(Paperback)
by Arthur M. Schlesinger (Author) "At the beginning America was seen as a severing of roots, a liberation from the stifling past, an entry into a new life, an interweaving..." (more)

I found Arthur Schlesingers survey of multiculturalism in America to be a welcome and refreshing monograph. The Disuniting of America  aptly titled  is a clear headed and straightforward account of how and why the country is are genuinely threatened by the intellectual descendents of the cultural sensitivities that allowed us to shake off (mostly) generations of intolerance and bigotry.
Half cheerleading for American history, Schlesinger shows that America is indeed become fractured along whatever lines  ethnic, racial, religious to some extent  people can dream up. This is not, repeat not, the logical consequence of our national awakening of the sixties. More and more we find in America groups choosing isolation and the politics of mass attack.

As a distinguished historian, Schlesinger has countless examples of how the national ideology was formed very early in our history. Citing de Tocqueville and others less famous, he shows how wild and revolutionary was the idea then, and quite a bit now, that a nation could form basing personal identity not on religion, or tribe, or language, but on the melting pot as it came to be known. E pluribus unum, from many one, is changed today so often to just pluribus.

In more concrete terms, we get a review of how multiculturalisms worst self satire has become the norm in, for example, education, a subject discussed at great length. We see how history, an old and distinguished practice, is becoming polluted by charlatans who consider it more important to promote myths that to report on reality. When self-esteem becomes the motivating goal behind primary school history lessons, and the past itself becomes something of an obstacle, we can be sure that something is seriously wrong.

Of course, what makes Disuniting special is the author. Besides being a noted liberal, something the reader is never tempted to forget, he is also a clear-headed thinker and writer. This is not just a collection of anecdotes, indistinguishable from a Rush Limbaugh rant or off-the-cuff blog from the National Review. This is a warning from someone smart enough to realize, and articulate enough to express, that the answer to white on black racism is not black on white racism. That maximum tolerance for new ways of thinking and living does not mean minimal tolerance for old ways. And to return to the original and dominant theme, lest we Balkanize (or even Rwanda-ize) our own country, and turn into a land where crackpot religious leaders can condemn authors to death for writing the wrong books, let us remember that we as a country have held together now for more than two centuries by, to put it succinctly, holding together. It was a strength even in the bad old days, and should be our crowning glory now.

Comment | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)


21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

A Must Read for Those in the Social Sciences, April 23, 2002
Reviewer: Justin Evans (West Wendover, Nevada United States) - See all my reviews

This book is one of the most compelling reads of non-fiction I have ever come across. Without a doubt, this is one of few books I found of real use in college, and I continue to read and reflect upon it to this day. In fact, I would call this book essential for any social studies curriculum.
Arthur Schlesinger takes the issues of a new PC nation and puts them into real perspective. He is both pro-culture and pro-heritage, but he stands against the idea that cultural identity means a seperation of the American People. Taking on a myriad of topics, Schlesinger explains with great simplicity, straight-forwardness, and honesty how multi-culturalism can be taken too far, taken to absurd conclusions. Essentially, Schlesinger is letting us know that not everything is best when it is presented through the eyes of multi-culturalism.

I read the book in a single sitting. Once I started to read, I was drawn in more and more. Even if you don't agree with his premise, Schlesinger writes in such a way that there is no ambiguity to what he is saying. Knowing Schlesinger's politics for some may make this all the more shocking, but I have to ask those who oppose the message of this book whether they are upset that he is saying these things in general, or if they are upset because a "liberal" is saying these things.

In my opinion this book is of critical importance to understand the second half of the 20th century in America.

Comment | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

War and the American Presidency (Paperback)
by Arthur M. Schlesinger (Author) "Unilateralism? There is no older American tradition in the conduct of foreign affairs..." (more)

Editorial Reviews
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the author of such magisterial works as The Age of Roosevelt, is the doyen of American historians. He is also a fervent liberal, and the two roles -- the intellectual and the partisan -- do not always mesh smoothly. But if we make generous allowance for his politics while paying due respect to his preeminence, this elegant and learned little book (a mere 160 pages in large type) offers a luminous and provocative guide for the perplexed in times of war.
The targets of Schlesinger's passion are the Iraq war and the über-imperial presidency of George W. Bush. Some arrows hit home; some end up among the trees. One central instance is the chapter on "How to Democratize American Democracy," where Schlesinger complains bitterly about a president who won only a minority of the popular vote dragging the country into a foolish war. But since John Quincy Adams in 1824, minority presidents have been almost as American as apple pie. The sad but strictly constitutional fact is that the states, not the people, elect the president, a system that tends to overrepresent tiny or sparsely populated states. So don't blame W., blame the Founding Fathers.

Or blame the people, who, in spite of a nasty, inconclusive war in Iraq, have returned Bush to the White House with a nice margin, adding some 9 million votes to his 50.4 million tally in 2000 and letting him carry the popular vote. So the principle of "one person, one vote," which Schlesinger advocates with a vengeance to guard against misbegotten foreign adventures, is a tricky thing; it all depends on what vox populi is saying. Having preached the wisdom of majorities, Schlesinger must be aghast at the outcome of November 2. One wonders whether he would still target George W. Bush today -- or the "false consciousness" of the electorate.

Still, even those who (like this reviewer) supported the Iraq war now often harbor second thoughts. But foolish foreign ventures also are practically as old as the republic -- beginning with America's second war against Britain, the War of 1812, which almost ended in a humiliating rout when the Brits burned the Capitol and the White House. And it is not so obvious, as Schlesinger avers, that the folly in both 1812 or 2003 was glaringly self-evident ex ante.

For the "logic" of either war was hardly demented. Heavily dependent on European markets, those young Americans in 1812 rightly railed against the motherland for press-ganging their sailors and choking their trade. The "logic" of the Iraq war was no less plausible: Since the "root cause" of anti-American terrorism was the pathologies of Arab political culture, going for "regime change" and democracy was evidently the right thing to do.

The real problem, as so often in American history, was neither the "imperial presidency" nor national hubris but the woeful gap between means and ends. In 1812, it was foolhardy to attack the mightiest navy in the world with a handful of creaky ships. In 2003, it was tragically reckless to believe that the United States could just slice through Saddam Hussein's armies, hand over power in Baghdad and go home. Approvingly, Schlesinger quotes President George H.W. Bush's secretary of defense in 1991: "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. . . . It's not clear what kind of government you would put in. . . . How much credibility is [that] government going to have if it's set up by the United States military?. . . . To have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion." The name of that defense secretary, of course, was Dick Cheney.

A lesser historian would have stuck to the diatribes; Schlesinger, however, resists pat prescriptions. He reminds those who inveigh against Bush-style "unilateralism" that this impulse also is as American as motherhood and the flag: "There is no older American tradition in the conduct of foreign affairs," he rightly notes -- from Thomas Jefferson to William Jefferson Clinton. The common denominator of both isolationism and interventionism is precisely unilateralism, the conviction that America can go it alone -- in 1812 as in 2003.

Needless to say, Schlesinger does not cherish this reflex. Tracing Sen. John Kerry's "global test" for intervention abroad back to the 18th century, Schlesinger quotes the 63rd Federalist: "In doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinions of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed." Alas, that guide can be treacherous. Those nations who opposed the Iraq war were hardly "impartial." They followed their own interests, the most urgent of which was to prevent the United States from setting itself up as arbiter over the Middle East.

Nonetheless, Schlesinger has it right where he transcends passion in favor of prudent principle: "The United States, as it seeks to advance its national interests, will increasingly discover, I believe, that joint action may often be the best way to safeguard those interests." This is not the counsel of wimpishness but of realism. Indifference to consequences was driven by weakness in 1812, by fabulous strength in 2003. In both cases, America might have been better off staying at home rather than going it alone.

Reviewed by Josef Joffe
Copyright 2004, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian Schlesinger is perhaps best known for his study of the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (1965), and it is his reputation that will likely attract readers otherwise turned off by the vociferous glut of books, pro and con, about the Bush administration. Their interest will be well rewarded, for this selection is a notch better than most. Rather than comparing the current president's character with that of his predecessors--something both political camps enjoy doing--Schlesinger focuses on the office, not the man, and argues that the current administration's use of presidential power in war tells both an old story and a new one. Old, in that unilateral warfare is as old as America, but new--and, says Schlesinger, dangerous--in the manner in which Bush has taken advantage of wartime's mandate. This intelligent collection of essays, sketching historical congruities (most conspicuously between the Bush administration and Nixon's original "imperial presidency") as well as incongruities, includes a compelling discussion of the challenges inherent to history's lens. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

The Imperial Presidency (Paperback)
by Jr.", Arthur M. "Schlesinger (Author) "THE PLACE TO BEGIN is Philadelphia in the summer of 1787..." (more)

Reviewer: Mike Baum (Anchorage, AK USA) - See all my reviews
Whatever his shortcomings (see below), historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. has a great mind and writes with a silver pen. I am immensely impressed with his book on the growth of presidential power in America and cannot imagine a better introduction to my future studies on this important subject.
The book's organization is superb. Appropriately, it first discusses the Founding Fathers' likely intentions in regard to the Presidency and where they disagreed amongst themselves. Next it explains the Presidency and its war power, tracing its development through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, and paying special attention to the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. Most of a 64-page chapter is devoted to President Richard M. Nixon's radical ideas and practices. Democracy and foreign policy is then treated, followed by the Presidency and its powers of secrecy, and finally, the Presidency and its future. As these subjects are dealt with, many facts are thrown at the reader, the totality being hard to absorb. Fortunately, nothing is explained in isolation. The author constantly backtracks, providing new historical context and rehashing material already covered. This practice, plus good organization and a high degree of literary skill (Dr. Schlesinger can *write*), make this book highly readable.

Of particular interest is Dr. Schlesinger's discussion of philosopher John Locke's idea of presidential prerogative, of which I was previously unaware (and which I am still mulling over). This is the view that extraordinary national emergencies create temporary exceptions to normal constitutional restrictions on a president's power to act. This prerogative is supposed to come into play during clear threats to the republic that require immediate action and that are recognized by Congress and the people as legitimate emergencies; a president is also supposed to submit himself to the judgment of Congress (e.g., for possible impeachment) after exercising this prerogative, and not pretend that he had been acting within the Constitution (which might set a dangerous precedent). This idea is important because of its influence on the Founding Fathers, who were steeped in Locke, and because of its consequences. Correctly or not, President Abraham Lincoln invoked it during the Civil War, as did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II. President Richard M. Nixon also made use of it... with far less justification.

Dr. Schlesinger's treatment of President Nixon, the size of whose index entry dwarfs that of any other topic in the book, is also fascinating. Dr. Schlesinger clearly is appalled by the man and devotes many pages to his schenanigans and his almost monarchical views of Presidential power. He demonstrates just how significant a departure was the Presidency under Nixon from the Presidency as conceived by the Founding Fathers. In a statement that is very true, Dr. Schlesinger calls Nixon's Presidency "a culmination, not an aberration, and potentially the best thing to have happened to the Presidency in a long time" (paraphrasing from memory, since I lost the page). It is unfortunate that Congress did not make the most of Watergate and put the Presidency into its proper place (e.g., see its shameful War Powers Act or the Presidency of Bill Clinton). This, Congress's own role in the expansion of Presidential power (its unwise, Cold War-inspired delegation of foreign policy discretion to the Presidency, its evasion of responsibility, its cowardice, etc.), is also given just and ample treatment.

I am concerned about Dr. Schlesinger's possible biases. He discloses, for example, that he was an aide in President John F. Kennedy's administration, and indeed his view of Kennedy's Presidency is relatively rosey. He is also kind to President Roosevelt and must admire him, else he would not be a leading member of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. And as David S. Wyman contends in his definitive history of America's response to the Holocaust, *The Abandonment of the Jews*, Dr. Schlesinger has long maintained (though it does not come up in this volume) that Roosevelt did all he could to save European Jews from the Nazis during World War II--in utter contradiction of the facts.

My main criticism of *The Imperial Presidency* is theoretical. I am a strict constructionist, Dr. Schlesinger believes in a looser, evolutionary interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He says as much in his first chapter. Quoting President Woodrow Wilson--that despot of democracy whose own collectivist impulses and subversion of the Constitution forced our American boys into the bloody trenches of a European war--he objects to the Constitution's being treated as "a mere legal document, to be read as a will or contract," and advocates that its meaning be determined "by the exigencies and the new aspects of life itself." I will state here simply that under this view of the Constitution, the document's meaning becomes anything anybody at any time wishes it to be--in which case it loses all utility, we might as well have no Constitution and kiss our individual rights goodbye to unscrupulous men and prevailing philosophies that might not, in fact, be in our best interest. We have the power of Amendment for a reason. I dare not speculate how Dr. Schlesinger's beliefs might have affected his scholarship. I will note with irony, however, that the constitutional views he expouses have greatly contributed to the "imperial presidency" he so decries. Was Nixon the chief culprit in Watergate--or was he the culmination of intellectuals like Dr. Schlesinger?

Despite these criticisms, there is more good in *The Imperial Presidency* than bad. I will repeatedly refer back to it whenever I have questions about what powers our presidents have and how they got them. I might buy a more recent edition. Mine was published shortly after Watergate, the constitutional crisis that occasioned the book's writing, but according to Amazon.com's description of it, it is supposed to cover the Presidency through Ronald Reagan. My curiosity is piqued.

Al Gore's movie wins 2 Oscars

By LARRY STIRLING
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Al Gore must indeed be a genius. Back during his campaign for president, people made fun of him because it was said that he claimed to have "invented the Internet."
He was also accused of saying his romance with wife Tipper was the inspiration for the haunting book and movie titled "Love Story," though Mrs. Gore seems to have survived the terminal disease, which afflicted Jennifer Cavalerri.
It was hard to take such claims seriously. But no more.
Al Gore got together with Lawrence Bender, best known for that drooling degradation of a movie titled "Pulp Fiction," and after only one try, his brainchild project, a movie that he says proves people are screwing up the Earth, earned not one but two Oscars. Amazing.
To put this stupendous accomplishment into context, extremely well qualified director Martin Scorsese was nominated five times previously and only this year finally won Hollywood's top plaudit.
So for Mr. Gore to hit it big on the first try means he has something very special going for him.
Since he never studied computers or filmography, to both invent the Internet and to score two Oscars on his first outing means he truly is unique. His background is interesting, too. Mr. Gore was raised in the lap of luxury right in Washington, D.C.
One would think enjoying such a standard of living on his father's senator's income would be impossible. Apparently his father was also a genius.
Dad was Albert Gore Sr., elected to represent the fine state of Tennessee. But according to many historians, Gore Sr. was actually the de facto representative of one Armand Hammer, owner of Occidental Petroleum.
Mr. Hammer was named after the hammer and sickle found on all communist flags. His father was the founder of the Communist Party of the United States and was eventually jailed for subversive activity. As a result, Armand was pulled out of medical school to take up where his father left off, pursuing the interests of the Russian communist party in the United States. His primary job was selling off Russian assets including their natural resources to finance the Communist Party and its failed economic policies.
Hammer had all the help he needed in Congress from the senior Sen. Gore. I have always wondered if Al Gore Jr. ever had any feelings of remorse for living off the Russian Communists, then learning about the millions of people whom they starved to death while Al attended Harvard and Vanderbilt on their blood money.
But that was then and this is now.
It is hard to know the truth about whether there is indeed global warming, and if so, what is causing it. I do remember there were several "ice ages" and that at one time, glaciers and ice sheets covered most of the North American continent.
What caused those warming trends? Not Hummers.
The United Nations recently issued "a consensus report" on the topic. Since when did science become a "consensus" sport?
If it were, then Galileo Galilei would still be under sanction by the Holy Father and the Earth still flat.
Is the Earth actually warming? We know the sun is warming and expanding and will do so until it ultimately consumes the Earth in its fiery breath. Is that causing the Earth to heat up?
Science is fact. And as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said: "You either looks facts in the eye, or they will stab you in the back."
The so-called "scientific consensus" about the putative global warming is being fronted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS is to science what the Communist Party is to democracy. The UCS is a political movement that mobilizes liberal faculty members and is financed by left-leaning organizations such as Tides.
Their "science" needs to be understood in the context of their politics.
Just for the heck of it, I decided to do my very own global warming investigation. Operating on the assumption that San Diego is part of the globe, I googled up the table of annual average temperatures for San Diego County.
Data are available for the last 92 years.
In 1914, the first year recorded, the average annual temperature here was a sizzling 61.94 degrees. Just last year, the annual average temperature was even lower at 61.64 degrees.
The three highest annual average temperatures were recorded in the years 1981 (67.07); 1983 (67.00); and 1984 (67.21) more than 20 years ago! The annual temperature has not reached as high as 66.00 since.
We must take care of our earthly Eden. But, we should do so on the basis of truth, not Al Gore's presidential aspirations or a "consensus report" sponsored by an agency seeking more control over our lives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stirling is a retired judge who authored the book "Leading at a Higher Level." He is a former Army officer, member of the San Diego City Council, the California State Assembly and the State Senate. Send comments to larry.stirling@sddt.com. Comments may be published as letters to the Editor.

Successful Iraq Rebuilding Effort Could End in 18 Months
By Tim Kilbride
Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 1, 2007 – Barring additional requests and funding from the government of Iraq, U.S. reconstruction work in Iraq could draw to a close within 18 months, the top U.S. military official for reconstruction said yesterday.

Army Brig. Gen. Michael J. Walsh, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division, told bloggers in a conference call from Iraq that, with roughly $3.5 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds remaining, he foresees enough work to extend the U.S. effort about one and a half more years.
"To date, the United States has contributed $22 billion towards Iraq's rebuilding efforts," Walsh said.
That contribution from U.S. taxpayers "was really just to jumpstart the rebuilding efforts here" and pave the way for a continuation of efforts by the Iraqis.
Walsh explained the initial U.S. commitment was to "wholesale work" to build capacity in power generation, the water and sewer systems and the oil industry. These projects were "supposed to be followed by donor nations' and the government of (Iraq's) funds," he said.
Still, he added, U.S. engineers and reconstruction officials also have made it a priority to provide Iraqis access to basic services such as medical facilities, fire stations, schools, paved roads and clean water.
With reconstruction assets spread "throughout the country," Walsh said, progress has been steady. "We've set goals, and we're tracking to meet those goals."
The general described the relationships and strategy behind the reconstruction program, including his close work with U.S. State Department officials in Baghdad and the provinces to put together provincial reconstruction teams, prioritize projects and channel funding.
"We're kind of blended altogether," Walsh said of his cooperation with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the State Department's Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.
"As I finish up the reconstruction piece, USAID will be working alongside me, giving out micro-loans and working to get the economy jumpstarted, while the PRTs are working with the provincial governments, trying to see what new projects they would like constructed," he said.
Of major infrastructure projects, Walsh pointed to significant progress in the oil, water and electric sectors, despite a constantly shifting security situation.
With $3 billion to $4 billion committed to the water sector, Walsh said, 500 of a planned 800 water and sewer projects have been completed to date, with additional work ongoing. He noted that even in restive Anbar province, Army engineers have installed water treatment plants and sewer systems.
Reconstruction benefits extend beyond the immediate physical plant and into the local economy, he noted. "In the water sector, we employ about 2,000 Iraqi citizens every day" in construction work and operational maintenance. A January 2007 Gulf Region Division report on Iraq reconstruction noted that more than 22,000 Iraqis are employed by the U.S. across all sectors.
"It's not only the construction projects in and of (themselves)," Walsh said of the Iraqi participation, "it's giving men and women a good paying job where they can use those funds to take care of their (families)."
Iraqis also are expected to see a boost from improved oil production and distribution systems. Walsh said, "We're working to help the Iraqis get to 3 million barrels a day in their oil industry," up from 500,000 barrels per day in the immediate post-war period. Production currently hovers around 2.5 million barrels per day.
Even greater progress has been made in expanding and redistributing electrical power, despite frequent criticism that Iraqi needs are unmet. "Seventy-five percent of the country here in Iraq has twice as much electrical power as it did before the war," Walsh said. "The national average is 12 hours of power."
Under Saddam Hussein, the bulk of Iraq's electricity was funneled into Baghdad, leaving most parts of the country with two to four hours of power per day, while residents of the capital enjoyed 18 to 22 hours. Walsh described U.S. efforts in the electrical sector as successful in boosting overall production of electricity, while allowing for more widespread distribution.
He noted, "A lot of people back in the United States think, 'They have eight hours of power, you know, that's terrible.' But if you go out to al Anbar, that's double and (in) some cases triple the amount of power that they had pre-war."
Responding to allegations of widespread fraud and mismanagement in the reconstruction effort, Walsh noted projects are overseen by a combination of internal reviews and oversight by the Army Audit Agency, the General Accounting Office and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He said the last quarterly report by SIGIR noted 90 percent of the projects they inspected met standards.
Therefore, Walsh explained, "When I hear accusations like that, I just go to all of those inspector general reports and talk with them and they give me a different flavor that's out there."
Discussing Gulf Region Division's next 18 months and beyond, Walsh said remaining reconstruction funds would be steered more toward local projects than to large infrastructure construction. "A lot of them have to do with essential services, working with the State Department on how to put some infrastructure-protection systems together and also funds that are going out to the provinces.
"We're looking to finishing up the work in another 18 months, unless we get additional work from the Iraqi government," he said.
Any such projects, he explained, would be funded through Iraqi government funds allocated through their appropriations process.
Summarizing the reconstruction effort, Walsh described a learning curve among the Iraqis that has at times slowed progress, but will ultimately leave them stronger. "This is an ancient land," he said, "But it's a new country. They're still trying to figure out what it's like to be a new Iraqi."
(Tim Kilbride is assigned to American Forces Information Service.)

Related Sites:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region Division
Iraq Reconstruction Update, January 2007
Multinational Force Iraq