In search of American Voices

It is, perhaps, fitting that on this 9/11 anniversary I've been planning content for my up-coming American Government course. I'll be teaching the L2 undergrad course at Reading University from next month, covering the usual bases - the separation of powers; who does what and how; the Constitution; parties and elections; 'big government'; States' Rights; interest groups; the media; capital punishment; civil rights; social policy and religion.

I have 66 eager undergrads signed up for the course. Most are British; the rest Continental European and very few have spent any time at all in the US.

My experience of teaching US politics over the last few years with similar groups is that they're generally quite liberal and find it easy to be antagonistic towards the US - while admiring its business ethics, much of its culture and many of its individuals. It's an odd mix that's often based on kittle understanding that US culture is quite different from ours in Europe.

I'm hoping to aid the understanding of my students a little more this year by introducing some 'American Voices' into the lectures. Beyond the usual textbook and assigned scholarly reading, I'd love students to hear from 'real' Americans who live and breathe the impacts of US political decision making every day.

I would like them to hear views on the death penalty and gun control for instance from the kinds of articulate, erudite Americans I've spoken to over the years; the kinds who've shared their views with me on both sides of the debate. I'd like my students to understand why the Constitution matters so much, given that in the UK we have no written constitution and seem to have a much more malleable view of constitutionally-based issues politicking.

I would love to know how gay marriage and Obamacare are playing in Peoria. It would be great to find out what being 'libertarian' really means to Joe from LA or Jessie from Idaho and my students would gain a great insight from understanding why and how religion matters if you're growing up in the Heartland.

I'll be putting out some feelers to my own US contacts over the next few weeks - I'd love to collect some audio files, perhaps some very basic videos or even have someone Skype direct into my class. But I'm very open to speaking to new contacts and building a range of real American Voices into my classes.

In many ways there appears to be a widening gap between the US and Europe. It can be narrowed through mutual understanding - and the best people to do the narrowing are the next generation of leaders and influencers.

So, if you're an American willing to engage with some 19-20 year old British students about one or more aspects of US politics, please get in touch. You can email me at m.j.shanahan@reading.ac.uk

Thanks in anticipation for your help

When writing, never stop reading

The thesis is hovering around 43,000 words at the moment. I write a bit, read it back, chop, pinch, style and rephrase. The intro, chapters three and four and part of chapter one are now there, with plans for all the other pieces of the jigsaw.

I've had good feedback on the two completed chapter drafts from the wise and exceedingly kind Dave Nichols, which will help strip out some of the chaff from the wheat (although the word count may well take a knock). In having a paper accepted for publication, I've also received good feedback from Andy Polsky at Hunter College, CUNY. Andy's editing the book I'll be published in, and sent back his comments with the advice: "Probably you will feel a little bruised and battered after you see the edits.  Ice helps, either applied directly or consumed in a stiff drink, American-style."

Actually, his editing was crisp, his cuts made sense - and other than the Americanization of some of my very British observation, we have very little to argue over. Compared to the evisceration I've seen applied to other colleagues' work by 'helpful editors', Andy's shaping of my work was relatively mild and positively beneficial.  

Anyway, while I write, I still read. At the moment, I'm working my way through Jeffrey Frank's 'Ike  and Dick' which is not bad on Nixon, but presents a rather hackneyed caricature of President Eisenhower. In fact, Frank might as well have called it 'Ike and Tina Turner' for all it contains that's new, interesting or particularly realistic about POTUS 34.

As I'm teaching an Eisenhower summer school at the moment, I'm also re-reading Dave Nichols' excellent 'A Matter of Justice'. In terms of Eisenhower, this is everything that Mr Frank's book isn't. While it's not as well known a title as Nichols' study on Ike and Suez, 'Eisenhower: 1956', it's a thoughtful, incisive and meticulously researched study that recognises that the 1950s were very different from the 1960s, and that Eisenhower's cautious steps forward towards ending racial inequality were very necessary in enabling the groundswell for change of the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies.

Having spoken at the Ike Reconsidered conference back in March, which was organised by Andy Polsky, it's perhaps not surprising that I'm also reading his 'Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War.' It's a work that those currently in the White House and Pentagon would do well to read on their holidays this summer.

The big push starts here

The good news is that last week, my PhD research was 'Confirmed'. In Brunel terms, that means it has cleared the last internal gate and the next steps are submission and my external viva. Being grilled for around 90 minutes last week by two internal examiners (plus my two supervisors chipping in on occasion) resulted in my hypothesis being seem as viable; my methodology sound, my timeline realistic and my writing to date (approaching 40,000 words) up to the expected standard.

I didn't by any means nail the internal viva - the feedback was that I was still, in part, too journalistic, while paradoxically, not being sufficiently sharp on how my work will make a significant contribution to Eisenhower/early space scholarship. I thought I was being both polite and measured, and was desperately attempting to avoid the accusation of 'showboating' that I've been subject to before. It seems like I'd dialled down my performance just a notch too far.

Still, the whole point of the confirmation hearing is to get practice for the external event. I've learned quite a lot, and hope I'll be able to apply it when the time comes - some time in 2014.

The bad news is there's no time to rest on my laurels. On the way up, Confirmation feels like a big thing. Once through it, one realises it qualifies the Confirmed candidate for nothing. I have one core section out of three written and revised. I've started on the major context piece. The consequences are still some way off. I have anything from 40,000-60,000 words still to craft, polish and set.

It seemed that all my hard work was leading up to last Friday's event. The reality is: the really hard work starts now.

I like Ike - and when it comes to space, I'm not so keen on JFK

This should be a rather less muffled version of my first attempt at TV punditry.

Walter Cronkite, Patrick Moore and James Burke can rest easy

I had an interview filmed at the recent Ike Reconsidered Conference. Somehow, I think my days as a TV pundit will be brief - though kudos to the editors for actually getting some sense out of my musings. You can see me here.

US Diary - reflections

It's a week now since the 'Ike Reconsidered' Conference in New York, and I've actually been back in the UK since Monday. It worked out cheaper to stay in the US 'til Sunday, so I enjoyed the great pleasure at the end of the trip of a free day in New York City. The feedback from the conference has been great - my presentation went down well and my work seems to have picked up an appreciative audience. To an extent, I was preaching to the Choir, but it's a reall buzz to get a positive response to my thoughts on Ike from a very knowledgeable crowd.

As is my great pleasure, I set out relatively early on Saturday morning and just walked: miles and miles, stopping to browse in a Barnes and Noble; taking a look in the wonderful Art Deco lobby of the Chrysler Building and skirting the rather ghastly Times Square.

Given my history leanings, I'd always wanted to visit the USS Intrepid, nudged up to the edge of Hell's Kitchen on the Hudson River. I spent a good couple of hours looking round the WW2 carrier and its aircraft displays.

After that, it was back to Times Square to try and get hold of a ticket for one of the major Broadway Shows. The queues were a killer, so I headed direct to the Richard Rogers Theatre and bought a ticket for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

The theatre, which feels just a bit run down, wasn't quite full, and the play has had mixed reviews. But, aside from Ciaran Hinds' Big Daddy starting with a significantly more Belfast than Southern USA accent, and Scarlett Johansson gabbling a few too many of her early lines upstage, I thought the performance was mesmerising. Back at the hotel about 15 hours after setting out for the day, I still couldn't get to sleep.

Sunday morning, I breakfasted with the estimable Dave Nichols before we shared a cab to Penn Station and I started my trip home - via DC. My journey back was ridiculously expensive, thanks to getting a cab from Washington's Union station out to Dulles (when's the subway finally due to reach the airport?), but it would be churlish to complain about a terrific week including great research, a superb conference - and the chance to see Scarlett Johansson looking deliciously sultry.

Reconsidering Ike

Sometimes you just get a sense that everything that you've done in your research is leading to one day; to one event; to one moment. On Thursday, I reached that moment. The morning was tough. The Ike Reconsidered Conference didn't start until 2pm and I wasn't needed there until 1.30 (I was on the first panel). As has been the habit of the week, I was awake really early and watched the sleet drift between the high rises of Lexington Avenue. I walked to find where I needed to be later in the day, catching myself thinking of the slight unreality of being on Park Avenue when my research life resides in Uxbridge. I breakfasted at a diner, smirking wryly at its name : 'Heaven' and taking note that the hard-working New Yorkers whisking coffee, pancakes, eggs, toast and the rest between, around and to the tables had their roots in South Asia, not in the waves of original immigrants that have made NYC so unique. It was good to see: this city evolves.

The rest of the morning is spent pacing my room. Checking and rechecking my notes. Everything about me is nervous. All I can do properly is pace.  

Finally, suited and booted, I headed for The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute. Roosevelt House - yes, where FDR and Eleanor lived along with his mother Sara, a matching pair of townhouses now owned by Hunter College and restored as a teaching and conference venue. The great and the good trooped in: academics; a few students; a lot of grey hair and the odd Eisenhower, a Brownell and even a guru or two. As I took my place in the front row, a small man moving slowly with a wheeled frame and a carer arrived and sat behind me: Fred Greenstein: guru.

So, that first panel. Faced by more Eisenhower talent in one room than I've encountered in the past four years (that's not true: it's more Ike interest and knowledge than I've encountered in my life). Faced by more undistilled Eisenhower expertise than I'm ever likely to see again. Faced by TV cameras, a stills man and a see of expectant faces. I wasn't too worried. Ben Greene was going first. I could sit back for a little while, gather my thoughts and learn. So Mike Desch, chair of Political Science at Notre Dame, takes the podium and introduces us...and switches the order. Now I'm first. The Conference's first speaker. The token Brit. The warm up act before the serious business takes over.

I grab my notes and bottle of water and head for the podium. There's a little added tension as the organisers fail at first to load my slides. Then I'm off. 12 minutes. I'll be counted down at five and two. Once I'm running, I'm fine. Professional habits take over. There are a couple of half-jokes, well received. It's boo Kennedy and hurrah Ike. I conclude. There's applause and smiling faces in the front row. I sit down. Have I passed the test? Am I now in the Eisenhower club?

My next moments of fear: the discussants stand to forensically chew over our papers. I've been the first of three and the first discussant is Yanek Mieczkowski who has just published a book seemingly at the heart of my area. He's going to slaughter me. He'll expose my thin veneer of knowledge; my charlatan status as interloper in the academic world. But he's kind. He's insightful. He's generous - he 'gets' what I'm trying to do. And then Mike Desch. He has criticisms and they're justified, but he picks out lines of the writing for comment. After years of being warned to curb my 'purple prose' (and God knows, I tell my students the same), here's a political scientist rolling a phrase in his mouth like a fine wine. And it's my phrase and it's deepest ruby red.

The questions come - and they come to me. And I know the answers. This is working. I'm actually in my element and I can deal with this. I'm not out on a limb. My paper dovetails with those of Ben and Zuoyue. Clever organisers. I'm less good in the sum-up, undercutting my own point. But I still leave the stage on a high. Was it any good? I haven't checked back yet. Apparently it'll be preserved for posterity here.

At the break, people come up to me and say how much they enjoyed the paper. Even guru Fred. I can't help grinning. The event continues and the calibre of speaker and quality of presentation keeps on climbing. This is my great opportunity to sit at the feet of real Eisenhower knowledge and absorb.

We're well fed with the great and the good of Hunter and the - it has to be said - dwindling Eisenhower community. The night is about straight backed men and women who fought Washington's good fight - alongside or opposed to the General. There aren't too many left. I cherish their experience.

Yesterday was more of the same - but this time I could just sit back and enjoy. David Eisenhower is both genial and wise (and looks scarily like his grandfather). Ann Brownell adds colour and context. I record a short video piece at lunchtime - I hope the editing is kind.

Dave Nichols, perhaps the foremost Eisenhower scholar currently in the field introduces me to people as his protégée. I could not have a wiser, kinder mentor.

We finish with a reception. More handshakes, more fantastic contacts, more kind words. The pub is mooted, but I collapse onto the bed as soon as I get back to the hotel. 12 hours on, I'm still buzzing.