History is not an exact science, at least not in the same way we see mathematics. Science refers to objective knowledge, which holds that ideas exist independently from the individual. While primary research includes fact finding, history itself is dependent on interpretation of those facts. What is important about this is that nobody can claim a lock on the content, meaning or relevant facts pertinent to a country's national identity. Which is not to say that a country's history is unimportant. In fact, in addition to national symbols, language, culture, values, traditions and, frequently, ethnicity, a common history, especially when embellished, is essential to a sense of national pride. This, in turn, is related to feelings of patriotism and nationalism. A strong sense of national identity has payoffs in terms of social cohesion and a feeling of belonging by its citizenry.
Given today's world, which, more and more, appears to suffer from an identity crisis, politicians taking the lead in many countries, are intent on reinterpreting their country's past and recreate a national history to fit their political objectives. They look at history as a tool of political propaganda. Especially in states led by authoritarians, history has become an independent variable manipulatable by those seeking to remain in power. The past is something that dictatorships do not leave to chance. They almost always take control of academic research, limit public access to information, and retool history through the lens of their ideology.
Examples are plentiful. In China, Xi Jinping appears convinced that to control his country, he must control its history. In his words, for the Chinese Dream to be achieved, he needs to insure that people "have correct views on history." On one hand, Chinese resistance to the Japanese in the 1930's and the second world war can be remembered. On the other hand, the brutal crackdown during the Tiananmen Square episode in June of 1989, which killed hundreds, and which was removed from the secondary school curriculum in Hong Kong, must be forgotten. (Louisa Lim, "Rewriting history in the People's Republic of Amnesia and beyond," The Conversation, May 28, 2018). Chinese textbooks changed almost overnight in 2006. The new standard world history text dropped wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization. They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. It serves to indoctrinate students during their formative years.
In early 2018, Polish President Andrzei Duda signed a controversial law criminalizing statements that attribute responsibility for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities to "the Polish nation." During a television interview, Duda said that the law protects Poland's interests and the historical truth, "so that we are not slandered." Poland is not the only post-Communist country that tried to reframe the history of its role during WWII and defend the part it played in the Holocaust. Hungary, Ukraine and the Baltic states have all made similar moves. (Rewriting History in Eastern Europe," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2019).
During the past 10-11 years, the Hungarian government has steadily rewritten that country's national history - crafting another, rooted in the "glory days" between the world wars, when Hungary was ruled by right-wing autocrat, and ally of Hitler, Mikols Horthy. This effort has included replacing historical sculptures, art, and reconsidering academic study options. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has waged a systematic assault on Hungary's democracy, rewriting the national Constitution, reshaping the judiciary, tweaking the electoral system and changing the content of textbooks to fit his vision. In a recent interview, Laszlo Miklosi, president of the Association of Hungarian History Teachers, suggested that "the government's goal is to create a version of history preferable to Orban."
Critics maintain that these policies falsify history. Defenders argue that they represent a normal and necessary part of state building. When, 51 years ago, I arrived in this country, I possessed an idealized version of my native Holland. Soon, however, I began to realize that even there, in one of the most progressive countries in Europe, the interpretation of its national history had been contorted to fit the need of developing a positive national identity. My heroes, historical figures like Michiel de Ruyter, Maarten Tromp and Piet Heyn, who, in the Bay of Matanzas, Cuba, in 1628, captured the Spanish Silver Fleet, even worth many millions at the time, were identified by outside historians as pirates or privateers. I found out that our 80 year war with Spain, which ultimately led to Dutch independence, might not have needed to last that long had Dutch merchants not sold guns and ammunition to both sides in the conflict. Participation by the Dutch West India Company in the slave trade during the second half of the 17th century, transporting 2,500 to 3,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas, something never seen in Dutch history textbooks, was an eye opener. And even today, a New York Times article describing the role the Dutch national railroad played in transporting 107,000 Jewish residents to transit and extermination camps in Germany during World War II, something mostly kept quiet for 70 years, served to have me re-examine history with newly opened eyes.
Every country is either doing it, or has done so during their formative period. Today, digitalization has made deliberate reinterpretations and distortions of history far easier. In the past, someone who wanted to censor had to go to the bookshelves and remove copies or pages. But today, with a few keystrokes, that same individual can wipe out content everywhere instantly. The result is that anyone who does research will come away misinformed or with a distorted view.
To quote 19th century French philosopher Ernest Renan: "Forgetting is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation."
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Saturday, October 19, 2019
DIVINE RIGHT IN THE AGE OF TRUMP
The believe that various forms of one-person rule are derived from a unique authority-conferring relationship with the divine has existed in multiple forms throughout history. In Europe, the "divine right of kings" was formalized into a theory of legitimacy during the period following the middle ages, in the face of attempts at dominance by the Pope, feudal lords, and emerging theses based on the consent of the ruled. Its adoption attempted to end the instability caused by divided loyalties between political and spiritual leaders. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, the will of his people, the aristocracy, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. As a political theory, it was refined by James VI of Scotland, the future King James I of England, and fully adopted by King Louis XIV, who ruled France from 1643 - 1715, becoming the longest reigning European monarch on record.
King Louis' parents christened him Louis Dieudonne - meaning "Gift of God." He ascended the throne at age 4, assisted by his chief minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Jules Mazarin, his godfather. The latter instilled in the child the notion that kings were divinely chosen, infallible and impotent, having unlimited power. He chose the sun as his personal symbol and became known as the Sun King. His identity remains visible throughout he Palace of Versailles, a former royal hunting lodge Louis transformed after he decided he did not want to live in Paris any longer. Louis XIV also gained notoriety because of his supposed exclamation that "L'etat c'est moi," (I am the state), expressing the spirit of the rule by which he held all political authority. However, there is no real evidence he actually said it. The first reference of this statement came almost 200 years after his death, in Jacques-Antoine Dulaure's 1834 "History of Paris." It refers to a time when young King Louis sat in parliament in 1655. Listening to its president lecturing on affairs of state, he reportedly got fed up enough to interrupt he man with "l'etat c'est moi."
Fast forward to our current political environment. President Trump's assumption of powers he believes he has have produced regular headlines comparing his demeanor to assumptions made by former kings. David Armitage, in "Trump and the Return of Divine Right," (The New York Times, July 12, 2018), wrote: "In deploying his pardon power freely and using the Bible to justify family separation, the president is exactly the sort of ruler that Enlightenment thinkers feared." Dana Milbank posted: "Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right." (The Washington Post, May 14, 2019). He recounted arguments made on behalf of the president by one of his lawyers, William Consovoy, who argued that Congress can't use a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a "legitimate legislative purpose, and any legitimate legislative purpose Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional."
President Trump claims to have the "absolute right" to do a lot of things. When speaking to a group of young conservatives in D.C. at "The turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit" on July 23, he told his audience "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." He claims to have the right to pardon himself, or to order U.S. companies out of China. Through his lawyers he has claimed being the state. In a leaked memo intended for Robert Mueller, they asserted: "Put simply...the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations." (Ed Simon, "Donald Trump: L'Etat C'est Moi!" History News Network, Jun. 5, 2018). And, just recently, he reportedly told his aides to get a wall built along he southwestern border before the 2020 election by whatever means necessary, including seizing land on the U.S.-Mexico frontier, and waiving environmental and public health laws, while floating the idea of offering pardons to aides willing to break the law.
Examples are plentiful. Much of these percolated back to the front pages after conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root described Mr. Trump, literally, as being like the King of Israel and said "Jews love him like the second coming of God." Trump, never bashful, embraced Mr. Root's claims, adding, while tilting his head to the heavens, "I am the chosen one." (Ostensibly to fix the U.S. trade imbalances with China).
These were not the first "divine right" references related to Trump on record. During an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sarah Sander related: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there." Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, has said that "only God could deliver such a savior to our nation." And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested earlier this year that Trump "might have been sent to protect the Jewish people from Iran."
Even though, at the onset, several of our founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, accepted the role of a king, ultimately, because of King George III of England's abuse of power, our founding fathers became vehemently opposed to establishing a monarchy in our country. They would turn over in their graves if history books ended up publishing a name like "Donald the Omnipotent" side by side with names like: "Alexander the Great," "Philip the Bold," or "Farmer George" as King George III was also known.
King Louis' parents christened him Louis Dieudonne - meaning "Gift of God." He ascended the throne at age 4, assisted by his chief minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Jules Mazarin, his godfather. The latter instilled in the child the notion that kings were divinely chosen, infallible and impotent, having unlimited power. He chose the sun as his personal symbol and became known as the Sun King. His identity remains visible throughout he Palace of Versailles, a former royal hunting lodge Louis transformed after he decided he did not want to live in Paris any longer. Louis XIV also gained notoriety because of his supposed exclamation that "L'etat c'est moi," (I am the state), expressing the spirit of the rule by which he held all political authority. However, there is no real evidence he actually said it. The first reference of this statement came almost 200 years after his death, in Jacques-Antoine Dulaure's 1834 "History of Paris." It refers to a time when young King Louis sat in parliament in 1655. Listening to its president lecturing on affairs of state, he reportedly got fed up enough to interrupt he man with "l'etat c'est moi."
Fast forward to our current political environment. President Trump's assumption of powers he believes he has have produced regular headlines comparing his demeanor to assumptions made by former kings. David Armitage, in "Trump and the Return of Divine Right," (The New York Times, July 12, 2018), wrote: "In deploying his pardon power freely and using the Bible to justify family separation, the president is exactly the sort of ruler that Enlightenment thinkers feared." Dana Milbank posted: "Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right." (The Washington Post, May 14, 2019). He recounted arguments made on behalf of the president by one of his lawyers, William Consovoy, who argued that Congress can't use a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a "legitimate legislative purpose, and any legitimate legislative purpose Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional."
President Trump claims to have the "absolute right" to do a lot of things. When speaking to a group of young conservatives in D.C. at "The turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit" on July 23, he told his audience "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." He claims to have the right to pardon himself, or to order U.S. companies out of China. Through his lawyers he has claimed being the state. In a leaked memo intended for Robert Mueller, they asserted: "Put simply...the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations." (Ed Simon, "Donald Trump: L'Etat C'est Moi!" History News Network, Jun. 5, 2018). And, just recently, he reportedly told his aides to get a wall built along he southwestern border before the 2020 election by whatever means necessary, including seizing land on the U.S.-Mexico frontier, and waiving environmental and public health laws, while floating the idea of offering pardons to aides willing to break the law.
Examples are plentiful. Much of these percolated back to the front pages after conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root described Mr. Trump, literally, as being like the King of Israel and said "Jews love him like the second coming of God." Trump, never bashful, embraced Mr. Root's claims, adding, while tilting his head to the heavens, "I am the chosen one." (Ostensibly to fix the U.S. trade imbalances with China).
These were not the first "divine right" references related to Trump on record. During an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sarah Sander related: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there." Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, has said that "only God could deliver such a savior to our nation." And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested earlier this year that Trump "might have been sent to protect the Jewish people from Iran."
Even though, at the onset, several of our founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, accepted the role of a king, ultimately, because of King George III of England's abuse of power, our founding fathers became vehemently opposed to establishing a monarchy in our country. They would turn over in their graves if history books ended up publishing a name like "Donald the Omnipotent" side by side with names like: "Alexander the Great," "Philip the Bold," or "Farmer George" as King George III was also known.
Friday, October 18, 2019
WALL FUNDING REDUCES NATO'S DEFENSIVE CAPACITY
While much of the country is focused on the congressional impeachment inquiry, which, in part, involves national security issues, military construction projects at home and abroad are facing a significant loss of financial support.
On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of armed forces in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.
About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.
Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.
Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.
Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."
On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.
To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."
On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of armed forces in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.
About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.
Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.
Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.
Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."
On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.
To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
POLITICS CAN CORRUPT SCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES
We appear to be living during an era permeated by fake news and alternative facts.
President Trump's persistent rehashing of the defense of his erroneous announcement that Alabama would be significantly affected by Hurricane Dorian, which was immediately refuted by professionals at he National Weather Service in Birmingham, had a much longer lifeline than expected or warranted.
The story goes that Trump instructed his staff to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "clarify" the forecasters ' position. Subsequently, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross warned NOAA's administrator that top employees could be fired if the situation was not addressed. This was followed by an unsigned memo supporting Mr. Trump's announcement and a press conference during which the president displayed a weather map featuring a hand-drawn "correction" suggesting that he had looked at a map supporting his contention. A clear case of creating alternative facts contradicting the conclusions arrived at by the scientists trained to do this. Hence, "sharpie gate" was created.
This episode is emblematic of how scientific facts are denied and replaced with politically convenient substitutes embraced by a subservient subset of supporters unqualified or unwilling to question their veracity. In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter received a Pulitzer Prize for his classic publication "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (Knopf, 1963). He traced the social movements that altered the role of intellect in American society and concluded that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful, mechanical and functional - were embedded in America's national fabric, an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that American Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigor. In his mind, anti-intellectualism represented a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are considered to represent it.
Our founders did not appear to harbor anti-intellectual thoughts. They were well educated, intelligent leaders of their time. Many were considered intellectuals in their own right - "sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time." (Walter Moss, The Crassness and Anti-Intellectualism of President Donald Trump," History News Network, March 18, 2018). It was during President Andrew Jackson's second presidential term that the French diplomat, political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous description of "Democracy in America," that the spirit of American self-interest appeared crass, suggesting that Americans judge the value of anything by asking: "How much money will it bring in?" De Tocqueville was one of the first students of American life to identify the presence of anti-intellectualism at multiple levels in our society.
The schism between intellectual elites and lesser educated masses is not a typical American occurrence. Anti-intellectualism has been present in some form and degree in most societies. There are studies of very similar phenomena observed in BC periods in Roman and Greek cultures. The Nazis and Fascists burned entire libraries and executed intellectuals who questioned their tactics. More recently, the world experienced Pol Pot's hatred of bourgeois professionals, which led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Mao Zedong set the Red Guards on millions of members of the cultural elite. The Turkish government decided to strike "evolution" from school curricula, and so on.
However, seldom has the occupant of our White House exhibited such a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity, such lack of curiosity and disregard for rigorous analysis. During his election campaign, Donald Trump regularly complained about how terrible the experts were. "Look at the mess we're in with all the experts we have." Throughout, he has shown his contempt for evidence-based research. His original budget proposal reflected this. He wanted to significantly defund the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He withdrew from UNESCO, which promotes international collaboration through the arts and sciences. And the administration routinely prevents its scientists from including global warming research reports in their testimony. Mr. Trump has been known to shelve reports, simply because he did not believe them. He skipped a G-7 session about climate change, declaring that American wealth is based on energy and that he would not "jeopardize that for dreams and windmills." And he famously claimed: "I think I know more about the environment than most people."
President Trump's open antipathy towards science, supported by a substantial segment of his political base, has generated a fairly significant body of work by journalists and academics. Titles like: "Americans are not only getting dumber, they're proud of their ignorance." (John L. Mecik, Penn Live, Aug. 3, 2017), and a well-researched book by Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, Tom Nichols: "The Death of Expertise - the campaign against expertise and why it matters," (Oxford University Press, 2017), are only a few.
Some blame the onset of the internet, which made it possible to find a source to support any opinion under the sun, no matter how outrageously unscientific it might be, and which made people feel more empowered to voice their opinion. Nichols believes that "to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile ego from ever being told they're wrong about anything."
President Trump seems to be taking this conclusion to heart.
President Trump's persistent rehashing of the defense of his erroneous announcement that Alabama would be significantly affected by Hurricane Dorian, which was immediately refuted by professionals at he National Weather Service in Birmingham, had a much longer lifeline than expected or warranted.
The story goes that Trump instructed his staff to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "clarify" the forecasters ' position. Subsequently, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross warned NOAA's administrator that top employees could be fired if the situation was not addressed. This was followed by an unsigned memo supporting Mr. Trump's announcement and a press conference during which the president displayed a weather map featuring a hand-drawn "correction" suggesting that he had looked at a map supporting his contention. A clear case of creating alternative facts contradicting the conclusions arrived at by the scientists trained to do this. Hence, "sharpie gate" was created.
This episode is emblematic of how scientific facts are denied and replaced with politically convenient substitutes embraced by a subservient subset of supporters unqualified or unwilling to question their veracity. In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter received a Pulitzer Prize for his classic publication "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (Knopf, 1963). He traced the social movements that altered the role of intellect in American society and concluded that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful, mechanical and functional - were embedded in America's national fabric, an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that American Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigor. In his mind, anti-intellectualism represented a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are considered to represent it.
Our founders did not appear to harbor anti-intellectual thoughts. They were well educated, intelligent leaders of their time. Many were considered intellectuals in their own right - "sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time." (Walter Moss, The Crassness and Anti-Intellectualism of President Donald Trump," History News Network, March 18, 2018). It was during President Andrew Jackson's second presidential term that the French diplomat, political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous description of "Democracy in America," that the spirit of American self-interest appeared crass, suggesting that Americans judge the value of anything by asking: "How much money will it bring in?" De Tocqueville was one of the first students of American life to identify the presence of anti-intellectualism at multiple levels in our society.
The schism between intellectual elites and lesser educated masses is not a typical American occurrence. Anti-intellectualism has been present in some form and degree in most societies. There are studies of very similar phenomena observed in BC periods in Roman and Greek cultures. The Nazis and Fascists burned entire libraries and executed intellectuals who questioned their tactics. More recently, the world experienced Pol Pot's hatred of bourgeois professionals, which led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Mao Zedong set the Red Guards on millions of members of the cultural elite. The Turkish government decided to strike "evolution" from school curricula, and so on.
However, seldom has the occupant of our White House exhibited such a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity, such lack of curiosity and disregard for rigorous analysis. During his election campaign, Donald Trump regularly complained about how terrible the experts were. "Look at the mess we're in with all the experts we have." Throughout, he has shown his contempt for evidence-based research. His original budget proposal reflected this. He wanted to significantly defund the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He withdrew from UNESCO, which promotes international collaboration through the arts and sciences. And the administration routinely prevents its scientists from including global warming research reports in their testimony. Mr. Trump has been known to shelve reports, simply because he did not believe them. He skipped a G-7 session about climate change, declaring that American wealth is based on energy and that he would not "jeopardize that for dreams and windmills." And he famously claimed: "I think I know more about the environment than most people."
President Trump's open antipathy towards science, supported by a substantial segment of his political base, has generated a fairly significant body of work by journalists and academics. Titles like: "Americans are not only getting dumber, they're proud of their ignorance." (John L. Mecik, Penn Live, Aug. 3, 2017), and a well-researched book by Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, Tom Nichols: "The Death of Expertise - the campaign against expertise and why it matters," (Oxford University Press, 2017), are only a few.
Some blame the onset of the internet, which made it possible to find a source to support any opinion under the sun, no matter how outrageously unscientific it might be, and which made people feel more empowered to voice their opinion. Nichols believes that "to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile ego from ever being told they're wrong about anything."
President Trump seems to be taking this conclusion to heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)