The View from Right Field

September 11 – 20th Anniversary

Lots of people will be writing lots of words about the 20th anniversary of September 11.  President Biden will probably talk, inter alia, about how victory over al Qaeda and the death of Osama Bin Laden meant we could get out of Afghanistan.  The Taliban will be talking about how their victory forced us to get out of Afghanistan.  And I am sure former President Trump will have something to say, too.

I will just link to two posts, one that I posted on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, mostly about our visit to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in 2006.  The other is something I wrote about the movie “United 93” after seeing it, also back in 2006.

The Diversity We Are Missing Today

In of his new book, Three Days at Camp David: How a Secret Meeting in 1971 Transformed the Global Economy, Jeffrey Garton writes about the meetings at Camp David on August 13 to 15, 1971, when Richard Nixon and small group of advisers¹ broke the link between gold and the US dollar (i.e., “closing the gold window”), instituted wage-and-price controls, and more.²  In describing the meeting Mr. Garton emphasizes there was a real diversity among those present.  It was not, course, a diversity of race or sex.  They were all white men.  (It was, after all, 1971.)  But there was a diversity of viewpoints.  Coming into the meeting, some opposed wage-and-price controls (President Nixon had always opposed them because of his experience in the Office of Price Administration in 1942); some were okay with them.  Some thought we needed to close the gold window immediately; others wanted to do the rest of the program and then wait and see.  The investment tax credit, which had recently been repealed, was to be reinstated.  The key was that a number of people with different viewpoints met, talked, and in a weekend came up with a set of policies to change the world economic system.³

60th Anniversary of the Berlin Wall

Sixty years ago today, the Berlin Wall went up.  It started with barbed wire and wound up with concrete, killing strips, and attack dogs.  The Berlin Wall seems out of date and out of history, at least out of the history we talk about today.  But for those who were alive during it, it was what history was about.

I am not going to write a lot about it here.  I have done that before.  You can find a post about the building the Wall here and pictures of the Wall here.  You can find posts about the fall of the Wall by looking in the “Berlin” subhead in “Categories” section in the right column.

Teaching American History in an Age of Woke-ism*

The Wall Street Journal recently had a review of a new book about Berlin after World War II – and especially the Airlift.¹  It looks fascinating.  I have read other books about the Airlift and have been to Berlin to see the sights of it – more than once.  It is a great story: How we turned a former enemy into an enduring friend, while defending freedom in the heart of Europe.² 

But I wonder how the Airlift is taught in school today.  Well, it probably isn’t.  But I wonder how it would be taught, if it was.  Would it be taught as a triumph of American policy and determination.  As a success story in the early days of the Cold War.  Something for Americans to be proud of.

The Saving Grace of Donald Trump’s Presidency: Incompetence

With Donald Trump back on the campaign trail, now seems like a good time for this post.  For all the complaints about Donald Trump’s lack of competence as president, it was actually his incompetence that was the saving grace of his presidency.  Former President Trump was good at some things.  He knew how to energize those who supported him.  He identified people who had been ignored for years, if not decades, and spoke for them.  His skill at public relations and his ability to play the media in the 2016 campaign was impressive.  He didn’t need to spend as much as his opponents because he knew how to get free publicity from the media.

But, while he knew how to get elected, he didn’t know how to govern.  He was competent at getting elected president.  He was incompetent at being president.

Why Plessy v. Ferguson – and What Might Have Been

Earlier this month was the 125th anniversary of the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.  The New York Times had an op-ed by Peter Canellos on the only justice to dissent in Plessy: Justice John Marshall Harlan.¹

In his article, Mr. Canellos said this of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy:

“The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … is duly remembered as one of the great abominations in legal history.  By endorsing the notorious separate-but-equal doctrine, it consigned most African Americans to a state of rank oppression.  In the space of no more than 5,000 words, it violated the plain language of the Constitution, engaged in expansive racist dissembling and defied the outcome of the Civil War.”

Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, 2020, and the Republican Party

Liz Cheney was ousted as head of the House Republican Conference last week, mostly (entirely-?) because she wouldn’t sign up for former President Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.  The decision to remove her was taken by a voice vote.  Which was either because almost everybody agreed or because, if one wants to be cynical (which I often find is the best way to look at things, especially politics), people didn’t want to go on the record. 

In any case, here are a few comments on Donald Trump, the 2020 election, and the future of the Republican Party:

Writing Constitutions – And Judging Those Who Write Them

This week’s Economist has a review of Linda Colley’s new book on the history of written constitutions, The Gun, the Ship and the Pen.  The book covers the writing of constitutions from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present.  According to the review:

“Above all, Ms Colley argues, the need for innovative, written constitutionalism was driven by the evolving nature of war. … Governments’ need for ever-more manpower to fight these wars – and ever-growing tax revenues to pay for them – led to crises at home that could only be tackled by the concession of new rights and promises of wider political participation. … 

The Return of Earmarks. Sigh.

It was sad last week to see Republicans in the House of Representatives giving up one of the real accomplishments on the last Republican House: the ban on earmarks.  In 2011, House Republicans passed a ban on earmarks, and since they wouldn’t approve earmarks, Congress couldn’t pass them and the President couldn’t sign them.  The entire Congress ultimately went along with the House Republicans, and in 2014, President Obama even said he would veto any bill containing earmarks.

The problems with earmarks were obvious.  Representatives and Senators were putting in specific appropriations for things they wanted done, not necessarily what needed to be done.  The more powerful a representative or senator was, the more money a district or state would get.  One of the most infamous earmarks was the $233 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.¹

H.R. McMaster on Strategy Against the Soviet Union and Strategy Against China

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (Ret.) and Jonathan D.T. Ward wrote in Thursday’s Chicago Tribune that the United States’ strategy vis-à-vis China should include the kind of policies used by President Reagan in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.  Messrs. McMaster and Ward explain:

“Reagan’s approach – applying intensive economic and military pressure to a superpower adversary – became foundational to American strategic thinking. It hastened the end of Soviet power and promoted a peaceful conclusion to the multi-decade Cold War.”