Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

  1. #21
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Just mentioned Timothy Snyder on the Ukraine thread. He's written a number of good books on history, politics, etc.





    https://www.goodreads.com/author/sho...Timothy_Snyder
    Last edited by Chip; April 24th, 2022 at 12:58 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    I’ve read those from Snyder.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    April 26, 2022
    Heather Cox Richardson
    Apr 27

    Comment
    Share
    I intended to write tonight about Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—and I will—but the research for that topic led me elsewhere: into the world of the early years of the Trump administration, when many journalists were trying oh, so hard to pretend that maybe Trump’s gutting of the State Department, for example, was just some part of a new policy approach.

    It’s startling when you compare it with today’s coverage of Biden.

    What got me on this track was Blinken’s offhand comment today that his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was “the 100th time that I’ve had an opportunity to brief Congress, which is one of the ways I’ve worked to meet the commitment that I made in my confirmation before this committee to restore Congress’s role as a partner both in our foreign policymaking and in revitalizing the State Department.”

    That reminded me that shortly after Trump took office journalists wrote about how he was sidelining the State Department. “Is the State Department Being Intentionally Gutted?” wondered Michael Fuchs on February 28, 2017, in Just Security. He noted that Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, former chief executive officer of ExxonMobil, had not held a single press briefing since he took office and hadn’t been at summit meetings with Trump and foreign leaders. The tradition of daily press briefings from State Department spokespeople had also stopped dead the day Trump took office. The White House had said it was going to cut the State Department budget to offset an increase of $54 billion in defense spending.

    The Trump administration had asked the senior career officers running the department’s administration to resign, and several senior diplomats had been recalled before replacements were even nominated. The floor where the secretary of state and the senior team have offices was essentially empty, and the administration was not filling those positions.

    Maybe, Tillerson was “just getting up to speed,” but while he sounded tentative, Fuchs wasn’t willing to believe an innocent explanation. He said there were “strong signs” that “the White House [was] trying to sideline the State Department[.]” Fuchs noted that Trump seemed “enamored of the military” and seemed eager to get rid of the nonpartisan bureaucracy that stabilizes democracies.

    CNN’s Nicole Gaouette had similar observations but wondered if the silence of Tillerson’s State Department was just a reflection of his caution in front of the media. She recorded that the deafening silence from the State Department created confusion as Trump’s tweets rocked long-stable ships. “[T]he President and his Cabinet have given mixed messages on issues like the US commitment to NATO,” she noted.

    And then, for his first trip abroad, Trump went not to Canada or to Mexico, our two largest trading partners, democracies, close allies, and neighbors, but to Saudi Arabia, an oligarchic kleptocracy. There, he and Tillerson appeared to embrace the culture, something previous presidents had been careful to avoid because of its extreme misogyny and occasional extremism. Tillerson did in fact hold a press conference there, but U.S. media was banned: only foreign media was admitted. Foreign affairs expert Anne Applebaum called the trip “bizarre, unseemly, unethical and un-American.”

    Of course, we now know that Trump was centering foreign affairs in the White House—Ivanka Trump went along on that trip to Saudi Arabia to promote “female entrepreneurs”—and among his own cronies like the “Three Amigos” who tried to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky into launching a fake investigation into Hunter Biden. The plan was, at least in part, to stop looking at foreign affairs as national security—just days ago, Trump told an audience that during his term he had threatened European leaders that the U.S. would not honor the mutual aid pact and defend Europe against incursions by Russia—and instead to pocket huge sums of money. We know now it was Trump friend Tom Barrack who was behind the meeting with the Saudis as he angled for a huge deal to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

    People who seemed nonplussed by the extraordinary actions of the Trump administration were not deliberately giving him a pass, I don’t think. They just couldn’t believe they were seeing the dismantling of centuries of diplomacy to enrich one family and its inner circle.

    So when Blinken now talks about values and national security again, it seems sometimes we are cynically harsh.

    Today, he spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reminding it that he, the secretary of state, had spoken to the committee 100 times. He thanked it for its support and talked of the recent visit he and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had made to Kyiv, where they had gone to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to the government and the people of Ukraine. He described the countryside and cities coming back to life after the carnage Russia visited on them, and he hailed the extraordinary determination of the Ukrainians.

    There is a lesson in that determination for the U.S., he suggested. “Moscow’s war of aggression against Ukraine has underscored the power and purpose of American diplomacy. Our diplomacy is rallying allies and partners around the world to join us in supporting Ukraine with security, economic, humanitarian assistance; imposing massive costs on the Kremlin; strengthening our collective security and defense; addressing the war’s mounting global consequences, including the refugee and food crises….”

    Blinken was understating things. The administration’s bolstering of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies and partners, along with its strong effort to keep various nations on board with economic sanctions, has been key to supporting Ukraine. Today, news broke of just how extensive U.S. sharing of intelligence has been with Ukraine, enabling Ukraine not only to protect its own weapons from attack, but also to shoot down a Russian plane transporting troops. Indeed, U.S. intelligence has helped prevent Russia from getting control of the airspace over Ukraine.

    And now the administration has expanded that cooperation to include intelligence sharing to enable Ukraine to take back territory Russia has captured, including in Crimea or the Donbas. This reflects Austin’s statement today that Ukraine can not only survive against Russia, but can “win.” Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby elaborated: “winning is very clearly defined by a Ukraine whose sovereignty is fully respected, whose territorial integrity is not violated by Russia or any other country for that matter.” Kirby also explained Austin’s comment that the U.S. wants “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Kirby said: “We don’t want a Russia that’s capable of exerting…malign influence in Europe or anywhere around the world.”

    In addition to responding to the urgency of the attack on Ukraine, the State Department “continues to carry out the missions traditionally associated with diplomacy, like responsibly managing great power competition with China, facilitating a halt to fighting in Yemen and Ethiopia, pushing back against the rising tide of authoritarianism and the threat that it poses to human rights,” he said. The State Department will continue to modernize, as well, to address emergence of infectious diseases, the climate crisis, and the digital revolution.

    Blinken noted that the State Department is filling out its ranks as quickly as it can with diplomats that “reflect America’s remarkable diversity, which is one of our greatest strengths, including in our diplomacy,” providing the paid internships that will enable poorer young people to accept them, and finally having State’s “first ever chief diversity and inclusion officer.” The effort is paying off: State is on track for its largest hiring intake in ten years.

    “My first 15 months in this job have only strengthened my own conviction that these and other reforms are not just worthwhile;” Blinken said, “they’re essential to our national security and to delivering for the people we represent.”



    Notes:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/38230/s...onally-gutted/

    https://www.voanews.com/a/several-se...s/3694107.html

    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/p...nce/index.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-saudi-arabia/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e36_story.html

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...rcna26015?s=09

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...d-nato-russia/

    https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcr...llowing-ukrai/

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...a-war-00027737

    https://www.state.gov/opening-remark...s-committee-2/

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Fuck Trump, forever.

  5. #25
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Douglas Murray.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,118
    Thanks
    874
    Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,299 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Fuck Trump, forever.
    Is that a book title? Who is the author?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Empty_of_Clouds For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (April 28th, 2022)

  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Ha!

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful


  10. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Here is a very interesting and apropos article (Vox) on Hannah Arendt. Give it a look. The woman was prescient!

    https://www.vox.com/vox-conversation...e-philosophers

  11. #30
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Kim Stanley Robinson has written near-future SF novels that are worth a look as social and political documents.



    Plus, he's published quite a few books, so you won't run out quickly.

  12. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    “ …at the same time, the rise of a market-based economy in the former Soviet republics made it clear that capitalism and democracy were not interchangeable. An oligarchy rose from the ashes of the USSR, and U.S. leaders embraced the leaders of that new system as allies. That allyship has gone so far that this week, the Conservative Political Action Conference held a conference in Hungary, where leader Viktor Orbán, who was a keynote speaker at the event, has openly rejected democracy. At the conference, he called for the right in the U.S. to join forces with those like him; yesterday, he declared martial law in his country.

    At home, where our focus on free markets has stacked our political system in favor of the Republicans, the vast majority of Americans want reasonable gun laws, reproductive rights, action on climate change, equality before the law, infrastructure funding, and so on, and their representatives are unable to get those things.”

    Heather Cox Richardson

  13. #32
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Just finished this. Another futurist s/f novel, very well thought-out and detailed.



    Robinson's special gift is to inhabit his sociopolitical landscapes with engaging characters.

  14. #33
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Piketty has some concrete proposals that are sure to infuriate entrenched economists and their capitalist sponsors.

    The French economist Thomas Piketty is arguably the world’s greatest chronicler of economic inequality. For decades now, he has collected huge data sets documenting the share of income and wealth that has flowed to the top 1 percent. And the culmination of much of that work, his 2013 book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” quickly became one of the most widely read and cited economic texts in recent history.

    Piketty’s new book, “A Brief History of Equality,” is perhaps his most optimistic work. In it, he chronicles the immense social progress that the U.S. and Europe have achieved over the past few centuries in the form of rising educational attainment, life expectancy and incomes. Of course, those societies still contain huge inequalities of wealth. But in Piketty’s view, this outcome isn’t an inevitability; it’s the product of policy choices that we collectively make — and could choose to make differently. And to that end, Piketty proposes a truly radical policy agenda — a universal minimum inheritance of around $150,000 per person, worker control over the boards of corporations and “confiscatory” levels of wealth and income taxation — that he calls “participatory socialism.”

    So this conversation isn’t just about the current state of inequality; it’s about the kind of policies — and politics — it would take to solve that inequality. We discuss why wealth is a far more accurate indicator of social power than income, the quality of the historical data that Piketty’s work relies on, why Piketty believes the welfare state — not capitalism itself — is the most important driver of human progress, why representative democracy hasn’t led to more economic redistribution, whether equality is really the best metric to measure human progress in the first place, how Piketty would pay for his universal inheritance proposal, whether the levels of taxation he is proposing would stifle innovation and wreck the economy, why he believes it would be better for societies — and economic productivity — for workers to have a much larger say in how companies are governed, how Piketty thinks about the prospect of inflation and more.


    [You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/o...e=articleShare

  15. #34
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    This book of oral histories and analysis had a profound influence on me.



    I will never be a woman and I find in them both mystery and delight.

    After I finished the book, I did further research and wrote a novella with a main character who grows up in a village in Siberia, hunting for subsistence, and eventually serves as a sniper in the WWII Soviet Army.


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Chip For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (July 14th, 2022)

  17. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    I thought that this, today, was pretty good:

    from The Third Rail, a newsletter examining the disputes that divide America.
    By David French



    On the last day of the Supreme Court’s most recent term, the Court released two cases that highlight a challenge to American democracy—a challenge that is the direct result of one of the Founders’ more consequential miscalculations. They granted Congress more power than any other branch of government, and they mistakenly thought Congress would possess a sense of institutional responsibility and authority. Instead it is largely a partisan body, drained of any sense of independent civic duty, and American democracy suffers as a result.

    The two cases seem unrelated at first glance. One is West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s Obama-era clean-power rule. The Court relied on the so-called major-questions doctrine, a relatively new term for the legal idea that if Congress intends to delegate significant power to regulatory agencies to fashion new rules and regulations, it has to do so explicitly.

    The second case is Biden v. Texas. The Court upheld the Biden administration’s decision to reverse the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which required a small number of non-Mexican nationals who were detained at the border to wait in Mexico during their removal proceedings.

    What do these cases have in common? They both arose from serious and problematic congressional inaction. In the EPA case, the executive branch was responding to legitimate concerns about climate change, but the executive branch is not supposed to be a lawmaking body. In the “remain in Mexico” case, Congress failed to fund sufficient immigration detention facilities, rendering it impossible for the president to comply with Congress’s mandate that immigrants who are not “clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt” entitled to entry “shall be detained.” This left the president with the choice of releasing migrants into the country or requiring them to return to the “foreign territory contiguous to the United States” from which they arrived.

    Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” With the growth of the administrative state, Congress has effectively delegated some of its legislative powers to administrative agencies, which promulgate regulations that have the force of law. For example, many of the rules that govern American immigration, environmental policy, workplace safety, and the securities industry are regulations promulgated by the executive branch, not statutes passed by Congress.

    Chief Justice John Roberts sees a problem there. In his majority opinion in the EPA case, he wrote that any judicial inquiry into administrative authority must answer “whether Congress in fact meant to confer the power the agency has asserted.” If Congress did not mean to confer such power on the agency, then the agency does not have the legal authority to act—no matter how pressing the matter or how urgent the crisis. In other words, if Congress fails to act, its failure does not empower the executive branch to fill the legal gap.

    As Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence in the Biden v. Texas decision, “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings. But this Court has authority to address only the legal issues before us. We do not have authority to end the legislative stalemate or to resolve the underlying policy problems.”

    What does any of this have to do with the Founders? How do these cases reflect a challenge to American democracy? The problem is simply this: Congress was intended to be the most potent branch of government. It is now the most dysfunctional. And it’s dysfunctional in part because the Founders did not properly predict the power of partisanship over institutional responsibility.

    Even worse, Congress’s dysfunction radiates to other branches of government. Both the presidency and the judiciary assume more power than they should, escalating the stakes of presidential elections and the intensity of judicial confirmations.

    Describing the branches of government as “co-equal,” as many people do, is simply wrong. Read the Constitution and you’ll quickly see that Congress has more theoretical power than any other branch. It can fire the president. It can fire any member of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. It can define the jurisdiction of federal courts and the numbers of judges and justices. Its powers are enumerated in the first article of the Constitution for a reason. It’s not equal. It’s preeminent.

    Only Congress can declare war. Only Congress can authorize public spending. And for all the talk of the Founders’ suspicion of democracy, they gave these significant powers to the most democratic branch of government.

    In reality, however, this independent congressional power depends a great deal on its willingness to uphold its institutional responsibility, to see itself as a separate branch of government that is jealous of its own power and prerogatives. The constitutional theory isn’t that, say, Democrats will check Republicans but that Congress will check the presidency.

    Substitute an overriding partisan purpose for institutional responsibility, and the system starts to falter. We see this most plainly in the impeachment context. Congress has quite clearly tended to view impeachment primarily through a partisan lens. When Mitt Romney voted to convict Donald Trump during Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2019, he was the first senator in American history to cross partisan lines to vote to convict a president.

    Congress is now less an independent branch of government and much more a collection of partisan foot soldiers supporting or opposing the sitting president’s agenda. Combine this partisan purpose with a closely divided country and you have a formula for deadlock, and worse.

    Politics abhors a power vacuum, and Congress’s absence has been filled by the presidency. As Congress shrinks, the presidency grows. On a bipartisan basis, presidents now choose to act whenever Congress “fails.”

    So now it is presidents who, in effect, declare war. Time and again, they initiate military hostilities without congressional approval. Their administrative agencies write laws of great consequence. They draft executive orders that are even designed to redirect funds appropriated by Congress to new presidential priorities. And the quirks of the Electoral College mean we now face a system where most Americans (who live in safe red or blue states) don’t cast truly meaningful votes for the one person who holds all this power. This reality breeds instability, and that instability is amplified each time a president is elected in spite of losing the popular vote.

    And this brings us back to the Supreme Court. An emerging Court majority is now highly skeptical of presidential power. Through a series of technical rulings grounded in both the Administrative Procedure Act and in the Constitution itself, the Court is imposing intense scrutiny on executive actions—such as the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal DACA and add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, the Biden administration’s OSHA vaccine mandate, and the Obama-era clean-power rule.

    On a pragmatic basis, a dangerous game is afoot. The Supreme Court is telling Congress, “If you want something done, you’ll have to do it yourself.” But what if Congress simply doesn’t do anything? What if it continues to place partisan imperatives over its institutional responsibilities? The Supreme Court can deny the president additional power, but it cannot force Congress to do its work.

    Indeed, if Congress continues to abdicate its fundamental constitutional obligations, it will cause even more degradation in the American body politic. Troubling gaps in law and policy will be left entirely unaddressed, and a less and less powerful president will be unable to alter the national course.

    Despite all this, however, the Court is constitutionally correct. It is not the role of the judicial branch to enlarge the power of the presidency merely because Congress has lapsed into partisan impotence. Ratifying the continued expansion of the administrative state would only enable Congress’s worst instincts and further damage American democracy.

  18. #36
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    The Court is off the rails.

    What precisely do the learned justices believe Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to do? To protect the environment, perhaps?

    Or to be a service bureau for issuing permits to industry, to rape, despoil, pillage, poison, and pollute?

  19. #37
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    On a pragmatic basis, a dangerous game is afoot. The Supreme Court is telling Congress, “If you want something done, you’ll have to do it yourself.” But what if Congress simply doesn’t do anything? What if it continues to place partisan imperatives over its institutional responsibilities? The Supreme Court can deny the president additional power, but it cannot force Congress to do its work.
    Then that's the (inadvertent) will of the people. They're free to elect new representatives that will do the work.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  20. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    This book of oral histories and analysis had a profound influence on me.



    I will never be a woman and I find in them both mystery and delight.

    After I finished the book, I did further research and wrote a novella with a main character who grows up in a village in Siberia, hunting for subsistence, and eventually serves as a sniper in the WWII Soviet Army.

    very cool!

  21. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,793
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 898 Times in 690 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Mike Pence is against the "woke"movement. Perhaps he is against any historical facts.

    From Heather Cox Richardson today.

    ..."As soon as the amendment was ratified, though, white southerners who were dead set against their Black neighbors participating in their government began to say that they had no problem with Black men voting on racial grounds. Their objection to Black voting, they claimed, was that poor, uneducated Black men just out of enslavement were voting for lawmakers who promised them public services, like roads and schools, that could be paid for only with taxes levied on people with the means to pay, which in the post–Civil War South usually meant white men.

    Complaining that Black voters were socialists—they actually used that term in 1871—white southerners began to keep Black voters from the polls. In 1878, Democrats captured both the House and the Senate, and former Confederates took control of key congressional committees. From there, in the summer of 1879, they threatened to shut down the federal government altogether unless the president, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, agreed to end the federal protection of Black Americans in the South. "
    https://heathercoxrichardson.substac...m_medium=email

  22. #40
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Political or Cultural Writers you find thorough and thoughtful

    Paul Fussell has written several books full of insight, wit, and humor. The Great War and Modern Memory is a classic.

    But if you don't know his work, the best introduction is Class:


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •