Forty-four: Newtered No More

So, who the heck is Saul Alinsky? And who the heck knows who he is? And given the fact that 99 out of 100 people, being generous here, haven't got a clue who he is, why is Newt Gingrich throwing his name around like it's a piece of common confetti?

Saul Alinsky was a Jewish community organizer who lived between 1909 and 1972. There is no connection between Barack Obama and Alinsky, except that Obama was briefly a community organizer. Hilary Clinton, apparently, wrote her undergraduate thesis on the guy. Machiavelli for the poor, is how he is described by CNN. He was a non-Marxist radical. Quintessentially American, in fact. A radical who was eschewing Marxism -- doesn't get more American than that!

But lets face it, who in Gingrich's audience has a clue about this? No one. Why does he say this then? It is the same red meat he is throwing at the audience with regard to race -- Obama, "the food stamp President." He can say that so that he doesn't have to be overtly racist, or at least so that a racist audience can feel comfortable imbibing what he is saying. But where there is racism, can anti-semitism be far away? The answer is no. This is an appeal to the old populism; where Obama isn't simply an African American radical, he has also to be sold as a European social democrat. How better to do that than to throw around the Jewish name of a largely forgotten radical?

Of course, one of the great things about this kind of bating is that it actually resurrects the names of people like Alinsky. For, in fact, he would speak to the 99 percent. He would speak to the Occupy movement -- which is, unquestionably, to speak to an American audience. The result is that we are not Newtered by the rhetoric, as the Grinch would want -- perhaps we can be empowered. Long live, Saul!!

Forty-three: More Pauline History Rewrites

Ron Paul has suggested that the Civil War was unnecessary. It was unfortunate, and slavery could have been eradicated by other mechanisms besides warfare. He points to the case of the British Empire, where the government paid compensation to the slaveowners for their slaves, and where slavery was brought to an end peacefully.

It goes without saying that this is not a very well thought out proposition on Paul’s part. For two reasons: first, because the situation in the United States was fundamentally different from that in the British Empire – on so many levels; second, because the notion that the U.S. government would pay this kind of compensation to one particular segment of the population, fundamentally undermines Paul’s own claims about the Constitution not really allowing such things, and that the government should remain small and should stay out of the economy.

I will take these, very briefly, in turn. Unlike in the United States, slaveholding in the British system (by and large) was not at the metropole – it was in the periphery of the empire. While slaveholders had lobbyists at Parliament, their representatives did not represent half of the constituencies of that body – as was the case in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Moreover, in Britain in the 1830s the wealth of the slaveholding areas of the empire did not compare with the wealth of the slaveholding States in the 1850s. Those 50 percent of the States where slavery existed were going through a major economic boom founded primarily on the profit from cotton, and from the collateral associated with property from the bodies of the slaves. To get slaveholders to back down from their position that their civilization was superior to that of a free labor economy – both economically and morally – was not something that could be done by mere compensation. Everyone knew this at the time and a Ron Paul coming along to suggest this idea would have been laughed out of court – both in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. One could go on, but if these points alone aren’t sufficient to make the case, then no amount of evidence would suffice for someone proposing such a specious argument.

But, add to this, how does a government that is supposed to have no income tax on which to draw revenue compensate slaveowners for the value of their property in slaves? How would then one not also compensate the slaves for their years of unpaid labor (though Paul wouldn't propose this, I am sure)? Such an act to compensate slaveowners would be a major intervention in the economy by the government, and if it was Constitutional do this, it would then be a precedent for any other similar act of government -- e.g. the New Deal, the War on Poverty (against which Ron Paul now rails). Dr. Paul may have some sensible things to say about foreign policy, though he invariably arrives at these things by a logic that undermines the soundness of what he is saying, but these particular economic ramblings of his are just sheer nonsense. 

Forty-two: Reserve Judgment

Ron Paul is suggesting that the gold standard is required by the Constitution. This is not the case. Gold is mentioned once in the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 10. This article basically says that no State is entitled to act like the federal government. Thus, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

So, if the Constitution were making a mere confederation of states with no other authority but the states themselves, then there might be a case for saying that gold and silver were a required basis for currency.

But this is not the case, as the authority of Congress overrides the States in this area. This is handled in Section 8 of the same article:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; [etc.]

Clearly, the Constitution would allow Congress to do pretty much anything that its members deemed was necessary to secure the wealth and prosperity of the United States.

One of these things has been the establishment, in 1913, during Woodrow Wilson’s administration, of the Federal Reserve System. This basically oversees the banking system and is intended to secure against the kinds of financial panics that are frequent occurrences in the capitalist system. The Fed was designed to protect capitalism from itself, and there have been plenty of cases where it has clearly achieved this – though it has failed on several occasions also, mainly due to faulty management (e.g., 1929 & 2008).

The assault on the Federal Reserve System from the right is intended to allow unfettered capitalism to reign once more. The notion that the economic cycles of boom and bust that preceded the 1913 creation of the Fed would be preferable to the oversight of the financial markets currently in place is absurd. Ron Paul’s grasp of history is flimsy at best – and he makes Gingrich look like a veritable scholar in this department – but this isn’t too much to grasp (though, of course, one has to note that one strand of Republican thinking wants chaos for its own sake – a return to the notion of the survival of the fittest, with everyone’s hands on the Bible and a gun – so it may not be that Paul is blind to these realities after all).

Republicans generally hope that people forget history altogether so that they can make up their own historical transcript out of their own fanciful whole cloth. They certainly excel in this area.

Forty-one: Birth of a President

The birther controversy seems to be absolutely bogus. If one is born outside the United States and not of American parentage one can be President of the United States, so long as he or she is elected to the office, of course. Examine Section 1, Article 2.  It says, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.” So the statement of being a natural born citizen is qualified by the timing of when the Constitution was being adopted. All those people, by my reckoning, must be dead, though in Ron Paul’s world of Constitutionality, this may in fact be open to question.  How do we know that this is not meant to rule out foreign-born people altogether? We know this because of the statement that follows immediately after this: “neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, AND BEEN FOURTEEN YEARS A RESIDENT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.” Why would it be necessary to say anything about fourteen years of residence if everyone needed to be a natural born citizen? The fact that this is in there means that for the time after that period when the Constitution is adopted this is the rule that should be applied.

And this makes sense in relation to the requirements for the House of Representatives and the Senate. The former required, the following: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Meanwhile, the Senate required this: “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Is it not obvious that there is a natural progression from the House to the Senate to the Presidency? Is it really credible that the founders who created the Constitution on the grounds of reason, would suddenly throw this all out with regard to the President? That they would suddenly make the presidency a position that is fundamentally different from the other positions is not credible. They were clearly concerned about foreign aristocrats coming in and trying to establish a monarchy, but the fourteen years residency was sufficient guarantee against this. Come now. These people were not simpletons. They were intellectuals. They could think their way out of a paper bag. They were not birthers, and they did not establish natural-born citizenship as a basic criterion for the position of President.

This issue has never been taken up by the Supreme Court. If it were, however, there is no question how they would rule. Unless, of course, they were birthers and simpletons themselves. Well, I suppose it is open to question then.

Forty: Xtreme History®

The X-Games, bringing together a multitude of Xtreme Sports, have been going on for many years. I learned the other day [December 2006] at a Christmas party that there is now something called Xtreme Programming taking shape. This is a new approach to programming founded on a relationship between programmer and client that is far more interactive than previously was the case. Heretofore, a programmer would be given a task by the client and would work away at her/his computer returning with a finished product, a program that would hopefully meet the needs of the client. Now, though, Xtreme programmers are approaching their task in a new way and based upon altered assumptions. They believe, quite reasonably, that the client doesn’t really know what he or she wants when hiring the programmer, and so, rather than hibernating until the project is done, the programmer needs to be engaging the client in the process of creating the program. Programmers need to present their clients with all the possible alternatives, make suggestions about different ways of approaching the project, and share their sense of the new vistas that get opened up as the programs take form. In this way they can more effectively teach the client how to use the program once it is finished and, they believe, the program can more efficiently meet the client’s needs. In addition, the program will spawn new approaches to programming that will continue to push the boundaries of interactivity. All this sounds promising. Perhaps we can apply this thinking to the world of History.

Now is the time, then, to establish Xtreme History®. Here, historians will work more closely with their clients (however these are to be defined), bringing them into the process of creating a history that is more usable for them. We could introduce historians into all walks of life, having them shadow public figures, to offer the historical alternatives. Let’s take American presidents as our example. Instead of having to wait around for popular historians to write their over-priced evaluations of the work of presidents who are long gone, we can have a historian sitting on the cabinet to provide instant historical assessments. “No, Mr. President, if you invade Iraq and you do not have a shred of evidence that Saddam is producing WMDs, it may not look good for your reputation in the future. Look what happened to Richard Nixon when he tried to lie to the American people. Mind you, in his case, resignation after threatened impeachment was followed by scholarly rehabilitation. In your case, it might mean you get through your presidency unscathed, but your historical legacy may be forever scarred.” Such Xtreme historical interventions might work wonders in an evenly divided cabinet dealing with tough issues. You know that Presidents are constantly thinking about their legacies, particularly in their second terms, so why not give them help in this area? After all, if they have to turn to other cabinet members for advice, people who have their own legacies and ambitions for higher office to take care of, they may not get the advice that they really need. Assign them an Xtreme Historian®, however, and they will be much better served. [Additional consideration: as we develop our Xtreme methodologies, we would need to go back to study some of the proto-Xtreme Historians® – there’s Arthur Schlessinger giving advice on matters historical to JFK, and, of course, Woodrow Wilson providing Divine historical guidance for himself.]

If we follow this bold historiographical path just think of the possibilities for the members of our American Historical Association to become bona fide public intellectuals. The President of the AHA could be assigned a space in the closet adjacent to the Oval Office, used so effectively by Monica Lewinsky, and services could be provided very directly to the President of the United States. The AHA President’s message every January at the Convention would become a national media event, as the Most Extreme Xtreme Historian® provided his or her “State of the President’s Legacy Address.” Once this becomes firmly established as a yearly ritual we might find Xtreme History® filtering down into all areas of American society and culture. Just imagine in season nine of the Sopranos, the show is revitalized by the introduction of an Xtreme Historian® who shadows Tony Soprano providing advice on how he will look to posterity if he blows away some minor character. “No, Mr. Soprano [Xtreme Historians® lose the appearance of objectivity if they use first names],” Ricordo Heatstatter says, “don’t ice Michael [Xtreme Historians® should endeavor to learn the language of their clients]; it won’t look good for the historical record if you kill one of your close relatives. If you’ve got to do it, have someone else take him out – and don’t let me know about it, as I’ll have to include it in my historical account.” 

The possibilities are endless. We finish with a possible public service announcement, or caption for AHA Perspectives:

Xtreme Historians® needed! Help save your ailing profession; help save the nation, even the planet! Opportunities available! You must be prepared to provide your services anytime, anywhere, and in any unsavory capacity. No job is too small. No history is too dirty. You too can help launder the historical record.