OLD SCHOOL

I just want to take a moment of appreciation for that dwindling body of 'old school' teachers, the members of the teaching academia who, against the odds, value education over entertainment, who value fact over opinion, who value the nuanced over the shallow, who value truth over falsity, who value substance over form, who value knowledge over over ignorance. You are increasingly viewed as obsolete, and thus marginalized, in American academia. You are the seed corn eaten (up and spit out) rather than planted, tended to, and nurtured. You gave it a good run, but it is over. The barbarians (marketeers) have won.

ABUSE AND MANIPULATIVE EXCESS AS CAUSING DOWNFALL OF MANAGEMENT

Bisson, Thomas N., The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2009) ("[I]t is ironic in the extreme that the most conspicuous crisis of power of this age turned on the bad lordship not of a castellan or baron but a king, no less. The crisis of Magna Carta, although by no means uncomplicated, would never have happened had it not been for the arbitrary, sometimes brutal behavior of King John (1199-1216). John wriggled out of one jam after another. In the end the Great Charter of 1215 itself played into his canny strategy. But already by 1210, with the loss of Normandy unavenged and the English church under costly interdict, John's authority had plummeted as his habits of coercive violence became clear. Everyone knew that Matilda of Braose together with her son had been wilfully starved to death in a Windsor dungeon because her husband's financial default and alleged contumacy. Perhaps not everyone knew, or dared to say, what one (unreliable) chronicler ungallantly said of Matilda: that 'with womanish imprudence' she had babbled to the king's men that she knew what had happened to Arthur of Brittany. In this event were linked the two worst atrocities of John's stormy reign." "Yet both were uncharacteristic. John's oppressive ways, as with lesser bad lords, was to coerce and to exploit, not to kill. It was abuse in the courts and the manipulative excesses of customary obligation that induced his victims to converse and to compare experiences. . . . Many of John's sworn barons ceased to trust him. . . ." Id. at 516-517.).

AND SOMETIME THE POWERS THAT BE MAKES A REALLY BAD DECISION DUE TO LACK OF FORESIGHT

Gillingham, John, Richard I (Yale English Monarchs) (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 1999) ("Richard himself summarized the events of 20 August in a letter of 1 October to the abbot of Clairvaux. 'The time limit expired and, as the treaty to which Saladin had agreed was entirely void, we quite properly had the Saracens that we had in custody--about 2,600 of them--put to death. A few more of the noble ones were spared, and we hope to recover the Cross and certain Christian captives in exchange for them.' . . . " "Of all Richard's deed this is the one most bitterly condemned by modern historians. It has been called both barbarous and stupid and has been cited to show that there were no depths to which he could not sink in a fit of anger or to relieve his supposed frustrations. . . . Could the crusaders afford to march away leaving only a garrison to guard nearly 3,000 Muslims? Merely to feed so many men would be difficult enough since, on Saladin's orders, the countryside around Acre had been thoroughly devastated. Presumably Richard could simply have freed them all in return for the payment of the first instalment, but in that case he would have lost the confidence of his army for allowing himself to be outmanoeuvred by Saladin. By the 20th the prisoners had become an embarrassment rather than an asset and it seems that Richard and his fellow-soldiers had no compunction in ridding themselves of them in a fashion that was brutally efficient." Id. at 169-170.).

THE 'IT'S NOT ABOUT ME' STYLE OF MANAGEMENT/GOVERNANCE

Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII (Yale English Monarchs (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 1999) ("This book is not to be regarded as primarily a biography . . . ." "Nor is this book intended to be a history of England during his reign. It might perhaps best be described as a study of the impact of Henry Tudor upon the government of England. It seeks to analyse and assess Henry's actions and policies as king, as the man in whom supreme executive power, and therefore ultimate responsibility, was vested." Id. at xxi. "The inherent difficulty in expounding diplomatic history lies in the fact that whereas in reality a multitude of motives, moves, and negotiations are activated more or less simultaneously, it is impossible in exposition to unravel the threads at the rate of more than one or two at a time if the exposition is to be intelligible. The selectivity necessarily imposed upon the historian of any theme inevitably results in an oversimplification and artificiality which fail to reflect the complex reality. This defect is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in diplomatic history. As in all historical studies, the historian has an advantage denied to men who made the history itself. We are in a position to know the outcome of their actions, whereas they could only guess and hope what the upshot would be." Id. at 277. "If it be true that England showed a greatness and a marked flowering of her spirit and genius in the course of the sixteenth century, such a development would have been inconceivable without the intermediation of Henry of Richmond's regime. Not for him were the vast egoisms of his son Henry nor the gloriations of his grand-daughter Elizabeth. But without his unspectacular statecraft their creative achievement would have had no roots. His steady purposefulness saved England from mediocrity. It was not the union of the Roses that mattered, symbolic enough through that was. What mattered most in the long was the spadework which the springs of national genius would not be freed. In the ultimate analysis, the quality of Henry VII was not that of a creator, but rather of a stabilizer, for lack of whom the ships of State are apt to founder. For that quality he stands out pre-emient among British monarchs. Id. at 321-322.).

A PROBLEMATIC MANAGEMENT STYLE: SELF-WORSHIP, SELF-DRAMATIZATION

Saul, Nigel, Richard II (Yale English Monarchs) (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 1997) ("Richard can easily emerge from the evidence as a bundle of contradictions - on the one hand, a kindly, generous, considerate, and thoughtful man, and on the other, a tyrant: cruel, arrogant and capricious. Is there anyway in which a coherent picture can be formed of Richard's character and personality?" "The most plausible way of reconciling the opposites is to see Richard's personality as essentially narcissistic. Narcissism describes a condition in which only the person himself - his own body, his own needs and feelings - are experienced as fully real: everybody and everything else lacks reality or interest. Generally a narcissistic person achieves a sense of security in his own subjective conviction of his perfection, rather than through being related to others. He needs to hold on to his narcissistic self-image - for, without it, his sense of worth and identity is lost. Commonly, if his narcissism is wounded by criticism or humiliation, he reacts with intense anger, whether or not he shows it or is even aware of it. The intensity of this aggressive reaction is evident from the fact that hardly ever will such a person forgive anyone who has wounded his narcissism. Very often he feels a burning desire for vengeance which would be less intense if it had been his body or property that had been attacked." Id. at 459 (citing Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (London, 1974) at 201-2.). "Narcissistic tendencies are commonly found in rulers with a powerful sense of their providential mission. . . . The highly public way in which [Richard] achieved his ends owed much to the narcissist's craving for recognition and outward success. It seems likely that the cruelty which he visited upon his enemies among the former Appellants had is origins in so-called 'narcissist aggression'. In the assault which they had launched on the prerogatives ten years earlier the Appellants had shattered Richard's narcissistic self-image. In the manner characteristic of his type he now exacted a terrible revenge on them." Id. at 459.).

IT WILL TAKE TIME, PERHAPS A LIFETIME, TO GET OVER MY 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION BLUES

That said, let me recommend your reading Roger Cohen's op-ed piece in today's New York Times.

OPINION | November 05, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist: American Dreamland
By ROGER COHEN
For many voters, Obama crossed the bridge from American self-reliance to the European nanny state.

LAW AND ORDER MEDIEVAL STYLE

Ross, Charles, Edward IV (Yale English Monarchs) (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 1998) ("To maintain effective order and to enforce his laws were among the more intractable problems confronting a medieval king. Violence was endemic in English society. This was scarcely surprising in a land where men normally carried arms, where there was neither police force nor standing army, and where the machinery of justice was cumbrous, slow-moving and open to corruption. The result was a crime rate of appalling proportion. Self-help was a constant temptation which few chose to resist." "If medieval men accepted a high level of violence as a normal feature of social life, they were a good deal less complacent about the ease and frequency with which so many criminals escaped justice. Complaints about lack of justice and failure by the Crown to enforce the laws were bitter and frequent and only too fully justified by the facts. . . ." Id. at 388. "There is a variety of reasons--legal, social and political--why so many wrongdoers escaped the clutches of the law. Contemporary English law contained a number of devices to protect the accused, and many of these could be used improperly to delay or divert the course of justice. It was often very difficult to apprehend indicted men, and sheriff's officers sometimes went in fear of their lives. Forcing a messenger to eat the parchment writ of summons he carried was not uncommon practice amongst those who thumbed their noses at the law. . . . Id. at 389. "Many wrongdoers, even when tried and found guilty, escaped the penalties of their crimes by procuring a royal pardon. The Crown itself contributed to the problem of lawlessness by its readiness to grant pardons even for major crimes. Purchasing a pardon (it has be claimed) was a routine pecuniary transaction for many offences including murder. For those with influence at court, pardons could be obtained for even the most scandalous offences. . . . Id. at 390.).

ENGLISH HISTORY, ENGLISH LAW

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume I (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983) ("When any person in any tything or decennary was guilty of a crime, the borsholder was summoned to answer for him; and if he were not willing to be surety for his appearance and his clearing himself, the criminal was committed to prison, and there detained till his trial. If he fled, either before or after finding sureties, the borsholder and decennary became liable to enquiry, and were exposed to the penalties of law. Thirty-one days were allowed them for producing the criminal; and if that time elapsed without their being able to find him, the borsholder, with two other members of the decennary, was obliged to appear, and together with three chief members of the three neighbouring decennaries (making twelve in all) to swear that his decennary was free from all privity both of the crime commited, and of the escape of the criminal. If the borsholder could not find such a number to answer for their innocence, the decennary was compelled by fine to make satisfaction to the king, according to the degree of the offence. By this institution every man was obliged from his own interest to keep watchful eye over the conduct of his neighbours; and was in a manner surety for the behavior of those who were placed under the division, to which he belonged: Whence these decenanaries received the name of frank-pledges. " Id. at 76.).

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume II (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983) ("That neglect, almost total, of truth and justice, which sovereign states discover in their transactions with each other, is an evil universal and inveterate; is one great source of the misery to which the human race is continually exposed; and it may be doubted, whether in many instances it be found in the end to contribute to the interests of those princes themselves, who thus sacrifice their integrity to their politics." Id. at 133. "It is easy to see what advantages Europe must have reaped by its inheriting at once from the ancients, so complete an art, which was also so necessary for giving security to all others arts, and which, by refining, and still more, by bestowing solidity on the judgment, served as a model to farther improvements. The sensible utility of the Roman law both to public and private interest recommended the study of it, at a time when the more exalted and speculative sciences carried no charms with them; and thus the last branch of ancient literature, which remained uncorrupted, was happily the first transmitted to the modern world. For it is remarkable, that in the decline of Roman learning, when the philosophers were universally infected with superstition and sophistry, and the poets and historians with barbarism, the lawyers, who, in other countries, are seldom models of science or politeness, were yet able, by the constant study and close imitation of their predecessors, to maintain the same good sense in their decisions and reasonings, and the same purity in their language and expression." Id. at 521.).

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume III (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983) ("The practice of persecution . . . is the scandal of all religion; and the theological animosity, so fierce and violent, far from being an argument of men's conviction in their opposite sects, is certain proof, that they have never reached any serious persuasion with regard to these remote and sublime subjects. Even those, who are the most impatient of contradiction in other controversies, are mild and moderate in comparison of polemical divines; and wherever a man's knowledge and experience give him a perfect assurance in his own opinion, he regards with contempt, rather than anger, the opposition and mistakes of others. . . . As healthful bodies are ruined by too nice a regimen, and are thereby rendered incapable of bearing the unavoidable incidents of human life; a people, who never were allowed to imagine, that their principles could be contested, fly out into the most outrageous violence, when any event (and such events are common) produce a faction among their clergy, and gives rise to any difference in tenet or opinion. But whatever may be said in suppressing, by persecution, the first beginnings of heresy, no solid argument can be alleged for extending severity towards multitudes, or endeavouring, by capital punishment, to extirpate an opinion, which has diffused itself among men of every rank and station. Besides the extreme barbarity of such attempt, it commonly proves ineffectual to the purpose intended; and serves only to make men more obstinate in their persuasion, and to encrease the number of their proselytes. . . .The glory of martyrdom stimulates all the more furious zealots, especially the leaders and preachers: Where a violent animosity is excited by oppression, men naturally pass, from hating the persons of their tyrants, to a more violent abhorrence of their doctrines: And the spectators, moved with pity towards the supposed martyrs, are easily seduced to embrace those principle, which can inspire men with a constancy that appears almost supernatural. Open the door to toleration, mutual hatred relaxes among the sectaries; their attachment to their particular modes of religion decays; the common occupations and pleasures of life succeed to the acrimony of disputation; and the same man, who, in other circumstances, would have braved flames and torture, is induced to change his sect from the smallest prospect of favour and advancement, or even from the frivolous hope of becoming more fashionable in his principles. . . . Id. at 432-433.).

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume IV (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983).

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume V (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983) ("But above all branches of prerogatives, that which is most necessary to be preserved, is the power of imprisonment. Faction and discontent, like diseases, frequently arise in every political body; and during these disorders, it is by the salutary exercise alone of this discretionary power, that rebellious and civil wars can be prevented. To circumscribe this power, is to destroy its nature: Entirely to abrogate it, is impracticable; and the attempt itself must prove dangerous, if not pernicious to the public. The supreme magistrate, in critical and turbulent time, will never, agreeably either to prudence or duty, allow the state to perish, while there remains a remedy which, how irregular soever, it is still in his power to apply. And if, moved by a regard to public good, he employs any exercise of power condemned by recent and express statute, how greedily, in such dangerous times, will factious leaders seize this pretence of throwing on his government the imputation of tyranny and despotism? Were the alternative4 quite necessary, it were surely much better for human society to b deprived of liberty than to be destitute of government." Id. at 194. "No government, at that time, appeared in the world, nor is perhaps to be found in the records of any history, which subsisted without a mixture of some arbitrary authority, committed to some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful, whether human society could ever reach that state of perfection, as to support itself with no other control than the general and rigid maxims of law and equity. But the parliament justly thought, that the king was too eminent a magistrate to be trusted with discretionary power, which he might easily turn to the destruction of liberty. And in the event it has hitherto been found, that, though some sensible inconveniences arise from the maxim of adhering strictly to the law, yet the advantages overbalance them, and should render the English grateful to the memory of their ancestors, who, after repeated contests, at last established that noble, though dangerous, principle." Id. at 329-330.).

Hume, David, The History of England From The Invasion of Julius Caesar To The Revolution in 1688, Volume VI and Index (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983) ("The English laws of treason, both in the manner of defining that crime, and in the proof required, are the mildest and most indulgent, and consequently the most equitable, that are any where to be found. The two chief species of treason, contained in the statute of Edward III., are the compassing and intending of the king's death, and the actually levying of war against him; and by the law of Mary, the crime must be proved by the concurring testimony of two witnesses, to some overt act, tending to these purposes. But lawyers, partly desirous of paying court to the sovereign, partly convinced of ill consequences, which might attend such narrow limitations, had introduced a greater latitude, both in the proof and definition of the crime. It was not required, that the two witnesses should testify the same precise overt act: It was sufficient, that they both testified some overt act of the same treason; and though this evasion may seen a subtilty, it had long prevailed in the courts of judicature, and had at last been solemnly fixed in parliament at the trial of lord Stafford. The lawyers had observed the same freedom with the law of Edward III. They had observed, that, by the statute, if a man should enter into a conspiracy for a rebellion, should even fix a correspondence with foreign powers for that purpose, should provide arms and money, yet, if he were detected and no rebellion ensued, he could not be tried for treason. To prevent this inconvenience, which it had been better to remedy by a new law, they had commonly laid their indictment for intending the death of the king, and had produced the intention o rebellion as a proof of that other intention. But thought this form of indictment and trial was very frequent, and many criminals had received sentence upon it, it was still considered as somewhat irregular, and was plainly confounding, by a sophism, two species of treason, which the statute had accurately distinguished. What made this refinement still more exceptionable, was, that a law had passed soon after the restoration; in which the consulting or the intending of a rebellion, was, during Charles's life-time, declared treason; and it was required, that the prosecution should be commenced within six months after the crime was committed. But notwithstanding this statute, the lawyers had persevered, as they still do persevere, in the old form of indictment. . . . Such was the general horror, entertained against the old republicans, and the popish conspirators, that no one had murmured against this interpretation of the statute; and the lawyers thought, they they might follow the precedent, even in the case of the popular and beloved lord Russel. Russel's crime fell plainly within the statute of Charles the IId; but the facts sworn to by Rumsey and Shepard were beyond the six months required by the law, and to the other facts Howard was a single witness, To make the indictment, therefore, more extensive, the intention of murdering the king was comprehended to it; and the for proof of this intention the conspiracy for raising a rebellion was assigned; and what seemed to bring the matter still near, the design of attacking the king's guards." "Russel perceived this irregularity, and desired to have the pot argued by counsel: The chief justice told him, that this favour could not be granted, unless he previously confessed the facts charged upon him. . . ." Id. at 432-433.).

SAD POST-ELECTION DAY

Americans went to the polls yesterday. And, sad to say, voted on the basis of ignorance, fear, and hatred. A nation is only as good as its people. An ignorant, fearful, hateful people is not the basis for building a strong, vibrant, democratic nation. WOE BE US!

I SHOULD GIVE CONSERVATIVES THEIR VOICE, SO . . .

Sowell, Thomas, Dismantling America (New York: Basic Books, 2010) (This is a collection of recent Sowell essays. Though I disagree with most of the points or positions taken by Sowell in these essays, I do agree with his overall concerns. There is, however, one passage with which I wholeheartedly (almost) agree with Sowell. "History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley's view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard." "How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable--or even expert--within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses as to the rules of the nation." "But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking." From the essay, "Intellectuals," reprinted at 258, 260. Groupthink is an epidemic in twenty-first century American society, and Ph.D.s (and J.D.s) are not immune from the disease. Just about everyone touts his or her ability to engage in critical thinking. Yet, when you ask most individuals what they think about important social and political issues the most common responses are "I have never really thought about that", or the poor regurgitation of whatever the person heard on yesterday's talk radio. Fewer and fewer individuals, including many supposedly well-educated professionals, take the time to educate themselves on important issues. To be well-informed takes time and advanced planning, but we don't want to take the time and we are incapable of advanced planning in this area. The result is a vulnerability to the groupthink illness. An academia, especially as more and more universities adopt a business model at the expense on an education model, is a hot-house for group think.).

CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY OF YOURSELF, "I AM GOOD ON RACIAL ISSUES"?

Anderson, Elizabeth, The Imperative of Integration (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2010) ("But is racial integration just a pipe dream? While implementation of . . . mostly state-centered policies would have important effects, at foreseeable scales their impact would be modest compared to the vast scale of de facto segregation. Truly large-scale state-centered attempts to racially integrate K-12 schools, as took place in the busing era, consistently encounter massive white resistance and are not politically feasible. Hence the project of integration inevitably rests with the spontaneous actions of citizens in civil society. Here there are a few promising, if small signs--for example, of churches seeking integrated congregations and promoting programs of racial reconciliation. Yet the overall picture is gloomy. Spontaneous residential racial integration of blacks proceeds at a glacial pace. Voter initiatives and state legislatures are rolling back affirmative action by public universities, while the Supreme Court is restricting voluntary integration by K-12 schools. Federal enforcement of key civil rights initiatives--Brown v. Board of Education and its successors cases, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act--is little more than perfunctory. Opinion research suggests that this state of affairs is just how whites want it--except that they think they are not getting it since they believe government is doing too much." Id. at 189. "This raises the question of what sort of realism is demanded in political philosophy. Throughout this book, I have stressed the centrality of nonideal theorizing in a sound political philosophy. Political philosophy should start with a diagnosis of what ails us, and construct remedies that are attentive to empirical constraints, including the limitations of human psychology. We are not nearly as rational, self-aware, and self-controlled as we imagine ourselves to be. Normative recommendations must take these limitations into account, lest they prescribe standards that are impossible for people to meet." Id. at 189-190. How many of us can say, "I am not a de facto segregationist", and say it honestly? Very few of us are truly good on racial issues. It it America's major weakness. We talk a good game about social justice, fairness, equality, etc. Then we head on home to our everyone-is-the-same-as-me neighborhoods. Social prisons keeping the others out . . . and keeping us in. More of us need to be active integrationists.).

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010

Chemerinsky, Erwin, The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010) (From the book jacket: "As a result of political pressure from conservatives and a series of Supreme Court decisions, our public schools are increasingly separate and unequal, to the great disadvantage of poor and minority students. Right-wing politicians and justices are dismantling the wall separating church and state, allowing ever greater government support of religion. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, absurdly harsh sentences are being handed down to criminal defendants, such as life sentences for shoplifting and other petty offenses. Even in death penalty cases, defendants are being denied the right to competent counsel at trial, and as a s result innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death. Right-wing politicians complain that government is too big and intrusive while at the same time they are only happy to insert the government into the most intimate aspect of the private lives of citizens when doing so conforms to conservative morality. Conservative activist judges say that the Constitution gives people an inherent right to own firearms by not to make their own medical decisions, In some states it is easier to buy an assault rifle than to obtain an abortion." Nowhere has the conservative assault on the Constitution been more visible or more successful than in redefining the role of the president. From Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, conservatives have sought o significantly increase presidential power. The result in recent years has been unprecedented abuses, including indefinite detentions, illegal surveillance, and torture of innocent people. " Finally, access to the courts is being restricted by new rulings that deny legal protections to ordinary Americans. Fewer lawsuits alleging discrimination in employment are heard; fewer people are able to sue corporations or governments for injuries they have suffered; and even when these cases do go to trial, new restrictions limit damages that plaintiff's can collect." Chemerinsky has written a thought-provoking polemic. It is a worthwhile read, especially if you read it before voting on Election.).

TRY TO BE AS GOOD AS YOUR DOG

If you can start the day without caffeine,

If you can always be cheerful, ignoring aches and pains,

If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles,
If you can eat the same food every day and be grateful for it,
If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time,
If you can overlook it when those you love take it out on you,
If you can take criticism and blame without resentment,
If you can ignore a friend's limited education and never correct him,
If you can resist treating a rich friend better than an poor friend,
If you can face the world without lies and deceit
If you can say honestly that deep in your heart you have no
prejudice against creed, color, religion or politics,
THEN, my friend, you are almost as good as your dog.
--Author Unknown

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND DEMOCRACY

Breyer, Stephen, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View (New York: Knopf, 2010) (See Anthony Lewis, "How the Supreme Court Should and Should Not Work, New York Review of Books, Volume LVII, Number 11, 11/11/2010, 2-29. Lewis notes, "the Supreme Court of the United States today falls short of justifying its great constitutional function. A headstrong conservative majority is writing personal ideology into law. Freedom of speech is given novel and sweeping say when the would-be speaker is a corporation but is denied when the speaker wants to try to persuade terrorists to give up violence for peaceful politics. The court is riven by partisanship that justices even pick their law clerks in ways influenced by ideology. . . ." "Against this unhappy background Justice Stephen Breyer has done something unusual. He has written a calm, reasoned book about how the Supreme Court should do it work and how, in history it has sometimes failed the challenge. Fair warning: I am a friend of Justice Breyer. But I think his book is a remarkable contribution to educating the public about our constitutional system and those whose job it is to guard its boundaries." Id. at 27. In these blogs, in private and public conversations, and at my place of employment, I have expressed grave concerned about the deplorable lack of legal literacy in this country (even among lawyers and law students). Justice Breyer's book is, in part, an effort to encourage literacy about the function of the Supreme Court. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK!).

FAITH AND MISUNDERSTANDING THE 'RULE OF LAW'

Brinkley, Alan, The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century (New York: Knopf, 2010) ("Throughout the 1950s, and indeed throughout the remainder of his life, Luce developed a strong and growing commitment to what he like to call 'the rule of law.' . . . " "Among the first visible clues to Luce's controversial view of the law was a speech he gave at a convocation at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in 1951 to mark the opening of a new legal center. . . . To prepare for the speech he browsed through some legal journals in search of inspiration, and he came across an article by a legal scholar, Harold MacKinnon. It attacked the jurisprudence of one of the giants of American law, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who had sat on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 t0 1932. . . . " "The problem with Homes, Luce believed, was exactly what Holmes's admirers most valued: his unromantic pragmatism, his brusque rejection of fixed belief. To Luce, Holmes's legal philosophy was 'agnostic, materialistic.' What had Holmes believed? 'He believed, mostly importantly, that there is no ultimate truth anywhere to be believed in.' Luce, on the other hand, believed that the law--and most other areas of human existence--had no meaning without being rooted in some kind of universal truth. For Luce that truth was 'natural law,' and that belief that 'we live in a moral universe,' and that the law must 'conform to a moral order which is universal in time and space.' Without the 'immutability and unity of truth,' not only the law but all of society would be rudderless, would 'stand for nothing,' To Luce, although not to all critics of pragmatism, the only real alternative to materialism was faith. 'Freedom is real because man is created by God in the 'image' of God. Man carries within him something that the merely animal does not have, the divine spark.' And so when Luce talked of the 'rule of law,' he was not simply taking about statutes and precedents. He was evoking the long history of belief in God's active presence in the world, and the existence of a universal set of truths derived from that presence." Id. at 379-380. If there is a god, he has not shown himself to be particular interested in the affairs of mankind. And it is the height of human arrogance to think that mankind is created in a god's image. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the gods are sitting around placing wager on how long it will take mankind to destroy itself.).

RED RIVER, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, and THE SEARCHERS as POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Pippin, Robert B., Hollywood Westerns and American Myth: The Importance of Howard Hawks and John Ford for Political Philosophy (The Castle Lectures in Ethics, Politics, and Economics) (New Haven & London: Yale U. Press, 2010) ("[L]et me just state the five main points that I would like to defend in this book. (i) Political psychology is essential to any worthwhile political philosophy. (ii) The sort of political psychology necessary cannot be properly understood as an empirical social science. (iii) It must reflect an understanding of the experiential or first-personal dimension of political experience, and that means it must involve a complex, historically inflected interpretive task. We need to know what matters to people at a place and time, why it matters, what matters more than other things (more than anything in some contexts), what they are willing to sacrifice for, what provokes intense anger, and so forth. And we will not learn this by relying in what as a matter of historical fact they say or said , not by arbitrarily imputing to them one supreme motivation--the rational satisfaction of their preferences. (iv) Novels and films and other artworks are essential, not incidental or merely illustrative, elements of such a tack. (v) Most controversial of all such interpretative work, in raising the question f the political actually within political philosophy would have a point, is itself philosophical work, not illustrative or merely preliminary. . . . " Id. at 15-16. A great read, reminding one of the value and joy of a liberal arts education.).

UNFORTUNATE ENCOUNTERS WITH NONNATIVE AMERICANS

Gwynne, S.C., Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History (New York: Scribner, 2010) (See the review, "The Battle for Texas: The Tale of the Comanches," The Economist, June 19th 2010, at 85.).

Philbrick, Nathaniel, The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and The Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking, 2010) ("But when does resistance to the inevitable simply become an expression of personal ego or, even worse, of narrow-minded nostalgia for a vanished past?" Id. at xviii. "In the late nineteenth century, with the help of Buffalo Bill Cody's tremendously popular Wild West show, which often ended with an earsplitting reenactment of Custer's demise, the perpetually thirty-six-year-old general became the symbol of what many Americans wanted their country to be: a pugnacious, upstart global power. Just as Custer had stood fearlessly before overwhelming odds, the United States must stand firm against the likes of Spain, German, and Russia. Now that America had completed its bloodstained march across the West, it was time to take on the world." Id. at 302. See Bruce Barcott, "Men on Horseback, NYT Book Review, Sunday, 6/1/2010; and Michiko Kakutani, "Last Stand? Yes. Last Word? Never.", NYT, Friday, 6/4/2000.).

Richardson, Heather Cox, Wounded Knee: Party Politics and the Road to An American Massacre (New York: Basic Books, 2010) ("Ohiyesa's father, Many Lightnings, had not, in fact, been hanged with the other Santees in 1862. He had been sent to prison in Davenport, Iowa, where he converted to Christainity and added the name Jacob to his wife's surname--Eastman--to rechristen himself Jacob Eastman. Rather than settle on the reservation at Santee, Nebraska, where the government had placed other Santees, Eastman and some of his neighbors homesteaded in what became Flandreau, about forty miles from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on the Big Sioux River. Once settle, Jacob sought out his son, brought him to Flandreu, and encouraged him to adopt white ways. Ohiyesa became Charles Alexander Eastman and began working his way through white schools, a task that required his people's 'undaunted bravery and stoic resignation,' he later recalled with a glint of humor." Id. at 53. "As both a refugee forced off his land and a well-educated doctor, [Charles Alexander] Eastman had seen both sides of America's post-Civil War economy. He had thought long about what he had witnessed in South Dakota in 1890, and had come to believe that the blame for the murder of the Sioux at Wounded Knee could not be placed on the soldiers alone. The fault was that of American society itself. Eastman concluded that the men who had destroyed the Sioux economy talked a lot about Christianity, but their actions had nothing to do with that generous religion. 'I have not yet seen the meek inherit the earth, or the peacemakers receive high honors,' he noted. 'Why do we find so much evil and wickedness practiced by the nations composed of professedly 'Christian' individuals?' For all their noble talk, such men were no different than the tyrants of the past, eager to take everything for themselves. 'The pages of history are full of licensed murder and the plundering of weaker and less developed peoples, and obviously the world to-day has not outgrown this system,' Eastman mused," "In the end, the Sioux doctor condemned the America he knew. He had given up his traditional way of life for a promise of a better world in which individuals strove for the good of all. Instead he had found prejudice and butchery in the name of economic progress. . . ." Id. at 315-316.).

White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1991) ("The book is about a search for accommodation and common meaning. It is almost circular in form. It tells how Europeans and Indians met and regarded each other as alien, as other, as virtually nonhuman. It tells how, over the net two centuries, they constructed a common, mutually comprehensible world in the region around the Great Lakes the French called the pays d'en haut. This world was not an Eden, and it should not be romanticized. Indeed, it could be a violent and sometimes horrifying place. But in this world the older worlds of the Algonquians and of various Europeans overlapped, and their mixture created new systems of meaning and of exchange. But finally, the narrative tells of the breakdown of accommodation and common meanings and the re-creation of the Indian as alien, as exotic, as other." "In this story, the accommodation I speak of is not acculturation under a new name. As commonly used, acculturation describes a process in which one group becomes more like another by borrowing discrete cultural traits. Acculturation proceeds under conditions in which a dominant group is largely able to dictate correct behavior to a subordinate group. The process of accommodation described in this book certainly involves cultural change, but it takes place in between: in between cultures, peoples, and in between empires and the nonstate world of villages. It is place where many of the North American subjects and allies of empires lived. It is the area between the historical foreground of European invasion and occupation and the background of Indian defeat and retreat." "On the middle ground diverse people adjust their differences through what amounts to a process of creative, and often expedient, misunderstandings. People try to persuade others who are different from themselves by appealing to what they perceive to be the values and practices of those other. They often misinterpret and distort both the values and practices of those they deal with, but from these misunderstanding arise new meanings and through them new practices--the share meanings and practices of the middle ground." "This accommodation took place because for long periods of time in large parts of the colonial world white could neither dictate to Indians nor ignore them. Whites needed Indians as allies, as partners in exchange, as sexual partners, a s friendly neighbors. . . . ". Id. at ix-x.).

ON THE NEED TO RETHINK THE IDEA OF 'AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM'

Oates, Joyce Carol, In Rough Country: Essays and Reviews (New York: Ecco, 2010) (From the essay "The Myth of the 'American Idea': 2007": "How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the twenty-first century, of the 'American idea'! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country, the consensus is: the 'American idea' has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous. . . ." Id. at 351. "What is most questionable about the 'American idea'--indeed, most dangerous--is its very formulation: that there is a distinctly 'American idea' in contrast to Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Icelandic, Estonian or mere human 'ideas.' Our unexamined belief in American exceptionalism has allowed us to imagine ourselves above anything so constructive as international law. American exceptionalism makes our imperialism altruistic, our plundering of the world's resources a health exercise of capitalism and 'free trade.' From childhood we are indoctrinated with the propaganda that, as Americans, we are superior to other nations; our way of life, a mass-market 'democracy' manipulated by lobbyists, is superior to all other forms of government; no matter how frivolous and debased, our American culture is the supreme culture, as our language is the supreme language; our most blatantly imperialistic and cynical political goals are always idealistic, while the goals of other nations are transparently opportunistic. Perhaps the most pernicious of American ideas is the revered 'My country right or wrong' with its thinly veiled threat of punishment against those who hesitate to participate in a criminal patriotism. The myth of American exceptionalism begins with the revolt of the colonies against the British crown. [That is to say, the myth of American exceptionalism began with a very unpatriotic act--an act of war--against Great Britain.] In 1776, what a thrilling, exhilarating 'American idea'! But in the first decade of the twenty-first century, in a vastly altered world, and considering the higher degree of civilization embodied by Canada that waged no war against the British--that country's reluctance to rush into war, its disinclination to celebrate the violence of the frontier, and to display itself as exceptional--it might be a timely American idea to examine our very origins. Id. at 352-353. Of course, given the anti-historical, anti-intellectual, self-aggrandizing mindset of a majority of Americans, honestly reexamining our very origins is simply not on the table for discussion. Any nation so convinced that it has been anointed by god would see no need to question itself, its role in the world, its actions. Eventually the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end. Whatever descriptions are placed on the endings of those two American wars, the one description that will be most inappropriate is 'American victory.' America, the American idea, and the notion of American exceptionalism will have loss. . . . And, that is even before the collapse of the American economy beginning in 2008 is taken into account. Americans will have a lot of reexamining to do.).

THE TEA PARTY: ANTI-INTELLECTUAL, ANTIHISTORICAL, and HISTORICAL FUNDAMENTALISM

Lepore, Jill, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle Over American History (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2010) ("This book also makes an argument about the American policital tradition: nothing trumps the revolution. . . . Americans have drawn Revolutionary analogies before. They have drawn them for a very long time. When in doubt, in American politics, left, right, or center, deploy the Founding fathers. . . . " Id. at 14. "But the more I looked at the Tea Party, at Beck and Hannity as history teachers, at the Texas School Board reforms, the more it struck me that the statement at the core of the far right's version of American history went just a bit further. It was more literal than an analogy. It wasn't 'our struggle is like theirs.' It was 'we are there' or 'they are here.' . . . Antihistory has no patience for ambiguity, self-doubt, and introspection. The Tea Party has an answer: 'We have forsaken the Founding Fathers.' . . . But what the Tea Party, Beck, and Hannity, and the Texas School Board shared was a set of assumptions about the relationship between the past and the present that was both broadly anti-intellectual and, quite specifically, antihistorical, not least because it defies chronology, the logic of time. To say that we are there, or the founding Fathers are here, or that we have forsaken them and they're rolling over in their graves because of the latest, breaking political development--the election of the United States' first African American president, for instance--is to subscribe to a set of assumptions about the relationship between the past and the present stricter, even , than the strictest form of constitutional originalism, a set of assumption that, conflating originalism, evangelicalism, and heritage tourism, amounts to a variety of fundamentalism." "Historical fundamentalism is marked by the belief that a particular and quite narrowly defined past--'the founding'-- is ageless and sacred and to be worshipped; that certain historical texts--'the founding documents' a--are to be read in the same spirit with which religious fundamentalists, read, for instance, the Ten Commandments' that the Founding Fathers were divinely inspired; that the academic study of history (whose standards of evidence and methods of analysis are based on skepticism) is a conspiracy and, furthermore, blasphemy; and that political arguments grounded in appeals to the founding document, as sacred texts, and the Founding fathers, as prophets, are therefore incontrovertible.' Id. at 15-16. Also see Sean Wilentz, Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party's Cold War Roots, The New Yorker, October 18, 2010.).

DEATH OF EMPATHY IN AMERICA?

There is an interesting piece on today's Boston Sunday Globe on empathy. The piece, by Keith O"Brien, is titled "Empathy Is So Yesterday: Even as they become more connected young people are caring less about others." According to O'Brien, a "study, conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, found that college students today are 40 percent less empathetic than they were in 1979, with the steepest decline coming in the last 10 years." Anyway, the piece suggest that today's college students may be a bit shallow and narcissistic. the piece ends with a quite from W. Keith Campbell, co-author with Jean Twenge of "The Narcissism Epidemic : Living in the Age of Entitlement": 'So if you have a society where a lot of people are narcissistic, the whole thing blows up,' he said. 'It implodes.'

Sounds to me like America in the early twenty-first century.