A few things on the web that have caught my eye this week:
Is an Ivy League graduate capable of making small talk with a plumber? No, says William Deresiewicz.
George Bush visits Gettysburg.
Matt Mendelsohn's hilarious piece on the role of fathers in presidential campaigns.
On Sarah Palin's faith:
New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Austin American-Statesman
NPR
Christian Post
Christianity Today
Boston Globe
Newsweek
Was New Jersey founding father Richard Stockton really captured by the British during the Revolutionary War? J.L. Bell at Boston 1775 investigates in a series of interesting posts.
Allen Guelzo defends the bourgeoisie and slams "Christian socialism," "the Social Gospel," and "evangelical environmentalism" in his hearty review of Daniel Walker Howe's What God Hath Wrought.
John Wilson on how he decides what to review in Books and Culture.
New and Forthcoming Books that have caught my attention:
Charles Mathewes, Prophesies of Godlessness: Predictions of America's Imminent Secularization from the Puritans to the Present Day
Kevin Barksdale, The Lost State of Franklin: America's First Secession
Jane Calvert, Quaker Constitutionalism and the Political Thought of John Dickinson
Katherine Carte Engel, Religion and Profit: Moravians in Early America
Johan Neem, Creating a Nation of Joiners: Democracy and Civil Society in Early National Massachusetts
Janet Moore Lindman, Bodies of Belief: Baptist Community in Early America
James B. Bell, A War of Religion: Dissenters, Anglicans and the American Revolution
Maurice Jackson, Let This Voice Be Heard: Anthony Benezet, Father of Atlantic Abolitionism
Sarah Knott, Sensibility and the American Revolution
Eric Slauter, The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
A "Change" Will Do You Good
It would be hard to find a presidential campaign in American history that has used the mantra of "change" to the extent that Obama and McCain are using it this year. Obama has described himself as a change agent since he announced his candidacy in early 2007. McCain, the so-called “maverick,” used the Republican convention to separate himself from the Bush administration and initiate a new era of reform.
“Change” is a relatively new idea in American presidential politics. It was rarely a theme in pre-1900 presidential campaigns. Many of these early campaigns revolved around the character of the candidates. In 1800, for example, the supporters of John Adams attacked Thomas Jefferson for not upholding orthodox Christian beliefs. Twenty-eight years later Adams’s son, John Quincy Adams, criticized his opponent Andrew Jackson for marrying a woman whose divorce to her previous husband was not final.
Other early American presidential campaigns focused less on “change” and more on hot-button issues such as slavery, tariffs, or the gold standard. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln campaigned to preserve the Union. Four years later, with the Civil War raging, he convinced Americans not to “change horses in the middle of the stream.”
But during the twentieth century many presidential candidates began to run on "change" platforms even if they did not use the word. Most of them were progressives or liberals.
In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt said he would bring an end to 12 years of Republican leadership and get the country out of the Great Depression with his "New Deal for the American People."
John Kennedy's "New Frontier" was also based on "change.” While his opponent in the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, sought to maintain the "peace and prosperity" of the Eisenhower years, Kennedy wanted to "get American moving again." In 1992, Bill Clinton's "New Covenant” was a movement for change after 12 years of Reagan-Bush leadership.
Conservatives, as might be expected, have seldom been advocates of change. In 1920, Warren Harding ran on a platform of returning to "normalcy” after World War I. In 1968 Nixon campaigned on the promise of "restoring law and order.”
Yet every now and then a Republican like McCain gains a reputation as an advocate of reform. McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, railed against corporate power. Conservative Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 bid for the White House was an attempt to bring change to America by ending the New Deal programs of FDR.
Ronald Reagan sought to restore America's strength in the world and revive the woeful economy he would inherit from Jimmy Carter. This was an approach to change that was quite different from the liberal progressive tradition of reform, but it was change nonetheless. During the 1980 presidential debates, Reagan asked the American people if they were better off now than they were four years ago.
In 2008, Barack Obama has a better claim on the “candidate of change” title. Like many liberal progressive before him, his campaign has gained momentum by doggedly critiquing what many Americans believe to be a troubled Bush administration and pointing the country in a new direction.
McCain, despite all of his reforming rhetoric, will have a harder time convincing Democrats and Independents that he is the change candidate. Over the next two months he will be haunted by his pro-Bush voting record. The McCain of 2008 is not the “maverick” of 2000.
Obama claims the “change” mantle of the liberal tradition. McCain fits the Roosevelt mold. It is now up to the American people to decide if the progressive claims of both candidates will really bring the kinds of reforms that they have promised.
“Change” is a relatively new idea in American presidential politics. It was rarely a theme in pre-1900 presidential campaigns. Many of these early campaigns revolved around the character of the candidates. In 1800, for example, the supporters of John Adams attacked Thomas Jefferson for not upholding orthodox Christian beliefs. Twenty-eight years later Adams’s son, John Quincy Adams, criticized his opponent Andrew Jackson for marrying a woman whose divorce to her previous husband was not final.
Other early American presidential campaigns focused less on “change” and more on hot-button issues such as slavery, tariffs, or the gold standard. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln campaigned to preserve the Union. Four years later, with the Civil War raging, he convinced Americans not to “change horses in the middle of the stream.”
But during the twentieth century many presidential candidates began to run on "change" platforms even if they did not use the word. Most of them were progressives or liberals.
In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt said he would bring an end to 12 years of Republican leadership and get the country out of the Great Depression with his "New Deal for the American People."
John Kennedy's "New Frontier" was also based on "change.” While his opponent in the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, sought to maintain the "peace and prosperity" of the Eisenhower years, Kennedy wanted to "get American moving again." In 1992, Bill Clinton's "New Covenant” was a movement for change after 12 years of Reagan-Bush leadership.
Conservatives, as might be expected, have seldom been advocates of change. In 1920, Warren Harding ran on a platform of returning to "normalcy” after World War I. In 1968 Nixon campaigned on the promise of "restoring law and order.”
Yet every now and then a Republican like McCain gains a reputation as an advocate of reform. McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, railed against corporate power. Conservative Barry Goldwater's failed 1964 bid for the White House was an attempt to bring change to America by ending the New Deal programs of FDR.
Ronald Reagan sought to restore America's strength in the world and revive the woeful economy he would inherit from Jimmy Carter. This was an approach to change that was quite different from the liberal progressive tradition of reform, but it was change nonetheless. During the 1980 presidential debates, Reagan asked the American people if they were better off now than they were four years ago.
In 2008, Barack Obama has a better claim on the “candidate of change” title. Like many liberal progressive before him, his campaign has gained momentum by doggedly critiquing what many Americans believe to be a troubled Bush administration and pointing the country in a new direction.
McCain, despite all of his reforming rhetoric, will have a harder time convincing Democrats and Independents that he is the change candidate. Over the next two months he will be haunted by his pro-Bush voting record. The McCain of 2008 is not the “maverick” of 2000.
Obama claims the “change” mantle of the liberal tradition. McCain fits the Roosevelt mold. It is now up to the American people to decide if the progressive claims of both candidates will really bring the kinds of reforms that they have promised.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Books and Culture Review of The Way of Improvement Leads Home Now On-Line
Lauren Winner's generous review of The Way of Improvement Leads Home is now on-line at the Books and Culture website. Here are a few snippets:
In this absorbing and elegantly written biography, John Fea explores the conflict between Fithian's deep connections to Cohansey and the Enlightenment.
Fea's re-creation of Fithian and Beatty's on-again, off-again connection will take its place among the finest accounts of early American courtship practices
The Way of Improvement Leads Home...shows how seismic philosophical upheaval profoundly shaped the life of an ordinary man far from the epicenter, (it) easily the most important study of early American Presbyterianism since Mark Noll's Princeton and the Republic and Leigh Schmidt's Holy Fairs. Perhaps Fea's signal contribution is his nuanced reading of the relationship between the Enlightenment and Christianity.
Though firmly embedded in the particulars of the 18th century, the story Fea tells has resonance today. That is one of the many reasons I so love this book--Fithian's problem is no less acute today for men and women whose education takes them geographically and imaginatively beyond their local communities... Here in the early 21st century we may flatter our postmodern selves by imagining that we have moved beyond the Enlightenment, now ironically criticized for its parochialism. But the tensions between cosmopolitan aspirations and local commitments are with us still.
This review is so satisfying because Winner clearly understands and elucidates exactly what I was trying to accomplish with this book.
In this absorbing and elegantly written biography, John Fea explores the conflict between Fithian's deep connections to Cohansey and the Enlightenment.
Fea's re-creation of Fithian and Beatty's on-again, off-again connection will take its place among the finest accounts of early American courtship practices
The Way of Improvement Leads Home...shows how seismic philosophical upheaval profoundly shaped the life of an ordinary man far from the epicenter, (it) easily the most important study of early American Presbyterianism since Mark Noll's Princeton and the Republic and Leigh Schmidt's Holy Fairs. Perhaps Fea's signal contribution is his nuanced reading of the relationship between the Enlightenment and Christianity.
Though firmly embedded in the particulars of the 18th century, the story Fea tells has resonance today. That is one of the many reasons I so love this book--Fithian's problem is no less acute today for men and women whose education takes them geographically and imaginatively beyond their local communities... Here in the early 21st century we may flatter our postmodern selves by imagining that we have moved beyond the Enlightenment, now ironically criticized for its parochialism. But the tensions between cosmopolitan aspirations and local commitments are with us still.
This review is so satisfying because Winner clearly understands and elucidates exactly what I was trying to accomplish with this book.
Palin Op-Ed
A version of my post on Sarah Palin's religion appears in today's edition of the Austin American-Statesman.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain's Minneapolis Revival
When I teach early 19th century American history I often introduce my students to George Caleb Brigham's 1856 painting, "Stump Speaking."
Since most of my students are unfamiliar with this painting, I ask them to tell me what Bigham is portraying. Many of them think this is a scene from an evangelical camp meeting. The speaker is a preacher making an urgent appeal to his audience in an attempt to get them saved.
In reality, this is a picture of a political event. The speaker is a politician making an urgent appeal to win votes. My point, of course, is that there was a great deal of similarity between evangelical revivalism and democratic politics in this period of American history.
I thought about Bigham's picture today as I watched the Republican National Convention. This was a political rally, but like most political conventions it looked a lot like a religious revival. It was a celebration of American nationalism or what historians and others have described as America's "civil religion." McCain was a preacher--extolling American values. Though McCain is a Christian who attends an evangelical church, it was clear that tonight the object of his worship, and the crowd's worship, was the United States of America. In fact, Sarah Palin has probably been in the midst of similar crowds during her Pentecostal upbringing. The only difference would have been the object of the crowd's worship.
Listen to these words:
I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again; I wasn’t my own man anymore; I was my country’s.
Or these:
My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.
This sure sounds like a testimony of conversion to me. McCain was "saved" by his country and he was "never the same again." He would now live his life for his country. His life was not his own. He would live a life of American sanctification.
(As I argue in The Way of Improvement Leads Home, Philip Vickers Fithian had a similar "conversion" to American ideals).
This sort of nation worship was also relevant in the final minutes of the speech when McCain raised his voice and spoke over the roaring crowd in short exhortations, challenging his fellow Republicans to serve their country. If there was ever an example of country-worship, this was it. If you watched this with the sound muted, and did not know what was going on, this event could have passed for a Christian revival meeting.
Of course the same thing might also be said about what happened last week among the thousands of people in Mile High Stadium.
Perhaps future history teachers will use conventions like this with their students in the same way that I use Bigham with mine.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Return of Abortion Politics?
It seemed that Barack Obama was not going to make abortion an issue in this presidential campaign. Obama's nuanced answers when asked about abortion (finding common ground between pro-choice and pro-life factions) was an attempt to win over evangelicals who were pro-lifers but did not vote based on one or two moral issues.
Meanwhile, John McCain has never been a crusader for pro-life causes, despite a fairly consistent pro-life voting record. He has always been more concerned with reform than abortion. This is obviously part of the reason he put staunch pro-lifer Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Now Barack Obama, for the first time, is going after McCain's pro-life record. His recent radio ad is an attempt to appeal to pro-choice women voters by suggesting that McCain will end their right to have an abortion. ( I should note that this ad was produced before the Obama campaign knew about Palin, but I am guessing it will be played even more now that Palin is on the ticket).
What does this move toward abortion politics mean? Will McCain-Palin produce similar ads attacking Obama for being pro-life? In other words, have we returned to the abortion politics of the 1980s and 1990s?
Obama's decision to attack McCain, coupled with the nomination of Palin as V.P., may signal the end of his appeal to evangelical voters. Granted, some evangelicals will still vote for Obama, but it awaits to be seen whether the Illinois senator will win over more evangelical voters than John Kerry did in 2004. It now seems that the Obama campaign wants to insure their hold on the Hillary Democrats. They are willing to sacrifice a few evangelical votes to make sure those pro-choice women are securely in their camp.
I wonder how much this shift in strategy (if that is indeed what it is) has to do with Obama's poor performance Rick Warren's abortion question at the Saddleback Civil Forum. When asked about when a baby gets human rights, Obama said it was "above his pay grade" to answer that question with any degree of certainty. (Fred Thompson reminded the nation of Obama's answer to this question in last night's speech at the RNC and Russ has offered an interesting take on this in the comments section). McCain, of course, answered Warren quickly and forcefully: "at conception."
One more word about the Obama radio ad. It actually misrepresents McCain's current position on abortion. It quotes McCain, in an interview with Tim Russert, saying he defends a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. McCain said this, but his current position is that he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and let the states decide the abortion issue. As I wrote in a previous post, this is a classic "federalist" argument. (I should also add that such a view scares both pro-choicers and pro-lifers. By turning the abortion question over to the states, there is a chance that a state could outlaw abortion and there is a chance that a state could keep it legal).
It appears that we may be on the verge of another round of the culture wars.
Meanwhile, John McCain has never been a crusader for pro-life causes, despite a fairly consistent pro-life voting record. He has always been more concerned with reform than abortion. This is obviously part of the reason he put staunch pro-lifer Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Now Barack Obama, for the first time, is going after McCain's pro-life record. His recent radio ad is an attempt to appeal to pro-choice women voters by suggesting that McCain will end their right to have an abortion. ( I should note that this ad was produced before the Obama campaign knew about Palin, but I am guessing it will be played even more now that Palin is on the ticket).
What does this move toward abortion politics mean? Will McCain-Palin produce similar ads attacking Obama for being pro-life? In other words, have we returned to the abortion politics of the 1980s and 1990s?
Obama's decision to attack McCain, coupled with the nomination of Palin as V.P., may signal the end of his appeal to evangelical voters. Granted, some evangelicals will still vote for Obama, but it awaits to be seen whether the Illinois senator will win over more evangelical voters than John Kerry did in 2004. It now seems that the Obama campaign wants to insure their hold on the Hillary Democrats. They are willing to sacrifice a few evangelical votes to make sure those pro-choice women are securely in their camp.
I wonder how much this shift in strategy (if that is indeed what it is) has to do with Obama's poor performance Rick Warren's abortion question at the Saddleback Civil Forum. When asked about when a baby gets human rights, Obama said it was "above his pay grade" to answer that question with any degree of certainty. (Fred Thompson reminded the nation of Obama's answer to this question in last night's speech at the RNC and Russ has offered an interesting take on this in the comments section). McCain, of course, answered Warren quickly and forcefully: "at conception."
One more word about the Obama radio ad. It actually misrepresents McCain's current position on abortion. It quotes McCain, in an interview with Tim Russert, saying he defends a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. McCain said this, but his current position is that he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and let the states decide the abortion issue. As I wrote in a previous post, this is a classic "federalist" argument. (I should also add that such a view scares both pro-choicers and pro-lifers. By turning the abortion question over to the states, there is a chance that a state could outlaw abortion and there is a chance that a state could keep it legal).
It appears that we may be on the verge of another round of the culture wars.
The Warehouse is Full Again
I just got word from Penn Press that the second hardcopy edition of The Way of Improvement is now available. The warehouse started fulfilling backorders today so if you bought a copy at an event or ordered one directly from Penn you should be receiving it soon.
History and the Republican Convention
Here are a few thoughts about the use of the past from the "first night" of the Republican National Convention.
First, the evening started with the playing of GOP Convention 2008 Video. I thought the video was very well-done, but I found it revealing, and a bit odd, that the first image shown was the cover page of the Federalist Papers. Rather than begin with Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the first image we saw was a document (actually a collection of documents) that sought to limit the power of the states and establish a stronger centralized government. From a historical perspective this is an odd choice because many in the Republican Party today are strong supporters of states rights over the power of the federal government.
Of course the real lesson here for students of American history is that much of the political philosophy of "federalism" that we hear so much about today looks a lot like the view and beliefs of the "Anti-Federalists"--those in the 1780s who opposed centralized power and the eighteenth-century equivalent of "big government" and favored states rights. (Although you could make an argument for the political philosophy of federalism from Federalist Paper #51). The political philosophy of federalism as it is applied and discussed in today's politics (John McCain, for example, claims to be a "federalist") is associated with the idea that decisions about things like religion, marriage, abortion, or anything else not addressed in the Constitution should be made by the states. By celebrating the "Federalist Papers," the Republican Convention video seems to be celebrating the current political philosophy of federalism more than the historical context in which these documents were written. (I also might add that the Federalist Papers opposed the Bill of Rights, a document which was also exalted in the Republican Video).
Second, Joe Lieberman quoted George Washington's farewell address on the temptation of placing party spirit over the good of the country. While Lieberman was generally correct in using Washington's address to buttress his decision to break with party lines and support John McCain, it is important to remember that Washington would not only have condemned "senseless partisanship" but would have condemend the very idea of political parties to begin with.
Third, and finally, today's New York Times has published an op-ed about the Palin "vetting" by the prolific Garry Wills. The article focuses on the last time a vice presidential candidate was not properly vetted. This was George McGovern's 1972 selection of Thomas Eagleton, a first term Missouri senator who was removed from the ticket when it was learned he had received electroshock therapy for depression and nervous exhaustion. (He was replaced with Sargent Shriver). Wills message: There are too many skeletons in Palin's closet that the McCain campaign failed to uncover or investigate thoroughly and as a result Palin "should withdraw before she is nominated and let Senator McCain turn again to one of his more experienced options." I doubt this will happen, but Wills's remains provocative.
First, the evening started with the playing of GOP Convention 2008 Video. I thought the video was very well-done, but I found it revealing, and a bit odd, that the first image shown was the cover page of the Federalist Papers. Rather than begin with Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the first image we saw was a document (actually a collection of documents) that sought to limit the power of the states and establish a stronger centralized government. From a historical perspective this is an odd choice because many in the Republican Party today are strong supporters of states rights over the power of the federal government.
Of course the real lesson here for students of American history is that much of the political philosophy of "federalism" that we hear so much about today looks a lot like the view and beliefs of the "Anti-Federalists"--those in the 1780s who opposed centralized power and the eighteenth-century equivalent of "big government" and favored states rights. (Although you could make an argument for the political philosophy of federalism from Federalist Paper #51). The political philosophy of federalism as it is applied and discussed in today's politics (John McCain, for example, claims to be a "federalist") is associated with the idea that decisions about things like religion, marriage, abortion, or anything else not addressed in the Constitution should be made by the states. By celebrating the "Federalist Papers," the Republican Convention video seems to be celebrating the current political philosophy of federalism more than the historical context in which these documents were written. (I also might add that the Federalist Papers opposed the Bill of Rights, a document which was also exalted in the Republican Video).
Second, Joe Lieberman quoted George Washington's farewell address on the temptation of placing party spirit over the good of the country. While Lieberman was generally correct in using Washington's address to buttress his decision to break with party lines and support John McCain, it is important to remember that Washington would not only have condemned "senseless partisanship" but would have condemend the very idea of political parties to begin with.
Third, and finally, today's New York Times has published an op-ed about the Palin "vetting" by the prolific Garry Wills. The article focuses on the last time a vice presidential candidate was not properly vetted. This was George McGovern's 1972 selection of Thomas Eagleton, a first term Missouri senator who was removed from the ticket when it was learned he had received electroshock therapy for depression and nervous exhaustion. (He was replaced with Sargent Shriver). Wills message: There are too many skeletons in Palin's closet that the McCain campaign failed to uncover or investigate thoroughly and as a result Palin "should withdraw before she is nominated and let Senator McCain turn again to one of his more experienced options." I doubt this will happen, but Wills's remains provocative.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Back in the Classroom
Tomorrow I return to the classroom after a year of sabbatical leave.
As I usually do, I have posted my syllabi at my Messiah College website. This semester I am teaching two sections of the United States survey course (to 1865) and an upper-division history course on the early American republic (roughly from 1789-1815). I am sure I will be posting on my experience teaching these courses over the next few months.
In addition to my usual standards, Slaughter's The Whiskey Rebellion, Onuf's Jeffersonian America, Hatch's Democratization of American Christianity, and Ulrich's Midwife's Tale, I am trying three new books this semester: Edward Larson's Magnificent Catastrophe (Election of 1800), Douglas Egerton's, Gabriel's Rebellion, and Frank Lambert's The Barbary Wars.
If you have read these books or have taught any of them, I am eager to hear your opinion.
As I usually do, I have posted my syllabi at my Messiah College website. This semester I am teaching two sections of the United States survey course (to 1865) and an upper-division history course on the early American republic (roughly from 1789-1815). I am sure I will be posting on my experience teaching these courses over the next few months.
In addition to my usual standards, Slaughter's The Whiskey Rebellion, Onuf's Jeffersonian America, Hatch's Democratization of American Christianity, and Ulrich's Midwife's Tale, I am trying three new books this semester: Edward Larson's Magnificent Catastrophe (Election of 1800), Douglas Egerton's, Gabriel's Rebellion, and Frank Lambert's The Barbary Wars.
If you have read these books or have taught any of them, I am eager to hear your opinion.
Monday, September 1, 2008
A Surefire Way to Get More Readers: Suggest a Vice-Presidential Candidate Speaks in Tongues!
Over the last few months I have developed a small readership at this blog. My visitors include fellow historians and history buffs, readers of The Way of Improvement Leads Home, students, colleagues, people of faith, political junkies, and my family and friends.
So needless to say I was completely surprised and overwhelmed to the response of my recent posts, "Does Sarah Palin Speak in Tongues" and "Maybe Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak in Tongues Anymore...Maybe." "The Way of Improvement Leads Home" blog has received hundreds and hundreds of hits during the past few days and many of those new visitors have taken the time to stay awhile and look around.
I welcome all of my new readers and hope you will come back and visit again soon. (Some of you already have--thanks!). I also offer a gentle reminder to keep the conversation taking place in the "comments" both civil and respectful.
So needless to say I was completely surprised and overwhelmed to the response of my recent posts, "Does Sarah Palin Speak in Tongues" and "Maybe Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak in Tongues Anymore...Maybe." "The Way of Improvement Leads Home" blog has received hundreds and hundreds of hits during the past few days and many of those new visitors have taken the time to stay awhile and look around.
I welcome all of my new readers and hope you will come back and visit again soon. (Some of you already have--thanks!). I also offer a gentle reminder to keep the conversation taking place in the "comments" both civil and respectful.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sunday Night Odds and Ends
A few things on the web that caught my attention this week:
Not all conservatives think the Palin choice was a good move.
How Obama writes
Did God send Gustav to help the Democrats or Republicans? Steve Waldman has figured it out.
Help stop the Wilderness Walmart.
Is Sarah Palin a Western libertarian evangelical? Alan Wolfe thinks so.
Are Democrats dodging abortion? Yes, according to George Weigel in Newsweek. (HT)
How to pick a graduate program in history.
Sarah Pulliam, religion and politics blogger extraordinaire!
How to win electoral salvation, from Mother Jones.
Steve Chapman on how the media has made Biden a working-class hero and why, in reality, he is not.
Not all conservatives think the Palin choice was a good move.
How Obama writes
Did God send Gustav to help the Democrats or Republicans? Steve Waldman has figured it out.
Help stop the Wilderness Walmart.
Is Sarah Palin a Western libertarian evangelical? Alan Wolfe thinks so.
Are Democrats dodging abortion? Yes, according to George Weigel in Newsweek. (HT)
How to pick a graduate program in history.
Sarah Pulliam, religion and politics blogger extraordinaire!
How to win electoral salvation, from Mother Jones.
Steve Chapman on how the media has made Biden a working-class hero and why, in reality, he is not.
Books and Culture Review of The Way of Improvement Leads Home
Paul Harvey at Religion and American History has called attention to a review of The Way of Improvement Leads Home in Books and Culture. The review was written by Lauren Winner, a Christian writer and historian who teaches at Duke Divinity School. I have not read the review yet, but I am thrilled with the passage of the review that Harvey has posted. It seems that Winner has truly captured the spirit of the book--an historical analysis of the tension between self-improvement and roots American history. I look forward to reading the review in full.
Maybe Palin Doesn't Speak in Tongues Anymore...Maybe
My friend Russ has called my attention to a recent Newsweek article that provides some new insight into Palin's religious faith. It turns out that Palin was indeed raised Pentecostal and attends the Pentecostal Juneau Christian Center when she is in Juneau. But she considers here "home church" the Church on the Rock in Wasilla, Alaska. According to a spokesperson, she "does not consider herself Pentecostal."
The Newsweek article confirms an earlier Time interview in which she said she attends a "non-denominational Bible church." The Church on the Rock certainly fits this description. It was founded in the home of the one its members in 2000 and seems to have grown rapidly. The doctrine of the church is clearly evangelical, but it does not seem overly dogmatic and is written in everday language, probably in attempt to attract spiritual seekers who might be turned off by an overly specific and detailed doctrinal statement.
HOWEVER, the church does seem a bit more pentecostal than more independent churches of this nature. The doctrinal statement notes: "the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to believers who ask for it." (See my previous post).
Palin may no longer consider herself Pentecostal, but she has not strayed too far from her childhood faith.
The Newsweek article confirms an earlier Time interview in which she said she attends a "non-denominational Bible church." The Church on the Rock certainly fits this description. It was founded in the home of the one its members in 2000 and seems to have grown rapidly. The doctrine of the church is clearly evangelical, but it does not seem overly dogmatic and is written in everday language, probably in attempt to attract spiritual seekers who might be turned off by an overly specific and detailed doctrinal statement.
HOWEVER, the church does seem a bit more pentecostal than more independent churches of this nature. The doctrinal statement notes: "the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, is given to believers who ask for it." (See my previous post).
Palin may no longer consider herself Pentecostal, but she has not strayed too far from her childhood faith.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Does Sarah Palin Speak in Tongues?
We know she is an Alaskan reformer. We know she is pro-life. We know she was a beauty queen and a basketball star. We know she eats moose burgers. But does Sarah Palin speak in tongues?According to some reports, Palin attends church at the Juneau Christian Center, a congregation affiliated with the Assembly of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world. Pentecostals are evangelicals who believe in a doctrine called the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” an intense spiritual encounter with God that often results in unintelligible utterances commonly known as “speaking in tongues.”
They are also distinguished by their emphasis on faith healing, their belief in the rapture (the sudden return of Jesus Christ in the air to take all true believers to heaven), and their emotional, hand-waving style of Christian worship. Disgraced televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker are Pentecostals. Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis were raised in the denomination.
Palin was born a Catholic, but her parents abandoned their commitment to Rome when she was young and began attending evangelical churches. She appears to have spent most of her childhood at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church. Her youth pastor, Mike Boatsman, formerly served as the Alaskan Superintendent of the Assembly of God Church. Earlier this year, at a gathering of Alaskan members of the denomination, Boatsman and Mike Rose, the pastor of the Juneau Christian Center, laid hands on Palin (a Christian symbol of consecration) and prayed for her and the state of Alaska.
Palin is not the first Pentecostal politician to gain national attention. James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan, was a member of an Assembly of God Church. Like most Pentecostals, Watt shunned certain forms of popular entertainment as being too worldly. In 1983, he banned the Beach Boys from playing a Fourth of July concert on the National Mall because, as he said, they drew an “undesirable element”
John Ashcroft, George W. Bush’s Attorney General and the controversial enforcer of the Patriot Act, was the son of an Assembly of God minister and a Pentecostal clergyman himself. In addition to a distinguished career in politics, Ashcroft was a gospel song writer. He also used Crisco cooking oil to anoint himself before serving his two terms as Missouri governor.
The Beach Boys and Crisco aside, Pentecostal politicians usually shy away from talking about religious practices such as the “baptism of the holy spirit” or “speaking in tongues.” Ashcroft the politician seldom called attention to these important dimensions of his faith.
We can expect the same from Palin. She will be a crusader for pro-life causes and traditional marriage, but will avoid speaking about some of the religious practices of her upbringing that some mainstream Americans—even many mainstream evangelicals-- may consider strange. (In this sense her approach will be similar to the way Mitt Romney refused to talk about the intricacies of his Mormon faith). In fact, in an interview with Time, Palin called herself a “Bible-believing Christian” who attends a “non-denominational Bible Church.” She has yet to call herself a “Pentecostal.”
Palin is a serious evangelical who will rally John McCain’s conservative base, but don’t expect a tongues-speaking Holy Ghost revival to break out next week in Minneapolis.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Joel Hunter's Prayer
If you were watching tonight's Obama speech on broadcast television or a commercial cable network you missed it. After the usual celebratory hugs between the president and vice-presidential candidates and their families, pastor Joel Hunter approached the lectern to close the evening in prayer.
Joel Hunter is the pastor of Northland Community Church (now called "Northland: A Church Distributed"), a 10,000 member evangelical megachurch in Orlando, Florida. He is the former president of the Pat Robertson-founded Christian Coalition. He is a registered Republican.
Hunter's tenure as president of the Christian Coalition did not last long. In fact, he was gone in about four months. He resigned in November 2006 because the leadership and the base of the Coalition did not like his attempt to expand the mission of the organization to include climate change and the alleviation of poverty. Since then he has been one of the voices pushing for a broader evangelical agenda that goes beyond the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. (He seems to uphold traditional views on all of these issues). Hunter is now associated with this new cadre of evangelical leaders that includes Rick Warren. He has also participated in events with the old guards of the evangelical left--Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. He was one of the prominent participants in several faith and politics forums, including "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College last spring.
Here was his prayer:
We are all here to devote ourselves to the improvement of this country we love. In one of the best traditions of our country, would those of you who are people of faith join me in asking for God's help?
Almighty God, let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us a reverence for all life. Give us a compassion for the most vulnerable among us - the babies, the children, the poor, the sick, the enslaved, the persecuted. For all of those who have been left out of the advantaged world. Give us a zeal to clean the environment we have polluted while we create an economy where everyone who can work can have a job. Help us to honor those who defend our country by working harder and smarter for peace. Help us to counter those that incite fear and hatred by becoming people who are informed and respectful and are known for principles and projects that aim higher than our own group's benefit. Guide Barack Obama and all of our leaders to be agents of your will and recipients of your wisdom. And grant that all of us citizens will continually do our part to contribute to the common good by loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Now, I interrupt this prayer for a closing instruction: Because we are gathered in a country that continues to welcome people of all faiths, let us personalize this prayer by closing according to your own tradition. On the count of three, end your prayer as you would usually do. Amen! Let's go out and change the world for good!
Joel Hunter is the pastor of Northland Community Church (now called "Northland: A Church Distributed"), a 10,000 member evangelical megachurch in Orlando, Florida. He is the former president of the Pat Robertson-founded Christian Coalition. He is a registered Republican.
Hunter's tenure as president of the Christian Coalition did not last long. In fact, he was gone in about four months. He resigned in November 2006 because the leadership and the base of the Coalition did not like his attempt to expand the mission of the organization to include climate change and the alleviation of poverty. Since then he has been one of the voices pushing for a broader evangelical agenda that goes beyond the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. (He seems to uphold traditional views on all of these issues). Hunter is now associated with this new cadre of evangelical leaders that includes Rick Warren. He has also participated in events with the old guards of the evangelical left--Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. He was one of the prominent participants in several faith and politics forums, including "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College last spring.
Here was his prayer:
We are all here to devote ourselves to the improvement of this country we love. In one of the best traditions of our country, would those of you who are people of faith join me in asking for God's help?
Almighty God, let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us a reverence for all life. Give us a compassion for the most vulnerable among us - the babies, the children, the poor, the sick, the enslaved, the persecuted. For all of those who have been left out of the advantaged world. Give us a zeal to clean the environment we have polluted while we create an economy where everyone who can work can have a job. Help us to honor those who defend our country by working harder and smarter for peace. Help us to counter those that incite fear and hatred by becoming people who are informed and respectful and are known for principles and projects that aim higher than our own group's benefit. Guide Barack Obama and all of our leaders to be agents of your will and recipients of your wisdom. And grant that all of us citizens will continually do our part to contribute to the common good by loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Now, I interrupt this prayer for a closing instruction: Because we are gathered in a country that continues to welcome people of all faiths, let us personalize this prayer by closing according to your own tradition. On the count of three, end your prayer as you would usually do. Amen! Let's go out and change the world for good!
His invitation to everyone to end the prayer according to their own faith tradition showed this new evangelical commitment to religious pluralism and, I am certain, will irritate and anger many on the Christian Right who will not understand how an evangelical minister could encourage people to pray to Buddha or Allah. (Hunter prayed in the name of Jesus). Hunter's appearance tonight reminds us that some evangelicals are changing and Barack Obama wants to win their votes.
Joe Biden's Catholic America
Much of the analysis of Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic Convention last night has focused on its attack on John McCain or its flubbed line about the vice-president answering the phone in the White House.
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, and perhaps some scholars of Catholicism can correct me, but it seemed that Biden's speech was informed by a small dose of Catholic social teaching, especially on the dignity of human work. He actually used the term "dignity" in relation to work four times.
Here were Biden's words:
My parents taught us to live our faith and to treasure our families. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough. That was America’s promise.
Barack Obama...chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone.
And he (Obama) made their lives the work of his life. That’s what you do when you’ve been raised by a single mom, who worked, went to school and raised two kids on her own. That’s how you come to believe, to the very core of your being, that work is more than a paycheck. It’s dignity. It’s respect.
Because Barack made that choice, 150,000 more children and parents have health care in Illinois. He fought to make that happen. And because Barack made that choice, working families in Illinois pay less taxes and more people have moved from welfare to the dignity of work.
I could not help hear the influence of John Paul II's 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens (On Human Work):
But the Church considers it her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide the above-mentioned changes so as to ensure authentic progress by man and society.
If I am right here, Biden was arguing, in a very Catholic way, that the policy of the Bush-Cheney administration has created an economic environment in America that is equivalent to, in the Pope's words, a "situation in which that dignity and those rights are violated."
And then there was his reference to suffering. He talked about suffering in relation to the tragic death of his wife and daughter, but in this context it could have been indirectly applied to the suffering of the working man under Bush-Cheney's watch. He talked about how his mother taught him that "God sends no cross that you cannot bear.”
As some of you know, I grew up in working class north Jersey, the son of Italian and Slovakian Catholic parents. I have heard this kind of speech numerous times--a combination of the dignity of hard work, the American dream, faith and family, suffering and a tragic sense of life, and, for lack of a better term, a masculine sense of Catholic toughness and pride. (When bigger kids were picking on him, Biden's mother told him to “Bloody their nose so you can walk down the street the next day.”). This is the kind of Catholic ethnic identity that Matthew Jacobsen writes about in Roots Too: White Ethnic Revival in Post-Civil Rights America and, to some degree, John McGreevy writes about in Parish Boundaries.
Biden certainly has his disagreements with the American Catholic Bishops, especially on the issue of abortion (see Kelly's recent post), but this speech displayed the kind of hardscrabble, working class rootedness that the cosmopolitan, placeless, Protestant Obama really needs to win in November.
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, and perhaps some scholars of Catholicism can correct me, but it seemed that Biden's speech was informed by a small dose of Catholic social teaching, especially on the dignity of human work. He actually used the term "dignity" in relation to work four times.
Here were Biden's words:
My parents taught us to live our faith and to treasure our families. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough. That was America’s promise.
Barack Obama...chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone.
And he (Obama) made their lives the work of his life. That’s what you do when you’ve been raised by a single mom, who worked, went to school and raised two kids on her own. That’s how you come to believe, to the very core of your being, that work is more than a paycheck. It’s dignity. It’s respect.
Because Barack made that choice, 150,000 more children and parents have health care in Illinois. He fought to make that happen. And because Barack made that choice, working families in Illinois pay less taxes and more people have moved from welfare to the dignity of work.
I could not help hear the influence of John Paul II's 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens (On Human Work):
But the Church considers it her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide the above-mentioned changes so as to ensure authentic progress by man and society.
If I am right here, Biden was arguing, in a very Catholic way, that the policy of the Bush-Cheney administration has created an economic environment in America that is equivalent to, in the Pope's words, a "situation in which that dignity and those rights are violated."
And then there was his reference to suffering. He talked about suffering in relation to the tragic death of his wife and daughter, but in this context it could have been indirectly applied to the suffering of the working man under Bush-Cheney's watch. He talked about how his mother taught him that "God sends no cross that you cannot bear.”
As some of you know, I grew up in working class north Jersey, the son of Italian and Slovakian Catholic parents. I have heard this kind of speech numerous times--a combination of the dignity of hard work, the American dream, faith and family, suffering and a tragic sense of life, and, for lack of a better term, a masculine sense of Catholic toughness and pride. (When bigger kids were picking on him, Biden's mother told him to “Bloody their nose so you can walk down the street the next day.”). This is the kind of Catholic ethnic identity that Matthew Jacobsen writes about in Roots Too: White Ethnic Revival in Post-Civil Rights America and, to some degree, John McGreevy writes about in Parish Boundaries.
Biden certainly has his disagreements with the American Catholic Bishops, especially on the issue of abortion (see Kelly's recent post), but this speech displayed the kind of hardscrabble, working class rootedness that the cosmopolitan, placeless, Protestant Obama really needs to win in November.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Historians as Public Intellectuals
Last week I blogged , using Gordon Wood's book The Purpose of the Past as my guide, about the differences between historians and public intellectuals. Now, over at the new blog The Broad Gauge Gossip, Ambrose Hofstadter Bierce III writes about several Ph.Ds in history who have left the halls of academia for work as public intellectuals.
I will raise the question here that I raised in my earlier post. At what point does a history Ph.D who speaks to public matters cease being a historian? How should historians understand their moral responsibility to the larger public? Is the past valuable only for its role in promoting a particular moral agenda in the present? Or is the very act of reconstructing past worlds and explaining these worlds to others a moral exercise in and of itself? Consider the words of Stanford education professor Sam Wineburg in his book Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts:
For the narcissist sees the world--both the past and the present--in his own image. Mature historical knowing teaches us to do the opposite; to go beyond our own image, to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeing moment in human history into which we have been born. History educates ("leads outward" in the Latin) in the deepest sense. Of the subjects in the secular curriculum, it is the best at teaching those virtues once reserved for theology--humility in the face of our limited ability to know, and awe in the face of the expanse of human history.
Again, how do we reconcile Wineburg's thoughts about the moral role ("virtues onces reserved for theology") of historical thinking with the somewhat presentist agenda of public intellectuals?
I start teaching my general education history survey course (US History to 1865) next week and I plan to raise this question with my students as an introductory exercise that I call "Doing History."
I hope to hear from some of my "historian" readers.
I will raise the question here that I raised in my earlier post. At what point does a history Ph.D who speaks to public matters cease being a historian? How should historians understand their moral responsibility to the larger public? Is the past valuable only for its role in promoting a particular moral agenda in the present? Or is the very act of reconstructing past worlds and explaining these worlds to others a moral exercise in and of itself? Consider the words of Stanford education professor Sam Wineburg in his book Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts:
For the narcissist sees the world--both the past and the present--in his own image. Mature historical knowing teaches us to do the opposite; to go beyond our own image, to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeing moment in human history into which we have been born. History educates ("leads outward" in the Latin) in the deepest sense. Of the subjects in the secular curriculum, it is the best at teaching those virtues once reserved for theology--humility in the face of our limited ability to know, and awe in the face of the expanse of human history.
Again, how do we reconcile Wineburg's thoughts about the moral role ("virtues onces reserved for theology") of historical thinking with the somewhat presentist agenda of public intellectuals?
I start teaching my general education history survey course (US History to 1865) next week and I plan to raise this question with my students as an introductory exercise that I call "Doing History."
I hope to hear from some of my "historian" readers.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Tea Burning Commemoration Schedule
Today I received the "Cumberland County Patriot," the newsletter of the Cumberland County (NJ) Historical Society. One of the highlights in the newsletter was the schedule for next month's (Sept. 27-28) commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of the Greenwich Tea Burners Monument. (See my earlier post on this event). It looks as if I will be giving a book talk on The Way of Improvement Leads Home. You may remember that Philip Vickers Fithian may have been one of the participants in this 1774 Boston Tea Party copycat act.
Here is the schedule:
Saturday
8:30am: Teaburners' 5k one mile Walk/Run
9:00am: Sailing on the Meerwald (19th century tall ship)
9:30am: Teaburners' Awards ceremony at the elementary school
10:00-5:00: Annual Artisan Faire
10:00-5:00: Children's Art Contest Exhibit
11:00am: Re-enactment of tea loaded off Meerwald
Ancillary Street Events: Historical Re-enactors
3:00pm: Book Talk, John Fea, Messiah College
6:00pm: Re-Enactment of 1774 Tea Burning
7:30-8:00pm: Fireworks
Sunday
Meerwald sailings all day
10:00am-4:00pm: Artisan Faire
10:00am-4:00pm: Children's Art Contest
11:00am-4:00pm: Classic Car and Motorcycle Show
Ancillary Street Events: Re-enactors
1:00pm: Parade down Ye Great Street
2:00pm: Re-Dedication Ceremony (featuring Governor Jon Corzine)
See you there!
Here is the schedule:
Saturday
8:30am: Teaburners' 5k one mile Walk/Run
9:00am: Sailing on the Meerwald (19th century tall ship)
9:30am: Teaburners' Awards ceremony at the elementary school
10:00-5:00: Annual Artisan Faire
10:00-5:00: Children's Art Contest Exhibit
11:00am: Re-enactment of tea loaded off Meerwald
Ancillary Street Events: Historical Re-enactors
3:00pm: Book Talk, John Fea, Messiah College
6:00pm: Re-Enactment of 1774 Tea Burning
7:30-8:00pm: Fireworks
Sunday
Meerwald sailings all day
10:00am-4:00pm: Artisan Faire
10:00am-4:00pm: Children's Art Contest
11:00am-4:00pm: Classic Car and Motorcycle Show
Ancillary Street Events: Re-enactors
1:00pm: Parade down Ye Great Street
2:00pm: Re-Dedication Ceremony (featuring Governor Jon Corzine)
See you there!
What is Bob Casey's Position on Abortion?
Amid all of the controversy surrounding party unity at the Democratic National Convention this week, it was easy to miss the fact that a man named Robert Casey from Pennsylania was one of the evening speakers.
Back in 1992, Pennsylvania's economically progressive governor Robert P. Casey was denied a speaking spot at the Democratic convention because he refused to back the Clinton-Gore ticket due to its support of abortion rights. Casey believed he was censored for his pro-life views. Following the convention he did not campaign for Clinton.
Tonight, sixteen years after his father was snubbed, Robert "Bob" Casey Jr., the junior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, delivered a prime time convention speech.
Casey Jr. claims to be following the legacy of his father. He supports overturning Roe v. Wade and he drew the ire of fellow Democrats by saying he would have voted for the confirmation of pro-life conservative Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Yet not all pro-lifers have been satisfied. Casey, they argue, votes 65% of the time with NARAL--Pro Choice (formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League). Some believe Casey is being used by the Obama campaign to showcase a Democratic platform that expresses concern about the number of abortions in the country, but is yet unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Casey had his chance tonight to set the record straight. He briefly called attention to his disagreements with Obama on abortion, but praised the candidate's willingness to embrace people, like him, with whom he disagrees. It was a good 6 minute speech, but I wonder if his father would have been pleased with it. I know that many pro-life Democrats wished they could have heard more.
Back in 1992, Pennsylvania's economically progressive governor Robert P. Casey was denied a speaking spot at the Democratic convention because he refused to back the Clinton-Gore ticket due to its support of abortion rights. Casey believed he was censored for his pro-life views. Following the convention he did not campaign for Clinton.
Tonight, sixteen years after his father was snubbed, Robert "Bob" Casey Jr., the junior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, delivered a prime time convention speech.
Casey Jr. claims to be following the legacy of his father. He supports overturning Roe v. Wade and he drew the ire of fellow Democrats by saying he would have voted for the confirmation of pro-life conservative Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Yet not all pro-lifers have been satisfied. Casey, they argue, votes 65% of the time with NARAL--Pro Choice (formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League). Some believe Casey is being used by the Obama campaign to showcase a Democratic platform that expresses concern about the number of abortions in the country, but is yet unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Casey had his chance tonight to set the record straight. He briefly called attention to his disagreements with Obama on abortion, but praised the candidate's willingness to embrace people, like him, with whom he disagrees. It was a good 6 minute speech, but I wonder if his father would have been pleased with it. I know that many pro-life Democrats wished they could have heard more.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Enter Joe Biden
Reagan Democrats. Lunch bucket Democrats. Hillary Democrats.
Whatever you want to call them, these white blue collar Democrats who live in places such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, western Virginia, western North Carolina, southern Indiana, and Missouri are the most important voting bloc in this year's presidential election.
Many of them are socially conservative, but they are not socially conservative enough to let their moral commitments outweigh their economic concerns.
As has been well-documented, Obama has a serious problem with these voters. He could not win their support in the Democratic primaries and he cannot, by himself, win them over in the general election.
Race is a factor here. But so is Obama's cosmopolitanism. His Columbia and Harvard education does not help him in these places. His reference to the high prices of arugula at Whole Foods does not help him either. Neither does his failure to break "50" in a game of bowling.
But what hurts him most in this regard is his rootlessness. He was born in Hawaii. He spent his early elementary school years in Indonesia. He went to college in Los Angeles (Occidental) and New York (Columbia). He went to law school in Boston. He eventually settled in Chicago. He is not a man of the heartland.
In one respect, it is unfair to criticize Obama for being rootless. He has, after all, lived in Chicago since the early 1990s. But much of his experience in the Windy City has been spent in the elite intellectual enclave surrounding the University of Chicago. And, as I have written before, Obama did not help himself by going to Berlin last month and declaring himself to be a "citizen of the world." A self-proclaimed "world citizen" will go far in the halls of academia and perhaps even win you points in the international community, but it will not get you elected president of the United States.
So how does Obama solve this problem?
Enter Joe Biden. Not Joseph Biden. Joe Biden—the latest manifestation of the working class political hero.
Biden has roots. He was born and raised in working-class Scranton, a fact that has not been lost on an Obama campaign that desperately needs to win Pennsylvania in November. (Biden has probably passed Michael Scott of the television show The Office as the country’s most famous resident of Scranton). He moved to Delaware in 1953, graduated from the University of Delaware, and has spent thirty-five years representing the people of Delaware as a United States senator.
Biden is a lunch-bucket guy. He is a Washington insider who does not live in Washington. Biden has been commuting between D.C. and Wilmington for his entire senate career. This morning he stopped by the Amtrak station in Wilmington and said goodbye to all his friends (his “family” he calls them), shaking hands with the conductors and ticket-takers and coffee vendors—the people he sees everyday during his ninety minute commute. I don’t know what his relationship is like with these workers, but I imagine he knows them by name and can tell you something about their daily struggles.
This Democratic ticket reflects some of the deepest contradictions and paradoxes in American life. At the head of the ticket is a man who represents the restlessness and mobility of Americans. Obama reflects the spirit of the immigrants who left home for a better life. He reflects the universal ideas of the Founding Fathers that transcended particular nations and places. He reflects the nineteenth-century men and women, never satisfied in one place, who settled this vast continent.
Biden, on the other hand, represents the populism that has long defended the plight of the common worker and farmer. He has been loyal through the years to a particular people, place, and nation. He is the guy who stayed at home to serve the people of Delaware, his people.
The need to have someone like Biden on the ticket testifies to the fact that not everyone in the United States is the same. Yes, America is grounded on universal ideas like liberty, freedom, tolerance, etc…. But America is more than an idea. In the face of globalization, national media outlets, and mass consumer capitalism, the United States is still a nation made up of places and regions with different traditions, cultures, and memories.
I don’t know if Biden will appeal to the Hillary Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania or the Reagan Democrats in West Virginia and rural Missouri. I don’t know if he will be able to get past the plagiarism scandal or the various rhetorical gaffes he has committed through the years. But Obama could not have picked a better running mate. Biden’s long connection to a specific people in a specific place is the perfect balance to Obama’s cosmopolitanism. His biography will make sense to these white working class voters in a way that Obama’s biography will not.
Whatever you want to call them, these white blue collar Democrats who live in places such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, western Virginia, western North Carolina, southern Indiana, and Missouri are the most important voting bloc in this year's presidential election.
Many of them are socially conservative, but they are not socially conservative enough to let their moral commitments outweigh their economic concerns.
As has been well-documented, Obama has a serious problem with these voters. He could not win their support in the Democratic primaries and he cannot, by himself, win them over in the general election.
Race is a factor here. But so is Obama's cosmopolitanism. His Columbia and Harvard education does not help him in these places. His reference to the high prices of arugula at Whole Foods does not help him either. Neither does his failure to break "50" in a game of bowling.
But what hurts him most in this regard is his rootlessness. He was born in Hawaii. He spent his early elementary school years in Indonesia. He went to college in Los Angeles (Occidental) and New York (Columbia). He went to law school in Boston. He eventually settled in Chicago. He is not a man of the heartland.
In one respect, it is unfair to criticize Obama for being rootless. He has, after all, lived in Chicago since the early 1990s. But much of his experience in the Windy City has been spent in the elite intellectual enclave surrounding the University of Chicago. And, as I have written before, Obama did not help himself by going to Berlin last month and declaring himself to be a "citizen of the world." A self-proclaimed "world citizen" will go far in the halls of academia and perhaps even win you points in the international community, but it will not get you elected president of the United States.
So how does Obama solve this problem?
Enter Joe Biden. Not Joseph Biden. Joe Biden—the latest manifestation of the working class political hero.
Biden has roots. He was born and raised in working-class Scranton, a fact that has not been lost on an Obama campaign that desperately needs to win Pennsylvania in November. (Biden has probably passed Michael Scott of the television show The Office as the country’s most famous resident of Scranton). He moved to Delaware in 1953, graduated from the University of Delaware, and has spent thirty-five years representing the people of Delaware as a United States senator.
Biden is a lunch-bucket guy. He is a Washington insider who does not live in Washington. Biden has been commuting between D.C. and Wilmington for his entire senate career. This morning he stopped by the Amtrak station in Wilmington and said goodbye to all his friends (his “family” he calls them), shaking hands with the conductors and ticket-takers and coffee vendors—the people he sees everyday during his ninety minute commute. I don’t know what his relationship is like with these workers, but I imagine he knows them by name and can tell you something about their daily struggles.
This Democratic ticket reflects some of the deepest contradictions and paradoxes in American life. At the head of the ticket is a man who represents the restlessness and mobility of Americans. Obama reflects the spirit of the immigrants who left home for a better life. He reflects the universal ideas of the Founding Fathers that transcended particular nations and places. He reflects the nineteenth-century men and women, never satisfied in one place, who settled this vast continent.
Biden, on the other hand, represents the populism that has long defended the plight of the common worker and farmer. He has been loyal through the years to a particular people, place, and nation. He is the guy who stayed at home to serve the people of Delaware, his people.
The need to have someone like Biden on the ticket testifies to the fact that not everyone in the United States is the same. Yes, America is grounded on universal ideas like liberty, freedom, tolerance, etc…. But America is more than an idea. In the face of globalization, national media outlets, and mass consumer capitalism, the United States is still a nation made up of places and regions with different traditions, cultures, and memories.
I don’t know if Biden will appeal to the Hillary Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania or the Reagan Democrats in West Virginia and rural Missouri. I don’t know if he will be able to get past the plagiarism scandal or the various rhetorical gaffes he has committed through the years. But Obama could not have picked a better running mate. Biden’s long connection to a specific people in a specific place is the perfect balance to Obama’s cosmopolitanism. His biography will make sense to these white working class voters in a way that Obama’s biography will not.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sunday Night Odds and Ends
A few things from the blogosphere that have caught my eye this week:
Ambrose Hofstadter Bierce III gossips about the historical profession. HT
Steve Waldman of Beliefnet has a nice set of posts on Joe Biden's faith and views on abortion.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Social conservatives are starting to question religion's role in politics.
Homeschooling farmer Susan Wise Bauer is writing a "History of the Whole World."
The New Republic on Barack Obama's stint as a University of Chicago law professor.
Great piece in the New York Times Magazine on John McEnroe.
Ambrose Hofstadter Bierce III gossips about the historical profession. HT
Steve Waldman of Beliefnet has a nice set of posts on Joe Biden's faith and views on abortion.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Social conservatives are starting to question religion's role in politics.
Homeschooling farmer Susan Wise Bauer is writing a "History of the Whole World."
The New Republic on Barack Obama's stint as a University of Chicago law professor.
Great piece in the New York Times Magazine on John McEnroe.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
My Early and Very Brief "Career" as an Olympic Historian
After watching far too many hours of Olympic coverage this past two weeks, I was reminded of how at one point in my career I wanted to be a historian of American sports. (See my attempt at a entries on tennis player Jimmy Connors and the American Basketball Association (ABA) in the Encyclopedia of Sport in American Culture).
About fifteen years ago I was contracted by Greenwood Press to write articles on the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid for The Historic Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Through the miracle of Google Books, you can actually read parts of my Lake Placid-1932 essay here. (The 1980 article appeared in the first edition of the dictionary, but it was replaced in the second edition).
I have also reached the pinnacle of scholarly expertise on the 1932 games--I am cited in the Wikipedia article on the topic!
About fifteen years ago I was contracted by Greenwood Press to write articles on the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid for The Historic Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Through the miracle of Google Books, you can actually read parts of my Lake Placid-1932 essay here. (The 1980 article appeared in the first edition of the dictionary, but it was replaced in the second edition).
I have also reached the pinnacle of scholarly expertise on the 1932 games--I am cited in the Wikipedia article on the topic!
"Print the Legend": History and Heritage
Gordon Wood ends his reflection on his 1997 review of Pauline Maier's American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence with a quote from the newspaper editor in the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
In chapter 13 of The Purpose of the Past Wood uses Maier's book to reflect upon the relationship between history and heritage in American culture. Wood praises Maier for offering a critical history of the Declaration of Independence that seeks to correct many of the popular myths about the document. She is particularly interested in questioning the sense of reverence that ordinary Americans have for the document.
Maier tries to humanize the the Declaration. It was written by a committee, it was unoriginal, and it was one of many so-called "Declarations of Independence" (90 in all) that were written and published throughout the colonies. But most people don't realize this. They prefer to view the Declaration as a symbol of a dead age--a document to visit and pay homage to rather than a document to discuss and debate as a part of the civic responsibility of every generation of Americans.
But Wood wonders whether Maier is too hard on those who tend to worship relics like the Declaration of Independence as part of a broader American civil religion. He argues that people may need these national shrines in order to "maintain their heritage and affirm their nationhood." According to Wood, Maier has no patience for those who want to believe that Jefferson was the sole author or those who want to see the Declaration as an original and new statement of political philosophy or those who have misinterpreted it to be something it was never intended to be.
This, of course, leads us to the larger issue of the relationship between critical history and heritage or memory. Historians pride themselves on debunking popularly held myths, and Maier does this better than most. I find that my history courses have become increasingly focused on this myth-busting agenda. It works quite well in the classroom.
But Wood raises an interesting question when he asks whether people really want to hear the myth-busting conclusions of critical historians. Perhaps memory and heritage--whether it is completely accurate or not--is the primary way ordinary people "keep the past alive and meaningful."
Some of my own work seems to confirm this, especially as it relates to the attempt by many evangelicals to defend the notion that America was founded as a "Christian nation." Most critical historians, myself included, find it difficult to side with the Christian America historians. But at the same time, scholarly attempts to debunk this myth have gone nowhere. Most ordinary Christians do not want to hear it. They prefer their own version of American history. They want an eighteenth-century America without the separation of church and state or a founding era dominated by evangelical statesmen. After reading Wood, I must admit that this "Christian America" version of American history has been effective in getting more and more people interested in the past. In this sense, maybe it has done some good.
As Wood concludes: "We haven't yet worked out the precise role of critical history in the culture."
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
In chapter 13 of The Purpose of the Past Wood uses Maier's book to reflect upon the relationship between history and heritage in American culture. Wood praises Maier for offering a critical history of the Declaration of Independence that seeks to correct many of the popular myths about the document. She is particularly interested in questioning the sense of reverence that ordinary Americans have for the document.
Maier tries to humanize the the Declaration. It was written by a committee, it was unoriginal, and it was one of many so-called "Declarations of Independence" (90 in all) that were written and published throughout the colonies. But most people don't realize this. They prefer to view the Declaration as a symbol of a dead age--a document to visit and pay homage to rather than a document to discuss and debate as a part of the civic responsibility of every generation of Americans.
But Wood wonders whether Maier is too hard on those who tend to worship relics like the Declaration of Independence as part of a broader American civil religion. He argues that people may need these national shrines in order to "maintain their heritage and affirm their nationhood." According to Wood, Maier has no patience for those who want to believe that Jefferson was the sole author or those who want to see the Declaration as an original and new statement of political philosophy or those who have misinterpreted it to be something it was never intended to be.
This, of course, leads us to the larger issue of the relationship between critical history and heritage or memory. Historians pride themselves on debunking popularly held myths, and Maier does this better than most. I find that my history courses have become increasingly focused on this myth-busting agenda. It works quite well in the classroom.
But Wood raises an interesting question when he asks whether people really want to hear the myth-busting conclusions of critical historians. Perhaps memory and heritage--whether it is completely accurate or not--is the primary way ordinary people "keep the past alive and meaningful."
Some of my own work seems to confirm this, especially as it relates to the attempt by many evangelicals to defend the notion that America was founded as a "Christian nation." Most critical historians, myself included, find it difficult to side with the Christian America historians. But at the same time, scholarly attempts to debunk this myth have gone nowhere. Most ordinary Christians do not want to hear it. They prefer their own version of American history. They want an eighteenth-century America without the separation of church and state or a founding era dominated by evangelical statesmen. After reading Wood, I must admit that this "Christian America" version of American history has been effective in getting more and more people interested in the past. In this sense, maybe it has done some good.
As Wood concludes: "We haven't yet worked out the precise role of critical history in the culture."
Friday, August 22, 2008
SOMA
I just learned that an edited version of my earlier post on John McCain's faith has been published at the webzine SOMA: A Review of Religion and Culture under the title "A Sheep in Sheep's Clothing."
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Mechanicsburg Museum Association
Yesterday I gave a book talk at my local historical society--the Mechanicsburg Museum Association. I spoke at a nineteenth-century railroad passenger station in middle of downtown Mechanicsburg to a group of about twenty history buffs.My topic was the love affair between Philip Vickers Fithian and Elizabeth Beatty. I continue to be blown away with how many people are captivated by this story. Perhaps it is the fact that the relationship between Betsy and Philip is so "real." They had their ups and downs, but they managed to turn their topsy-turvy relationship into a devoted marriage. I told the story of their relationship and tried to suggest some things that their relationship teaches us about gender relations, courtship, and marriage in the age of the American Revolution.
Thanks to Betty S. at the Museum for hosting me. I am now taking a few weeks off from book talks and lectures in order to prepare for the upcoming college semester.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
History vs. Cultural Criticism
Not everyone who studies "the past" can be called "a historian." This is one of the major themes of Gordon Wood's The Purpose of the Past. In chapter thirteen (we are jumping ar