The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One - The Bolt - (pages 1 - 30) - No Spoilers, please
message 51:
by
Hana
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Apr 11, 2016 06:02AM
Thanks, Bentley.
reply
|
flag
Hello, everyone. My name is Jovita and I am a married working mom of four in South Carolina. Coming in to this group reading, I know very little about Teddy Roosevelt and the politics of the time, but was intrigued by the title. I am looking forward to learning more about the progressive movement's Republican roots, and to explore any correlations between the changes that happened in Roosevelt's Republican party and the changes that the party is going through today.
1.) Hi y'all! I'm Jordan and I live in Sacramento California. I've loved history by whole life, from being raised near Henry Clay's Home in Lexington Kentucky to receiving my BA in History from the University of Louisville and now years later. I'm interested in the book in general because of one word: progressive. What does that mean? Where did it come from? How has it changed over time? 2.) I know general tidbits about TR and "Fighting Bob". Years ago I took a class on the Gilded Age and Progressivism but that has largely left my brain at this point and was never my field of interest in school. Frankly, my main image of Teddy Roosevelt is still Tom Berenger's portrayal in the 1997 miniseries Rough Riders (as embarrassing as that is to admit).
3.) Progressive politics means change to me, it means being ready to plunge into the unknown with the hope of helping people and the world. It means changing the status quo when needed and not being afraid of it. It means moving forward. As far as what the platform entails, I can't say for sure but I know 'progress' means advancement in some way.
4.) I am a bit of a current politics nerd, which stems from a family who all disagreed on every single political opinion. As a newer voter (my first election was 2008), our government is a confusing, frustrating mess and it seems to have always been that way since I started paying attention. The government seems to barely function and rarely accomplish anything. Politicians come across as the most negative, vindictive, and rude group of people as a whole. They have completely forgotten the whole lesson we learn as kids to 'get along' and 'work together' even when you don't want to.
5.) I'm involved in that I'm paying close attention to all candidates for the 2016 election but I'm not volunteering for anyone. I've watched many debates on both sides and I listen regularly to some politics podcasts to stay informed. I honestly try to keep up with both Republicans and Democrats. I'm not sure who is progressive or conservative. Those words have evolved into a mess these days to mean several different things all at once and no politician seems to want to call themselves either one.
6.) I'm fascinated by the idea of a 'contested convention' but that's just the political-junkie history nerd in me that wants to see something I haven't seen before. I think that such a thing is terrible for trying to create unity behind one person though. Lots of people will be upset, one way or the other.
7.) I do think politics has become too acrimonious, although I don't really remember when they weren't. This cycle does seem more hostile than the past two elections in my mind. There's much more focus on the outrageous when really I just want to know what in the world the candidates stand for. The pandering is exhausting. The news headlines are distracting.
8.) (view spoiler) I was surprised by how different they are, which I think will set us all up for some interesting discussion while reading.
Okay, now I've talked everyone's ear off. Happy Week One!
Hello everyone. It's nice to see so many diverse readers with such interesting backgrounds. I hope that you'll find the book engaging and edifying.La Follette was such a pivotal figure during the Progressive Era but poorly remembered today, so it's not surprising that so few people are familiar with him. In reading the book, I hope you'll gain appreciation for his historical impact and see his shadow on modern politics--not just his progressive ideas but also his insurgent tactics, which have parallels on both sides of the aisle today.
TR is much more familiar of course, but I hope you'll discover a side of him that is often obscured. By contrasting him with La Follette and other progressive insurgents, the book emphasizes his cautious, pragmatic temperament and complicates the warrior mythos of popular imagination.
Anyway, thanks for reading. I look forward to the discussion.
Ah one more thing, regarding the front matter. The publisher placed the book's epigraph opposite the ToC, and most people miss it. It helps explain the title: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw, 1903
Hello, My name is Savannah Jordan. I live in beautiful northeast Tennessee. I have a science background but I have been exposed to philosophy and history all my life. With regards to the preface and chapter 1 - both are very well written. I already knew a fair amount about Theodore Roosevelt but very little about Lafollette's. I did not realize that Roosevelt was as much a compromiser as the book explains. I normally associate him with an extremely rambunctious, bullish type of character. I am looking forward to seeing how he changes. Also, I am looking forward to seeing how much Lafollete changes the landscape. With regards to how this is relevant to the current landscape I would say that it shows that America has been remarkably resilient in pulling itself out of situations which threaten the very existence of democracy. But we have to remember that Roosevelt's era was one in which the ordinary people were a very independent, religious group. This situation no longer exists in the United States.
Hi, it's Kressel. I live in a suburb 45 minutes northwest of NYC, and I've been a member of this History Book Club for a few years. I received a gift copy.It was so interesting to read this book during the week of the Wisconsin primary, which was an upset for the frontrunners of both parties. I don't know if anyone else on this thread has said so, but already I think of LaFolette/TR as parallel to Sanders/Clinton. He's definitely shaping the primary to be about issues. Trump, meanwhile, is doing precisely the opposite.
Hello everyone- I am John. I'm glad to be reading and discussing Unreasonable Men with all of you. I am from SC and work for the State here and I am a historian and adjunct with a local university teaching History, some Humanities courses and Political Science. My area of expertise is primarily the American Revolution and Constitutional History, but I love the time period of the gilded age and also teach and research that time period as well as World War II. As you can see, I am a bit eclectic. Even though I study and research this period and the politics of this period- there is so much to learn and look forward to being able to do so. On a side note, one of my professors in Grad School, Patrick Maney, wrote a bio of Lafollette's son, "Young Bob" and was a great instructor on the time period. A couple of answers to some of the intro questions:
2. Tell us what you know about Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Marion La Follette before reading this book.
A good bit, but not enough, if you can understand that confusing answer. :) I am more familiar and knowledgeable about TR than Fighting Bob.
3. What does progressive politics mean to you? Prior to reading this book? Progressive politics are a mixed bag, but they were not static. You can't, for example, trace a straight line from the muckrakers (where the movement really had it's roots) to the modern day Progressive politics that are so attached to Identity politics. It's a bumpy road. I think seeing some of the moments where the national political movement of Progressive politics really gains inroads with the public is helpful- and so reading this book should be instructive. However we shouldn't confuse some of the political stances of today's Progressives with those of turn of the 20th century American politics. Some of the progressive movement deviated after the time period covered in this book, but is associated with Prohibition, eugenics, clamping down on Immigration and phrenology as associated with criminology, as well as some troubling associations with International politics- especially in Europe during the interwar years. On the other hand, living condition reform, child labor law reform, food inspection and trust busting have a more positive legacy. It wasn't as simple as "us versus them" either, as modern politics would have us believe. In short- we should be careful of reading and considering these events and historical figures through modern day glasses and giving them a direct line approach from then to today. It was a much bumpier and wiggly line than that. :)
I think I'll leave the other questions about today's politics to the side for now. And I am just 15 pages in, so I will try and comment later on the last question.
Looking forward to the discussion- I have a habit of Socratic questioning and playing the devil's advocate in my classroom, and I apologize in advance if that bleeds over here. I never wish to offend anyone and try to comment intelligently, civilly, and in a friendly manner- but I will be sure to be honest to my thoughts.
Young Bob: A Biography of Robert M. La Follette, Jr. by Patrick J. Maney (No Photo)
John wrote: "...we should be careful of reading and considering these events and historical figures through modern day glasses and giving them a direct line approach from then to today. It was a much bumpier and wiggly line than that. ..."John, thank you so much for this excellent brief on Progressivism through the years. I had a visceral sense of the bumpiness but I couldn't have put it into words as you did!
On reading through the threads I realize I have geographic connections with La Follette (I lived in Madison, WI) and to TR (I was born and raised in New York and I now live less than a quarter mile away from Chestnut Hill, MA where TR's first wife, Anne Hathaway Lee, lived).
Hello, I'm Dave from Nebraska. I am a huge history fan and have read several books in the group reads for the History Book Club. One of my favorite things about reading historical narratives is how many things in today's world are really not too. This absolutely goes in politics too. I would absolutely consider myself to be a progressive person, which in and of itself is maybe surprising due to where I live and my family being very conservative. Sadly I feel that our political structure today is very frustrating because it's more important to obstruct than to actually accomplish lest we give the other party any kind of victory which might help their reelection or their party's reelection. But, as I mentioned before, this situation is not necessarily new and even chapter one illustrated this in action. As far as involvement, I am a voter, but not really an activist. Politics are absolutely too acrimonious but I just don't see that changing anytime soon, especially when there are no limits on outside interests and campaign financing. In regards to Roosevelt and La Follette, I must admit I wasn't as familiar with La Follette. However, I did find it interesting how over time, Roosevelt moved from a safer platform to a more activist one favored by La Follette. Anxious to see how this change came about.
Recent books I've read which have given me a little insight into Theodore Roosevelt are:
by
by Scott MillerI would recommend either book, especially the McKinley one.
Looking forward to the read!
David.......I have read both of those books and they were quite good and would also recommend them.
Hi,I am Jason and from Southern California. I love history because it is a chance to learn something I don’t know. I like to keep learning. I am interested in this book and progressive politics and Theodore Roosevelt in general because of I don’t know much about progressive politics or this time period in history.
2. Tell us what you know about Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Marion La Follette before reading this book.
I don’t know anything about Robert Marion La Follette. I know that the teddy bear was named after TR, and a bit of his legacy, but that’s it.
3. What does progressive politics mean to you? Prior to reading this book?
No idea.
4. What do you think of the state of congress and government today? Are you pleased with the performance of both bodies of government? Why or why not? How do you feel about politics in general? Are you pleased with the executive branch and the judiciary? Be civil and respectful but share your perspective if you can. This is not a thread to discuss the primaries in depth or your favorite candidate. In the Presidential Series folder - we do have threads where you can discuss that topic in depth. However, this thread is not that place.
I’m pretty disappointed in the state of our government today. I’m not saying I could do any better or have a magic solution to share, but I think those in charge could be doing a much better job. Also, it seems to me that I’m never happy with the candidates running for office and I always have to vote for the “lesser evil”. I’m real tired of doing that.
5. How involved are you in the primary season this election cycle? Are there "progressive candidates" running this time? Who do you think the progressive candidates are in your viewpoint and who are the conservatives? Or are there other labels or categories that current candidates fall into?
I’m not sure how to label any of the candidates right now. I’m less concerned with their labels and more concerned with what they say they will do if elected.
6. What are the chances of "contested conventions'? How successful do you think these conventions will be?
I am watching the conventions closely, because I’m disappointed with some of the candidates and hoping that they don’t make it, so my decision for president will be easier.
7. Do you think that politics and primaries in general are too acrimonious? Do you believe that these primaries and this election cycle are unique or do you think that it is more acrimonious today than in the past? Or is this more of the same or do you feel that politics has always had acrimonious cycles? Why or why not?
I think anyone watching the news, commercials or debates would think that the primaries are acrimonious.
Hello to everyone. My name is Pam and I am the mother of three and grandmother of six and married for almost 48 years to a currently retired US Army officer. So I have lived all around the US and for 6 years in Europe, specifically Germany. We are now back home and live in Kennesaw, Georgia in the shade of the mountain that was the site for the Siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864. The road we live on was one of the principal routes for the Yankee Army and next door is an historical site for one of the Union surgeries to treat the wounded. So, I am surrounded by history and, of course, in the State of Georgia, that has been true for us always. Like Holly, my goal is also to read the biograpy of every president but I tend to get bogged down in one and read 3 or 4 biographies and then skip some to get to the presidents I really like. :) So it has been taking a long time to accomplish this goal. Like Nita, my father, though not an historian, took me to all kinds of historical sites. He was particularly a fan of Civil War battle sites and I have practically seen them all except for the very small ones.
I decided to read this particular book not only because Theodore Roosevelt is one of the presidents I really like but because the topic seems apropo to our current political situation. I have read at least one biography of TR's early years and his presidency crops up in many of the other books I read. Of La Folette I only know that he was a famous Progressive politician and if you had asked me who he was it would have taken more than a minute to come up with an answer.
Progressive politics means to me a platform of new and inovative ideas that tend to benefit the majority of the American public. It can and does concern itself with all aspects of political debate, but primarily deals with social services for the poor and middle classes. This is probably a modern interpretation of progressivism as I know that earlier it was more of a mixed bag.
As to today's politics, I think we are in a mess. We have gotten pretty unbalanced as we did at the turn of the 19th century and the age of the robber barons losing site of the views of the majority of the American public. Both parties are at fault in this as the emphasis of today's politicians is mainly on getting re-elected and raising the money to do this. So, naturally, things get done with a strong bias towards those members of society who are capable of large donations and they tend to benefit at the expense of everyone else.
I also think there are way too many members of goverment at all levels who are lawyers. Not because they are bad men and women (my husband is one) but because their basic training is not to govern but to win. It is making for some very bad government as no one is interested in benvolent compromise.
How involved am I in the primary season? Well, I no longer work on campaigns as I did as a young person, but I follow the news religiously and vote any time I'm asked to do so. Find me the right candidate and I'm even willing to "put my money where my mouth is". He/She is not out there this go-round but I do also "feel the Bern". I don't think he has a hope in Hades of accomplishing the things he says even if, by God's own miracle, he should get elected. But I like what he says. He actually advocates things that would benefit the majority of people. I just wish we could afford them. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
I love the quote from Peter(message 15). I truly wish we could get our politics out of the religion business.
Mod
Mod
My name is Jovita and I am a married working mom of four in South Carolina. Coming in to this group reading, I know very little about Teddy Roosevelt and the politics of the time..."
Hello Jovita - welcome we are so glad to have you and I am thrilled to see you posting. But could you try your hand at the preliminary questions which are fun to respond to because they share with the group where you are coming from when discussing the policies of both LaFollette and TR in the book. Great fun for you to look back at.
Mod
Be careful of not discussing any part of the book beyond page 30 on this thread since it is a non spoiler thread - and be careful to stick with the syllabus so that problem is easy to avoid - although with a book as good as this one - it might be hard to do.
I look forward to reading your posts Jordan - you have a lot of good insight.
Mod
La Follette was such a pivotal figure during the..."
Michael - welcome - welcome - welcome - we are so happy to have you join us. It is interesting that you portray other characteristics that TR is not well known for - cautiousness and being pragmatic.
It will be interesting to explore those sides of his personality and character.
Did you find that TR is really one of the most complex personalities that was ever President?
Hi everyone! My name is Simonetta Carr. I was born in Italy but (as my last name betrays) I have married an American man forty years ago and moved to the States twenty years ago. I live in S. California. I love history but don't know much about US history and especially politics. I thought this book would be a good way for me to understand a little more. I am very thankful to have received a free copy and to have a chance to interact with the author.
Before reading this book, I had a very minimal idea of what TR stood for and how he changed American politics. I never heard of La Follette. I am still trying to figure out the current meaning of progressive and conservative. From what I have seen, many Americans (politicians included) make up their own definitions of those words. I am looking forward to understanding how the word progressive has changed with time.
I am not involved in politics, other than voting. I don't belong to a party and I try to examine each situation for its own merits. I think American politics are definitely acrimonious - but they are probably the same in every country.
About the current candidates, Trump reminds me terribly of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. There are uncanny similarities, including the fact that everyone seemed to hate him but in the end he got elected (repeatedly). This has nothing to do with the book, of course, except maybe for the fact that they both define themselves as conservatives while in reality they are just demagogues. Maybe we could all benefit from clearer definitions in our political language.
message 69:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 11, 2016 08:57PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw, 1903
Discussion Questions:
1. The epigram above is the epigram for the book we are discussing "Unreasonable Men". This quote is from George Bernard Shaw's Maxims for Revolutionists.
by
George Bernard ShawIn Maxims for Revolutionists the full quote is the following:
REASON
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
The man who listens to Reason is lost: Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her."
a) Does the addition of the added sentence in the full quote change the meaning for you or does it add an additional depth of understanding? Who do you think is the reasonable man (TR or LaFollette or both or somebody else) and who is the unreasonable man or men (TR or LaFollette or both or somebody else)? The author states that the epigram helps explain the title. What do you think the meaning of the epigram is and how do you (the reader) think that it pertains to the title of the book? Explain and discuss the epigram.
b) Do you think that LaFollette and/or Theodore Roosevelt were "Revolutionists" in their own right? Yes or no and explain your rationale.
Here is the full link to Maxims for Revolutionists:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/...
I particularly like this quote by Shaw in the same work (smile):
The complete Shaw quote does not change my opinion of the premise of the book or the title......many men in history who have effected change have often been labeled as "unreasonable" or some synonym of that word. As the author tells us in the Preface, the country was in rather dire straits and the time was right for "unreasonable men" to step forward and attempt to address the issues plaguing the United States. These men, with two different approaches, but the same goal were bound to clash as they struggled to right the ship of state. And I am getting a distinct impression that the book will reveal that Bob LaFollette was a much more important man in history than he is given credit for and ends up with the short end of the stick from historians. Look at all our introductions on this thread and there were very few of us that knew much about him. The book may tell us differently but I don't think so........he appears to be rather overlooked and as most people would do, stands in the shadow of TR.
George Bernard Shaw
I enjoyed the first chapter, though I found the little details of Gilded Era life more interesting than the politics. I did not know that peanut butter and ice cream cones made their debut at the St. Louis World's Fair :) Judge Alton Parker's relaxed front porch campaign style was highly amusing and a marvelous contrast, both with today and with 'Fighting Bob'. Did La Follette invent the campaign bus? I can't resist posting a picture of Fighting Bob's Red Winton 5-Seater.
I did not know that La Follette pioneered the direct primary election. The role of money in Gilded Era politics was also striking, though not surprising. I did not know the extent to which Roosevelt was a beneficiary of big corporate campaign contributions. Amazing that we are fighting these battles all over again.Is anyone up to speed on the tariff issue? Wolraich sort of skims over it without explaining.
Why did Roosevelt limit himself on not seeking reelection?! I have yet to see a good explanation of it.
Peter wrote: "My definition comes from Rabbi Israel Salanter."Most people worry about their own bellies and other people's souls when we all ought to worry about our own souls and other people's bellies."
To me, a progressive believes that the government should be concerned with people's bellies but not their souls.
My Rebbetzin taught us something similar in seminary, and now I know where she got it from! Do you know the source of that quote?
BTW, it's very similar to my own political philosophy, which I derived from my Rebbetzin's speech: live a conservative life personally, and have a liberal attitude toward others.
Hello all:I. I'm Bryan, a veteran here at the HBC and I'm from Virginia. I study presidential history for a living, so this book is right up my alley.
2. I don't know much Robert Marion La Follette compared to TR.
3. Progressive politics was a fascinating time. Fast paced changes like urbanization and manufacturing created a lot of social problems. Progressives demanded changes in government, including a more activist approach. Where Congress could or would not reform, people began to demand a president to act.
4. What is most interesting I think about this book is that it will show is how Republicans were searching for "its soul" just like it is today. Parties always are in flux.
Peter wrote: "I. Hi I am xyz and from abc. I love history because of d and I am interested in this book and progressive politics and Theodore Roosevelt in general because of f. Or state what you are interested i..."Hi Peter, about your quote by Rabbi Salanter... basically, you are talking about separation of church and state, right?
Simonetta wrote: "about your quote by Rabbi Salanter... basically, you are talking about separation of church and state, right? "If the quote really does originate with Rav Salanter, then it probably has nothing to do with separation of church and state because he lived in Czarist Russia. He was more concerned with people's attitudes toward each other, not political power.
But, in my own effort to track down a precise citation for the quote, someone else said that he'd heard the same quote attributed to Ben Franklin. Historian Rabbi Berel Wein states that Rav Yisroel Salanter was influenced by the writings of the American founding fathers, so it's possible. If so, Ben Franklin may have been talking about separation of church and state, but I still see the statement as the attitude we as individuals should have toward others.
message 77:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 09:38AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Hello Savannah- there are quite a few religious folks in America and I believe that in terms of Western democracies or democracies in general that the United States overall came out the most religious and the most believing in God. I am not sure where I saw that but I was not surprised because of our original settlers.
I want to welcome you to the discussion and please take a stab at the Preliminary Discussion Questions which you have not responded to - these are always fun -also take a look at the Discussion Questions on the Preface. We are beginning the Chapter One discussion today and will be discussing only through page 30 on this thread. This is the weekly non spoiler thread. We have other threads set up which are spoilers including the glossary and bibliography threads, the introduction thread and the Book as a Whole thread. On those threads you are not confined to just the pages assigned.
Message One on all of the non spoiler threads include links to these other spoiler threads.
I like the fact Joe Cannon said of the convention: "Great Scott, what are we here for?" (p. 8). Sounds like many conventions for decades...except maybe 2016???
Mod
All, I want to remind everyone that this is a non spoiler thread and our discussion is focused only on the following this week:
WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One - The Bolt - (pages 1 - 30) - No Spoilers, please
There are so many wonderful things going on in this first chapter. I have practically highlighted the whole thing. Two quotes stood out for me. (view spoiler)
Kressel wrote: "Simonetta wrote: "about your quote by Rabbi Salanter... basically, you are talking about separation of church and state, right? "If the quote really does originate with Rav Salanter, then it prob..."
Thank you Kressel!
Bentley wrote: "Hello Kressel - welcome to the History Book Club. If you could revisit the Preliminary Discussion Questions that would be optimal - they are always fun to respond to and revisit later. All, I wan..." I am still trying to understand how these things work. Oddly enough, I don't get notified when a new thread begins even if I have checked all the boxes. Also, when can we start discussing what we read? I guess that would be a spoiler thread?
Bentley wrote: "Hello Kressel - welcome to the History Book Club. If you could revisit the Preliminary Discussion Questions that would be optimal - they are always fun to respond to and revisit later."I don't have time to answer them all, but I will say in response to #2 that most of my knowledge about TR comes from Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough, but that's about his upbringing, his years in the Dakotas, and his first election to office. It doesn't cover his presidential years much.
As president, I know that he told off the Czar after the Kishinev pogrom of 1905. Some say that's because he didn't want the flood of Jewish emigration that resulted from the pogrom, but in my book, that makes him a hero.
Citation:
by
David McCullough
And for anyone who cares for more background on the Rav Yisroel Salanter quote, here is the text of an email I got from Rabbi Avi Fertig: Rav Yisrael is quoted as having said, “When it comes to one’s self, a person should give priority to the soul over the body. However, in that which concerns one’s fellow person – one should not ignore the physical needs, for the physical needs of one’s fellow are for you matters of the soul.” (As quoted in Tenuos haMussar, Dov Katz, volume 1, pp.280) Also see Ohr Yisrael, letter 30 where Rav Yisrael expands upon the idea that when it comes to the self, one should act with one end of the spectrum of a middah and when it comes to one’s fellow, one should act with the opposite. For example, one should strive for humility and self-debasement for oneself and run from kavod/honor, but when it comes to the other one should show honor.
Finally, I, too, have seen the following quoted in rav Yisrael’s name, but I did not see it in R. Katz’s book from where it was supposedly taken: “A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow man’s soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries about his own soul and his fellow man’s stomach.”
OK- somewhat contrarian right out of the gate. Sorry! Here's my issue with the Shaw quote.
By way of some context: By 1903, Shaw was fully in support of the Fabians in England and view socialism as the only solution to everything wrong in the UK. His former friend H.G. Wells had been a Fabian, but he sought to work with Labour, and Wells found himself out of favor with the Fabians for this after a while- including with Shaw.
Later Shaw would favorably view Mussolini and Stalin and met with Stalin and was part of a group that toured the Soviet Union. He would praise Stalin throughout the 1930s- even praising the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, stating it was a triumph for Stalin. He equally praised Hitler as well. I could go on- the only reason I bring this up is because it gives a glimpse into Shaw- especially in context of when and why he said what he said. His growing enthusiasm for dictatorship and government gives this quote some context- who does he view as "unreasonable"? Who is "reasonable"? Why does he disparage reason itself- for this I am glad Bentley provided the full quote and context, as it goes into that part. The additional section provides more context for Shaw's train of thought.
So for the quote itself. Please understand I am not associating any of this to our subjects of TR/LaFollette, but taking the quote on itself. I have a problem with is and disagree with it, but I can see why the author would include it as in isolation it hints at a theme in the book.
I want to look at Shaw and the quote itself apart from the book or subject of the book. Today we might infer "boldness" from the idea of an "unreasonable man"- but really Shaw is favoring the man who acts without reason- one who can't be talked to or "reasoned with" IE: cannot hold a discussion of contrary ideas and grow away from or strengthen their own thinking or position. His unreasonable man is one that takes his own council, who never gives ground and will work to make his vision a reality at all costs. We have seen such men throughout history. I would argue that Stalin and Hitler were "unreasonable men". Others were "unreasonable men" to varying degrees. Does that mean we cast out reason- something that has been a part of Western Civilization for centuries? Shaw's belief that Socialism and at some point that Totalitarianism was the new solution to the problems of the world, but he was mistaken. Other civilizations and individuals have tried. Even Thomas Hobbs- from whom we get the philosophical idea of a "social contract" and stated that life was "nasty, brutish and short" in a state of nature, even he said in Leviathan that a dictator was preferable to living in a state of nature, even if it means giving up any and all freedoms. But sadly we have seen that not end well over and over again.
So in the end- I disagree with Shaw. The "unreasonable man" is a selfish man- one who only considers his "vision" as the correct one- one who does not consider how it may affect others, or even unintended consequences. He is one who is so full of himself, that he sees others as fools. He is one who believes himself to be infallible. Is that progress? Has the unreasonable men of the past created progress? I think for the later half of the 20th century we were trying to rebuild from such "progress" and spread human freedom. I think we still are. We constantly find ourselves "rebuilding" after the so -called "progress" of others.
I believe that we need bold people in this world; people who will do the hard things and make sacrifices for what is right. But they need to be people who will "listen to reason" and understand their own weaknesses and failings and know how to judge others and not be so arrogant as to believe no one is his or her better. Boldness does not mean "one without reason".
What about the second notion about "adapting to the world"? Well, the inference there is that the world must change and that if one adapts to the world, they cannot effect change. Problems must change for sure, but does human nature itself change? Does that mean that the people of the past were stupider than we because we have advanced technology? Of course not- but at times a leader or one who wants to make the world a better place, must also consider what is right with the world, and what important things must be preserved. We must be careful not to eliminate that which must endure in our quest to end short term or even long term problems. Should the freedom to speak or write or think be abridged because someone disagrees with another's solution to a problem- in that person's urgency to solve that problem? No - but some might say yes, because it serves the purpose. Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense: “Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things.” I don't necessarily believe that adapting to the world is completely wrong- as one must consider the ramifications of their actions. And is their solution the correct one? Just because we agree on the problem, doesn't mean we agree on the solution. If we take just the example of political primaries themselves that are discussed in this book- compare the arguments of that time and how they considered direct primaries the solution and now look where we are today with primaries. They have changed and evolved over the past 100 years or so and we are still hearing some of the same laments and complaints.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, but those are some of my thoughts on the quote. Apologies to any fans of Pygmalion.
George Bernard Shaw
by Thomas Paine Thomas Paine
H.G. Wells 
by
George Bernard Shaw
message 86:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 12:54PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
You make many valid points about Shaw and we have all grown up being told that "being reasonable is a good thing". But you have to agree that the Wright Brothers were probably unreasonable men and Edison and Steve Jobs and probably Bill Gates when he was playing cards at Harvard rather than going to classes. I love your digging into your ideas and thoughts about Shaw as well as what he wrote and the context it was written in.
Do you think that TR or LaFollette were "unreasonable men"? Do you think that they were in a sense "revolutionists" in terms of their ideas?
I am not saying that this is the case or not - but I did ask the question.
Look at Thomas Paine - now that was an unreasonable man!
Also remember we do not have to cite the book or the author but we have to cite other books and other authors mentioned including Shaw. So please when you circle back add the citations for the books and authors that are not the book being discussed. We also do not have to cite any personages in the book but the outside ones.
George Bernard Shaw
by
Thomas PaineH. G. Wells (no photo)
by
George Bernard Shaw
Mod
Simonetta, all folks who signed up yes to the event notification received the link to the week one thread; all folks who signed for the free book offer received the link on the introduction thread. And there was a broadcast message sent and I believe it is noted in the Moderator's corner. Also on the main page if you click on the link by the book cover it will take you to the right spot.
I introduced myself without answering most of the questions3. What does progressive politics mean to you? Prior to reading this book? QUESTION 4. What do you think of the state of congress and government today? Are you pleased with the performance of both bodies of government? Why or why not? How do you feel about politics in general? Are you pleased with the executive branch and the judiciary? Be civil and respectful but share your perspective if you can. This is not a thread to discuss the primaries in depth or your favorite candidate. In the Presidential Series folder - we do have threads where you can discuss that topic in depth. However, this thread is not that place.
ANSWER: Deadlock is a part of Congress. The deadlock in Congress was even greater at the time of the founding of America. I can cite you articles from the 1870s in which newspaper editors called the Congress a useless collection of people accomplishing nothing. Democracy is by its nature messy, but it is to paraphrase Churchill, "The worst form of government except for all the others tried.
How do I feel about the current President and the judiciary. I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I feel that he has rescued the economy and I think that Obamacare was conceived with the noblest of intentions, however, it may not have been well thought out. On the negative side, I think that he has done a lot to antagonize people, when he says such things as the only reason Americans don't want to accept Syrian refugees is because we don't like people who don't look like us. This is absurd. Asians excel in our society and look less like us than somebody from Syria. He refuses to acknowledge that the reason has nothing to do with appearance but with the fact that most of the people committing terrorist attacks in the US are from the Middle East.
5. How involved are you in the primary season this election cycle? Are there "progressive candidates" running this time? Who do you think the progressive candidates are in your viewpoint and who are the conservatives? Or are there other labels or categories that current candidates fall into?
ANSWER: I have given donations to Kasich and written letters to the editor in his behalf. He is the mean between the extremes. I would categorize Sanders as a progressive where I define a progressive as someone who wants changes that will increase benefits to the general public. I don't know how to categorize Trump. I would categorize Cruz as ultra conservative.
6. What are the chances of "contested conventions'? How successful do you think these conventions will be?
ANSWER: Right now I would say, for the Republicans, the chances of a contested convention are greater than having a candidate with enough delegates. There will probably be riots if Trump doesn't get the candidancy, but there will be riots if he does. For the Dems, my guess is that Hillary will have enough delegates.
7. Do you think that politics and primaries in general are too acrimonious? Do you believe that these primaries and this election cycle are unique or do you think that it is more acrimonious today than in the past? Or is this more of the same or do you feel that politics has always had acrimonious cycles? Why or why not?
ANSWER: As I said democracy is messy, messy, messy, but I have never before heard a serious candidate making personal insults like Trump is making. A person can never convince another person of the correctness of their beliefs by insulting them. Barriers arise, people dig in rather than trying to understand the other persons ideas.
Mod
Mod
That is interesting - I wonder about all of the men who did so much for our country and for whatever reason we know so little about them or why the average US citizen knows so little. For instance John Jay who I think is probably more well known than LaFollette but still does not get the recognition he deserves.
John Jay
This discussion of the title and the Shaw quote is very interesting. LaFollette, the Wright Brothers, and Thomas Paine are all good examples of unreasonable men. But without even going to such stark contrasts as Hitler and Stalin, I can say that when too many people start acting unreasonably, no progress gets made. I see that in my own town, and we've seen it in gridlock in Congress. So being reasonable sometimes smooths the path of progress, which may well be how TR viewed himself - making compromises with big business to get what he could for the little guy. So once again, the difference between LaFollette and TR parallels the difference between pragmatist Hillary Clinton and idealist Bernie Sanders.
Bentley wrote: "John, thank you - and you are right I did want to include the entire quote in context. Because I do agree that Shaw had other agendas - but I do see why the author in this case included it as his e..."I forgot my citations! Sorry! I've fixed it.
And to your question- I'm not sure I would consider either "unreasonable men" in the sense of Shaw's greater context, but maybe the author's intent is that TR is "reasonable" because he compromises and Lafollette is "unreasonable" because he was uncompromising. But in the long term scheme of things, what does that mean in terms of change and accomplishments? The fact that few of us really know about LaFollette and that TR is so well known that might speak to that. I would also add that TR changed the Presidency in many ways , maybe "Fighting Bob" did not have had the same long term impact in such a large way.
Isn't one of the modern primary complaints about politics is that no one will work together? That no one compromises?
And of course the Wright Brothers and others were uncompromising, but I think in the sense that they were determined to figure it out. But they also had to adapt to their current technology and work with others to get their project off the ground. That also meant rejecting earlier prototypes and things that weren't working and finding things that would work for the bigger picture of powered flight. David McCullough points out in his book on the brothers that some of their contemporaries were so wedded to their versions, they couldn't let go of what wasn't working to achieve manned flight.
But I totally understand what sentiment the author is trying to convey by using the quote. I just don't agree with Shaw.
George Bernard Shaw
by
David McCullough
Bentley wrote: "Simonetta wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Hello Kressel - welcome to the History Book Club. If you could revisit the Preliminary Discussion Questions that would be optimal - they are always fun to respond ..."I can check the notifications here. I just want to make sure I am on the right thread. This is the only thread for this week, right? Is there going to be a spoiler thread where we can discuss actual quotes from the book?
Mod
You can discuss actual quotes from the book which are in the Preface and Chapter One on this thread up to page 30. If you want to discuss other things - you can go to the glossary thread, the Book as a Whole thread, the Bibliography thread or the introduction. Every week you can discuss the assigned reading on that thread and anything that came before but not after.
Mod
You are a regular walking banner for the six degrees of separation theory Hana.
Mod
David welcome - thank you for sharing some of your perspectives so that we can understand from what perspective you may be coming from and thank for the adds.
You may want to circle back and see whether you can respond to some of the other preliminary discussion questions in depth and tell us your feelings on the epigram - there is a discussion question on that as well.
Great post
message 97:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 03:43PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Syllabus
Week One - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One: The Bolt - pages ix - 30
Week Two - April 18th - April 24th - Chapter Two: The Railroad - pages 31 - 52
Week Three - April 25th - May 1st - Chapter Three: The Muck Rake - pages 53 - 78
Week Four - May 2nd - May 8th - Chapter Four: The Panic - pages 79 - 106
Week Five - May 9th - May 15th - Chapter Five: The Money Power - pages 107 - 122
Week Six - May 16th - May 22nd - Chapter Six: The Smile - pages 123 - 142
Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th - Chapter Seven: The Tariff - pages 143 - 174
Week Eight - May 30th - June 5th - Chapter Eight: The Insurgency - pages 175 - 202
Week Nine - June 6th - June 12th - Chapter Nine: The Progressive - pages 203 - 224
Week Ten - June 13th - June 19th - Chapter Ten: The Bull Moose - pages 225 - 258
Week Eleven - June 20th - June 26th - Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts (This is the thread where all recipients of the free book offer post their brief review of the book)
And here is the link to the table of contents and syllabus thread if you have not found it yet:
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I am a total political junkie who reads extensively in history and political philosophy. Just finishing Karl Rove's book on the McKinley election and very interested in this one.
message 99:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 07:12PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I am Jason and from Southern California. I love history because it is a chance to learn something I don’t know. I like to keep learning. I am interested in this book and progressive politics a..."
Jason welcome and thank you for taking a stab at some of the preliminary questions - you might want to circle back and respond to the ones you missed as well as discuss the epigraph - there is a discussion question on the epigraph as well.
I found it interesting that you stated the following:
"Also, it seems to me that I’m never happy with the candidates running for office and I always have to vote for the “lesser evil”. I’m real tired of doing that."
I think a lot of folks feel that way but I think very good people are afraid of opening up their lives to the media and paparazzi and having every minor indiscretion blown up out of proportion. Thanks for sharing and circle back to the Epigraph question and if you have any questions for the author - there is the Q&A thread and I know that Michael is checking in here too.
John wrote: "OK- somewhat contrarian right out of the gate. Sorry! Here's my issue with the Shaw quote.
By way of some context: By 1903, Shaw was fully in support of the Fabians in England and view socialism ..."
Bentley, thanks for sparking this excellent discussion of the epigraph, and thank you, John, for the background on Shaw and for challenging the epigraph. May I weigh in?
First, I'm not sure that the addition of the second quote properly conveys the context of epigraph. These quotes belong to a long list of maxims on various topics. Though grouped together under the heading, "Reason," they are distinct, and I would not assume that Shaw is suggesting that the "unreasonable" man lacks "Reason" with a capital R. You can read the full context here: https://books.google.com/books?id=KS9...
Second, I advise against taking either quote literally. Shaw had a wicked sense of humor, and "Maxims for Revolutionaries" is in fact one section in a satirical play entitled Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy. When I chose Unreasonable Men as my title, I hoped to convey the irony of the first quote.
Third, Fabian Socialists were gradualists and intellectuals, not violent revolutionaries. They helped found the British Labour Party and the London School of Economics. In his old age, Shaw did unfortunately gravitate toward brutal dictators, but that was three decades later. To suggest that he opposed "reason" in 1903 based on a passage from a fictional and satirical work is, in my opinion, unfair and inaccurate.
by George Bernard Shaw
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (other topics)Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics (other topics)
John Adams (other topics)
His Excellency: George Washington (other topics)
The Octopus: A Story of California (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nancy C. Unger (other topics)Joseph J. Ellis (other topics)
David McCullough (other topics)
Frank Norris (other topics)
Fareed Zakaria (other topics)
More...
