Governments

I've chosen this book, together with Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" to end a lecture I give on the top 50 books every American should read in order to understand why America is not safe today and will not become safe anytime soon, unless the people take back the power and restore common sense to how we spend the $500 billion a year that is now *mis-spent* on the military-industrial complex instead of real capabilities for a real world threat.

Mark Green knows as much as anyone could know about the intricate ways in which the existing system provides for *legally* buying elected representatives away from the citizens' best interests. The details he provides in this book--as well as the moderate success stories where reforms have worked--are necessary.

The bottom line is clear: until the 60% of America that is eligible to vote but does not vote, comes back into the democracy as active participants who question candidates, vote for candidates, and hold elected representatives accountable *in detail and day to day,* then corporate corruption will continue to rule the roost and will continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of an unreasonably wealthy few at the expense of the general public.

Although I found the book inspiring, I also found it depressing. Absent another 9-11 (or two--or suicidal shooters in an elementary school in every state of the union, or cataclysmic failure in Iraq and North Korea) I see no immediate prospects for America's dropped-out citizens "awakening" and taking back the power. There is still time for corporate money to get smart, pump a little more down to the poor, and avoid a revolution at the polls.

Whereas America's founding fathers provided the nation's fledgling government with a system of checks and balances, in current times one can forget about the balances and concentrate fully on the checks. Checks and more checks are forthcoming from big interests, which translates into ultimate control, no matter how often this axiomatic truth is denied. As critics ask: If the strategy is not succeeding, why do the big money interests shower accelerating amounts on political campaigns?

The cancer on our democracy is abundantly clear to those interested citizens watching election battles in the current 2002 mid-term campaign. Rather than stepping forward and debating the merits of the major issues facing the nation, an increasingly helpless and turned off citizenry is bombarded by simplistic campaign negative ads highlighting half truths and sometimes outright lies. Post election studies reveal that excessive negative advertising disgusts many voters, who then become so turned off by the process that they do not vote at all. This was symbolized in the 1988 presidential election when George Bush the Elder prevailed on a highly orchestrated campaign of negative advertising highlighted by Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance. Less than half of all eligible voters bothered to go to the polls, an all-time high since such scientific studies began to measure voting tendencies.

This cancer on the body politic has been a festering wound for some time. A few years ago in California an election campaign specialist with an imposing track record for success proclaimed bluntly that when a candidate hired his services it was time for him or her to take a vacation. He did not want the candidate to get in the way as he put his big money campaign into gear, highlighted by advertising displays of catchy symbols and pithy comments, which were drummed ad nauseum into the minds of voters through television and radio.

Mark Green made a recent appearance on the Phil Donahue Show in which he made a dire prediction. If this cancer is not dissipated through corrective legislation very soon then we will reach the point where the only two types of candidates are independently wealthy moguls ready, willing and able to spend millions of their own dollars such as a Michael Bloomberg, or lackeys under the total control of the wealthy special interests bankrolling their campaign efforts.

Mark Green's is an important voice which needs to be heard. The voice is tuned into the major area that will make or break democracy as we have known it. Will the days of idealistic but far from wealthy candidates be truly a thing of the past? Will Jeffersonian town hall democracy be something the smooth talking kingmakers will dismiss with sarcastic laughter as relics from a truly distant past?

Besides a wonderful and inspiring portrait of a truly unique American, the book portrays the relationships Mansfield developed with American Presidents beginning with FDR through Ronald Reagan. The entire middle third of the book focuses on the Vietnam era and Mansfield's heroic, behind the scene, effort as the Senate's Asia expert and Majority Leader to persuade Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford to, first, avoid committing American troops to a mainland war in Asia and, second, to withdraw troops once they were tragically in place in Vietnam.

Mansfield's analysis showed the Vietnam problem to be 9 parts diplomatic/political and one part military. Therefore, he argued American policy in Vietnam could not be resolved using a 9 part military solution to only 1 part diplomatic/political. Essentially, Mansfield believed a military response is rarely indicated and far too often, riding coattails of false intelligence and phony patriotism, militarism acquires a fatal and unstoppable momentum of its own. In retrospect it turns out that the "attacks" by North Vietnamese torpedo boats against the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965 that were used by President Johnson as a pretext to go to war were a monumental and, likely, willful intelligence failure. Almost 40 years later, on a much larger scale, American intelligence now seems to have failed to provide an accurate analysis of Iraq's WMD. It is clear American Presidents still base their decision to take the country to war on often misleading or patently false information.

This book provides an apt but sober warning for policy makers working on contemporary Middle East who are designing President George Bush's war on terrorism. This is a great read about a unique American who lived through a compelling time in American history and whose values in public life are sorely missed in today's divisive and disfunctional political climate.

Alas, no one among the 'best and the brightest' of either the Kennedy or Johnson administration listened, and instead dragged us into more than a decade of death, destruction, and depravity. Yet in this fascinating biography, we learn that Mike Mansfield had many more facets to his marvelous personality and many more intellectual insights to offer the American people during his long and illustrious career as a public servant. He presided over the U.S. Senate during the difficult and angst-filled deliberations over the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, its companion bill for Voter Rights Act passed the following year, and the donnybrook that ensured over the initial passing of Medicare legislation. A man of almost encyclopedic knowledge, he spoke carefully and constructively, and listened as intently as he had spoken. Like his predecessor as Senate majority leader, LBJ, he was a master of personal one-on- one persuasion, and his soaring intellect and engaging personality made him scores of friends and precious few enemies in his many travels and engagements. He was, however, much like Harry Truman in terms of being both a straight-talker and a straight shooter, and he was known to be a man of incredible principle and integrity.

His only regret in later serving as Ambassador to Japan was that it took him so far a field from his beloved Montana, a place he could sometimes become almost doggedly appreciative of. He was a hunter, an outdoorsman, and an early champion of what was then called conservation and is now better understood as environmentalism. His was a life that spanned a myriad of different concerns, causes, and conflicts, and although we will always remember him best for his earnest, informed, and heartfelt opposition to the war in Vietnam, Mike Mansfield was certainly a public man for all seasons. This is a wonderful book about a noteworthy American who until now has been seriously under-appreciated. Enjoy!

But beyond bringing the truth into focus, this book then constructively uses this better understanding of the facts to also diagnose some of the major proposed solutions to Social Security's problems. And he concludes, with typical candor and honesty, "This problem is well nigh insoluble,", although he does offer a "modest proposal" of some of the tough actions that will be necessary to get us out of the mess that all of these political falsehoods have covered up.

In Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents, O'Brien doles out the juicy Presidential dope in a witty, concise and hilariously irreverent style that is informative, yet exceptionally entertaining. From G.W. to G.W. Bush - with illuminating factoids and amusing anecdotes - Secret Lives paints a colorful picture of our nation's great (and not-so-great) leaders as being abundantly human and all too fallible. It's enough to make Mount Rushmore blush.

Well written, and beautifully (if not comically) illustrated, this book is a must for even a casual fan of American history. I highly recommend it to all!

We gain an insight into the minds of the major players. Who is in and who is out. The power struggle is played against the background of major events - The Northern Ireland Peace Process, Kosova etc. In particular he gives a real insight into the rivalry and dependancy of Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown. A fascinating insight into the working of Government.

Rawnsley's book will proabably mean more to those of us Brits who've lived in the UK throughout this period. Nonetheless, although some of the more obscure references will no doubt elude some foreign readers, it's still good entertainment. There's scandal (the Ecclestone/cigarette sponsoring for Formula One affair and the Hinduja passport episode), bitter rivalry (Blair and Gordon Brown), incompetence (Welsh devolution, the London Mayoral contest), the bizarre (the Millennium Dome), and high comedy (the story involving Rhodri Morgan's dogs is a classic).

Yet among all this, Rawnsley attempts to give credit where it is due to both Blair and the government as a whole. There are flaws in the book - if you're looking for a serious, balanced historical analysis, this is not the book for you: for example, the saga of the fuel tax protesters ignores the vital contextual fact that since 1979 British electors have consistently elected governments that shifted the tax burden from progressive direct taxes to regressive indirect taxes. Yet, to be fair to Rawnsley, the book is honest in its style and approach.

The reader may be left to ask how exceptional is Blair's government. That of course will remain to be seen, but in terms of in-fighting, scandal and incompetence, it could be argued that in comparison with what came before, it's not that bad. The problem is that Blair's government was vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy because of the principled stance it took against sleaze when in Opposition.

What is really disturbing is that the level of political debate in the UK has reached such a low level that the turnout in the 2001 General Election was the lowest since 1918. Perhaps it's because the centre ground has been so well occupied by Labour and the other parties appear so unelectable - therefore there's no debate worth having, and all we are left with is gossip.

Readers may wish to know that there is a second, more up-to-date issue of this book currently on release in the UK.

As Mike tells it: it seems as though one day Studs was walking home and he was mugged. And the guy doing the mugging all of a sudden RECOGNIZES Studs Terkel! And Studs being an oral historian, par excellence, starts talking to the guy!

One could only imagine the inquisitiveness of someone like Studs Terkel. ... "Where are you from?" ... "How did you come to be a mugger?" ... "Could you describe the alienation that drove you to a life of crime?"

I can't remember if Mike said that Studs pulled out his ubiquitous tape recorder, but it must have been quite a moment.

Mike Royko and Studs Terkel -- two American originals! Two boats on the River of Redeeming Grace.

In this book, Fehrenbacher explored the relationship of the Federal government to slavery from the formulation of the constitution through the Civil War. The quality of writing is excellent and the level of scholarship high. Fehrenbacher's points are buttressed by his careful analysis of American legislative and legal history.

Fehrenbacher begins with the issue of whether or not the Constitution protected slavery. This charge was made initially by Abolitionists in the 1840s and has been often repeated in recent years. Fehrenbacher's close analysis reaches a different conclusion. His view, well supported by careful reading of the original documents, is that the Constitution was neutral towards slavery. The Founders meant neither to protect nor discourage slavery. Many of the clauses cited as protecting slavery were the product of other concerns, notably the primary concern with producing a constitution acceptable to all sections.
What followed the implementation of the Constitution was, however, another matter. Fehrenbacher devotes several well documented chapters to the different way in which the Federal government supported slavery. These include protection of slavery within the District of Columbia, foreign policy actions that protected the privileges of slaveholders, Federal censorship of Abolitionist propaganda, and Federal support of fugitive slave pursuits. For example, successive American governments were remarkably lax in pursuing suppression of American commercial involvement in the African slave trade, well after importation of slaves into the USA was abolished.

The Federal tilt towards slavery was the product, not of constitutional protection, but of Southern domination of the Federal branch and Southern political unity on any issue touching slavery. Federal involvement in protecting slavery produced recurrent crises whenever the question of slavery expansion into newly acquired territories occurred. Fehrenbacher has a nice description of these recurrent crises though this is an oft described problem.

Finally, Fehrenbacher demonstrates why the South found the election of Lincoln to be so threatening. After benefiting from decades of Federal tilt towards slavery, Southerners were convinced that Republican domination of the Executive branch would result in a Rederal anti-slavery tilt and put slavery at risk in the whole USA. Fehrenbacher then concludes with a nice concise description of Federal policy towards slavery during the Civil War and Reconstruction, including Lincoln's crucial role.

An fine and well written book.

In 'The Slaveholding Republic', Fehrenbacher returns to themes very similar to the ones examined in 'Dred Scot'. Both books are about how the experiment in freedom established by the American Founding Fathers dealt with the paradox pointed out by Samuel Johnson "how is it that the greatest yelp for liberty come from the drivers of nigros?"

'Dred Scot' focused on two main themes - the status of slaves (and free blacks) in the law, and the legal/political questions of the power to abolish and establish slavery.

'The Slaveholding Republic' deals with these themes, but presents a broader picture. In the first chapter, Fehernbacher deals with the constitution's attitude to slavery. Fehernbacher is clearly upset about attacks on the constitution as a pro-slavery tool, and he makes a convincing case that the constitution neither supported nor condemned slavery, and that if anything, the very wording (avoiding the word 'slave' entirely) shows unease with slavery.

The second chapter deals with slavery in Washington DC. Until the 1830s, slavery in the capital was only a minor political issue. With the rise of Garrisonian abolitionism, attacks on slavery in the capital started to increase, but until the civil war, the only achievement reached was the barring of the slave trade in it.

Whatever debate was running within the US about slavery, to the world, the US was unquestionably a slave holding republic, constantly trying to defend pro slavery interests, especially in compensating slave holders for slave carried away. Even people with anti-Slavory convictions such as John Qunicy Adams treated slaves as property for those purposes.

Two chapters deal with the Slave trade. In it, Fehrenbacher diffrentiates between importation of slaves to the US, which was effectively surpressed, and the atlantic slave trade to Cuba and Brazil, in which Americans, because of the US's passive support, played a large roll up to the late 1850s.

The next two chapters are about the Fugitive Slave Laws. In essence, those demonstrate a conflict between the clause in the constitution obliging the return of escaping slaves, to the defence of free slaves from kidnapping. Until the 1830s, most clashes developed due to the Northern states trying to protect free blacks from kiddnapping. But with time, these laws became obstructionists, preventing even the retension of fugitives. As part of the 1850 compromise, a draconian fugitive slave law was enforced, crashing the rights of free blacks and raising strong objections from Northern abolitionists, especially in New England.

The two final chapters bring us to the outbreak of the civil war. Fehrenbacher manages to sum the arguments he raises in 'Dred Scot', without making the reader feel he's returning to the same grounds. Rather, the intepretations are striking. I was especially interested with Stephen Dauglas's role in the session crises. Twice in the 1850s, Dauglas's actions contributed to the dissolation of the union and the coming of the war. In 1852, his ilcalculated move with the Kensas-Nebraska act harmed raised Southern expectations and alienated Northerners. In 1857, the life long compromiser Dauglas suddenly became a man commited to the 'great principle' of popular sovreignty, breaking down the Democratic party as he did it. Had Dauglas managed to come up with a compromise, he might have remained the head of the united democratic party in the 1860 election, and after his defeat, he might have had enough influence to keep the South in the union. Of course, the counter factual is fanciful, but it is nonetheless intriguing.

This chapter and the next were completed by Fehrenbacher's former student, historian Ward M. McAfee. For the most part, McAfee does a commendable job, and writes good prose, which is very effective, even if it is not quite as elegant as Fehernbacher. It would be interesting to know how much of the last two quarters McAfee completed. My guess would be about one quarter of the first and half of the last. McAfee, continues Fehrenbacher's thesis very well, and there are few if any discrenible slips in the argument. However, McAfee has a tendency to moralise which I found slightly irritating.

The last chapter explains why the rise of the Republican party was such a threat to the South, despite Lincoln's repeat assurences that he meant no harm to slavery 'where it existed'. Ultimately, slavery depended not only on the States right to control their own domestic institutions, but also on support from a pro-slavery federal government. Lincoln's election meant that for the first time, the South was no longer representitive of America. The slaveholding republic was no more, and slavery was on the route to extinction. Slaveholders' attempt to recreate the Slaveholding republic was the source of sescession, and the Civil War that brought a fast ending to the the institution.

During the time of the American Revolution, slaveholder Thomas Jefferson, man of the enlightment, considered slavery to be a great evil. As an older man, settled into Southern ways, he let his antislavery convictions deteriorate into mere rethorics. Until Abraham Lincoln's election, the United States prefered to ignore Jefferson's words that "all men were created equal", and it was truly a Slaveholding republic.