Hill Country, because of his family's troubles and his personal foibles, but he rose high and fast. Always ambitious, Lyndon Johnson worked his way up the ladder of power by hook or by crook and devoted all of his energies to fulfill these ambitions. In this first volume, Robert Caro tells us the story of how Lyndon Johnson came from the desolate hills of a poor farming community and gained both wealth and power.

The Hill Country played a significant role in Johnson's career. As the Texas frontier expanded, settlers happened across the inviting, grassy hills west of Austin TX. If you drive out west of Austin today, you'll see more cedar brakes than grassy hilltops, and as Caro explains, this is the result of the settlers farming and ranching practices, which ruined the soil, leading to erosion and drying up of springs (pp. 8-14). With the land playing out, poverty - back breaking poverty - became a way of life for most of the residents of the Hill country, who began to take to the populism of the People's Party. As the People's Party faded, their principles did not, and Lyndon's father - Sam Ealy Johnson, Jr. - was an adherent of these principles, and as the people's representative in Austin, he worked with other committed populists to help the poor people of the Hill Country.

Lyndon would occassionally travel to Austin with his father, where he saw his father's work on behalf of the poor, but also saw the success of the politicians, who benefited personally from their political alliance with business interests, which provided a stark contrast with the perceived failure (both financially and politically). As Lyndon matured, he became more and more involved in politics, including the campus Southwest Texas State Teachers College - currently Texas State University at San Marcos - where he excelled in dominating the campus political establishment with the help of some creative vote getting strategies. It was during his time in college that Johnson helped Welly Hopkins with his Texas Senate campaign, and Hopkins credited his victory to Johnson's help. It was also Hopkins who recommended Johnson to Rep. Dick Kleberg for the job of private secretary to the Congressman. Johnson took the job and was on his way to Washington, D.C.

Lyndon had great ambitions, and national political success was perhaps the overriding ambition, so the job with Dick Kleberg provided Johnson with the opportunity he so desired, i.e., to get to Washington and become a successful politician. Kleberg was not an attentive Congressman and left most of the work of his office to Johnson, who soon began to learn the ways of Washington, as well as the needs of Kleberg's district. His attentiveness to the district and knowledge of Washington eventually allowed him to be of great benefits to the constituents of the 14th district as Johnson took advantage of New Deal programs to benefit the people of South Texas. He was able to remove the red tape that might hinder other offices and get things done. He was also beginning to get noticed.

One way Lyndon got noticed was by turning the Little Congress, an organization for Congressional staffers, into a personal fiefdom, again with the help of some creative vote getting. The other way he got noticed was by helping powerful lobbyists and businessmen, especially friends of Dick Kleberg navigate the bureaucratic halls of Washington and help them get access to New Deal programs. He was also helping run another campaign; this time for Maury Maverick, a liberal representative from San Antonio, who was a good deal the opposite of Kleberg and his associates with whom Johnson was quite close. No one was quite sure of Lyndon's politics; he was liberal when he needed to be liberal and conservative when he needed to be conservative, as he cultivated relationships with powerful men who could help him advance. This paid off as he cultivated legendary Texas Congressman Sam Rayburn, who repaid Johnson's attentions early by securing Lyndon's appointment as Texas National Youth Administration director from which Johnson sought to create a statewide organization for himself, as well as getting in view of the most influential men in Texas from his office in Austin.

After about a year of directing the NYA and managing campaigns for various candidates, Lyndon Johnson was presented with this first opportunity to run for elected office with the death of James P Buchanan, Congressman from Texas' 10th District. It was during this campaign that Johnson's building of personal relationships and knowledge of Washington's bureaucratic maze paid off, because Herman and George Brown (founders of Brown & Root - now Kellogg Brown and Root) needed help in Congress to build a dam in Austin, and State Senator Alvin Wirtz put them in contact with Lyndon Johnson, and the Browns would help raise money for Johnson for many years, and Johnson would repay them. Johnson had the funding, but he also had the drive to win. As Caro relates in Chapter 21, Johnson out worked his opponents and talked with every voter in the vast Central Texas district. In the end, Johnson had defeated several veteran Texas politicians with a margin of 3,000 votes. He was now a Congressman, but he had no intention of stopping there.

Arriving in Washington as a newly elected Congressman, Johnson continued to make new relationships, as well as maintain existing one, such as his relationship with Sam Rayburn and the Browns. As he had as Rep. Kleberg's secretary, Lyndon Johnson helped his constituents receive as many of the benefits of the New Deal as they could get, but he remained a ideological cipher. Few people in the House knew where Lyndon Johnson actually stood, because he did not take many stands. However, during this same time, Johnson began to cultivate a new ally in President Roosevelt and his aides. These relationships paid off as Johnson sought to expand his influence and power by raising and distributing money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Johnson knew where he could raise the money (from oil men in Texas, among others), and he knew how to distribute it effectively. As the campaign season came to a close, Johnson had raised more money for the DCCC than ever before, and several Congressmen owed their elections to his help.

With these new sources of funds and new allies, Johnson was ready for the next opportunity when it came with the death of United States Senator Morris Sheppard. The Senate campaign would in many ways resemble to 10th District campaign. Johnson was not well known statewide, and many of his opponents were, such as Governor Pappy O'Daniel, General Gerald Mann and Rep. Martin Dies. And like his 10th District campaign, Johnson attached himself to President Franklin Roosevelt. There was also no shortage of funds for Johnson's Senate campaign, with the Browns giving large sums to Lyndon. However, this time Johnson was running against a popular Texas Governor - William Lee "Pappy" O'Daniel - and O'Daniel knew how to win just as much as Johnson did. Johnson had begun his campaign trying to appear very senatorial, but as Pappy and his merry band demonstrated they were beating Johnson, Lyndon's campaign began to copy the circus like elements of the O'Daniel's campaign. There was no shortage of cheating by both sides. Much of the money raised by Johnson was spent to buy votes in various precincts, particularly in the Valley and San Antonio, where the local bosses controlled entire boxes. By election day, Johnson had overcome his lack of name recognition, etc. and appeared headed for a victory, but he made a serious error.

The error Johnson made was telling the South Texas counties to report their votes as soon as possible without waiting to find out how many he needed. On election night, Johnson was solidly in the lead. The next morning, Johnson was essentially declared the winner with a margin of 5152 votes, but not all the votes had been counted. Pappy O'Daniel was holding back his boxes in East Texas until he knew how many votes he needed to win. By the time all the counties had reported O'Daniel beat Johnson by 1,311 votes. Johnson would never forget the lesson learned in this defeat, and when he ran for Senate again in 1948, he made sure he didn't lose. By the time that election came around, much had changed for Johnson: he was no longer a Roosevelt man as he had been in his campaigns for House and Senate. Indeed, he was now an anti-New Dealer and avowed conservative.

The portrait Robert Caro paints is of Lyndon Johnson as a mercurial politician. He seemed to hold no particular ideology and take no strong stands on any issue. Johnson was guided by the north star that was his ambition, and that ambition carried him from the poor hills of Central Texas, to Congress, to the Senate and eventually to the Presidency (his ultimate ambition). Hopefully, this has been an adequate summary of Caro's first volume. If you would like to read further, related posts are linked below.

The Impeachment of Gov. Ferguson

2011-04-03T19:15:00.003-05:00

Some events occur so rarely in the course of the political history of a state that they become something of a curiosity. The impeachment of an executive officer is one of these events. In the 200 years that the United States has existed, two Presidents have been impeached, while another resigned from office rather than face this ignominy (though he was not able to avoid it). And in the 175 year history of the state of Texas, only one governor has ever been impeached: James E. Ferguson (1915-1917).

James Ferguson seemingly burst onto the Texas political scene from nowhere. Prior to his election as governor in 1914, Ferguson had held no political office at any level, but was a local attorney (admitted to the bar after buying his examiners a bottle of whiskey) and banker in Belton and Temple, TX. However, Ferguson was politically experienced. He had worked against local-option prohibition in Bell County and was involved in 4 campaigns (2 as campaign manager): for Congressman Robert Henry in 1902, for Cone Johnson in 1908, for Robert Davidson in 1910, and for Gov. Oscar Colquitt in 1912 (the defining feature of many of these campaigns was anti-prohibition). After running so many campaigns for others, "Farmer" Jim set out on his own, as an anti-prohibitionist of course, and won the gubernatorial election of 1914 (at this time, terms for governor were a period of two years) and re-election in 1916.

After his re-election, Ferguson was being investigated by the House and the Travis County DA for diversion of state funds, misuse of appropriated funds and embezzlement. The House found that Ferguson was guilty of misconduct, but declined to impeach the Governor. While Ferguson was involved in this investigation, he became embroiled in a battle with the University of Texas. Ferguson wanted the Board of Regents to fire professors that he found objectionable - alleging that they were corrupt - and called for the resignation of university president, Robert E. Vinson. Students from the University marched on the Capitol and protested in front of the Governor's Office on the south steps of the Capitol (where many protests and rallies are still held), which angered Ferguson even further. When the Board would not fire the professors, Ferguson vetoed the appropriation for the University of Texas, except for the salary of a College of Mines administrator.

However, what really drove the move for impeachment was a disagreement between Gov. Ferguson and Speaker F. O. Fuller on the placement of West Texas A&M University in Abilene. A locating board of 5 members, including Gov. Ferguson, Lt. Gov. Hobby, and Speaker Fuller, had toured West Texas cities that wanted the new college. When the board later met in Austin, three votes went to Abilene, but shortly after the vote, there were reports that three members of the board had not voted to locate the school in Abilene. According to Fuller, Ferguson made him sign a statement that the voting had been fair and accurate. Fuller renounced the statement, and along with Lt. Gov. Hobby, signed an affidavit that he had not voted for Abilene. On July 23rd, Speaker Fuller issued a call for a special session, although he did not have the authority to do so, to deal with the issue of the University of Texas appropriations. On July 27th the Travis County DA indicted Ferguson on criminal charges related to the findings of misconduct by the House of Representatives.

After several days of speeches and battling back against the charges brought against him, on July 30th, Ferguson called for a special session to take up the issue of the appropriations for the University of Texas on August 1st, but that day, the House convened to begin the impeachment of Gov. James E. Ferguson. The House met as a committee of the whole to consider the impeachment of Ferguson on 13 charges, including four relating to his dealings with the University of Texas. There were several weeks of testimony about diversions and misuse of state funds, the University of Texas and the location of West Texas A&M, including the testimony of Gov. Ferguson (setting a precedent for an executive officer attending his own trial), which raised more questions about the governor's financial dealings. In the end, the House voted to impeach James Ferguson on 21 articles.

His impeachment effective, Ferguson would now be suspended from exercising the powers of his office, according to Article 15, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution, and Lt. Gov. Hobby would become the acting governor, while the Texas Senate met as a High Court of Impeachment. On August 27th, the Senate adopted its rules of procedure on impeachment. On August 29th, Acting Gov. William Hobby called another special session to allow the Senate to try Ferguson and rule on his removal from office (special sessions last for a period of 30 days, and the prior session would end on August 31st). The Senate covered many of the issues which had previously been covered in the House, and once again, Ferguson taking the stand on his own behalf (and even making closing arguments before the Senate). Of the House's 21 articles of impeachment, the Senate passed 10 on a series of "yes/no" votes. With the passage of these article, Ferguson was effectively removed from office, and while the Senate was considering whether or not to prohibit Ferguson from ever again seeking office, he resigned. A majority of the Senate Committee on Civil Jurisprudence recommended that Ferguson be barred from seeking any future office and there report was adopted on September 25th by a vote of 25 to 3. "Farmer" Jim was no longer Governor of Texas.

However, this was not the last Texas would see of Jim Ferguson. Ferguson would run for office on four more occasions. Ferguson would attempt to vie for a 3rd term as Texas Governor in 1918, but was soundly defeated in the Democratic primary by William P. Hobby. In 1920, he would run for President under the American Party banner with William Hough of New York. Their ticket was only on the ballot in Texas where they won 47,968 votes - compared to the Democratic ticket (Cox and Roosevelt) which carried the state with 288,767 votes. Ferguson would also run for U.S. Senate in 1922, but would lose to the KKK endorsed candidate, Earl B. Mayfield, in the Democratic primary run-off election. His last attempt at electoral office was in 1924, but was prevented after the Texas Supreme Court on June 2nd ruled he was ineligible to seek office. Hedging against the inevitable ruling, on May 28th, Ferguson's wife, Miriam, filed to run in the Democratic primary for governor. She would win the election, but lose her bid for re-election in 1926. Jim Ferguson would run his wife's unsuccessful gubernatorial campaigns in 1930 (when the Texas Supreme Court again rejected petition to be on the ballot), 1932, and 1940.

In his book, the Impeachment of Jim Ferguson, Bruce Rutherford notes the relevance of the impeachment of Jim Ferguson to other impeachment proceedings, especially as a matter of precedence, as well as its place in the history of this procedure. During his trial, Ferguson's attorney, W. A. Hanger, argued that the charges brought against the governor were not impeachable offenses, and this would seem to make sense, when one considers that the House had earlier in the year investigated the matters and only alleged that Ferguson was guilty of misconduct. However, when one looks at the history of impeachment, one gets a different impression of what is/was an impeachable offense, as Mr Rutherford did (pp. 136-37): 'The transgressions that most commonly resulted in impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" [referring to the history of impeachment in England] were misapplication of funds, maladministration, rendering unconstitutional opinions, using high office to deny due process to individuals or to obtain personal gain, appointing unfit men, and neglect of duty in warfare.' This is confirmed by Blackstone's Commentaries (Chp. 1, Chp. 9, Chp. 19) and the debate in the Constitutional Convention (Sept. 8th). The charges against Ferguson certainly met some of these criteria.

Ferguson's legal team also alleged that the Texas Legislature did not have the constitutional authority to take up the matter of impeachment, because the special session had not been called for that purpose (Article 3, Section 40 of the Texas Constitution). The Texas Supreme Court would rule on this matter during Ferguson's attempt to run for governor in 1924 (Ferguson v. Maddox, 263 S.W. 888). The Court ruled that impeachment was a judicial, not a legislative function, and thus was not governed by the restrictions on special sessions. As Attorney General John Hill summed up the case in one of his opinions: "As neither House acts in a legislative capacity in matters of impeachment, this section [Article 3, sec. 40] imposes no limitation with relation thereto, and the broad power conferred by article 15 stands without limit or qualification as to the time of its exercise." The Court also ruled that Ferguson's "11th hour" resignation had not prevented the Senate from prohibiting his future holding of office.

One further issue was raised by during the proceedings in the Texas as to the nature of the impeachment trial. Ferguson's attorney, W. A. Hanger argued that the trial was a criminal proceeding, while M. M. Crane, the attorney representing the House of Representatives, argued that it was a civil proceeding. On Sept. 11th of 1917, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, W. L. Dean, ruled that the impeachment trial was a quasi-criminal proceeding. In England, impeachment was a criminal proceeding, with the historical punishment being death, but in the United States, as Mr Rutherford notes, "where the penalty is removal from office, it is not" (p. 138). In these proceeding the ruling of the Senate is final, although some friends of "Farmer" Jim attempted to essentially pardon him. In a majority report to the 39th Legislature, some legislators recommended passing legislation to grant a release to "every person against whom has heretofore been rendered by the Senate of the State of Texas in any impeachment proceeding."

In the online records the Texas Legislative Reference Library, I can only find reference to one other executive officer who faced impeachment proceedings: Land Commissioner J. T. Robinson in 1929. James Ferguson was certainly a special case in Texas history and the history of impeachments. It is amazing that a man who came into office so beloved left office in disgrace. Bruce Rutherford's conclusion that, "As long as his political base is securely intact, no political official needs to worry about being impeached," is accurate.

Notes:

The Texas Constitution of 1876, under which the state of Texas operates, devotes an entire article to the subject of impeachment (Article 15).
You can read the testimony of the impeachment trial here and here.

Wars for the American West

2011-03-17T19:45:00.004-05:00

While reading John A. Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, I was intrigued by his comments on the Indians Wars of the American West, which constitute the longest conflict of the U.S. military, as well as being irregular warfare across large areas. Having a significant interest in the West and how it has shaped the United States, I picked up Bill Yenne's Indian Wars: the Campaign for the American West, which is an overview of the U.S. government's conflicts with Native Americans from 1849 to 1890. Mr Yenne covers the nature of the conflicts, the military's strategies and tactics, as well as the other influences upon the direction and outcome of the Indian Wars.

Prior to the Civil War, the American West was a vast, remote and sparsely populated region Aside from the settlers moving across the Plains to the West Coast, there not many U.S. citizens to defend, so the U.S. military focused on defending the trails used by immigrants. In order to provide this defense, the Army built forts from which they could operate and patrol the area around these bases. The primary strategy was "search and destroy campaigns against isolated bands with the purpose of keeping them off balance and unable to organize systematic raids" (p. 93). By 1853, 66 percent of the regular U.S. Army was located in the West (23 percent of these along the Mexican border) to enforce this strategy. Operating alongside the Army during this time was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, created in 1834 and transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1849. The Bureau would act as a diplomatic arm of the U.S. government, establishing formal relations with tribes and paying an annuity to peaceful tribes.

Even with the United States embroiled in a civil war, conflicts with the Indians continued. It may comes as a surprise to some, who think of the Indian Wars as taking place on the plains of Montana, Wyoming, etc., but in 1862 the Santee Sioux staged an uprising in Minnesota. As a result of this and other actions against the Sioux in the Northern Plains, the United States began to develop the reservation policy. The U.S. Army would destroy the food and supplies of the bands, forcing them to seek assistance from the Indian Bureau who would provide assistance in exchange for the bands camping in designated areas near Army posts.

The reservations became formal policy in 1868, when it became apparent that strict boundaries were needed due to the mass migrations resulting from the Homestead Act and tumult of the Civil War. From this time on, the goal of the U.S. Army would be to force the tribes onto designated reservations. The Army effort would be supplemented by the "Peace Policy" of the U.S. government through the Indian Bureau, which was staffed with missionaries and church boards, primarily the Quakers. The peace policy came about as public opinion in the East turned toward conciliation of the Indian tribes; however, this urge for conciliation soon evaporated with events like the Camp Grant Massacre, which turned public opinion against the peace process and forced President Grant to pursue a more aggressive strategy. For example, in 1876, President Grant would order the U.S. Army to force the tribes of the Powder River area onto reservations; this would lead to the Great Sioux War - the most famous battle of which would be the Little Bighorn.

The war on the Plains slowly came to a close, leaving the last area of conflict in the Southwestern United States. This region had been relatively peaceful for at least a decade when trouble arose in the form of Apache raids in Mexico and the United States. Returning from the Plains, Gen. George Crook restored order with his unique tactics that had worked so well in the past: small, mobile units, knowledge of the terrain, using native scouts and knowledge of the opponent. The Indian Wars officially ended with the final surrender of Geronimo in 1886, but this was not the end of turbulent relations between the U.S. government and Native American tribes.

There were many massacres committed by both sides during this period, and alliances were formed and broken between the U.S. and various tribes. Mr Yenne does not go into detail about all of these instances, nor is this a comprehensive history of relations between Europeans and Indian tribes, but Mr Yenne gives a wealth of information about the Indian Wars. If you’re looking to study this period of history, and U.S. relations with the Indians in particular, Bill Yenne’s book is a good place to start.

The Rise of Two-Party Texas

2011-01-10T21:00:00.003-06:00

A lot has changed since John Knaggs wrote about the growth of the Republican Party in Texas [1]. Today there are 101 Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives (2 of them being Democrats who switched in December). Back in 1986, this would have seemed implausible, and in 1961, it would have seemed impossible, but now it's reality.

Part of this change has been due to the legacy of the party switchers. Beginning with John Tower's special election victory in 1961, the liberal Democrats in Texas sought to develop a viable two party system to get conservative Democrats out of the party and leave party control in liberal hands [2]. Over time, we have seen numerous Democrats from the national, state and local levels becoming Republicans; perhaps the most prominent being John Connally (LBJ protege and former Democratic governor of Texas). Nor is this process complete. Since 2009, three Democratic legislators have switched to the Republican Party: Chuck Hopson (HD 11), Allan Ritter (HD 21) and Aaron Pena (HD 40). This goal may have been too successful, as Republicans have controlled all of the executive offices (the Democrats have not won a statewide race since 1994) and both house of the Legislature since 2003 [3].

However, party switching would not have been an alternative for conservative Democrats had there not been a strong grassroots effort by Republicans throughout the state to grow the party despite numerous setbacks and adversity. The potential for Republican success was there with conservative Democrats, such as former Gov. Alan Shivers, leading the charge for Eisenhower for President, but the Republican Party worked hard to recruit strong candidates, and during the early years, focused on a limited number of races [4]. Once John Tower and others, such as George H. W. Bush, demonstrated that Republicans could win in Democrat dominated Texas, the ranks began to grow. And as the ranks grew, the ability to raise funds also grew. The real breakthrough came when Bill Clements won the race for governor in 1978 (the first Republican governor in 100 years). Republicans had been able to pick up an occasional seat in the Texas House and Senate, but Clements' victory demonstrated that Republicans were a force to reckoned within Texas politics and could no longer be taken for granted [5].

This advance of the Texas Republican Party was not an easy road, nor was everyone always in lock step. Just as there are divisions in the Texas Republican Party today, there were divisions throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's, which Mr Knaggs notes. Some of these divisions are remarkably like what we see today: grassroots vs "establishment," moderate vs conservative, etc. One struggle which encapsulates these divisions is the Ford-Reagan primary fight in 1976. Senator Tower and other long-time members of the party establishment backed the nomination of Ford, but Reagan eventually won the Texas primary and its group of delegates (Ford would ultimately be nominated, but lose Texas in the general election to Jimmy Carter) [6].

Strains within the party came about in part due to efforts to bring more people into the party; as the party grows in numbers, it also sees an influx on differing opinions and directions. Early on, the Republican Party, and more specifically, the Tower campaign, made a concerted effort to reach out to Hispanic voters in Texas [7]. With each new election year, there are reports about Republican efforts to seek out Hispanic support, but this is nothing new. Some efforts have been more successful than others (Tower regularly saw Hispanic support in the mid to high 30 percent [8]; Perry has seen similar support). Efforts in which the pols have been involved in the community for a long time or have become involved in the community are more successful than those which do not. You cannot just come calling during an election; you must have a constant presence in that community and respond to that community's concerns (you may respond in the negative, but you need to respond and explain your decision). And these efforts have seen some payoff, as on Election Day 2010, Texas voters elected 5 Hispanic Republicans to the Texas Legislature.

The Texas Republican Party has come far from its lean years, and we haven't seen the end of its evolution, as the election of Hispanic Republicans suggest. Can the party make further inroads among this community? What will the party look like in another 2 decades? We're living in interesting times, and hopefully someone will write a book on this era of the Republican Party.

1. John R. Knaggs, Two Party Texas: the John Tower Era 1961-1984.
2. Ibid., 10
3. The Texas Legislative Reference Library has the member statistics going back to the 74th Legislature (1995). In the 74th Legislature, there were 63 Republicans in the House and 14 in the Senate. The Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1997 (with 16 members). They took control of the House in 2003 (with 88 members). Since that time the Republican majority has fluxated; the low point for Republicans being in 2009 with a 2 seat majority (a 76-74 split).
4. John R. Knaggs, Two Party Texas, 57
5. Ibid., 230-31
6. Ibid., 194-95
7. Ibid., 81, 90-1, 112-13, 189
8. Ibid., 104, 210

Niebuhr's Ironic American History

2010-12-28T22:03:00.005-06:00

In The Irony of American History, Reinhold Niebuhr compares the American ideology to actual American history and finds that what we believe and say is an ironic contrast to what we actually do. As a part of this examination of the irony of American history, I find Niebuhr's critique of the rationalist view of man, whether it is of the liberal school (classical or otherwise) or the Marxist school, to be particularly relevant. In an age where we presume that we can determine or manage the destiny of man along a rational basis, we have much to learn about our own nature.

In contrast to Enlightenment philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant (a real pissant), who wrote in his essay on universal history that "nature's supreme objective" is a "universal cosmopolitan state," Neibuhr argues that the irrational side of man - his passions, loves, hatreds, ambitions, etc. - defies any attempt at management. As Neibuhr notes, "For as man as an historical creature has desires of indeterminate dimensions" [1]. This pit of indeterminate desire frustrates the ideologies of ultimate historical ends (cosmopolitanism, universal liberty, a common market, communism, etc.) and the adherents of these ideologies. To create these ideologies, the authors must ignore or rationalise the elements ("do violence to the facts" [2]) of man's history which do not conform to their theorized pattern (e.g., compare Locke or Rousseau's theory of the social contract to Hume's opinion of the original contract). Of the victims of the inestimable desires of man, the Jeffersonian liberal as well as the Marxist are prominently featured. The historical dialectic of Marx is a prime example of managerial attempts at conforming history towards a pre-determined end which can only be achieved by the theory of the manager [3].

Another group of managers whose determinism is criticized by Niebuhr are political and social scientists. As a political science major, I find some of criticisms to quite valid, especially with regards to political scientists becoming bogged down in minutiae [4]. For example, a study was published this year about how a voter's status as a fan would effect his voting behaviour if his team was winning or losing. While interesting from a perspective of curiosity, this does not have much impact on the process of governing or shed much light on how government can be improved, but is an example of a political science out of touch with its roots, while there are other examples of political science offering "vapid solutions for profound problems" [5]. And those who believe that political scientists should be more involved in the process of governing will find no ally in Reinhold Niebuhr. In fact, Niebuhr dismisses the idea that statesmen should have "social and psychological scientists at their elbows" to convince them to ignore their political instincts [6]. For Niebuhr, the halting and irrational progress represented by those pragmatic political instincts represents the humility and advantage of the American system of government (part of its irony) [7].

Niebuhr does not deny that there is a fate or destiny towards which history is inexorably moving, only that this fate is not a rational end: "The realm of mystery and meaning which encloses and finally makes sense out of the baffling configurations of history is not identical with any rational scheme of intelligibility" [8]. Understanding and recognizing this lack of a scheme imparts a sense of humility which is necessary for realizing human limitations and adjusting our policies as needed to conform to that humility. Niebuhr notes that "human limitations catch up with human pretensions" [9], using the tower of Babel and other Biblical examples to demonstrate his point [10], and Abraham Lincoln is Niebuhr's example of this humble statesmanship [11]. Lincoln is an example because he rejected a simple moral resolution to the conflict, as well as any simplistic moral dichotomy (an either/or fallacy).

Niebuhr's primary point of reference is the Cold War - the global struggle between the forces of liberalism and Marxism - but it is applicable to our situation as well (our struggle is Islamism). As he writes:

"If we fully understand the deep springs which feed the illusions of this religion [communism], the nature of the social resentments which nourish them and the realities of life which must ultimately refute them, we might acquire the necessary patience to wait out the long run of history while we take such measures as are necessary to combat the more immediate perils" [12].

This statement is directed towards our struggle with the Soviet Union, but it is equally relevant to our struggle with radical Islam. We must address our immediate security concerns, but understanding what drives the adherents of radical Islam will allow us to shut off the sources which nourish their resentment. This point has often been made by others but it is an important one.

Too often, we believe that we control the outcome of historical forces of which we are merely a part. In many ways, we are subject to the whims of fortune that Machiavelli advised the prince to strive against. Niebuhr does not suggest we simply succumb to the forces of history, but merely realize we cannot change the ends of history [13]. Like other "heroes of the faith," we must struggle on not always knowing our fate, but having faith that we are correct in our beliefs.

1. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History, p. 84
2. Ibid., p. 152
3. Ibid., p. 72
4. Ibid., p. 60
5. Ibid., p. 80
6. Ibid., p. 73
7. Ibid., pp. 64, 88, 138
8. Ibid., p. 150
9. Ibid., p. 162
10. Ibid., p. 159
11. Ibid., pp. 171-73
12. Ibid., p. 129
13. Ibid., p. 144

Leprosy and Modern Madness

2010-12-18T11:40:00.000-06:00

“He is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.” So says the Judaic law in Leviticus 13, which proscribes the method by which the leper can become clean and re-enter society. Similarly, the insane become outcasts who must be purified and re-assimilated into the sane, rational world.

Michel Foucault, in Madness and Civilization, attempts to show the madman assumed the meaning and social importance of the leper – the social importance of exclusion, the ability to define ourselves by excluding what we are not. Mentioning how leprosy disappeared from memory, Foucault writes, “With an altogether new meaning and in a different culture, the forms would remain – essentially that major form of a division which is social exclusion but spiritual reintegration.” The leper in Medieval Europe is a foreigner in his own country, because he is impure – judged by God. He represents sin and its punishment, by which the non-leper can differentiate himself. Eventually, the madman comes to hold a similar position – a foreigner in the world of sanity. However, the leper not only allows man to define himself, but also provides an example.

In the Christian mythos, the leper is a sacred symbol of God’s judgment and grace. In the book of Exodus, God makes Moses’ hand leprous as a sign of punishment for unbelief (Ex. 4:6-8). The prophet Elisha cures the Syrian general, Naaman, of leprosy in the book of Second Kings (2 Kings 5). The Cannonical Gospels give four accounts of Jesus Christ healing lepers, who becomes witnesses for the redemption he provides. The purpose of the law of leprosy is defined in the book of Leviticus as being, “To teach when it is unclean and when it is clean” (Lev. 14:57). The law requires the leper be expelled from the community until he becomes clean, at which time he may return to make sacrifices and be examined by the priest to determine his purity to re-enter the community. In Leprosy and the Charity of the Church, Rev. L. W. Mulhane writes, “The person healed and purified in this manner was again allowed to mingle with his friends and use sacred things.” The leper, being expelled, and afterwards cleansed of his leprosy, can re-enter society by making the appropriate sacrifices and being confirmed purified by the priest.

The example of the leper provides modern man with a precedent for treating the mentally ill – the insane. Mental illness, or insanity, becomes our leprosy and the psychiatrist our priest. The insane can be excluded from society; put in mental institutions where they are treated for their condition – to reform them, to make them sane. Viewing insanity as an illness to be cured, the modern madman, like the leper, can re-enter society, after he has been made whole. Modern medicine can diagnose schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder and proscribe a cure, redeeming the sufferer from his affliction. Like the leper, the madman of the present shows what is foreign to us, and we continue the ancient form of exclusion and reintegration.

We define ourselves by what we are not, by what is foreign to us. In Medieval Europe, the leper defines man as redeemed; in modern society, the mentally ill defines man as sane. What gives us hope is the ability for men to regain what was lost, whether it be one’s physical or mental health.

Edmund J. Davis of Texas

2010-11-29T17:32:00.001-06:00

When you study the history of Texas politics, not much is mentioned about Gov. Edmund J. Davis, and the part which is mentioned leaves Davis much maligned. Davis is infamous for refusing to allowing the meeting of the 13th Legislature and the inauguration of Richard Coke - Davis's Democratic opponent in the gubernatorial election; the 13th Legislature eventually climbed to the 2nd floor of the Capitol and inaugurated Coke. Whereas most of Texas history has been sparse and unkind in it's dealings with Davis, Carl Moneyhon's biography - the 1st ever written about Davis - provides some much needed insight into this controversial governor.

Davis arrived in Texas from Florida in 1846 along with his family. During the years prior to the Civil War, Davis served as a customs inspector in Laredo and began a successful law practice in South Texas. He served as alderman for Laredo, and he was later named as justice to the 12th District Court by Gov. Elisha M. Pease - a position that Davis held until the Civil War. Through his legal practice and campaigns for elected office, Davis became involved in the politics and issues of South Texas and formed relationships that would play a role later in his life, including working to elect Elisha M. Pease. Among the issues which Davis would focus on during this time were education and protecting the frontier; these were issues that would be important for Davis during and after Reconstruction.

In the immediate years before the Civil War, Davis and others became concerned with the direction of the Democratic Party with regards to secession. Davis would ultimately side with Sam Houston and others who opposed secession. When the legislature called for a convention to consider secession, Davis ran as a delegate opposed to secession from Nueces County, but lost the race. The ordinance of secession passed on February 23rd 1861, and on March 14th, an ordinance passed requiring an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy; Davis refused to take the oath and eventually left the state in 1862 when his position as an Unionist in the state became untenable. Davis would volunteer for the United States Army and fight several engagements in Texas.

After the war ended, Davis returned to Texas determined to make the state a better place and to resume its rightful place in the Union. During this time, Davis would battle former Unionists, Democrats and others as he sought to improve schools, ensure civil rights (specifically black suffrage), end violence and protect the frontier. In 1869, Davis ran for Governor as a Republican and won in controversial fashion. Taking the reins of state government, Davis had several goals he wanted to achieve: establishing law and order through the creation of a "National Guard" and state police force, along with the ability to declare martial law, arming frontier companies to fight Indians, encouraging the building of railroads, and the creation of schools for all races. The 12th Legislature, through adept use of parliamentary maneuver, was successful in passing Gov. Davis's program. This success would not last long, however, and Davis was soon vilified for requesting the power to declare martial law and the taxes which were enacted during his term in office.

Davis's monument in the TX State Cemetery

In 1873, the Democrats regained power and set about undoing the work of the previous legislature. Davis would continue to control the Texas Republican Party and worked to elect candidates who supported parts of the Republican platform. Whether they were independents, Democrats or Greenbackers, the Republican Party continued to pursue a course which would improve Texas. Despite his work, Davis continued to see his plans and goal frustrated. In 1882, Davis made one final run for public office - running for Congress as an independent in the 10th District, which included Austin (later the district of LBJ). Davis lost this election, and at this time was essentially done with politics. Davis would die in 1883 and would be lauded as a patriotic Texan (such respect would not last).

Carl Moneyhon's biography of Edmund J. Davis gives every student of Texas history a much needed text on this period in Texas history and one of it's driving figures.

You can read the records of the 12th Legislature here. You can read the records of the 13th Legislature here, here, and here.

How Things Apparently Work

2010-11-03T22:48:00.001-05:00

Finished reading former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby's How Things Really Work: Lessons from a Life in Politics.

Bill Hobby was the longest serving Lt. Gov in Texas history - serving for 18yrs. His father - William Hobby, Sr. - was governor of Texas, and his mother - Olveta Culp Hobby - was the first head of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (renamed the Dept. of Health and Human Service, after a separate Dept. of Education was created in 1979) in the Eisenhower administration. Hobby also served as parliamentarian for Lt. Gov. Ben Ramsey.

Having been around politics for so long, Hobby has a lot of tales to tell, such as his fight with the Killer Bees, which he compares to the 2003 redistricting fight in the Texas Legislature. He doesn't mince words about what he thinks of current political battles and issues.

Throughout his work, one prominent theme emerges: respect the process. As Hobby as in his last chapter, "Dedicate yourself to the process of governing. Make the system work."

If you are interested in political science, political history, and particularly, Texas politics, this is a good book to read (although seeing him in person at the Texas Book Fair, not so much fun).

The Lone Star Left

2010-11-03T17:54:00.001-05:00

Too often, Americans criticize their ideological opposites without having a firm understanding of the history of that ideology. This ignorance often leads to false charges, generalisations and ad hominem attacks.

Obviously, most people see Texas as a predominately conservative state (and that is largely true), but they tend to overlook and/or ignore the tradition of the Left in Texas and its place in Texas history.

In The Texas Left, David Cullen and Kyle Wilkison aid in furthering our understanding of political history and have put together a collection of essays that cover the history of the Left in Texas.

Beginning with the Radical Republicans and continuing through to the modern era, the authors cover the plethora of movements that have risen and fallen over the course of Texas history: the Texas Farmers Alliance, the Populists, the Socialist Party, the Labour movements (unionism in Texas), the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and the Tejano Left (LULAC, MALDEF, etc.). Some, like the Socialist Party, were short lived while others have had a more lasting impact.

For some reading on a similar topic, see my post: The American West, Agrarian Populism and Democracy

The Betrayal of Paul

2010-09-08T11:37:00.002-05:00

All scripture citations come from the King James Version

Around the year 57 A.D., the Apostle Paul was arrested by the Romans, after the Jews had sought to do him violence, and he was eventually beheaded in Rome (A.D. 68), betrayed by his people (the Jews) and his Empire (Rome). However, this was not the only betrayal of which to speak. Assuming Paul was the man whom Alain Badiou describes, which is another question entirely, he ultimately betrayed himself through the creation of a particular tradition.

Badiou described a man who presents the world with a pure event – Christ’s resurrection – which was “neither a bequest, nor a tradition, nor a teaching,”[1] but during his mission work this was what occurred. Throughout his missionary work, Paul preached in the synagogues (Acts 14:1), to women (Acts 16:13), to prisoners (Acts 27), to barbarians (Acts 28), and all those disaffected around the Roman Empire. Paul’s message of weakness as strength and folly as wisdom certainly appeals to the ressentiment[2] of the disaffected. As Paul traversed the Roman world, he established churches composed of people who identify themselves as Christians, a communitarian group identified by signs and wisdom.

These disaffected churches established an indentitarianism within the Roman world, distinguishing themselves through their weakness and folly, regardless of Paul’s desires (as Badiou describes them). Being Greeks and Jews, they could not escape their origins and relied upon signs and wisdom for proofs of their correctness.[3] Luke, a companion of Paul, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, used miracles, such as Paul casting out demons (Acts 16:18), to great effect in proving the rightness of their cause, once again entering into the “logic of the master.”[4] While Paul, as Badiou claims, might not approve of such logic and mastery, his disciples did not seem to possess similar convictions.

And unlike Nietzsche’s Zarathustra,[5] Paul created disciples, whom he sent as representatives to the corners of the known world, which he was not able to visit personally (Acts 19:22). These disciples repaid Paul poorly, because they remained pupils.[6] Paul writes epistles to his disciples Timothy at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and Titus at Crete (Titus 1:4,5). Rather than losing Paul and finding themselves,[7] they turn to Paul as to a master, and as seems evident from the epistles, they are constantly in dangers of returning to the signs of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks (Titus 3:9).

Though Paul might have fought to stem the tide of such tendencies while alive, he could not stem the tide of communitarianism and indentitarianism in the Christian Church which took place after his death. This phenomenon was taking place in the early Church, and it has continued into the modern era with the proliferation of Christian denominations, many of whom follow Pauline traditions, such as the Paulists of the Catholic Church. Paul’s creation of disciples and establishment of churches, both of whom must adhere to the even – Christ resurrection, was the foundation of his own betrayal.

[1] Alain Badiou, St. Paul: The Foundations of Universalism, tr. Ray Brassier, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 63
[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, tr. Walter Kaufmann, (New York: Modern Library Edition, 1992), 444, 472
[3] Badiou, St. Paul, 57
[4] Ibid., 59
[5] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, tr. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1966), 78
[6] Ibid., 78
[7] Ibid., 78

Timothy Dwight: Short Bio

2010-08-19T18:53:00.002-05:00

I was looking through an old book entitled, Selections from Early American Writers, 1607-1800, edited by William B. Cairns, and published by the MacMillan Company in 1910, when I accidentally came across the poem "Columbia," by Timothy Dwight. It consists of six eight-line stanzas with 11 syllables per line. The last stanza of the poem is used in "Murillo's Lesson," page 358 in The Sacred Harp. According to Cairns, the following version is from the "Columbian Muse" (New York, 1794): Columbia.

Timothy Dwight was one of the more famous "Hartford Wits," a group of Connecticut men who were associated I literary work during and after the Revolution. They held strong Federalist leanings and satirized the political scene. Dwight was born May 14, 1752 in the town of Northampton, Massachusetts. During his early years, he was educated by his mother, a daughter of the famous preacher, Jonathan Edwards. He was said to have learned the alphabet in one lesson, and was reading the Bible by age four. At age thirteen he entered Yale College, from which he graduated in 1769. He was a tutor at Yale from 1771-1777. For one year he was chaplain in the Continental Army, after which he tried farming and teaching, and served a single term in the Massachusetts State Legislature. In 1783, he was ordained and became pastor of the Congregational Church at Greenfield Hill in Fairfield, Connecticut. From 1795 to 1817, the year of his death, Dwight was president at Yale College, in addition to teaching ethics, literature, logic, metaphysics, oratory, and theology. He also served as the college chaplain. While president at Yale, he modernized the curriculum, fought religious apathy, and led in the "Little Great Awakening."

Many writings of Timothy Dwight were published - many of them bring on religious and theological subjects. "Columbia," a song written while he was chaplain in the army, circa 1778, and which suggests his idea that America would be the seat of God's kingdom and Americans its saints, was popular for a long time. "The Conquest of Canaan," a poem first published in 1785, was said to have been written in 1774, but some references to Revolutionary battles must have been inserted after these events took place, and it is likely that the poem was revised before it was published. Some critics believe it is the first American epic poem. "Greenfield Hill," a poem in seven parts, appeared in 1794. It was intended that each part should be in the manner of some popular English poet. This plan was abandoned, but the imitation is still obvious. In 1797, Dwight published a bitter verse satire called "The Triumph of Infidelity," which was probably drawn from his resistance to post-Revolutionary deism and infidelity.

In 1801, he made a revision of Isaac Watts' Psalms, popularly called Dwight's Watts. In it appears 33 hymns of his own. One of these is Psalm 137, which is used in The Sacred Harp, 1992 Cooper Revision-"I Love Thy Kingdom," page 448. In Hymns of Our Faith, William Reynolds suggests that this is "the earliest American hymn with remains in common usage."

As a writer of verse, "Dwight had command of a small but intense poetic vocabulary" and produced many lines in imitation of the 18th century English poets. According to Cairns, "he was deficient in a sense of humor, and in real poetic insight, and little of his work can truly be called poetry."

Dwight died January 11, 1817 in New Haven, Connecticut. One of Yale's residential colleges, Timothy Dwight College, built in 1935, is named after him.

(Originally published in the May/June 1997 issue of Away Here in Texas).

Kant’s Great Hope

2010-08-18T20:39:00.000-05:00

(This was written in February 2005).

In the Will to Power, Nietzsche wrote, “The supposed instinct for causality is only fear of the unfamiliar and the attempt to discover something familiar in it.” Immanuel Kant looked out on the world of 1784 and saw challenges to Newtonian science and Enlightenment ideals. The world of dignified freedom Kant so desired, and with which he had so familiarized himself, appeared to be lost. Kant saw a chaotic world and wishes to impose upon it a familiar sense of order.

Kant’s ninth thesis expresses this need: “It [a universal history] will also clear the way for a comforting view of the future.” Instead of an apocalyptic end indicated by man’s unsocial nature, a chiliastic vision is possible, because underneath the chaotic façade, purposive Nature is at work, causing a movement towards freedom and Enlightenment. The world for Kant is not anarchic or ruled by chance, but is governed by laws which are apparent when one looks into the annals of history, but largely unnoticed by mankind; a governance moving towards a clear end. This idea for a universal history provides men with hope, some peace of mind with regard to the future of mankind.

Ignoring this end leads to a life of chance, the fate of which is barbarism – a lawless freedom, the return to a Hobbesian state of nature, similar to the state of war observed throughout the history of Europe, especially during Kant’s lifetime. Rather than give men an option to return to wild freedom, which he believed they would do, Nature acts without men’s knowledge to create a cosmopolitan state. Free choice presents problems for the plan of Nature, because it leads to randomness, making difficult the discovery of the universal history across the disparate actions of mankind, but Nature does not allow man’s free choice and randomness to divert from the desired end. Throughout these disparate actions, there is a common thread, or at least, this is what Kant would have us believe, because we must believe. We must believe in the end to produce the perpetual peace which gives us hope – to provide motivation for bringing about the cosmopolitan state.

Kant’s Enlightenment ideal required a purpose and order for all things, and Kant transfers his familiarity with this sense of purpose to the chaotic world. Like an organ which is not intended to be used, any man who does not fulfill his purpose in meeting the end is a contradiction and lives outside of reason. This end is posited, and Kant himself admits it cannot be proven, so perhaps there is no end. But if the man, like the organ is not intended to be used, then perhaps this is its nature: there is no end or grand design to be fulfilled. This is what Kant fears most, so he connects the disjointed realm of human history into elaborate scheme of Nature.

“It is natural to give a clear view of the world after accepting it must be clear,” writes Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus. That there may be no end is not an option for Kant. Kant assumes the world must have a rational meaning and purpose, some end to achieve, so he sets about to provide us with an understanding of this end.

An American Ideal

2010-08-16T20:00:00.003-05:00

(This was written in April of 2005)

In his essay On Cosmopolitanism, Derrida largely ignores the role of the State, but in a brief passage, he identifies the State as being “the foremost guarantor against the violence which forces refugees or exiles to flee.”[1] But while Derrida may have given up hope in the State, it is the international actor to whom we must look to enforce out ideals, for all others, such as the U.N., lack power. As one of those foremost guarantors, the United States uses its power to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaving the United States as the lone super-power, there has been a rekindling of the liberal tradition of spreading freedom and democracy. No longer content with containing threats, the U.S. now engages them through the promotion of freedom and democracy – both as ideal and action. Beginning with Wilson and the abandonment of isolationism, the United States takes the offensive against tyranny and oppression – then in the form of the German Kaiser. Following the Cold War, the liberal standard is again held aloft as the Clinton and Bush administrations advance against the new forces of oppression throughout the world. Using its military might, the United States seeks to act as a moral agent for creating a freer, more democratic world.

In 1916, the United States left the comfort of neutrality to aid their allies against the German menace. For Wilson, the reasons for going to war were quite clear – freedom, justice, and self-government throughout the world.[2] As Charles Seymour notes, “The recurrent leitmotiv of Wilson’s policy lay in his ideal of freedom, whether of the individual or of the national group.”[3] Ultimately, Wilson’s project collapsed, but the power of his ideals continued to affect American foreign policy.

More recently, these ideals could be seen in the Clinton administration’s foreign policy. One of the key principles of their foreign policy was the worldwide promotion of democracy. “The emphasis on democracy was embraced not only to espouse American values, but also as a mechanism to achieve a more peaceful world,” writes James M. McCormick.[4] The Clinton administration made forays into the world to promote their ideals, often with little success, as in Bosnia and Somalia. Yet as the result of a globalism which does not include all nations, the promotion of freedom and democracy was ignored in other parts of the world, such as Rwanda, Chechnya, and other countries on the outskirts of the developed world.

When the United States was attacked by terrorists, the Bush administration expanded the push for freedom and democracy to that world, specifically, the Middle East. Through military force, the United States has toppled two oppressive regimes – the Taliban and Saddam Hussein – and is attempting to shape those states into liberal democracies. The U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002 stresses the promotion of democracy to fight terrorism and promote peace.[5] In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush spoke of America’s “special responsibility” to “extend and protect freedom.”[6] Throughout previous administrations and the War on Terror, appeals have been made to the ideals of freedom and democracy as the United States acts against regimes.

It is these appeals to the ideals of freedom and democracy to which we want to focus our attention. In the essay On Forgiveness, Derrida writes that the actions of nation-states are conducted out of self-interest.[7] U.S. leaders make appeals to the pure ideals of democracy and freedom, but acting on these ideals – how and where democracy is spread – is purely conditional. For example, our commitment to the spread of these ideal to Eastern Europe, while ignoring Africa and S. America, during the Clinton administration. The threat of terrorism has lead to the spread of these ideals to the Middle East, but the underlying motive is the safety and preservation of U.S. interests. How the United States engages other nation-states in the quest for universal democracy and freedom occurs through preemptive war, foreign aid, and international institutions only further demonstrates the self-interested nature of U.S. foreign policy, which is the inevitable corruption of ideals.

Through action, the ideals of freedom and democracy become an economic exchange. The other nation-states reject tyranny and oppression, and the United States’ is further secured against threats and another trading partner is gained. According to Derrida, a just foreign policy would be less of an economic exchange, less conditional – spreading freedom and democracy globally without regard to self-interest.

[1] Derrida, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. trans. Mark Dooley and Michael Hughes (London: Routlege, 2001).

[2] Seymour, Charles “Woodrow Wilson in Perspective” The Philosophy and Politics of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Earl Latham (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 180

[3] Ibid., 181

[4] McCormick, James M. “Clinton and Foreign Policy” The Postmodern Presidency, ed. Steven E. Schier (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000), 63

[5] Snyder, Jack “One World, Rival Theories” Foreign Policy. (November/December 2004)

[6] Carnes, Tony “The Bush Doctrine” Christianity Today, Vol. 47, No. 5 (May 2003), 38

[7] Derrida, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness.

Something of the Jeffersonian Religion

2010-08-15T08:34:00.003-05:00

(I've been going through some of my old essays, etc., particularly those relating to the Founding Fathers. This is from 2001.)

The majority of Jeffersonians were deists, meaning that they held a belief in one only God. Some others, such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, were avowed and practicing Christians. But for all Jeffersonians, Deists and Christians alike, their God was a being to be imitated, rather than worshipped.

The Jeffersonian God was the Creator of the universe, it architect and builder, so to speak. The Creator made a whole world, full of diverse creations, out of a wilderness of nothing. And since it was God who created the universe, He could be found and understood through his creation (Kosela). Writing to John Adams in 1823, Jefferson said, “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this design, cause, and effect up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator” (Mayo, 299). For the Jeffersonians, Nature was the true word of God by which He spoke to all men universally (Paine).

While God spoke to all men through Nature, it required the use of Reason to divine His message. Writing to his nephew, Jefferson gave this advice, “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion” (Kosela). The means by which the Jeffersonians called facts to the tribunal of Reason was scientific inquiry. Hence, “Theology made the study of natural history a work of religious zeal - even the main avenue to God” (Boorstin, 32). This science enabled men to develop a personal relationship with their Creator, unlike the dogmas of the Christian church.

According to the Jeffersonians, the Christian churches had corrupted the simple teachings of Jesus Christ - “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but the not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself” (Mayo, 231). These corruptions were derived from the Platonisms, which Jefferson envisioned to be grafted onto the teachings of Jesus. By confusing the simple parable of Jesus with the mysticism of Plato, the priesthood built “an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, [and] give employment for their order...” (Mayo, 301). These controversies allowed the priests to set themselves up as the interpreters of the Bible, making themselves the key to understanding God. As each denomination viewed its doctrines as truth, efforts were made to establish one true church.

Our common mythology has been that many people set for the New World in search of religious freedom, but for freedom from what, or to do what? The Rev. Nathaniel Ward tells us the aims of certain religions:

“I dare to take upon me, to bee that Herauld of New-England so farre, as to proclaim to the world, in the name of our Colony, that all Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts shall have free Liberty to keepe away from us, and such as come to be gone as fast as they can, the sooner the better” (Cairns, 114).

These establishments of religion were viewed by the Jeffersonians as a particular evil. Jefferson himself worked in the Virginia Assembly for putting down the establishment of the Anglican Church, and eventually succeeded in seeing his “Statute for Religious Freedom” enacted in 1786. The uniformity of religion was seen as a detriment to the individual rights, truth, and the general utility of religion as a whole.

For the Jeffersonians, a variety of opinions were not only helpful for everyone, but necessary as well. On the score of individual rights, it was put forth that God had made the mind free; and what God had given, man could not take away. As Thomas Paine wrote in his essay Common Sense, “To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion” (67). Accountable to God only, a variety of opinions allowed men to discover the truth through Reason and free inquiry, which were the enemy of state sponsored/established religion, because “it is error alone that needs the support of government” (Mayo, 82). The error of established religion undermined the general utility of religion, because it “...tend[ed] only to beget the habits of hypocrisy and meanness...” by coercing persons to subscribe to doctrines in which they do not believe. With regard to men’s opinions, they carried Locke’s doctrine from toleration to religious liberty.

As these corruptions caused doubts, they did not lead Jeffersonians to reject Christianity as a whole. Many Jeffersonians, being Deists, did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, but simply regarded him as “a great Reformer of the Hebrew Code of Religion” (TJ to William Short). Eventhough they denied the deity of Christ, they still considered themselves Christians - “I am a Christian, in the only sense that in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preferences to all others...” (TJ to Benjamin Rush). The doctrines which they preferred were the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels in all their simplicity. These simple moral teachings were preferred for their usefulness in producing good works amongst men, because their simplicity made them so understandable to even a little child. For Jeffersonians, it was the morality of religion, and not the divine quality, which was most important.

The key to understanding the Jeffersonian religion in one statement of Jefferson: “I am a Materialist” (TJ to William Short). Jeffersonians were concerned with the material world and religion’s place in it, producing the greatest good for the greatest number without violating individual rights. With their religion begins the first principles of Jeffersonian liberalism.

Works Cited

Boorstin, Daniel J. The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL. 1993
Jefferson, Thomas. Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a Many Sided American. ed Bernard Mayo. University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA. 1995.
Ward, Nathaniel. "On toleration of religious opinions." Selections from Early American Writers: 1607 - 1800. ed William B. Cairns. The Macmillan Co.: New York, NY. 1910. pp 113-116.
Paine, Thomas. "Common Sense." Essential Writings of Thomas Paine. ed Sidney Hook. Meridian: New York, NY. 1984.

Hamilton v. Jefferson: Constitutional Theory

2010-08-14T20:11:00.003-05:00

(This is an old short essay comparing the constitutional philosophies of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Enjoy).

By way of introducing them, I would provide some brief, broad points about each. Jefferson saw America as a pastoral, agricultural country with a weak, yeoman federal republican government. On the other hand, Hamilton envisioned an America that was a powerful industrial nation united through a common economic interest which obliterated state boundaries with a strong, energetic national republican government.

The conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson’s constitutional philosophies came to a head over the constitutionality of the national bank. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury submitted a report to Congress on a plan for a national bank modeled on the Bank of England. “The Bank of the United States was designed to meet the special needs of the American economy as Hamilton understood them, the chief ones being a dependable source of credit and a substantial circulating medium based on a minimum of scarce specie.”[1] Thus, Hamilton’s goals for the Bank were twofold: 1) to unleash the underlying strength of America’s industry and economy by providing “a large, stable, but flexible money supply for the financing of ordinary business and general economic development”[2]; and 2) the more revolutionary end of creating a nation, rather than a confederacy of states (one people, instead of many).

The support for the Bank in Congress had a two to one advantage over the opposition[3]; however, the opposition to the bank was strong, and James Madison was the leader of the questioning of the constitutionality of the Bank before Congress, although his motivations, as well as Jefferson’s, have be suspect. Madison charged that Congress did not have the power to incorporate a bank based on a strict reading of the Constitution. Unfortunately for him, Madison was challenged by Mr. Boudinot with his precious statements in favour of broad constructionism in the Federalist Papers, although at the time the authors were not publicly known.[4]

Despite Madison’s objections, the plan passed, and its opponents now had to rely on the possibility of Washington’s veto, which he had not used, so they set about the task of attempting to persuade Washington of the unconstitutionality of the Bank. In turn, Washington consulted his cabinet on the question; the two most important and defining reports were those of Hamilton and Jefferson.

Jefferson’s report on the Bank has become the defining political statement on strict constructionism, a philosophy which ties the hand of government to prevent actions which have not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution. He began his argument with against the constitutionality of the Bank by going through the list of enumerated clauses to demonstrate that the incorporation of a bank was not one Congress’ delegated powers. After this demonstration, Jefferson proceeded to the general clauses of the Constitution: the “general welfare” clause and the “necessary and proper” clause. According to Jefferson, the “general welfare” clause was not a distinct power of Congress, but “a statement of the purpose for which the specific power of the laying taxes was to be exercised.”[5] The necessary and proper clause found in Article 1, section 8 posed peculiar problems for Jefferson. Jefferson could not deny that the clause was a distinct power given to Congress, so he had to show how it did not apply to the incorporation of the Bank as a means for carrying out the other powers. Thus Jefferson had to argue that the bank was not necessary, because it was not indispensable, since the enumerated powers could be carried out by other means than the Bank.[6] A final argument against the Bank was his concern that it would violate the common law of the states[7]: “To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed”[8]; which his support for states’ rights would not stand.

Hamilton had the advantage of being able to review the objections of Jefferson before Washington asked for his opinion, and when it was asked, he struck at the weak points of Jefferson’s argument. Hamilton wasted no time on the irrelevant positions on the 10th Amendment, which Jefferson had cited in his report, or the “general welfare” clause, and instead focused on the meaning and interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause. He rejected Jefferson’s narrow interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which Jefferson had said meant absolutely and indispensably necessary[9], a position even Jefferson knew was difficult to maintain[10], by noting that necessary should not be defined so narrowly: “According to both [grammatical and popular sense], necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to.”[11] As evidence of this meaning and interpretation, Hamilton cited the state constitutions and their governments’ incorporation of towns and the Congressional incorporation of lighthouses, etc., whose constitutionality was not questioned; either of which would fail Jefferson’s indispensability test.[12] Following upon this, Hamilton proceeded to demonstrate the relationship between the Bank and Congress’ delegated powers.

In sum, if taken seriously and acted upon, Jefferson’s philosophy has a paralyzing effect upon government, which Jefferson was clearly cognizant of and which he ignored on more than one occasion. The philosophy of Hamilton allows for a government of energy and action in accordance with the essential, defining principle inherent in government: “that every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by and exceptions in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”[13] Even Libertarians can surely recognise and acknowledge the wisdom of such a philosophy.

[1] Elkins, Stanley and McKitrick, Eric. The Age of Federalism: the Early American Republic, 1788-1800. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 1993. p. 227
[2] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton: a Biography. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY. 1982.
[3] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 228
[4] Ibid., p. 231
[5] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA. 1994. p. 191
[6] Ibid., 192
[7] Ibid., 193
[8] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm
[9] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 233
[10] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. p. 193
[11] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. ed. Joanne B. Freeman. Library of America: New York, NY. 2001. p. 618
[12] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton. pp. 206-07
[13] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. p. 613

Security Blanket Primaries

2010-06-14T18:30:00.000-05:00

There is been some noise across the internet after California voters passed Prop 14, which creates a blanket primary system (some people call this a open primary, but it is not an open primary; the appropriate name is a blanket primary or top-two primary) similar to those used by Louisiana and once used by Washington State:

Proposition 14 provides for a "voter-nominated primary election" for each state elective office and congressional office in California. Voters can vote in the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party affiliations of either the candidate or the voter. Candidates can choose whether or not to have their political party affiliation displayed on the ballot.

Paul Burka asks on his blog if Texas should adopt a similar system: Should Texas adopt Prop 14? Like those who argued in favour of Prop 14 in California, he suggest that such a primary will reduce partisanship and lead to more moderate candidates being elected. However, according to FairVote.org, the primary process in Louisiana has not lead to less partisanship, and I think just looking at the state, one could determine quite easily that partisanship is not lessened by this process.

In relation to the contention that this process produces more moderate candidates is the idea that this provides voters with more choice. A quick look through Louisiana's election results belies the idea that there is more choice. Many of these districts show choices between 2 Republicans or 2 Democrats (e.g., look under MultiParish for November 4th 2008). With the way redistricting always seems to play out in Texas, it is likely voters will see similar choices, i.e., voters will have a choice of one or the other Republican, or one or the other Democrat. How significant do you think the ideological difference be between two people in the same party? Will Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. vote in that race if their options are that limited.

The other argument - not mentioned by Burka - is that this process increases turnout. Comparing the Louisiana turnout in the primary and general elections to Texas, one could make the argument it increases turnout. However, the blanket primary was introduced in Louisiana in 1978, and I do not have data to compare voter turnout between those time periods. However, the forumla does not completely hold: in 2008 a larger percentage voted in the TX primaries than the LA primaries (33.2% v 28.7% - this was the same year that LA's Congressional elections returned to a closed primary system, which could have had an effect).

As this system is essentially like our current special elections in Texas, I don't see this reducing the partisanship or polarization in the Texas Legislature (and there is no evidence that it has anywhere else either), and there are better ways to increase voter turnout.

Some more resources on this issue:

California Democratic Party v. Jones

The Vanishing Voter by Thomas Patterson

Fixing Elections by Steven Hill

The Evolution of the Texas Speaker

2010-06-03T18:00:00.002-05:00

I recently read Patrick Cox and Michael Phillips' The House Will Come to Order. This isn't so much an analysis of the evolution of the Speaker's power as an examination of legislative history as seen through the Speaker's office and the House. However, it does provide some insight into the development of the Speaker's power since 1846.

The Speakership began as a revolving post with each Speaker holding office for one term. Not until the 20th Century did Speakers begin to hold consecutive terms in the office, but the real development of the Speaker's power began after the Sharpstown scandal with the Speakership of Billy Clayton. Clayton, Gibbs, Laney and Craddick all held multiple terms in the Speaker's chair. They also worked on expanding staff, setting the agenda for the House and generally expanding the power of the Speaker. These things had been done before, but they were not sustained until Clayton, et al ascended to the Speaker's chair.

The Texas Ethics Commission makes available the code dealing with the election of the Speaker, as well as several opinions regarding contributions, etc.

Sam Rayburn - pictured above - served as Speaker of the Texas House and Speaker of the U.S. House.

You can learn more about the Speakers of the Texas House here and here.

License and Registration Please, Mr Reporter

2010-06-01T19:00:00.003-05:00

Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton) from Michigan has introduced legislation to license reporters (also discussed here) in Michigan:

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets--traditional, online and citizen generated--and an even greater amount misinformation.

The legislation is SB 1323. I cannot think that this will pass muster, and I cannot imagine that a Republican who studies constitutional law is proposing this legislation. Is it unfortunate that so much misinformation is out there? Sure. Will requiring that some one have a journalism degree stop that problem? No. In my experience, people with a degree and experience in journalism can just as easily not "know what they’re talking about" while covering the state legislature.

To qualify for registration, the reporter would have to be of good moral character, demonstrate knowlegde of acceptable industry ethics standards, possess a degree of journalism (or equivalent), have no less than 3 years experience, possess awards or recognition for being a reporter, submit writing samples, and a letter of recommendation. This seems like a move that would try to benefit a foundering "mainstream" media which is losing readers, viewers, etc. to alternative forms of media, such as blogs, vlogs, non-profit web newspapers, etc.

This would not prevent alternative media from covering politics, but it would basically be a "good housekeeping seal of approval" given by the legislature (but do you really trust the legislature?).

Is it frustrating that people can so easily disseminate misinformation or just simple errors? Absolutely. But we're in a new era of media coverage, and politicians have to adapt. We cannot create laws which focus on the old style of journalism when so many people are turning to alternative sources. Instead of registering reporters, cultivate sources for the blogs, create your own social media sites to get out information directly, etc.

What's intriguing is under the requirements set forth under the bill, many of the people who covered politics in the nation's early newspapers - e.g., Phillip Freneau and James Callender, or perhaps, even Benjamin Franklin - would not be registered. Their papers were purely partisan affairs filled with misinformation. However, the Founders did not seek to license and regulate reporters (though some times they did seek to prosecute). And I doubt men like Thomas Jefferson - who also had much to say about the abuses of newspapers (to which he was subject) - would agree with Sen. Patterson's attempt:

"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803.

The American West, Agrarian Populism and Democracy

2010-05-17T20:30:00.003-05:00

In Frederick Jackson Turner's "Social Forces in American History" (1910), he discusses the role of the populist agrarian movements in the politics of the United States:

Read the platforms of the Greenback-Labor, the Granger, and the Populists parties, and you will find in those platforms, discredited and reprobated by the major parties at the time, the basic proposals of the Democratic Party after its revolution under the leadership of Mr. Bryan, and of the Republican Party after its revolution by Mr. Roosevelt.

Solon J. Buck - in The Agrarian Crusade - traces the involvement of farmers and Westerners in the development of political movements and parties which agitated for further government interference in the American economy, especially agriculture - presumably on behalf of the farmer and in opposition to merchants and middlemen. Some of these groups even being branded as advocating socialism and/or communism (some such as the Greenback Party did occasionally have socialists at their conventions). These parties and movements would eventually collapse, but not before catching the attention of the major parties and fusing with them (mostly with the Democratic Party). We often think of the Democratic Party at this period as being rather conservative, but on economic matters it was becoming quite progressive, and this pattern would continue into the 20th Century with the elections of Woodrow Wilson and later FDR. Grover Cleveland was perhaps the last Democratic president who stood for classical economic principles (Coolidge the last Republican to do so).

The men of the West - the frontiersmen - and the farmer had evolved into a social force to fight monopolies, special interests and industrialists, while the masters of industry saw themselves as taking on the spirit of pioneer individualism.One can see this trait even in today's contemporary ideologies, wherein big business is either regaled as the spirit of individualism or decried as anti-social.

Some other books which discuss this topic:

I, Candidate for Governor, and How I Got Licked by Upton Sinclair
1912: the Election that Changed the Country by James Chace
The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars by Robert Hormats
Lyndon B. Johnson and Modern America by Kevin Fernlund
The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes

Lincoln for President (The 1860 Campaign)

2010-04-26T18:56:00.004-05:00

After the run-off elections on April 13th, I came back to Austin and picked up Lincoln for President by Bruce Chadwick. I received this book for Christmas and have finally gotten around to reading it. I have previously read John C. Waugh's Re-electing Lincoln about Lincoln's campaign in 1864, which is a very intriguing tale, and when I came across Chadwick's work back around Thanksgiving, I knew it was a book I needed to have.

Chadwick's primary motive, as he states in the prologue, is to dispell the idea that Lincoln was the beneficiary of a Democratic split and did not have to work to achieve the Presidency. The book goes into detail about the methods Lincoln used to achieve his Presidential ambitions, including his speaking tours on behalf of other candidates across the country - candidates who would later help him reach his goal.

Campaign histories are always interesting to me, because it's always fascinating to see how much campaigns in the United States have remained to some extent unchanged. We still use many of the same tactics and strategies even though the technology has evolved significantly. In 1860, mail played as an important part of communicating to voters as it does today (granted there are difference in what is being mailed - today's copy is more sophisticated than yesteryear's circular) - to inform voters of a candidate's biography, their opinions on the issues, and reinforce a certain image of the candidate (Lincoln as the common man - the rail-splitter).

One thing that is different are the battles for the nomination at the convention. With our modern primary process, the nomination is determined long before we reach the conventions in August. The backroom deals, the plotting and the chicanery which take place at the conventions have all the elements necessary for political drama. The convention of 1860 is certainly no exception. Lincoln was not even a major contender for the Presidency - he was not even included in a newspaper poll of 21 possible candidates [p. 66] - going into the convention but his handlers secured the outcome in his favour through deals, manipulation and trickery - essentially stealing the nomination from the better known and more popular William Seward (who would eventually become Lincoln's Secretary of State). One of the things Lincoln's men did was print up counterfeit convention tickets and gave them to Lincoln supporters who arrived at the convention early, and when the real ticket holders - many of whom were backing Seward - arrived, they were turned away [p. 85].

What really set Lincoln apart from his 3 opponents was that he had a good ground game and a strong message. Compared to the message of his opponents which largely focused on slavery - specifically pro-slavery (which was odd for Southern Democrat nominee John Breckenridge who was opposed to slavery), the Republican message focused on raising tariffs and the Homestead Act while largely down playing the issue of slavery. This message appealed to workers and farmers throughout the North. They also focused on states they could win, i.e., the Northern states, and thus, did not waste resources.

One interesting aspect of this race was that Stephen Douglas personally campaigned across the country for the Presidency which had never before occurred. Most candidates for President stayed home and allowed their surrogates to campaign for them. Douglas did both and thus set a standard which our modern day candidates certainly follow. This cross-country tour lead Douglas on an ill-advised campaign stretch through the South, possibly costing him New York and denying Lincoln the Presidency.

What is interesting is how close the election really was in the Northern States and how close Lincoln came to losing the Presidency if not for the hard work of his campaign to get out the vote and sticking with their strategy.

If I taught a class on campaign management, I would have this as required reading.

The Texas Governor's Powers

2010-04-09T10:32:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows the Texas Governor is an inherently weak office and was created as such in the Constitution of 1876. Because of the strong centralized power of Governor Edmund J. Davis, the Democratic Legislature determined to weaken the executive office:

The governor was empowered to convene the legislature in special sessions, to call out the militia to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, to protect the frontier against hostile Indians, and to veto laws and items in appropriations bills; his veto, however, could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The governor was also empowered to make certain appointments, fill vacancies, and cause the laws to be faithfully executed but was given no control over local or other elected state officials (Handbook of Texas Online).

The limited powers of the Texas Governor can be found in Article 4 of the Texas Constitution.

With all this in mind, Rep. Brian McCall decided to look at how modern governors have been able to work effectively (or ineffectively as the case might be) within this weak institutional structure in his book - The Power of the Texas Governor. Starting with John Connally and ending with George Bush, McCall recounts how each governor got elected, formed their agenda, interacted with the Legislature, and what they learned in the process. He interviewed the people who worked for these governors and the reporters who covered them. The result is a collection of stories of inside Texas politics that make for some interesting reading.

LBJ and Modern America

2010-04-08T15:39:00.000-05:00

Just finished reading Kevin J. Fernlund's Lyndon B. Johnson and Modern America - a look at the effect of the West on LBJ's worldview and how his policies effected the West. The book begins with his early life in Central Texas until his announcement that he would not be seeking another term as President in 1968. The author is generally favourable towards the New Deal and the Great Society policies which were so much a part of LBJ's life, but that shouldn't take away from this intriguing look at LBJ's influence on the development of the West (especially his role in the development of the U.S. space program, which is covered more in depth in Merle Miller's biography of LBJ).

Fernlund asserts that LBJ made two mistakes during his political career: 1) his decision to leave the U.S. Senate. Johnson was perhaps one of the most influential Senate leaders in U.S. history and was a master of legislative process. Fernlund believes that LBJ would have been much more successful in his role as U.S. Senator had he not let Presidential ambitions derail his legislative career; 2) his decision to not seek another Presidential term in 1968. In Ferlund's view, Johnson would have ended the Vietnam War sooner than Nixon and held the country together.

I don't agree with all of Fernlund's conclusions and opinions, but this was an enjoyable book. It's a short read and a good intro to LBJ if you aren't ready to tackle Caro's voluminous work on LBJ.

Galbraith's Financial Euphoria

2010-04-05T00:00:00.002-05:00

John Kenneth Galbraith was a prominent Keynesian economist who served in 4 Democratic administrations: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. I have previously read Galbraith's The Economics of Innocent Fraud and have wanted to read his The Great Crash, 1929, but in the wake of the latest bubble bursting episode, this seemed like an important work to read.

In A Short History of Financial Euphoria, Galbraith looks at bubbles throughout the centuries to determine the common factors in all bubbles.

The Common Factors:

People and institutions are desirous of accruing wealth;
Intelligence is tied to wealth, and the wealthy are considered specially insightful;
Following the "insight" of the wealthy, values of commodities are increased through bidding;
The growth of the bubble confirms group intelligence and stimulates more speculation;
The crash;
Assessing and placing blame.

For Galbraith, self-delusion draws people into a speculative frenzy. This delusion - this madness - cannot be legislated against; there is no policy to defend against it:

Regulation outlawing financial incredulity or mass euphoria is not a practical possibility.

While Galbraith accepts the growth and bursting of bubbles as part of the market, he does not, believe that bubbles are a benign part of the business cycle. And because it cannot be defended against, the only thing that can be done is to mitigate the effects of the crash:

A welfare system, farm-income supports in what was no longer a predominately agricultural economy, trade-union support to wages, deposit insurance for banks (and similarly for the S&Ls), and a broad Keynesian commitment by the government to sustain economic activity - things all absent after the 1929 crash - had lent a resilience to the economy.

Of course, there will continue to be debate over whether such policies mitigate or lengthen recessions/depressions.

Today's Sick and Disabled Sailor

2010-03-30T14:32:00.004-05:00

Recently, several groups and bloggers have been trotting out an act passed in 1798 for the relief of sick and disabled sailors as a precedent for Obamacare. (If you Google the 1798 act most of the references are from liberal bloggers or Democratic websites). This has been in response to the lawsuit filed by 13 state's attorney generals in response to the healthcare reform bill. One blog even went so far as to say the act created a mandate for sailors to purchase health insurance, even though that is not what is required under the act. That blog post was misleading for 2 reasons: 1) The 1798 legislation did not require sailors to purchase insurance; it required to the ship master to deduct a tax of .20 cents from their wages for the care of injured/sick sailors. 2) The individual mandate is levied on individuals if you do not purchase insurance, which is not what was set forth in this legislation.

The act was essentially a payroll tax; the revenues of which were used to care for sailors, as well as build and fund hospitals. It was not a mandate per the healthcare reform plan passed by the 111th Congress, because there was no tax for not purchasing something (essentially a fine); the tax was deducted from their wages. Also, note how the 5th Congress was able to provide actual care in a few sections whereas Obamacare was insurance reform and does not really address the issue of care and was thousands of pages long. When one compares the two acts, the 1798 act is not much of a precedent for the individual mandate.

What no one has here to fore published on a blog was the debate from the House floor in April 1798 which can be found in the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 5th Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 1386-1393.

Mr Sewall of Massachusetts was the primary objector to the legislation in 1798. His objections to the bill were 1) sailors in Massachusetts would be taxed twice for such services since the state already required such a tax for hospital services, 2) only taxing sailors for this service, and 3) there would be no immediate benefits. Mr Sewall was countered by Mr Pinckney of South Carolina who noted 1) Massachusetts could repeal their state tax and this remove the burden of double taxation upon the sailors from that state, 2) the tax would be passed along to consumers as the merchants would lay the tax on his merchandise, and 3) the bill would go to the relief of distress and only secondarily to the building of hospitals. Mr Livingston of New York elaborated on Mr Pinckney's arguments. Mr Sewall countered that the hospitals would be used to care for foreign sailors and thus was unfair to tax U.S. sailors solely and that sailors would be driven from the country because of this tax. Mr Samuel Smith of Maryland and Mr Josiah Parker of Virginia also took part in the debate on the side of Mssrs Pinckney and Livingston.Mr Varnum of Massachusetts questioned the constitutionality of the act suggesting that it was not consistent withfederalism and was possibly in violation of the prohibition on direct taxation in Article 1, section 9. Mr Gallatin of Pennsylvania (eventually Pres. Jefferson's Sec. of Treasury) also joined the criticism of the bill stating that he believed sailors could care for themselves contrary to the principle of the bill (that they could not care for themselves); he was also opposed to the use of the revenue to build hospitals and the method of taxation, which he felt, like Mr Varnum, was a capitation tax.

We are often told by people who believe the Constitution is a living document that we cannot look to the words of the Founders (Pinckney and Varnum were both delegates to the state ratifying conventions; I know these folks usually fall outside the usual definition of the Founders), because they often disagreed. Here is an example of where men so close to the Constitution could not agree on whether or not this legislation met constitutional muster.

The act was also amended in 1802.

There are questions about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but this act is not a precedent for it and to suggest otherwise is disengenuous. Texas Attorney General Greg Abott discusses the states' lawsuit on BurkaBlog, and Dr. Jack Balkin writes about the constitutionality of the individual mandate for the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Audacity of Hope

2010-03-26T21:10:00.002-05:00

A little over a month ago, I decided to reflect upon Barack Obama's Presidency by reading The Audcacity of Hope. After a year in office, what light could this book shed upon his policies and actions thus far. Not too long ago, I remarked on his seeming concern about the effectiveness of implementing programs with the country so deep in the red. Got some reaction to this on Facebook, and I think the question still stands of whether he believes in the efficacy of current programs, such as the stimulus package, or if he has changed his mind on that score. One is struck by the overall sense of pragmatism in the book, and even though one may disagree with many of the inputs, the outputs rest on common ground.

From my own perspective, I found the chapters on the "Constitution" (chp. 3), "Opportunity" (chp. 5), and "the World Beyond Our Borders" (chp. 8) to be the most intriguing, because they focus on the issues which are of most concern to me, i.e, constitutional philosophy, fiscal policy, and foreign policy.

On constitutional philosophy: In Chapter 3, Barack Obama writes: "Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution - that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

I am definitely more Hamiltonian in my outlook regarding the Constitution than Jeffersonian; however, while I see the Constitution as a fluid document rather than a static one (the necessary and proper clause allowing for such fluidity [e.g., as commerce changes what is necessary and proper to regulate commerce also changes]), I think the argument for it being a living document is often taken to an extreme and untenable. The language is quite plain, and while the opinions of the Founders vary and diverge, their debates provide the backdrop for an understanding of how the Constitution should be implemented. The Constitution is a flexible document and was intended to be so, because the Founders knew they could not predict everything that our nation would need. Compared to the Texas Constitution, the U.S. Constitution operates more on general principles than specificity. This doesn't mean we that we can interpret the powers granted to the federal government to suit any ends.

Also in Chapter 3, Obama writes, "It's not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or 'ism,' any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad."

While much of this paragraph deals with the prevention of one overwhelming ideology (such as the establishment of one church), I don't think one could argue that the Constitution was implicitly a rejection of absolute truth. Reading the works of the men who wrote it and debated it, the Constitution is founded on many absolute truths, such as the nature of man and natural rights.

On fiscal policy: Reading Chapter 5, one gets the impression that President Obama is concerned with our deficits and debts and believes we should reduce them. However, judging from the latest CBO report on the President's budget, one does not get that impression. According to the CBO:

Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020, about $5 trillion more than under the assumptions in the baseline. Net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would swell from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.

Now this projects out for the next 10 years, and much could happen between now and then to change this scenario (like everyone else, the CBO cannot predict the future and can only operate within the parameters they are given); however, mandatory expenditures will continue to rise, and we are not reforming the entitlement programs which feed that rise in mandatory spending. For me, this is an untenable situation. Even if you believe we need a short term stimulus to prime the pump of the economic engine, we must get our fiscal house in order sooner rather than later; that means we have to confront our mandatory spending, i.e., our entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security).

On foreign policy: Being a realist, I find the Wilsonian elements of Obama's foreign policy to be disturbing and naive, particularly the idea that we should spread democracy and free markets across the globe (this goal, whether pursued through international institutions (as President Obama prefers) or through other means (as President Bush demonstrated in Iraq), is inherently Wilsonian). In Chapter 8, Obama writes, "Our challenge, then, is to make sure that U.S. policies move the international system in the direction of greater equity, justice, and prosperity [through democracy and free markets] - that the rules we promote serve both our interests and the interests of a struggling world."

Obama is correct that people are looking for basic necessities, such as "food, shelter, electricity, basic health care, [and] education for their children." Basically, people are looking for order and stability. In some parts of the world this does not come through democracy, especially where people do not have a tradition of rights and republican/parliamentary forms of government. These things take time to establish. The first step is to create order out of chaos, and in some cases, that may mean supporting people that do not conform to American ideals (it may also mean allowing people to remain in power and not forcing regime change (by force or otherwise). Without establishing order and stability, a state cannot hope to develop the freedoms and rights that can form the basis of democratic government. We, as Americans, seem to place too much emphasis on democracy and markets as part of our foreign policy, requiring those of other states and on our terms. A stable world order benefits the U.S., but not necessarily a democratic world order (as democracies in most of the world will be unstable and subject to upheaval for the foreseeable future).

Anyway that's my take on the book (or at least the parts of most importance to me).

It's the Kicker's Fault

2010-03-23T23:00:00.005-05:00

So, the NFL owners have passed a rule change for overtime, which makes overtime in the playoffs (but not in the regular season) more like college overtime:

The NFL owners voted to change an element in the overtime rule, giving the team that loses the coin toss at the start of overtime to get a possession if the coin-toss winning team scores a field goal with the first possession.

And their rationale for the change?

The reason for the change was the increased accuracy of kickers since 1993. In 1994, the NFL moved kickoffs from the 35 to the 30, which created better field position for the teams that won the coin toss and received the kickoffs.

Some interesting statistics can be found at this blog:

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

One thing of note, which relates to the rationale for the rule change, is that "the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion."

So move the kicks back to 35yd line instead of the 30. I personally am of the opinion that if you can't stop someone from scoring on you in overtime, then tough, don't cry and moan about the rules. The real reason is that this is about revenue.

As an aside, I've always thought college overtime should be more like the NFL, but oh well.

UPDATE (3/24 @ 8:25am): Thinking about this rule some more this morning. How about the first team to score a touchdown wins. If the issue is the accuracy of the kicker on field goals, then just take him out of the equation all together.

The Audacity to Win

2010-03-07T21:33:00.000-06:00

In the week following Election Day, I have had some time to devote to reading David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win about the 2008 Presidential campaign and how it was managed. From the perspective of someone involved in the campaign side of politics, it was a unique look at the strategy and tactics of managing such a monumental effort as running for President (most books about campaigns of any kind seem to be more sensationalism and sleaze), but many of the lessons in this book are practical and are applicable to a campaign at any level.

The most important lessons is the necessity of discipline; having a plan and sticking with it, regardless of the amount of criticism you receive from people on the outside. This is a lesson often stressed in campaign schools, and the examples given by Mr. Plouffe certainly reinforce that lesson. One example is in Chapter 3 "Building Blocks" where the campaign took a lot of heat for their strategy in South Carolina:

Most politicos in South Carolina thought we were nuts. But we stuck to our guns and refused to engage in many of the bidding wars for support of political figures. This became a source of tension for some of our more traditional supporters, who wondered why we were so focused on volunteers instead of the warlords who had been getting taken care of for decades and had proved they could turn out the vote with some degrees of success.

This theme of sticking to the game plan is replayed over and over throughout the book as outsiders and some people inside the campaign questioned the decision making.

Anyone interested in getting into campaign work should read this book. It's not just the practical lessons of campaigning, but the reality of campaign life as well, such as leaving behind your family and basically putting your life on hold. As someone who has experienced living in a different town every six months, working for little pay, and missing my wife, I can testify to the enormous personal strain a campaign can place on a person. As David Plouffe says in his opening chapter, "I knew exactly what managing was - pain in the ass" (p. 15). There can be no illusions about the amount of dedication it takes to work on, and especially manage, a campaign; however, if you find someone you believe in, it makes things much easier to abide.

Overall, a highly readable and enjoyable book about the 2008 campaign from the perspective of one of the people involved. It's neither an academic treatise nor a repetition of campaign gossip. In terms of books about campaigns, it's not Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, but it's pretty darn close.

Filibusters, Cloture and Super Majorities

2009-11-11T17:06:00.006-06:00

In today's Washington Post, Ezra Klein writes about "4 Ways to End the Filibuster". He states the filibuster is bad for both sides of the aisle and for the country; however, I can't imagine that doing away with it in manner which does not protect the minority is such a good thing.

"Among other things, the minority has no incentive to agree, and the majority can't let debate go on forever, because they have to pass bills to keep the country going."

So give them an incentive; get people to the table and come up with a compromise that has the support of enough people to vote cloture on any filibuster attempt. The filibuster, cloture and other rules should force compromise and create policies in the best interests of the nation as a whole. As Kennedy wrote, "Going along means more than just good fellowship - it includes the use of compromise, the sense of all things possible... For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals" (Profiles in Courage, 4).

Getting rid of the filibuster would more than likely have a negative effect as the rights of the minority would be consecutively overruled. I don't think that's a path either party wants to go down.

For some background on the filibuster, you can go here.

The longest filibuster in Congress was by Strom Thurmond on the Civil Rights Act of 1957; it lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

According the tour guides at the Texas Capitol, the longest filibuster was 44 hours long in 1977, but the Handbook of Texas Online states the longest filibuster in Texas history occurred in 1957 by Henry B. Gonzales and Abraham Kazen, lasting 36 hours.

Capitalism, or Michael Moore Loves Money

2009-09-26T19:13:00.005-05:00

I haven't watched a Michael Moore film in quite some time (the last one being Bowling for Columbine) - particularly because of his creative use of editing to make his "documentaries" - so it is with some trepidation that I intend to watch Capitalism: A Love Story. Many of the reviews have been positive, such as Bruce Headlam's review in the New York Times which compares Moore to Charlie Chaplin. Others were more critical, such as Deal Journal's review, and then there was the AP's fact check of the movie. I read these reviews and interviews before deciding to see the film (and my review will come later), but there were some things which Moore said in these articles which intrigued and puzzled me.

Moore makes much of attacking a system from which he has benefitted greatly, but it's too easy to point out his hypocrisy. For example, Moore says the autoworkers should have 100 percent ownership of the companies, but as The American Spectator correctly queries, "Do the employees of Moore's films have 100 percent ownership of those movies?" I doubt it, but what's good for the goose certainly seems good for the gander. One is reminded of Christ's exhortation: Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (Matthew 7:5).

In Mr Headlam's review, it is played up how much Moore was/is influenced by the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church, and on ABC's Nightline, he remarks that capitalism is "anti-Christian" and "anti-Jesus." Having taken a class on the Catholic Church's social justice doctrines, I find this discussion interesting (especially since the Catholic Church never claims capitalism is anti-Christian). The most common critique of capitalism by the Catholic Church is greed, such as in the encyclicals Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and Populorum Progressio. Another critique is of the dehumanizing effects of materialism, which transforms work and the worker into an object. In a sense Moore is addressing that on Nightline, but in other places, he is criticizing the capitalist system of markets, saying to Larry King that capitalism has failed.

Despite Moore's criticism on this front, markets, free enterprise and competition continue to operate and function much as they always have, despite the bailout and the collapse of the bubble (bubbles have long been a part of economies). This schizophrenic approach to the topic leaves one wondering what Moore is actually criticizing: the greed or the system? The later can be regulated and controlled to a degree, but the former is more difficult to address, because it requires a cultural change which Americans, including Moore are not willing or ready to accept, i.e., a culture of sacrifice. His statement that, "We need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code," leads me to believe it is more a criticism of the latter, because this is an institutional critique which suggest an institutional change will lead to better practice. Furthermore, Moore's solution does not resolve the inherent problem, i.e., the greed which brought about the crisis in the first place (the greed of people who desired to live beyond their means, not just the greed on Wall Street), but seems very much like democratic socialism, especially when comments such as - "There's no democracy in our economy. You and I and the people watching have no say in how this economy is run" - are considered in context with his comments that the pie be divided fairly. For the Catholic Church, such schemes are as anathema to Christianity as the greed and materialism which is dehumanizing the economy. As Pope Benedict XVI notes in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate: "Without him [God], development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development." That trap is precisely what Moore himself falls into by suggesting democratic socialism (a term he strives to avoid, particularly in this political climate) as the means of our survival. This is not a view informed by the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church.

It's not even a view informed by empirical evidence - most recently laid out in Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter. The idea that there is no democracy in our economy ignores referenda on the state and local level which determine taxes, regulations, etc. It also ignores the role of voters who make their voices heard in the distribution tax dollars to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and national defense, which has an impact on the deficit, national savings and investment (simply put, more consumption = less savings = less investment). If you don't believe this has a negative impact on the economy, then read Donald F. Kettl's Deficit Politics and Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. The people have already had a democratic impact on the economy, and selfishness has outweighed the common good. This is unlikely to change by giving democracy a greater role in the economic policy of the United States or any other developed nation. There has to be a cultural shift in this country which focuses on the common good, the general welfare and self-sacrifice (the old republican virtues now defunct). Moore isn't advocating such a cultural shift as Carter advocated in his 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" speech in which he asked the American people to sacrifice. Moore asks the people for no such sacrifice, just as he assigns them no blame for the crisis (only giving us part of the story), because to do so would endanger the profitability of his polemic as Carter's speech endangered his reelection. His response to sacrifice might be much the same as his response to the question of what he was going to give back to Flint (45 seconds in): "I'm sorry I made a movie millions of Americans want to see."

With any luck I'll get to see this film and write my own review, but that addresses some of the things he's been saying on his road show to promote the film.

Deadwood and the West

2009-09-25T14:21:00.001-05:00

Despite my urban inclinations, I have always had a love for the expanse of the American West, feeling a fondness such as Thoreau wrote, “We go westward as into the future with a spirit of enterprise and adventure” (Walking, 1862), which seems to sum up the Westward expansion of the United States.

The future is not complete without an understanding of the past, and I have also always had a love for the history of the American West. This love was rekindled when I set about watching all 3 seasons of HBO’s Deadwood in succession. This set me off on another adventure to the Austin library. There I picked up Deadwood: the Golden Years by Watson Parker and Oh What a Slaughter by Larry McMurtry. These have been the first books on the history of the American West which I have read in quite some time (the last I recall being about Cochise, Geronimo and Gen. Crook).

The latter is a rather short work, approximately 160 pages, which covers 6 different massacres in the history of the American West:

The Sacramento River Massacre, Spring 1846
The Mountain Meadows Massacre, 11 Sept. 1857
The Sand Creek Massacre, 29 Nov. 1864
The Marias River Massacre, 23 Jan. 1870
The Camp Grant Massacre, 30 Apr. 1871
The Wounded Knee Massacre, 29 Dec. 1890

McMurtry spends a good portion of his book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which inspired the movie September Dawn, and the massacre at Wounded Knee, of which there was a good miniseries on HBO. McMurtry does not just cover the history of these massacres, but relates them to modern massacres, which may be higher in body count, but no less brutal thereby. He also regrets the lack of knowledge by Americans about the history of the West and its figures. It is true that Americans seem to know little about the American West aside from what is popularized in movies and on television. Oh What a Slaughter is a great introduction to that history for all Americans; it is an easy read and acquaints one with the basic facts, mincing no illusions about either side in these occurrences.

After watching all 3 seasons of Deadwood, I went to the library and picked up Deadwood: The Golden Years. It's not exactly what I was looking for, which was more insight into the people of Deadwood, such as Seth Bullock. Nonetheless, it's a very interesting survey of the businesses, groups and society of Deadwood from 1876-1945 (and somewhat thereafter). The author covers the geological formations found in the Black Hills and this history of the mining processes used to extract the ores. I don't consider myself to be even an amateur geologist, but I enjoyed the description of how the gold formed in the Black Hills and the various methods by which it was extracted, whether by panning, crushing, or the later chemical methods. The mineral rich hills are what brought the people, kept them and made the area a thriving hub of economic activity for several decades. Some of the mines were still extracting ore as late as the 1980's when the book was written. He doesn't leave out the personalities which existed in Deadwood, which were much popularized, but not the nature of the town.

As an aside, I've been reading Lyndon Johnson and Modern America, which focuses on how LBJ's policies effected the American West. The author seems quite enamoured of the New Deal, but his chapter on the Cold War West is very illuminating. It's not an in-depth examination of LBJ or his policies, but it is a good read.

Lyndon Baines Johnson

2009-09-10T15:35:00.001-05:00

Merle Miller's biography of Lyndon Johnson provides us with incredible insight into the man with interviews from his friends, colleagues, staff, Lady Bird, and of course, LBJ himself.

Miller begins with stories from LBJ's childhood, tells us of his parents and his life in the Johnson City area. It was interesting reading about his parents, whom I, personally, knew nothing about. His father, Sam Ealy Johnson, Jr., was elected to the Texas Legislature in 1904; he served in the 29th, 30th, 35th, 36th, 37th, and 38th legislatures. If you're touring the Capitol, you can find his portrait in the west wing of the ground floor in the collection of House composites for each legislature.

Regardless of one's politics and opinions on LBJ, there is much that legislators can learn from him. I say legislators, because that is where Johnson was at his best (in Congress). As Vice-President, he was not in control of the Senate as he was while majority leader, and as President, he was unable to meet all of the challenges which faced him. He was in his element in the legislature; he understood the ways of power within the halls of Congress.

Some of the lessons (no particular order):

Never get too far ahead of your constituents (p.68)
Always respond to correspondence (p.74)
Knowledge is power (p.149)
Become an expert in something (p.156)
Respect the rules and decorum of the Lege (pp. 88, 172)
Don't fight the battle unless you know it's won (p.176)

There are also some good quotes from Lyndon in this work, such as, "It doesn't matter how hard you explain it or how well, defeat is not the same as victory - and don't let anybody tell you different." That's some easy advice for me to take, as I am a sore loser anyway, but it would do well for anyone in politics to heed it, because so often, officials, their aides and supporters deceive themselves into thinking they've won even some small victory, even though they have lost.

This was a good introduction to LBJ, and I still have Caro's 4 volumes to read, as well as Johnson: An Irreverent Chronicle by Booth Mooney (one of Johnson's speech writers).

Also, if you haven't been out to the Johnson house, you should definitely go. I went out to the ranch in December 2008. We took a tour of the house that afternoon, and that evening we were at the tree lighting ceremony. It is a very edifying tour, especially with some background previously learned about Johnson's family and childhood.

Ay, Ay, Ayn Rand

2009-08-28T23:33:00.001-05:00

I came across a blog post on Urbangrounds the other day which piqued my curiosity: Marx vs. Rand. I've never been very fond of either thinker, but I realized most of my knowledge of Rand came from Objectivists on various discussion boards and from the film version of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper, whereas I have read many of Marx's works, such as The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The Communist Manifesto (of which I keep a copy in the bathroom to exorcise my demons), and some of Das Kapital.

My primary objections have always been towards expressions of what I consider to be a gross form of selfishness by the Objectivists I have encountered on the internet. So, I trekked down to the wonderful central library in downtown Austin to check out some of her books. Unfortunately, they were fresh out of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Objectivism, so I decided to make due with The Virtue of Selfishness (a collection of essays on objectivism), Anthem, The Ayn Rand Reader, and The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand.

After reading the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand's objectivist ideal of morality and ethics can be summed up in one word: utopian, in contrast to the distopian ideal presented in such works as Anthem. She sets her system up as a crude sort of utilitarianism in which the ultimate value of life is one's own survival with the following simple moral calculus: whatever furthers life = good; pleasure = happiness = good . In other words, whatever causes pleasure leads to happiness which is good, and thus is what furthers one's life (true, Rand does not advocate a hedonism in her utilitarian structure). Rand adds some layers to this formula, but this is the basic structure of her argument. What is pleasurable and good is arrived at as man "discovers" the rules of thought and laws of logic by which man can think for himself. Education and the accumulation of mankind's experience does not seem to be more than an after thought for Rand, who at the end of the essay "The Objectivist Ethics" says, "Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation." How this fits into her scheme of the ideal of the rational man she does not explain in this essay.

Her conjectures seem to violate what is actually objectively observable about human nature, i.e., people are informed by the experiences and customs of their ancestors. They do not come to the rules of thought and laws of logic in a vacuum, but they are taught. These teachings and customs inform our emotions and desires, which in turn informs our reason. As David Hume notes in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, "Reason, being cool and disengaged, is no motive to action, and directs only the impulse received from appetite or inclination, by showing us the means of attaining happiness or avoiding misery." Current studies of the brain seem to confirm Hume's thesis that emotions inform reason, rather than Rand's thesis that reason informs emotions (see Drew Westen's The Political Brain), as well as her belief that "emotions are not tools of cognition." This is what is objectively observable, whereas Rand seems to operate through an ideal which denies that anything exists which can be greater than one's self, because all love, friendship, respect, etc. is nothing more than trading based on selfishness. This rationalization of selfless feelings as selfish is not new to philosophical thought, and Rand is merely one more thinker in this line (along with Bentham and Mill whom she castigates as social hedonists). The selfless action shows the predominance of desire over reason, because the person who cares for the sick (who may not be virtuous in Rand's terms) leading to his own death is obviously violating his rational self-interest (and many more such examples), since he is not furthering his own life, but is sacrificing it. His desire could be one of many: a desire for scientific discovery, a desire to save lives, etc. This is the nature of man which Rand attempts to deny, or at best, change in order to establish her utopian vision of men living in a conflict free society based on rational self-interest. Studies of consumers and voters have shown the influence which other individuals and advertising play in a purchase or vote, and the chord they strike on an emotional level, rather than a rational level (Paul Ormerod's Butterfly Economics and Bryan Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter). The more we study human behaviour, the more we can objectively observe that human nature is governed by desires, i.e., the irrational.

There seem to be a bundle of contradictions in Rand's work, as well as a good amount of dismissiveness (e.g., suggesting that any philosophy which posits desire as the root of action or determinant of interests as being subjectivist). By way of contradiction, she borrows from the "ethics of mysticism" which she repeatedly criticizes. In "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?," she writes, "But, in fact, a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces" - readily recognized as one of the "mystical" teachings of Jesus (Matt. 7:2), even as she criticizes the previous verse as an "abdication of moral responsibility." She borrows from from these ethics even as she criticizes them (and either ignores she is borrowing from them or does not recognize it). A similar judgment was made by Robert Hollinger in The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand: "By the same token, many views that Rand attacks have, on some variations, closer affinities with some of her key doctrines and assumptions than she is either able or willing to recognize." And are her adherents really learning the rules of thought and the laws of logic for themselves, or are they aping the path Rand has laid out? As a further contradiction, her ideal man - the rational self-actor - is also condemned to a life of pain and misery, since he must live in an irrational world, even though her own moral calculus shows pain as bad, and thus, not in furtherance of the ultimate value. In short, Rand seems to have created a superman (her own Zarathustra), a figure who must overcome the irrational world and the irrational man - saved only by their pride and self-esteem - such as her hero in Anthem, Equality 7-2521. In the end, I must say that Rand's system is not much of a system at all. It seems confused, thrown together, and not empirically verifiable.

Rand seems more concerned with what man's nature should be, rather with what man's nature actually is, and such philosophers never appeal to me, as I am more concerned with the is, because an ethical philosophy is pretty useless in my opinion unless it can explain and deal with how men actually act. A ethical philosophy must recognize man's nature and provide the proper channels for right action. It must recognize there are conflicts between all men's interests, which are determined and informed by desires, and find ways to discourage violence and, as Aristotle notes in the Nichomachean Ethics, encourage good character (which is the concern of political science), because man is a social creature and must live in harmony with his fellow man.

After reading Anthem, etc. I feel like joining Officer Barbrady in exclaiming: reading sucks.

Philip K. Dick's Simulation

2009-08-22T14:20:00.002-05:00

I picked up Philip K. Dick's The Simulacra in the library thinking back on Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, which I had begun reading three years ago but had not finished. And little did I know how correct the intuition was, for as I pulled it off the shelf and read the chapter on "Simulacra and Science Fiction," I came across the name of Philip K. Dick.

Philip K. Dick is the author of Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep?, which was the basis for Blade Runner, as well as the works which became Total Recall, Minority Report, etc. (I was surprised by some of the films, as I never knew their origins).

Simulacra begins with the introduction of several characters and plot lines for the reader to follow, but it is readily apparent how the path will begin to converge. Beginning with the arrest of Dr. Egon Superb, the last remaining psychoanalyst thanks to the the McPhearson Act, to the eccentricities of Richard Kongrosian, the tangle of lives that make up the story of Simulacra provide the backdrop for a tale of a multidimensional conspiracy. As the White House and the mysterious Bertold Goltz travel through time, Dick reengages us in Nazi Germany, coup d'etats, atomic bombs and civil war.

This leads us to Baudrillard.

According to Baudrillard, science fiction is the quantitative extension of the productive universe (in contrast to utopia, which is qualitative and transcends). What has happened to science fiction, Baudrillard notes, is that it has begun to fold in upon itself. It is no longer an infinite expansion of the realities of production and exploration - e.g., space travel - because science has filled the gaps of space (it is no longer infinite in the imagination). Now science fiction turns to recycling historical occurrences, such as in the works of Harry Turtledove. Science fiction no loner invents in the manner of H.G. Wells or Jules Verne, but merely recycles, and Baudrillard presents Dick - The Simulacra in particular - as an example of the recycling trend within science fiction.

In The Simulacra, Dick has the White House bring Hermann Goering into the future in a supposed attempt to stop the Holocaust by allowing the 3rd Reich to survive, rather than meet its intended doom. Baudrillard also cites the civil war which begins at the end of book as part of this recycling behaviour. According to Baudrillard's line of thinking, this falls into the order of simulation, since it is no longer extending the imaginative limits of science, but is taking events from the past and recasting them in the future, i.e., divorcing them from their historical context and meaning. Even some of the characters themselves are simulations: the First Lady, Nicole Thibodeaux; the papoolas (an extinct Martian creature); the chuppers (reminiscent of the Neanderthals).

I'm looking forward to reading some more works by Philip K. Dick, but in the meantime, I'm going to finish reading Simulacra and Simulation.

The Love of Books

2009-08-17T20:51:00.001-05:00

"Whoever therefore claims to be zealous of truth, of happiness, of wisdom or knowledge, aye, even of the faith, must needs become a lover of books."

Thus ends the second chapter of Richard de Bury's Philobiblon.

The Philobiblon is specifically directed toward the monks and clerics who copied and studied the works of literature which we are fortunate to have today, but more generally it is for anyone who, as I do, loves books.

De Bury starts out by giving book lovers some advice about what one can find in books (Chp. 1), the affection that due books (Chp. 2) and the purchase of books (Chp. 3). In Chapter 1, he describes how books bring the dead to life again and the liberality of books, who alone give freely to all who ask and are willing to hear. With regard to the buying of books, de Bury would have us waste no time in the buying of book if we have the means, and offers use the tale of Tarquin the Proud as an example of knowledge which can be lost by not purchasing books according their proper value and at the proper time.

In chapters 4-7, de Bury takes the role of books, addressing those people and events which they have reason to complain against: against backsliding clergy, possessioners, mendicants, and wars. Against backsliding clergy who have forgotten the treasures which books have given them, against the possessioners who no longer study books but engage in worldly pursuits, against mendicant monks who deign to preach and teach but do not study (i.e., are ignorant), and against the wars and tumults of the world which destroy great works and libraries, such as Alexandria. Many of these problems exist today as they did in Medieval Europe: people who forget the treasures of books, people who turn to mundane pursuits, people who teach without knowledge and wars over not just destroying books, but over books themselves (think of the contemporary battles to ban various books from libraries).

Throughout the remaining chapters, de Bury stresses the importance of study of all manner of works (such as the moderns and poetry), of the handling of books with care, and of the lending of books.

De Bury's work, since it is primarily directed towards the clergy of the Middle Ages, reminded me of Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization, which discusses how the Irish monasteries preserved and reproduced the works of poets and philosophers, and how they spread those books throughout the Western world. They helped to reinvigorate education in a Europe which had been plunged into an intellectual drought during the wars and turmoil of the Dark Ages.

"As unconcerned about orthodoxy of thought as they were about uniformity of monastic practice, they brought into their libraries everything they could get their hands on. They were resolved to shut out nothing" (Cahill, 158).

This is confirmed in Eleanor Shipley Duckett's Monasticism. In Chapter 2 on Celtic Monasticism, she writes:

"It was good for the world that the young novice in the Irish monasteries of these times could read his Horace, his Vergil, his Roman satirists... Thus in the following age Ireland was to uphold the scholarship of Europe" (Duckett, 75).

The history which we are able to touch through this book is indeed great, but this work held a special message for me: it has given me an idea of what I am supposed to be doing with my life, and if everything works out over the next couple of weeks, I intend to follow through with that plan.

Frank Herbert's God Emperor

2009-08-13T13:10:00.000-05:00

I began re-reading God Emperor of Dune. I started it several years ago and cannot remember why I never finished. Having read Dune, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune years ago, I had forgotten many of the references used by Herbert in this series, but it all came rushing back the moment I re-read the opening paragraphs.

The series (those I have read thus far) is replete with references to various mythological tales from around the world. Whether it is Greek myths/legends or drawing from the faith of Islam, Herbert incorporates the common allusions and themes which are inherent in many of the world's belief systems.

One is particularly struck by the similarities of the Fish Speakers to the Bacchae of Dionysus in Euripides play. This similarity becomes readily apparent in the chapter where Duncan Idaho attends the Great Sharing:

"Do you know who they lampoon at the Feast, Duncan?"
"Who?"
"Men who have offended them. Listen to them when they talk softly among themselves."

Idaho is one of the few men who attends the Great Sharing between the Fish Speakers and their God. In ancient Greece, Cadmus and Teiresias are the only men who dance with the Bacchae:

Cadmus: "Are we the only men who will dance for Bacchus?"
Teiresias: "They are all blind. Only we can see."

Duncan Idaho is also exposed to the latent power in the Fish Speakers:

"One word from Leto and these women would tear an offender to pieces. They would not question. They would act."

This unquestioning act indeed occurs in Euripides' drama, wherein the hapless Pentheus is torn apart by his own female relatives, while they were possessed by the madness of their god, Dionysus:

"In vain he cries to his aunts to protect him from his mother. Autonoe seized one arm, Ino the other, and between them he was torn to pieces, while his mother shouted, 'Victory! Victory! we have done it; the glory is ours!'"(Bulfinch's Mythology)

If you are not familiar with Greek mythology, the Bacchae are the female devotees of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus. However, Dionysus was a foreign god. He represented chaos and the Other. He intoxicates his followers, driving them to madness and orgiastic fury. This presented a challenge to traditional Greek customs and beliefs, much in the way the God Emperor presents a challenge to the old order of the empire: the Bene Gesserit, the Guild, etc.

This incorporation of myth into the framework of the story is one of the things which has always captivated me about Herbert's Dune series. It is never overly blatant; like the Fish Speakers, it sometimes lies just beneath the surface. Definitely keep a copy of Bulfinch's Mythology or Mythology by Edith Hamilton close at hand, whether you're familiar with mythology or not. I'm certainly looking forward to reading Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse Dune to complete the series.

Tolkien's Other Tales

2009-08-03T19:46:00.004-05:00

Everyone is familiar with The Hobbit and the Ring trilogy (either from reading the books or watching the movies), but not as familiar with Tolkien's other works, particularly, Smith of Wootton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham. I had never seen those two short tales of fantasy before the other day at Barnes and Noble. I purchased the book and was not at all displeased. (Of course, how could one be displeased with anything from Tolkien?)

"Smith of Wootton Major" tells the tale of a child who swallows a fay star at the town's great feast and of his adult travels in the world of fairies. It's a delightful tale invoking the importance of fantasy not only in the life of a child, but adults as well, as can be seen in the pitiful character of Nokes.

"Farmer Giles of Ham" gives us the heroic tale of an unassuming farmer whose success defies all expectation. Through a series of unlikely events, the farmer, with luck and adept cunning, becomes the toast of the town of Giles and a very wealthy man.

Imagination is an important aspect of all our lives. Without it, our minds become stale and fetid.

Graham Greene's Human Factor

2009-07-28T20:33:00.006-05:00

I've been looking for a budget copy of The Quiet American, but when I found The Human Factor in San Marcos for $3.99, I decided to give it a try. For my first Graham Greene novel, I have not been disappointed.

A superb tale of espionage, love and the loneliness which accompanies secrets. It's a highly readable work which draws you along the twists and turns of the ordinary life of a double agent. For those who are looking for a James Bond type tale, you will be dejected, because as Greene says in his forward:

My ambition after the war was to write a novel of espionage free from the conventional violence, which has not, in spite of James Bond, been a feature of the British Secret Service. I wanted to present the Service unromantically as a way of life, men going daily to their office to earn their pensions, the background much like that of any other profession - whether the bank clerk or the business director - an undangerous routine, and within each character the more important private life.

Greene was in the British Secret Service (MI6) during World War 2 and was supervised by Kim Philby - the famous British double agent who later defected to the Soviets. (Philby's memoir, My Silent War, is also an excellent read). His experiences in the Secret Service provide the basis for several of his novels, but they are richer and deeper than any lurid tales of sex and violence which we often associate with spies.

The Power of Tweeting

2009-07-25T02:01:00.006-05:00

I just finished reading Joel Comm's Twitter Power. I picked this book up to have some insight into how candidates and officeholders can use Twitter.

I've used Twitter anonymously for a while (in my own name, not so long), and while looking at some candidate/officeholder Twitter feeds, it seems as though they have Twitter because someone told them to they needed it, but didn't bother to tell them how to use it, or more importantly, how to use it effectively.

In Twitter Power, the opening chapters provide a basic introduction to Twitter: what is Twitter, how to sign up, formatting your profile (this is important and should not be taken lightly), etc. Some of the most useful chapters for working on a campaign, or in an office, are Chapter 4 on building a following, Chapter 6 on connecting to customers (or voters) and Chapter 8 on building your brand (which is essentially a combination of the preceding chapters). The last few chapters are pretty repetitive - covering and summarizing information already covered earlier in the book - and Chapter 14 is a list of "power" Twitterers, so unless you really need to follow MC Hammer, I wouldn't worry about reading that one.

There's a lot of useful information about applications connected to Twitter, which can make it less user intensive (meaning you don't have to keep someone on Twitter call to update your feed or respond to tweets), and how it interacts with other forms of social media, such as Facebook and MySpace, which is helpful as more and more candidates join social media sites.

Here are some candidates in Texas who are using Twitter:

If you want to know more about how Twitter (or any social media for that matter) can help you, I'll be glad to let you know what I've learned in my political experiences. Just leave me a comment here.

In Search of Real Peace

2009-07-06T20:08:00.009-05:00

Although written for a bipolar world, Richard Nixon's Real Peace provides some lessons in the principles of realism as we head into an increasingly multipolar world. Written in 1983, Nixon's primary concern was the Soviet Union and how to coexist with the communist empire without either side resorting to nuclear war in the face of conflicts. However, the problems of arms control, terrorism, and dangerous ideologies are still an issue in the 21st century as they were in 20th, and thus Nixon provides us with a launching point as we maneuver our way through the new century.

Much of Nixon's advice is echoed in Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, such as:

"A democratic country with a weak economy will have a weak foreign policy."

Kennedy addresses this topic often in his history of Great Power relations, and this advice is especially important at this time in our history as our economy struggles out of recession. Our ability to project our power depends upon our economic success; if our economy continues in its current slump, then our foreign policy options become limited.

Nixon also addresses the issue of how we deal with the developing world:

"The critics - both hawks and doves - fail to recognize a fundamental truth about nations in the developing world: they cannot have progress without security, and they cannot have security without progress."

We have to give developing nations economic and military aid so they can stand on their own two feet. By improving the situation of the peoples in these developing nations, we help our own interests as well by creating a trading partner who has the wealth to purchase American goods, but it also helps to prevent the spread of Islamism and other dangerous ideologies, which foster terrorism and totalitarian regimes, because these ideologies prey on the poor and hopeless (inciting revolutions which leave the people in possibly worse conditions than before).

In conjunction with trade, we must spread our message to the people of the developing - and developed - world. Nixon makes the argument that we must strengthen public diplomacy programs like Radio Liberty which broadcast our message across the globe. Our ideological enemies will not stop their propaganda, even in times of peace, so we must step up to counter their message. Ours is a message of hope and liberty, which Nixon says "proclaim[s] the promise of freedom," that resonates with hearts and minds.

There are several other sound principles in this work, but I'll leave off with this one:

"They fail to recognize the profound truth of British historian Paul Johnson's dictum: 'It is the essence of geopolitics to be able to distinguish between different degrees of evil.'"

We cannot divide the world into monolithic blocs, whether it was Communism during the Cold War, or Islamic fundamentalism today. Just as there were differences between the communist powers of the Cold War era, there are differences within the Islamic community today. We must use those differences to our advantage, just as Nixon used the differences between the Soviet Union and China.

Dr. Ron Paul today...

2007-10-08T15:05:00.004-05:00

Today, Dr. Paul had an article published in the New Hampshire Union Leader, and he made some interesting comments and some things I think should be clarified.
His first comment regards the Founding Fathers:

The question, therefore, before readers — and soon voters — is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be “unrealistic and dangerous”? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

And then there is this comment further down:

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders.

To begin with Dr. Paul says that Jefferson and Madison are men of wisdom and that their policies should be emulated, and his non-intereventionist policy is a mirror of theirs; however, both Jefferson and Madison called for and enacted policies of embargo against nations with whose policies they disagreed. How does Dr. Paul reconcile his romanticization of their policies and their real actions?

Furthermore, both Jefferson and Madison, indeed the Democratic-Republican clubs in general, were opposed to Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality, which kept U.S. out of involvement in the European wars resulting from the French Revolution, even though there was agitation, and support, on the part of the Democratic-Republicans to entangle the U.S. in those conflicts on behalf of the new French Republic.

The Founding Fathers were not members of an echo chamber for intellectual circle jerking. They were men with diverse views and ideas, and two of the men Dr. Paul cites as non-interventionists are actually men who were in practice interventionists and, by his own standard, isolationists.

I am going to contact the Paul campaign to get their explanation of this inconsistency between romanticization and deed, and if they repsond, I’ll be sure to post their answer.

Still no reply from the Ron Paul campaign.

The Language of Politics

2007-05-22T14:32:00.002-05:00

According to the Dallas Morning News blog, Capitol Letters, “the freshman House members just passed a resolution honoring the senior ones for helping them through their first session.” And in this resolution, they listed the six most common phrases used on the House floor, which we will translate for you:

“It’s just a simple bill.” Translation: Please don’t look at this bill too closely.
“It’s a technical cleanup.” Translation: The bill was fucked and subject to a point of order.
“It’s for the children.” Translation: This bill is crap, but if you vote against it, you’ll get creamed at the polls.
“This is the bill we heard yesterday.” Translation: I tricked you into voting for this crap yesterday, don’t get wise today.
“This is about good government.” Translation: This bill fucks people over.
“We are not advised.” Translation: We don’t know shit.

However, they left out the single most used phrase:

“This is good public policy.” Translation: If I tell this lie often enough, you’ll eventually believe it.

We're In The Movies

2007-05-17T14:49:00.000-05:00

The Texas Senate has passed out HB 1634 which would hopefully provide incentives to keep filmakers in Texas, rather than losing them to other states; however, there is one interesting provision in the bill, which was mentioned at Capitol Annex and the San Antonio Express-News:

The office is not required to act on any grant application and may deny an application because of inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion, as determined by the office, in a moving image project. In determining whether to act on or deny a grant application, the office shall consider general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the citizens of Texas.

Now, it leaves the determination on content up to the Texas Film Commission. The question then essentially being, “What would the TFC deem to be ‘innappropriate’ content or content which ‘negatively’ portrays Texas?”

I can’t say that I see the need for any real concern that movies such as Grindhouse, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the remake should have been prohibited for being a POS, but that’s neither here nor there), or even Pirahna would be prohibited from being filmed in the state. I know that many fundies have their way in this state, but I have seen nothing from the Flim Commission which would suggest they would construe this provision in such a way that it would prohibit legitimate films from receiving these grants. I don’t suspect they would allow porno movies to receive them, but ho hum.

There was something about an amendment to add video gaming to the bill, but they have not posted the Journal for today, so I can’t find anything about it at the moment, but as soon as I do, I’ll post it.

The Terri Hodge Saga

2007-05-08T21:24:00.005-05:00

If you remember, State Represenative Terri Hodge lit up a cigarette on the House floor.

It began in January with the determination of the House rules. During previous sessions, members have been able to smoke in the member’s lounge which is just off the House floor. However, during this legislative, the rules voted on by the members no longer allowed smoking in the lounge. Well, this infuriated Rep. Hodge who felt that she was being discriminated against as a smoker. (Capitol Annex has some on it).

The House was supposed to designate a place for members to smoke, but haven’t. For a while some members were apparently hanging out the windows of the member’s lounge and smoking.

But in the end, Terri Hodge found a loop hole. During the last week of last month, she asked the Speaker a parliamentary inquiry regarding the rules. She asked if smoking was not allowed on the House floor. They hemmed and hawed for a few minutes, but they had to tell her that there was nothing in the rules prohibiting a member from smoking on the House floor.

Promptly, Terri Hodge went to her desk and lit up.

I’m betting that next session they’ll let her smoke in the lounge.

A Place for My Thoughts

2007-04-21T00:57:00.000-05:00

Nothing like having a place to write down one's thoughts; mental notes on the days events. Hopefully, I will occasionally have something interesting to say, but if not, I can least bore you to tears. I have a lot of interests, so this blog will meander as far as my imagination will let it: discussions of politics (state and national), books, sports, movie reviews, etc. I'll try to stick to topics I've studied, and thus, about which I know some tid bit of information.