American Presidency case study: FDR

I have a small case study for you about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In this I want to demonstrate how accurate understanding of history must be personal but not personalized. Here is the difference.

One cannot really understand a period in history without having been there, or spoken to someone who was there. People who were on the scene in a historical period are called “contemporaries.” Sure, you will find a difference of opinion among contemporaries, but very rarely will you find a difference of opinion about the essential facts and zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Thus it is essential to obtain and preserve the personal experience of contemporaries during any historic period.

However, it is a mistake to “personalize” a historic period. By that I mean to impose a theory or belief of one’s own back in time onto a previous period. That is one of the greatest and most common intellectual mistakes of the past forty years. I saw the beginning of it in college in the early 1970’s. Another word for this phenomenon is “revisionist” history but there is a difference. Genuine revisionist history is an attempt by the current state and intellectuals to rewrite or reshape history in a way that is less embarrassing and more supportive of the current regimes, and there is a long history of that. However, that is not as serious a problem as what I am speaking of in the “personalizing” of history. Governments and their toady intellectuals may produce “revisionist” history, but scholars always maintain the facts of contemporary accounts and thus when the zeal for revisionism passes, people can pick up again with studying the actual facts of the previous times.

Personalizing of history is a far murkier, sloppier and dangerous endeavor and habit because it results from a genuine misunderstanding of how people used to live and think. People who personalize history think that the way they think now is the way people used to think and thus motivated their behavior. Here is a silly example as an analogy.

Suppose that years from now scholars try to understand why the IPOD was so popular, because it has gone out of existence. Perhaps society has changed so that everyone likes the same music and so no one has personal players and custom play lists anymore. So scholars are trying to understand why IPODS were so popular. They study the historical information and learn that there was a wide variety of tastes in music, that everyone had their own favorites, and that also the IPOD allowed the listening of one’s own music in a variety of settings. So these scholars understand by reading contemporary accounts why IPOD was so popular and how it was used even though they no longer “relate” since in that theoretical time in the future everyone likes the same songs.

Now, here is how revisionist history would work. Suppose the government has just spent millions of dollars installing public address systems that play the songs that everyone likes. They are genuinely worried about an individualistic “retro” movement whereby people are interested in marginal types of music again and thus would oppose the shared investment in the public music systems. Revisionists would not hide that people used to have IPODS but would “explain” via “spin” that people were “forced” to spend their own hard earned money on individual systems because the government did not provide public shared music systems. So one still had access to the facts and contemporary accounts, but revisionist history “explains” the facts in terms that put a more positive light on current agendas.

A personalized view of history would honestly misunderstand even the contemporary accounts that are right in front of their eyes since those moderns are no longer capable of understanding people who used to have individual taste in music. Thus they would make up totally bogus interpretations of the past usage of IPODS that are “natural” and “obvious” to how they are living at that time. They might say, for example, that “IPODS were so popular because the government at that time sent out subliminal secret messages that kept the IPOD users ensnared in IPOD use.” So they would read the playlist of someone who lived a hundred years before them and go “Yeah, sure, I bet” as the long deceased author wrote about how much he liked his own mixed playlist of rap and jazz. You could show them a thousand playlists, each different and each reflecting an individual love of music, and these people would sneer and say, “Oh, sure, the hypnosis worked really well.”

Even if they are not conspiracy theory oriented (that being one of the great fuels of erroneous personalized views of history) lack of intellectual rigor and empathy for earlier times in history can also cause erroneous personalized view of history. For example, suppose the people are all miserable and kind of bleak souls in the future (even with their shared liking of the same music, LOL). They assume that people have always been miserable and bleak. So they would figure that IPOD usage was popular because people were trying to escape that period’s “misery and bleakness.” It would never occur to them that people were not always the miserable sad sacks that they are, and thus they interpret history by imposing current feelings on the past and thus totally distorting and warping history.

By looking at FDR and what he did during the two great crises, the Recession and World War II, one can see an example of a current personalizing of his era. So I want to tell you a small story that illustrates the importance of not doing that, and instead embracing contemporary zeitgeist of the actual time as it truly was.

In the middle 1970’s I visited FDR’s home at Hyde Park.

http://www.nps.gov/hofr

It is a beautiful house in New York State on the Hudson River. There was a warmth and humanity about the house that I was able to directly compare to the other mansion we toured that day, which was the Vanderbilt mansion that was grander but colder.

FDR died April 12, 1945 so we visited his house almost thirty years after he had died and, therefore, there were many people alive who remember those times. In other words, there were many contemporaries walking around who lived during FDR’s term in office from March 4, 1933 for the twelve years until his death. His house was a popular touring spot and so we ran into many people who were there, and there is no other way to describe it, to pay homage to his memory and express their gratitude for what he had done.

As we chatted with the various others touring the house and the grounds, time after time we were told that they were there because they loved FDR and were grateful for what he had done to combat the Recession. These tourists would tell us specific stories about jobs he created that they benefited from, or other activities that helped them to keep body and soul together and survive those terrible long years of the Recession. In particular in his office, looking at his very desk, there would be a hush and often people’s eyes would tear up.

Political commentators today like to cast aspersion on how much FDR “really did” and they have a cold and clinical view of those times. They are not being scholarly because they are totally dismissive of contemporary accounts of not only the facts but the zeitgeist. Thus it would be easy for one of them to be on a talk show or to talk to an individual young person and tell their audience that FDR “really didn’t do all that much” and that “much of what he did was harmful.” That simply is not true.

I cannot emphasis enough that you cannot have an accurate view of history by looking only at a “catalog of mistakes.” Modern commentators totally dismiss zeitgeist and the reality of the ordinary people in favor of only listing “mistakes” and “overreaching” that completely misses the genius of what FDR did accomplish. This is true not only of FDR but of all historical eras and personages. Modern people think they are being all clever and skeptical by looking for warts and listing mistakes and then drawing conclusions about the goodness or effectiveness of a person or a historical era. Yet reality is the sum total of all that was being done and not just a list of what people think were shortcomings.

To use the IPOD example, suppose that future historians only reported how many people did not have IPODS. So if you looked up “IPOD” in the future Wikipedia, you would read only one entry: “One hundred million people did not have an IPOD.” That is it. There is no information about what an IPOD is, how many people had one, what they used it for, and how much they valued having one. All that you found in the Wikipedia entry is the bleak and repressive statement that implies elitism and some sort of wrong done, “One hundred million people did not have an IPOD.”

That is what modern pundits and would be historians have become, in both secular and most egregiously in faith history. All they report is the “problems” and the “errors” and ignore the ninety nine percent of normal life that is good and in times of crisis maintained through either secular or faith deeds. FDR is becoming the poster child for this erroneous and even sinister personalizing of history. There is no way one can truly transmit the look in the eyes of the people I saw, humble and ordinary people, who had come to Hyde Park to see the desk and the home of the President who they said “saved the country.”

I was and am still today remarkably moved by the encounters with those who loved FDR so much, those who were the “real people,” the average people, who were certain because they lived it that through his jobs creation and other programs they were able to survive. By the way, during that time I was married into a very astute family of professional historians, so this was not schmaltz. Even when they knew he had done “bad things” like “pack the Supreme Court” they knew the facts of the overall context of all the positive and essential that he had achieved. So there is no substitute for historians who have a comprehensive view of the full context of the time, both the facts and the actual experiences and perceptions of the people who lived in those times.

So to summarize, be aware that there are two problems in modern interpretations of historical times. One is deliberate and quite customary, called “revisionist history.” The other is an unconscious and thus pernicious and dangerous imposing of the cloud of emotion and distortion of the present by some onto their view of history, casting it into a mold that it simply did not occupy at all. The best cure for this is to read contemporary literature of the time as much as possible, including textbooks that were written soon after and not years later when they themselves tend to be very agenda and revisionist driven. I see this, for example, in writings about George Washington. Even if there is a glow around the older works they are more accurate factually, because in the effort to “stamp out the glow” moderns also stamp out their understanding of the times and thus a lot of the context and the facts too.

Readings from FDR’s inaugural addresses:

…Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only the by standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honestly, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the value of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relieve activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly…
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
First Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1933

When four years ago we met to inaugurate a President, the Republic, single-minded in anxiety, stood in spirit here. We dedicated ourselves to the fulfillment of a vision-to speed the time when there would be for all people that security and peace essential to the pursuit of happiness. We of the Republic pledged ourselves to drive from the temple of our ancient faith those who had profaned it; to end by action, tireless, and unafraid, the stagnation and despair of that day. We did those first things first.

Our covenant with ourselves did not stop there. Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men...
Second Inaugural Address
Wednesday, January 20, 1937

Well, if you think about it, it is not too difficult to see many parallels between what FDR said and the great financial crisis and damage to the economy and self esteem of the workers and the homeowner (to say nothing of the homeless and the jobless) today.

Diplomacy case study: political parties

I want to use the occasion of President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (congratulations by the way!) meeting with career diplomats at the State Department to offer another, hopefully helpful, case study. This case study, I think, is essential to speedy and fruitful progress in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, but also the Taliban in Afghanistan and all the groups, including Al Qaida, in Pakistan.

By the way, I remember watching George Mitchell’s great work as diplomatic envoy during The Troubles in Ireland and am glad to see him, and Richard Holbrook, back in the saddle again!

This case study is to help you to have clearer and more productive vision, and thus dialogue, with civilian populations who support radical organizations who regularly or occasionally engage in terrorism.

When an organization, such as Hamas, engages in terrorist activities, such as shooting rockets into civilian parts of Israel, it is natural that a certain skewing of viewpoint takes place by even the most seasoned diplomats. However, this skewing has become entirely too unconscious and routine and thus brings an error into the logical and the feelings that are brought to the diplomatic table. This case study is to help you to eliminate the skewing in perception that takes place when one contemplates or dialogues with an organization that is civilian based but conducts some or many terrorist activities. When you eliminate that skewing of perception, which is based on error, you can make greater progress in your objectives, including the halting of the terroristic component of their activities.

Let’s use some silly examples first. Suppose you are speaking to someone who is just wonderful but has bad breath. Doesn’t the bad breath totally mess up your encounter with them, and doesn’t it ruin your appreciation of their finer qualities? The person with the bad breath could be a beauty queen, or a young Einstein, or the holiest person you know, but you can’t appreciate any of those qualities so long as you are suffering from their bad breath!

This is what a civilian population who supports an organization with a terroristic component is like. Just because they have bad breath in their encounter, this does not mean they are not worthy and wonderful people. Thus, the people of Gaza, by having elected Hamas, are being treated as if they are nothing but gas bags of bad breath. That is unjust, incorrect and unfair.

Let us return to the bad breath example. Coffee, a wonderful beverage, is the cause of much bad breath. So there is an example of a great gift to humanity-coffee-having an unfortunate and often unconscious side effect in many, bad breath. I could not stand the breath of my ex- after he had drunk coffee; it was actually worse than how he smelled after smoking cigarettes. But that does not mean that he was no longer an intelligent person, or one who could look nice, or one that could be kind. He was all of those things, but with bad breath after drinking coffee. So coffee, a genuine gift to humanity and a beneficial thing, can, if not monitored, have an unpleasant side effect that masks all the other good, for those moments, in the person. We can also list other foods like this, such as onions and garlic, feta cheese and so forth.

However, bad breath can also be a warning sign of a health problem. Every mindful and caring parent of a small child knows this. When your child suddenly has bad breath, they are not doing it to annoy you or to be “dirty.” A child with bad breath usually has a nasal drip or an allergy, thus a respiratory health matter. Bad breath is a sign that is supposed to be helpful, to alert someone to a problematic health condition. So you don’t want to be angry at the small infant with bad breath, or just “cover it up,” but look as to why they have the bad breath so that the health matter can be attended to.

Thus the Gaza people with Hamas can be viewed as being like a person with bad breath, and one must see if it is an unconscious side effect of a good thing (coffee) or the sign of a health problem (respiratory distress). By the way, I am not saying Hamas is the bad breath, LOL! I am saying their terroristic actions are the bad breath. Separate from the terroristic acts Hamas members are the same as Gaza civilians, the good that is being masked by the bad breath.

So the first job of the diplomat is to recognize that the terroristic acts that one observes, whether by Hamas or any other group, is like “bad breath.” It has a disproportionate effect of masking the vast majority of normalcy and goodness, with common aspirations, of the people “underneath” the bad breath. Too often diplomats, to say nothing of the reactionary governments, not only just focus on the bad breath but they seem to have entire conversations (mostly threats) with the bad breath (the acts of terrorism) rather than the lips, mouths, brains and hearts of the people behind the terrorism bad breath. I’m faintly amazed that I have to explain this to so many people who think they are otherwise so intelligent.

This is one of the things that the diplomats of, in particular the British Empire, for all their faults well understood. These foreign servants lived among the local people so much that many were accused of “going native” or “going bush,” which is that they embrace the local culture. Thus they were not reactionary when there were “bad breath” incidents, because they maintained their 80 percent to 20 percent understanding of the people who are behind the bad breath and the bad breath acts itself. This was one of the great attributes of the golden age of diplomacy, this ability to maintain vision on not only the “bad breath,” but keep the majority of one’s understanding on the people and the underlying reasons for the bad breath acts.

Now, here is another analogy to help you to understand. There are certain things that the Republican party tends to do that makes me just vomit in disgust, just as there are certain things that the Democrat party does that also makes me vomit. But I do not reduce all the millions of people who agree in each party with those particular positions into thinking of them as just barf making sub-humans, LOL. I know that behind the party platforms and individual heinous viewpoints are, in general, a bunch of individual people who share aspirations and are trying to do the best that they can.

Here is a related analogy. Let’s look at the political party affiliation of the ten Presidents after our first, George Washington.

John Adams: Federalist

Thomas Jefferson: Democratic-Republican

James Madison: Democratic-Republican

James Monroe: Democratic-Republican

John Quincy Adams: Federalist until 1808, Democratic-Republican until 1825, National Republican (Whig) thereafter

Andrew Jackson: Democratic

Martin Van Buren: Democratic (during Presidency); Free Soil (from 1848)

William Henry Harrison: Whig

John Tyler: Whig

James Knox Polk: Democratic

Now, from this list you can observe without reading a “too long” dissertation that political parties came into being and evolved at a rapid rate. Democratic-Republican used to be one party, and they evolved and split. Federalists were the party of our country’s founding, yet even though they were the “original” they did not maintain a mandate once the country was well established. Other parties such as “Free Soil” sprang up in response to current conditions, yet they are forgotten today. Political parties and affiliations are a living and vibrant thing. Likewise people like the Palestinians have an evolving attempt to organize around “parties,” for lack of a better word, that reflect their aspirations and their current reality. Yet countries such as the United States and Israel act like they should be frozen in time.

It is a diplomatic error to think that, “Well, the Palestinians had the PLO, which we denounced since they were terrorists, but they gave up terrorism to become Fatah and thus they are ‘OK’ and we will ‘allow’ the Palestinians to ‘have’ Fatah and Fatah alone.” Huh? What if the United States was forced to only have the Federalist party, one party, the “first and only” alone? After all, the USA was formed by the Federalists. Shouldn’t the USA be forced to have only one party, the Federalists? Are not the Democratic and Republican parties invalid?

When Gaza people voted Hamas into power they were doing so because they were frustrated with the shortcomings, including financial corruption, of Fatah. Yet to this day western diplomats are mouthing off that Hamas is not “legitimate?” Well, I don’t think that any USA political party since the Federalists is valid. I’m not joking. If you are going to tell me that people halfway around the world do not live like the rest of us, having evolving needs and evolving responses in affiliation (and yes, some of them have some bad breath) then I think we should live by the same “rules,” else we are shameless hypocrites. So I am quite serious that I believe that all political parties since the Federalist Party are invalid.

If a diplomat cannot look at a people, such as the Palestinians in Gaza, and have the most fundamental understanding that despite the terroristic actions that are the bad breath of the party in power that this is part of normal democracy and the urges of the people, then one can neither achieve peace nor even have correct vision of the problems, challenges and opportunities. You are punishing the Gaza people for trying to self correct what they thought was a problem with the ruling party, Fatah. You are enabling Israel, by focusing only on the bad breath terrorism, to bomb the hell out of people to punish them for trying to “kick the bums out of office and elect new people,” which was just what they did. It is one of the democratic hypocrisies of the century, in my opinion.

So to wrap up this case study, the point I am trying to make is that politicians, most especially diplomats, must learn to recognize normal democratic process in the natural form that it takes place in other countries and cultures, such as the forming and electing of new parties. Second one must recognize if the bad breath of terrorism of those parties are due to systemic health problems which must be addressed, rather than punching the teeth and gums of innocent men, women and children out of their mouths to “cure the bad breath” and then blame them for it to boot. Third, one must look at the diplomatic challenge and see the parallels in our own history (the British thought we were terrorists, by the way) and respond with a resonance and firm guidance in more fruitful channels rather than denial. Fourth, we need to invest in people’s political interest and participation, not discourage it when we don’t like the results. Fifth we must not have dialogue with the bad breath acts and, instead, go back to having dialogue with the people, friend and foe alike. Sixth, just as the USA would resent being told we must go back to Federalist party alone, so too we must not expect people to have “one size fit all” political parties that meet our (or Israel’s) approval.

I hope that you have found this helpful. I have a lot more to say about how to get going in productive diplomacy but I don't want to make this "tl/dr" (too long; didn't read).

Another thought about American Presidents

I have the feeling that many readers enjoyed my blogging about the religion of the American Presidents and why certain faiths are so represented historically. I also have the feeling that by grouping the Presidents in sets of ten, showing that we have had four sets of tens Presidents, plus four, that readers, especially the young, have a better feeling for the span of our history as a country. It is both a mature nation and a very young one.

I've always been a visual learner myself and teacher. I find that grouping information in certain ways helps give a quick and rich insight into what might otherwise be obscured by a lot of detailed text. For example, let's look at the grouping of ten Presidents in sequence again for another couple of insights.

If ten Presidents had only one four year term, a group of ten Presidents in a row represents only forty years. If a few of them have two four year terms that bumps the span of ten Presidents to forty eight or fifty two years. Think about that: a group of ten Presidents is well within a lifespan of an observer. Traditionally the phrase "one generation" refers to thirty years. So a group of ten Presidents could be thought of that way, in terms of generations, but isn't the idea that it's between forty and sixty years kind of interesting? It makes it more real because now you can imagine someone who lives a good long life as seeing over a fourth of the Presidents that we have ever had in our history. That helps you to understand how young our country really is, and it is far too soon and inappropriate to feel all old and jaded about the USA. I like that President Obama seems to view it that way too.

I've mentioned this before on my blog but now in this context this small story from my own family is even more interesting. My grandparents on my dad's side owned a small hotel in upstate New York, near the border with Canada. Thus it was a real country inn kind of place but the way it used to be not the quaint image people have today. Thus is was a saloon, a place to get home cooked meals, and lodging for my family and rooms for those who needed, for example, the single elderly.

Think about this. When my dad was a young man in the hotel there was a Civil War veteran who lived there, who went by the name "Pappy." Yep, you read that right. My father (who was born in 1903) personally knew a Civil War veteran and that veteran lived in my grandparents hotel, since he was a single and elderly gentleman. My dad died when I was a young child, so I did not have a chance to have conversations about such things, but my cousin who was much older than me told me about Pappy. I think that my cousin also met Pappy, but I'm not sure as Pappy would have had to have lived to quite a long age. However, what is significant is that between me and my father, one generation, we reach back to someone of the time of Lincoln and the Civil War. How cool is that?

This gives you another way to look at history, doesn't it? It shows that even though a struggle for something so crucial as Civil Rights seems to take so long, with decades of sweat and blood, on the other hand such a radical and amazing change as we have seen can take place in three generational jumps: Pappy, my father, me. Lincoln was the 16Th President. Thus Pappy to my father to me spans Presidents 16 to now President Obama, who is number 44.

So young people, do not think that your parents and your grandparents are boring and have nothing interesting to tell. Ask them to tell you about the earliest President they remember, for example, and try to get some stories from them. So many of my father's generation the "World War II" generation have died and it's sad that many of their kids and grand kids just were not interested in history or their family stories. I think that President Obama is stirring more relevance, pride and interest in American history and that's one of the implications of his presidency I find thrilling and very hopeful for rejuvenating the American spirit.

Again, think about my example... I was born during President "Ike" Eisenhower's first term so I remember him as President very well. While of course I was not yet born when his predecessor President Truman was in office, I remember him as having been current and just recently stepped down from the Presidency so he was a figure of great stability and honor along with "Ike." So just in my relative youth (ha) I have memory of (Truman), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush...one of those "group of ten" Presidents, twelve if you count Truman and now President Obama!

I remember Eisenhower governing and I remember, and even watched part of, the famous Kennedy-Nixon debate. My dad, a Catholic, lived to see Kennedy win and become President, but my dad died of a heart attack well before President Kennedy was assassinated. So I've been alive for and very aware of our Presidents and national and world events for just about one fourth of the Presidents our country have had!

Just think, my dad was born during the 26Th President, Theodore Roosevelt's, first term. So my dad would have been alive for and witnessed Presidents number 26 through 35, and would have obviously seen a lot more if he had not died at an early age of chronic heart ailments. But think about it: my dad was born just "ten Presidents" after Abraham Lincoln!

See. memorizing lists of Presidents is boring. But thinking about who was President and what the issues were during the time of your grandparents and parents is VERY interesting!

So even though much of the schooling in history is dismal in our schools (and thus I try to plug in some key information for you all whenever I think of something pertinent and interesting) you can make it interesting for yourselves by just sitting down with an almanac or the Internet, of course, and look up the Presidents that correspond to the lives of your family members. Then it would be fun to ask them what they thought and what they remember about each of the earliest ones.

It's not only educational but it is reassuring.

Of course it all goes back to Washington. Regular readers know that he is my favorite President because he was the first to walk the talk. President Washington had to become in reality what was needed, first as the Commander of the Revolutionary Army and then in the new role of President. As time goes on the wonder and marvel of what Washington did only grows, it does not diminish.

Washington's birthday is February 22. Lincoln's birthday is February 12.

I remember when each day was a separate national holiday, before they became mashed together into "President's Day."

I wish they were still two separate holidays, and I think with the election of President Obama you can see why. One was the father of our country, who took the impossible dream and made it honorable and real and his birthday should be celebrated with that in mind. The other fought the great Civil War, held the Union together and emancipated the slaves. Are these not two separate wonderful glowing deeds and men in our country? Should not our kids learn about them and celebrate them on their actual birthdays as national heroes and role models?

Instead President's Day is just a long weekend, a mashing together of "something about the presidents" and endless advertisements for automobiles and their "President's Day sales!"

It was really different when I was young and the days were celebrated separately. Just a little story here. In the 1950's if you did well on a school paper you would get either a sticker, a star or a rubber stamp on the top of your paper. The rubber stamps were of holiday themes, and thus included one stamp of Washington's famous profile for Washington's Birthday and another of Lincoln's profile for Lincoln's Birthday, and kids were thrilled to get one of those stamps on their paper! Kids really cared about and role modeled Washington and Lincoln, they were NOT boring. We loved Lincoln and I'm speaking as someone who grew up in a rural white community.

I blame the schools, society's rampant commercialization, and the secularization of our nation for the degrading of our education of our kids in the Presidency and in particular those two icons and heroes of our nation, Washington and Lincoln. Sigh. Remember, when you "purge" teaching about any history that mentions religion or God you are basically whiting out of discussion and textbooks half of factual human events. Look at how I had to explain why each President was of certain faiths because that is no longer taught in schools.

Anyway, I hope that you have found this more grist for thought! I've listened all day to the Inauguration activities and am very excited and hopeful. (I totally do not understand the "blah" attitude of some news personalities who were not "Obama supporters," I mean, duh, why are they not excited?) I have always been no matter who wins because that is the American way, to "give the new guy a fair shake" to use a classic expression. The snarky partisanship is so wearying and depressive and it really ought to stop. Like I said, I remember when no matter which candidate you voted for, you were still excited and supportive when one of them won and became President, even if he "wasn't your guy." That is one of the sad things about how this country's spirit has changed. I hope that people will regain that fairness and unity of American support for their President. Lord knows I've supported all the Presidents in spirit and dignity even when they have done the most dreadful things!

Case study: religion of the American Presidents

Listening to the, in general, very good coverage of pre-inauguration commentary, I realize that there is something I need to explain that has been kind of purged out of public school education. So this is in particular directed toward the young people so they can appreciate even more their own historic and faith heritage.

On FOX news they commented, correctly, that American Presidents have typically had a Protestant faith background and belief system. They also correctly pointed out that Catholics were a minority in American faith history and government until relatively recently. However, one could draw the wrong conclusions from these two facts so this is why I want to give you the brief history.

Remember that humans have not shopped around for the “correct” religion until the past forty years. But that does not mean that mean old religion was “forced” on individuals either. Like a heritage one’s religion was loved and passed along to the next generation, like an inheritance. Thus entire countries tended to have the same religion, not because it was imposed on them, or because they all “chose” the same “most correct” religion, but because each family generation after generation passed along their faith, and that tended to be along the lines of countries or large regions since, obviously, that’s how cultures group at the largest scale.

Thus when you look at America you are both correct to say that it was “mostly Protestant” in its founding, but you are incorrect if you are referring to the landscape, the actual land mass, of America. The English and the Dutch brought along Protestantism, their historic faiths. But the Spanish and the French brought along Catholicism, their historic faith. Wherever in American the French and Spanish settled, those were Catholic areas, not Protestant. The Spanish settled the west of America, much of the south, all of Mexico and all of the countries of what would be central and South America, and that is why they are Catholic. So, actually, in terms of land mass, and in terms of millions who converted to a Christian faith, Catholicism is the “invisible” majority in terms of North, central and South America and was even during the Revolution. Remember: the American Revolution was against England, where the English colonies broke away. So of course it was all Protestant (and legacy Dutch, who were the earliest settlers of regions such as New York City). It’s not like the Spanish colonies joined in with the English colonies to declare independence from England because the Spanish colonies “reported to” Spain, obviously. So while the Revolution of the states was taking place, under its faith umbrella of its heritage of Protestantism, it’s not like Catholics weren’t here. They were here, of course, in the millions, in the Spanish and French (such as around New Orleans) colonies that were never part of the English colonies, obviously!

So it’s not like America was founded by the Americans who “picked” the ‘best’ religion. America was founded by English subjects rebelling against English rulers and they were all Protestants. The Dutch were Protestants by choice; they, as a culture, embraced Protestantism. The English, however, had Protestantism forced upon them by King Henry VIII. He, wishing to divorce his wife and marry another, and not getting permission from the Pope, wrested the entire country away from Catholicism. England used to be devout Catholic, like Ireland. King Henry VIII, in order to “have an heir” wanted to put aside his first wife, contrary to Catholic doctrine. So he established a Protestant church, called the Church of England, which is the origin of the Anglican and Episcopal denominations. So everyone who runs around today worshipping in Anglican and Episcopal churches does so because Henry VIII forbade Catholicism, burning down churches and monasteries, killing priests, and forcing conversions. It’s not like people sat down with Protestant and Catholic doctrine side by side and “made a choice” “which was the one for me” or “which was the most ‘correct’” or “most liberal.” That is why in doctrine and liturgy there is still much of the Catholic within the Anglican and Episcopal and why the churches have a special relationship regarding their core Christian theology, despite the introduction of secular sexual and social agenda into segments of the Church of England.

So yes, the American Presidents and Founding Fathers had deep faith, all of it manifested in Protestant denominations, but you need to understand it is precisely because they were English subjects rebelling against English, all of whom were forced to convert to Protestantism nearly two hundred years previous to the American Revolution. The Spanish colonies of the west and south, and the French colonies of the north (Quebec most notably) and the south (New Orleans, and areas of the Caribbean) were all numerous and matter of fact Catholics, based on their over one thousand years of Catholicism in their cultures and families. But the structure of the new United States was formulated by English subjects against English rulership; hence it is rooted in Christianity of the Protestant denominations and viewpoint. Thus it took years of new immigrants who were Catholic, the Irish, the Germans, the Polish, for example, to bring grassroots Catholicism into the eastern and Midwestern part of the growing America. President John F Kennedy, the first and only Catholic president, was the son of the line of Irish Catholics who became mainstreamed into the Protestant power structure of the United States. But that doesn’t mean this was when “Catholics” “arrived” and “were tolerated” by Protestants. Um, all of the west of the United States that was under Spanish influence were already Catholic and were there before many of the Protestant explorers and settlers.

George Washington: Episcopalian

John Adams: Unitarian

Thomas Jefferson: none declared but a Christian believer

James Madison: Episcopalian

James Monroe: Episcopalian

John Quincy Adams: Unitarian (like dad, John Adams)

Andrew Jackson: Presbyterian

Martin Van Buren: Dutch Reformed (see, he, the 8th President, is scion of the very early Dutch
Protestant heritage in the Dutch colonies)

William Henry Harrison: Episcopalian

John Tyler: Episcopalian

(So now you’ve had ten Presidents, where five of the ten were Episcopalians and it’s not like each President sat down like moderns seem to assume and went, “Hmm, which is the ‘best religion.’” This continues to be the legacy of English colonies having rebelled against an English rulership that was Protestant by culture and history, not by having “selected” the “best” “religion.” I mean you all have watched the great “John Adams” miniseries and seen how President 2 John Adams, Unitarian, raised son who became President 6 John Quincy Adams, in their family Unitarian faith!)

James Knox Polk: Presbyterian

Zachary Taylor: Episcopalian

Millard Fillmore: Unitarian

Franklin Pierce: Episcopalian

James Buchanan: Presbyterian

Abraham Lincoln: None declared but a Christian believer

Andrew Johnson: None (became President after Lincoln assassinated and had opposed all of Lincoln’s agenda, including racial equality)

Ulysses S. Grant: Methodist (The 18th President is the first one who was not Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Unitarian).

Rutherford Birchard Hayes: Methodist

James Abram Garfield: Disciples of Christ

(So you can see that it is not until the second half of the 1800’s that there was much diversity among the Protestant denominations themselves as represented by the Presidents. It’s not like the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Unitarians were working to “keep out” the other Protestant denominations, say nothing of the Catholics. American government continued to be comprised of the descendants of those English colonists who rebelled against English rulership).

Chester Alan Arthur: Episcopalian

Stephen Grover Cleveland: Presbyterian

Benjamin Harrison: Presbyterian

William McKinley: Methodist

Theodore Roosevelt: Dutch Reformed, Episcopalian

William Howard Taft: Unitarian

Thomas Woodrow Wilson: Presbyterian

Warren Gamaliel Harding: Baptist (First Baptist! Yeah! Notice the first Baptist President did not happen until 1921).

John Calvin Coolidge: Congregationalist

(So you can see that the third set of ten Presidents, even with the first Baptist, was still very reflective of the traditional culture in power and in numbers, the Episcopalians and Presbyterians with touches of Unitarian and Dutch Reformed. It’s now been one hundred and fifty years since the American Revolution).

Again, you can see just by looking at the facts that it’s not like each President sat down as a young lad in college and said, “Hmm, which religion is the ‘right one’ because that’s the one I am going to be.” Religion is the legacy and treasured inheritance passed along in their family within the community, cultural and national context of people with the same heritage and thus values.

Herbert Clark Hoover: Society of Friends (Quaker)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Episcopalian

Harry S. Truman: Baptist (Yeah! The nation’s second Baptist President).

Dwight David Eisenhower: Presbyterian

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Roman Catholic

Lyndon Baines Johnson: Disciples of Christ

Richard Milhous Nixon: Society of Friends (Quaker)

Gerald Rudolph Ford: Episcopalian

James Earl Carter: Baptist

Ronald Wilson Reagan: Baptized Disciples of Christ, later attended Presbyterian churches (according to Wikipedia)

(The fourth set of ten Presidents again demonstrates that the faith of the Presidents is not a cynically chosen one, but the legacy of their families’ heritage and cultural context and upbringing).

George Herbert Walker Bush: Episcopalian

William Jefferson Clinton: Baptist

George Walker Bush: Methodist

I hope as we celebrate the inauguration of President Barrack Obama that everyone uses this as an opportunity to have a more accurate and less factionalized view of the secular and faith history of the United States. It is only in the past forty years that people have come to think of faith as a “choice” of the “most correct” and “best ‘for me’” “decision,” and fine, think that way if you want, though that misses the whole point of families passing on witness to their faith, but don’t look back on the “role” of faith in the United States in that context, because that is simply factually wrong. The United States was founded on principles and belief in God because that is the spine-the backbone-of the people who comprise the country in the first place: people of faith.

Thus when people select, for example, inauguration speakers and so forth according to their faith they totally miss the point of the faith heritage of the United States. For example, it doesn’t matter if President Elect Obama has a Catholic there or not: many Catholics voted for him and all Catholics, including the Pope, pray for him and his success. This assignment of mouths and fanny occupying seats as statements of some sort of agenda is so bogus and contrary to the authentic history of the United States. I mean, I’m a Roman Catholic and you don’t see me whining that most of the Presidents were Episcopalian. It’s not a bingo score card, folks. Pray that whatever the President’s faith is, that it is orthodox and sincere.


I hope that you have found this helpful. I call this a case study because I am also showing to you how to take an assumption that you have and use some simple visual and research tools to make the facts and context more understandable. In this case all you needed was to hear from me what used to be taught in schools (the facts about how culture and faith migrated around the world) and a tool, which is to look at the denominations of each President in groups of ten as a way to clump meaningful groups of time since the American Revolution. Organizing like this is an easier way to analyze, learn and even memorize, if that is your intention.