Featured Post

New book available! David Kaiser, A Life in History

Mount Greylock Books LLC has published my autobiography as an historian,  A Life in History.   Long-time readers who want to find out how th...

Saturday, March 20, 2010

The First Great Battle

Clausewitz wrote that war is politics by other means, and Mao Zedong added the corollary that politics is war without bloodshed. That is the only way to understand the events taking place this weekend on the floor of the House of Representatives, and it would be just as rash for me to predict the outcome of tomorrow's House vote as it would to have bet on the outcome of the coming battle in Pennsylvania on June 30, 1863. To paraphrase Lincoln, now we are in the midst of a lesser civil war, to determine what form our nation shall assume for the next eighty years. Both sides are rallying their troops with language as extreme as ever used by any general on the eve of battle. Both sides feel, once again, that their way of life is at stake. Certainly I would agree that much of this seems exaggerated, and so it must seem to foreign observers--but so did the conflict of 1861-5.

Having spent much of the last two weeks preparing and delivering a lecture involving the civil war, with a long seminar yet to come, I am increasingly convinced that the 1860s, rather than the 1930s, provide the best parallel to what is happening in the United States today. The lecture focused on Lincoln and most of my reading has dealt with the Northern side, and many depressing parallels occurred to me. The Republicans in Congress were every bit as selfish, irresponsible and disunited as today's Democrats. Today every politician seems to have a favorite earmark, but in those days every leading Senator and Congressman had a favorite general, and Lincoln, the commander-in-chief, had to take their views into account--surely a more humiliating procedure even than anything President Obama has had to submit to. Just as the Ben Nelsons and Mike Stupaks of the Congress have put disastrous measures into the health care bill, political generals like John C. Fremont and Ben Butler helped prolong the war and cost thousands of lives. Lincoln had to stick with George McClellan, who could never have won the war, because he had initially helped build him up as the savior of the Union and had no idea who else might be better. It was no accident that Grant and Sherman began their careers in the West, further from the scrutiny of Washington, where they could (barely) survive a mistake or two. I would like to believe that the true leaders of the current crisis might emerge from state governments, but I am not aware of a single governor who is making an inspiring record right now.

The parallel with the 1860s obviously extends to the other side--indeed it is becoming clearer every day, as Republicans begin to talk about rolling back not only the New Deal, but the results of the Civil War itself insofar as they concern the powers of the federal government. They are political as well. Like Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln did not represent the extreme of his political party. On the way to the White House he denied repeatedly and sincerely that he was an abolitionist, although he expressed hopes that slavery would finally disappear. In the same way, while Barack Obama said a number of times during the 00s that he would prefer a single-payer health care system, he is making no attempt to implement one. Yet today's Republicans, like Southern Democrats in 1860, reacted to his election as though he were the Antichrist himself. Substitute "abolitionist" for "socialist" in today's attacks on Obama and you will have the flavor of 1860-1. Just as Rush Limbaugh thunders daily that Obama is determined to destroy the private sector, Southerners proclaimed that they would be the slaves of black men within a few years if they tried to live under Lincoln. States are once again claiming the right to nullify federal legislation (and a constitutional crisis looms, by the way, in the not impossible event that today's conservative Supreme Court majority might strike down the health care mandate in the bill if it passes.)

In the face of all this, the Democratic Party suffers from a problem that nearly wrecked the Northern high command in the early stages of the civil war: a lack of professionalism and discipline. (I am not accusing the common union soldier of indiscipline--he was never the problem--his leadership was.) This stems from the rather eerie and depressing similarity between the leading generations of those times and these, the Transcendentals (born about 1793-1820) and the Boomers. Not only were both addicted to apocalyptic visions of the future, but both seemed incapable of making the simplest compromises, even on their own side, in pursuit of the greater good. Their selfishness communicated itself to not a few of the younger Gilded generation. During the months when he personally held the destiny of the Army of the Potomac in his hands, General McClellan poured out a long stream of complaints about his commander-in-chief, Lincoln, and his fellow generals, in letters to his wife. There was no moment during the war so bleak that politicians would not try to turn it to their individual benefit. Fortunately the South did no better--in fact it may have done even worse--and that balanced things out sufficiently to allow the Union to win the war with the help of the genius of that most underrated of Americans, Ulysses S. Grant.

The same problems, however, eventually crippled Reconstruction. Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson, a man of modest capabilities and accomplishments, nonetheless felt himself entitled to go against the party that had put him into the nation's highest office, and did what he could to set back Reconstruction for four years. The Republican leadership--increasingly Gilded rather than Transcendental--became more focused on the enormous profits to be tapped from the new economy and less interested in the plight of the slaves. Deadlock and corruption ruled the entire American government for most of the next thirty years, and the black population of the South was terrorized into submission once again. That, at this point, frightens me more than anything. Even if the health care bill does pass, the Democratic Party has not shown itself capable of a sustained and determined effort to correct the flaws that have opened up in our society over the last thirty years.

It is increasingly clear that we are not about to see a replay of the New Deal, mainly, I think, for two reasons. First, as I have remarked here before, the crisis of 1929-32 was unique insofar as no one--no section of the country, and, initially, no social class or economic interest group--could deny that drastic action was necessary. Roosevelt in 1933 forward disposed not only of huge majorities in the Congress (much larger than Obama's now), but also of the enthusiastic cooperation, for at least a year, of the whole of the American people. That enabled him to do so much during the first two years that he actually gained seats again in 1934 (something that Lincoln could not do and that seems very unlikely for Obama now), and again in 1936. But in addition--as I have observed in my current research--the Missionary Generation had qualities that the Transcendentals and Boomers simply lack. Born in the wake of the destructive explosion of emotion that even now took more lives than every other American war combined, they were raised with self-discipline and a sense of broader responsibility. They also, as I have found again and again, had to show true administrative ability to rise to public eminence. That is why Roosevelt could put together a bipartisan team, including the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, to prepare for and fight the Second World War. Modern society has never been more disciplined than it was in the first half of the twentieth century. That made it capable both of unprecedented evil and unprecedented good. Fortunately for us, the good prevailed.

The stakes today are lower. We may indeed descend into another gilded age in which many millions of Americans live their whole lives in poverty, but even that would be better than living under totalitarian dictatorship, or fighting another disastrous civil war. Politically we do not live in an age of greatness. Yet that does not mean that we must not choose between better and worse alternatives, and I shall try to be watching when that choice is made, probably tomorrow afternoon.

P.S. With this post I announce a new policy. This blog is designed to provoke discussion and it is not supposed to be reserved for people who agree with me. I have had plenty of intellectual battles in my career and given ample proof that I can take it as well as dish it out. Anonymous, abusive comments, however, contribute nothing to resolving the problems we all face, and henceforth comments that are both anonymous and abusive will be deleted.


StV said...

An interesting parallel...as Freud said, and I paraphrase, civilization is the ability to delay gratification. I find the factors that make a society more and less likely to delay gratification or work for the common wealth very interesting. BTW, I saw Green Zone last night - a film with monumental implications for American foreign policy - but most reviewers were more concerned that it was a weak sequel to the Bourne series of films.

George Buddy said...

This is said respectfully, Mr. Kaiser. In your analysis of going from Lincoln to "Deadlock and corruption ruled the entire American government for most of the next thirty years," is on track as far as it goes but you faill to mention the enormous reaction to industrialization and commercialism -- through unions and progressive politics that ultimately led to actions taken by TR Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, culminating with Roosevelt in the 30's. We have been going backwards since the mid-1030's. I know you know all this and was not in your article because you wanted to stay on message. But I'm a fool for the economic interpretation. In a similar way the 1880's -- 1910's were also a "first great battle."

Jordan Greenhall said...

To understand the stakes, you have to account not only for the internal (and generational) dynamic of the situation, but whole dynamic. For example, Niall Ferguson has done a decent job articulating a scenario where the current crisis is one of Empire (and all of its accoutrements), not simply one of the Republic.

While I agree that the present dynamic seems much close to the 1860's than to 1930's, we might be even better off looking back to the 490's or the 1300's.

Certainly, a political leadership that is characterized by narrow selfishness is a bad fuel to add to a multi-variable set of crises.

Anonymous said...

I am very pleased to see your new policy regarding abusive comments.

Bruce Post said...

Your remarks on the "political" generals of the Civil War era remind me of a t-shirt I once had with the following slogan: "Twas ever thus!" I defer to your historical expertize, but don't you think that other periods of American history, too, have had their share of such men?

Of course, Douglas MacArthur comes immediately to mind. My father, a WW II veteran of the Pacific, had utter disdain for Dugout Doug, but I never grasped why until I read
David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter", about the Korean War. MacArthur's ego-driven politics seemed, to me, subversive, insolent and, it could be argued, akin to a court-martial offense. In Korea, as well with some generals in the Civil War, too many lives were needlessly lost because of his actions, which were ultimately, but belatedly, challenged by Pres. Truman.

In our era, some suggest that Al Haig was a political general as was Colin Powell. Plus, I would welcome your thoughts on Petraeus and McChrystal.

I disagree with your assertion that "the stakes are lower today." I believe that the continuing wars in the Middle East and the civilizational challenge posed by global climate disruption are certainly high-stake's propositions.

Finally, on the prospects of living under non-dictatorial totalitarianism, let me quote the late monk Thomas Merton from a retreat he gave in the last year of his life. He was discussing living prophetically in an age of alienation:

"... the more people are involved in something set up by others, the less likely they are to be living their own life. Our society is set up in such a way that people are happy with this. In a police or totalitarian state, you want to get out. Our society gives enough rewards so that you're willing to settle for this, provided you get your car, TV, house, food and drink, and enough other comforts."

He went on: "How can we criticize the world? The world is good. There follows the rather naive approach that says, 'Don't give us this business about alienation. We're happy. This is real life. It's good, it's great.' On the other hand, there are people like Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, and Herbert Marcuse, who are saying that the alienated life is not good, that ultimately it's a bad deal because the rewards you get are not real. They are quantitative, not qualitative."

Obviously, there is much more grist we could grind in this mill, but these were my first thoughts on reading your post.

By the way, keep up your contributions. They are much more thought-provoking than most of the blogs out there. Thanks

Anonymous said...

I like your focus on US history. I think the US was so destroyed by the civil war that they showed discipline, like Europe today (Merkel, Sarkozy, etc.). But the Americans as you say are in an undeclared civil war. I think you miss waht is the real problem now. Like Rome at its peak, the USA is a globla empire with over 100 military bases and economic colonies everywhere, not to mention the use of the USD as a global currency and English as lingua franca. A disunited American citizenry against China or others determined at any cost to take down the current "king of the Hill" will cost the USA its place in the sun and possibly bring about total destruction like Europe and Japan in 1945. So your focus is clearly on the interanl politics. But now since American policies are so clearly effecting the whole world, bankrupting it in fact and causing enormous financial imbalances, it will certainly bring about a global conflict as America has no advantage of relative isolation to enjoy its disunity, as son as a common enemy becomes strong enough.

Dano said...

Mr. K,

Thanks for visiting my site yesterday and leaving your comment. I have reviewed your site and have enjoyed it! I too, have a lot to say about the history of this nation, although, I struggle with expressing myself properly in writing. I am working on it and hope that you will visit my blog again! I appreciate all input!

ginstonic said...

I am both glad and disheartened regarding your new policy for abusive comments. Although some of the comments were, shall I say, annoying, I actually felt a need to read them. It allowed me to analyze my own thought processes a little more thoroughly. I also think some exposure to the ideas and ideals of the "other side" provokes me to substantiate my own ideas and ideals. Plus it's never a bad thing to "know thine enemy". We seem to be a nation divided and that realization is painful to me. Both sides seem to feel the other is merely spouting rhetoric and both sides exhibit near paranoia over the possiblity of the other side being in control. Like BP said perhaps "twas ever thus". Is there a possibility of reconciliation in this country, or are we destined to be a nation of internal conflict where every few years one side gains a slight majority in the polls over the other. I know every recent election was supposedly won in a landslide, but the actual numbers still show a significant number of people feel differently than the majority.
I believe your intentions are not to inhibit debate, and I hope your definition of abusive is not too encompassing. Hopefully, some of the anonymous commentors will assume identities, for despite our ideaological differences, he is still my brother.

Anonymous said...

you may want to read this article:
White men shun Democrats


Just might learn what will happen in november, 2010.

Bozon said...

"The stakes today are lower."

While I agree with much of all this gloss on history, I seriously doubt that the stakes could possibly be 'lower', especially when looking at the consequences of possible domestic instability for the international scene.

I also wonder at the analogy to a first great battle, as what seems to be unfolding to me is a transformation in the political structure, and party system, themselves.

Not that these are good developments; and I would have said that deeper reform had been long overdue.

But, also, along this rather oracular vein, I have to say that the first great battle between 'new' or yet to emerge combatants, however they may be constituted, is still some time off.

My guess is that, given the technological and economic weaknesses we have long allowed to accrue, terms of 'surrender' will be dictated to some extent, as they have already been, from abroad, albeit through new 'domestic' political party mechanisms. Enormous 'power overhangs' from other countries, and civilizations, have been allowed to accrue, unchecked, since WW II.

Wish I weren't in a position to opine such a thing.

Jordan Greenhall said...

Allow me to venture a hypothesis. What we are experiencing doesn't make sense when thought of linearly as an "American" crisis. The analogy to the Civil War fails to recognize that the real crisis is the emergence of an entirely new polity - one that is transcendental to the entire existing array of nation-states. We could either be dealing with a Civilization-level crisis (involving the totality of Western Civilization and its complete legacy) and/or an "emergence" crisis (involving the emergence of an entirely new method/style or organization). The former would be most comparable to the fall of Rome (or of the Sumerian-derived civilization). The latter would be most comparable to the emergence of enlightenment-democratic-capitalism.

If this is the case, battles are being fought everywhere but are subtle and hard to pin-down.