History – Page 2 – Auxiliary Memory

How Well Can You Read, Comprehend, Analyze, and Summarize an Essay?

by James Wallace Harris, 12/11/24

I recently read An Unfinished Love Story by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s about how Doris and her husband Richard went through dozens of boxes containing papers that Richard saved from his time as a speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Eugene McCarthy, and Robert Kennedy. Richard was in his eighties and wanted to write a memoir about those times. Doris agreed to help him.

The book is subtitled “A Personal History of the 1960s.” An Unfinished Love Story resonates with me because I lived through that decade too. I’m now rereading their book closely. I want to comprehend what happened in the 1960s and reconcile it with my memories. I do that by looking up original sources mentioned and studying them.

However, I’ve hit a cognitive barrier. I’ve never been a great student, much less a scholar. I have trouble focusing. I can’t stick to any subject long enough to comprehend it. These failings are getting worse as I age.

I’ve discovered a tool that helps me understand my limitations. Maybe it will help me overcome them. That tool is Google NotebookLM. It’s an AI tool that digests information. You link to web pages or upload your documents, and it will analyze that content and then create several kinds of summaries.

I tested Google NotebookLM with a speech that Richard Goodwin helped write for John F. Kennedy when he was campaigning for president in 1960. It was given at the National Press Club on January 14, 1960. You can read it here. I also gave it this article about that speech. NotebookLM then generated several files that summarized the content of those two documents. The most startling was an AI-generated podcast. You can listen to it here. (You’ll need a free Google account, but anyone using Google email should already be logged in.)

That podcast sounds like an NPR segment. It’s spooky how real the two people sound. But the technology to produce this artificial conversation isn’t what I want to showcase. It’s how NotebookLM understood the speech. It’s a level of reading comprehension that I envy. If I spent a week studying that speech I don’t think I could reach that level of understanding.

Damn, damn, damn!

First of all, Kennedy’s speech was a distillation of extensive knowledge of American political history by Kennedy, Richard Goodwin, and Ted Sorensen. Kennedy expected his audience to decode that knowledge, and to understand his plan for the coming decade. I doubt few did, especially at the level that NotebookLM did.

From reading An Unfinished Love Story, I believe Richard Goodwin could process knowledge like NotebookLM, which is why he was such a brilliant speechwriter. I can’t do anything like that. From this experience, I want to study the results produced by NotebookLM to see if I can learn from it.

Even when I think I understand what I read, I doubt I comprehend even ten percent. I’m quite sure a scholar could write a five-hundred-page book just about that one speech.

NotebookLM created several results. I want to study what it does and see if I can learn to use its techniques.

Here is the summary version.

Briefing Doc: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
Sources:

"All notes 12/11/2024" (Study Guide and FAQ on Kennedy's Speech)
"Pasted Text" (Full Text of Kennedy's Speech at the National Press Club, January 14, 1960)
Excerpts from "The Presidency in 1960 (Remarks at the National Press Club) | Teaching American History"
Main Themes:

Active and Engaged Presidency: Kennedy argues for a strong, proactive president who actively shapes policy and drives the national agenda. He rejects a "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" in favor of a leader willing to "place himself in the very thick of the fight."
Legislative Leadership: The president must be an active participant in the legislative process, not simply a "casual bystander." This includes initiating legislation, collaborating with Congress, and using his influence to ensure passage of vital bills.
Party Leadership: Kennedy believes the president must be an active leader of his political party, utilizing its resources and working closely with party leadership to advance his agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
Moral Leadership: The president must not only represent prevailing sentiment but also inspire the nation, set a high ethical standard, and mobilize the public to address challenges and seize opportunities.
Key Ideas and Facts:

Critique of Eisenhower: Kennedy contrasts his vision with Eisenhower's perceived passivity, arguing that the nation needs a more engaged leader for the challenges of the 1960s. He criticizes Eisenhower's preference to remain above politics, stating, "no President, it seems to me, can escape politics."
Historical Examples: Kennedy invokes presidents like Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilson as exemplars of his ideal. He highlights their willingness to use presidential power, exert legislative leadership, and champion moral causes.
Constitutional Vision: While acknowledging the importance of Congress and cautioning against executive overreach, Kennedy views the presidency as the driving force in the American system. He stresses the president's unique role in foreign policy and domestic policy initiation.
Four Key Roles: Kennedy outlines four essential roles for the modern president: Chief Executive, Legislative Leader, Party Leader, and Moral Leader. Each role requires active engagement and a willingness to utilize the full resources of the office.
The Lincoln Anecdote: Kennedy uses the story of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation to illustrate the kind of decisive and resolute leadership he believes is essential for the presidency. "Lincoln's hand did not tremble. He did not hesitate. He did not equivocate. For he was the President of the United States."
Important Quotes:

On the need for an active president: "The American Presidency will demand more than ringing manifestoes issued from the rear of the battle. It will demand that the President place himself in the very thick of the fight."
On the president's role as Chief Executive: "He must be prepared to exercise the fullest powers of his office – all that are specified and some that are not."
On the importance of legislative leadership: "The President must initiate policies and devise laws to meet the needs of the nation. And he must be prepared to use all the resources of his office to ensure the enactment of that legislation – even when conflict is the result."
On the president's responsibility as party leader: "If he neglects the party machinery and avoids his party's leadership – then he has not only weakened the political party as an instrument of the democratic process – he has dealt a blow to the democratic process itself."
On the importance of moral leadership: "We will need in the sixties a President who is willing and able to summon his national constituency to its finest hour."
Discussion Points:

To what extent does Kennedy's vision of the presidency align with the principles of a constitutional republic?
Does Kennedy sufficiently address the potential risks of an overly powerful executive branch?
How does Kennedy's vision compare to the presidencies that followed him?
This briefing document summarizes the main themes and key ideas of John F. Kennedy's vision for the presidency. It is important to note that this is just one interpretation of his speech, and further analysis and discussion are encouraged.

Here is a FAQ it generated:

FAQ: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
1. What is the central theme of John F. Kennedy's speech at the National Press Club?
This speech, delivered in January 1960 during his presidential campaign, focuses on Kennedy's vision for the modern presidency. He argues that the American people deserve to understand a candidate's philosophy regarding the presidency because it shapes their approach to all other issues.

2. How does Kennedy differentiate his view of the presidency from President Eisenhower's?
Kennedy critiques the "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" he observed during the Eisenhower administration. He advocates for a more active and engaged president who proactively addresses pressing issues and drives the national agenda. He contrasts this with Eisenhower's perceived passivity and delegation of responsibilities.

3. What historical examples does Kennedy use to illustrate his preferred presidential model?
Kennedy invokes figures like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson as exemplars of strong, effective presidents. He highlights their willingness to utilize the full extent of presidential power, exert legislative leadership, and champion moral causes, even at the risk of political unpopularity.

4. According to Kennedy, what are the essential roles of a modern president?
Kennedy outlines several key roles:

Chief Executive: A hands-on leader who actively manages government departments, resolves conflicts, and makes crucial decisions, particularly in foreign policy.
Legislative Leader: A president who proactively shapes legislation, collaborates with Congress, and uses their influence to ensure the passage of vital bills.
Party Leader: A president who actively engages with their political party, utilizing its machinery and leadership to advance their agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
Moral Leader: A president who inspires the nation, sets a high ethical standard, and mobilizes the public to address critical challenges and seize opportunities.
5. How does Kennedy view the relationship between the president and Congress?
While acknowledging the importance of Congress's legislative role and cautioning against executive overreach, Kennedy believes the president should actively lead and collaborate with Congress. He emphasizes that the president must be prepared to use all available resources to secure the enactment of crucial legislation.

6. What is Kennedy's stance on the president's role as a party leader?
Kennedy rejects the notion that a president should remain aloof from politics. He believes the president must embrace their role as party leader, engaging with the party machinery and working closely with party leadership to advance their agenda and strengthen the democratic process.

7. What is the significance of the Abraham Lincoln anecdote in Kennedy's speech?
Kennedy concludes by recounting Lincoln's unwavering commitment to the Emancipation Proclamation, even when facing internal opposition. He uses this story to illustrate the decisive and resolute leadership he aspires to embody as president.

8. What message does Kennedy aim to convey to the American people through this speech?
Kennedy seeks to persuade the public that the nation needs a strong, proactive president who will actively engage in solving national and international problems. He aims to differentiate himself from Eisenhower's approach and assure voters that he is the leader the times demand.

Here is a quiz it created:

The Presidency in 1960: A Study Guide
Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

According to John F. Kennedy, what is the central issue that should be addressed in the 1960 presidential campaign?
Why does Kennedy argue that good intentions are not enough to make a successful president?
What is the "restricted concept of the Presidency" that Kennedy critiques?
What does Kennedy mean when he says that the next president must be the "Chief Executive in every sense of the word"?
Why does Kennedy believe that the president must be an active legislative leader?
How does Kennedy contrast the legislative leadership styles of Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge?
What criticism does Kennedy offer of President Eisenhower's approach to party leadership?
Why does Kennedy believe that Abraham Lincoln is a good example of party leadership?
How does Kennedy define the president's role as a moral leader?
What specific historical example does Kennedy use to illustrate the kind of decisive leadership he advocates for?
Answer Key

Kennedy argues that the central issue of the 1960 campaign is the Presidency itself. He believes the public needs to understand how a candidate views the role, powers, and limitations of the office.
Kennedy uses the examples of Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, both considered good men, to illustrate that good intentions alone are insufficient for presidential success. Different conceptions of the Presidency can lead to vastly different outcomes.
The "restricted concept of the Presidency" refers to a passive approach where the President primarily reacts to events rather than actively shaping them. Kennedy argues this approach is inadequate to address the challenges of the 1960s.
Kennedy believes that being "Chief Executive in every sense of the word" means actively engaging with complex problems, initiating action, and taking responsibility for the outcomes of his administration.
Kennedy argues that the President must be an active legislative leader to ensure the enactment of policies that meet the nation's needs. He contends that Congress should not dominate the executive branch nor should the President shy away from conflict with Congress.
Kennedy contrasts Theodore Roosevelt, who actively fought for his legislative agenda even at the cost of Congressional popularity, with Calvin Coolidge, who took a more passive approach and ultimately failed to advance key initiatives.
Kennedy criticizes Eisenhower's preference to remain above politics, arguing that a president cannot avoid politics and must actively engage with his party to advance his agenda and the democratic process itself.
Kennedy cites Lincoln's passionate engagement in politics, even closely following the results of state elections, as a model for how a president should actively lead his party.
Kennedy defines the president's role as a moral leader as one who goes beyond representing current sentiment and instead inspires the nation to meet challenges and achieve great ideals.
Kennedy uses the example of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation, despite potential backlash, to highlight the kind of resolute and decisive leadership he believes is essential for the presidency.
Essay Questions

Analyze Kennedy's vision of the modern presidency. What are its key characteristics? How does it differ from the "restricted concept of the Presidency" he criticizes?
Evaluate Kennedy's assessment of the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. How do their approaches to legislative leadership exemplify his broader arguments about the office?
To what extent does Kennedy's call for a "moral leader" in the White House align with the principles of a constitutional republic? Discuss the potential benefits and risks of such leadership.
Kennedy claims that "legislative leadership is not possible without party leadership." Analyze this statement, considering the relationship between the president, Congress, and political parties.
Compare and contrast Kennedy's conception of the presidency with another president or political thinker of your choice. How do their views converge and diverge? What might account for these differences?
Glossary of Key Terms

Chief Executive: The role of the President as head of the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcing laws and overseeing the administration of government agencies.
Legislative Leadership: The President's role in influencing the legislative process, proposing legislation, working with members of Congress, and advocating for the passage of bills.
Party Leadership: The President's role as leader of his political party, setting the agenda, mobilizing support, and working to elect party members to office.
Moral Leadership: The President's role as a national figurehead who sets a moral tone for the country, inspires citizens, and advocates for ethical principles.
Restricted Concept of the Presidency: A passive approach to the presidency where the president primarily reacts to events and defers to Congress or other actors.
Bully Pulpit: A term coined by Theodore Roosevelt to describe the presidency as a platform from which to advocate for policies and ideas.
Grand Alliance: A reference to the alliance of nations that fought against the Axis powers in World War II, emphasizing the president's role as a global leader.
Divided Government: A situation in which the presidency and Congress are controlled by different political parties.
Emancipation Proclamation: A presidential proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 that declared the freedom of slaves in Confederate-held territory.

Here is an outline of sources:

John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency: A Table of Contents
Source 1: Excerpts from "All notes 12/11/2024"

The Presidency in 1960: A Study Guide
Quiz: A series of 10 short-answer questions designed to test comprehension of John F. Kennedy's vision of the presidency as articulated in his 1960 National Press Club speech.
Answer Key: Provides concise answers to the quiz questions, summarizing Kennedy's arguments regarding the importance of presidential leadership, the limitations of a passive approach, and the need for active engagement in legislative, party, and moral matters.
Essay Questions: Poses 5 in-depth essay prompts that encourage critical analysis of Kennedy's vision of the presidency, his assessment of historical presidencies, the role of moral leadership, and the relationship between the president, Congress, and political parties.
Glossary of Key Terms: Defines 10 essential terms related to presidential powers and roles, including "Chief Executive," "Legislative Leadership," "Party Leadership," "Moral Leadership," and "Restricted Concept of the Presidency," providing a conceptual framework for understanding Kennedy's arguments.
FAQ: John F. Kennedy's Vision of the Presidency
8 Frequently Asked Questions and Answers: Addresses key aspects of Kennedy's National Press Club speech, including his central theme, critiques of Eisenhower's approach, historical examples used, essential roles of a modern president, and the relationship between the president and Congress. This section provides a concise overview of Kennedy's arguments.
Source 2: Excerpts from "January 14, 1960 - Senator John F. Kennedy speaks at National Press Club, Washington, DC."

Fragment 1: This excerpt captures Kennedy's criticism of the Eisenhower administration's "restricted concept of the Presidency," highlighting the need for a more active and engaged approach to address the challenges of the 1960s.
Fragment 2: This segment emphasizes the need for a president who actively engages in the legislative process, contrasting this with a "casual bystander" approach that Kennedy deems insufficient.
Source 3: Excerpts from "Pasted Text"

Introduction: Sets the stage for Kennedy's argument by highlighting the importance of understanding a candidate's vision of the presidency and framing it as the central issue of the 1960 campaign.
Critique of the Eisenhower Administration: Kennedy critiques the "detached, limited concept of the Presidency" he observed during the Eisenhower years, arguing for a more active and engaged presidential role.
The Demands of the Times: Kennedy outlines the challenges facing the nation, both domestic and foreign, and argues that they require a strong, proactive president.
The President as Chief Executive: This section emphasizes the president's role as a hands-on leader who actively manages government, resolves conflicts, and makes crucial decisions, particularly in foreign policy.
The President as Legislative Leader: Kennedy argues for a president who actively shapes legislation, collaborates with Congress, and uses their influence to ensure the passage of vital bills.
The President as Party Leader: Kennedy rejects the notion of a president staying above politics and stresses the importance of engaging with the party machinery to advance an agenda and strengthen the democratic process.
The President as a Moral Leader: This section highlights the president's role as a national figurehead who sets a moral tone for the country, inspires citizens, and mobilizes the public to address critical challenges.
The Example of Abraham Lincoln: Kennedy concludes with a powerful anecdote about Lincoln's unwavering commitment to the Emancipation Proclamation, emphasizing the decisive and resolute leadership he aspires to embody as president.
Source 4: Excerpts from "The Presidency in 1960 (Remarks at the National Press Club) | Teaching American History"

Context and Introduction: Provides historical background and sets the context for Kennedy's speech, emphasizing the significance of his remarks within the broader history of the American presidency.
Kennedy's Speech Excerpts: Features key excerpts from Kennedy's National Press Club address, focusing on his critique of Eisenhower's approach, his vision for the modern presidency, and the importance of active leadership in various roles.
Discussion Questions: Poses thought-provoking questions that encourage readers to analyze Kennedy's conception of the presidency, his use of historical examples, and the relationship between the president and Congress.
Footnotes: Provides explanatory notes on historical figures and events mentioned in Kennedy's speech, enhancing understanding and facilitating further research.
This table of contents provides a detailed overview of John F. Kennedy's vision of the presidency as articulated in his 1960 National Press Club speech and related sources, offering insights into his beliefs about presidential leadership, the role of the president within the constitutional order, and the challenges facing the nation at the dawn of the 1960s.

But the truly dazzling product was the podcast.

Many people will use NotebookLM to help them write, or even let NotebookLM create their content. I watched one YouTuber use NotebookLM to produce a blog and podcast. I don’t want AI doing my work. I want to learn how to work at an AI level.

JWH

Reading History Books About Events I Originally Watched on Television

by James Wallace Harris, 12/8/24

The 1960 U.S. presidential election is the first one I remember, but just barely. I was eight years old. My father was for Nixon and my mother for Kennedy. I decided I liked Kennedy because he was younger, more dynamic and had a good-looking wife. Even at eight, good looking women were often a deciding factor. I remember getting in a fight in the school playground because I was for Kennedy and the other kid was for Nixon. Neither of us got to decide the issue because a teacher pulled us apart.

During the Kennedy years I didn’t watch TV news. I would sometimes stay home from school to watch the Mercury space launches. Back then the TV news departments of each network would take over all broadcasting. In the first half of the 1960s, the space program was about the only real-world activity I paid any attention to.

I did pay some attention during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, mainly because I lived on Homestead Air Force Base, and everyone talked about it constantly. I remember having duck and cover drills at Homestead Air Force Base Elementary, but I was disappointed when there were no real A-bombs dropped. (I was very immature for my age.)

I didn’t become a news watcher until Kennedy’s death. I remember that weekend, my family watched the news constantly, and the following week too. That’s when I started following Walter Cronkite. I turned twelve three days after Kennedy was shot.

The news also became exciting in February of 1964 when The Beatles came to America. It was during 1965 that older boys I knew began worrying about being drafted, and I started paying attention to news about Vietnam.

The CBS Evening News was my main source of information about life beyond my own little world during the 1960s. I sometimes got to see The Today Show on NBC because my mother watched it while making breakfast. I liked that show because I found Barbara Walters hot. (Okay, I’ve already said I was a weird kid.) Sometimes I would watch news specials or documentaries. While in the ninth grade (1965-66) I had a civics course. But for the most part I just wasn’t that aware of what was going on in the world except for Top 40 AM music.

I don’t remember reading the paper, The Miami Herald, until 1968. I did start to read magazines in 1965, but that was haphazard. People would give my parents copies of Life, Time, Newsweek, Look, Saturday Evening Post, and National Geographic from time to time, and I found them fascinating. On my own, after 1965, I would buy Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and MAD Magazine. During twelfth grade (1968-69) my English teacher got me interested in literary fiction, and I subscribed to Saturday Review with money I made from working in a grocery store. I really didn’t understand it though. In late 1968 or early 1969, I got hooked on Rolling Stone magazine and sometimes bought Creem when it started publishing.

A whole lot of what I knew about the counterculture came from Life Magazine.

If you think about it one way, television and magazines offered a fairly diverse view on what was happening in the world, but squinted at it another way, it was a rather limited view.

In December 2024, I’ve been reading three books about the 1960s that explore events I encountered in two minute stories on TV, or read about in a few pages in a magazine when they first happened. Some of those short snippets of current events made huge impressions on me as a kid. They shaped who I thought I was. The history books makes me realize I was mostly uninformed.

The reality of the 1960s is I was a kid going to school every day except for long summer vacations. I started 1960 in New Jersey but moved to Mississippi then to Florida then to South Carolina back to Florida, then Mississippi again, and back to Florida. I went to thirteen different schools during the 1960s. The only newsworthy event I saw live was the launch of Apollo 8. I had a chance to see Kennedy in 1962 when he came to Homestead Air Force Base. They let us out of school to see him, but me and my friends went fishing instead. My sister was at Dinner Key Auditorium when Jim Morrison flashed the crowd. I got to meet an astronaut in 1968, but I’ve forgotten which one. And this is hardly newsworthy. I got to see Cream play during their farewell tour in 1968. Oh, and I attended one SDS rally.

In other words, I experienced the legendary Sixties mostly via AM radio, television, and magazines. I did have long hair sometimes, and I sometimes messed around with drugs, but I was hardly a hippie or a radical. I did get into the counterculture more in the 1970s, but that’s another story.

The point of this long-winded essay is I’m now reading history books about years I lived through. I can contrast my memories to behind the scenes accounts of things I got from soundbites. That’s quite enlightening.

We live with the illusion that we think we understand what is real and true. We delude ourselves that we make decisions on relevant information. But we don’t. If I could have read the history books about the sixties I’m reading in old age when I was young, I could have gotten closer to seeing reality.

Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley, two heroes of my youth, claimed that LSD opened the doors of perception, and that might be true on a nonverbal level, but a deep reading of history books is far greater at revealing reality that we can comprehend on a verbal level.

Lately, I’ve been reading that reading is going out of fashion with young people. That’s a shame. Even back when I was a teen, and only got superficial understandings about the events around me from superficial news sources, it did make me more aware.

The three books above are filling in details on things happening around me as I was growing up. I’m reminded of Bob Dylan’s “Ballad of the Thin Man.”

I realize I’ve been Mr. Jones my whole life, and I’m still trying to figure out what happened.

JWH

Meditating on a Meme

by James Wallace Harris, 11/28/24

Seeing the above photos as a meme on Facebook made me think about how much people, society, and pop culture changed in the 1960s.

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then are two pictures only worth 2,000 words? I don’t think so, I think it’s 1,000 words times 1,000 words, or 1,000,000 words. I could easily write that many from all the ideas my mind has generated since I began meditating on those photos.

Here’s the original meme from Facebook:

I was eight on 1/1/60 and eighteen on 12/31/69. I have always thought the longest years of my life were from 1963 to 1969 because so much happened to me and the world I lived in during that time. For folks who didn’t grow up in the sixties, it was much more than what you can learn from watching Grease or American Graffiti and contrasting it with Hair or Woodstock.

When I first saw the meme above I instantly thought about how rock and roll music of the 1950s ended up becoming the rock music of Woodstock. I’ve tried several times just to write an essay about that, but after typing over 5,000 words, I realize I’ve barely hinted at what I could say. That’s too long for a blog post.

I recommend that you find two photos that bracket your adolescent years or the decade you identify with the most and meditate on them. Start with remembering every place you lived and what you did each year. Remember your family and friends, your pets, your homes, your schools and workplaces, the clothes you wore, all the activities you pursued, everything you wanted to buy. Then write the shortest essay that makes it all coherent. You will then feel the mental anguish I am feeling right now.

Then branch out in your meditations. The easy and fun things to contemplate are the changes in pop culture — how music, movies, books, TV shows, games, and technology evolved over ten years. But then move on to the political and social changes. That’s when things get heavy. Can you connect your firsthand experiences with all those external events? Have you ever compared the life you lived to what you saw on the TV news every night?

Every one of us has the life experience to write a Proust-size novel and has lived through enough social change to write a series of history books about the formative decade of our lives. If you don’t think so, meditate more on the two photos you have selected.

I turned seventy-three on Monday, and getting old has made me more susceptible to memes about the past. My memories are fading away so I desperately want to cling to them. Emotions gnaw at me to make sense of everything I’ve experienced. The urge is to put it all down in words, but I don’t have what it takes to do the job and do it precisely.

There is an undefinable mental barrier that keeps me from organizing my thoughts into coherent histories. And I’m not talking about writing something worthy of publication for others to read, but just producing a narrative that makes sense of things for myself about myself and what I’ve learned. The older I get, the more I want to understand.

This essay started out about when rock and roll music became rock music. After several drafts and much contemplation, I narrowed it down to the summer of 1965 when I first heard Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” on the radio. As I kept trying to document my theory, I realized I could write a whole book on it.

Then as I was researching the subject, I found that Andrew Grant Jackson had already published the book I wish I had written, 1965: The Most Revolutionary Year in Music. His book is what I wanted to write in this essay when I first saw the meme above.

The Kindle edition is currently $2.99, and it’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about when I suggest we should chronicle our lives. Even if you don’t buy the book, read the sample at Amazon. I feel the format of organizing the narrative around a month-by-month description of what was happening is a great template to use for writing about memories.

JWH

Why Is Everyone Talking About Neoliberalism?

by James Wallace Harris, 8/24/24

On Monday, August 19th, the New York Times ran a guest editorial by James Pogue about Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, entitled “The Senator Warning Democrats of a Crisis Unfolding Beneath Their Noses” which I found intriguing but hard to understand. It appears to suggest that Republicans are going to put limits on neoliberalism. That’s impossible for me to believe.

That’s a rather interesting statement, that the problems we face today aren’t logistical but metaphysical. Pogue then goes to say the subject of Murphy’s speech was “the fall of American neoliberalism.” I’ve read several articles over the last few years that mentioned the same thing. Neoliberalism is a virulent form of capitalism pushed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It’s an economic philosophy embraced by Republicans, but Bill Clinton went along with it when he got his chance. So did Obama. It was Trump who appeared to put on the breaks Neoliberalism when he was elected, and Biden even followed Trump in some ways. So, some pundits are now suggesting the tide has turned.

But has it? Isn’t prosperity through economic success what Republicans and Democrats both want? Pogue goes on to summarize:

Okay, I understand this. Civilization is collapsing and ultimately capitalism is a Ponzi scheme that will fall apart as the one percent squeezed all the wealth out of the ninety-nine percent. But I assumed we need to fix neoliberal capitalism, not reject it. It’s the only system that creates jobs and freedom. We just needed to make it more equitable and friendly to the environment. I assumed that’s what the Democrats want, but evidently according to this essay it’s not the solution the Republicans want.

Pogue says Murphy defines it as a metaphysical problem that masks a spiritual crisis, one that Donald Trump has tapped into. Trump recognizes this unhappiness and appeals to it. Murphy says Democrats have trouble even admitting that it exists. But where does neoliberalism come in? Trump heads the Republican party, and isn’t that party the guardian angel of neoliberalism?

How can a political party overcome a spiritual crisis and still race full steam ahead with capitalism? Pogue summarizes Murphy’s recognition of the problem that the Democrats need to address:

This makes things even more puzzling. I can understand where Democrats might want to regulate capitalism, making it more socialistic and ecological, but how can Republicans alter their religion to help the dissatisfied?

Murphy brings up Project 2025 but is that really a solution to the spiritual crisis he’s pointing at? Ever since FDR and the New Deal, Republicans have been wanting to undo it, and LBJ’s Great Society too. But wasn’t Neoliberalism a response to the Great Depression? But does Project 2025 offer a solution to Murphy’s problem? Isn’t it just consolidating power. It doesn’t claim to undo neoliberalism. Although, it hopes to rewind our sociological makeup back to the 1920s.

To me, the Republicans want to avoid taxes and regulations so they can make as much money as possible. They want private property protected and they want national security. Neoliberalism gives them all of that, so why would they want to undo it? I don’t think they do.

Lately, I’ve been reading books on the French Revolution and Napoleon. The French Revolution tried to create a democratic society based on Enlightenment ideals. The revolutionaries wanted to get rid of the aristocracy and the church. Napoleon believed democracy would just allow a class of wealthy to replace the aristocracy, and that either would need to keep the church because the church kept the poor from destroying either the aristocracy or the wealthy. Napoleon didn’t care for democracy and felt a hereditary aristocracy was a better system for maintaining order. He reinstated the church.

Aren’t the Republicans wanting to be the new aristocrats, and aren’t they embracing the faithful to protect them? Trump and the Republicans want to consolidate power. Is their promise of law and order going to solve the spiritual crisis that Murphy describes?

If the Republicans win in 2024, roll out their Project 2025 plan, and succeed at killing off the Democratic Party, they aren’t going to solve those spiritual problems Murphy points to. They will deregulate capitalism more, cut taxes for themselves, and go back to distilling American wealth from the ninety-nine percent to the one percent. They might make some Americans happier by legislating behavior, but I’m pretty sure they won’t put the breaks on neoliberalism.

Republicans will face a real revolution, like the one in 18th-century France. And we’ll discover the same problems as the French discovered. Between the fall of the Bastille and the coronation of Napoleon, they tried many kinds of governing theories based on the desires of the different factions of the population. None of them worked.

I believe the spiritual crisis Murphy points to has always been with us. There’s no form of government that makes most of the population satisfied. That the pendulum always swings between hope and the apocalypse but never reaches either. Murphy is saying that Trump and the Republicans are swinging the pendulum towards hope. That might even be true for some, but it doesn’t mean the pendulum will reach a point and make their followers happy.

I don’t think Trump is really offering an alternative to neoliberalism economics, but just appealing to isolationism, xenophobia, racism, and is anti-LGBTQ+.

Would it be cruel of me to point out that Christians have been waiting for the Rapture for over two thousand years. Republicans have been in the desert for forty years waiting to get into the promise land. They feel they are remarkably close. Religion and politicians have been promising to deliver people into the land of milk and honey for two hundred thousand years. We’ve never gotten there yet so why believe it now?

The essay goes on for a great length, but it finally gets down to talking about what the Democrats can do in response. I worry that the Democrats might promise pie-in-the-sky. I think we need to get away from believing political parties will save us.

Democrats and Republicans vilify each other, often to extreme. Each have legitimate complaints and desires.

The whole country needs to rethink what it wants, and not trust either party. I think Trump supporters should expect to be let down. I don’t think either party can solve the spiritual crisis that Murphy describes. We have a polarized political system that is stuck with always leaving half the voters unhappy.

I don’t know if we can fix our system, or even start over with a new one that works. But my gut tells me the present two-party system won’t ever succeed. I doubt a one-party system would either. I’d like to see more democracy, not less. We need to decide everything with referendums but change what a winning majority is from 50% to 66%. We need to move closer to a consensus rather than polarization. I think that might be possible with referendums, but not with political parties. Just study opinion polls. Political parties have succeeded in making minority rule work.

I want the Democrats to win in November, but I don’t expect them to solve the spiritual crisis Murphy describes. I just expect they will provide less turmoil over the next four years. Civilization will continue to head towards collapse. Theoretically, we might avoid that, but not with our present political system.

I also think whether the Democrats or Republicans win, they are just going to slightly modify neoliberal economics. The pandemic taught us that we shouldn’t depend on globalism for vital products, but corporations aren’t going to give up on global markets or moving jobs around the world to where labor is cheap. We’ll deploy some tariffs, but then we’ve always had. But the basic tenet of neoliberalism, that capitalism generates prosperity through unhindered commerce won’t end. Capitalism is destructive to the environment, and unkind to economic losers. By its very nature, capitalism generates inequality. The Americans who are suffering the spiritual crisis Murphy describes won’t be saved.

If we evolved a system based on referendums and larger winning majorities, the political parties would slowly fade away. Philosophers have always worried about democracy leading to mob rule. I’m not sure that would be true if we increased the size of the winning majority. It would force us to cooperate. It’s too easy to create minority rule with a fifty percent winning majority.

Our present situation is due to the wealthy getting what they want. Like Napoleon said, they are the new aristocrats, and they aren’t going to give up their power, privilege, and position. Any political or economic solution to help those suffering from the spiritual crisis that Murphy worries about will have to include the power of the wealthy in their equations.

Before neoliberalism was a period where the rich were taxed more heavily, and we had a larger middle class. I doubt Trump wants to use that solution. Neoliberalism wants to stop anything that gets in the way of the rich making money. I can’t believe anyone believes that any political movement will hinder that.

Murphy is right in that the Democrats don’t deal with the issue. But I don’t believe the Republicans are offering a solution either. I think they’re just lying to get elected. Trump’s isolationist policies will create some jobs, but other policies will do away with more jobs. And if he really deports millions of illegal immigrants it will make a huge dent in the economy. Even then, those policies aren’t altering neoliberialism.

I think Murphy and others have put their finger on the problem, but I don’t see anyone offering a solution that will work. Neoliberalism has made greed almost unstoppable. I say almost, because revolutions and apocalypses do happen.

To solve Murphy’s spiritual crisis, we need a lot more jobs and a lot less inequality. Unfortunately, this era also coincides with artificial intelligence, robots, and increased automation. The dream of capitalism has always been to do away with labor, and technology is getting closer and closer to doing that.

Sorry to be so pessimistic.

JWH

Watching YouTube vs. The Great Courses Plus

by James Wallace Harris, 8/1/24

For several years now, YouTube has been my favorite TV diversion. I could always find something to watch quickly, and the videos were usually short, so YouTube didn’t demand much. I was first hooked by channels about 8-bit computers, but quickly subscribed to channels about all my favorite subjects. If I showed interest in any topic, YouTube would offer me lots more along the same vein.

Recently I started reading The Story of Civilization: The Age of Napoleon, Volume 11 by Will and Ariel Durant and became fascinated by the French Revolution. I got on YouTube, searched on that topic, and found tons of videos to watch. There were short videos by amateur historians and professional documentaries like this old one from The History Channel.

However, it was of exceptionally low video quality, 240p, which is unpleasant to watch. But there were other videos, by what I assume are individual YouTubers, in higher resolution, and with particularly good production values, such as this one by Asha Logos.

Or here’s another one from History Weekly. I don’t know if this is a professional outfit, or another lone YouTuber, but it’s also of high quality.

These videos supplement my reading with added information and lots of visuals. However, I wonder about the validity of the information. Should I trust an amateur historian, or even history on The History Channel. The History Channel produces a lot of shows on flaky history, or even crap history.

I decided to subscribe to The Great Courses Plus and watch Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon which is taught by an actual history professor, Dr. Suzanne M. Desan from the University of Wisconsin who specializes in 18th century France. Dr. Desan covers the topic in forty-eight thirty-minute lectures. She has few visuals, so I’m mostly watching her lecture. It’s like a college course.

The Great Courses Plus is $20 a month ($15 if you pay quarterly, or $12.50 if you pay yearly). However, I decided to get it through Amazon Prime for $7.99 a month. Amazon Prime gets a smaller subset of all the courses at The Great Courses Plus, but it did have this one. I’ve found plenty of courses on Amazon Prime version, but I think I’ll eventually join the full version, since it has a lecture series on Voltaire, I want to see that’s not in the Amazon Prime collection.

Another way to get Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon is through Audible.com. It’s an audio only version of the lectures (24 hours and 47 minutes), but it does come with a .pdf textbook for the course. I don’t get the textbook through my Prime subscription, but I would if I subscribed directly to The Great Course Plus. The textbooks for The Great Courses tend to be concise summaries of the lecture that are easy to read and reference. They’re a wonderful way to look back on the details that I quickly forget.

I now find myself watching the Great Courses lectures rather than turning on YouTube. I tend to watch YouTube in idle moments, a kind of random grazing of odd information. Often I end up watching fun but useless stuff.

So, I’ve started switching to the lectures on the French Revolution. This is more satisfying. I don’t even have to watch a whole lecture, so it’s like YouTube, it can be very casual. However, it makes me feel more focused than when I’m watching YouTube. I’m not saying watching YouTube is bad, or that I’m going to give it up. But the Great Courses lectures offer a nice alternative. It feels like I’m getting back to my book. That I’m progressing towards something which is satisfying.

I also like switching between my book and lectures. The two histories reinforce each other, but they also focus on different details. I’m already anxious to read even more about the French Revolution, and The Enlightenment. And I want to read about Voltaire and Rousseau. I’ve already started with YouTube videos, but I crave lecture series and books to get more details.

I knew next to nothing about the French Revolution or Napoleon. And what I did know came from fiction by Dickens and Tolstoy, or from movies. Just knowing about The Terror gives a false sense of what happened.

I now see a synergy between history books, lectures, and YouTube videos.

I showed The Great Courses Plus to my friend Annie yesterday, and now she wants to watch a lecture series together. We watched movies and television shows together, but it’s gotten hard to find things to watch, at least things we both want to see. The lectures open a new avenue of something to do together.

My next goal is to learn to take notes. I feel like I’m learning something valuable, but I’m not sure how much I’ll remember. With the book, lectures, and videos I’ve been trying to remember certain details. I want this TV watching to be more than just idle time killing. My brain is getting flabby as I age, so I’m trying to exercise it.

I can’t find a sample video of Dr. Desan’s lecture, but here is a sample video with three other lecturers at The Great Courses Plus (previously named Wondrium).

I’m finding studying history to be a great escape from worrying about the real world. We’re living through some exciting history, but it’s also unnerving, and stressful. I find lots of comparisons with today’s politics in the French Revolution. That’s consoling in a way. However, things Trump is saying makes me worry about another version of The Terror.

JWH