As the new Steven Spielberg movie has reignited our national passion for our 16th President, The Recovering Politician today begins featuring a series of posts from one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic: Dr. Matthew Pinsker, a Lincoln scholar, Civil War historian and college professor based at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA (and of course, longtime Friend of RP). For the last five years, Pinsker has personally trained more than 2,500 K-12 educators on Civil War and American history topics, and he has also been directing the House Divided Project, a digital effort designed to help classroom teachers use the latest technologies to promote deeper study of the American Civil War during its 150th anniversary.
Here is his first column, cross-posted with Quora.com, with permission of the author:
It’s a mistake to worry about whether “Lincoln” the movie is historically accurate.
It’s historically inspired and inspiring but by definition any work of art that blends fiction (such as invented dialogue) with fact should never be considered “accurate.”
Spielberg himself acknowledges all this when he describes his movie as a “dream” and as a work of “historical fiction” (see his Dedication Day speech, November 19, 2012 at Gettysburg for a good example).
That doesn’t mean that the movie has no use in the history classroom or for the lifelong history student. “Lincoln” the movie creates an unforgettable historical mood or experience that almost no actual history of the period can match. It truly feels like “writing history with lightning” (Woodrow Wilson on another powerful movie, “Birth of a Nation”).
But accurate history sticks to the evidence and Spielberg and scriptwriter Tony Kushner don’t. When they want to convey the complicated dynamic of the Lincoln household, they take that responsibility seriously and consult several leading historical studies to create a layered account but at the end of the day they simply invent the most compelling scenes such as a bitter bedroom argument between First Husband and wife or a stunning scene where Abraham Lincoln slaps his oldest son (which, by the way, would NEVER have happened).
They also condense, conflate and simplify the politics behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the focal point of the movie. Just compare the Spielberg/Kushner interpretation to the best academic account of the subject (“Final Freedom” (2001) by Michael Vorenberg) and you realize how many corners the movie has to cut and nuances it has to ignore.
Professor Matthew Pinsker
Watching the movie, for example, it’s easy to forget that Lincoln was pushing for approval from a lame duck Congress where his numbers were worse than they would be in the newly elected Congress.
Why would he do that?
The movie also struggles to portray the details of the lobbying effort (relying heavily on invention, imagination and more than a little corny comic relief). Yet this movie probably does better on this difficult subject than any other American film.
So, accurate? No. But excellent anyway? Absolutely. In other words, don’t go to this movie (or any historical movie) to learn the facts. Go to imagine the experience and to enjoy the illusion that a great filmmaker can create.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
As the late night comics and cable screaming heads continue to mock and skewer the small percentage of undecided voters who will tip the balance in next week’s presidential election — How can someone be so stupid as to not be able to tell the difference between the two candidates? — I learned that one of the smartest people I’ve ever met is among this derided consitituency.
Ron Granieri is a graduate of Harvard College, earned his PhD in History from the University of Chicago, and has served as a professor at an Ivy League university. Moreover, as a precocious college student — who happened to be my roommate — Ron’s near photographic memory would enable him to beat me at Trivial Pursuit without ever allowing me a turn.
I’ve asked Ron to share with the RP Nation the path of a Reagan acoloyte who became frustrated with the far right turn of the GOP, only to be later disenchanted with the promise of the Obama Administration.
Because it will be voters like Ron who could ultimately determine our next President.
When The RP approached me the other day to ask me to join in the round table of “closing statements” for one candidate or another in the presidential election, it forced me to confront something I have tried to avoid for many months.
We have all seen the skits and made the jokes about undecided voters. Saturday Night Live mocked them for being ignorant. [Watch the video at the bottom of this post — in which an undecided voter asks whether French kissing could lead to pregnancy.] The brilliant Steven Colbert recently took it even further, comparing the elusive undecided voter to Jodie Foster’s epically (if unintentionally) hilarious backcountry wild child, Nell.
I have enjoyed a few chuckles at these images myself. But deep down I have been hiding a shameful secret: I am one of them.
I never thought it would come to this.
Ron’s childhood idol
I have always been politically curious, going back to my childhood when I talked politics with my extremely political father. I can remember telling him I thought President Nixon should resign during the summer of 1974 (I was 7). By the time I was in high school in the early 1980s, I had become, following in the intellectual footsteps of my childhood idol, William F. Buckley, Jr., an enthusiastic conservative. My father, who admired Buckley in spite of rather than because of his ideology, was not completely happy about that, but he respected my positions, and we had some wonderfully spirited arguments. When the Georgetown School of Foreign Service application requested an essay outlining the one international problem I would most like to address in my future career, I wrote a perfervid essay on the need to combat international communism. No copy of the essay survives from that pre-word processing age, unless it is in a Georgetown archive somewhere, but I well remember being proud of calling communism “an international gangrene that threatens the health and safety of every society it touches.” I wonder what the folks at the Walsh School thought of it. I don’t know if it helped or not, but I did get in, even if I ended up going somewhere else.
In college I became one of the most visible conservatives on campus, editing Harvard’s monthly conservative student paper, the Salient. It culminated in my being featured in a full page of the graduation issue of the Crimson in 1989, as one of a handful of notable graduates of my class. That article, I discovered, is still available online, but when I think of it I think of the yellowing clipping that my mother framed and hung on the wall in what used to be my bedroom in Niagara Falls.
Graduation Day: Ron at far left, The RP, second from right
I had opinions on everything back then. Some of them I still hold; some I do not. A few of them make me shake my head in affectionate embarrassment for a young man who was awfully full of himself. Nevertheless, I had a pretty clear sense of where I stood on things; I voted in every election I could, and my votes followed those convictions. It was not always easy to be the most conservative person in the room (an experience that followed me from college to graduate school to at least the start of my academic career). But it worked well thanks to lots of good friends and plenty of mutual good will and respect for differences.
In 88, Ron supported Bush 41, but teen hooligans made him a sleeping billboard for the liberal Dukakis
Gradually, however, my sense of having a clear political home began to shift. Part of it was seven years living in the wonderful state of South Carolina, birthplace of both Steven Colbert and Strom Thurmond. In the final years of the last century and the early years of this one, I saw a Republican party that became increasingly focused on issues that did not appeal to me. On the local level I saw a rising tide of anti-intellectualism, anti-urbanism, and nativism. The national party displayed those traits as well, but mostly became fixated on slashing taxes, and too often responded to serious discussions about how to provide enough revenue for existing programs with vaguely neo-Confederate rhetoric about shrinking government disconnected from political reality. It was the party of the suburbs, of the Sun Belt and the Evangelicals. None of those traits much appealed to me, an Italian-Irish Catholic intellectual from a Rust Belt industrial town who prefers Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson and believes the Good Guys indisputably won The War of the Rebellion. The Cold War conservatism that I had embraced so closely, with its sense of national purpose, was dying out, and the new individualized Right was leaving me cold.
I remember well the moment when I really felt that things were slipping away. It was in spring 2000, on the eve of the South Carolina primary. I answered the phone and it was someone from the George W. Bush campaign team taking a poll. She was very pleasant, asked me if I had decided whether to vote for Bush or John McCain, and I admitted I was thinking it over. She then launched into a critique of McCain that trumpeted Bush’s plans for immediate tax cuts that would give the budget surplus back to the voters. I responded that I liked a lot of things about Governor Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” which I took to mean conservatism based not simply on individualism but which included a sense of shared community responsibility. At the same time, I told her I did not really think that it made sense to rush to cut taxes when we still had a national debt in the trillions. (This was even before Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare Part D and TARP, of course.)
An embarrassed pause followed. Then she curtly thanked me for my comments and hung up.
I should have taken that as a clear sign of where the Bush campaign stood and where my concerns fit into that agenda. But breaking up is hard to do. Even as I felt increasingly alienated from the GOP, it continued to get my votes. At least, that is, until 2008, when my frustration with the party and where it had led the country moved me to turn my back on them and vote for Barack Obama.
There, I said it. College friends may need a moment. I’ll wait. I recommend deep breaths.
Read the rest of… Ron Granieri: I’m An Undecided Voter — And Yes, I Know How Babies Are Made
The New School Free Press recently published a feature interview on one of their newest professors, contributing RP Jeff Smith. Here’s an excerpt:
Last September, Jeff Smith’s first class as assistant professor of politics and advocacy at Milano was cut abruptly short. After explaining to the class that he had recently been released from federal prison, he received a text message informing him that his pregnant wife had gone into labor. “I told the class that I would have loved to stay, but I had to go to the hospital,” Smith says. “One of the students said, ‘Man, I think we just got Punk’d.’”
The series of events that eventually brought Smith to The New School started back in 2004. It was then that Smith narrowly lost the Democratic primary in his bid to represent his home state of Missouri in the U.S. Congress. It was the first time Smith had run for office and, though he began his campaign as an underdog, the election came down to a tight race between Smith and his opponent, Russ Carnahan. During the campaign, Smith illegally coordinated with an independent political group that ran negative advertisements about Carnahan. Smith initially denied his involvement during a federal investigation of the events and submitted a false affidavit, which turned out to be his biggest mistake. After a recording of him admitting his guilt surfaced in an unrelated investigation in 2009, Smith was sentenced to one year and one day in a federal penitentiary. He was released in 2010.
Although the incident abruptly ended Smith’s political career, he came to The New School on a quest to keep political commentary as a part of his life. He’s currently a contributor for Salon, writing recently about the Todd Akin controversy and former New School president Bob Kerrey’s U.S. Senate campaign, among other political issues. The Free Press sat down with Smith recently, just after he had returned from a sleepless night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
FP: How did you end up at The New School?
JS: I saw a job opening online, and while speaking to the chairman of the search committee I mentioned how much I appreciated that [the committee] was open-minded enough to consider me, given the fact that I had just got out of prison. The chairman said, “We had a lot of applications, and at least yours stood out.”
FP: Your political and criminal background has been well documented. How do you apply your experiences to your teaching?
JS: What happened to me was that I made a mistake. What I did was relatively common in politics – but the point is that I did it, I got caught, I paid the price, [and] I learned first of all that even the smallest attempt to cut corners can get you in a lot of trouble. Hopefully, in a broader perspective, I can use my experiences to help public officials around the country operate in ways that are always 100 percent ethical.
From a teaching perspective, young people are obviously very impressionable and see teachers, in many cases, as role models. I try not to make a cornerstone out of my experiences, but I’ve had good opportunities within the context of the courses I teach to explain how in any campaign, the smallest mistakes can have outsized consequences.
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Leadership and leaning….
If you feel at a crossroads with some worthwhile endeavor a version of the “fight or flight” instinct is about to kick in.
I call it the “lean away from” or “lean into” syndrome. It’s not so much an instinct or syndrome as much as a habit we develop over time. How people approach the “check out” or “ramp it up” decision is what distinguishes, in large measure, the winners and losers in life.
Those who anticipate tough times ahead when undertaking any job worth doing and are prepared to kick it up a notch when that inevitable tough moment comes, are the people I admire most. Some say what these role models emulate for us is courage; some say it’s persistence; others say it’s a commitment to a clear vision.
I think it’s more of a habit we have developed. A habit of how we chose to lean when it counts.
In last week’s debate, Mitt Romney opened a can of worms, threatening to cut PBS funding even though “he loves Big Bird”. People started tweeting, chirping, and otherwise chiming in almost instantaneously – sure, there were plenty of comments about the basic math mistake (PBS funding is .012% of the national budget, so it hardly counts as responsible for our borrowing from China), misplaced priorities (how come adding a $5 trillion tax cut and boosting an already inflated defense budget don’t also concern Romney), and more, but the biggest outcry came on behalf of the big yellow bird himself. Now even without public funding, Sesame Street would go on, thanks to generous viewers, sponsorship, and highly successful merchandising (“Tickle Me Elmo”, anyone). But it was a fascinating illustration of the huge impact of public television for children, now that a couple of generations have grown up with Sesame Street and the other popular shows.
I’m going to date myself here by admitting that Sesame Street didn’t go on the air until I was already in elementary school, but I still remember it vividly (and loved to watch the other shows from my day, including the original Electric Company). My husband was 3 at that time, so he was the absolute perfect target audience and watched avidly. (Yes, I’m a cradle-robbing cougar, and I love it!) And I was re-introduced to PBS kids’ shows when I had my own kids – they particularly loved the music videos, like “Put Down The Ducky (If You Want To Play The Saxophone)”. I loved the puns that were clearly designed to keep us bleary parents entertained, like Ethel Mermaid singing “I Get a Kick Out Of U”. And PBS was great about generally making sure its kids programming appealed to parents – I can’t be the only mother who noticed that the adorable young men who hosted Blues Clues were pretty easy on the eyes.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, Romney clearly touched a nerve – so in tribute to PBS programming in general, Big Bird in particular, and the Sesame Street tradition of fun music, here’s a musical plea for our favorite large yellow non-flying bird . . .
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Oct 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM ET
Here’s picture proof that something can be both obnoxiously disgraceful and spiritually uplifting at the same time.
Trolling through Harvard Yard before I speak to the Harvard Hillel at 5:30 PM this afternoon about “The Liberal Case for Israel” — Join us 52 Mount Auburn Street if you are in the area — I noticed the door open to my old freshman dorm room. After begging the unfortunate current teen resident to let this old codger in, I noticed that the Springsteen poster, rows of beer cans and “couch of death” (don’t ask) from 1985-86 were no longer wreaking sensory havoc.
Instead, it was sort of a spiritual journey. This was the room where I finally gained my independence, made lifetime friends, and began a whole new life’s chapter. Too many memories — mostly great, some tragically embarrassing — flashed back in an instant. And when I snapped the picture above, I realized I was capturing the very spot at which I first professed my crush (telephonically, and a bit intoxicated of course) to my now wife of 23 years.
I cherish my college years, but the first will always be the most special. And my freshman dorm room will always occupy a very, very important place in my deeply nostalgic heart.
So, thanks to the guys of Holworthy Hall for letting me be a little creepy. Hopefully, it will embolden you to embarrass the next generation of freshman when you too get to middle age.
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
A few weeks ago, I received an interesting assignment from my hometown newspaper, the Lexington Herald-Leader: For a special section that would highlight what was especially special about Central Kentucky — “Go Big Bluegrass” — I was asked to prepare an essay on the state’s rich political history…in 400 words or less.
Here’s an excerpt from my piece:
Despite its modest size and a location that’s remote from the centers of power, Kentucky has exercised considerable political influence since nearly the beginning of the republic.
Much of our early prominence stemmed from Lexingtonian Henry Clay, arguably the most influential politician of the early 19th century. Though he’d famously “rather be right than be president” — and proved it by losing several presidential bids — Clay occupied many other important national offices, from speaker of the House to secretary of state.
Most significantly, “The Great Compromiser’s” scrupulous and diligent statesmanship helped delay civil war for several decades. Clay’s greatest triumph, however, may have been in inspiring into public service the very rail-splitter who led us through that bloody conflict.
While Abraham Lincoln spent his formative years in Illinois, his iconic log cabin birthplace is in Hodgenville; he married into a prominent Lexington family; and as president, he clearly recognized the strategic value of his home state: “I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky,” he said.
And then let me know how I did: Whom did unfairly omit? How did I err, exaggerate or evade?
And best of all — if you can do it better, leave your 400 word attempt in the comments section below. Or send me an email to Staff@TheRecoveringPolitician.com.
By Loranne Ausley, on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
No region of America has experienced as much social and political change over the past two generations as the American South. In less than half a century, it evolved from a Democratic stronghold into a region dominated by conservative policymakers. Not surprisingly, such a change profoundly impacted the lives of Southern citizens. It also altered the American legislative dynamic.
However, the South remains in flux. Driven by changes in demographics, it has over the past few election cycles shown increasingly Progressive tendencies. Accordingly, Project New America – which was formed five years ago as Project New West by Western leaders, thinkers, and strategists as a tool to interpret and exploit the values and attitudes driving two decades of dramatic growth in the West – has now turned its resources and expertise to the South.
In an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the opportunities inherent in the South’s changing fabric, Project New America officially launched The Southern Project at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in September, 2012. Modeled after its successful efforts in the West, this collaboration of Southern leaders will conduct and compile state-based research designed to guide strategy, messaging and civic engagement efforts.
Project New America’s subscription model provides a ready-made dissemination mechanism for its research and strategy tools. Many progressive actors in the South already receive PNA research through their national annual subscriptions. PNA is also developing a robust training program to ensure that its research and data can be easily translated into action. Specific deliverables include a series of trainings and the development of a comprehensive tool-kit of strategies and actionable language that will be made available to PNA subscribers and other Progressive stakeholders in the Southern region.
The Southern Project currently includes a broad scope of research in Florida and North Carolina that will provide a critical foundation upon which PNA can build. Initial research projects and intensive trainings have been completed this summer. Coming next is a regional effort that will begin to provide stakeholders with a much richer understanding of Southern voters, and the values-based messaging that can resonate with them. The goal is not merely success over the next few elections, but a state-by-state shift reversing the trends of the past five decades.
Please click here to take a look at our new website and learn more about The Southern Project by clicking here.
By Nancy Slotnick, on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
I love my job. I get to help people find love. But better than that. I get to help them enjoy it after they’ve found it. As a dating coach, people hire me (primarily successful smart attractive single women) to help them when they are ready to find the One. I don’t find it for them. (That would be too easy, right?) I don’t actually believe that it works that way. Matchmakers who promise that they can find love for you if you pay them thousands of dollars are often flim-flamming you.
That being said, I do have a matchmaking site on Facebook. It’s called Matchmaker Café. We don’t charge thousands of dollars- just the same amount as what online dating sites charge. And we set up the date for you- ‘cuz that’s the hardest part! But I digress.
True love finds you. You just have to be open to it. That’s what I call “turning your Cablight on.” But that’s not the real trick of love. (It’s not supposed to be about turning tricks, either.) The trick is to be happy once you find it. I have a lot of clients who think that once they find the “One” that they should fire me. And they may be right, of course. There’s a reason that Recovering Dater sounds like I’m part of a 12 step Program (more than a writer of a blog.) That’s because once you find love, you shouldn’t be interested in dating anymore! And you certainly shouldn’t need a dating coach.
However, even once you find that [almost] perfect person, you have a choice of being hopelessly miserable with each other or hopelessly romantic. Or everything in between.
The beginning stages of dating are like precedents in the law. Once certain patterns are set, there’s no going back. And you will always refer back to that pattern. It’s like when a river dries up but there is still the path. Pour a big rainstorm back in and that water goes in the same direction that it always did for years. Enough metaphors for you? Sorry about that- here’s a real world example.
One of the hardest jobs I’ve ever done in my life was teaching Hebrew school when I was in college. It’s hard enough to be a teacher and control the classroom. But then try controlling a classroom of kids who have been in school for 8 hours that day already! $12 per hour was a lot of money in those days- it had to be. So, in the event that you have been a teacher then you will know what I mean about this- the very first day is your only shot for establishing order and discipline. The students can get to know you and like you later. But if you are “soft” on the first day, you’re done for the year. By the next year you have learned, but it’s a new class by then.
