Henry Adams (1838 - 1918).
History of the United States of America During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809).
New York: The Library of America, 1986.
(Volume 31 in the Series.)
[I present the following information in order to convey an idea of when this work was written. The source is the Note on the Text by Earl N. Harbert. The book was initially written during the period 1880-1884, first published in 1889 and 1890, and revised through January 1899. The Library of America edition contains the texts of the final revised editions of History of the United States of America during the First Administration of Thomas Jefferson and History of the United States of America during the Second Administration of Thomas Jefferson published in 4 volumes by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1903.]
Friday, July 30, 2004
Friday, July 02, 2004
Sunday, June 13, 2004
The New Cambridge Modern History, Volume I: The Renaissance, 1493 - 1520.
G. R. Potter, editor.
Cambridge University Press, 1957 (1967 reprint).
Contents:
G. R. Potter, editor.
Cambridge University Press, 1957 (1967 reprint).
Contents:
- Introduction, by Denys Hays
- The Face of Europe on the Eve of the Great Discoveries, by H. C. Darby
- Fifteenth-Century Civilisation and the Renaissance, by Hans Baron
- The Papacy and the Catholic Church, by R. Aubenas
- Learning and Education in Western Europe from 1470 to 1520, by R. Weiss
- The Arts in Western Europe
- Italy, by R. Wittkower
- Northern Europe, by L. D. Ettlinger
- Spain, by Enriqueta Frankfort
- Vernacular Literature in Western Europe, by H. W. Lawton
- The Empire Under Maximilian I, by R. G. D. Laffan
- The Burgundian Netherlands, 1477 - 1521, by C. A. J. Armstrong
- International Relations in the West: Diplomacy and War, by J. R. Hale
- France Under Charles VIII and Louis XII, by R. Doucet
- The Hispanic Kingdoms and the Catholic Church, by J. M. Batista i Roca
- The Invasions of Italy, by Cecilia M. Ady
- Eastern Europe, by C. A. Macartney
- The Ottoman Empire (1481 - 1520), by V. J. Parry
- The New World
- Portuguese Expansion, by H. V. Livermore
- Spaniards in the New World, by J. H. Parry
- Expansion as a Concern of All Europe, by E. E. Rich
Friday, May 28, 2004
Commentary, June 2004, Volume 117, Number 6.
I found these articles particularly noteworthy (each contains important observations on American culture):
I found these articles particularly noteworthy (each contains important observations on American culture):
- The Cathedral and the Cube: Reflections on European Morale, by George Weigel
- The Church of Civil Rights, by Wilfred M. McClay
- Is the Musical Comedy Dead?, by Terry Teachout
Monday, May 24, 2004
The Public Interest, Spring 2004, Number 155.
Special Issue: Religion in America
I especially recommend these articles:
Some Links on Charitable Choice and the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
(A) Government:
(B) Policy Research, Mostly Proponents:
Some articles in the magazine First Things:
(C) Policy Research, Mostly Opponents:
(D) Other Books (not mentioned as reviewed in First Things above, many selected here on basis of title alone):
Special Issue: Religion in America
I especially recommend these articles:
- "Religious Souls and the Body Politic" by Michael W. McConnell.
Makes a philosophical distinction between religious pluralism and secularism, and argues that the American tradition is one of religious pluralism, not secularism. - "Against Separation" by Philip Hamburger.
This essay is adapted from his recent book: Separation of Church and State, Harvard University Press, 2002.
Gives a brief history of the (arguably spurious) idea of a "separation of church and state" and distinguishes that from the historically more accurate accomadation that has existed between religion and government in America (see his book for more on this topic). - A series of three articles grouped under the heading Religion and Social Policy which discuss the Charitable Choice legislation and its implemetion by President Bush's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives" program.
- Implementing the Faith-Based Initiative by Stanley W. Carlson-Thies.
- Getting Faith-Based Programs Right by John J. DiIulio, Jr.,
University of Pennsylvania, The Brookings Institution. - Faith Healing by Joseph Loconte.
Some Links on Charitable Choice and the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
(A) Government:
- White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
- US Department of Education.
- US Department of Health and Human Services.
- US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- US Department of Justice.
- US Department of Labor.
- Texas Department of Human Services.
(B) Policy Research, Mostly Proponents:
- The Center for Public Justice (website has many informative links).
Some articles in the magazine First Things:
- "Saving" the Poor by Daniel P. Moloney, May 1999.
- Religious Freedom: Innovation and Development by Avery Cardinal Dulles, December 2001 (contains discussion of Church - State relations).
- Keeping the Faith by Joseph Loconte, May 2002.
- The Case for "Discrimination" by Ronald J. Sider, June/July 2002.
- Publick Religion: Adams v. Jefferson by John Witte, Jr., March 2004.
- Book Review by Timothy Burns of What’s God Got To Do with the American Experiment? edited by E. J. Dionne and John J. Jr Diiulio.
- Book Review by John E. Coons (see later part of article) of The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-Based Schools and Social Agencies by Charles L. Glenn.
- Book Review of When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money by Stephen V. Monsma.
- Book Review of Fighting Poverty With Virtue: Moral Reform and America's Urban Poor, 1825-2000 by Joel Schwartz.
- Book Review by Amy L. Sherman of Renewing American Compassion: How Compassion for the Needy Can Turn Ordinary Citizens into Heroes by Marvin Olasky.
(C) Policy Research, Mostly Opponents:
- Articles in Sojurners Magazine.
- American Atheists (they're against it, of course).
(D) Other Books (not mentioned as reviewed in First Things above, many selected here on basis of title alone):
- God, Government, and the Good Samaritan: The Promise and Peril of the President's Faith-Based Initiative.
- Religion Returns to the Public Square: Faith and Policy in America.
- The Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
- The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline Protestantism.
- A Revolution of Compassion: Faith-Based Groups As Full Partners in Fighting America's Social Problems.
- Sacred Places, Civic Purposes: Should Government Help Faith-Based Charity?.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Ann Coulter.
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.
New York: Crown Publishers (Random House), 2002 [paperback reprint: Three Rivers Press (Random House), 2003].
Excellent survey of the recent state of popular political discourse.
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.
New York: Crown Publishers (Random House), 2002 [paperback reprint: Three Rivers Press (Random House), 2003].
Excellent survey of the recent state of popular political discourse.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Stanley Elkins and Eric McKittrick.
The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788 - 1800.
New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Information about the book at: Amazon.com, Oxford University Press.
Probably the best survey of this period of American history available today.
The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788 - 1800.
New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Information about the book at: Amazon.com, Oxford University Press.
Probably the best survey of this period of American history available today.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson
Books:
Other Books, Co-author or Essays:
Speaches and Interviews:
- Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers his "Official Website".
- Books Listed at Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers.
- Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.
- Professor, California State University, Fresno.
- Fellow in California Studies, The Claremont Institute
- Archive at National Review Online.
Books:
- Between War and Peace : Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq, 2004.
- Ripples of Battle: How Wars of the Past Still Determine How We Fight, How We Live, and How We Think, 2003 (paperback 2004).
- Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, 2003.
- An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism, 2002.
- Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, 2001 (paperback 2002).
- The Land Was Everything: Letters from an American Farmer, 2000.
- The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, 1999 (paperback 2001).
- Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, 1998.
- Fields Without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea, 1996 (paperback 1997).
- The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization, 1995 (Second Edition, paperback 2000).
- Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, 1991 (paperback 1993).
- The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, 1989 (Second Edition, paperback 2000).
Other Books, Co-author or Essays:
- Bonfire of the Humanities: Rescuing the Classics in an Impoverished Age, 2001; co-authors: John Heath and Bruce S. Thornton.
- What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, 2001 (paperback 2002).
- What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, 1999 (paperback 2000), essay: "No Glory That Was Greece: The Persians Win at Salamis, 408 B.C."
- Who Killed Homer? The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom, 1998 (paperback 2001); co-author: John Heath.
- The Landmark Thucydides : A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, 1996 (paperback 1998), essay: "Introduction."
Speaches and Interviews:
- Speach at Ashland University, 28 March 2003.
- FrontPage Magazine, 18 March 2004.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Michael Zak.
Back to Basics for the Republican Party, Thrid Edition.
Gaithersburg, Maryland: Signature Book Printing, Inc., 2003.
The author gives an excellent sense of the evolution of American politics over the course of the nation's history, how political parties rise and fall, and how contending issues or political philosophies are propounded and embodied by individuals and parties. For this alone the book deserves consideration as a primer in American political history.
The current Republican Party was formed in 1854 as the anti-slavery party. The party inherited its progressive economic stance of limited government-sponsored economic development, free enterprise and opportunity from the Whigs and thus may be considered the successor of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Perhaps the majority of the text, however, emphasizes the Republicans' legacy as the Party of Lincoln. It was the Republicans who fought the Civil War on behalf of the Union, ended slavery, and attempted the "Radical Reconstruction" of the South in the aftermath of the Civil War in order to extend the full protections of the Constitution to all Americans.
The author summarizes his argument in the book's last four pages, 226-229, reproduced below. For ease of reading I have not used italics or quotes below. All text that follows is by Michael Zak. (I have added two clarifying items indicated below by bold text within square brackets thus: [bold].)
To keep us on the right path and reach journey's end, we Republicans must bear in mind the trail-blazing careers of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. Stevens knew that for the emancipated slave, aquiring land of his own was a "sine qua non," meaning "without which, nothing." If Stevens had succeeded in implementing his proposal to provide each [emancipated] slave family with "40 acres and a mule," countless economic problems would never have arisen. If after the war Sumner's agenda for rigorous protection of constitutional rights had been enacted and enforced, the Democrat's political degredation of black Americans might have been prevented. Not taking these crucial first steps cost our nation a century of socialism and suffering.
The free market is voluntary cooperation, with self-interest the goal and societal advancement the result. Ronald Reagan was accutely aware that to preserve the free market society, the drift toward socialism had to be stopped. To seize and hold the policy initiative, we Republicans must charge right at the Democratic Party in a battle of ideas, our best weapon a clear vision of the free market society we are fighting for.
No distinction can be drawn between a free society and a free economy. Consider the numerous civilizations of the past which flowered when central government was unable to tighten its grip on the economy. For evidence of how socialism impedes progress, consider the cultural decline in Communist nations or the relative cultural stagnation of many European countries today.
And now consider the United States - for Reagan a "shining city on a hill" - at its most vibrant in areas least controlled by government. No one planned one of our country's greatest contributions to the world, the Internet, or anticipated that it would be responsible for the most magnificient outpouring of prosperity in history. By no accident did the Internet arise here, where government is strong enough to safeguard constitutional rights and foster economic infrastructure yet still weak enough to permit a free people to freely create such an enterprise so spontaneously. As Bill Gates once testified to Congress: "The incredible success of [the high-tech industry] in the United States owes a lot to the light hand of government in the technology area, the fact that people can take incredible risks and if they're successful they can have incredible rewards.... Overall, I'd say the light hand is working very well."
A century ago, economic transformation produced monopolies and other market failures for which the Progressive movement sought to compensate. Government action, particularly during the Theodore Roosevelt and Taft presidencies, was intended to promore the free market society, and so was progressive. But now, a century later, as the economy undergoes another transformation, decentralizing power and increasing the leverage of consumers at the expense of producers, regulation and other government intervention tend to impede the free market. Now, for government to get out of the way of this progress is truely progressive.
What is not progressive at all is the modern-day drive to extend the reach of government power over the individual. There is nothing democratic or progressive about socialism. Socialists chafe at restrictions imposed by the rule of law lest their planning be disrupted by predetermined rules which apply to everyone. Socialism is an attempt to fend off the future.
Innovation, by definition unforseen, is a threat to the plans of the self-proclaimed enlightened, and so is to be suppressed. Based on what Friedrich Hayek called "a naive and childlike ... view of the world," central planning is "a fraud doomed to failure because no planner can possess all the knowledge needed to run a modern economy." Centralization of power in a bureaucracy led by those who profess to know more and care more than anyone else is in fact the old, lamentably commonplace way nations have been governed since civilization began. It is government for the sake of the individual which is new.
We Republicans place ourselves at another disadvantage in the battle of ideas by ripping from socialists a label which describes them so well. Opponents of progress are those who want to conserve the age-old rule of the few over the many and the cultural stagnation this entails. Socialists are the true conservatives. Republicans try without success to affix this conservative label [im]properly to our Party, using as adhesive such adjectives as "dynamic" or "compassionate" or "progressive." Trouble is, though our Republican Party is definitely dynamic and compassionate and progressive, conservative it is not.
Ironically, the socialists ripped from our Party a label which suits us so well and them not at all. As the term is understood everywhere in the world except where the Democrats appropriated it as their own, liberals have struggled for liberty by opposing government oppression and championing the free market. To quote Hayek once more: "The liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.... Conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about."
As political terms, "right" and "right wing" and "left" and "left wing," originated in 18th century France, where parlimentary allies of the king sat on the right of the speaker and his enemies on the left. The relevance of this arrangement to us today? None. Can there then be any real meaning to the terms "hard right" or perhaps "soft left"? No. In his essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell warned that "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts ... to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration."
In his speach accepting his second presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan explained the difference between Democrats and Republicans in a way that cannot be improved upon: "Two visions of the future, two fundamentally different ways of governing - their government of pessimism, fear and limits, or ours of hope, confidence, and growth. Their government sees people only as members of groups. Ours serves all the people of America as individuals. Theirs lives in the past, seeking to apply the old failed policies to an era that has passed them by. Ours learns from the past and strives to change by boldly charting a new course for the future."
They are socialists, we are liberals. They are conservatives, we are progressives. They are Democrats, we are Republicans. Ours is the Party of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner and Ronald Reagan. And yes, the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln.
Some Links:
Thaddeus Stevens (1792-1868)
Charles Sumner (1811-1874)
Back to Basics for the Republican Party, Thrid Edition.
Gaithersburg, Maryland: Signature Book Printing, Inc., 2003.
The author gives an excellent sense of the evolution of American politics over the course of the nation's history, how political parties rise and fall, and how contending issues or political philosophies are propounded and embodied by individuals and parties. For this alone the book deserves consideration as a primer in American political history.
The current Republican Party was formed in 1854 as the anti-slavery party. The party inherited its progressive economic stance of limited government-sponsored economic development, free enterprise and opportunity from the Whigs and thus may be considered the successor of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Perhaps the majority of the text, however, emphasizes the Republicans' legacy as the Party of Lincoln. It was the Republicans who fought the Civil War on behalf of the Union, ended slavery, and attempted the "Radical Reconstruction" of the South in the aftermath of the Civil War in order to extend the full protections of the Constitution to all Americans.
The author summarizes his argument in the book's last four pages, 226-229, reproduced below. For ease of reading I have not used italics or quotes below. All text that follows is by Michael Zak. (I have added two clarifying items indicated below by bold text within square brackets thus: [bold].)
To keep us on the right path and reach journey's end, we Republicans must bear in mind the trail-blazing careers of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. Stevens knew that for the emancipated slave, aquiring land of his own was a "sine qua non," meaning "without which, nothing." If Stevens had succeeded in implementing his proposal to provide each [emancipated] slave family with "40 acres and a mule," countless economic problems would never have arisen. If after the war Sumner's agenda for rigorous protection of constitutional rights had been enacted and enforced, the Democrat's political degredation of black Americans might have been prevented. Not taking these crucial first steps cost our nation a century of socialism and suffering.
The free market is voluntary cooperation, with self-interest the goal and societal advancement the result. Ronald Reagan was accutely aware that to preserve the free market society, the drift toward socialism had to be stopped. To seize and hold the policy initiative, we Republicans must charge right at the Democratic Party in a battle of ideas, our best weapon a clear vision of the free market society we are fighting for.
No distinction can be drawn between a free society and a free economy. Consider the numerous civilizations of the past which flowered when central government was unable to tighten its grip on the economy. For evidence of how socialism impedes progress, consider the cultural decline in Communist nations or the relative cultural stagnation of many European countries today.
And now consider the United States - for Reagan a "shining city on a hill" - at its most vibrant in areas least controlled by government. No one planned one of our country's greatest contributions to the world, the Internet, or anticipated that it would be responsible for the most magnificient outpouring of prosperity in history. By no accident did the Internet arise here, where government is strong enough to safeguard constitutional rights and foster economic infrastructure yet still weak enough to permit a free people to freely create such an enterprise so spontaneously. As Bill Gates once testified to Congress: "The incredible success of [the high-tech industry] in the United States owes a lot to the light hand of government in the technology area, the fact that people can take incredible risks and if they're successful they can have incredible rewards.... Overall, I'd say the light hand is working very well."
A century ago, economic transformation produced monopolies and other market failures for which the Progressive movement sought to compensate. Government action, particularly during the Theodore Roosevelt and Taft presidencies, was intended to promore the free market society, and so was progressive. But now, a century later, as the economy undergoes another transformation, decentralizing power and increasing the leverage of consumers at the expense of producers, regulation and other government intervention tend to impede the free market. Now, for government to get out of the way of this progress is truely progressive.
What is not progressive at all is the modern-day drive to extend the reach of government power over the individual. There is nothing democratic or progressive about socialism. Socialists chafe at restrictions imposed by the rule of law lest their planning be disrupted by predetermined rules which apply to everyone. Socialism is an attempt to fend off the future.
Innovation, by definition unforseen, is a threat to the plans of the self-proclaimed enlightened, and so is to be suppressed. Based on what Friedrich Hayek called "a naive and childlike ... view of the world," central planning is "a fraud doomed to failure because no planner can possess all the knowledge needed to run a modern economy." Centralization of power in a bureaucracy led by those who profess to know more and care more than anyone else is in fact the old, lamentably commonplace way nations have been governed since civilization began. It is government for the sake of the individual which is new.
We Republicans place ourselves at another disadvantage in the battle of ideas by ripping from socialists a label which describes them so well. Opponents of progress are those who want to conserve the age-old rule of the few over the many and the cultural stagnation this entails. Socialists are the true conservatives. Republicans try without success to affix this conservative label [im]properly to our Party, using as adhesive such adjectives as "dynamic" or "compassionate" or "progressive." Trouble is, though our Republican Party is definitely dynamic and compassionate and progressive, conservative it is not.
Ironically, the socialists ripped from our Party a label which suits us so well and them not at all. As the term is understood everywhere in the world except where the Democrats appropriated it as their own, liberals have struggled for liberty by opposing government oppression and championing the free market. To quote Hayek once more: "The liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.... Conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about."
As political terms, "right" and "right wing" and "left" and "left wing," originated in 18th century France, where parlimentary allies of the king sat on the right of the speaker and his enemies on the left. The relevance of this arrangement to us today? None. Can there then be any real meaning to the terms "hard right" or perhaps "soft left"? No. In his essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell warned that "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts ... to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration."
In his speach accepting his second presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan explained the difference between Democrats and Republicans in a way that cannot be improved upon: "Two visions of the future, two fundamentally different ways of governing - their government of pessimism, fear and limits, or ours of hope, confidence, and growth. Their government sees people only as members of groups. Ours serves all the people of America as individuals. Theirs lives in the past, seeking to apply the old failed policies to an era that has passed them by. Ours learns from the past and strives to change by boldly charting a new course for the future."
They are socialists, we are liberals. They are conservatives, we are progressives. They are Democrats, we are Republicans. Ours is the Party of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner and Ronald Reagan. And yes, the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln.
Some Links:
Thaddeus Stevens (1792-1868)
- Speech of December 18, 1865.
- Speech of March 19, 1867.
- Congressional biography (good bibliography).
- A short biography.
- A short encyclopedia article.
- Wikipedia.
- Recent biography: Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-Century Egalitarian
Charles Sumner (1811-1874)
- Speech of May 19 & 20, 1856 "The Crime Against Kansas".
- Speech of June 4, 1860 "The Barbarism of Slavery".
- Speeches of 1872 regarding the Civil Rights Bill.
- Miscellaneous quotes.
- Wikipedia (excellent article!).
- A short encyclopedia article.
- Congressional biography (good bibliography).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)