And Hilarity Ensues
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Reflections in History's Mirror, September 4, 2012
This review is from: Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers (Paperback)
Created for their single semester Harvard course for training political decision makers, authors Neustadt and May's historiography focuses on a several recent American turning points and examines how historical precedent either did or could have persuaded those involved. The book intrigues on multiple levels, first as a comparison between similar events, second as a profile of the personalities involved such as Kennedy, LBJ, Reagan and Carter, third as a set of methods for outlining perspectives and finally, even though the book is 26 years old and predates the collapse of the Soviet Union, the subjects discussed such as health care, social entitlements and military confrontation are still relevant today, even more so today in light of the 2012 election cycle.
Any methodology has the benefit of crystallizing the issues. N&M's approach advises the guarded use of analogy. Having selected one of more exemplars they suggest outlining the similarities and differences between them and the current situation. Since our knowledge of events are incomplete, categorize features as "Known", "Unknown" and "Presumed". Instead of describing the problem, an approach that might bias the conclusion, tell the story and tell it from the perspective of different actors. In addition to asked the 5W's, ask "Alexander's Question" - what new information might challenge the "Presumed" items and lead to a different course of action. Additionally they recommend "Placement" - creating a timeline of events in the lives of key players in order to understand their motivation. The technique is nicely summarized at the end of the book.
The case studies are marvelous and include LBJ's intense use of placement as a political tool (allegedly saying: I never feel really comfortable with a man unless I have his pecker in my pocket), the wide range of historic parallels used by Kennedy's emergency cabinet during the Cuban missile crisis, Truman's extensive knowledge of and ability to ability to apply history without which he is easily misread, and the key insight into Reagan that he was influenced positively by the New Deal and had a deep and genuine admiration for FDR's approach to leadership. Another good case was the debate and planning for the 1977 Swine Flu (more recent examples would be the preventative regime implemented to combat SARS or the awareness campaign and infrastructure created in reaction to AIDS) which was strongly linked to the pandemic of 1918 which killed a half million Americans and had more victims by the end of WWI than the war itself! N&M also unkinde to problems of the Carter presidency which they viewed as technically motivated and, beyond the imagery of the 100 day post-election "honeymoon" which resulted in an overly ambitious program that failed to pass, did not employ historic analogy. With his tendency to sermonize they likened Carter to a Baptist preacher, surrounded by like mannered people, who tended to assume the moral high ground rather than constructively engage with others, an example being his treatment of German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Like FDR he engaged in fireside chats with the nation, but whereas FDR was uplifting, Carter's broadcasts were more downbeat and depressing. N&M also focus on the failure of the SALT II disarmament talks and Carter's fractious relationship with leading Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, but surprisingly neglect what was, at least on first inspection, his major success, the Camp David Accords.
I was especially intrigued by the rivalry between Francis Perkins, US Secretary of Labour during the Depression and WW II and Mary Anderson, Director of the Woman's bureau and subordinate to her. The two came from different backgrounds but had similar feminist ideals - yet Anderson made the tactical mistake of alienating Perkins by accusing her of betraying ideals, which she was not rather than working within the framework of finding common goals. The result allowed Anderson to keep her position, but damaged her advancement.
The last chapter is a paean to reading history and makes a number of excellent though ambitious recommendations. The authors tend to favour accounts written by individuals close in time to events, especially autobiographies, ie Ulysses S. Grant , or wielding influence such as Churchill , rather than recent historians who run the risk of layering too much hindsight based on outcomes. The book informs, entertains and elevates the level of discussion leading one to seek out similar approaches to historic interpretation.
A great read and highly recommended.