Book Review: The Forgotten Conservative by John M. Pafford

The conservative historical revisionism of recent years continues with a re-evaluation of President Grover Cleveland.

As someone who doesn’t particularly care for attempts to rewrite history to fit a political ideology (whether liberal or conservative), this book was a challenge for me to review.  On the one hand, the author is a (presumably) libertarian who teaches history at Northwood University, a business school in Midland, Michigan, and is a scholar for the libertarian Mackinac Center think tank.  So I read with skepticism.

On the other hand, we can’t let our prejudices cloud our analysis of scholarly work.  We’re all human and all bring our own biases to our research, but we have to try to avoid becoming a mere “hired hand” for an ideological interest.  So I had to evaluate whether Professor Pafford was sufficiently independent in his work.  And then I had to evaluate the book on the actual research and writing quality.  I hope I succeeded fairly.

The Review

The Forgotten Conservative (2013) is a short book, clocking in at around 200 pages for the main text and some additional pages for an appendix and notes.  Covering an entire lifespan in such a short amount of pages means that we will only get a cursory overview of Cleveland’s life.  And in situations like that, writing usually suffers.  Pafford’s writing is functional, lacking flair, and the broad strokes he paints don’t shed any new light on Cleveland’s life or presidencies.  In fact, his presidencies are limited to a chapter apiece.

Instead of a penetrating glimpse into the mind of Grover Cleveland, The Forgotten Conservative simply cites events during his life when he took a conservative line.  There is no real analysis.  What is more, the little analysis contained within is filled with anachronisms when Pafford tries to connect Cleveland with modern libertarian trigger words like “multiculturalism” and “relativism.”  There is no real attempt to place Cleveland in the context of his times, and that is a shame.  The era he lived through was rife with social and political unrest and nuanced philosophical differences between politicians.  He tried to paint Cleveland as a reformer, but when stacked up next to his contemporary Theodore Roosevelt and even a young Henry Cabot Lodge he pales in comparison.

Instead of scholarly research the book reads more like a libertarian pamphlet with historical facts thrown in.  The language is too judgmental and not distanced enough from the subject.  There are paeans to the gold standard, something that would make Ron Paul proud, and barely disguised praise of a Christian government (pages 34-35). He resurrects the idea that strife between labor and corporate bosses was only due to violent strikers and a “rapacious few” corporate leaders.  There is little mention of the horrible working conditions and child labor conditions that various states worked to stamp out.

And for all the praise about Cleveland’s steadfast hold on his principles, Pafford rarely taps into the racial aspect of Cleveland’s Democratic Party.  Several times he states that the end of Reconstruction heralded the moment white people regained their right to vote in the South, subtly referencing old constructs about Reconstruction being a terrible event in U.S. history (page 42).  He seems not to realize that whites could vote in the South, but that after 1877 conservative whites could regain control of the legislatures and restore liberal-minded whites and blacks back to the bottom rung of society.

Hero-worship is nothing new in historical biographies, and Pafford has committed no heinous crime here.  There are so few books on Grover Cleveland that it wouldn’t be a terrible introduction to the man, but it’s biases stand out as unnecessary and unhelpful.  As a contribution to the historiography of Cleveland, this has very little value, unlike Amity Shlaes’ Coolidge, which embraces similar principles and has a similar purpose.  Yet Shlaes (so I’ve heard, I have yet to read Coolidge) still writes a valuable historical  contribution.

There is nothing new in this book, perhaps necessary considering the short length.  But the only thing that sets this book apart from the short overviews of the American Presidents Series is it’s political message.  Which is fine, history is about the sharing of ideas, but The Forgotten Conservative is a poor attempt to resurrect a hero for libertarians and has few ideas of its own.

Skip it.

But to show no hard feelings, I’m more than happy to direct you to the purchase link for the book if you decide to give it a go.

The Forgotten Conservative at Amazon.com.

 

Job Titles for History Majors

The Internet is inundated with articles about the decline of the historian profession.  When most authorities refer to historians, they of course mean professors holding Ph.D’s.  But what about the rest of us, who don’t necessarily want to teach?  There are tons of sites out there listing jobs for historians, but they are usually pretty vague and usually require a great deal of specialized experience or schooling.  I actually saw “FBI Agent” on a list once.  I’m sure historians have become agents, but not without a considerable amount of law enforcement experience first.

So in this post I want to post some of the job titles I’ve come across that seem like a good fit for people with a history background who aren’t lucky enough to have multiple degrees in different areas, with some brief explanations about what they’re looking for and what I think would help you in your search.  The biggest problem is that the world IS your oyster if you hold a history degree, but unless you know exactly what to look for, you’re going to be left in the lurch.

I hope the following list helps make your job hunt a little easier and a little more realistic than some of the other lists out there.  I will post them one at a time, as I come across them.

Up first:

 Historic Interpreter:

I’ve seen this one more than any other.  A Historic Interpreter is, effectively, a tour guide or one of those people who dressed up in period costume and plays a character at a historic site, but not always.

Experience: Entry-level.  It helps to have specific knowledge of the area you’d be interpreting (i.e. colonial America at Colonial Williamsburg), and also public speaking or acting experience.  Having a friendly personality and the ability to multi-task is a must.  Likely to be part-time and seasonal, but it’s a way of getting your foot in the door.  Some sites are very high-tech and it would help to be comfortable with incorporating audio-visual techniques into your presentations.  Intern at one of these in college, or after graduating.  Might be harder to get if you have a Master’s, but still worth a shot at entry level.

Where to look: Bigger facilities tend to hire more Interpreters.  Historic Mackinac, Colonial Williamsburg, Greenfield Village, Conner Prairie Historic Park, etc.  Look for tourism information in areas you want to work, especially on the East Coast and Midwest.  Seems like most of the Eastern states have one or two of these kinds of sites.

Also Listed As: Tour Guide, Historic Site Interpreter.

Review: Here is Where by Andrew Carroll

One of the perks about working in a bookstore, is that I can grab advance copies of upcoming books. Sometimes, buried in those piles of stereotypically quirky high-brow attempts at literature, a real diamond can be found in the rough. Here is Where is almost one of those diamonds.

Right off the bat, let me tell you the one problem I had with this book: it was too long for its own good.  Here’s why: The basic premise of Carroll’s history expedition is that he travels the country to discover and tell the forgotten tales of American history.  He carries with him three basic rules, of which the following is most important (to me): the “forgotten history” needs to have a national impact. Carroll is a conversational writer, and I really enjoyed his approach to history.  He is not a historian in a traditional sense.  There is no historiography,  no great methods of historical research used in his effort, but he doesn’t try to pass this off as “real” history.  Let’s call him a “history traveler.”

He regales us with interesting stories of crazy coincidences that entertain and enlighten.  For an example of enlightenment, his story of the Nihau Incident helps us better understand why America embraced forced detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.  For a story of entertainment, we learn that the television was developed (at least on paper) by a fourteen year old boy, who later lived a tragic life in which he was screwed over by RCA. So on this basis alone I would recommend his book.

He’s clearly a talented writer. But there is one fundamental flaw in his book: the pacing. The book is organized into subject parts, which means most readers will find 3/5s of the book fascinating and the other portions boring.  Myself, I didn’t care for his segments on medicine or inventions.  He does an admirable job putting in place a kind of narrative of his travels, but the thread is weak. I devoured the first two-thirds of the book in two days, and then promptly lost interest.

I admittedly have not finished the book yet.  It’s worth a read, but the format Carroll has used for his book has removed any sense of urgency from the book.  It feels like a random assortment of stories, which can be read in any order (for the most part) that doesn’t really go anywhere. Out of 5 stars, I’d give it 3.  If you read it, you’ll like it (or at least most of it) but structurally it’s not great. Here is Where is due to be released in May 2013.

UPDATE:  Website for the book is up:  Click the title to visit.

Here Is Where by Andrew Carroll

Review: Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship

Burton, David H. Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship. (Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp., 2005. Hardcover. ISBN: 0838640427. 156 pp.

Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft present a study in opposites. Roosevelt was larger than life in his energy and outsize ambition. He desired to push the nation into the 20th Century with a “Square Deal” for everyone, balancing the playing field between corporations, labor and average Americans. Taft, on the other hand, was equally patriotic but much more legalistic in his thinking. Barton does an especially good job of drawing these contrasts. Yet somehow these two men grew to be political friends. Roosevelt used the highly effective administration in Taft to carry out his Philippine policy, the construction of the Panama Canal, and to act at times as Secretary of State on overseas trips to feel out rising powers like Japan.

But when Taft, Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, chose to go his own way and take a more cautious approach during his presidency, their friendship was irrevocably damaged. The final breaking point came when Taft chose to prosecute a trust that had been approved by Roosevelt in 1907 out of pragmatism. Taft had endorsed allowing the trust to exist in 1907, and his change of heart seemed to Roosevelt a personal betrayal. Roosevelt became a stiff critic of Taft for his supposed betrayal of Progressive Republican ideas and ran against him in 1912, splitting the vote and allowing Wilson to win.
Burton handles their friendship less successfully than he does their break. He rarely relies on personal letters to paint a portrait of friends and his narrative is really a dual-biography (something he denies in the beginning of his book). He tells us what Roosevelt thought or did, and then what Taft thought or did, but seldom do they really intersect in this book. As a study in contrasts the book is extraordinarily effective, but there is little context as to why their break was important. To Burton, Roosevelt merely became emotional and Taft continued to be legalistic which made it impossible for them to be friends.
The impact on the political system is virtually ignored. Essentially the book is a mini-biography of Taft, and Burton tries to pull Taft out of Roosevelt’s shadow. In this he is effective. His narrative is careful to make Taft appear a decisive leader in his own right, refuting most of the stereotypes we have now about Taft. But it is not entirely a balanced account. Roosevelt comes off somewhat as “the bad guy” in his denunciations of Taft and as the provocateur. No doubt Roosevelt’s high energy approach to politics makes this an easy path to take. But while a re-evaluation of Taft is important (he was an effective President at times) the overall purpose of this book seems muddled. There is very little friendship here so the final break between Taft and Roosevelt feels more perfunctory than tragic.

A short and informative read, narrow in scope, but really a study in contrasting political approaches more than a study in friendship.It doesn’t break any new ground or try to put their relationship into a national context.

New E-Book: The Spanish-American War

Brand new e-book, written by yours truly, called The Spanish-American War: A Brief History!  I just published it yesterday so check it out.  For a mere $1.99 you can get a brief introduction to a forgotten but fascinating war that changed America forever.  Click the book title above to travel to Smashwords to buy it!

Admittedly, it’s for the curious and casual history buffs moreso than experts.  It’s not a weighty, scholarly tome, but instead I meant for you to read it in a day, just to get a feel for the topic and come away entertained and informed.  I’d appreciate feedback on it if you do buy it, in the comments below this post.

Presidential History

Can anyone tell me why there are not more Presidential history courses being taught at universities?

Why, after all, is history taught to begin with?  History is taught so that society has some understanding of where they came from. History gives us all context to place current events in, to give us a reference point to process everything thrown at us during every day life.  History connects us with our ancestors, and helps us understand where we are going (if you ascribe to the idea that history is progressing toward some goal).  And, at it’s very basic level, history is entertaining.  The study of Middle Eastern history, for instance, gives Americans a greater sense of why there is so much chaos in the region and what effect different American actions are prone to have.  Knowing about Revolutionary America is to give us a greater sense of our heritage, the successes and failures, moral heights and moral depths of American ideas.  While America has not always been the land of equality and freedom, these are the ideas that have prevailed over all others.  This is who we are.

So why is there no organized study of American leaders?  I know that “Great Men History” is blasé among cultural historians these days, but it still serves an important purpose.  With the Election of 2012 almost upon us, we are faced again with a populace left in the dark about what makes a great President.  Everyone has their gut feelings and opinions, but how many actually build off an understanding of where Presidential history has come from to understand where it is going?

Presidential biographies are big sellers right now, thanks partially to the boom of history fascination in the United States.  But they have always enjoyed some level of success.  History classes focused on presidential history would not only create a group capable of analyzing current presidential politics, it could provide a wealth of new approaches to Presidential history which unfortunately is usually written by journalists.

Is there any value in teaching or learning Presidential history in a college setting?  What are your thoughts?

Teddy Roosevelt

Well, as some of you may know, I am a huge follower of Teddy Roosevelt.  Not only is he fascinating but his political ideas (most of them) are still relevant today.  One can wonder where we would be if we still had visionary leaders like him.  But anyway, I stumbled across a group known as the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TR hated the nickname ‘Teddy’).  While my finances at the moment can’t justify the cost of joining, I can’t wait until the day comes when I can belong to this group.

Let me wax a little nostalgically about Teddy Roosevelt.  The man was an energetic dynamo, “all act” as one of his contemporaries described him.  Reading the excellent The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris has really gotten me thinking about our current political state.  During his time, Theodore Roosevelt made a name for himself by championing impossible reform causes, even taken on his own party bosses.  In fact, if it were not for his spectacular oratory skills and his intangible presence in front of a crowd or during a committee meeting, they would have sunk him before his career ever got off the ground.

 

He always dove head first into things without taking time to survey his surroundings, and he took his fair share of lumps. But his indomitable spirit and his quick mind enabled him to escape almost any scenario.  He took on corrupt party bosses in New York state, reformed the New York police department (which involved immediately outmaneuvering and defeating a corrupt police chief and a violent cop), and relentlessly hounded the powers that be to clean up their act.

Because of this many people thought Roosevelt was certifiably insane.  They acknowledged the power of his charisma but many people were suspicious of his ambition and relentless drive forward.  But in the end he became one of our greatest Presidents.  Let’s make May “Teddy Roosevelt” month, for no other reason than the fact that I just finished readingThe Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.  Virtually any book on the man is fascinating and I think all Americans would do well to know a little bit more about this complex but incorruptible man.