Use The Tubes
Parenthetical Book Club: American Creation.
Not that you'd know it from this blog, but my book-a-month plan has been coming along nicely. In fact, some travel time allowed me to wrap up April's book right away. It was Joseph J. Ellis' American Creation: Triumphs & Tragedies At The Founding Of The Republic.
I'm not sure how much I have to offer that isn't written on the Amazon page , but the book does do a few notable things. It gives some three-dimensional depth to many Founding Fathers (Monroe in particular, for me), illuminating the social dynamics we don't often consider -- perpetual opponents, allies of convenience, mentors, etc.
Ellis also very successfully dispels the idea that these smart guys just went into a room, came up with this great idea, and that was that. Establishing a sense of linear time, as opposed to a big mental slab called Early American History, also creates a sense of depth by illustrating how different founding fathers had different degrees of involvement in given acts, ranging from intimately responsible to nowhere to be seen. In short, all of these moments were team efforts, but the roster was always changing.
One startling reminder was that America faced a fairly sizable governmental crisis in terms of basic functionality in its first decade. And negotiation over content notwithstanding, the proposed solution -- the Constitution itself -- came very, very close to not being ratified, largely because of the opposition of some very familiar names (Patrick Henry, anyone?).
Once in place -- despite those who would have you think its meaning is very clear -- the nature of the document intentionally invited disagreement over what it meant and conveyed. While most inconvenient now, its creators intentionally muddied the document's meaning in many ways. Why? Because creating ample wiggle room for each side of the state vs. federal power issue, so that no side felt totally betrayed and both could see potential for advancing its cause, was the only way the document would ever get accepted.
(Similarly, the great names personally abhorred the idea of political parties but eventually realized they would become a natural byproduct of the concessions and compromises necessary to give this new country a chance at stability. The ideological argument and annoying power struggle we see daily in the political realm is largely built right into our fabric, intended to be fought and never won -- a fact endlessly annoying to each successive generation of those of us who know what's really best.)
It's clear that this enterprise might've failed at any of a few moments for very good reasons. It's clear that raw, regional self-interest (hello, Virginia farmers) contributed to major decisions that we might wish were the fruit of more noble thoughts. It's clear that Jefferson and Washington, for their great accomplishments, also knew huge failure (the Native American question, for them both), slavery and ideas about race (Jefferson), and hypocrisy (the executive power behind President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase).
Not that the book overemphasizes the flaws of these men; it merely doesn't ignore them during these passages in history. In that sense, the approach increases one's appreciation and wonder for what they managed to establish, as not American demigods but mere educated men taking on an amazing improvisation in civilization with no precedent to work with. Peeking in on the decisions and policies that we take for granted now is one of the best parts of the book, jarring the reader loose from the surface-level boilerplate mythology we generally carry around. The truth is a lot more interesting a little further down, where the people are more than familiar names and when the outcomes are not a given.
I'm just kinda tossing these thoughts down because I wanted to post before tonight's installment of the John Adams series. I finished the book shortly before last week's episode; I knew the show had a considerable loyalty to authenticity, but I was stunned at how many lines in the episode were taken verbatim from letters and notes from these men. I can only assume the other episodes are similar and that I just didn't know enough to recognize it. The screenplay must've been a Herculean challenge, not only hitting the main points in Adams' life but using even peripheral moments in the script to use direct quotes and faithfully building the other "characters" a little more.
In an election year, you can't miss the similarities of political life between then and now. It's a little depressing, but also a little comforting.