This is what Peter (played by Ron Livingston) says to his date Joanna (played by Jennifer Aniston) in the classic workplace comedy “Office Space” after announcing that he really hates his job. Here is some dialogue that follows:

Joanna: You’re just not gonna go?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Won’t you get fired?
Peter Gibbons: I don’t know, but I really don’t like it, and, uh, I’m not gonna go.
Joanna: So you’re gonna quit?
Peter Gibbons: Nuh-uh. Not really. Uh… I’m just gonna stop going.
Joanna: When did you decide all that?
Peter Gibbons: About an hour ago.

The movie has a ton of great quotes and this isn’t even really one of the better scenes, but it did come to mind recently when I read a recent post of Prawfsblawg - “Why I don’t write” which discusses the merits of and reasons for not publishing after gaining tenure. I’m wondering if there will be a follow up post - “Why I don’t teach”.

Paul Horwitz (University of Alabama School of Law) has recently posted his review essay “Review - Constitutional Conscience: The Moral Dimension of Judicial Decision, by H. Jefferson Powell, and How Judges Think, by Richard A. Posner” on SSRN. It’s an interesting review essay on two books on judging that are probably worth a look. The first, by Powell, essentially dwells on the “should” with regard to judicial decision-making and the latter, by Judge Posner, focuses on the actual “how” of the process. The abstract is available below the fold:

Abstract:
This is a short review of two new books on judging - Constitutional Conscience: The Moral Dimension of Judicial Decision, by H. Jefferson Powell, and How Judges Think, by Richard A. Posner. Although both books examine the same topic, and both focus largely on judicial decision making by Supreme Court Justices in the area of constitutional law, their approaches diverge significantly. Powell takes a page from virtue ethics in offering an expansive and ruminative vision of the ethical virtues and vices that characterize the judge in a constitutional case. Posner brings his economist’s toolkit, supplemented by a variety of disciplinary adjuncts and a bracing dose of pragmatism, to many of the same questions. Their goals are somewhat different, and their conclusions, despite some common ties, present a striking contrast. These books may be read as complementary and not just competitive accounts. Nevertheless, I suggest that Posner’s account is far more descriptively accurate, although Powell leads us, commendably, to think about the ways in which we might reconsider and revive the kinds of constitutional virtues that are at the heart of his romantic account.

Thirteen years ago, Nelson Mandela became South Africa’s first elected black president.

But on July 8, 1986 Reagan claimed it wasn’t clear whether Mandela should be freed:

Mr. Drake. One last question on South Africa. When we were talking about black leaders in the country and the necessity of dealing with them, what do you think the role of Nelson Mandela should be?

The President. Well, he’s sort of an enigma right now. He undoubtedly is a leader in ANC, and he was incarcerated because he openly advocated violence. Now there seems to be some word that he has indicated that he may be stepping back from that position. So, I think it would be worth talking to him, that—

Mr. Drake. Well, do you think he should be freed immediately?

The President. Well, I don’t know that that’s a decision for us to make. It seems from our viewpoint over here that this could, if it is true that he is advocating negotiations rather than just outright violence, that then this could be most helpful.

Before reversing his position two weeks later:

First, a timetable for elimination of apartheid laws should be set. Second, all political prisoners should be released. Third, Nelson Mandela should be released to participate in the country’s political process. Fourth, black political movements should be unbanned. Fifth, both the Government and its opponents should begin a dialog about constructing a political system that rests upon the consent of the governed, where the rights of majorities and minorities and individuals are protected by law. And the dialog should be initiated by those with power and authority: the South African Government itself. Sixth, if post-apartheid South Africa is to remain the economic locomotive of southern Africa, its strong and developed economy must not be crippled.

The Special AKA made their stance clear in 1984:

Happy Birthday, Harry.

Truman is known for popularizing the saying “the buck stops here”, but I can find only two mentions in his official papers. At a 1951 DNC dinner he talked about the sign on his desk that says “the buck stops here” when describing his four main jobs: president and chief executive, head of the Democratic Party, “social chief of state”, and Commander-in-Chief. In a 1952 address to the Army War College, he described decision-making as a definitive act for presidents:

You know, it’s easy enough for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you–and on my desk I have a motto which says “The buck stops here”–the decision has to be made. That decision may be right. It may be wrong. If it is wrong, and it has been shown that it is wrong, I have no desire to cover it up. I admit it, and try to make another decision that will meet the situation. And that is what any President of the United States has to do. Just bear that in mind.

[Truman made the comments in reference to the Communist "takeover" of China, saying also that "We hope it will not be an irrevocable loss."]

Other presidents used the phrase many more times that Truman (although they may not have made it the centerpiece of their desks). The counts:

During the Gore-Bush debate in Boston, Bush argued:

I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that — I believe they’ve moved that sign, “The buck stops here” from the Oval Office desk to “The buck stops here” on the Lincoln bedroom. It’s not good for the country and it’s not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There’s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don’t want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It’s time for a fresh start. It’s time for a new look. It’s time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism.

By the way, it’s never been a catchphrase among academic administrators.

No, really, please do not stand next to me … if you are not considered socially desirable. As opposed to the Police song in which the narrator has mixed feelings about the attractive subject standing so close to him (for fear of scandal or worse), recent research suggests that it can also be detrimental to be in close proximity to people who are not deemed attractive by society. This truism has been tied to political behavior by Shankar Vendantam in his recent Washington Post article. Here are some selections:

Social psychologist Michelle Hebl of Rice University once conducted an interesting experiment that helps explain the phenomenon. Hebl had volunteers evaluate a mock job applicant. Some volunteers saw the applicant sitting in a waiting room next to an overweight person, while others saw the applicant in the waiting room sitting next to a person of average weight. A variety of experiments have shown that overweight people suffer from discrimination; what Hebl wanted to find out was whether strangers in the vicinity of overweight people would share in such approbation.

Remarkably, Hebl found that volunteers rated job applicants more negatively when they had been seen seated next to an overweight person than when they were seen seated next to an average weight person. The volunteers had no idea that they were showing not only a prejudice against fat people but also a bias against people who were merely in proximity to overweight people.

But what does this tell us about how the public views politicians, or politicians’ behavior?

The experiment tells us something about the Obama-Wright controversy. The presidential candidate may have made it clear that the minister does not speak for him, but every time Wright’s words are replayed on talk radio and cable TV, they automatically retrieve mental associations in many voters’ minds with Obama. Hebl similarly found her volunteers unconsciously made associations even after being explicitly told there was no connection between the job applicants in the waiting room.

Obama is not the only politician whose image is shaped by voters’ associations. Politicians, in fact, take care to shape our associations of them: Ronald Reagan draped himself in the American flag at every public opportunity. President Bush landed on a warship in a flight suit, helmet under one arm, to make his “Mission Accomplished” speech about the Iraq war. Then-New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) had their wives stand by as they confessed sexual indiscretions.

The reason pols do these things, of course, is that Reagan wanted us to link him with patriotism, Bush with military success, Spitzer and Vitter with being lovable husbands. Because associations often operate outside conscious awareness, politicians can succeed in making them stick, even when we have evidence the associations are false.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to find some attractive people to stand next to - every little bit helps and I’ll take all the help I can get.

Below - a gratuitous Police video to match the post title - remember when videos cost like $500 to shoot?

The Lusitania was torpedoed today in 1915, killing 1198 people and eventually leading to US involvement in World War I.

The event was covered widely in the US and Europe, although “Remarkably, this event dominated the headlines for only about a week before being overtaken by a newer story.”

The official papers of the president show only one mention by Woodrow Wilson, on April 19, 1916 in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on German Violations of International Law:

Great liners like the Lusitania and the Arabic and mere ferryboats like the Sussex have been attacked without a moment’s warning, sometimes before they had even become aware that they were in the presence of an armed vessel of the enemy, and the lives of non-combatants, passengers and crew, have been sacrificed wholesale, in a manner which the Government of the United States cannot but regard as wanton and without the slightest color of justification.

And the sinking became a source of inspiration for WWI “calls to arms”.

But Lyndon Johnson mentioned the event six times - three times in 1964 alone. The mentions convered the space race, national security lead-ins to discussions of the 1964 elections, science investments for national security, and containing the march of communism in Korea and Vietnam.

What explains the lag? Interestingly, people who were in their teens in 1915 were in their 60s in 1965 - and their decision-making power was the greatest in formal political settings.

The Social Science Research Council, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is pleased to announce a call to faculty for interdisciplinary research field proposals for the 2009 Dissertation Proposal Development Fellowship (DPDF) program. Established in 2006, the DPDF combines financial
support and workshop experience for early-stage graduate students engaged in predissertation research and developing their dissertation proposals. The DPDF program is designed to intervene at a critical moment in the career development of graduate students in the humanities and social sciences by aiding their transition from students to researchers. It provides complementary interdisciplinary perspectives to students across the disciplines of the social sciences and humanities.* Faculty applicants must be tenured at different doctoral degree-granting programs at US universities and apply in teams of two. DPDF Research Directors lead groups of 12 graduate student fellows in two four-day workshops. Research directors receive a stipend of $10,000 each. More information about the program may be found at: http://programs.ssrc.org/dpdf.

It seems that there’s been growing concern recently about export controls and strategic national resources (for example, regarding technical information, fissile materials, and even rice).

In an early example of the debate over export controls, the Hindenburg crashed and burned 71 years ago today:

There are no records of the president speaking publicly about this following the disaster. But in 1938, FDR was questioned about National Munitions Control Board’s decisions re export controls for helium:

Q. Mr. President, regarding the helium question, which you took up with members of various departments the other day and afterwards indicated that the matter was for decision of the National Munitions Control Board, that Board had already approved the export. Did you intend that they should reopen the question?

THE PRESIDENT: I think probably there will be another meeting of the Board very soon.

Q. When?

THE PRESIDENT: Very soon; I don’t know when.

Q. Who has the power to call that meeting?

THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman.

Q. The Chairman yesterday said it would depend on you.

THE PRESIDENT: Perfectly true; I have not asked him yet because I have not seen him.

Q. Do you understand that the Board acted illegally when it approved the export of helium?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know; it is a question of law, I suppose. The statute is very definite in setting up the National Munitions Board. It says, “The Secretaries” of these different Departments—”The heads” of these Departments. Well, by Government custom, as you know, these interdepartmental boards meet with the membership composed of Assistant Secretaries and, in order that the record may be perfectly clear, we want to have a meeting with the Secretaries present. Legally, whether the action of the Board when it is constituted by Assistant Secretaries may be all right, nobody knows.

Following the disaster, Germany requested that the US loosen export controls on helium as a replacement for hydrogen in the next airship, Graf Zeppelin II (which was eventually used for military purposes). Congress responded by tightening controls, which became part of the dialogue between FDR, the Board, and the press regarding the Board’s decisions:

Q. In weighing the laws governing the export of helium, does the Board take into consideration the intent of the Congress, the intent of the time when it was passed, which was immediately after the Hindenburg disaster?

THE PRESIDENT: They take into consideration the language of the statute primarily. When any question comes up as to the construction of the language, they are at full liberty to look into the debates on the floor or the hearings of the committee prior to the passage of the statute. . . .

So the hydrogen/helium question became part of the debate between Congress and the president about administrative accountability.

Malcolm Smith and Cornelius Cotter used this as evidence in their 1957 article “Administrative Accountability: Reporting to Congress” in the old Western Political Quarterly. Look at the study: they try to catalogue all the required reporting devices that Congress imposed on the executive for a selection of statutes over about 25 years. Do we even do this type of work anymore?

[Google Scholar tells me this article has been cited a grand total of 2 times in the last 51 years, which probably tells us more about how our post-behavioral revolution "science" discards old narrative-based studies than anything about the actual study.]

I’d like to introduce the premiere of a new Voir Dire endeavor: E-Interview. In this feature we basically interview a variety of people via email. Alas, I can’t promise a consistent theme to these interviews or how they will go - one simply cannot predict the creative process.

This week’s E-Interview subject is Jamie Carson, (soon to be) Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Georgia.

Jamie in his office

Welcome to E-Interview, Jamie. First, let me just say that you have a quite an impressive research record.

Thank you.

A good number of political scientists, including yours truly, conduct research on important American political institutions such as the courts and the presidency. I see that your research concerns some other trifling institution – what is it again?

It’s Congress.

Oh, yes, Congress. And what exactly is it that they do around here?

Uh, they make the laws of our nation.

Touché, sir, touché – but that wouldn’t matter very much without the courts’ interpretation or the executive’s enforcement of the laws, now would it?

Well, perhaps, but it’s important to note that….

Next question: Is it not true that the vast majority of laws are promulgated by the state legislatures, whose cumulative policy influence greatly exceeds that of congress?

I am getting a bit agitated with this style of questioning. Please don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

Hey, chill out slick, I’m not even that wild about you when you aren’t angry.

One last question: Can you really expect us to believe that you have published this many articles in such a short period of time under, let us say, “normal” conditions?

What are you implying?

I am not implying anything – I’m asking you flat out – are you, in fact, Iron Man?

Yes. In fact, I am Iron Man.

]]> http://lawandcourts.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/voir-dire-e-interview-jamie-carson/feed/ http://lawandcourts.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/marx-isms/ http://lawandcourts.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/marx-isms/#comments Mon, 05 May 2008 13:16:01 +0000 abwhitford http://lawandcourts.wordpress.com/?p=305

Born: Karl Marx, 190 years ago today (1818 in Prussia).

Harry Truman made the first recorded public mention of Marx in a 1950 speech to the Better Business Bureau:

The most persuasive argument the Communists have is not anything Marx or Lenin ever wrote, or anything Stalin ever said–but the depression which began in the United States in 1929. And the Russians have been waiting for another one ever since Potsdam. That depression weakened the faith of many men throughout the world in the ability of our democratic institutions to meet the needs of our people. That depression is still used by the Communists to shake the faith of millions in the way of life that this Nation represents.

Note the date: 1950, just at the beginning of one of the great expansions of the US economy (see Vatter’s The U. S. Economy in the 1950s: An Economic History). But change was uneven and helped different people in different ways.

And economic interests saw the role of government in the economy in very different ways. In a 1952 speech to the Electric Consumers Conference, Truman talked about big electric companies and their treatment of consumers:

First, they started out with a public opinion survey. They asked a lot of people what they thought of TVA. And most people said it was a wonderful thing. Then they asked people what they thought of public power, and most people said that was all right, too.

Well, this surprised the power companies, but it didn’t surprise me, and I don’t suppose it surprised anyone here. It simply meant that most people know what is good for them, when they have the facts in front of them.

Then the company agents asked people what they thought of socialism and of course most people said we are “agin” it. Naturally, they would say that.

Of course, the TVA was a high-profile government intervention. Truman remarked that “socialism” was relative in the view of some:

You of course know the tale about a couple of men discussing socialism. One of them was a socialist and the other one was not.

The first man said, “Sam, if you had a million dollars, would you divide it with me?”
“Sure,” said Sam.
“Well,” said John, “if you had two pigs, would you give me one of them?”

Sam said, “Now John, you know I’ve got a couple of pigs.”

Truman saw such economic interests as trying to connect socialism to what government was doing - as “all part of some big plot to socialize the country”. This, he claimed, was no different from what the proponents of socialism (in different flavors) were doing in propaganda about economic hardship:

What these private power companies are actually doing is deliberately and in cold blood setting out to poison the minds of the people. They make no bones about it. Their own manuals say that their purpose is to influence the mass mind in this country by playing on people’s emotions.

The “mass mind”–what a horrible phrase. I think it’s one of the most horrible phrases in the language. They think of the individual human beings in this great country as parts of a mass mind. They set out to play upon the emotions of churchgoers, Boy Scouts, and schoolchildren. They try to control people’s thoughts by using slogans and scare words.

They have taken a leaf right out of the books of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. They are following the Soviet and the fascist lines.

This is nothing less than an attack on the fundamental principles of our democratic country. Instead of letting people make up their own minds on the basis of the facts and the truth, this private power company propaganda is deliberately designed to conceal the facts, and to manipulate people’s opinions by appealing to their emotions and not to their reason.

[Cf. complaints that the coming trillion-dollar meltdown in the credit markets is really government's fault.]

On this day:

Selection systems can sometimes be imperfect. This may occasionally be revealed when a great candidate or performer comes to a position through unusual circumstances or a “fluke”. Witness Brett Michaels’ (lead singer of “Poison”) VH1 reality show, “Rock of Love” (or Rock of Love 2 for purists). The show’s ultimate winner (and hence Brett’s ‘Rock of Love’) turned out to be Ambre Lake (on the left) who nudged out Daisy De La Hoya (on the right - and, yes, she is apparently related to the well known boxer, Oscar De La Hoya). Curiously, Ambre was almost cut from the show (i.e. not chosen by Brett to continue to ‘rock his world’) very early on - not even past the quarterfinals. She was only saved when one contestant chose not to remain on the show after being chosen by Brett. But, as the show wore on she gained momentum and ended up beating out all of the other contestants.

Now, all of this is to suggest that scenarios such as this may provide information on the imperfections of any selection system. We can think of other instances in which great performers were not early picks; or, alternatively, situations in which stand out performers only attained the position which enabled them to excel through a “fluke” situation. Instances that come to mind include athletes who were not high draft choices or college stars but went on to do great things in the pros (e.g. Johnny Unitas or Scottie Pippen). Similarly, we might think of actors who were not the first choice for roles, but ended up being praised for their performances or winning academy award. Of course, the flip side of this idea are situations in which “high draft picks” turn out to not do so well down the road. The worlds of athletics and entertainment are full of these stories.

Are there, perhaps, applications in political science or law? Great judges who were not obvious picks? Perhaps political leaders who were good performers, but attained office by fluke? Obviously, there may be somewhat of a subjective element in assessing who was a great performer; but this notwithstanding, it may be the case that studying these instances could reveal interesting things about our method of selection in a given field. Another application might be academia - are there cases in which eventual academic stars did not start out as “high draft picks”? And, if so, what can we learn from this, if anything?

The Economist is running a series this week on meth. Their Democracy in America blog points us to the Montana Meth Project and current anti-meth ads:

May 1, 2003:

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

Moreover,

In the images of falling statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

Annual or Total Iraqi Civilian Deaths Estimates:

For those soccer fans out there (and you know who you are):

FDR opened the New York’s World Fair today in 1939 - the 150th anniversary of George Washington’s Inauguration.

From henceforth in our history the thirtieth day of April will have a dual significance: the Inauguration of the First President of the United States, which began the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the opening of the New York World’s Fair of 1939.

FDR saw the fair as symbolizing how the US was moving forward while Europe was stuck with old divisions and enmities (perhaps a little optimistically on both counts):

Often, I think, we Americans offer up a silent prayer that on the Continent of Europe, from which the American hemisphere was principally colonized, the years to come will break down many barriers to intercourse between nations—barriers which may be historic, but which so greatly, through the centuries, have led to strife and have hindered friendship and normal intercourse.

The United States stands today as a completely homogeneous nation, similar in its civilization from Coast to Coast and from North to South, united in a common purpose to work for the greatest good of the greatest number, united in the desire to move forward to better things in the use of its great resources of nature and its even greater resources of intelligent, educated manhood and womanhood, and united in its desire to encourage peace and good will among all the nations of the earth.

The high points of the Fair were undoubtedly Elektro the Smoking Robot and the Aquacade:

April 29, 1974: Nixon released additional Watergate tapes, first saying:

I have asked for this time tonight in order to announce my answer to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for additional Watergate tapes, and to tell you something about the actions I shall be taking tomorrow–about what I hope they will mean to you and about the very difficult choices that were presented to me.

But admitting …

But the problem I confronted was this: Unless a President can protect the privacy of the advice he gets, he cannot get the advice he needs.

This principle is recognized in the constitutional doctrine of executive privilege, which has been defended and maintained by every President since Washington and which has been recognized by the courts, whenever tested, as inherent in the Presidency. I consider it to be my constitutional responsibility to defend this principle.

Three factors have now combined to persuade me that a major unprecedented exception to that principle is now necessary:

First, in the present circumstances, the House of Representatives must be able to reach an informed judgment about the President’s role in Watergate.

Second, I am making a major exception to the principle of confidentiality because I believe such action is now necessary in order to restore the principle itself, by clearing the air of the central question that has brought such pressures upon it–and also to provide the evidence which will allow this matter to be brought to a prompt conclusion.

Third, in the context of the current impeachment climate, I believe all the American people, as well as their representatives in Congress, are entitled to have not only the facts but also the evidence that demonstrates those facts.

But not admitting …

Incidentally, these transcripts–covering hours upon hours of conversations-should place in somewhat better perspective the controversy over the 18 1/2 minute gap in the tape of a conversation I had with Mr. Haldeman back in June of 1972.

Now, how it was caused is still a mystery to me and, I think, to many of the experts as well. But I am absolutely certain, however, of one thing: that it was not caused intentionally by my secretary, Rose Mary Woods, or any of my White House assistants. And certainly, if the theory were true that during those 18 1/2 minutes, Mr. Haldeman and I cooked up some sort of a Watergate coverup scheme, as so many have been quick to surmise, it hardly seems likely that in all of our subsequent conversations–many of them are here-which neither of us ever expected would see the light of day, there is nothing remotely indicating such a scheme; indeed, quite the contrary.

[I'm here to stay ...]

As for myself, I intend to go forward, to the best of my ability, with the work that you elected me to do. I shall do so in a spirit perhaps best summed up a century ago by another President when he was being subjected to unmerciful attack. Abraham Lincoln said:

“I do the very best I know how–the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

Retrospect is a wonderful thing. Lee Sigelman used this to full advantage in his 2001 Political Communication article on the “onstage” and “backstage” versions of Nixon and Johnson. What’s neat about the paper is how alike the two were onstage versus their backstage personas.

We’ve been doing a lot with “onstage” rhetoric (for good reasons, I might add), but “backstage” rhetoric has taken a well, backseat. Or should we just leave backstage rhetoric to the historians?

The New York Times’ Deborah Solomon hits Ted Sorenson with ten questions; some on presidential speeches. Here are some choice Q & As:

You served John F. Kennedy for 11 years, as his counselor, adviser and legendary speechwriter. Why did you choose to be so modest in your forthcoming memoir, “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History,” in which you decline to take the least credit for anything he achieved? I’m glad to hear you say that becauseI’m afraid people will read this book and say, “Oh, Sorensen did it all, or he claims he did it all.”

As the so-called poet of Camelot, are there any lines or phrases even one you are willing to claim authorship of? I acknowledge that I played a large part in the American University commencement speech on peace on June 10, 1963. “What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”

What do you make of Hillary’s comment that Obama’s promises and speeches are “just words”? Kennedy’s rhetoric when he was president turned out to be a key to his success. His mere words about Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba helped resolve the worst crisis the world has ever known without the U.S. having to fire a shot.

Nowadays, the words of politicians seem more about constructing images than resolving issues. We have a president now who doesn’t know the meaning of retreat. In fact he doesn’t know the meanings of lots of words.

What about Bill Clinton’s oratorical abilities? Bill’s not quite the persuasive communicator he used to be.

Today is James Monroe’s birthday.

One of Monroe’s greatest challenges was the Panic of 1819, the first major financial crisis in the U.S. Economists still debate the causes of the panic, but most agree that Monroe could do little in trying to manage the economy. Instead, people point to Langdon Cheves’ pivotal role as president of the Second Bank of the U.S. - although it may be that “the bank was saved and the people were ruined”.

Whatever the causes, the consequences were real: one was the rise of Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the re-charter of the Bank in 1832. One has to wonder what a “failure to produce” by the Fed these days would do for its vaunted reputation and independence.