It was a pleasure
to walk around the exhibit. The colors and
figures were intense
and striking, and both
the thematic similarities and stylistic differences were interesting
to observe. Both men
were fascinated with
fire, ritual, violence, and skeletons. The subject
matter was either symbolic or literal and representative of opposing
elements of destruction
and renewal. Pollock
was obviously struck by
Orozco’s employment of
primitive elements like violent sacrifices. Pollock thus reinvented many of the themes originally found in Orozco’s mural here at Dartmouth, but in his own creative style. Pollock’s works are no mere imitations of a role model, but evidence of inspiration that allowed him to develop his own artistic identity. There is the same aggression, vividness, and tension in Pollock’s paintings, but with more swirling motion and ambiguous figures.

Pollock’s art is far more
abstract than Orozco’s bold, defined figures, although the Hood exhibit displays many clear examples of Pol- lock’s fascination with Orozco. Pollock’s paintings employ direct references to Orozco that are intriguing and certainly worth exploring for yourself.

Pollock’s “Untitled (Bald Woman w/ Skeleton)” is eerily similar to Orozco’s panel Gods of the Modern World, which depicts a skeleton birthing a stillborn child (representing dead knowledge) as academia looks on, criticizing modern institutional education. However, Pollock’s painting does not seem to be making any social or political statements, rather he simply was attracted to the motifs. After Pollock was placed in psychotherapy

for alcoholism, his psychoanalytic drawings frequently used bones, skeletons, snakelike creatures and hybrid animalistic figures, and the crucifix. His fixation with Orozco’s symbolic imagery is not for the sake of social criticism but a means of self-expression and battling his personal demon of substance abuse. This discovery is also furthered by the artists’ contrasting styles. Many of Pollock’s forms are unclear; the personal, emotional intensity of his pieces are more important than the definition and clarity that Orozco needs to send specific messages.

The exhibit compares Orozco’s panel “Cortez and the Cross to Pollock’s Composition with Flames,” demonstrating Pollock’s love for Orozco’s adoption of fire as a literal and symbolic force of both destruction and creation. If you search carefully, you can find a crucifix being licked by flames and clutched at by tangled figures amidst the bright, swirling colors. It’s visibly an incredibly different piece, but the thematic elements are the same. This happens also with Orozco’s dome fresco “Man of Fire” and Pol- lock’s pieces “Circle and Flight of Man.” Pol- lock’s pieces are more ambiguous and passion- ate rather than precise, but the pieces have the same shape and swirling motion. Another comparison made was between Pollock’s “The Flame” and Orozco’s “Gods of the Modern World” from his “Epic of American Civilization,” in my opinion simply due to a barely discernible horizontal skeleton. The Flame itself is a stunning piece, with flames licking the bones and evoking a sense of personal drama and devastation rather than a clear narrative scheme, but I see no true resemblance between this work and Orozco’s panel beyond similar preoccupations with primal themes.

“Men of Fire” successfully demonstrates how similar creative ideas can give rise to unique appearances. At first glance, these artists do not appear to have a strong link, but in examining their use of myth, ritual, sacrifice, violence and destruction, and creation and rebirth, it becomes clear that Pollock and Orozco are kindred spirits. Jackson Pollock utilized Orozco’s themes and imagery to find his own voice and artistic style. Pollock was also influenced by other artists; he came across Picasso’s famed Guernica around the same time. It may be more difficult to figure out what exactly is going on in a Pollock painting, but his range of emotions jumps from the canvas in a swirl of bright reds, oranges, and yellows, and deep greens, blues, and blacks.

Pollock’s chaotic artwork is just as striking and impressive as Orozco’s Epic of American Civilization, an immense mural that will always be housed right below King Arthur Flour in Baker Library. Jackson Pollock’s paintings and the Orozco sketches in preparation for his mural will only be enjoying each other’s company until June 17th. Although you’re not allowed to walk in with drinks from KAF (or anywhere else), it’s a small sacrifice to see massive figures participating in actual sacrifices at the hands of thrusting knives. Honestly, I tend to get the most excited over impressionist paintings of water lilies and bridges, but I thought this was a fantastic exhibit. The influence of Orozco’s Dartmouth mural on Pollock’s art is complicated and difficult to measure, making the exhibit all the more interesting. I’d certainly never seen anything quite like “Men of Fire”, and the two artists’ fiery works sharing wall space was really something to behold. Perhaps not such a great idea as far as museum dates are concerned, but don’t miss out. No matter what kind of art you’re into, this is at heart a stimulating discussion on the source of creativity, and I would recommend taking some time to immerse yourself in these works.

 --Meghan K. Hassett

Is this what the end of an era feels like? It is hard to avoid the fact that, currently, America is not at its proudest moment. To Chris Salamone and Professor Gilbert Morris, it is 4 B.C. and we are the ancient Romans, passively watch­ing the degeneration of our once great lands, not even fully aware that it is actually happening. Overdramatic? Yeah, probably. While the fall of our great nation may be just around the corner, Salamone and Morris claim that “our best America” can also be “one generation away” if we get our act together. Rescue America is Salamone and Morris’ “battle cry” for fighting against the demise of our country. Their war plan may be simpler than you think: remember the founding values and get a job.

Salamone, though first and foremost a successful busi­nessman and self-proclaimed “leader,” is also the founder of LeadAmerica, the National Student Leadership Confer­ence (programs that teach students how to be “leaders” in their own right), and President of the National Institute for Legal Education and the BarBri Law Prep Program. In three parts, Salamone and Morris explain what exactly the founding values are and how they are responsible for the success America has seen, why America is potentially on the brink of its demise, and what are the ways we can rescue our system.

The first section of this book is arguably the most worthwhile. Salamone and Gilbert use the opening of the book to explain America’s founding values: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, in addition to what the authors refer to as the “Lincoln Proposition,” which is a principle taken from Lincoln’s statement, “The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to work for him.” In their point of view, these founding values are the reason why America has advanced faster and to a greater extent than any other nation in history, in addition to providing the most social mobility.

No doubt, almost everyone living in America, citizen or not, has at least heard of those ideals. The frightening part is that hardly anyone can accurately explain what these values truly mean. Take, for example, the phrase from the Declaration “all men are created equal.” Many today would read that statement as a justification for receiving things they have not earned, in order to become “equal” in some sense to others. This interpretation is inherently wrong, because it demands a definition of equality that is not absolute, but, instead, dependent on the definer. Salamone explains that “equality,” as used in the Declaration, refers to the “free­dom to choose,” or the equal opportunity to decide to use one’s talents to advance within society. It does not refer to an equality of outcome. This type of equality is natural, something we have from birth, and the most absolute form of equality that a nation can hope to promote, because it does not change as those in power change.

Including this lesson on our founding ideals in the book was a savvy move on the authors’ part, because it further emphasized another powerful point in their book: There is a big problem with properly teaching history in our schools. Appropriately, Salamone and Morris address the all-too-common predilection of American educators to highlight shameful moments in America’s history and to instill a sense of guilt and shame in American students for these contempt­ible events. While these particular events must never be left out of any curriculum because it simply does not pay in the end to be dishonest about the history of one’s nation, it is important to emphasize what history is actually showing. Rescue explains the fact that every time a mistake has been made, it has occurred when Americans acted contrary to their founding values, not in line with them.

A true adherence to the founding values would have left no opportunity for these disgraceful moments to occur. Over time, many of the mistakes that educators highlight in our his­tory were eventually addressed by the government, who made an attempt to rectify the wrongdoing to the greatest possible degree. Salamone and Morris justly quote the preamble to the Declaration and claim the Constitution, and the the United States in turn, were made in order to “create a more perfect union”. It is this promise that admits both America’s present imperfections and its unceasing attempt to better itself. Sal­amone and Morris are right to call out present-day educators, because the majority of them are teaching the fundamentals of America wrong by focusing on the mistakes, instead of the attempts to fix these mistakes. Though it seems simplistic, Salamone and Morris are right to emphasize the drastic need to reform the education system if there is any desire to remedy the current issues of our country.

After clearly explaining the core American values and the successes they entail, it would have probably been sufficient for Salamone to end the book, considering his aim here is really to spark an enthusiastic movement dedicated to the rebirth of American prosperity. However, Salamone and Mor­ris decide to go on for another one hundred pages detailing how the loss of these values has ruined the American work ethic, and giving suggested solutions to our current problem.

To keep the founding values alive, Rescue states, or rather, beats it into the heads of its readers, that people living in America must practice gratitude, personal responsibility and sacrifice, The underlying prerequisite to carrying out the tenets of the founding values. If one does not recognize the importance of our values, they will have no gratitude for the selfless actions of our forefathers, no motivation to perform sacrifices themselves, factors which the authors claim are the only way to actively show one’s gratitude, and to take responsibility of one’s life.

The practice of these three actions leaves no room for an “attitude of entitlement,” a reliance on government support, or a “culture of complaint,” which are some of the many parasites plaguing American society today. Rescue, above all else, is arguing for an attitude check in Americans. Ac­cording to Salamone and Morris, the only reason members of this generation, the Millenials, are self-absorbed, unmo­tivated, and whiny, while the previous two generations were motivated, disciplined, and determined to create better lives for their children is our attitude toward our country and our roles in society.

The description within Rescue of the many problems in our country now is a healthy wake up call. Unfortunately the solutions given to help Americans get back on the right track did not really convince me we are not doomed. One reason for this is that Salamone and Morris are so overcome with nostalgia for the days of the “Greatest Generation” that they do not confront the fact that the condition of our society is radically different from that of our grandparents.

Not to detract from the magnanimity of the actions of our predecessors, but Salamone and Morris glossed over the important fact that our predecessors sacrificed so much for their future generations because they either had to, or be­cause they were provided with the opportunity to do so. It’s no coincidence, for example, that the “Greatest Generation” experienced two wartime economies.

Salamone frequently refers to his own grandfather who emigrated from Italy in order to take advantage of the freedom of opportunity here. He does not emphasize, however, that a motivating factor for his grandfather was the dream that his hard work could enable his future generations to live in this country more comfortably than he did, and would not have to make the same sacrifices he himself had to make. A glance at Salamone’s curriculum vitae is enough proof that his grandfather’s American Dream was realized. I’m not ad­vocating for a snobbish attitude of inheritance in third-plus generation Americans, but the fact that their circumstances are different cannot be treated so lightly, as the authors chose to do. The question here is, for many whose predecessors helped them to achieve the “American Dream,” what should be their dream? How does one stay motivated when it is not critical for them to be?

Salamone and Morris would answer that our founding values and the practice of them through gratitude, sacrifice, and personal responsibility are timeless and can be applicable to anyone no matter their individual situation. Since it is harder to work hard when your life does not depend on it, the authors have come up with potential solutions for forc­ing young adults to practice the ideals so eagerly accepted by many of our immigrant ancestors. Many of their ideas focus on some type of mandatory service by those recently out of high school, either in the military, in a nonprofit group such as Teach for America, or other various civic programs. Disregarding the inherent problems that come with forcing any group of people to accept a certain set of values, their solutions overlook the issue of redefining a new “American Dream” that maintains our founding values are timeless and are the most advantageous ideology we can assume, but they apply to each generation differently.

Salamone and Morris do an excellent job of putting our history and our present state into perspective, in addition to calling out those who have actively disregarded our founding principles for the parasites that they are, which, I will give them, is a great step in the direction of solving the current problems of this country. But there quick-and-easy solutions as to how to remedy our situation are less than satisfactory. Rescue is a good realty check, but falls short of the “battle cry” it had promised it to be. It is not very surprising that a book by two educators reads quite like a college lecture: well-organized, full of potential inspiration, yet halfway through you get the point and kind of want to leave.

--Rebecca Hecht

—Evolutionary theory

Yes, the author names are larger than the book's title, but that doesn't mean they have to be completely discounted.When Charles Darwin voyaged to the Galapagos Islands aboard the Beagle, he had little idea that it would lead to his 1845 conception of evolutionary theory. This theory has a renewed importance today according to Pulitzer-Prize win­ning columnist Thomas L. Friedman and Professor Michael Mandelbaum, authors of the September release, That Used to Be Us. Just as Darwin’s finches adapted to their environ­ment in order to survive, specifically in the size and shape of their beaks, Friedman and Mandelbaum call on Americans to adapt to a new environment that we created with the end of the Cold War.

While the end of the Cold War is celebrated today as one of America’s greatest triumphs of the 20th century, an epic battle between Soviet communism and American democracy in which we reigned victorious under the leadership of an auda­cious Reagan, it is important to consider it’s lasting impacts on our country and the world. With our destruction of communism as an alternative to democracy, America paved the way for two billion more people to live like us. That means two billion more people living as capitalists, trying to fulfill their own versions of the American dream. The two decades follow­ing the Cold War were productive, yet were also marked by complacency and overconfidence. Now, America is faced with four serious and time-sensitive issues – globalization, the revolution in information technology, the deficit, and excessive energy consumption – that will jeopardize our power in the world if they remain unaddressed and if we are unwilling to adapt. While we do not run the risk of extinction, the stakes are very high.

The first two of the four challenges we face as a nation today, globalization and the IT revolution, go hand in hand. The authors tell stories of a Nepali telecommunications firm offering 3G mobile network service at the summit of Mount Everest, and a revolution in Manama, Bahrain against the Sunni ruling family fueled by images on Google Earth, to illustrate the consequential marriage of globalization and technology. The world has become an ever-tightening web where col­laboration with a “virtual next-door neighbor” is easier than ever. Now a low-wage, low-skilled worker in America has to compete with a low-wage, high-skilled worker in China. With 4.6 billion cell phone users in the world and Facebook enabling individuals and companies to find anyone they want, “there is no job left not affected by globalization,” warns Michael Barber, former advisor to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Outsourcing, which has already put many Americans out of work, requires that an employee think critically, tackle complex tasks, and work collaboratively in order to stay competitive. Creativity and innovation are also necessities. The only way America can produce the kinds of citizens that will be innovators is by improving the education system.

A 2009 PISA test that evaluated the knowledge of 15-year-olds in several dozen countries ranked Americans as “below average” in mathematics. Significantly improv­ing the quality of education American children are receiving should be a national priority, as “good education is also good economics – for everybody.” A May 2011 study by the De­troit Regional Workforce Fund paints a vivid picture of our educational shortfalls with this statistic: 47 percent of adult Detroit residents are functionally illiterate.

The authors specified that we should not educate our young people simply so that they can become better work­ers. Education should promote the formation of a holistic and virtuous human being. According to the book, students should, “put the interests of other ahead of self-interest,” bringing to mind the moral education I received at my Christian elementary school.

Along with globalization and the IT revolution, the authors detail two other major challenges our country faces: the deficit and energy consumption. According to Friedman and Mandelbaum, America has declared war on math and physics. While I agree that the deficit is out of control, and our consumption of oil is unsustainable, claiming page after page that we are “at war” is excessive.

What the authors do well in this section of the book is avoiding taking sides with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Instead they rightfully blame both parties for the current mess, the right for their stubbornness in rais­ing taxes in a distorted effort to mimic Ronald Reagan (he enacted five different tax increases while in office), and the left for granting pay and pension increases to public-employee unions. The authors emphasize the “need for seriousness” on Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle, if we want to give the next generation a shot at the American dream.

As for the section of the book regarding climate change and energy consumption, the authors are much more liberal with their attacks on Republicans and those who claim global warming is a hoax. While it is clear that our planet is warming, the authors’ explanation for why this is man’s fault is not convincing. Simply claiming, “there is no other scientifi­cally plausible explanation” does not do the job.

Friedman and Mandelbaum’s explanation of how our en­ergy consumption is draining the economy is more compelling. For example, the McKinsey consultancy found that if the Unit­ed States implemented energy-efficiency measures through­out the economy through 2020, it would yield gross energy savings of more than $1.2 tril­lion. With China building coal-fired power plants that use hot steam at the rate of one a month, and leading the world in nuclear power plant construction, it is time for America to catch on and catch up.

The reason for America’s failure to address the four challenges it faces is largely the paralysis of our political system. While important legislation in the past has been passed with solid majorities of each party – Social Security in 1935, the interstate highway system in 1954, authorized Medicare in 1965 — today almost every controversial vote is split between party lines. Democrats and Republicans in Congress look at each other as “hostile tribes” rather than trying to find common ground, while Americans in general skew closer to the center —meaning our elected officials do not actually represent us. The hyperpolarized media and special interest groups like the nasty AARP only worsen the broken system.

Friedman and Mandelbaum offer a detailed formula for success, “a hybrid of the best of both right and left,” that can foster economic growth and keep America in first place. The formula consists of five pillars: providing public education for more Americans, building and modernizing our infra­structure, keeping our doors open to immigration, increasing government support for basic research and development, and implementing necessary regulations on private economic activity. While this appears to be a broad amplification of the size and scope of our government, the authors argue that their formula is one in which, “the government creates the foundation for the risk-taking and innovation delivered by the private sector.”

The policy changes necessary to combat the challenges America faces are not going to be implemented overnight. Our slow moving political system is not functioning, so what is required is “shock therapy” to wake it up. This shock to the system could come from the market, Mother Nature, or a third-party presidential candidate, the authors explain. The last option is the most noteworthy and most relevant with the upcoming presidential election.

The authors fall off track with a four-page imitation of French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville, but come back with a convincing argument for introducing a serious third party to our political system. They assure us that moderates need not be weak-willed people. With a formal platform and a promising leader, a third, moderate party could give our political system a proper restructuring.

Considerable examples are used to support the argument for a third party presidential candidate in 2012. It would be difficult to get a third party candidate on the ballot, and win­ning would be essentially impossible. This does not mean that a vote for a third party would be wasted, though.

While a third party would be unlikely to win the election, its presence could greatly affect the agenda of the winning party, Freidman and Mandelbaum articulate. If a third party received sizable support during the campaign run, then the Democrats and Republicans would mobilize to win over these supporters in their campaigns, adopting some of the stances of the third party. Examples include George Wallace in 1968, who won five Southern states, Ross Perot, who won 18.9 percent of the popular vote in 1992, and Theodore Roo­sevelt’s famous Bull Moose Party which largely influenced Wilson’s presidency.

Right now independents, the majority of Americans, do not have a strong leader, but if one were to emerge, he could give our political system the shock therapy it needs and steer our country in the right direction.

The authors bring the book to a close with sense of op­timism for America’s future. In the past, the United States has stayed strong during times of trouble, so why would now be any different? Friedman and Mandelbaum’s call for “continual reinvention” in our country is right on point, for if America does not continue to adapt, “survival of the fittest” will wipe us out.

--Elizabeth Reynolds

America's future is not for the faint of heart.

Steyn writes in a highly confrontational style – mixing puns and barbs with each heart-sinking fact about the fall of America. But after decades of accepting the decline of America into a European malaise, it’s time for some confrontation. Besides — you’ve never read a more amusingly alarming book. For example, to describe the downfall of the American education system, Mr. Steyn juxtaposes the following pieces of writing. The first piece of writing was an official email from Otis Mathis, President of the Detroit School Board and the second was from an uneducated female British maid born decades before the start of free public schooling in Britain.:

Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row’s, and who is the watch dog?

[Note the lack of ellipses in the above doggerel. It’s a direct quote.]

I just write to say you will be glad to know that I am settled in my new place, and going on all right up to now…It is a grand place inside, with trees and garden back and front. All has been newly done up. They are teetotalers and religious, so I ought to go on…

Sad, isn’t it?

Steyn’s new non-fiction book (oh, how I wish it was a novel) focuses on the decline of America. It also is one of the most frightening books I have ever read. His thesis is simple: Big Government will doom America to Armageddon, which he later converts into a strangely Seussian acronym. Stylistic flourishes aside, Steyn presents a convincing and devastating portrait of America and its future.

Steyn begins with an interesting thought experiment. Imagine a man living in America in the 1890’s. Now, imagine that he suddenly had access to a time machine similar to the one found in H.G. Wells’s seminal work. Send him forward in time just 60 years to the 1950’s. Suddenly, the world has changed:

There is a huge machine in the corner of the kitchen, full of food and keeping the milk fresh and cold! There is another shiny device whirring away and seemingly washing milady’s bloomers with no human assistance whatsoever! Even more amazingly, there is a full orchestra playing somewhere within his very house. No, wait, it’s coming from a tiny box on the countertop!

The advent of machines changed the world in innumerable ways in those sixty years. Steyn also points out the miracles of central heating, automobiles, telephones and air travel. Most importantly, these advances were open to nearly the entire middle class of America, a group that dominated the country’s culture at the time.

Steyn then pushes the thought experiment even further. Imagine that the same time traveler then decided to travel another 60 years into the future. It is now the 2010’s, the dates that almost all science fiction movies were set in. We were supposed to have flying cars and interstellar travel. But imagine the time traveller’s shock:

And when he dismounts he wonders if he’s made a mistake. Because, aside from a few design adjustments, everything looks pretty much as it did in 1950: the layout of the kitchen, the washer, the telephone…oh, wait. It’s got buttons instead of a dial…Let’s pause and acknowledge the one exception to the above scenario: the computer. Instead of having to watch Milton Berle on that commode-like thing in the corner, as one would in 1950, you can now watch Uncle Miltie on YouTube clips from your iPhone. But be honest, aside from that, what’s new?

Steyn then goes on to argue that the world hasn’t changed much, largely because of the interference of government regulation as well as government’s continued usurpation of the private economy. Before the Great Depression, people forget that the federal government spent less than 5% of the economy. Obama’s pushed it up to 25-30%. How quickly we forget what freedom feels like.

Because, much as the technorati would like to forget it, economic freedom is liberty. Anyone who has lost a job or a house in the current economic recession knows that. After all The Great Recession was brought to you by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the government-created cartel of regulators. Yet, the singular solution proposed by these same bureaucrats is more government.

Why? Steyn presents America as caught between two cultures. On the one hand, the culture that currently dominates the respected halls of academia, the increasingly powerful government bureaucracies, and the strident mainstream me­dia. Or as Steyn terms it, calling to mind H.G. Wells once again, the Eloi. In Wells’s novel, the human race split into two different races as evolution sped along. The Eloi were the supposedly more refined of the two — but the novel soon revealed that they were completely divorced from reality. In Steyn’s view, they are not that different from the liberal culture that dominates D.C., N.Y.C. and of course California, although not all of those places are faring equally well dur­ing the recession. D.C. is quickly becoming more equal than the rest – with the nation’s highest percentage of 25-34 year olds making more than a hundred thousand dollars while any business or high paying individual that can hope to escape California’s higher and higher tax rates is running for the border with lock, stock and barrel in tow.

Forget about Main Street vs. Wall Street. What about Main Street vs. Pennsylvania Avenue? What about the people who don’t have access to trillions of dollars in credit just to balance their books? Oh, I’m sorry, perhaps the correct term is “save or create jobs”? Don’t forget, the stimulus almost entirely went towards protecting government and union jobs, not building the infrastructure we so “desperately” need. Well, what else do you expect from a kleptocracy where the politicians are elected by teacher unions?

Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Steyn is right. We have a Presi­dent who has referred to his own party’s voters as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion.” How exactly did that happen again? Of course, while Obama may still send thrills up East Coast liberal news anchors’ legs, I doubt his speeches impress the unemployed masses out West of the Potomac. Or those small business owners who have to labor under the constant threat of new regulations and laws, like the monstrosity that is Obamacare. Yet, the Eloi, divorced from reality as they are, continue to vote for more and more government. Not that it should be too surprising — it’s not until the government stops sending those monthly paychecks that the so-called enlightened liberals catch on.

So what’s left for us? What will the wreckage of a gov­ernment modeled on the currently collapsing nanny states in Europe look like? A bill.

You’re being lined up for a twenty-first-century America of more government, more regulation, less opportunity, and less prosperity—and you should be mad about it: when you come to take your seat at the American table (to use another phrase politicians are fond of), you’ll find the geezers, the boomers, and the Gen X-ers have all gone to the bathroom, and you’re the only one sitting there when the waiter presents the check. That’s you: Generation Checks…You won’t be able to dream your dreams, because you’ll be the gray morning after of us oldtimers’ almighty bender.

That sinking feeling in your chest is what Jimmy Carter called “malaise.” Now, it’s called reality. The only question is when those of us with an ounce of common sense left plan to say “No.”

That’s all that matters in the coming election. Don’t listen to the screams of “That Republican’s a gun-totin’, Bible-believin’ idiot.” They like that one — it worked on both Quayle and Palin. Or the squeals of “that candidate is arrogant” or “that candidate is a flip-flopper.” The only thing that matters is cutting government in a meaningful and drastic way.

If that last paragraph seems out of place in a book review, it isn’t. Not in this book review, at least, because this book is about a call to action a call to reduce government now, before it is too late. Before we drive this country right off the cliff at over a hundred miles an hour.

Steyn’s book is biased. It’s polemical. It’s outrageous. The sad thing is, it’s true. And it’s convincing. So, don’t just buy a copy. Buy two or three and give them to your liberal friends. See if you can convert a few of the Eloi, pull their heads out of the clouds and back down to the ground. It’s only a few fiat dollars a copy – and besides, if we lose this next time around, we may be finished. Government is addicted to spending, the only question is are we going to keep handing it credit cards or send it to rehab?

--J. P. Harrington

Jack Abramoff says we should hate the game, not the player.
Interesting and easy to read, Capitol Punishment takes people through the entire system that exists in Washington via Jack Abramoff’s scandal. Abramoff’s highly personal narrative gives new details about how he manipulated the legislative process that were previously unheard of, and it definitely pulls “back the curtain on K street” and shows “the dirty underbelly of America’s government” by describing how he witnessed and helped private interests influence politics. It is a strange combination of the celebration of his lobbying victories and his condemnation of the lobbying system.

Abramoff regrets his illegal actions, but the book is ultimately one of his success in a system that forces foul play. The honest book exposes the political system and how it focuses on money rather than people and clears up every detail of Abramoff’s case, the per­fect examples of greedy individuals and bad eggs infiltrating Congress.

Jack is more or less repentant, but he writes Capitol Punishment to explain that he did what he had to do to win at his political game. It shows that we need to hold our elected officials to much higher standards, but I believe on two levels. One, to eradicate the copious corruption of politicians, and the other, to ensure that politicians don’t allow people like Jack Abramoff to run the show. And it really is a show. Even the book was a show, a display by Abramoff to redeem himself and shift the focus from punishing individuals to punishing the system. I don’t how well you can trust the memoirs of a narcissist who claims to have a strict moral code, strong family values, and being devout in the Jewish faith, yet ends up in federal prison for ripping off Native American tribes. Nevertheless, it’s engaging.

Abramoff believes his profession placed him above the law, and he lost everything because of it. Even in jail, his mindset was still that he had a right to do what was necessary to accomplish his goals, despite its legality. He was sentenced an extra month for ignoring the limitations on prison mail. He slipped a note to visitors hoping for a Torah scroll to organize a reading, and complains the “rabbi ratted [him] out.” He admires himself plenty, and that’s why he was compelled to write an autobiography. He may have attempted redemption, but he ultimately feels justified, al­though he acknowledges the problems our government has.

The lists of accomplishments and discussions about how charitable and pious Abramoff is undermines the book. He comes off as self-righteous, arguing that he may have technically broken the law, but that that’s what happens when you work in a corrupt system to win. Still, it is a good thing to have a book that allows us to peek into Washington’s world, where there are “legal bribes” in the form of party contributions in exchange for more influence.

Money is behind all of the influence people have in Washington, and Abramoff discusses this frankly. Although I find Abramoff full of self-contradictions, this book would not have been nearly as effective if someone less infamous wrote it.

Abramoff delves into his own corrupted actions, ex­plaining how he used tax loopholes to convince Indians to make enormous contributions to politicians. This ensured substantial influence and also made Jack Abramoff a huge name in Washington. His ambition carried him all the way to federal prison. Abramoff seems to argue that, although regrettable, it was an unfortunate inevitability of work­ing as a lobbyist in a broken system. Abramoff points out that many other actions in his work for technically legal, though still morally wrong, because that’s how things work in Washington. They still compromise our democracy and give undue influence to those with deep pockets.

Abramoff does have a persuasive charm, apparent in his rise as a prominent lobbyist as well as his writing. He details how he was able to be more effective and profitable in his work by promising whatever his clients wanted and then coming through on those promises in his ruthless, determined method. This way, he was able to charge ten times the normal fees, because he was “the best” and, in a way, the worst.

Abramoff makes valid points, though this is not a book of deep revelations and repentance. This story need­ed to be told, but Abramoff’s self-centered focus makes the book a bit irritating at times, but still worth read­ing. The facts are extremely relevant to our society right now, and I’m glad Abramoff came out with it. If you’re looking for a broken man with an apology, you won’t find it in Capitol Punishment, but it is a necessary tale to tell so that people are aware of what’s behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain. It’s a fantastic read for anyone with an interest in politics and the inner workings of our government.

Abramoff’s book worries me; I think the point of the novel may have been his warning that there are sociopaths running Washington. Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, and Ralph Reed, the leader of the Christian Coalition, are shown to be not nearly as innocent as previously assumed. At one point, Abramoff writes that, “Not only should Ralph not have denied taking the money, he should have been proud about it.” He throws fellow lobby­ists under the bus, almost as if saying, “It’s okay; everyone does it!”

The constant stream of mentions of his Jewish faith and how devoted he is also did not add any­thing to the book for me; it didn’t stop him from lobbying the way he did, and it certainly does not stop him from self-worship. The book itself does a wonderful job of tackling issues that people don’t dare to usually discuss, if you can get past dealing with the frustrating personality behind the words. There is a serious problem in Washington of greed and self-interest.Strangely, Jack only discusses various types of reform at the very end of his book. Among them: prohibit members of Congress and their staff from ever becoming lobbyists in Washington D.C., term limits, repealing the 17th Amendment among in addition to some others.However, it goes without say­ing that Abramoff has no right to lead any sort of crusade against our political system.

Abramoff blames Washington, circumstances, and corrup­tion, but not himself. One thing’s for sure, he’s definitely not your typcal muckraker. He is the muck as well. But, hey, he’s had an interesting life, and the twenty-five dollar book helps pay some of the people he took money from. Isn’t that nice?

--Meghan Hassett

Bill Clinton's latest is a brisk read. That's probably for the best.When I was growing up, my father frequently invoked the name of his colleague Daryl Brewster during conversations around the dining room table. Daryl, he would say, was the rare man who would never say anything about a person that he couldn’t repeat in his or her presence. Whoever it was, no matter what the context, Daryl could find something posi­tive to say about anyone at anytime. To be sure, this never stopped him from being critical of an individual when their performance warranted it; as a good manager, it was his job to point out mistakes and ensure that the reasoning that produced them was corrected. But even in his most exacting moments, he tempered his critiques to give a fair, yet good-natured evaluation that was constructive in its essence. To my father, this tendency made his colleague the ideal executive, and what came to be known as the “The Brewster Principle,” became a rule of thumb in my household.

As I read Bill Clinton’s latest literary abortion over break, I tried to keep this paragon in mind. Jotting down margin notes in my copy of Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy, the former president’s third book since leaving the Oval Office, I kept asking myself, “how would Daryl respond?” in hopes of softening my implacable ire. Try as I did, it proved to be too great a task; confronted with this crapulous mass of Big Government grandstanding, I watched the “Brewster Principle” disintegrate faster than the credibility of the book’s neo-Keynesian underpin­nings. Mr. Clinton’s bitter partisanship, fanciful suggestions, and unadulterated misrepresentation of reality have made a good-natured critique impos­sible. There will be no temperance here; honest indignation will have to suffice.

After picking up the book at my nearest Barnes and Noble and receiving a nod of approval from a passerby with greasy hair and all sorts of ink embedded in his neck, the first thing that struck me about the former president’s newest creation was its brevity. Not one for crafty titles, the author of My Life and Giving turned Back to Work into the slimmest pro-government manifesto since Mao’s “Little Red Book.” Tipping the literary scales at two-hundred pages of generously spaced liberal dogma, Back to Work is surprisingly brief, especially when one considers that Mr. Clinton professes to explain the origins of the financial crisis and lay out 46-specific policy points to get America “back in the future business” within its pages. Unlike much of the book’s content, its brevity is refreshing; the author does an able job of simplifying the complex in an engaging matter that is easy to read. It’s a shame then, that what his gift of clarity has left is so disagreeable.

Turning to the introduction, one finds the book’s main thrust laid out in plain terms. The brief lead-in tells a tale of numbers, presenting the nation’s predicament with an adroitly researched barrage of statistics. Deficits, infrastructure, en­ergy, and military expenditure are all touched on in his comprehensive look at our current state of affairs. The writing is fair and honest, and despite the dire picture that the data depicts, the former president manages to strike a reassur­ingly optimistic tone. Indeed, this first section is presented as a sort of call to action; always the consummate politician, Mr. Clinton uses the objectivity of numbers to scare readers into befuddled haplessness before tossing them his charismatic buoyancy as a lifeline. With his audience drawn in and their faith in him established, he moves to lay out the reasons for the financial crisis and his proposals for recovery. It is there that the problems begin.

The author barely makes the fourth page before he oblit­erates his tactfully established credibility in one fell swoop. After demonizing anti-government Republicans for their fiery campaign rhetoric of the 2010 Congressional election cycle, Mr. Clinton moves to address the charge that bad federal policy and excessive government were responsible for the financial crash. His response, copiously accentuated, provides the first indication of the former President’s tendency toward misrepresentation. Training his characteristic clarity on the issue, he concludes matter of factly that:

…the meltdown happened because the banks were overleveraged, with too many risky investments, especially in the subprime mortgages and the securities and derivatives that were spun out of them, and too little cash to cover the risks… in other words, there was not enough government oversight or restraint on excessive leverage.

The crime in this statement rests not in its oversimplifica­tion, but in its author’s veiled attempts to free himself of all blame. In a 16-page chapter dedicated to uncovering the cause of 2007 financial collapse, these lines contain Mr. Clinton’s only attempt at identifying the crisis’s origins. Instead of providing a fair assessment of policy leading up to the crash, the former President of the United States continues the chapter by lobbing partisan grenades at “anti-government zealots” in a petty attempt to exonerate government of all culpability. Glaringly absent from his analysis is any recognition of the Clinton and Bush White Houses’ contributions to the fatal subprime build-up. It is no oversight that he neglects to ad­dress his administration’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies, and ten years of government-stimulated subprime lending. These omissions were a calculated attempt to misrepresent the truth behind the collapse. Under the guise of moving forward, Mr. Clin­ton launches a regressive war of half-truths in an attempt exonerate his own legacy and that of big government. But the worst is yet to come.

With the theme of blaming Republicans and their pref­erence for limited government in place, the author begins a partisan crusade that reeks of self-contradiction and fanciful ideology. Faced with the discomfort of government culpability, Mr. Clinton retreats from addressing the cause of the crisis and seeks solace in the realm of the comically unsubstantiated. He begins with the stale tactic of preying on the legacies of Reagan and the Bushes, but bungles the attack badly when he charges that no modern Republican has actually scaled back government. The gaff does not become immediately apparent until he attempts to summarize the cause of the crash at the end of the section. Having filled the first half of the book with non-answers and broad accusations, he seeks to define the issue by pegging the Bush Administration’s tendency to roll back the power of government as the cause of the collapse. Having just called the last three Republican presidents hypocrites for failing to do just that, Mr. Clinton generates a perplexing inconsistency that betrays his guilt-shifting scheme.

Beyond presenting what boils down to a long-winded self-contradiction, the first 117-pages are also rife with absurd assertions and cherry-picked facts. In making every attempt to cast small government forces as the enemy, the former President doggedly defends even the most asinine of government initiatives with painful perseverance. Perhaps the best example of this petty politicking presents itself on page 11. Arguing in defense of the recent stimulus package, the author holds up the government’s attempt to increase the domestic manufacture of electric vehicle batteries as a prime example of the power of intervention done right. With an extensive grant system in place, the Obama Administration hit its quotas by increasing the American market share from 2% to 20% in a little over two years. Looking at this statisti­cal barometer, the battery initiative sounds like a triumphant example of successful central planning. However, digging a bit deeper, one will discover that Mr. Clinton neglected to mention the ugly underside of the program. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, over 30 factories have opened… to produce a product for which there is virtually no market, where worldwide manufacturing capacity already outpaces demand by a factor of three, and whose sales will depend on the government heavily subsidizing its customers. Seems like sound policy to me.

Incredulously, it is exactly this kind of initiative that the former president holds up as the model for effective govern­mental planning. Working under the flawed belief that only the prescience of Washington bureaucrats can save the day, he concludes Back to Work with a 46-item list containing specific policy recommendations that will “alleviate unemployment, right the economy, and put America back in the future business.” While there are a few worthwhile suggestions (including abandoning the ethanol subsidy to sell surplus corn to China and Saudi Arabia), they are but the proverbial diamonds in the rough. On the whole, the list represents all that is wrong with left-wing ideology and its Keynesian underpinnings, relying upon more government to solve all of America’s problems when what we need is less. At the heart of his 46-proposals lies a deep-seated convic­tion in the preeminence of the public sector; Mr. Clinton clearly believes that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can solve any and all of society’s problems when applied intelligently. What he forgets is that government’s overwhelm­ing record of failure, corruption, and inefficiency renders the idea of “intelligent central planning” an oxymoron.

Escaping this fundamental reality proves impossible, particularly when the specifics of his policy proposals lack so much in the way of substance. Mr. Clinton’s list of recommendations bears a disconcerting similarity to a spoiled tod­dler’s Christmas list; it is all wants without any realistic plan of action. Not once does he suggest a way to pay for his myriad proposals. Not once does he acknowledge the shortcomings of existing programs or a way to fix what we already have. In true liberal form, Mr. Clinton simply proposes, hoping to add layers to a failing bureaucracy, with­out concern for efficacy or financial ramifications. You can forget misrepresenting the causes of the financial collapse, you can forget the self-defeating logic and partisan accusations. Above all else, this is the book’s greatest failing.

And so, at the end of the day, Back to Work appears to be nothing more than the ineffectual musings of an aggres­sively ideological retiree. Having assembled a book of bitter partiality, half-truths, and fanciful policy recommendations, Bill Clinton has proven himself to be a Big Government stooge that will stop at nothing to perpetuate conflict with the Right. In the face of such pervasive bias and shortsightedness, the criticism is more than warranted; not even Daryl Brewster himself could bite his tongue.

--Nicholas Desatnick

The recent gift to Dartmouth of Eugen Rosenstock-Hussey’s papers will greatly assist the further study of this important philosopher and one of Dartmouth’s greatest professors. Since most of his academic career was at Dartmouth, he did not have the graduate students who would carry forward his thought. What we need is a good introductory book about his thought, a summary of his major works, and an attempt to locate it in the tradition of philosophy. I am surprised that we lack a good one.

During my two years as an undergraduate at Dartmouth the more thoughtful students were excited by Professor of Philosophy Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. In fact, he was the only man on the faculty who mattered to me at all. And he still does.

His thought, indeed, was important to the theologian Paul Tillich, W.H. Auden, and many others. It was difficult, and highly original. Members of the Dartmouth philosophy department did not consider him a philosopher at all. The effect of his teaching on me was to complicate my naturalism. I don’t mean my interest in animals of all sorts which I developed early, fascination with their radical differences from us, yet creatures with consciousness and an unknowable view of the world. The naturalism Rosenstock undermined was a philosophy that held the natural world to be all that there is, nature of all kinds including the human as a part of nature. There is no actuality beyond that

During 1947 and 1948 Rosenstock’s classroom was on the second floor of Dartmouth Hall, a white colonial building that at one time had constituted the entire college. Rosenstock, that is what we called him, looked like the former German soldier he had been, of medium height, muscular build, erect and vigorous. His hair was white, and very German face was, there is no other word, beautiful. It was easy to imagine him as a soldier in Kaiser Wilhelm’s army, a soldier in a grey uniform and wearing a spiked helmet. He frequently brought into his lectures – discussions, really, with him the only speaker – thoughts about his experiences on the Western Front during the World War.

In particular, he stressed the importance he had had during the murderous battle of Verdun, a historic French fortress that the French army refused to yield no matter what the cost. During a lull in the battle, Rosenstock had ventured out into no-man’s land, when suddenly both sides opened up with thunderous artillery. Rosenstock took refuge in a shell crater. He felt a panic that had nothing to do with danger. He felt, he said, like a “naked worm.” He was cut off from the army, cut off from history, radically alone in the universe. Meaningless.

Karl Jaspers once defined existentialism as philosophizing “where you stand.” Where Rosentstock stood, or lay, was in that crater out in no man’s land between the lines at Verdun. From that nadir, meaning had to be created, or re-created. “History must be told,” he said repeatedly. History is to civilization what memory is to an individual, the source of identity, the constituting of a soul.

ii.

Often Rosenstock began a class, it would not really be correct to call these lectures, by citing some item from the day’s news. Or from history, American history or the history of Dartmouth College. “Gentlemen,” he would say with his German accent, “Gentlemen, Dartmouth College in 1847 was not Dartmouth College in 1900, and neither of those was Dartmouth College in 1947. Many acts of creativity went into the re-creation of the College, “the College, gentlemen, of which you are a part today. And you, gentlemen, are part of the creation of the Dartmouth of tomorrow.”

When he wanted to say something of particular importance he would begin, “Gentlemen . . . ”

I have said that he undermined my assumption or naturalism— in philosophy, empiricism — by showing that you cannot live that way. An empirical demonstration confirms what has already happened. But you continually make decisions the results of which have not yet happened, and when you make those decisions there is nothing to confirm. Naturalism and empiricism are in the past tense. The future is always possibility, good or bad. “In an experiment,” he said, “science repeats its readings several times. It follows that science lets only what is repeatable affect its statements. All unique processes are basically unsuitable for scientific observation.” He sometimes quoted Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken”:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth . . .

“That man, gentlemen, does not know the result of the choice he must make. He cannot check on the result that hasn’t yet happened. Our choices project us forward in our own histories. We make judgments, we may be prudent, but we act on faith. We create actualities that did not exist before.” His citing Robert Frost was particularly effective, because about fifty yards to the north of where we sat was Wentworth Hall, where Frost had lived during his abbreviated freshman year, and the thought of Robert Frost reminded us of what that man, once a freshman here, had himself created. He had not always been Robert Frost, the great poet, national and indeed world figure. Faith is the future, a projection. He would say, “Even a man who believes in nothing needs a girl who believes in him.” That one, in particular, hit home with us. Nietzsche was important to Rosenstock, and in more than one way. By 1947, certainly 1948, the tensions with the Soviet Union were approaching crisis intensity.

Rosenstock saw Nietzsche as a prophet we could oppose to Marx. Both had foreseen our epoch of revolutions and upheavals. “If Marx had been the only prophet,” he said, “then Communism might well triumph. But Nietzsche also saw what was coming. And so we do not need to become Communists.” Rosenstock’s idea of prophecy was not guesswork or magic, but the intellect and imagination that enabled such prophets as Marx and Nietzsche to understand the total experience of an epoch at its beginning. As against Christ, Rosenstock said,

Marx tried to found a Church on bread alone. He also saw Nietzsche as the prophet of individual creation as contrasted with Marxist collectivism, the superior individual as the result of heroic imagination.

iii.

We had two texts for this course, both by Rosenstock, The Multiformity of Man and The Christian Future: Or, The Modern Mind Outrun. I did not know it at the time, but Rosenstock-Huessy was Jewish and became a Christian as a young man. This was regarded as apostasy, and with no little bitterness, as I learned from a professor of religion who was also a rabbi. Yet the nature and basis of Rosenstock’s Christianity is not easy to pin down.

In class he did not discuss the important biblical texts upon which Christianity rests, for example St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15. Nor did he attempt the metaphysics that goes beyond the knowable, the question that Heidegger would pose in his Introduction To Metaphysics, page one — why is there something rather than nothing? What was there before the Big Bang? Aristotle posited a prime mover.

Instead of exploring questions of that kind, Rosenstock dealt with Christianity as lived in history and in our personal experience. As he taught, “speech is the body of spirit,” and “You speak and I respond, and I am changed.” Or in his great work Out of Revolution, as he frequently said, “History must be told.” My old teacher Jacques Barzun said much the same thing, “Everything should be woven into the fabric of history.” Hegel did not come forward independently of history and say, “I have a philosophy of history.” That he did evolve a philosophy of history had antecedents.

And Nietzsche did not suddenly conclude, as he did in The Gay Science, parable #125: The Madman said, “We have murdered God . . . and smashed his lantern on the ground.” The Madman is what people call Nietzsche, and the lantern is the Enlightenment: Skepticism, empiricism, rationalism. Nietzsche did not mean that God once existed and no longer exists. He was making a cultural statement. And this parable (“murdered”) suggests Nietzsche’s complex relationship to the Christian God.

Rosenstock had immense respect for Nietzsche, a great prophet and also Rosenstock’s greatest challenge and opportunity.

It is always difficult to assess the impact of someone only a short time after his life is over. That said, it is what we do as a people, and indeed must do if we are to evaluate what things mean to us. While it is better to reserve judgment for later generations, it is impossible. Faced with a choice between attempting to evaluate things before the necessary period of context and reflection emerges or refusing to evaluate them entirely, we must take the former as our only recourse.

So it is with trepidation that one approaches the subject of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. Only fifty or so years removed from the legendary Professor of Philosophy’s retirement, it is far too soon to fully evaluate his place both at this College and in the world abroad. Yet, the process must begin somewhere, and what better place for it to begin than here at Dartmouth? Rauner Special References Library, that great temple of obscure knowledge, has most recently received an incredible cache of Professor Rosenstock’s personal correspondence and decided to make it available to the public. What better time, then, to begin the long and unending process of evaluation?

A few disclaimers are in order, though. First, there is an incredible amount of information to sift through, enough that entire books could be written on it. As such, there is certainly nothing presented here that might be deemed a comprehensive view. That task is better left for someone whose sole occupation is the subject. Second, I am merely a college student, am limited in my ability to assess the social and philosophical implications of Professor Rosenstock-Huessy’s work and life. Despite these two limitations, however, I intend to provide a view into the life and thought of a man who profoundly shook the Dartmouth community. My research owes much to Dr. Norman Fiering, an historian and former student of Professor Rosenstock-Huessy’s, who has dedicated himself to preserving the legacy of the great teacher.

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy was born in 1888 in Berlin to a secular Jewish family. His father was a banker of considerable means; his mother stayed home to raise the children. This arrangement encouraged his education and he took strongly to languages, becoming fluent in many of the major European tongues. At the age of 18 he converted to Christianity, joining the Lutheran Protestant Church. Following graduation from secondary school, he pursued the study of law at Zurich and Berlin, and was granted a doctorate of law from Heidelberg. He then became a professor of law and history at Leipzig, marrying his wife in the intervening years. He served in the German Army during World War I, seeing active duty on the Western Front.

Following the war, he opted to go into industry rather than return to academia, and spent four years with the Daimler Motors Company. While there he sought to educate his fellow employees and offered courses for blue-collar laborers. This emphasis on adult education would reappear later in his work at Camp William James. He then returned to academia, taking a position permanently at Breslau teaching legal history.

Upon the emergence of the Nazis, Rosenstock-Huessy resigned his position at Breslau and immigrated to the United States. He took a position at Harvard in German Studies, but did not stay long, finding the environment uncomfortable — he often mentioned God in his lectures and the faculty at Harvard, many of whom were of a Communist persuasion at the time, disliked this greatly. Thus, in 1935 he came to Dartmouth, appointed as Professor of Social Philosophy. He taught at the College until his retirement in 1957. In the years of his professorship at the College, he penned numerous books on Christianity, European revolution, and sociology. His wife, Margrit Huessy, died in 1959. Following his retirement and the death of his wife, he continued to write and guest lecture around the world, all the while residing in Norwich with his next lifelong companion, Freya von Moltk, who herself just recently passed.

Of special concern to me, and all those associated with the College, is the time Professor Rosenstock-Huessy spent here at the College, lecturing undergraduates just like every other professor. Rarely has Dartmouth employed a professor of such magnitude and as such, I was curious to understand what it was like for the Dartmouth community to have a professor of Rosenstock-Huessy’s stature lecturing in its presence.

To learn more about the man, I contacted Dr. Norman Fiering, who shared with me his recollections of the many classes he took with Professor Rosenstock-Huessy at the College. Fiering is the President of the Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Fund and the Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Society, a newly formed branch of the Fund. Dr. Fiering’s personal accomplishments are myriad: within the scope of this piece, he is first a former student of Professor Rosenstock-Huessy’s with much to share about the professor’s place at the College.

Rosenstock-Huessy was a divisive figure, to say the least. He was loved by some students for his unbelievable breadth of knowledge and hated by others for the way he taught. He was a domineering, assertive, generalizing and — perhaps most frustrating for students — rambling lecturer. He would often speak for an hour straight, pausing only if a word escaped him, knowledge pouring forth from his mouth.

For all the respect students had for him, many were disheartened by the constant attacks on their character that were part and parcel of Rosenstock’s lectures. A man with tremendous vision and scope, Rosenstock often found himself disgusted with the lives that his students led, and he was not afraid to let them know. Furthermore, his lectures, which were filled with digressions, often frustrated students, leaving them wondering which material should be noted on their pages and which should be left to float in the ether.

Despite this, Dr. Fiering maintains that the ‘boys’ (as you know, Dartmouth was not yet co-ed) never dismissed him as an outright crank due to how evidently learned and intelligent he was. I can believe it. Though the professor often comes across as cantankerous, the scope of his knowledge mitigates any ill will. His lectures mention Gerhard Groote, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph McCarthy, prohibition, the Methodist Church, and of course Jesus Christ. The remarkable thing is how he is able to tie all these seemingly disparate men and thoughts together. His lectures are like an elaborately patterned scarf being knit – one cannot see coalescence until it is complete. That is why, for as many students disliked him, his classes were always enrolled with dozens of men. 

The faculty viewed him much the same way. Some were friendly while others were offended by his views and methods. He was “respected, but not necessarily liked” by his fellow academics, and many found his disregard for academic conventions loathsome. By the middle of his academic career he had done away with footnotes in his texts, blatantly disregarding the established rules of academic writing. He was a major reason for the abnormal strength of the Philosophy Department at the time, however, and for that reason was at the very least tolerated.

Ultimately, Rosenstock was uneasy with his position in the America, and may very well have felt disrespected. He had been a professor at some of the finest universities in Germany and was forced to leave these posts due to the rise of Nazism. He seemed to feel that Dartmouth was, as Mr. Fiering put it, “in the sticks,” and he most certainly was displeased by the fact that Dartmouth was comprised solely of undergraduate students. Most of the elements of college life at Hanover that people cite as the reasons for their love of Dartmouth were exactly why Rosenstock was never entirely happy here.

But what of the actual classes he taught? In my limited time, I decided to focus on a single course he taught in both 1954 and 1956, entitled “The Circulation of Thought,” as it seemed the most appropriate to the modern issues we face as both college students and a nation at-large.

Before delving into the content of the lectures, let me first note the style. Listening on tape to the Professor lecture was one of the most captivating experiences of my academic life. Rosenstock lectures with such vigor and force that one cannot help but be enthralled. As Dr. Fiering said, “one could feel that he was taken by the spirit.” He simply speaks and speaks, yet the ear and mind never tire of what he says — he is far too interesting, far too evidently brilliant for that to occur. According to Fiering, the professor managed to lecture for an hour at a time in this manner with only a single standard note card of thoughts as reference. A true giant in the classroom, it is easy to understand why so many of Rosentock’s former students are still devoted. Listening to him is almost a religious experience, and being there must have been even more so.

The first point that Rosenstock made in the course is that man must make himself superior to logic. That is, man must make himself the master of his own environment, just as mammals control their internal temperature through their metabolism. He insisted that man must be able to engage in different periods of thought — there are times when man must be consumed by thought and other times when thought must be the least of his concerns. He compared thought to a guest in one’s house: while it may have the run of the place, it is still subject to the will of the owner, that is, the mind.

Further, it is not nearly enough to be in control over one’s thoughts. One must constantly dredge one’s thoughts to root out those that are not worthy. He noted that even mighty Dartmouth College must be dredged every fifteen years, and he chastised the boys in the classroom for relying too heavily on Baker Library as the source of all knowledge.

But mere thought was not enough for Rosenstock, who said, “at times a thought must grip you with such power that you do something about it.” He preached action based on thought, provided that the thought is your own, for if you decide against thinking for yourself, you will surely be ruled by foreign thought. This, he said, is how men like Huey Long and Joseph McCarthy find themselves in power. The exhaustion of spirit resulting from World War II left the world empty, he said, and consequently America was “in for tremendous mental diseases because we do not drench [sic] thoughts.” He foresaw the coming of an age where television put ideas into the heads of people and epidemics of thought ran rampant.

This apocalyptic mood runs through his lecture. But hope remains. He urges the young men in his classroom to think of every thought as one grain or seed that might be sown to fruition. Even if the success rate is one in a million, that is enough to change the world and create. Rosenstock desires creation above all — he is a Christian and wishes to see the Word made flesh. Why does he tell his students that they must dredge their minds, control their thoughts? So that they may one day go forth and create.

And this was not all talk. Rosenstock was instrumental in the creation of Camp William James, a voluntary labor camp that allowed people of means to be trained as future leaders of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The camp, attended by a mix of Dartmouth and Harvard students as well as local Vermonters and natives of New Hampshire, was Rosenstock-Huessy’s attempt to inculcate the talented youth of this country with the idea of making their words flesh. He famously said, as paraphrased by our own Jeffrey Hart, that “the goal of education is to form the citizen. And the citizen, is a person who, if need be, can re-found his civilization.” Camp William James was Rosenstock’s physical manifestation of that idea. He sought to meld these young men into citizens, so that, were the circumstances to arrive, they could think, and later act, to create civilization again.

In a time of great upheaval in the American university system, and especially at Dartmouth itself, let us ask ourselves: are we students are being educated in a way that would allow us to re-found our civilization were it to crumble? There’s no particular answer to that question, but it certainly warrants some reflection.

Twain, hard at work.

Appropriately (if my readers will bear with me, you will see just how appropriately), my attempts to obtain, read, and review the Autobiography of Mark Twain, Vol. 1, make for an entertaining and illustrative tangent of their own.  As I am wont to do this time of year, I answered the editorial call to review a book over Christmas break by quickly scanning the list of the year’s bestsellers online, and the Autobiography leapt out as one whose author I recognized by name and for whom that distinction did not cause an immediate sour feeling in my stomach.  I like Tea Party manifestos and ghostwritten memoirs of pop stars as much as the next guy, of course, but it’s part of my New Year’s resolution to stop being part of the problem.  So, having made what I considered a safe selection, I announced my choice and planned to pick up the foreboding tome — 750 pages, hardcover — when I got to the mall bookstore for my Christmas shopping.

This is where the plan fell apart: editors at the University of California Press had massively underestimated the popular appeal of the first release of the unabridged memoirs of the man who was the international literary giant of his day and who remains at the top of the American canon today, a hundred years after his death.  There were no copies available at my Barnes and Noble, nor any bookseller I was likely to stumble across, nor even from Amazon or any other online retailer.  Initially merely irritated, I became horrified to the point of despondency when I received as gifts (from people that claimed to know me) the latest hardcover offerings of two cable news pundits.

Would I be reduced to writing that most tired of cop-outs, the ironically enthusiastic review of this year’s list of which Democrats are Destroying America?  Had I come so far, and soared so close to the Promised Land, only to be forced to revisit the boilerplate politics of my sophomore year in high school?

Waj, one of the dimwitted aspirants to martyrdom depicted in "Four Lions" poses here with a toy AK-47.

There are many things I expected to do at Dartmouth. Laughing at a jihadi sprinting through the streets of London attempting to evade law enforcement while dressed as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle was not one of them.

All right, let me back up. “Four Lions” is a film by British satirist Chris Morris that falls into the rare genre of jihad satire. It follows a collection of radicalized British Muslims as they attempt to carry out a bombing attack and make themselves into martyrs. Unfortunately for them, they’re as competent as most Darwin Awards candidates.

The film begins with the dim-witted Waj sitting in front of a video camera with a toy AK-47 in his lap. His compatriots berate him for using such a ridiculous miniature, objecting to its size. His solution? Move closer to the camera, thereby obscuring his head. Bickering immediately results and the audience is practically told right up front what they’re in for. Yes, this is a film about terrorism. Moreover, it’s a film about idiots attempting to carry it out. It’s the Keystone Cops as Al-Qaeda.