Netroots Rising-The Book Review

Today I offer part one of my Netroots Rising review and analysis.  Part one will be a book review, and part two will use the book as a starting point to take a look at what blogs are doing, can be doing, should be doing, etc., in this campaign season.

Netroots Rising is the recent book by Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox detailing the rise of the “progressive blogosphere”-what they call the netroots.  It is a book that reads well as history, as a political manifesto, and as a notice that a new way of doing business in American politics could be just over the
horizon. 

If you walk away from this book with one thing-let it be this.  Lowell and Nate regularly-and accurately- pound the fact that blogging and Internet access have given access to multitudes of people who did not have it before.  Want to make your opinion known?  Start a website, blog, facebook account, etc., and let your political flag fly.  Maybe you get noticed, maybe you don’t, but you can make an impact via techniques and technology that did not exist or were not recognized as recently as five years ago.

However, I came away feeling like an opportunity was missed to analyze why netroot participation seemed to serve as a participation multiplier, as well as a chance to offer a wide view of the political blogosphere. 

Lowell and Nate do a marvelous job of recounting how the internet was used by democrats to overcome GOP edges in technology.  Circa 2003 the GOP enjoyed a technology edge as seen (a) in fundraising via extensive databases and direct mail efforts; (b) talk radio; and (c) a better internet presence.

A variety of democratic activitists, frustrated with the moderate Clinton “triangulation” method of campaigning began to take to the internet via blogs, email, websites, etc., to allow them to directly connect with others having the same desire to participate and make an impact while circumventing what they saw as a calcified party process.

It was not easy at first, and initial efforts in Texas fighting Tom DeLay’s inexcusable redistricting efforts, drafting Wes Clark, supporting Howard Dean and then promoting John Kerry were not as successful as hoped for.  But these efforts laid the foundation for more successful netroot impact in the Virginia gubernatorial elections in 2005 and US Senate elections in Virginia and Montana in 2006. 

The step by step description of the Virginia campaigns in 2005 and 2006 is especially interesting, but perhaps because I lived through both as an interested observer it does not have the novel like quality of pace that others have attributed to the book.

A continuing thread is that of cooperation and conflict between the netroots and the more traditional Democratic Party structure.  This is not a new theme in american politics, but typically the insurgent side finds itself using the same tools as the establishment and is consequently outgunned.  The new tools employed by the netroots means an intra-party conflict where each side is potentially using not only different weapons (email v. tv advertising) but weapons that might be embraced by one demographic (i.e. younger voters) and ignored by another (i.e. older voters).

The new fight as described in the book takes on an old fight in a new light. Using the examples of Malcom Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, a political fight often means going after the people who will then turn around and persuade others. In the old days, it was done with patronage and perquisite-an external set of values that is addressed one at a time. The internet means that like can find like faster and in larger numbers.

The book concludes with an analysis of the future of the netroots, and asks “will the netroots continue to rise?”  Lowell and Nate suggest that the netroots will not only continue to impact campaigns, but they will also impact collateral areas of campaigns including advertising.  They examine the possibility of the netroots taking on an establishment hue of its own, or fragmenting into more focused areas of interest.  They also offer a final riff on the establishment v. insurgent that laces the book.

As history, manifesto, and a first swipe analysis of a current wave of participation-and one that is not likely to go away soon-this is an excellent book.

By the same token, there were a few things I would have enjoyed seeing. Some are substantive, some are stylistic, and others may have been eliminated due to cost or other pre publication issues, but here they are…

The authors sometimes spin the impact of the netroots effort to the point of overstatement.  For example, they suggest that George Allen’s “Macaca” moment was a “forced error” because had the netroots not gotten Webb into the race, Allen would not have been in The Breaks but instead campaigning elsewhere seeking the GOP nomination for president in 2008. 

I don’t understand their logic.  First, he would have been opposed in the Virginia Senate race-Webb did have to win a primary to get the nomination-so he would have been campaigning in Virginia anyway.  Second, Allen came up with this gaffe on his own.  He was not forced into it.  His own sense of ego caused him to insult Mr. Siddarth, and his sense of hubris prevented him from trying to recover from what he had done. These are hardly forced errors.

The netroots “score” was not in forcing the error, or even in creating the atmosphere to create an unforced error.  What the netroots did was to make the blunder widely known exceptionally fast-something that would not have happened had the Webb campaign followed their own counsel…and in doing so created the atmosphere where more errors-forced and unforced-were made.

The authors made a stylistic decision that frankly drove me crazy.  When discussing the Kaine and Webb campaigns, Lowell Feld is regularly refered to in the third person, typically as “Feld”.  I imagine this was because the book had two authors, and using they feared using “I” as opposed to proper names would cause confusion.  While I understand the decision, when I see “Feld” used more than a dozen times over two or three pages…well, it doesn’t add to the flow of the writing.

By the same token, the authors face the same problem that Frank Atkinson did when he wrote “Virginia in the Vanguard”.  Frank was a player in many of the events described, and perhaps as a result did not include  various interviews and personal details of the type used in “The Dynamic Dominion”…there is a great difference between writing as an observor than as a participant.

I also wish the authors left more of a personal fingerprint on the book.  I could find no pictures of them in the book.  The third person treatment is used on their bios at the beginning of the book, and while old “Kos” signs his foreword in the style of a published book, the authors do not do the same with the acknowledgements. They don’t offer details of meetings or encounters or people that could make the stories come alive. 

The netroots are people, and instead of the brief bios offered on pages xxi-xxiii in the intro, spread their stories throughout the book…and not just what they did, but the little details of life that would make them come alive.  It is a pity that the various interviews on the netroots rising web page were not included in the book in toto or in block quotes as sort of an oral history.  This book is in part a story of passionate people finding a cause, but I found primarily facts and little fire in the writing.

There were analytical opportunities missed that would have more fully illustrated the theme.  I think the book would benefit from a fuller discussion of the differences between the Democratic blogosphere and the GOP blogosphere.  A comparison like this would go far to illustrate why the the netroots have prospered vis-a-vis the opposition.

I also think an opportunity was missed to use the George Allen campaign to more fully illustrate the changes in mindset among traditional politics, the netroots, and Virginia demographics.

On page 142 of Netroots Rising: 

“One undercurrent about George Allen that had never been fully explored despite Allen’s tenure as Virginia Governor and US Senator was his questionable past with regard to racial issues.”

Lowell and Nate go on to note the media had not dug into the issue in previous elections…but apparently neither had the Democrats.  Allen had been through two state wide elections, not to mention some fierce legislative confrontations, and this was never made an issue. 

Why? 

Did the media not see it as an issue?  Were Mary Sue Terry and Chuck Robb somehow unaware of the decor of his law offices?  Did the makeup of the Virgina electorate change so much between 1993 and 2006 that what were once acceptable affectations are now character flaws?  Were questions not asked because the focus was more on “racial attitude” and less on “racial issues”?  A fuller discussion would help reveal fault line differences between the establishment and the netroots.

I say all this knowing that the style and analysis concerns, for instance, may be things that were whacked by editors or that were felt to be outside the realm of the book…but you know the drill-my blog, so I get to ramble.

The bottom line?  If you want to stay on top of Virginia politics, you need this book.  Likewise if you are interested in politics in general, use of technology, demographic shifts, communications, media relations…the list goes on.  The book scores as history, manifesto, and analysis…but it also serves to tell the story of people who wanted to make a change and got in the fight to do so…and that is the kind of book we should all be interested in.

Linguistics Prediction for 2009

At the end of each year Lake Superior State University publishes its annual “List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness“.  The 2008 version includes such classics as:

Perfect Storm-”Overused by the pundits on evening TV shows to mean just about any coincidence.”
Webinar-”Yet another non-word trying to worm its way into the English language due to the Internet. It belongs in the same school of non-thought that brought us e-anything and i-anything.”
‘BLANK’ is the new ‘BLANK’ or ‘X’ is the new ‘Y’-”The idea behind such comparisons was originally good, but we’ve all watched them spiral out of reasonable uses into ludicrous ones and it’s now time to banish them from use.”

I suggest the 2009 list should include “Agent of Change”, “Change agent”, or any other term that tries to make a candidate for office sound special because they want to [ahem] “CHANGE THINGS”.

Why is it silly? Has there ever been a candidate for office who wasn’t running to change something, if only the holder of that office?

The term is silly, pretentious, and not needed.

You want to be a real “change agent”? Go change a messy diaper-as the father of three I can assure that THEN you are truly a change agent worthy of mention!

Presenting: The Fall 2007 Virginia Blogosphere Book Fair, Part I

Today we begin the 2007 Virginia Blogosphere Book Fair!

The first version of the Book Fair will be by subject, and w/in the next week the second iteration which will be by blogger!

Biography 

Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician by Anthony Everitt

The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson by Thomas Jefferson; Adrienne Koch and William Peden, Editors

 The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton

Children

My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George

Communication

Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die by Chip Heath and Dan Heath

Words that Work: It’s not What You Say, It’s What People Hear by Frank Luntz 

 Current Events

Infidel by Ayann Hirsi Ali

Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner

Canary in the Coal Mine by Jessalyn Radack

The Assault on Reason by Al Gore

The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger And the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy by Joe Matthews

Future Events(!)

“The Singularity Is Near”by Ray Kurzweil

History

James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Pivotal Moments in American History)by Richard Labunski (Author)

The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot

 

Literature and Fiction

“A Lesson Before Dying” by Ernest J. Gaines.

Rosetta 6.2 by James A. Bowden

Nature

 Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey

National Geographic: The Ultimate Field Guide to Photography (Paperback) by Bob Martin (and others).

Philosophy

Meditations by Sister Wendy

Rosetta 6.2By James A. Bowden

Illusions by Richard Bach 

I apologize for the delay in presenting the results, but a tumble down the front stairs of my house put Bwana on the Beach for a few days. Plus, since the response rate was less than I hoped for I decided to wait for a few days before posting the list…however, I tend to think the diminished response from last year is found in the comment submitted by Bruce Roemmelt and echoed (to some degree) by The Cooch:

“My reading for the past year and next (x) days is limited to walk sheets and call sheets.”

Understood, and good luck!

Yes, I know there is a title that is listed in two sections…but I couldn’t come down on which single topic to add it under, so it gets double billing.

Feel free to add additional titles in the comment section or email them to me at renaissaisancerumiations@hotmail.com

Candidates and Opportunity

As noted earlier, I am still laid up with a bum ankle, which has provided an opportunity to catch up on reading and other sedentary pursuits.

I am rereading Robert Caro’s Means of Ascent, the second volume in his planned four volume bio of Lyndon Baines Johnson (vol 1-3 are out, with #4 coming who knows when).  This book is devoted to the period 1941-1948, and covers in depth the 1948 Texas Democratic primary that ultimately lead to Johnson getting the nickname “Landslide Lyndon”.

Yep, I should have watched the tape of Cooch-Hoot, but I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.  Mea Culpa…

I recently reread a passage describing how LBJ could not abide interruptions while he was on the stump, especially by children.  LBJ apparently would actually stop his speech until an adult quieted a child down.  If that did not happen, he would draw attention to the little miscreant and effectively demand someone quiet him down.

This passage put me in mind of a description by T. Harry Williams in his biography of Huey Long (yes, Bwana is well read in American and Southern politics). Williams writes that when Long was in front of a crowd, he had staff trained in dealing with all manner of interruptions, including children. A staffer might come out with a lollipop for a mouthy child, which had the effect of pointing out the source of the noise and also causing him to quite down. If it was a baby, Long’s team would come out with a bottle of water, and Long would say “when a baby cries, it generally means it is hungry”, and use that as a pivot to attack the big whigs who kept the common man broke and hungry.

Same circumstances, different tactics. What Johnson saw as an inconvenience, Long saw as an opportunity.

We are about 32 days out from election day, and I think one of the marks of who will win on November 6 will be who takes sees and takes advantage of opportunities that come to them.

Note to Hoot: And, as a side note, generally that means taking advantage of them either by yourself or through your inspiration, not by having the moderator do if for you.

Ruminations-Clarence Thomas is Bright but not Smart

One of the benefits of tripping down your front steps and getting laid up for a couple of days with a sprained ankle is the chance to ruminate on life its ownself…and I have come to the conclusion that while Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must be a bright man, he is not very smart.

Justice Thomas has recently released an autobiography, with a large general focus on what he sees as racism in America today. He also attacks many who have done him wrong, especially Anita Hill, who as you may recall played a not-so-small role in his confirmation hearings.

Many will hail the book as great; others will disparage it. All I can say is: what was he thinking?

I consider it in general to be a bad idea for Supreme Court justices to publish books while they are on the bench. It reeks of grandstanding in a branch of the government which is supposed to free of politics and partisanship…and you may insert your Gore v. Bush comments below.

This could be the greatest book of the 21st century, and it will still offer critics a chance to snipe and undermine his position on the court, which is frequently seen as little more than being a catspaw for Scalia. The fact that it isn’t and is more than a little self-indulgent makes it an even greater target.

More to the point, it reopens the whole matter of the Anita Hill testimony…and that in no shape of form can help him.

This sort of reminds me of the late Senator William Scott of Virginia, who was branded by a counterculture magazine of being the dumbest man in the US Senate.  When asked if he would sue for libel, Scott said replied no.  His reason? “What if I lose?”

Thomas is in the same situation.  No dummy ever made it to the US Supreme Court, and by all accounts Clarence Thomas is bright man who has overcome numerous obstacles to reach public prominence.  But there will always be questions stemming from his confirmation hearings, questions that are brighter, saucier, and more risque than the questions he poses about racism in our society.  Any book he writes that touches on his confirmation hearings will bring these matters, once safely interred in the past, back to lurid focus in the present.

Why do it?  Why dredge up this kind of stuff?  He is sure to create even more doubts than there were back in the day, and that will not help his reputation or place in history one bit.  If you doubt me, read here and then tell me that Thomas is helping himself with this book.

You have to be bright to make the Supremes…but Thomas and his self-indulgent book show one does not have to be smart.

Fall 2007 Virginia Blogosphere Book Fair

The WMD have started back to school, and last night SWMBO was filling in the order forms to purchase books at a huge discount through the local school, and thought its time for the: 

Last fall I offered up this chance for Virginia Bloggers to share their current favored books, and it was a great success.

Why do this, and at this time of year?  Well, as I once said…

When I was a little guy-you know, during the Nixon administration-we had book fairs in the fall and spring. During that magic week the school library was loaded with books to purchase. You checked out the merchandise, placed an order, and about six weeks later you got your books.

At this point the internet generation is thinking “Six Weeks? Why so long?”

As an adult, I see various publications having their version of a book fair…Time, MSNBC, the Washington Post and others publish a list of upcoming books at the beginning of the various seasons. Occasionally bloggers will offer their ideas on good books to read.

I like this. It gives me an advance idea of what I want to buy, what I want to get from the library, and what I will hope to find a year later at the Green Valley Book Fair.

Nowadays, amidst the partisan sturm und drang of the internet, it seems we are getting away from discussion and the sharing of ideas and more and more into violent barbs, which then turns the internet in general and weblogs in particular into echo chambers where everything is said and nothing is heard.

So, in an effort to facilitate a greater sense of intellectual comity to the Virginia blogosphere, Renaissance Ruminations will host the Fall 2007 Virginia Blogosphere Book Fair. Please send me a list of books you recommend others read, and I will put it up with your comments. Structure will be similar to that used in the Virginia Blog Carnivals.

These can be old favorites, new discoveries, or just books you think folks will enjoy! If you have already posted a list of books you like with your reasoning, semd me the links and I will post that instead of a book list.

Deadline for submissions is 10/3/2007, with submissions published shortly thereafter. Please limit submissions to five (5) books to renaissanceruminations@hotmail.com.

Information needed: Title, author, Amazon/BN/other link.  I would also like to hear why you recommend it.   The  ISBN number is not needed.  Also, to sort it out from other emails announcing announcements by elected officials and offers to help me recoup an unrecognized fortune in Nigeria, please put something like “book fair” in the subject line.

As I did last year, the listing will be complete in two separate posts.  As we did last year, the first will be the book fair list by alphabetical order by submitting blogger, and the second list by subject.

Thanks in advance for participating!  Let the 2007 Virginia Blogosphere Book Fair submissions begin!

Rowling, and now Turtledove-questions for us all

Last month J.K.Rowling unleashed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to great public excitement.  This was book seven (7) of her series about teenage witches and wizards, and made her the wealthiest woman in the United Kingdom.

Harry Turtledove released a similar concluding book last month, but to less fanfare-but a book that will keep the thoughtful pondering life its ownself.  Turtledove’s book,  In at the Death, is the conclusion of an alternative history series that encompassed eleven (11) books dating back to 1997.

Turtledove’s series began with How Few Remain, a book looking at the second War of Secession.  The pivot point for this story is that Robert E. Lee’s General Order 191 was not lost in 1862.  In reality, that order was lost and found by federal soldiers, who turned it over to General McLellan who used the knowledge gained to stop Lee’s first invasion of the North at Antietam in September 1862.  In Turtledove’s universe (known to afficianados as Time Line 191) the order was not lost, Lee defeats McLellan at Camp Hill and captures Washington, DC.  The Confederacy is recognized by France and Great Britain, and achieves independence.

How Few Remain sets the tone for the series.  The USA declares was on the CSA when the Confederacy purchases the provinces of Sonoma and Chihuahua from Mexico, and the European allies assist the CSA to another victory on the condition that slavery is ended.  The USA becomes allies with Imperial Germany, and ultimately go on to defeat the CSA, GB, French, Russian alliance in both World War I and World War II.  Turtledove shows history waxing and waning, with some events not taking place but with human emotion and drive taking other forms.  For instance, National Socialism never occurs in Germany, Hitler becomes a moderately successful artist, with the Jewish Holocaust does not occur. 

In Turtledove’s world, a fanatical southern artillery sergeant named Jake Featherstone, convinced that a Socialist revolt by blacks in the CSA during WWI helped defeat the South and also deprived him of promotion leads him into politics.  He takes over the Freedom Party in the South and sets off on a path that leads to the “population reduction” of blacks in the CSA.  In the meantime the USA has conquered Canada and set up Quebec as a puppet republic.

Both sides end up with the atomic bomb in WWII, which is begun by the South with a blitzkrieg toward the great lakes to try to cut off Yankee industry in the east from raw materials in the west.  By the end of the war, Newport News, VA, Charleston, SC, Hamburg, Petrograd, London, Norwich, and Brighton and the western half of Philadelphia are vaporized and Featherston has been shot by a young black man whose father, mother, and sister all died at Camp Determination, the TL-191 version of Auschwitz.

It is a long list of things that Turtledove has occur in his story that did happen in real life, typically done by someone else.  he twists facts, events, and thoughts, even grabbing real life language for his own purposes-such as suggesting that after a particularly vicious bombing raid it was as if Atlanta was “gone with the wind”.

But what really sticks out is how the entire series is plausible.  Little things, little events, little actions do change things.  For want of a nail a kingdom can fall.

The point?  Don’t ever underestimate the importance of what you do.  Minor kindnesses can yield major results, and minor flaws can have major reprecussions.

Seize chances to do a kindness.  Make an effort to be nice, and avoid gratuitous indignities.  We never know for certain what reprecussions will come from what we do…and while they might not lead to a world war, we know they can have reprecussions we do not anticipate.

So, as Phil Esterhaus used to say, “Let’s be careful out there”…

Now back to my regular collection of posts about politicians, politicos, and others who find their way through each day by ignoring the advice I just offered…

What “Vanguard” Missed-and why it is so “Virginia” to do so…

My Blog-lleague (do you like the new word?) The Mason Conservative recently picked up Frank Atkinson’s Virginia in the Vanguard, and is raving about it over at his joint.  Having recently re-read the book myself, I commented if he could put his finger on the missing element in the book.  TMC guessed “Tom Davis”,  for which he gets partial credit.

Two things are missing from the book, one small and one large.  The small item is the author’s perspective.  When Frank (and having known him for almost 30 years I will indulge in the first name privilege) wrote The Dynamic Dominion he did the research and drafting as me went from college student to law student to law clerk. He was not a mover and shaker, and he included far more accounts by the players on both sides of the aisle. By the time he wrote Vanguard he had moved in the world to being a large presence in the Richmond legal profession and an advisor and counselor to Governors of Virginia. He is a big dog, and often a player in the events being discussed. As a result, the book loses some of the personal flair of Dominion and takes on more of the tone of a textbook.

What is really missing in Vanguardis anything beyond a superficial consideration of Virginia’s congressional politics and elections. While the Virginia GOP only took majority status in 1999, the GOP and Dems have been swapping majority status back and forth since 1972. Frank Wolf, who is ranked in the top twenty most influential folks on Capitol Hill gets one brief mention in Vanguard. Tom Davis, a political mastermind and longtime potential statewide candidate who won back the new 11th district-a few mentions. Generally speaking, Congressman only got major ink if they were interested in statewide races (i.e. LF Payne and Stan Parris). I think while the omission is understandable from a traditional point of view, the book loses something crucial due to the omission.

Virginia has a tradition of sorts…for aspiring Virginia politicians typically the road runs from Richmond to Washington, and not the other way around. Several Governors (Swanson, Byrd, Tuck, Allen, Robb) went on to DC in one legislative house or the other, but not since Tom Stanley in 1953 has a Virginia member of Congress successfully won a statewide race for a state office. Thus, it is not surprising Frank chose to focus attention elsewhere. This is especially true as his life and experience is Richmond base, not Washington, and congressional anecdotes are mentioned only insofar as they affect Richmond or are affected by Richmond. Example-Owen Pickett and the Wilder/Byrd controversy in 1982 that pushed Pickett from the race is given a fair amount of space, but Pickett winning the 2nd district seat in 1986 receives small attention. This book carries on the very “Virginia” tradition of focusing on state politics and leaving federal level politics to wonks and those concerned with Defense and federal employee matters.

Part of this is based in the Virginia practice of having federal and state elections in different years…part of this is based in a habit of most of the state to look to Richmond for guidance and not Washington.  Probably it has its historical roots in ”The Recent Unpleasantness”, a term I once heard from a TC Williams law professor right before he referred to Monument Avenue as being the “Street of Second Place Bowling Trophies”.

Ah, but I digress…

While understandable from a traditional standpoint, this omission misses an opportunity to not only frame Virginia politics in a more complete light, but also misses the chance to use Congressional electoral fights to underscore the tensions and struggles that undergirded state elections in the years covered. A short list of compelling congressional fights and figures worthy of coverage:

A) Comparison of Frank Wolf and Stan Parris-the first a man whose dream job is being a congressman v. a man who seemed to want every political position he could have gained.
B) The GOP loss and redemption of the 6th district, and how the Roanoke influences behind Ray Garland made a decision in 1982 to sit on their hands and risk losing the seat to the Democrats rather than have a congressman who was not from the Roanoke end of the 6th district.
C) How Rick Boucher worked the 9th district demographics to dislodge long term incumbent Bill Wampler in 1982.
D) How state Senator Joe Canada’s convention mishaps in 1977 and 1981 gummed up his congressional chances in 1986
E) How the Democrats gummed up their chances to win the old Lucky 7th congressional district pre-1990 by running candidates from Charlottesville instead of Winchester
E1) The near bloodbath that occured in Charlottesville in 1984 when choosing a GOP successor for Ken Robinson.
F) More attention to the 1992 11th district race, where Virginia got its first woman congressional representative when the GOP chose a congressman’s son to run without adequately vetting him.
G) How Norm Sissiky’s death may have saved Randy Forbes career, not to mention how the event indirectly helped springboard Tim Kaine’s career.
H) How Mark Warner hustled the Kerry campaign out of $250,000 for voter ID in Virgina 10 in 1984 by convincing Kerry it was winnable for James Socas.
I) Carpetbagging in a mobile society…James Socas lost the 2004 Va-10 race in part by being framed as a “carpetbagger” without sufficient Virginia roots…how long do you have to be connected to Virginia to be viable? Does it change based on where in the state you are.
J) The Wolf-Milliken race of 1986, which was the last great democratic attempt to take the old 10th when it still contained Arlington.

These are just some of the events and ideas that are related to congressional politics that come to mind that were not covered or received only cursory notice in Vanguard. Perhaps they will be the subject of a different book…or maybe they will be covered in the next edition of Vanguard. We shall see.

Nonetheless, no matter how typical it is of Virginia political tradition to separate out the politics of state elections and federal elections, I think a chance was missed here…and what could have been a comprehensive classic instead becomes a valuable book that could have been more.

Go Read This Book…

As we begin our reading lists f0r 2007, I have a book to recommend to any who are interested in American history, Antebellum history, Manifest Destiny, party politics, convention politics, and even crowd psychology.

Yep, it is that good.

One might consider this a companion piece to the recent book John Tyler, The Accidental President by Edward Crapol, which gives great attention to the matter of the US annexation of the Republic of Texas.  By focusing only on the annexation Joel Sibley is able to bring greater focus on the matter from its roots in american emmigration to the Tejas province on through political issues that were created by the land acquisition of not just Texas but also of other areas of the American SW that were part of Mexico prior to the Mexican War.

It is a fascinating story,  and one that is likely not encountered in detail in the basic college history survey course.

That Silbey touches on so many different areas and makes it understandable is a testament to his writing.  The fact that he has to do so is a testament to the extreme confusion and complications of the day.  I found especially interesting his description of the near paranoia that pervaded national politics after 1844.  There seemed to be a willingness among all parties to look at events and despite all logic and reason suspect conspiracy and hidden motives.  Anti-Growth forces suspected that President James Polk was eager to acquire territory only so as to spread slavery, while annexation forces were convinced the opposition wanted to stop growth not only to stop slavery but also to keep the South in the position of political disadvantage.

A telling example of this is seen in the acquisition of the Oregon Territory and final annexation of Texas.  When running for office, Polk swore he would not accept anything less from Great Britain in the dispute over the Oregon boundary than 54 lattitude, 40 longitude, but then accepted what is now the current US/Canadian border at the 49th parallel. But in Mexico, Polk not only demanded recognition of the Texas interpretation of the border (the Rio Grande) and not the Mexican interpretation (Texas was a breakaway province, and the Nueces River was the southern most border of the province), but sent in troops to hold the border (and coincidentally start a war). Practically speaking, and whatever the motivations, a two front war has always been difficult to prosecute-and if you had to fight a war in the 1840’s, who would you rather take on…Great Britain or Mexico?

Such paranoia may be said to not be extinct today in our national politics!

The machinations to bring Texas into the union, the partisan reactions in the 1844 election, the use of joint resolution instead of treaty, the use of popular sovereignity to introduce slavery into the new territories…all this is covered in fascinating detail.  It is done in a way that is easily readable and digestible.

Go Read this Book-read it for the history, read if for the education and entertainment, but also read it and consider how the behavior of people doesn’t change much from era to era-only the things they want, need, and are willing to fight for.

Purchase Note: If you want to buy on line, go to alibris.com (used and overstock) rather than Amazon-you will save a few $$.

New Books and New Insights

My X-mas list was dominated by books, and SWMBO came through for me.  All are needed in the library of those interested in Virginia politics, and each offered insights in even a cursory scan.  They are:

1. Virginia in the Vanguard
2. The Moderates Dilemma: Massive Resistance to School Desegregation in Virginia
3. Notes from the Sausage Factory

All are good books, and Notes is so good that I plan on sending Barnie Day a fan letter. All have been scanned, and a couple of insights come to mind:

In Notes, George Grayson writes about Vance Wilkins as the “Virginia Republican Moses”, author and architect of its rise to majority status.  Grayson describes the dictatorial control the Democrats held over the General Assembly, and how it was used against both GOP and Democrats. One manifestation of this control was allowing trusted veterans to chair multiple committees/subcommittees and not allowing younger legislators to introduce significant legislation. Grayson indicates Wilkins gained loyalty by spreading the wealth, and as Speaker of the House Wilkins limited to one (1) the amount of chairmanships any member could hold at one time.

As I read this I had a sense of deja vu, then realized that this practice that contributed to the GA to slide from democratic control to GOP control was also a reason the Byrd Machine lost control of the GA back in the day. The vets coming home from World War II came to the the General Assembly with different ideas, especially in the areas of race relations. Rather than welcome into positions of resonsibility, the new members were instead held up to a litmus test-that several failed. The Byrd leadership derided them as “Young Turks”, and fought with them over school and road funding, then even more bitterly over school desegregation. When the Byrd machine began its collapse in 1966, it fell to these same “Young Turks”.

Nancy Pelosi…take note.

As I perused Vanguard, I realized there was a name missing. That name was Frank Wolf, GOP congressman from Va-10. Given that book covers the years 1981-2006, and Wolf was first elected in 1980, and has stayed in office all that time, he seemed a natural for material in a book about Virginia politics during that time. I checked the index, and found only one reference to him (noting his chairmanship of an Appropriations Subcommittee).

It would seem that someone who was able to take a congressional seat from a Democrat, then hold it for over two decades, would merit more print. It could be as a reference to demographic changes in Virginia (see how the 10th district has changed shapes), the power of redistricting (see how the 10th was cut to help knock out George Allen AND create a democratic winnable 11th), the power of incubency, or just on how to keep winning in a district that has experienced enormous changes since he was first elected…there are so many angles, I am surprised there was not more attention given.

You see? You read, you learn. Rush to Amazon.com and order these books immediately….and read, enjoy, and learn!