Patum Peperium

A Great Day

Eccentric Observer

Old Dominion Tory

 

Francis Albert Sinatra

December 15, 1915

 

   

So Long Sad Times

The Eccentric Observer

Old Dominion Tory

 

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, was passed by the State of Utah, effectively ending Prohibition. The demise of Mr. Dry was greeted with intemperate enthusiasm across the United States.

  

If you are marking the 75th anniversary of “Repeal Day,” you might like to do so with two emblematic cocktails of the Prohibition Era:
 
The French 75
Shake well with cracked ice:
1 oz London dry gin
1/2 oz fresh-squeezed lemon juice
1/2 oz simple syrup
Strain into highball glass full of cracked ice and top off with chilled champagne.
 
Or
 
The Sidecar
Shake well with cracked ice:
1 1/2 oz brandy
1/2 oz Cointreau
1/2 oz fresh-squeezed lemon juice.
Strain into chilled, sugar-rimmed cocktail glass

Or, perhaps, if you are in Manhattan, you’d prefer to celebrate the diamond anniversary of John Barleycorn’s triumphal return with a cocktail invented by Marco Hattem, the bartender at the Colony, one of New York’s better speakeasies.
 
The Colony Cocktail
Shake well with cracked ice:
1 1/2 oz gin
3/4 oz grapefruit juice
2 tsp maraschino
Strain into chilled cocktail glass
 
Cheers!

Happy Birthday!

The Eccentric Observer

Old Dominion Tory

.

Happy 

233^rd Birthday 

to the 

United States Marine Corps.

 God Bless 

the 

United States of America

and

Success to the Marines!

Semper Fidelis

Old Dominion Tory's Political Prognostications

The Eccentric Observer

Old Dominion Tory

Although you will read this on Election Day, I am writing it late in the day on November 3. Based on all that I have seen over the past week as well as on Monday, this is what should happen in today’s elections:

Presidency: Obama-298 electoral votes, McCain-240 electoral votes. No doubt, McCain is surging in the campaign’s final days, but I don’t think it will be enough to push him past Obama. McCain will win Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia. However, despite McCain’s best efforts and some last-minute revelations about his energy policies, Obama will capture Ohio (narrowly) and Pennsylvania (not as narrowly but not in the double digits) as well as Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, four of which were won by George Bush in 2004. 

Senate: Currently, 51 Democrats (to include Independents who caucus with the Democrats, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) and 49 Republicans. Of the eleven contested seats currently held by the GOP, Democrats will win seven—North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Alaska, and New Mexico—and the Republicans will win four—Minnesota, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Georgia. The Republicans’ best shot for a pick-up is in Louisiana where the race between Mary Landrieu and State Treasurer John Kennedy has tightened up considerably. In fact, some polls show the race as even. With McCain up in this state by 14%-16%, I’ll crawl out on a limb and give the Republicans a close victory. So, come January, the Democrats will have 57 seats and the Republicans will hold 43. 

House: There are some interesting races in the House that could see some established Democrats lose (e.g., Murtha and Kanjorski in Pennsylvania), but, all in all, it will be a somewhat bad night for House Republicans who will suffer a net loss of 20-22 seats. Keep an eye on New Hampshire 1 and Connecticut 4. If the GOP loses both races, there will not be a single Republican representing a New England state in the House. Also, there might be a surprise in Idaho 1 in which the Republican incumbent, Mark Sali, is not well liked or well funded. Likely balance: 258-260 Democrats, 175-177 Republicans. 

The Last Identity Of Hillary Clinton

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

Currently, Hillary Clinton is on her third identity of the 2008 primary season. The first was the Uncrowned Queen of America, awaiting only the formalities before assuming power. True, hers was a reign that promised a common touch. From her chintz sofa in her mansion, she offered a “conversation” about the country’s direction. She deigned to solicit popular opinion as to her campaign’s theme song. Our presumptive monarch admitted it was tough to look magnificent on a daily basis, but tearfully averred she bore the burden because it was her duty to assist us.

Alas, for all this stooping, she did not conquer. So, Senator Clinton took on a Jacksonian cast. She told tales of rough-hewn childhood summers in the hills of eastern Pennsylvania , living among the common folk and engaging in their rustic social pursuits. Like Old Hickory, she claimed to be the people’s tireless tribune, defending them against patricians’ predations, who strived to wrest control of their government from their enemies. She dropped a shot and drank a beer with obvious gusto in Indiana , cheerily pumped gas in West Virginia , and delightedly visited a  Kentucky distillery. In this guise, she accomplished much, winning primaries in Pennsylvania ,  Indiana , Kentucky , and West Virginia by decisive margins.

Yet, even these victories did not change the campaign’s dynamic. Barack Obama shrugged off the defeats, scored victories of his own, and extended his lead over her in pledged delegates. Smitten with Senator Obama from early on, the political press declared her continued pursuit of the nomination to be quixotic (at best) and all but demanded she cede the field.

Senator Clinton, however, pressed on--and adopted a new guise: fiery feminist. Over the past couple of weeks, despite Senator Obama’s obvious appeal to a large number of women, certain women declared that sexism in the elite of the Democratic Party and in the elite press was what was denying Hillary Clinton the nomination. Unless she received the nomination, they threatened, they would not vote for Senator Obama in November. During her victory speech in Kentucky and in subsequent statements in Florida and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton enthusiastically wrapped her arms around this narrative (and the threat), claiming to bear the mantle of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and borrowing phrases from that anthem of the Women’s Liberation Movement, “I am Woman.” Privately, it is reported, she declares that some incidents on the campaign trail are irrefutable evidence of the Democratic Party’s misogynistic conspiracy.
 
Senator Clinton’s latest attempt at self-definition doesn’t seem to be working, however. The press and Senator McCain as well as conservative talk radio are treating Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee. Moreover, her sustained comparisons of her campaign to that for female suffrage as well as the abolition struggle and the Civil Rights Revolution make her seem at once conceited and delusional. And, still, Barack Obama serenely moves forward. Yet, Hillary Clinton still can make a final throw for the White House.

Notwithstanding Democratic historical legerdemain, two of the movements to which Mrs. Clinton now compares her campaign—the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement—were substantially Republican projects (the latter substantially, the former almost exclusively). Furthermore, Mrs. Clinton reached into her family background to validate her identity as the champion of the common people.
If, therefore, the Democratic Party rejects Senator Clinton’s demand that the nomination be handed to her at national convention in Denver , she will bolt the Democratic primary and continue her quest for the White House. She will not run, however, as an independent candidate. Instead, claiming that her campaign is in the great tradition of the crusades against slavery and for civil rights and that it was thwarted by the reactionaries in the Democratic Party and touching upon her family’s roots and her own, she will assume her final identity of the campaign by declaring herself . . . a Republican.

Scoff, if you will. However, by the time their convention rolls around and Hillary Clinton offers herself as a candidate for President, Republicans probably will be a demoralized lot. Already beset by polls that show a looming disaster in Congressional races, they will have endured a long, hot summer in which John McCain will have been vilified by the Democrats, assorted “527s,” and the press as a cantankerous old man, a man “kept” by a millionaire wife, a son of privilege, and a lousy aviator. In the immediate aftermath of a Democratic convention, at which the press will breathlessly pledge their undying devotion to Barack Obama, some Republicans might be verging on despair. So, despite her baggage—Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, and Terry McAuliffe, to name a few more prominent pieces—to those Republicans who are mainly concerned with their own welfare (and there are many), the opportunity to run a woman who has national name recognition, was once a “Goldwater Girl,” attracts blue-collar voters in swing states, speaks of “massive retaliation,” and who fudges sufficiently on withdrawal from Iraq (as well as gain a Senate seat) might seem Heaven-sent.

So, although Hillary Clinton today has only the slimmest chance to gain the Democratic nomination, her campaign’s “last dog” might not die until September in  Minneapolis.

The Morning After the Night Before

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

As expected, none of the leading candidates won enough delegates to clinch the nomination of their respective parties last night. However, for the Republicans, the end of the race is looming nigh.

Even Mitt Romney’s more ardent supporters probably detected a slight whiff of the valedictory in his speech last night. Yesterday, he had a difficult task before him because of the odd mix of “winner-take-all” and proportional affairs that comprised last night’s contests. Thanks to rule changes engineered in order to boost Rudy Guiliani’s abortive candidacy, three Northeastern states—New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York—were “winner-take-all” primaries. McCain won all three states as well as Arizona handily, taking home 233 delegates without cracking a sweat. In places that Romney won—North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado—he did not pick up enough the delegates to match McCain’s success in these states. In Minnesota, for example, Romney won 33 delegates, in Montana, 25. Although the final delegate count from California remains unknown, McCain’s popular vote victory there represented another blow to Romney’s candidacy. The worst results for the putative “real conservative” candidate, however, were his embarrassing third-place finishes in many southern and border states, home to many of the more conservative and most loyal GOP voters in the country.

Undoubtedly, Mike Huckabee surprised a lot of people with his five wins and very close second in Missouri (he lost to McCain by less than 10,000 voters). Although these victories might give hope to Huckabee’s more ardent supporters, the demographics associated with the rest of nomination contest do not bode well for Huckabee’s chances. So, as you enjoy him for his entertainment value, keep in mind that his is a limited engagement that will last only as long as his ego can sustain him.

Spirits undoubtedly are high this morning on the pirate ship known as the McCain campaign (with the candidate cast as Jack Sparrow). In terms of tabulated votes and delegates won, McCain had a very good night and emerged from Super Tuesday as the definite frontrunner. He has almost half of the delegates required for the nomination—all of them won fair and square—and is certain to continue to enjoy fundraising success. More important, both of his opponents are running out of gas.

In fact, McCain’s only remaining enemy is McCain. His foray into Massachusetts (a state he had no chance of winning) this past weekend seems to have sprung from pure spleen rather than any cogent thought. Instead of tweaking Romney on his home ground, McCain should have been campaigning in places like northern and southern Alabama, western and coastal Georgia as well as eastern and central Tennessee where he might have found the votes to lock up these three states and, in one blow, knock out Romney and Huckabee. In a closer race—like the one he might have in November—such a daft move could have cost him big. As it was, he got lucky in Missouri and, despite his four wins, Huckabee’s campaign is essentially over.

If McCain manages to start the process of mending fences with movement conservatives at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference without belting Ann Coulter (or anyone who looks like her) and wins the “Potomac Primary” next Tuesday, even the irrepressibly cheerful Mitt Romney and the cheerfully irrelevant Mike Huckabee will bow to what will then be the inevitable—and bow out of the race.

24

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

The clock started running for Mitt Romney last night when Rudy Guiliani finished his concession speech. With Guiliani doing everything in that speech to end his candidacy, save making a formal announcement, the race for the GOP nomination effectively became a two-man race--McCain v. Romney—and one in which John McCain now is the frontrunner.

Like the fictional character Jack Bauer in the action show “24,” a government agent who races against the clock to thwart a grave threat to the nation, from that moment, Mitt Romney had twenty-four hours to prevent a catastrophe. Romney desperately needs a breather to prevent McCain from becoming “inevitable” and to retain his own base of support. His probable hope is that he can lash together a coalition between his supporters and those of now-departed candidates to stop McCain from taking a majority of next Tuesday’s primaries, after which he can bring his financial and organizational resources to bear on the remaining primaries.

The reasons for this hope are evident: McCain did not win a majority of votes in Florida (he took home 36%); Florida’s huge senior citizen population gave McCain an advantage he will not have in other states; many “regular” Republicans still suspect McCain’s conservative bona fides. However, given that McCain’s victory last night represents his third straight primary win (or, as Mitt might put it, three straight gold medals) and his number of endorsements from “establishment” Republicans is growing—and may include Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger if press reports are correct—this is a tall order.

Romney’s only hope, therefore, is to knock McCain off what looks like a winning stride—and do so today. He should mount a blitz of talk radio (especially the big names) to make the case for his candidacy--and against McCain’s. He also needs to make himself available to any interested reporters in order to show that he is full of fight and ready for next Tuesday.

But any appearance he makes on talk radio and in the media today pales in importance to that which he makes tonight at the GOP debate at the Reagan Library. There, he can challenge McCain directly and prove his mettle as a campaigner. At every chance, he’ll declare himself as a “real” Republican, who is all about free markets and national security and an outsider who is not beholden to and enthralled by the denizens of Washington ’s media-government establishment, and cast McCain as the exact opposite. He’ll also need to pounce on any gaffe that McCain makes and to bring any answer he gives around to making the point that McCain is beloved by the establishment. But, it cannot end there. Among McCain’s perceived strengths are his “straight talk” and his disdain for “politics as usual.” Romney needs to undermine those strengths, to demonstrate that McCain can “double talk” or at least waffle with the best of them and to show that McCain is entirely capable of the dirty tricks that he often decries. To the latter, McCain obliged him when his campaign claimed that, last year, Romney approved of establishing a timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq and ran telephone calls that warned voters that Romney was against “traditional values” and pro-gun control (the former call was played on Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s programs yesterday).

Tonight’s debate is Mitt Romney’s last chance to prevent John McCain from grasping the Republican nomination, and much like the character Jack Bauer, Mitt Romney will need to hit his enemy hard—perhaps harder than some might like—if he is to win.

Man vs. Machine

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

A couple of weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama probably thought he was in a race for the Presidency. Now, he realizes that he is in the middle of a demolition derby.

Senator Clinton has abandoned whatever voice she found in New Hampshire and now uses an older, more familiar hectoring one. Former President Clinton now continually delivers bald-faced whoppers and assorted half-truths with the same podium-pounding sanctimony with which he denied his dalliance with “that woman” ten years ago. In the background are tales of push polls and anonymous telephone calls that stressed Senator Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

I cannot feel completely sorry for Senator Obama because, as a politician who came up in the rough-and-tumble of Chicago politics, he should realize the efficacy of the observation from Chicago’s own Mr. Dooley that “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Moreover, as an apparently intelligent man, he should know that one of the more dangerous places in the world is between the Clintons and what they believe is rightfully theirs. Still, for those watching the Clintons pummel the youngish and charming Senator Obama, their behavior conjures up memories of their “Just Win, Baby” style of politics and pseudo-governing. Undoubtedly, many people are hoping that, as they enter the voting booth, many Democrats will say to themselves, “It wouldn’t be right to subject the country for four, possibly eight, more years of this Clintonian mendacity and temerity,” and cast their votes for Senator Obama.

The trouble is that, despite being charming, intelligent, Ivy League-educated, and charismatic as well as a member of the best club in the United States, the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama remains an insurgent candidate, an outsider. Certainly, there is a lot of love for Barack Obama. Much as it was for John McCain in 2000, his is a candidacy created and sustained by starry-eyed romantics in the news media and within the ranks of the party faithful who were fervently hoping to be swept off their feet. And, sweep them off their feet he did—and still does.

The trouble is that the establishment of the Democratic Party—the unions, the state and local pols, the “community leaders,” the money people—the people who have the organizations that can turn out reliable voters, raise the cash needed to sustain a candidacy over the long haul, and perform the other scut work of politics already had fallen for their candidate. But, they had not fallen in love—they had fallen in line. Their decisions are entirely understandable. George Bush’s unpopularity meant that 2008 would be a Democratic year. Remembering the Clintonian years not as it was, but as they wished it to be—a golden era of peace, prosperity, and good jobs in the government— the Democratic rank-and-file placed Hillary Clinton at the top of their preference list for a presidential candidate. Add to that appeal, the graying eminence of Bill Clinton still enthralled the Democrats. So, seeing wisdom in Damon Runyon’s cynical observation that “The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, or the fight to the strongest, but that's the way to bet!” they conceded that she was “inevitable” and signed on with her campaign.

As much as some of them might be regretting that decision now, they show every indication of sticking with their decisions—and, therefore, Hillary Clinton remains the establishment candidate, the machine’s candidate. Indeed, the strong performance of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire as well as in Nevada owes much to the power of the organization, particularly the unions, who earlier pledged themselves to Clinton, Inc.. So, the Democratic contest has come down to a matter of Man vs. Machine. Even if Senator Obama wins in South Carolina, therefore, he has an exceptionally formidable task before him. He will move to a bigger stage—Florida—and then on to an even bigger one, the collection of disparate states holding primaries on February 5. As it is in any military campaign fought on a grand scale, in this political campaign, a large and powerful organization can provide the margin of victory against even most motivated and skillful opponent.

Despite any queasiness that any Democrats are experiencing about the behavior of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton on the stump, therefore, the fact remains that, because of the support of the Democrat establishment (no matter how grudgingly given), Mrs. Clinton retains the advantage.

The New Hampshire Primary . . . and Beyond

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

Today’s result: If the polls I saw this morning are correct, Hillary the Formerly Inevitable is in for her second straight loss and probably by double-digits. Her collapse has been rapid and astoundingly so. Based on whatever poll you read, she has dropped by as much as ten or eleven points (in five days!) and Obama has picked up most of these voters. Seeing as some of these polls are based on three-day averages and watching the size and energy of the crowds that he is drawing, Obama has the “ Big Mo ” that will carry him to a decisive victory today. If the reports about a huge Democratic turnout are correct, then at least 60% of “independent” voters in NH could be taking a Democratic ballot—and, I assume, most of them are casting their votes for Obama. So, don’t be surprised if the well-oiled, well-organized Obamarama picks up at least 45% of today’s vote.

What does it mean?: Well, the Michigan primary means nothing for Democrats. Only Hillary is on the ballot. So, it’s a farce. South Carolina is the next big prize. There, the news is bad for Hillary as well. One poll shows Obama with 42% of the vote and Hillary with 30%. That equates to a gain of twelve points for Obama. That’s big news. So, if Obama crushes Hillary today, he’ll need to brace himself for a VERY rough few weeks because Hillary & Co. will unload everything they have on him before South Carolina votes on January 26. However, with the Democratic electorate in SC being heavily black, Obama could wallop her down there and Edwards might even pull a second-place finish. Another third-place finish for Clinton , another body blow for her campaign. Don’t forget Nevada’s caucus on the previous Saturday, January 19; if a couple of the big unions that represent casino workers come out for Obama rather than Clinton or Edwards (as was reported this morning) and he wins decisively on that organizational push, then Obama gets an even bigger boost going into South Carolina, Florida (on January 29), and the February 5 series of primaries. In short, if Obama refrains from hurting Obama—and keeps the fundraising machine running smoothly along the way—the nomination could be his by February 6.

Republican Outcome: It’s a two-person race today between McCain and Romney. McCain’s average lead in polls is about 3.5%. However, Romney has had a good couple of days; his Sunday night debate performance was superb (as was Rudy’s) and his crowds on the stump seem large and energetic. He has other advantages: a solid organization on the ground and the fact that the majority of the independent vote probably is going Democratic. Therefore, he very well could pip McCain at the post today (by one or two points).

What does it mean?: No matter what happens today, the GOP race remains wide open. I don’t think McCain has the money to maintain any bounce he might get from a victory or strong second place finish in New Hampshire . With little money and a weak organization, McCain depends on the press to act as his campaign team as they did in 2000. Alas, the press attention is firmly focused on another inspirational tale, The Rise of Barack Obama. If Romney wins in Michigan and Nevada , he’ll get a boost and, as it was in 2000, South Carolina will be the grave of McCain’s hopes. Remember that Romney has been active in SC, building bridges to evangelical Christians in order to neutralize the Mormon problem. Plus, he has a lot of money. Huckabee might score well in SC, but he, too, has a lingering cash problem and a baling-wire-and-chewing-gum campaign. One story very few are talking about is Guiliani. He lurks in the background, to borrow a Tolkein phrase, “like a old, patient spider,” waiting for the “Huckaboom” to go bust, McCain to shoot his bolt, and Romney to spend his money. If there is no clear leader after South Carolina ’s primary and Nevada ’s caucus then Florida ’s January 29 primary becomes a two-man race, Rudy v. Romney, and Rudy might have a good cash advantage. Who knows? Virginia might decide this contest on 12 February.

The Great Christmas Book Series, Cont'd (ODT)

The Great Christmas Books Series
Old Dominion Tory

Assuming that Mr. and Mrs. Peperium do not banish me from this good and cheery company after my first essay concerning non-existent books, I developed a list of three books that are available for giving and receiving this Christmas season (although the second selection might demand nosing about a used bookshop or Amazon).

An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943 by Rick Atkinson

This magnificent book chronicles the U.S. Army’s first offensive campaign in World War II—the Allied invasion of Morocco and Algeria and subsequent battles in Tunisia—and the first test of the Anglo-American alliance. Atkinson brilliantly examines the conduct of the Americans from the top (Roosevelt and Churchill’s meeting in Morocco) to bottom (the desperate fight of an Iowa National Guard unit at Kasserine Pass. The relatively small scale of the forces involved allow him to focus on such figures as the full-of-fight George Patton and the senior commanders of the “Big Red One”—Terry Allen and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., the former a prayerful and hard-charging cavalryman, the latter a man displaying energy and drive unexpected in a man of 56 years old.

The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun by Merrill D. Peterson

In the antebellum period, there were dynamic presidents, but they were few—e.g., Andrew Jackson and James Polk. The center of American politics and government truly was the Congress and three men—Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun—came to personify it and the national struggles that consumed the nation during this era. Merrill Peterson, who also has written authoritative studies of Thomas Jefferson and the Adams-Jefferson relationship, provides a detailed, engaging narrative of these political titans lives and careers, careers that saw the demise of the Federalist Party, the rise of sectionalism, and the emergence of slavery as the dominant issue in American politics.

When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House by Patricia O’Toole

When Theodore Roosevelt left the White House in March 1909, he was only 50 years old and apparently was satisfied to spend the remainder of his days exploring and writing. Yet, being so used to power and enjoying its exercise as well as so deeply engaged in national and international affairs, he soon was drawn back into politics. O’Toole narrates the last decade of Theodore Roosevelt’s life—a time of triumphs, disappointments, and tragedies—in a brisk and detailed narrative that shows all sides of his complex personality to include his behind-the-scenes maneuverings and often pugnacious approach to people and issues. Yet, as much “TR” could be abrasive and bombastic, one comes away from this book feeling like a journalist that O’Toole paraphrases, “[Y]ou had to hate the Colonel a whole lot to keep from loving him.”

The Great Christmas Book Series, Cont'd (ODT)

The Great Christmas Book Series
Old Dominion Tory

This year, I ask the indulgence of Patum Peperium’s writers and its readers for a somewhat whimsical exercise in regards this year’s installment of the Great Christmas Books Series. Back in the 1990s, when I toiled as a book review editor for the magazines Proceedings and Naval History and an acquisitions editor for the Naval Institute Press, my colleagues and I often would discuss the books we would like to see written or, in some cases, write ourselves. I have continued to indulge in this intellectual parlor game ever since, using family and friends as my fellow players. So, here is a list of books that I wish I could give for Christmas, but cannot because, insofar as I know, they have not been written. A warning: this list is tilted toward political history and biography.

Eminent Clintonians
Whatever your opinion of Lytton Strachey’s 1918 book, Eminent Victorians, Strachey did create (for good or ill) a form of collective biography in which the character of an era is seen through the lives of a few of its luminaries. Most of the titles in this vein, if not all of them, concern themselves with Britain—e.g., Andrew Roberts’ 1994 Eminent Churchillians. I suggest, however, an American addition to the genre: Eminent Clintonians.

On the campaign trail for the past few years, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have done their level best to sell the 1990s as a golden age. Mine is a more jaundiced view. I see the years of 1992 to 2001 as ones in which country took “a holiday from history” and became enthralled by inconsequential people and ideas. The apparent attraction within certain circles of the notion that the 1990s can somehow be restored by the simple act of electing Mrs. Clinton as the President of the United States indicate just how corrosive the 1990s were on the national intellect and spirit.

Choosing the best representatives of this “low, mean decade” is a challenge. Of course, Bill Clinton must be one of the people profiled. Among my ideas are an Internet entrepreneur who made a huge pile in the stock market before “the Hi-Tech bubble” burst and took not many people with it; a cable news host to illustrate the conflation between entertainment and news in the 24-hour news cycle; and James Carville and Mary Matalin as personifications of the intrinsic shallowness of the decade’s politics. The book should have someone who illustrates the deeply unserious culture of the time, too.

For the author, I nominate P. J. O’Rourke, Christopher Buckley, or Christopher Hitchens. The subject deserves the approach that any these gentlemen would bring to the task.

Resurgence: The Fall and Rise of Richard Nixon, 1961-1968
In 1960, Richard Nixon lost the race for U.S. President in a squeaker against John F. Kennedy. Two years later, he had returned to his native California and run for Governor. In this election, he also failed and seemed to write off politics for good when, soon after the election, he told reporters that, “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around any more.” Six years later, however, Richard Nixon had returned to be kicked around again by the press in another try at the White House.

To me, the seven years of Nixon’s political life between the 1960 Presidential election and his nomination as the GOP’s presidential candidate in 1968 are boundlessly fascinating. After the twin blows of losing in 1960 and 1962, Nixon mustered up the grit, determination, and self-discipline (he always had the brains) to throw himself back into national politics and become his party’s standard bearer. Whatever your opinion of the Richard Nixon whose self destruction in the early 1970s was a painful affair for all concerned, the Richard Nixon of these “wilderness years” deserves serious study—and not a little admiration. If executed well, such a book would be not only a detailed account of one of the greatest political comebacks in American history, but a colorful portrait of the times in which Nixon engineered his resurgence and the people with whom he shared the stage, such as John Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

Bosses and Boodlers, Mugwumps and Goo-Goos: A Political History of the Gilded Age, 1865-1896
“America has no native criminal class, except Congress,” quipped Mark Twain. During the three decades after the Civil War, American politics was a rough-and-tumble affair and many of the men involved in it were not of the highest moral caliber. Thus, many writers seems content to write off this period as hopelessly corrupt and, therefore, not worthy of much attention. In fact, since Matthew Josephson published The Politicos in 1938, no author (at least none that I know of) has attempted to portray American politics across this entire period.

More’s the pity because, in these years, the Republican Party (only about a decade old in when Lincoln was reelected) matured into a permanent fixture and the Democrats slowly repaired the divisions wrought by the Civil War. Politics and politicians also dealt with the effects of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration in an atmosphere that was ever more democratic. Bosses developed formidable machines (or built on the foundations of old ones), while, at the same time, reformists fought corruption and often autocratic politics—and in doing so planted the seeds of the Progressive movement and developed a form and style of politics that, arguably, endured until 1960.

A Bountiful Land: A Novel of a Catholic America
On June 10, 1610, Jamestown was on the verge of collapse. During the winter of 1609-1610, known as “The Starving Time,” almost 80% of the colonists had died. That spring, relations with the natives—never entirely good—continued to be frosty. Downcast at the prospects of another bleak winter, the colonists decided to abandon the outpost and head back to England. On their way down the river to the Chesapeake Bay, they spied a ship coming toward them. At first, they thought that their long-standing fear of a Spanish attack was materializing. However, the ship was an English one, the Deliverance, and on board were supplies, more colonists, and a new, more energetic governor, Lord De La Warr. The ships returned to Jamestown and, with the help of some tobacco seeds carried by John Rolfe, the colony put down the roots that eventually would blossom into Virginia.

Like every other counterfactual “history” or “historical novel,” The Bountiful Land would answer questions beginning with those fateful words: What if . . .? In this case: What if the Deliverance did not arrive on June 10, but a week later? What if, upon discovering the abandoned post, Lord De La Warr had ordered the Deliverance back to sea and, eventually, to England? And, finally what if the next ships that sailed up the James were Spanish, carrying hardy conquistadores and resolute Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, and Benedictines who were determined to establish a colony on the northern edge of New Spain?”

The War of 1812: A Naval History
Happily, there have been a plethora of books about the exciting early days of the United States Navy, when its relatively small number of ships fought Revolutionary France in the Caribbean, took the fight to the Barbary Pirates, and stood up to the might of the Royal Navy. These courageous and skilled sailors won respect for America, ensured its survival, and established a heritage of victory for their successors.
As good and as enjoyable as these books have been, none of these recent authors has taken up the story of the Naval War of 1812 as a stand-alone subject. In fact, I don’t think anyone has since, yes, Theodore Roosevelt.
Now, the idea of following Theodore Roosevelt in anything, even after the space of more than a century, would be intimidating. However, I hope that some enterprising author will take up the task of telling how the U.S. Navy as well as American privateers fought the Royal Navy on the high seas and inland seas from 1812-1815. The importance of the War of 1812 to the development of the United States is again being discussed (thanks in part because of the overall interest in the Early Republic as well as the impending bicentennial of the war. Moreover, there is no shortage of rousing sea fights and colorful characters intrinsic to the story.

Thank you ODT. Now you must indulge my whimsical exercise:

Kiffin Yates Rockwell

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

During World War I, Americans’ support of France was much more ardent than their support of Britain. There are myriad reasons for the wide difference in affection: lingering resentments toward Britain, France’s status as a “sister republic” in a world of autocrats, the often-brutal German occupation of parts of France, the French soldier’s courage and élan, and the central place of France in high culture.

Perhaps the most common reason, however, why Americans were devoted to France—some so much that they were willing to fight for it—was the critical role that France played in winning American independence. If you read accounts of Americans who served France as ambulance drivers or soldiers before the United States entered the war, you encounter numerous mentions of Lafayette and how America needed to repay the French for their support of the American Revolution. One young man who fought for France described his motivation as “I am paying my part of America's debt for Lafayette and Rochambeau.” That young man was Kiffin Yates Rockwell, VMI Class of 1912.

Arms and the Historian

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

A few months ago, Mr. Peperium posed a question to me about military history. He asked if military experience was necessary for a historian if he or she wished to tackle military history.

Initially, I thought he was being mischievous. Then, however, a memory emerged from the rambling full Cape that is my mind. In the late 1990s, I watched a television interview with Sir John Keegan (probably in support of his book Fields of Battle: The Wars for North America). During it, the interviewer asked Sir John if he had served in the military. He replied that he had not because of a congenital health problem. Why, I wondered then, had the interviewer thought it necessary to ask a military historian of John Keegan’s stature if he had served in the military?

Correct me if I am wrong, dear readers, but military history seems to be the only historical discipline in which the author’s first-hand experience with a subject concerns people, even if only in passing. Indeed, some authors of military history seem to know that the question “Did you serve in the military?” lurks in the minds of many in their audiences and, often unbidden, they describe how they served or explain why they did not.

If you think that an intimate acquaintance with a subject is an essential ingredient to effective history, allow me a few questions. Should a political biography be kicked to the curb solely because the author had not served in political office? Are a MBA and time managing an automobile factory the prerequisites for someone who wants to write a history of General Motors? Should books about an event in diplomatic history be eschewed if their authors have never been accredited diplomats?

Anyone demanding that authors of works on political, economic, and diplomatic history have first-hand experience within these fields would be considered a fool—and rightly so. The same rule should apply to military history. Limiting the writing of military history to only those answered the call to the colors would remove from the canon of military history such authors as Douglas Southall Freeman (Lee’s Lieutenants), Russell Weigley (The American Way of War and Eisenhower’s Lieutenants), John Terraine (Mons: The Retreat to Victory and To Win a War: 1918, The Year of Victory), John Ferling (Almost a Miracle), and the aforementioned Sir John Keegan (Six Armies in Normandy). Those who assert that only soldiers can understand soldiers should give up their copies of any works by Navy veterans Bruce Catton and Thomas Fleming. If some think that a few years on a warship is the basic qualification for a naval historian, then they hereby disqualify the likes of Samuel Eliot Morison and Theodore Roosevelt.

To write effective military history, authors do not need military experience. They do, however, need to have a few traits.

First, they need scholarly rigor. In short, they must be determined to do the necessary spadework in archives and libraries.

Second, they must be conscious of their audience’s limitations. Not everyone reading a book about, say, World War I will understand that, on the Western Front, an advance of eight miles was a great accomplishment because of the battlefield’s conditions and the fact that armies of the time marched. Authors must accept that they’ll need to explain certain facts and provide background.

Third, they need to realize their own limitations. If I were to write an account of an attack by an American armored division in Normandy, I would be sure to ask experienced historians and soldiers if I was on the right track with my research, evaluations, and writing.

Fourth, they need charity. Now, we often can easily see what someone should have done in a war. Whether they are on a battlefield or on the bridge of a ship, however, commanders make decisions under conditions of incredible stress and confusion. Moreover, their orders were executed under the same conditions.

Finally, you need a sincere appreciation of the subject and the men and women who people it. Those who write military history always need to be mindful of its importance on the grand scale of human history. However, they must never lose forget that war is not just a tale of strategy, technology, and logistics. At its core, it consists of many captivating stories of people, all of which are tinged with tragedy, who left all that was familiar and loving, and, on some strife-torn field, stood in the day of battle.

Why Should the Ladies Have All the Fun?

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

Yesterday, Christine, Lorraine, and Mrs. Peperium engaged in a discussion about the crushes they had with “the fictional and the dead.” Theirs was an admirable list that included such luminaries G. K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Sherlock Holmes, Saint Thomas More, and Lord Peter Wimsey. Evelyn Waugh and Monsignor Ronald Knox apparently are of particular delight to these ladies as evidenced by the fact that Mrs. Peperium and Christine have a standing lunch date with the former every Wednesday at the Savoy Grill and only Monsignor Knox is allowed to cut-in on the dance floor.

Gentlemen of Patum Peperium, I don’t think the ladies should be allowed to have all the fun along these lines. I, therefore, ask you list at least five fictional or dead men or women with whom you would like to have a civilized lunch or dinner or send time with in an amiable pub or at a sidewalk café.

My list (in no particular order):

Winston Churchill—A conservative cliché? Perhaps. But, come now, in Churchill, there is a man who not only enjoys the pleasures of the plate and the bottle (not to mention a good cigar), but who also always at the center of superb and wide-ranging conversations with all sorts of interesting people. One proviso, however: I would want to enjoy dinner with him sometime during the summer and early fall of 1940 in order to ascertain what inspired and buttressed him during this bleak and yet glorious time in the history of Great Britain.

Hillaire Belloc—Spending a long, well-lubricated lunch with the man who wrote appealing paeans to the joys of wine and companionship as well as The Path to Rome, Voyage of the Nona, and James II would be an experience at once warm, fascinating, and humbling.

Robert E. Lee—Admittedly, a man of great personal restraint and a singular sense of duty might not strike some as a man with whom you could enjoy an animated tableside conversation. However, seeing as his example and his character inspired so many men and produced great admiration from his enemies, I’d take the risk to learn something of this great American soldier.

Charles Carroll of Carrollton—The only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll was the descendant of an Irishman who saw in America immense opportunity, despite the legal strictures on the Church. He also was educated somewhat differently than most of the Founders, spending his early years in France. Discovering some insight to Carroll’s faith and his family shaped him as a man and as a politician would be invaluable.

The Three Musketeers—Could a hearty tavern dinner with these devoted soldiers of the King be anything but a highly spirited affair characterized by good food and wine, boundless conviviality, and warm companionship? And, if it’s followed by some rousing swordplay, well, all the better.

A Postcard

The Eccentric Observer
Old Dominion Tory

Greetings from Cape Cod!

Here I spend my leisure hours in a manner worthy of emulation. I arise every morning with the sun and run down the wide, wind-swept beach, waving to my friends--the gulls, the terns, and the quahaugs. I then plunge into the cold, clear waters of Cape Cod Bay, cutting through the waves with graceful strokes. After this exercise, I return to the ancestral manse where, for the rest of the day, I occupy myself in the noble pursuits of the mind, reading thoughtful works of history and biography by insightful authors and, thus inspired, writing penetrating, weighty, yet entertaining, essays on the important matters facing the American Republic.

I drink a little, too.