Latest / Comps List Radio / Episode 4: Robert Wiebe, "The Search for Order," 1967

Transcript

Episode 4: Robert Wiebe, "The Search for Order," 1967 · Comps List Radio

• Robert Ferguson: And welcome to another edition of H-Poll's comps list radio with your hosts, Robert Ferguson and Marie Totten. Marie, how are things in Conway, Arkansas right now? They're good. It's spring. Happy March. It is the season of baseballs and tornadoes here in the South. So we're preparing for that. But good overall. How are things in Arizona? ⁓ things are great. ⁓ you know, spring training is now in full swing. ⁓ I've noticed a distinct vowel shift among the population. ⁓ it is, it, has become a colony of the Midwest. ⁓ my, where I live on people is, is about five minutes from where the Cubs do spring training. ⁓ wow. And so it is just Chicago everywhere. I feel like I've been annexed into Chicagoland. I bet they're enjoying the weather there. They are. can tell the people. People are in shorts and t-shirts and there's others that are in sweaters and pants. So the sweaters and pants are clearly locals. Right. But actually, I think I'm going to take my little boy. He's just about a year and a half. He's almost two. And the Cubs spring training facility is way too elaborate, way too expensive for us to go to. I mean, I go to it. If I was bringing a tourist in, that's where we'd go. But my two year old is not going to remember this. think we're going to go. The Oakland A's also do spring training on the other side of Mesa. Well, I got a lot the Oakland A's anymore. The Sacramento, Las Vegas, whatever. So I think we're going to, I'm going to take him this week to a game over there. Nice. That'll be fun. It will be. Anyway, speaking of baseball and speaking of like, you know, that the original era of baseball of the turn of the 20th century when baseball truly became America's national pastime. ⁓ the work that we're going to look at this week is one of the iconic histories of the progressive era that as Marie and I, when we were chatting here in the few minutes before we pressed record, ⁓ used to be a staple. on everybody's comps lists, but has fallen off for reasons we'll probably get into. But I still think this is a really useful work and one that people need to be aware of and one that frankly, I only became aware of in researching my dissertation. Yes. Great segue there. Time baseball to a weeby. Excellent work. And yeah, I think that This book is important because in order to understand why we have new books on the comps list for the Progressive Era, you don't have that without Weeby's work here. Yeah. So maybe before we really dig into the contents, Marie, do you think this is the first book somebody should read about the Progressive Era or the last book somebody should read about the Progressive Era? ⁓ excellent question. ⁓ I think it's probably one of the first it's in conversation with Hofstadter's age of reform. So those two would work well together. ⁓ but I think one of the first, because other scholars do build on this argument made in, ⁓ we beat's work. Yeah. I, I guess the only thing that I say maybe could be somebody's lab, the last book somebody reads is because without the, without really engaging, ⁓ He breezes through so much stuff that there's an expectation of knowledge. Yeah, that is a good point. He synthesizes all of this thinking, okay, everybody knows the basics of this era because what is it? 67 when the book is published, I think. so, you know, people are looking at the progressive era. People are looking in this in the context of the New Deal as well in the bureaucratic state in general. And so he does assume you are absolutely right. You could not read this book without at least a survey level knowledge of the progressive era and get much out of it. So take a survey class, then read Weeby. Probably more. Yeah. Probably more. I mean, and the reason I say it again is because there's things that he mentions that are important to his argument, but it's a 270 page book. This is not a 500 page tome. No. 270 pages. You gotta know the names. You gotta know the names. You've gotta basically be able to like, There, you know, there's aspects. And if you've listened to the episode on Woodward, that would be good preparation actually for, for some of this book. ⁓ you know, a couple of times he just references things that I know are Woodward. Right. I know exactly where he's pulling that from. And it's critical to ⁓ a lot of his arguments. Right. But anyway, did you get a chance to check out, you get to really dig into that bibliographic essay at the end, at least in my edition? A bit, but not as much. If you did, please expand on that. ⁓ no, I'm just going to say you got to read that on might even have worth more than the book itself. Yes. If you're doing a comps list, you know what I mean? Always. Listen to this, listen to this podcast. But if you get your hands on this book, um, read, you know, he doesn't have any footnotes. Right. None. No footnotes in this. It's all in the bibliographical essay at the end. Right. And it's not even like one of those like notes to, you know, notes from pages 15 to 18 or anything like that. Like it's a full on essay. it's, I think that especially if you're, if you're doing a dissertation on the progressive era, need to read that doubly a graphic essay. And even if you're not, even if it's just part of your comps list, I think you should read that doubly a graphic essay. ⁓ Absolutely. ⁓ okay. Um, so the, again, we've talked a little bit about writing and style. Maybe we can start there. What did, what did you think about the style and the writing Marie? Cause it is a little unique, I think. Yeah. I mean, I think, I think overall he tells a good story. He definitely builds on each chapter. Well, he, takes you through, you know, the it's, it's 1877 to 1920 takes you through this era. good storyteller. We've been reading books from the late 50s and early 60s, or we've been ⁓ talking about them on the podcast and they write well. But I think part of that is because they are synthesizing material versus introducing a lot of new material here. And I think that makes it easier to tell a story. But overall, I enjoyed his writing. I mean, he's not Woodward, but I enjoyed it overall. Well, nobody can be Woodward. agree. We set the bar awfully high for this show. ⁓ but it, it, reads, it reads differently than Woodward. You know, it's a very dense. Yes. Yes. And that's where it comes in that you need that background information, at least a basic understanding. Cause you can get caught up in the weeds in this easily. Yeah. It's very dense. It's, ⁓ but it reads very well. Like, you know, we talked about Holly's work. You know, a few weeks ago and that works very dense too. It's a much bigger book, 500 pages book, and that's introducing a lot of new evidence. is definitely synthesis, right? is very dense synthesis. Yes. And I would say denser than Hofstadter's, ⁓ party system. Yes, I agree. I agree. and it's a, and, and, but he has a style. There's a sense of humor throughout. There's a, you you can feel him. You can feel his personality coming out. Yes. You definitely know where he stands on this throughout the entire work. It's almost ⁓ like he takes these little snipes at some of the businessmen. He talks about, I mean, the way he talks about the populist. Just he has no respect for the populists whatsoever. And that certainly comes across. I mean, and again, he's in conversation with Hofstadter here. with the age of reform and he's completely trying to turn. mean, he's, he's, does not agree with that argument that Hofstadter makes when Hofstadter says that the progressives are anxious that they're looking back on this period with nostalgia. want power again. And so they're trying to do, you know, it's this old middle-class trying to regain power where Weeby says, no, this is a new middle-class of professionals. They're trying to remake things. And that comes across fully throughout. So you can see he has that in mind when he's writing this work. And so that's part of that personality, I think. It makes it a little easier for that to come out since he is speaking directly to another work. Yeah, it definitely is. Maybe we can talk a little bit about who Weeby was able to do an introduction. mean, and I think what makes him interesting, I'll start and then I'll maybe throw it over to Marie. What I think makes this book interesting is that maybe in, in, a way like Holly, ⁓ we be, we've even more so though, we've, he's a business historian. He's not necessarily a true political historian or a social historian. He's a business historian. And I think that gives this book a slight, he, has an understatement. He sees the era a little differently. than maybe, well, and certainly more than Hofstadter, but even more than some of his emerging peers and later peers who are, if they're historians of the progressive era, are probably not business historians. Right. ⁓ Is there anything else we should probably, actually, you you mentioned that it's writing in 1967, Marie, maybe you want to talk about, we keep reading books from the 60s. So Marie, maybe we can talk a little bit about 1967 and why he might be writing this book other than Hofstadter. Right, right. He's writing in this period of the great society. He's writing in this period where the bureaucracy is expanding further. And so he's, I mean, as he's writing that the bureaucratic state is a good thing in the text. It's like he's making the argument that the bureaucratic state in the 60s is also a good thing, that this can work. I mean, this is 67. This is before, like, before everything hits the fan in 68. And there still is a lot of potential there. And so it really feels like throughout, as he's making this argument about the success of the bureaucratic state, that he's tying it back to what's happening in the 60s. And specifically in regard to the Great Society, which I think also ties it back to the New Deal. I think again, we're going back to this experience in the New Deal. He, I think he earned his PhD in the 1950s and so very much part of that generation in that era. so again, the bureaucratic state works is what he's saying. The New Deal worked and the Great Society can, if not already working by 67. the context in which he's writing is absolutely important to understand the work overall. Yeah, absolutely. ⁓ But, and it's interesting that, you the way that you push, you made that case, and I think that that is, that's very clear. However, he, of course, criticizes a whole bunch of the major progressive reformers for having way too much faith in themselves. Yes, yes, yeah. They're young, they're idealistic. They're just on the brink of becoming professionals and that comes across. Like they're trying things, some of them are not working and they do, they think that they're right. They just, they think that they're working to better society and only they are working toward this. And, and so what's interesting is of course, who are the great society people, young people who are idealistic. Yes, exactly. and think that they're going to be able to solve all of the world's ills of only they could have the state power behind them. And, right. So it is, you know, it is so there is this self, almost this like self awareness though. absolutely. He's no, I don't think, I mean, I think you could say that he thinks the bureaucratic state could work, but I don't think it comes across that he's championing it necessarily. He's not trying to pull us by any stretch. Exactly. Right. He thinks it's necessary. Right. ⁓ right. He doesn't necessarily trust the people who are in it. Right. And that matters. Yeah. And he also, again, again, thinks it's absolutely necessary. And, ⁓ for a modern, for a modern state, for a modern society, but is also. but also understands that there's a million contradictions in this. Right. And that those contradictions often can cause the whole thing to fail. Yes. And at some points do. Yeah. I mean, and, and Weeby brings up many instances of that throughout the book. Yes. ⁓ so Marie, how, mean, you know, I think that's the political point that the book is trying to make. I, it is to some degree, think hard to, I mean, I think, you know, there's a, there's an argument, but there's a lot of arguments in this book. Yes. I mean, it covers vast territory, 1877 and 1920 and does so in 270 pages. Yes. As anybody who's ever written a draft, mean, part of, you know, I think there was a one draft of my dissertation. had 300 pages that accounted for about three months of history. Right. So, ⁓ fortunately I never, you know, I, I handled that before I sent anything off to my supervisor, but the notion of trying to get 50 years into or 43 years in a 270 pages is pretty, it's pretty astonishing. It really was. And I think, I mean, I can only imagine what was left on the cutting room floor of this book. And he obviously wanted to synthesize it in a I mean, as dense as it is, it is short. It is a, mean, if you have the background, it's a fairly quick read. That's exactly it. This feels like a thousand page book that he trimmed to 270 pages and said, okay, this is either going to be a thousand page book or I expect a degree of knowledge that I can get this through briefly. Right, right. That's definitely how it comes across. Yeah. ⁓ Or again, this is your entree. into progressive history where read this first, you're not going to get everything out of it. That's okay. You're never going to get everything out of a book in your consul list anyway, my first time through it. Right. I mean, this has been part of the joy of this exercise for both Maria and I is that, you know, we encounter a book, either we've read before we haven't, but even the ones we've read before, it's almost like we're reading it again for the first time. Because as a scholar, you grow, you change, you learn more and you come back to these books. And this is what has been so, ⁓ Wonderful about what we're doing is that you come back to these books years later when you do have more of the background and you appreciate them more and I definitely could appreciate this work more as I've taught, you know, the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, which he covers in these a little, you know, right under 300 pages. And so it did make, you know, it made me appreciate the arguments I make in my class more as well because now I understand where a lot of that comes from. Yeah. Now one of the other things that's incredible about this book is it's a national book. It's not just, you know, this era is hard to write nationally because, well, there's some fragment of societies which we're going to get into. But, you know, the emphasis is certainly on the Northeast and the Midwest. Yes. Yeah. He talks about the South a little, but it is, you're absolutely right. That is not his emphasis in the South stays. I he calls these this kind of ⁓ dispersed society calls it the island communities. And the South largely stays that way for the majority of Southerners far longer than it does in the Northeast or the Midwest. Right. But again, he doesn't ignore it. And I mean, I think that's interesting. You know, he has this really interesting section on the rise to power of a crump in Memphis. And, for any Southern historian, you know, well, I mean, I don't even know, you know, for most Southern historians, the crump machine, it's not like an emphasis of focus, but we're all kind of aware of it. Right. And to see this non-Southern historian have even a little bit on the crump machine is surprising to me. And a little bit on how crump even comes to power. Yeah. And he does lay the framework for other Demagogues, I mean, that's probably a little strong for Crump, but he's definitely a political boss. I mean, you can't deny that. But how they come to power in this era in the face of this kind of expansion that they can play on this fear of racial tension in this era. So he definitely, that is part of this story. If not, I mean, it's not the main focus, but that is definitely part of a big part of the story. He, he, he captures, whether it's California, whether it's Montana, you know, whether it's the Southwest, the South. Everybody's in this story. Right. Or actually we'll get we'll get to that. Not everybody's at this story. No, we get to the region. Every region is in the story. Yes. Every region is. I got ahead of myself there. But the. But in that sense that this touches on a whole wide array of historiography is about the era. Yes, yes. So anyway, Marie, what would you say is the overall argument of the book other than the bureaucracy works? So he's talking about the changes in America from obviously 1877 to 1920, but the way the nation changes and the way we create this national identity because of the expansion of railroads. Railroads are huge throughout the book. ⁓ You need a little bit of background in the railroad industry before you settle into this book for sure. ⁓ But he talks about how railroad expansion, so the movement across the country changes, how communication changes, how we see the industrialization change, and all of these changes are pushing Americans toward nationalism in a way, but toward a more national identity. And so he breaks the book down into these three communities and he shows this change over time to how we get to the bureaucratic state. Right. And that without that, without those linkages, without this idea of being able to actually, without those connections, maybe the greater sophistication of the connections. necessitates a bureaucratic state, but also allows for it to grow. Right. Right. And he's talking about how this, calls it the new middle class, this professional class, these young professionals, mentioned them earlier, but starting with doctors and lawyers, but we're looking at teachers, social workers, journalists. mean, these groups become more professionalized and they speak to each other more across the country. And so instead of these little pockets of professionals, And I use the term and he used the term professional very loosely in the early, in the early years of the book. But as they become more professionalized, they become more national as well. And so these young professionals view the opportunity, he's arguing the opportunity for a new order, for a new social order. And so they're on this cutting edge of progressivism and reform and they're not doing it. Hofstad argued they're doing it because of social anxiety and tension because they feel like they're losing their power. Weeby is arguing that no, they see opportunity not only for themselves, but for the country. And as they're becoming more respected as professionals, they view themselves as the only ones that can, you know, fix these problems within society or lead society forward. And they do that, Weeby argues, through the creation of the bureaucratic state. But essentially, it's this new middle class that he is defining here that's leading progressive reform. Yeah. And, you know, let's, I really want to dig more into that, but maybe let's back up and talk about the, the, the first era or the, the United States at the beginning of the way that we be describes it. This notion of the story, was just gonna say there's no should be island communities or the distended state. I think it's the title of his chapters. What, what, what's, what's the, mean, it's a. evocative description that I think people can kind of understand. But are you able to kind of elaborate a little bit more on that? Yeah. So he talks about the island communities as these, ⁓ I mean, and again, you are right. It's kind of self-explanatory, but these kind of more isolated communities where within your community, it's, it's mostly Protestant. He's arguing, but you're the same religion. You're often the same race. You know, family, generations of families, you all know each other. This, he talks about it as ⁓ almost within these confines, but as a democratic, small, isolated society where the most powerful leader is going to be, you know, the county leader or even the local, the very local town leader. People don't leave these communities very often. They are very self-sustaining until you have the railroad. which brings them, which unites these kind of island communities. You don't have big cities encroaching on these communities yet in the 1870s. And that's beginning to change by the 1880s and definitely by the 1890s. But these, like they can manage the lives of the community members within these communities. There's not going to be a lot of deviation from these things. There's community help and assistance if you need it in some cases. There's also rejection of variation, deviation from those norms as well. And so he doesn't write about it as completely positive. It sounds idealistic. And I think Hofstadter was saying that the old middle class was looking back on that time as very nostalgically. And he is not saying that, Weeby is not saying that in this. ⁓ But it could, I mean, if you got wrapped up in this, it could sound very idealistic. And I'm sure that there were leaders who were looking back on it, you know, in a more nostalgic way, but overall just these self-sustaining small communities, everybody knew each other. I mean, just like what we would think is a very small community today, but not connected to the rest of the nation in any meaningful way. And I mean, I, I, the way that, I mean, maybe it was made clearest to me. is the way that he described men like Rockefeller, Morgan and Gould in that you imagine these are people who sit atop these national empires. And we'd be saying, no, really. Right. He's saying what they are is they're the biggest guy in every small town. It's just the same thing. He just happens to be the same big individual, but his empire, the empires are not, if you know, they're not like efficiently. And I'm trying to think of the the right word, but even intelligently, not quite the word that I'm looking for, but run. ⁓ It's like a confederation that happens to all be run by the same guy, even in these major business empires. Right. think confederation is a great way to describe what he's talking about here. And the way he talks about politicians in this era of the island community, where your local politicians are the ones that matter. in your day to day life. And yeah, you're electing or the legislature is appointing ⁓ national politicians, but you don't really expect much out of them at this point. ⁓ They don't really seem to expect much out of themselves at this point either, according to Weeby. And so that's part of this as well. Like you have the big fish in the small ponds with the industrialists, and then you have politicians who are sent to Washington. but don't really affect the day-to-day lives of their constituents. Right. Yeah. mean, it's a, um, I, I think of, you know, it also happens to be, and, know, and this is maybe a, you know, where sometimes I think we can look at an era where something is starting and think that everything before this was this way. Right. Um, this is an era where Congress is incredibly powerful. And so it might, a few times that I was reading the book, I was like, well, yeah, okay. Maybe this is a signifier of an island community, or maybe it's just the fact that Congress has all the power. And so it's hard for national leaders to emerge out of Congress in the same way as like, or when they do, they're different from the president. And I think the way he talks about this also shows, like you mentioned earlier, he's not a political historian. He's not ⁓ invested fully in studying Congress in this era. And so the way that, the way that he's looking at this, which is important in all the texts we've read, but the angle that he's coming at this from discounts what Congress is doing in this era. Yeah. I mean, he, he is definitely, and again, and I don't want to go too far here because I think it's easy to Like characterize him as sort of somebody who's a champion for Herbert Crowley or, know, a champion of even Teddy Roosevelt. ⁓ he's not, he's not, he doesn't have that. He retains the skepticism of progressive's ability to actually accomplish what they assume they'll be able to accomplish. Right. then to do so. And then, and then it's another question of. can you do that and B is that is accomplishing that actually going to be good. Right. Right. But I, the, the no again, so the, I, the notion of the book is this, the island distended communities of the 1880s that by 1920, it's a nation. Right. Maybe not perfect. Maybe not perfect. but it's becoming a nation. and the bureaucratic state is the... is the, is both the engine and the, ⁓ the, consequence of that national state. Sorry, I'm filibustering while, ⁓ Marie, ⁓ unfortunately has, has to cough. So, ⁓ if anybody knows why does he, why is Rob still talking? He doesn't clearly have anything more to say about this is it's because I'm trying to, ⁓ to give Marie a few moments in, order to finish coughing. ⁓ but anyways, so But again, it's this idea that especially beginning with the railroads, the railroads begins to change people's like almost perspective on what is possible. It fundamentally changes their horizons, not only because it creates new problems, but it creates these new opportunities and it changes. There's this value shift between. ⁓ in the Island community, the people that come out of the Island community or that their consciousnesses, consciousnesses, think consciousnesses are developed through the Island community, have the values and the expectations of the Island community. The local business owner did got there through, you know, through hard work, thrift and intelligence. Right. know, ⁓ the, the. balanced budget is necessary. You know, if you can, if you, need to balance your household budget and a nation needs to balance its budget, right? That there's these values that emerge out of the Island community, ⁓ that is okay to have a national government operating like that, provided the nation is one of Island communities. And the going back to the railroad is so important because that's what brings these island communities together. Like the businessmen in these towns view the railroad as this economic opportunity. And at first people in the towns themselves view it as economic opportunity, but they have this idea that they're going to own the railroads, that they're going to have some stock in this and some say when the railroads come through their towns or, you know, right up at the outskirts of their towns and they don't, they don't. These are They become monopolies. They are nationally owned. This is where you get those big industrialists like focusing their attention. And so as the railroads create a more nationalized country, just by experience and by connection, you also have workers who are becoming a little dissatisfied with how they're being treated and townspeople becoming dissatisfied with the fact that they don't have say. They don't have say over prices, they don't have say over necessarily where the railroads built, and they don't have that local control. And so he brings in like the beginning of this descendant society comes with the panic of 1873 and the railroad strike in 1877. And I think he does a good job. I mean, if you didn't have background on the railroad strike, he kind of skims over it if you want to dig into that. But overall, the way that he puts it into the story is important. because he's talking about these wildcat strikes that break out along these railroad lines in a way that strikes hadn't broken out before because it's not exactly national, but it's the closest that people had seen up to that point, we'd be saying. And so it really places this as a, I mean, the railroad strike of 1877 is extremely important for many reasons, but he places it within this context of showing the country what was possible. Now he says that after the strike, people say, okay, this is a one-off, this isn't going to happen again. And so they don't really focus on this labor unrest for a while until it heats back up, especially right after a little bit during World War I. ⁓ But he is able to show that at least workers are seeing some kind of regional, maybe not national, but regional power in these cases or the potential for that. even if it's not successful at the time. And so you do have this kind of what he's looking at as this, the railroads are creating this kind of national identity, regional identity there. Right. And the response of, you know, for lack of a better word, capital to this is something that's only possible now in a more connected society. Exactly. Exactly. So the actual, ⁓ the retaliation or the response is also only possible because of, ⁓ because of this, the Island community is breaking down and becoming more connected. Right. Yeah. You have the federal government sending in troops. have these companies that are hiring and building up their own armies in some cases. And so that, yes, you're absolutely right there. You cannot have that without the breakdown of those communities. so, ⁓ again, it was one of those books we could talk about endlessly because again, there's so many fun little rabbit holes here that we can hear that we could really get into. Right. but I want to leave some time at the end for rabbit holes, but, how does he, you know, we, we talked about populism, how to, Maru, what's your thought on how He thinks of the populists and how does he describe them? I mean, he says they're trying, like he would describe them almost the same way to same way that Hofstadter described the old middle class. Like he thinks they are the nostalgic ones looking back, trying to recreate something that cannot be recreated. He does not have a lot of respect for the populists. He thinks, I mean, he says multiple times that they were completely unsuccessful. He does talk quite a bit about the populists because how can you write about this era and not. And they are the first who are trying to create, I mean, in a way they're trying to unite ⁓ farmers or workers in a national or regional way. But he says that they're constantly looking back at what had been. And they want to preserve like local farmers in this local community. They want the railroads to be localized. They want to be able to have that control. And so they're asking for things that What I got out of it is we be a saying are possible at that point. Like they're asking for a time period that had passed. Right. They're trying to save the, their values, their horizons are entirely shaped by the island community. Right. And they're trying to, if they're seeking national power, it's to protect the island or the island community. Right. And in some ways. This made me think of Holly's argument for like the Louis Miranda's ⁓ wing of the new freedom under Wilson, you know, Holly argues that one of their, were trying to protect the old form of competition and they wanted a bureaucratic state in order to protect that old form of competition that they were familiar with, maybe from the island community. Holly, of course, doesn't use that term. Right. ⁓ But that. There is, and so there in that notion, you know, maybe Hawley might come in and say, and this is not what Weeby says, but Hawley might say that in fact, the way that Weeby describes populism, the new freedom is the next form of populism. Or the next- Yeah, I can see that. ⁓ But, so anyway, so. I mean, he doesn't have a whole lot of, he doesn't, he doesn't, he doesn't have disdain for the populace. We should be clear. No. Yeah. Yeah. ⁓ but he doesn't, he doesn't respect their, ⁓ maybe quasi utopian, ⁓ romanticism. Right. And that's how he writes about it almost is this utopian idea. I mean, he just, it's like, he's a re he's writing about it as if he's a realist. In an age where they're idealists and it just won't work anymore. And that time has passed. And he has the same thing to say about Henry Demers, Lloyd and like Bellamy. Right. He considers that that like a utopian age. He almost looks at his populace mayor is like a utopian age and the. In the progressives in the cities or the ones that are the kind of the leading reformers, maybe in the cities. are no less utopian than the populace. might have different ⁓ visions for what that looks like, but it's utopian. Right. But that's, and, know, to some degree, maybe Hofstadter could agree with that. But then it changes. Right. According to Weeby. And the moment you start having this young, upwardly mobile, well-educated professional class and to Weeby, the key is they're clustering. Yes. Yes. Right. They're clustering in urban areas. So whereas before, if you were in an island community, you might be the one doctor. Right. Or the one lawyer, one or one of a couple of lawyers in town. ⁓ you know, the one teacher, ⁓ actually has a lot to say about teachers. Yes. And you may be the one doctor, the one lawyer, the one teacher who's never been to school, who in the lawyer's case may be paid off a judge to get your license or to win cases. You're a doctor who studied under someone else who was a doctor who studied under someone else who was a doctor in your same community. You don't have this national. Yeah, it's quack all the way to it. according to Weeby, absolutely. And I would agree with that interpretation. ⁓ And then with teachers, he describes it as either. I'm trying to think of the word he uses, ⁓ but either like ⁓ a curmudgeon, curmudgeonly old man. ⁓ or a woman trying to find a husband. Yeah. So he uses these kind of two descriptions of who would actually become a teacher. There's no pay. There's very little training. Sometimes you've just had a bit more school than your students. Maybe you can read a few more books than your students can read. ⁓ but absolutely no training, no longevity. These students are not, I mean, teachers come and go. It's just not a good profession until it is. And then when he starts. I do like how much he talks about teachers in the academy. I mean, we're academics, so of course we like the emphasis on the importance of the academy. But it is very important to him as universities change and as they have more degrees and more elective courses and an educational experience that looks a lot more like today, that teachers are an important part of that and become more important as you have attendance laws and as you have ⁓ high schools become much more important and much more, I mean, academic in a way where you didn't have high schools before in any real sense in these Island communities, you had to send your kids away or hire a tutor. ⁓ or maybe there was a high school that some kids went to, but it wasn't ⁓ mandatory at that point. And so as education evolves and you see the profession evolve alongside it and it becomes a profession. Yeah. And, ⁓ again, so you get, ⁓ young professionals clustering and I, I just, I love this. He basically, like, he refers to like, you know, the, the most professional teacher you are likely to run into in the Island community. And the example he gives is Ichabod Crane. Yes, that's what I was thinking of. That's the term that I was thinking of a moment ago. Ichabod Crane. Yes. Yes. Like kind of a weird outsider. You know, but he would have been the most professional teacher, but the island community never would have really accepted this person just like, like, a crane. Right. And so he maybe would have been transient. Right. And if you might be fortunate enough to study under this guy for a few years, but he wouldn't, it wouldn't be a formal professional education. No. ⁓ And yeah, and so the, and, without the railroads, people can't cluster. Right. These professionals can't cluster. And I think we can all understand what that's like. mean, um, you know, one of the reasons that, you know, we historians have professional conferences is so that people in certain fields, you know, we're accustomed, even though, you know, if you're a historian in the history department, you you might be surrounded by historians, but, um, you know, if you're a a historian of South Asia at an American university, you're probably going to be the only historian of that era, of that field in your department. Exactly. Right. So, you know, the history departments to some degree might be an island community. Little island communities. And you're right. That's why we have our conferences. So we can... be with other people who know the same things we do, talk about the same things we do, and guess nerd out in a way. ⁓ know, our colleagues may be interested in what we say, but they don't understand, and for good reason. I mean, we're specialists in our field, so everybody can't know everything. And it's interesting when I talk to our Asian historian about his work, I don't have the context though, you know, and just like with me. ⁓ I hope that he's interested when we talk about my work. But he doesn't have the same context. And so you're absolutely right. Like we get together. And that's what was beginning to happen in these, like this distended society as the young professional classes growing this bureaucratic state is they start to get together. You have the formation or really the consolidation of the American Medical Association, of the American Bar Association, where these become professions. They are trained. There are expectations. They're trained at national institutions. So they have medical journals, they go to conferences and this evolves over time, of course, but they are also jumping out of those Island communities. Right. ⁓ again, when, I want to be conscious of time here, ⁓ Marie, when, before we jumped on you, you, you mentioned the important, the foreign policy piece of, because this work is so It's 50, you know, it's, uh, you know, 43 years of coverage and each, you know, we can, and I know that you and I, especially coming out of Woodward can really dig into the populism stuff and could really dig into the early progressiveism stuff. Um, you know, and we're skipping over a great deal of stuff here. So again, I mean, we, we, but let's talk about foreign policy, which are two of his last three chapters, I think on foreign policy. Yes. So going into this book. knew it was about the Progressive Era, knew his basic argument. I was very surprised how he tied the bureaucratic state to foreign policy. It clicked once I read through these chapters. I think it made sense. I think he had a good argument. I'm sure there are lots of holes you could poke in it if you like for someone who knows more about the imperialist age in American history. But I thought it was really neat how he talked about you can't have an American empire. if you don't already have the administrative state, you cannot administer the empire. can't, if you don't have a national identity to administer it with. And so he builds on the idea that not only are they reformers within the country, but in a way they reform and create a solid American foreign policy. You know, first with the Roosevelt corollary with the Roosevelt, who you mentioned earlier, he is not a champion of Roosevelt. And the first time he introduces him, I think it's the first time he says, man who loved to kill other men. Just thought, okay, so I know where this is going. But you have this experience, like Roosevelt was that young progressive, the young professionals rally behind him. They really see potential there. And then you have this man who had these goals already. Like he wanted power. He believed in a strong Navy. He believed it was necessary in order to, ⁓ expand in any way and he sees an opportunity there and he has the bureaucracy to do it. He has the support and he has that budding bureaucratic state in order to do that. And so he's going to take advantage of that and he's going to do it and that's going to mature with Wilson in World War I. And so we're going to see that he, and again, I mean, it's short. He covers a lot of information in two chapters of a, you know, 270 page book. So he is cutting it short, but there's a lot there. lot, absolutely. And ⁓ one of the things, you what he's, kind of argues and, you know that you might explicitly do it. I'm, I'm, I may missed it again. There's a lot of arguments in this book. So, sometimes like every sentence is important and I can't recall every sentence. Right. So, ⁓ he might've actually argued this. don't remember it, but he might've actually argued it. I already didn't take note of it if he did. is that the, the closing of the frontier in the end of manifest destiny, you know, which has been used by a lot of historians to sort of argue that, okay, now that the frontier is closed, now America looks abroad. Right. Right. And, and there is, you know, certainly some of that. Right. In this. And so he might've made that argument that it's actually the closing of the frontier that again, kind of the end of the island, you know, now the island communities start coming together a little bit more. It's pushing outward. Now we're consolidating and then there's this push outward. that in that era, foreign policy, there was no such thing as foreign policy. Right. As close as you got. Yeah. There's diplomacy. Right. But like Americans didn't particularly you know, didn't take it all that seriously. The Monroe Doctrine, you know, was, was gospel, but nobody really knew what it And nobody thought of it beyond like Monroe's statement. And that, you know, it was, it was only really with the progressive era that you start to get experts again, thinking about these issues, working together. And I mean, one of the things that really like struck me, um, Again, he might be cherry picking his evidence here a little bit. But even if he's cherry picking, and it's still kind of stunning, is that so many of the secretaries of state are just patron. It's not even that they aren't even. They're they're bad patronage appointments. It's not that they're patronage appointments. It's still a patronage spot. But they're bad patronage appointments. And it's because the presidents are like, who cares? Right. Right. We stayed out of foreign affairs, so we don't need these people. I was surprised by that as well. I mean, I don't know if you were surprised by it, but I thought that him bringing that out, that these are patronage appointments, they're not good at their jobs, there's no clearly defined foreign policy for them to work toward. I thought that was really interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way. And I don't know that I've read anybody who's talked about it that way, but he made a good argument. He did. I don't know that it stands up to scrutiny, but he makes a good argument. Yeah. I think you're right that he's cherry picking his evidence there, especially with Brian. I felt like he wasn't fair to Brian. Exactly. Yeah. And, you know, and I'm not saying every pick, every secretary of state pick was astute. You know, you take a look at James Blaine. mean, maybe James Blaine was not a diplomatic expert when Garfield appointed him to the secretary of state. But you could look at James Blaine and go, this is the most competent man I could put in cabinet. So I'm going to put him in cabinet. And you know, and yes, when Arthur becomes president, Blaine kind of has to go away and Frailinghausen becomes secretary of state, but Frailinghausen is also a very capable guy. And, and then Blaine comes back with Harrison. You know, and so, I mean, I'm drawing a blank on who Cleveland secretaries of states were, and maybe they weren't inspired choices. But I mean, James Blaine, at least, and Fraylinghausen are pretty strong secretary of state picks. and he's blaming the, I mean, he does, he makes them out to be kind of bumbling and just not up to the job. But if you don't have a clearly defined foreign policy for them to work toward, They will come across that way. And that's not, I think that's unfair. And this is actually one of the things that maybe I, ⁓ you know, as a business historian, I was a little surprised by it because, you know, business historians of the period understand the importance of Blaine's reciprocity treaties. and, ⁓ you know, the, Wilson Gorman tariff has some effect on that, but it was a little bit anyway, just a little surprised by that. And I think he, I think he really just dislikes Brian and I think he maybe allows that to go too far. Yeah. Yeah. And it may go back to the populism. And actually to be, and you're just going back to populism for a brief second. I don't dwell on it any more than we already have, but you know, He is not, he doesn't hold populist with disdain, but he holds William Jennings Bryan with disdain. Yes. I think that he makes that click. And he is not the only one by the way. All right. Right. ⁓ no. So, ⁓ all right. ⁓ but anyway, so I guess we should finish the thought on foreign policy, ⁓ that it becomes like this professional thing. You know, the ⁓ really towards the end, World War I kind of forces it. Right. And losing Brian, Secretary of State. But ⁓ there is this, it's becoming formalized by the end ⁓ of the 19-teens. Even if he continues to be kind of critical of some of the way that Wilson, you know, the way that foreign policies administered, but there's this, know, we're going to go through these bureaucratic formal procedures. And he talks about how mobilization for World War I was easier than maybe it should have been, but you don't, again, he comes back to the bureaucratic state. You don't have a successful mobilization in the time that it took us to mobilize, which again was surprising considering where our military was at, at that point. But you don't have that without this push for reform in the bureaucratic state. just coming, him tying that together. When I teach the Progressive Era, I teach imperialism and progressivism. You know, we separate it in a way. It's all the same time period, but we talk about it differently. And him putting that all within the same context, I thought was just, I really, really liked that. It really challenged the way that I teach and the way that I think about these things. Even if he cherry picked his information, I wouldn't take it all at face value, which I think he did. I think that's fair. ⁓ I do think he makes that, ⁓ like a well-connected argument there. I think it is. Yeah. I think he's really good. ⁓ all right. ⁓ two things I want to, I do want to leave time for rabbit holes, but before we go any further, ⁓ we did want to say, you know, one, one of the main criticisms of this book is, is who's left out. ⁓ yes. Not everybody, know, this is mine. Women and minorities are not ignored in this book, right? But they are definitely not driving the bus. No, and very little agency, very little agency here talking more about what's happening to them. mean, he does talk about Jane Addams, but again, it's if women are able to reach professional heights that they seem to be important to we be. And it is a short text and you know, we can't be critical of book that we wish he had written and didn't. I don't think that's fair. But the fact that he gives them no agency is definitely a detriment and something that scholars have built on and criticized him for since it was published. I mean, it's controversial and part of the reason it's on comps list is because people like to argue about it. And so I think that that's one of the legitimate criticisms because he did have some of that information available. Not all of those sources were available and he's not really relying on primary sources and to bring those voices in would have taken him, he would have had to do primary source research at that point in the sixties. But still to bring none of them in any meaningful way, even though he talks about them as groups. I do think, I mean, I think it made the argument a little weaker. does. mean, he also, and again, It's a book where like the women's Christian temperance union of the progressive era has very, there's very little, was surprised to hell, little of it. Saloon league, very little of that now. If I were to defend we be on it, it said he doesn't really look at the moralizing of the progressive in the same way as he's looking at the efficiency. And so he's a business historian. He's looking at this from an efficiency perspective. Whereas, you know, for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly because of where they were, you know, where women were expected to be in society at the time, that women are primarily when they, you know, that women's politics is being channeled through these moral campaigns. Right. These women's issues is what they can, you know, they're allowed to champion in a way is how it's being talked about. And for many women that was. you know, unfortunately or not, for better or worse was what they were pushed into. Like those were the, that's where they were pushed into those areas. And you're absolutely right. That's not what he's, he's, that's not what he's talking about. you're seeing the same thing. know, and again, I, I, this book is a very political book. There's lots of politics in this book, but you know, your point earlier, he's not a political historian is I think really important because he doesn't just like, there's a lot of political dis... A lot of stuff that political historians would have spent a lot of time on that he doesn't. Right. So for instance, yes, he talks about civil service reform. Right. But he doesn't really dwell on it. No. Right. No, it's just a step toward the efficiency. Right. Political reforms. He talks about them, you know, but there's not a lot in there. And so Marie's coughing again, so I'm going to continue to filibuster. And, you know, maybe we can talk more about, I'm so grateful for an earlier era because it allows me to filibuster like this. And that, you know, it gives me a standard where I can just keep talking and talking and talking. know, I'm never going to, you know, I technically can't, I can't lose the floor. but I am sorry. thank you for filibustering. I'm trying. ⁓ but anyways, the, My daughter doesn't like when I talk very long. this is, this is, this, this is a, you know, this is healing for me. but by not emphasizing, and again, it's, it's, it's a matter of emphasis. It's not a matter of ignoring it. It's a matter of emphasis. He does a lot of the political reform stuff in order to make things more democratic, in order to have things more transparent, in order to make things fairer. There's not a lot of emphasis on it. And so I think what that also does is it acts probably not purposely, but it excludes a lot of what's going on in black communities at this time. Yes. Yes. And Glenda Gilmore writes in Gender and Jim Crow, which I did read for my comps list and it's just a great book about black women's societies in this era. They are working. are organizing. Like she's writing in the nineties. And so I understand that more has been written and she's got more secondary sources to work with, but they had, they existed, you know, or we could have looked at these organizations because they are very political. They are very political and they are working on these, you know, more moral issues in a way, but they're there. They're organizing. right. mean, that would be a good book to go to if you want more information. about this. again, this is where and actually, and one of the other things that he doesn't really talk about is law and order. Yeah, yeah. Right. And so one and again, here's another way that this can kind of manifest itself in act in being exclusionary. And I'm giving Levy, I'm assuming good faith on Levy's part, that he wasn't trying to do these things that just kind of happened. And maybe if he'd written the 1500 page book that we didn't that we would like him to have read, it might have been there. But by not talking about law and order, one of the ways that, know, Glenda Gilmore emphasizes the role of black women societies and black women activists in the 1890s and early 1900s is in the lynching. Right. Issue. And so because he's not talking about law and order, lynching doesn't really come up. Right. Do you remember him mentioning lynching at all? don't remember him mentioning it. That's why I was careful in how I said that. Because I didn't, you know, when you read a book, don't remember it either. Okay. Fair enough. Well, then if he did, it would have been in passing. Yeah. Not significantly. So again, you know, and again, that's not the focus of this book. Right. Right. So we should be clear, but again, you could have written this similar book about lynching. Yes. That emphasizes lynching. Yes. And the anti-lynching campaigns. mean, you know, in which case. Ida Wells would have been a prominent, you know, or Du Bois or Du Bois engaged with Du Bois. That's a big, that work was there. Right. But again, because he's focused on this creation of the efficient, bureaucratic national state, right. It, ⁓ some of these topics and some of these topics and by ignoring some of these topics or, ⁓ sidestepping some of these topics, he ends up ignoring hugely important consequential groups of people or individuals and groups of people. Right. fun rabbit holes. have anything? Do you want to start? Sure. I'll start. He in, what if it's into one of my favorite parts about his is some of his, They're not big intellectual histories, but they're like little short intellectual histories scattered throughout. And one of the things is he's talking about the kind of the progressive intellectuals, everybody from, you know, from Bellamy to Dewey to, and everybody kind of in between. he says like the political, maybe not so much Dewey, but the earlier groups who are not thinking about, ⁓ just process. He kind of sees a lot of these progressive historians just focus on process. And they just assume that if the process is good, the outcome is going to be good. But they don't really have a place they're going towards. Right. And that's one of the things that he kind of criticizes these young professional progressives for. ⁓ But the intellectuals, the ones who are, you know, who kind of have these broader ideas that are trying to frame the discussion. He says, you know, there's huge changes between the 1880s and 1900 in how they view the world. And he generally says they're in a good way. But they're all trapped in these notions of stages of history. And every one of them has stages in a history that they imagine their process they're proceeding through. Right. And that really hit me. I like that. I mean, he's absolutely right. Yes. Yes. I mean, you know, whether it's Karl Marx or Frederick Jackson Turner, right. There's always state all the way up to Ross style, you know, in the fifties. It's stages of history. Right. Right. They all have different stages. all, some of them have dozens of stages. Some of them have like three, you know, but they're everything's, you know, everything is this iterative process of one stage to the next stage. And then he says, and you know, there's nothing, it's all linear in these thinkers minds. There's nothing concentric about it. Right. It's all linear. And he says, and the closer they think they are to that stage that is utopia, the more defensive they all get of any deviation. Right. Or the more worried they get of any deviation because it's going to prevent against that getting to that utopia. Right. ⁓ I like that. I like that idea. I think that my favorite part is how much optimism he puts on the young professionals and I think you can see some parallels between young voters in the early 1900s, young voters in the 1960s who are looking for change, and young voters today who are looking for change. And so seeing that through line there where you have energetic, like a really energetic, young, new class of people who see potential for themselves, who are optimistic about the future and are going to vote that direction, no matter if they're voting for Theodore Roosevelt or Kennedy in the 60s. ⁓ They're looking for something different. And in this, in Weeby's case, I think he explains how maybe what they were like, and this is true in the sixties as well. They didn't get exactly what they wanted. They were a little more idealistic, which is kind of building on what you said, but they were a little more idealistic than ⁓ perhaps the men that they put their faith into were. And so I liked, I love studying voters and I liked seeing that through one young voters are going to push for change wherever they can for better or worse. Um, but he writes about them as very optimistic that that change is possible. And I think that's hopeful. Cause I think we see that in the 1960s for sure. I think you could argue that young people are hopeful young voters are hopeful today. Um, and maybe that's because when you're young, you have to be that way. You have to be, you have to say, okay, there's something in the future for me. But I like how we be centered his young professionals as that group of people. And obviously, while we talked about, he's leaving all of these voices out and they're pushing these politicians as well. But I just, really liked the idea of these young professionals who want to see change. They're building on that and they push their political leaders forward because the political establishment did not want Roosevelt. They did not want Roosevelt. No, they did not. And it's by accident they get him the first time. but it's those progressives who are pushing for him the rest of the way. Right, and of course, and this is what's, again, building your point, these young progressives who are obeying, compassionate, and view themselves as grand humanitarians, I think, as a general rule. I think so. Put their faith in one of the most hyper-violent men you could possibly imagine, in Teddy Roosevelt. It's incredible. Right? The way that he describes it, I don't remember the name of the person who did it, but he was some young progressive. When he found out that Roosevelt dies in 1919, he just collapsed into a pillow and wept. Yes. Yes. He said that people across the country were weeping. And like, you know, like that guy? Right. And that becomes their progressive hero. Right. It's incredible. The, the, yeah, the arch imperialist ⁓ Hunter again, but, ⁓ anyway, he, it, it, it's just this fascinating dissonance that I think, you know, will always remain relevant in that, you know, that, and, and this is, think where, where we be talks about, know, that, that, that youth, that passion, and this is maybe one of the warnings that he's giving people in the 1960s is like, yeah, ultimately. Your horizons will be determined by the leaders you choose. Right. Right. While you choose to invest in. Yes. And like Roosevelt was young. He was passionate. He wanted power. He knew how to legislate. Like he wrote a lot of his own legislation. He believed in the bureaucratic state and like on the surface, that's what they wanted. Just like on the surface, Kennedy was what they thought they wanted. And that, that changed. mean, reality sets in and those men are not the heroes that they that they thought they were. And I agree, it's a warning in a way to the youth of the sixties. And, you know, Lyndon Johnson. Here's a man who voting rights act, civil rights act, you know, architect of the great society. But he also believes in a war in Vietnam. Right. Right. And. you were, and if you're a young, idealistic person in the mid 1960s. That might be hard to square. Yeah. And it was, it broke the Democratic party in half in 68. So it absolutely was, ⁓ I mean, again, those solutions are... the Republican party in half. Exactly. There we go. We found the three line. There we are. All right. Well, Marie, we've been going on for an hour and 10 minutes. ⁓ Let's, think we can, we can give the poor listeners a bit of a break here until next time. Yes. But Marie, anyway, I really enjoyed that. And thanks very much as always. Thank you.