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
1. Hi I am Glynn, newly from the Space Coast of Florida (formerly from Long Island, New York, and still acclimating.) I really like reading history because it is a challenge to me, and I am interested in this book in that it has to do with Theodore Roosevelt. When I lived on Long Island my wife was a naturalist/interpreter at Sagamore Hill for a few years. I’ve watched documentaries and read books about Roosevelt but am not very familiar with the term progressive politics. An attempt to answer some of the preliminary questions.
2. I know a little about TR just because my wife worked at Sagamore Hill. I know he was concerned about the environment and conservation. I am somewhat familiar with his politics but not to any great extent. I know nothing about La Follete.
3. Prior to reading this book I know nothing about progressive politics or what it means to me.
4. I am not at all pleased with the state of things in our government right now. There is no cooperation whatsoever and it seems the more congress can block things the better. No compromises allowed. Congress seems to be a whole bunch of unreasonable men.
5. I was more involved in this primary than I have been in the past. Even though I am registered with a party I have rarely voted in a primary. I have not been very involved in politics in general. I am not sure how to classify the current group of candidates except to say that some of them are very uncivil and are not acting like mature adults.
6. I am pretty sure there will be a contested convention but doubt it will have a chance.
7. I think that politics requires debate but that in general it has been too extreme. I don’t think that the current acrimonious election cycle is unique. I believe there have been many times in history where candidates have been at each other’s throats, either via negative ad campaigns or mudslinging debates. I think this one is somewhat different in that the kinds of things going on are less respectful and more childish than in the past.
8. I will hold off on answering this one until I’ve absorbed the chapter.
message 103:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 07:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
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 vi..."
Thanks Michael - for your comments in return - they are very helpful to the group.
Shaw had a wicked sense of humor and I enjoyed it - but I think it is also important to discuss the origin of the quote and a little bit about Shaw's background.
Of course I think we can see how and why you chose the quote for your book.
I do hope that John sees your reply so that he can respond in kind. Thank you for your link but my post did provide a link to the full work as well. So now there are two (smile)
Mod
Hana, the tariff is a complex issue that I felt I could not do justice to in Chapter 1. ..."
Thank you Michael - I am sure that Hana will be patient.
Mod
Great responses Pamela and you have shared a lot with us.
Bentley wrote: "I think it is also important to discuss the origin of the quote and a little bit about Shaw's background."Absolutely. And I appreciate John's response and his discussion of Shaw even though I have taken issue with it.
Mod
Mod
If you are a recipient of the book or purchased it on your own - please get started and post your responses to the Preliminary Discussion Questions and become part of the conversation this week. We look forward to reading your posts and the author is with us - so you can spar with him regarding Shaw (smile) or any idea/topic in the book.
We are reading your posts.
Mod
Rhonda, somehow I missed you - and I want to welcome you to the discussion. Yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a favorite of mine too.
What do you perceive as being a progressive?
message 110:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 12, 2016 08:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
John as always - you kickstart the conversation and folks will react and I know you like that - so thank you so much for your giving some of the preliminary questions their due. But I encourage you also to share some of the responses to the other questions because it allows us an opportunity to understand what your frame of reference is. Anyway welcome again.
One other thing - check out the citations thread for examples and the Mechanics of the Board thread - both threads give some great assistance on citations and the links to these threads are on message one.
Hi, I'm Lacey from Mississippi. I've always been interested in history which led me to getting my Master's from the University of Mississippi. I've long been an admirer of Roosevelt because he seemed to care so much for the common good, something lacking these days.I knew a decent amount about Roosevelt before, from the national parks to trust busting. I think I may have vaguely heard of La Follette and I remember he was from Wisconsin. Hopefully my ignorance will be remedied.
Progressive politics, to me, means looking forward and caring about the future of society. Whether that be health and safety regulation or health insurance, it doesn't matter. Equal rights for all and an equal chance to get ahead.
I think Congress should be voted out en masse because they've done nothing to improve our way of life. They care more about their raises, repealing Obamacare and leaving many without insurance, and butting into women's reproduction than jobs, budgets, and education. Sometimes I want to give up on politics but nothing will ever change if you do nothing.
I'm very involved this election cycle because things have to change. When Donald Trump is the front runner, something is very very wrong. For the first time in a long time, there seems to be one progressive running and that's Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton is much more moderate though she's being pushed left due to the conversation Sanders is pushing. Trump and Cruz are, quite frankly, bigots that don't deserve the name conservative. They're regressive and hateful.
I think both conventions may end up contested because the GOP will find a way to keep Trump from getting the nomination because the party will implode if he does. The Democratic primaries seem so rigged because Sanders will win a primary or caucus and Clinton will end up with more delegates, not counting super delegates. It's so wrong.
All elections are acrimonious, just at different levels. It seems worse this time because the press gives so much coverage to the word vomit coming from Trump's mouth.
Hi, Sorry, I am a little late to the party. Somehow I missed the opening. (My fault.)
I will post my responses to the questions in another post.
I am very interested in this book and look forward to learning from all of you. To me this is an ideal time to read this book. It looks like both the presidential conventions might turn into open conventions and perhaps a spin off third party candidate.
Also, the on going discussion of the middle class getting smaller and the rich getting richer.
I have always like studying American History, Presidents and politics.
Bentley, thank you for the thoughtful questions. They have illustrated to me how much I have to learn.
2. Tell us what you know about Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Marion La Follette before reading this book.
I have to omit that I know very little about Follette although he has been mentioned in several books I have read. I have never been the main focus of any of my readings.
3. What does progressive politics mean to you?
I have always viewed progressive to represent the role of government being more involved in the social and economic situation of the people versus a government that is less involved in how people live and their economic situation. I think “Obama Care” would represent what I view as progressive politics. (I’ll be interested to see how my view changes on this topic as I read the book.
4. What do you think of the state of congress and government today?
I am disappointed in the current state of our government. To me our current government cannot work together to solve the issues that our country is facing. Too often the two parties attack each other without looking for common ground to solve issues. An example would be how to save Social Security.
5. How involved are you in the primary season this election cycle? I have only been involved in an intellectual way. I have watched all most all of the debates. (Which has been a frustrating experience for me.) I have read newspaper and magazine articles and have tried to learn more of the candidates’ positions.
Who do you think the progressive candidates are in your viewpoint and who are the conservatives? I don’t think of most or all of the candidates except Sanders to be truly progressive.
6. What are the chances of "contested conventions'? How successful do you think these conventions will be?
At this time I think the Republican Conventions may be a contested convention. It could be a very interesting time. I am not sure who the “deal makers” will be since the party is so split.
7. Do you think that politics and primaries in general are too acrimonious?
Yes, in my opinion there has been to much name calling and mudslinging. The most recent about the candidates wives.
Bentley wrote: "Be careful of not discussing any part of the book beyond page 30 on this thread since it is a non spoiler thread ..."Oops! Sorry about that. I must have blanked on which thread I was on. I added a spoiler tag so it's covered up now.
Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "I think it is also important to discuss the origin of the quote and a little bit about Shaw's background."Absolutely. And I appreciate John's response and his discussion of Shaw e..."
Hi Michael- I apologize for not coming back to the conversation earlier- I had to teach last night, and haven't had the opportunity to check back until now.
I want to first thank you for being with us during our discussion and being involved. I really think it is a great for us to have you with us and so involved. It's an incredible opportunity to be able to have you speak to not only the subject, but to be able to hear from you your thoughts and to expand upon what we are reading. So, again, thank you.
And thanks for the points you've made and engaging with me. I appreciate what you are saying and I want to repeat what I stated earlier- that I appreciate why you used the quote as far as referring to TR and LaFollette and their rivalry. I do think I understand what you were going for and some of irony.
Without deviating from that, because I don't want to steer away from chapter one and delve too much into Shaw, I just want to add briefly that I am very familiar with Shaw and the Fabians and his life and writing. Man and Superman is a take on both Nietzsche and the idea of evolution of the species and society and uses Shaw's biting humor to do so. The thing is not to forget that Shaw used his plays and writings not just for humor or to satirize manners and society like Oscar Wilde so famously did, but they were also a means to express his political and social ideas and ideals. Many times in the preface, as both theater and literature critics have noted, Shaw would relate not just his themes, but the very ideas and political philosophies that he intended to portray. I believe it is incorrect to completely separate the man from his works, especially since he himself did not intend to do so. He was a brilliant wit and had a biting humor, but he also intended to "permeate" his views through his work. Indeed it is that theme of "permeation" and education of those views that formed the basis of the philosophy of the Fabians. And yes, they believed in an a gradual approach towards socialism and permeating their platform in the existing political parties, and then forming the Independent Labour Party when that seemed difficult. But they had their growing pains, including a brief flirtation with anarchism, which they thankfully rejected. In fact, one of my favorite observation of the Fabians, (and I apologize, I can't remember who said it at the moment) was that they were "very British socialists." :) And Shaw's admiration and support for Stalin and others occurred when he was older, but not in tottering old age. In fact, his disillusionment with the Fabians began shortly after the turn of the century. He was in his 60s when he vocally supported Lenin and then Stalin and his 70s during the 30s when he visited the Soviet Union and expressed his admiration for Hitler.
The point is this weren't innocent flirtations and misspoken statements of an old man not in possession of his senses. He had begun to disfavor gradualism in the 1920s and favor the dictatorial methods he saw in Italy, Russia and eventually in Germany- it was precisely the remaking the world and adapting it to what he viewed to be the way to achieve a better world. I don't believe it is inaccurate to suggest that Shaw meant what he said in his writings, however satirical and humorous- and it is more from the prefaces to his plays, his essays on politics and government and the human condition, as well as the appendages like "Maxims for Revolutionists" that I draw that from, not his characters and plays themselves which combined his ideas and that of others for satire and conflict. I was merely highlighting that while I understand your use of the quote, I also believe that Shaw quite felt that being "unreasonable" was the way forward, to be uncompromising and reject big "R' reason - philosophy, debate, etc- is good because he believed it slowed down and prevented progress. Democracy, political parties. moderation (which he mocked as well)- all seemed to bog down "progress" to him. G. K. Chesterson (Shaw's buddy but also frequent critic, debate opponent and opposite- could we call them "freniemies?" haha) once observed of Shaw: "This is the first and finest item of the original Bernard Shaw creed: that if reason says that life is irrational, life must be content to reply that reason is lifeless; life is the primary thing, and if reason impedes it, then reason must be trodden down into the mire amid the most abject superstitions." In short- Shaw was a complex man- a contradictory man as well, as all humans are, and he was very witty and intelligent and funny. That doesn't mean he was joking all the time and didn't have ideas and philosophies of his own that he stridently expressed.
I apologize for my lengthy response, and I definitely appreciate your view and response. It's refreshing to be able to engage in debate and ideas like this. I hope you don't infer any disrespect on my part, as I am enjoying your book thus far and greatly appreciate and enjoy your comments on threads. Thank you!
By the way, my favorite Shaw quote is an oldie I suppose, from Everybody’s Political What’s What: "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw
Friedrich Nietzsche
Oscar Wilde
G.K. Chesterton
by
George Bernard Shaw
Bentley wrote: "John as always - you kickstart the conversation and folks will react and I know you like that - so thank you so much for your giving some of the preliminary questions their due. But I encourage you also to share some of the responses to the other questions because it allows us an opportunity to understand what your frame of reference is. Anyway welcome again."No problem Bentley- I will circle back to those questions on my next break and answer them in my next comment.
Sorry for being such a "provocateur" haha.
It is interesting that TR comes off with more nuance than in the popular mind. In peoples' minds, he is this big reformer, trust-buster.However, in an important way, Wolraich portrays TR as hesitant about reforms. You wonder if he is realized that he had to govern, so he did not want to alienated some major players or it is an evolution in his thinking, maybe, possibly both.
OK - circling back to the other questions I didn't answer (I mainly didn't at first because I didn't want to slip too far back into the present while reading Chapter 1) :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.
I think I would echo some of what Savannah said previously- we all may not be happy with it, but deadlock and inaction is as much a part of Congress as their opposites. It was not intended as a political body to fast track legislation. In fact, Federalism was a balance of interests and voices - and the state and the federal governments- to prevent things like majority rule, squashing of free speech, etc of smaller groups and also to prevent small groups from banding together and override the majority as well. It was primarily designed to have checks and balances and prevent from any one group or state or government branch or individual even, from getting too much power.
So while I believe that there are some things that are a mistake, or have caused things to be harder in government, most of all it is the bureaucracy and the patronage that goes on that really causes the most problems. Endless regulation, endless political graft and excessive spending and endless unelected bureaucrats are the rule of the day in DC. And while Congress, The President and the Supreme Court have their share of problematic individuals and some corruptions, we spin our wheels aiming our barbs at them instead of the invisible tentacles that emanate from each branch and that have increasingly more influence on our lives.
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 have voted. I am an independent, but other than studying the issues, discussing them with a range of people and voting, I haven't been involved in any campaigns. To be completely honest, at this moment, I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I will vote, but my ticket of Washington/Adams 2016 is just a fantasy, haha. Candidates will never live up to every issue or item on everyone's agenda. And I feel too many people are focused on their own one or two issue agenda. If said candidate doesn't address it or cater to it- they won't vote for them. In the end we have to examine who we think will live up to the oath of office, protect the Constitution, defend us, be a good commander-in-chief, protect our liberties and do things like maintain roads and infrastructure and try to work with Congress to keep our economy running well. In regards to labels: labels are sometimes not very helpful, as sometimes we don't all agree on what they should be. However, there seems to be a "progressive" in the more modern sense, a socialist, a populist and a hard line constitutionalist running. I think Liberal and Conservative are too broad of terms, and too acrimonious, to accurately reflect their philosophical views.
6. What are the chances of "contested conventions'? How successful do you think these conventions will be?
The likelihood of a brokered convention is looking to be a distinct possibility. It won't be the end of the world if it happens. So many people in the media and online are crying about the end of everything we hold dear if it does. But it has happened before and both parties survived it. However, I would not have wanted to be at the 1924 Democrat Convention. 103 rounds of ballots before they settled on a nominee? No thanks. I wonder how many of those delegates were still sober by the time they passed round 100? In the end, it is all about the rules that each party has set up for themselves. The Republicans have a problem with the so-called Rule 40 which states a nominee must have won 8 states - only two people running have done that. So one of them should be the nominee, no matter how many ballot rounds they go through. However if they change the rules, which they are entitled to do, right up until day one of the convention, and allow someone without any "wins", etc - that seems to be what is upsetting folks out there. On the other hand, delegates have to vote on the rules to approve them, and I don't see enough of them, who have pledged to one of the two front runners, who will change the format to allow that to happen. But who knows? Politics definitely makes strange bedfellows. Democrats on the other hand have that pesky "Super Delegate" problem that is leading some of those folks to feel like the fix is in and their candidate will never win, despite how many states or delegates he has won. In the meantime, the Green party and the Libertarian party are looking into which Holiday Inn Express they can book for their conventions.
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?
This is where the old adage about sausage and laws being made is most apropos. It is true that there is acrimony in politics, and that it gets too personal, but I think there is much of that in our culture and our media as well. There is too much affinity for identity politics. It used to be said that "all politics is local", but now politics are personal, and that is disastrous for us as a nation. When we can no longer be civil, and no longer respect each other's freedoms, we descend into the anarchy that is inherent in the end of Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis: ie: Monarchy- Kingship- Tyranny- Aristocracy- Oligarchy- Democracy- Ochlocracy (mob-rule resulting in anarchy and chaos).
I think modern day politics are very messy, but we also can't be so naïve and blind to think there was a time when it was completely devoid of acrimony and messiness or bias. The political discourse from the beginning as been harsh at times and the barbs flew free. Newspapers had agendas then and they do now. There were so called "Federalist" newspapers and "Democrat-Republican" newspapers in the early days of our government that shilled for either side.
8. What surprised you the most about Theodore Roosevelt and La Follette in Chapter One?
Nothing so much about TR- I was familiar with everything Michael has mentioned thus far, however La Follette was very interesting in his run and term as Governor, of which I knew very little. I am intrigued to learn more about him outside of his work in the Senate - which is where I am most familiar with him.
by Polybius
Mod
Simonetta, welcome - we are delighted to have folks join in who have an international perspective. You made an interesting comparison - I do not see them as being that similar but they are both rather bombastic and maybe that is the similarity that you see. Trump is really more of a moderate than Cruz - but I wonder how much you really get to know the real candidate during this kind of primary season.
That might be an interesting conversation to have in order to discover what folks think a conservative is or a liberal or a moderate - or a progressive. You are right in one way - all of them are labels, definitions, of where a person stands politically in terms of their views. Are they more conservative - far right - very liberal - far left or more moderate - sort of down the middle. Now being progressive can have other connotations.
John wrote: I apologize for my lengthy response, and I definitely appreciate your view and response. It's refreshing to be able to engage in debate and ideas like this. I hope you don't infer any disrespect on my part, as I am enjoying your book thus far and greatly appreciate and enjoy your comments on threads."John, thank you very much for the thoughtful and knowledgeable response. I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the book so far. Don't worry, I was not offended in the least by your comment, and I welcome the discussion of the epigraph, which has received little attention in other venues.
Briefly on Shaw because I agree that he's not our subject. I didn't mean to excuse his admiration for Stalin and Hitler or blame it on senility, only to argue that the epigraph should not be interpreted based on positions he took 30 years later after drifting toward extremism.
To the point, I interpret Shaw's use of the word "unreasonable" in the epigraph to be ironic. The "unreasonable" person who chases impossible dreams and refuses to compromise ideals is, according my interpretation of Shaw, the reasonable one.
These themes--pragmatism vs idealism, compromise vs conflict--form the heart of my book. I expect that you and others will find plenty of grist for debating these dichotomies within the book proper, and I hope that it will be rewarding for all.
Bentley wrote: "Hello Tomi - welcome - I have to agree that I too knew a lot more about Teddy Roosevelt - since I love the National Parks. But seeing some of the background material on La Follette - I have to say ..."I used the term "laws" pretty generously, I suppose. I count executive orders as laws, as well as regulations made by the various bureaucracies and Cabinet departments. And there are so many of them!
Just finished this week's reading. I had to keep checking the dates - am I reading about 1904 or 2016? So many similarities! Seems that TR had a good handle on politics. His willingness to compromise helped him get things done, although I am surprised that (so far) he did little on the domestic front. I think I agree with his method of letting Congress deal with domestic issues so that he could have more power in foreign affairs (but I have to think about that for awhile). That would probably be harder today, since we are so much more co-dependent on other nations.
Parker had the "salient qualities of a sphere" - great characterization! I know some people who fit that description.
1. Hi I am Kacy from rural East Texas. I studied history for undergraduate degree and focused took multiple classes on the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Theodore Roosevelt has always fascinated me for his leadership qulaities, strong personality, and sense of adventure. I even named my son Theodore as a nod to our 26th president. 2.Most of my knowledge of Theodore Roosevelt comes from his big stick philosophy, trust busting, and establishing and protecting national parks. I associate La Follete with his opposition to World War I.
3. To me progressive politics means social change and strong government checks to protect the people from the abusive practices of corporations. In a broad sense the Progressive movement encompassed many things in the early 20th century--the labor movement, the temperance movement, women's suffrage, and eugenics. Today I see the continuation of progressive politics in the Occupy Wall Street movement, the single payer healthcare movement, and in LGBTQ rights movement that has led to recent marriage reforms.
4. My general view of government at the moment is simultaneously negative yet optimistic. I'm disgusted with the role of money in politics and the inability of the two parties to work together. Without speaking in depth about my favorite candidate, I'll just say that I'm feeling a certain Bern during this election season.
5. During this primary season I have given multiple donations to the Bernie Sanders campaign and have campaigned for him in my local community. I see Bernie Sanders as part of the progressive tradition in that he uses scientific evidence and the lessons of history to form his agenda. He's also always supported workers and has stood on picket lines to fight for better wages and working conditions.
6. I think a contested convention is a true possibility with this election season, especially for the Republicans.
7. I do see a certain presidential candidate being more acrimonious than the others. I don't see this as especially unique to this election cycle, and after reading the indrocution, I can see many parallels between 1904 and today.
8. I was surprised by Theodore Roosevelt's ability to work with those across the aisle because I viewed him as more stubborn and forceful. I know less about La Follette, and I look forward to learning more about the ways in which he differed from Roosevelt in policies and practice.
Mod
Please feel free to look over all of these books and authors over.
The bibliography and the glossary keep adding to my tbr list!!! Plus, one discovers interesting facts about some of the players in this book........for example, AG Philander Knox had some responsibility for the Johnstown flood. Who would have known?
Mod
Folks check message one and the links are there for the glossary and the bibliography.
Hi I'm Helga from Columbia, SC, the capital. I am a Chemist but love history and to read as much history as I can. I have been slow in responding as I have been away at a scientific conference for the last week and only using mobile devices.2. I know bits and pieces about TR. His leadership qualities, how he started the park system, and the teddy bear named after him and how he was the 26th president and a Progressive. He was one of my favorite presidents. I know very little about La Follette and M anxious to learn about him.
3. Progressive politics to me means progress or advancement and many times is synonymous with liberal. Progress through social change and government checks to protect the people and environment from abusive practices. This includes progress with civil rights, racial and religious and gender equality, healthcare for all and environmental protection.
4. I am an Independant and like to look at the candidates as a person and not the party. I have been watching many of the debates, town halls and been saturated by the news. I have been especially dismayed by the Republicans and their antics and how they are fracturing their party. This reminds me of the Dixiecrats. The Democrats have Hillary trying to become more Progressive due to Bernie who is more Progressive. Kasich seems to be the most qualified in the GOP but has little support. And the 2 parties can not work together in Congress so nothing can get done.
5. I think a contested GOO convention is likely. The stop Trump movement is doing everything they can to not let him get enough delegates to win the election. Cruz would be a disaster. The Democratic establishment is doing everything they can to give it to Hillary. Even when she loses a state she still ends up with more delegates.
6. I think the GOP primaries especially are more acrimonious then ever with more hostility and name calling.
7. I was surprised to read that TR and La Follette had similar objectives but want to learn more about them and their accomplishments.
Hi, I am Ann D. from Nebraska. I am a retired teacher and former computer analyst. I have loved history since my high school History of Western Civilization class when I was 14. My teacher opened fantastic new worlds to me and I have never stopped wondering about what makes people and cultures tick.I am particularly interested in this book because of the parallels I see with our own time – corporate political corruption, a do-nothing Congress, and a liberal incrementalist in contrast with a “progressive” firebrand. (Clinton/Roosevelt vs. La Follett/ Sanders).
I only know about Roosevelt in general terms- questionable foreign policy, progressive domestic policy. However, Wolraich already seems to question the effectiveness of TR’s reform efforts. I am curious to learn more.
To me, “progressive” means to use government powers to ensure the safety and opportunities of the American people as a whole.
I am very interested in the political scene today. I would like to see a shorter campaign season and uniform primary system in all of the states – but I know I am dreaming. I believe that both Sanders and Clinton are progressives. Clinton is a flawed candidate, but I am impressed with her great range of experience and detailed discussions of policy. Sanders is a likable fellow, but talks too much in generalities. I don’t know how his election could result in the changes he wants. Besides, shouldn’t the Democratic candidate at least be a real Democrat?
I participated in the Democratic caucus in Nebraska. I supported Clinton and my husband supported Sanders, who easily won.
As for the Republican candidates, I am amazed at what is happening to their party. I find both Trump and Cruz scary in different ways. There is a good chance of a contested convention and a split in the Republican Party. Trump will not give up if he doesn’t get the nomination.
(Actually, I would be happy to see both the moderate Republicans and the moderate Democrats break off and form a third party. Again, I am dreaming).
I am satisfied with President Obama. I think he has brought intelligence and dignity to the Oval Office. I am disgusted with the determination of the Republican Congress to fight him at every turn. These are the most partisan times I have seen in my lifetime. Republicans and Democrats really did used to work together to pass meaningful laws.
I am worried about the Supreme Court. I don’t buy the strict constructionism of Scalia, but I don’t think that the Court should be “legislating” either. Garland would make a good addition. Too bad partisan politics prevents even hearings.
I find this book very interesting and stimulating. In the Preface and Chapter One, there are comments that Roosevelt was not such an effective progressive. That surprised me. I enjoyed learning more about La Follett, whom I knew of only in the most general terms. He seems to have had a lot going for him: honesty, a willingness to fight (maybe too much?), tremendous energy, detailed and comprehensive knowledge of politics and political solutions, and great oratorical skills.
Bentley wrote: "Simonetta wrote: "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. ..."Thank you Bentley! I see many other similarities in Trump and Berlusconi. If you Google both names, you can find lots of articles detailing them. To me, it's a painful deja-vu.
I would also be interesting in discussing the function of the federal government as explained in the last two paragraphs of page 8. I wrote a question to the author about it and he said the Republican fears of the increase in government's power were not identical to those of today's Tea Party. I don't yet see the difference but I am hoping this theme will be developed in the book.
Thank you again for organizing this and for all the time you spend monitoring the discussion.
Hi I am Robyn and I'm in New Mexico. I love reading history books and biographies because I feel that, as an engineer, some of my formal history education was neglected. I really like learning more about the people involved, and have read several biographies about the founding fathers. Many of them with this book club. I like the book club because it's interesting to hear different opinions and gain different insights. I now have two copies of the book - the one they sent me and the electronic one from Amazon. I find I do better at keeping up if I have the book with me, and it limits my temptation to peek ahead (or I'll lose my place).This book was interesting to me because it seems there are several parallels to what we're seeing in the current political climate and election. I also am interested because I know very little about Theodore Roosevelt - I didn't even know he was from New York until he was mentioned as a former Police Commissioner on Blue Bloods.
I'm looking forward to the discussion!
This is already a fascinating book. I have been grateful for all of the posts with background information about this period in our history. Thanks to all.
Bentley wrote: "All, I am patiently going through all of the posts so far and will respond to all of them and then we will continue to move forward this week through the assigned readings. I still have a few to go..."Where are the preliminary discussion questions?
message 132:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 12:39PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The Preliminary Discussion Questions are in message 5 - I also posted on the Introduction thread.
The Epigraph Discussion Question is message 72
Mod
Hana what a delightful image that you posted. Thank you very much for those adds - Fighting Bob's Red Winton 5-Seater. Some of the questions you posed appeared to go unanswered - you might want to pull them out and post them for the author on the Q&A.
message 134:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 02:33PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Does anybody want to jump in and have a discussion on these questions and comments that Hana made? Hana if not - please also post them on the author's Q&A.
Hana posted - "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.
Mod
(view spoiler)
message 136:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 02:32PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
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 Folle..."
Welcome Bryan - you might want to take a look at some of Hana's questions and try your hand at a response.
Also please go back to message 5 and try to respond to some of the Preliminary Questions and also questions on the Epigraph.
I’d like to answer question #8 (what I found surprising about Roosevelt and La Fayette.) I found the description of La Fayette’s bull-headedness surprising since that was something I had always read about Roosevelt. Most other things about Roosevelt I vaguely remember from other books, etc. There was one passage in chapter one, page 12, that I thought was an excellent evaluation of Roosevelt at the time. When the author is writing about the journalist Lincoln Steffens relationship to Roosevelt: “As he got to know him better, Steffens could see that Roosevelt’s mind was committed to reform but not his hips, and it was those hips that made the decisions. Whether he was charging up a hill under enemy fire or running for governor, Roosevelt always seemed to act before he had even made up his mind to act. ‘You don’t think with your brains, do you?’ Steffens asked him once. Those brains wanted reform, Steffens reckoned, but the hips hung back closer to the old guard. The hips were happiest right in the middle with one foot in each camp.”
Hana wrote: "...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 :) ."
I was just at the Walt Disney World Epcot Center on Monday with my kids. The description of the St. Louis World's Fair reminded me of Epcot :)
message 139:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 04:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I have placed all of the material in the glossary and in a spoiler in message 138
Mod
I agree Bryan - I feel that way sometimes just voting in the primaries.
Mod
WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One - The Bolt - (pages 1 - 30) - No Spoilers, please
Mod
Folks please feel free to discuss the quotes that Pamela picked out of Chapter One - they are great and deserve some discussion:
I am placing your note not in spoilers so that folks can read and discuss these quotes - they are quite something and are still relevant today:
Pamela's post stated - "The first was this one by TR, “The reformers complain because I will not go to the absurdity of refusing to deal with machine Senators,” he protested to journalist Ray Standard Baker, “but I must work with the material that the states send me.”.
Everyone wants the gridlock to end but to "throw the bums out", we must all be on the same page. The prevailing attitude is still my Rep is terrific: yours is a jerk. It will be interesting to see how the people of that era turned it all around.
The second quote is this, “The function of the Federal government is to afford protection to life, liberty, and property,” Uncle Joe expounded, “When that is done, then let every tub stand on its own bottom, let every citizen ‘root hog or die.’ ”. Never mind that it is a very colorful phrase that I haven't heard in years, but I am always surprised at how quickly in this religious country we are to toss over the Judaic-Christian ethic of loving our neighbor and taking care of the poor, the weak, and the sick
Folks feel free to discuss these quotes further - they are powerful excerpts and the quotes deserve a lot of talk back and forth. What are your thoughts?
message 143:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 04:56PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Root, hog, or die = to survive; to fend for yourself; to make it through tough circumstances by working hard.
A healthy hog, even a very young one, won't let themselves die until they've rooted up and turned every inch of dirt within their pen or range.
Source: The Blind Pig and the Acorn - link: http://www.blindpigandtheacorn.com/bl...
The phrase "let every tub stand on its own bottom": - Early American Saying
Example from Free Dictionary -
Every tub must stand on its own bottom, and Let every tub stand on its own bottom.
Proverb
People should be independent.
Example: Emily did not want to join the other students, who were helping each other study for the exam. "Every tub must stand on its own bottom," she said. Don't ask me for help. Let every tub stand on its own bottom.
Source: Free Dictionary
Mod
Simonetta - always look at the title of the thread - that always displays what the topic of the thread is about - for example - the top of this thread is titled:
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
Then always read message one in each thread - that repeats what should be done on each thread and gives you all of the links.
Then read my other messages - messages 2 - through 5 and you will be able to get the gist of any thread. The assignments are always spelled out.
There is a thread in this folder called the Table of Contents and Syllabus thread and that states the assignments and what you should be reading for every week. I even have reposted it twice here - check message 100 if you are still unsure.
message 145:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 05:03PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Kressel please circle back and answer all of the preliminary questions - you can answer one a day and have covered them all. We like to have some background information and share our thoughts.
Thanks, Bentley. I wasn't sure so I put it in spoilers. I was afraid that some may not have finished reading the chapter yet.Great explanation of "root hog or die". I never really understood that one when I was smaller but the older members of my family used to say it all the time especially if they were in some kind of difficulty trying to do a task, so eventually you kind of figure out the meaning.
Mod
Kressel - you make an interesting comparison to current politics and TR and LaFollette - what about on the Republican side - how do you view them?
message 148:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 09:29AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I understand John but I think in the way that the author is using the quote I would see TR, LaFollette, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs, Gates and Thomas Paine - all as being unreasonable men.
I think a current day "unreasonable man" is Ralph Nadar
What about Martin Luther King or Thurgood Marshall - do you think they could be termed "unreasonable men"?
message 149:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 05:17PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Hello Theresa - welcome to the conversation and we are delighted that you are joining us. I have not read the book that you are referring to.
But please make sure to always include citations for any book or author not being discussed on this thread. You need to add the book cover, the author's photo and the author's link which is the author's name in linkable text. Check out message one on this thread and I have added a variety of links that can help you with this. There is a link to the Mechanics of the Board thread, there is also a link to a citations thread which shows you samples.
Take advantage of all of the help we can provide to you.
Here is what your citation should look like:
by
Karl RoveAlso go to message 5 and answer all of the preliminary questions and post the answers here - also take a stab at the discussion questions on the epigraph - message 100 I believe - or any of the questions and comments in between about this book and anything written from pages 1 - 30. We are all here and interested in reading all of the posts.
Bentley wrote: "Pamela you highlighted two quotes which did not have to be in spoilers because they were in Chapter One.Folks please feel free to discuss the quotes that Pamela picked out of Chapter One - they a..."
This quote “The function of the Federal government is to afford protection to life, liberty, and property,” Uncle Joe expounded, “When that is done, then let every tub stand on its own bottom, let every citizen ‘root hog or die.’ ” is exactly what I wanted to discuss. Also the following quote, "For ten years, the Republican leaders had used their congressional dominance to suppress antitrust laws, currency reforms, food safety inspections, an eight-hour workday, a federal income tax, and other proposals that would have expanded the size and power of the federal government."
To me, this seems to be a sensitive issue today too. Extremes aside (root hog or die), what are the dangers of expanding the size and power of the federal government? Who decides when the government gets too much power? If a president can freely make executive decisions, when does that become a threat to democracy?
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...
Hana, the tariff is a complex issue that I felt I could not do justice to in Chapter 1. Hence the skim. If it's any consolation, I promise a thorough explanation in Chapter 7: The Tariff. ;)