The inauguration of John Adams took place the city of Philadelphia in the House Chamber of the Congress on March 4, 1797. As David McCullough in his book John Adams, paints the scene, “There was a burst of applause when George Washington entered the room…More applause followed the appearance of Thomas Jefferson…[A]nd `like marks of approbation’ greeted John Adams, who on his entrance in the wake of the two tall Virginians seems shorter and more bulky even the usual.”These three men, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, are the preeminent American Founding Fathers. The occasion of the inauguration of Johns Adams was last time that all three appeared on the same platform. Many people attending the inauguration suspected as much.
The reputations and popularity of different American heroes ebb and flow as the times seem to demand the different qualities associated with different Founding Fathers. Perhaps the reputation of George Washington alone has remained stable over time.
For a country that was largely prosperous and self-involved over the last two decades, Thomas Jefferson seemed a likely icon. The brilliant and articulate Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was the most rhetorically gifted of the three and could be idolized in an age of glibness. In an era devoted to self-improvement and “self actualization,” the expansive curiosity and intellectual depth of Jefferson was a perfect fit.
Jefferson’s recent popular decline and Adams’s ascendancy began with John Ferling’s book, Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, and Jefferson and the American Revolution. George Washington is portrayed in Ferling’s book as heroic if sometimes bumbling and stiff. His popular stock remains stable. Jefferson’s brilliance is painted in contrast to his glaring failings: his irresponsible extravagance, his affair with a slave in his custody, and his refusal to free his slaves upon his death. Jefferson’s stock falls into a recession. Adams plodding constancy, particularly in foreign affairs, as well as his simple honesty supported a more bullish assessment.
Nonetheless, of the big three, Washington, Adams and Jefferson, John Adams is perhaps the least known and least understood, that is, until David McCullough’s new book. John Adams has been on national bestseller’s list for months. Despite the book’s over 700 pages, McCullough’s adroit prose and command of illuminating detail make the book a joyful read.
What is perhaps least known about Adams is his success in foreign affairs. During the Revolutionary War, Adams endured a dangerous ocean voyage beset with threats by the British and a torturous overland journey to represent US interests in France. While there, Adams worked first to gain support from the French in the War of Independence. After the French entered the war on the side of the Americans, he toiled to keep the French from negotiating a separate peace with Britain at the expense of American interests.
Unlike Jefferson’s, Adams’s personal life is a model worthy of emulation. He was a devoted father who lived simply and focused on the education his children. Adams’s relationship with his wife, Abagail, is legendary. Although Adams’s work for the United States and the slow transportation of the time sentenced the couple to months and even years of physical separation, their voluminous correspondence revealed an intellectual, emotional, and physical intimacy that anyone would envy.
Whereas Jefferson’s profligacy in book purchases was just one extravagance of many, Adams built an enormous library. When Jefferson died his estate was so worthless he could not free his slaves without burdening heirs with debt. Through frugality, wise management, and without the aid of slave labor, Adams left a substantial estate to his family.
McCullough’s book demonstrates that Adams’s simple virtues strike an important resonance with contemporary Americans. Unfortunately, the recent attack on America has probably jolted the country into a different mind set. We will now look for leaders and models with martial rather than diplomatic virtues. Adams’s popular ascendancy may be short-lived replaced by America’s first war hero, George Washington. Perhaps the public will even reach beyond the generation of the Founding Fathers, to Abraham Lincoln who led the country through its darkest times.
Unafraid to Identify Islamic Terrorism
Sunday, October 28th, 2001The Reuters News Service instructs its correspondents to eschew the use of the word “terrorist.” Correspondents may quote others using the word, but they cannot exercise journalistic judgment and use the term directly. After all, according to Reuters, one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter.” This is a new policy, since Reuters had no problem accurately characterizing Timothy McVeigh, the person who set off a bomb in a Federal building in Oklahoma Building killing many fellows citizens, as a “terrorist.”
In its defense, Reuters claims it is trying to avoid the use of “emotive” words and employ more descriptive ones. Well, this begs the question since the word terrorist is also descriptive. So what words are they substituting instead of “terrorist?” They are using words such as “bomber” or “hijacker” as if these words carried no emotional content. No, there is something more behind Reuters’s decision.
It would be easy to ridicule Reuters for its inability to identify a “terrorist.” Surely there may be cases where people might differ in their judgment, but it seems the deliberate act of slamming civilian aircraft into the World Trade Centers, killing thousands of civilians, is easy to identify as the act of “terrorists.”
A little cynicism may be in order here. Reuters is an international news service that seeks to expand its market. Calling a “terrorist” a “terrorist” may bother some Middle Eastern news consumers. Reuters is simply trading a little journalistic integrity for market share. This is not an unheard of exchange. Greed may not be noble, but it is, at least, understandable.
The Religious Newswriters Association and the Society of Professional Journalists have no similar excuse when they advise journalists to “[a]void using word combinations such as `Islamic terrorist’ or `Muslim extremist”’ lest someone believe that all Muslims are terrorists or extremists. Surely this is political correctness gone awry.
It is certainly the case that mainstream Islamic teaching is fundamentally inconsistent with mass murder. Nonetheless there are strains of Islamic fundamentalism that endorse and use terrorism. These strains are sufficiently prevalent that they pose political threats to Islamic countries like Egypt and Pakistan. Indeed, the clerical leaders of one such strain, the Taliban, rule Afghanistan with a religiously gloved iron fist.
It is not insensitive journalists who have attached the modifier “Islamic” to “terrorism.” It is groups like “Islamic Jihad” and the Taliban who have seized the traditions and history of Islam for their purposes. The US is not at war with Islam, but there are certainly Islamic groups who are at war with the US.
The term “Islamic terrorist” is accurately descriptive and informative no matter how uncomfortable that makes some feel. Such a term no more implies that all Muslims are terrorists than the phrase “American steelworkers” implies that all Americans are steelworkers. If it were not for the traditional Islamic respect for learning, perhaps we in the West would not have had the benefit of Aristotelian logic to understand this simple point.
The source of the recent anthrax attacks in the US is still not clear. The Washington Post has reported that “right-wing hate groups” are suspected sources. Does that phrase imply that all right-wingers are haters? Of course not.
This mania for political correctness, to avoid offending Muslims even when there is no real offense, potentially corrupts journalism. Journalists often call the subjects of stories to provide them an opportunity to correct inaccuracies or to respond to comments by others. However, they would never allow any outside groups to be involved in the editorial process. The Society of Professional Journalists would rightly never suggest that the military should “review…coverage and make suggestions.” Yet, this is precisely the oversight function that the Society of Professional Journalists believes “targeted” groups should have.
In an effort to appear objective and impartial, journalists are being asked to contort their normal processes for seeking the truth. Sometimes, speaking and writing the truth forces one to be on one side. Live with it. As Winston Churchill said, “I cannot undertake to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire.”
References
Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »