How to use this Page

Sometimes it takes an outsider's point of view to see society as it truly is. Such keen insights are abundant in Bite the Hand That Feeds You, a collection of the work of British-born journalist Henry Fairlie compiled by Newsweek contributor Jeremy McCarter. Fairlie, who passed away in 1990, is known for his controversial, at times even caustic, political essays and for his popularization of the term “the Establishment”. Fairlie clearly had a knack for describing complex ideas in the simplest and most elegant of terms. In his essay, “My America,” for example, he argues that one may understand the concept of democracy through a single two-letter word: “Hi". He writes:

"As I often say – for Americans do not realize it – the word is a democracy. (I come from a country where one can tell someone’s class by how they say ‘Hallo!’ or ‘Hello!’ or ‘Hullo,’ or whether they say it at all.) But anyone can say ‘Hi!’ Anyone does.”

Click here to watch an interview with Jeremy McCarter at a recent book party for Bite the Hand That Feeds You.

In the wake of the recent New Haven firefighters’ race-discrimination suit and the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the judicial branch has been thrust once again into the national limelight. With it has arrived that most familiar of partisan legal tropes—the accusation of judicial activism, or “legislating from the bench”.

At its core, the debate over judicial activism pits the assertion that the Constitution is incontrovertible against the claim that the document may be reconsidered and amended to reflect changes in society. In his book, The Myth of Judicial Activism, Kermit Roosevelt III tackles this debate head-on through an analysis of several key cases concerning America’s most controversial issues, including gay rights and abortion. Roosevelt’s clear sense of constitutional doctrine will be helpful to any student of the law, as well as concerned citizens wondering the meaning behind the political buzzwords.

While the recent climate change legislation passed in the House of Representatives represents the first time Congress has approved a bill targeted at global warming, its passage does not come without controversy. The focus of the bill is a cap-and-trade system in which the total amount of emission pollution is capped and companies can trade pollution permits. Over time, the cap decreases, theoretically driving up the cost of emissions and encouraging companies to develop cleaner technologies’; however, the system has been criticized as a tax by Republicans.

In his book A Question of Balance, William Nordhaus seeks out a solution to the problems of climate change through economic analysis. He provides a thorough breakdown of the costs and benefits of a variety of policy options. The economic models that he uses provide insight into the complexity of the problem and the difficulty in finding a solution. We hope Nordhaus' next book will detail ways to avoid the wasteful "compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts" that seem to accompany the passage of every bill.

Historians of European history use the phrase “100 Days” to refer to the 111 days between Napoleon Bonaparte’s escape from exile on Elbe to the time when King Louis XVIII was restored (again) to the French throne. Napoleon’s defeat in the Battle of Waterloo took place during this period. An interesting fact about the phrase “100 Days,” perhaps, but it is not relevant to how we in the United States use the phrase today.

FDR’s First 100 Days Journalists and historians today refer to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first 100 days in office as the benchmark for all subsequent U.S. presidents. Actually, the phrase referred to the time from when FDR called Congress into a special session on March 9, 1933, until Congress adjourned in mid-June of that year. The Roosevelt administration accomplished a lot in that time period: FDR outlined and got Congress to pass 15 major bills, most of the programs that came to be known as the “First New Deal.”

Obama’s First 100 Days The press is full of stories about what President Barack Obama’s administration has accomplished in its first 100 days. It has become a tradition of journalists to write such stories about each new presidential administration regardless of how useful such summaries or analyses are. Some of the analyses are critical, such as one that appeared online today in the New York Post. Some, such as Lynn Sweet’s blog for the Chicago Sun-Times, are sympathetic. Still others are somewhere in between, such as Gerald F. Sieb’s Wall Street Journal blog. Sieb says that Obama is a hard man to classify. He points out that some of Obama’s foreign policy is more popular among Republicans than Democrats. He cites the protectionist label on Obama despite the fact that Obama has been pushing free trade agreements made by the Bush administration. Also, he references Obama’s call for sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan than the previous administration had planned on. The Obama administration itself is playing down the importance of the first hundred days, calling April 29, 2009, a “Hallmark holiday.”

Conclusion As an historian, I find it hard to sum up Obama’s first hundred days in office. We do not know which, if any, of the laws that he pushed and were passed by Congress are going to be effective. Despite a flurry of visits with foreign leaders, we are not sure what Obama’s foreign policy is going to be. Like most Americans, I am hopeful that things are going to get better with the country led by this president. But anything can happen, even unexpected events like the current swine flu outbreak.

One of the first books I wrote was entitled The Retreat from Imperialism. In the final chapter, I did what many historians have done (although, in my youthful naiveté, I thought I was being original) and compared the modern U.S.A. to the Roman Empire of antiquity. Obviously, there are many points of similarity. We have attempted to use our superior military power to impose our will upon other nations; we have contracted alliances which operate, to a degree, in response to our leadership; we have exerted sufficient control over undeveloped and developing peoples to make them akin to colonials; we have facilitated the extension of our trade network across the globe; etc. In the ancient world, Roman citizenship was a sought-after prize, just as American citizenship is to many today. Like the Romans, we regard our language and culture as being superior; today English is becoming the universal language that Latin was in ancient and medieval times. Modern Americans enjoy blood sports, as did the Romans, not only on the athletic field, but in our books and films. In my opinion, the similarities became most apparent during the administration of President George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and their followers held dear the image of an imperial America, which would do as it liked in the world in accordance with its own rules, as was permissible for the world’s only super power.

However, it is in the evolution of the American presidency, with all the pomp and glamour surrounding it, that we see the projection of the image of power and supremacy that no Caesar would fail to recognize and appreciate. What is the Secret Service, but a modern version of the Praetorian Guard? It came as no surprise, therefore, when a recent edition of the Times (U.K.), published an article with the following headline: “BARACK OBAMA—HE’S EMPEROR TITUS 2000 YEARS ON.” The author, Natalie Haynes, described President Obama as the modern incarnation of the emperor Titus, who ruled the Roman Empire from 79 to 81 A.D., before death cut short his reign. Perhaps a bit of background would be useful. Following the death by suicide of the emperor Nero in 69 A.D., Rome went through a period of turmoil known as the Year of the Four Emperors. The instability ended when the troops commanded by Vespasian, who was crushing a major revolt of Rome’s Jewish subjects in the province of Judea, hailed their tough and popular general as Caesar. After being raised to the purple, Vespasian departed for Rome, leaving command of his legions to his oldest son, Titus. It was Titus who completed the task of defeating the rebellious Zealots, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple that was the center of Jewish religious life, sent thousands of Jewish prisoners of war into slavery (many of them built the new Flavian Amphitheater or Coliseum), and renamed Judea as Syria Palestina. In Rome, Vespasian established the Flavian Dynasty, introduced a new era of fiscal responsibility, and generally put the empire in far better order than it had been under Nero. When Titus returned to Rome, he brought with him the beautiful and voluptuous Jewish queen, Bernice. Their passionate love affair titillated some and scandalized others in Roman society. It ended when Vespasian, a conservative, no-frills type of emperor, gave Titus a choice between his Jewish girlfriend and eventual advancement to the throne, which required a traditional Roman marriage and family. Reluctantly, Titus sent Bernice home. Upon the death of Vespasian, he became emperor.

So what does this have to do with President Barack Obama? The Roman historian Suetonius tells us that Titus was a person of great charm. He had “winning ways—perhaps inborn, perhaps cultivated subsequently, or conferred on him by fortune—that he became an object of universal love and adoration.” The Times author observes that the same could have been written about Obama during his presidential campaign. Titus was probably the most popular emperor in Roman history. Whether the same will be said of Obama when he completes his presidency remains to be seen. Ms. Haynes then postulates that all leading politicians are reworked emperors. They just have to be matched up.

Vespasian, 69–79 A.D., was not from Rome. He was a country boy, who spoke with a rustic accent. Ordinary people responded well to his folksy charm. So it was with George W. Bush. Like W, Vespasian was drawn into a bloody war in the Middle East. Vespasian was hit on the knee with a stone. Apparently, he lacked W’s quick reflexes when threatened with an unexpected missile. Upon his death, Vespasian said “Vae! Poto deus fio.” (“Oh, oh—I think I am becoming a god.”) Fortunately for the Romans, Vespasian controlled his economy better than Bush did ours.

Augustus, 31 B.C.–14 A.D., was the first emperor of Rome. He avoided the fate of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar, by not calling himself an emperor, or dictator, although he had the powers of both. Instead, he accepted the title of Pater Patriae (Father of his Country), Pontifex Maximus (Chief Priest), and Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals). Of course, Augustus was more equal than anyone else, except his wife, Livia, who murdered anyone who stood between the throne and her son, Tiberius. In the end, Livia may have poisoned Augustus. However, his skill with spin enabled Augustus to rule for 45 years. Ms. Haynes regards him as the perfect model for Tony Blair, whose mastery of spin made him Britain’s longest serving prime minister.

Ms. Haynes offers other examples. However, the above should be sufficient to enable the reader to decide how accurate her hypothesis is. I should mention that in addition to being a classicist, Ms. Haynes is also a standup comedian.

Next Tuesday, when Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, we at Amsco might actually hear the bells ringing in change. That’s not a metaphor. Trinity Church, here in New York City, will literally be ringing in change on the only set of 12 change-ringing bells in the entire country.

The North American Guild of Change Ringers (they’re big in Canada) explains that change ringing requires people to manually ring bells that swing 360 degrees to create non-repeating patterns of rings.

And now we’ve come to the math. Woohoo!
Unique arrangements of bells are an example of permutations.
If you have 12 bells and you want to ring all 12 in a row, they can be rung in 12P12 = 12! = 479,001,600 ways.

This is some epic bell ringing–the ringers will be at it for 3.5 hours. However, since this is the length of a typical peal, during which about 5,000 changes are rung, not all 479,001,600 permutations will be performed. I’m going to be impressed anyway.

If you are interested in learning more about the mathematics of change ringing, take a look at this Web site provided by the University of Minnesota.

Enjoy Inauguration Day!

Jessica

With Barack Obama's recent pledge to get serious about balancing the budget, the New York Times' David Leonhardt sought out the group of people that are, he writes, "ideally suited to help Mr. Obama with this task": behavioral economists. Citing the work of University of Chicago economist and YUP author Richard Thaler, Leonhardt indicates that further studies into the economics of everyday decision-making could set the example for more responsible federal spending and more efficiently managed resources.

In Nudge, Thaler and co-author Cass Sunstein posit that little changes in the way we think about our money, health, and personal freedoms can improve our daily decisions and be implemented as larger-scale government policies. Leonhardt's column cites a 2006 pension bill that incentivized 401 (k) participation as behavioral economics' first "big policy success". With more input from economists like Thaler, we could see what Leonhardt calls "a better government, one that wastes less money and does more to improve people’s lives."

For more nudges in the right direction, check out Thaler and Sunstein's frequently updated Nudges blog.

For political science junkies, this election season has been a two-year dream come true. There are a million studies waiting to be written on Obama???s online fundraising techniques and McCain???s maverick vice-presidential pick, but while you???re in line at the polls or watching the results come in, you can check out these YUP titles for some inspiration.

George C. Edwards???s Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America casts our voting system into question, while Michael Abramowicz's Predictocracy can help you hone your polling technique. And for a souvenir of 2008???s historic campaign, what could be better than the political insights of the staff of the New Republic in Election 2008: A Voter???s Guide?

If you haven???t yet voted, it???s not too late to be a part of history. Click here to find your polling place and make your voice heard.

As seasoned Israeli journalists, Ginor and Remez had a great deal of experience and perspective to bring to their study of the 1967 conflict, which argues that Soviet and Arab powers collaborated to induce aggression from Israel before its nascent nuclear program could progress. Their investigation is grounded extensive research, which draws upon both Israeli sources and newly available Soviet documents. Click here to hear an interview with the authors on the Yale Press Podcast. 

Do the most innovative economic solutions come from the private sector or from the state? In the midst of an economic slowdown and an election year, the question is unavoidable. Concerned readers might find insights in Dan Breznitz's Innovation and the State, which was announced the winner of the 2008 Don K. Price Award for the Best Book in Science and Technology Politics at last weekend's meeting of the American Political Science Association.

In Innovation and the State, Breznitz uses case studies of Israel, Ireland, and Taiwan to analyze different approaches to developing Information Technology (IT) industries. His argument, supported by extensive research, indicates that the answer to that nagging question may not be simply a choice between private enterprise or the state. In fact, it may be both.

This is the second year in a row that a Yale University Press book has won the APSA's prestigious Don K. Price Award. In 2007, Yochai Benkler's treatise on globalization, individual freedom, and technology, The Wealth of Networks, earned the same distinction.

We all know that John Kennedy became our president in 1960 and was assassinated on November 22, 1963. We also know that his younger brother Robert was one step away from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee in 1968, and thus from taking on the man his brother beat in 1960, Richard Nixon. What a lot of people don’t know is that the Kennedys had an older brother, named after their father Joseph, who died during World War II.

Joseph Kennedy Jr. died on this day, August 12th, 1944. He was 29 years old. Joe was actually the one who was supposed to become president. Unlike his often sickly little brother John, Joe was the classic alpha male. Two years older than John, he also did all the things Kennedys are known for. He garnered honors at prep school, went on to college at Harvard, then Harvard Law, which he dropped out of to join the Navy during World War II. He was a pilot and flew more missions than he needed to in order to fulfill his duties in the war.

The ironic thing is, in a family already so well know for tragedy, the reason he flew his fatal, top-secret mission was that he wanted to one-up his little brother. John had recently become an American war hero by saving the men of his PT-109 ship off the coast of the Philippines after it had been destroyed by an enemy ship. The news was well known throughout the states (more than likely because of their father's press connections). Not to be outdone by his little brother, Joe Jr. stayed on after his crew was dismissed to fly a top secret mission to take out German missiles.

Unfortunately for Joe (and a great “what if” for history), the plane exploded right after take off. Whatever you may think of the Kennedys or, for that matter, of politics in general, this person may have had a major impact on our country and the world. He had the looks and cool of John and the veracity and intelligence of Robert. I find his story an interesting one and worth telling.

The recent passing of retired senior military official and former Yale professor William Odom has given many the chance to reflect on his life of service and scholarship. In his work with the Carter and Reagan administrations, Odom maintained a hard-line stance on the Soviet Union, a nation that had fascinated him since his days as a student at West Point. More recently, Odom had been a staunch critic of the war in Iraq, never sacrificing his independence from political parties to oppose the conflict.

We at the Yale Press are proud that part of Lt. Gen. Odom’s legacy lives on in print. The Collapse of the Soviet Military (8/2000), his first book with YUP, presents his exper t’s argument for the scaling back of the Soviet armed forces after the fall of the Union, drawing upon both field experience and original research. In America’s Inadvertent Empire (2/2004), Odom joins former Council on Foreign Relations fellow Robert Dujarric to argue against American unilateralism and question the conventional wisdom that the spread of democracy serves as a panacea for global conflict. Finally, Odom’s study of American security, Fixing Intelligence (4/2004), offers his post-9/11 suggestions for tightening protocols to encourage more effective cooperation between security and intelligence officials.