History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Unless Yassar Arafat dies tonight, you can hear Juan Williams and the University of Wisconsin's Tim Tyson on NPR's"Morning Edition" at 5:20, 7:20, 9:20, and 11:20 EST this morning. They'll be talking about Tim's memoir, Blood Done Sign My Name. It's an astonishing story about a racial murder in Oxford, North Carolina, when Tim was ten years old. If you miss the interview on radio, after 10:00 a.m., you can go here and then click on"Listen to Tuesday's Show" or"Listen to Individual stories." [Update: Fallujah pre-empted this interview today. Stay tuned.]
Of all places, a couple of Cliopatria's lefty Contributing Editors got into a debate of sorts on Richard Jensen's Conservativenet. Commenting in Dean E. Murphy's"Bolt From the Political Blue: Can History Save the Democrats," New York Times, 7 November 2004, Sean Wilentz"saw two instances in
history when the American electoral landscape resembled that of today. ‘They are kind of scary examples,' Professor Wilentz said. ‘One is 1860, and we know what happened after that one, and the other was 1896, the McKinley-Bryan election." Perceptive of him.
That contest, which seemed to herald a new era of Republican dominance, also started a chain of events that led to a disastrous schism in the party. William McKinley, a conservative Republican, defeated William Jennings Bryan, a populist Democrat, and won the first clear popular majority in 24 years. He beat Bryan even more soundly in 1900, but less than a year later, he was
assassinated.
His death was a tragedy and a fluke, Professor Wilentz said, but it changed the course of political history. Had McKinley not been killed, Marcus A. Hanna, the political handler who was as instrumental to McKinley's success as Karl Rove has been to Mr. Bush's, would have pursued his dream of" creating a Republican machine that would go on forever," Professor Wilentz said.
Instead, Theodore Roosevelt became president, and pursued progressive policies at home and power projection abroad."What followed shifted the Republican Party in a direction it had not planned to go, and created thegroundwork for 1912 and eventually the New Deal," Professor Wilentz said.
When his successor, William H. Taft, turned back to conservatism, Roosevelt ran against him in 1912 on the Progressive, or Bull Moose, ticket, and split the Republican Party, yielding the White House to the Democrats and Woodrow Wilson.
"One can't imagine what American history might have looked like had McKinley continued to the end of his second term," Professor Wilentz said.
* * * * *
Professor Wilentz of Princeton said that even if the 2004 victory was an incremental one, that should not comfort the Democrats. He said Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush now have a chance to do what Hanna and McKinley never did: Lay the foundation for lasting Republican dominance.
"The Republicans are basically unchecked," Professor Wilentz said."There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field."
"Sean Wilentz is a fine historian and an elegant writer," replied Michael Kazin.
But the idea that GOP conservatives would have dominated the country if McKinley had served
out his second term ignores the reform constituencies rising inside both major parties (not to speak of a growing Socialist vote in places as disparate as NY, Okla., and Nevada). TR was, after all, the delegates' choice for VP in 1900, not Hanna's. And the congressional insurgency that split the GOP after 1906 would probably have crested sooner if McKinley had been president, instead of TR.
As Elizabeth Sanders has pointed out, most Democrats were stronger backers of anti-corporate, pro-labor and small farmer legislation than were Republicans. (Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-1917 published 1999) This trend began during the
1890s. Counter-factual history is a fool's game, perhaps. But the idea that Hanna could have crafted a long period of conservative rule ignores the political context of the time.
Cliopatria's proud to have both Sean Wilentz and Michael Kazin as Contributing Editors. I report; you decide.
And I thought that Grant Jones's rant was offensive. He could learn offense from this. (Caution: Offensive language.)
I've mentioned them already, but in a post with a hostile preface that didn't do justice to them, so I want to recommend again Caleb McDaniel's Open Letter to the World and his Open Letter to
America. For one thoughtful response to Caleb's letters, see AJ's"Am I To Be An American?" and their discussion at No Great Matter. Ahh, but it matters a great deal.
What's humbling is that most of America probably thinks of all of us as the boring nerds who watch the C-Span interviews they channel surf past to get to the Surreal World.
Chances are they are correct.
mark safranski -
11/10/2004
Hi Caleb,
Thanks for the clarification. I don't think all of your commentary is incorrect either as it applies to an important/influential faction of the GOP - just that this election's outcome rode on the war more than anything else.
" Narratives", which Carville brought up the other day are probably the next great blogospheric debate topic. There's a lot of validity to the idea because people respond strongly to stories - there's a hook there that is possibly hardwired in terms of how the brain organizes information - and not to explanatory points, that while important in themselves, point to nothing larger or connected.
W. Caleb McDaniel -
11/10/2004
I tried to voice some skepticism about "moral values" as a master-frame, since clearly not all exit polls were working last Tuesday. The general aim of my post was also to undermine the kind of "us" versus "them" dichotomy that crystallizes in the wake of most elections. Some might say I actually said more, in terms of quantity, about "us" than "them."
The "moral values" meme is also misleading because, frankly, if prompted to do so I might have given "moral values" as one of the reasons I voted for Kerry. It actually serves as a pretty good thumbnail for my rationales about opposing Bush's foreign policy or the war.
But by the time I was writing, "moral values" had become much more than a simple poll category. It was already becoming part of a much larger and much blunter explanatory narrative (of the Simon Schama sort). It was really that narrative, more than polling data, that I was trying to respond to.
Maarja Krusten -
11/10/2004
Thanks much, Mark, for the thoughtful, useful response! I am glad to hear you've done the type of work you have. I was starting to think by the silence that I had pissed off eveyone on the blogs and on the article website, LOL. I will give what you said very careful consideration.
Let me explain what I meant by too many comments from the same socio economic class. Perhaps because it is an election year, some of the people who post here on HNN write as if they, in their own wonderful, self important personas, represent "America." Recently, there has been a disturbing trend of people trying to tell each other who is a "real American" and who is "not a real American." That's just silly. Moreover, it's arrogant, whether it comes from the Left or the Right.
And some of what I hear on HNN comes across as just plain hypocritical. We're mostly just a bunch of well educated, white, middle or upper middle class people who know a bit about some stuff, yakking here. That's all! None of us has come down off of any mountains recently, LOL. Some of the yakking is more worth considering than other. Your points are well made, and I thank you for taking the time to answer. I had just about written off trying to post to any of the HNN blogs, LOL. Maybe I won't give up just yet....
mark safranski -
11/10/2004
Hi Maarja
You wrote:
" recognize HNN is not representative of America, but I've seen too many comments on it from a single race and socio-economic class here, and mostly from one gender at that..."
Interest in history, much less from a scholarly, academic, standpoint, is not representative of America. For that matter, interest in any academic subject at a high level of discourse is pretty much the province of the uppermost quintile of the Bell Curve. The spread is probably more representative in socioeconomic terms than IQ but it will still be skewed toward the top. As for gender, probably more women will comment if more female scholars take the initiative and start submitting articles to HNN.
The source of the arguments matter less than the arguments themselves - if you can try to put yourself in the shoes of an English peasant during the War of the Roses or of a courtier in classical Persia, in order to write some decent history then relating to someone from a 21st century American inner city should be a piece of cake.
"...so clearly some of my reaction to that came to the fore with my comments about the baby who died in the DC ghetto neighborhood. It seems so easy for middle class HNN posters with comfortable incomes to pat themselves on the back for the exemplary values they hold. Much harder for members of the underclass to be exposed to those "values" or to join the "mainstream." I was hoping to hear about how some of the Red State people were doing charitable work, etc"
I spent five years working with At-Risk children - usually with multiple and intersecting problems- it is difficult to imagine the circumstances the kids struggle with on a daily basis - highly irresponsible, self-absorbed, emotionally disturbed and/or substance abusing parents making life decisions for them not being the least consideration.
Overall, in terms of reaching the "mainstream" as a group they need two things, one " liberal" and the other " conservative":
- Early Pre-K intervention by a competent, caring adult who can form an emotional bond that creates the sense of security for cognitive and developmental progress. This is really quite critical for heading off many other problems or minimizing others.
-An enriched, Western Civ heavy, arts-rich, k-12 curriculum to catch them up on all the concepts and common knowlege that their middle class or upper class peers have in their home environment ( Yes this means tossing intellectually specious and frivolous multicultural junk beloved by PC education professors and journalists to make room for worthwhile subjects of study).
mark safranski -
11/9/2004
Hi Ralph
I don't think my views have ever been hidden. I tend to be moderately libertarian on economic and social issues, neoconservative to realist on foreign policy, which is my primary interest.
Most of the time I vote Republican but I have voted for Libertarians and even - yes, it's true- a handful of Democrats. Whether that makes me moderate or very conservative depends on your perspective and emphasis on particular issues. I'm not happy with some things Bush has done but I could reasonably surmise that I'd be more unhappy if Mr. Kerry had won.
Maarja Krusten -
11/9/2004
Thanks for the tip about Tim Tyson's book, I wandered over the the link and read the reviews. I'll definitely have to buy it. BTW, I posted a question on the Ron Briley article page, asking for recommendations for books about the history and sociology of the "permanent underclass." If anyone was put off by the flurry of comments from me on that page yesterday about the little 10-week old baby who died in a Washington, DC ghetto, I apologize. Some of the comments were posted late at night (I usually retire at 10:30, LOL) and I was way too tired--so some of the comments came out more maudlin than I intended. The comments from Dave Livingston set me off -- I shouldn't have responded -- but for some reason I am haunted more than I should be by the fact that little children live in fear and misery and poverty and die young in the same city that houses the White House. For some reason, I am convinced a Clinton would have used the bully pulpit on those issues better than Bush has during the last four years. In fact, I remember Clinton talking in a press conference about the sad fact that too many little children in DC plan their own funerals, expecting to die young.
I recognize HNN is not representative of America, but I've seen too many comments on it from a single race and socio-economic class here, and mostly from one gender at that, so clearly some of my reaction to that came to the fore with my comments about the baby who died in the DC ghetto neighborhood. It seems so easy for middle class HNN posters with comfortable incomes to pat themselves on the back for the exemplary values they hold. Much harder for members of the underclass to be exposed to those "values" or to join the "mainstream." I was hoping to hear about how some of the Red State people were doing charitable work, etc., a subject I've been discussing since the election in the Washington era with my other Christian friends, but I couldn't get anyone to respond, least of all Dave, to whom I threw out a challenge.
Oddly enough, the most comforting comments on HNN came earlier on another thread, from Nancy, who identified herself as a Southern lesbian living in a partnership of 28-years standing. I thanked her, noting, "Thank you, Nancy, for your thoughtful comments. It is nice to hear you are optimistic about our country, despite the denigration you have to endure! I have my days when I am more optimistic and days when I am less. I've probably been reading too many message boards, they always depress me, unlike when I talk to the Democrat and Republican voters I actually know. One hears more reason when one talks to people face to face, at least I do. But I appreciate your reminding me that even here on HNN, there are voices of reasons, such as yours!"
Thanks again for the tip on the Tyson book, be sure to pass along others that might balance the sense of smug insularity one gets in reading comments by some of HNN's posters (your blog does a good job of balance, when I say smug, I don't mean it).
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2004
Jeez, Mark, this is awfully revealing. Who is the "us" you are talking about and with whom you joyously receive the prodigal son?
mark safranski -
11/9/2004
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, Pat's buying into our philosophy, not us into his.
Buchanan really ought to look at the editorial course his magazine took the past few years and ask himself where he stands.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2004
Sorry, Mark. Pat Buchanan swallowed the Bush hype and voted with you on election day.
mark safranski -
11/9/2004
Hi Ralph,
I would argue that Bush's coalition was smaller than it could have been. Libertarians and Rockefeller Republicans having been tossed overboard by the administration long ago.
The difference I think is in the balance of power *within* each party. The Left and Moderate wings of the Democrats split power far more evenly. The Libertarians and Moderate Republicans have far less clout and organization comparatively than the Big Business, Social Conservative and " movement" think tanker type Republicans.
The antiwar Right of course, bolted with Buchanan.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2004
Turn your own argument on yourself, Mark. What kind of coalition of voters were you allied with on election day? If I were you, I'd also be looking for all the reasons why they were not decisive.
mark safranski -
11/9/2004
Eloquent, elegant and wrong.
I think there is a temptation, when we find ourselves on the losing side of an election, to try to ascribe the reasons for the loss into an "us vs. them" paradigm caused by some hardwired difference of character, morality or intellect. The Republicans were equally guilty of this line of thinking in 1996.
I think the paramount issue of 2004 was the war in a big picture sense. The left-wing of the Democrat Party lost that argument in 2001 when the American people saw 9/11 as an an act of War and all our adversaries in the Mideast -al Qaida, Hezbollah, Baathist, Sunni, Shiite, Syria, Iran, Taliban - as an interrelated enemy regardless of how each entity acts toward the other. Complexity being sacrificed for clarity in terms of whom is to be regarded in the final analysis, as an enemy of the United States.
The left-wing of the Democratic Party has continued to refight a losing battle, particularly on Iraq, and severely hampered Kerry's ability to put forth a coherent strategy on the war to the voters. Some of his supporters were quite vehement that there wasn't a " real war" at all. Others said that Afghanistan was ok but Iraq was illegal, still others that Iraq too was a legitimate war.
Not a comfortable coalition with which to run a campaign.
Manan Ahmed -
11/9/2004
I, too, am very skeptical of the "moral values" claim. Kevin Drum has a post where he compares 2000 and 2004 exit polls. Conclusion: same %age of people cited that in 2000.
Caleb's statements still are quite eloquent.
I'm not really convinced that " moral values" were the key issue for a majority of Bush voters. Foreign policy, defense and terrorism issues combined far outweighed " moral values " in subsequent polls as a reason to vote for George Bush. Certainly, I find it dubious that self-described liberals or moderates who voted for Mr. Bush did so because they oppose " Gay marriage" or abortion.
By focusing exclusively on " moral values" Caleb risks misunderstanding both the voter who crossed party lines as well as the average straight-ticket Republican.
Richard Henry Morgan -
11/9/2004
Thanks for the link. Other than the happy language, what I enjoyed most (from f---thesouth.com) was the history lesson. I never knew that blue states founded the nation. I never knew that James Madison was a blue-stater. I'm starting to doubt that blue-staters have some sort of monopoly on intelligence and knowledge.
Jonathan Dresner -
11/9/2004
No, I'm familiar with some of those traditions, particularly our well-represented anabaptists; the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, Shakers and Quakers, the Amish who lived around my birthplace in Pennsylvania.....
And I grew up listening to the Weaver's rollicking version of "I don't want to get adjusted to this world" though it was only about ten years ago when the penny dropped on what it really meant.
Ironically, though, the current melding of Christian and American identity makes those traditions more mainstream than my own. At least that's the way it looks from here: it's OK to transcend the nation-state if you are doing it through Christ, but not if you're doing it for some other reason.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2004
What a thoughtful thing to say, Sharon! The world is a better place for your doing so.
Sharon Howard -
11/9/2004
Simon Schama should indeed take note. One of the great wonders and pleasures of the last six months' or so blogging, for me as a British atheist, has been the discovery of so many thoughtful American believers. I don't normally get to see this in my secular circles (and in a society in which organised religion has far less influence to start with); my main personal contact with the religious in recent years comes from such things as the extended advert for Alpha courses and the local evangelical church that passes as a parish newsletter, or the annual Welsh evangelical conference in our town (my initial reactions to that were not just knee-jerk but shamingly ugly and intolerant; I'm still working on it). Ralph, Caleb, Brandon, Baraita (amongst others): I will never believe what you believe, but you have opened my eyes. Amidst all the horrors, you have made my world a little more hopeful and my world-view a little broader. Thank you.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2004
Jon, It may seem strange to you, but this sense of alienation from the larger community in which we dwell is also a theme in Christian thinking. It is evident in some Christians' self-reference as "sojourners" or in the refusal of some sects to say the pledge of allegiance or to serve in the armed forces. Any religious community that insists that the nation is not its highest majesty or its most important source of loyalty is bound to have some sense of distance from the community constituted by the nation.
Jonathan Dresner -
11/9/2004
I was going to reply to AJ's letter, but I can't seem to find the comment button over there. Never mind, I'll do it here.
Reading about AJ's reservations about identifying fully with Americanism, I was reminded of my own path. As a Jew, growing up in a relatively non-Jewish suburb of Baltimore/DC, I always had a somewhat distant feeling towards "America"; it's a great place to be Jewish, don't get me wrong, but it isn't a perfect place to be Jewish, either. As I ventured out into the world, both of those opinions have become stronger: I believe, more strongly than ever, that America is a great place to be Jewish, both historically and in the present. I believe, more strongly than ever, that there is a distinct challenge to being Jewish in America, something in the fundamental make-up of the American character and myth that is not entirely friendly no matter how assimilated, productive, Godly, Worldly or patriotic we are (for we are all those things and more).
So, AJ, welcome to my world. There is noplace like America, and yet it is a difficult place to be, nonetheless. Perhaps, in a way, it is the very openness and flexibility of American character that makes to so hard for the cosmopolitan to be fully integrated: none of us really are, but some of us feel it more strongly because of our experiences and positions.
