American Studies 2004 - 2005

- SCHEDULE FOR WEEK NOVEMBER 1 - 5. BACK TO WORK!

. Monday 1, 10:00-13:00. MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Carlein, Diederik and Marc will review Stephen Skowronek's book The Politics Presidents Make. Leadership From John Adams to Bill Clinton (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1997). You can read some background info on the author here, and a review of the first edition (1993) here. (Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend.)

. Tuesday 2, 9:00-11:00. US-EU RELATIONS. Presentation on "National Interests" by Harry, Marc, Jurjen and Gejo. 13:00-15:00. THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE. Walking Tour through Amsterdam with Profs. Rob Kroes and Herman Beliën.

. Thursday 4, 9:00-11:00. US-EU RELATIONS. Presentation on "Economic Relations: WTO and Subsidies" by Otto, Jaime, William, Ivo and Jeroen.

. Friday 5. No session.

THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE
Lecturer: R. Kroes

Amsterdam Walking Tour: Jacqueline - Marc - Agustin

- The Americanization of Scheltema. We visited a couple of bookstores in Amsterdam: Athenaeum (Spui 14-16), Het Martyrium (Van Baerlestraat 170-172), and Scheltema (Koningsplein 20.)

We looked for physical, visible signs of "Americanization", which we defined as: (1) enormous availability of books on display; (2) availability of sitting space, so that customers can see, touch and feel the books; (3) a Café; (5) rest rooms for customers; (5) CDs and DVDs on sale; (6) Store opens on Sundays.

Our conclusion is very straightforward: while both Het Martyrium and Athenaeum have space constraints that act as a stumbling bloc to their "Americanization", Scheltema is fast becoming the Barnes & Noble (or Borders) of Amsterdam (*).

We interviewed a middle-manager at Scheltema, who gave us the following information:

. A decisive step was taken in 2000, when the bookshop bought and adjacent building in order to expand, and to house the (charming) "Petit Café Scheltema";

. Around May 2004, rooms on the upper floors were re-organized to increase the availability of books on display;

. In September 2004, overall "sitting space" was increased by a factor of 12: there are now at least 24 yellow couches. They are rather rough – you probably wouldn't have them in your living room. Clearly, these guys have learnt from the early Barnes & Noble mistake of having too lavish furniture in the display rooms. They would get too many self-styled "customers" who'd pick up a book on advanced chemistry or on sixteenth-century Japanese poetry, only to take a good nap in a well heated (or air-conditioned) room. You don't want that kind of "customer" in your store.

. The CD-DVD division is a money-loser.
________________

(*) Note that some are criticizing the "mega-bookstore" concept on the following grounds: (a) they act as predators against small-sized bookshops; (b) they are mere creations of greedy real-estate developers; (c) they destroy the architectural harmony of the downtwon area. (See Mark Nemmers: "Why Borders is bad for downtown", 1997.)

- Bouncing Back! After the fiasco of my over-ambitious mini-presentation in class, my interview with Prof. Kroes went very well. My new Term Paper proposal has the following title: "Comments on the Americanization of European Law". Here's the outline:

. Introduction
- NIAS Statement: there are "hidden, but significant" types of cultural vehicles for the spread of American mass culture.
- Law is one of them.
- Three examples: Spain introduces jury trial (1996); European Court of Justice adopts stare decisis, the doctrine of the precedent (2000); France introduces plea bargaining (2004) (*).
- Questions to analyze: (a) What drives the "Americanization" of European law?; (b) Is there a "line in the sand"? ; (c) Where does that leave the more general debate about US-EU relations?

. Section I: Legal Cultures
- Key reference: Antoine Garapon & Ioannis Papadopoulos: Juger en France et en Amérique. (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2003.)
- Historical aspects: David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery. England 1066-1284. (London: Penguin, 2003, chapter 7); Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves. Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Oxford University Press, 2004); Alexis de Tocqueville, De la démocratie en Amérique.

. Section II: Europe Receives American Law
- European Court of Justice: Peter Birkes & Adrianna Pretto: Themes in Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2002).
- France introduces plea bargaining: Le Monde.
- The economic hypothesis (globalization, need to harmonize legal systems, etc.)

. Section III: The "Line in the Sand"

- Schlesinger Presentation: Yes! You can now read Jaime & William's presentation (Part I & II) - - see entry for Monday, October 18.

- Books. The University Library has just received retired general Tommy Frank's book American Soldier (New York: Regan Books, 2004 -- see a New York Times review here).

- THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE
Lecturer: R. Kroes

Prof. Kroes discussed chapter one of his book If you've seen one, you've seen the mall (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996). The chapter provides an attempt at "bringing order to the wild array of views about European's reception of American culture."

The greatest difference between American and European culture is the former's "greater willingness to deconstruct." See page 42: "Although the philosophical insights inspiring this approach (Derrida and deconstruction) were novel and fashionable ... they could effortlessly blend into a game long familiar to Americans."

George W. Bush & the Neo-Cons
Prof. Kroes went on to discuss George W. Bush's idea of implementing democracy in Iraq, which he views not only as a display of "arrogance", but --more importantly-- as a proof that "Americans lack historical sense."

Americans, he said (referring to the political leadership) are "uneducated by history"; they "refuse to be informed by the past." "This is not the way" -he concluded- "for democracy to take root." He added that Israel is viewed "by some" as the only democracy in the Middle East.

He also mentioned the "great and amazing paradox" of spending more on defense while cutting taxes. "They live in denial, these neo-cons."

Americans, Europeans, Hierarchies
"Americans are more radically willing --at least in public discourse-- to accept others as more equal." "There is no sublime and vulgar: equality rules." The fact that Europeans tend to view society in more hierarchical terms is a product of the "Estate-ordered view of life."

Americans, by contrast, are constantly moving and shifting. American Studies, for example, started out with English literature as the standard of excellence. But then they moved away from "dead white males", and began to incorporate (male) American writers, then women writers, then Native American writers, then gay writers, etc. It is an ongoing cultural rebellion: it just never ends.

(Students' comments: on the nature of democracy in the Middle East; on the ambiguous role of the US in promoting democracy in some --but not all-- places; on Europe's welfare state and security arrangements with the US, etc.)

- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr: The Imperial Presidency (New York: Mariner Books, 2004, 589 pages -- first edition 1973.)

Reviewed by Jaime & William (Part I)

. In The Imperial Presidency Schlesinger aims to outline the shift in the constitutional balance between the Presidency and Congress. He will demonstrate that as the presidency increased its powers in foreign policy, particularly as the war making power became more and more fuzzy, presidents became emboldened and would eventually translate their new found power to domestic pursuits.

. As you will see, this shift was as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation, and the Imperial Presidency, in its most broad and powerful sense, will come to fruition during the reign of President Nixon. He begins his story, at the obvious starting point, with founding fathers.

. Founding fathers wanted more government centralization than the Articles of Confederation had allowed, but everyone feared the concentration of power in one man, thus, separation of powers. Schlesinger focuses on foreign affairs side of constitution debates because that is the realm in which the presidency will first begin to concentrate its powers.

Foreign Policy Duties: Congressional vs. Presidential
. Regulate commerce with foreign nations
. Power to make treaties
. Power to make appropriations
. Raise and maintain armed forces and make rules for their government and regulation
. Regulate naturalization and immigration
. Most importantly to DECLARE WAR
. Power to receive foreign envoys
. Appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate
. Make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate
. Article 2 of the constitution gave the President general executive power which in the 64th and 75th federalist papers, Madison and Hamilton described as unity, secrecy, decision, dispatch and superior sources of information. All very advantageous to the conduct of diplomacy.

Reasons Congress Cannot Conduct Foreign Policy Practically
. Congress can not easily stay abreast of the details of relations with foreign states.
. Congress rarely acts as a unified body. Thus, it would be difficult for them to conduct negotiations.
. Congress could not be relied on to preserve secrecy about matters where secrecy was indispensable.
. International law itself, by requiring in every nation a single point of responsible authority, confirmed Presidential primacy in foreign relations.

The War-Making Power
. No one wanted to hinder the President’s ability to respond to a surprise attack OR give him the sole power to initiate hostilities.
. Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson, saying "the constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

"Make" vs. "Declare" War
. Drafts of the Constitution say Congress has the power to "make" war.
. Madison and Gerry propose to change the wording from "make" to "declare" hoping to make it more specific.
. They did this so that the power to "make" war, such as repelling sudden attacks, still lies in the hands of the President.

Emergencies
. Emergencies were described by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government.
. When the President deems a situation an emergency, he can initiate extra-legal or even illegal action and he is then either vindicated or condemned by the people and Congress.
. This emergency clause was not explicitly written, because of its flexibility, but in notes and letters of the Founding Fathers, it is evident that they intended to leave this loophole for the President.

First Foreign Policy Dilemma
. President George Washington recognized the revolutionary government of France, thus giving it legitimacy.
. Members of Congress who were opposed to Presidential power, also happened to be in favor of the revolutionary government in France
. Therefore, they were so glad for the result that they were willing to ignore the question of whether or not this decision fell within Washington’s jurisdiction

Another Dilemma
. Washington declared America neutral in a war between Britain and France.
. Anti-centralists didn’t like this action, because it was a unilateral action of the President.
. Madison says that the President cannot make declarations about war.
. Hypothetical Scenario: What if Congress had declared war… Where Congress declares war and the President declares neutrality, this serves to both confuse and render the US illegitimate in the international system.
. But Hamilton reminds us that foreign policy is executive in nature… He said that Washington’s declaration was based on treaty obligations, and if congress had declared war, Washington would have complied with congresses wishes.

Centralists v. Anti-Centralists: On War-Making Power
. Congress' power to declare war is rigorously limited because they should consult the president who has a real hand in foreign policy (Centralists - Hamilton.)
. Congress has spacious power that is not to be abridged by prior declarations of the President (Anti-Centralists -- Madison.)
. Schlesinger argues that that Madison should have provided procedures of consultation

Louisiana Purchase
. Even though congress was fully involved he felt that congress was his accomplice in an action that was not explicitly allowed by the constitution. (Louisiana Purchase was made without an amendment)
. It also demonstrates that when Congress agrees with actions of the President, even when they are not explicitly legal, he is even more powerful.

Monroe Doctrine
. The Monroe Doctrine initially called for an end to European intervention in the Americas, but it was later extended to justify U.S. imperialism in the Western Hemisphere
. Monroe Doctrine makes the imperial Presidency possible.
. Monroe Doctrine allowed the President to take foreign policy by the reigns

Schlesinger Point
. The restraint of these early Presidents was based on the fact that they were babying their invention. Like taking care of a child, they had to be very careful with their young nation. They weren't afraid of impeachment… they just wanted to make it work.
. John Tyler wanted to annex Texas, but Texas was still trying to liberate itself from Mexico.
. In 1844 he orders forces to the Gulf and Southwestern border of Texas, secretly relaying to the Texans that if Mexico tried to attack them, the US would defend Texas as long as annexation was underway.
. Tyler submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Unfortunately, the Senate found out about the deployment of the troops and said no.
. Tyler tries majority vote in the House and Senate combined (joint resolution, or concurrent resolution). This was unprecedented, and not explicitly included in the design of the Constitution.
. First new weapon for the executive… Presidential control of diplomacy and troop deployment allow for loopholes in Congressional war-making power.

Another Dilemma
. Polk sends units into disputed land between Texas and Mexico and, as expected, they were attacked. Thus Congress HAD to declare war, because a state of war existed regardless of their ratification.

Information Control
. Early, Jefferson and Monroe, when asked for documents, were asked only for what they "may deem compatible with the public interest."
. Under the Jackson administration, this power to withhold information becomes more specified.
- Confidentiality of his exchanges with his advisors
- Defense against Congressional harassment (Unreasonable demands for information)
- Protection of active investigation and litigation (confidential informants, innocent persons)
- Protection of foreign intelligence operations
. Still, if Congress has grounds for impeachment, the President must hand over any and all information requested to protect this method of last resort.

Shifts in the War Making Power
. The war making power drained from congress through two veins, both which lead to the Presidency.
. It becomes so that Congress was not involved with the war making process if A) a threat seemed too trivial to require Congressional consent, and B) a threat seems too big and pressing to allow for Congressional consent.
. Gradually it becomes very evident that Presidents could contrive circumstances where Congress would have little option not to declare war. Through diplomacy a President could give rise to a threat and choose to deal with it preemptively for the purposes of defense.

Trivial Threat Example
. Presidents assert that military action on non-sovereign entities (rebels, Indians, pirates, etc.) as well as rescue operations of American citizens endangered by the breakdown of order abroad, where additional Congressional appropriations are not necessary, "did not rise to the dignity of Congressional consent."

The Great Threat
. Lincoln's use of power during the Civil War was totally outside the lines of the Constitution.
. Lincoln ignored one law and Constitutional provision after another.
- He assembled the militia
- Enlarged the army and the navy beyond their authorized strength
- Called out volunteers for three years’ service
- Spent public money without Congressional appropriation
- Suspended Habeas Corpus
- Arrested people ‘represented’ as involved in ‘disloyal’ practices
- Instituted a Naval blockade of the Confederacy

The Great Threat (continued)
. All of these were measures which, Lincoln later told Congress, "whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity; trusting then as now that Congress would readily ratify them."
. Lockean principles at work. "Yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb." (Lincoln)
. If the execution of the whole of the laws should require the violation of a single law, "are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" (Lincoln)

The Supreme Court Disagrees
. The Supreme Court Case ex parte Milligan in 1866, explicitly dismissed the Locke-Jefferson-Lincoln idea that necessity might be higher than the Constitution.
. Almost reversing Lincoln's analogy about giving a limb to save a life, the Court said, "a country preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preserving."

Executive Agreements
. The Executive Agreement is essentially a treaty made by the President, that doesn’t require Senatorial approval.
. Congress historically chose to overlook this usurpation of power.
. Three types of Executive Agreement developed:
- Those made pursuant to existing treaties
- Those that had prior, or subsequent, legislative authorization
- Those made by Presidents in areas where they possessed Constitutional authority to act without consent of Congress (recognition of foreign governments and settling foreign claims, arranging of cease-fires or armistice agreements, and "what were not quite agreements but rather unilateral commitments on the order of the Monroe Doctrine")
. The rise of the executive agreement was accompanied by new Presidential exuberance, in the commitment of armed force to combat.

President Wilson
. Wilson has a greater respect for the utility of Congress.
. "No doubt I could do what is necessary in the circumstances to enforce respect for our government without recourse to the Congress and yet not exceed my Constitutional powers as President, but I do not wish to act in a matter of so grave consequence except in close conference and cooperation with both Senate and House." (Wilson, after the bloodshed at Tampico)

FDR is Restrained…
. Roosevelt built his New Deal Government on the basis of authority directly granted by Congress.
. After WWI, Roosevelt wanted the power to place an embargo on arms shipments to the aggressor nations.
. The House passes the bill, but the Senate contends that it could lead the United States into war and fails to pass it.
. A revised version of the bill was passed by the Senate, placing arms embargos on all nations involved in conflict.

FDR Resurgent
. "The very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." (Justice Sutherland)
. International compacts do not always have to be treaties, thus bypassing the Senate. Sutherland says that an executive agreement is legal in power and not clearly limited in applicability.
. "That a treaty was something they had to send to the Senate to get approval by a 2/3 vote. An executive agreement was something they did not have to send to the Senate."
. These two Court cases combined REALLY increase Presidential power.

Lend-Lease Act
. Americans lend battleships to the UK for use against German aggression, after repeated requests from Churchill.
. Roosevelt gets concerned about the security of the route that the ships were traveling to Britain because there were German ships in the Atlantic.
. He deploys troops to Greenland and Iceland, without Congressional approval, to protect the ships.
. In 1941 there is a change in the way that Roosevelt defines his role as Commander in Chief. His actions that accompanied the Lend-Lease act demonstrate his new way of thinking.
. What had been the aim, to seek Congressional collaboration, shifts to what is now, in a sense, leading Congress along.
. The new FDR is Lockean… He believes that the US is in a state of emergency and he must assert his Presidential power to protect it. Still, he tries to include Congress as much as possible.
. Schlesinger writes, "Where independent power exercised in domestic affairs did not necessarily produce equivalent power in foreign affairs, as the case of Roosevelt in the 1930s had shown, independent power exercised in foreign affairs was very likely to strengthen and embolden the Presidency at home."
. "Next to the Civil War, the Second World War was the greatest crisis in American history. Powers thus claimed in a war for survival on issues on which Congress and public opinion supported the President provided only strained and meager precedents for powers claimed without equivalent crisis or consensus. Nor did Roosevelt suggest that such powers were part of the routine equipment of the Presidency."

Korean War
. 24 June 1950: North Korea invades South Korea
. 25 June 1950: UN Security Council calls for North Korean withdrawal
Night of 25 June 1950: Truman commits troops
. 27 June 1950: Congress and the nation are notified of his decision
. 27 June 1950: UN Security Council passed a second resolution calling for military measures.

Korean War (continued). Acheson steps in…
. Secretary of State Acheson; formerly a law clerk for a Justice of the Supreme Court
. Revered by Truman as having a great understanding of Constitutional law
. 3 July 1950: Acheson recommends that Truman not request a resolution by Congress, but rather rely on his Constitutional powers as President and Commander in Chief. Truman, not wanting to squander the power of his office, accepted Acheson’s recommendation.
. The State Department argument was that "the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States has full control over the use thereof," that there was a "traditional power of the President to use the armed forces of the Untied States without consulting Congress," and that this had often been done in "the broad interests of American foreign policy."

- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr: The Imperial Presidency (New York: Mariner Books, 2004, 589 pages -- first edition 1973.)

Reviewed by Jaime & William (Part II)

Trumped up Truman
. April 1952: The US Government seizes operation of the steel mills.
. The Steel Industry sues the government.
. The Supreme Court rules that the steel seizure was unconstitutional.

Eisenhower's Information Controls
. "It is essential to efficient and effective administration that employees in the executive branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising with each other on official matters. " Therefore "it is not in the public interest that any of their conversations or communications or any documents or reproductions concerning such advise be disclosed."
. Schlesinger contends that the historical rule was disclosure with exceptions, but Eisenhower's administration made it denial with exceptions.
. Between June 1955 and June 1960 there are at least 44 instances when people used Eisenhower's directive. This is more than in the first century of American history.

Advanced Authorization?
. In 1955 Eisenhower requested a joint resolution to cover possible military action in defense of fishermen and territory around Formosa.
. He claimed that some of the actions which may be required of him in Formosa would be inherent in the authority of the Commander in Chief, but Congressional ratification would publicly establish that authority.
. The Formosa Resolution ordered no specific action and named no enemy except as the President might thereafter decide. Rather, it committed Congress to the approval of hostilities without knowledge of the specific situation in which they would begin.

Further Expansion of Presidential Power by Eisenhower
. Eisenhower most effectively deprived Congress a voice in foreign policy by giving so much power to the CIA, which was entirely out of Congressional reach.
. "The CIA helped to overthrow governments in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), failed to do so in Indonesia (1958), helped to install governments in Egypt (1954) and Laos (1959), organized an expedition of Cuban refugees against the Castro regime (1960-1961) and engaged in a multitude of lesser experiments in subvention and subversion."

JFK's Success
. "For the missile crisis was less unique in the post-war years in that it really combined all those pressures of threat, secrecy, and time that the foreign policy establishment had claimed as characteristic of decisions in the nuclear age. Where the threat was less grave, the need for secrecy less urgent, the time for debate less restricted – i.e., in all other cases – the argument for independent and unilateral presidential action was notably less compelling."

Lyndon B. Johnson
. In the spring of 1965, Johnson sent 22,000 troops into the Dominican Republic, without Congressional consent.
. The real reason was that "we don't propose to sit here in our rocking chair with our hands folded and let the communists set up any government in the Western Hemisphere."

Vietnam
. In early 1965, Johnson declares the Americanizaiton of the Vietnam War. He sends troops for the first time into the South, and begins regularly bombing the North.
. What Kennedy had called ‘their war’ had become ‘our war.’
. Unlike Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, Johnson was sending troops into immediate combat. . . No U.N. resolution had been made, nor had there been invasion across frontiers, and unlike Cuba, there was no emergency threat to the US.
. "If this decision was not for Congress under the Constitution, then no decision of any consequence in matters of war and peace is left to Congress."
. August 1964: Tonkin-Gulf Resolution

WAKE UP… IT’S ABOUT TO GET GOOD!!!!

Psychology of Richard M. Nixon
. Schlesinger writes, on FDR and Kennedy, "No one, if he wished it, could see a greater variety of people than the President or consult a wider range of opinion or tap more diversified sources of knowledge."
. Unfortunately Nixon was not this type of President. He was more of a personal isolationist and he began to think of Presidential power not only as inherent but as exclusive.
. Nixon viewed everything as a battle. "I believe in the battle, whether it’s the battle of a campaign or the battle of this office… it’s always there wherever you go. I, perhaps, carry it more than others because that’s my way."
. Tom Charles Huston who served for a year as Domestic Security Planner says Nixon "abhors confrontations, most particularly those based on philosophical convictions."
. In 1972 Nixon had 48 personal assistants. White House payroll had grown from 266 in 1954 to 600 in 1971. The executive office had grown from 1175 in 1954 to 1664 in Kennedy’s last year, to 5395 under Nixon in 1971. In the first Nixon term the operating cost of the executive office rose from $31 million to $71 million. The important point here is the centralization of substantive operations by the White House.
. White House aids were often very powerful figures. Aids had much more influence and control than even cabinet members. Unlike members of the cabinet they were not subject to confirmation by the Senate or interrogation by members of Congress.

Nixon's Press
. Truman said, "When I was President I felt that I always learned more about what was on the minds of the people from the reporters questions than they could possibly learn from me."
. Under Nixon, the press conference practically disappeared. In his first term he held 28 press conferences, the same number FDR held in his first three months in office.
. The press conference, which to many Presidents was a way to gain power, was basically eliminated by Nixon. "…The whole process of exposure, scrutiny, challenge and accountability evidently exacted too heavy a psychic toll."
. Rather, Nixon chose to address the public on prime time television, where he felt protected.

Impoundment and the Pocket Veto
. Impoundment enables the White House to modify, reshape or nullify completely laws passed by the legislative branch.
. By 1973 Nixon’s impoundments had affected over 100 federal programs and reached the level of about $15 billion which was between 17% and 20% of controllable funds.
. The Senate passes the Family Practice of Medicine Act with a vote of 64-1. It passes with a vote of 345-2 in the House. However, Nixon didn’t want to sign it, and knowing that Congress would pass the bill over his veto, he did a pocket veto when they went home for Christmas for three days.

DENYING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS
. "Only the President may invoke executive privilege but just about any of his subordinates may exercise it… they simply do not employ the forbidden words." (Nixon)
. In March of 1973 Nixon said that past as well as present membership of White House Staff conferred immunity against appearances before Congressional committees. This was referred to as eternal privilege.
. In May of the same year he extended the doctrine so that it not only apply to Congress but to questions asked by Grand Juries or the FBI.
. It also extended to "Presidential papers," not just to people.
. By 1972, the cost of protecting classified materials was more than $60 million per year. There were 20 million classified documents in the defense security system of which less than half of a percent actually contained information qualifying even for the lowest defense classification under executive order 10501. "Newspaper clippings were classified; information in the public domain was classified; and, when one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote another saying that too many undeserving papers were being stamped top secret, his note itself was stamped top secret."

Powers Derived From Secrecy
. There are three powers derived from secrecy… the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie.
. Power to withhold… "if you only knew what we know" is an effective way to defend the national security monopoly and prevent democratic control of foreign policy
. Power to leak… means the power to tell the people what it served the government’s purpose that they should know.
. Power to withhold and leak lead to the power to lie… lying was easy when finding the truth was so hard.

THE PLOT THICKENS…

Symington Committee
. In 1930, the US made 25 treaties and 9 executive agreements. The Nixon administration, up to May 1, 1972, had made 71 treaties and 608 executive agreements.
. In response to the increasing number of executive agreements, the Symington Committee was created in 1969 to investigate US security agreements and commitments abroad.

Symington Findings
. In 1962, under Johnson, a declaration was made to protect Thailand from communist aggression (this much was known).
. Seven air bases, seven generals and 32,000 soldiers, without Congressional authorization OR knowledge, were in Thailand.
. Congress thought that American bombing in Laos was directed at North Vietnamese troops on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
. However, the executive branch had been waging a separate and secret war in support of the Vientiane government against the Pathet Lao in Northern Laos since 1964.
Since 1953 the US had been subsidizing the Ethiopian army.
. Congress did not know that Eisenhower had secretly assured that we would protect Ethiopia. With American aid their army grew to 40,000. The Somali, their alleged threat, had an army of roughly 2,000.
. Since 1953 the United States army had bases in Spain in order to protect the Spanish from communism.
. Congress did not know that there were several thousand US paratroopers flown down from Germany to train, not for foreign invasion, but for a hypothetical internal uprising of anti-Franco Spaniards.
. The Symington Committee had at first received cooperation about locating nuclear weapons abroad from US representatives overseas. However during the investigation, the executive branch, under Nixon, forbade all discussion of the nuclear question.
. The Symington Committee summarized what it believed to be the current executive practice as "maximize commitment in secret discussions with foreign governments; then minimize the risk of commitments in statements made to the American public."

Reigning in the Executive Agreement
. In response to this, in 1972 Congress passed a bill requiring all executive agreements to be transmitted to the Senate and the House within 60 days of their negotiation. Agreements deemed too sensitive for disclosure would go to the foreign relations committee only.

Paranoid Nixon
. In a broad request to the intelligence community "he authorized system of burglary, wiretapping, bugging, mail covers, secret agents, and political blackmail in defiance of the laws and the constitution."
. Nixon then set up his own private outfit (known as the plumbers, since they were supposed to "stop leaks") within the White House which acted faithfully in the plan’s spirit.
. Nixon said "that as a matter of first priority the unit should find out all it could about Mr. Ellsberg’s associates and motives… I did impress on Mr. Crow (head plumber) the vital importance to the national security of his assignment."
. Another mission of the plumbers was to compile "an accurate record of events related to the Vietnam War."
. "I would remind all concerned that the way we got into Vietnam was through overthrowing Diem, and the complicity in the murder of Diem." (Nixon)
In reference to the actions of his plumbers, Nixon said "it was and is important that many of the matters worked on by the special investigations unit not be publicly disclosed because disclosure would unquestionably damage the national security."

Watergate
. June 17, 1972: Frank Wills, a 24 year old security guard noticed tape over the latches of two doors on the bottom level of the Watergate Hotel. Wills called the police, and the burglars were arrested while breaking into the office of the Democratic National Committee.
. Watergate was only a symptom of a much larger problem. Its importance was in the way it brought those symptoms to the surface and got people thinking about the question of Presidential power.
. Nixon's appointees had engaged, "…at the very least, in burglary; in forgery; in illegal wiretapping; in illegal electronic surveillance; in perjury; in subordination of perjury; in obstruction of justice; in destruction of evidence; in tampering with witnesses; in misprision of felony; in bribery (of the Watergate defendants); in acceptance of bribes (from Vesco and the ITT); in conspiracy to involve government agencies (the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, the Securities and Exchange Commission) in illegal action."
. The genius of impeachment lay in the fact that it can punish the man without punishing the office. Watergate was potentially the best thing to have happened to the Presidency in a long time. If the trails were followed to their end it would be many years before another White House staff would dare take the liberties with the constitution and the laws that the Nixon White House had taken.

The War Against the Media
. Nixon orders phones of offending newspaper men to be wire tapped.
. Department of Justice tried to subpoena reporters’ notebooks and tapes.
. Acting head of the FBI complained that American journalists threatened to destroy respect for established institutions.
. A White House assistant warned networks that they might be subject to anti-trust prosecution if they did not "move conservatives and people with a viewpoint of middle America on to the networks."
. The head of the White House Office of Telecommunications denounced what he called ideologues and "station managers and network officials who fail to correct imbalance or consistent bias from the networks—or who acquiesce by silence—can only be considered willing participants, to be held fully accountable… at license renewal time."
. When the Washington Post was working on the Watergate story the Nixon campaign challenged the renewal of licenses for two Florida television stations owned by the Post, thereby producing a loss of 25% of the market value of Post stocks in two weeks.

Judicial Response
. The Supreme Court went back and forth on the issue of the constitutionality of the Vietnam War.
. No judge backed the war based on the inherent powers of a President. Even the theory that Congress, by voting for appropriations, ratified the war was left up for argument.
. "Every military appropriation bill from October 1970 and beyond contained a proviso expressly forbidding military support for the government of Cambodia except in connection with the withdrawal of American troops from Southeast Asia and the release of the POWs – conditions fulfilled by March 1973."
. The same Judge Judd who had declared Vietnam legal, held the Presidential war in Cambodia unconstitutional.
. "At any concrete historical point, the constitutional balance was too much at the mercy of fluctuating intangibles of circumstance, judgment, opinion, and prophesy to permit the Court to lay down a mechanical standard."

Congressional Response
. Congress begins using their power to appropriate in order to get information they desire.
. Pass anti-impoundment legislation.
. Pass a bill to prevent Presidential abuse of the pocket veto.
. Congress felt that it had to find a way to restrain Presidential war power.

On the War-Power
. Create some Congressional control over the deployment of armed forces outside the US
. "The President could act until Congress acted; but, if Congress acted, its legislation would supersede an otherwise valid order of the president.
. Schlesinger also asserts that Congress, in its annual encounter with the defense budget, should review military man power in the same way it reviews the procurement of military weapons, especially because man power was consuming more than half of the budget.
. Create a Presidential obligation to report immediately to Congress with full information and justification whenever he sent troops into battle and to keep on reporting so long as the hostilities continued
. Create a declaration by Congress of its right at any point to terminate such military action by concurrent resolution.

Schlesinger's Recommendations to Future Presidents
. Reduction in the size and power of White House staff.
. Restoration of the access and prestige of the executive departments.
. He must not make himself the prisoner of a single information system.
. The cabinet serves Presidents best when it contains strong and independent men. Strong enough to make permanent government responsive to Presidential policy and independent enough to carry honest dissents into the oval office.
. Rid themselves of honest misconceptions about the nature and power of their office.
. Do something to revive the Department of State.
. Admit to Congress genuine, if only junior partnership in the foreign policy process.
. The acceptance of a larger accountability should not be taken by future presidents as a vexatious and wasteful interruption of their serious work. Embrace it as your duty. This is the primary challenge of the Presidency.

The End
Discussion Points
- It is clear that Schlesinger is a Democrat, and that this book had been completed before even Nixon knew that he would have to resign. Does this book strike anyone as one of those politically motivated books that come out during a Presidency, about that Presidency? Does the research and thesis hold up to higher standards?

- Post-WWII, Presidential power expanded greatly as national-security became an important issue. Does the Bush administration find themselves with the same leeway of cold war times?Since 9-11, do they have more? What would Schlesinger think?

- Debate is the essence of Democracy, but the Bush administration has managed to infer that in the presence of war debate must be suspended and it is unpatriotically to challenge Presidential judgment. Does a democratic nation have a moral obligation to support the government in a time of war? Historically, have Americans abstained from debate, and dissent as they have during the current war? Why or why not?

- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt

Jaime & William's presentation on Schlesinger's book will be posted here soon. Meanwhile, here are some of Prof. van de Bilt's comments:

. The Great Contradiction. Arthur Schlesinger displays a very ambivalent attitude. On the one hand, he rails the presidency for its almost natural tendency to become "imperial." On the other hand, he credits the presidency for most of the progress achieved by the United States at a political, cultural and social level.

. A Very Benevolent View. On the whole, and despite his many critical comments, Schlesinger offers a very benevolent view of the institution. There is no willingness to take on the presidency as such. There is nothing irrational about it. Nixon is the only sick guy. The book is definitely "pro-presidency."

. Some Question Marks. How would America have developed without the presidency? What criteria can we select to determine whether a president acts in an "imperial" fashion?

- Schedule for Week 18 - 22 October. Arthur Schlesinger & And "Group" Walking Tours.
Monday 18, 10:00-13:00. MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Jaime & William will discuss Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. 's book The Imperial Presidency (New York: Mariner Books, 2004 -- first edition 1973.) For some background info on the author, see this. You can read some of his contributions to The New York Review of Books here, and an article against the war in Iraq here.

Tuesday 19, 11:00-13:00. THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE. Slide show by Prof. Kroes.

Friday 22, 13:00- ? THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE. Students present the findings of their own "walking tours."

(NO US-EU RELATIONS SESSIONS NEXT WEEK.)

- Tips for Term Paper. While exploring Marc Trachtenberg's site (*), I came accross this very interesting piece: Term Paper Guidelines. See for yourself.
____________

(*) Author of "The Making of a Political System: The German Question in International Politics", in Paul Kennedy & William I. Hitchcock (eds.): From War to Peace: Altered Strategic Landscapes in the Twentieth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.) We discussed this piece on September 23.

- Prof. Janssens' Tips For Presentations, Term Papers & Thesis. During lectures over the past month or so, prof. Janssens has made a couple a remarks about presentations and term papers. Here's what I've gathered.

. Presentation. "Describe what the issue is", and then "provide a set of policy options." Finally, do some follow-up work: "provide landmarks about what is likely to happen when each of the options is followed."

. Term Paper. "It can be on any topic you like -- as long as it is has to do with US-EU Relations." "The theme of your presentation can become the theme of your term paper." "You can never be too specific; the risk is that your arguments might prove too vague."

. Thesis. "Be aware of what other people have written"; "Take into account what matters to other people."

(More material coming soon.)

- New Somali President Calls for Peacekeepers. Gejo has spotted this wonderful article: right when we discuss Somalia in class, a new president is sworn-in ... And he's calling for peacekeepers!

- Speaking of NGOs. The American Enterprise Institute has a website devoted to them: NGO Watch. (They provide a huge alphabetical listing.)

- US-EU RELATIONS
Lecturer: R. Janssens

Post-Cold War: Bosnia & Peacekeeping (*). Preliminary Remarks. Before addressing the issue of peacekeeping, Prof. Janssens summarized the aims of the course on US-EU Relations. The issue is very complex, and one has to select only a limited number of topics. One can focus on a state-by-state approach, or on national security issues, etc.

Always keep in mind that --as in any political alliance-- complications are bound to occur. They may have to do with diverging national interests, or with personalities. Charles de Gaulle, for example, was one individual who did make a difference.

The US will always be involved in Europe, for both security and economic reasons. President Clinton once said: "We went to Europe twice to save Europeans from killing themselves", and that statement largely remains valid.

In World War II, the United States were willing to fight the Nazis in Europe. Then, during the Cold War, Europeans sometimes felt anxious about the seriousness of the American commitment. To what extent would the US help Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion?

Right now, in October 2004, the basic question is, of course, the foreign policy of George W. Bush. Europeans are particularly upset, but there is really nothing new about it. Such things always happen in any alliance -- especially when it is dominated by a very powerful member.

A number of questions remain unanswered. To what extend can we speak of a common ground between Europe and the US? Is there enough willingness (or necessity) to cooperate? That was clearly the case during the Cold War. But, after the Cold War, has the need for cooperation diminished?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the first war against Saddam Hussein, George H.W. Bush declared that the time had come for a "new world order". The alliance against Iraq was indeed an impressive one (even Syrian troops participated.)

It was a hopeful moment. Did it have to end like this? It is tempting to conclude that the present mess is George W. Bush's fault. But it's not that simple. As we shall see, peacekeeping is also a source of conflict.

From a purely military standpoint, the key difference between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001-2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the new role of "precision bombing directed by the Special Operations Forces" (Wesley Clark, p. XXI.) It means that you need more troops to occupate a country than to actually wage war!

. Peacekeeping (I): The Lack of a Clear Mandate. The first UN-sponsored peacekeeping operation took place in 1948 in the Sinai Desert. Soon afterwards, soldiers were deployed in Kashmir, and later in Cyprus. But there was a problem: these troops did not really intervene. Their mandate was to separate the warrying parts from each other.

But this was always done under the assumption that war would not break out again any time soon. Given the UN Charter --which states that no one is allowed to interfere in domestic issues-- there was no clear-cut mandate to fight at all.

Thus, peacekeeping operations were only successful when the warrying factions were completely exhausted. But then again, they would start re-arming as soon as possible. In other words: peacekeeping missions do nothing to solve the underlying problems that lead to war in the first place.

. Peacekeeping (II): What Went Wrong in Somalia? The example of Somalia shows why peacekeeping operations are so complicated. Relief organisations were striving to hand out food to the impoverished population, but warlords would systematically disrupt the food supply.

NGOs like Médecins Sans Frontieres and others began to ask for US support, in order to ease food distribution. Finally, the Marines landed. To their surprise, they were greeted not by bullets ... but by CNN crews!

Another problem was the issue of cooperation. Italian soldiers, upset about earlier US operations undertaken within "their" zone --but without their knowledge--, did not support the beleaguered Marines in Mogadishu. Other UN-member countries "cooperated" by sending untrained and ill-equipped soldiers who were there just for the money.

In the end, President Clinton pulled out as casualties mounted (by the way, there is little information about Somalian casualties, but they must haven been considerable.)

. Peacekeeping (III): The Trouble With NGOs. The Somalian fiasco underlines the nature of the problems created by otherwise well-intentioned NGOs.

- Problem No. 1: There are hundreds of them. This complicates the task of creating a bureaucracy capable to set up law enforcement institutions, to organise the supply of food and water, to establish courts of justice, etc. The lack of coordination between NGOs is a stumbling block towards the creation of an efficient bureaucracy.

- Problem N. 2: NGOs are privately-funded organizations. In other words: they need media focus, press attention (otherwise their donors would balk at contributing funds.) Sometimes, their members are located where the press is, instead of where they are really needed.

- Problem No. 3: The issue of the food supply. If food is handed out for free (as was the case in Somalia), there will be an incentive for farmers to abandon their crops and to move to the city. Why work so hard in the countryside if (good) food is handed out for free in the cities? (See this article.)

In other words, well-meaning NGOs actually aggravated the crisis. This truth is hard to admit. It makes you wonder about the West's real willingness to help. Says Prof. Janssens: "Is there any real degree of serious commitment?" (See article by Edward Luttwak: "Toward Post-Heroic Warfare", Foreign Affairs. Vol. 74, No.3, May-June 1995.)

. Peacekeeping: Conclusion. The history of peacekeeping is not a happy one. There will always be problems with cooperation and coordination. What started out in 1991 with George H.W. Bush's optimism about a "new world order" basically ended with the UN deeply discredited.

There is no real example of a successful peace-keeping operation - - and that's quite a sad story.
________________

(*) Based on Wesley K. Clark: Waging Modern War (New York: Public Affairs, 2002), XIX-XLV.

- US Elections. Relax before the debate!

- Mass Grave Unearthed in Iraq. A new mass grave is being unearthed in Iraq. One of the (nine) trenches is believed to contain as many as 300 bodies, presumably Kurds killed during Saddam's crackdown in 1987-88.

- New Book on Reagan & Gorbachev. The library of the University has a new book on Reagan, Gorbachev, and the end of the Cold War. See Jack F. Matlock: Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended. (New York: Random House, 2004.) Here's a very interesting review.

- Anti-Bush Websites. These are two well-known anti-Bush websites: MoveOn.org and georgesoros.com.

- Dutch Webiste on US Elections. Check out this site hosted by the Dutch national television on the upcoming US elections. (Hat tip to Gejo.)

- THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE
Lecturer: R. Kroes

Everyone made a brief presentation about his/her term paper. My own statement was rather confusing: paper too ambitious, points too difficult to prove, little relation to the course. Already thinking about Plan B.

- US-EU RELATIONS
Lecturer: R. Janssens

End of the Cold War: Unification of Germany & NATO Expansion (*). Group divided into six countries: Federal Republic of Germany (Helmut Kohl - Bernadette), Democratic Republic of Germany (Egon Krenz - Sabrina), United States (George H.W. Bush - Diederik), United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher - Theresa), USSR (Mikhail Gorbachev - Diana), and France (Francois Mitterrand - Jaime.)

. Task. November 1989: Will the re-unification of Germany take place? Each country defends its own position in terms of national interests. Each participant has to define: its own "optimum scenario", what it is willing to give away, and what it is not prepared to surrender.

. Tips. Think in terms of balance of power, economics, and culture. Think about the repercussions of your statements. During negotiations, start with the optimal scenario -- and do not immediately reveal what you will eventually give away. Do not make too blunt opening statements. Keep your options intact.

Prof. Janssens. Three elements were missing. No.1: The role of public opinion. This was especially important in West Germany. Hemult Kohl's remarks about the right to self-determination created a very emotional climate. Events were not controled by politicians.

No. 2: The economy, a decisive factor. Kohl had a key role to play thanks to the size and the strength of the German economy. No. 3: The issue of borders. There was some concern that Gdansk might become part of Germany again (Kohl was making noises about German-speaking peoples in general.)
___________

(*) Based on Philip Zelikow & Condoleeza Rice. Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995, 4-38 & 102-148.

- Good News! João has sent his comments on the NIAS Statement (you can read them in the entry for September 17.) Remember: anybody can post his/her work here. (agustin_mackinlay@yahoo.com)

- From Koos van Nuenen on the Diffusion of the English Language. "Maybe you could look at the role of American Cinema if you want to investigate the diffusion of the English language in Europe -- or at least in Holland.

A profesor from the UvA has studied this subject; his name is Karel Dibbets and he wrote the book De geluidsfilm in Nederland which means "Sound Cinema in the Netherlands". Several economic and cultural factors have caused the fact that Holland doesn't use synchronisation but subtitles on TV and film and I think that this has been important for (the spread of) English language in our country.

I don't think the book is translated but maybe you can find more information in the film -and televisionstudies library in de nieuwe doelen (universiteitstheater)."

- Prof. Janssens Interview. There's an interview with Prof. Janssens here (in Dutch.)

- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt

Final Comments on Baylin and Wood.

. The Elusive Transition. Prof. van de Bilt said that while both Baylin and Wood were in agreement about the republican paradigm, they failed --at least initially-- to account for the events of the early nineteenth century. How did the transition take place between the republican mentality of 1776 and the liberal-capitalist society of the 1800s?

. Wood's Solution. That was the problem with Gordon Wood's 1969 book, The Creation of the American Republic. In part III of The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992), Wood tried to clarify the issue by focusing on society at large. In the end, it was the American people --ordinary men and women with "their workaday concerns and their pecuniary pursuits of happiness"- - who would create "a prosperours free society." Prof. van de Bilt: "The 1992 book is much more structured, linear, and easy to follow for the reader."

. Statements Have Consequences. Statements like "all men are created equal", made in 1776 by slave-owning aristocrats, would come back to haunt them. Says Wood: "... it is important to realize that the Revolution suddenly and effectively ended the the cultural climate that had allowed black slavery to exist" (p. 186)

. John Adams. Was John Adams a monarchist? That seems to be the case, according to Gordon Wood. Prof. van de Bilt: "Adams would agree with Wood about the American Revolution being more radical than the French Revolution." The former was a success, and the latter a complete fiasco.

. Writing Style. Baylin and Wood write like traditional historians. By avoiding the use of the personal pronoun "I", they seek to create a sense of impartiality. But post-modern or deconstructionist historians, looking at how Baylin and Wood structure their arguments, can undermine the smoothness of their narrative.

- Request for Info. For my Kroes paper, I'm looking for material on the diffusion of the English language in Europe. Any idea? (agustin_mackinlay@yahoo.com).

- Essay on Bush's Foreign Policy. There's an essay on Bush's foreign policy by historian Marvin P. Leffler (he's the author of "American Grand Strategy from World War to Cold War, 1940-1950" -- see readings for Session 6, US-EU Relations.)

- Lecture by David McCullough, celebrating John Adams (1734 - 1826). Tuesday, 21 September 2004, 8 p.m., Aula Universiteit, Singel 411, Amsterdam. "I hope you know this; if you don't, I hope you won't forget it: John Adams was the only Founding Father who never owned a slave -- it was a matter of principle."

This was David McCullough's opening statement at the lecture organized by the John Adams Institute. One could almost see tears in his eyes as he spoke those words. (By the way, he added, Republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both slave-owners.)

McCullough went on to briefly discuss Adams's achievements as a politician. These include the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as writer of the Declaration of Independence --which "changed the world"-- and the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which Adams wrote almost singlehandedly.

This document is the oldest functioning constitution on earth. McCullough emphazised the following statements:

"Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences..."

The image of John Adams as an aristocrat unconcerned by the welfare of the people is wrong, according to McCullough. The Massachusetts constitution soundly refutes this stereotype.

The rest of the lecture was devoted to the craft of the biographer (I listened in carefully, since I plan to write on my own.) John Adams, says David McCullough, is a biographer's dream come true. Unlike Thomas Jefferson -who undertook to systematically hide his own feelings- Adams wrote about almost everything he saw and felt.

A good biographer should accumulate a great deal of knowledge about his or her hero: the food, the climate, the country, the language, the teachings, etc. The biographer should read every personal letter written and read by the character.

"We can't understand them without understanding their life." I thought this was a particularly good remark, and he clearly used this technique in his 2001 book when he discussed Adams' theory of checks and balances.

Adams was consumed by vanity to such a degree that he felt the need of checks and balances at a personal level. This led him to think that religion was a necessary feature of any successful society, a point he explicitely made in the context of his sharp critique of the French Revolution.

"There's no such thing as a self-made man", said McCullough. "You have to get below the surface, and know what their parents were teaching them." McCullough went on to suggest that even diplomatic history and economic history require authors who are ready to plunge into the details of personal life.

The only moment of tension came when the moderator, Herman Beliën, unexpectedly decided to crack a joke. McCullough had said that Adams' son, John Quincy Adams, would have been the US President with by far the highest IQ ever, if such tests would have been available then.

When the Q & A session started, Mr. Beliën immediately asked Mr. McCullough: "Now that we know your opinion about John Quincy Adams' IQ, who would you say is the US President with the lowest IQ ever?" It was an obvious reference to George W. Bush, and an explosion of laughter followed.

But David McCullough did not laugh. In fact, he remained stone-faced, with not a single muscle in his face making the slightest motion. Clearly, he didn't like Mr. Beliën's comment.

At the very end of his remarks, McCullough once again talked about John Adams's insistence on the need to spread education as widely as possible. And he added, as an obvious reference to the West's struggle against Islamic terrorism: "We are confronted -- all of us, not just the United States-- by an ennemy who believes in enforced ignorance." (Thunderous applause.)

- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt

Gordon Wood: The Radicalism of the American Revolution. How a Revolution Transformed Society into a Democratic One Unlike Any Other That Had Ever Existed. New York: Knopf, 1992, 447 pages.

(See dozens of links here.)

(Reviewed by Agustin – Part I)
First I will review the book itself and then I will just "throw" some issues at this hungry public. In reviewing a book, I find it useful to concentrate on the one, two, three, four major issues raised by the author. In other words, I rarely follow a chapter-by-chapter approach. This is especially valid in this case, because the main ideas are scattered in different parts of The Radicalism.

After reading a couple of chapters, I admit I was having a hard time making sense of the book. It was only at about page 150 that I said to myself: "Gotcha!" And that's how I began to draw a couple of sketches in order to get a more systematic view of the argument.

Sketch 1: The Dynamic Forces
Right in the middle of the eighteenth century, says Wood, a contradiction was taking place between what he calls a de facto republican society and a hierarchical culture. This de facto republican society was the product of two "dynamic forces": (a) the availability of cheap land; (b) the demographic explosion.

Already, Wood is making a major statement: the American Revolution is an ongoing process, not a sudden crisis. This means that the people -the ordinary men and women who buy and sell land and who are constantly on the move- find themselves in the driver's seat.

Had the Revolution been a sudden crisis, leaders -not the people- would have been considered the key actors. Thus we can identify here, at this early stage of the book, one of the points to be discussed later: the people v. leaders.

Also, note the importance of the so-called "dynamic forces" (essentially, economic factors). It means that other possible explanations of the American Revolution --based, for example, on constitutional or even on religious factors-- will take the back seat.

- Abundance of Cheap Land. The 1763 Peace Treaty with France meant that an additional half-billion acres (especially in the Ohio valley) were made available to the colonists.

- Demographic Explosion. Driven by organic growth (larger families supported) and by immigration. Total population: 1750, 1 million; 1770, 2 million; 1790, 4 million. In North Carolina, the population increased by a factor of 6 between 1750 and 1775.

Sketch 1: A Hierarchical Culture.
"We will never appreciate the radicalism of the 18th century idea that all men are created equal unless we see it within this age-old difference" (Wood says that people were thought to be physically different!)

Aristocrats considered themselves the custodians of morals, the only fit to lead in war, arts, government. In Virginia, 1 in 25 adult white males was acknowledged as a gentleman. The rest was widely described as "the mob", "the herd", "the unthinking mob", "the ignorant vulgar", etc.

The bottom line, says Gordon Wood, is that all people were created unequal. Here are some examples:

. Juries: "Seats on the Virginia Grand Juries were perpetuated within families almost as frequently as seats on the county courts" (p. 84). In 1759, 11 justices of the peace resigned because of the appointement of one member of "the vulgar."

. Women. Women lacked an idependent existence, at least in law (p.49.) "Most husbands in their wills refused to give their wives outright ownership of their landed estates; at best the wife got a life-use of the estate." (p.49).

. Children. Treated like the property of their parents.

. Slaves. "The most severe patriarchal authority" (p. 51.)

. Law. Harsher punishments, in murder cases, for: (a) a servant who kills his master; (b) a wife who kills her husband.

The word "hierarchy" (and its variations) gets 54 mentions, or 2.8 times/chapter on average. "Dependence" (and its variations) gets 61 mentions, or 3.2 times/chapter. Finally, "paternalism" (and its variations) shows up as much as 70 times (3.7 times/chapter on average.) On the other hand, other issues usually analyzed by historians of the American Revolution -such as, for example, the Bill of Rights- are barely mentioned.

This is particularly revealing. It means that constitutional and war-related issues are relegated to a very minor role. Thus, says Wood: "The problems of American politics were at bottom neither imperial nor constitutional but social" (p.122.)

Sketch 1: The Clash.
Here’s what I call Gordon Wood’s astonishing insight: trade and consumption created a new culture. What does he mean by that? Because of the frenzy of buying, selling and consuming, social relations change. With the growth of commercial exchanges, people begin to see each other as equal counterparts in commercial transactions -- not as superior v. inferiors.

This is best understood with a couple of examples. The most telling example the case of Horace Mann and his family, in Southeastern Massachusetts. Mann works on the farm. One day, his wife sees a market opportunity: Why not manufacture ladies' hats? Pretty soon, Ms. Mann finds herself producing 6000 hats/year -- and making more money than her husband.

Examples such as this show that the growth of internal trade was putting considerable pressure on the paternalistic culture of the colonies. Gordon Wood warns the reader about the difficulty –in today's democratic societies- of really grasping the importance of what was then going on.

That is why I decided to break one of the golden rules of a book review, and to illustrate the author's idea with a couple of examples from outside the book. I think they adequatly illustrate Wood's theory in a more current context. The first example comes from India. A month ago I was watching a CNN Special on "Outsourcing in India", with journalist Thomas Friedman.

Friedman went to India to interview people from the other side of the outsourcing controversy. He met two sisters who worked at a call center in Bangalore. He had dinner with the women and their family. The father admitted that his daughters were making more money than he was. Now, that’s a cultural shock -- especially in India. Says Friedman:

"These are young college grads, most of these kids, who aren't engineers. They could never get jobs, not for $200 to $300 a month, which is the starting pay in a call center without this opportunity. And what this has given them is really a chance to grab the first rung of the ladder. A lot of them on the side are studying for MBAs or other college degrees. Some of them are now supporting their family. Many of them, their starting salary is more than their parents' retiring salary."

The second example comes from China. An editorial of the Financial Times (September 20, 2004) warned China about the need to modernize its political system: "…the openness to the outside world that comes with economic growth makes the secrecy and intrigue of Communist party politics an uncomfortable anachronism."

This is exactly the kind of conflict between a hierarchical culture and an expanding economy that Gordon Wood envisages in his analysis of revolutionary America. Examples from China are particularly interesting because many commentators compare today's economic boom in China with the American Wild West of the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.

Thus James Glassman, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, describes Chinas as "a free-wheeling business atmosphere, much as I imagine America was in the days of the wild west."

A recent issue of Fortune magazine, devoted to China, has a section on the city of Chionqing, describing it as "The New Wild West." The new generation of Chinese children are seen as "little emperors" accustomed to buy and sell over the Internet, and to follow their own tastes in consumption matters. This is bound to have some serious consequences later on, as they will likely rebel against any patriarchal authority (see here Fortune's Photo Essay.)

The third and last example comes from the economics of slums. An economist from Peru, Hernando de Soto, has studied the similarities between the history of property rights in the American Revolution and the current situation in slums worldwide.

Let's imagine for a minute that the University of Amsterdam is a slum and that this room is my physical possession, but not my legal property. Now, I am an entrepreneur, and I need capital. Because I lack a formal title to my piece of land, I cannot use it as a collateral for a loan.

In other words, I do not have access to formal, impersonal credit markets. I have to rely on personal relations: an uncle, a friend, or some kind of tribal leader. In that case, the cost of capital will be very high (bank credit is much cheaper because banks have access to large pools of savings.)

This is exactly what Gordon Wood has in mind when he describes American credit markets in the second half of the eighteenth century: "Without banks, without many impersonal sources of credit … most economic exchanges in the colonies had to be personal, between people who knew each other." (p. 67)

End of Sketch 1
People who are free of dependent connections and influence are called patriots. They want to bring American culture more into line with society. On the other hand, people whose rank came artificially from above are called courtiers. They yearn for a more stringent hierarchical and patriarchal society. The two views are mutually incompatible.

In the end, patriots won. The British system, based on a strictly hierarchical culture where offices were almost hereditary and social authority was incontestable, could not prevail in America. But why? Gordon Wood states two different types of reasons. First, geography played an important role. Britain was an island, with only so much free land available.

America, on the other hand, was a continent, with a limitless supply of free land. This provided a perfect situation for people to move, to buy and to sell, to produce and to consume -- exactly the kind of environment that creates a republican culture.

Culture was important too: America was a loosely hierarchical society. Says Wood: "Most colonial aristocrats were never able to dominate their localities to the extent that English aristocrats did" (p. 115)

(More material coming soon.)