Category Archives: Uncategorized

upcoming talks

Please consider marking your calendars for the following:

“From Freedom Summer to Teach for America: Understanding the Impact of

Youth Activism”

A conversation with Tisch Civic Engagement Research Prize winner Professor Doug McAdam (and me).

March 17, 2010, 3:30-5:30 pm

Rabb Room, Lincoln Filene Hall, Tufts University

“Reforming the Humanities”

Lunchtime talk (by me)

Tufts University’s Center for the Humanities, 48 Professors Row

Tuesday, February 23, 12pm

“The Obama Administration’s Civic Agenda”

University of Wisconsin Philosophy and Education Lecture (by me)

Feb. 19, 2010, noon

267 Teacher Education Building, Madison

in defense of Isaiah Berlin

Isaiah Berlin’s letters from the years 1946-1960 have been published, and A.N. Wilson reads them as the record of a man who was smoothly diplomatic and glitteringly successful in public, but malicious behind people’s backs and never a profound author. I haven’t yet read these letters, but Wilson’s judgment that Berlin was “nothing but a witty talker” seems flatly wrong on the evidence of his great political essays.

Here is an example from Wilson’s review: “The 800 pages [of Berlin’s letters] are peppered with malice about poor A. L. Rowse (a more interesting man than Berlin and ultimately more intellectually distinguished).” While Berlin was writing his “tedious, infelicitous, prolix letters”– Wilson writes–Rowse was “producing those readable, well-researched volumes The England of Elizabeth, Ralegh and the Throckmortons, The Early Churchills, The Later Churchills, etc.”

I happen to have read The England of Elizabeth recently (well, most of its 592 dense pages). It contains a lot of interesting information, some vivid imaginative prose, and strong, idiosyncratic opinions. It is worth something, but it is far from profound or reliable. The author is so strongly committed to his politics (secular, mercantile, hierarchical, nationalist) that he makes all kinds of implausible claims–for instance, that Elizabeth I was privately not religious.

Christopher Haigh’s introduction to Rowse’s book (the text chosen to accompany and advertise the 2003 edition) says:

    Rowse was bitter and vindictive, nurturing hatreds and maintaining grievances for decades, but he could be generous, loyal, and sensitive to the needs and misfortunes of others. He was a homosexual misogynist, who would turn his back on female guests at his college, but some of his closest confidants were women. … From the start he was insufferably arrogant: as a little boy he shouted to his family, “Everyone’s a fool in this house but me!”–and he kept saying it to the end of his life, with irrepressible self-congratulation.

Imagine that you were trapped with this person in the tiny, static community of an Oxford college, where all the inmates have life tenure. You are diplomatic to him in person but complain about him behind his back, writing (for example) that he “grows more and more impossible and awful daily.” Should anyone blame you?

Berlin never wrote a magnum opus. His historical work was not deeply sourced enough for professional historians, and he gave up the rigors of analytic philosophy. Most of his ideas were unoriginal; he hastened to show that he had found them in previous authors. But he had the huge gift of being right (something that one can hardly say of A.L. Rowse). I think he was right because his thought was grounded in worldly experience.

A.N. Wilson writes: Berlin “settled down to be a ‘historian of ideas’, but the great book never got written. He accepted the role of being a sort of Samgrass from Brideshead Revisited, the don at the rich man’s table, the brilliant chatterer, who moved among bright worldly people who had not read as much as he had, so were impressed by the idea of someone who had heard of, let alone read, Maistre:

    The dinner party consisted of the Queen Mother, the diva [Maria Callas], Lady Fermoy (in waiting), Lady Rosebery, Mr Anthony Gishford (late of Boosey and Hawkes, who used to edit Isis when I was an undergraduate, slightly disreputable and quite nice), Mr David Webster, and the Harewoods. I sat between the QM and Lady Rosebery and enjoyed myself.

That quotation from Berlin’s letters makes him seem too social and glamorous to be taken seriously. In fact, I wouldn’t enjoy reading a lot of pages about dinners with H.R.H. the Queen Mum. But Berlin’s gift was to learn about politics–and life–from diverse people. He could enjoy an evening with royalty, but he could also seek out the tragically persecuted Anna Akhmatova in Leningrad, or guide an American student though her dissertation. He talked incredibly fast and with great self-assurance, but he also listened. For him, sociability was a form of research. Since his topic was people, his method was apt, and he was superb at it.

the Tea Party Movement and youth

On NPR’s Morning Edition, Don Gonyea reports on the efforts of the Tea Party conservative movement to recruit young voters and activists. He quotes me to the effect that young people much preferred Barack Obama in 2008, but they are still forming their opinions about government. They are suffering badly from the economic crisis, and–rightly or not–could decide that their hopes for a Democratic administration were misplaced. Especially if the Tea Party right seems libertarian rather than authoritarian and intolerant, it has a lot of potential to draw young voters. Young conservatives almost certainly stayed home in 2008, contributing to Obama’s 2:1 margin among people under 30. It would not be surprising if that ratio shifted a great deal in 2010 and beyond.

why Spain fell

In preparation for a trip to Spain, I just read J. H. Elliot’s Imperial Spain: 1469-1716. This book is nearly 50 years old, and I don’t know whether Elliot himself or his many students have changed the story profoundly. But the arc is epic and very well told. In 1540, the ruler of Spain also governed the Holy Roman Empire, the low countries (which were the most dynamic economies of Europe), half of Italy, and the Americas from Texas to Argentina. The culture of Spain itself was profound and influential. One century later, his successor could hardly keep Spain itself together, he had declared bankruptcy, and Spanish culture was sinking into a mediocrity from which it would take at least a century to recover.

The various explanations for Spain’s decline are resonant today, and each would appeal to different modern ideological movements.

  • Intolerance: Spain expelled its vibrant indigenous Jewish and Moslem cultures and repressed the American natives and Protestants, becoming narrow and closed-minded.
  • Authoritarianism: Governed by a strong monarch, Spain lost the creative advantages of freedom and debate.
  • Profligacy: The crown consistently spent more money than it had, which was unsustainable.
  • Inequality: A few aristocrats held vast, largely untaxed wealth, while most people were close to starvation.
  • Machismo: Castilian culture was warlike. Once there were no more opportunities for conquest, militarism was a poor basis for policy.
  • A “Resource Trap”: South American silver was like petroleum today–it gave the government an easy source of money that reduced accountability and the need to invest.
  • The clergy: Even leading priests and friars argued that Spain had too many people in holy orders, consuming too much wealth.
  • Decentralization: The monarch did not rule a unified Spain, but was simultaneously king of several separate countries with their own laws (and even trade barriers against one another). It was impossible to coordinate.
  • Corruption: Public officials were expected to live in grand style but were hardly paid. They obtained their wealth by selling decisions, a recipe for poor policy.

I suspect that all these explanations are valid, and the decline was overdetermined. It still represents one of history’s great cautionary examples.

Film Your Issue

The What’s Your Issue Foundation has launched its 2010 Film Your Issue Competition with a YouTube channel, blog posts, and Twitter feed.

People between the ages of 14 and 24 are invited to submit 3-minute videos with their ideas for improving society. “Prizes include having your winning video shown to senior Obama administration officials in D.C., flying to L.A. for an awards show with Sony Pictures, a Student Pass to the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, and Apple products like a Macbook or iPod Touch. Winners will be selected by a VIP Jury, including Tom Brokaw, our own Chad Hurley, Yoko Ono and Nicholas Kristof, and by public voting on YouTube.”

An incredible asset of this project and its founder, HeathCliff Rothman, is their ability to draw celebrity support. They’ve got Jack Black saying “Dude, I can’t wait to hear your issue,” and George Clooney saying, “Film Your Issue brings your voice into the arena. It belongs to you.” I’ve had fun advising them a little bit, and I look forward to the winners.