Political Opportunism during Tragedy

With Katrina's devastation plain to see, ideologues (mostly on the left) have gone to great lengths to blame their opponents for the contingency of nature. James Glassman has a poignant and personal response. Additionally, via The Corner on National Review Online

Benny Peiser, whose work on catastrophe deserves much more attention than, say, Jared Diamond's, has this to say to readers of his Cambridge Conference email network:

On behalf of CCNet, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to all our American friends and members who have been affected by the tragic events wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

Notwithstanding continuing rescue and support efforts, the calamity has triggered a rather opportunistic and cynical reaction by opponents of the current US Administration. In an eerie development that echoes the political exploitation of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster last December, environmental campaigners, Green journalists and European officials are blaming (once again) the U.S. and its people for the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Instead of supporting the rescue efforts, demagogues are using the human tragedy in a futile attempt to score points. At a time of utter desolation and misfortune, propagandists in high office and parts of the media are abandoning America and its victims for purely political goals.

Europeans in particular, who have been rescued and liberated from themselves by the U.S. no less than three times in the course of the 20th century, should feel ashamed for kicking a friend and ally when he is down. Let me re-assure our American friends and colleagues that this pitiless mind-set of environmental activists is not representative for the vast majority of Europeans who are following the heartbreaking events with great concern and empathy.

There is quite a lot CCNet readers can do to support the victims and survivors of Hurricane Katrina - which is why I have posted below relevant information by the American Red Cross. As each of us ponders our response, let us all keep in our prayers those who have lost so much.

I am sure Benny is right. Burke's comment about the grasshoppers and the cows is appropriate here.

Here's the quote from Edmund Burke he refers to:

Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle... chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shriveled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour.

More here and here.

Not only in Rhode Island: "Why Teacher’s Unions Are Hurting Education" in Michigan

From Positive Liberty

Over the last few years, a bizarre situation has been going on here in Michigan. In 2003, a philanthropist named Robert Thompson offered to spend $200 million to build 15 charter schools in the city of Detroit, each serving 500 students, with a guarantee that each one would graduate at least 90% of its students. That plan required approval of the state legislature and in late 2003 they had reached a deal to pass a bill that allowed this to happen, but the Detroit teacher’s union called a one-day strike and marched on the state capitol to protest this plan. As a result, the Detroit mayor and Governor Granholm both pulled their support of the bill and it collapsed.

Detroit public schools are among the worst imaginable. Jack McHugh of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy gives some of the shocking facts, quoting the Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Service report on Detroit schools:

“Detroit Public Schools generates well below-average student results with well above-average spending per student. Statewide, only 2.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a smaller proportion of MEAP test scores that meet or exceed state standards. Statewide, only 3.4 percent of Michigan’s school districts graduate a smaller proportion of students. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a greater dropout rate. Statewide, only 9 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student on administration. When costs are adjusted for student circumstances … only 5.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts have less favorable … average amount[s] of money spent per unit of measured achievement.”

One would think that a school district with this poor a record would welcome a $200 million gift that would dramatically affect the educational opportunities for thousands of Detroit schoolchildren, but there’s one problem with that: it would compete with the public schools and if successful at reaching its goal of graduating 90% of its students, it would show that it’s possible to do much better than the public schools are currently doing. And that would put egg on the face of the educational establishment.

Now the Thompson Foundation has put its offer back on the table, along with the Skillman Foundation. And Grand Valley State University is offering to sponsor the schools (state law allows universities in the state to sponsor a certain number of charter schools). The Skillman Foundation has already donated millions to Detroit public schools that show success, including giving $1.5 million to keep the Communication & Media Arts High School, a quasi-magnet school in the city that has had great success with its educational model, open for the next 3 years.

This is not the first time the Thompson Foundation has given huge sums of money to give opportunities to students in Detroit. Their mission is to help lower income people rise out of poverty and to that end they have funded 1000 private school scholarships for Detroit city students, 500 junior college scholarships and 70 undergraduate and graduate scholarships at Michigan Tech and Michigan State. In a city with a dropout rate near 50%, you would think that they would be thrilled that someone is offering to do so much for at-risk students in that city.

But the Detroit Federation of Teachers doesn’t want the competition from charter schools. Successful charter schools, you see, would make their schools look very, very bad. And apparently covering up their lack of success is more important than providing opportunities for poor students to achieve academically. Now that Thompson’s offer is back on the table, the teacher’s union must be pressured to end their protests and stop trying to prevent the very thing they should be cheering for.

Thus, Rhode Island is not unique, though it may sometimes feel like it. This is not about slamming the union again: it is about providing opportunity for our children. They are the priority, not holding "power" in the education system.

Fact-Checking the NY Times on Body Armor Story

Jack Kelly writes

Colonel Thomas Spoehr is annoyed with New York Times reporter Michael Moss, for what I think is a good reason.

Spoehr is the director of materiel for the Army staff. He had a good news story to tell Moss, which Moss converted into a bad news story.

Last year, senior leaders of the Army became aware of technological developments which make it possible to improve the "Interceptor" body armor worn by our troops.`

The "Interceptor" consists of a vest, two SAPI (small arms protective insert) plates worn in the front and the back, and "backing" material around the plates. The plates are made of boronic carbide, the second hardest substance known to man (only diamonds are harder) but fairly light weight.

The plates will shatter a standard rifle bullet, and the backing catches the bullet fragments to prevent injuries from shrapnel.

The "Interceptor" is the best body armor manufactured in the world today, and represents a remarkable improvement over the protective vests worn by our troops in the first Gulf War, and Somalia in 1993. Those vests could protect against shrapnel, but a rifle bullet would cut right through them.

Those vests weighed 24 lbs each. The interceptor ensemble — which can stop an AK-47 bullet fired from just 10 feet away — weighs just 16 lbs. But the best isn't perfect. There are some special types of ammunition that can penetrate the boronic carbide plates. Last year Army leaders became aware of improvements that could be made to the SAPI plates that would protect against most (though not all) of these special types of ammunition.

There is little evidence insurgents in Iraq are using the special types of ammunition that can defeat the "Interceptor." But the Army wanted to be proactive, to defeat a potential threat before it emerged.

"We're taking what we think is a prudent step to guard against a step (the insurgents) could take, but that's a step that really hasn't developed yet," Spoehr said.

Altering the formula by which the SAPI plates are manufactured is not a simple process, since these plates must be manufactured to extremely precise (1,000ths of an inch) dimensions.

"Making one of these plates is like making one of those tiles that protects the (space) shuttle from heat," Spoehr said.

Yet though the specifications weren't set until early in January, new plates were being manufactured — and delivery begun to U.S. troops — in March. Those familiar with the Pentagon's procurement process recognize this as lightning speed. . .

Here's how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.

"The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system."

Spoehr told Moss all the things he told me, but there is not a single positive quote in his story.

"You would get the impression that our soldiers were in harm's way or at risk," Spoehr said. "That is not true."

Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, because all news about Iraq is presented as bad news, even when it isn't.

Makes you wonder what other "positives" are being spun the other way, doesn't it?

[via Instapundit]

Academic Reassurance...Tempered

It's nice to see that the school from which I will be receiving an MA in History has a good reputation, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Providence College’s rankings among 572 universities nationwide offering full range of undergraduate and master’s programs:

1st nationally in average graduation rate
2nd overall in North region
Among North region’s top 15 institutions recognized in “Great schools, great prices” category
Ranked among top 20 schools nationally in “peer assessment” survey

Providence, RI – The 2006 edition of U.S. News’ popular college guide, America’s Best Colleges, once again finds Providence College in familiar and prestigious company. Providence is ranked #2 in the north region’s “Best Universities – Master’s” category – the designation for 572 universities nationwide offering a full range of undergraduate and master’s programs.

In one “key criteria in judging schools” – graduation rate – Providence ranks highest among its peer institutions nationwide, with an average graduation rate of 85 percent. Villanova University of Pennsylvania also reported an 85 percent graduation rate.

This ranking in the popular annual college guide marks the tenth consecutive year Providence has been ranked as one of the top two universities in the north region. Providence shared the #1 position with Villanova University of Pennsylvania in 1998 and was ranked #2 in the eight other annual editions of the guide from 1997-2005.

This year’s “peer assessment” ranking places Providence College among the top 20 in the group of 572 “best universities – master’s” institutions nationwide. “We’re pleased to know that our peer institutions have consistently recognized Providence College ’s commitment to academic excellence,” notes Providence College President Rev. Brian J. Shanley, O.P. He adds, “We’ve always believed in the transforming nature of our Catholic, liberal arts education. We’re gratified when external sources trusted by students and their parents independently validate that mission.”

According to U.S. News, “the peer assessment survey allows the top academics we contact – presidents, provosts, and deans of admission – to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching.” Providence has consistently maintained a score of 3.7 on a 1.0 (marginal) – 5.0 (distinguished) scale.

Providence ’s #2 ranking among the 165 schools in the north region is a combination of several weighted factors that U.S. News uses to evaluate more than 1,400 colleges and universities and rank them among their peers. These include analysis of peer assessment scores, average freshman retention rate, average graduation rate, percentage of classes under 20, the student/faculty ratio, SAT/ACT scores, freshmen high school class standings, acceptance rate, and average alumni giving rate.

Providence also is listed among the top 15 schools in its category offering the “best value” which relates a school’s academic quality to the net cost of attendance for a student who receives the average level of financial aid. “The higher the quality of the program and the lower the cost, the better the deal,” explain guide editors.

I can personally vouch for the quality of the education, the lack of overt politicization in the History Department and the cost/benefit ratio! Of course, for the younger student, there is also good news of a different variety as PC ranks #2 in another important college category that is inherently important in the social education of our young adults: Beer Consumption!

Where I've been...

Here's where I was, but now I'm back!

The Ocean State Blogger

Heh. Well, I've been pretty lax. Now it's time for my second vacation, this time 2 weeks off. See you all then.

Back at It

I took a week off from work and fully intended to blog during that time. Well, I didn't. A few things, both planned and unplanned, popped up, punctuated by my Hemingwayesque Thursday during which I went Striped Bass and Fluke fishing off the coast of Rhode Island and Block Island, drank beer, went to Medieval Latin class (took a quiz) and then attended the tail end of a low-key bachelor party at the local Hooters. (The last was truly a tame affair: I'm sure Ernest would have gone in for a bit more ;) Anyway, I'm back (but I'll warn you ahead of time that in two weeks I'll be gone again) and regular blogging will resume.

1999 - ABC NEWS Report on Osama and Iraq

Roger Simon provides link to an audio clip (apparently from this show) that excerpts a 1999 ABC News report, complete with allusions to private sourcing, that mentions links between Iraq, terrorisma and Bin Laden. Wow. Whoda thunk? I guess everyone....until G.W. Bush became President, that is.

Much Ado About Not Much

This Washington Post is almost as clear as the MSM has gotten to acknowledging how ridiculous this Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove et al thing is, but it still can't let it go. Perhaps it was written before it we learned that Novak told Rove about Plame, not vice versa. Or maybe before Joe Wilson himself acknowledged his wife wasn't "under cover" to begin with. Whatever. I haven't really heard any water cooler or gym talk about this to begin with. Yet another tempest in the beltway teapot.

Who will be Islam's Luther?

Wretchard, in reaction to the travesty that saw children killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq, calls for Islamic reformation.

The empirical fact is that no group has been killed more often and more brutally by the 'Jihad' than Muslims themselves. During the French Algerian war several times more Algerian Muslims died than French. Anyone with a calculator can see the same is true in Iraq. One of the targets of the London bombing was a subway station frequented by British Muslims. The first objective of terror, indeed of the Terror, and the first objective of the Jihad is to maintain internal control over its base. For as long as internal control can be maintained, a terrorist movement need not defeat its armed enemy. It will never lose; hence in the estimation of the Peace generation, it will always win.

Logically, a large part of the War on Terror will consist of creating an insurgency within the insurgency. Fighting Islamic extremism must comprise organizing a revolt against Islam's internal oppressors. That would include waging intellectual war against Islamic fundamentalism within its own theological context -- a reformation -- it will include creating clandestine cells to strike at the gangs which beat women and intimidate men within the community. It will require all the skills of a resistance fighter struggling against bearded Big Brother. The Left has a word for such people: "Uncle Toms". That is how they've already characterized Hirsi Ali. That is to be expected. But many conservatives have also been blind to the urgent requirement of creating a liberation movement within Islam, in part because they half believe all Muslims are themselves the enemy; in part because they despair of Muslims ever rising up against the medieval institutions which constrain them; in part because they haven't thought about it. But they should. That pile of bloody children's slippers on an Iraqi street is a tally of spirits who were created to be free.

Mudville has more on the bombing.

Home Grown Bombers

Now that we know that the London Bombers were British, perhaps the warnings of those such as Robert S. Leiken will be taken more seriously by Europe. Here's another hint, see my aforementioned link to an Austin Bay article.

I Guess not that much is wrong with Kansas

Jerry Bower compares economic data between Red and Blue America (With Charts!!!).

Hey, News Media, You're the Target

Austin Bay

What makes the small and anonymous appear powerful and strong? In the 21st century, intense media coverage magnifies the terrorists' capabilities. This suggests that winning the global war against Islamist terror ultimately means accomplishing two things: denying the terrorists' weapons of mass destruction and curbing what is currently Al Qaeda's greatest strategic capability: media magnification and occasional media enhancement of its bombing campaigns and political theatrics.

Saddam and Al-Qaeda

The Weekly Standard is investigating all of the non-links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Claudia Roset offers a summary and urges the Bush Administration to start talking about it again.

Making the Tent Bigger

The Rev. Joseph Evans, pastor at the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Northwest Washington, in an Op-Ed in today's Washington Times:

Journalists are creating public awareness of an emerging class of people called New Republicans. No longer operating under the proverbial radar screen, they are people who value family, limited government, self-help and responsibility, and an entrepreneurial spirit.

Partly, journalists may be interested in their enlarging presence because they are noticing an obvious sociopolitical paradigm shift occurring in our country. Another reason may be that the New Republicans are African Americans and Hispanics.

From a conservative perspective, African Americans and Hispanics conspicuously are asserting themselves in the public square by engaging in politics, commerce and the judiciary. President Bush may nominate appeals court Judge Emilio Garza to replace the venerable Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently announced her retirement. This appointment would reflect a changing reality within the Republican Party. Although recently not as popular among ultraconservatives, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has similar credentials.

Politically,Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State of Ohio, is leading a conservative charge as the conservative gubernatorial frontrunner in the 2006 election. As Mr. Bush rightly thinks of Karl Rove as his 'architect' in the 2004 presidential victory, Mr. Blackwell should be thought of as his 'engineer.' The Republican establishment in the state of Ohio thought Mr. Blackwell's insistence on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot was not demonstrating political savvy, but Mr. Blackwell had his finger on the pulse of his fellow Buckeyes' values.

Minorities are breathing new life into the Republican Party. They are affirming that absolute moral truth exists, that traditional values matter and that their dreams can be realized by preserving proven historical ways to succeed. How can we sustain this new emerging class? One way is for the president to nominate Clarence Thomas as the successor to the current and fine Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Mr. Rehnquist will retire at some point and Mr. Bush should take advantage of the opportunityto strengthen conservative philosophy among African Americans.

. . . Justice Thomas represents the New Republicans, those who are coming and those who are returning to the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia professor, believes "it only takes 20-25 percent of the black vote for Republicans to win the presidency consistently." This would affirm the judgment of 34 percent of young blacks (18-25) and 29 percent (26-35), who call themselves Independents, according to the Joint Center for Political Studies, to vote as they live: conservatively.

Iraq: Terrorist Flypaper or Terrorism's "Cassus beli"?

I've thought that there was some credence to be given to the flypaper theory--fight the terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here--as applied to Iraq. With the recent London bombings as background, Gregory Scoblete convincingly argues that Iraq-as-flypaper is a flawed theory.

The strategy of aggressively preempting terrorists and terror-threats, the essence of the administration's counter-terrorism policy, is fundamentally sound. The problem begins when the pitched battle between Jihadists and U.S. forces in Iraq is framed as an either/or equation -- either we fight terrorists in Iraq or we fight them here -- because the reality, as London, Madrid, Turkey and the entire tragic litany demonstrates, is that we're fighting them everywhere. That Iraq has attracted the flies is both true and largely irrelevant; the flies continue to murderously alight elsewhere, despite our presence in Iraq. . .

The idea that Iraq is an irresistible magnet for jihad, diverting the radicals' attention from U.S. domestic targets, assumes that there is a hard-and-fast number of holy warriors and that once they enter the killing fields of Iraq in sufficient numbers our troubles will be over. It also ignores the still open question of whether the conflict is motivating Muslims who would otherwise have demurred from martyrdom to join the fight and thus constitute a seemingly limitless suicide assembly line. [emphasis in original]

I concur. It really isn't an either/or choice, as London and Madrid have reminded us. Thus, Scoblete is accurate when he further explains that Al-Qaeda is too decentralized and "that the 'central battlefield' on the war on terror is wherever a suitably fanatical Muslim is prepared to blow him/herself up. That U.S. forces are decamped enticingly in Iraq does not mean that terrorists will forsake Western targets." Iraq is the biggest front, but not the only front.

Yet, this leads me to a criticism of Scoblete's belief that there is still an "open question" regarding the War in Iraq as the centerpiece of jihadist motivation. He should know better. It is more than mere mantra to say such things as "9/11 happened before Iraq." And as the blogger Callimachus reminds us:

But wait, weren't we told not too long ago it was all about Israel? And that they were all on fire over the defiling presence of U.S. military boots way on the other side of the Land of the Two Holy Mosques?

Face it: there's a simmering stew of resentment among a vast pool of Muslims over a broad swath of the earth. Many sticks can stir the pot. If a more potent one comes along, the stirrers will use it till they find an even better.

In essence, while Scoblete is correct that Al-Qaeda is too decentralized for us to think that all of their jihadist eggs will be broken in the Iraq basket, he shouldn't buy into the belief that Iraq is a unique, or even the primary source of jihadist fertilizer. In fact, why Iraq and not Afghanistan?

The answer is because, unlike the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq has caused a rift in the West which Al-Qaeda has sought to exploit. In this, they have succeeded. They have picked up on the Western rhetoric espousing the illigitimacy of the "War for oil" and used it to add a kind of warped legitimacy to their terrorism. As such, their own rhetoric is both derivative of, and buttressed by, that of Western critics of the War in Iraq. (This does not mean that Western critics are conscious, or even unconscious or subconscious, supporters of terrorism. Nonetheless, like it or not, their words are being used by those who commit terrorism). In a society already predisposed to have a strong dislike for the Western "other," stories that support these predispositions, especially when accompanied by the "confessions" of those from the West, are extremely attractive. The result is a strengthening of both the appeal and apparent legitimacy of the ideology of radical Islam, particularly Al-Qaeda's strain, among those ready to receive it.

Scoblete touches upon the inherent strength of organizational decentralization, but he doesn't really say why it is effective. The reason decentralization is so effective for Al-Qaeda is because the organization of Al-Qaeda has succeeded in installing the ideology of Al-Qaeda as preeminent throughout radical Islam. In essence, the ideology has superseded the organization itself. As such, while Iraq has been used effectively as a recruiting tool and rhetorical touchstone, there were, and will be other, perceived "insults" to Islam that will be used as legitimization for jihad. There is still Israel, after all. It is correct to say that Iraq is not the only front in the War on Terror. It also isn't the only reason for it.

UPDATE: Greg Scoblete has responded and believes that I misinterpreted his postion on Iraq.

I manifestly don't buy the argument that Iraq is "causing more terrorism" in the broad sense of Islamic terrorism - bin Laden's group, and those flying planes into buildings, are motivated by a fundamentalist religious zeal and not a political grievance. They can't be appeased. Nor should they.

That doesn't change the basic though murky question: are Muslims entering Iraq and committing acts of terrorism who would have otherwise not embraced terrorism? If that question is answered affirmatively, our job is immeasurably harder. If the answer is no, then our prospects improve.

My apologies to Greg for the misunderstanding. So, we agree that Iraq isn't a conspicuous root cause for terrorism.

Greg's main concern is whether our job in Iraq is made tougher because more terror-minded individuals are able to enter the fray there. As Greg mentions, the geographical convenience of Iraq facilitates greater "participation" in jihad. Perhaps, then, the answer is this: the number of potential terrorists has not increased, but the number of both potential terrorists able to actively participate in jihad (facilitated by their proximity of Iraq) as well as the rate at which these potential terrorists have actually decided to take action (and die) has increased. The easier something is to do, the more likely it is that more people will do it.

Iraq is not a conspicuous motivator for more terror, it is just another piece of the ideological template. Thus, I don't think that more people are being "converted" to terrorism because of Iraq. But the practical affect of a larger battlefield that is closer to the terrorist nexus has been an increase in the rate at which passive consumers of terrorist ideology are able to become proactive jihadists. But remember, the location of the terrorists is more important than their number: 100 terrorists in Fallujah facing down a battalion of Soldiers or Marines is less of a threat than 100 terrorists dispersed throughout the U.S. ready to self-detonate.


[Cross-posted at Anchor Rising and Spinning Clio].

Ray Bradbury

Every time I've ever seen or heard a Ray Bradbury interview, I've come away impressed and more learned. Thus, it's always been strange to me that I've actually read very few of his works! Of those I have read, most were short stories, of which I can't exactly recall which they were, since I read them as a teen. Well, perhaps I shall pick up a new biography on him (as reported here) which I actually saw previewed on C-Span a month or so ago. Yet another item to put on my Bradbury to-do-list. I wonder if other people have authors whom they always mean "to get to" but always seem to put off because other, more insistent books keep coming up?

History News Network: Symposium on Nash

The Cliopatria blog is hosting another symposium. This time it's on Gary Nash's essay (partial excerpt) entitled "America's Unfinished Revolution." Go to the symposium for reaction by some of the big boys before reading my two cents.

I've done some research into the historiography of how Bernard Bailyn's "paradigmic" Ideological Origins of the American Revolution has been interpreted, reinterpreted, over-interpreted, misinterpreted and criticized. Included in this is the contemporary critique made by Nash on a 1973 essay written by Bailyn. Bailyn had contributed the lead essay in a compilation of eight essays [Essays on the American Revolution, ed., Kurtz and Hudson] that had been read at a symposium on the American Revolution held at Williamsburg in 1971. Entitled “The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation,” it was a summary of Bailyn’s understanding of the core factors of the American Revolution, based mostly on his previous work. He also addressed the difficulty of explaining the roles of loyalists and slaveholders within his interpretative framework and recounted the years after independence in which he emphasized both the optimism of Americans and their distrust of power and those of privilege who tended to wield it.

In his review [The William and Mary Quarterly 31, no.2 (1974), 311-314], Nash found that the fundamental flaw in Bailyn’s overall interpretation of the Revolution was his insistence on according minimal credit to socioeconomic forces as important causative factors of the Revolution. This was nothihng new. In fact, others, such as Gordon Wood, had implied as much nearly a decade earlier. [The William and Mary Quarterly 23, no.1 (1966): 3-32.] Nash's criticism was much more strident in tone. He believed that the relationship between various social groups and the particular ideologies that they embraced was inseparable. Nash also charged that Bailyn seemed too cavalier in his treatment of the slavery issue. He took particular umbrage with Bailyn for saying that the failure to abolish slavery was “an admirable ‘refusal,’” which kept the Revolutionary movement from sliding off into the “’fanaticism’” of abolition. Finally, Nash criticized the entire book, and took the editors of the work to task for not including any essays that addressed the issues of either African-American or Native American viewpoints during the Revolutionary era.

Bailyn responded to Nash’s critique first by stating his original goals in writing his essay and then addressed Nash’s particular charges. He reiterated his statement in the essay that his explanation “does not drain the Revolution of its internal social struggles” and other favorite themes of social or radical historians. What it did do, Bailyn wrote, was describe “why at a particular time the colonists rebelled and establishes the point of departure for the constructive efforts that followed.” As to the slavery issue, Bailyn stated that he was only attempting to explain the reasons why the revolutionaries failed to abolish slavery, not to excuse them. Bailyn’s explanation for why the revolutionaries didn’t address the issue was that “they generally saw the incompatibility of slavery with the free states they hoped to create, condemned the institution, and did eliminate it in the northeast and northwest.” According to Bailyn, the reasons given were fear of societal tensions with many newly released slaves and, more importantly, a desire to not sunder the nation over the slavery issue, “which a fanatical pursuit of abolition at that point would almost certainly have done.” He again referred to his own essay, quoting ‘A successful and liberty-loving republic might someday destroy the slavery that it had been obliged to tolerate at the start; a weak and fragmented nation would never be able to do so.’” Nash replied by criticizing Bailyn’s “Anglocentric history with a passion” and inability to be properly critical of the founders’ attitude toward slavery.

With this debate as perspective, we can see that, according to Nash in his latest essay, nothing has changed. But as the respondents of the symposium have shown, that's not quite true. As such, could it be that Nash merely wants to continue a battle already won because that's all that he knows how to do? Is this what happens when "history with a purpose" achieves its essential goals? Instead of looking for a new method or focus, the historian must continue to write history, even if his perspective is akin to that of Quixote as he regards the windmills?

London

I hopped in my car this morning and learned of a series of bombings in London. (Glen Reynolds , Jeff Jarvis and The Corner are on top of it). It seems obvious that the bombings were meant to time with the G8 summitt meetings. A previously unknown Al-queda affiliate-- Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe--has claimed responsibility (another report here) and warns that Denmark and Italy will be next unless they withdraw their troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq. It worked when they did it to Spain. I hope, and seriously doubt, that Great Britain will follow suit.

The Roe Effect

If you haven't heard of it yet, you should read OpinionJournal.Com's James Taranto's piece detailing his theory called the Roe Effect. Here's the essential part:

It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.

The Roe effect, however, refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party--that is, Republican--than they otherwise would have.