Salon.com > Nancy Isenberg

He predicted today’s GOP… in 1895

Wed, 29 May 2013 14:00:00 +0000

Sam P. Jones was an influential southern evangelical at the end of the 19th century, and one of his pieces in June 1895, published in the Biloxi Herald, was titled “Scandalmongers.” In his folksy style, Jones categorized three types: “the cowardly scandalmonger, who by innuendo drives his thrust and probes with his bill”; “the talkers of a community. Their tongues are ten feet thick and a thousand miles long”; and finally, those who “sit in the sanctum of newspaper offices, and wield a pen dipped in gall.” Altogether, these various scandalmongers were “vultures which feed on human character and soiled reputation…. Taste for tainted meat can be cultivated until it is more desired than fresh meat.”

Seizing on the Benghazi tragedy, IRS probe, and whatever else they can get their claws into, today’s Republicans on Capitol Hill and the outraged echo chamber at Fox News are vultures of the breed Sam P. Jones saw in the political world of his day. The fresh meat they have no taste for is what we might call productive reform legislation, which their diversionary tactics prevent from being put front and center. The vultures feed instead on rotten issues like abortion (how many babies did Planned Parenthood kill today?) or dismantling Obamacare before it can do good, put government in a positive light, and lead to further reform of a system that is stacked in favor of private insurance companies.

GOP’s backward sexual politics

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:00:00 +0000

Long before Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Sen. David Vitter, Abraham Lincoln paid prostitutes. And he contracted syphilis. Long before -- and here you can supply whichever name comes to mind first -- James A. Garfield was a great womanizer, who told his wife (repeatedly) that it would never happen again. The two presidents did not have to face the press and answer questions about their private conduct –- and it’s not because they were assassinated first. Nineteenth-century voters did not know national politicians in the intimate way we’re getting to know the private predilections of ours. So while it’s true that the media of that time didn’t stalk candidates in the ravenous manner it’s done today, in most other respects, the moral definitions of the 19th century are still very much with us, and we seem oblivious. It’s not just the 1950s the Republicans wish to return to -- they’re actually stuck in the 19th century.

Sexual politics are changing, but we don’t see it happening. Gay marriage acceptance is one -– right now, very noticeable -– part of it. We are at a turning point, with or without a Hillary Clinton presidency. In her new, attention-grabbing book, "Lean In," Sheryl Sandberg points out how backward our country remains insofar as women are still being evaluated by more rigorous standards, and men are still given to commit acts that would not be tolerated from women occupying the same position.

The problem with first ladies

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:08:00 +0000

“We use Ann sparingly now, so that people don’t get tired of her–or start attacking,” said business-savvy Mitt Romney to his big money backers on the now infamous videotape. You have to “use” your wife on the campaign trail–she’s auditioning for first lady. But you don’t want to saturate the market with too much Ann, or people will stop liking her. How revealing.

On a daily basis, she has to prove that she loves children, pets, and warm and fuzzy, kid-centered holidays such as Christmas and Easter. But she’s smart, she knows the ways of the political world, and she can’t help every once in a while getting bored reading stories to second graders. She wants to tackle a social problem. She is unelected yet supremely influential. People everywhere are conflicted over how the first lady is meant to fulfill her duties.

In part, the national missus is supposed to help us forget that every administration is knee-deep in who-knows-what. Her job is to accomplish two things at once: project buoyant enthusiasm and an air of dignity; know how to be girlish and how to look serene in a gown. If the presidency inspires awe full-time, she must aim to symbolize grace full-time.

America’s worst historians

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:00:00 +0000

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes when he directly borrowed John Locke’s ideas and language to declare the principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But, by definition, we could call what he did plagiarism.

The major moral lesson to be taken from the Fareed Zakaria scandal is not what the media focused on this past week. Yes, he lifted material concerning the long, mostly unknown history of gun control, and he did so transparently. Even if he hadn’t been obliged to come up with an article for Time on a short deadline, he would still have taken more or less the same steps, and for a reason that, on the surface, makes perfect sense: The history he needed to tap into was too involved for someone trained as a journalist to investigate in depth.

Michael Barthel’s probing piece in Salon about transparency and credibility in the Internet age aims at the heart of the problem. But for professional historians, there’s more to it than the cut-and-paste freedom that the Web invites. Plagiarism is both a broader and touchier issue than most people imagine it to be – outright “copying.” It is ultimately a question of originality.

Santorum mangles the Founding Fathers

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:45:00 +0000

Each time presidential candidate Rick Santorum rears his righteous head, it is to exploit a social issue that is of no import in a national election. But he knows that the way to keep the cameras pointed at him one more day is to manufacture a new bit of hysteria.

Last Thursday, Joan Walsh reported on Santorum as he clamored to punish non-Catholics by limiting their access to contraceptives if their workplace was in the hands of the Catholic Church. She rightly pointed out that he “absolutely mangles” what the founders said about religion. Raising the specter of the atheistic French Revolution and its notorious use of the guillotine, the former Pennsylvania senator planted a seed in the minds of his hearers: A left-driven tyranny was where the anti-Christian Obama administration would be heading next.

The fear-monger tosses out familial metaphors with devilish glee. At once subverting patriarchy within the home and turning the federal government into Big Brother, the sitting president stands in moral opposition to all that is good. And only the moral policeman Rick can stop him.

The trouble with “values voters”

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Having previously taught for some years in Cedar Falls, Iowa, we can claim up-close knowledge of a culture that the media has inspected, prodded, polled and broken bread with, day after day, for many months. The Iowa caucus has revealed a widespread affinity for “family values” – who would’ve thunk it? Or maybe it’s as predictable as the pledge of allegiance.

Rick Santorum’s fireside sweater vests won in Iowa. Santorum’s family man uniform vied successfully with Mitt Romney’s mechanical corporate image, Ron Paul’s icy charm, and Michele Bachmann’s 6,000 foster children. Portentously (and meaninglessly) defining his campaign as the “cause of liberty,” Santorum ended his valedictory speech after midnight the same way he began it: talking about his wife and kids and “the dignity of the womb.”

Less than a few good men

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:00:00 +0000

You’ll find lurking in every media-maximized sex scandal a man who feels himself in one way or another above the law. Look up “smug” in the political dictionary, and if the first entry isn’t Herman Cain, it will probably say Newt Gingrich, who eagerly pursued Bill Clinton concerning morals charges that may have paled in comparison to his own contemporaneous straying problem. Oops.

Now, let’s compare the other headline-grabbing sex shocker of the week: the concealment by Penn State University of Jerry Sandusky’s alleged fifteen-year rampage, in sexually abusing young boys. There is a common thread between the sordid Sandusky business and Herman Cain’s outrageous behavior when confronted with charges of serial sexual harassment: Power and the belief in one’s invincibility make for a dangerous elixir.

The question that these stories of sexual misconduct raise is a peculiarly American one: Why do our people handle such episodes so badly? The answer lies in the public’s inability to reconcile an admiration for powerful men and powerful institutions with its inevitable consequence of corruption. Blind trust and unalloyed admiration create the atmosphere for abuses of power, for covering up misconduct, and even excusing it when it is revealed.

An unlikely role model for Obama

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:15:00 +0000

We present a parable of sorts, about a president who learned to overcome his reluctance to confront Congress and went on to earn a prominent place in history.

As our 44th president, a one-time constitutional law professor, knows well, the framers intended for Congress to be the most active branch of government -- they were far more afraid of executive tyranny than filibuster. This explains why James Madison, the fourth president, and the authority on the sacred secular text hammered out by compromise in Philadelphia, proved himself a most dynamic force as a representative from Virginia in the First, Second, and Third Congresses of the United States. But once he was elected president in 1808, he became a mild, even weak national executive.

Like 44, 4 was rationally and not emotionally driven. Two hundred years ago today, he was finding it near impossible to extricate himself from a looming war of questionable value to America’s national interests; and in his first term, the House of Representatives did more to direct the course of human events than he did.

Sarah Palin’s vacation from history

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:50:00 +0000

On MSNBC's "Hardball" Tuesday night, Chris Matthews ended the show with an extended comment about Sarah Palin's crude concept of America. "I don't think she's at all interested in American history," he said, characterizing her as a professional troublemaker.

Well, of course she's not interested in American history. Hearing her stumble over her words as she mangled the story of Paul Revere was depressingly familiar. As history professors specializing in the Revolutionary era, we have heard our share of students returning muddled answers to basic questions. The difference between them and the former half-term governor, though, is that they are generally careful not to embarrass themselves. When they haven't read the assignment, they'll lower their heads and pray the professor doesn't see them. If called out, they'll promptly admit to a lack of preparation and promise to get their act together. Few of them ever plunge into the great unknown, and flail away, as Palin does routinely, with an off-the-wall answer, followed by a next day do-over amid protest that the professor didn't get what she meant the first time. College undergraduates possess at least a modicum of self-respect.

Is Obama “American” enough for the far right now?

Wed, 04 May 2011 14:45:00 +0000

Now that President Obama and his national security team have proven their mettle in pursuing and finally eliminating the supreme Islamic terrorist, a question arises: Will the not-insignificant chunk of voters who have rejected the president's basic legitimacy -- expressing skepticism about the circumstances of his birth in the face of conclusive proof that he was born here -- be more likely to view Obama as "American" now?

On CNN’s "Reliable Sources" over the weekend, Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson suggested that the birther movement may not be about race. She compared the buzz around the issue to those conspiracy-minded individuals who tied Bill Clinton to the "murder" of Vince Foster in 1993 -- an observation that other have made as well. It just seems too easy to describe the ruling passion of those who label President Obama a secret Muslim (or, to recall Mike Huckabee’s infamous slur, a Kenyan revolutionary), as strictly racist. History, though, yields enough clues to suggest that journalists who look for alternative explanations are wrong.

What they really mean by “American exceptionalism”

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:30:00 +0000

Newt Gingrich can't get enough American exceptionalism. In "A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters," due out soon, the former House speaker and prospective Republican presidential candidate gives a new definition to the term, linking it directly to conservatives' understanding of the importance of the individual relative to the power of government. "That is why President Obama and the Left hate American Exceptionalism," he writes. They hate it because it stops them from expanding government power? That’s a pretty crazy argument.

Gingrich holds a Ph.D. in history, so he shouldn't mind if we investigate where the notion of American exceptionalism came from as we track what it has come to mean. Let’s begin with some early examples of the phenomenon:

In 1771, Connecticut clergyman and future Yale president Timothy Dwight published a poem that spoke to a continent's promise. "AMERICA’S bright realms arose to view, / And the old world rejoic'd to see the new." The newness of America, its unexplored expanse, produced a kind of ecstatic expectation among Revolutionaries, which enlarged as Britain acknowledged independence in 1783. In that year, another of Yale's presidents, Ezra Stiles, proclaimed that a "great people" would arise in America; and that by the year 2000 they would outnumber the Chinese, as a nation "high above all nations which [God] hath made."

James Madison would be horrified by Peter King

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:01:00 +0000

Today -- Wednesday, March 16 -- James Madison is 260 years old. Despite the natural abundance and rich panorama that surrounds the grave site on his estate of Montpelier, he rests uncomfortably. Like his central Virginia neighbor and political alter-ego Thomas Jefferson, he felt that his greatest achievement lay in the realm of freedom of conscience. Religious pluralism was the centerpiece of their combined vision for America. Of course, these same two men, tolerant of religious difference, waged war with Muslims -- but not with Islam.

There is a dual lesson in recalling what Madison and Jefferson did in embracing freedom of religion while sending warships to silence pirates and bullies on the shores of Tripoli. Their prescience may surprise you.

Echoes of "what the founders believed" reverberate all the time, especially coming from the lips of those with axes to grind who are seeking scriptural support from the Constitution. Take the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Long Island congressman Peter King, who opened his remarks last week on the threat posed by radical Islam by charging "special interest groups" with having caused "hysteria" in anticipation of the extended hearings he is now orchestrating. Actually, he has it backward. Hysteria is what he is feeding.

Still lying about history

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:20:00 +0000

Surprise! Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has put his foot in his mouth. His impulse when confronted by reporters earlier this week was to refuse to condemn those in his state who would resurrect the infamous Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, slave trader and Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and put his image on a commemorative license plate. "I don’t go around denouncing people," Barbour said.

Nostalgia for the "War Between the States" is a fact of American life. But Barbour’s failure to do the right thing comes close on the heels of another embarrassing episode in which the onetime chairman of the Republican National Committee claimed that racial segregation and violence had not marred his hometown of Yazoo City, Mississippi during his younger years in the 1950s and early 1960s.

The reason for Barbour’s latest gaffe is that his Tea Party constituency wants to "take the country back" to Nathan Forrest’s time, Reconstruction, when something “had to be done” to arrest the trend of Black Republicans undermining the power structure of the white South. The Obama administration is the perfect foil: A liberal black man from the Land of Lincoln (or maybe Africa?) is imposing the heavy hand of federal authority on the "prostrate" South all over again.

What Michele Bachmann doesn’t know about history

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:01:00 +0000

At a rally last week, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann playfully confessed to having campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Waiting for the laughter to subside, she went on to say that it was as a junior (elsewhere she has said senior) at Minnesota’s Winona State College, sitting on a train and trying to work her way through Gore Vidal’s 1973 bestseller, "Burr," that she gave up on the volume in her hand and all at once converted to the Republican Party. Vidal’s book was, Bachmann asserted, a founder-hating tome, apparently so violent in its anti-American rhetoric that it redirected her whole system of belief.

Here is how she put it: "He was going after our founders, and he was mocking them, and he was making fun out of them." Loosely based on historical events, "Burr" is purely fictional and fairly cynical, though the critics in 1973 found it quite entertaining. The novel does suggest that the founders were complex, calculating, and not always morally upright–in other words, that the politicians of old were not entirely unlike the politicians of today. But what could possibly have led young Michele, in 1976-77, to see the Republican Party as the moral antithesis of the Carter Democrats, or the Democrats reflected in a "snotty" historical novel?