Colonel Roosevelt

With Colonel Roosevelt, Edmund Morris has finally finished his three-part biography of Theodore Roosevelt. Morris’ first book, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, traced Roosevelt’s rocket-like ascent from New York assemblyman at age twenty-three to vice-president at forty-two in the McKinley administration (less than a year later, Roosevelt became president when McKinley was felled by an anarchist’s bullet). For Rise, Morris was awarded a Pulitzer.

Theodore Rex examined Roosevelt’s presidential years, with specific attention given to Roosevelt’s attitudes towards race, the U.S. involvement in the separation of Panama from Colombia and the subsequent building of the Canal, and Roosevelt’s work as a negotiator between Russian and Japan in 1905 (for which he won the Nobel peace prize).

Colonel Roosevelt, published in 2010 and nine years after Rex, picks up the narrative of Roosevelt’s life in April 1909. After serving the remainder of McKinley’s term, Roosevelt won the 1904 election in a landslide victory over Democrat Alton B. Parker. In 1908, Roosevelt refused to run for what would essentially be a third term, declaiming that it would be presumptuous to break Washington’s precedent.

After eight years in the choking dust of Washington’s political climate, Roosevelt-at age fifty-departed in the spring of 1909 for an African safari with his son, Kermit, along with a retinue of attendants, guides, and naturalists. Eleven months hunting in Africa proved that Roosevelt had not lost his skill as a hunter after eight years as a politician: T.R. shot and killed 9 lions, 8 elephants, 6 buffalo, 13 rhino, 7 hippos, 3 pythons, 6 monkeys, and over 150 antelope. Total animals shot: 296. (Morris, 26).

In March 1910, Roosevelt concluded his safari by chugging along the Nile River to Khartoum, where he re-united with Edith, his long-suffering wife. After stopping in Cairo long enough to gauge the precarious rule the British maintained over Egypt, T.R. and Co. steamed to Naples to embark on a grand tour of the principal European cities. Roosevelt had acquired an adequate use of French and German during his summers spent in Europe as a youth, and his status as recently retired head of state meant Roosevelt was greeted as a celebrity by most of the people of Europe. In France, Roosevelt railed against academic effeminates-it was at the Sorbonne that T.R. delivered his famous “Man in the Arena” speech to warn against ivory-towered intellectualism-and warned that declining birth rates could jeopardize Gallic culture and France’s ability to defend itself from potential challengers (i.e. Germany). In Germany, T.R. attended a review of the German army with Kaiser Wilhelm II, and in England, T.R. acted as the official representative of the American government at the funeral of Edward VII.

Morris goes on to provide a rollicking story of Roosevelt’s return to America and his re-entry into politics in 1912 as a progressive challenger in the GOP primary to an incumbent Republican president, William H. Taft. Roosevelt felt Taft, who had served as Secretary of War in Roosevelt’s administration, had betrayed his (Roosevelt’s) reform policies and pushed the country back towards a conservatism that favored business trusts, opposed women’s suffrage, and distrusted popular elections. Through a series of political maneuvers, the GOP was able to thwart T.R.’s campaign at the party convention, and the offended Roosevelt led an exodus of progressive followers out of the GOP to form the Progressive Party. If only Roosevelt or Taft had run and not both, Woodrow Wilson might not have been elected president in 1912. But with four candidates in the race (Eugene Debs ran on the Socialist Party ticket), Wilson swept to victory with a massive edge in the Electoral College (the popular vote was closer: Wilson with 41%, Roosevelt with 27%, Taft with 23%, and Debs with 6%).

It would be difficult today to place T.R. in our current political categories. Roosevelt was more than just a strong interventionist: he spoke of war in words that were by turn romantic in their glorification of death on the battlefield, and Darwinian in arguing that war helped a nation purge itself of unhealthy tendencies to sedation and softness. T.R.’s bellicosity would be anathema to the current Democratic Party, and yet his Square Deal and advocacy for the re-call of individual judicial decisions (!) at the ballot box would place him probably squarely between the two parties today.

From 1915-1917, Roosevelt strongly pressed the Wilson administration to prepare for war. When the U.S. declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, Roosevelt immediately began lobbying Wilson’s secretary of war to give Roosevelt a commission to raise a volunteer division for deployment to Europe. The administration tactfully refused the fifty-nine year old Roosevelt’s request. All four of Roosevelt’s sons would serve, three would be injured, and the youngest, Quentin, shot down and killed by a German pilot. The death of his youngest son in July 1918 was a terrible blow to Roosevelt, who died just six months later.

If you are interested in Roosevelt’s character, and especially his astounding ability to read, write, and work at a breakneck pace for weeks on end, I suggest reading The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. It is the best book of Morris’ trilogy, although all three are certainly worth reading.

Summer Reading

Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime (John Helemann and Mark Halperin). A #1 bestseller, Game Change is a fast-paced insider view of the candidates and their campaigns in the 2008 presidential race. Particularly fascinating is the chapter covering the Palin pick: the McCain people knew they had to create fireworks with the VP pick before Obama ran away with the election. Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty was the favorite of many in the McCain camp, but they went with Palin as the ultimate risk-or-reward pick. A key lesson of the book: Obama won not only because of a pliant and awe-struck media, but also because he and his aides ran a disciplined and focused campaign. Example: in their preparation for the vice-presidential debate, the Obama team created a mock debate hall identical to the real set on which the debate would take place. Jennifer Granholm was the stand-in Palin for Biden’s debate sessions; Granholm prepared by analyzing Palin’s Alaska debates, and then spending time debating a mock stand-in for Biden to prepare her for the “real” mock debates versus the actual Biden. Palin, on the other hand, spent days poring over dozens of index cards choked with basic information on foreign policy, economic institutions, etc, before the McCain camp in desperation finally had her dispense with the index cards, and instead had her spend the few days before the debate memorizing a set of rote answers to likely questions. Ironically, Palin still debated Biden to a draw, opening with the disarming, “Do you mind if I call you Joe?” line. All of which goes to show that Biden, with the better preparation, still missed the barn with a 4x4 while Palin displayed characteristic charm and poise on stage, her deficient knowledge of foreign policy notwithstanding. Game Change provides a few insights in the political strategies of the different candidates, but mainly it’s a fun tabloid book to read for the politically fervent, in the same way that I imagine People is engaging for the celebrity obsessed.

Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight (Karl Rove). A rollicking ride through Rove’s life and his years in the Bush administration, Rove’s memoir is a comprehensive and intelligent defense of numerous Bush policies and assertions-waterboarding, WMDs, etc- that are contemptuously dismissed as self-evidently false or immoral by many in the academy and media. A candid memoir, Rove talks openly about the contentious relationship between his own parents, and their struggles in life. Rove’s mother committed suicide in 1981, just seven years after her own mother had attempted suicide. Reading such painful details is a reminder that all political figures, whether we agree with their policies or not, are always mere men in need of redemption.

Samuel Adams: A Life (Ira Stoll, 2008). I seem to remember reading a glowing review of this book in The Weekly Standard. On the cover, Walter Isaacson, himself author of a critically acclaimed biography of Benjamin Franklin, says Stoll has done a “glorious job bringing to life” Samuel Adams role in the revolution. Balderdash, I say. A pedantic style, shoddy research, and a child-like reliance on secondary sources (particularly on McCullough’s John Adams) combine to make a pedestrian effort at capturing Adams’ life. Not that it’s a total waste of time; the book at least is able to provide the general cast of Adams’ life, and Stoll’s analysis of why Adams, considered by the founders as one of the most essential revolutionaries during the days of ‘76, has been passed over by modern historians, is worth-while. However, Stoll is no McCullough, even if Sam Adams is nearly as worthy a subject as his cousin.

The Power and the Glory (Graham Greene). A novel set during the days of the anti-clerical purges in early 20th century Mexico, Greene’s protagonist is a priest on the run from the anti-Christian fascist (communist?) government in power. The priest loves whiskey almost more than God, and is accepted by the villages because, well, all of the other priests have either been arrested or have fled the country. The vagabond priest, despite violating his ministerial oaths by having a child through an illicit affair, despite his near-compulsive need for whiskey, still believes in the faith delivered to the saints, even if he is certain he isn’t one.

The U.S. in Iraq

Here is a quick summary of two books on U.S. involvement in Iraq:

Joker One: A Marine Platoon’s Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood (Donovan Campbell). Ramadi, Iraq: population, 350,000. Heat waves that top 120 degrees, and a seven month long deployment. You are Marine Officer Lt. Donovan Campbell, Princeton grad and committed Christian, and your company is tasked with keeping schools open, water flowing, and roads clear of IEDs. I bought this book after hearing Campbell on NPR and reading an interview he did with World Magazine, and read it in three days. If you ever feel odd because it feels like our country is not at war, or if you just want to know what it’s like to be an American solider in Iraq, read this book.

The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq (George Packer). Packer, now a writer for the New Yorker, that most pretentious of magazines, writes both an autobiographical sketch of time he spent in Iraq covering the first period of the U.S. occupation and a sweeping overview of what strategic mistakes the U.S. made as it failed to win the peace as fully as it won the war. The book was published in 2005, two years before the surge, so many of the criticisms he makes have been righted at this point. The book is best read for its broad overview of the strategic assumptions that drove American policy in first years of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for its ability to give a visceral feel for what post-Saddam life felt like for many Iraqis.

Churchill and Nixon

Two biographies for your consideration: if you can only read one, read Churchill.

Nixon, vol. I. (Stephen Ambrose). Ambrose is well-known for his military dramas of WWII (Band of Brothers, etc), but he also wrote biographies of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Nixon is possibly the most vilified president of modern times, a man who normalized relations with China, ended the war in Vietnam, and presided over the Watergate scandal. In his first volume, Ambrose tells the story of a remarkably driven man who was elected to the House at 33 years of age, and became Eisenhower’s vice-president just six years later. Nixon would famously lose the 1960 presidential campaign to JFK, and then manage to also lose a gubernatorial bid in his home state of California in ’62. Amazingly, Nixon would rise from the ashes to win the presidency in 1968, completing a comeback unmatched in American political history. The first of Ambrose’s two-volume biography covers Nixon’s life up to 1963. Nixon is a fine summary of the most polarizing president of the 20^th century, and a helpful guide to the essential diplomatic questions of the 1950s. One of the more interesting sections covers Nixon’s work on the House Committee on Un-American Activities with Whittaker Chambers in exposing Alger Hiss in 1948.

Churchill, (Martin Gilbert). Gilbert is the official biographer of Winston Churchill, and, together with Randolph Churchill, has written a massive multi-volume work of W.S.C. The nice thing about Churchill is that it is a one-volume distillation (tho it still runs close to 1,000 pages) of Gilbert’s larger work. Here you get the essential outline of Churchill’s life, and what a life. Paul Johnson has written a much-lauded new biography of Churchill that runs much swifter 200 or so pages, so Johnson’s work might be the place to start. But I can’t believe Churchill could be described in so little space, since even Gilbert is often forced to cut things down to a bare minimum for his volume. To borrow Tom Wolfe’s phrase, Churchill was indeed a man in full.

Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley

A story of the flagraisers, not so much of the war itself, Flags of our Fathers looks at the lives of these immortalized men leading up to the occasion, and then the post-war effects of this unfair fame, as most of them would argue it was. While the flagraisers would deny that their presence in The Photo makes them heroes, and they would be right in such a denial, they are likewise weary of accepting the role of Icon, which role, in the grand scheme of things, is perfectly appropriate, and certainly needed at the time.

The writing itself is only tolerable. The story, though, is gritty and you won't walk away feeling like you had watched an innocent '50s war movie. The War was not innocent and neither is this book. It will give you reason to honor in your heart our American Warriors. For that purpose, I can recommend it to the interested parties.

Our friend Setiago has posted a list of books he's been reading, and give short, but helpful summaries of each book. Check out his blog at http://reflectionsandexhortations.blogspot.com/

1. Polk by Walter R. Borneman –a very informative and enjoyable read on President James K. Polk of Tennessee. Whether or not one agrees with Polk politically, he was remarkably successful in accomplishing his agenda. Another good point about the book is that while learning about Polk, one learns much about the history of the era and other important characters.

2. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill by Richard Labunski –a fascinating description of what took place to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Those who are Anti-Federalists can appreciate that the Bill of Rights was added by their insistence although some like Patrick Henry, a giant of orators, wanted more provisions.

3. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor –even for those not particularly interested in constitutional law, this book isn’t a waste of time. You may not agree with all the author’s assertions, but they make many good points and show how the Supreme Courts has often erred in its rulings.

4. Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876 by William Rehnquist –for those who gained political passion in Bush v. Gore in 2000, this book serves as somewhat of a prequel, over a century before. The late Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist writes in vivid detail of the disputed election of Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden and the behind the scenes work that went into the event.

5. Washington’s Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge by Thomas Fleming –this book fills in a gap of a lesser known aspect about Washington—he was a good politician and knew how to fight off his opponents who were jealous and tried to undermine him.

6. Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution—and What it Means for Americans Today by Thomas J. Dilorenzo –beware of reading this if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Federalist, although Alexander Hamilton went further in his views than a lot of other Federalists. This book explains how Hamilton influenced our economy (for the worse) through government debt, a national bank, and many other things.

7. Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas J. Dilorenzo –this book is not for the faint of heart, especially for those who have grown up revering Lincoln. Dilorenzo presents a stunning expose of Lincoln, but instead of a book replete with personal attacks, he examines Lincoln’s actions and views. He also writes of the danger encountered by those who dare question Lincoln or his policies.

8. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt –a good, solid book on economics. Summed up, the book discusses the fallacy of only looking at short term effects instead of the long run and looking at the effects on a group of people instead of society as a whole.

9. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? by Thomas Sowell –a very interesting book that discusses many myths and inaccuracies about the policies and ideas regarding civil rights.

10. The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell –an excellent book that talks about the elite, big government advocates who think they have the ultimate knowledge on how society should be run. Sowell is an intense researcher and his book is well documented. He states that part of the reason why the “anointed” are against families in general is that the elites dislike the family as an autonomous decision making unit that is not subject to the elite’s decisions.

11. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin –a good book describing the Conservative verses the Statist (massive, intrusive government). Topics include healthcare, Social Security, global warming (and cooling), immigration, and federalism.

Whittaker Chambers and John Piper on Ayn Rand

I have never read Ayn Rand, but intend to over this summer. I know many libertarians who are attracted to her free-market capitalism and rugged individualism. In preparation for my Rand excursions, I read two critiques, one by John Piper, the reformed Baptist pastor, and another by Whittaker Chambers, the late critic of Communism and author of Witness.

I have attached both Piper's critique of Ayn Rand's objectivism, and Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged (Rand's best-known novel) from National Review (1957). Piper is a fan of Rand's, but with grave reservations. Chambers was scathingly critical of Rand, partly because he knew many political conservatives would be drawn to the surface level arguments she makes, but might miss (or worse, be attracted to) her basic philosophical argument.

An excerpt from Chambers:

Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

John Piper:

Ayn Rand’s devastating criticism of altruism missed the point of Christian mercy.She could only conceive of mercy in terms of our sacrificing our greater values to lesser ones. The Christian sacrifices no values in blessing those who curse him, nor is his behavior causeless or aimless. It is an achievement of his own dependence on and love for the merciful God. It is caused by God’s mercy, and it aims to transform the enemy into one who treasures God above all things. It is thus a self-benefiting act, compounding, as it does, the joy of the believer.

In short, Ayn Rand has no place for mercy, whereas Christianity has mercy at its heart. Why was there this conflict here? I think it was due to Rand’s thoroughgoing immanentalism: the complete rejection of a divine or supernatural dimension to reality. If she was right in her atheism and naturalism, then I think her system was consistent at the point of demanding only justice.

But if Ayn Rand was wrong about God, if he exists, and, as St. Paul said, “made the world and everything in it . . . and is not served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24), if such a God exists (and Ayn Rand offered no argument to the contrary, only the assertion),then a radically new dimension of reality must be reckoned with and a corresponding new value should guide man’s behavior.

The new fact of reality is that God cannot be traded with as a man. There is nothing that man can offer to God that is not already his. You cannot exchange value for value with one from whom you have life, breath, and everything. You must, as a creature, own up to your total dependence on mercy and be content with it or, by an act of irrational rebellion, evict yourself from the realm of reality and try to live a contradiction.

Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1979/1486_The_Ethics_of_Ayn_Rand/