Rugged Individualism Versus Federal Paternalism in US History

Aug 24, 2010 Michael Streich

Advocates of rugged individualism portray their argument as an attempt to defend Americanism from federal paternalism and state socialism.

Rugged individualism, most commonly associated with President Herbert Hoover, has seen many faces in American history. It is the conservative side in the debate on how much governmental interference should exist in American society and in the regulation of American business. Speaking in New York in 1928, Hoover warned that the other side of individualism was “centralized despotism.” That argument has been raised politically many times since FDR’s New Deal. It helped fuel some of the 1930s opposition to the New Deal. Today, similar arguments are used politically to define the differences between the growing Tea Party movement and the policies of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Individualism in American Social and Political History

In 1928 Herbert Hoover spoke of the American nation following World War I: “…we were challenged…between the American system of rugged individualism,” he stated, “and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines – doctrines of paternalism and state socialism.” Hoover was himself a self-made man who valued the lessons originally advocated by 18th Century philosopher Adam Smith and his views on laissez faire.

Hoover maintained that it was rugged individualism that produced the tremendous wealth of the nation. During those decades in American History, Henry Ford seemed to characterize that ideal of individualism. A man with a vision and unbridled determination, he built one of the largest industries. According to Time (September 11, 1933), however, he ran afoul of President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA). Under the NRA code, wages in his industry were capped at forty-three cents and hour; Ford was paying his workers fifty cents an hour.

The federal government, attempting for force compliance, threatened to license him out of business. According to Time, “It was the first clean-cut major encounter between the new ‘robust collectivism’ and a prime exponent of the old ‘rugged individualism.’” In 1957, novelist Ayn Rand published Atlas Shrugged in which a fictional individualist, Hank Rearden, is coerced by the government into giving up his secret formula for the revolutionary “Rearden steel,” at a time individualism was being replaced by socialist policies.

Individualism as a Part of the Great American Dream

Writing in Time (October 15, 1984), Roger Rosenblatt all but asserts that individualism was always a myth of sorts and that America was never a “collection of loners.” Rosenblatt was writing in the midst of the Reagan presidency at a time individualism was being debated intellectually and politically. Much like Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover, Ronald Reagan championed less government and an end to the welfare state. One of his 1980 campaign promises had been to eliminate the newly formed Department of Education.

Rugged individualism in American history never implied a collection of loners. Cornelius Vanderbilt borrowed $100 from his mother at age 16 and turned that money into one of the greatest shipping empires. The Vanderbilts, like Andrew Carnegie, gave back to society through philanthropic endeavors, much like Bill and Melinda Gates are doing today through their foundation.

Those who saw rugged individualism as an integral part of attaining the American Dream, like Teddy Roosevelt during the Progressive Era, recognized that there would always be “malefactors of great wealth” that needed to be reigned in through federal regulation. But this was very different from creating a system whereby the federal government provided long-term assistance to millions – or so the proponents of individualism argued.

The Renewed Date of Individualism and the Socialist State in 2010

In July 2010 members of an Iowa Tea Party received national attention after displaying a billboard that pictured Obama flanked by pictures of Hitler and Lenin. The phrase above Obama stated “Democrat Socialism.” Earlier in 2010, Obama’s health care initiatives, notably the “public option,” were labeled as being socialist. Those making these claims fervently believed that the “American way” was being threatened and that the Constitution was under attack.

In a more extreme case, Nevada Tea Party senatorial candidate Sharron Angle has, at various times, advocated America’s leaving the United Nations and eliminating Social Security and Medicare. She opposes separation of church and state, debunks global warning, and wants to do away with the Department of Education. (The Economist, August 21-27, 2010) Yet, according the Economist, she and her husband draw government pensions.

Angel’s extreme positions are not shared by all members of conservative groups like the Tea Party, but they all want to see less federal paternalism and are in favor of not letting the so-called tax cuts “on the rich” expire. It is the same debate that, in American History, pits less government involvement in the lives of Americans and in American business against expanding regulation and what some have called “Big Brotherism.”

The Blurred Debate of Federal Regulation and Rugged Individualism

President Theodore Roosevelt is one of America’s best examples of rugged individualism, although he was born into wealth. Roosevelt, however, challenged average Americans to pursue the American Dream in the same way Ralph Waldo Emerson a century earlier advocated a spirit of individualism compatible with America’s pioneering spirit. There was always a new frontier to conquer and tame.

Yet even Roosevelt saw that extreme laissez faire represented abuses. He attacked the ruthless business practices of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. He took a cue from the muckrakers of the time, like Ida Tarbell and Sinclair Lewis’ expose of the Chicago meat packing industry. Today’s debaters could learn from that.

Before the BP oil spill, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called for less federal interference in the states, yet after the spill complained that the federal government wasn’t doing enough. Rugged individualism defines an American attitude. What comes out of that attitude must be addressed by balance.

Sources:

• William E. Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity 1914-32 (University of Chicago Press, 1958)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America (Penguin Books, 1984)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 Imperial Japan Viciously and without Warning Attacked the American Naval Base in the Pacific on December 7th.

Pearl Harbor Attack Converts Isolationists in 1941

• Nov 11, 2011
• Michael Streich

There were several isolationist viewpoints prior to U.S. entry into World War II but the Pearl Harbor attack unified all Americans against tyranny.

On Monday, December 8, 1941, every U.S. Senator and representative except one, voted to go to war with the empire of Japan. Only Montana Representative Jeanette Rankin, a life-long pacifist, demurred. The Pearl Harbor attack united Americans and instantly converted the isolationists in Congress. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg recalled his own immediate change after receiving a telephone call about the attack Sunday at four o’clock in the afternoon: “That day ended isolationism for any realist.”

Isolationism before the Pearl Harbor Attack

Isolationism is still used to describe the ideology of those not willing to intervene in foreign matters unless the impact of such affairs directly threatens U.S. security interests. In the years before Pearl Harbor, isolationists believed that the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were natural barriers, protecting the United States from the anti-democratic regimes creating havoc in Europe and Asia.

Extreme isolationists believed that any U.S. assistance either directly or indirectly would result in foreign entanglements inconsistent with Constitutional prerogatives. They pointed to World War I and deplored the prospect of sending American boys to fight in foreign wars.

Isolationists Represented Liberal and Conservative Views

Pearl Harbor and World War II changed the meaning of isolationism. Pre-war isolationists that criticized Franklin Roosevelt’s handling of the war were, often ironically, dubbed reactionaries and anti-interventionists despite their life-long liberal pedigrees. This included Democrat Burton Wheeler and Jeanette Rankin. Wheeler, in his memoirs, comments that, “Never before had the question of whether one was a liberal or conservative turned on his view of foreign policy.”

Isolationists like Vandenberg hated Communism and fascism as much as those eager to commit to war. On September 15, 1939 Vandenberg wrote in his diary, “…I decline to embrace the opportunistic idea…that we can stop these things in Europe without entering the conflict.” Isolationists viewed every White House attempt to assist Britain and France as a potential door through which the United States would step into a long and bloody conflict much like World War I.

Senator Gerald P. Nye’s committee hearings on World War I, culminating in a controversial report in 1936, provided some ammunition for isolationists and Americans favoring neutrality. Historian Wayne Cole states that, “It is significant that the particular controversy that ended the investigation in 1936 involved President Woodrow Wilson’s role in World War I – not the activities of munitions makers.” Like Wilson, FDR appeared to be maneuvering the nation into war, a perception that led to later conspiracy theories linking Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack. Senator Tom Connally writes in his memoirs that, “…the most effective medium for channeling American public opinion into isolationism during this period was the Nye Committee investigation…”

Connally blamed Gerald Nye and “his cohort” Arthur Vandenberg for using the committee hearings to publish “half-truths” in order to further their isolationist agenda. According to Connally, this included a blistering indictment of Wall Street and U.S. bankers that “duped” the government “…into shedding American blood” in 1917. Connally also identified different “schools” of isolationism, equating, for example, Burton Wheeler with anti-British sentiments. Another isolationist viewpoint was attributed to William Borah who believed in the two-ocean defense idea and had been one of the chief opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.

Japanese Action Unites Americans

1941 was a crucial year for Britain as it struggled against what was perceived as an imminent invasion by Nazi Germany. In January 1941, as the issue of Lend-Lease was being debated in Congress, the New York Times stated that, given the scope of European affairs, the ideology separating isolationists from “interventionists” had become academic. According to the Times, “The Roosevelt Administration opposed ironclad isolation, insisting that a great nation must lift its voice against treaty violations and infringements of international law…”

Pearl Harbor ended the debate. A New York Times editorial, referring to the years of “Hamletlike irresolution,” concluded that the declarations of war “instantly united us” and brought a sense of relief to all Americans: “Their spirit was no longer troubled; their soul was no longer divided; they knew at last what they must do.”

The same sentiment had been expressed in Congress on December 8th where one representative referred to the “war mad Japanese devils…” American hero Charles A. Lindbergh, a leader in the isolationist movement, volunteered to serve with the Army Air Corps. His acceptance was hailed as “a symbol of…newfound unity.”

Burton Wheeler’s early 1941 predictions that the “New Deal Triple A foreign policy [would] plow under every fourth American boy…” were not unfounded, but other observers compared the United States to 1917 when a declaration of war was almost too late. The Pearl Harbor attack, defended by General Tojo at his trial in 1947, forever ended isolationism.

The subsequent Cold War imposed an on-going interventionist policy supported by former isolationists like Arthur Vandenberg. The defense of democracy became a global imperative not by design but from the lessons of history and the impossibility of avoiding foreign entanglements.

References:

• “America’s Role: A National Debate,” New York Times, January 19, 1941
• Wayne S. Cole, Senator Gerald P. Nye and American Foreign Relations (The University of Minnesota Press, 1962)
• Tom Connally, My Name Is Tom Connally (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954)
• “The Lone War Dissenter,” NPR, December 7, 2001
• Arthur H. Vandenberg, Jr., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952)
• Burton K. Wheeler, Yankee from the West (Doubleday & Company, 1962)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

The author has visited Pearl Harbor four times.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 Forty-Acres and a Mule 

Civil War Promises Made and Unkept

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101 April 2010

Special Field Orders, No. 15 was signed by General William T. Sherman January 16, 1865, creating forty-acre plots out of land south of Charleston, South Carolina for approximately 40,000 freedmen and their families. “Sherman’s Reservation” was most commonly identified with the phrase “forty acres and a mule,” although confiscated land was parceled out to freedmen throughout the South under the supervision of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Policy changes under President Andrew Johnson, however, returned most lands to former owners, evictions that were carried out by the army.

 

Origin of Forty Acres and a Mule

 

By late 1864 and into 1865, General Sherman’s army was shadowed by thousands of freed slaves, posing a logistical problem and forcing the issue of what was to become of the slaves after emancipation. After conferring with Secretary of War Stanton in Savannah, Sherman issued field orders establishing homesteads for the freedmen, instructing that they be loaned mules to assist in land tilling.

 

Sherman’s order, however, subjected the temporary arrangement to a time “until Congress shall regulate their title.” Further, Section V of the order details management of the settlement to an Inspector “who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing…” Possessory titles carry no registration of a land claim and subject the settler to a period of years before actual ownership of the land can be acquired.

 

In contrast, a fee-simple title is characterized by absolute ownership of land. General Sherman, in his memoirs, denies the granting of fee-simple titles to the freedmen. Under Realty law, such titles are unqualified. The Freedmen living on confiscated land had no such title and according to Sherman, no such title was ever intended.

 

Andrew Johnson’s Policy of Pardon

 

Andrew Johnson’s pardoning of former Confederates included the restoration of confiscated land. According to historian Eric Foner, “a new policy drafted in the White House and issued in September [1865] …ordered the restoration to pardoned owners of all land except the small amount that had already been sold under a court decree.” Such court decrees carried with them superior ownership titles.

 

According to historian Page Smith, “By the end of 1866 only 1,565 out of more than 40,000 freedmen still occupied the land allotted to them in South Carolina.” Men like Brigadier General Saxon, who had been charged by Sherman with carrying out Field Order 15, were replaced by Johnson. Saxon had been a tireless worker on behalf of freedmen and their newly acquired rights and had been an active pre-war abolitionist.

 

The Role of the Radical Republicans

 

The goals of Congressional radicals were no more pure than those of the president they despised enough to impeach. Congressional leaders differentiated between social and political equality for blacks, as did many Northerners. Historian John David Smith of North Carolina State University writes that, “Congressional Republicans used the prospect of distributing land to punish ex-Confederates, as well as to garner the political support of black people and to establish the freedpeople as a landholding class, thereby guaranteeing their economic freedom.”

 

This was never achieved as confiscated land was returned to pre-war owners and Congress did little to stop the process. Freedom without land drove many blacks into sharecropping. With the advent of “Jim Crow” laws and the notion of “separate but equal,” forty acres and a mule became a cruel mockery even though it may never have been intended as a permanent solution as evidenced by the language used in Sherman’s Field Orders.

 

References:

 

Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction (Harper & Row, 1988)

William T. Sherman, “Special Field Orders, No. 15,” text at history.umd.edu

John David Smith, “The Enduring Myth of ‘Forty Acres and a Mule,’” The Chronicle Review, Volume 49, Issue 24, February 21, 2003, p. B11

Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting this article in any form must be granted in writing by the author

 Americans Elected a Trusted General and the Appeal of Solid Leadership

The Presidential Election of 1956

Michael Streich

First published 2009 in Suite 101

The state of the world was very different in 1956, eleven years after the end of World War II. The Soviet Union and the United States had emerged as the new global superpowers, each attempting to influence the many under-developed nations where the forces of Democracy and Communism were contending to win the hearts and minds of the people. Dwight Eisenhower’s landslide victory in the election of 1956 demonstrated that although Americans elected a Democrat dominated Congress, they were unwilling to change presidents in the face of global conflicts that had the potential to turn into a nuclear war.

 

The Image of a Trusted General in a Time of Crisis

 

On paper, Eisenhower was not the best candidate. At 66 in 1956, he was still recovering from an earlier heart attack. Both houses of Congress were led by the Democrats who would have enacted many of the social reforms promoted by “Ike’s” opponent, Adali E. Stevenson. The only significant legislation associated with his first administration was passage of the Interstate Highway Act.

 

But President Eisenhower presided over a budget surplus and led the nation during a period of widespread prosperity and increased consumerism. Major businesses were growing, often through lucrative federal contracts. Above all, Eisenhower conveyed security and trust. Eisenhower had led Allied forces to victory in Europe, had served as the Supreme Commander of the newly formed NATO alliance, and had traveled to Korea to end that conflict.

 

Foreign Crises Challenge Eisenhower in 1956

 

Prior to the November election, two foreign crises tested the Eisenhower administration. In Egypt, President Nasser seized the Suez Canal, precipitating a crisis that included British and French military intervention as well as a simultaneous attack by the young state of Israel. Soviet Russia and the United States responded aggressively to the Suez Crisis, speaking with one voice. The belligerent parties were forced to withdraw from Egypt.

 

The Suez Crisis resulted in a weakened alliance with Britain and France, something Adali Stevenson criticized. But both Eisenhower and Stalin were realists in the complicated game of global chess and knew that European actions were driven more by colonial interests than egalitarian concerns. The Middle East, with its rich oil reserves, would become the primary battleground between the superpowers for alliances and commercial treaties. In this, supporting the sovereignty of Egypt was highly favored.

 

At the same time an uprising in Hungary against Soviet domination led to the false assumption that the Eisenhower administration’s talk of “liberation” would somehow guarantee Hungarian freedom. Eisenhower was not willing to risk war over Hungary as the brutal Soviet response resulted in many deaths. Americans understood this. But they also supported Eisenhower’s strong response to the Suez Crisis.

 

The Landslide Election of 1956

 

It had been obvious for many months that Eisenhower would easily win reelection. His campaigning was scaled back as Vice President Nixon took to the road to speak to the crowds. In the end, Eisenhower won reelection with 57.4% of the vote. Voters, however, differentiated between the trusted general and the Republican Party; Democrats continued to control the Congress.

 

Sources:

 

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)

William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents From George Washington to George W. Bush (New York: Gramercy Books, 2001)

*Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting this article in any form must be granted permission in writing by the author.

 Scopes Trial Opened On-Going Debate Between Evangelicals and Post Modern Thinkers

Historical Study Must Lead to Cultural Self-Examination

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101 2011

Over ninety years ago the Scopes “Monkey” trial in Dayton, Tennessee lifted the debate between those that favored creationism and those supporting evolution to new heights. Defying a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching of evolution, John Thomas Scopes, a twenty-four year old biology teacher at Dayton’s Central High School, taught evolution, hoping to initiate a judicial test case of the Tennessee statute. The debate has been an important issue for Evangelicals ever since, and is witnessing a resurgence within the contemporary political climate infused by the growing Tea Party movement.

 

How Fundamentalists View the Biblical Story of Creation

 

During the 1925 Scopes trial, chief prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan took the witness stand at the request of Clarence Darrow, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. Bryan affirmed under oath that the creation of the earth occurred in 4004 BC.

 

Bryan was a staunch evangelical, whose life had been spent in public service. As Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson, he eliminated the use of alcohol at any official governmental function.

 

The view that God created man at a definitive moment in cosmic history is part of the Genesis creation story. Other ancient civilizations had similar stories, such as the Egyptian creation myth. Even the native peoples of the Americas passed down creation myths that, in many ways, parallel the Genesis account.

 

Modernist Views Conflict with Literal Interpretations of Creationism

 

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, published in November 1859, helped to open the door to a more scientific and rational view of the development of life and more specifically, the origins of mankind.

 

Christian theologians fought this perceived attack on biblical inerrancy. By 1921, they were identified as “Fundamentalists,” and creationism was a cornerstone belief that needed to be defended.

 

Over time, evangelical Christians began to modify their views. Professor John W. Klotz of Concordia Senior College, writing about changes in the historical patterns of life, states that, “…all of this change, insofar as the organic world is concerned, has taken place within limits fixed by the Creator when He fashioned the different ‘kinds’ in the beginning.” Even the Catholic Church, in February 2009, declared that evolution is compatible with Christianity (Telegraph, February 11, 2009). Many mainline contemporary Christians accept a view of gradual creationism.

 

Extreme and Avant Garde Alternatives to Creationism

 

In 1970, Erich Von Daniken’s book Chariots of the Gods? was first published. Von Daniken postulated that human life was tied to alien visitations to the planet. After recounting numerous Old Testament stories of man’s interaction with angels and God, he asks, “Does not this seriously pose the question whether the human race is not an act of deliberate ‘breeding’ by unknown beings from outer space?”

 

Evangelical Christians were swift to respond. Clifford Wilson’s Crash Go the Chariots (1973) refuted all of Von Daniken’s supporting examples. But even if the alien connection is too far-fetched for readers, many Christians take the middle ground that highlights a gradual evolution with God at the center of the origin.

 

The Contemporary View of Creationism in American Politics and Education

 

Creationism has become a litmus test for politicians whose constituencies tend to be conservative. In the 2010 midterm election, Senate candidates like Sharron Angle of Nevada and Christine O’Donnell of Delaware publically supported the teaching of creationism in American schools.

 

In the case of O’Donnell, her positions were decisively rejected by voters. Both were supported by the Tea Party movement, many of whose members support the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

 

Fundamentalists claim that evolution is a baseless theory and cannot be proven. But neither can creationism. The Genesis story is a matter of faith. Ancient history is defined by myths passed down through oral tradition in order to explain the origins and on-going functions of everyday life.

 

The 1925 Scopes trial endures as a reminder of the still on-going controversy between the advocates of science and rational thought and the Fundamentalists that cling to beliefs that defy anthropology, zoology, paleontology, and history.

 

Sources:

 

Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s (Harper & Row, 1931)

Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (The Paternoster Press, 1966)

Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods? (Putnam, 1970)

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, 1955)

 

Why Conservative Christians Support the State of Israel

Oct 16, 2010 Michael Streich

Evangelical Prophecy Literature Focuses on Israel - Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary Book

Evangelical Christians in America support Israel on the basis of Bible prophecy regarding the return of Christ as well as guilt over the Holocaust.

On March 4, 2002, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate outlining why he believed Israel had a right to all of the land in Palestine. During the speech, he referred to Genesis 13 in which God directed Abraham to move to Hebron. According to Inhofe, “This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.” These sentiments express the thinking of many evangelical Christians. Others cite the historical right of Israel to occupy the disputed lands while some Christians point to the Holocaust, supporting the Jewish homeland as part of their Christian atonement for silence during the World War II genocide.

Israel’s Role in Evangelical Prophecy Interpretation

Israel’s independence in 1948 fueled evangelical hopes that the new state was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Christian church, since the earliest generation of Christians in the first century CE, has been awaiting the return of Christ to purge the world of evil and establish his kingdom on earth.

When Christian prophetic literature began to make significant impacts on American readers with such books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth (Zondervan, 1970), evangelicals pointed to Matthew 24: 34 in which Jesus told his disciples that, “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Jesus was referring to the signs of the end in Matthew 24.

Many evangelicals at the time equated a “generation” with the established Old Testament generation of forty years. Thus, if Israel became a state in 1948, the end would come in 1988. Furthering the cause of Israel became a priority for evangelicals often branded as “Christian Zionists.”

Christian Atonement for the Silence of the Church over the Holocaust

In 2001, the German-based Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary hosted a repentance service in Jerusalem on Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. The Protestant religious community was founded in Darmstadt, Germany after World War II by Mother Basilea after the realities of German complicity in the century’s worst genocide was made public.

The Sisters of Mary opened their community to witnesses testifying at the Nuremberg Trials against the facilitators of the Holocaust, offering hospitality and hope. Today, the community still focuses on atonement for these national sins. The 2001 theme was “Changing the Future by Confronting the Past.” These annual repentance services continue every year.

The Historical Argument and the Doctrine of Propinquity

Jews were scattered from their homeland in the early centuries of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus during the reign of Vespasian in 70 CE. But by the mid to late 19th-Century, Jews were returning to Palestine, largely due to the Zionist movement in Europe.

After World War I, more Jews emigrated and as fascism gained acceptance in Europe, these numbers increased. Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Jews in Hungary in the final days of the war, had traveled to Jerusalem and after hearing of the stories of persecution from European transplants, was deeply moved.

According to apologists for the state of Israel, the Jews that returned to Palestine took a barren, unproductive land and turned it into the land of “milk and honey.” This is the doctrine of propinquity. It was used by 19th-Century Americans to justify the taking of Native American lands during the period of Manifest Destiny. Senator Inhofe referred to this when he said, "Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture."

Conservative American Christians Support Israel for Several Reasons

Whether based on biblical reasons, humanitarian concerns, or the fact that Israel has been a strong ally in the Middle East, conservative Christians are more apt to support Israel over its Muslim neighbors. It was through the Jews that Christianity was born. Evangelicals often refer to the Jewish people as the “apple of God’s eye;” the Jews continue to be the “chosen people.”

With the exception of Saudi Arabia, none of the existing Middle East nations existed before World War I. Israel is only the latest. For evangelical Christians, the presence of Israel is a prophetic guarantee that Christ’s return is imminent. The next “sign” they look for is the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple, but this would mean the destruction of one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.

Sources:

• “Changing the Future by Confronting the Past,” video, Mother Basilea Films, Phoenix, AZ, 2001
• Senator Jim Inhofe, “Israel’s Right to the Land,” March 4, 2002
• Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (Barnes & Noble, 1994)
• Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1996)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Transcendentalism in 19th Century America

Emerson's Focus on Individualism and Thoreau's Focus on Nature

Dec 26, 2009 Michael Streich

Transcendentalism represented a religion, philosophy, and way of life equated with Americanism and geared toward the perfectibility of society through reform.

Early 19th Century Transcendentalism represented the “religion” of the intelligentsia. Popular particularly among young men and women, Transcendentalism was a fusion of Enlightenment ideals, Gnosticism, and universalism. Often understood as a literary tradition focused on nature and individualism, it was also independently theological and Utopian in terms of social reforms, rejecting traditional orthodoxies and forging a link between a uniquely secularized society and its Protestant foundations. Ralph Waldo Emerson became the apostle of this new faith in individualism while Henry David Thoreau is often cited for his “primitive intimacy with nature.”

Rejection of Traditional Christian Ideology

Transcendentalists believe in the attainment of social perfectibility. Taking a cue from Deism, Transcendentalists like Emerson rejected the view of God found in traditional beliefs, notably Congregationalism and Methodism. They rejected the total depravity of man and preached man’s goodness as evidence within nature that God was imminent within his creation. According to Emerson, the world was a “living poem.”

The freeing of the soul meant embracing the “spirit,” experiencing and knowing the goodness of God in all things. Perhaps reflecting neo-Platonic idealism, Emerson wrote, “All men have sublime thoughts…all men love the few real hours of life…” Emerson ended his oration, The American Scholar, declaring that “A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men.”

Transcendentalism and Social Justice

In the pursuit of perfection, Transcendentalists envisioned a society built upon justice and virtue. Such Utopianism fit into the overall reform attitudes that were tied to the Second Great Awakening. Many Transcendentalists opposed American slavery. Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail for refusing to pay a tax funding the Mexican-American War; Thoreau opposed the expansion of slavery. Emerson, whose abolitionist views came late, championed John Brown in 1859 after the Harpers Ferry raid.

Although not the only ones to support equitable treatment for women – Quakers and the Shakers believed in gender equality, Transcendentalists called for the reappraisal of gender roles as well as ending prostitution. They opposed alcohol consumption and some of their number took on the cause of industrial workers. These Transcendentalists are often accused of fostering a form of Christian socialism before Karl Marx urged the workers of the world to unite in 1848.

Transcendentalists also warned that the ultimate perfectibility of a homogeneous American society might have to confront its own demons in the form of slavery, Native American injustices, and unbridled capitalism. This paralleled similar views by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin as well as Abraham Lincoln’s assessment of the horrors of the Civil War in his Second Inaugural Address. The “jeremiad,” so much a part of American theological rooting, became a more secular warning that without reform, tribulation would follow.

Triumph of Individualism

Perhaps it was inevitable that an expanding nation with a strong westward movement would develop a keen sense of individualism and self-reliance. In the next century, men like Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover credited “rugged individualism” with American greatness, manifested through Turner’s frontier thesis. In Self-Reliance, Emerson stated, “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”

This was the essence of the self-made man, so enshrined in the mythologies of Americanism that dangle the American Dream before every immigrant. In all things – whether religion, career, or other life choices, man was free to accept or reject. Predestination was dead. Social perfection rested on the notion that God was in man, God was in Nature, and in all things the goodness of God would triumph.

Sources:

• Brian J. L. Berry, America’s Utopian Experiments: Communal Havens From Long-Wave Crises (University Press of New England, Dartmouth College: 1992)
• Walter Blair, Theodore Hornberger, Randall Stewart, The Literature of the United States, Volume One (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1953)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any reprinting of this article online or in print must be granted by written permission from the author.

 Father Charles Coughlin and the New Deal

Anti-Semitism From the Golden Hour of the Little Flower

Michael Streich

April 27, 2009 Suite101

In the 1930s, Father Charles E. Coughlin would emerge as one of the most power radio personalities in an industry that was only slowing coming into its own. Coughlin’s Sunday “Hour of Power” broadcasts mixed religious themes with political issues, eventually used to convey such virulently anti-Semitic sermons that Coughlin has been called the “father of hate radio.” At his height, both Catholics and Protestants comprised over forty million weekly listeners.

 

Radio League of the Little Flower

 

Coughlin’s “golden hour of the Little Flower,” named for St. Therese of Lisieux who had recently been canonized, helped to finance the construction of a national shrine in Royal Oak, Michigan. Yet even before the pivotal election of 1932, Coughlin’s sermons had begun to incorporate political and social messages. Stoking fears of Communism, Coughlin skillfully wove anti-Semitic messages into his sermons, equating Communism with the Jews.

 

University of Texas historian Robert Abzug writes that Coughlin “was one of the principal disseminators of anti-Semitic propaganda in mainstream American culture.” Throughout Hitler’s rise to power, Coughlin defended Nazism ostensibly as a deterrent against Soviet Russia and Communism. He excused Kristallnacht and used propaganda speeches by Dr. Josef Goebbels without checking sources.

 

Couglin’s “Christian Front,” established in 1938, referred to the “synagogue of Satan” and published the Christian Index, a guide to non-Jewish merchants in New York City. Members of the Front were urged to “buy Christian.” Address Jews in a December 11, 1938 radio address, Father Coughlin stated, “…You are a minority – a small but powerful minority. We are a majority – an easy-going, patient majority – but a majority always conscious of our latent power.”

 

Coughlin Attacked the New Deal and FDR

 

From the very beginnings of Roosevelt’s New Deal, Coughlin attacked programs he disagreed with. Additionally, he attacked Jews in high government positions as well as bankers and financiers, referring to them as “modern shylocks.” At first supporting FDR, Coughlin began to criticize the President, forming his National Union for Social Justice in 1934 that advocated nationalization of utilities and banks.

 

When Congress considered increasing the amount of silver in order to create more currency – at 25% above world prices, Coughlin maneuvered to get the bill passed although FDR opposed it. Eventually, it was disclosed that Coughlin’s Radio League owned one half million ounces of silver.

 

By 1936, Coughlin was comparing the New Deal to, “…the red mud of Soviet Communism and…the stinking cesspool of pagan autocracy.” His newly formed Union Party ran North Dakota Representative William Lemke as a presidential candidate. Coughlin believed in an international conspiracy led by Jewish bankers and other power brokers. It was these men, according to Coughlin, that had financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

 

Although Coughlin was an irritant, and President Roosevelt wisely chose not to confront the priest head-on, it was the incessant anti-Semitism coming out of his sermons and from the pages of magazine Social Justice that may have done the most harm. Historians note that the US failures to ease immigration restrictions for Jews fleeing Europe in the pre-war years may be linked to the constant message of fear and hate.

 

National Shrine of the Little Flower

 

Father Coughlin’s biography, appearing on the website of the National Shine, says nothing of his anti-Semitism nor does it allude to the depth of political involvement, silenced by the church hierarchy by 1941. According to the website, “the priest’s sermons clarified the principles of Christianity and answered thousands of questions concerning faith and morals.”

 

Sources:

 

Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust 1933-1945: a Brief Documentary History (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)

Albert Fried, FDR and his Enemies (Palgrave/St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999)

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, 1959)

Donald Warren, Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin, the Father of Hate Radio (Free Press, 1996)

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to reprint online or in print must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Robin Hood in Historical Context

The romanticized story of Robin Hood may correspond to contemporary social evils, but the historical record disputes the popular version of a common hero.

Michael Streich

The image of Robin Hood, who “took from the rich and gave to the poor,” is legendary, made more so by many re-tellings of his supposed exploits in books, poetry, and film. Robin Hood as the archetypical “good” bandit fighting injustice on behalf of powerless people has had a powerful impact on readers and audiences while challenging populist sentiments, especially during times of social distress. The historical Robin Hood, reinterpreted over the centuries, may have been less glamorous, however, than people are led to believe.

Robin Hood, King John, and the Black Knight

The most recognizable portrait of Robin Hood probably stems from the Romanticist novel Ivanhoe, written by Sir Walter Scott and published in 1819. In the story, Robin and his men assist both Ivanhoe and the Black Knight, who is actually King Richard the Lionhearted, returned from a Crusade. The story focuses on the conflict between Saxons and the Norman conquerors, dating to AD 1066 when William the Conqueror crossed the channel and defeated the Saxons at Hastings.

Scholar Gilbert Sykes Blakely, writing in 1911, comments that criticism of the chronology as set for by Scott may be unfounded and although the protagonists “seem to belong to a former generation,” the antipathy between Saxons and Normans was still evident in the late 12th Century. He also refers to Robin Hood as an historical character.

Historian Joseph Dahmus places the “legendary outlaw” in the Late Middle Ages, citing folk ballads treating him as a hero. Dahmus also states that, “his name probably [belonged] originally to a mythical elf of the forest.” This would be Robin Goodfellow, a name traced to the 1530s. E. J. Hobsbawm, in his study of 19th and 20th Century social movements involving rebels, writes that Robin Hoodism “is most likely to become a major phenomenon when their [peasant or poor classes] traditional equilibrium is upset…”.

Robin Hood as a Symbol of Justice

Robin Hood fought against injustice on behalf of the powerless. He is often seen as a “yeoman,” which is a free man, identified with the land, and decidedly non-gentry. Yeomen were commoners. The legendary Robin Hood was known for his prowess as an archer and a swordsman. Friar Tuck notwithstanding, Robin Hood liberally relieved unwary clerics of their purses. This aspect of the Sherwood Forest bandit may highlight popular scorn with the established church.

Heretical movements that achieved following were very popular in pre-Reformation England. The writings and beliefs of John Wycliffe and the Lollards, for example, spread to Bohemia and influenced Jan Huss. Robin Hood’s victims were always enemies of the powerless peasants, and the wealthy church was no exception.

According to the literary legends, however, King John’s nemesis was the outlaw Robin Hood. Blakely writes that John was “handsome, able, and fortunate” but was, “nevertheless tactless vain, and treacherous.” Historians Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, however, give a different picture: “John was an efficient monarch who strove to increase his power and revenue. As this increase was bound to be at the expense of his barons, his policy was deeply resented.”

Incorrect Historical Depictions from Movies and Novels

It is doubtful that the individual who inspired the Robin Hood character ever interacted with King John. But his legend, and the stories of his exploits, made him a “Utopian” figure determined to end oppression. E. J. Hobsbawm, who sees the Robin Hood character in terms of a rural legend, likens him to other bandits in history with similar goals. These men were, “not expected to make a world of equality.”

Hobsbawm sees Robin Hood as “essentially a peasant rebelling against landlords, usurers, and other representatives of what Thomas More called the ‘conspiracy of the rich.’” The classic 1938 Hollywood film, “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” which starred the swashbuckling actor Errol Flynn, came at the height of the Great Depression when popular sentiment blamed the rich for the nation’s travails.

Robin Hood will always be an inspiration during times of distress. Mikhail Bakunin, the founder of Anarchism, wrote that, “The bandit is always a hero, the defender, the avenger of the people, the irreconcilable enemy of every state…” The legend and the retelling, however, changes with each adaption to contemporary issues.

Sources:

Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe, Gilbert Sykes Blakely, editor and write of the Introduction (NY: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1911)

• Joseph Dahmus, Dictionary of Medieval Civilization (NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984)
• E. J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels (W. W. Norton & Company, 1959)
• Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, 5th Ed. (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)
• Written by Michael Streich 7/3/2011. Any republishing required written permission as this article is still under copyright.