Friday, July 17, 2020

Word of the Day - 10


 
mien Audio pronunciation
 
noun | MEEN
 
Definition
 
:
air or bearing especially as expressive of attitude or personality :demeanor
 
:

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Renewed Interest in Writer James Baldwin


And when Baldwin rhetorically asked himself almost 60 years ago, “What can we do?,” his answer was devastating: “Well, I am tired … I don’t know how it will come about, but I know that no matter how it comes about, it will be bloody; it will be hard.”
Baldwin has been right this whole time. There is nothing to add or to subtract. It’s up to you now to act upon it.

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

The Dilemma


So we’re now facing a terrible, unnecessary dilemma. If we reopen in-person education, we risk feeding an out-of-control pandemic. If we don’t, we impair the development of millions of American students, inflicting long-term damage on their lives and careers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
And the reason we’re in this position is that states, cheered on by the Trump administration, rushed to allow large parties and reopen bars. In a real sense America drank away its children’s future.
Now what? At this point there are probably as many infected Americans as there were in March. So what we should be doing is admitting that we blew it, and doing a severe lockdown all over again — and this time listening to the experts before reopening. Unfortunately, it’s now too late to avoid disrupting education, but the sooner we deal with this the sooner we can get our society back on track.
But we don’t have the kind of leaders we need. Instead, we have the likes of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, politicians who refuse to listen to experts and never admit having been wrong.
So while there have been a few grudging policy adjustments, the main response we’re seeing to colossal policy failure is a hysterical attempt to shift the blame. Some officials are trying to besmirch Dr. Fauci’s reputation; others are diving into unhinged conspiracy theories.
As a result, the outlook is grim. This pandemic is going to get worse before it gets better, and the nation will suffer permanent damage.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on FacebookTwitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Texas is a swing state in 2020, new polls reveal

By Harry Enten
July 12, 2020
(CNN)New CBS News/YouGov polls show President Donald Trump is in trouble in three states he won in 2016. He's tied with former Vice President Joe Biden in Arizona (46% to 46%), a state he won by four points in 2016. Trump's down 48% to 42% in Florida, a state he took by a point in 2016.
But it's the third state, Texas, where the eye popping result comes from. It's Trump 46% to Biden's 45%, a result well within any margin of error.
It's pretty clear looking at the data that Texas is a swing state in the 2020 election. The 2020 campaign could be the first time Democrats captured the Lone Star State in a presidential election since 1976.
The CBS News/YouGov poll is not an outlier over the last month. There have been eight polls released publicly since the beginning of June. The result is that Biden and Trump are basically tied, with Biden up by a mere 0.3 points in Texas.
    Importantly, and unlike in other states, the polls in Texas have not overestimated Democrats over the last few cycles. If anything Democrats actually slightly outperformed their final polls in the 2016 presidential race and 2018 Senate races.
    Things may change the closer we get to the election, but Texas really is competitive at this point.
    Texas has gotten progressively more competitive during Trump's time as a candidate and officeholder. A big statewide victory has eluded Democrats, though many races have come within single digits for the first time in a generation. In fact, the state seemed, if anything, to move to the left in 2018, as Democrats were able to achieve wins in some key congressional races.
    A Biden win would be a manifestation of that trend on the statewide level.
    Four years ago, Hillary Clinton lost Texas by nine points. She was the first Democratic presidential candidate to lose the state by only single digits since the 1990s.
    If you look nationally, you see Biden is up about 10 points compared to Clinton's two point popular vote win. If you shift the Texas result by eight points, he should be down just a point to Trump.
    There are reasons to think that Biden could be doing even better than this eight point shift would imply.
    In 2018, Democrat Beto O'Rourke came within three points of knocking off Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. It was the best Democratic performance in a Texas Senate race since 1988.
    It wasn't just O'Rourke who came close. The Democratic candidates for attorney general and lieutenant governor finished within five points of their Republican opponents.
    As I noted last year, the reason the Democrats are doing so well in Texas is a shift among college educated white voters. You see this best in the suburbs of Austin, Dallas and Houston, where O'Rourke did disproportionately better than the Democratic Senate did six years prior.
    Indeed, Texas' white voter population is very well educated. One calculation by the New York Times' Nate Cohn reveals that a little more than 42% of the 2020 likely white voters in Texas have a college degree. That's 13th highest in the nation and the most of any state Trump carried in 2016.
    I would expect the trend in the college educated areas of Texas to carry over to 2020. Much of Biden's gains over Clinton nationally have occurred among whites with a college degree. In national June polls, Biden was up 22 points among this group compared to Clinton's 12 point lead with them in the final 2016 polls of registered voters.
    Now, there are reasons why we should be skeptical of a major Biden money or time investment in Texas. And if you are not going to go big in Texas, you might as well go home given how large and expensive the state is to campaign and advertise in.
    One problem for Biden is he does seem to be struggling among Hispanic voters nationally, and there are a lot of Hispanic voters in Texas. Although Biden is winning them by around 30 points nationally, he's not putting up the same margins as Clinton did in 2016.
    Further, I wouldn't expect Texas to be the tipping state in the electoral college (i.e. state containing the median electoral vote plus one). Biden is certainly in a stronger position in the core six battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) where the averages have him up anywhere from three to 10 points.
    Still, the state has 38 electoral votes and a load of down ballot races that could prove to be alluring for Biden.
    There's a Senate race that is at least somewhat competitive. Republican Sen. John Cornyn was up six (against Royce West) to eight (against MJ Hegar) points against his two potential opponents in the CBS New/YouGov poll.
    Up to six Republican held House seats could realistically fall to the Democrats in 2020. Many of them are in the aforementioned suburbs.
    Finally, Democrats have a real chance to flip the Texas state House. They need a pickup of less than 10 seats, and race raters give them a decent shot of doing so. If Democrats did flip the chamber, then they'd have a hand in redistricting for the first time since the beginning of the 2000s.
      That's big for state and national politics given that Texas has more House members than any state except California.
      The bottom line is Texas is fertile ground for Democrats in 2020. Biden has to decide whether he truly wants to compete. Either way, he has a real shot of winning, and a chance to rewrite the political map for this year and for the generation to come.

      Thursday, July 9, 2020

      Woodrow Wilson in the Crosshairs


      Perhaps no individual played a bigger role in this alteration than President Woodrow Wilson. As a native Southerner, Wilson was a staunch Confederate apologist who spent his academic career rewriting American history as a means of concealing white supremacy and redeeming the Confederacy. In his 10-volume "A History of the American People," Wilson painted the enslavement of African Americans as a matter of "affection," describing a necessary, paternalistic order between master and slave. This arrangement, which Wilson described, saw slaves working merrily with "no wrong they fretted under or wished to see righted." Wilson lamented their freeing, calling them "pitiable because under slavery they had been shielded."
      Advertisement:
      Wilson's new history featured the Ku Klux Klan as heroes determined to put the country back to its natural, racist order, and depicted white supremacist lawmakers enacting anti-democratic laws as faithful stewards battling "mischief" by limiting the damage done by "illiterate negroes." With this post-Confederate America taking shape dependent on white terrorism and prejudiced laws, Wilson saw a country primed for political and economic greatness.
      His writings found purchase with an old friend named Thomas Dixon, a southern preacher so offended by a performance of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that he wrote a series of pro-Confederate novels using Wilson's histories as guidance. Dixon and Wilson had learned many of the same lessons together as students at Johns Hopkins University and kept in constant correspondence, so when Dixon's novels were adapted into D.W. Griffith's movie "Birth of a Nation." Wilson was thrilled and invited his friend and the cast and crew to the White House for a private screening.
      Advertisement:
      In part because of Wilson's fake history and the success of the film, Lost Cause mythology took hold in America, leading to reinvigorated Confederate movements and nostalgia. Groups like the Daughters of the Confederacy began erecting monuments. Statues appeared outside courthouses and in public places, reminding African Americans that the Confederacy might have lost the war but still survived in the politics and culture of the United States.
      Wilson used this resurgence for his own purposes. Seeing World War I as an opening for America to enter as a world power and broker for peace, he surrounded himself with propagandists he charged with scrubbing America clean of its crime — inequality, and primarily the tarnish of white supremacy — all with the goal of presenting to the rest of the world a nation of perfect equality and liberty. He succeeded in this, rebranding America as a champion of fairness while hiding its toxic racism.
      These statues are markers of that revision and serve no purpose beyond reminding Americans that corrosive racist and elitist institutions still control power within the United States. Like the façade offered by Donald Trump, with his predilection for groping flags and spouting meaningless platitudes, they are only symbols obscuring actual reality. While Trump and his supporters protest attacks on "history," what they actually oppose is the destruction of a weaponized mythology that has served them and their white supremacist pursuits. What they actually fear is a reckoning with a story as hollow as the tarnished statues to which they cling.

      JARED YATES SEXTON

      Jared Yates Sexton is the author of "American Rule: How A Nation Conquered the World but Failed Its People," to be published in September by Dutton Books. Currently is an associate professor of writing at Georgia Southern University.

      Tuesday, July 7, 2020

      Robert Dallek - How Did We Get Here? (Notes)

      Dallek is one of our most distinguished historians.  He has published biographies of FDR and JFK.  In this book he summarizes our history starting with Theodore Roosevelt to outline how we got to Trump.  I will post as I read the book.

      THEODORE ROOSEVELT
      TR came to maturity in the Gilded Age when the wealthy showed their wealth ostentatiously and it was time of labor strife, natural industrialization, and concentrated wealth.  P. 7

      Trump is not the first narcissistic President.  TR could certainly be called a narcissist.  It was said in jest that he wanted to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening.  His grandiosity knew not limits.  His need for ego satisfaction could not be satiated.  But unlike Trump he was a man of substance and accomplishments.  Trump is neither.

      TR popularized jingoism like Trump, but unlike Trump, he was literally willing to go into battle himself and was truly brave, whereas Trump is a notable coward.

      WOODROW WILSON

      Wilson saw politics as a venue for moral causes.  P. 27
      Wilson could be naive.  How else could he have made parochial William Jennings Bryan Secretary of State.  P. 28
      Abandoned notions of a legal career and earned Phd from Hopkins at the age of 30.  P. 29
      Became a professor at his undergraduate school Princeton.  P. 29
      The 1912 threesome presidential election will always be interesting.  P. 32
      The author says in the 1912 election TR was for more federal regulation of the economy whereas Willson advocated greater competition and less regulation.  P. 33
      His first term was a notable success.  P. 33
      The Underwood Tariff.  The national income tax.  Creation of the Federal Reserve.  Child labor laws. The Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote.
      Hofstadter says that Wilson's first term produced more positive legislative achievements since the days of Alexander Hamilton with an absolute authority over Congress which set the stage for FDR and LBJ.  P. 33
      But on race relations, Wilson was never progressive.  He segregated Washington D.C.  Perhaps a reason is that he won the support of Southern congressmen for his progressive measures because of his racial views.  P. 35-36
      Troubles with Mexico do not interest me greatly.  P. 37
      Trench warfare in Europe turned in barbarism in Wilson's view.  P. 38
      His 14 point peace plan.  P. 39
      At the end of his life deceiving the country as to the gravity of his health.  P. 41
      "As democracy is perfected, the office of president, represents more and more closely, the soul of the people.  On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken  P. 43
      The author overstates Wilson's deceit over his health at the end of his life.  The author ignores Wilson's selling of the war to the American people.  P. 45

      FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

      When FDR died in April of 1945, the NY Times, never a great supporter of Roosevelt said that a hundred years from now, Americans will fall on their knees and thank heaven that Roosevelt had been president.  P. 47

      FDR never thought of becoming a dictator or abandoning capitalism for socialism.  P. 49

      I suppose Roosevelt can be criticized for not singling out African Americans in deference to Southern Democrats.  P. 52

      The New Deal did not end the depression though it did alleviate some of the suffering.  P. 53

      He did not support anti-lynching legislation and not until 1938 did he move to liberalize the party.  P. 53

      He and Orson Wells were two great actors.  P. 65

      HARRY TRUMAN

      The Senator from Pendergast.
      Truman is one of my favorites.
      He is the premier example of a president who left office with low public approval ratings but events and perspective have moved him to elite status.
      The author claims that Henry Wallace was FDR's choice for VP in 1944.  I am not sure about this but in any event it's a good thing Wallace wasn't selected.  P. 68
      After he became president upon Roosevelt's death, Senator "Half-Bright" urged Truman to appoint a Republican sec of state and then resign.  P. 73
      Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley.  P. 73
      Truman was a civil right leader, but he did ask for an anti-lynching law in 1948.  P. 74
      Truman touched off an arms race with the Soviet Union but it would have happened anyway without the development of the hydrogen bomb.  P. 79
      Truman never let his ego come between him and his job.  P. 80
      The Merle Miller oral biography may be worth reading.  P. 85
      Nixon was a liar.  P. 85
      Conceived today as an "ordinary" man who became a great President.  P. 86

      DWIGHT EISENHOWER

      Ike tried to convert the TVA to a private utility.  The Republican effort to privatize everything goes way back.  P. 90

      Eisenhower evidently created the so-called domino theory.  P. 100

      The author does not back off from pointing out that Ike was reluctant to publicly call out Senator McCarthy and he hesitated on civil rights.  Eisenhower was not a civil rights hero by any means.  P. 93 and 101

      For Ike all domestic issues paled alongside the cold war.  P. 95

      Eisenhower's presidential stock has certainly gone up in recent years.  P. 108

      JOHN KENNEDY

      His 1000 days could be viewed as a triumph of style over substance with the Camelot Myth.
      When running for the presidency in 1960 Kennedy had to deal with the widely prevalent view that a Catholic's first loyalty was to the Pope.  P. 111
      JFK was more right than left when elected.  P. 113
      To the Stevenson wing of the party he was a faux liberal.  P. 114
      His ratings went up when he confessed failure on the Bay of Pigs invasion.  P. 115
      He joined a long list of presidents who hid his health problems.  P. 119
      He didn't introduce his civil rights bill until June 19, 1963.  P. 124
      Hints at withdrawal in Viet Nam.  P. 131
      I do not understand why his historical reputation is so high except style over substance.  P. 132

      LYNDON JOHNSON

      What's new about Lyndon Johnson?  Not much.
      Began as an avid FDR/New Deal supporter.
      Supported Roosevelt's court packing plan. P. 134
      His Silver Star awarded to him by General MacArthur will always be controversial.  P. 135
      Great judge of people, judging up their strengths and weaknesses.  P. 136
      He thought it best for the Democrats to cooperate with President Eisenhower.  P. 137
      The author says that LBJ had the racial prejudice you would expect from someone born below the Mason Dixon Line, but he realized the South would never grow to its potential if it did not rise above such racism.  P. 139
      The 1957 civil rights bill was largely symbolic yet it had value in paving the way for a better bill in 1964.  P. 140
      He had his racial stereotypes but was determined to pass a civil right bill.  P. 142
      The Daisy Field ad in 1964.  Biden could use such an ad against Trump.  P. 144
      207 reforms in his administration.  P. 147
      His greatest speech was the voting rights speech.  P. 149
      He lost the trust of the public over Viet Nam.  P. 154

      RICHARD NIXON

      It's easy to forget the liberal accomplishments of Nixon.
      The EPA.  OSHA.  Earth Day.
      "We are all Keynesians now."
      No evidence that he directly ordered the Watergate breakin but none was necessary to impeach.

      -


      Hamilton

      ‘Hamilton’ and the Historical Record: Frequently Asked Questions

      The Disney+ filmed version has fans wondering what’s accurate. Historians are fans, too, and they have answers, along with caveats.
      Credit...Disney+
      When “Hamilton” premiered onstage in 2015, the musical attracted a big following among historians, who were delighted by Lin-Manuel Miranda’s unabashedly nerdy attention to primary documents and the scholarly literature.
      But historians being historians, they also offered plenty of footnotes, criticisms and correctives, which weren’t always appreciated by the show’s ardent fans, who saw a bunch of humorless, literal-minded scolds out to kill their buzz.
      Now, with the filmed version streaming on Disney+, the critical questions about Alexander Hamilton and the show’s depiction of him are back, and they aren’t just coming from the ivory tower.
      On Friday, the director Ava DuVernay tweeted her appreciation for Miranda’s artistry, along with a blast at the real-life A.Ham, who was not the progressive paragon of multicultural democracy some who watch the show may assume.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Continue reading the main story
      “Believed in manumission, not abolition,” she wrote. “Wrote violent filth about Native people. Believed in only elites holding political power and no term limits. And the banking innovation has troubled roots.”
      Historians, many of whom took part in a Twitter watch party under the hashtag #HATM (Historians at the Movies), took a generally milder tone, even as they reiterated some of their earlier caveats. Here’s what some of them have been saying about “Hamilton” — and Hamilton — since Miranda’s take on the “ten-dollar founding father” took America by storm.
      Hamilton wasn’t an abolitionist? I’m confused.
      Early in the show, Hamilton calls himself and his friends “revolutionary manumission abolitionists,” a line that raised a lot of eyebrows among scholars.
      Hamilton was genuinely antislavery, even if some scholars say the intensity of his opposition has been overstated. He was a founding member of the New York Manumission Society, created in 1785, which among other things, pushed for a gradual emancipation law in New York State. (Such a law was passed in 1799.)
      Manumission involved voluntary release by enslavers. Abolition was a more radical proposition, and Hamilton did not advocate it. And while he publicly criticized Thomas Jefferson’s views on the biological inferiority of Black people, the Harvard historian Annette Gordon-Reed has noted that his record and his writings from the 1790s until his death in 1804 include little to nothing against slavery.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Continue reading the main story
      As the show indicates, Hamilton did support John Laurens’s 1779 plan to allow Black soldiers to fight in the Revolution (and many eventually did). But that’s as far as he went.
      “OK, Hamilton did not write pamphlets against slavery with Laurens,” Gordon-Reed tweeted during the #HATM watch party, adding: “I hate to be that historian.”
      Image
      Credit...Disney
      So which characters in the show owned slaves?
      Most of them, actually. In one of the Cabinet rap battles, Jefferson extols the South’s agrarian economy, and Hamilton slaps back. “Yeah, keep ranting. We know who’s really doing the planting,” he sneers, dismissing Jefferson’s argument as “a civics lesson from a slaver.”
      But slavery was hardly just a Southern affair. In 1790, about 40 percent of households immediately around New York City included enslaved people. Most of Hamilton’s associates who toast freedom early in the show were slaveowners, including Aaron Burr and Hercules Mulligan (whose enslaved servant Cato worked alongside him in an anti-British spy ring).
      The Schuylers, the prominent family Hamilton marries into, were major slaveholders. In fact, the mayor of Albany announced last month that the city would remove a statue of Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s father-in-law, who at various points owned as many as 27 slaves.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Continue reading the main story
      Angelica Schuyler and her husband also owned slaves, and Hamilton, who was a lawyer, helped them with their slavery-related transactions, including the $225 purchase of a mother and child.
      Wait. Did Hamilton himself own slaves?
      Possibly. When his mother died in 1768, she left Hamilton and his brother an enslaved boy but they were not able to inherit since they had been born out of wedlock.
      And there is some documentation suggesting that Hamilton may have owned slaves later, after his marriage to Elizabeth Schuyler. The historian Michelle DuRoss, in a 2010 paper, noted that Hamilton’s grandson had said Hamilton owned slaves, citing references in family ledgers.
      But the evidence is ambiguous. Ankeet Ball, in a paper for the Columbia & Slavery research projectnoted an 1804 letter from Angelica Schuyler regretting that Elizabeth and Alexander did not have any enslaved servants to help them with a party.
      Ball, echoing many other scholars, pointed out that Hamilton, however much he may have hated slavery, acquiesced to it. “Hamilton ultimately accepted protecting slavery in the Constitution to solidify the union of the North and the South, which was crucial to the financial growth that Hamilton envisioned,” Ball wrote.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Continue reading the main story
      Was Hamilton pro-immigrant?
      “Immigrants, we get the job done,” sung by Hamilton (who was born in Nevis) and the Marquis de Lafayette during the Battle of Yorktown, quickly emerged as one of the biggest applause lines in the show. And while Hamilton, as a subject of the British crown moving from one British colony to another, was not an immigrant in the contemporary sense, he did see himself (and was sometimes seen by others) as an outsider.
      But his views of immigrants and how they fit into America were complicated. As the historian Joanne Freeman has pointed out, he wanted immigrant workers to fuel the manufacturing economy he envisioned, but he worried about their impact on the nation.
      In 1798, in the middle of naval hostilities with revolutionary France, Hamilton and other Federalists supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which extended the length of time immigrants had to wait to apply for citizenship and allowed the president to deport immigrants deemed “enemies.”
      Backlash against the laws, which were designed to weaken Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party, contributed to Jefferson’s victory in 1800. After the election, when Jefferson proposed loosening citizenship requirements, Professor Freeman wrote, “Hamilton protested, fretting about the corruption of national character.” He even suggested that if only “native citizens” had been allowed to vote, Jefferson would not have become president.
      But Hamilton, who started out as a penniless orphan, was a champion of the little guy, right?
      Even before the musical (and the Ron Chernow biography that inspired it), Hamilton had a resurgence of popularity, driven in part by conservatives and centrists who saw him as an avatar of capitalism and a strong national government.
      And Hamilton, many historians have pointed out, was hardly an up-by-the-bootstraps populist. He was an unabashed elitist who had proposed that senators serve for life and the president be an “elective monarch.” He also had a sometimes iffy relationship with representative democracy.
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Continue reading the main story
      Hamil-skeptics point to episodes like the Newburgh Conspiracy of 1783, when forces within the Continental Army who were frustrated over lack of pay and other issues argued that the army should challenge the authority of Congress. In a confidential letter, Hamilton, then a congressman, urged George Washington to “take the direction of” the army’s grievances, without appearing to — advice some scholars have interpreted as urging a military coup.
      Later, Hamilton dreamed of invading Florida and Louisiana (which were still under the control of Spain). He even floated the idea of deploying the army to Virginia to crush political opposition. And then there’s his (likely apocryphal) quotation, relayed by Henry Adams (the great-grandson of his nemesis John Adams): “Your people sir — your people is a great beast.”
      Sheesh, chill out. “Hamilton” is a work of fiction, right?
      The renewed critical commentary on Hamilton the man has prompted no shortage of eye-rolling, including from some historians. “Guys, I don’t think that’s how the Battle of Yorktown really went,” the historian Kevin Gannon tweeted during the #HATM watch. “I mean, I’m sure there was at least one more unit of dancers.”
      For some historians, one of the most thrilling things about the show is the way it plays with the tension between history and memory, the biases of sources and the importance of who tells the story. And Miranda’s musical, for all its phenomenal success, may not have the last word.
      One of the last times A.Ham was prominently on Broadway, in Sidney Kingsley 1943 play “The Patriots,” America was deep in a global fight for democracy. Hamilton wasn’t a populist hero, but a borderline fascist trying to impose a moneyed aristocracy on America. Jefferson, with his vision of self-governing common folk, was the champion of democracy.
      The next time around, who knows?