We at the Center of the Universe by John Lukacs

Published in 2017, Lukacs's 93rd year

The publication of a book of essays by John Lukacs certainly gives us something to celebrate and ponder. "Celebrate" because Lukacs notes in a couple of these essays that they're written in his 92nd and 93rd years of life. "Ponder" because Lukacs says that he doesn't expect to publish more. I hope that he's wrong, but he has left of a treasure trove of works that contemplate not only significant events in history but that ponder everything from his unique life to our place "at the center of the universe." He ranges from the microcosm to the macrocosm, turning his careful eye to a wide variety of situations, including those of our own lives and those of our ancestors. Celebrate, ponder, and rejoice in the legacy he has provided us.

But at this point, I have to share one disappointment. When I learned the title of the book and of its impending publication, I thought it would surely include or expand upon an essay that Lukacs had written and published in The American Scholar (200) entitled "Putting Man Before Descartes."  The lead essay in this book, "At the Center of the Universe" serves as a coda to the earlier, lengthier essay. It would have been much better if the publisher would have (or could have?) included that essay, which to my knowledge has not been published outside of its original inclusion in The American Scholar. The earlier essay and this essay reflect upon the issue of the knower and the known, which allows Lukacs to display his formidable speculative and philosophical side. As in his Historical Consciousness, he draws upon the earlier practitioners of quantum physics and the English thinker Owen Barfield to explore our place in the universe and how we perceive it. Barfield, beginning in the 1920s, and then after a long hiatus, beginning again in the 1950s, developed a participatory epistemology that is too little appreciated. But Lukacs appreciates it, and he became familiar with Barfield and Barfield's work. This, too, is apparent in the "Putting Man Before Descartes" essay as well as here. Like Barfield, Lukacs is acutely concerned with humankind and our place in this universe in a way that stands outside--but not wholly outside--much of popular scientific thought. History serves as a way of knowing ourselves. 

For those interested, the essay "Putting Man Before Descartes" is cited in my earlier blog post, and you can find many quotes taken from the essay there. I highly commend it. 

The remaining essays in this brief book cover a variety of topics that Lukacs has written about before, but each one provides a welcome further exploration or consideration of what might otherwise be tired topics. Churchill, Stalin, the 1920s, and Madame Bovary are among the subjects that Lukacs considers, carefully examining and judging each topic as if it was a long-lost artifact that held untold secrets for us to tease out. As with almost all of his writing, I get the sense that I'm listening to a master discourse to his students as he ponders a topic. Lukacs's writing style always gives me the feeling that I'm listening to his thinking, not eavesdropping, but that I'm invited in to share his discoveries as he's writing them. It is a joy, and one that I hope doesn't stop with this book, but if it does, I have a shelf-full of his books that I can (and have) gone back to time and again to re-discover and savor this brilliant writer. 

Some Remarks & an Endorsement for President

Preliminary remarks

Preliminary Remarks by Mr. A Hamilton

Before I commence my endorsement, I’m calling upon Mr. A. Hamilton, of current Broadway fame, the face on the ten-dollar bill, and political genius, to provide an invocation with an eloquence that I can only aspire to.

. . . . The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

 This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

 . . . . I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

 And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

 In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. . . . Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt [the Constitution, or, in this case, this person to serve as President.] I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

 “Publius” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

Mr. Hamilton was writing in favor of what became the United States Constitution. However, I believe that his words can—and should—guide me in giving an account of why I favor a particular candidate to serve as President of the United States beginning January 2017. With Hamilton’s invocation in mind, I shall proceed.

"Fiduciary?"

A Thought Experiment                                                   

Before beginning a consideration of any individual, and to further set the tone for my undertaking, I want to propose a thought experiment that will help guide me, that will provide a talisman for my thoughts. The fantasy is this:

I am a shareholder in a very large corporation. There are about 219 million shareholders each holding an equal vote about hiring a new CEO for the corporation. I am no different than any other shareholder, at least in theory. I have only one vote. I have no insider information, no special financial stake, no personal connection with the candidates wanting to hold office as CEO. In fact, because I have no direct stake, no inherent personal bias, I’ve been awarded a proxy by all of the other shareholders to make this selection! My only duty is that of a fiduciary. I have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. If I am negligent in discharging my fiduciary duty, I will be held accountable—someone will sue me “for every penny you’ve got!”. I don’t have all that many pennies, but still, it’s all I’ve got! But more importantly, I feel a strong moral obligation act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. This includes me, my family, my friends, my fellow Americans, and the rest of world. Every one of us and future generations will feel the effects of my decision. I can’t guaranty that things will work out all for the best. I could misjudge. But my duty is to make a diligent inquiry and use my best judgment based on fact and reason that I can now muster. On what criteria should I base my selection?

As you have no doubt discerned, the “corporation” that I’m speaking about is the Federal Government of the United States of America, and the “CEO” is the office of president. My fellow “shareholders” are the citizens of the United States, with the rest of world (or most of it) holding an interest in its well-being. It remains a beacon of hope and a model of billions around the world.

By the criteria set forth above (in addition to a great number of other reasons), I exclude Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Since Trump remains a viable nominee, I will limit comments to him. He wants to serve as CEO without any prior experience in government; in other words, he’s working on his undergrad degree (campaigning), and yet he believes that he should become the head of the company. He has no strategic plan, he has no compelling history of financial success (his money would have done better over the years in an indexed fund), but he is a salesman. This, I can’t dispute. However, a successful political leader must have return customers; i.e., supporters with whom he will have to deal successfully on a continuing basis. But Trump is a huckster, a P.T. Barnum, who sells snake oil and then plans to . . . what? Trump can only offer more snake oil as he appears to act on impulse and improvisation, as do most demagogues. No, to select Trump or Carson would be a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty.

My Criteria

So by what criteria should I judge the candidates for this most powerful office while meeting the requirements of my fiduciary duty and my self-respect (if not outright pride) in reaching my decision? The criteria broadly put are the following (with a discussion of particulars to follow):

1.    Proposed policies and attitudes on matters foreign, domestic—and given the reality and demands created by climate change and environmental degradation—global.

2.    Character as composed of sound judgment, experience, and ethos (ethics broadly speaking).

3.    Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Now to the Particulars: Policies and Attitudes

In the spirit of Mr. Hamilton, let me be frank. None of the Republican candidates offer policies or attitudes (on the whole) that I can endorse. Indeed, I have a hard time making sense of what most of them say most of the time (and it’s not just a matter of the tangled syntax and logical nonsequiturs that lead me to this conclusion). I say this having been a Republican at one point in my life, and as someone who appreciates concerns about the size and scope of government, the level of the tax burden, the reasonableness of regulations, the usefulness of markets and decentralized decision-making, and the need for a strong national defense. But the Republican brand has become unhinged from reality such that this party can no longer speak to these core issues. With the obvious choice now between former Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders, let me note the issues that should most concern us:

1.    Campaign Finance Reform and Ending Legalized Corruption. Our system is broken—corrupted—by the influence of big money in politics. We—led by our Supreme Court—have legalized corruption by equating money with speech. In a sense, of course, money talks, but such talk is not political speech, it's blunt bribery for the most part. The bigger the donation, the greater the expectation. Senator Sanders deserves strong commendation for speaking out on this topic (and before him, Lawrence Lessig). And Sanders has less “connections” that Secretary Clinton upon which to draw currently for money. But Secretary Clinton has said the right things. I don’t blame her for playing the system the way that it’s set up now, but I think that she’ll push for the appropriate change as well (just as I think Sanders would about reasonable gun limitations).

2.    Addressing Climate Change. The Republicans (except perhaps Kasich) are still in denial and have forfeited all credibility in the light of the accepted science. The question isn't (and hasn’t been for some time) whether we’re experiencing climate change, but how will we address that within a global context. Limited by a no-nothing, do-nothing Congress, Obama has taken some initial steps, but we need so much more.

3.    Economic Inequality. Going back far before the Obama years, the American Dream has become too remote for far too many. Many Americans are getting left behind. This is a long-term, multi-faceted problem that will not be cured overnight. We will need to work on some levels to keep opportunity available to all. We need to concentrate on good jobs, education, and fair trade. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially in judging issues like trade agreements, but we don’t want to continue the slide toward greater inequality, which will only foster greater social disharmony and political demagoguery.

4.    Reasonable Limitations on Guns. Our greatest threats are from within, not from terrorists without. (Remember Oklahoma City?). Not that there aren’t terrorists motivated by radical ideologies (often Muslim-based), but the greatest number of deaths come from Americans shooting other Americans. It’s crazy, insane. We need to stop our gun idolatry. Presidential leadership is necessary, and President Obama deserves great credit for trying. We should all be weeping at our folly and the deaths of innocents.

5.    Foreign Relations. We can’t blast our way into a world more to our liking. We are the strongest nation in the world, and not just because of our unquestionable military dominance, nor even because of our economic dominance. We have to use our cultural dominance, our ability to realize a global order that can last. This means mixing day-to-day judgment with a long-term strategy for assuring American security in a changing world. Force is always an option and may be needed, but as a matter of both morality and intense practicality (and are they so different?), force should remain a last resort.

6.    Immigration. We need secure borders, and we need to recognize that millions of person who’ve long lived and worked in America must receive a fair deal. We have a problem: we’re still a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Let’s use that fact for our benefit, and not as a basis for xenophobia.

7.    Race Relations. Race relations have improved immensely in my lifetime, and they need to improve immensely. Democrats as a whole recognize this. There are no quick and easy answers, but our next president needs to be sensitive to these problems and continue to work towards a plural, diverse nation that recognizes the dignity of all of its citizens.

8.    Court Appointments. We need judges who know that the Constitution isn’t a sacred fossil, but a road map that we need to reference and expand as times change. We need men and women who will avoid partisanship and will honor the rule of law. We don’t need a more “conservative” (pro-business) court.

9.    A Sound Economic Policy. We need economic policies and policy-makers who recognize that we’re in a poorly charted area. But we know that some things will not work, such as austerity. We need a plan to upgrade America’s sagging infrastructure, and we need to focus on creating and maintaining good, quality jobs. This means allowing enterprise to flourish within a system that protects workers and the environment. It happened in the post-WWII era, and we should attempt to replicate that success and balance.

The Republican candidates fail these tests as a whole. They ignore the corruption of big money; they ignore climate change; they offer the same medicine for inequality that they’ve prescribed for the last 40 years, only to see inequality increase. They honor the high-priest of the gun-god, the NRA and refuse to act to end the on-going sacrifice to this malicious god. They mostly offer military intervention and tough-guy talk for a foreign policy. They insult immigrants and ignore the reality of those already here who are contributing to our nation. They largely ignore the problems of race (Marco Rubio, though, made some nod toward the problem, for which he should—perhaps unwillingly—receive some credit. But then, after criticism from the right, he ran away from real, equitable immigration reform.) The Republicans want to appoint “originalists” to the federal courts when such an attitude—the late Justice Scalia notwithstanding—has no legs and only serves to reinforce existing power structures. And Republican economics worships at the altar of free markets and laisse faire while current realities call for changes in our system to take it away from crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and fortune-hunting and toward practices that are more equitable and sustainable. And that isn’t the gold standard, austerity, or tax-cuts for the wealthy.

Between the Democrats, there’s not lots of difference in policies, although Sanders on health care changes and taxation goes off far beyond where Secretary Clinton (and most of the American public) would venture. But the real distinction doesn’t come from policy differences, so let’s turn to character.

Character: Experience, Judgment, & Ethos

Judgment comes from knowledge gained through experience and study. As to experience, I can’t think of anyone better qualified to become president than Secretary Clinton. She’s been First Lady, a U.S. Senator (from New York, no less), and she’s served as Secretary of State. When we look back at Presidents Clinton (Bill), Bush (W.), and Obama, we see what a challenge the presidency was to each of them initially. With most new presidents, the costs of the learning curve are high as measured by the quality of our governance. (We also saw this with Secretary Clinton as well in her healthcare project during Bill’s term.) I contrast this will Sanders service as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and his many years in the House and later in the Senate. He was an independent until 2015, although he caucused with the Democrats. Sanders has been around a lot longer than Barack Obama, for instance, but nevertheless the quality of his resume pales in comparison with that of Clinton.

The quality of person’s judgment is hard to forecast, especially in a new position. In this, Sanders is mostly a blank slate, as his experience at the federal level has remained in the legislative branch. This has allowed him to act and campaign as a true believer, someone unsullied by having to make tough, compromising choices (which are inevitable, wishes to the contrary notwithstanding). As for Clinton, she’s not always had the best judgment: her handling of the Clinton health care plan, the Iraq War vote, and the use of a private email server. But in each of these instances, she didn’t cross any lines that I find immoral or unethical. Like all politicians, she sometimes walks the line, but I haven’t found her crossing over it. I hope that she’s learned from her mistakes and that the intense and mostly irrational scrutiny that she’s undergone hasn’t ruined her sense of forthrightness and risk-taking, but I suspect it’s all had a toll. The business of Benghazi and the email server, both of which I’ve looked into, I find on the whole trifling and not at all disqualifying.

And all of this leads to ethos. Clinton has the ethos of a battle-hardened veteran of some very nasty political fighting. She has a distinctly pragmatic attitude. She expects and is willing to work for incremental change. She’s an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Sanders, on the other hand, draws his energy and his voters from the purity of his motives and views. He is a believer, a socialist from way back (no big deal in my book, although certainly retro). This means that he carries a deep and abiding commitment to equity and fairness, admirable qualities indeed. But having labored for so long in the vineyard of the pure vision, how will he deal with the reality of political wheeling and dealing, not to mention attacks, that he would face as president? Clinton has taken all manner of punches and remains standing. Against Sanders, the Republicans have not yet begun to fight. And is Clinton “ambitious”? Yes. But then so is every man who’s running, and every man [sic] who’s been elected president. Of course, too much ambition and too much purity can prove frightening (i.e., Ted Cruz). Character does matter. Look at the flawed characters of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on the extremes. And when you think about it, flaws in every president become apparent with the unremitting glare of the public limelight and the number of decisions to be made and interests to resolve. You need leaders who can make mistakes and still get back in the saddle, who can trim the sails and make adjustments as circumstances dictate.

By the way, in one sense I agree with many of the young women who discount the importance of gender in making a decision about whom to select as president. Secretary Clinton qualifies on her merits, as it should be, and as did Obama. The issue should no longer be whether we chose a woman to serve as president, but rather why it took so long to do so.

Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Garry Wills

I fancy myself a political realist, an incrementalist, and a conservative (in the Garry Wills sense of the term). I don’t believe any political leader will prove flawless. I hold that if we have a leader who doesn’t do “stupid stuff,” we’re ahead of the game. Politics is a matter of compromise; legislating is the equivalent of making sausage: it’s not pretty, a lot of junk goes in, but in the end, it’s edible. Change in too great a measure will likely result in a backlash or to spiral out of control. Sometimes you swing for the fences, but you must know when to swing, when to hold, and how far you can hit. It’s easy to strike out.

Max Weber

Reinhold Niebuhr

I understand the appeal of Sanders (and even Trump—although I find them in no measure equivalent in fitness for office). They appeal to primal fears (Trump) and hopes (Sanders), but in the end, if elected, those hopes and fears will prove ephemeral and constraining. Following Garry Wills, I avoid purity in politics. We need saints and prophets, but we need politicians, too. Officials who compromise and make deals, who bring home a half-a-loaf because it’s better than none. They don’t often inspire us, but they serve us. Politics is the art of the possible. It requires the ethics of responsibility (Max Weber). Democracy is a form of protection for the majority, not a guaranty of good results (Reinhold Niebuhr; Churchill). Government is the business end of politics, attempting to turning ideas (good or bad; communal or selfish) into reality. It requires smart, dedicated leadership and judgment.

It’s for all of these reasons that I support Hillary Clinton for president. 

Does she look happy? Of course, after my endorsement!

A Short History of the Twentieth Century by John Lukacs

Do you want a Joe Friday ("Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts") history of the 20th century? Go elsewhere. Do you want to read an extended essay on the crucial events of the century by a master writer and historian? Then read this book. Do you want someone who will mouth common platitudes? Go elsewhere. Do you want the reflections and insights of a man who's studied and written about the 20th century in as much detail and with as much insight as anyone I can think of. Then read this book; in fact, you'd do well to read the rest of John Lukacs's work, too. 

Enjoying John Lukacs is the equivalent of enjoying a fine wine. Lukacs is a vineyard that keeps producing superb fare, now in his 90th year. Each new work provides a unique blend of insights. I'm a Lukacs connoisseur. But some do not care for what I consider an exquisite vintage. I read one review of this book that referred to him as "cranky", and in a charming sort of way, I can see that. Others find his opinions too harsh, dated, or limited in his perspective. I don't think so, but perfection isn't my primary concern. 

Lukacs sets forth many propositions, some of which he's stated before. For instance, his 20th century runs from 1914 to 1989 (the collapse of Communism). This is foremost a political history, and many historians will agree with the shortened scope of the century about which he writes. He centers his concerns on Europe and America. He acknowledges that he gives short shrift to Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia (Japan the primary exception). But he argues, rightly I think, that in this century, with some exception for Japan and China (near the end) has centered on Europe. The main focus of U.S. policy has centered on Europe. In the short 20th century, Europe was at the center of the action, including the horrible killing fields of the two wars. Lukacs notes that we've now reached the End of the Modern Age (the title of an earlier work, by the way), which also marks the end of the European Age. We don't yet know what follows; just as those who lived in (what we now call) the Middle Ages didn't know what would follow from the changes they saw as thheir age waned. Lukacs also states that "the twentieth century was--an? the?--American century". (2-3).

Lukacs sees Democracy as the great movement, but Democracy (as popular sovereignty) was shaped in no small part by nationalism (different from patriotism, as Lukacs has often written) and populism, which differs from classical liberalism. Given his quote of Burkhardt near the end of the book, one senses that he feels uneasy about the continued success of Democracy subject to the demands of nationalism and populism. 

Lukacs most blatantly transgresses popular dogma by contending  that some individuals still guide history. He contends that World War II was Hitler's war. No Hitler, no war. He believes that the ascension of Churchill over Halifax made the difference that allowed Britain to survive until "the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old." (Churchill). Likewise, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin play outsized roles (for good and ill) in the course of events. 

In addition to these perspectives and many others, Lukacs at the beginning and at the end of the book reflects on the project of history, knowing, and the human future. Of history as a discipline, he writes: 

     I have devoted much of my life to asserting, teaching, and writing that "objective" and "scientific" history are inadequate desiderata; but so, too, is "subjective" history. Our historical knowledge, like nearly every kind of human knowledge, is personal and participatory, since the knower and the known, while not identical, are not and cannot be entirely separate. We do not possess truth completely. Yet pursue truth we must. So many seemingly endless and incomplete truths about the history of the twentieth century are still worth pursuing, and perhaps forever. (1)

. . . .

    Historical knowledge, nay, understanding, depends on descriptions rather than on definition. It consists of words and sentences that are inseparable from "facts"; they are more than the wrapping of facts. "In the beginning was the Word," and so it will be at the end of the world. (1-2)

At the end of this book, he cites Tocqueville and Jacob Burckhardt, who, along with Johan Huizinga, are the predecessors who have most influenced Lukacs. Among twentieth century thinkers, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, formulators of the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, have influenced Lukacs. Lukacs writes of the uncertainty principle in human knowing: 

    The knower cannot be separated from the known. And with this is a greater and deeper meaning: that we, on our little, warm planet, are (again? anew?) at the very center of the universe. The universe was, and is, not our creation. But we human beings on this earth have invented it, and go on inventing it from time to time.

. . . . 

    Our twentieth-century recognitions, no matter how scattered and still hardly conscious, must, and will, issue not from human arrogance but from human humility. Perhaps just as important as our recognition of our central situation in the universe is our recognition that the limitations of our human knowledge do not restrict but enrich us. (212).

D-Day: The Battle for Normandy by Antony Beevor

After reading D-Day for several days, I began to feel like Patton, General Leclerc, and their soldiers: I became increasingly eager to reach Paris and thereby liberate myself from this book. Because it was boring or poorly written? Not at all! In fact, Beevor's account of the ferocious battles in Normandy takes the reader into the fray about as well as I expect a book can. The death, destruction, and brutality--with a few fleeting glimpses of kindness--are all there. Just as soldiers wanted to be done with battle and return home and the generals wanted to achieve their glory, so the reader, after only this hint of what it would have been like, wants to conclude the matter. This is a sign of the author's success, not failure. 

I wrote a bit about this book in a recent post, but there's a lot more that can be said about the book. Beevor explains what was happening from Churchill to Norman residents, from the troops to the generals. He does an excellent job of mixing these perspectives. His mix of perspectives also serves to break up the alphabet soup military designations and descriptions of movements on the map. Such descriptions and maps are crucial for understanding the military moves, but such descriptions can sometimes overwhelm a layman like me. 

So in addition to my earlier comments and the comments made above, here are some random notes and thoughts generated by this book: 

• General Montgomery (Monty) was as big a horse's ass as I've heard him to be from other sources. Indeed, many Brits were as displeased with him as the Americans were. He really seems to have taken the cake as a prima dona. 
• General Patton was no slouch when it comes to ego, either. The portrait composed by Beevor, done in small bits, conforms to the impression I have from George C. Scott's biopic, Patton. But in this theatre, Patton, after serving as a decoy, proved helpful. 
• Normandy's sacrifice saved the rest of France a great deal of trauma, but the Normans suffered mightily, perhaps too much from Allied bombing. 
• The politics of the French; to wit, De Gaulle and the Communists, was a real mess. FDR didn't trust DeGaulle, nor should he have, but there was no other choice. The French were proud, although essentially defeated (1940 was a complete collapse of the French) until the Liberation of Paris. It looked like post-war France could erupt in civil war. The Communists, quite important in the Resistance, were putting out pamphlets in Paris to send people "to the barricades" The politics of France at that time remained a mess, and the race to Paris became a necessary ingredient in the campaign. 
• Women in France accused of collaboration horizontale suffered shaved-heads or worse. As Beevor notes, however, much of this consisted of witch-hunting for the benefit males deflecting their non-resistance and enacting their jealousy. Beevor writes: “It was jealousy masquerading as moral outrage. The jealousy was mainly provoked by the food that they [the women] had received as a result of their conduct.” (450). Mob justice is an oxymoron, and there was a lot of it. 
• Americans, arriving in Paris after the grueling battles to take Normandy, treated Paris as a one big carnival, leaving a bad taste in many of the French. Instead of thanks for liberating France, the French remember the gluttony, drunkenness, and whoring. 
• It appears to me (and I don't recall Beevor directly addressing this) that without the almost unchallenged air superiority of the Allies (RAF and Americans), the ground forces may have been outmatched by the Germans. 
• Although not as important in the end, Allied naval superiority allowed the Allies to arrive and establish a beachhead unchallenged from the sea as well as the air. 
• The lack of coordination between ground and air forces often caused a large number of friendly fire casualties. 
• There could be no better demonstration that Clausewitz was right about the reality of the "friction" in war and the reality of “the fog of war”.
• The brutality and carnage on both sides can sometimes leave one shaking one's head. If reading a book doesn't stamp "war is hell" onto your brain, then you'd better check your sense of humanity. This wasn't a "good war"--there is no such thing. 

Winston's War by Max Hastings

I’ve completed listening to Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1946 by Max Hastings (2010, 576 p.). I hesitated to start another book on Churchill, as I’ve read a great deal about him already. He is, I think, the most written-about figure in the 20th century. Indeed, when we cleaned out my mom’s house we found a montage of Churchill that I’d done in 6th grade. Can there be anything new under the sun? Well, in this case, yes.
Hastings has written a fascinating book. Indeed, there is a lot that I learned that I either never knew or appreciated. Hastings does all this with a very judicious eye about what is near craziness (WSC was impulsive) and what amounts to heroic leadership. Churchill faced a number of challenges upon taking the premiership in May 1940 through the time he was deposed by voters in July 1945. Dealing with the English people, dealing with the mutual suspicions of Americans and Brits toward one another, wooing FDR (only to have FDR later shun him so that FDR could woo Stalin), having meetings and decisions reported to Stalin by Soviet agents before meetings could even begin—these are just a few of the matters considered by Hastings. Add in the use of area bombing (of civilian centers such as Hamburg and Dresden), the use of local resistance fighters (probably not worth the toll on civilians), and various military misadventures, and you get a sense of all the complicated decisions that WSC faced (or chose not to face) during his time. The complicated history of WWII is seen through the actions of this one man and considered by this gifted historian makes for a terrific read. The brevity of my post here belies the terrific enthusiasm that I have for this book. Highly recommended.

Churchill Quote

I came across this quote from WSC today doing some professional reading. It's about life as a journey:

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there may stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb."

Quoted in Zaltman & Zaltman, Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Mind of Consumers (2008), p. 94. (For anyone wondering how this amounts to "professional reading" by a lawyer, replace "consumers" with "jurors", and you'll see. The book was recommended by a continuing legal education speaker.)