Professor POTUS

by Joshua H. Liberatore

Among the many details of POTUS’s pre-POTUS background that received campaign scrutiny, one point that did not get much attention was his teaching career. POTUS taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years, and now that he finds himself executing law from the highest perch of power rather than conducting graduate seminars on it, we can observe the old professor coming out again. His classroom has changed, of course, and his curriculum has become much broader, but in many ways, it’s the same amiable academic at work. One trait, already noted in a previous column, is POTUS’s fondness for discursive settings that require both intellectual agility and human compassion. Rather than the lecture-hall format favored by his predecessor, POTUS likes to speak “in the round” and engage his audience from all directions. And though very rare among Presidents, POTUS appears to enjoy listening. In the teaching world, this approach is called “student-centered.” What other teacherly traits have we noticed in our new POTUS? In his recent town hall and press conference appearances, he rolled up his sleeves and showed us.POTUS favors argument and healthy debate:

First of all, this – nobody has been preselected here, so, you know, I don’t mind if you want to take me to task. If you think I’m a bum and doing a bad job, you go ahead and ask your question. (March 19, 2009)

POTUS favors evidence-based solutions to systemic problems:

If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way. If there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I’m happy to do it that way as well. I just want to figure out what works, and that requires us to actually look at the evidence and try to figure out, based on the experience that now has been accumulated for a lot of years, you know, how can we improve the system. (March 5, 2009)

POTUS does not merely preach; he interacts with his audience, putting complex matters in a language accessible to laymen:

Here’s what the budget does not do. It does not raise the taxes of any family making less than $250,000 a year by a single dime. In fact, 95 percent of all working families will receive a tax cut as a result of our recovery plan. Now, there are those who say these plans are too ambitious; we should be trying to do less not more. “Obama is trying to do too much,” they say. “Just focus on Wall Street, focus on the banks.” (March 19, 2009)

Audience members. Nooo!

And like any practiced pedagogue, POTUS manages his classroom deliberately and equitably:

I want to thank you all for this opportunity to speak with you. Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to open it up to questions. And I know there are a lot of folks back there too, so I’m going to try not to completely discriminate to the folks who got here in front. There are no rules to this, except a couple. (March 19, 2009)

POTUS also lays the ground rules for discussion and welcomes different modes of participation:

The only thing I’d ask is everybody raise their hands, number one-not everybody now, I mean everybody who has a question. [Laughter] Number two is that I’m going to go girl, boy, girl, boy, so it’s fair. [Laughter] Number three, I would ask that everybody try to keep their question relatively brief so that we can get as many questions in as possible. Now, it doesn’t have to be a question, it can be a comment as well, but, you know, we want to try to keep the speeches to a minimum. And I will try to also answer questions as briefly as possible. (March 19, 2009)

When a recently laid-off California schoolteacher, Isa Dequesada, asked POTUS to speak about crowded schools and poor teacher retention in tight budgetary times, he had to speak up on behalf of the local superintendent. As any reasonable classroom chief would, POTUS protects his individual students from the perils of group-level abuse.

The President. But a huge – right now the biggest chunk is for teacher retention. It generally flows in the same way the title I monies flow, so that there should be a formula that the States are working with in terms of how it’s allocated to various districts. I don’t know the exact figures here in California or what would happen in terms of this school district. Your school superintendent is here though. There he is right here. (March 19, 2009)

Audience members. Boo!

The President. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on a second. Hold on. Hey, hold on a second. It’s not his fault that the State has run out of money. So he is going to – he was in a meeting with Arne Duncan, our Secretary of Education, and I stopped by in the meeting – and these were the school superintendents for all across the country, to come together and work on how do we both deal with the immediate short-term crisis, but also, how do we think about long-term reforms? (March 19, 2009)

In order to ensure the effectiveness of his message, POTUS frequently checks for comprehension and confers with his audience before moving on:

Am I completely satisfied with all the work that needs to be done on deficits? No. That’s why I convened a fiscal responsibility summit, started in this room, to start looking at entitlements and to start looking at the big drivers of costs over the long term. Not all of those are reflected in our budget, partly because the savings we anticipate would be coming in years outside of the 10-year budget cycle that we’re talking about. Okay? (March 24, 2009)

But when one student – in this case, CNN’s Ed Henry – is hogging the floor and pushing too far, POTUS wraps things up with snappy sternness that is both authoritative and generous:

Q. On AIG, why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? It seems like the action is coming out of New York and the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?

The President. It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak, you know? (March 24, 2009)

And POTUS seizes each opportunity for instruction, what noneducators call “teaching moments,” providing concrete examples and figures to illustrate a general point. When questioned about the advisability of a tax policy adjustment concerning charitable contribution write-offs, POTUS hit the chalkboard:

People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able write off 36 or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent. Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re given that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.

And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent. In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize – when I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some – a bus driver, who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year gives that same $100. Right now he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent; I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair. (March 24, 2009)

At the end of a wide-ranging discussion, POTUS shows a keenness for thematic closure:

That whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I’m going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come, as long as I’m in this office. I’m a big believer in persistence. I think that when it comes to domestic affairs, if we keep on working at it, if we acknowledge that we make mistakes sometimes and that we don’t always have the right answer and we’re inheriting very knotty problems, that we can pass health care, we can find better solutions to our energy challenges, we can teach our children more effectively, we can deal with a very real budget crisis that is not fully dealt with in my budget at this point, but makes progress. (March 24, 2009)

And Professor POTUS is keeping us, his loyal scribes, busy bees indeed. Though we can hardly keep up with his tireless dialogues and lengthy symposia, we never fail to be intrigued by his classroom charms.

POTUS Goes a Wee Bit Blarney

by Joshua H. Liberatore

Occasioned by the visit of Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen to the White House on St. Patrick’s Day, POTUS drew on his own Irish roots in displaying his prodigious gift of gab in a variety of settings. Whether it is was the formal bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, the Shamrock presentation ceremony, the Congressional luncheon, or the two social receptions at the White House, POTUS christened each opportunity to highlight the Irish character with sincere praise, some flattery, a well-milked personal anecdote, and a few sprightly jokes. Any bard of the Emerald Isles, “down the generations” from Jonathan Swift to Oscar Wilde to James Joyce (POTUS himself quoted W.B. Yeats) to Seamus Heaney, would be proud to behold the royal treatment and sheer loquacity Éire received on a holiday most Americans associate with green sweaters, soda bread, and off-hours binge drinking.

I just want to say that we are incredibly honored to have the Taoiseach here and his entire team. This is an affirmation of one of the strongest bonds between peoples that exist in the world. You know, when you think about the history of Ireland and the enormous impact it has had on our own history, and the fact that you’ve had people from Ireland who have shed blood on behalf of this country’s independence and its freedom, that it has had probably as much impact on our culture and our traditions as any country on earth. (Oval Office, 10:56 a.m.)

It was a day chock-full of superlative congratulations, mutual affection, and even a little presidential genealogy, the latter of which got its share of airtime.

I, personally, take great interest on St. Patrick’s Day because, as some of you know, my mother’s family can be traced back to Ireland, and it turns out that I think our first Irish ancestor came from the same county that Taoiseach once represented. So we may be cousins. [Laughter] We haven’t sorted that through yet. But even if by blood we’re not related, by culture and affinity, by friendship and mutual interest, we are certainly related. And this gives us an opportunity to just continue to strengthen the incredible bonds that we have between the two countries. (Oval Office, 10:58 a.m.)

Fulmouth Kearney, great-great-grandfather to POTUS’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham, worked as a cobbler in Moneygal, Offaly County. When Prime Minister Cowen registered this serendipitous connection to the very political district where he launched his political career in 1984, upon the death of his father (Chicagoans take note), he mourned the loss of a ready stock of campaign foot soldiers:

Can I say, Mr. President, you were saying you were trying to work out if we’re related or not. I just want to say that I have checked, and unfortunately, there are no Kearneys on the electoral register anymore in my electoral district. [Laughter] But if there were, I assure you, I’d have them on my campaign team. (Roosevelt Room, 11:45 a.m.)

Though it might not earn Cowen any new precinct captains for his 2012 reelection bid, this Fulmouth Kearney, ancient patriarch of POTUS’s Kansas forebears, became a kind of centerpiece for the day’s events.

Now, before I turn it over to Taoiseach, it turns out that we have something in common. He hails from County Offaly. And it was brought to my attention on the campaign that my great-great-great grandfather on my mother’s side came to America from a small village in this county as well. We are still speculating on whether we are related. (Roosevelt Room, 11:41 a.m.)

People help you discover a lot about yourself when you’re running for President. As has been mentioned, it was brought to my attention last year that my great-great-great grandfather on my mother’s side hailed from a small village in County Offaly. Now, when I was a relatively unknown candidate for office, I didn’t know about this part of my heritage, which would have been very helpful in Chicago. [Laughter] So I thought I was bluffing when I put the apostrophe after the O. [Laughter] I tried to explain that “Barack” was an ancient Celtic name. Taoiseach, I hope our efforts today put me on the path of earning that apostrophe. (U.S. Capitol, 1:34 p.m.)

Readers of Celtic ballads and epic poems, not too mention Joyce’s Ulysses, will recognize the cultural authority of POTUS’s literary technique. Irish storytelling, per force, involves a lot of strategic repetition. Rest assured that Fulmouth Kearney’s eyes would be smiling.

As it turns out, the Taoiseach and I have something in common – I’ve mentioned this in previous speeches – both he and my great-great-great grandfather on my mother’s side hail from County Offaly. (East Room, 7:36 p.m.)

I was mentioning in the other room, it turns out that the Taoiseach and I have something in common. Both he and my great-great-great grandfather – [laughter] – on my mother’s side hail from County Offaly. My great-great-great grandfather was a boot maker there, apparently, and I have been adopted there. I understand that I have been invited to a pub there – [laughter] – to enjoy a pint there. [Laughter] And so we’re going to take them up on that offer at some point. (State Dining Room, 7:58 p.m.)

It wasn’t all light repartee and warm nostalgia, however. POTUS and Cowen also aired their regrets concerning a recent flair-up of violence in Northern Ireland that left two soldiers and a policeman dead. POTUS linked the generations-old struggle for peace with a more universal hope for calm and prosperity, echoing Inaugural Address themes:

But every peace process is challenged by those who would seek to destroy it. And no one ever believed that this extraordinary endeavor would be any different. And we knew that there would be setbacks; we knew that there would be false starts. We knew that the opponents of peace would trot out the same old tired violence of the past in hopes that this young agreement would be too fragile to hold. And the real question was this: When tested, how would the people of Northern Ireland respond? Now we know the answer: They’ve responded heroically. They and their leaders on both sides have condemned this violence and refrained from the old partisan impulses. They’ve shown they judge progress by what you build and not what you tear down. And they know that the future is too important to cede to those who are mired in the past. (Roosevelt Room, 11:48 a.m.)

After the Prime Minister presented POTUS with a bowl of Shamrock, as a symbol of renewed friendship and optimism, the ceremony concluded on a jolly note as POTUS introduced the venue for the next event on the packed agenda:

Now, today is a day for all the people of America and Ireland to celebrate our shared history and our shared future with joy and good cheer. So I can’t think of a better place to take the Taoiseach for lunch than the Congress. [Laughter] We’ll be heading there shortly for the annual Speaker’s St. Patrick’s Day luncheon, a tradition in which Democrats and Republicans put aside partisanship and unite around one debate only: who is more Irish than whom. (Roosevelt Room, 11:50 a.m.)

POTUS was so pleased with the joke that he couldn’t help but repeat it less than two hours later, a habit familiar to anyone with Irish uncles. Addressing Members of Congress, POTUS raised the stakes:

In fact, looking at all of you, I’m reminded of a greeting President Reagan once offered the guests at this gathering. “On St. Patrick’s Day,” he said, “you should spend time with saints and scholars. So I have two more stops to make.” [Laughter] But, it is wonderful to see so many wonderful Irish Americans, as well as so many who wish they were. (U.S. Capitol, 1:30 p.m.)

Amidst all the laughter and witticisms, though, POTUS made sure to recall an era when jokes about being Irish and competing for degrees of Irishness were not on the mainstream horizon. Having learned from Cowen a Gaelic expression (Is féidir linn) that translates roughly into his own campaign mantra ( “Yes, we can” ), POTUS rehearsed notable Irish contributions to American history and culture, for which he declared our collective gratitude:

Irish hands have signed our founding documents and fought in our wars. They’ve helped build our greatest cities. Through tragedy and triumph, despite bigotry and hostility, and against all odds, the Irish created a place for themselves in the American story. We are a nation blessed with so many immigrant and ethnic groups that have contributed to that story, and in doing so, they helped fashion a better life for all of us. (U.S. Capitol, 1:38 p.m.)

At times, indeed, POTUS almost seemed almost to yearn for a freer time in his daily schedule, when indulging in another Irish contribution to American life, the pleasures of the pint, was more feasible.

President Obama. Just one last point that I would like to make, and that is although I think it’s wonderful that you visited the Oval Office and Washington, what you’re really missing out on is the South Side Irish Parade in Chicago – [laughter] . . .

Prime Minister Cowen. I’ve been there.

President Obama. . . . which I believe is one of the great events in America. And it is a lot of fun. Although as President I don’t think I could have as much fun as I could before I was President at that parade, because I have press following me all the time. (Oval Office, 11:04 a.m.)

After spending the day together, POTUS and Prime Minster Cowen got so cozy that they nearly swapped speeches at the evening reception. Cowen welcomed “a strong friend of the United States” and went on for 20 seconds before reddening and rebooting. The luck of the Irish then passed to POTUS who, due to the last-minute toggling on the teleprompter screen, began: “First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama!” The green hills of Ireland only beckoned all the more.

In the third year of his Presidency, John F. Kennedy decided to make a trip to his ancestral home. And one of his aides advised against it. The aide said, “You’ve already got all the Irish votes you want in this country.” [Laughter] “If you go to Ireland, people will say it’s just a pleasure trip.” And Kennedy responded, “That’s exactly what I want” – [laughter] – “a pleasure trip to Ireland.” That’s what I want too – [laughter] – but I’m not going to get one right now. We’ve got a little more work to do. (State Dining Room, 8:05 p.m.)

By the end of the day, after editing and indexing six sets of remarks, fact-checking historical references and literary allusions, verifying Gaelic transliterations, researching the Kennedy family tree, and straining our creativity to title each text distinctly, we too looked forward to enjoying a pint and even felt we deserved one.

Let POTUS Be Clear

by Joshua H. Liberatore

Recall the tone of voice in which our parents instructed us on something of grave importance, a matter of domestic urgency: an ethical slip, flippant remark, or indecorous gesture. Recall the way that we often judged the seriousness of the message based on whether our middle name was invoked at the outset. Though his duties often require a kind of paternal authority and judicial self-possession, POTUS nevertheless has to be a touch more subtle in his scoldings from the podium. And while his style is still evolving in many ways, some definite patterns have already emerged. Quite simply, POTUS asks us to let him be clear.

Early moments of stern reminder were more timid, almost apologetic: a modest presidential request for reason to prevail in the land he rules.

But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred. (February 4, 2009)

Gathering strength that literary allusion often provides, POTUS quietly became more imperious:

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They’ve taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they’ve brought our economy to a halt. And that’s precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action. (February 5, 2009)

Once the $787 billion stimulus package passed both houses of Congress, POTUS relaxed for spell, but shortly turned his attention to the next corner of concern, the twin stepchildren of our present discontent: the mortgage and credit crises.

And I also want to be clear that there will be a cost associated with this plan. But by making these investments in foreclosure prevention today, we will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow, costs that are borne not just by families with troubled loans, but by their neighbors and communities and by our economy as a whole. Given the magnitude of these crises, it is a price well worth paying. (February 18, 2009)

When POTUS addressed the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he warned them, as the deputized allowance-dispensers of their respective cities, to spend the stimulus money wisely:

So I want to be clear about this: We cannot tolerate business as usual, not in Washington, not in our State capitals, not in America’s cities and towns. We will use the new tools that the recovery act gives us to watch the taxpayers’ money with more rigor and transparency than ever. If a Federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not hesitate to call them out on it and put a stop to it. (February 20, 2009)

And to the National Governors Association, whose members – with at least one well-publicized exception - stand poised to receive $140 billion in stimulus money, he also wanted to be clear:

So let me be clear, though: This is not a blank check. I know you’ve heard this repeatedly over the last few days, but I want to reiterate it. These funds are intended to go directly towards helping struggling Americans keep their health coverage. We want to make sure that that’s what’s happening, and we’re going to work with you closely to make sure that this money is spent the way it’s supposed to. (February 23, 2009)

Later, as if countering an old campaign criticism that he was an income redistributionist, a government interventionist, and perhaps an out-and-out socialist, POTUS grew sharp:

But let me be clear: The choice we face is not between some oppressive government-run economy or a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. Rather, strong financial markets require clear rules of the road, not to hinder financial institutions, but to protect consumers and investors, and ultimately to keep those financial institutions strong; not to stifle, but to advance competition, growth, and prosperity. And not just to manage crises, but to prevent crises from happening in the first place, by restoring accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. These must be the goals of a 21st century regulatory framework that we seek to create. (February 25, 2009)

At Camp Lejeune, NC, POTUS addressed troops in his first stage appearance as Commander in Chief. To the troops he expressed gratitude and admiration, offering the usual – required, if hollow – blandishments: they have performed “brilliantly”; their eventual withdrawal does not signify failure; the Pax Americana is healthy and strong, etc. To the Iraqis, he wanted to be clear:

So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations. (February 27, 2009)

When he introduced his new budget, POTUS promised both to “rein in spending” and “root out waste, fraud, and inefficiency” in government contracting. But to allay keen worries at the Pentagon that the party might be over, POTUS made himself clear:

Now, I want to be clear, as Commander in Chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend the American people, which is why we’ve increased funding for the best military in the history of the world. We’ll make new investments in 21st century capabilities to meet new strategic challenges, and we will always give our men and women the – in uniform, the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done. (March 4, 2009)

That is what the Pentagon does, right? Defend? POTUS was clear. And to address “the crushing costs of health care” in tough economic times, POTUS hosted a bipartisan forum, one whose principal topics was . . . the clarity of his concern:

Well, let me be clear: The same soaring costs that are straining families’ budgets are sinking our businesses and eating up our Government’s budget too. Too many small businesses can’t insure their employees. Major American corporations are struggling to compete with their foreign counterparts, and companies of all sizes are shipping their jobs overseas or shutting their doors for good. Medical – Medicare costs are consuming our Federal budget; I don’t have to tell Members of Congress this. Medicaid is overwhelming our State budgets; I don’t need to tell Governors and State legislatures that. (March 5, 2009)

Then, to the joy of researchers and advocates on behalf of diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes, POTUS lifted the ban on Federal monies directed toward human stem cell research. On this hot-button issue, he certainly needed to be clear:

But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources; it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists, like those who are here today, do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. (March 9, 2009)

On education policy and reform – music to my ears on nearly all counts – POTUS was doubly clear:

Let me be clear: The overwhelming number of teachers are doing an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. My sister is a teacher, so I know how tough teaching can be. But let me be clear: If a teacher is given a chance or two chances or three chances but still does not improve, there’s no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high. We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children’s teachers and the schools where they teach. (March 10, 2009)

Finally, POTUS mildly scolded Congress – dominated by his own party, it must be mentioned – for sending him the belated and bloated omnibus spending bill necessary to keep the government’s “wheels turning” (as the pundits are fond of saying), a flawed bill he was all but obliged to sign, despite procedural reservations. POTUS was clear, however, that this bill represented the past, not the future he campaigned on and has promised since taking office:

Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct Federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I have opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own and will tout them in their own States and their own districts. (March 11, 2009)

Why all this concern for clarity? One must merely recall the precedent set by the past eight years of desperate gropings at cogency to discover POTUS’s probable motivation. A brief recapitulation is instructive:

New Orleans has had a long tradition of diplomatic ties with Mexico. In 1824, New Orleans, Louisiana became the first site of the Mexican – where the first Mexican – became the site for the first Mexican consulate in the United States. Isn’t that interesting? (April 21, 2008)

Given that the results under his predecessor so often were neither clear nor interesting, can we blame POTUS for making the extra effort toward achieving at least the former, even at the expense of the latter?

The Federalist Project 1

“The Perils of Originalism” and The Federalist 1 – 5

In this opening chapter of Jack Rakove’s Original Meanings, we confront several pitfalls of the “originalist” ambition to discover the Founders’ true intentions and the pure spirit of the Constitution they authored, not least of which springs from Madison’s own recognition that an “unbiased” history of the Convention of 1787 was well-nigh impossible (his stubborn effort to create one, however, remains indispensable reading). Rakove rehearses the main problems we face in our retrospective enterprise to understand the Constitution and the Federalist essays designed to get it ratified, all stemming from the intellectual and purposive underpinnings of the political debates that brought these remarkable men to Philadelphia in the first place: the eminently practical orientation of the delegates, the immediate experience of legislating and governing under the weak Articles of Confederation, various state, regional, and class interests that may have occluded the common purpose of the writers, and of course, the breadth and depth of the learning and literacy assumed as par for the course in 1787, which we’d be extremely hard pressed to match or even approximate today. Nonetheless, we must try to examine the Constitution under the refracted light of these original contexts combined with the fruits of modern scholarship; thus, Rakove is on our side.

    The first five essays of The Federalist introduce us to some of the principal worries that advocates of the Constitution felt as they countenanced the manifest failures of eight years under the Articles. Hamilton and Jay both warn of the danger posed by “jealousies” aroused among small neighboring states, pointing to endless European wars of rivalry and conquest as illustrative examples. Jay argues for the shared heritage among the former colonies (citing language, ancestry, religion, etc.) as reason for unifying under a central authority of some scope and potency. Over all, these introductory essays reveal a concern for the vulnerabilities the authors witnessed as the United States struggled to define itself in the wake of its recent declaration and war of independence, significant war debt, and first several years of fledgling republican sovereignty in an age of empires. One line question worth pursuing here is whether and to what extent the United States of today resembles the kind of strong union envisioned by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. Does our propensity for regional or state-level blocs of power and cultural authority argue for or against Jay’s position on shared heritage? Have we overcome the “jealousies” and vulnerabilities inherent in the confederacies of small states they believed were destined to fail? Have great size and vigorous centralization made us safer internally and externally? How does the existence – and apparent success – of the European Union complicate 18th-century assumptions about unity and confederacy among heretofore sovereign entities? What does the European experience with colonial empires suggest about the future success of the United States as the builder of a vast informal empire (what we call “globalization”)?

Self-Affirmation in Hard Times

by Joshua H. Liberatore

In the wake of nearly constant bad news for the U.S. economy – reported job losses, failing banks and insurers, stock market volatility, poor retail numbers, ominous pronouncements about low “consumer confidence” – many Americans might be wondering what politicians mean when, on the campaign trail and off, they invoke iterations of America’s claim as the embodiment of the Disney slogan: “the best place on earth” (a claim, incidentally, made also by places as diverse as British Columbia, Jamaica, Iceland, and Puerto Vallarta). We can accept – and even occasionally indulge ourselves in – hyperbole of this variety in the context of stump speeches and whistle-stop rallies openly designed to pique emotions and galvanize basic loyalties. But what are we to make of POTUS standing in front of a special joint session of Congress, prime time, on national television, and serving up a greasy whopper like this:

The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history, we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more. (February 24, 2009)

Make that a double whopper with cheese and fries, and might as well supersize it while we’re at it. Did he actually say “the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history”? Yes he did, and apparently, yes we can. Of course, we are accustomed to presidential mythmaking and brazen self-congratulation from both parties, but this one tips the scales into the realm of the absurd. In making his case for forging new free trade agreements (with South Korea, Panama, Columbia), our former POTUS was fond of “explaining . . . to the American people, why competition is important, and why America can compete with anybody, anytime, anywhere, and why it’s in our interest to do so” (January 30, 2007). And POTUS and his former rival, John McCain, both routinely made superlative claims about America’s various top positions “in the world” and “on earth” on the campaign trail. But “the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history”? Even deposed neoconservative acolytes like Douglas Feith and Richard Perle must be blushing.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before. (February 24, 2009)

If the increasing grandiosity of self-affirmation in our political rhetoric serves as a measure of our existential insecurity, we might have reason to worry. Cold War discourse drifted this way. John F. Kennedy no doubt found himself in a similar position regarding the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, intoning America’s imminent entry into a New Frontier in 1960, and suddenly, it seemed, through fatherly encouragement from the Oval Office and generous funding from the Pentagon and its subsidiaries, America buckled down and invested seriously in education, scientific research, the development of new technologies, and general advancement, all aimed at beating the Russians into space and retaining the psychology of ascendancy required of any self-respecting superpower. Now that the blessed free market and increased liberty have saddled the Russians with oligarchic corruption and widespread brain drain, America, despite its growing list of permanent client-states, needs a new adversary to light the fires of healthy competition.

We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy-efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea. Well, I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders, and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again. (February 24, 2009)

It may not surprise anyone at this point, but even India, which like China is by demographic necessity investing heavily in wind and solar energy, isn’t just a country of “slumdogs” and millionaires; a burgeoning middle class of some 80 million strong (that’s the size of Germany) there is living comfortably, buying cars and other durables, owning houses, and taking vacations. Economies of scale seem to point in the easterly direction for leadership – economic and technological – in the 21st century. What we’ve got, on the other hand, is a big, bloated military and no fewer than 761 foreign bases around the globe to garrison and maintain. Will military might be sufficient basis to garner the kind of world leadership POTUS dreams of as the American birthright? The facts on the ground are not encouraging.

Can you guess which POTUS said the following, with respect to another “turning point in our history”?

[T]oo many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose. . . . There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.

Jimmy Carter tried in 1979 (unemployment: 7 percent) to speak honestly of the “crisis of confidence” that plagued America as the booming post-war empire of production gave way to an insatiable empire of consumption that was straining budgets and revealing fundamental weaknesses. He warned that we might have to learn to make do with less and focus on rebuilding lives of quality not quantity; voters promptly rewarded him with a crushing electoral defeat and the calumnious (if superficial) designation of “failed president.” Candor, it turns out, does not pay high dividends.

Did Carter’s mistake help forge a precedent for presidential discourse that shields its audience from the dose of salutary realism it sorely needs? Are we now paying the belated price for Reagan’s “morning in America” and the devil-may-care profligacy of the 1980s?

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand. (February 24, 2009)

Thirty years after Carter’s warning, when the situation – at least pertaining to energy, if not unemployment – seems so much more dire and pressing, we might do well to resume Carter’s thesis and begin the process of reckoning with the consequences of our ways. Will POTUS have the courage to shepherd us through a systemic revision that will surely involve some degree of shared pain and sacrifice and a form of patriotism that reaches beyond bumper-stickers, fireworks, and flags? More importantly, will we – ordinary citizens – show the courage (and resolve) to accept the personal responsibility that POTUS’s rhetoric and this new era demand of us?

Speaking of our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decisionmaking and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a retooled, reimagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it; scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the Nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. (February 24, 2009)

Ailing empires talk this way, and POTUS knows it. Like fourth-century Romans reminding themselves of their historic achievements in road-building, aqueduct networking, and the military triumphs of yore, while domestic grain fields lay fallow and barbarians huddled at the gates, like 16th-century popes preaching of the “one true faith” and building lavish cathedrals to prove it while entire chunks of Europe fell under the sway of Lutheranism and “other heresies,” POTUS brings the Good News to those who need to hear it in the Land of McMyths and Narratives of Convenience and Comfort. Perhaps this time, grand gestures from the leader of the self-proclaimed free world get us more than expensive space toys, a tremendous but unused nuclear arsenal, and a big rock candy mountain of debt. In the meantime, duty obliges us to recognize that it was Karl Benz, a German, who invented the automobile.

Two Perspectives on “The Great Gatsby”

by Joshua H. Liberatore

A Dream Not So Much Deferred as Rescinded

Parties and social gatherings are useful devices for illustrating the character and mores of a given social and cultural milieu, which is essential for any novelist who wants to convey thematic depth within a convincing setting. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, narrator Nick Carraway’s keen observations of (if passive participation in) the many social gatherings that color the novel’s landscape provide clever insights into the novel’s larger purpose: to chart the fate of honest, passionate dreams in a setting populated by vacuous, careless people. An initiate into what he feels will become a glamorous and gratifying East Coast prosperity, Nick is at first amazed, then ironically bemused, and finally horrified by what he finds at the core of this world. It is the parties – ranging from private, listless dinner gatherings in exclusive East Egg, to chaotic, melodramatic apartment soirées in New York, to the outrageous, debaucherous revelries at Gatsby’s comical mansion – that steer Nick, and the reader, through this continuum between awe and disenchantment.

    The novel opens as Nick accepts an invitation to his cousin Daisy Buchanan’s palatial East Egg home, where he recalls his long-held distaste for her husband Tom, a former Yale classmate and confirmed bigot, and meets the lithe and “hard-bodied” Jordan Baker, a golf champion with a dubious reputation for dishonesty and foul play. Although initially impressed by the grandeur and complacent comfort he witnesses under the Buchanan aegis, he quickly sniffs the rot and corruption beneath the smooth, polished veneer of wealth and privilege. Daisy speaks hollow nonsense, moves from self-congratulation to bitter jokes at her husband’s expense (although in this context, Nick learns, it is sociable and accepted to laugh at his host, if Jordan’s example can serve as a guide; she is a regular guest), and generally exudes an air of inauthentic, shallow self-absorption, which is in turn only humanized by the broad knowledge of Tom’s infidelity and her pathetic hope that her daughter, Pammy, will grow up to be a “beautiful little fool,” the only plausible goal, her tone suggests, for a woman of her set. To the reader, Nick confesses his private distaste at the scene, not knowing sometimes whether to laugh along or “phone immediately for the police.” There is a shabby, depressive squalor to the evening, and although Nick’s preliminary wariness and nervousness betray an innocence that he later sheds, the reader is prepared for any calamity, which Nick’s subtle perceptions seem to intimate from the novel’s first pages.

    When Tom drags Nick along to an apartment gathering in New York, where he funds a working-class mistress and hosts a more motley cast of associates, we are exposed to another fascinating (yet ultimately disconcerting) facet of 1920s social life (but by no means exclusive to the period): the anonymity of the big city (as opposed to the cloying stuffiness of suburban intimacy), the expanded sexual possibilities of casual encounters, and the addictive sense of freedom and spontaneity available at an adult playground of sorts. And yet, Myrtle Wilson’s gay social life breaks down in bloodshed, drunken oblivion, and destructive chaos. Nick witnesses Tom’s capacity for physical violence (we are already privy to his verbal savagery), a disappointing lack of concern for propriety and decorum, and (perhaps) his own confused seduction by the photographer Mr. McKee, in whose room Nick appears to end the night, his memory failing him thereafter, his powers of description rendered mute by drink and disorientation. Nick tries – his hopes for general success depend on it – to a be a good sport, but once again, we sense his inner discomfort, something deeply offended in his private self, his Midwestern innocence again wounded.

    By the time Nick becomes a regular guest at Gatsby’s over-the-top festivities, he seems jaded and alienated, even as he pursues the faint traces of his original dream, now in the form of a love affair with Jordan Baker. His fascination with her cool, dispassionate, even plainly disdainful stance toward the world seems pure contradiction with his stated values. Nick prides himself on his honesty and uprightness; Jordan proves to be a liar and a cynic who is moved to laughter only at the sight of others’ discomfort, even pain. She is the consummate athlete: all body, no emotional warmth. And in his almost too vulnerable tenderness, Nick seems overcome by attraction to his opposite (just as the lowly James Gatz became Jay Gatsby in pursuit of his negation: through wealth and status he achieves Daisy Buchanan and, he thinks, a kind of respectability). In other words, as Nick moves from passive observation to active participation in the lively, spirited leisure which Gatsby’s parties embody – both through his association with Jordan Baker and his belated affection for Gatsby himself – he also moves closer to the impetus of his own disillusionment and a wounded retreat back to the “warm heart” of his native Middle West.

    What begins as youthful voyeurism toward a world he wonders about but only experiences at the margins, now delivers only profound hollowness, shame, and genteel destructiveness: a world he cannot permit himself to penetrate without the sacrificing the very qualities he deems sacred to his core person.

The Sham of Wealth and Privilege

In his great novel, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald employs Nick Carraway, the narrator and philosophical mouthpiece of the book, as a subtle commentator on the crude contradictions of wealth and privilege exposed in its pages. Nick is an affable, well-adjusted young bond salesman – we learn from the opening pages – who comes to the East from his “warm” Middle West to learn about the world, whose lively thrills and anxieties find their base in the fashionable suburbs of New York City. By the end of the novel, Nick is disillusioned (but not broken) and chastened (but not ruined) by what he has seen and experienced of that world, by the “careless” “rotten crowd” – exemplified by Tom, Daisy, and Jordan Baker, his East Egg milieu – who “break things” and leave it other people to pick up the pieces.

    Although Nick conforms outwardly to the routines and fashions of this social and economic elite (he tolerates their parties, he indulges in their largesse, he accompanies them, however reluctantly, on all their escapades), hints at his discomfort throughout the novel and his eventual alliance with Jay Gatsby – the mysterious “nobody” who earns Nick’s admiration, if not his envy – show that he inwardly questions their behavior and the values of their society. Nick thus serves as a sort of double agent in the novel. His infiltration of Daisy and Tom Buchanan’s crowd provides insight into a society to which he appears to aspire, but at the same time provides a critical commentary on the destructive potential and tendencies of upper class frivolity.

    Nick works hard to make his readers believe he is a straightforward and honest narrator. The opening sentences of the novel recall some crucial advice his father had given him: to remember always to withhold judgment of others out of compassion for the possibility that “not everyone has the advantages” that Nick enjoys. We are told, just as quickly, that Nick has made an exception to this rule in favor of Gatsby – whose romantic ambition to “repeat the past” captures Nick’s fascination and wins his loyalty, even though he reminds us throughout the narrative that he “scorns” Gatsby, remains deeply suspicious of his business dealings and dubious of his affected personality and speech, and refuses to join in on Gatsby’s shady bond business, which Nick perceives correctly to be shady and illegal. Nick does, however, side with Gatsby when Tom and Daisy show their true viciousness and low opinion of Gatsby in the end. Tom views Gatsby as expendable, and after finding out all about Gatsby’s illegal business activities and exposing Gatsby’s designs on recapturing Daisy’s love, feels no compunction in directing the crazed and armed George Wilson to kill Gatsby, even though Tom knows it was Daisy who ran down Myrtle in the “death car.”

    Nick proclaims his alliance with Gatsby only once in direct terms, when he tells Gatsby that he’s “worth the whole damn bunch of them” once Nick’s disapproval of Tom and Daisy’s retreat behind their wealth and social status is complete and it is clear that Gatsby will have to be sacrificed in order to cover that retreat. Nick is horrified, a feeling of disgust which extends itself also to exclude Jordan Baker, his sometime girlfriend, whom he suddenly rejects after the debacle of Daisy and Gatsby’s affair is laid bare, she too becoming a symbol of the careless amorality and fundamental dishonesty, which the whole East Egg world begins to represent for Nick. Perhaps Jordan reminds Nick of his own complicity in Gatsby’s demise: she has after all employed him at Gatsby’s request to facilitate the reunion with Daisy. She has brought him to Gatsby in the first place, and exposed him to the façade of prosperity and well-being that Gatsby’s house and outrageous parties come to represent. Gatsby, in turn, becomes emblematic for failed ambition and misplaced zeal, and Nick’s disaffection from all that his New York experience once promised to deliver begins with his recognition that the cruel world of fast drivers (the reigning metaphor for his relationship with Jordan was a “collision” between equally careless drivers) and debaucherous parties will always destroy both ambition and honesty in anyone who is excluded from or deemed distasteful to the East Egg elite (an exclusion which he seems to share with Gatsby by the novel’s end). Nick’s decision to reject that world in favor of his native Middle West is a definitive statement of his heretofore inward questioning of a world to which he has conformed only in motion, never in spirit.