arthur schlesinger term paper
Post on 14-Nov-2014
107 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Abstract:
Finding a common intellectual heritage for a writer as polemic and prolific as Arthur
Schlesinger Jr. is no easy task. He has however, maintained a close identification with
liberalism in America and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His career seems more
akin to Machiavelli than to Rankean tradition. Schlesinger was intensely interested in the
transmission from ideas to reality.
“The Weapon of Freedom”
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is an Americanist who despite his prominent and vocal liberal
ideology should be regarded as an extremely influential historian. His popular and more
scholarly works have reached millions of readers and contributed to the national debate
over the past half century. He could not, and can not, resist putting in his two cents on
how present day political battles are influenced by the historical precedents. As a political
activist he has kept his loyalty to his progressive beliefs consistent, beliefs which I will
explore in relation to his methodology and claims for the uses of history. I will examine
four of his works including: A Life in the Twentieth Century (2001), The Age of Jackson
(1946), and War and the American Presidency (2004) in light of works by Thomas
Carlyle, Leopold von Ranke, and Joan Scott.
Schlesinger believes he can espouse a liberal political philosophy, offer reflections on
current debates and still remain an objective, serious historian. He consistently preaches
in editorials and his memoirs that history provides insight into current political problems
and can better educate our rulers. By justifying history for its generalizations and its
insight into current affairs, Schlesinger seems to diverge from the more specialized and
ostensibly objective, academic historical paradigm, of which Leopold von Ranke can be
considered the founder. To Arthur Schlesinger Jr., history should portray the American
liberal struggle which has made America great illuminate the options for politicians.
History is essentially a tool for public policy makers to make America even greater.
Liberalism Defined
Schlesinger identified himself as a crusader for liberal causes; to fully understand the
philosophy of history underlying Schlesinger’s work, one must begin by defining
liberalism. His methodology and subject material are intertwined with his political
beliefs. At the time of this writing, typing “Liberal Historian” into www.google.com
brought Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the third position. In his memoir of his first thirty three
years, he reveals he “inherited his father’s liberal causes (371)” and accordingly was
ostracized for it during his time in the military.
Schlesinger once wrote, “In a sense all of America is liberalism,”1 which seems to be a
rhetorical trick. Thus if you are arguing with ‘liberalism’ you are, in fact, arguing with
the whole concept of America. Schlesinger begins The Age of Jackson with a quote from
his relative George Bancroft about the endless feud between “the house of Have and the
house of Want”. Schlesinger’s selections and quotes show his sympathies directed
1 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0504-10.htm
toward the ‘house of Want.’ Schlesinger’s stance against communism in The Vital
Center in 1949 helped define liberalism and moved it away from communism.
Brief Biography
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was born into a family of historians and came of age during the
Great Depression. As mentioned, his mother was related to George Bancroft and his
father Arthur Schlesinger Sr. was a Harvard historian who pioneered social history.
Growing up, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. read voraciously and attended public schools. His
parents enrolled him in the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy, however, after a public
school teacher told him “Albinos come from Albania.”2 He then entered Harvard at age
16 and after graduation worked with the OSS during WWII. While he was overseas he
finished The Age of Jackson for which he won the Pulitzer in 1946. After some time as a
freelance writer in Washington D.C. he became a professor at Harvard. In 1960 he joined
Kennedy in the White House. It could be argued the defining moment of his life was the
New Deal and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of his personal heroes.
Liberal Heroes
Carlyle’s theory of the “Great Men” of history can be related to Schlesinger’s treatment
of the American presidents Andrew Jackson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F.
Kennedy. Carlyle wrote, “Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished
in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here.”3 Critics
have characterized Schlesinger as writing heroic history. Robert Burke, in a review,
2 WHAT PAGE FROM HIS MEMOIRS?3 http://hnn.us/articles/1328.html
described Schlesinger’s account as FDR as heroic, though he felt Schlesinger was
“willing to go where the evidence leads.”4
Schlesinger and his father were both involved with a survey given first for Life magazine
and then for the New York Times magazine to determine the “Great Presidents” (through
“Near Great” into abysmal failures). In 1996 there were three greats, Lincoln,
Washington and FDR.5 I seem to remember reading the article. The rankings are not
ignored by the historical profession, however, and have received much attention in the
Journal of American History. While many criticized Schlesinger for producing a
pointless exercise with no objectivity, Gary Maranell claimed the rankings useful but
flawed.6 He believed that idealistic presidents were more favorably viewed and analyzed
the qualities which led to high or low rankings. Greatness is like pornography to the
Schlesingers, you’ll know it when we see it, or at least the historians he surveys will.7
Schlesinger quoted many presidents who have criticized the rankings and even the whole
idea behind the rankings. However, despite the complaining, he believed President
Kennedy viewed the rankings “with fascination.”8 Schlesinger mocked the ‘pretentious
methodologies’ of the quantitative-minded scholars who felt plugging numbers into
computers would produce something more ‘scientific’.9 Except, even after degrading
their surveys as overly complicated, Schlesinger notes how similar they were to the polls 4 Robert E. Burke Reviewed Work(s): The Age of Roosevelt. Volume II, The Coming of the New Deal by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The American Historical Review > Vol. 65, No. 1 (Oct., 1959), pp. 148-1505 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20010511.html 6 Gary M. MaranellThe Journal of American History > Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jun., 1970), pp. 104-1137 Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 179 8 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 1809 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 180
conducted by his father and himself! Like Carlyle, Schlesinger believes we should
recognize and celebrate greatness. In fact, he quotes James Bryce at the beginning of
War and the American Presidency, “Perhaps no form of government needs great leaders
as much as democracy. (xv)”
Aside from opinion polls, what makes someone ‘Great’? Men become Great to
Schlesinger when they embody the spirit of the age, transforming policy into action. He
quotes FDR’s opinion to clarify his own position, “All our great presidents were leaders
of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified.”10 The
greatest presidents are those who can turn great ideas into action; crisis, however, does
not necessarily make for greatness. Yet once again, Schlesinger has important advice for
the president. In 1997 he warned Bill Clinton to forget the focus groups or he’ll end up
in the history books like Rutherford B. Hayes.11 Was Schlesinger issuing a threat or
having a vision of the future?
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was not always so politically active. In fact he justified not being
involved in politics during his undergraduate career at Harvard because he was
“confident that FDR had matters in hand”12. Perhaps Schlesinger was not merely
preoccupied with Great Men but rather the men who best enacted his vision of the ideal
liberal crusader of the people. Great Men didn’t just do any Great Things; they made the
country more equitable, sane, and liberal.
10 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 18211 Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 18312 A Life in the 20th Century Schlesinger p. 132
Schlesinger disparaged the quantitative approach towards his “Great Presidents” survey;
in 1962 Schlesinger he was complaining that “history by the numbers” in general was
hurting the discipline.13 He was referring to what he believed was a paradigm shift in the
historical profession moving toward computer based and jargon. Schlesinger’s reliance
on personality and generalizations were challenged by this more quantitative approach.
Schlesinger deifies those ‘liberal heroes’ who turned theory into action and fight
inequality and injustice; assigning numbers to different traits won’t do them justice.
Schlesinger’s glorification of Great Men stems from his political philosophy and his
desire to guide the public debate.
Objectivity: Ranke
Schlesinger’s philosophy of history differs from Ranke in many important respects, most
notably Schlesinger’s instance on finding fault with history. Schlesinger makes no
illusions about his support for the New Deal and its impact on the world. Schlesinger
also believed there was regularity to history, an idea he inherited from his father. The
Rankean school endeavors to describe the past, not to judge the past or discover a regular
cycle. Ranke wrote “You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to
instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to
that high office. It will merely tell how it really was.” Although Schlesinger enjoyed the
reputation as somewhat of a partisan historian, he frequently proclaims himself
otherwise; consider this interview from 1946 in the New York Times, “Schlesinger said
that his interest in writing the Roosevelt book will be to give a wholly objective view of
13 The Shock of the “‘New’ (Histories)”Social Science Histories and Historical Literacies quoting Schlesinger in Schlesinger, A. Jr. (1962) “The humanist looks at empirical social research.” American Sociological Review 27: 768–71. Harvey J. Graff Social Science History 25.4 (2001) 483-533
the period.”14 Perhaps Schlesinger truly believes in his objectivity or maybe it is just to
keep up appearances.
The Age of Jackson is a narrative and moves in a lively manner, written for a mass
audience. The Prologue to The Age of Jackson begins after Jackson is elected and
President Adams is pacing nervously until he finds a particular psalm that “assuages his
guilt (p.1).” In this sense, as the footnotes indicate archival research, Schlesinger seems
to be describing an event as it actually happened in the Rankean tradition. Consider the
tone: although the elite are afraid of the future, the people are unafraid of the new
administration. There’s a new hope! The election of Adams to the presidency, under the
“Corrupt Bargain”, was the “rout of the Jeffersonians.”15 The Age of Jackson does not
proceed as if history is necessarily progress; the theme is rather the connection between
ideas and political reality. Looming large is the specter of tyranny. Schlesinger faulted
the Hamiltonian policy for institutionalizing a caste system in America and threatening
America with a sinister oppressor.16 Schlesinger quoted a farmer/social critic John
Taylor, “As power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or lose power.”17 This
was the sort of income redistribution of the New Deal.
Schlesinger once stated historians should not approach data with preconceived theories.
He disliked, “the prefabrication of theories. What good is a theory until you first have the
facts?”18 He made this statement when he was in his twenties and it is conceivable he
14 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html 15 The Age of Jackson page 1916 The Age of Jackson page 2317 The Age of Jackson page 2318 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html
said it in response to criticisms that The Age of Jackson was a partisan work for the New
Deal.
To Ranke history was to be written from the point of view of the state. Schlesinger wrote
of the American royalty: the Kennedy’s and FDR. Schlesinger considered the personality
of the leaders extensively. Schlesinger is concerned with the history of the state.
Schlesinger wrote, “For history is to the nation as memory is to the individual.”19
Written after FDR’s New Deal, Schlesinger’s first book The Age of Jackson was seen by
some critics as a thinly disguised pamphlet for New Deal politics. It wasn’t. However it
was clear from the first paragraph in the Foreword that Schlesinger was tying the crisis to
democracy in the nineteen forties when he wrote The Age of Jackson with previous
American historical crises.
Russell Nye in the American Historical Review disregards the criticism that Schlesinger
wrote The Age of Jackson as a justification for the New Deal but instead “illustrates a
theory of social tension which lies at the basis of American history and which is operative
today- a constant struggle between the extremes of socialism and conservatism.”20
Schlesinger himself said in an interview in the New York Times in 1946, “The Age of
Jackson was decried by Time magazine as an apologia for the New Deal. It wasn't. And
the new book will be no party work…the aim will be to get the facts.”21 Schlesinger
seemed to be espousing the Rankean belief that historians were to remain objective and
focus on facts. However, by selectively choosing his quotes and facts, he has framed the
19 http://hnn.us/articles/1328.html 20 The American Historical Review > Vol. 51, No. 3 (Apr., 1946), pp. 510-51321 http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/26/specials/schlesinger-talk46.html
historical crisis of Jackson’s presidency as being a question whether “people or property,
shall govern.”22 He analyzed numerous casual factors surrounding the debate: the
Industrial Revolution, the rise of the early labor unions, and the debates over the
American banking system. Ranke did not search for causes.
Despite his protestations of objectivity, Schlesinger is believed to be a partisan by many
critics, “He has always allowed his political convictions to direct his researches and shape
his writings.”23 In 2001, looking back on the debates over the Age of Jackson Schlesinger
conceded that he misread the ‘anti-statist’ character of the Jacksonian revolution.
However, in 2004 he repeated his argument that Jackson had “redress[ed] the balance of
social power.”24 Schlesinger seems to reject the idea of a single Truth to history when he
quotes Pieter Geyl, “History is indeed an argument with no end.”25 Schlesinger obviously
rejects a teleological, single Truth to history; history is a controversy for political
purposes. Schlesinger’s statement, “Honest history is the weapon of freedom”
summarizes his belief that archival research will produce enough evidence to fight back
the distorted lies of history used by enemies of democracy and freedom. To communists
and fascists, history is more than a tool, it “was their God, and history failed them.”26
The Others
Schlesinger seems to regard himself, born to a Harvard professor and ended up working
in the White House, as fighter for the underdog against the bloodthirsty conservatives and
22 The Age of Jackson page 12523 Hugh Brogan Reviewed Work(s): The Cycles of American History. by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Reviews in American History > Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 521-52624 War and the American Presidency p.12925 A Life in the 20th Century (page 26 War and the American Presidency p. (xv)
“predatory businessmen”27. From his first major historical work in his mid-twenties, The
Age of Jackson, to War and the American Presidency in 2004, Schlesinger’s attitude to
history and current politics seems encapsulated by Joan Wallace Scott’s philosophy.
Consider Scott’s statement from “History in Crisis: The Others’ Side of the Story” in
1989, “Written history both reflects and creates relations of power.”28 When Schlesinger
uses history to argue politics he is obviously attempting to shift the balance of power in
the country.
Schlesinger wrote The Age of Jackson as a look into an American crisis of democracy
during a time in the 1940s when the idea of democracy itself was under attack. As
previously mentioned, even though Schlesinger admitted research after the fact disproved
assertions in the book, the book served an important purpose for Schlesinger as a look
into the democratic crisis.
The Age of Jackson presents the conflict during Jackson’s presidency as one between the
haves and the have-nots, NOT as a Western movement; this is clear from the first quote.
Although Schlesinger recanted some of his theories about the Jacksonian era due to later
scholarship, the theme of history as a political statement remains true. Schlesinger has
proclaimed his greatest interest in life was the transmission of ideas into the political
reality. Scott felt the ‘others’ (blacks, women, the dispossessed etc.) needed historians to
give them a voice and thus more political clout. Schlesinger agreed in his memoirs that
he fought for inclusion, as did his father. Yet he toys with Scott’s line of argument that
27 A Life in the 20th Century page 4828 The American Historical , Vol 94, No. 3, (Jun, 1989) 680-694
the ‘others’ need one of their own as their voice, at the beginning of a piece entitled
“America: Experiment or Destiny?” Would he, a white male, be able to explain what
America means in 1977 with all the diversity? Schlesinger sets aside his doubts and
explores the philosophy of history and how it relates to the views of America.
Schlesinger felt multiculturalism, however, had its limits; The Disuniting of America
(1991) was written as a plea to stop “destroying” more traditional Western history which
would in turn ruin America. Some of Schlesinger’s liberal presidential heroes seemed
under attack by the next generation of historians.
Scott may chide Schlesinger as the type of historian who focused on ‘elites’ (p. 5); his
books overwhelmingly focus on presidential power in America. Schlesinger has very
little mention of any Native Americans in a book about Andrew Jackson! However
Schlesinger takes pride in his father’s work in developing social history. He takes pride
in the fact that America was built by immigrants. But, as mentioned before, he believes
without a somewhat unified history, America will become disunited. When FDR is
castigated for not doing enough during the Holocaust, Schlesinger furiously fights for his
hero’s memory and his decision to end the war first.
Schlesinger was trained as a historian who could not resist politics. He was fascinated by
literature, history and politics his entire life and to this day remains politically active
writing on the Huffington Post. Consider this example from the blog on November 4,
2005, where he illuminated a historical precedent to show how President Bush’s stance
on dissent is incommensurate with the Republican Party’s past:
For example, Theodore Roosevelt -- no greater superpatriot -- said in 1918 during the First World War: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."29
George Orwell famously wrote “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls
the present controls the past” as the motto of the ruling party in 1984. The communists
similarly worshipped history, it was historical destiny that the proletariat would
overthrow the capitalists; fascists emphasized their glorious history and its relationship to
their glorious future. Historians can pride themselves on their objectivity but their
textbooks will still become the focus of politicized school board debates. Schlesinger
does not shy from such debates; in fact such controversy seems to energize him.
As a historian Schlesinger wrote for the general public and with the principles in mind,
generally not nineteenth century philosophers of history, although they certainly
influenced his career. Schlesinger was, and is, a prolific writer who seems equally as
comfortable writing for Life magazine as an academic audience. As Arthur Marwick
wrote, history is for all of us! Schlesinger broke the mold that historians should research
and write in academic journals. Is history a science? Schlesinger follows the standard
research paradigm and is well honored by the historical community. In 2004, Schlesinger
won a lifetime book award along with John G. Pocock from the American Historical
Association.
Judging from his memoirs, socializing and making new friends consumed a large part of
his life. He has always been close to politicians and the public debates. This emphasis
29 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-schlesinger-jr/patriotism-and-dissent_b_10642.html
on personality comes through in his writings as well. Height, weight, looks and
demeanor are an important part of Schlesinger’s historical narrative. A frequent
contributor to popular magazines, Schlesinger is a public personality and he gives
numerous interviews. But consider this comment to ‘Cigar Aficionado’ magazine in
1996 “I've dissipated too much of my life in doing things which are totally ephemeral,"
he says.30 However, then he spends the entire interview discussing current political
problems, using his version of history to prove the point. In his usual fashion,
Schlesinger made predictions, “They'll [suburban voters] be mad at Gingrich in '96
because there's nothing in the 'Contract on America (sic).”31
Joan Scott would be proud of such an interview.
The Uses of History
Much of Schlesinger’s later work, especially War and the American Presidency can not
be considered historical research. Schlesinger is a historian engaged in the public debate,
as always, but he is not producing history from original research. It reads like an editorial
with a history lesson. Schlesinger tries to “supply historical background” because
Americans are “molded by ideas and events they have long since forgotten or never heard
of”.32 This historical knowledge provides perspectives on situations that have passed.
FDR, according to Schlesinger, understood that America made a mistake by not joining
the League of Nations after WWI. After WWII when FDR helped create the United
Nations, Schlesinger wrote, “Refuting Hegel, FDR used history with adroitness and
30 http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,91,00.html 31 http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,91,00.html 32 War and the American Presidency p. xii
wisdom.”33 A recurring theme through Schlesinger’s career is the belief that “honest”
history should play a role in society’s decision making process.
Schlesinger, however, desperately warned against the idea that history will provide a
crystal ball into the future. Although he recognizes its importance for insight, “Marxism
must surely stand in our time as the spectacular flop of history as prophecy.”34 Historical
analysis is usually concerned with long term generalizations and policy makers focus on
short-term problems. History provides many examples where no one could have ever
predicted the outcome. Thus history can provide guidance but never the ultimate
answers; as Schlesinger eloquently wrote, “the possibilities of history are far richer than
the human intellect is likely to conceive.”35
Theme of ‘The Impossibility of Objective Thought’
We filter the world and, in my opinion, cannot filter their interpretations of the past
without injecting some of their own beliefs into the process. Reading Schlesinger is like
reading a wise uncle’s advice about the fate of democracy or reading an extended op-ed
piece in the New York Times.
33 War and the American Presidency page 130 34 War and the American Presidency page 12935 War and the American Presidency page 141
Quotes:
Schlesinger quoted Tocqueville, “The great advantage of the American is that he has
arrived at a state of democracy without having to endure a democratic revolution and that
he is born free without having to become so.”36
However, Schlesinger also writes: “Man generally is entangled in insoluble problems; history is consequently a tragedy in which we are all involved, whose keynote is anxiety and frustration, not progress and fulfillment.”
36 http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html
top related