Fascinating Moments in Early U.S. History (Part 1: The Revolutionary Era)

Posted on by under History

Surprising ideas and events abound when studying the American war for independence and the early republic. Let’s take a look!

When Britain’s moves against slavery pushed American colonists to support independence

In the mid-18th century, abolitionism stirred in the American colonies among religious sects such as the pacifistic Quakers. In Britain, activists and politicians were at work as well — to end the slave trade and what little slavery there was in Britain itself — and significant developments unfolded that impacted America’s coming revolution and later political development. In 1772, the British courts handed down a ruling that changed the practice of slavery in the motherland and worried Americans invested in slavery. It was determined that James Somerset, a black slave who had been brought to Britain and escaped, was free, as Britain itself had no positive laws establishing and protecting slavery. Lord Mansfield, issuing the decision, threw out the old practice of respecting colonial laws when it came to this issue. He also called slavery “odious.” 

To American slave-owners, it appeared Britain, now essentially free soil, was turning away from slavery. This caused much concern. The Somerset Case signaled that British courts took upon themselves the power to end slavery — if it could be ended in the motherland, it could be ended throughout the empire. Colonial law didn’t matter, British law did — and British law did not uphold slavery. More evidence of this appeared when the Earl of Dunmore declared during the American Revolution that any American slave in Virginia that escaped and came to fight for Britain would be freed. Britain made this official policy throughout the colonies. Large numbers of slaves fled their American captors. South Carolina and Georgia lost an estimated one-third of their slaves.

Concerns over protecting slavery played a role, therefore, in American views toward the revolution and the new government they would establish. Southern states like Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia saw increasing support for the fight for independence. Slavery had to be preserved. America would seek compensation from Britain for lost slaves after the war — unsuccessfully. The Patriots were sure, however, to work relevant safeguards into constitutional law. The Somerset ruling had established for Britain that a slave going from one part of the empire to another could find freedom. So the U.S. Constitution blocked this. Article IV, Section 2 reads: “No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor…” Other elements solidified slavery as established law: the slave trade was preserved for decades, to allow slave-owners time to import more slaves after losing so many during the war (and in response to abolitionist efforts to end the slave trade), and congressional representation would include the counting of slaves as three-fifths of a person. Slave-owners would not make the same mistake in U.S. law that had been made in British law.

When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison plagiarized George Mason

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution contain language and principles that echo George Mason’s 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Virginia document begins by stating “all men are by nature equally free” and possess “inherent rights”: “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness…” Only slight changes — some to add flourish — would be adopted for the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. Power, Mason continues, is derived from the people; politicians are to be the “servants” of the people, “at all times amenable to them,” a slightly more radical statement than the “consent of the governed” line employed by Jefferson, but in the same spirit. Section 3 makes clear that proper government is to secure the safety and happiness of its citizens, who have the right to alter or abolish it for failing to do so. 

Section 8 establishes for Virginians the right to a speedy trial before an impartial jury, similar to the later Amendments V and VI of the Constitution. Further, no accused individual will be forced to testify. The Bill of Rights declares that property cannot be seized without just compensation, whereas the earlier Virginia Declaration makes no mention of reparations, only requiring an act by the legislature. Section 9 — “That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” — is copied directly in Amendment VIII. Both documents condemn searches and seizures without specific warrants and firm evidence. Freedom of the press and religion, and the right to a well-regulated militia, are codified in both. Finally, the Virginia Declaration insists that the executive and legislative bodies must “be separate and distinct from the judiciary,” touching lightly upon the separation of powers that is implied, but not declared, in the first few articles of the Constitution. 

When the states saw themselves as thirteen sovereign republics

Article II of the Articles of Confederation (America’s first try at a constitution) stressed that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence…” Any “power” or “right” not explicitly granted to the federal government — and there were few in this short document — belonged to the states. Outside of war, treaties, coinage, trade, and a few other purviews, Congress could do little in terms of national policy; state legislatures had the power to do what they liked. In later articles, the union was framed as a “league of friendship” for mutual defense and benefit; they were “binding themselves to assist each other” in the event of an attack from foreign powers. Further, citizens were assured free entry and exit from each state, something you might see in treaties between sovereign nations (the European Union comes to mind). In Article VI, each state is instructed to maintain a militia — rather than the central government operating a military force (similarly, states would levy taxes; Congress could not). Finally, note that in this document the “United States” are plural, rather than the modern singular; i.e. “each of the United States…” Clearly, this new system of government was viewed as a virtual alliance of independent powers.

When Anti-Federalists were idiots and boycotted the Constitutional Convention

In 1787, Federalists arranged a convention in Philadelphia to reform the Articles of Confederation, which they saw as giving too much power to individual states, leading to harmful policies of various sorts: the continued confiscation of Loyalist property, blocking Loyalists from seeking reparations in court, inflating the money supply, and so on. Anti-Federalists, responsible for these sorts of policies and comprised of the more radical Patriots of the revolutionary era such as George Clinton, Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry, opposed the types of reforms that Federalists envisioned, which would force the states to submit to the authority of a national legislature — the states would no longer be able to do as they pleased. The Anti-Federalists, seeing a strong central government as a betrayal of the revolution, chose to boycott the Philadelphia convention. Regardless of what the convention decided to do to the Articles, the changes would need to be approved by state legislatures, and the Anti-Federalists were confident this would not come to pass.

The boycott would mean an increasing loss of control for the Anti-Federalists. Their majority could have blocked the convention, or could have attended the convention and steered the course of events. They likely could have saved the Articles and tightly limited the scope of reforms. Instead, they gambled on the state legislatures and lost. The Federalists were able to design a new government without interference, and were better organized to begin working in the state legislatures for ratification. The Anti-Federalists played catch-up and made various additional mistakes. The Federalists were able to push their new Constitution through the state legislatures — the line of defense the Anti-Federalists had relied on failed.

When the Founding Fathers saw Big Government as a vital check on state injustices

With states continuing to seize Loyalist property, block British creditors from collecting American debts, and mishandle the money supply, Madison sought, with a new constitution, a federal check on state power.

In Vices of the Political System of the United States (1787), he pointed to the dangers of majority rule, arguing that representatives were more often driven by “ambition” and “personal interest” than the “public good.” Such officials banded together, at times fooling voters and honest politicians by framing their own interests as the common good, resulting in the passage of unjust laws. However, “a still more fatal” flaw of democracy was that clashing interests were rarely balanced affairs. The poor vastly outnumbered the rich, for instance, a major problem (see How the Founding Fathers Protected Their Own Wealth and Power). “All civilized societies are divided into different interests and factions, as they happen to be creditors or debtors — Rich or poor — husbandmen, merchants or manufacturers — members of different religious sects — followers of different political leaders — inhabitants of different districts — owners of different kinds of property &c &c. In republican Government the majority however composed, ultimately give the law.” The minority could thus be crushed. Here Madison’s class concerns over property confiscation, breaking contracts with creditors, and so on are made clear, alongside his traditional advocacy for freedom from religion. 

His solution was “an enlargement of the [decisionmaking] sphere.” Taking power up to the federal level would mean more public officials involved in policy. A misguided “passion is less apt to be felt and the requisite combinations less easy to be formed by a great than by a small number.” A United States Congress with real power would have many more members than a state legislature, and its members would be more ideologically and geographically diverse. There would exist “a greater variety of interests, of pursuits, of passions, which check each other.” When states stepped out of line — when Anti-Federalists passed injustices — representatives from other states in the central Congress could restrain them. A federal government could “control one part of the Society from invading the rights of another.” Madison framed this as the establishment of neutrality that would protect private rights and minority rights. He acknowledged ambition and special interests would be just as powerful a force in a United States Congress, but establishing such a legislative body was the only way to prevent the abuses of the states. The states would have to regulate each other at a higher level of government.

The federal government, Madison noted, would at the same time be “sufficiently controlled itself,” as it was unlikely enough states would establish “an interest adverse to that of the whole Society.”

Later, the Virginia Plan, Madison’s draft for a new constitution at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, was expectedly antithetical to the Articles of Confederation and Anti-Federalist ideology. Under the Articles, states had broad power to do as they pleased. Congress had supremacy in only a handful of policy areas, and could raise no taxes to support its legislation. Further, this was a government without a chief executive or federal judges. The Virginia Plan, which was not enacted in full but served as a foundation to commence design of a new government, greatly expanded the power of Congress. Congress would be able to pass laws that the states were bound to follow; it would be able to veto state legislation: “Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts… to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States…” Congress would be representational, rather than granting each state the same number of members — another idea distasteful to Anti-Federalists. The plan further established executive and judicial branches, other bodies of power over the states. Such top-down designs would cause much consternation among the Anti-Federalists and other supporters of the Articles. 

When George Clinton insisted the U.S. was too big and diverse for democracy to work

Founding Father George Clinton, Anti-Federalist New York governor and future vice president, writing as “Cato” in the New York Journal on October 25, 1787, argued that the states were too different for a federal government to properly function. Given the “dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics” inherent across such a wide geographical area, federalism “can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty…” Citing Montesquieu, Clinton insists that the “public good” is incomprehensible in a larger republic, with many competing interests — what’s good for some is disastrous for others. Further, a national legislature would invest too much power in each member, the power over too many ordinary citizens and too vast a region, which would go to members’ heads: “there are too great deposits to trust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens…” And bigger nations create richer men, who are more self-serving leaders. 

Clinton goes on to posit that some of the states themselves are already too big for ideal self-government. If state legislatures and governors were having trouble holding their states together, what hope did a federal government have keeping the states unified? Massachusetts was experiencing insurgency and threats of secession from its province of Maine. In a similar manner, the law under federalism would be “too feeble” to actually work; there would need to be a standing national army, an old fear of the American Patriots after their experience with Britain. Force would be needed to enact and enforce federal law and quell rebellions and secessions against it.

Clinton hits upon several truths and keen insights, but offers a theory of democracy that is not fully fleshed out. Smaller areas may indeed feature more individuals of similar backgrounds, lifestyles, and ideologies. When he writes that “the strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls,” we’re in the realm of truism. Of course more similar people will be more united. But to seek the greatest unity of interests is to slowly abandon the concepts of democracy and nationhood altogether. Clinton insists that federalism would feature too much division, and then sees that states, rife with division themselves, should be broken up into smaller political bodies as well: “The extent of many of the states of the Union, is at this time almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller and more useful, as well as moderate ones.” More states, smaller states. But this dissection could continue. A town or city may be more united than the entirety of a state. Did not New York City threaten to leave New York if the state did not ratify the Constitution? But even then the quest for likemindedness doesn’t stop. Clinton brought up Athens as an example of democracy working best small-scale. But Athens had its rich and poor, its many contradictory interests. Should democracy only be tolerated on a scale smaller than a city? Like in a poor neighborhood? The point is that at any level of governance, divergent interests, morals, and lifestyles exist. There may be more cohesion and similarities on many fronts, but division is unavoidable. Clinton attempts to justify a rejection of federalism on the grounds of regional and constituent dissimilitude, but that could justify the termination of democracy anywhere, at any level. It makes one wonder how nations, states, cities, and more can be justified — must they all be broken up?

Alternatively, if one accepts that democracy entails division (with every vote, between a minority and majority) and factionalism and competing visions of the common good, then it’s easier to notice that democracies at higher levels, such as a “consolidated republican form of government” proposed by the Constitution, can be safeguards of liberties as much as dangers to them. By seeking difference and an “unkindred legislature,” by expanding the sphere of contradictory interests, one has the chance to root out tyranny in every state, not just your own. Madison and the Federalists understood this — letting states do whatever they liked was a recipe for oppression by itself. Clinton brings up the South, where “wealth is rapidly acquired” and there existed a “passion for aristocratic distinction,” where “slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course less respected and protected…” He compares this to the North, “where freedom, independence, industry, equality and frugality are natural…” This feels prescient, coming right after Clinton’s discussion of insurrection and secession. The United States is too diverse and different, it will tear itself apart. Nevertheless, Clinton would rather leave a place “where slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course less respected” to its own designs. Rather than using federalism to ensure higher principles are followed in all states. Clinton complains of oppression, but won’t do anything about it — thinking only of how, in a powerful Congress, the South could infect the North, not how the North could have a positive influence on the South. Democracy is a messy business. It can bring abuses and tyranny — or their opposites.

Clinton’s other points — that decisionmaking power over an entire nation is more corrupting than decisionmaking power over a state; that larger nations create richer men; that richer men are more corrupt — go unsupported. They may be true, they may be fictions. But his suggestion that a national army would be necessary to put down insurrections and violations of federal law again rings true to the modern ear. The states themselves can be bound to enforce federal law, through militias or police and guardsmen; a national military can be banned from deploying on U.S. soil under most circumstances. But at some point all that can fail — states can rebel, and the forces of other states or a national army must step in. Higher-level militaries are then like higher-level democracies. They create the potential for tyranny for all, but also the potential to preserve and expand liberty for all. Again Clinton only acknowledges the potential for harm — more nuance, a holistic view, is needed.

When people wanted to ratify the Constitution before finishing it, to Patrick Henry’s horror

The Constitution was pushed through state legislatures only with a promise. If you pass this, Federalists assured the Anti-Federalists, a bill of rights will come later. Patrick Henry insisted, in a speech in Richmond on June 24, 1788, that the Constitution be amended before Virginia ratified it, not after. He saw approval on condition of amendment as a dangerous idea: “Evils admitted, in order to be removed subsequently, and tyranny submitted to, in order to be excluded by a subsequent alteration…” Why submit to tyranny and then try to get out from under it? Why not avoid tyranny in the first place? It was all quite backward: “Do you enter into a compact of government first, and afterwards settle the terms of the government?” Henry had a good point, given what the compromise entailed. After the Constitution was established as the law of the land, a bill of rights would go through the amendment process outlined in Article V. Three-fourths of the states would need to approve it — there was no guarantee of passage. Regardless of the popularity of certain freedoms, regardless of Anti-Federalist power or the general political makeup, there was a nonzero chance the Constitution would be ratified but a bill of rights would fail. Understandably, Henry was unwilling to take that chance, calling instead for amendments first. The legislature ignored him, narrowly ratifying the Constitution the next day.

(George Clinton and Patrick Henry were both concerned about risks to liberties. One could frame Clinton’s thinking in a similar way to Henry’s. Why submit to the potential tyranny of a national legislature or national army? Why risk it? The difference here is what justifies the risk. The potential reward of establishing and protecting liberty in all states for all people justifies it. But in the Henry case, there is little to be gained by making the gamble. Passing a law that may or may not be amended later? There’s no inherent reward. The smarter play is amending the law first and then passing it.)

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Anti-Semitism Remains, Statistically, Worse on the Right Than the Left

Posted on by under Race Relations

Many terrible ideas have run amok since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and the ensuing Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

First, there’s what appears to be an ideological consensus — that Israel could never have oppressed the Palestinians over the years, that Israel’s policies have nothing to do with the terror and hatred against it, that all Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists support terrorism and Hamas and anti-Semitism, and that the killing of many thousands of innocent Palestinians is an acceptable or moral response to the deaths of one thousand innocent Israelis. None of this can be judged true after a little education (start here), nuanced thinking, and ethical reasoning. But this conservative framework is so powerful, many Republicans and Democrats sound indistinguishable right now. It is telling that not even Bernie Sanders, who often speaks up for Palestinian rights, will call for a ceasefire.

Second, there’s the response by some leftists, the refusal to condemn — or even celebration of — terror against civilians as a response to oppression. (Nor do they acknowledge the role or perils of Islamic fanaticism, focusing solely on those of a religious state explicitly for Jews.) Some socialists, communists, anarchists, and so on saw the attack as justified (though Israeli children hardly have a say over Israeli policies), possessing little interest in the philosophy of nonviolent resistance embraced by other leftists and the liberals (others may accept violence only against non-civilian targets). Like anywhere else on the political spectrum, there is indeed nastiness, hyperbole, callousness, narrow-mindedness, violence, and bigotry on the Left. This reaction put them all center stage and garnered special attention. But in a way, the Left simply joined the Right in the gutter. For instance, hate crimes against both Jews and Muslims/Arabs are out of control, some conservatives don’t care, vocally, about Palestinian corpses but gasped at the insensitive response of the other side to October 7, and so on.

Writers for center, liberal, and leftwing publications condemned the response. The Right was as overjoyed as it was aghast, issuing countless articles declaring “Democrats Have an Anti-Semitism Problem,” “Liberals Need a Reckoning with Anti-Semitism,” “Pro-Hamas Protesters Are the Movement, Not Outliers,” “The Left Owns Anti-Semitism, While the Right Stands With Israel,” and so forth. The Left, it seems, is infected with hatred of Jews, perhaps even defined by it, unlike the Right, which is loyal to Israel and therefore innocent.

But if you look at the recent research on the topic — putting aside the childish idea that opposition to Israeli policies or religious states is automatically disdain for Jewish people or their faith — you will notice that anti-Semitic attitudes are actually more prevalent on the Right than the Left, and that Jews themselves generally understand this. There is of course cause for concern over both “‘traditional’ antisemitism (long-standing anti-Jewish stereotypes) emanating from the political right” and “‘Israel-related’ antisemitism (blaming individual Jews for the actions of Israel) associated with the political left.” In the literature, these are referred to as the “old” and “new” prejudices. But not all problems are created equal.

A June 2022 study in Political Research Quarterly examined the views of conservatives and liberals, for instance how much they agreed with statements such as “Jews in the United States have too much power.” Anti-Semitism has long entailed the conspiracy theory that Jews control the media, the political sphere, law and business and banking, and so on. When you hear about a New World Order, cabals, globalists, and illuminati, this is frequently what is being referenced. The Jewish societal domination idea has led to horrific violence against the Jews, playing a major role in Nazi Germany, as I mentioned in a recent piece. The study found that people on the Right are much more likely to believe that Jews have too much power in the U.S. They are also more likely to believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States — bigotry often involves the question of who is or isn’t a “real American.” Across all such questions asked, problematic “agreement is higher (2–3 times higher) on the far right than on the far left.” Such beliefs are not the norm, of course. Only about 6% of far Left respondents and about 17% of far Right respondents think Jews have too much power in society, for instance (see unprimed findings). But one side is clearly worse. And things get darker still if you look only at the data for young people, with about 5% of leftists in agreement vs. 45% of rightwingers.

This makes a good deal of sense. Conservatives are noticeably more likely to believe in hate-based conspiracy theories. Half of QAnon types believe Jews want to take over the world; these are closely tied conspiracy theories that share themes of secret puppet masters and global cabals.

Interestingly, another statement placed before respondents was “It is appropriate for opponents of Israel’s policies and actions to boycott Jewish American owned businesses in their communities.” Given that the Left is highly critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, one might expect it to be more guilty here, agreeing more than the Right. Isn’t the Left into the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, launched by Palestinians in 2005? If the above question was old prejudice themed, this one is all new prejudice, perfect for trapping leftwingers. Well, about 10% of far Left respondents approved of boycotting Jewish American businesses over Israeli policies, but for the far Right it was about 22%. Just looking at younger people, it’s just over 10% versus just over 50%. The Left understands better that American Jews don’t really have anything to do with Israel or its policies — boycotting their businesses doesn’t make sense. It’s a punishment built on guilt by association; the American Right is twice as likely to accept punishing Jews for something they had no control over. (In a separate question having nothing to do with boycotts, the researchers found that “the far left is least likely to say that U.S. Jews should be held to account for Israel [only 4% agree]. In contrast, among the young far right 28% agree with the statement, seven times higher…”) Quite differently, the BDS movement is action against Israel, its government and economy. Boycotting and withdrawing investments from “all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights” and encouraging sanctions against Israel by national governments and international bodies.

It of course must be emphasized that the scapegoating and bigotry and insane ideas that do exist on the Left are unacceptable, even if they are more limited. (The paper found, it’s worth noting, that leftists are more likely to demand Jews denounce Israel than to demand Muslims denounce Islamic states. For conservatives it was the opposite double standard.) Criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism can at times overlap, as documented in the study, which must be watched for closely. But in general, “people on the hard left hold significantly more anti-Israel views than other Americans, whereas those on the hard right are significantly more antisemitic,” to quote the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, highlighting the difference.

The Political Research Quarterly piece cited a couple studies conducted in other countries that had similar findings: “In a UK study, Staetsky (2020) finds higher rates of antisemitic views among British respondents who identify as far right. In Europe, Cohen (2018) finds lower support for Jewish immigration on the right than on the center or left.” But we will mostly focus on Americans.

A survey in summer 2023 from the Anti-Defamation League and Chicago’s NORC found anti-Semitism going hand-in-hand with enthusiasm for both leftwing and rightwing political violence. Violent leftists were 1.4 to 2 times more likely to be anti-Jewish; violent rightwingers were 2.8 to 3 times more likely to be anti-Jewish. Here again, the problem is serious everywhere but worse on the Right. (American political violence is consistently worse on the Right as well.)

Beyond conspiracy theories of world domination, beyond reactions to Israel’s policies against the Palestinians, other factors can breed disdain for Jews (though they tend to all mix toxically together). There were also racial and religious concerns highlighted by the survey: “Highly antisemitic Americans are twice as likely to support dangerous antidemocratic conspiracies, such as those declaring the U.S. is a ‘Christian nation,’ believing that white Christians are oppressed or that white people will have less rights than minorities in the future (i.e., the ‘Great Replacement’ idea).” One may recall the rightwingers chanting “Jews will not replace us” at the infamous Charlottesville rally of 2017. White nationalists, in addition to demanding whites run society, believe that the Jews and other people of color are trying to subjugate and wipe out white people. Racism is central to much anti-Semitism. And racism tends to be a bigger problem on the Right (this has been much more thoroughly researched in the social sciences; see Conservatives Are More Likely to be Racist). Race and faith are often intertwined, with the dominant former following the dominant latter, thus the need for not only white supremacy but white Christian supremacy. Today many Christians feel an affinity for followers of Judaism, due to the intimate relationship and history between the two faiths and of course, like others, the memory of the Holocaust. It is easy to forget the historical hostility, the Christian persecution of the devilish “Christ killers” over the centuries (see When Christianity Was as Violent as Islam). Religious animosity may yet explain some anti-Jewish sentiments. In this case, Judaism, like other faiths, is a threat to Christian supremacy. An early 2023 study in Social Science Quarterly found that Christian nationalism, a mostly rightwing phenomenon, correlates with anti-Semitism. The desire to dominate others is key to this connection. Beyond Christian nationalists, the authors note, Republicans in general “have the highest average level of antisemitism,” followed by Democrats (relatively closely compared to the evidence examined thus far) and then independents.

On that note, it must be said that some findings are more mixed. Research from 2018 concluded that from 1964 to 2016 strong Democrats and strong Republicans had essentially the same levels of warmth and agreeability towards Jews, with Democrats a hair better on the issue. If their attitudes were equally positive, by this odd metric a “warmth” of about “71 degrees” by 2016, this suggests equal coldness, equal anti-Jewish sentiment, of about 29 degrees. Things don’t get much deeper or detailed than that, leaving the meaning of the finding somewhat obscure. What are the actual beliefs of the people in those minorities? Do they vary in levels of hostility? Perhaps along partisan lines? At minimum, the finding supports the notion that liberals are less anti-Semitic than conservatives, even if it’s fractionally rather than significantly.

An April 2023 study in the UK found that individuals, Right or Left, who believed in authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, or smashing apart the social order were more likely to exhibit bigotry against Jews. These three beliefs were checked for associations with the old (“Judeophobic Antisemitism”) and new (“Antizionist Antisemitism”) prejudices. While old and new are not exclusive to a single side, extrapolations can be made based on aforementioned trends. Totalitarianism earned a .26 coefficient of correlation with the old prejudice, less than zero with the new. In other words, this suggests that totalitarianism on the Right is tied with disdain for Jews; leftwing authoritarianism may not have that problem. There was a .21 correlation between global conspiracy beliefs (“GCB”) and the old prejudice, versus .12 for the new. Meaning a closer connection between the prejudice associated with the Right and belief in conspiracy theories; leftwing conspiracy theorists can be problematic but not as often. However, there is a .29 correlation between those who want revolution against the social order (“Anti-Hierarchical Aggression”) and the new prejudice, compared to only a .21 for the old prejudice. This suggests leftists who support revolution are more bigoted against Jews than rightwingers who support revolution. As .29 is highest among all the numbers in this paragraph, it is so that, as a recent article put it, “Left-wing Anti-Hierarchical Aggression Emerges as the Strongest Predictor of Antisemitism in Recent Study.” But this could probably be labeled a mixed result, as the Right was worse on two of the three categories of belief. For their part, the authors wish to shift focus from Left and Right to those beliefs — in authoritarianism and absurdities and revolution — that they share.

Next, a scholar at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell wrote an article soon after the October 7 attack entitled “Antisemitism Has Moved from the Right to the Left in the United States,” outlining his recent, unpublished findings. The headline should not be misinterpreted to mean anti-Semitism no longer infects the Right, however, or is worse on the Left. Rather, it now simply infects both: “Our study, which will be published soon, found a startling new phenomenon: The ideology underlying antisemitism in the U.S. now encompasses both sides of the political spectrum.” Anti-Israel sentiment, the article notes, has increased anti-Semitism and imaginings by leftists that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States. None of this is surprising. We will have to wait until the study is published to know if it concludes one side is worse than the other, or how they compare (but if the Left was found to be worse, rather than simply worsening, that would probably have taken center stage in the piece). Overall, the study sounds valuable and novel because it links anti-Jewish incidents, as opposed to attitudes, to leftists. Even in 2020, American scholars could say “There is little evidence…of far-left violence being directed or inspired by antisemitism, something which…cannot be said for jihadist or far-right attacks,” but more research and increasing leftwing violence is changing this.

However, in Europe, a 2018 report indicated that victims perceived anti-Semitic harassment as coming from leftists 21% of the time, versus only 13% from conservatives. This is one of the few tools a conservative could use to argue things are worse on the Left, at least when it comes to violent acts (attitudes are a different question).

On that note, it is important to take Jewish perceptions and affiliations into account, even if this is a bit less scientific. American Jews are three times as likely to identify as liberal compared to conservative, and seven out of ten vote Democratic. Jewish Republicans are noticeably less likely to say anti-Semitism is increasing and more likely to say it’s decreasing, a bit strange if such bigotry is pouring in from the Left. Although conservative Jews do see more prejudice in the Democratic Party, the opposite of what most Jews conclude. Naturally, politics determines blame. Seven out of ten Jews believe there is much anti-Semitism in the Republican Party; under four in ten say the same about the Democratic Party. Jews who live in more liberal areas perceive less anti-Semitism than those in more conservative areas. More Jews trust Democrats to fight anti-Semitism, according to a poll after the October 7 attack. (Relatedly: Americans in general who identify as Democrats are typically twice as likely to say anti-Jewish sentiment is a problem in the United States, compared to Republicans. Who would you trust to fight it, those who don’t believe in it?) While the far Left is viewed as a serious threat, the far Right is judged to be far worse, a gap of 30-35 percentage points. True, this could change after recent events, given the response of some leftists. Concern over the new anti-Semitism has indeed grown in recent years. New research will let us know.

For now, weighing all the available evidence, the Right, with its crazed attempts to present the Left as anti-Semitic and itself as saintly, seems to be living in a fantasy, per usual. That upside-down world where you needn’t worry about the log in your own eye, for the Left has a smaller obstruction.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

‘Savages’: Perceptions of the Ozark Settlers

Posted on by under History

In his first volume of A History of the Ozarks, Brooks Blevins explores the antebellum history of the Ozarks region, arguing that past and contemporary depictions of white nineteenth-century Ozarkers as distinct from other Americans — primitive, isolated, ignorant — do not withstand scrutiny.[1] The Old Ozarks (2020) is intended to provide a more nuanced portrayal of settlers and frontiersmen, to capture the complexities of local history and diversity of its people — rather than defined by the stereotypical “barefooted hillbillies” and “hicks,” Blevins posits “that the Ozarks, when shorn of the mythology…comes closer to being a regional microcosm of the American experience than to being a place and people of unique qualities.”[2] Importantly, Blevins sees such stereotypes, coming to full power after the Civil War and in the twentieth century, as coloring historians’ views of the earliest Ozark communities.[3] Like the explorers and novelists before them, historians placed too great an emphasis on Ozarkers’ particularities, masking their rather unexceptional American-ness. Blevins’ contribution, alongside other works of the past few decades in his own field and that of historical anthropology, helps break the spell.[4]

To get a sense of the “exaggerations and oversimplifications” Blevins is working with, one might turn to the nineteenth-century American geographer and explorer Henry R. Schoolcraft, who makes many appearances in The Old Ozarks.[5] Schoolcraft documented his observations of the Ozarks in his influential Journal of a Tour into the Interior of Missouri and Arkansaw: From Potosi, or Mine á Burton, in Missouri Territory, in a South-West Direction, toward the Rocky Mountains, Performed in the Years 1818 and 1819.[6] He wrote of dirt-floor log houses “beyond the pale of the civilized world,” devoid of “comfort,” “cleanliness,” and modern conveniences. They were full of horns, skins, and other hunting trophies — few items of value. Noticing the dried meats kept indoors, Schoolcraft compared an Ozark home to a smokehouse. Children were dirty and dressed in buckskin, the girls ugly from a poor diet. Schoolcraft was dismayed to see women “doing in many instances the man’s work,” and to hear that many infants perished in the region due to a lack of basic medicine. These were people divorced from “refined society.” They were of the remote wilderness, battling native tribes, thieves, and nature.

Schoolcraft writes that he tried to engage the Ozarkers in “small-talk, such as passes current in every social corner; but, for the first time, found I should not recommend myself in that way. They could only talk of bears, hunting, and the like. The rude pursuits, and the coarse enjoyments of the hunter state, were all they knew.” This positions Ozarkers as different from other Americans — proper discourse occurred in all other corners, he had never needed to refrain from it elsewhere. Schoolcraft further complained of a greedy and dishonest guide and his sons, who abruptly abandoned Schoolcraft and his fellow explorers. Again, the exceptionalism of the Ozarkers is highlighted: the group “bore no comparison” to anything “we had ever before witnessed, but was rather characterized in partaking of whatever was disgusting, terrific, [and] rude.” Proud displays of skins outside homes, and other eccentricities, were likewise “novel.”

The geographer reported that settlers hunted and farmed a limited number of crops only to sustain themselves; there were no exports. They were too isolated and remote for that. Life revolved around simple subsistence, when more could in fact be produced, and tolerating the associated deprivations and hardships; the people, therefore, were both “lazy” and “hardy.” They were inferior to Americans back east in every conceivable way. “In manners, morals, customs, dress, contempt of labor and hospitality, the state of society is not essentially different from that which exists among the savages. Schools, religion, and learning are alike unknown.” Ozarkers, Schoolcraft writes, did not pray or observe the Sabbath. There was no reading or books, only “ignorance.” Residents knew nothing of the political happenings of the nation — not even who the president was — and did not wish to learn. Such “indifference” set them apart. Ignorance and faithlessness led to moral decay. The Ozarks were a place of not only sloth but vigilante justice and drunken brawls. Even young boys settled their disagreements with violence, “the act being rather looked upon as a promising trait of character.”

Clearly, Ozarkers were seen as backward and primitive. Schoolcraft compared them to indigenous people, but even went so far as to position them as, at least in some ways, inferior. Native Americans did the same tasks with “half the labour” — implying more intelligent methods — and fewer resources. The settlers had no interest in preservation or frugality, but carelessly killed more game than they needed, felled more trees than they could use, and so on. “The white…destroys all before him…” Sources like Schoolcraft’s Journal not only influenced how early nineteenth-century Americans back east regarded this region, but they further informed the writing of history during the twentieth century. Carl O. Sauer, Robert Flanders, David Thelen, Jeff Bremer, and others marked the early Ozarks as cut off and stuck in the past, an island of uncivilized, ignorant frontierism.[7] 

Blevins of course points out that many observations by explorers and later historians were “not whole-cloth fabrications.”[8] The Ozarks had hunters, material deprivation and poverty, violence and vigilantism, a dearth of modernity, and so on. But it had much else — it was too diverse to be characterized by those elements alone. For example, ironworks developed even before Schoolcraft’s journey through the region.[9] Iron was mined and forged into wagon boxes, ovens, kettles, cannonballs, and all manner of other objects to be sold at market. Pig iron was shipped to St. Louis and other cities. Beginning in the 1820s, Maramec Iron Works was a major “iron plantation with modern technology in a place still lightly settled” that quickly “dominated the local economy…”[10] After arriving in Missouri, wealthy entrepreneurs Thomas James and Samuel Massey brought workers and slaves from Ohio to dig up ore and run the Maramec furnaces. Manual laborers often lived in company housing and were paid in credit to company stores. This booming industry determined where many roads and rails were constructed, which helped ship raw material to surrounding states and territories. “With hundreds of employees, modern technology and equipment, and access to shiny new railroads,” Blevins writes, ironworks ensured “the region’s integration into a broader national and international marketplace… Travelers like [journalist] Albert D. Richardson were surprised to find such modern industrial activities in the far western reaches of the nation.”[11] When serious study of a broad range of Ozarker experience is conducted, the region starts to look less backward and isolated.

Clearly, not all who settled in the Ozarks were hunters. As partially noted, despite his emphasis on the “hunter state,” Schoolcraft acknowledged that Ozarkers grew corn, possessed livestock like pigs and cows, and engaged in trade by river. Blevins writes: “The marketing of grains, hides, and livestock connected farmers and herders of the rural antebellum Ozarks to a wider world of regional and national commerce and trade.”[12] The historian again documents how other settlers lived and how this tied them to the rest of the nation. They grew corn, wheat, cotton, tobacco, sweet potatoes, cabbage, peas, oats, and much else.[13] These were at times brought to market locally: “Wiley Britton recalled that his father…sold corn and other surplus crops to Cherokees or to merchants in Neosho.”[14] More significantly, however, “by 1819 the region already produced surplus beef and pork for the New Orleans market,” and soon became a leading open-range livestock producer nationally.[15] Cattle drives left the Ozarks and marched all over the United States, even as far as New York.[16] Beyond ranchers, farmers, ironworkers, miners, railmen, and hunters, there were artisans, merchants, shopkeepers, mechanics, millers, distillers, company lumberjacks, attorneys, and so on.[17] Like the rest of the country, the Ozarks attracted and produced a wide range of laborers, especially as its towns and cities developed.

After the workday was through, many Ozarkers would return home to their log cabins, some with dirt floors and others wood. But, especially in the decades after Schoolcraft’s visit and before the Civil War, some more affluent residents had frame houses painted white with crushed limestone, or even brick houses.[18] Women and girls would make quilts and clothing; those from more prosperous families purchased the latest fashions from cities like Philadelphia, and owned English glassware.[19] “Don’t think for an instant that I am among semi-wild people,” German doctor George Engelmann wrote in the 1830s as he traveled through the Ozarks. “On the contrary, these people have a good deal of culture…”[20] Contrary to claims concerning a lack of religion, Ozarkers were mostly Methodists and Baptists, plus some Presbyterians and others.[21] Bethel Baptist Church was founded near Jackson, Missouri, in 1806, and by 1818 had half a dozen churches in the area it could claim as descendants.[22] Methodist preachers like William Stevenson were at work in 1814.[23] There were churches, camp meetings, and religious societies and organizations. Missionaries came to and emerged from the Ozarks. Religion was a major feature of life, as it was in other parts of the United States in this era.[24] Education was slow to develop, with most children not attending school until after the 1850s, but an academy appeared in Potosi in 1816, and more were established in other towns.[25] In areas without formal schools, children would at times be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic for a fee by a private individual, a “subscription” model.[26] Ozarkers would often remember their hard times and difficulty receiving an education with, to quote Blevins, the same kind of “bootstraps, self-congratulatory memory that had your grandfather trudging five miles uphill in a perpetual blizzard” to get to school.[27]

On that note, the writing itself in The Old Ozarks is generally engaging and dynamic. This elevates both interesting and more tedious content. While the line “Given the myriad uses of corn, it is not surprising that Ozark farms went through it like Henry VIII went through wives” may induce a wince, there are far less lively discussions of agriculture in historical scholarship.[28] A few moments approaching rhetorical beauty occur as well: the “Ozark plateau is rendered, by our rather myopic and mortal outlook, a fixed and everlasting entity, a place as solid and unchanging as the age-old igneous rocks of the St. Francois Mountains, the ancient core of the region. But you and I are human, and history is preoccupied with our kind.”[29] The author’s exposition is interlaced with quotations from letters, diaries, published books, and more by early Ozarkers and visitors, which keeps the history grounded and personified, while secondary sources from other scholars are usually cited without quotation, serving largely the same function. Beyond creativity and variety, the writing is clear and largely dispassionate, though Blevins is an Ozarker, and may have a vested interest in confronting images of backwardness, suggested in comments such as: “Whether our peculiarities are perceived or real, in the Ozarks we are no strangers to stereotype. We’re accustomed to being labeled by outsiders.”[30] This does not appear to impact the validity of his case however, given the nature of the thesis.

The Old Ozarks is a heavily detailed text with the simplest of theses. Dispelling stereotypes is perhaps the most straightforward task a historian can undertake — even a few primary sources can quickly qualify or even blow up an improper, oversimplified representation of a people or place. (Blevins understands well, offering the somewhat sheepish “If…this book contains a central premise, it is that…”[31]) The author accomplishes this detonation, revealing the complexity, diversity, and normality of the early Ozarks using an avalanche of documentation from archives across the region, leaving little doubt that its populace, while including such elements at certain times, should not be defined by isolation, backwardness, or exceptionalism.[32] The “backwoods hunter-herder,” Blevins writes, “represented only a temporary stage in the development of society in the Ozark uplift” and existed alongside “more progressive settlers”; the backwoodsman simply “captured the attention of travelers more…”[33] Explorers and later folklorists and novelists wrote for audiences that loved the exotic — “‘They’re really not that different from you and me,’” Blevins explains, would hardly sell copies.[34] Blevins deserves credit for bringing so many sources together to address myths and capture local history, expanding significantly upon the work of other modern historians and qualifying or correcting that of twentieth-century academics. However, the comprehensive and meticulous nature of the text — recall that this is only the first of three books — makes it for scholars rather than a general audience. With its scope, this is a seminal work for the field.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

[1] Brooks Blevins, A History of the Ozarks, Volume I: The Old Ozarks (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2020), 2-9.

[2] Ibid., 2, 8.

[3] Ibid., 2, 5, 7.

[4] Ibid., 122.

[5] Ibid., 9, 293.

[6] Henry R. Schoolcraft, Journal of a Tour into the Interior of Missouri and Arkansaw: From Potosi, or Mine á Burton, in Missouri Territory, in a South-West Direction, toward the Rocky Mountains, Performed in the Years 1818 and 1819 (London: Richard Phillips and Company, 1821).

[7] Blevins, Ozarks, 121-122.

[8] Ibid., 9.

[9] Ibid., 192.

[10] Ibid., 193.

[11] Ibid., 196. See 192-196.

[12] Ibid., 153.

[13] Ibid., 140.

[14] Ibid., 151-153.

[15] Ibid., 142-143.

[16] Ibid., 147.

[17] Ibid., 153, 175, 182.

[18] Ibid., 134.

[19] Ibid., 122, 137-138.

[20] Ibid., 84.

[21] Ibid., 200.

[22] Ibid., 201.

[23] Ibid., 204.

[24] Ibid., 197-217.

[25] Ibid., 230-231.

[26] Ibid., 232.

[27] Ibid., 230.

[28] Ibid., 152.

[29] Ibid., 5.

[30] Ibid., 2.

[31] Ibid., 8.

[32] Ibid., ix-x.

[33] Ibid., 82.

[34] Ibid., 8.

‘Israel’s 9/11’ Is Apt Phrasing, with Root Causes Ignored and War Worsening Terrorism

Posted on by under War

Hamas’ horrific attack in Israel on October 7 was quickly labeled “Israel’s 9/11” — it was a surprise strike that destroyed a large number of innocent people and traumatized a nation. Yet the parallels do not end there. They are not difficult to see. Let us consider them, while keeping in mind that in the same way one recognizes terrorism as reprehensible, one should, through careful study of history and current geopolitics, recognize where terrorism comes from and how to prevent it from occurring in the future. As Sarah Schulman writes in New York Magazine, “Explanations are not excuses” — to understand why the Hamas assault occurred is not to say it was right. To understand the world as it actually is, such as how harmful state policies can inspire terrorism, is not to condone terrorism; it is simply to oppose both. “But the problem with understanding how we got to where we are,” Schulman notes, “is that we could then be implicated.” She writes:

My parents raised me with the idea that Jews were people who sided with the oppressed and worked their way into helping professions. They could not adjust the worldview born of this experience to a new reality: that in Israel, we Jews had acquired state power and built a highly funded militarized society, and were now subordinating others. No one wants to think about themselves that way… Humans want to be innocent. Better than innocent is the innocent victim. The innocent victim is eligible for compassion and does not have to carry the burden of self-criticism.

The situation is too well-documented to be controversial. For a long time, Israel has seized Palestinian land, blockaded the rest, and subjugated Palestinians in Israel itself. The United Nations (including its Human Rights Commission), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other bodies have condemned Israeli policies as illegal and crimes against humanity. Palestinians and Israelis alike oppose Israel’s occupation, military violence, and apartheid system. I wrote of all this at length in Is Standing with Israel Standing with a Violent Oppressor? Predictably, oppression breeds extremism and terror. Hamas declared its attack a response to “the crimes of the occupation.” There were both long-term and short-term causes linked to the sorry conditions of the Palestinian people.

But in much news and commentary, no actual explanation is given for Hamas terror. There is no serious look at the realities of Israeli-Palestinian relations, no history or context. Israel is the good guy, its enemies seek its eradication, The End. “They hate Jews and want to destroy Israel” is an empty statement, explaining nothing, but is quite popular. True, those are real sentiments, especially among Islamic extremists (other Palestinians, including Muslims, Christians, Druze, atheists, and so on, want to peacefully coexist with Israelis through a unified one-state solution or even a two-state solution), but they’re missing the major why. All of this is virtually indistinguishable from the American experience of 9/11. The noble United States was divorced from the terrible thing that happened to it. There were no causal ties between our activities and the 3,000 people massacred, save perhaps one: Al Qaeda, vaguely, hated our freedom! Americans had little interest in root causes, in pondering Al Qaeda’s rage over bloody U.S. military interventions and wars in Muslim lands in the 1980s and ’90s, America’s devastating sanctions against Iraq and its support of Israel against the Palestinians, our close relationship with Saudi Arabia and our military bases near Islam’s holy cities, and so on. Extremism comes from somewhere — somewhere concrete like the bodies of Muslim children, not somewhere vague like the First Amendment of a nation 7,000 miles away. This is not to say that all the religious extremists and fundamentalists among the Palestinians would tolerate a Jewish state with friendly policies and equal rights for all, nor a secular one-state solution that’s likewise for everyone regardless of faith or race (we should all favor the latter). For some it’s a Muslim nation for a Muslim holy land or nothing, similar to Zionist Jewish thought. But by addressing the grievances and needs of the Palestinian people, you can reduce radicalization and violence, ensure there are fewer extremists and plots against innocents. To prevent terrorism, you have to change policy.

But that is unthinkable. It would suggest you’ve done something wrong, and it would curb your own dominance and self-interest. Lessening American military power in the Middle East was unacceptable, and Israel probably won’t be giving back Palestinian land, withdrawing its military and citizens from the settlements in the West Bank. It won’t end its decades-long blockade and stranglehold of Gaza, which has caused a massive humanitarian crisis. And Palestinians in Israel will not enjoy equal rights and real protection from discrimination any time soon. Instead, the policies that caused Hamas’ terrible attack will be supercharged. This is the second way Israel’s experience of 2023 is like America’s of 2001. Not only are root causes ignored to maintain your patriotic, pure-as-snow self-image and your national power, but the response to the violence doubles down on the policies that caused it in the first place. The United States launched a War on Terror — more military intervention in the Middle East. Predictably, our invasions and bombings spawned many new terror groups, increased recruitment to established ones like Al Qaeda, spread cells to new countries, and led to far more plots and acts of violence (see A History of Violence: How the War on Terror Breeds More Terror). Israel is now laying waste to Gaza and, as it has in the past, cut off water, electricity, food, medicine, and so on from the region. The suffering of ordinary people is greater than ever before. This will of course encourage radicalization against Israel and breed more terror attacks. Even if Hamas is destroyed, which is unlikely, another group will take its place. The problem will not be solved through war, it will be magnified, worsened. That endless cycle of violence and revenge.

Finally, and briefly, a third way in which the current crisis echoes 9/11. “War Worsening Terrorism” of course refers to how bombings and invasions as a response to terrorism simply encourages more terrorism. But it also refers to the terror rained down upon the innocent people who had nothing to do with Hamas or Al Qaeda. War is State terrorism, expanding the violence to an unprecedented scale, of which extremist groups could only dream. 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, but our War on Terror killed about a million people. 1,400 Israelis died in Hamas’ attack; Israel has thus far killed 4,200 people in Gaza. Many more innocent Palestinians will perish before the end.

None of this sounds like justice or reason, but it certainly sounds familiar.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

The Next MSU President Must Commit to Three Goals

Posted on by under Politics

Under President Clif Smart’s valiant leadership, Missouri State University has grown in many ways. Fundraising smashed records, and renovations and new buildings beautified campus. Our profile rose alongside school pride. But there are three huge tasks ahead for the next university president. If accomplished, they will bring in more students, income, donors — what any institution needs to improve its degree programs, keep tuition down, pay professors better, and more. Our next leader must have an absolute commitment to the following aims. 

1) Joining an FBS conference. Smart, his athletics director, our new football coach, and the fan base have all started speaking the same language. It’s time to move onward and upward, out of the Missouri Valley Conference and FCS football. We’re a major institution. If there’s a higher tier, we’re gunning for it. Bobby Petrino’s football program revealed the possible, giving Arkansas and Oklahoma State real scares. Joining an FBS conference brings wider national exposure, richer TV contracts, a chance at bowl games, and a more excited, proud fan base. The next president must craft a plan, including facilities improvements, to attract an invite. [2024 Update: MSU has joined CUSA and risen to FBS.]

2) Men’s basketball’s consistent appearance in the NCAA Tournament, and football’s consistent appearance in the FCS playoffs until FBS is reached. Imagine for a moment that Missouri State was the team in Missouri to reliably enter the NCAA Tournament. It would be transformative. Multitudes of young people would want to be Bears. The national exposure would be invaluable. Remember the 1980s and ’90s, when we’d make it into March Madness, even the Sweet 16? It’s time to return to glory. Likewise, football must continue the success Petrino created to remain attractive to FBS conferences and engage fans, battling in the FCS playoffs. Our new president must better fund these two critical sports, and never be afraid to cut ties with a failing coach and find one with playoff or championship experience.

3) Helping free MSU to offer PhDs. It’s illegal for MSU and eight other public universities in the state to offer PhDs and first-professional degrees in law, medicine, engineering, and so on. The University of Missouri system holds a monopoly on these degrees. There’s a reason MSU offers fewer than a dozen doctorates — it isn’t allowed to do much more. In 2023, bills were filed in the Missouri Legislature to end the monopoly (SB 473, HB 1189), but they died in committee. New bills are coming in 2024. The next president must fight for fairness and work with the Legislature to lift the ban. MSU will then be able to offer many more doctoral programs, attracting more graduate students. [2025 Update: A bill has passed allowing MSU to offer any PhD except engineering; Mizzou’s monopoly over dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, engineering, and pharmacy remains intact.]

Achieving these goals will send a university that has long been on an upward trajectory into the stratosphere. I urge the search committee to find a candidate who will commit with the utmost passion, and I encourage Bears everywhere to call for this as well at MSU’s October 2 input forum and through the community survey at missouristate.edu/president/search.

This article originally appeared in the Springfield News-Leader.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.