Historian on the Move

Roots of the Economic Crisis

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:26:59 GMT

Recently I gave a presentation at Moline Public Library entitiled "Political and Historical Roots of the Financial Crisis." I recorded a shorter version of this analysis, which you can hear on my History Behind the News blog. If you have time to listen, I would be interested in your comments or questions.

Dr. Art Pitz
The Professor's House

Gaza Revisited

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:34:04 GMT

Some time ago on my Professor’s House website, I covered Gaza based on my experiences near the Gaza border (www.professorshouse.net/middleeast/gaza1.htm and

www.professorshouse.net/middleeast/gaza2.htm), but with Israel’s invasion of Gaza continuing, I want to revisit this complex situation.

Israel’s stated is to convince Hamas to stop launching rockets at Israelis. What can one say about the history behind this?

For our purposes now, we have to start by taking a look at Hamas. Its goal is clear—wipe Israel off the map and create an Islamic state governed by Hamas’ version of sharia (Islamic law) as a step towards recreating the Islamic caliphate that once ruled the Middle East. Their methods are also obvious—use all available forms of terrorism.

Hamas was created in 1988 in part due to growing Palestinian frustration with Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, in part due to rejection of the secular PLO as an option for dealing with Israel, in part inspired by the Islamic state of Iran, and in part a creation due to a long history of Palestinian/Arab world unwillingness to accept the existence of Israel. Here, it is important to note that it was NOT created just to get Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza.

One can trace its origins to the same sources of ideology that led to Al Qaeda. It also had roots in Egypt’s rule over Gaza from 1948-1967. Egypt elected not to build infrastructure and create jobs. Instead, Gamal Nasser, dictator of Egypt, sent military agents to Gaza for the purpose of training terrorists to attack across Israel’s border with the eventual goal of eliminating Israel. Nasser preyed on the widespread Arab sentiment that Israel had no right to exist. Hamas definitely came out of that heritage.

Hamas came to power via an ill-advised election held by the Palestinian Authority after Israel had withdrawn from Gaza in the hopes that peace with the Palestinians could result. The PA didn’t want to hold the election and Israel wasn’t enthusiastic either. But, the Bush administration in its goal to spread democracy insisted on the elections. Hamas came to power legitimately and then carried out a coup to take over power completely. It has been using that power to create an infrastructure of terrorism, not jobs and a civil society—just like Nasser did.

What are Israel’s options in dealing with such an organization? Since the border was quite porous, Hamas sponsored a wave of suicide bombers. So, Israel sealed the border. No doubt, this has produced severe hardships for the Palestinians residing in Gaza. But, what was the alternative? If Israel opened up the border, could anyone guarantee that Hamas would not send another wave of suicide bombers? We have been to the border and have heard many Israeli stories of how Hamas has tried to send terrorists through the border by one means or another.

Hamas has been sending in large numbers of rockets. Indeed, my wife Suzanne and I have been in the region when they were doing this. And, they have built tunnels into Egypt to smuggle in more sophisticated rockets. They haven’t used the tunnels to bring in food and medical supplies. As an aside here, Gaza would have few food problems if its residents had not thoroughly destroyed the Israeli settlements that had developed extensive agricultural resources in Gaza.

Israel’s critics of course now argue that Israel has “over-reacted” and is using “disproportionate force”. Well, what else could Israel have done to stop the rocket barrage and the smuggling involving bringing in more weapons? Should Israel have launched hundreds of unguided rockets into Gaza just as Hamas has been doing? These same critics also claim that though Israel withdrew from Gaza proper it still controlled the borders and thus engaged in collective punishment. Once again, what would happen if Israel opened up the borders?

These critics also believe that Israel should reach a political settlement with the Palestinians. Fine, but how is that possible with Hamas? Hamas could agree to a quasi-truce, but no more and be true to its principles and methods. Even a truce would be of no great benefit since Hamas would simply continue to smuggle in more weapons and choose a propitious time to launch more rockets. Even during the so-called truce they had self imposed for awhile, rockets continued to fly over the border.

Well, then, how about having international monitors in Gaza? The results would be the same as with the monitors supposedly keeping Hezbollah in line. Hezbollah has merely greatly expanded its weaponry thanks to assistance from Iran.

Israel’s options appear to be quite limited. Reoccupation of Gaza would only gain great headaches. Uprooting Hamas looks unlikely since they are a grass roots movement. So, Israel has settled for a limited objective. One suspects that Hamas has been preparing for an invasion for sometime and is likely to be defiant. Can Israel inflict enough damage to Hamas to stop the rockets without causing large numbers of civilian casualties? Hamas has set itself up to be interwoven with the civilian population. They use civilians as shields knowing this will gain PR points with the world media. Already there are growing pressures on Israel to agree to a cease fire.

It is interesting to note that Israel has been sending in food, medicine and other necessities to Gaza. Israel also drops leaflets to residents near places it is targeting urging them to stay away. Hamas did no such thing when it was launching its rockets (indeed, it appears that Hamas is hiding the supplies sent in so that the humanitarian crisis continues for the world’s media to see). Will Israel’s humanitarian gestures do it any good with the “Arab street” and non-Hamas Palestinian leaders? Most likely not—remember there is still a widespread Arab distaste for Israel’s existence.

So, the key probably is how long will the U.S. allow Israel to achieve its objective? The Bush administration has already seemed to be willing to let Israel have the time it needs. What will Obama do, if this is still going on as of January 20?

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

http://www.professorshouse.net/

“Know the History—Understand the Choices”

How Rep. Sen. Dirksen Paved the Way for Obama

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:29:15 GMT

How Rep. Sen. Dirksen Paved the Way for Obama

With all of the news about Governor Rod Blagoyevich’s alleged corruption, it is tempting to state that the political system in Illinois seems corrupt beyond repair. After all, 5 of the last 8 governors have faced criminal charges.

It helps, though, to remind ourselves that Illinois has also had exemplary politicians. And, we need not go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln to find them. My thoughts have turned to one that both my wife Suzanne and I remember well from our younger days. He was someone known for being above corruption as well as for one making a positive difference in this world.

I’m recalling Everett McKinley Dirksen (1896-1969). He had a long and productive political career within the Republican Party beginning on Pekin’s city council before serving as a Congressman from 1933 to 1947 and finally as a U.S. Senator from 1950 to his death from cancer in 1969. Suzanne and I knew of him during his years in the Senate and admired him for his stance in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

His gravelly voice and tousled hair set him apart as an American original. He and Congressman Charley Halleck and later Gerry Ford teamed together to represent the Republican Party to the public during the troubled 60’s. And, they did well at it though Suzanne and I disagreed with their strong support for the Vietnam War at the time.

It is nice to know that there were (and are) politicians who do things simply because they are the right thing to do. And, Senator Dirksen did that with his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968. As he put it:

"Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

Much has been said, and rightly so, about the roles that Dr. Martin L. King Jr. and President LBJ played in enacting Civil Rights legislation. But, Dirksen’s advocacy was perhaps just as important. Why? As Minority Leader, he could bring on Cloture and shut down filibusters in the Senate. Had he not been willing to do so, it is hard to imagine that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have passed.

And, without such legislation, it is difficult to see how otherwise the path would have been laid for the eventual election of Barack Obama. So, while we could and arguably should deplore the antics of our current Governor, let’s remember that we have had fine public servants.

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

www.professorshouse.net

“Know the History—Understand the Choices”

The C.C.C. Today

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:18:39 GMT

Suzanne, my wife, and I have just spent a week’s vacation at Starved Rock State Park near Utica, Illinois. What a magnificent place and thankfully it survived our state Governor’s budget slashing ax. This is a living legacy of the New Deal, and there's a lot that we can learn from it.

The C.C.C. was founded in F.D.R.’s first hundred days in office and went out of business in 1942 as the economy began to reach near full employment due to WWII. Arguably, it was one of the most popular and successful of all of the New Deal’s agencies. It also opened its doors to minorities albeit in mostly a segregated fashion. As one can see from the facilities here at Starved Rock, the C.C.C. built to last. It was F.D.R.’s pet project.

The C.C.C.’s record demonstrates that the federal government can indeed design and implement effectively run programs to benefit the public good. There were no scandals while waste and mismanagement were virtually non-existent.

Over 3 million served in the C.C.C. during its tenure. The crime rate amongst young men aged 18 to 25 dramatically decreased as young men went off to camps throughout the country under military like discipline. Virtually all states and territories benefited from their presence. Besides that, they earned money that went to their families while they had government provided room, board, clothing and training. Employers showed preference in hiring to former C.C.C. workers for it was obvious that these workers knew how to put in a hard day’s work.

As we enter into what appears to be a serious downturn in our economy, let us hope that President-elect Barack Obama and Congress can be as creative as F.D.R. and Congress were in the midst of the Great Depression. Let’s put people to work rebuilding and repairing our decaying infrastructure. We have massive needs nationwide in our bridges, roads, etc. that have been allowed to deteriorate. Let our pragmatic, innovative spirit prevail.

If you have not availed yourself of the opportunity to visit a C.C.C. built facility, take the time to do that. If you like the outdoors at all, you are in for a treat. Go tromping through the snow on a crisp, sunshiny winter day like we have had. And, enjoy. I think I hear Starved Rock calling you.

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

www.professorshouse.net

Is Nationalizing Banks Unprecedented?

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:27:35 GMT

This is a continuation of my Quad City Times blog, “Historian on the Move.” I have related articles there including:

Takeover of the Mortgage Giants: Any Precedents?

The Financial Crisis: Historical Lessons on Government Mismanagement

Let’s Turn American Innovation Loose

Much of the commentary regarding having the U.S. Treasury take ownership of certain banks has focused on the unprecedented nature of these actions. Actually, it is NOT unprecedented.

Alexander Hamilton, President George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, proposed a joint ownership bank in December of 1790 in his Report on a National Bank. It was intended to be a marriage of public and private interests. 2/5’s of its $10 million in stock was to be owned by the Federal Treasury whereas 2/5’s were to be owned by private American interests and 1/5 of non-voting stock was slated to be owned by foreigners (hopefully British).

The proposed First Bank of the United States would have the authority to make loans to private borrowers and to the federal government. It could also issue bank notes which could circulate as the nation’s currency. This Bank would fill a gap in terms of providing investment capital and having dependable currency. It could (& eventually did) create branches in different areas of the country.

Hamilton’s proposal ran into immediate opposition. James Madison questioned whether the Bank was constitutional. So, President Washington solicited constitutional opinions from his Cabinet. He received two diametrically opposed views. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, aided by Madison, argued that the Bank wasn’t constitutional since the Constitution gave no explicit power to the federal government to create corporations on any kind. Further, the federal government could only do what was absolutely necessary for the general welfare. Since such a Bank didn’t meet this standard, it wasn’t constitutional.

Had this view prevailed, then the Constitution would have had to be amended—a difficult and lengthy process. The general consensus of historians has been that it has been better long term that Hamilton’s views won out. The First Bank of the United States did exactly what Hamilton hoped it would.

Hamilton’s view was that the Bank was within the “implied” powers of the Constitution. The Constitution, he argued, was designed to be flexible so since a Bank was needed to aid in creating investment capital and providing for a national currency, then it was constitutional. Hamilton’s view proved to be convincing and President Washington approved of the legislation. The Bank opened its doors in April of 1791.

This Constitutional debate has not ended and one still hears that some want a strict interpretation of the Constitution whereas others point to the Constitution’s “implied” powers. An example of that debate in more recent times can be found within the heated arguments over Roe v. Wade which is based on the allegedly implied right to privacy.

It is interesting to note that there has been virtually no constitutional debate regarding the federal government taking part ownership of certain troubled banks. Even more, I have yet to see any comparison made with Hamilton’s Bank of the United States. Let’s hope that the recent actions of the U.S. Treasury in taking ownership of selected banks will work out as well as Hamilton’s Bank did.

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

http://www.professorshouse.net/