Tuesday is the New Monday

Last week some conservative blogs caused a bit of a stir by trying to downplay the 75,000 person Obama rally in Portland claiming that people actually came to see Portland based indie rock band The Decemberists (a fantastic band to listen to, especially for the historically minded). Of course it didn't take long before they discovered that The Decemberists also hate America, because, well, they have a song critical of the war in Iraq.

But do conservatives realize that The Decemberists have also sung anti-French songs? Would that change their opinion? Probably not, since that song, "Legionnaire's Lament," is actually criticizing French imperialism in North Africa, which is probably one of the few things that American conservatives do like about France.

Turn Your Back on Their Framing

It's always worrisome when a trope on the right-wing blogs enters the mainstream and today we have a fine example with Nathan Thrall and Jesse Wilkin's op-ed in The New York Times entitled, "Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed." The two argue that Kennedy rushed into the Vienna Summit in July 1961 too quickly and, to quote Kennedy himself, the result was that Khrushchev "just beat the hell out of me." This historical example is then analogized to Obama's current stance on negotiating with U.S. opponents, with the authors ending their piece by warning that "sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate."

Historians generally concur that the Vienna Summit was not a high point for the Kennedy administration and that he came across as weak before an assertive Nikita Khrushchev. However, a closer examination of this history reveals that Kennedy's weakness derived less from his desire to talk and more from the baggage he brought to Vienna in the form of a failed U.S. intervention two months prior.

Recent scholarship on the Kennedy administration by scholars such as Timothy Naftali and Aleksandr Fursenko in their authoritative One Hell of a Gamble argue that Kennedy, upon coming into office, hoped to ratchet down Cold War tensions. Part of Kennedy's plan involved holding a summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, preparations of which went forward with the two sides agreeing on a June meeting in Vienna. However, in April of 1961 the administration (in a move that could hardly be called diplomatic) authorized the CIA, in conjunction with an army of exiles, to launch an ill-fated invasion of Cuba in hopes of overthrowing the still young Castro regime. As we know the subsequent Bay of Pigs landings proved an utter failure, mainly succeeding in tightening Castro's grip on the island.

While Kennedy and Khrushchev had agreed to a meeting in Vienna before the Bay of Pigs, it was in the aftermath of this catastrophe that the Soviets pushed harder to ensure the summit would go forward. As described by historian Peter Luňák in a 2003 article for Cold War History one direct result of the Bay of Pigs intervention was that Khrushchev "must have thought that he was facing exactly what he had been striving for a year earlier in Paris - a weakened American president." At the summit itself Khrushchev hammered Kennedy on any number of issues and a number of historians trace Khrushchev's assertiveness afterwards on Berlin and even his decision to move forward with placing nuclear weapons in Cuba as linked to his perception of Kennedy's weakness.

Given all of this, it seems the lesson from Vienna is less that summits and negotiations inherently display weakness, and more that the U.S. should think through and not launch disastrous interventions in other nations which weaken our standing in the world and reveal the limits of U.S. power.

King the Confrontational

Eugene Robinson and Salon.com both point to the brewing fight over the U.S. Fine Art Commission's concern that a proposed design for a statue commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. The commission seems to think the statue would portray King as too "confrontational." Ugh. As lots of people have pointed out it's absurd to maintain this sanitized view of King as "safe," cause he wasn't. And with that in mind, listen to this speech he gave before 1199, the New York City union that eventually merged into SEIU. Warning: may contain moments of confrontation.

Hey Mr. Tough/Don't you think we've suffered enough?

Oy, Yosef, please, just stop. The neocon from CT is back with a Wall Street Journal op-ed giving the same old "Democrats used to be cool but now they're totally lame" pitch. You've heard the argument before: Democrats such as Roosevelt and Kennedy were tough and principled and fought our enemies while Democrats today are weak and relativist and want to have afternoon tea with dictators. Personally, this type of argument leaves me with two main thoughts: 1) that scholars who describe foreign policy through a gendered perspective are on to something; and 2) pundits should have to footnote their articles in the interest of providing some nutritional value.

Let's concede that the three presidents he lists, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, were pretty "tough." FDR saw the threat of fascism and led the nation in combating the threat, Truman set up the framework that helped the U.S. maneuver through the Cold War, and Kennedy navigated us through some dire crises. However, these presidents were not guided only by a tough stance that made them "unafraid to make moral judgments." They made choices that evinced an understanding of the strengths and limits of U.S. power and, in their best moments, a realization of the complexities and ambiguities of the world.

Even as Franklin Roosevelt commanded the U.S. through its' most epic conflict, he also recognized the limits of American power and did things that belie a simplistic idea of always standing up to "evil." Roosevelt did nothing to prevent Spain's fall to fascism and until fairly late hoped the U.S. would not have to be directly involved in the war, but rather that it could support England and other nations. Then, of course, there's Yalta, where the U.S. proved unable to stop Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. While many right-wingers of yesterday and today still see Yalta as an unforgivable sign of weakness (appeasement anyone?) as Robert Dallek writes in his magisterial chronicle of Roosevelt and foreign policy, Yalta reflected a recognition of reality: "The price for Soviet defeat of Nazi armies, diplomat and historian George F. Kennan has said, was their control of Eastern Europe."

As for Truman, it is certainly true that he and Acheson took a tough line with the Soviets, up to and including the war in Korea. Yet, they also understood the world's complexities. Acheson may have warned, as Lieberman quotes, that "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." However, a look at, for example, his handling of the Iran crises after World War II shows that such a belief did not cancel out an appreciation for diplomacy and nuance. While the British believed that military intervention was needed to prevent President Mossadeq from destabilizing the region, Acheson managed to help stave off this course, realizing that although intervention could potentially "solve" the problem of a government challenging U.S. economic and strategic interests, such a move carried a greater risk of "driv[ing] Iran to a Communist coup d'etat" and that Mossadeq was someone to be negotiated with.

As for John Kennedy, while his inaugural address was certainly "tough" it's also not the only speech he gave. In June 1963, after having been through disasters and great successes in his conduct of foreign policy, Kennedy gave a speech at American University showing a new tone in his thinking about foreign policy. While the speech contained many a "hard-headed" line about combating the Soviets, it also demonstrated a real nuance regarding our seemingly implacable foes (who, after all, had promised to "bury us.") In describing how Soviet leaders perceived the U.S. as a dangerous imperialist power bent on destroying the Soviet Union, Kennedy warned (in a statement reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's concerns over an "inordinate fear of communism," a line Lieberman makes fun of in his column) that:

[I]t is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

Lieberman makes a number of other points of minimal historical insight, such as confusing the views of the 1960s New Left with the Democratic Party. The main point however is the one made by Kennedy above: foreign policy is not morally simplistic undertaking and leaders who history has judged kindly are usually the ones who realize that.

Patriotism and History

I spotted via TAPPED this David Frum column on progressivism, patriotism, and the Obama campaign through a discussion of Todd Gitlin's book, The Intellectuals and the Flag. Frum is (surprise) skeptical of Obama's understanding of patriotism, stating that Obama:

[T]ries to distinguish between the fearfully flawed United States as it is - and the reformed country into which the United States might evolve. It is the latter, hypothetical, country that deserves patriotic affection. But there is this one problem: that hypothetical country does not as yet exist. This is not patriotism - it is a wish fantasy.

Frum's comments reveal a somewhat baffling lack of historical context. While he may label Obama's patriotism as "without content and without qualities" one need look any farther than Obama's "Yes We Can" speech to comprehend how Obama understands patriotism. Doing so reveals a historically minded view of this issue and makes a mockery of those who would question Obama's love of country.

For Obama, patriotism centers on a devotion to the ideals of freedom and democracy that the United States was founded upon; this was the "creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation." That seems a pretty standard idea which certain presidents have reaffirmed in recent years. However, as anyone with any knowledge of American history knows, the actual social and political conditions of the United States upon its' creation did not match these ideals (see for example, slavery). To secure these blessing required (and continues to), centuries of struggle by political leaders and ordinary citizens. In Obama's speech those who embraced this patriotic mission were the ones making this ideal of America a reality: from the abolitionists to women's rights activists to union organizers. To Frum however it would seem these Americans were merely "shrinking from realities," while embracing a "wish fantasy." That is how Frum describes Obama, Gitlin, and other modern day progressives who he derides as attempting to sell a "whole new approach to patriotism." Yet, last I checked, the "realities" in America include women having the right to vote and slavery being abolished, among other changes since 1776. Thus, Obama is not pining for a fantasy America, he is rather situating his campaign and its' goals within this larger narrative of history.

Of course, Obama's reading of patriotism and history is nothing new. In fact, based on his remarks, one can imagine David Frum dismissing as "without content" and merely "hypothetical" the sentiments of a short piece of rhetoric delivered in a small town in Pennsylvania one June afternoon in 1863. It is in a way unfortunate that the Gettysburg Address is so famous as it gives us an excuse to avoid pondering its meaning, which Obama is very much attempting to emulate. Lincoln ascribed to a conception of patriotism emphasizing ideals, particularly "the proposition that all men are created equal." For him at that juncture, the Civil War did not just mean preserving a union and an old America, but rather redefining American ideals to be more expansive, to create in that worn but meaningful phrase a "new birth of freedom."

Of course there are a million more things to say about how the meaning and experience of freedom has been contested throughout American history. For the moment however, I'll leave by hopefully appealing to Mr. Frum from another angle and remind him of Rabbi Tarfon's old saying: "It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but you are not free to desist from it either."

Monday Music

I haven't always been a big fan of Seth MacFarlane's shows (Family Guy and American Dad) but this musical rendition of the history of the Iran-contra affair from a recent episode of American Dad is hilarious:

Diplomatic Weakness through Intervention

Dean Barnett over at the Weekly Standard blog has a posting attacking Obama for not understanding the history of past negotiations between U.S. presidents and enemy leaders. He cites a recent Obama statement (although the article he links to for the quote doesn't actually contain it) in which Obama noted that, "This whole notion of not talking to people . . . It didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s ... When Kennedy met with (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

Barnett turns this into a specific discussion of the Vienna Summit in June 1961 between Kennedy and Khrushchev, ignoring the larger historic scope Obama was discussing. But let's run with it. Barnett states that "many historians" believe that Kennedy's weakness at the Vienna Summit made Khrushchev feel assertive enough to move nuclear weapons into Cuba. Thus, according to Barnett, Vienna represents a "cautionary tale regarding the inherent risks of diplomacy with malevolent regimes."Now, that's a point of dispute but let's accept his contention that Kennedy was in a weak position when he met Khrushchev. Why would that be?

Two months earlier the administration had conducted a disastrous attempted intervention at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. To Barnett's credit he mentions the Bay of Pigs, but his point remains that the U.S. is weaker for engaging in negotiations. Yet, this is a case where U.S. weakness on the international scene derived not from talking to the enemy, but from the failures of a poorly planned covert intervention in another nation's affairs. U.S. power is not complete and as in a game of poker, sometimes it's best not to show your full hand (ie., use military force). Does any of this sound familiar?

Appeasement Alert

Wooo boy, the banalogies are just flying around today. RedState posted this awesome video which segue ways from Bush's remarks yesterday, to Chamberlain's statement at Munich (though they at least avoid the most cliched moment of Chamberlain saying "We shall have peace in our time") to Obama saying he'd meet with leaders we don't like. Of course, one could make a similar video with the final footage showing Reagan meeting, negotiating, and coming to deals with Gorbachev and the Soviets! Who then subsequently invaded Western Europe (as the neocons feared) because of all that appeasement.

As Matthews pointed out, the difference between Chamberlain and Obama is that the Munich Pact saw Britain and France concede to Hitler half of Czechoslovakia, not that he talked to Hitler at all.

Godwin's Law

It's annoying, but also highly appropriate, that my first real post regards our president making a facile comparison between today's Middle East problems and World War II. There's an amusing social science idea, "Godwin's Law" which states that as any "discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." I would propose a corollary to that, the "Munich Metaphor Law" which states that as any conservative continues to speak or write about U.S. foreign policy, the probability of them referencing Munich approaches one.

Historical analogies to World War II are among the most commonly and least accurately employed by pundits and politicians, so it's no surprise that Bush resorted to one in his speech to the Israeli Knesset today:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The main question here is how the historical context of World War II helps us understand today's conditions. A significant segment of Americans and politicians (especially conservatives, btw) did call for the U.S. to stay out of European and Asian affairs. Who are their equivalents today? As far as dealing with al Qaeda, last I checked most everyone in "mainstream" political dialogue is saying the U.S. needs to defeat al Qaeda, not negotiate with them, differing mainly on the best strategy for carrying this out.

How about Iran, surely Achmedinejad is like the new Hitler! Well, no, most likely not. Let's review: Hitler wanted to militarily conquer the world. Does Achmedinejad want to do that? I haven't really heard anyone suggest that. How about just invading a few of Iran's neighbors? No one's really saying that either and the main nation he might target already is tilting more pro-Iranian everyday, thanks to, well, us. How about a pre-meditated nuclear strike on Israel? For that to be a worry, someone needs to convince me that Achmedinejad is far crazier than Hitler and does not care one bit about turning his nation into a nuclear waste heap. 'Cause that is exactly what will happen; Israel has the capacity to attack Iran with nuclear weapons delivered by land, sea, and air , leaving a 0% chance of Iran escaping undestroyed.

So, there's not much "there" there. To sum up my thoughts on such analogies here are some apropos words from the great Stephen Colbert: "That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it."

UPDATE: People smarter than me weigh in. And guess what Joe Lieberman thinks of Bush's speech?

UPDATE 2: If we're doing World War II analogies, this Chris Matthews interview is kind of like the Marianas Turkey Shoot. I'm not always a fan of Matthews but the way he rips this right-wing radio host to shreds is worth watching.

Music Monday

When I was growing up our family road trips were usually accompanied by the music of Tom Lehrer. One of the great American satirists, Tom Lehrer was a sort of child prodigy, graduating from Harvard when he was 18. Lehrer has spent much of his life as a math and political science professor bouncing between Harvard, MIT, and Wellesley. He is also a songwriter and in the early and mid-1960s he composed a number of biting and hilarious songs satirizing the Cold War, segregation, and innumerable other topics.

Given all the the political hand wringing and fighting over the racial and gender divides that the Democratic nomination fight is forcing into plain view, it seems particularly appropriate to share his song "National Brotherhood Week" from his 1965 record, That Was the Year That Was:



PS: Real blogging begins soon...just one more paper!

Dept. of Non-Banalogies

The inimitable Rick Perlstein gives a nice run down of historic voting trends in Louisiana's sixth district where the Democrats scored a surprise victory on Saturday in a special House election.

It Was Forty Years Ago Today...

Dissent Magazine has a nice collection of essays from various left-leaning academics about the meaning of 1968. Rather than recite the litany of events we all have committed to memory, the essays give some context and help us see why we still can't stop talking about 1968 (hint: it's because none of the issues that arose then have been resolved).

Monday Music

I thought a nice way to start off Mondays would be to post a song, preferably one with some relevant lyrics or that has historical significance in itself.

And what better way to begin than with The Kinks! This is "Victoria" the title track from their 1969 record Arthur or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire. As you might guess the album has some historical content. "Victoria" in specific is Ray Davies' ode to the late nineteenth century glory days of the British Empire. Though, as with many Kinks' songs, the lyrics are overflowing with sarcasm and it's pretty hard to see it as anything other than an attack on the pretensions and arrogance of the British Empire. Which is why I'm dedicating "Victoria" to Doug Feith, Max Boot, and all of their friends who spend their time daydreaming about being T.E. Lawrence.

McCain v. Goldwater

Former White House Counsel John Dean has a solid (if somewhat overly sentimental) look at why John McCain is not a principled conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater.

Happy May Day

Today is May 1st or May Day. While there are a number of different holidays and celebrations associated with May Day, among these includes International Worker's Day. Unfortunately, May Day in this context has became synonymous with septagenerian Soviet General Secretaries politely waving to rows of deadly Red Army divisions poised to strike Western Europe. Fortunately, the U.S. embarked on the path advocated by the John McCain's of the era and U.S. forces currently are enjoying their fifty-third year of peaceful occupation and borscht eating.

As for the origins of May Day, they actually lie right here in the good ol' US of A! May Day grew out of the struggle for a shorter working day, one which can be traced in the U.S. at least as far back as the (appropriately enough) named "Ten Hour Movement" of antebellum times. May Day itself traces back to October 7, 1884 when the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU), the immediate predecessor to the American Federation of Labor (AFL), passed a resolution demanding the legislative approval of an eight hour day by May 1, 1886.

Sadly, the eight-hour day was not implemented in 1886, leading unions across the nation to commence a major strike wave, including in Chicago. Those protests ended in a sordid tale called the "Haymarket Affair" in which seven police officers were killed by a bomb (culprit unknown), leading to the trials and executions of five anarchists in a trial most scholars describe as embodying all the impartiality and thoroughness one could expect in say, the North Korean justice system. Among other repercussions of the Haymarket affair was that May Day became an international day of remembrance for the "martyrs" of Haymarket and thus became the international celebration of today.

In honor of May Day, I thought it'd be good to post a video reminding us of why we have needed, still need, and will need in the future a thriving labor movement: