In order to understand student debt in the United States, we need to know its history.  For this nation’s first decades, college was limited to a wealthy few.  But quite early on, some important founders argued for free higher education.  In 1822, for instance, James Madison wrote that “the liberal appropriations made by the legislature of Kentucky for a general system of education cannot be too much applauded….Enlightened patriotism…is now providing for the State a Plan of Education embracing every class of Citizens.”  Madison and others of his era probably relied on Adam Smith’s arguments in favor of free public education.  In his influential book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Smith argued that a nation’s wealth lay not in its gold or silver, but in an educated labor force.  One of the state’s few functions “in a civilized and commercial society” should be providing institutions “for promoting the instruction of the people” so that “even a common labourer may afford it.” 

     This view was greatly strengthened in 1862, when Pres. Lincoln signed the first Morill Act.  This law gave federally controlled land grants to the states, so that they could sell them to fund “land-grant” colleges.  Throughout the nation, these colleges became large public universities.  They were either completely free to students or charged a nominal fee, like $20.

     My own institution, the City University of New York (CUNY), was free from its inception in 1849 through the Great Depression of the 1930s and into the 1970s.  But then things changed.  Ronald Reagan believed that “students are spoiled and don’t deserve the education they are getting.”  His advisor, Roger Freeman, declared, “We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat….That’s dynamite!  We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”  Reagan imposed tuition on the University of California when he was governor.  As president, he urged others to follow suit.  In 1976, CUNY imposed tuition for the first time in its history.  Other public universities did the same.

     The result was both higher salaries for professors, who traditionally were poorly paid, and rising student debt.  Today, student debt in the United States has reached a whopping $1.75 trillion.  48,000,000 Americans have student debt; the average amount is almost $30,000 apiece.  87% of them make less than $75,000 a year.  Like all debts, its interest is compounded, so that those who owe end up paying far more than what they originally borrowed.       

     Fulfilling his campaign promise, Pres. Biden recently reduced this debt to some degree.  For Pell Grant students, that is those with incomes of less than $60,000, $20,000 of debt is cancelled.  For students with incomes up to $125,000, $10,000 of debt is cancelled.  Those with higher incomes get no relief.  80% of the current recipients of debt cancellation earn less than $75,000.  There is a racial component as well: a majority of the lower  income students are black.

     For someone like myself, who wanted all student debt cancelled, this is only partial relief.  But to others, this is much too much.  A dear relative of mine recently wrote on Facebook: “People cry, ‘My body my choice.’  Well I say ‘Your student loan, your payments.’”  However, I believe the two situations are not comparable.  My body is integral to my identity and I cannot change it.  Student debt is more like taking out a mortgage.  If mortgage rates decline, no one condemns the people who then pay lower rates than they did.  Your relief should not cause me pain.  Part of Biden’s plan holds colleges accountable if they simply raise prices.  And borrowers who work in the military, government, or in a non-profit receive more credit toward loan forgiveness.  Many of the politicians who condemned this relief received far more money under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).  They never criticized that.

     Almost every other advanced nation provides free college tuition (and free health care, but that’s another issue).  As Adam Smith argued so long ago, the “education of the common people requires…the attention of the public.”  It can only improve our nation, both in itself and in competition with others.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Democrats have spent $20,000,000 supporting Trump candidates in Republican primaries. The theory is that these candidates will be easier for Democrats to beat.

But this dangerous strategy was tried before: in Germany in the early 1930s. The Socialist Democrats decided to back Nazi candidates on the same theory, that they would be easier to beat. They also figured that people would be so repulsed by the Nazis that they would repudiate them. I think we all know how that turned out. Not only did the Nazis win, they then ousted the Social Democrats and all other liberal parties from all politics.

Gaming the system in this way is a very dangerous strategy. It’s far better to be straightforward and run good candidates. Our democracy is still in peril from the Trump era and this is not the way to save it.

DOJ statement: Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, June 24, 2022

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

“Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.

***

“But today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.

“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states.

“Advocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts.

***

“The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.

“Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.

“The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.

“And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.

“Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.

***

“The ability to decide one’s own future is a fundamental American value, and few decisions are more significant and personal than the choice of whether and when to have children.

“Few rights are more central to individual freedom than the right to control one’s own body.

“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

11

1 Comment

Like

Comment

Share

For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary. Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal. 30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1] And yet the Supreme Court has overturned it!

The majority's argument was based on the ludicrous proposition that since abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution in 1868, the 14th Amendment ("equal protection under the laws") does not apply. This is a ridiculous and dangerous argument. The Constitution does not mention abortion. It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist? It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

The so-called “originalist” position, held by this conservative majority, makes no sense to me. The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring. They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy. Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This seems pretty clear to me.

The Court which ruled against abortion is profoundly undemocratic. All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump). A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue. Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned. Anti-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions. We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions. When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.” In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions.

One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions. What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father? Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online. Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products? They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade. How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

Like

Comment

Share

In the middle I write that “Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education….” in talking about stare decisus. It should read “Anti-abortionists” instead.

     For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary.  Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.  30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1]  And yet the Supreme Court seems ready to overturn it.

     This last statement is based on Judge Alito’s leaked opinion, which is supposedly supported by four other justices.  Alito’s arguments are ludicrous, especially to a historian.  He asserts – correctly – that the Constitution does not mention abortion.  It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist?  It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

     The so-called “originalist” position, which Alito’s holds, makes no sense to me.  The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring.  They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy.  Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  This seems pretty clear to me.

     The Court which hopes to rule against abortion is profoundly undemocratic.  All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump).  A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue.  Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned.  Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

     But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions.  We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions.  When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.”  In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions. 

      One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.  But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions.  What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father?  Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

      Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online.  Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products?  They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade.  How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

     Now is the time to oppose such views.  I’m marching this Saturday, May 14, along with at least 700,000 of my fellow citizens.  Groups like the old Jane Collective, which enabled poor women to receive abortions are coalescing already.  Join us!

[1] Pew Research Center, May 6, 2022

I gave this presentation to the staff of NS1 in honor of Women’s History Month. Almost all the staff were tuning in remotely via Zoom. Unfortunately, the beginning wasn’t taped. I started with an old saw: “If March is women’s history month, then what’s the rest of the year? I then went on to state my theme — we’ve made some progress, but we still have a ways to go. I then began by portraying a world without feminism, that is, the world I grew up in, in the 1950s and ‘60s. I organized my description into three categories: 1. money and jobs, 2. authority, and 3. sex and gender. I began by recalled that jobs were then advertised “Help Wanted: Male” and “Help Wanted: Female.” Only 44% of women were employed and made 52 cents to the male dollar. That’s where the recording begins.

The other thing I want to add here comes near the end, when I was asked about good new books on the subject. I completely blanked on Lucy Delap’s wonderful Feminisms: A Global History, the subject of my previous blog. It’s terrific and available from the University of Chicago Press.

If you are having trouble seeing the video, go directly to the YouTube page

Lucy Delap’s Feminisms: A Global History is a magnificent book that widens the entire field of feminist

studies and employs a uniquely creative format to do so. The author, eager to overcome the exclusively white

and Euro-American sources of previous accounts, has used persons and sources from throughout the world

to narrate this saga. Employing a thematic approach rather than a chronological one, she is able to overcome

the limitations and biases of past histories. This tactic also enables her to show the connections and

influences among both disparate regions and time periods. She accurately surveys the last 250 years of

women’s activism. Feminisms, A Global History successfully remakes an entire field of study.

     The range of Delap’s scholarship is astonishing. She begins by citing an unnamed “lady of Africa”

claiming feminism in 1886. In her first few chapters, she goes on to portray feminists from India, Brazil,

China, Algeria, Trinidad, Japan, Burma, and Nigeria. And she doesn’t just mention these

activists. She conveys how they came to be feminists, what they did, and who they influenced. She also

demonstrates the conflicts and tensions they experienced and produced. “As a movement, feminism insists

on women’s inclusion in all areas of social and political life,” she writes in her Introduction. “But feminism

has its own forms of marginalization and has struggled to extend its boundaries to all women on equal

terms. Black, working-class, lesbian, trans, and bi-sexual, disabled, non-Western and non-Christian women

have often been shut out….”  Delap also includes better-known European and American feminists. Arguing

that feminism is best understood as a “conversation,” she advances the concept of “mosaic feminism” with

“politics in the cracks.”

     Here are some specific examples of these methods. In her second chapter, Delap has a section on the

Chinese concept of nannü. Composed of the Mandarin words for “man” and “woman,” “nannü” enabled the

early twentieth-century Chinese feminist He-Yin Zhen to link “distinctions of gender to the organization of

bodies, labor and power through cultural and economic life.” Ignoring Western European concepts, nannü

let He-Yin conceive of a world where the concepts of “man’s nature” and “women’s nature” would no longer

be necessary. “For her,” Delap concludes, “this implied the end of capitalism, the state, private property, as

well as racial and sexual difference.”

     In this same chapter, Delap reaches out to trans activists. Citing Raewyn W. Connell, a trans Australian

theorist, she details her analysis of the advantages of being male. Men’s incomes are twice that of women’s;

men have ten times the political accession of women; world-wide, men control the means of violence,

weapons and armed forces. “I call these advantages the ‘patriarchal dividend,’ for men, and this dividend is

not withering away!” Connell concludes. This section contributes powerfully to Delap’s discussion of

patriarchy.

     In another important example of Delap’s inclusivity, she analyzes early twentieth-century women’s

protests in British-governed Nigeria. The Igbo people of the Niger Delta gave women the power to control

their own market activities, the “omu.” When the British challenged this female authority, Nigerian women

contested their actions, using traditional methods. They stripped themselves almost naked to protest, threw

sand at the authorities, and loudly insulted them. Carrying machetes, the women opposed both

colonial and local male authorities. This so-called “women’s war” ended in disaster, as troops fired on the

protesters, killing 21 of them. Despite this loss, Delap concludes that these “memorable protests of 1929 can

be read as a contribution to the anti-colonial movements that resulted in the eventual ejection of British

rulers in 1960,” citing later women’s protests in the 1940s as well.

     While describing global feminist actions, Delap does not neglect European and North American ones.

Her fourth chapter begins with a detailed description of the English abolitionist Anne Knight’s creation of

brightly colored labels crammed with feminist inscriptions to be glued to letters. “‘Never will the nations of

the earth be well governed,’” began one, ‘until both sexes…are fairly represented, and have an influence, a

voice, and a hand in the enactment and administration of the laws.’” In this chapter on objects feminists

created, Delap easily segues to describing the colors suffragists wore to distinguish themselves. She also cites

later feminists writing chain letters to publicize their protests as well as using clothing, sanitary pads, and

colored wool to mark the fence they built to protest the missile site at Greenham Common in the 1980s.

     These events are detailed in Delap’s fourth chapter, entitled “Objects.” Her method of organizing chapters

thematically adds to her revolutionizing the subject of feminism. Most of these themes work extremely well.

Chapter One, “Dreams,” surveys utopian books and conceptions which furthered feminism. In addition to

citing the well-known Western novel, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland of 1915 with its all-female society,

Delap analyzes the Bengali Rokeya Sakhawat Hussain’s Sultana’s Dream of 1905. In “Ladyland,” women

govern and set standards while men are confined to a harem. Arguing that Islam could set women free,

Rokeya also founded a Muslim Women’s Association, campaigned for female education, and translated

feminist texts from Britain and Afghanistan.

     Delap then turns to actual attempts to liberate women. She recounts the Russian Alexandra Kollontai’s

efforts advance women’s lives in the new Soviet Union. She then discusses the Indian Pandita Ramabai’s

Arya Women’s Society of 1882 which attempted to educate women. This effort influenced a young

Indonesian, Kartini, who went on to campaign for female education and against polygamy. After describing

a feminist dream of the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Delap concludes this chapter with a

discussion of late twentieth-century women’s poetry by Adrienne Rich and Audre Lord.

     Delap’s other thematic chapters are equally global and rich. “Ideas” surveys feminism’s opposition to

patriarchy and male domination. Drawing on such disparate traditions as “Christianity, socialism,

liberalism, constitutionalism, nationalism and republicanism,” feminism contends that

“sexual difference is not a natural division, but is imposed in different forms across time and space.”  Her

third chapter, “Spaces,” details how feminists have created not only “rooms of their own,” but also libraries,

presses, markets, shelters, and worship areas. Chapter 4, “Objects” is discussed above. Chapter 5, “Looks,”

delineates how feminists displayed themselves, whether in pink pussy hats, male clothing, Bloomer

costumes, or hijabs. Her section on “hijabistas” is sophisticated, recounting how some Muslim women wore

the veil to gain power against colonialism. Chapter 6, “Feelings,” explores how feminists have used anger,

the Chinese concept of “speaking bitterness,” and love for themselves and other women to advance their

actions. Chapter 7, “Actions,” follows naturally. While feminists avoided harming others, they used attacks

on property, strikes, and marches to oppose their antagonists. The universal Icelandic women’s “national

day off” in 1975 was especially effective, engaging 95 percent of the female population.

     Delap’s last chapter, “Songs,” is her least successful. It’s difficult to convey music in words. But her

conclusion regains this book’s power. Delap invokes Betty Friedan’s fear that feminism might have to “start

over.” Her book ends by asserting that “the richness of the global feminist past suggests otherwise.”

     A short while before the Russian attack, a friend declared that Ukraine should not fight because it would surely be defeated.  I replied, “I couldn’t disagree more.”  As a historian, I know how important motivation is in wartime.  The Ukrainians were fighting for their homes; the Russians were fighting because they were ordered to.  And whether or not the Ukrainians win, surely their struggle has been impressive.  Using what is available, they have slowed the Russian advance to the point where the Red Army is running out of food.  The Ukrainians have, for instance, used glass beer bottles from the Russian brand to make Molotov cocktails, re-inscribing the labels to read “Fuck you, Russians.”  They’ve removed all road signs and written the same on them.

     As a result of their endeavors, most of the world supports them.  Russia has become a pariah nation, shut off from banking, air travel, supplies, sports, and musical groups.  There’s a saying that goes back to Ancient Greece: “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”  No one person has proved this more than Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine.  Before the current events, I remembered the Ukrainian support of the Nazis in World War II.  But now they have a Jewish president and what a president!  Asked if he wanted a trip out of his embattled nation, he said, “I want ammunition, not a ride.”  There another old saying – that “God hates a coward.”  Both Zelensky and the Ukrainians have been heroic rather than cowardly.

     That is more than could be said for a number of Republicans, most notably Donald Trump, who asserted that Putin was “a genius” when he invaded Ukraine.  For a while, some Republican commentators, like Tucker Carlson, supported him.  So have Senator John Hawley of Missouri, and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Rosendale, and Thomas Massie, all of whom voted in Congress against support for Ukraine.  Now the Republican Party is back-peddling as fast as it can – except for Trump.  It may loosen his grip on the GOP.

     But regardless of U.S. politics, I believe that a Russian invasion of Ukraine cannot ultimately succeed.  Suppose they occupy that nation.  Will opposition and protest completely stop?  I don’t believe it will.  The cost of keeping innumerable Russian soldiers there, often against their will, plus the damage done by the other measures NATO and the United States have taken, have caused the ruble to plummet and the Russian stock market to close. 

     From its beginning to whatever its conclusion, this is a war fought with internet participation.  The Russians cannot be secretive any longer.  When it was revealed that the oligarchs who support Putin still had their yachts, those yachts were taken away.  Russia has alienated most of the world and the Ukrainians have won its support.                    

I’ve always hated winter, and the older I get, the more I dislike it.  Part of the reason is how long it is – much longer than the other seasons.  The Chinese divide winter into two seasons: Early Winter and Late Winter.  And this year, unlike last, we’re having a “real” winter.  Tomorrow the high is supposed to be 19.

     All this is compounded by Covid.  I was exposed by a friend last Monday and I’ve been lying low ever since.  I have no symptoms at all.  The testing sites here are jammed, and therefore quite dangerous, so I’ve opted to wait before I use the one test kit I have.  I’ll do it this Friday, before I have a scheduled massage.  My masseuse asked me to test before I saw her.  New kits should arrive on Saturday.  It’s been very hard to find them anywhere.

     In addition, there’s politics.  I found the anniversary of January 6th very difficult.  As a historian, I have to go back to the War of 1812 to find a similar event — when the British invaded and burned the Capitol to the ground.  The Confederacy never reached Washington, D.C.  The first time Confederate flags were raised in the Capitol was on January 6, 2021.

     But I’m very glad Biden finally spoke out.  His speech, where he continually referred to “the former president” but never used his name, was excellent.  I especially liked when he said, “He’s not just a former president, he’s a former defeated president.”  However, it continues to be shocking that almost every Republican in Congress, regardless of how they themselves were menaced, continues to downplay the event and support Trump.  Hopefully this will change.  The rate of people getting, and dying from Covid is far higher in Republican districts than in Democratic ones.  The Republicans’ platform now consists of opposing vaccinations, opposing voting, and opposing women.

     I believe this is a losing strategy.  People have voted under even more arduous conditions than those the Republican states are creating.  I hope that the Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade.  In addition to stare decisus (the principle that the court not reverse long-established policies), Chief Justice Roberts cares that he has a good reputation.  He does not want to preside over a court that makes political rather than juridical decisions.  Let’s hope his view prevails.

     Also, this outbreak of Covid may decline as rapidly as it arose.  It did that in South Africa, which does have a much younger population.  But we can hope that it will diminish within a month or so here. 

     Finally, with regard to Covid, politics, and the weather, remember the end of the quotation with which I started this piece.  Shelley wrote, “If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind.”

I host two celebrations: Thanksgiving and a New Year’s Day Open House.  Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday – my shorthand for it is “great food and no presents.”  I took the occasion of my divorce, back in 1976, to celebrate it with friends rather than family and have done so ever since.  Last year I couldn’t have it because of Covid, but this year I did.  Seven friends attended.  I do the turkey, stuffing, and gravy; they bring everything else.  It was sparked by my 86-year-old former colleague and role model, Renate, who asked me if I was doing Thanksgiving this year.  I said, “Will you come?”  “Of course,” she answered, even though she lives on the far Upper West side of Manhattan and I’m in Park Slope, Brooklyn.  It was a lovely occasion.

     Recently, with the arrival of the Delta and Omicron variants of Covid, I cancelled my New Year’s Day Open House for this year.  Everyone who wrote me agreed that I’d done the right thing, even though they were disappointed.  Hopefully, we’ll be able to celebrate together next year.

     This mixture of joy and sorrow defines the human condition.  Twenty years ago, after 9/11, I was teaching history at Brooklyn College.  9/11 was a Tuesday, the college was closed Wednesday, and classes resumed on Thursday.  In my two morning classes, we discussed what had happened.  My third course, Tudor-Stuart England, met after lunch.  When I asked the students if they wanted to talk about what happened, they answered “No, we’ve been talking about it all morning.”  Then they said, “Take us back to the past.”  Since it was only September, we were still in the 1400s.  I replied, “Where there was only the Black Plague (which killed one-third of Europe’s population) to worry about.”  Tragedy and hope prevailed then and still do now.  So here’s hoping that next year will be better and we’ll have a happier New Year, even knowing that then there will be other things to worry about.

     One of the four medieval temperaments, “sanguine” means optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or difficult situation.  (The others are choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic and these categories supposedly encompassed all people.)  I am sanguine by nature and I’ve found it especially helpful nowadays.  In recent weeks, Republicans have passed an outrageous anti-abortion law in Texas, which forbids any procedure after six weeks, when most women don’t even know they’re pregnant, has no exceptions for rape or incest, and empowers any citizen to arrest a woman or doctor and receive a $10,000 bounty.  A number of Republican state legislatures are severely limiting voting rights, in the hope of disenfranchising black and brown citizens – part of the “Make America Great Again” agenda, which only benefits whites.  And Republicans in Congress are currently refusing to raise the debt ceiling, as they did many times under the Trump presidency, which threatens that the U.S. government will go bankrupt – a major national calamity. 

     In the face of all this, most people are dismayed and discouraged.  I’m not.  I think that the Republicans have created a losing strategy.  Being anti-voting and anti-woman, as well as disagreeing to a standard parliamentary maneuver to fund the government (whose deficit they added considerably to with the Trump tax cuts, especially for rich people) seems to me a good way to lose elections.  I’m joined in this opinion by the eminent professor of history at Boston College, Heather Cox Richardson, who publishes a daily column called “Letter from an American.”   She argued on October 5 that Republicans under Mitch McConnell will force the Democrats to end the filibuster, a move that would tremendously help Biden’s agenda.

     Personally, I think the Republicans will lose big in 2022.  And I don’t think I’m being unduly unrealistic.  Whether that happens or not, it’s much pleasanter to live as an optimist than a pessimist.  In this, I think back to the seventeenth-century philosopher, Blaise Pascal.  In his so-called “wager,” he argued that it makes more sense to believe in God than not.  If you believe, and God exists, you win big.  If he doesn’t, you don’t lose much.  If you don’t believe in God, and he exists, you lose big.  If you don’t believe and God does not exist, nothing is lost or gained.

     A major objection to this argument, then and now, is that people are unable to will themselves into belief or disbelief.  But this premise does not hold.  Psychology argues convincingly that people can change their basic beliefs.  In this case, I think that living optimistically is not only a much more pleasant way to exist, but it also can aid political decisions.  Try it out!

         When Obama first became president in 2008, I sent him a letter urging that he withdraw United States troops from Afghanistan.  I wrote that “The Brits couldn’t do it, the Soviets couldn’t do it, and we can’t do it” and by “it” I meant liberate that nation from its debilitating customs.  I think I was and am correct.  Afghanistan was and remains a nation of war lords.  It has always oppressed women, far more than its many Muslim neighbors.  The Afghani burka covers women completely, from head to toe, and even hides their eyes, installing a mesh fabric over them so that they can see out, although dimly, and others can’t see in.  If they want to discard these customs and get rid of the Taliban, they have to do it themselves.  Do you believe that they can’t?  Then who can?  Societies must create their own changes and ways.  No one else can do it for them.

         Many years ago, in the early part of this century, I and others supported Afghani women’s groups.  We received a letter from them, saying “Please don’t support us anymore.  When you do so, the men of our region say that we are being supported by the West, and that diminishes our power.”  I believed them then and I do so now.  I really admired Biden for pulling us out of there; I was dismayed this morning to learn that he putting more U.S. troops back in.  Stay the course, Mr. President!  You were right the first time.

         Recently, I’ve been taking the subway again and I realize that I’ve forgotten which end of the train stops where in various stations.  This used to be common knowledge for me, a frequent subway rider.  Get on the front end to be at the right staircase for Canal Street, on the back end to connect to the Lexington lines at Union Square.  The same is true of mask-wearing.  The first time I walked down the street with no mask on, I was jubilant.  I called out to a woman my own age who also wasn’t wearing a mask, “Isn’t it great” and she replied, “Freedom!”  But then yesterday, I had a coffee with a friend, got up from the table to order inside and realized I didn’t have my mask with me. 

This situation is the same with work. Many are going back to working on a “hybrid” basis: half at home and half in an office.  As a college professor, that was my normal working pattern.  One day I’d go into teach and be surrounded by students, faculty, and staff; the next I’d either be in an archive or, increasingly, as the internet expanded, at home working alone.  I enjoyed the contrast and I think many are also enjoying not having to choose between working either at home or in an office, but having the benefits of both.

It takes time and effort to adjust to our new situation.  This is especially true about vaccination.  As an historian and of course also as a human being, I am appalled that getting vaccinated has become politicized.  I know what happened to non-vaccinated people in the past –- they died.  I found it interesting to learn that when the smallpox vaccine was introduced in 18th-century England, there was hardly any disagreement to getting vaccinated.  Smallpox killed.  If you survived it, you might be blind and almost certainly would be covered with disfiguring pox marks.  In contrast, there was quite a bit of opposition to being vaccinated in the United States during this era.  What accounts for the difference?  I think that since the U.S. was founded on opposition, on not accepting received opinion, that attitude carried over to other areas.  Vaccination is one.  Gun ownership is another.  Despite the constant figures that more people, including children, die from gun violence in the United States than in any other nation, many Americans oppose gun control.  I think that this opposition arises at least in part from the belief of many Americans that they want to be able to overthrow the government if that is necessary, just as it was in 1776.

     But about vaccination, gun control, and other topics, it’s time to develop a new mentality.  We are in a new world, one in which the “old normal” exists only as old habits.  We need to create a new normal, which values prevention, intervention, and kindness over force and brutality.  This is necessary in so many areas, not just in taking the subway, wearing masks, or vaccination.  I think it’s the solution to police work –- neither “defunding” the police nor strengthening it – but rather stressing prevention and intervention over enforcement.  These new goals are assuredly worth working for in the years to come.

About three years ago I developed stomach problems which were first misdiagnosed and then not solved.  Last June, I had major surgery.  Then last fall, one of the health care aides whom I needed for a few months, brought in bed bugs.  It was a chore to get rid of them.  When that was over, a pipe in my bedroom ceiling began to leak.  I had to have workers remove it and replace it.  Then came January 6.  To most of us, that insurrection in the capitol was bad, but to a historian, who had to go back to the War of 1812 to find a comparable event, it was worse.

Like many others, I coped with 2020 by keeping track of difficulties, measuring them, and feeling good that I had managed to deal with them.  But those times are over.  Conditions got better with Biden’s election, which was celebrated here in Park Slope with cheers and jubilation.  Even the buses and cars honked in celebration.  I loved his inauguration.  Harris’s statement, “I may be the first, but I won’t be the last,” brought tears to my eyes.  Since then, I think they’ve both done a great job.  Biden used to be known for putting his foot in his mouth, but he hasn’t done that now.  Just not having “the former guy” as president has made a tremendous difference – not having his presence weigh on one’s life.

In addition, Biden, unlike Trump, has done a wonderful job with Covid 19.  Instead of fake remedies and down-playing solutions, he’s enabled 2,000,000 people to be vaccinated, double the number he originally promised.  Although it is extremely troubling to have Trump supporters ignore common sense remedies, hopefully their numbers will continue to decline.  Basing your life on unreality is not a winning strategy.  And as of now, not only is his base declining, a group of eminent Republicans is discussing leaving the party.  Discouraging the vote is also a losing strategy – look at all the Black people who have voted under even more arduous conditions through the years.

Life is beginning to become more normal.  After I had my second vaccination, I  counted the days until it kicked in.  I was having dinner party fantasies and the day after I became immune, I had six vaccinated friends over for dinner.  We all enjoyed it.  I’m seeing friends at restaurants, walking more, going to different venues.  Last week I saw the marvelous Alice Neel show at the Metropolitan Museum.  Instead of clenching on to bad news, I am trying to celebrate good news.  It takes an adjustment, but it’s totally worth the effort.  All of us need to try it now!

On Tuesday evening, March 16th, at 6 p.m. I gave a talk for the Brooklyn Public Library on the life and work of Ernestine Rose. This virtual lecture was in honor of Women's History Month as part of Midwood Library’s Women Pioneers series.

To watch if you are receiving this as an email: Go to the blog post or to the the video link.

On March 16th from 6 - 7 p.m. I’m giving a talk on Ernestine Rose for the Brooklyn Public Library. Here are the details from the BPL:

In honor of Women's History Month, Midwood Library is pleased to present a virtual lecture and discussion on the life of women's rights activist Ernestine Rose. Join us for a lively discussion as distinguished author and historian Bonnie Anderson, a Brooklyn resident and a professor emerita of history at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, CUNY, shares poignant insights on Ernestine Rose. 

Here is the Zoom link for the event.

Please register for the program to receive a reminder with the Zoom link via email the day of the event.

You can read more about Ernestine Rose in Bonnie Anderson’s latest book, The Rabbi's Atheist Daughter, available at the Brooklyn Public Library.

     In his dystopic story of 1909, The Machine Stops, E.M. Forster describes a room of the future.  “Then she generated the light, and the sight of her room, flooded with radiance and studded with electric buttons, revived her.

There were buttons and switches everywhere – buttons to call for food, for music, for clothing.  There was the hot-bath button…there was the cold-bath button.  There was the button that produced literature.  And there were of course the buttons by which she communicated with her friends.  The room, although it contained nothing, was in touch with all that she cared for in the world.”

Although he did not predict computers, Forster portrayed how we now live during the Covid pandemic.  To Forster, the way of life he described was decadent and curtailed; to us, it is a fairly successful adaption to unfortunate circumstances.  In Forster’s story, the hero must destroy this method of living and bring humanity back to “normal.”  But what about us?

     People now talk about a “new normal” after the pandemic.  I have found hope in the work of the Italian historian Gianna Pomata.  She wrote about the impact of the bubonic plague on Renaissance Europe.  (I learned about her from Lawrence Wright’s article in last summer’s New Yorker.)  Pomata argued that after the Black Plague, “nothing was the same.”  Instead of dwelling on the tragedy of destruction, she focused on renewal: “Because of the danger, there’s this wonderful human response, which is to think in a new way.”  Pomata then discussed the rise of both capitalism (instead of the medieval guild system) and democracy (instead of monarchy and aristocracy).

         Regardless of opinions about capitalism, I remain basically optimistic.  I don’t think we know yet what our positive reactions to Covid will be.  But I do believe they will occur and that we too will find creative solutions to our situation.  May it come soon.

The concept of “the big lie” comes from the German general Erich von Ludendorff, but was publicized by Adolf Hitler. Ludendorff argued that “Jews and Communists” had blamed Germany’s defeat in the First World War on him — a position that came to be known as the “Stab in the Back Legend.” In Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle), published in 1925, he repeated Ludendorff’s argument. Ludendorff and Hitler became and remained close political allies and helped bring the Nazis to power.

Hitler defined the big lie as a lie so colossal that no one would believe that anyone could “have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” His most influential use of the concept was his assertion that the Jews were responsible for all of Germany’s misfortunes and so should be exterminated. In their 1943 assessment of Hitler, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (a predecessor of the C.I.A.) maintained that “people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.” This big lie was the major justification for the Holocaust, which killed at least 6,000,000 Jews.

While it is difficult to believe that a United States politician would use a Nazi tactic for his own ends, this is exactly what Donald Trump did in 2020. Immediately after the presidential election in November, Trump began asserting that the election was a fraud, that if he lost, it was only because of foul play, and that any loss by him should be reversed. He kept asserting these falsehoods up to and including January 6, 2021, when he incited a mob to storm the Capitol building to try and seize the government. While this attempted coup most closely resembled the Confederate South’s attempt to undermine Pres. Lincoln’s election of 1860, the Confederacy never conquered Washington, D.C. The event closest to January 6 occurred during the War of 1812, when the British did occupy Washington, D.C. and burned both the White House, then called the Presidential Mansion, and the Capitol Building.

Trump’s attempts to undermine a free and fair election, in which the results of both the popular and Electoral College votes were not even close, did not end on January 6. His supporters tried to deny the results and Trump is still proclaiming that he “really” won. This Big Lie must not prevail. Many Democrats now argue that it is reason enough that he be convicted in the Senate of his second impeachment. May it be so.

     The power to pardon is older than Western Civilization.  In Ancient Babylon, when kings came to the throne, they issued general pardons.  In Ancient Greece, the monarch Thrasybus issued a pardon in 403 B.C.E.  In Ancient Rome, kings issued clemency – that is, pardons for groups rather than individuals.

     In medieval times, both the Roman Catholic Church and local rulers issued pardons.  By the 1500s, pardons were in the hands of the monarch.  When the United States was founded, this was one of the functions transferred to the Executive Power.  Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the president “the power to grant Reprieves or Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

     That exception vastly limits the president’s pardoning power.  In 1787, founding father James Madison wrote “…if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”  This view was expanded in the twentieth century.  By then, the truism that “No one may be judge in his own case” had taken hold.  The U.S. legal scholar and Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein supported and expanded this view. 

     In the 1970s, when Richard Nixon was indicted for the Watergate conspiracy, the Department of Justice ruled that “The President cannot pardon himself.”  That position holds true today.  In order to pardon himself, Pres. Trump would first have to admit that he did wrong.  He is unlikely to do this.  Summing up, former president Theodore Roosevelt declared “Patriotism means to stand by the country, it does not mean to stand by the president.”