If you have a pulse and have the smallest interest in the upcoming midterm elections, you might know the mantra of the Republican party. Republicans have looked to score major political points in November by opposing most of the Administration's initiatives and bragging about their fiscally conservative nature. They have been courting the TEA party by campaigning and supporting their endorsements in Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas and a few other states whose mere livestock to population ratio might be considered a justifiable reason for being annexed by its more important neighbors (see the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.).
I'm not criticizing the strategy. In fact, it is a perfect strategy if you want to score big in November. What I have an issue with is the constant evocation of the founding fathers, and the assertions that the regular American, characterized by the lumberjack/plumber/handyman/truckdriver/tanned Ohio Representative(See John Boehner), are making about them. Somehow the vision of the Founding Fathers prefers the principles of one CONTEMPORARY political party over another.
Making speculative statements about the Founding Fathers with the obvious contemporary bias is falling into the trap of Revisionist History. This only shows that the person making the mistake is unbelievably principled, but also unbelievably ignorant.
The use of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as a way to justify political stubbornness is flat out wrong. I don't negate this view with the belief that I have the same clairvoyance about the founding fathers as conservatives seem to think they possess. I do it from a purely historic standpoint. If you know a single shred of information about the Constitution and Constitutional convention, you would know that the Constitution is nick-named a "Bundle of Compromises" for a reason. Here's a history lesson:
States with less population endorsed the New Jersey Plan, which would have given every state equal voting power in the bicameral legislature. The Virginia Plan, which was endorsed by larger states, would have apportioned the two houses by population or taxes paid. Eventually, the Connecticut Compromise was drafted which formed the House of Representatives, based on population, and the Senate, with equal representation for all states.
The reason the document took so long to draft was because of the already forming ideological and sectional divide between Southern (primarily agriculture) states and Northern (budding industrialists) states. Apportionment was just one topic that was compromised over. Some others included: Slave Trade (Int'l Trade outlawed in 1808), Representation (3/5ths Compromise) and powers delegated to each branch. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) were mostly written as a Compromise to states-rights followers of Thomas Jefferson in order to get them to agree to signing a Constitution with a Federal Government.
Beyond the ratification of the Constitution, figures who were contemporaries of the Founding Fathers became famous for having debates over the age-old problem of Federalism versus States Rights. These differences led to the creation of the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Plan), The Mason-Dixon Line, Popular Sovereignty and the Compromise of 1850. One of the most iconic Senators from the 19th century was the "Great Compromiser" Sen. Henry Clay (Kentucky). He helped broker the 1820 compromise and stopped the first major secession attempt by Sen. John C. Calhoun in South Carolina over a tariff (see Nullification Crises). Politics was still a partisan and heated debate during the antebellum era, but it was also characterized by the idea of preserving the Union and its principles above all, even if it meant compromising on your beliefs.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
UCLA: It’s Time to Clear House
I read Bill Plaschke’s Article Saturday night and hung my head in disbelief. Irrelevant little Bruins indeed. Just like Coach Neuheisal, I will always remember the Stanford game, 2010. It wasn’t the interceptions and the fumbles, or the lack of defense that got me down. It was the feeling of disbelief – that burning question: how did we get here?
The 2005 “Beat SC Bonfire” was my introduction to UCLA football. “Beat SC Week” was scheduled for the week before finals, giving us a nice catharsis. The tower burned, the insults flew, the Trojans hung and the troops were rallied. Karl Dorrell, our fearless leader stood in front of the inferno pumping his fists and leading numerous 8-claps. Then, like a mystic hero, Maurice Jones-Drew took the mic and the crowd went haywire. Although we suffered a humiliating loss to SC that year, our 10-2 record stood was nothing to be disappointed over.
We had momentum going into 2006. Although we barely broke even that year, we did the impossible. We upset #2 ranked USC 13-9. Like the aforementioned Stanford game, I will always remember where I was when we beat USC. We rioted, cars were torched and fans were maced, all in the supposedly quiet Westwood.
The next season, we made the Las Vegas Bowl, but went 6-7. But, no lackluster season goes unpunished – Dorrell was fired.
Those were the days.
It went downhill from there. Relatively unknown former UCLA MVP quarterback Rick Neuheisal was hired to replace Dorrell, and former Trojan Norm Chow took up Defense. Redshirt Junior Kevin Craft was chosen for starting quarterback, and the worst season in my four years at UCLA began. Craft ran more than he could throw and when he did throw, he had more interceptions that completions. He ignored Neuheisal, and made up plays on the fly. We went 4-8 that season with another humiliating loss to USC. That was my senior year. Nice way to say goodbye.
Again, no lackluster season goes unpunished. Craft lost the starting quarterback position to Kevin Prince, a perpetually injured Crespi High School alumni. Neuheisal started the season with a promise: a 6-6 record and a bowl berth. He fired up the troops and we rushed into the 2009 season 3-1 with wins against Tennessee, Kansas State and San Diego State. We were unstoppable. That is, until we started playing against Pac-10 teams. We went 0-4 in October, lost a 5th game to USC, but held on to beat Washington, Arizona State and Washington State. Neuheisal made a promise and he delivered. We were 6-6 and were invited to the Eagle Bank bowl in Washington, DC, where we beat Temple University.
Our current team is a mix of rookies, the always-injured Kevin Prince at quarterback and the sensational Kai Forbath at kicker. But, when I watched Prince go 9/26 against Kansas State, and experienced our Washington-State-like effort against Stanford, I could not help but wonder: Why do I miss Karl Dorrell so much?
Maybe it’s time for the UCLA to do some soul searching, and clear house. Neuheisal is failing and Chow isn’t helping. Our most effective offensive player is Forbath at kicker. And, with the 7th hardest schedule in the entire BCS system, we are destined to go into October 0-5. If we don’t act soon, UCLA might become Pac-10 irrelevant, and The Pac-10 doesn’t need 2 Washington States.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
9/11+9
If you were alive during Pearl Harbor, you experienced a nation, shaken to core, and ready to unite against the Imperial forces of Japan. 2,400 soldiers and civilians died, making it the worst attack on U.S. soil. The attack that pushed the U.S. into World War II also created an era of unity that saw families cut back on consumption, women working in munitions factories and assembly lines and a general feeling that a strong home-front would help our boys overseas. For historians, the 20th century became divided between the pre and post-war eras. World War II led to the Cold War, which spawned many proxy wars that make the U.S. the policing force it is today. But, it also led to paranoia and suspicion that caused the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens.
The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 had the same effect on the era. For those who experienced the attack, and the subsequent expansion of Intelligence and Domestic/International security know the 21st century as the pre and post-9/11 world. I can vaguely remember airport security before 9/11, and I do remember a government devoid of any office called "Homeland Security." 9/11 not only exposed to the United States to the effects of interventionism against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also re-introduced the idea of Radical Islam and Terrorism into our lexicon. Those who even considered cutting defense budgets were accused of being either soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops overseas. It was a post-Cold War era governed by poorly disguised Cold War policy.
9/11 put the U.S. into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be the longest in U.S. history (9 years and counting). 9/11 created the "War on Terrorism" which spawned the proxy Iraq war. While we have effectively pulled out all combat troops from Iraq, we still have a lot of nation (re)building to do. The eight years of the Bush Administration were defined by his response to 9/11. His policies tarnished America's image in most of the international world. Constitutional questions in regards to everything from warrant-less arrests to wiretapping to prisoners of war were reopened and quickly co-opted by politicians. Most importantly, 9/11 created a world of suspicion, paranoia and fear that was manipulated to spread religious intolerance and indifference to violations of civil rights.
My question, as a historian (BA, UCLA, 2009) , is how we will frame the post-9/11 world to those who were or will be born after 9/11/2001. Moralists and revisionist historians might talk about the post-Pearl Harbor era as a dark time in U.S. history where bigotry disguised as "national security" led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. That may be true. But, being someone who was born 46 years after Pearl Harbor, I see the event in its context: a country reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. While the unfortunate internment did occur, we must teach Pearl Harbor in its context without using our contemporary moral filter. What was the cause of the Japanese attack? What was the U.S. response? What were the events that led the Roosevelt Administration to intern so many civilians? These types of questions will help teach the historical legacy of Pearl Harbor without injecting our own biases.
Like Pearl Harbor, the post-9/11 world was a product of a county reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. Like Pearl Harbor, it also produced bigotry towards a U.S. minority, Muslims. But, how will we teach this era of transition in the future? The same way we teach Pearl Harbor and the WWII era. We should instruct on the causes of the attacks, the response to the attack and the political, social and cultural environment that was created by the attack. Teachers should talk about how the United States changed in the face of adversity, and how everyone from the President of the United States to a minister in Florida reacted to the attack and the environment it created.
The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 had the same effect on the era. For those who experienced the attack, and the subsequent expansion of Intelligence and Domestic/International security know the 21st century as the pre and post-9/11 world. I can vaguely remember airport security before 9/11, and I do remember a government devoid of any office called "Homeland Security." 9/11 not only exposed to the United States to the effects of interventionism against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also re-introduced the idea of Radical Islam and Terrorism into our lexicon. Those who even considered cutting defense budgets were accused of being either soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops overseas. It was a post-Cold War era governed by poorly disguised Cold War policy.
9/11 put the U.S. into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be the longest in U.S. history (9 years and counting). 9/11 created the "War on Terrorism" which spawned the proxy Iraq war. While we have effectively pulled out all combat troops from Iraq, we still have a lot of nation (re)building to do. The eight years of the Bush Administration were defined by his response to 9/11. His policies tarnished America's image in most of the international world. Constitutional questions in regards to everything from warrant-less arrests to wiretapping to prisoners of war were reopened and quickly co-opted by politicians. Most importantly, 9/11 created a world of suspicion, paranoia and fear that was manipulated to spread religious intolerance and indifference to violations of civil rights.
My question, as a historian (BA, UCLA, 2009) , is how we will frame the post-9/11 world to those who were or will be born after 9/11/2001. Moralists and revisionist historians might talk about the post-Pearl Harbor era as a dark time in U.S. history where bigotry disguised as "national security" led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. That may be true. But, being someone who was born 46 years after Pearl Harbor, I see the event in its context: a country reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. While the unfortunate internment did occur, we must teach Pearl Harbor in its context without using our contemporary moral filter. What was the cause of the Japanese attack? What was the U.S. response? What were the events that led the Roosevelt Administration to intern so many civilians? These types of questions will help teach the historical legacy of Pearl Harbor without injecting our own biases.
Like Pearl Harbor, the post-9/11 world was a product of a county reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. Like Pearl Harbor, it also produced bigotry towards a U.S. minority, Muslims. But, how will we teach this era of transition in the future? The same way we teach Pearl Harbor and the WWII era. We should instruct on the causes of the attacks, the response to the attack and the political, social and cultural environment that was created by the attack. Teachers should talk about how the United States changed in the face of adversity, and how everyone from the President of the United States to a minister in Florida reacted to the attack and the environment it created.
Pregnant Demon at Glenn Beck's Rally
All he wants is a sandwich
America, The Hungry from Dakota Fine on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)