THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND: A ROAD TRIP THROUGH US HISTORY by Beverly Gage

(Mount Vernon, Va.)

At a time when the President of the United States orders the Smithsonian Institution to post signs at exhibits reflecting his own distorted view of American history it is important to be cognizant of what really occurred in the past, its significance, and not allow a misrepresentation of what America has experienced because of the whims of one man. We must do our best to present history in an objective and factual manner and allow people to make up their own minds when thinking about our history. Describing museums, national parks, and other representations of American history and culture as woke, whatever that means, is devious and has no place in our lexicon as we celebrate our country’s 250^th anniversary. In our current bifurcated political environment, it is important for historians to present our history in a meaningful and honest way a task that Yale University historian Beverly Gage and author of a phenomenal biography of J. Edgar Hoover has done with her latest work, THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND: A ROAD TRIP THROUGH US HISTORY.

Gage presents a historical travelogue encompassing thirteen sites she visited as she traveled across America. She describes it as “a guide for anyone who wants to get out there and see the American past for themselves.” Gage follows her own advice and offers a description of places on her itinerary and for each site, character, or important historical event she revisits she offers a concise historical background, an explanation of any controversies involved in the presentation of where she is visiting, and insightful commentary. Gage encourages the reader to explore our imperfect past despite the pressures to downplay the “negative aspects” of our history and put forth the courage and intellectual curiosity to ask important questions and reach their own conclusions.

The breadth of Gage’s coverage takes the reader to sites pertaining to the American Revolution and the role of George Washington, a man who personally believed that he was the unifying force to unite the states after the revolution. Gage is correct in stating that he would become the great “living symbol of America.” The reader will pass through Philadelphia, Mount Vernon, Monticello, the Hermitage, the Alamo, through the Midwest, culminating in Disneyland. Along the way she offers important commentary along with lending a personal touch to her observations. One of the major themes of the book is how these sites have been transformed to reflect the vision of certain historical figures and the myths they created in order to foster their own vision of history. The Alamo is a case in point. A major defeat for Texas and a stunning victory for Mexican General Santa Ana it was quickly transformed from a military route to an inspiring myth that stresses how the Texas Revolution brought men from a dozen states and many nations to fight for democracy making no mention of racial slavery or indigenous land rights. Gage correctly argues how the history following “Remember the Alamo” leads to the Mexican War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and created the first anti-war movement in American history led by Abraham Linclon’s Spot Resolution and the work of Henry David Thoreau. The Mexican War produced numerous states exemplifying the extension of slavery and imperial conquest.

(The Hermitage, Nashville, TN)

Henry Ford, George Pullman, and Walt Disney are presented as men who wanted to create their own myths associated with their work. Gage presents brief biographies of all three, as she does with most important characters she explores, and goes on to describe each person’s vision of what the past or the future would look like. Ford does so in his Museum of American Innovation and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan; the Pullman National Historical Park located on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois. Established in the 1880s, it preserves America’s first planned industrial company town, the site of the 1894 Pullman Strike, and key manufacturing grounds for the Pullman Palace Car Company, lastly Disneyland with its vision of the past and future in a series of grouped theme parks.

Despite the commentary of certain politicians slavery is ingrained in our history and cannot be shuffled to the side negating its impact. Gage integrates the history of slavery through a major portion of her monograph as she explores the role of Charleston, South Carolina, the work of John C. Calhoun, the abolitionist movement, John Brown’s Raid and other important components of this aspect of our history. The controversies centering around Civil War monuments and statues to southern heroes are analyzed in terms of their meaning for local populations in addition to the people who are still negatively affected by their presence.

Another negative aspect of our history that is explored is that of Native Americans and their plight in dealing with removal from areas sought by white men seeking new territory for slavery, mining interests, ranching, and a host of others. The lives and sites devoted to accomplishing their removal is fraught with massacres and forced removal under the auspices of men like President Andrew Jackson. Further, General George Armstrong Custer and Little Big Horn are visited and are another example of myth this time perpetrated by Custer’s widow, Libbie who set out to make her dead husband an American hero.

(Greenfield Village, Dearborn, MI)

The west plays an important role in American history. After delving into Theodore Roosevelt, the Badlands, and Mount Rushmore, Gage points out that the idea that “the west is America and America is the west” dominates historical sites in the region. Further she points out that Buffalo Bill Cody did his best to ensure the meaning and identity of American history through his traveling expositions depicting a bygone era. A place Gage briefly mentions is Cody, Wyoming which houses the Smithsonian’s Buffalo Bill Center of the West, a group of five separate museums that focus on different aspects of Native American culture, America’s gun culture and other topics. Further, if you drive a few miles out of town you can visit the Heart Mountain Relocation Center, a World War II Japanese Internment camp.

(Mount Rushmore, Rapid City SD)

Perhaps my favorite aspect of Gage’s travels is her description of the importance of upstate New York intellectually and economically in the 19^th century. Her travels along the Erie Canal route and its impact are forgotten in most textbooks. In addition, Gage focuses on the work of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, among others, which produced the Underground Railroad and the Seneca Falls Convention. Interestingly as compared to sites in Virginia and Texas, sites in upstate New York are more modest.

At the end of the book Gage delves into Orange County, California and the role of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan’s presidential libraries. Nixon is important, in part because of Watergate, but more so because of our contemporary political world as he forged a republican coalition that took advantage of the Sunbelt’s booming population while drawing in disaffected white southern and northern working classes. He stressed limited government and also had an enemies list and voiced a great deal of hatred for intellectuals and anyone who crossed him. Though his popularity would collapse after he left office in 1974 his political coalition outlasted him and his mantle was in part taken by President Trump.

Today as we celebrate our 250^th anniversary as a nation it is rather disingenuous for the Trump administration to cut funding and chastise the very programs and institutions that preserve our heritage be it the National Park Service, the National Archives, the National Endowment for the Humanities and many others – when I thought the government was supposed to make history accessible. The key as Gage concludes is that “much of the task of celebrating the 250^th will fall to the rest of us…ordinary citizens who will have to do what we can with what we’ve got where we are,” because it appears there are forces who would like is to disregard facts and just follow along to go along.

(Monticello, Charlottesville, Va.)

REGIME CHANGE: INSIDE THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan

July 2, 2026July 2, 2026szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

(The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025).

When Donald Trump announced his goals to justify his war on Iran he described it as an “excursion” and regime change was on the top of his list. Fast forward three months and it appears the United States defeated Iran militarily but lost the geo-strategic battle as Tehran has emerged victorious as it now controls the Gulf of Hormuz and can negatively impact the world economy at will, something that did not exist before Trump’s “excursion.” Further, Iran’s theocratic regime remains intact, the government maintains its missile capabilities and retains thousands of drones. It is clear from the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding that the United States has lost the peace. It appears Trump has grown tired of the war and needs to put it behind him because of the upcoming mid-term elections. As a result, he has agreed to lift oil sanctions on Iran, allow Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz, promised billions of dollars in rebuilding funds a.k.a. reparations, and the release frozen Iranian assets. In addition, nothing has been agreed to pertaining to Iran’s nuclear assets. One must ask, how did this situation come to fruition so quickly? Many of the answers to these questions and other aspects of the Trump administration’s policies can be found in New York Times’ journalists, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s new book, REGIME CHANGE: INSIDE THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP.

From the book’s title one would gather the narrative focuses on Iran, but that is just one component as the authors focus on the Epstein Files, Trump’s revenge tour against perceived enemies, immigration policy and the actions of ICE, foreign influence, the enriching of the Trump family, corruption, and the overriding concept of loyalty which dominates any relationship with Trump and his administration. The authors also engage in analyzing why Trump behaves as he does. From the outset they argue that Trump has always created his own reality and then proceeds to force others to submit to his version of events. Trump lies constantly and absurdly; but what began as fantasies often blurred and morphed into a reality of his own making. With increasing frequency, and the help of sycophants, Trump spoken word is truth. Trumps adamant refusal to accept reality laid the foundation for his comeback in 2024. His obsession over the election of 2020, his ability to draw many into his mindset that the election was stolen, and that January 6^th rioters were patriots out for a “Sunday stroll” dominate his world view and if you do not succumb to the gestalt you are not allowed into his world and administration.

(President Donald Trump (L), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (C), and Secretary of State Marco Rubio monitor the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites from the White House Situation Room on June 21, 2025)

Regime change is normally associated with foreign countries. However, based on the use of executive power what we are now experiencing in our country is regime change when one examines administration policies and actions, and Trump’s rule by his “gut.” The monograph is very concerning in that it is well researched and sourced. One could not imagine the types of events, personalities, and actions that are described, but they are part of our political fabric and policies that makes one wonder what the future holds.

In reading REGIME CHANGE it is difficult to discern which event or policies are the most disconcerting. But what is most important is the issue of accuracy. To this point there has been little push back from Trump administration supporters concerning the narrative. There are the usual criticisms focusing on personal attacks against the authors but little if any questioning of the substance of what the authors present. The most important criticism voiced by Tunku Varadarajan in his June 26, 2026, review of the book in the Wall Street Journal states that “the book relies largely on sources who spoke exclusively on ‘deep background,’ journalism jargon for the pinky-swear promise of eternal anonymity. We’re asked to trust the writers but have no means to verify their disclosures, some of these purportedly from the very heart of the presidency.” If this criticism is accurate why has no one questioned the core of what has been uncovered? Further, based on the record of honesty associated with the Trump administration who should we believe?

(Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller watches President Donald Trump speak in the Oval Office. Emails leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center appear to reveal Miller’s familiarity with white nationalist texts and thinkers).

The book itself is a cornucopia of the last 365 days. If you are a news junky like I am I was pretty aware of most of what the book discusses. What I wasn’t cognizant of were the deep sourcing taking the reader inside meetings, arguments, and written components of the topics at hand. This is where the Trump administrations actions become unsettling which is due in large part by Trump himself but also the characters around him who have been given power. Chief among them is Stephen Miller who has risen to be Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and the keeper of all executive orders, placing him in charge of domestic policy. He has become the most powerful White House staffer in modern history. He is laser focused on cutting through the traditional bureaucratic obstacles in the federal government to push through Trump’s agenda. He has recruited lawyers who stretch the law to illegalities to implement Trump’s wishes – clean out the federal work force from “Trump haters.” Miller was in charge of the flurry of executive orders at the outset of the administration by overwhelming the opposition as to their number be it ending birthright citizenship or pausing funding of federal agencies. In the realm of immigration, Miller has set daily quotas to round up and deport people to the tune of 3000 per day. The promise was that only criminals would be seized and deported, but to reach the one million per year that Miller sought regular people, some of whom are citizens and others who are here legally have been rounded up by ICE. It was clear racial profiling was used which went along with Miller’s view of race and wanting to facilitate the creation of a white republic. The authors delve into Greg Bovino, Dan Bongino, Tom Homan, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and others who have facilitated this process.

Another character portrait which is beyond the pale centers on Elon Musk who spent $300 million to get Trump elected in 2024. He created DOGE, the Department of Governmental Efficiency and began to gut the federal work force and certain programs. With little knowledge of the labyrinthine federal system, nor how the budget functioned, with even less interest in the Constitution, he sought to reengineer the government as he imagined. He usurped the powers of Congress; impounded billions already appropriated and overrode cabinet members. A case in point was getting rid of USAID, the heart of American soft power overseas which probably caused the death of thousands by slashing funding for medicines and other aspects of disease control. Further he even blocked funding for an ISIS prison that held over 300 terrorists.

(ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – MARCH 02: U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on March 2, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. Secretary Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

The list of characters associated with the implementation of Trump’s agenda is long and disheartening especially on the domestic front with the use of ICE, and the deployment of the military to try and occupy certain cities – all of which are heavily minority and democratic. The first test case was Los Angeles, then Chicago, Washington, DC, and of course the fiasco that resulted in the death of two American citizens in Minneapolis.

The authors present the rationale for other programs including the unleashing of tariff wars as Trump maintains the 1950s belief that doing so would bring back manufacturing to the United States. Trump’s tariff policy rekindled the horrors of the Hawley-Smoot tariffs of 1930 which greatly contributed to the Great Depression but free trade once the hallmark of the Republicans just melted away. It began a trade war with our allies, a process that would also include Trump’s agenda to rely less on traditional allies, break up NATO, and force them to recalibrate any reliance on Washington. This also had a negative effect on the economy as by increasing tariffs the result is an increase in the cost of consumer goods resulting in higher inflation. Trump blames inflation on the Biden administration, or he rationalizes that it would only be a short time problem as tariffs would produce great revenues to offset the pain for the consumer.

Haberman and Swan’s discussion of Trump’s domestic agenda are disturbing enough but his foreign policy has been a disaster. According to Trump he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. His kowtowing to Vladimir Putin is part of the historical record. His treatment of Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been abhorrent particularly the scene in the Oval office in February 2025 as Trump tried to force the Uranian president to give into all of Putin’s demands. The treatment of NATO allies is well known as is Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland and the obnoxious tactics pursued. But it is the current situation in Iran and how we went to war which is most disturbing.

It is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Neteyahu was able to convince Trump to go along with the plan to attack Iran. The June 2025 Israel attacks in Lebanon and Iran showed Trump what success could look like and since he always wants to be associated with a winner, so he joined Israel in going after Iran’s hidden nuclear capabilities. After the success against Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro Trump thought he could decapitate Iran’s leadership, and a new regime would give into his whims. We all know how that turned out with Iran controlling the Gulf of Hormuz and Trump succumbing with his Memorandum of Understanding, a strategic victory for Iran, though a military victory for the United States.

Official Portrait of the 22nd Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Dan Caine.

(General Dan Caine, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Apart from domestic and foreign policies Haberman and Swan’s research into the accumulation of Trump family wealth and those of the presidents friends are unprecedented. Deals for Jared Kushner, Steve Wycoff and his son, Erick and Donald Jr. have brought in billions from drone contracts, crypto deals, and other projects. Donations based on coercion of Corporate CEOs have brought in billions to Trump’s political actions committees to fund some of his outlandish desires reflecting the fear Trump has instilled. Yesterday, in fact it was announced that Trump had earned over $2 billion of personal wealth during his first term. The media has been no exception as Trump wants to remake how news is reported. If that is not enough Trump wants to change how we view our history – the author’s discussion of the Smithsonian is a case in point.

The scariest section of the book is entitled “Retribution” in which the authors recount how Trump has gone after anyone he feels criticized him in the past. If you did not agree with the 2020 election conspiracy or the categorization of the January 6^th participant there was a target on your back. Law firms, former Homeland Security or FBI officials, universities, newscasters, nighttime comedians, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, John Bolton, John Brennan, James Comey and his daughter, and Federal reserve Chair, Jerome Powell all fit this criteria as do a host of others.

One would think that the MAGA world would never oppose any action or inaction taken by Trump, but the Epstein Files finally created an opposition which to this day has not gone away. The work of Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche to block the release of the files is well known and the authors sprinkle in greater detail. Especially intriguing is the chronicling of the Situation Room meetings to develop a strategy to deal with the Epstein files that included Vice President Vance, Susie Wiles, and many other important figures.

Donald J. Trump standing with Todd Blanche.

(Donald J. Trump with Todd Blanche outside Manhattan Criminal Court, where Mr. Blanche was the president-elect’s defense lawyer in the hush money case. The two bonded over the several weeks of the trial)

The depth of detail in Haberman and Swan’s narrative amazes. From their description of Trump as an interior decorator with his gold touches, to Trump’s annoyance at Vice President Vance’s position on Iran (maybe that is why he was put in charge of negotiations to end the war!) to reactions to the killing of Charlie Kirk, to how Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and others ingratiated themselves with Trump, to a myriad of other examples the authors take the reader inside an unimaginable world. Significantly, Vance and Miller wanted to use the murder of Charlie Kirk as an excuse to go after anyone they perceived to be enemies of the administration. Thery issued a National Security Presidential Memo/NSPM-7 which was designed to label all leftist elements in American politics as a terrorist threat arguing that most violent acts were committed by leftists while the facts reflect it was the American right which was most responsible.

The authors provide many keen observations in the run up to the attack on Iran. They focus on the debates within the administration as to what action should be taken. The focus on CIA Head John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine are most disconcerting. Ratcliffe warned Trump that Netanyahu’s presentation to justify war and his objectives did not pass the smell test, and others described them as “bullshit.” The Israeli Prime Minister had his own agenda separate from the United States and was able to convince Trump of a quick and relatively easy victory. Cain warned Trump that war would heavily deplete America’s weapons and munitions stockpiles presenting the cost of an Iranian drone v. US missiles as a case in point. This would lead to Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s repeated lies about America’s inventory once a ceasefire was agreed to. The authors unequivocably state that at no point during the deliberations that resulted in war did Caine tell Trump that war with Iran was a terrible idea, “though some of Caine’s colleagues believed that was exactly what he thought.” In the end, as per usual, Trump went with his “gut” and did what he wanted expecting a second Venezuela result.

One could never write a Hollywood script to describe a presidency that people would believe if it were based on this book. However, until someone proves that what these authors have written is false we as a nation have a president who puts himself, his legacy, his wealth, and his “gut” feelings ahead of the needs of the American people.

(A general view of the White House East Wing entrance in Washington in 1906).

LIAR’S KINGDOM: HOW TO STOP TRUMP’S DECEIT AND SAVE AMERICA by Andrew Weissmann

June 6, 2026szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

Image: Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump gather for a rally in Washington

(January 6th attack on the US Capitol)

The last few weeks lends a great deal of credence to the ideas and positions offered by former federal prosecutor, NYU Law professor, and MS NOW contributor Andrew Weissmann. The American people have experienced a President who has put forth a plan to pay convicted January 6^th followers from a fund of close to $1.8 billion and provide himself and his family immunity from IRS prosecution from actions taken in the past and what could occur in the future. Further, the man responsible for the fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has continued to lie and cover up the Epstein files and prosecute anyone President Trump would like to seek revenge against (yesterday it was announced he was being put forward to be the permanent Attorney General). Trump has also nominated Bill Puilte as DNI to oversee all intelligence services even though he has no experience in the field and his main calling has been to dig up dirt on Trump’s perceived enemies. We are also exposed to the daily untruths put forth by Mark Wayne Mullin, the newly appointed Secretary of Homeland Security dealing with immigration issues and justifying the actions taken by ICE. If that is not enough we can watch the briefings offered by Pete Hesgeth, the Secretary of Defense justifying the murder of people on the open seas and further lies dealing with the conduct and state of the war with Iran. Then there is NSC head and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s verbal machinations about the war in Iran, the state of negotiations, and positions the President actually believes in. Apart from the daily lies offered by the President on a myriad of issues be it the 2020 election, funding for his new ballroom, the reflecting pool, and massive arch he wants to build the public has become increasingly cognizant of the vast sums, roughly $4 billion the Trump family has amassed since Trump’s second term began. In addition, Trump has used “insider trading” to the tune of millions of dollars to augment his personal wealth. The operative words in all of these examples are fraud and lies.

Some might argue that what I have written is too partisan and over the years Democrats are just as guilty. I would point out that history and incontrovertible facts would disagree. The question must be raised; is there a solution to all the lying and corruption that screams from the headlines each day. In his latest book, LIAR’S KINGDOM: HOW TO STOP TRUMP’S DECEIT AND SAVE AMERICA, Andrew Wiessmann reviews examples of corruption and lies and how politicians get away with it and offers solutions on how we can hold people accountable for their actions and statements to try to invigorate our democracy. In a blend of personal observations and sound legal opinions Weissmann confronts the “chipping away of the rule of law” that has been ongoing the last few years. According to the author we need to shore up our legal system against demagogues who seek to use lies to destroy our democracy. Candidly, Weissmann asks why can people lie in politics, to gain office, power, and wealth with no legal consequence, when in other areas of lying and fraud they can be prosecuted? It is clear we are a nation awash in lies and fraud.

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro at Mar-a-Lago in 2020.

(U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Brazil’s then-President Jair Bolsonaro at Mar-a-Lago in 2020)

Weissmann offers a number of examples to support his critique. The one that is repeated over and over in the monograph is that the 2020 election was a fraud and that Trump actually won (which he repeats on a daily basis). This has become a litmus test for Trump and anyone serving in the government. Trump is allowed to get away with the lies because there is no criminal law that says the lie is illegal – no civil law imposes any punishment for such falsehoods. In the end one-third of Americans support these lies.

Weissmann draws on his vast prosecutorial experience to provide examples of when lies can be prosecuted. He delves into the Enron case highlighted by the actions of Kenneth Lay who was effectively prosecuted as his lies brought material benefit. He focuses on organized crime centered on Vincent Gigante and the Genovese mob family, the environmental lies of Volkswagen and others. Remarkably it is a crime to lie to shareholders, it is a crime to lie to Congress, but it is not a crime to lie to the public. The problem is that lies metastases – i.e., J6 pardons, ICE enforcement and its consequences. We now learn that out of the 1500 J6 people pardoned, 97 have been charged with new crimes unrelated to J6, a number of which deal with sexual abuse and violence.

(President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club, on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Florida, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense)

Our current media marketplace exacerbates the problem as it permits lies to flourish with no accountability. Weissmann is dead on arguing that our “media marketplace is polluted with propaganda, disinformation, and emotional manipulation all in the guise of defending the First Amendment. In short, authoritarians use the cloak of the freedom of speech to promulgate false factual speech and drown out the truth.” With the arrival of AI differentiating the public lie from the public truth is only going to grow harder in the future and as a society we have no strategy to deal with it.

(Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche)

Since we have no domestic solutions to try and mitigate the problem of fraud and lies in the public sphere Weissmann turns to other countries for possible solutions. He explores the case of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. An example that mirrors that of Trump and how the Brazilian parliament has passed laws that rest on the premise that people have the right to truthful information in elections that supersedes the right of free speech when deliberate falsehoods threaten the democratic order. In France Marine Le Pen is barred from holding office for five years because she engaged in embezzlement and was convicted. In Germany there are laws that forbid free speech pertaining to a particular subject, denying the existence of the Holocaust is a prime example. Interestingly, the United States has laws that do not allow convicted felons to run for office, but it is only a state statute and does not exist on the federal level.

Weissmann proposes a Truth in Elections Act built on existing law. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 redrawn in 2013 criminalizes lying about military honors with the “intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits” which has survived a Supreme Court challenge. For Weissmann the courts are the key to any reform. Due process has the ability to get at the truth – we have a jury system that in most cases people take seriously. However, you need a Justice Department that is not headed by the President’s personal lawyer whose sole purpose is to carry out the revenge whims of the occupant of the White House. Some might find Weissmann’s short volume a polemic, however, his views are based on facts and the law, two things that most people would have difficulty arguing with, unless your name is Trump.

(President Donald Trump arrives to speak to supporters on January 6th)

ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

July 13, 2025szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

(Biden family photos sat behind President Joe Biden as he delivered his address to the nation)

Ever since the Anita Hill hearings in October 1991 I have had little respect for Joseph Biden. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was responsible for her receiving a fair and respectful hearing – a task that then Senator Biden failed at miserably. The hearings took place during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing for a seat of the Supreme Court, and one would expect that the chairman of the committee could assure that Ms. Hill’s complaints concerning Thomas’ sexual harassment would have been received with an open mind, but this was not the case. The hearing was contentious, and I would categorize certain aspects particularly before the “Me Too” movement existed as somewhat misogynistic. Biden’s refusal or inability to reign in the commentary of certain committee members reflect his membership in the “Senatorial Men’s Club” which downplayed any questioning and support for women who raised the kinds of complaints that Ms. Hill did against Thomas. Fast forward decades and it is partially Biden’s fault that this partisan corrupt judge has a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court and feels no obligation to conform to the expected behavior of a justice as he has accepted millions in benefits from his political cronies.

The second issue that concerns me involves Mr. Biden’s decision to run for re-election in 2024. This is further borne out by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson’s new book ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN where the authors encapsulate Biden’s error, which in large part was driven by personal ego. The end result was that when he finally showed how unfit he was during a June presidential debate he was forced to withdraw his presidential candidacy leaving Vice President Harris 107 days to run against the MAGA machine which had been preparing for the election for four years. I am not saying Harris, or any Democrat could have defeated the current occupant of the White House, but at least they would have been given a more level playing field. The end result is an autocratic presidency where masked men and the US military round up legal immigrants, US citizens, in the guise of deporting innumerable criminal migrants, which has been shown to be statistically false. We now have the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” that will impact the poor in the name of rewarding the rich – thank you former President Biden.

MIke Donilon stands behind Joe Biden, alongside Liz Sherwood-Randall

(Mike Donilon (center) stands behind Biden, next to homeland security aviser Liz Sherwood-Randall in August 2024.)

The title of the first chapter says it all – “He Totally Fucked Us.” The theme laid out by the authors is clear and is supported by over 200 interviews, many of which were key players on the inside of the Biden administration, congresspersons, senators, journalists, major players in the Democratic Party, and activists. Despite reassurances that Biden could pull off his reelection, by 2023 it was clear he should have withdrawn any possible presidential candidacy and allowed a robust competition for the Democratic Party nomination. His frailty, reduced cognitive function were attested to by many on the inside according to the authors and it was obvious he could not engage in an arduous campaign and for the matter serve effectively for another four years. The authors point to the disinformation put out concerning Biden’s protectors – family, a close coterie of advisors, campaign staff and others led to a false sense that he could win reelection, despite this fantasy, there were a number of people who believed if reelected he would not live out his second term.

The authors argue correctly that Donald Trump won the election by 2.2 million votes. However, his electoral college victory was based on about 200,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therefore, it was in the realm of possibility another democrat, be it Vice President Harris or someone else given the opportunity of a complete campaign might have won.

The book centers on the facts the authors uncovered pertaining to “Biden’s health and abilities; the silence of witnesses; the complicity of enablers; and the scheming of those who endeavored to hide it from others and from the public.” Biden was in decline since 2022, and the authors set out to prove a conspiracy to hide his deficiencies all out of fear that Trump could return to the White House.

Joe Biden meets with Steve Ricchetti and Louisa Terrell (cropped)

(President Biden meets with campaign advisor Steve Ricchetti)

It is common knowledge that the Biden family has suffered more than its share of loss and tragedies over the years. But the mindset of not facing reality on their part on a number of occasions clouded Biden’s judgement as well as those around him. There are two terms that the authors use that help explain what occurred. The first was “Bideness,” which refers to Biden’s decline in mental acuity to the point of a perceived effort by Biden’s inner circle to conceal his struggles from the public and maintain an image of a sharp and capable leader, even resorting to methods like highly scripting events and limiting access to the president. The authors describe a president who exhibited signs of cognitive impairment behind the scenes, such as failing to recognize longtime political allies, losing his train of thought in important conversations, and forgetting important dates. The second term employed by the authors is the “Politburo” made up of a very insularized inner circle that surrounded and protected Biden made up of seasoned political veterans like Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, and Bruce Reed. An outer layer consisted of Ann Dunn, and Bob Bauer. Cabinet members and other policy advisors were excluded as the insularized group protected their influence. One person described it as “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was the senior member of the board.”

I am not suggesting that the Biden administration achievement was not masterful. The handling of the Covid 19, the Infrastructure Bill, Climate legislation, economic growth, Inflation Reduction Act, investment into semiconductor manufacturing and research, revitalizing America’s relations with its allies and strengthening NATO etc. Some of this was even achieved with bi-partisan support, but the credit goes to Biden who was the head of his administration, but there are numerous others who deserve most of the credit. The question must be asked: did Covid 19 provide the impetus and cover for much of the success and was it possible that a second term with a cognitively reduced president could achieve other important legislation.

Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain delivers remarks during an event where U.S. President Joe Biden (L) welcomed his new Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients (R) in the East Room of the White House on February 01, 2023 in Washington, DC. The event also gave Biden an opportunity to thank Klain, the longest-serving first chief of staff for any Democratic president. Zients most recently served as the White House coronavirus response coordinator. Klain also served as chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore and later for President Barack Obama.

(President Biden and Chief of Staff Ron Klain)

The overriding guide for Biden’s aides and officials that surrounded him was to defeat Donald Trump in 2024, seemingly at the cost of hiding the president’s loss of acuity and physical infirmities. Most believed that Vice President Harris could not defeat Trump and many disliked her and her approach to politics. The mantra was clear, no one could defeat the former president but Biden. The result, according to the authors supported by people “who were in the room where it happened” (from the musical “Hamilton!”) was that Biden had difficulty focusing, forgot names and didn’t recognize people, exhibited a complete loss of energy, and had difficulty absorbing information. The resulting speechwriters had to adapt to his diminishing capabilities; an increased reliance on note cards and teleprompters, and scripted meetings and interviews. A case in point was Biden’s performance at the Normandy D Day commemoration in June 2022. Biden appeared stiff and according to the authors a number of Normandy survivors had more energy than the president.

One must realize in Biden’s defense that he was under extreme stress since the death of his son Beau in 2015. As the years passed, he grew further attached to his surviving son, Hunter, whose personal issues including drug addiction, using the president’s contacts and family name to acquire wealth, tax evasion, and illegal weapons purchase resulted in a trial all weighing on the president’s mind. Once a special prosecutor was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and resulted at first in a plea deal related to Hunter’s purchase of a gun while addicted to cocaine was overturned and resulted in his conviction in a Delaware court, it knocked the wind out of the president as did his tax evasion trial in California. Biden would say he only had one son left, and he would enable him the most. Biden would blame himself for many of Hunter’s problems because if he hadn’t run for president, the Justice Department spurred on by Republicans would never have gone after his son.

Biden’s limitations are catalogued by Tapper and Horowitz by numerous examples supported by individuals who were present in National Security Council meetings, speech preparation, cabinet meetings, fundraising events, etc. Aides used personal blinders to convince themselves Biden would overcome his shortcomings as they referred to his excellent State of the Union Speech in 2024, however within hours it was the same old infirm president. This was compounded by the investigation into Biden’s possession of classified documents from his vice presidential years and the conclusion by special prosecutor that the case was not winnable because a jury would not convict an infirm man, with memory issues, well into his eighties. The “Politburo” grew angrier and angrier at Garland who refused to back down. They would freeze the Attorney General out of the administration as more and more Democratic stalwarts wanted Biden to drop out of the presidential race.

(Biden campaign advisor Bruce Reed)

The June 2024 debate debacle which the authors relate in minute detail was the final straw. Tapper and Thompson lay bare a sense of betrayal as Biden; his family and closest advisors dwelt in a world of alternative facts. As Jennifer Szalai’s New York Times May 13, 2025, book review states; “Trump’s debate performance was of a piece with his rallies, a jumble of nonsensical digressions and wild claims. But for many Americans, the extent of Biden’s frailty came as a shock. Most of the president’s appearances had, by then, become tightly controlled affairs. For at least a year and a half, Biden’s aides had been scrambling to accommodate an octogenarian president who was becoming increasingly exhausted and confused. According to ORIGINAL SIN which makes pointed use of the word “cover-up” in the subtitle, alarmed donors and pols who sought the lowdown on Biden’s cognitive state were kept in the dark. Others had daily evidence of Biden’s decline but didn’t want to believe it.” This created a firestorm within the Democratic Party that ultimately led to the nomination of Kamala Harris and her ultimate defeat.

(Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden)

The book may come across as a polemic against Biden and those around him, however if their arguments and sourcing are correct then a grave injustice was perpetrated against the American people. In a sense the best way to describe the book is a story centered around willful ignorance that rose to the level of a conspiracy – the authors prove their case!

In closing, according to Jennifer Szalai; “Earlier this month, in what looks like an attempt to get ahead of the book’s publication, Biden went on “The View” to say that he accepts some responsibility for Trump’s victory: “I was in charge.” But he was dismissive about reports of any cognitive decline. In ORIGINAL SIN, Tapper and Thompson describe him waking up the morning after the 2024 election thinking that if only he had stayed in the race, he would have won. “That’s what the polls suggested, he would say again and again,” the authors write. There was just one problem with his reasoning: “His pollsters told us that no such polls existed.”

(President Joe Biden with family members nearby as he delivers remarks during an address from the Oval Office of the White House)

RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA by Clay Risen

June 9, 2025szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Cold War Leave a comment

(U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (center) during an investigation into alleged communist infiltration of the government, 1954 with Roy Cohn on the right).

George Santayana’s most famous quote regarding history is: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This quote emphasizes the importance of learning from past mistakes to avoid making them again. I guess when one looks at our contemporary political, social, and economic landscape we as a society have not followed the Spanish-American philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist’s advice. We live in a partisan world where things seem to be defined by which tribe we belong to. It appears that our country is split almost down the middle in terms of our loyalties and belief systems. Currently, the administration that occupies the White House is led by a cult leader whose primary goal is power and enrichment for himself and his family. To achieve this, he has manufactured a world identified as “Make America Great Again” or MAGA and through executive orders and partisan legislation seeks to implement what has been identified as “Project 2025” which will devastate certain governmental components, social programs for the poor, the international trading system, the federal budget, our immigration system, and god knows what else that is written in the weeds of that document.

In examining American history, I can think of three periods where contemporary events have their role model. One is the Gilded Age of the late 19^th century, when tariffs, crony capitalism, and hard-and-fast hierarchies were the stuff of American politics. Secondly we turn to the 1920s with its version of anti-communism, an economic system that was overloaded with debt, highlighted by Wall Street, racism manifesting itself in anti-immigrant legislation, and a strict reshaping of American politics. Lastly, is the post-World War II period highlighted by the Red Scare, when the federal government was weaponized against the American left. This last example sounds familiar as we are bombarded on a daily basis by public commentary and social media posts by our president who has weaponized the Justice Department seeking revenge against his perceived enemies be it individual politicians, educational institutions, businessmen or lawyers who do not conform to his demands, a feckless Congress and Supreme Court, all with the goal of seeking total fealty to the beliefs of one man.

People Metal Print featuring the photograph Dalton Trumbo At House Hearings by Bettmann

(Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo before HUAC)

In Clay Risen’s latest historical monograph, RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA the author examines a period that is close to being the precursor of our contemporary world. President Trump vows to root out “radical left wing lunatics” and “Marxist equity” from the bowels of the state. One of Trump’s minions, former DOGE overlord Elon Musk has proclaimed that U.S.A.I.D. designed as a soft power vehicle to enhance American popularity in poor countries particularly by improving their health care is “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists” and deserved to be destroyed. This commentary which pervades actors in the current administration sounds like Senator Joseph McCarthy, legal counsel Roy Cohn, Senator and later Vice President Richard Nixon, and even Robert F. Kennedy, and many others. In fact, McCarthy garnered a range of support, including from fellow Republicans, some ordinary Americans, and even some Democrats. His supporters often believed in the necessity of identifying and suppressing perceived communist influence, justifying the denial of civil liberties to those deemed subversive. Conversely, many Americans and political figures strongly opposed McCarthy’s tactics, highlighting the divisive nature of the movement as he lied over and over about the dangers of the “Red Menace.” Risen’s book shows that the Red Scare burst forth from a convergence of Cold War fears and a long festering battle between social conservatives and New Deal progressives. Risen begins at the outset of the Cold War concluding with McCarthy’s death in 1957 providing a fuller understanding of what the American people experienced at a time of moral questioning and perceived threats, and what people are capable of doing to each other under the right circumstances.

Risen has an interesting metaphor in approaching his topic by discussing how a bacillus, in this case, cultural and political can, lie dormant for decades and reappear years later. The bacillus of the 1950s Red Scare receded but did not totally disappear in the decades that followed, but its lineage has reemerged in the last decade or so with the American hard right. To understand contemporary culture and politics which is occurring before our eyes today we must understand it and its roots in the Red Scare. This is not to say that Trumpism and the MAGA movement is the same as McCarthyism and the John Birch Society, but there is a line linking them. Risen’s goal is to demonstrate that at a moment in the late 1940s, and in a certain political and cultural context, that knowing where we are today requires an understanding of where we were then.

Risen quickly turns to the origins, personalities, and actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), especially toward its witnesses and the people they were trying to destroy and disseminating its right wing agenda. The Committee would become the spear driving a decade long campaign of intolerance and political oppression. Risen clearly develops the case that the emergence of a strong anti-government agenda which used the fear of communism as a foil against its opponents had its origin in hatred for the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt (much like Trump’s abhorrence of any achievement wrought by Barack Obama or Joe Biden). The anti-communist movement morphed into an anti-civil rights movement represented by HUAC and other congressional committee investigations highlighted by its war against Hollywood, epitomized by the investigation of Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten. For HUAC members and others the New Deal was a “stalking horse” for Soviet collectivization, which today we refer to as the deep state. The conundrum as Risen argues is that there were two visions of America; “one built on an expansive vision of government as the guarantor of the rights and welfare of all its citizens, the other built on a retrograde nostalgia for an America built on privilege and exclusion.”

(Elizabeth Bentley testifying before the House Committee)

The author integrates the major figures of the period nicely. Whether presenting the careers and beliefs of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, J. Parnell Thomas, Dalton Trumbo, J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Richard M. Nixon, Elizabeth Bentley, Judith Coplon, Harry Bridges, Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Whitiker Chambers, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and a host of others, Risen analyzes their role in the Red Scare and their impact on post-war American history.

The 1948 election plays a key role in Risen’s analysis as Truman was able to defeat New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey. After losing the 1946 congressional elections to Republicans Truman realized he needed to shore up support with those who felt he was weak on communism. This would lead to the Federal Loyalty Program and a rhetorical war within the Democratic party represented by former Vice President and Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace. During the 1948 campaign Dewey, to his credit did not get down and dirty with other Republicans who went after Truman as being “soft on communism.” With their defeat, Republicans learned their lesson and in future elections they had no compunction about using politics of the gutter.

(Whittaker Chambers)

It takes Risen almost halfway through the narrative to introduce Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. According to Risen McCarthy had a “unique ability to braid the two strands of the Red Scare – the culture war and the politics of Cold War security – into a single cord.” McCarthy was a Senate “nobody” until he forced his way on the scene in January 1950 accusing the State Department of harboring 205 communists in its midst. McCarthy’s story has been told before in excellent biographies by David Oshinsky, A CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE: THE WORLD OF JOE McCARTHY and Larry Tye’s more recent work, DEMAGOGUE: THE LIFE AND LONG SHADOW OF SENATOR McCARTHY. However, Risen presents an astute analysis reviewing the McCarthy hearings and his obfuscations, outright lies, and the careers he destroyed, as he turns to the role of an individual’s sexuality during the Red Scare.

Focusing on Carmel Offie, a U.S. State Department and later a Central Intelligence Agency official, who served as an indispensable assistant to a series of senior officials while combining his official duties with an ability to skirt regulations for his and others’ personal benefit. Offie’s career is important because he was gay and becomes the center of Risen’s discussion of how McCarthy and his Republican allies believed that sexual perverts had infiltrated the government and “were perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists.” McCarthy and his allies helped push the politics of homophobia at a time of animosity toward Washington, particularly the State Department which was blamed for the loss of China a few months before McCarthy gave his damning speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. The name given to the move to dismiss and prosecute gay people was the “Lavender Scare.” Thousands would lose their jobs and careers due to their machinations as they now had another tool to fight their culture and political wars against the Truman administration and their supporters.

(Alger Hiss testifying in 1948)

It is clear from Risen’s account that McCarthy was able to rouse support because of the earlier work of the House Un-Activities Committee, the Chambers-Hiss imbroglio, and the actions of Richard M. Nixon. McCarthy would take advantage of the fall of China to the Communists and the outbreak of the Korean War. Further, certain personalities gravitated to the Wisconsin senator, and they would develop a relationship based on the need for power, ideology, and the ability to use each other. Two of those individuals were Alfred Kohlberg, a millionaire ideologue who made his money taking advantage of cheap Chinese labor and McCarthy would become his megaphone concerning the loss of China and the role of the State Department. The second individual was Roy Cohn, who in his later career became Donald Trump’s mentor. In his earlier career he would join McCarthy’s staff and mirror his viciousness, vindictiveness, and willingness to lie. Risen describes him as “the chief executive of McCarthyism, Inc., determining the senator’s targets, writing his talking points, and pushing him further than even he might have chosen to go.”

The fall of China to Mao Zedong and his forces greatly impacted American politics and paranoia. This was fostered by what is referred to as “the China Lobby,” a term often used for groups favoring the Republic of China on Taiwan under the leadership of Kuomintang head, Chiang Kai-Shek, an American ally during World War II. The China Lobby’s collective influence, fostered by Alfred Kohlberg and others, shaped policy and politics throughout the 1940s and 50s boosting and destroying careers as they enlisted McCarthy to their cause.

If we would set up an opposition to the China Lobby it would be called the “China hands,” career State Department diplomats and officials who had grown critical of Chiang Kai-Shek’s forces during the Chinese Civil War. They believed the US could not turn back to imperialism and the Chinese people had the right to determine their own future. Risen lays out the China lobby’s victory through McCarthy as many Asia experts in the State Department had their careers destroyed as well as Asia scholars at Harvard. Interestingly, the purge of the State Department deprived policy makers with experts on Asian countries and movements. It would be interesting to ponder what would have occurred in Korea and Vietnam if these individuals had been in place to offer their expertise. Perhaps the many errors surrounding the eventual “domino theory” could have been avoided.

Whether it was Hollywood, HUAC, or McCarthy, all of whom Risen explores in marvelous detail, the anti-communist hysteria of the early 1950s drew much of its energy from the ongoing war in Korea, exacerbated by the entrance of Chinese Communists troops into the war. Interestingly, General Douglas MacArthur’s headquarters in Tokyo became a satellite headquarters for the China lobby and the hard-core anti-communist right. Once MacArthur was fired by Truman it provided the hard core right with further ammunition against the president, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and General George C. Marshall, and others who were critical of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang.

Richard Nixon-[C]════ ⋆★⋆ ════

[C]“ 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕤𝕒𝕚𝕕 ‘𝕊𝕠𝕟, 𝕕𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖’
[C]𝔸𝕟𝕕 𝕀 𝕜𝕖𝕖𝕡 𝕙𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕨𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕤𝕖𝕖 𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ”

[C

(Richard M. Nixon)

The atmospherics of the time period are expertly recreated by the author. Risen’s descriptions of committee hearings, including the demeanor of witnesses, the response to questions, and the overall climate of this phase of American history allow the reader to feel as if they are in the committee rooms, the oval office, experiencing the political debates, and getting to know the major and minor players of the period.

A criticism of Risen is offered in Kevin Peraino’s New York Times book review entitled “Scarlet Fever: Culture in the United States is still driven by the political paranoia of the 1950s,” published on April 6, 2025. Peraino correctly writes; “Risen, a reporter at The New York Times who has written a history of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, among other books, coyly insists that he is “not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present” and desires to “leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” But this is disingenuous. In his 400-some pages Risen touches on anti-fascism, white supremacy, campus activism, anti-elitism, cancel culture, virtue signaling, doxxing, book bans, election interference, anti-immigrant racism, F.B.I. overreach, conspiracy thinking, antisemitism, the surveillance state, anti-colonialism, the Koch family and America First-style ultranationalism. To suggest all this amounts simply to a Rorschach test for his readers stretches credulity.”

In her recent New Yorker article, entitled; “Fear Factor: How the Red Scare reshaped American politics,” historian Beverly Gage concludes; “What can we learn about our current moment from all of this? Risen hopes that readers will decide for themselves. “This is a work of history, and as such it is not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present,” he writes. “I leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” So, as a reader, let me offer a few thoughts.

The unfortunate truth is that most mechanisms of the Red Scare, including congressional hearings and loyalty investigations, would not be especially hard to revive. Indeed, recent developments have indicated that they might be deployed with genuine glee. Already, the Trump Administration has started asking for lists—of federal workers who attended D.E.I. training, of F.B.I. agents who investigated January 6th cases, of scientists engaged in now suspect areas of work. Trump himself has openly announced his intention to deploy the Justice Department and the F.B.I. against his personal, political, and ideological enemies.

Black and white image of Dwight Eisenhower sitting at a desk

(President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office)

The history of the Red Scare suggests that it won’t take many firings, federal inquiries, or acts of public humiliation to frighten a whole lot of people. But it also offers some reason to think that such intimidation methods may not be quite as effective this time around. For starters, there is much less agreement about the Trump Administration’s agenda than there was about Communism in its heyday. The Red Scare gained momentum because nearly everyone in American political life shared the same basic assumption: Communism is bad and poses an existential threat to the American way of life. It’s hard to come up with any contemporary issue that would generate the same powerful consensus.

Generally speaking, we also have better protections for political speech and assembly than Americans had in the fifties. Indeed, some of those protections are legacies of the Red Scare. In 1957, as the anti-Communist furor was winding down, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions limiting some of the most sweeping methods deployed against political dissenters, including parts of the Smith Act.

But to say that Trump won’t necessarily succeed in setting off a new Red Scare is not to say that he won’t try. And, in this sort of politics, the trying is part of the game. As long as the nation’s “cultural Marxists” feel vulnerable to random accusations or secret investigations, they’ll likely be more careful about what they do and say. As Roy Cohn once instructed a young Donald Trump, much can be accomplished by attacking first and dealing with the consequences later.” Today, with trade wars, immigration, DOGE’s dismantling key aspects of the federal government, cutting foreign aid etc. we are now experiencing Cohn’s advice to Trump, and I wonder a few years down the road how bad the impact will be, and how long it might take to undo what he has done.

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin during the Army-McCarthy hearings, with committee counsel Roy Cohn next to McCarthy and Republican Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont standing at the center. Flanders, who was taking the lead in an effort to depose McCarthy, had just delivered a letter to McCarthy informing him that he intended to introduce a resolution to censure McCarthy. Here McCarthy responds saying that Flanders should take the witness stand if he has any information about the "Army-McCarthy row other than the 'usual smears... from the smear sheets.'" Flanders' original motion called for McCarthy to be stripped of his committee post. A revised motion eventually led to McCarthy's condemnation by the Senate.

(Army-McCarthy hearings, 1954)

THE TRIALS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN: THE EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENCY OF AN ORDINARY MAN, 1945-1953 by Jeffrey Frank

April 6, 2025April 6, 2025szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, American Political History, Biography Leave a comment

(President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President elect Harry S. Truman, Vice President Henry Wallace)

During my forty-four year teaching career on the secondary and university level I was often asked; “Who is your favorite President?” The answer came very easily, Harry S. Truman. My response was based on his personality, moral code, and his actions during his lifetime culminating in the presidency. My opinion is not based on hagiography, but on a clear view of his important successes, and the mistakes that he made. There have been a number of important biographies written about Truman, perhaps the best are the works of Alonzo Hamby and David McCullough. Both are balanced and quite readable. The latest effort to unmask the thirty-third president is Jeffrey Frank’s THE TRIALS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN: THE EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENCY OF AN ORDINARY MAN, 1945-1953 which focuses on the major decisions made during his administration, and whether they were the correct ones that resulted in success, and those that ended in failure. Truman, like most people, is a complex person who assumed the presidency at a time when the world was still in crisis and Frank delves deeply into how he managed those calamities and whether his approach was correct or flawed.

Upon entering the White House with the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman was unprepared as the deceased president had kept him in the dark about virtually everything before dying three months into his fourth term. Truman’s position was untenable due to a myriad of crises he was forced to confront, making decisions, whose impact still reverberates in today’s world. Frank’s goal is to reevaluate Truman’s presidency and his decision making, puncturing the myth of his “Give Him Hell Harry” persona while concentrating on foreign policy issues, and less so on the Fair Deal, Truman’s domestic agenda. According to historian James Taub in his April 10, 2022, New York Times book review; “biographies have a built in bias toward giving their subjects too much credit for anything within reach; Frank leans almost in the opposite direction,” focusing more on Truman’s imperfections. In Frank’s case he leans almost totally in the opposite direction in presenting an important contribution to the Truman literature analyzing many of the important achievements and disappointments during his administration.

President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur sit in the back seat of the sedan that carried them to their two-hour conference on Wake Island on Oct. 14, 1950.

(President Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur at Wake Island, October 14, 1950)

Frank immediately offers an astute analysis of Truman’s personality and decision making that would impact American foreign policy for generations. He considered indecisiveness to be a character flaw which allowed him to decide questions quickly and intuitively – “making what he called ‘jump decisions’ with all the risks of undue haste.” This trait was evident throughout his presidency. Truman was an insecure man based on his background and earlier career possessing an imperfect knowledge of the people around him, some of whom like Secretary of State James Byrne and Vice President Henry Wallace believed that they should have been president. The problem was that he met many of his cabinet members and administration officials for the first time on assuming office. Further he was too deferential to military leaders, especially George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur. One individual he relied on a great deal was his fourth Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, whose stubbornness concerning the Cold War would lead Truman into many dangerous policy decisions. To better understand Truman, it helps to understand how he was guided and affected by these men and others, i.e., political enemies in Congress, a generation of powerful newspaper columnists who disliked Truman, assorted scientists and engineers, and “hangers-on from Missouri,” who cast doubt concerning his integrity. Frank continues arguing that Truman liked the reputation of honesty and directness, but he could fudge, and lie, when he felt concerned or embarrassed. He had a temper and like most presidents held grudges especially if it involved his family. This is an astute analysis that captures Truman’s true nature and how it impacted the impactful decisions he was forced to make.

The decision making process is evident throughout the narrative. In a book that was dominated by the decision making that led to the Korean War and the resulting “police action” and its results, and policies surrounding the use of and the possibility of sharing atomic secrets which led to the hydrogen bomb and the nuclear arms race, the author does not provide enough depth in his discussions of other important policies. The process that created the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Crisis, and the creation of NATO needed greater discussion as it would have been beneficial for the reader to have been exposed to a more in depth analysis of these measures.

Black and white photo of Harry Truman holding newspaper with headline "Dewey Defeats Truman"

From the outset Truman viewed the Soviet Union as a country inhabited by “semi-primitives, incapable of advanced thought, a people that somehow had managed to explode a nuclear something.” He regarded Stalin as “Uncle Joe,” similar to politicians in Jackson, Mo. and held to the idea that the Soviet Politburo, not Stalin, made the major decisions and was to blame for Soviet duplicity. This attitude is evident after the Potsdam Conference, the Berlin Crisis, and the Russian decision to support Kim Il-Sung’s invasion of South Korea. This view was reinforced by his last Secretary of State Dean Acheson who probably had the greatest influence on Truman than any other official and greatly affected the conclusions he reached.

Within the Truman administration there were numerous personality conflicts that needed to be managed. First, the inability of Acheson to get along with Defense Secretary Louis Johnson. Second, Truman’s inability to work with Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace due to his left leaning policies; Secretary of State and Defense Secretary George C. Marshall’s dislike of Douglas MacArthur because of his imperious nature; both Acheson and Truman found it difficult to work with then Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, who Truman saw as pursuing appeasement toward the Soviet Union; and the plight of Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal’s mental condition fostered difficulties with most individuals that he came in contact with. These are just a few of the personality conflicts that existed among administration officials. Throughout these discussions Frank provides an exceptional window into Truman’s personality and thought process. Further the author provides wonderful descriptions of the many characters that dominated the American domestic and foreign policy scene throughout Truman’s presidency. His description of George Kennen is a case in point as he describes him as “an enormously perceptive and spookily prescient, qualities that eluded Bynes, whose missteps on Russia were nothing compared to his missteps with Truman.”

Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference

(Joseph Stalin, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference, July, 1945)

Frank is correct in stressing that the watershed moment for Truman and the coming Cold War was England’s decision to effectively end military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey. This would lead to the United States filling the power vacuum in the Middle East and elsewhere as it would culminate in American aid to those countries and ultimately the Marshall Plan which would provide aid to European countries. Frank could have developed this further as the Marshall Plan was designed as a program to help Europe recover economically so they could serve as markets for American products and enhance the American economy. This is indicative of Frank’s approach to the many topics in his monograph. While he does delve into the creation of the European Recovery Act, another name for the Marshall Plan, he gives short shrift to other areas.

Another watershed event that Frank is correctly addresses his discussion of the 1948 election where an underdog Truman shocks the political world by defeating New York governor Thomas Dewey. For nearly four years the Truman presidency experienced a great deal of success in the foreign policy realm, though less so domestically. However, in the ensuing four years Truman would not be as successful and was prone to make poor decisions.

A further turning point was the implementation of NSC 68 as it should be seen as a lesson in how American foreign policy was being developed – shaped by the expanding role of the nation’s defense and intelligence agencies. The document called for a massive increase in defense spending in the hazardous post-war world which would allow the United States to confront and contain Soviet expansion. It is clear that the document was impacted by the “who lost China?” debate and the rise of Joseph McCarthy, two issues that Frank should have discussed in greater detail.

Frank takes his deepest dives when discussing the implications of decisions relating to the development of the Atomic bomb and its use, and events surrounding the Korean war. A number of scientists involved in the A bomb project favored sharing the technology and the creation of an international regulating body as a means of preventing a nuclear arms race. Truman was adamant in his opposition concerning the sharing of nuclear knowledge, but did support a role for the international community to regulate peaceful ways to use that information. Further, Truman had no qualms about dropping the two atomic devices, and if Japan had not surrendered he would have approved dropping a third bomb because his advisors inflated the Soviet menace, and the US needed to project unflinching firmness which would send a message to Stalin. In the end, because of Acheson’s influence the International Atomic Energy Commission was created as well as the Atomic Energy Committee domestically.

(Korean War, June–August 1950 Map showing North Korean advances in the Korean War in June–August 1950)

The Korean War proved to be Truman’s Rubicon as he committed US troops to beat back the North Korean invasion and allowed MacArthur to cross the Yalu River with American troops provoking Chinese entry into the conflict. Truman and Acheson believed that the Soviet Union was behind the North Korean invasion as Stalin was influenced by Acheson’s “defense perimeter speech” on January 12, 1950, which omitted South Korea. Truman’s belief in what would become the “domino theory” at a time when the Sino-Soviet split was in its early stages is a total misreading of the struggle between Mao Zedong and Stalin for leadership in the Communist world which would impact US foreign policy for two decades.

The role of General Douglas MacArthur is especially important because Truman did not rein him in and almost gave him card blanche to conduct the war anyway he saw fit. This would lead to China’s entrance into the war which would prolong the “bloody” police action for almost three years. Further, the Wake Island conference between Truman and MacArthur reflected the general’s disrespect for the president as he treated Truman as his equal and provided false information concerning Chinese intentions as Truman did not stand up to military figures until in this case it was too late. The summary notes of the meeting reflect “a chronicle of extraordinary disrespect by a general toward his commander-in-chief. Out of pride, or unwilling suspension of disbelief, Truman was unable to recognize the impertinence before his eyes.”

: President Harry Truman with Bess and Margaret Truman

(Margaret, Harry, and Bess Truman)

According to Frank, Truman “saw the North Korean invasion not only as a test of national will, but of his personal backbone. Truman was in a quandary, partly of his own making. To do nothing meant ignoring the administration’s policy blueprint, NSC-68; risking American prestige; and possibly surrendering Korea and Formosa.” However, if he chose the military option, with available manpower, there was no way to predict, or control what might happen next as Eisenhower warned him. Interestingly, in the midst of the crisis when Chinese troops crossed the Yalu in late November 1950 Truman committed a major faux pas when asked at a press conference if he would deploy Atomic weapons, Truman responded, “There has always been active consideration of its use…it includes every weapon we have.” This would send allies into an uproar and allowed MacArthur to begin choosing the North Korean sites he would use atomic weapons to destroy.

Despite Truman’s limitations, according to Henry Dykstal: “it is remarkable how much he accomplished despite this. Truman set the terms for the post–World War II alliances and determined how the Cold War would be fought for decades. He began the government’s response to the Civil Rights movement by desegregating the armed forces. And when Medicare passed in 1965, Truman was given the first card in recognition of his pioneering efforts in creating a health-care safety net.

(Secretary of State Dean Acheson)

He was a private, ordinary man: the last president not to have gone to college, a man who was chosen to be vice president for lack of a better option. He took hell from all sides and left, if not popular, with some everyday dignity. He and Bess departed Washington by themselves in their own ’53 Chrysler, staying in modest motor courts and unaccompanied by security on the way home to Missouri. Frank has made a case for a man who, when given the responsibility of the entire country, was able to thread many needles, based on personal confidence, trust in the right people, and healthy relationships with family and friends.”* But one must remember in the end Truman held an unrealistic view of American power. As Frank argues “he held fast to the confident, and ruinous, idea that, from a great distance-and with no easily understood national interest at stake-the United States could successfully wage a war and administer a lasting peace.” As Walter Lippman wrote, the Truman Doctrine was “inflated globalism” which led to “misinformation, miscalculation, and misjudgment at the highest levels of decision and command” which would, and did not end well.

*Henry Dykstal. “A Private Gentleman: On The Trials of Harry Truman,” Los Angeles Review of Books, March 1, 2022.

(Harry S. Truman being sworn in as President, April 12, 1945)

AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S by Doris Kearns Goodwin

January 29, 2025szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

Image: Richard Goodwin and Doris Kearns Goodwin

(Author Doris Kearns Goodwin with her husband, Richard Goodwin, at commencement ceremonies at UMass-Lowell on May 29, 2010)

For over ten years I had the pleasure of living and teaching in Concord, MA, a town with a deep history and a number of famous residents. One of those residents was Doris Kearns Goodwin who could be seen often on Sunday mornings at the Colonial Inn having breakfast. It was my pleasure as Chair of the History Department at Middlesex School to welcome her as a speaker at our school and expose our students to a gifted historian with a deep understanding of the American condition past and present. Her biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelts, and the Fitzgeralds and Kennedys stand out for their deep research, insightful analysis, and a writing style that draws the reader to her subject. Other books reflected on her experience as a White House fellow in the Johnson administration, an analysis of the leadership of the subjects of her biographies, and even a personal memoir growing up in Brooklyn and sharing a love for the Dodgers with her father. Her latest work, AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S can be classified as a biography, a memoir, as well as an important work of history assessing and reassessing the impactful events of the 1960s.

The story centers on her relationship of forty-six years with her husband Richard Goodwin, a significant historian and public figure in his own right. Theirs was a loving relationship between two individuals who loved their country and did their best to contribute to its success. Richard Goodwin, an adviser to presidents, “was more interested in shaping history,” Doris says, “and I in figuring out how history was shaped.” Their bond is at the heart of her latest work providing an intimate look at their relationship, family, and many of the important historical figures that they came in contact with. The book focuses on trying to understand the achievement and failures of the leaders they served and observed, in addition to their personal debates over the progress and unfinished promises of the country they served and loved.

Image: Richard Goodwin and Lyndon B. Johnson

(President Lyndon B. Johnson prepares for his State of the Union address with, from left, Richard Goodwin, Jack Valenti and Joseph A. Califano, Jr. at the White House in Washington on Jan. 12, 1966)

Goodwin’s recounting of her life with her husband encompassing Dick’s career before their marriage, and then after they tied the knot. In a sense it is a love story that lasted over four decades, and it also embraces the many significant roles played by Dick and his spouse. The events of the 1960s are revisited in detail. The major domestic accomplishments and foreign policy decisions are examined in detail from the perspective of the participants in which they were familiar with and had personal relationships. Doris conducts intensive research and analysis and integrates her husband’s actions and thoughts throughout. In addition, she is a wonderful storyteller relating her own experiences and that of her spouse.

Doris begins her memoir recounting her search for the young “Dick” and searching his early diary entries and letters from the 1950s onward. She describes a young man in love with America, a theme that is carried throughout the book. Dick believed in Lincoln’s credo – “the right of anyone to rise to the level of his industry and talents – would inform every speech he drafted, every article he wrote, and every cause he pursued.” The power couple relied extensively on Dick’s personal archive which he assiduously maintained throughout his career and retirement years for many of the stories and commentary that Doris relates. This personal archive was in storage for years and emerged during their senior years, i.e.; they had 30 boxes alone on John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

(Bobby Kennedy)

A major theme of the memoir was “the tremor” that existed in their marriage as Dick was loyal to Kennedy, and Doris to Lyndon B. Johnson. Doris provides intimate details of their marriage and overall relationship relating to personal struggles, politics, and portrayals of prominent figures, i.e.; date night, watching the 1960 presidential debates years later, the origin of JFK’s inaugural address Dicks role in the Peace Corps, Latin American policy, including the Alliance for Progress. etc. Dick developed a special relationship with JFK which was shattered upon his assassination. Interestingly, Doris spends a great deal of time discussing Dick’s transition from an early member of the New Frontier who worked on Civil Rights among his many portfolios to taking his talents as a speech writer in support of Lyndon Johnson.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is how Doris recounts meaningful events decades later. A Cuban Missile Conference in which Fidel Castro and Robert McNamara and co. attending while they were all in their eighties was eye opening, as was Dick’s meeting with Che Guevara which had implications for Dick’s career. Throughout Doris’ wit and humor are on display as she writes “here I am in my eighties and my thirties at the same time. I’m burning my life candle at both ends” as she explored the many boxes Dick kept for decades.

(Doris Kearns Goodwin with LBJ/Richard Goodwin with JFK)

The book’s depth is enhanced by the many relationships the couple developed over the years. The ones that stand out obviously are the two presidents they served, but also Jackie Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Bill Moyers, Robert F. Kennedy, and numerous others. For Doris it was a magical marriage full of fun, love, and serious debates; she writes, “….my debate with Dick was not a question of logic or historical citation. It was about the respective investments in our youth, questions of loyalty and love.”

Dick’s reputation was formed by his almost innate ability as a wordsmith that produced so many important speeches. From JFK’s Alliance for Progress speech to formulating the term “Great Society,” to authoring the “We Shall Overcome,” Voting Rights, and RFK’s “South Africa’s Day of Affirmation” speeches which all impacted history based on who was speaking Dick’s phraseology and thoughts. After writing for JFK and LBJ, Dick turned to writing and supporting Robert Kennedy, a move that would sever his relationship with LBJ.

(Doris Kearns marries Richard N. Goodwin on Dec. 14, 1975. About 170 people attended their Lincoln, MA, wedding, during which this photo was taken, including Boston Mayor Kevin H. White, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Norman Mailer, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Hunter Thompson. Photo credit: Photo by Marc Peloquin. Courtesy of Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers)

Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History. — (Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History)

L-R: Ricahrd Goodwin, Bill Moyers, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Photo by Yoichi Okamoto, courtesy of the LBJ Presidential Library.

Perhaps the finest chapter in the book in terms of incisive analysis is “Thirteen LBJ’s” where Doris drills down to produce part historical analysis and personality study. LBJ was very moody and insecure, and he often burst out his emotions. Johnson was very sensitive about the press as he saw himself as a master manipulator and he always suspected leaks which he despised. He went as far as planting “spies” among others he feared like Robert Kennedy. Johnson’s approach to people was called “the Johnson treatment,” which is on display during his meeting with Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Senator Everett Dirkson during the Civil Rights struggles. Johnson could be overbearing, but in his mind what he was trying to achieve on the domestic front was most important.

Political expediency was an approach that Johnson and Robert Kennedy would employ during the 1964 presidential campaign when LBJ ran for reelection and Kennedy for the Senate from New York. Though they despised each other, Kennedy needed LBJ’s political machine and popularity to win, and Johnson needed to shore up his support in New York since he was a southerner. For Johnson he would rather have had “Bobby” lose, but he wanted his vote in the Senate. The LBJ-RFK dynamic dominated Johnson’s political antenna. Johnson was paranoid of Kennedy and feared he would run to unseat him in 1968. When the Vietnam war splintered America and Robert Kennedy turned against the war it substantiated Johnson’s fears. Further, when Dick, then out of government came out against the war, later joining Kennedy’s crusade, Johnson once again was livid. From Dick’s perspective he acted in what he saw as the best interests of America.

Doris nicely integrates many of the primary documents from Dick’s treasure trove of boxes. Excerpts from many of Dicks speeches, his political and private opinions, transcripts from important meetings inside and outside the White House are all integrated in the memoir. As time went on Dick turned to Eugene McCarthy and helped him force Johnson to withdraw his candidacy in 1968 after the New Hampshire primary. Dick would join Kennedy once he declared for president. The campaign was short lived as RFK was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles after winning the California primary. Dick was devastated by Kennedy’s death and would eventually attend the 1968 Democratic Convention where he worked with McCarthy delegates to include a peace plank into the Democratic Party platform. Doris was also in Chicago and witnessed the carnage fostered by Mayor Daley and the Chicago police

(Mr. Goodwin with Jacqueline Kennedy and her lawyer, Simon H. Rifkind, rear, in Manhattan in 1966. Mr. Goodwin was for years identified with the Kennedy clan)

One of the criticisms of Doris’ memoir is her lack of attention to the political right and her obsession with the middle to political left. That being said it is important to remember that this is not a history of the 1960s but a personal memoir of two people who fell in love, married in 1975, and the narrative correctly revolves around their firsthand experiences and beliefs. Doris would go on to work for Johnson after he left the White House, splitting her time between teaching at Harvard and flying to Texas , to help with his memoirs. Doris rekindles the spark of idealism that launched the 1960s which is missing today. She introduces readers to the Kennedy-Johnson successes in racial justice, public education, and aid for the poor, all important movements. In addition, she delves into the debate about the conduct of the war in Vietnam, including the anti-war movement, and the toppling of a president. Doris Kearns Goodwin has done a useful service by recasting the 1960s in her vision. It is an excellent place to start a study of the period, and its impact on what appears to be a wonderful marriage.

Doris Kearns Goodwin And Richard Goodwin

JOHN LEWIS: IN SEARCH OF THE BELOVED COMMUNITY by Ray Arsenault

August 21, 2024August 21, 2024szfreiberger American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

(John Lewis, third from left, walks with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as they begin the Selma to Montgomery march from Brown’s Chapel Church in Selma on March 21, 1965)

If you ever wanted to know what type of man John Lewis was, all you have to do is ask someone from the other side of the political aisle what their opinion is of him. In this case I would point to someone who disagreed with Lewis about every conceivable issue – former North Carolina Congressman and Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows who would respond to questions about the Georgia Congressman and Civil Rights leader – “he was my friend,” and Lewis would reciprocate those feelings. You might ask how two such disparate characters could call themselves friends – all you have to do is read Raymond Arsenault’s new biography, JOHN LEWIS: IN SEARCH OF THE BELOVED COMMUNITY to understand the unshakable integrity and believer in man’s humanity which made up the core of the former activist and progressive legislator.

Lewis believed in forgiveness and compassion as part of achieving what referred to as “the beloved community” where racial hatred would be eradicated, and we would all live in a world of fairness and equality as he was determined to replace the horrors of the past and present with his ideals. Arsenault’s biography cannot be described as a hagiography as he delves into Lewis’ life, decisions and actions carefully offering a great deal of praise, but the author does not shy away from his subject’s mistakes and faulty decisions. At a time when racial “dog whistles” dominate a significant element of the political class it is unsettling to listen to a presidential candidate demean his opponent’s racial heritage linking it to her intelligence and background. This has led to racially motivated violent rhetoric that permeates the news making it a useful exercise exploring the life of a civil rights leader who fought valiantly against these elements in our society.

(Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., stands on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., on Feb. 14, 2015. Rep. Lewis was beaten by police on the bridge on “Bloody Sunday” on March 7, 1965, during an attempted march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery)

Arsenault’s monograph begins by exploring Lewis’ rural upbringing in Pike County, Alabama. Sharecropping was the main source of income in a white dominated economic system designed to keep tenant farmers under the thumb of their landlords. Any progress his parents might have achieved was never enough to escape poverty. For Lewis, growing up in this racial and economic system formed a social and intellectual laboratory as he hated working in the cotton fields and soon became intoxicated with education where the inequality of white and black opportunities was glaring. The structure of Jim Crow society dominated. Lewis had high hopes with the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas but the “massive resistance” the southern white supremacists responded with disabused Lewis that the decision would ameliorate the situation blacks found themselves locked into.

The development of Lewis’ approach to achieving change is explored in detail and we learn the impact of Martin Luther King, Jr. on Lewis at an early age. Arsenault spends a great deal of time delving into the King-Lewis relationship from the mid-1950s civil rights struggles through King’s assassination in April 1968. The development of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) which Lewis would come to lead, and King’s Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) is important as it shows the dichotomy that existed in the Civil Rights movement particularly as they split from each other in the early 1960s as Black nationalists like Stokley Carmichael and H. Rap Brown advocated violence against white supremacists took over SNCC.

No matter what aspect of Lewis’ career Arsenault discusses he presents a balanced account offering intimate details whether delving into Lewis remarkable rise within the Civil Rights movements from the late 1950s to 1970; his exceptional organizational skills, the schism that developed and seemed to dominate the movement, his four years on the Atlanta City Council through his congressional career. In recounting Lewis’ decision-making, he relates how each judgement was reached and how it affected his social gospel of the beloved community ideology.

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Make no mistake the book is more than an intellectual approach to Lewis’ role in the Civil Rights movement. Arsenault seems to cover all the major aspects of the Civil Rights movement from sit ins, stand ins to boycotts challenging the White supremacist governors, sheriffs and other officials in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Places like Selma, Jackson, Montgomery, Memphis come to dominate the narrative as does the impact of peaceful and violent events on Lewis’ belief system and planning.

For Lewis it was a battle to maintain his belief in nonviolent protest as a tool to uplift his community. At times he would become frustrated after he was physically beaten or arrested, but he would always seem to veer away from anything which would contradict his core ideas, even when close friends and other leaders moved away from a total non-violent approach. He grew angry when the younger generation turned to black power and confrontation, but he always remained loyal to his core principles.

Arsenault’s portrayal does reveal a confrontational and antagonistic strain in Lewis’ personality on rare occasions. One that comes to mind is the nastiness of his Georgia congressional campaign against his friend Julian Bond and fellow activist which cost both men a deep friendship when Lewis was victorious.

(Rosa Parks on a Montgomery bus in 1955)

Perhaps Arsenault’s most interesting chapters include Lewis’ evaluation of the Kennedy brothers who came late to the game of protecting civil rights workers. At the outset, Lewis had great hopes for John F. Kennedy, however he would be disappointed as the politics of Southern Democrats got in the way. With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court would undermine in 2013, Lewis felt more optimistic, particularly with the metamorphosis of Robert Kennedy, especially after Dr. King was assassinated. There are chapters dealing with the Freedom Riders, important historical figures like Medgar Evers, Emmett Till, Rosa Parks, James Lawson, Andrew Young, Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, Bayard Rustin, along with the Bull Conners, Sheriff Clark, Governors John Patterson and Lester Maddox among many that lend a sense of what it was like to deal with and live through such a tumultuous period in American history.

In the last third of the book, Arsenault describes the Republican resurgence under Gingrich, Reagan and the Bushes which made it difficult for Lewis to navigate the House of Representatives as any liberal agenda was dead on arrival on the House floor. At times he grew upset for the lack of progress that resulted in few if any legislative victories. He had high hopes for the election of Barack Obama, but it was not to be due to Republican obstructionism and in many cases outright racism. The arrival of Donald Trump took his frustration to new levels as events in Charlottesville, Va, a Muslim ban, hideous commentary concerning immigrants, and the actions of Mitch McConnell in the Senate made the achievement of a “beloved community” impossible. Before his death, Lewis would witness a Republican party taking America backwards trying successfully in many cases to undo fifty years of progress made under Democratic leadership – something against which he had repeatedly warned. What separated Lewis from most of his Congressional colleagues was his historical perspective. He could not accept the racism of the Trump administration which returned him to the dark days of the 1960s culminating in the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.

(Robert Kennedy’s speech in Indianapolis, IN following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.)

In light of Donald Trump’s racial attacks against Kamala Harris, Lewis’ life story seems apropos in light of where we are as a society and how far, or perhaps not as far we have come after the Civil Rights movement. If there is one area that Arsenault could have explored more was learning about the people who knew Lewis the longest and what these relationships actually meant to him. However, Arsenault’s book is well written, researched based on documents and interviews, and has produced a thoughtful and measured account of Lewis’ life and work which continued even as he contracted pancreatic cancer and worked until ten days before his death in 2020 as he visited Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC.

(Tear gas fills the air as state troopers, on orders from Gov. George Wallace, break up a march in Selma on March 7, 1965, on what is known as “Bloody Sunday”)

CALHOUN: AMERICAN HERETIC by Robert Elder

July 20, 2023szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

(John C. Calhoun)

Today we live in a country where white supremacism is on the rise, descendants of former slave’s demand reparations, state legislatures try to obstruct the teaching of black history, the College Board gives in to extremists who did not like the content of Advanced Placement African history classes, the Supreme Court ends affirmative action for colleges, and state’s rights advocates seem to have the floor. Three years short of our 250^th anniversary, the United States finds itself with a bifurcated population politically, economically, and socially over issues of race. The question is how did we get here, when did it originate, and who is responsible? Historian Robert Elder tries to provide some of the historical background in his recent biography of the former 19^th century South Carolina Senator, Vice President, and Secretary of State John C. Calhoun, in CALHOUN: AMERICAN HERETIC. Some might argue how a man who was so impactful in the first half of the 19^th century could still maintain such influence today. The answer offered by Elder is clear. Calhoun, a slave owner who argued that slavery was a positive good for America, furthered the doctrine of “state interposition” which for many became the legal argument for secession that led to the Civil War, and was the dominant spokesperson for the south, state’s rights, and the enslavement of blacks deserves a great deal of credit for setting the United States on the path it now finds itself confronting – a political climate that does not seem to have an exit ramp, with racial violence on the upswing.

(Henry Clay)

Elder’s monograph should be considered the definitive account of Calhoun’s life through the lens of a cultural and ideological biography. The account encompasses all facets of Calhoun’s life and covers the most notable events of the first half of the 19^th century. In doing so Elder traces the intellectual development of his subject very carefully. He pulls no punches as he outlines in detail how Calhoun went from a proponent of optimistic nationalism featuring what historians refer to as Henry Clay’s American system which consisted of internal improvements such as roads and canals linking the country’s economic development, a low tariff to promote trade, a National Bank, and the use of federal funds to assist the states to achieve his goals.

As the War of 1812 approached Calhoun justified his views of federal power over the states as a necessity because of the exigencies of war. Further his ideology was predicated on the concept of “honor,” particularly as it related to British impressment of American citizens. Throughout his career honor was foremost in his mind especially in debates with colleagues and those who opposed his beliefs. Elder has engaged in a prodigious amount of research that yields wonderful character studies of Calhoun’s contemporaries. An interesting example of his commitment to his personal honor belief system is the author’s description of his disagreements reflected in debates with Virginia’s House leader, John Randolph. Calhoun as his wont was to employ a carefully crafted barrage of logic that demolished his opponent, raising points with surgical precision one after the other. It was Calhoun’s strength of debate and putting pen to paper that allowed him to be the equal among the great figures of the period, like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, among others.

The head and shoulders of a man with light skin and gray hair nearly fills this vertical portrait painting. Shown against a peanut-brown background, the man’s shoulders are angled to our left, and he looks off to our right with blue eyes. His gray hair curls around his forehead and over his ears. His bushy gray eyebrows gather over a furrowed brow, and sideburns grow down past his earlobes. His long, straight, slightly hooked nose and high cheekbones are set into his long, oval-shaped face. His pink lips are closed over a rounded chin, which is framed by vertical wrinkles. The white edge of a collar peeks above the high neck of a velvety black garment with wide lapels. The area beneath the man’s shoulders is a dark ivory color, perhaps indicating that this painting is unfinished.

(President Andrew Jackson)

However, by the late 1820s he argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional. His solution, referred to as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, argued the concept of “nullification” whereby the states had the right to declare federal actions as “null and void.” His viewpoint was clear as the Tariff of 1816 was designed to provide revenue, not to encourage manufacturing. The 1828 version was not a revenue measure. At this point Calhoun was not calling for disunion, as Elder argues he was trying to find a way to preserve the structure of the Union consistent with the principle that power resided in the people, although the people of states.” Calhoun would work creatively to find solutions for problems that arose within the system.

Calhoun was always a fervent defender of slavery though his justifications were part of an evolutionary process. He always argued that treating slaves as property gave masters a financial interest in their well-being. Calhoun was very wary of the British who ended the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and ended slavery at home in 1833. His concern rested on his fear that London would undermine slavery as the United States expanded and their machinations throughout the western hemisphere. He would consistently point out British hypocrisy especially its rule of India and of course with his Irish lineage his dislike of England was predictable.

Calhoun’s mindset could be very convoluted as he saw no connection between European feudalism with its lords and vassals and southern slaveholding society. For Calhoun slavery was a “positive good” as Africans achieved a degree of civilization they had never previously attained. Further, he argued that slaves were treated better than European laborers who existed among the poor houses of Europe. Slavery created a stable society unlike the labor unrest in the north. Finally, he stated slavery was “an institution uniquely suited – morally, economically, politically – to the conditions of the modern world.” A believer in English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, slavery fit perfectly as black inferiority and lack of progress were self-evident. Calhoun could compromise at times (see the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Compromise of 1850), however, when he believed southern rights centering on slavery were threatened he would draw the line.

(Daniel Webster)

Elder is correct when he argues that the second watershed in Calhoun’s development apart from 1828 occurred in 1836 as he finally came to reject Jeffersonian principles he once espoused. First was conflict with Andrew Jackson who created “Pet Banks” that his administration could fund instead of a National Bank – this would foster the Panic of 1837, the worst depression in US history to that point as cotton prices were hit hard. Further, the election of Martin Van Buren in 1836 reinforced Calhoun’s fears of hereditary monarchy. The result Calhoun’s views of state’s rights solidified resulting in his vehement support for slavery. These views were further exacerbated with the Texas annexation crisis, the Mexican War, and northern attempts to block or limit any expansion of slavery into territories acquired from the war. For Calhoun legislation like the Wilmot Proviso which would not allow slavery in any territory obtained from Mexico pushed Calhoun over the edge arguing that if this went into effect disunion could only result.

(Floride Calhoun, wife of John C. Calhoun)

Elder’s portrayal is of a brilliant man driven by intensity and unrelenting ambition. He believed that “Providence had placed him” on earth to complete his duty for his country. Elder strongly suggests that as Calhoun’s political career evolved his moods began to darken as does his belief system. Elder states he could be “noble, stubborn, suicidal or delusional,” all of which is supported by Calhoun’s own writings, speeches, political activity, and interaction with his contemporaries. Had Calhoun simply argued that slavery was a necessary evil whose abolishment would mean disaster for the south instead of arguing in a very tortuous manner that it was a moral good, economically sound, and made the south more democratic, he might be viewed more positively by history. However, his makeup would not allow this, and his defense of white racism, treatment of his slaves, and stubbornness are responsible for his reputation.

In Elder’s telling, Calhoun loved his country and his region, and despite his flaws his impact on American history cannot be denied. Elder’s work is one of objectivity that is well supported by the documentary evidence and should remain the most important biography of Calhoun for many years to come.

(John C. Calhoun)

A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND: THE KLU KLUX KLAN’S PLOT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA, AND THE WOMAN WHO STOPPED THEM by Timothy Egan

June 6, 2023June 6, 2023szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History Leave a comment

( David C. Stephenson)

Today, we live in an America beset by racist groups who over the last decade seem to have been accepted by a significant element of society. The anti-Semitic murders at a Pittsburgh synagogue and the murder of George Floyd are just two examples in a world where white supremacists and extremists engage in attacks against Jews, Blacks, Muslims, the LGBT community, Asians, and Hispanics seemingly on a daily basis. If that was not bad enough, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU, and other civil rights organizations violence against minorities is on the rise along with malevolent threats against what racists see as “the other” in our society, while many politicians, including an ex-president grant these groups legitimacy through their public support and commentary. For some this period is an aberration in our history, however, the historical record does not support that conclusion.

One of the more interesting historical examples is the 1920s – the Jazz Age, a period which witnessed the height of a uniquely American hate group, the Ku Klux Klan. Their region of support was not the south, but the heartland and the west. They hated Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants and would do anything to block these groups from entering the United States and achieving the American dream. The group was led by a charismatic charlatan named D. C. Stephenson. This era with its focus on the KKK and its “Grand Dragon” is the subject of Timothy Egan’s latest book, A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND: THE KLU KLUX KLAN’S PLOT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA, AND THE WOMAN WHO STOPPED THEM. Egan, a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award Winner has written a number of excellent monographs including, THE WORST HARD TIME describing the depression and THE IMMORTAL IRISHMAN which deals with the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s. In his latest work he has produced a riveting historical thriller which deals with one of the darkest periods in American history. The period under discussion is highlighted by a cunning con man and his supporters and the woman who stopped them. The narrative evokes deep emotions as it reflects a deeper concern that we are now inside an even more dangerous period of racial hatred and violence.

(Wesley Hiram Evans)

Egan immediately lays out the problem in his introduction as in the 1920s the KKK controlled three state governorships including Indiana which Stephenson ruled as an autocrat, and a number of mayor’s offices nationwide. In addition, the KKK had its own 30,000 man legally deputized police force, and the state of Indiana passed the world’s first eugenic sterilization law, something that Adolf Hitler noticed and studied. In the South whites wiped out Black voting rights and imposed Jim Crow laws absolving government from supporting equal rights and was supported by a Supreme Court with only one justice dissenting. Lastly, the KKK claimed fifteen US senators and 75 House members to impact Congress.

As in all of Egan’s works A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND is deeply researched and reflects the author’s command of the material. From the outset Egan argues that the KKK problem began at the conclusion of the Civil War with its foundation in Tennessee under the leadership of the defeated Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest who unleashed a reign of terror throughout the south after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the accession of Andrew Johnson to the presidency who was an out and out racist. Lynchings, murders, violence rampaged throughout the south until General Ulysses S. Grant assumed the presidency and by 1872 he had crushed the Klan and Forrest disbanded it.

The Klan would rise again with a slightly different agenda beginning in 1921 sending recruiters throughout the Midwest providing employment for D. C. Stephenson was living in the segregated city of Evansville, IN with the hope of expanding the organization in the north. Stephenson would soon move on to Indianapolis, a city Egan describes along with other midwestern cities and states as having become racially unhinged following WWI. People were fed racist lies and religious bigotry with no basis in fact by the Klan under the leadership of Stephenson, who Egan describes as a “drunk and a fraud, a bootlegger and a blackmailer,” a rapist and a man prone to lies, violence, using bribery to achieve his aims. He left a family behind in rags and distress who he refused to support.

(Madge Oberholtzer)

Egan explores Stephenson’s life and beliefs in detail and concludes he was nothing more than a huckster who traded in racial theories that were demeaning and dangerous. He would help reconstruct the KKK in part as a business investment that eventually would make him a millionaire. Egan lays out Stephenson’s strategy and the resulting machinations which would allow him to take over the state of Indiana leading to his view that “I am the law” which he would use as a basis for his actions. He would help spread KKK doctrine to Texas, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as his ultimate goal was to use the Klan as a vehicle to take over the federal government and gain the presidency. Egan carefully develops the theme that racial hatred was not a southern phenomenon, but a northern one as membership in the Klan in the Midwest was rapidly expanding throughout the early 1920s. This expansion was due to the Klan’s rejection of modernism and a belief the world was spinning too fast and the threat of the “other,” southern European, Russian, and Italian immigrants who were mostly Jews and Catholics were a threat to what they viewed as the traditional American way of life.

(President Calvin Coolidge)

Aside from Stephenson there are a number of important historical figures that Egan introduces. Henry Ford, the catalyst for the rise in anti-Semitism through his newspaper the Dearborn Independent which had a circulation of over one million and the use of his wealth. Patrick O’Donnell, bravely stood against the Klan using his newspaper, Tolerance to spread the truth about their beliefs and the danger they presented. Hiram Wesley Evans, former Imperial Wizard who eventually shared leadership of the Klan with Stephenson and later had a falling out with him. Daisy Douglas Barr, a Quaker preacher who held a broad vision of White Supremacy and worked to develop a role for women in the Klan. President Calvin Coolidge who did nothing to offset the Klan’s popularity and used it for his personal political benefit. Governor Edwin Jackson and Senator James Watson both from Indiana owed their political success to Stephenson.

Egan’s narrative is in two parts. First he developed the strategies and actions of the Klan from 1920-1925. The author drills deeply into Klan ideology and the personalities that spread their beliefs. He points to numerous historical examples from the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, the acceptance of eugenics as science to justify Klan actions, Klan control of state legislatures to implement their programs, events designed to attract more members and reinforce their beliefs and goals, and the lack of response by state and federal officials to the violence against Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants. Egan will then shift his story to that of the events of March 1925 and introduce a series of new characters, the most important of which is Madge Oberholtzer, the manager of the Indiana Young People’s Reading Circle, a special section of the Indiana Department of Public Instruction. When she heard rumors that her job and program were about to be eliminated because of budget cuts she turned to Stephenson who she felt had the political power to assist her. Stephenson would take a shine to her which in the end resulted in a brutal rape and the death of Oberholtzer.

Egan explores the events that led to Oberholtzer’s rape and murder and the trial that followed. He introduces Asa Smith, Oberholtzer’s lawyer, and Will Remy, an unassuming prosecutor for Marion County, IN, both of whom wanted to destroy Stephenson and cut the Klan down to size. Egan’s descriptions are disturbing because of the violence involved and the political system that Stephenson sought to manipulate to obtain his acquittal at a time when there were between two and five million Klan members nationwide.

(Prosecutor William Henderson Remy and jury that convicted Stephenson))

Egan writes with adept authority with an eye toward disconcerting detail as a White Protestant racial movement sought to take advantage of the historical racial animus that has existed in the United States from its outset. Jeff Shesol’s New York Times book review of April 2, 2023, encompasses how deeply the Klan became ingrained in American society; “It offered a more expansive set of resentments, providing more points of entry for aggrieved white Protestants. Racial purists were armed with the so-called science of eugenics and stoked with fears of being replaced by “insane, diseased” Catholics and Jews. Moral purists and traditionalists were called from the pulpit to wage war against modernity — enlisting in K.K.K. vice squads that beat adulterers and smashed up speakeasies. But the Klan did more, in this period, than raise the fiery cross. For a startlingly large number of Americans, Egan writes, the Klan “gave meaning, shape and purpose to the days.” It was possible to do your shopping at Klan-approved stores and cook Klan-approved recipes, to enroll your sons in the Junior K.K.K. and daughters in the Tri-K Klub, and to spend evenings singing Klan songs by the piano. The K.K.K., in later parlance, was an ecosystem. “Folks got their news from editors loyal to the Klan,” Egan explains, or from a disinformation network that spread lies with speed. Corruption kept the enterprise running and growing: The police and politicians were bribed; businesses owned by Jews, Catholics or Blacks were shaken down; leaders and recruiters — including pastors — got a cut of initiation fees, dues and robe sales.”

Egan’s main theme that Oberholtzer’s death and Stephenson’s conviction stopped the Klan before it could take over America goes a bit too far. Granted, it was a major reason why the Klan’s membership rapidly declined within a few years of the trial, but more importantly was the graft and public hypocrisy reflected in the rot exhibited by Klan leadership and organization played more of a role in its regression. In addition, there were other actors who were emboldened to take on the Klan including Black editors, Jewish and Catholic groups which all contributed to the weakening and loss of influence by the Klan.

Despite Egan’s overemphasis of Oberholtzer’s role in the narrative the book is clearly written, well supported, and an addictive read. Anyone with interest in understanding the rise and fall of the Klan, and perhaps the rise of White Supremacy today should take the time to read Egan’s work – it will be eye opening.

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

American Political History