Category: Dissertation

Of Books and Bears.

A couple of navel-gazing notes from the past few weeks:

* I’ve successfully defended my dissertation prospectus, currently and very drably titled “The Legacy of Reform: Progressive Persistence in National Politics, 1920-1928.” So, now I’m really ABD (All But Dissertation), and all systems are go for my upcoming writing year.

* Although it won’t be out until October, and will require some minor last-minute revisions right up until then (to account for new developments such as the Pope’s probable passing), I’ve spent the past fall and winter researching and editing — and have now finished up — a third collaboration with Democratic commentator Bill Press, entitled How the Republicans Stole Christmas: The Republican Party’s Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take it Back. In a nutshell (and as you probably guessed from the title), its very timely argument is “The Religious Right is neither religious nor right.” At any rate, since the book is basically in the can and the book cover has made it to Amazon, it seems as good a time as any to tell y’all about it.

* “If you go out in the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise…” Steve Belcher, a high school friend of mine who recently finished a stint at the NY Film Academy — he’s the fellow I was making a few short films with over the winter — has sent along “Sleeping In,” his first very short project, in fabulous Quicktime. Just goes to show, pretty much can anything happen in Central Park these days.

Harding Eight.

Boogie Nights and Punch-Drunk Love wunderkind Paul Thomas Anderson (a writer-director I like a lot less than most people, although I caught Magnolia again on IFC recently and didn’t loathe it this time) announces his next project — Upton Sinclair’s Oil!, possibly starring Daniel Day-Lewis. Hmmm…looks like I had best write that dissertation chapter on Teapot Dome sooner rather than later.

Radicals of the Republic.

If it’s post-MLK day, it must be the beginning of the spring semester here at Columbia…and this term I’ve returned to America’s shores from East Asia. (How McArthur-esque.) So, for the next few months I’ll be TA’ing “The Radical Tradition in America” for the inimitable Prof. Eric Foner, which I’m greatly looking forward to (despite ending up with Thursday night section times that are less than ideal…but ah well. I can’t blame anyone but myself for that.) Since most of my work this term on the dissertation (on, put very simply, Progressive persistence in national politics, 1919-1928) is going to involve senators, governors, magazine editors, and other inner-circle types (“They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within“), I’m hoping the objects of study here — individuals and movements working to effect change outside the confining parameters of legislative politics — will make for a nice, dynamic, and thought-provoking counterpoint, and one that will help me shore up my own thoughts on civic republicanism, both in its persistence and its possibilities for renewal.

Don’t Call it a Comeback.

Found while pursuing prospectus research, Yale professor Robert Johnston argues for reviving progressivism as political theory. “As scholars, we rarely know if we are really in the middle of a paradigm shift. The signs are hopeful, though, for in the last few years a series of brilliant books have appeared to make the case for the democratic — and often radically democratic — nature of much of progressive reform.“

Bobos on Progressivism.

Interrupting my usual enjoyment of the Sunday NYT crossword this past week was the magazine’s cover story, in which conservative media darling David Brooks tried to outline a new “progressive conservatism” for 2008. Given my interest, historical and otherwise, in reviving progressivism in any form, I applaud Brooks for giving it the ole college try here. But this piece suffers from a couple of serious problems.

For one, there’s not much “new” here. Writers like Michael Sandel have already thoroughly outlined this project, the case for a Hamiltonian revival was done better in Michael Lind’s Hamilton’s Republic, and even George Will anticipated much of Brooks’s argument on government, culture, and fostering independence twenty years ago with Statecraft as Soulcraft.

More problematic, Brooks seems totally unacquainted with his own party. “[A]lmost every leading official acknowledges that we should have as much of a welfare state as we can afford.” Oh, really? On education, “[m]ore and more conservatives understand that local control means local monopolies and local mediocrity.” Coulda fooled me. “Most Republicans, happily or not, have embraced a significant federal role in education.” Well, somebody should tell these guys.

I don’t want to harsh on Brooks too much, because at least he’s trying to make the case for something close to a progressive resurgence (“But through much of American history there has always been a third tradition, now dormant, which believes in limited but energetic government in the name of social mobility and national union.”) But first he’s gotta realize that he’s standing on the shoulders of giants here, and should say as much. And, more importantly, if we really wants to see a return to progressivism, he’s probably looking in the wrong party. As Bill Moyers recently and eloquently restated, progressivism was ultimately a reaction against the corporate domination of politics that afflicted the Gilded Age, and somehow that doesn’t seem to bother the current GOP too much. Dubya and Rove apparently aspire to be William McKinley and Mark Hanna respectively, and the closest thing the GOP had to a TR is now gleefully prostrating himself before his corporate overlords. So, we’re probably going to have to search elsewhere for our Teddys, Woodrows, and Crolys these days.

Pass it On.

“You are the heirs of one of the country’s great traditions — the progressive movement that started late in the l9th century and remade the American experience piece by piece until it peaked in the last third of the 20th century…Its aim was to keep blood pumping through the veins of democracy when others were ready to call in the mortician…While the social dislocations and meanness that galvanized progressives in the 19th century are resurgent, so is the vision of justice, fairness, and equality. That’s a powerful combination if only there are people around to fight for it. The battle to renew democracy has enormous resources to call upon – and great precedents for inspiration.”

By way of a friend of mine, Bill Moyers recounts the Progressive Story of America. The whole thing’s worth a read…and I for one think it’s great to hear the Progressives get their due. (Along the same lines, this month’s Prospect has a special report entitled “A New Progressive Era?”, with contributions from, among others, Sean Wilentz, James MacGregor Burns, and John Podesta.) Progressives take a lot of flak in the Academy, some justified (they were silent on lynching and generally really lousy on race), some not (ridiculous amounts of ink has been spilled lambasting them for being middle-class, bureaucratic, and/or unSocialist.)

O.D…Original Dubya.

“He is the actuality of the schoolboy notion that anybody has a chance to be President.” Dubya? No, Warren Harding, but close enough. Hey y’all…sorry it’s been quieter than usual around here lately. Most of my time right now is spent in my summer research employ, which basically involves going down to the NYC Public Library at 40th St. and reading as many TIME magazines from the early 1920’s as possible. (In effect, I’m blogging 1923 at the moment.) I’ve also started getting serious with the orals prep, although not so serious that I didn’t create a goofy subsite to monitor my progress (and impel me to read faster.) Either way, I expect updates here will remain lighter than usual for the next few weeks, but y’never know.