Hours after telling you that the Obama presidency is regularly compared to the Carter administration, this is what I read :

American decline is the specter haunting our politics. This could be President Obama's undoing—or it could provide him with the opportunity to revive his presidency.

Fear of decline is an old American story. Declinism ran rampant in the late 1970s and early '80s. Stagflation, the Iranian hostage crisis, anxiety over Japan's then-commanding economy and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan all seemed to be symbols of a United States no longer in control of its destiny.

The NYTimes has an interesting review of a book on the beginning of Prohibition. How does prohibition of alcohol fit in with the rest of the 1920s ? Here's a short paragraph from the NYTimes review which I think you might find interesting since it places the 18th Amendment in the context of the conflict of cultures of the 1920s :

• "The 18th Amendment was a rarity in that it limited the rights of the individual rather than the activities of the government, thereby guaranteeing a hostile reception. As such, it holds the distinction of being the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed. Which leads one to ask: How did this happen in the first place? Why would Americans curtail their precious right to drink?
• “Last Call,” by Daniel Okrent, provides the sobering answers. Okrent, the author of four previous books and the first public editor of The New York Times, views Prohibition as one skirmish in a larger war waged by small-town white Protestants who felt besieged by the forces of change then sweeping their nation — a theory first proposed by the historian Richard Hofstadter more than five decades ago. Though much has been written about Prohibition since then, Okrent offers a remarkably original account, showing how its proponents combined the nativist fears of many Americans with legitimate concerns about the evils of alcohol to mold a movement powerful enough to amend the United States Constitution."

Political ads

For the political ads of the 1950s and 60s : this is a link to an earlier posting on this blog.

For the podcast that might help you prepare for this week's seminar : http://dl.free.fr/iUcaFbb8c

A report on the evacuation of Saigon in April 1975 by a BBC journalist for News at Ten. It's all very stiff upper lip and restrained and yet very moving. Note the comments by viewers explaining that many Vietnamese were trying to flee the communist regime and saying that Americans should take credit for the war instead of reading it as an illegal war waged by war criminals (that's what the reference to Jane Fonda means).

Here's another video by a British reporter :

SEMINAR 7 : audio of the sermon

Dear students,

I'm sorry, it slipped my mind that I was supposed to put the sermon on the web.

My apologies for the tardiness ; the sermon is available here :

http://dl.free.fr/hVsFTzfkG

Tea Party references in American history

This is a very short summary of an interesting op-ed piece from the NYtimes.

During the Revolution and the first decades of the 18th century, the Boston Tea Party was almost universally frowned upon. But as time passed and the possibility of suing the perpetrators faded, the rebellious Patriots' act came to symbolize the American spirit of fighting for freedom and even a model of civil disobedience . All sides used the historical event to bolster their opinion : from the governor of South Carolina who threatened to seceed during the 1831 nullifcation crisis to abolitionnists openly flouting the Fugitive Slave Act and the Temperance movement activists who ransacked saloons.

John J. Miller, the author of the article, argues that today's Tea Party movement might have a better grasp on American history than most of its critics think and that they are the latest incarnation of a deep trend running through American politics. Reading the comments on the article is also full of insight on the possible bias of the author. What do you think? Is he really supporting the modern Tea Party movement by exploring how

The NYTimes is also running a series this month on the Civil War entitled Disunion. You can even join their facebook group for those of you who spend time on the social network.

There is also a good article on Southern women in the secession crisis. They are reported to have supported secession en masse, thus challenging traditional gender roles by errupting into the public sphere. Again reading the comments is quite enlightening on the diversity of the readership!

Some have argued however that the South later lost the war partly because women lost faith in the cause, were dispirited by the suffering entailed by the war and communicated this loss of morale to their male relatives.

David Blight on the Civil War

David Blight's lectures on the civil war are incredibly interesting and I would recommend listening to them. You can download them from i-tunes or from Yale's website. The transcripts are also available.

For a good summary of his research into the memory of the civil war : listen to this lecture.

Here's David Blight telling the story of two slaves that escaped from the South during the Civil War. It's a great example of the nature of historical inquiry.

SEMINAR 4

The two lectures I'd like you to listen to were given by Jennifer Burns at Berkeley:

• Immigrant culture
• Meaning of whiteness.

You can download them from the Berkeley website.

You can get them from i-tunes by typing "History 7B Berkeley" in the search engine, or by browsing through i-tunes U.

The two lectures were also on the memory sticks that I circulated in class, so some of you already have them on your computers.

PS : An excellent article on the Tea Party from the liberal magazine The New Republic. I found the first ( and so far only) comment particularly perceptive. For the mediatic row over "the elites", see the original article in the Washington Post and one of the reactions it provoked.

Bill of rights

Here is a very good example of the current significance of the Bill of Rights :




This is an extract from The West Wing, season 6, episode 8 (In the room)

I whole heartedly reccomend this TV series which is amazing : you'll learn a lot about the American constitution, the political workings of the institutions and the hot potato issues of the 2000s, and painlessly to boot.

Seminar 3

To help you answer the third question for SEMINAR 3 : read about the Supreme Court's recent cases.

As mentionned last week, I've added an exercise on the Tea Party movement for seminar 3.

Please listen to the BBC podcast from BBC's Americana series.

If you'd rather download the podcast, I've uploaded it here.

Answer these questions briefly :

1. Summarize the Tea-Party activists' platform.

2. How do they view the Constitution ?

3. What does Professor Jill Lepore say about this?

for more on the Tea Party movement :

• a very brief presentation of Jill Lepore's book click here
• a very long article in the New Yorker
• coverage by NPR on religion and the Tea Party Movement

Note :

Fiscal conservative = against high taxes and the deficit and opposed to government spending to fund social services.

Social conservative= against abortion, gay marriage, secularization of American society (bans on school prayers etc...)

Tea Party, past and present

Today a national group of anti-tax, anti-Big Government and anti-incumbent activists has coalesced under the banner of the Tea Party Movement in reference to the original Boston Tea Party of 1775. ( For more information on this, you may check my earlier posts on this : http://americanstudiesyear2.blogspot.com/2010/03/right-wing-extremism-in-us.html

These vocal critics of the governement have been referring to the American founders in their wish to take power back, that is away from the federal government. They have used the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to argue for a return to the original American institutional framework. Was the Constitution truly the work of people who distrusted the State and favoured democracy?

The Economist offers an interesting study of the constitutional rhetoric of these Tea Party activists : The perils of Constitution worship. This passage is particularly relevant :

But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

If we look back to the debates about the Constitution and the nationwide discussion that took place during the nine month ratification process, it is pretty clear that the Constitution was defended by a group of people who wanted a powerful central government.

Today's Tea Party movement would certainly have sided with the Anti-Federalists who argued against ratification. Our "modern-day anti-federalists" have picked a strange fight !

Book has arrived at the FNAC

Dear students,

Just a quick notice to tell you that Melinda Tims' book has arrived at the FNAC Cergy. I've ordered 30 copies and warned the salesperson that there were about 80 students. She will order more as the stock gets depleted.

Black preachers and narratives of the independence

A very interesting discussion introducing a collection of sermons by Black preachers (1750-2010), from the first Black ministers to today.

You've all heard Martin Luther King's speech; even if his style is quite unique, it is interesting to see how he is deeply grounded in a long standing tradition of preaching in African-American churches. To learn more about this tradition of Black preaching, listen to this story from NPR News and Notes. This is a very well crafted and edited broadcast, with analysis, comment and examples from sermons preached by African-American ministers.

W.E.B. Du Bois wrote in the Souls of Black Folk that the three main features of the preaching style of African-American preachers were the preacher, the music and the frenzy. I think this is very accurate description for many of these sermons including the one we studied in the seminar on the civil rights movement.

For those of you who are interested in the history of decolonisation, there is currently a very good series of radio broadcasts, in French, on France Culture : Boulevard des Indépendances. I listened to the episode on the independence of Congo and found that it was a brilliant example of how one can try and reconstruct events. The events are narrated by different eyewitnesses and participants who provide clues and partial explanations to the causes of the succession of events; but, ultimately, the listeners have to do the historian's work of analysis and piecing together the meaning of these events. You can listen to this series on the radio, online or podcast each of the shows.

Enjoy the summer holidays.

The Tea Party : past and present

Here's an interesting inquiry into the modern Tea Party's connection with the American Revolution and how its activists feel about the historical events of the past. Disclaimer : it comes from a rather liberal media, The New Yorker.

Excerpt from Sarafina : video posted for group 2

Britain has a new PM

Gordon Brown tendered his resignation to the Queen and gave a last speech in front of Number 10 Downing Street, before leaving with his wife and two sons.

7.56pm: Here is Brown's resignation speech:

As you know, the general election left no party able to command a majority in the House of Commons.

I said I would do all that I could to ensure a strong, stable and principled government was formed, able to tackle Britain's economic and political challenges effectively.

My constitutional duty is to make sure that a government can be formed following last Thursday's general election.

I have informed the Queen's private secretary that it's my intention to tender my resignation to the Queen. In the event that the Queen accepts, I shall advise her to invite the leader of the opposition to form a government. I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future.

Only those who have held the office of prime minister can understand the full weight of its responsibilities and its great capacity for good. I have been privileged to learn much about the very best in human nature, and a fair amount too about its frailties, including my own. Above all, it was a privilege to serve. And, yes, I loved the job, not for its prestige, its title and its ceremony, which I do not love at all. No, I loved this job for its potential, to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous and more just – truly a greater Britain.

In the face of many challenges in a few short years, challenges up to and including the global financial meltdown, I have always strived to serve, to do my best in the interests of Britain, its values and its people. And let me add one thing also. I will always admire the courage I have seen in our armed forces. And now that the political season is over, let me stress that having shaken their hands and looked into their eyes, our troops represent all that is best in our country and I will never forget all those who have died in honour and whose families today live in grief.

My resignation as leader of the Labour party will take effect immediately. In this hour I want to thank all my colleagues, ministers, members of parliament. And I want to thank above all my staff who have been friends as well as brilliant servants of the country. Above all, I want to thank Sarah for her unwavering support, as well as her love, and for her own service to our country. I thank my sons John and Fraser for the love and joy they bring to our lives. And as I leave the second most important job I could ever hold I cherish even more the first, as a husband and father. Thank you and goodbye.

Would you like to hear it for yourselves?

I've simply selected a snipet from the Guardian's live blog for my first year students who might remember what the new Clause 4 of the Labour Party is about...

8.25pm: Brown is in Labour HQ delivering a speech to party workers. He quotes the section from the new clause four about the people achieving more through the strength of their common endeavour.

Shortly after this, David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen and to "kiss hands". He then made a short speech before entering in Number 10.

The video is available on the Telegraph's website.

And that's all for tonight, folks.

the endgame?

Apparently the discussion with Labour has collapsed and Nick Clegg will shortly be entering into a coalition governement led by David Cameron. At least that's what is suggested in the latest up-dates on the live coverage of the day by the Telegraph and the Guardian.

Another great interactive feature from the Guardian to find out what Nick Clegg's secret list caught on camero through a car window contains.

I just copied this quotation from the Guardian's live coverage of the election aftermath:

8.39am: George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has just been on the Today programme. He dismissed suggestions that the Tories could form a minority government.

I keep reading about this option and I'm afraid it doesn't really exist. We can't just turn up at Buckingham Palace and say we'd like to form a minority government. We would need the consent of the Liberal Democrats to form a minority government.

For this quotation in its context and much more on the election, visit the http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog

Last night there were a few major moves made by all three parties:

- the Lib-Dems had been talking in secret to Labour

- Gordon Brown announced he would be resigning as PM before the next party conference (around November) and offered electoral reform to Lib-Dems in exchange for a coalition

- The Conservatives counter with an offer of a referendum on AV ( see bottom of my last post for an explanation on this electoral system) and a full coalition

Now, Nick Clegg and his party have to decide whether they wish to support the party to which they feel closest or the party which has the most MPs in Parliament.

up-date on general election

What on earth is going on in Britain?

The Lib-Dem surge proved to be a soufflé and the Conservatives, although they won 97 more seats than in 2005 are still 20 MPs short of an outright majority.

Nick Clegg has started negotiations with Cameron, although this is not really what the MPs and grass roots of either party want (read an article from the Telegraph on opposition to a deal by the Tory rank and file).

What will happen if no agreement is found? What are the prospects for electoral reform in each of these scenarios?

The Guardian also offers a simple explanation on the possible outcomes of these talks, in the form of a Q&A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/hung-parliament-coalition-government

In Britain, it is possible to have a minority governement (for instance 306 MPs out of 650) but if the Conservatives form such a government they will need the occasional support of other MPs to get key legislation through, in particular the Queen's Speech and the budget.

For an explanation on all this : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8670411.stm

And for a schematic representation of the possible outcomes of an election : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8660699.stm

Over the weekend, Cameron and Clegg have been discussing the terms for an agreement but we don't know yet whether that will work. If there is no agreement, then either the Conservatives can try and govern without an outright majority and make deals with different MPs over particular legislation or else perhaps Brown and Clegg can make a deal to govern together, although they would still be short of an outright majority.

To follow the live coverage and find out about the latest progress in this matter, check: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/

At any rate, what most commentators agree about is that there will be another general election quite soon.

Have a look at this explanation on the AV, AV+ and STV voting systems that are being discussed to replace the first past the post rule.

Parenthesis: a look at the British general election

I'd simply like to suggest a few articles on the British general election.

There are many good articles in French :

Le Monde has a good article on strategic voting and the possible outcomes of the election. It also provides many links to British websites.

The blog La vie des idées offers a spattering of articles on the subject :

• a summary of the content relating to Britain.
• the political and electoral crisis
• an in-depth analysis of the concepts of change as it was used in election campaigns

More interestingly, if you were British, which party would you support? Take this test and analyse the results (you can compare each of your positions with what each party thinks of the issues. If you are asked for a British postcode, you can use my old postcode from Durham : DH11DU.

Lots of last minute appeals from all newspapers :

• a bad-faithed attempt by The Telegraph to discourage tactical voting and support of the Lib-Dems: the firm in which Myriam Clegg (the Lib-Dem leader's wife) works declared that a hung parliament would be bad for Britain...
• A detailed guide to tactical voting by The Guardian which supports the Lib-Dems or a "progressive coalition" ( Lib-Lab)
• Wishful thinking from The Times : their last poll indicates that the Tories are on the brink of a getting a majority in the House of Commons
• In the meantime The Independent describes this election as a chance to get the electoral reform they have been calling for
• A bit of trashiness is also in order if you want a complete round-up of the British newspapers : TV star Simon Cowell (a judge on the tv-show Britain's got talent that brought Susan Boyle into the public eye last year) endorsed David Cameron in The Sun. Another famous tabloid, the Daily Mirror is trying to discredit Cowell's endorsement of the Tories by voicing the concerns of fans who are disappointed by a decision that they was made out of pure self interest ( he's a millionnaire) and perhaps due to pressure from Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul.

News from the American right

1. "epistemic closure" : a new term to explain the GOP's woes?

A worthwhile article on the NYTimes on how some of the conservative thinkers are reacting to the spread of the Tea Party movement's rhetoric within the Republican milieu. The basic argument of the article is that the Conservative elite has all but disappeared and that's why the right has become the vehicle for radical (at times irrational) discourse.

2. Can States challenge the healthcare Act?

In an article vindicating the health care reform Act, a New Republic commentator claims that the challenges mounted by some States to the federal law is a throwback to the doctrine of nullification and hails back to the times when the proponents of States' Rights opposed other progressive legislation.

However this vision is debunked by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review.

group 2

I'm posting this video on behalf of Laura and Alizée for group 2. It presents a novel programme designed for students who have attendance issues...

Right wing extremism in the US

With some of you, we've discussed Ann Coulter's book tour in Canada and the way the issue of free speech is dealt with in both countries (hate speech vs free speech). She's an outrageous character in American politics; she has strongly right-wing opinions and voices them in a rather humorous, albeit shocking manner. You can visit her website to read some of her essays and opinion pieces. She's done quite a few appearances on major networks and thus there are many videos with her on YouTube (here's one where she promises to support Clinton (haha) against McCain whom she considers too soft and not conservative enough during the 2008 campaign).

I've just heard an interesting interview with an expert on fringe right-wing movements such as the Patriot groups and their militias. To listen to the programme or download it, visit this NPR page.

What's particularly striking is that these groups have recently become more mainstream via the Tea Party movement which many of the activist have joined. Some of their more outlandish ideas have received sustained coverage from Fox News : last year Glenn Beck looked at their claim that FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) has created detention camps in which conservatives would be rounded up after a liberal take over of the governement. He examined this conspiracy theory during three shows before debunking it.

Moreover the paranoid rhetoric of these groups is gaining the Republican Party, as some GOP officials are trying to take advantage of the popular discontent provoked by the federal government's policies (especially the stimulus package and the healthcare reform overhaul passed by Congress). To see examples of this, you can watch this video from a left-wing MSNBC show (especially the last two minutes)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Finally here's a comparison between the civil rights movement's strategies and those of the anti-tax/Tea Party movement :

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

House of Commons : PMQ

Prime Minister's Question Time is an important mediatic event each week in the House Commons. You'll notice how the House is organised and how childish and noisy the proceedings can get when MPs heckle at each other and the Speaker cries desperately for order ( 7"-9"). Note also that when the PM and the leader of the opposition speak they address the speaker at all times and never each other.



Issues of last week :
-War in Afghanistan and equipment for the military.
- the end of the cold war and who should get credit for that
- Lord Ashcroft


More hectoring and bickering ( 2 December 2009):

Oral expression

Here are a few ideas of themes for future debates.

- What should Americans do with Guantanamo Bay

- Civil liberties vs. security in Britain

- What strategy should the Tea Party activists adopt for the 2010 elections?

- Should the British change their electoral rules?

- Is the gay rights movement the new Civil Rights movement?

- Does race still matter in America, and how? Should positive discrimination policies look at class rather than race?( I've just come across an interesting article : NYTimes magazine).

- Is big government the cause of social ills in Britain?

- Is it true that Britain is broken? Who uses this expression, why? There's extensive coverage of this issue in the British press: for example in The Guardian. I've just read an article from Le Monde on the subject.

Dear students and readers,

Happy New Year to all of you. I hope you enjoyed the break.

As promised two weeks ago:
1. The first television commercial for an electoral campaign created by Roy Disney for candidate Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. His stature as a war hero and his appeal to both parties ( remember that the Democrats had asked him to run as President as well) and the well managed electoral campaign indeed got him in the White House. Note the three donkeys representing the Democratic party ( the donkey had become the symbol of the party under the Presidency of Grant).




2. The emotionally potent ad issued by the Johnson campaign for President in 1964. Although the ad was only aired once on television, it sent a shockwave through the country. It became a news item and was thus aired by the media as such, offering free air time to the Democratic ticket. This clip is famous for its suggestion that Barry Goldwater was not fit to be president because he was trigger happy and too likely to use nuclear weapons on foreign theaters of operation. However, when you listen carefully to the short speech that follows the explosion, I believe that the issues it raises are not germane to foreign policy tactics. Watch:



The terms "a world in which all God's children can live together"; "we must either love each other or die" suggests an allusion to something other than the Cold War and the nuclear threat. What do you think it might refer to?
(hint: consider why Barry Goldwater was gaining momentum at the time and who was supporting him)

For more ads of the 1964 campaign :

Lyndon B. Johnson : on nuclear testing, and on poverty. Note how the causes of poverty are reassessed in this ad, breaking away from the American tradition of portraying the poor as irresponsible and lazy). Finally, see how the legacy of JFK was used to bolster Johnson's Great Society platform. The tone of the campaing could turn quite sour and negative ads were aired.

Barry Goldwater ads : against Big Governement, on graft in Washington and integrity, and a response to Kruschev, on the no-win war in Vietnam.