Has American Conservatism Become Marxist?

                                 "All history is the history of class struggle." 

So begins Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto," written in 1848 as Europe was experiencing something like a continent-wide revolution. In most circles (left and right), Karl Marx's words and ideas are at best loosely understood. To what can we attribute this misunderstanding? Taking the time to read Karl Marx's work is much like reading Mein Kampf: it is historically important, but is exhaustively dense and long-winded (as much German writing is), and will almost certainly get you in trouble if you read it in public. Regardless of how or why, Marx polarizes us in ways that have unfortunately prevented a nuanced and objective assessment of what he had to say and whether it is still relevant. My own research into Marx has pointed me in directions I did not expect, and hopefully my own assessment will encourage you to make your own when you get a chance. But beware: while reading The Communist Manifesto in a mechanic's waiting room, I was told by a concerned older gentleman that I shouldn't read "trash."  

Marx

The man, his work, and the reputation can easily be separated with little work. In spite of his well-to-do upbringing and elite education, Marx professed to be first and foremost an admirer of the common worker. In spite of being the fuel that turned the engine of the Industrial Revolution, Marx felt that commoners were being slowly and covertly destroyed, body and soul, by capitalism, and more specifically by capitalists. Marx believed that a capitalist ruling class ("bourgeoisie") gains and keeps power through the deception and exploitation of the working masses ("proletariat"), effectively blinding them to the unequal and unrepresentative nature of their political, social, and most importantly their economic system. The brave souls who are able to see through this deception, of course, must violently overthrow the prevailing elites and institute a new, more responsive form of government based on rule by the commoners, not rule by elites. 

The Revolution

America's class struggle is as old as the country itself, and is interwoven into the fabric of the history of the common working American. For most original patriots, our Revolution represented a rebuke not of the monarchical system, but of the institutional elitism that permeated the old world. Most commoners were not so much angry about the king as they were unhappy with rule by professional elites who did not know or care about Americans' suffering and lack of economic prospects. The farming proletariat who made up the vast bulk of our Revolutionary fighters were fighting mostly against elitism and economic subjugation, not the crown. 

The Civil War

Sometimes without realizing it, our Civil War has been described by apologists for the causes of both sides as a class struggle. Most Southerners had little interest in what they considered corrosive ideas being hocked by over-educated elitist Northerners, so they decided to break away. Andrew Johnson, though he deserves little credit for his time as president, accurately described the anger poor white Southerners felt towards elitist plantation owners. He and much of the Southern proletariat felt the planter class had duped the South into the war because they were unwilling to give up their slaves and the prosperity that came with them. The New York City Draft Riots, which nearly saw our largest city secede from the Union in 1863, were largely the product of a draft law that allowed for the paying of "substitutes" to fight in the place of the North's bourgeoisie sons. Both North and South, a cry of "Rich man's war, Poor man's fight" rose up from the working class of both armies. Marx himself wrote a book about the war in which he proposed slavery economics as the only real cause of the war. 

The Cold War

Our long, convoluted and anticlimactic showdown with actual, avowed Marxists was a far greater test of our ability to win a military staring contest than to actually pit capitalist principles against communist ones. Harry Truman's doctrine of communist containment was more or less accepted American policy throughout the Cold War, but subsequent administrations put their own spin on it. Eisenhower chose the covert route, opting for clandestine (and ethically questionable) operations to undermine global communism. This was inexpensive, but it was also unethical, and more importantly, unsexy.

Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon can be viewed as liberal domestic presidents, because for all of his conservative credentials, Nixon created conservatives' least favorite government agency: the Environmental Protection Agency. Perhaps as a means of compensation, these administrations opted for a sexier Cold War, scattering a greater overall tonnage of weapons than all of the bombs dropped during WWII over various parts of Southeast Asia, most of which has not fully recovered. Vietnam was a fig leaf extended from what were essentially socialist administrations to conservatives: how could we be Marxist wackos if we are bombing the hell out of real Marxists?

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, the greatest of our Cold Warriors and the arch-nemesis of all things Marxist, ultimately elected to defeat Socialism with...government spending. Ronald Reagan's legacy was built on two of America's most popular political ideas: overwhelming military force and tax cuts. The current spending deficit that caused such great alarm in the Conservative movement before the Trump Era can mostly be traced back to Reaganomics: big tax cuts and big increases in military spending, while doing comparatively little to dismantle welfare. The Gipper's greatest communication coup was giving voice to conservative principles while adhering to them only partially: The over seven hundred billion dollars spent annually on defense can be traced directly to Mr. Reagan's determination to spend the Soviets out of existence with money we did not have.

The Commies?

Communist countries themselves have an inconsistent record of being Marxist. Soviet Marxism died with Vladimir Lenin, and was clumsily trotted out as the national ideology when Josef Stalin needed to make a speech or two. Regardless of its effectiveness, Stalin's government-sponsored terrorism proved too hard to dismantle, too beneficial for Soviet elites, and too obvious to be hidden from twentieth century eyes, so it bumbled on (perhaps to today?). And in spite of Chairman Mao's best efforts to kill or "reeducate" them, China has drifted into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Its free market "zones" have made modern China a national sweatshop that is designed to undercut global prices for the benefit of a tiny upper crust of Chinese capitalists, while workers are told to be grateful to  share the leftover crumbs. This is only a partial vision of Marxism, and as a result the plight of the modern Chinese proletariat is such that it would make Adam Smith blush. It is a cheap charade that is fooling fewer and fewer people. 

The Conservative Problem

It is at best a bit confusing that a political party (and the movement to which it is attached) claims to represent the will of the ill-defined "Average American" proletariat when it has lost seven of the last eight national popular votes for the white house. Are we to believe that the majority of Americans gather en masse every four years and pull the wrong lever? Or has Conservatism ceased to be an ideology that truly represents the will of a majority of America?

There are two possibilities to explain conservatism's current predicament, and both of them are essentially Marxist. The first is the belief that widespread voter fraud has become so rampant that our election results can no longer be trusted. This is both not based in fact and is the justification for military coups in countries that we love to belittle (see: Myanmar). It is also one which Mr. Marx would approve of, because he asserted the bourgeoisie ruling culture must sometimes be violently upended in order for representative "patriots" of the true interests of the working class to be empowered. If that is the tack that Conservatism has chosen to take, it can avoid the uncomfortable reality of its increasingly shrill and unappealing arguments for as long as Mr. Trump and his coattail-riders choose to keep beating the drum.

The other is less silly but equally Marxist. If a majority of voting Americans have been unable to see the welfare state for what it is, i.e. a thinly veiled conspiracy to keep elites in power, then the bourgeoisie have ascended to heights Marx could scarcely have imagined in 1848. If this is the case, a small but determined group of true representatives of the commoners not only should, but must affect a revolution in order to topple the ruling class and open the eyes of their fellow commoners to the elites' deception. In Russia's 1917 Revolution, The Marxist Bolsheviks successfully achieved this because they saw where the true power of their county was concentrated: they took over key infrastructure, particularly railway and telegraph terminals instead of the Duma, where the Russian legislature met. Our June 6th Marxist revolutionaries were not so clever, and as such their coup failed.

Barry Goldwater

The last (and perhaps only) time a true, non-Marxist Conservative was nominated for a major party to run for president was in 1964. That year, liberal darling Lyndon Johnson was catapulted into his first full term as president with an astonishing four hundred eighty-six electoral college votes. The man who lost was Arizona's Barry Goldwater, who throughout his campaign knew that the election result was a foregone conclusion. Liberated from the need to appeal to a majority of voters, Barry did what he did best: he stuck to his principles. He got clobbered, but no one can deny his commitment to anti-Marxism: he refused to endorse any scheme that looked, felt or tasted Marxist, be it centralization, class-related programs or populism. Goldwater had the fortitude to look America voters in the face and say what Conservative politicians have been taught to think, but never to say: your problems are a result of your choices, and to blame others is to prove your laziness. I assume he would not approve of the executive orders, disregard for budget deficits and class-related vitriol his "conservative" Republican party has used to combat the modern Democratic Party, which itself has become more stridently Marxist while retaining its own brand of elitism.

Is Marx Bad?

Of course, true conservative ideology, like all true ideologies, is not designed to be popular. Indeed, true Marxism is unforgiving and in many ways cruel, particularly in the hands of clever elitists like Stalin and Mao. Those who take the time to learn about Marx's ideas generally agree that he very effectively diagnosed symptoms of capitalism's weaknesses. Even conservative commentators and politicians have come to the conclusion that our economic system is almost irrevocably dominated by a small, elite group of like-minded people who jealously guard their power. "They" are going to raise taxes, "they" are spying on your internet activity, "they" are taking prayer out of schools, "they" are crowding out mom-and-pop stores: these are all class-based, Marxist arguments, and it is perfectly acceptable for a freedom-loving, gun-toting, conservative American to admit that. 

Where Marx went off the rails, however, was his treatment for the disease that he so accurately described. He believed that when enough of the masses awaken to their unfair plight, a violent coup is needed to restore the balance of power and for the right people with the right ideas to be in charge. That piece of Marx's puzzle will always leave us one violent coup away from perfection, and is rightfully interpreted as unsustainable, self-defeating, and anti-democratic. This repression of dissent inherent in Marxism is what Mao's China and Stalin's Russia have clung to, while the continued suffering of the Chinese and Russian proletariat is blamed on the Imperialist West. 

The Problem, and the Solution(s)

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French writer visiting America in its early days as an independent republic, couldn't help but remark at America's love for conflicting principles: freedom and equality (as well as what he believed was the overarching obsession of all Americans: money). Indeed, the great conservative commentator William F. Buckley famously said that "freedom breeds inequality." He may well be right, but he does not have to be. Like most of us, Marx hated pomposity and elitism, and felt that the result of this elitism was exploitative and unjust business practices. He believed that these practices were an evil, but not a necessary one. America has always had two answers to combating this evil: the free market and regulations. The balance between them is elusive (as our various economic crises can attest), but few can now deny that both are necessary. It is in trying to find this balance that our efforts are best directed, instead of the zero-sum game of modern political economics. In short, we're all a little Marxist, and that's ok. 

The Death of Peaceful Protest?

Watching yesterday's festivities unfold reminded me of a quote from John Adams. Adams thought very little of Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense and by all accounts an extremist figure in America's Revolution who advocated separation from the corrupt British Monarchy, through violence if necessary. When asked what he thought of Paine, Adams said, "He is a man who would tear down a house without the skills to build one back up." 

In light of all that has been said and done during 2020's protests, this week's escapade feels (and is) hypocritical and a bit silly. The weekend warriors with an degree in constitutional law from Internet Rabbit-Hole University have had their fun, and in doing so have removed a brick or two from the foundation of American Conservatism. Their legacy will not be raising congress' awareness of the real issues for Americans, "taking back the government," watering the tree of liberty, or any other endeavor that would be worth their time. It will be creating a headache for the men and women of capitol security, aimlessly and giddily roaming the capital building, and making every sensible American feel ashamed and embarrassed. It is crime, inexcusable in any context, but particularly when protests of a similar spirit were so roundly condemned by the President and his supporters only months ago in cities like Portland, Seattle and Kenosha. Can any serious argument be made to differentiate these two movements? I cannot. They are both senseless crime dressed up as deep, esoteric social causes, and no amount of tortured apologetics can justify either of them.

Uncomfortable as it is, this week's protest takes a cue from several left-wing movements, including sit-ins and teach-ins at universities during the 60's, the occupation of Alcatraz Island by Native American Activists (Creedence Clearwater Revival gave them a boat!), the Occupy Movement, and of course this year's Anti-Police/Anti-Everything Riots in several cities. The Bundy escapade at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 takes the award as most visible right-wing occupation of government property in recent memory, which was undermined by the group's apparent need for snacks and entertainment. But this week's protests upped the stakes a bit. Sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair? Ballsy! Dressing up in your cool militia gear and breaking windows? Exhilarating!  Dressing up Gerald Ford's statue with Trump stuff and taking a picture with it? ....Confusing!

Much of this week's unrest centers around a (almost universally debunked) belief that a massive, nationwide conspiracy has undermined the integrity of our elections. If we are willing to look at evidence regarding those claims with any objectivity, we find that the decentralized process of national vote counting makes such fraud virtually impossible. American election fraud has a long, well-documented past, but has not been a significant problem in recent elections (with the possible exception of Florida's halted recount in 2000). President Trump and his platform have lost two consecutive popular elections by significant margins, and Mr. Trump's can-do attitude regarding his increasingly silly legal battles will not make it otherwise. I wish that only a fraction of the outrage seen this week was directed at foreign actors attempting to radicalize Americans through social media, the fruits of which we are now seeing. But that is a topic for another time.  

Americans have always hated elitism, and rightfully so. Much of our Revolution's animus came not from taxation or human rights, but from a disgust with British elites who could not help but look down their noses at the upstarts and provincials in America. That hate has become a deep suspicion of expertise, sometimes well-founded, but in some cases it has become a hatred of complicated things, like principled, non-violent protest. Feeding such hatred makes peaceful protests and an aversion to violent politics outdated, but is a fire that will burn very hot and bright and will only end in ashes. To use Mr. Adams' words, we will tear down our entire house, just to spite our attic.

So who's to blame for the mess? Depends on who you ask. Politicians are a legitimate but an easy place to look. As they were yesterday, they are often the target, but as is their job, they are generally masters of defecting or dodging responsibility altogether. They will likely find a way to use yesterday's events as another brick in the narrative they are already constructing, and that is to be expected. I put much of the blame on tailored marketing and the deprioritization of civic education in schools (I am of course biased regarding that). A civic-minded public with a strong background in how and why our government works would not produce or vote for the kinds of people that are now leading us. Frustrating as they might be, modern American politics are absolutely representative of the American populace, and until we stop blaming them and look in the mirror, they will continue to accrue power and we will continue to wonder why. Though much publicized, I believe it is worth saying that an essential element of our popular democracy that is the ability to communicate grievances respectfully and within a legal framework, which is of course one of those pesky "complicated things" that is easy to hate and misconstrue. 

So in short, the lesson today from Internet Rabbit-Hole University is this: Our constitution gives us the right to participate in the political process, but it does not protect our right to commit crimes when we are mad. The genius of the American system is that if we are willing to work within the system, we can influence it, if not change it. Stepping outside of that system will land you in prison with other criminals, and while some of us can afford to spend that kind of time and money on abstract causes, most cannot. Yesterday was not the Boston Tea Party, it was an attempted coup by people who are angry over a legitimate election in which they were allowed to participate. I would say they came to Washington for their participation trophy, and I suppose they got it. 

As the Dust Settles on 2020

The most telling quote of the 2020 political season came from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, The Republican Representative of California's 22nd district. Commenting about the legitimacy of the presidential election results, McCarthy said, "how can it be that [down ballot] Republicans have been so successful and President Trump was not?" McCarthy was referencing the fact that despite Republicans gaining forty new House seats in this month's election, President Trump appears to have lost by over five million votes, in addition to losing five swing states that he won in 2016. At first glance, one has to acknowledge that there is an incongruity in these results. Of course, we have the luxury of more than a first glance. What McCarthy brings up is not evidence that the 2020 election results are fraudulent, or premature, or even flawed in any way. It only points out an inconvenient fact for McCarthy and his colleagues: they do not understand Americans, and have not for some time. 

How People Lose Touch

What the comments of McCarthy and many congressional leaders like him exposes to me is an obsession among our "representatives" with polls and inside-the-beltway issues, and an unwillingness to do the hard work of actually meeting with people of their constituencies. Is it so hard to imagine a world where not an overwhelming majority, but a plurality of American voters don't think Donald Trump is a good choice for president? Have we cheapened empirical truth to such a point that any view which dissents from our own is not only wrong, but Anti-American? It is an incredible triumph of the internet echo-chamber: a willingness to undermine the integrity of our government because the narrow talking points you've learned from your narrow sources have made you unaware that the alternative is possible, and therefore must be the result of a sinister plot to wrest control of the country from you and your friends. This is a bipartisan problem that cannot be fixed with more polls or more focus groups or more technocratic solutions. It can only be fixed by a much greater emphasis on the thing federal politicians hate most: actually speaking with voters. Had he done that, McCarthy would almost certainly have found that decency and stability still matter a great deal to the average American, and particularly to conservatives.

The 3 Halves of America

My personal assessment of Mr. Trump's time in office is such: a division of America not into two, but three roughly equal parts: his ardent supporters, his enemies, and everyone else. His ardent supporters were catered to unceasingly, which was his campaign platform, and a consistency for which I suppose he should be applauded.  His enemies, i.e. ardent Democrats of many ideological stripes, were demonized, and an extension of an olive branch from the Trump camp was never even considered. The remainder of the electorate, anyone within shouting distance of the political center, were left alienated by both Trump and most of the established Democratic Party. It is a question both parties must ask themselves if they are interested in the support of a convincing majority of Americans: are they willing to risk appearing impure to their base in order to form a diverse coalition of voters, or will they stick to the hits? In order to lead, someone in our politics has to cut themselves from the anchor of their angry base. 

Why the Bitterness (from the right)? 

Much of the Republican failure during Mr. Trump's tenure has its roots in the history of the Conservative Movement in America. A real and imagined tendency by American media to obscure the words, actions and motivations of conservatives has created what I think can best be described as a victim complex among Conservatives: a clenched-teeth, vindictive approach to politics that is more based around retribution and ideological purity than actually representing Americans and their values. Post-WWII conservatives, if they could find one another at all, met in dark rooms to plot the reclaiming of America from those on the left as well as those who were not far enough right (the only thing worse than an enemy is a traitor). The Goldwater debacle of '64 proved the conservatives right: everyone is against them, even though they are the only ones who are right. Enter Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, and Conservatism seems a legitimate if tenuous part of our political discourse. And yet, the "true" conservatives have no interest in burying the hatchet. Obstruction is no longer a political tactic, it is essential to proving you are a "real" conservative, and by extension a "real" American. The scars of decades of marginalization are still there, and they have become an integral part of what it means to be a "real" American conservative: bitterness. 

Why the Bitterness (from the left)?

Democrats have of course fallen into a different sort of trap. Ostensibly, they have failed to hold power for long because they have taken for granted many demographic groups that have consistently voted for them, and ignored the rest. This may well be true enough. Liberal technocratic politics suggest that based on voting patterns, polls and other previously fool-proof predictors of election outcomes, a Democrat need only pay lip service to the growing minority and urban parts of their constituencies to win elections. And yet, Democrats don't have a governing mandate. The problem, of course, lies only partially in the ignorance of these groups. Democratic leadership has failed to see that the simple categorization of past voter, which was never representative to begin with, is completely inadequate for the demands of the modern voter. As the Democratic base has grown, it has become more complex, which makes the usual "the republicans are racists xenophobes" routine feel lazy and increasingly untrue. Is it really so shocking to Democrats that a much higher percentage of minority voters went to Trump this year than 2016? It shouldn't be, and it certainly would not be if they had done what they should have all along: actually speaking with voters. 

TNN: Trump News Network (coming soon!)

Mr. Trump's actions since election day reflect this pattern of pandering and alienation. His reflex to sue at all costs when things don't go his way undermines his populist message: a parade of expensive and yet comically inept lawyers (why do I have to keep hearing about Rudy Giuliani?) combined with a series of unserious lawsuits is wasting the time and money of Americans and the American judicial system. What is the endgame? My firm belief is that Mr. Trump does not think he can win, nor does he want to. He did not think he could win in 2016, and he did not believe he could win November 3rd. The demands of national representation do not suit him. He has lived in a cocoon of self-interest and ignorance for his entire life, and nothing seems to disgust him more than listening to (much less representing) people that don't share his views to the letter. Perhaps this is a good personality trait for a television personality or a real estate investor, but not one that makes an acceptable president. What he will do when the dust settles is create what he has been angling to create since Obama made fun of him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011: a news network that will cater completely to the most faithful consumers in America: bitter conservatives.  

So Who Lost, and Who Won?

My sincere hope is that the days of people like Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi having a major impact on American politics is over. This year's election cycle has been a repudiation of them both: congress moved to the right, and the White House went to the left. Blathering tweets, grandstanding and obstructionism were voted out, but the question remains: what has been voted in? Will Joe Biden be able to be the president he apparently wants to be, at least partially bridging the partisan gap? He may well try, but he has much work to do. Few can deny that he was not a particularly compelling candidate. Though he appeared willing to distance himself from both fringes, particularly on the Green New Deal and coal, he will almost certainly yield to his party's pressure to move left on issues before he moves right.  On many occasions he was his usual bumbling self, inviting mean-spirited mockery as well as legitimate questions about whether a seventy-seven year old can handle perhaps the most stressful job in the world. 

2022

There are two directions in which we can move in the coming years. The first is towards an extremist arm-race that sees the pendulum of power swing farther and farther away from the center. The Tea Party, the Squad, Gingrich and Palin, AOC and Pelosi lay out a road map that leads to the most vocal and bitter portions of our politics leading us in directions that fewer and fewer of us want to go. In this scenario, nothing gets done, and no one is happy except those who enjoy seeing the other side upset. I could very easily see both parties, particularly the Republicans, splitting into centrist and populist factions that will open the door for minority leadership. That would be a meltdown of representative government that will light the "I-told-you-so" fires under the butt of every authoritarian regime that wants us to fail, and fail spectacularly. Our second option is to take the last four years as a lesson in what Americans really expect from their representatives: moderation and representation, not pandering and grandstanding. The outrage machine will churn more slowly, and Media's desire to catch our attention with bullshit will be tempered by our collective exhaustion. Celebrities and similarly shallow-minded observers of American politics will find politics boring again. Donald Trump will make a new season of The Celebrity Apprentice, starring the small army of people that he fired while he was in office. I'd watch it. 

Theodore Roosevelt

    Perhaps the biggest disappointment of Theodore Roosevelt's life was that he was not president during a war. He unabashedly loved war. A passionate student of history, TR knew that the path to the immortality that he craved inevitably wound its way through many battlefields, and he did all that he could to make it so. His advocacy for America's involvement in the First World War had perhaps no contemporary equal, even as it pulverized an entire generation of young people and took the life of his favorite son. "It's rather up to us to practice what father preaches," is what Quentin Roosevelt said when asked about his father's attitude towards war. The wreckage of Quentin's downed plane in 1918, as well as German soldiers posing with his mangled body, eventually made their way back to Theodore, but apparently had little noticeable affect on him. His was a generation that experienced the transition from war as a limited, heroic affair into a machine-age death trap, and recognized the transition far too late. In other arenas, Theodore Roosevelt was similarly of a different age, but, as he said, he was always "in the arena" and never sniping from the sidelines, and that is worthy of great praise. In this era of reexamining our traditional historical icons, what can modern America say for Theodore Roosevelt? What do our modern ethical scales Do we stand a chance of understanding any historical figure with the nuance and context that every person deserves? 

    "Teedy" Roosevelt was born in 1858 on Manhattan Island to Theodore ("Thee") and Mittie (nee Bulloch) Roosevelt and grew up a sickly, timid child with few prospects for any physical accomplishments. His extended family was irreparably split by the Civil War - Mittie was a Georgia Native, and Thee reluctantly paid a substitute rather than fight his wife's family - and one of Theodore's clearest childhood memories was watching Lincoln's funeral procession from his parents' apartment on 5th avenue. His family's summer home in Oyster Bay, Long Island, called Tranquility, gave birth to TR's love for nature, and he spent most of his young life believing that he would one day become a biologist. 

     While his appetite for learning grew into a life-long love affair with literature of any kind (his is purported to have read nearly three hundred books a year), he was threatened with near invalidity by his severe asthma, for which the accepted treatment of the time was near invalidity: little physical exertion of any kind. Perhaps the most consequential conversation of Theodore's early life came when his father bucked contemporary medical consensus and gave him a blunt assessment of his physical prospects: "You have the mind, but you haven't the body. You must make your body." Teedy's relentless exercise regimen and overall constancy of physical and mental activity, which he called "The Strenuous Life," did in fact defeat his asthma "make his body," as his college boxing career can attest to. 

    Roosevelt's outsized personality characterized his Harvard days: he was known to sprint across campus and frustrate his professors with lectures of his own during classes, but eventually won the grudging respect of his classmates. During his time at Harvard, Theodore met Alice Hathaway Lee and relentlessly courted her in a way that was customary in their day, but would likely make modern readers squirm (Teddy was not one to take "no" for an answer). His advances were eventually rewarded and they were married. Theodore tragically lost both Alice and his mother within hours of one another in 1884, a loss from which Theodore never fully recovered. He named the baby girl Alice, but could only rarely bring himself to say her name from the pain his wife's memory brought him. 

     Roosevelt eventually sought comfort in the bleak landscape of North Dakota in an area that is now a national park named after him. Though his ranching business venture failed, Theodore gradually won the respect of more experienced ranchers much the same way he had in college: through a "strenuous life" that few could match. Edith Carow, Theodore's childhood friend, would become his second wife shortly afterward, and though Edith probably was intellectually Theodore's equal, she would content herself in her children and domestic life throughout their marriage. 

     On domestic issues, Roosevelt took his cue from Thee and lived out the "Nobless Oblige" ideals of public service on the part of those who had much. His early public career saw him rise to become a member of the New York state assembly, New York Police Commissioner and then United States Civil Service Commissioner. He was an idealistic man living in decidedly unidealistic times - graft, nepotism and an overall resignation on the part of civil servants to the pressures of unjust dealings with the public was threatening to destroy common Americans' relationship with their government. 

    It was, However, a ripe opportunity for the ambitious Roosevelt, and his famous late-night haunts of New York alleyways in search of corrupt policemen rather than criminals reflects high standards and commitment to honest government that were both tone-deaf and admirable. He was able to cut through the moral cynicism of his day using the same willpower transformed his feeble body and won the love of his first wife. Bram Stoker expected Teddy would be president because he was a man "you can't cajole, can't frighten, can't buy." 

    Nobless Oblige, of course, implies a power-dominance relationship that both modern and past Americans find distasteful. He appealed to Americans from all walks of life, but Roosevelt held a deep conviction that he and his family belonged at the top of the socioeconomic food chain, and that his duty did not extend to actions that threatened that position. In tours of New York tenements led by his friend and famous photojournalist Jacob Riis, Roosevelt felt that while much could be done to help close the economic gap between slum-dwellers and his own class, the issue stemmed primarily from inferior breeding and racial inferiority. 

    Roosevelt's foreign policy began when he led an eclectic group of hand-picked soldiers during the Spanish-American War, earning himself and his "Rough Riders" fame in a foolish but successful charge up San Juan Hill. His account of the Rough Rider's exploits was so centered around himself that humorist Finley Peter Dunne famously quipped that instead of "The Rough Riders", a more appropriate title for the book would have been "Alone in Cuba." 

    While president, his approach to relations with our southern neighbors followed a similarly self-centered, paternalistic pattern. In Central America, Teddy was determined to "speak softly and carry a big stick," which often entailed treading on the sovereignty of other nations in order to promote America's interests in the region. In Panama, TR instigated a revolution in which pro-American freedom fighters toppled the established regime, allowing America sovereign control over the canal zone both during its construction and a future 63 years until it was returned to Panama in 1977. In his 1904 Corollary to the Monroe doctrine, Roosevelt sought to esablish America as the only nation capable of weilding the "big stick" that was needed to fend off European imperialist interest in South America and the Caribbean. 

    In many ways, Roosevelt's foreign policy fits into the turn-of-the-century Anglo-American global perspective. TR, in short, considered the "White Man's Burden" an indispensable part of the "Strenuous Life." I find in his sentiments a genuine concern for the well-being for humans, but comparatively little regard for human rights. A more cynical commentator might assert that the high-mindedness of TR's goals in Latin America were a thin veil for economic imperialism, but I would say that is unlikely. Based on his temperament, upbringing and political actions, I believe that Roosevelt genuinely felt that the imposition of Anglo-American values would benefit Central Americans. 

    To be sure, his vision was broad, but his methods were narrow, and his ability to be influenced by non-like minded people ensured that they remained narrow. Much in the same way that he felt warfare was essential to national vitality, so did he feel about American expansionism. Without new lands in his beloved Western US to conquer, hearts and minds abroad would have to become the new Frontier of Americanism, and Theodore Roosevelt, ever the student of history, saw himself as our Julius Caesar, with the people of Central America playing the part of the unfortunate Gauls. 

    The onward march of civilization and the subsequent destruction of traditional cultures has created a rift between the West and its former imperial holdings, as well as a rarely productive discussion within the Imperial powers themselves about how to deal with their complicated legacy. Perhaps the only president whose administration caused more damage to our relationship with Central America is James K. Polk, whose role in bringing about the Mexican-American War gained us the Southwest and the everlasting suspicion of Mexico. 

    TR embodies paternalistic Western Culture: confident, outward-looking, relentless, and often tone-deaf. Few can reasonably defend his forays into the affairs of other nations. While I believe TR himself would honestly say that he did not wish it to be so, his foreign legacy is one of imperial exploitation and economic subjugation. Our comparatively distant relations with our southern neighbors can reasonably be said to have their roots in TR's presidency. It must be said, however, that scorn for his clumsy foreign policy and off-putting domestic motivations must be tempered by his "Strenuous Life" ideals and outward-looking nature that I believe are at the heart of the American Character in the 20th Century. 

     Even his views on the beneficial aspects of war on the national spirit have their merit, not inasmuch as they are a fact, but in that they describe the way that crisis and struggle can act as a needed bonding agent for the modern nation-state. Much can be said by psychologists about the affect that his father's decision to forego military service had on Theodore. Had come of age twenty or forty years later, we might think of Theodore Roosevelt as one of America's great war heroes, living out the vocation in which he took the most pride. 

    He is a complicated person, as we all are, who strove to be the first true American Renaissance man, and few can deny that he at least comes close. Perhaps Teedy's legacy is represented best by his beloved National Parks, which he rightly felt were a tremendous gift that should be preserved for Americans regardless of background, but that should be under the care of enlightened (and preferably white) people, and by no means the property of the natives, whose culture and ancestral beliefs were largely swept away by the the combined weight of Theodore Roosevelt's personality and his country's cultural biases.

Lessons from the Confederacy to Aspiring Revolutionaries

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." 

The words of a true, committed revolutionary giving voice to the feelings of his followers. The man who spoke these words was a person who struggled through setbacks and overwhelming odds knowing that he would ultimately be vindicated by history, but almost certainly not in his lifetime. His sentiments, often articulated in surprisingly quotable speeches, will continue to be debated for as long as the history of America survives, but few can deny his singular and unwavering commitment to his cause. It is a commitment that many have shared: the commitment of a political martyr who felt that though their cause was misunderstood, unpopular or even hated during their lifetime, the passage of time would ultimately reveal the truth in his words. These words could have easily come from Marx, Robespierre, Spartacus, or Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the man who said these words was Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America. 

The Impossibilists

All revolutions will suffer from some degree of sectionalism, but Jefferson Davis learned that the fierce independence of its components made Confederate experiment untenable almost from the start. This should surprise no one; the Confederacy was based in a radical form of self-determination, which made central leadership virtually impossible, and without central leadership, winning a war is impossible. "Impossiblilists," led oddly enough by Davis' own Vice President Alexander Stephens, represented the part of the Confederate conscience that was most pure: anything that could be construed as centralization was to be fought as viciously as the Union invaders. They reasoned that if they were to resort to the tactics of the hated federals to win their independence, they had replaced one autocracy with another. Confederate governors famously hoarded supplies and otherwise undermined Davis constantly, almost certainly contributing to their own demise. It is an extreme example of the lack of coordination and common purpose that has doomed many revolutions before and after the Confederacy, and hindsight seems to indicate that many Confederates cared little if they were doomed: they had their pride, and by 1865, that was about all that was left.

The Lesson: Sectionalism will kill your movement. Success will be impossible without clear, attainable goals, and yes, you will have to surrender much of your autonomy, and perhaps even your principles, in order to be successful. Choose a (1) leader, and find a comfortable balance between holding them accountable and supporting them. A casual observer should be able to ask just about every member of your movement what you are fighting for and get a satisfactory answer. If the average person cannot understand your goals, they are probably a too abstract to be practical. Genuine unity will give your movement sustainable momentum, but reactionary violence and infighting, no matter how justified they may seem, will make you look disorganized and immature.

Sherman

For many Southerners, William T. Sherman has come to personify the repressive and Imperial spirit of the federal government. American military historians seem to half-heartedly credit Sherman as the bridge between the old and new military conventions of what is acceptable in warfare, and it is a badge that "Old Billy" wore with pride. Sherman laid waste to entire regions of the South, most notably in his "March to the Sea," in which he and his army cut a swath of destruction through Georgia and the South Carolina that encountered little organized resistance and brought the war up to (and often across) the doorstep of the Confederate Heartland. Though it was far less ruthless than Davis and his compatriots would have us believe, Sherman was genuinely ruthless, and in fact was at the cutting edge of the terrible kind of total war that characterized the 20th century. When asked to justify the savagery, Sherman would answer that a terrible war is a short war, because unlike the confederate firebrands mentioned above, most people prefer "subjugation" to utter destruction. It's cold, and certainly not a high moral standard, but one that is reasonable.

The Lesson: Do not expect quarter from the "establishment." Even the most high-minded social orders in the world will not give up their position to a new one without a fight. You have chosen for yourself an uphill battle, so prepare for one. 

A Confederacy of the Mind

Another quote that is revealing about Mr. Davis' worldview is his insistence that he and his compatriots were "fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination, we WILL have." This was a common theme among confederates: an almost visceral aversion to compromise. Southern "Chivalric Culture" glorifies a romantic, almost medieval dedication to preserving one's honor, and our Civil War gave Southern men and boys the perfect opportunity to test their honor, though it was usually tested on empty stomachs, shoeless feet and little sleep. Shelby Foote described Davis' commitment to this belief in purity of the struggle as "putting a blind telescope to his eye": he and his people had chosen a very narrow path, and would see even the most trivial obstacle as one that was beneath his honor to even acknowledge. It is a feeling that, upon reflection, should feel very familiar: compromise with the enemy is tantamount to defeat. In circumstances where lines have been crossed and blood has been spilled, that feeling will be almost impossible to overcome. Davis of course cast the mental struggle of the South in racial terms, going so far as to classify descendants of Puritans in the North as a race predisposed to subjugate others. I suspect much of that was genuine, but it was also a shrew political move that dehumanized his opponent and made any compromise a virtual impossibility. 

The Lesson: Seek compromise, and don't be afraid to be flexible. Creating an adversarial situation will feel right and gain you support, but it will hurt your cause. Dehumanizing your opponent will make bringing them to understand your position impossible, and will almost certainly harden their own views. Never forget that your opponent is a person, and as such is capable of changing and improving, in whatever way you characterize as "improvement." If you take the Impossibilist approach of shirking compromise at any cost, do not expect success.

The Lost Cause

Following the fall of Mr. Davis' government in 1865, a combination of many factors led to the creation of the "Lost Cause" myth, this being that the principles for which the Confederacy fought were just (and perhaps divinely sanctioned), and that a series of schemes undermined the morally, spiritually, and racially superior Southern nation and caused its demise. The popularity of this narrative is proof that history is not written by the victors, history is written by the people who take the time to write the history. In the case of the Civil War, it was the descendants of Confederates who appear to have taken up this endeavor most earnestly following the war, and through their work this myth of the Lost Cause dominated the national discussion about Civil War History. Though it strikes many as delusional and perhaps a bit silly, it is a sentiment that is shared by all revolutions: a blind faith in the justness of one's cause, and the confidence that all setbacks in the fight for that cause are temporary.

The Lesson: Learn from your failures. Steadfastness has and always will be an admirable trait, but when it distorts your ability to question your own motives and tactics, you will sounds as silly as the Lost Causers. No matter how difficult you battles are, never allow failure and humiliation to turn your idealism into thirst for vengeance and deflection of blame. People who affect lasting change accept responsibility for their failures and don't continue to make mistakes under the pretense of being "determined" or "committed."

The Statues

During the early 20th century, it appeared that perhaps the seeds of the Southern cause had only been thrown on poor soil, and just needed a bit of tending to grow and bear fruit. During our current national "discussion" about public monuments to Confederate leaders occasionally references the fact that almost none were erected before the person they immortalized was long dead. (Personally, I very much doubt that R. E. Lee and most other confederates would be proud of a statue commemorating his participation in a war that he lost, but I'm prepared to be corrected). Recasting (literally) Confederate leaders as gallant, underappreciated heroes reflects what I think is a uniquely American tendency to love the underdog, and to interpret failure as a result of government oppression. Confederate apologists have, to their credit, played the underdog card perfectly, and have created a groundswell of support for giant pieces of metal that few cared about ten years ago.

The Lesson: History does not change, but circumstances do. It is the constant  reexamination of history that makes it useful, even when the stones we overturn show us ugly truths. Expecting perfection from historical figures according to modern social litmus tests is a bit silly, and all revolutionaries should be as ready to consider the merits as well as the defects of those who have earned historical recognition, but taking down statues is not "rewriting history". We should all bear in mind that those suddenly beloved Confederate statues were erected almost entirely in the 1920's and 30's Jim Crow-Era South, which I don't think is worthy of anyone's support. Eastern Europeans tore down statues of Lenin, Iraqis tore down statues of Saddam. Certain things are meant to be changed.  

"Truth crushed to dust is truth still, and like a seed will rise again." More of Davis' words that every revolutionary should read both in and out of historical context. Perhaps the best advice any student of history can give to those who want to affect change is this: always question your own motives, and always take responsibility for your words and actions. I offer these suggestions not to discourage or chastise the energetic and politically zealous among us, but only to give some appropriate and (hopefully) helpful remarks, and perhaps to revel in the sunshine of a society that at least feints interest in so dry a topic as its own history. There are plenty of things that are worth struggling, fighting and dying for, but they are all impossible to channel into lasting social change without rigorous self-reflection. As the embodiment of the Confederate conscience (past and present), Jefferson Davis was almost entirely incapable of a lack of this type of reflection, and that, probably as much as the laughable military and economic odds, led to his downfall. My sincere hope is that in the future, the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy will not be crushed into historical dust, and I do not expect that it will. There are at least 650,000 reasons why the Confederacy and its principles, however removed they are from modern sentiments, will always be part of our history. 

Freedom and Public Health

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing." Abraham Lincoln said that in 1864, a historic time that provides very useful insight into our current situation. While it is not quite fair to equate our current issues with our Civil War, we still cling to our freedom in similar ways that Americans did in 1864. We are a free country. To many we are the free country. And yet freedom doesn't seem so cut-and-dry anymore. Fear is strangling us in ways few of us ever imagined, and in ways we can't even agree upon. A concern for health, both our own and of others, can have that effect. Mr. Lincoln lost two sons at early ages to illnesses that at the time were not understood. I suspect that he, like any other father, would have taken every possible precaution to prevent that, including changing his definition of freedom. It seems that we now have what we need to prevent hundreds, perhaps even thousands of deaths. Why is there pause? Why is there debate?

I find that if pressed on the issue, most Americans mistrust scientists and other "educated" people for one reason or another. What makes those people unworthy of trust is a discussion for another time (smugness?). The products of their labor, however, seem to have gained our approval. Scientists invented light bulbs, guns and hay balers and just as they invented cell phones and the internet. These are things we build our lives around and depend on. But now scientists are almost universally telling us to shut down our statistically stellar economy. To some, their work is suddenly flimsy, or overblown, or part of an immense conspiracy to redo 2016. It's a contradiction that we Americans wrestle with every day, because we love our myths. And to be fair, it's very satisfying and comforting when we have conspiracies and myths and plain bad feelings to fall back on when the facts give us answers we don't want. It happens every day, on both sides of the political spectrum. But the real question we're facing now is this: will we still feel satisfied when we stuck to our guns and stuck it to the elites, but caused people to die? We can't ask him, but I suspect I know what Mr. Lincoln would say.

Our president and many others appear at the moment to be chastened by the sheer numbers of our problem. After downplaying it, Mr. Trump now speaks in superlatives about the seriousness of the situation. He stands shoulder-to-shoulder with a doctor, making joint statements about how to save the country from what could become its worst economic and social disruption since the Great Depression. And yet, references to the "deep state" and complaints about democrats still slip through. It is a clash of two very serious realities: hard, unavoidable, scientifically proven facts, and the American talent for constructing sometimes self-defeating myths.

Most of us can understand the economic argument. While (almost) no one will admit that they would put people in danger to preserve bottom lines, what will be the impact of the huge spike in unemployment that will likely worsen with each day of a nationwide lockdown? Are we ready to trust doctors with our freedom? What will be the cost if we pretend that this is just like the flu?Another tough nut to crack. Thankfully, every prediction model indicates that cases will eventually level off, and then fall. Despite "essential"  businesses staying open (is the stock market really "essential"?) and in fact begging for new employees, unemployment is almost sure to reach very uncomfortable levels. If the situation drags on for months, will businesses be shuttered because they can't pay property taxes or rent? Plenty already have. It is not hard to see that we will almost certainly need a federal solution to such problems. But that is both politically risky for a conservative president and almost unprecedented.

We have already seen congress throw caution to the wind and cut us all a check for over $1,000. Will congressional and presidential necks continue to be bared for the sake of holding us over? They don't appear to have much of a choice, though every measure will erode a bit of what we currently define as economic freedom. Will that be acceptable? It might have to be, but I doubt it will be enough. I would define our economy is the collective will of people to work hard, not a temperamental gas engine that needs a little priming before it can get itself chugging again. It will take more than that. Many people are about to experience a particularly un-free feeling when their stimulus check is gone and unemployment benefits don't quite cut it. There will have to be a great deal of bootstrap-pulling and belt-tightening before we can get back to the good old days of 2019. We are approaching lean, uncertain times economically. I hope that one product of this crisis will be that after a period where so few of us are being productive, we will gain a renewed understanding of what it means to work. Maybe we will find that we are not as productive, hard working, or free as we would like to believe. Maybe that is our most cherished myth? I'm not sure.

Much ink will be spilled trying to predict x, make sense of y, etc. I do not envy the policy-makers. I personally have a lot more questions than answers. My job was one of the first to be deemed "non-essential." Maybe the most alarming part of this is that we are now in a situation where maybe the most important decisions of this entire crisis need to be made with the least information we will have. In fact, the time to make the most meaningful changes may have already passed. So what will sustain us? A check for a thousand dollars? The destruction of the political establishment? I'm not sure. Reagan and Buckley would rightly swell with pride if they could see the solidarity and grace many individuals and businesses have exhibited without the government's say-so. Karl Marx would be thrilled to see our newfound appreciation for our "essential" workers. Can we be so silly as to hope for an acceptance of common ground between the two?

In short, our idea of freedom appears to be at a crossroads, but what we almost certainly cannot do is stand pat and hope for the best. What Mr. Lincoln called the "dogmas of the quiet past" appear to be inadequate for what we are currently facing as the numbers continue to tick up and the situation becomes more and more difficult to understand. Every person who chooses to disobey the guidelines for social distancing/hoarding/etc., regardless of their reasons (economics, stupidity, delusion, etc.), will force our government to make increasingly uncomfortable decisions about what will be enforced, as well as how it will be enforced. Tanks will roll, tear gas will fly, and weekend warrior militia folks in Idaho will finally get their "I-told-you-so" moment about federal overreach. Whose fault will it be? Will the mental gymnastics undermining the response effort be worth it when thousands of people are sick and dead and we're living under martial law? I certainly hope that's hyperbole. I pray that it is. But I'm not sure.

The Ethics of Climate Change