Our Big Brother

To begin with, I don't propose to soft-pedal my view of the National Security Agency's program of essentially unrestricted scrutiny of Americans' private communications.

The Constitution envisions no such sweeping governmental powers.  The regime of internal intelligence established and maintained under the Patriot Act - with the active participation of Presidents Bush and Obama - has no place in a free society.

But the Bush-Obama national security state - and yes, I've coupled their names - demonstrates the manifest willingness of both political parties to disregard individual liberty in the service of what President Eisenhower would surely have termed the "military-intelligence-industrial complex".

Let us call the NSA snooping program what it properly is - part of a Bush-Obama policy which also includes the use of drones to assassinate suspected terrorists - occasionally including American citizens; the perpetuation of imprisonment without trial at Guantánamo Bay; extraordinary rendition; and other gross breaches with our proud tradition of ordered liberty.

And it's nothing new.  We can add a dozen years of post-9/11 "extra-constitutional" behavior to decades of snoopery and police excesses resulting from our eternal War on Drugs.  A "war" which - while doing almost nothing to make drugs inaccessible to American consumers - has contributed immeasurably to the development of intrusive technologies; enriched narcotics rings and private prison companies; undermined the integrity and professionalism of governments, judicial systems and police forces around the world; and, of course, continuously nibbled away at our Bill of Rights.

As with the War on Drugs, both political parties, and the corporate elites for which they labor, have readily accommodated themselves to the increased power - and money - associated with the so-called War on Terror.  (A nonsensical term which is the logical equivalent of a "war on flanking maneuvers".)

The War on Terror is Big Government with a vengeance.  One would almost say, Big Brother.  The setup is perfect.  The enemy is invisible, amorphous and - for all the drama of its occasional successes - of extremely limited capability compared with, say, the Soviet Union of the 1960s. 

We declare war against such an ethereal enemy which - having no territory or regular army - cannot, logically, be finally defeated.  To our Oceania, "Drugs" have long provided a reliable Eastasia.  Since 9/11, "Terror" provides a nifty Eurasia.  (If you are groping for the references, it's time to re-read 1984.)

Our political classes love "wars" like this.  Wars which cannot be won - and thus, cannot be ended - are an ideal distraction from the business of solving problems which can be solved, but only by making difficult political choices.

A dysfunctional Congress and an aimless administration may be unable to reform the tax code; limit the impact of money in our elections; control health-care costs or the rising cost of college education; or do anyhing meaningful about global climate change - but they can look like they are doing something by making billion-dollar gestures in their two favorite, unwinnable wars.

And if the result is a continual erosion of our civil liberties and personal privacy, what is that to winning the next election?

So it's no wonder Congressional leaders of both parties are hyperventilating over Ed Snowden's whistle-blowing.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom I have long admired, completely jumped the shark when she added her voice to the likes of Speaker John Boehner in calling Snowden a "traitor". 

The fact is that Snowden - whatever his personal motives - has done us all a great service.

A debate has now begun in this country.  If we do not quickly lose interest, as we are wont to do - we may soon learn a good deal about what the government has been doing under cover of protecting us against its favorite Enemy. 

And whether we are still a people who value our liberty - even when we are asked to exchange it for the will'o'the wisp of safety.

Syria: Exiling Hope

So now, it appears, Russia is shipping more than anti-aircraft missiles to their Syrian allies.  Some reports have the Putin government sending in anti-ship missiles, as well, a move which could neutralize the use of American carrier-based aircraft to impose a no-fly zone - or knock out Syria's air assets in advance of a boots-on-the-ground intervention.

The prospect that America could be militarily checkmated by a has-been superpower is hardly surprising.  The Russians have always been chess-masters, and President Obama's strategic instincts seem to stop at the water's edge.

If a Russian gambit proves the beginning of the end for Mr. Obama's dithering approach to the latest Middle Eastern crisis, it might actually be for the best. The President has never understood the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.  Perhaps it's time he just stopped trying.  Dealing with obstructionist Congressional Republicans is challenge enough for a President rapidly molting into a fairly lame duck.

But we shouldn't allow the collapse of Mr. Obama's wishful Syrian moment to pass without noting the core weakness of his strategic analysis - one which he shares with his predecessor and most of official Washington.

Among America's élites - political, intelligence, military, academic, media, etc. - it is a point of pride to know the names and résumes of the key players in some troubled part of the world.  These data are common currency among the people who are supposed to count inside the Beltway, on campus, and in think tanks scattered across the land.

In other words, the people who regard themselves as key players here in the United States are distinguished, in large part, by their ability to throw around the names of supposed key players in other parts of the world.

It's their version of sports-talk radio, Hollywood celebrity gossip, or the non-stop stock tips of CNBC.

It should be kept in mind, however, that America's élites govern through the acquiescence of millions of citizens who prefer to leave politics alone - but who have, periodically throughout our history, roused themselves to reform our institutions when the arrogant classes get them sufficiently screwed up.

The power to reform our political, social and economic institutions - while potential - always resides with the citizenry - and particularly with the anonymous, well-educated productive middle class.  This truth lies at the heart of all modern, developed societies.

Increasingly, across the planet, it is becoming clear that the people who really count - in almost every society - are the educated, industrious professionals, small businessmen, and entrepreneurs.

This trend has been developing since the Europe's late Middle Ages.  The very development of the modern nation-state has depended less upon kings, lords and generals than upon a slow, steady progress toward competent internal administration, the rule of law, economic development, the decline of hereditary and corporate privilege,  and the moderation of religious fanaticism.

And this progress, in turn, has rested with the  anonymous men and women who have worked, year by year, for the slow accumulation of those institutions which characterize modernity.

In the past century, this trend has become globalized.  Yet, for all that, our own arrogant classes - fascinated with their opposite numbers in other societies - invariably fail to grasp the transformational nature of this shift.

They prefer to trade on the celebrity gossip of key players.

Like calls to like.

But a picture of the world in which key players are truly "key" is no longer accurate.

Allow me to elaborate.

For some centuries now - at least since the invention of the printing press - the world has been gradually becoming more democratic.  Now, by "democratic", I don't mean to suggest something in the ideal, Athenian sense - but democratic in the sense that ultimate power no longer resides with the relative handful of people we identify as key players.

It resides, rather, with a larger number of middle-class people about whom we know far too little.

And this is not news.  Imagine that, around 1765 - as the unpleasantness over new taxes was breaking out in the colonies of British North America - someone at Whitehall had though to conduct an inquiry into the names and politics of the key players in the thirteen colonies.  Would that inquiry have discovered the leaders of the revolutionary effort which would erupt ten years later?

Impossible.  Among the names of loyal key players  - colonial governors, judges, functionaries, and aristocratic landowners - Ben Franklin's name would certainly have come up.  George Washington, the wealthy commander of Virginia's colonial militia, might have rated a mention. 

But most of the future leaders of our Revolution were barely out of school.  In 1763, Thomas Jefferson - soon to write what has been called the greatest mission statement in world history - was but twenty-two years old. 

Since 1776, despite most of human history's greatest butcheries, human progress has generally come through the discoveries of scientists and engineers - and through the mostly non-violent demands of an aroused, educated middle-class.  This has been especially true when that middle-class took the trouble to rally the support of the working class.

Gandhi proved the potential of non-violent action - as did Dr. King.  Peaceful demand for reform, led by the educated, industrious middle-classes, has transformed nation after nation.

Just two decades ago, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded suddenly, and mostly without violence.  In east Asia, the change has been more gradual - but steady.

Similar changes have since taken place in many parts of the developing world.

Now comes the Arab spring.

A regime as repressive as North Korea's may deprive its people of modern technology, delaying the process of change.  But elsewhere, change has become the defining quality of our times.

And it is only reasonable to suppose that - In Syria, Iraq, even Iran - progress, when it comes, will come through educated, globally-minded professionals and business leaders who seek to transcend tribalism and religious fanaticism in favor of a modern, pluralistic society.

We forget this at our peril. 

President Bush ignored it in Iraq.  America's occupation of Iraq resulted in a civil war which empowered the worst elements of sectarian bigotry and overall medievalism - and caused the mass emigration of exactly the people Iraq needed in order to transform itself into a modern society.

By trying to avoid the risks of intervening in Syria, President Obama is making the same mistake his predecessor made.  He is ignoring the needs of the middle class.

President Obama, of all people, should recognize the power of these anonymous, productive classes.  In 2008, the key players of Democratic politics expected Senator Clinton to be their nominee.  If Senator Obama had built his strategy on key players, he would still be a Senator.

But since his election, the President has forgotten where his power lies.  He can blame most of his domestic frustrations on his failure to trust, educate, and mobilize middle-class Americans who are thoroughly sick of the key players of both political parties.

The same can be said of his policy in the Middle East.

In the long term, the process of rebuilding Syria as a modern, pluralistic - perhaps, someday, democratic - nation depends upon Syria's aspiring, upwardly-mobile middle and working classes.

Which is to say, it depends less upon who wins the present civil war than it does upon ending the destructive chaos which is driving those classes into exile.

The people who really count in Syria are not the key players known to our military, intelligence, diplomatic, academic and media elites.  They are the nameless bankers, doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs who - given stability and half a chance - would slowly move their society toward modernity.

We should have had their backs two years ago.

Let's hope it's not too late.

Game Changer

By now, most Americans who don't live in a cave have heard something - however vague - about MOOCs.

MOOC is short for "massive open online course".  Several consortia offer these courses - Coursera being perhaps the best known.

Coursera offers college-level content to anyone with access to the internet, at no cost.  Outstanding professors from major research universities - Stanford, Princeton, Duke, etc. - deliver the lectures, but this isn't just a new way to watch lectures online.

There are readings, quizzes, short papers to write - even discussion groups. 

All online.  All free. 

There is, to be sure, a paid option.  For a small fee, you can sign up to get a certificate at the end of  the course.  For now, these certificates are worth the paper they're printed on - but that's changing.  Recently, the American Council on Education approved five courses from Coursera - three math, two science - for college credit.

We're entering a new era here.

In practical terms, a person who simply wants to learn - without worrying about getting a piece of paper - can now design a program from top universities and acquire that education for the cost of a broadband connection - or a lot of coffee at her neighborhood wi-fi location.

Or, for absolutely nothing, at the public library. 

I've written about MOOCs before, but that was before I had actually looked into them.  Last week, I enrolled in a ten-week Coursera offering called "Climate Literacy:  Navigating Climate Change Conversations", taught by two professors from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Sara Harris and Dr. Sarah Burch.

I've gotten through Module One, which was pretty basic, and Module Two, which was a good deal denser - mostly science, some it pretty technical.  Overall, the first half of the course is about science - then the focus switches to public policy.

My point is:  This is not fluff.  It's a college-level course.  You have to work at it. 

I've yet to decide whether to do all the assignments and earn a certificate.  If I opt in, it will cost $39.

Think about that.  A college course, from a very good university, for 39 bucks.

I'm trying to imagine how this doesn't change everything.

To be sure, MOOCs are new, so there are bugs to work out.  And most of the offerings are STEM stuff - science, technology, engineering and math.  It will be a few years before you can do the equivalent of an English major this way.

But consider what this could mean - if we do it right.

For the public schools - especially those which can't afford to offer higher-level STEM courses - MOOCs could represent a legitimate way for promising students to take those courses.  To be sure, accommodations would have to be made - such as hiring a teacher, perhaps from a nearby college, to meet with the students weekly and make sure they're on-task and not falling behind. 

For the home-schooling community, MOOCs could offer the answer to the difficult challenge of preparing older students who are ready for subjects their parents simply can't teach.

And for every serious high school student, MOOCs will soon offer a way of dealing with the frustration of an important course taught by a teacher who - whatever his intellectual attainments - just isn't a good classroom teacher.  Enduring the bad lectures might be unavoidable, but in her spare time, a serious student can get what she's missing from a top-flight, university-level instructor.

MOOCs will also offer wonderful possibilities for adult Americans - and even seniors.  For some years now, I've been involved with Adventures in Learning at the Shepherd's Center of Chesterfield - an educational program for active seniors.  I'm sure most of the Shepherd's Center's small, hands-on programs will continue just as they always have - but I can already envision what might be done for scholarly types by combining a MOOC with a weekly discussion group.

The biggest changes will probably come on our college campuses - and this is a topic worthy of exploration in-depth.

For now, I'd like to close with my appreciation of the course I'm presently taking. 

My regular readers will know that I have long been persuaded that the scientific community knows what it is talking about - and thus, that global climate change is real, largely human-caused, and deadly serious.

I've read a couple of books on the subject, and I really enjoyed Al Gore's documentary.  But I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand the science all that well.

I've just trusted the scientists.

Now, thanks to Drs. Harris and Burch, I'm starting to understand what scientists have known for a while now - and why they are deeply concerned, but hopeful that it's not yet too late.

This is a great MOOC. 

That's a phrase we're going to be hearing a lot more in the future.  

... or Get Off the Pot

I suppose that, deep down, the President is waiting for a miracle in Syria. 

Maybe the Syrian rebels - our guys, not al Qaeda's guys - will win a smashing victory,  oust Bashar al-Assad, and establish a stable, pro-American government.

Maybe the proposed peace conference will actually meet, overcome the unanimous desire of its participants to slaughter each other, and hammer out a coalition government fairly representing all of Syria's races, religions and interest groups.

Or maybe the American people will, without guidance from their political leaders, arrive at a consensus which permits Mr. Obama to act boldly - if action contingent upon polling data can ever be said to be bold.

Personally, I think he's just dithering - something this President has elevated to a Zen-like practice.

As for miracles, I'm guessing the Middle East used up its allocation several millennia ago. 

And if anyone wants what Sir Winston would have called my appreciation of the situation, it's this:  Syria is descending from one circle of Hell to the next while the world's only superpower wrings its hands and hopes for the best.

It's time for America either to act - or to declare that Syria is none of our business and turn our attention to other things.

Please understand.  I'm not at all sure we should concern ourselves with Syria.  To be honest,  I'm more interested in issues such as global climate change; the widening gulf between America's 1% and the rest of us; corporate domination of politics in the Western democracies; and the Cardinals' latest winning streak.

Besides, a war which boils down to enraged Middle Eastern tribes butchering each other over obscure ethnic and sectarian differences seems to me - while regrettable - pretty much a case of "dog bites man".

It's an over-populated planet.  Every little bit helps.

Still, it's impossible to pretend that America has no stake in the matter.  Syria isn't a big country, but it's strategically located.  Like much of the Arabic-speaking Near East - Syria is a society fractured into so many groups that it may well be unable to function without an imperial overlord or a murderous strongman.

America's most significant interests would include these:

Syria has chemical weapons, and a demonstrated willingness to use them.

Syria borders Israel.

Syria has its tentacles in Lebanon - a state which, left alone, might actually be capable of returning to a condition of advanced civilization.

Perhaps most importantly, Syria is a client of our local nemesis, Iran, and of our re-emerging would-be nemesis, Russia.

Given the limits of present-day technology, relocating Syria so that it no longer abuts Israel seems a non-starter.

On the other hand, a reasonably good outcome in the current civil war might well address the remaining issues.  Certainly, a more tractable government in Damascus might conceivably cool Syria's relations with Iran and Hezbollah, the most dangerous Islamist group in the region.

A new government installed with active military assistance from the United States might even allow us to draw Syria's chemical teeth. 

Moreover, America's stakes continue to rise.  Russia has pledged to provide anti-aircraft missiles to the Assad regime, and that's not something we should stand for.  Russia is a country we should be cultivating as a potential long-term partner - but its evolution toward democracy and the rule of law have been interrupted by the perpetual presidency of Vladimir Putin.

As long as Putin can ignore his country's urgent needs - by rallying nationalist nostalgia for the good old days when the Soviet Union was a super-power - Russia will remain stuck in the mud.

So there's a strong case to be made for resisting any attempt by Putin to make a big show in foreign affairs.  Syria represents a chance to take him down a peg, and such a chance shouldn't be missed.

Likewise, Hezbollah has committed to sending fighters into the Syrian conflict - which gives us a legitimate opportunity to kill them wholesale.

Hezbollah is a tough bunch, and sending in our troops against them would result in significant American casualties.  But in armed conflict, I'd bet on elite US Army and Marine units - with good air cover - against Hezbollah.  And taking a crack at exterminating Hezbollah - a finite force in a small, well-defined area - seems a lot more realistic than chasing the Taliban around the trackless mountains and valleys of Waziristan.

There's another issue - to my mind, the largest issue - and that's the demographic impact of civil war on Syria's future.  But that issue is so unfamiliar - because so often ignored - that it deserves its own post. 

For now, my message to the Obama administration would be this:  Dithering is not prudence, or patience, or doing your homework.  Dithering is dithering - and it's the diametric opposite of leadership.

It's time for Mr. Obama to do something ...or get off the pot.

The Internet Illusion

There are times when I enjoy playing the curmudgeon.  (Heaven knows I'm getting old enough.)  So let me just say this upfront.

You can't change the world online.

In recent months, I've grown increasingly grumpy with well-intentioned people who seem to believe you can.  As I write this, I've just gotten another plea from the President's "grassroots" campaign - Organizing for Action - to sign its petition demanding that the Senate pass stronger background checks for weapons purchases.

I'll probably sign, but not before I finish this curmudgeonly grumble.  Because America's progressives and liberals need a serious reality check.

For the last few weeks, it seems like every third person on my newsfeed has posted some expression of outrage that the Senate ignored the wishes of 90% of Americans in order to satisfy a small minority opposed to background checks.

Note that word "wishes".  

Because there's a vast difference between the wishes of a majority and the will of the people.

Wishes are for greeting cards and animated kiddie flicks.  Will is about commitment, sacrifice, and hard work.  About having some skin in the game.

It's becoming increasingly easy to express our wishes through such ephemeral means as internet petitions.  And powerful interests will occasionally deign to grant a token victory to such wishes - reversing an ill-considered personnel decision or adjusting some obnoxious policy or rule.

Something that doesn't cost much.

But when real power, or serious money, is at stake, the people who run things will yield only to the aroused, stubborn, persistent force of the popular will.

And that's much harder to come by.

In the case of background checks, the opposition consists of a small minority of Americans - perhaps three to five million citizens.  But if those opponents make up only a small percentage of voters, they have the advantage of being focused, single-issue voters. 

Any incumbent who displays less than 100% loyalty to their definition of Second Amendment rights can be certain of facing their wrath.  They will vote, and raise money, and work assiduously to defeat that incumbent in the next election.

They might be a tiny minority, but they have will.

And our Senators understand that.

Imagine, for a moment, an equal number of well-organized citizens on the other side - absolutely dedicated to eliminating assault-style weapons, or banning large ammo clips, or imposing mandatory background checks.  Citizens willing to do whatever it took to defeat any Senator who refused to vote their way.

Then we'd have a fair fight.

But that's not America in the Age of Obama.  On a host of issues - gun control, environmental protection, marriage equality, reproductive rights, etc.  - genuine liberal/progressive activism is hard to find.

We've substituted virtual activism - and that's not the same thing.

In America, power comes from electoral majorities - not from polls, online petitions, or changing our profile pics. 

Power comes from winning elections - and not just Presidential elections.

It comes from winning congressional elections, legislative elections, even those seemingly trivial local elections in which future governors, senators and presidents get their start.

It comes from finding good people and turning them into candidates - for every seat.

And those candidates don't have to be Democrats.  Independents will often do just as well, or better.

Winning elections requires, above all, three raw materials:  money, manpower, and expertise.

Since Howard Dean's insurgency, in 2004, political campaigns have learned how to raise money online.  But to date, there's no internet substitute for manpower - the boots-on-the-ground, door-to-door, retail politics that wins elections.

America's liberal/progressive forces need an army of citizens willing to put in the hours, pound the pavement, and cope with snarling dogs and slammed doors.

Citizens who realize that changing America requires more than sitting in a coffee shop, sipping a latté, and double-clicking on an internet petition.

For therein lies the danger.  The ease, convenience, and potential anonymity of online petitions and other such expressions have deluded too many into believing they have actually taken action - when all they've done is make themselves feel better.

Real-world politics takes very little account of facile gestures.  It demands commitment - the choice to get into the arena.

The rich, the powerful, the bigoted, and the profligate will yield only to superior force in the form of millions of mobilized voters.  Wishes will not suffice.

And really, that's as it should be.  Whatever your specific cause - sane weapons laws, stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, legalizing same-sex marriage, or restoring a society where any child can aspire to rise as far as her abilities and efforts can take her - it should demand real sacrifice.

In historical terms, despite occasional presidential elections, America's liberal/progressive forces have been in retreat for the past four decades.  Only by educating ourselves, sharpening our arguments, mobilizing our forces, and doing the hard work - for any one issue - will we fit ourselves for the countless other battles which need to be fought.

It's about building character, and teamwork... 

And will.  Real change demands real commitment.  It demands an act of will.

We can build a future worthy of our past, and worthy of our promise.  But wishing won't make it so.

And now... Syria?

The Obama administration is engaged in the sort of mental gymnastics it usually adopts before making a big decision.  The administration is "discovering" the shocking fact that Syria's ruthless autocrat, Bashar al-Assad, has been using chemical weapons against his own people.

Claude Rains did this routine much better in Casablanca.

Before the rebellion, Assad was a brutal dictator.  Once it started, he had no qualms about using artillery and air-strikes against civilians.  Why would he stop there?

The administration wants to treat chemical weapons as a "bright red line"- but really, does it matter to a mother whether the immediate cause of her child's death was an explosive or poison gas? 

The Obama administration talks about "war crimes" - which is not an irrelevant point in the legal and diplomatic aftermath of war.

But whatever might be said of ancient warfare, when brave men faced each other breastplate to breastplate, modern warfare is mostly about random destruction and the death, dismemberment, and displacement of innocents.

All wars are crimes.

The best policy is to fight them only when necessary - and then, fight them as quickly and successfully as possible.

From the beginning of the Syrian uprising, it's been clear that American troops would eventually be called upon to end it.

Israel could do it, but only at the price of stirring up every lunatic in the world's biggest outdoor madhouse.

Europe should do it, but Europe can't decide where to have lunch.

Russia, as usual, is on the wrong side.

So it comes down to us.

Why should we care?

One reason:  In modern history, the longer a rebellion goes on, the more certain it is that ruthless, fanatical bastards will rise to the top. 

Americans tend to forget this.  Our great experiences with revolution both ended up with Virginia gentlemen - George Washington, Robert E. Lee - as the most visible figures on the rebel side.  Those were old-school revolutions - largely fought by men in uniform who conducted war by a set of rules.  Guerilla warfare and terror were exceptions. 

Those days are gone. 

It's true that, today, revolution can often be achieved without firing a shot.  When that happens, the new order is sometimes led by civilized men and women.

But once it comes to slaughter, the work of toppling the old regime usually ends up in the hands of warlords, butchers, racial bigots, or religious fanatics.

And we don't need that.  Syria is too strategically placed.  And it does have those chemical weapons. 

None of that seems central to the President's thinking.  He's obsessed with public opinion and his own strange set of internal rules.

So America's official position has gone from cheering from the sidelines to providing slowly increasing amounts of  "non-lethal aid" to those rebels it identifies as "good guys" - as opposed to al-Qaeda-affiliated "bad guys".

Now, it appears, we're providing minimal training to some of the "good guys" at undisclosed locations in Jordan.

And the administration has begun talking about chemical weapons and "red lines".

So off we go again, winding our way down a long, twisting path to war.  Pretending that there is some tidy test for deciding when an evil regime has proven itself sufficiently evil to justify sending our soldiers into harm's way.

There is no such test. 

The decision to go to war is not a judicial process.  It's a strategic decision - and an act of national will.

In the case of Syria, the United States would be better off acting to end Assad's tyranny quickly.  And that's the only consideration that means anything. 

As a human being, I care whether Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.

But as an American, that's a minor consideration.  The world has any number of vicious tyrants.  It's not our job to depose them all.

Syria matters - to us.  But if we go into Syria, we must go in with a strategy.

We should go in fast.  Arrest - or, preferably, shoot, the key members of the old regime. 

Destroy all stocks of chemical weapons.  And leave.

I'm no Napoleon, but it seems to me that - when we invade a foreign country with no recent history of the rule of law, individual liberty, or elected self-government - we should just take out the bad guys and go home.

With the message that, if that country ends up with another hostile tyrant, we'll be back to do the same to him. 

That's what we should have done in Afghanistan. 

Assuming we went in at all, that's what we should have done in Iraq.

Nation-building has nothing to do with it.

Now, if some country invites us to help them build a modern nation - without having to invade - I'm fine with that. That sort of nation-building is worthy of America.  We might even learn something.

But building a nation among people who have known only tyranny, oppression, or tribalism - that's making bricks without straw.

We should have learned that by now.

Research

A few months ago, while writing at my usual Staunton coffee shop, I had the good fortune to encounter the board of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and Museum.  As a result this happy accident, and the brief conversation that ensued, I realized that - in the company of these avid Wilsonians - I had come dangerously close to exhausting my knowledge of our 28^th President. 

It’s humbling, at my age – after a substantial career teaching US History - to realize that such a gap exists in one's knowledge.  I've always loved the Progressive Era, yet somehow, I had never paid sufficient attention to Wilson.

Looking back, I can attribute my relative ignorance to having studied the Progressive Era under a professor who – while an exceptional teacher – was also a prominent biographer of Wilson’s great rival, Teddy Roosevelt.  Still, the intervening forty years have been mine.  I've had ample opportunity to redress the imbalance in my undergraduate education.

My ignorance of Wilson’s life and presidency could be laid to no one but myself. 

Taking my encounter with the Wilson board as a sort of nudge, I did some quick research and quickly identified John Milton Cooper’s 2009 biography as a promising way to begin my atonement.  I downloaded the book to my Kindle. 

And I’m very glad I did.

Despite its length, Cooper’s biography proved a fine read.  It flew by like a well-written novel, leaving me with the indelible impression of a complex, brilliant statesman whose career ended in frustration and failure – but whose administration proved the nursery to a generation of young leaders.

It was Wilson who first brought to Washington such young talents as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Felix Frankfurter - to say nothing of the sage Louis Brandeis.  The New Deal would be largely populated by Wilson's bright young men.

Reading Cooper's book with such satisfaction induced me to dig deeper.  I dusted off long-neglected copies of James Chace’s 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs, The Election that Changed the Country and Noah Feldman's Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices,  a quadruple biography of FDR's four greatest judicial appointees.  Both of these excellent books have given me additional insights into the Wilson's legacy.

So it’s been off to the races for me.  I find myself in the midst of a self-directed, one-man graduate seminar on the Progressive Era - and the more I read, the more I realize how desperately other modern progressives need to do the same.

In grossly over-simplified terms, the early 20th-century Progressives were the forerunners of today's liberals - with this difference.  They were far more serious about understanding the causes of economic imbalances - not just the symptoms.

They also debated, in presidential campaigns, the failings of capitalism, and the possible remedies therefor.  Theirs was no simplistic shouting match over whether they should be more or less regulation.  They weighed the merits of regulation, public ownership, restoring competition by breaking up large combinations - even the miraculous possibilities of informing the public!

In short, they treated their fellow citizens as participants in a national dialogue - not rabid fans in an eternal two-team competition.

The Progressives moved beyond the agrarian Populists of the late 19^th century and the labor-oriented socialists and anarchists of their own times.  Progressive leaders were mostly educated professionals or genteel “old money” aristocrats.  Though they fought for the rights of farmers and laborers, they hoped to do so by modifying capitalism, rather than trying to abolish it.

But they were not shy about criticizing capitalism - or questioning its permanence. 

They simply preferred to see whether it could be fixed.

Thus, while they were disenchanted with the savagery of unrestrained corporate power, the Progressives did their intellectual homework.  They studied social and economic problems at a depth, and with a sophistication, that puts modern liberals to shame. 

This is why they deserve to be studied. 

To be sure, studying the past is no substitute for activism in the present.  But there's no point reinventing the wheel - and the Progressives have already done a lot of the intellectual heavy lifting for us. 

Moreover, perhaps because they lacked the “advantage” of today's social media, the Progressives avoided the modern tendency to expend their energies talking amongst themselves.  Theirs was a generation of activists – and therein lies their greatest lesson for their modern descendants.

In this space, I will continue to think and write about the need to organize a third party as an option to the existing duopoly.  But if I could do no more than to convince a fraction of my readers to take up the study of the men and women who fought our battle a century ago, I would be satisfied.

By a curious coincidence, I was thinking of the Progressives the other night, when I took a few hours off to re-watch the first part of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

For the first time, I was struck by the power of Jackson’s flashback to the great final battle of the Second Age, during which Isildur cuts the One Ring from the hand of Sauron – then fails to throw it into the fires of Mount Doom, ending the Dark Lord's malignant power for good.

Today's liberals and progressives are somewhat like Tolkien’s heroes of the Third Age.  Once more, we find ourselves embattled by the same dark forces which our ancestors failed to finish off in another time.

We can learn from their mistakes – but there is also much to be learned from their genius, their courage, and their example.

We must study the Progressives.  They have so much to teach us!