Garry Wills Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider

Anyone who knows me knows that I've been a big fan of Garry Wills since 1976, when in one summer I read Bare Ruined Choirs (aloud with C) and Nixon Agonistes. Since then I have continued to enjoy a steady stream of books from Wills on a wide variety of topics: St. Augustine, Shakespeare's MacBeth, Jefferson, Henry Adams, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Lincoln, Venice, and so on. However, in this book, Wills, similar to a part of his earlier Confessions of a Conservative, brings himself directly into view. But not as the sole figure in a frame, but always with someone else. In some cases, we meet rather scheming and deluded preachers, in others, the opera star Beverly Sills and her family, and in others contemporary politicians like Hillary Clinton (whom Wills speaks fondly of). Wills has met this quite varied and interesting collection of persons by starting out as a "book worm". His father paid him not to read for a week and Wills took his winnings out and bought a new book. Perhaps the most interesting thing about Wills is that while he received a Jesuit education topped off by a Yale doctorate in classics, he got his real start writing for magazines, first National Review (he was "discovered" by William F. Buckley), and then Esquire. Mixing these two callings, academic and journalistic, made Wills a compelling writer and not just a brainy writer.

Wills's portraits of his friends Beverly Sills, Studs Terkel, and others can be quite touching. He is quite fair to Richard Nixon, whom he credits as the politician who provided the most interesting answer to his question about favorite books. But the two most interesting subjects are Bill Buckley and Wills’s wife Natalie. Buckley and Wills had a long falling out over the Viet Nam war, but they eventually reconciled through the good offices of one of Buckley’s sisters. Wills provides a respectful and fascinating portrait of Buckley. As for his wife Natalie, Wills struck up a conversation over a nerdy book he was reading (Bergson) on a flight to NYC to meet Buckley and on which she worked a stewardess. They have been together since then, with her serving as his first draft reader—lucky her. No, really, lucky her!

For me this was fun glance into the behind-the-scenes world of one of my favorite writers. For me, it was like hearing a special guest tell tales from an interesting life, and an interesting life it has been, and I hope will continue to be for some time, for this book worm Garry Wills.

Iowa Judicial System Under Attack

The following is a piece that I wrote for our local paper. They haven't seen fit to print it (yet?), but, hey, what's a blog for but to serve as our electronic street corner (and perhaps as effective, but if you've read this far . . . .). Anyway, my thoughts written earlier this month:

Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has turned his attention this fall from running for governor to leading a campaign to radically change our judicial system. In doing so, he’s enlisted the aid of Newt Gingrich and a couple of hundred thousand dollars in out-of-state money. The motive behind the movement spearheaded by Vander Plaats is the Iowa Supreme court’s unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien. Varnum rules that denying the right of marriage to gays and lesbians in Iowa violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Vander Plaats and his supporters want to express their dissatisfaction and to intimidate any future court decisions that fail to support their agenda. The intend to accomplish this by voting against retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who happen to be up for a retention vote this year.
Even if one disagrees with extending constitutional rights to gays and lesbians and wants to join Vander Plaats and his supporters in seeking to overturn the decision, there is a political remedy. Those seeking to overturn this right can work to convince the Iowa legislature and Iowa voters to amend our Constitution and adopt a provision that exempts gays and lesbians from equal protection of the laws governing marriage. To date, the Iowa legislature has refused to tamper with provisions governing this fundamental right.
If a majority votes against retaining the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this fall, it will be the first time since our current system of judicial selection began in 1962 that a Supreme Court justice is removed from office by a vote. If voted out, the three up for a retention votes, Chief Justice Ternus and Justices Streit and Baker, will have been chosen at random for retribution, since all of the members of the Court joined in the Varnum v. Brien decision. These three justices just happen to be the ones on the ballot this fall by way of a regular rotation.
What will it mean for justice in Iowa if a majority of voters remove any of these justices from office? The first conclusion certain to be drawn is that social conservatives dominate Iowa politics. However, more worrisome will be the conclusion that out-of-state money can come to Iowa to buy elections and judges. Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, who appointed two of the justices that voted in favor of the Varnum decision during his earlier tenure as governor, proposes a different fundamental change to our current system. Branstad now wants the power to appoint all judges directly with the approval of the state senate. Branstad’s proposal would take the initial screening of candidates out of the hands of the non-partisan judicial nominating committees that provide the governor with two or three names from which to choose to fill a judgeship. Whether a Republican or a Democrat sits in the governor’s office, under the Branstad plan, judicial appointments will more often reflect repayment of political favors and adherence to party doctrine, something that our current systems tends to avoid.
Having practiced in Iowa from 1979 (with a brief stint in Illinois), I can report that taken as a whole, our judicial system and judicial selection system works about as well as one can hope in our democracy. In this assessment I’m not alone, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rates Iowa as the fifth best judicial system in the Union. The system is not perfect, nor are our judges infallible (the proof being that they sometimes rule against me and my clients), but taken as a whole, the voters of Iowa would be making a terrible decision and setting a terrible precedent if they vote to remove the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention this fall. The real issue isn’t the propriety of a single ruling, but the ability of the judicial system to stand outside the political tides and to make decisions that may not prove popular. We alter such a system only to the peril of our liberties.

Maurenn Dowd on Ignorance Chic

In her column today, Maureen Dowd, queen of reading the zeitgeist, goes after the cult of ignorance--yes, you read that correctly--exhibited by some running for office today. She juxtaposes this current attitude with that exhibited by none other than Marilyn Monroe, the blonde bombshell, the "dumb blonde". In fact, MM had aspirations and an apparent sense of depth that could lead her to despair. Do we see that today with some public figures? To say that some running for office today are vacuous seems kind. Anyway, as usual, Dowd's take on the culture of the day seems quite on point to me.

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.

Despair?

I read the following in Maureen Dowd's NYT column:

As Barack Obama struggles to rekindle the magic, one of the most pathetic headlines was the one on a CNN poll last week: “Was Bush Better President Than Obama?”

“Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House,” the CNN article said.

This is one of the most distressing items that I've read in a long time. I can laugh (sometimes) at the likes of Glen Beck and crazy Tea Party types, hoping--really hoping--that they can't be serious, or taken seriously in any event. However, these poll numbers make me cringe to think about our electorate. Are they nuts? Incredibly short-sighted? Stupid? Harsh words, I know (and now you know that I'm never running for office). I have little doubt that Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. Obama should receive acclaim for not letting Bush's bus go off the cliff. Now, people complain because the trip is taking longer. Incredible. FDR had an advantage in that when he took over from Hoover the bus had gone off the cliff. In Obama's case, he got to the wheel in time to avoid the worst, but people now blame him for the detour. Incredible.

The Iowa Judicial System

The following is an email that I sent to the Iowa Justice Association list serve. This is the organization of plaintiff's lawyers in Iowa. The subject is the effort by Bob VanderPlats and lots of outside money to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices this year on the retention vote because they joined in the unanimous Varnum decision that held the Iowa ban on gay marriage violated the equal protection clause. My thoughts in general on this issue and our method of judicial selection in Iowa.

Readers,
In thinking about our upcoming retention vote and the implicit--and perhaps explicit--decision that we have to make about our current judicial system, I think that we need to keep in mind some important points:
1. Judges, human beings that they are (well, for the most part), make mistakes and have numerous foibles, and I'm talking about the better ones. Yet, we must look at our judicial selection and retention system as Churchill looked at democracy: the worst form of government, except when compared to all of the others. Compared to others, we coming out looking very good.
2. Judges, like jurors, walk into their positions with loads of pre-existing ideas, political, legal, philosophical, etc. We try to persuade them, but that can be mighty tough sometimes if they walk in with an attitude on an issue. That's why, I think, that this group tends to rejoice more when someone with a plaintiff's background gets appointed to the bench than when experienced defense counsel goes up. Not always, but usually. So, yes, judges do have imperfections, idiosyncrasies, and beliefs that create a great variety of perspectives. Given this, one of the amazing aspects of Varnum was the unanimity of the decision.
3. Those who claim that decision like Varnum should have been made in the political sphere have a strong argument. As a supporter of the conclusion of Varnum, I would have preferred that it would have been made by the legislature and not the courts. However, sometimes the courts have to go against the tide; maybe you like it (desegregation, one man [sic], one vote, abortion rights) or sometimes you don't (due process cases, striking down the New Deal legislation, striking down campaign finance legislation)—all depending on your political point of view, of course. Whether one likes an "activist" court seems to go along with whether one likes the outcome. It's gone both ways over time, sometimes left, sometimes right. But the courts have to do what they have to do--if really forced to. (I have a hard time believing all of the Iowa Supreme Court wanted to get out front on an issue like Varnum, as I don't think that they're naive about the potential public response.)
4. If any of the current Supreme Court justices are voted out, it will have a chilling effect on all future court decisions and allow electoral politics--often at its most base--to infect our judicial system. Those who disapprove of the Varnum decision do have political remedies, and these they should pursue.
5. This really isn't about individual justices (as it should be), but it's about attempting to control the judiciary in a new & very harmful way. It's like picking three soldiers at random to be shot in order booster the morale of the troops. This motivational tool isn't one that we should take up. It's a crude tool even with politicians, but they know that it comes with the job; it shouldn't be so for judges.

Enough for now. I think that this is an important issue for all lawyers and all citizens in Iowa. Thanks for allowing me to share. And vote.

Richard Evans: In Defense of History

I completed Richard Evans's In Defense of History (1999, 272 p.). Evans writes on the topics that historians must always deal with, either up front and in the back of their minds: issues of causation, facts, sources, choice of topics, and the like. Much of this can seem mundane, but it can also become quite controversial. Evans treats it all with an even hand. His most significant contribution comes from his critique of more radical notions of post-modernism. He welcomes new ideas of perspective and topics, but he rejects the extreme relativism that some promote as a part of this movement. As does Ken Wilber, among others, he points to the performative contradiction at the heart of extreme relativism. Evans is persuasive about this, and I think he take history to a very solid philosophical (in the broadest sense) footing. A find book well considered, and a pleasure to read.

Friedman, Shiller, etc. Miscellaney

Tom Friedman provides a persuasive and succinct description of the Tea Party Movement as a political phenomena. The Tea Party strikes me as having no coherent set of ideas or platform, just a populist outpouring against the world as it is. I think that Obama has the ability and aspirations to reach out and accomplish what Friedman wants, and what he sees as the real problems behind the Tea Kettle party phenomena, but the body politic does seem to be really mired in limited--if not downright stupid--thinking.

In the NYT today, Friedman opens with a quote from Lewis Mumford. This alone merits a shout-out, as Mumford was a great American humanist (for lack of a more specific term), and long-time favorite of mine. In Friedman's article a quote from Mumford is taken from his impressionistic account of history, and more specifically, that of the declining Roman empire. I think that we have to be careful of the "we're the new Rome" stuff, but still, it's a thought-provoking piece, and it allows Friedman to trumpet an important message. Friedman floats the idea of a third-party, a tried and true perspective in American politics (and one that can influence events, but not since the Republican Lincoln, have none have gained power at the presidential level). The problem, as I see it, is that Obama gets criticized for acting too conciliatory and non-partisan. What perspectives or attitudes could a, for instance, Bloomberg add to the national dialogue? If anything, maybe Obama and the Democrats need to act more boldly and move more to the left. Anyway, thanks for quoting Mumford, Tom.

Robert Shiller in the NYT today takes about "animal spirits" (again) in describing how attitudes effect economic outlooks and performance. Yea, Keynes, who wrote in English (although he spoke mathematics very fluently) seems to have his pulse on our situation. Another instance of human behavior not following the guidelines that mainstream economics says that we should.

Finally, a quick note: an article in the NYT about an upcoming series on PBS on religion in America. You cannot understand America if you don't have some grasp of its religious history and its current manifestations in their incredible variety. Sounds promising.

Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs

Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs (2010, 276p.) proved a delight to read. The relationship began when Lukacs, then a nobody, wrote to Kennan, then ambassador to the Soviet Union and author of the "X" article, was a definite somebody (but soon to fall from favor). Their relationship grew over the years from a mutual interest in 19th and 20th century diplomatic history to a genuine affection for one another. In addition, we begin to get comments on some current events, different peoples, and insights into their writing projects (after leaving the Foreign Service, Kennan established a second career as a historian of diplomacy). Kennan, for instance, shares my concern that sometimes Lukacs allows his prose to become too dense, while at the same time, each sees in the other examples of fine writing and highly developed descriptive powers that enhances the work of both men. In sum, reading their letters to one another is like listening in to a very urbane and frank discussion between two highly literate and articulate men, who, because of their knowledge of history, have acute sensibilities of times and places that most of us don't perceive. From the quotidian to the grand, we get glimpses over a course of many years. As this is raw history, some of their judgments may seem harsh or ill-considered, but part of the charm of letters like this comes from their frankness and intimacy.

Of course, I think that the best testament that I can provide comes from quoting here and there, as I have in a couple of posts already, from their own words. Quite a joy, I must say. So I offer two quote for today, one on the more profound side, one on the lighter side:

Kennan:

We know that we cannot look at the sun with direct and naked eyes. It blinds us if we try it. Just so, there are things about the nature of God which we should not, and cannot, attempt to envisage and understand. To suppose that we would be capable of such a thing would resemble in itself a form of blasphemy. (253 11 February 2002)

Lukacs:

This president's (George W. Bush's) mind (and character) is that of a 15 year old American teenager who wants to remain the class president, a position the had got through mere luck. Commentators are wrong when they speculate that he wants to revenge what Saddam H. had planned for his father. No: George W. never liked is father; he wants to show that he can do even better then his father. We know the immortal warning of John Quincy Adams: "we do not go abroad in search for monsters to destroy." This puerile president is worse than that: he proclaims and pinpoints one monster for the sake of consolidating his and his party's popularity . . . ." (260, 5 March 2003).