Who would have thought that ANY American poliitico would know who Guy Fawkes was, much less use him as a metaphor for the Tea Party movement?
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/23/republican-governors-pay-homage-to-guy-fawkes/
Maybe 300 years from now, a campaign ad will feature images of Timothy McVeigh as a folk hero...
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Blog Lives!
http://www.slate.com/id/2251669/
This piece from Ron Rosenbaum of Slate blasts the Tea Party movement (not just the so-called "fringe" that has been marginalized to give legitimacy to the main body) for their deliberate historical distortions. Rosenbaum takes the Tea Party's use of words like "socialist," "fascist," and "tyranny" to task, evoking the rise of the Nazis and Khrushchev's destalinization policies as moments where political language likewise underwent crisis and transformation.
Rosenbuam points out that the Tea Partier's fallacously use the name "National Socialist German Workers Party" as evidence that fascism and socialism are identical. Left unstated is the irony that the Nazis appropriated the term "Socialist" in a cynical attempt to rewrite the past and secure their own political power.
This piece from Ron Rosenbaum of Slate blasts the Tea Party movement (not just the so-called "fringe" that has been marginalized to give legitimacy to the main body) for their deliberate historical distortions. Rosenbaum takes the Tea Party's use of words like "socialist," "fascist," and "tyranny" to task, evoking the rise of the Nazis and Khrushchev's destalinization policies as moments where political language likewise underwent crisis and transformation.
Rosenbuam points out that the Tea Partier's fallacously use the name "National Socialist German Workers Party" as evidence that fascism and socialism are identical. Left unstated is the irony that the Nazis appropriated the term "Socialist" in a cynical attempt to rewrite the past and secure their own political power.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
If Obama were a member of an organization that sought one party rule over the nation and, indeed the world...if Obama belonged to an organization that dealt with dictators and even promoted legislation in those dictators' countries that issued life sentences to political undesirables....if Obama belonged to an organization whose leaders routinely expressed admiration for Hitler, Mao, and Stalin...
Well, I don't know what would happen. But one can be sure that Republicans would call for impeachment, and worse.
Yet over ten percent of the Senate Republicans belong to just such an organization. Scary stuff.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324
The dictatorship in question is Uganda, which recently declared homosexuality a crime which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The law was promoted by the Family.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ugandas-anti-gay-bill-causes-commonwealth-uproar/article1376503/
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/14/16671
Well, I don't know what would happen. But one can be sure that Republicans would call for impeachment, and worse.
Yet over ten percent of the Senate Republicans belong to just such an organization. Scary stuff.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324
The dictatorship in question is Uganda, which recently declared homosexuality a crime which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The law was promoted by the Family.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ugandas-anti-gay-bill-causes-commonwealth-uproar/article1376503/
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/14/16671
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Military History Field Trip, 11/04/2009
Our theme was the Battle of Germantown and the weeks after. After reading about the battle (and refighting it in a tabletop simulation), we retraced the steps of Washington's army from October 4 through December in 1777.
The first stop was Cliveden, the home of the Chew family in 1777. Here, British light infantry held off the main column of the Continental army, throwing a wrench into Washington's complex plan, which depended on the co-ordination of four divisions on the foggy morning of October 4. The troops here were also the ones who had perpetrated the Paoli Massacre, perhaps giving Washington added cause for reducing the Chew House before moving on.
Then, we headed to Rittenhousetown, near the site of where Washington had ordered his Pennsylvania militia to assault the Hessian positions on the other side of the Wissahickon Creek. Here, we got a sense of how terrain effects battlefield decisions. It's not surprising that the militia commander decided that an attack was not feasible.
Our next stop was St. Thomas' Church in Whitemarsh. Washington had decided to camp for the winter nearby (at a place known very well to our students) until a skirmish here convinced him that a site further away from Philadelphia would be more prudent. He chose, of course, Valley Forge.
Here, we once again surveyed the terrain to understand Washington's decisions to choose Valley Forge as a site and why he arranged the camp as he did. We inspected the winter quarters to get a sense of the ordeal the Continental Army had to endure at Valley Forge. We also chased deer, abandoned Voltaire, and goofed around on cannon.
The first stop was Cliveden, the home of the Chew family in 1777. Here, British light infantry held off the main column of the Continental army, throwing a wrench into Washington's complex plan, which depended on the co-ordination of four divisions on the foggy morning of October 4. The troops here were also the ones who had perpetrated the Paoli Massacre, perhaps giving Washington added cause for reducing the Chew House before moving on.
Then, we headed to Rittenhousetown, near the site of where Washington had ordered his Pennsylvania militia to assault the Hessian positions on the other side of the Wissahickon Creek. Here, we got a sense of how terrain effects battlefield decisions. It's not surprising that the militia commander decided that an attack was not feasible.
Our next stop was St. Thomas' Church in Whitemarsh. Washington had decided to camp for the winter nearby (at a place known very well to our students) until a skirmish here convinced him that a site further away from Philadelphia would be more prudent. He chose, of course, Valley Forge.
Here, we once again surveyed the terrain to understand Washington's decisions to choose Valley Forge as a site and why he arranged the camp as he did. We inspected the winter quarters to get a sense of the ordeal the Continental Army had to endure at Valley Forge. We also chased deer, abandoned Voltaire, and goofed around on cannon.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Vive la revolution
Lynn Hunt, former president of the AHA, wrote this piece six years ago. A historian who often takes the Annalistes' approach to "small-ball" history, she offers her view of attempts to find meaning in the French Revolution.
I am posting this here because her emphasis--on the politics of fear, beliefs in conspiracies, and the clash between the ideologies of left of right for the right to define history--seems more relevant today than when this article was written.
I am posting this here because her emphasis--on the politics of fear, beliefs in conspiracies, and the clash between the ideologies of left of right for the right to define history--seems more relevant today than when this article was written.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Politics of Spite
Hey Colleagues:
I think PK gets to the point that I was trying to make, one that I believe some of you have taken issue with during the past few days. I hope that you find this post to be of interest.
Peter
October 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Politics of Spite
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
I think PK gets to the point that I was trying to make, one that I believe some of you have taken issue with during the past few days. I hope that you find this post to be of interest.
Peter
October 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Politics of Spite
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Battle of Germantown Re-enactment
This year, I took my son to the re-enactment of the Battle of Germantown, which takes place at Cliveden, formerly known as the Chew House. The Chew House was the site of the battle's turning point, and it provides a great backdrop for this annual commemoration. For details of the event see revolutionarygermantown.org.
This guy is one of the best interpreters I have ever seen, period. He spins a compelling tale about the role of blacks in both the British and Continental armies. He does it with humor, insight, and showmanship. Bravo!
Here come the generals, sharing a peaceful moment together before hostilities erupt
"May I have a photo, sir?"
"There's a price. You must name my unit."
"You're a Hessian grenadier."
"Correct. You may take your photograph."
Score!
This private from the 1st R.I. agreed to a photograph without a trivia challenge.
It just wouldn't be a re-enactment without highlanders, now, would it? Perhaps they would paint themselves blue if I asked?
The guy in the foreground was pretty funny. He broke ranks to come chat with us punters while his unit was stationed in reserve.
Get that gun into position!
The militia on parade.
The Pennsylvania rifles. The actual unit was positioned a few miles away, near the Rittenhouse Town mill. But we're all glad they showed up.
The Continental army makes ready to advance on the Chew House.
But the British stand ready.
Washington's army gives as good as they get.
Out boys from Pennsylvania harry the British flank.
Hold the line!
The British retreat into the Chew House.
My son, who thought the loud noises were great, was seriously worried about the welfare of the horse.
Alas, the rebels are once again stymied by the defense of the Chew House. Perhaps next year can bring a different result...
This guy is one of the best interpreters I have ever seen, period. He spins a compelling tale about the role of blacks in both the British and Continental armies. He does it with humor, insight, and showmanship. Bravo!
Here come the generals, sharing a peaceful moment together before hostilities erupt
"May I have a photo, sir?"
"There's a price. You must name my unit."
"You're a Hessian grenadier."
"Correct. You may take your photograph."
Score!
This private from the 1st R.I. agreed to a photograph without a trivia challenge.
It just wouldn't be a re-enactment without highlanders, now, would it? Perhaps they would paint themselves blue if I asked?The guy in the foreground was pretty funny. He broke ranks to come chat with us punters while his unit was stationed in reserve.
Get that gun into position!
The militia on parade.
The Pennsylvania rifles. The actual unit was positioned a few miles away, near the Rittenhouse Town mill. But we're all glad they showed up.
The Continental army makes ready to advance on the Chew House.
But the British stand ready.
Washington's army gives as good as they get.
Out boys from Pennsylvania harry the British flank.
Hold the line!
The British retreat into the Chew House.
My son, who thought the loud noises were great, was seriously worried about the welfare of the horse.
Alas, the rebels are once again stymied by the defense of the Chew House. Perhaps next year can bring a different result...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)