I also remember a lesson I learned from him, not directly, some years ago. He was sitting on a panel of historians. One of the others made a point and Ellis stopped, thought a few seconds, and said, "I didn't know that." What a lesson that was for me! Joseph Ellis admitting he didn't know something about early US history--and he knows everything about early US history. I have remembered that or at least tried to remember it.
Ellis has a new book out, which I'll have to buy. (Maybe that will be on my very short Christmas or birthday list!) It's an attempt to examine what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison (all Founders and Superstars!) would think of the divisive issues of today. (Please pronounce divisive's second syllable with a long, not a short i, as in "duh vy siv." I know, I know......) It's an interesting concept and use of history, one that helps to explain why it is important to study. Yet, the high regard I have for Ellis hasn't precluded me from taking exception to or at least questioning some of the ideas in his book, ones he presented in an interview.
He claimed our current problem/issue with divisiveness stems from how the US has grown. "It's a size problem." He cited the original population of the US (three to four million) vs that of today (325 million) and trying to do something original, something that has never been done (or even attempted) before, to "create a fully and genuinely multiracial society in a huge nation." Well, maybe. I'm not sure what he meant by "multi-racial" and, besides, I thought we were aiming for a post-racial society. That is, shouldn't the goal be to get beyond race, where it doesn't matter any more? Perhaps that is what he meant and I misinterpreted his comment--perhaps.
I think he left out something, an important factor in our current divisiveness--technology. It has exacerbated (I had to use that word; how often do I get to use it?) the problem. Without a long treatise on it, think "social media" and how it has opened many forums for even the most dreadful of ideas, often ones that, because they are in print/online, are taken as legitimate by millions of people. "I saw it online" or "I found it on the Internet."
In discussing the Founders, he cited that "We the People" didn't refer to blacks, Native Americans, and women. Of course he is right. But then he added that is going to "disappoint" Americans. Maybe not. The Founders were brilliant. Look what they created, with no model from which to work, to emulate! Of course, they weren't "our better angels." They were humans and, despite their foresight, products of their times. Also, they were compelled to compromise to achieve much of what they did. Maybe today we are sophisticated to recognize that.
"The Electoral College has got to go," Ellis said. He noted that the Founders would want us to see our Constitutional system as something organic, that we "have to make adaptations." Of course we do. How very different the late 18th Century was from today! Could the most brilliant and far-sighted of the Founders, say Franklin, Jefferson, or Dickinson, have contemplated automobiles, jet airplanes, the Internet, etc.? Surely not. The Electrical College [sic] was created for a purpose and I think that it still serves that purpose. One might disagree with it, but care must really be taken before we might make it "go," with a Constitutional amendment. Methinks Ellis's problem with the Electrical College is that his candidates lost in 2000 and 2016.
He missed a point, a big one, in claiming reasons for Americans' distrust in their government. In the '60s, 80% of us "trusted" our government, namely the federal government. That changed within a couple of decades, a distrust still holding today, perhaps as great as ever. Fewer than 20% of us now trust our government to do the right thing(s). Correctly, I think, Ellis cited the deviousness and lies surrounding the Vietnam War. But then he also claimed that the civil rights movement "alienated whites in the Confederacy" (a poor choice of words) and that Roe v Wade "alienates all evangelicals." NO! NO! NO! He omits an important factor or two.
First, he didn't make the connection between the falling degree of trust and the growing size of government. "Big Government," the one that ordered, deliberately, the poisoning of American citizens during Prohibition, is seen as an enemy by many Americans, especially those in the middle and lower middle classes. Second, if the civil rights movement "alienated" people, it wasn't just Southerners in "the Confederacy." And it wasn't the civil rights movement, per se, not in the long run. (The civil rights movement was a great episode in US history. People like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks--"Rosa, you know they'll kill you," pleaded her husband--and others showed remarkable courage.) It was what emanated from the movement. One example is affirmative action, necessary to some, but resentful to many, especially white males.
I think Ellis, in his answers to the interview questions, revealed a little of the arrogance of liberal academics described by David Gelernter. Note his use of "the Confederacy" and "the evangelicals," deplorables all. Such use sure seems a derogation.
I'd love to have a discussion with Ellis about this. First though, I should read his book, which I plan do do. I'm very certain I would learn a lot from him.
Hold on to your seats! I'm going to take a hard left (or right, it doesn't matter; it's not political) turn now. Late last week, I think as an introduction to one radio talk show or another, I don't recall which one, I heard something really, really cool. It was a symphonic version of Eric Clapton's Layla. I was very impressed. It sounded great! Then a few days later there was the Stones' Paint It Black, symphony-style, with strings and horns and all! I'll have to look online to see if there are CDs of such hits played by symphonies. There must be. Remember Procol Harem and Conquistador with the Edmonton (Canada) Symphony?
No comments:
Post a Comment