8:37 PM :: Stephen (contact)

Swamped with what work, you ask? Well, I've been spending the summer trying to transform my undergraduate thesis on medieval commercial law ("The 'Law Merchant' and the Fair Court of St. Ives, 1270-1324") into a publishable article. If you have any experience in this area and would like to offer suggestions for the revision, please let me know.

One of the joys of historical research, as Josh Chafetz has remarked, is occasionally finding echos of the past in the modern world. For instance, in what may be the earliest recorded example of English soccer violence (oh, I'm sorry, 'football' violence), in 1373 a group of tailors were prosecuted in London for having

made an assembly, under colour of playing with a football, in order to assault others, occasion disputes, and perpetrate other evil deeds against the peace.

(For this and other fascinating episodes of medieval life, see the Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls Preserved Among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guild-hall, Volume II, page 152. Some later entries in the rolls may also be found here.)

However, since I'm now leaving town for a week, the work is on hold; expect another short hiatus in posting.

 

8:29 PM :: Stephen (contact)

An op-research field day: The Wall Street Journal has posted Clark's statement at the Lincoln Day dinner, "a fund-raiser for the Pulaski County Republican Party, in Little Rock, Ark., May 11, 2001." Key quote:

And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

This worries me, and the fact that I still don't understand Clark's actual position on the war doesn't help. Even if Clark wants to claim that he made an "incredible journey" and spoke out once he saw the country moving in the wrong direction, this should have been apparent to a Democratic candidate well before 9/11. If I remember right, most of Bush's domestic policy was already under way by May 2001, and the first round of tax cuts was enacted in early June. If Clark thinks that "massive tax cuts for the rich" are a bad thing in principle--and not just that these particular tax cuts didn't happen to work--wouldn't he have had enough information to say so in May? (And to ask an obvious question, what was he doing at a GOP fundraiser anyway?)

According to the Drudge Report (link thanks to Ross), "A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced." If I were Karl Rove, should Clark be nominated, I'd air that video twice a day until the election. (Then again, if I were the DNC, I would have done the same with pictures of George W. Bush as head cheerleader for Andover.)

 

8:10 PM :: Stephen (contact)

Sullivan Obsessed: Ross Douthat wonders: "What the heck is Andrew Sullivan's deal?" In other words, why does Sullivan's coverage of Gen. Wesley Clark show an unhealthy obsession with Rhodes Scholars? As in:

"If I were to imagine a parody of what a Rhodes Scholar would come up with in such a moment, I'd be hard pressed to come up with something more perfect. His insistence throughout the piece is on process, process, process." ("Clark on the War," Sept. 19)

"To my mind, the most important thing about Clark is that he was a Rhodes Scholar. Almost to a man and woman, they are mega-losers, curriculum-vitae fetishists, with huge ambition and no concept of what to do with it." ("Clark Again," Sept. 20)

"Look, [Clark] was a Rhodes Scholar. They suck upwards and kick downwards." ("Clark's Joke," Sept. 24)

"If [Clark]'s genuine - and you have to remember he's a Rhodes Scholar and they tend to say anything to suck up to whomever they're talking to, in this case, Republicans..." ("Second Thoughts on Clark," Sept. 26, 2:01 a.m.)

[From a reader's letter, excerpted on the main page:] "As for Clark's debate appearance, and saying the right things on the deficit, etc., that's what Rhodes Scholars, like Bill C., do the best! It's part of the suck up technique that got them to the top." ("Third Thoughts on Clark," Sept. 26, 1:24 p.m.)

"So how to explain Clark's exuberant praise so soon? The Rhodes Scholar key: he wanted a job. He still does. And maybe he'll say anything to get one." ("Correction," Sept. 26, 1:41 p.m.)

At first, I thought Sullivan was just using the Rhodes label as a club for beating Clark over the head. But then I read what he wrote on Dec. 9, 2002, well before Clark made moves toward the race:

"[Chesa] Boudin deserves praise for winning a Rhodes (although Rhodes scholars are among the most irritating mediocrities on earth)..."

Strangely, as OxBlogger Josh Chafetz points out, Sullivan has strongly praised other Rhodes Scholars in the past (check out David Adesnik's take too). Even more strangely, Sullivan's bio notes that he "came to the United States on a Harkness Fellowship, the British equivalent of the Rhodes Scholarship." (One wonders why he would compare himself to a bunch of "irritating mediocrities.")

Personally, I think that Americans' stereotypes of Rhodes Scholars have become intertwined with their perceptions of Bill Clinton; either silver-tongued and destined for high office, or slippery brown-nosers with a talent for resume-polishing. But given that Sullivan doesn't exactly fit the stereotype of a Republican, either, he ought to do better than to deal in cariacatures.

Alternatively, maybe Sullivan is just taking his cues from Mel Gibson, as per this 1995 interview in Playboy Magazine:

GIBSON: ... [Bill Clinton] was meant to be the president 30 years ago, if you ask me.

PLAYBOY: He was just 18 then.

GIBSON: Somebody knew then that he would be president now.

PLAYBOY: You really believe that?

GIBSON: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it's Marxism, but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don't admit to it. Do it by stealth. There's a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world.

I call dibs on a black helicopter.

 

6:06 PM :: Stephen (contact)

More generous than the Marshall Plan: I've been swamped with work for the past few weeks, which is why I haven't been posting. But when I saw this quote from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) cited in the NYT, I was simply flabbergasted:

Some have compared the Iraq reconstruction effort to the Marshall Plan that led to the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. In fact, the differences between the current proposal and the Marshall Plan are dramatic. For instance, the Marshall Plan required countries receiving assistance to contribute a matching amount to their own reconstruction, and also included loans that were eventually paid back. Neither of these important requirements are present in the Iraqi reconstruction request of the Administration.

In other words, the Iraq proposal differs from the Marshall Plan in that it's even more generous.

Levin goes on to say that the Marshall Plan was also the result of eight months of work, and he may be right that an $87 billion grant deserves more than two weeks' consideration. But does anyone really want to saddle Iraq with even more debt? At the very least, from now on, no one can accuse the Bush administration of trying to do nation-building on the cheap.