• About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact
Dana Blankenhorn
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
Dana Blankenhorn
No Result
View All Result
Home Current Affairs

Learning from History

by Dana Blankenhorn
October 15, 2007
in Current Affairs, history, political philosophy, politics, The 1967 Game
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Fdr_and_his_enemies_from_amazon
One of the most important things you should do before reading any history book is to look at when when it was written. I’ve found that the great insights from most history books usually reflect that time, not the time being written about.

Here’s a good example, the 1999 book FDR and His Enemies, by Arthur Fried. It’s the best explanation I can find for why Al Gore isn’t President.

How so? Start with the title. FDR and His Enemies.  It assumes the Nixon Thesis of Conflict, the idea that politicians must have enemies — implacable, evil domestic enemies who have to be confronted and destroyed before any success is possible.

That’s not true. The heart of the FDR Thesis of Unity argues against it. Roosevelt’s entire policy make-up was to create a consensus of belief that would spur people to action. He did this in the 1930s with radio, and he got Hollywood’s help, both then and later, in moving people away from their isolationist attitudes.

George_bush_holding_breath
Second, look at whom Fried chooses. Al Smith. Father Coughlin. Huey Long.
John L. Lewis. Charles Lindbergh. All but one were Democrats. Smith was
Roosevelt’s mentor, Coughlin, Long and Lewis all benefitted from the
New Deal.  What made them "enemies" for Fried was that the first three came to
disagree about the pace of change Roosevelt wanted — Smith wanted it
slowed while Coughlin and Long wanted it sped up, while the latter two
disagreed on entering World War II, along with most Americans.

This doesn’t make them "enemies." It makes them people with whom the
President had disagreements. Only one, Lindbergh, should count as a
true enemy in any sense of the term, and he was just an isolationist
who didn’t understand the threat Hitler posed until too late, again
like most Americans.

If FDR had enemies it were the great dictators — Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and Mussolini — as well as the Wall Street Republicans who were reluctant to act against poverty in the 1930s, and reluctant to act against fascism in the 1940s. It was the Republicans who voted against him, not the Democrats.

Yet when it came out this was quite the popular book. And it was
popular, I submit, precisely because it defined the past in terms of assumptions in its present. The idea that politics is a life-or-death struggle between
allies and enemies had become so ingrained in the popular consciousness
by 1999 that the bias was affecting everyone and everything. And since
the Nixon Thesis was the majority view, while the Clinton AntiThesis
was the minority view, it was thus inevitable that merely stating the
Thesis, standing by the Thesis, would lead the knees to jerk and
power to be seized.

This type of event — the preference of the moron for the genius, is the first sign of an excess in any generation.

  • Benjamin Harrison was an empty suit next to President
    Grover Cleveland, yet he beat the incumbent President in 1888 (thanks
    to the electoral college) because the "bloody shirt" assumptions of the
    Lincoln Thesis remained strong.
  • Warren Harding was an affable moron, yet he trounced Gov.
    James Cox in 1920 — Cox later made his heirs billionaires and his
    running mate was FDR himself. Why? Because the Republican Thesis
    remained in place, and the knees jerked at the slogan "return to
    normalcy." Normalcy, in this case, meant Republicans in power.
  • John F. Kennedy, for all his charms, was unqualified next
    to Nixon in 1960, but he won anyway. Again, as in the case of Harrison
    (and later, W) it was a narrow win. But the FDR Thesis, in the end,
    held. The Eisenhower AntiThesis, which Nixon represented at the time, had no chance.

The pattern of Thesis, Validation, AntiThesis and Excess is
well-established in American history. Each generation goes through a
time of trial, and from that learns habits of a lifetime, which are
passed on to the next generation, and eventually found irrelevant by
events, leading to a new crisis.

A crisis is where we are now. The Nixon Thesis has no answers to Iraq, no answers to global warming. It fails to address the challenges of our time because it was never meant for our time. We need a new Thesis, a new set of Myths and Values, based on the new medium of our time, in order to address the future.

The idea that men who mostly supported FDR and benefited enormously
from him were, or had to be, his implacable enemies is proof positive
that by 1999 the Nixon Thesis was too ingrained in the American psyche
to be denied.

Al Gore never had a chance.

Tags: 2000 Election2008 electionAl GoreAmerican political historyGeorge W. BushInternet ThesisNixon ThesisThesis of Conflict
Previous Post

The Bad Germans

Next Post

The Media War

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn began his career as a financial journalist in 1978, began covering technology in 1982, and the Internet in 1985. He started one of the first Internet daily newsletters, the Interactive Age Daily, in 1994. He recently retired from InvestorPlace and lives in Atlanta, GA, preparing for his next great adventure. He's a graduate of Rice University (1977) and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism (MSJ 1978). He's a native of Massapequa, NY.

Next Post

The Media War

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Post

The E-Transport Revolution Rolls On

Change the Subject, Atlanta

May 14, 2025
The Coming Labor War

The Insanity of Wealth

May 7, 2025
Tachtig Jaar Van Vrede en Vrijheid

Tachtig Jaar Van Vrede en Vrijheid

May 5, 2025
Make America Dutch Again

Make America Dutch Again

April 30, 2025
Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!


Archives

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Dana Blankenhorn on The Death of Video
  • danablank on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • cipit88 on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • danablank on What I Learned on my European Vacation
  • danablank on Boomer Roomers

I'm Dana Blankenhorn. I have covered the Internet as a reporter since 1983. I've been a professional business reporter since 1978, and a writer all my life.

  • Italian Trulli

Browse by Category

Newsletter


Powered by FeedBlitz
  • About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved