Another anecdote from “American Prometheus”…
In the 1950s, at the height of the red scare, Oppenheimer was targeted by the hardline anti-Communist & pro-nuclear establishment for suspicion of being a Communist sympathizer. In his youth, he had been a “fellow traveler” with many Communists and hard-leftists (aligned politically but never a formal member or organizer) during his years in Berkeley in the 1930s/1940s. During the Chevalier Incident Oppenheimer was approached by intermediaries for the Soviets that wanted to solicit intelligence about the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer’s sloppy handling of this incident would ultimately provide his detractors with the means to destroy his public life.
To those who knew him, however, Oppenheimer was a man of patriotism and integrity whose love for his country and devotion were never in question. Many scientists and academics had dabbled in Communism during the Great Depression. A significant number were, like Oppenheimer, drawn to the movement as a result of the Spanish civil war, as the West remained neutral during this first war with European Fascism.
After his interrogation by the House Un-American Activities Committee, as well as a number of closed McCarthy hearings, President Eisenhower asked him to resign from the Atomic Energy Commission; refusing resignation Oppenheimer asked for a hearing to review his security clearance. During this hearing, which ultimately stripped him of his security clearance, a number of his physicist colleagues from the Manhattan Project testified in his defense. The physicist I.I. Rabi had this notable interchange with Robb, the lawyer making the case to the Commission against Oppenheimer.
Robb asked, “Of course, Doctor, you don’t know what Dr. Oppenheimer’s testimony before this board about the incident may have been, do you?”
Rabi: “No.”
Robb: “So perhaps in respect of passing judgment on that incident, the board may be in a better position to judge than you?”
Never at a loss for words, Rabi parried, “it may be. On the other hand, I am in possession of a long experience with this man, going back to 1929, which is 25 years, and there is a kind of seat-of-the-pants feeling [on] which I myself lay great weight. In other words, I might even venture to differ from the judgment of the board without impugning their integrity at all . . . .
“You have to take the whole story,” Rabi insisted. “That is what novels are about. There is a dramatic moment and the history of the man, what made him act, what he did, and what sort of person he was. That is what you are really doing here. You are writing a man’s life.”
Rabi’s summation - that Robb and the committee were “writing a man’s life” through their selective review of his public record - captures the risk taken then and now by a public figure that admits to evolving opinions. In the case of Oppenheimer the penalty was extreme; his reputation permanently damaged, he was never again a participant in the public debate on nuclear weaponry.
Many leaders, from the left and right, pass through periods of alignment with people/parties/policies outside of the ideological mainstream, and are then forced to reject such dalliances as they rise to public prominence. The prosecution of public figures for this purpose feeds directly into the broader theme of character assassination. These elements ought to be viewed, as Rabi says, within “the history of the man”, as part of “the whole story” - in the case of Oppenheimer a “dramatic event” but only a single factor.
Go West
In Ryan Lizza’s compelling portrait of Bill Ritter we see the latest version of a new theory of democratic ascendancy that seems to be taking hold and which suggests a number of significant shifts in American thinking and politics in the coming decade.
Leave The South Behind
Lizza makes mention of Whistling Past Dixie, a 2006 book by Thomas Schaller, which suggested that Democrats bypass the pursuit of the South in their strategy for reasserting national power. Not yet read the book, but intuitively the theory appears sound. Most interestingly, instead of appealing to the downtrodden/minority population in the South, the Democrats would shift focus away from non-core constituencies. Certainly this would mean the continued pursuit of the Black vote, given its demographic strength and ongoing loyalty to the Democrats. But in other key ways it would effectively abandon the aggregate South to reap the results of reactionary politics. They would focus efforts to press for progress in other, friendlier, territories. On the one hand, it is a cynical approach when considering the continued income/education gap between the South and the nation at large. But in the spirit of tough love it might be the forceful gesture that’s needed to move the country forward from the ongoing legacy of slavery and the struggle for equal rights. Rather than discuss issues in coded language to ensure ongoing support, the Democrats would center on an effective low-to-the ground pragmatism. The obvious longer-term bet is that social issues can only distract a voting bloc from its relative poverty for a fixed amount of time. Will have more comments after reading the book, but perhaps it also plans for longer-term demographic shifts: a population outflow from the South. One more thought: ultimately this could lead to even greater gains for 2nd/3rd-generation Southern Black Democratic leaders as the future bridge to the national party.
The Triumph of Pragmatism
As David Brooks noted in July, the ascending professional class has little patience for partisan issues or leadership gridlock. Rather, they focus on leadership competence. Mike Bloomberg is a good example: a Democrat, then Republican, then Independent, he governs with a centrist focus on competence and operational efficiency. Too much traffic and underfunded transit? Less focus on the green debate; instead, bring in congestion pricing. Electricity prices too high? Less focus on energy politics - instead consider wind power. Want to increase the city’s profile? Use big-ticket projects (2012 Olympics, new stadiums). Buttress with small-bore projects to immediately improve quality of life by providing professional-grade services to citizens (311, GPS in taxis). And when national politicians come into town pushing ideology? Show them a good time, but reserve the greatest praise for like-minded visitors equally focused on effective leadership (Arnold Schwarzenegger). Though in its inception, a number of recent political success stories align with a return to pragmatism after the leftward lurch of the 1960s/70s and the rightward reaction of the 1980s/90s. Should this transpire, there may be a return to the post-Civil-War pragmatism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For details on this notable shift, check out Louis Menand’s The Metaphysical Club.
More Policy, Less Personality
While Obama’s acceptance speech was not without flaws (dredging up every big-ticket Democratic orthodoxy) one line stood out.
Both Obama and Ritter have focused less on personality than on concrete plans and larger management themes. In Ritter’s case, his policy-based administration have managed to change the dominant tone in Colorado government away from personality/ideology. Obama, not yet elected and operating on a far larger stage, remains more broadly thematic, though recent moves may suggest an alignment with specific, pragmatic policies. Contrasted with John McCain and Hillary Clinton, whose outsized public personalities play a key role in their national identity, it seems that Obama does not serve as an equivalent emotional metaphor for either his core or his fringes. The next few months will reveal if Obama will retain this circumscribed identity.