This post is part of a series that takes a closer look at the scholarship behind IU Press Journals. Primarily written by journal editors and contributors, posts may respond to articles, provide background, document the development process, or explain why scholars are excited about the journal, theme, or article.
Only a year and change into the 45th presidency, and many of my comrades on the Left, of all stripes, are tired. Protests and letter-writing campaigns continue, as do marches. The Left is doing serious soul-searching, churning as usual in self-criticism. Many people – on the Right as well as Left – see this moment as an opportunity to live consonantly with their politics – or “getting woke.” As much as we’ve seen an explosion of discussion and public discourse about gender and race and sexuality on the left, we’ve also seen the galvanization of white nationalism (some of whom being for the President just “good guys”) on the right. Politics has never seemed like harder work. It feels, many of my peers would argue, exhausting. It is – because politics dissonantly occupies so many spectrums and registers of life.
Painfully, the register that is most visible, governance, is so far removed from the wishes of the majority. Governance at the highest levels, in America and elsewhere has many countries experiencing new, violent forms of reactionary populism, as in Hungary, the Philippines, and Israel. In my JML article, “What’s Left of Feelings? The Affective Labor of Politics in Doris Lessing’s The Golden Notebook,” I argue that Lessing captures the labor of political feeling, and the feeling of political work, largely in an adaptation of the myth of Sisyphus that preserves optimism against cynicism.
It has become frightfully easy to become cynical, but we are also living, perversely, in an era of optimism. Not optimism as it might manifest rhetorically, speaking of resolution and progress and development, but rather, optimism as performed in the contemporary work of politics. People write letters, and call senators. Communities organize marches, and teens start lecture tours. Alliances are formed, nurtured, and critiqued. Any utopian bent seems stymied by the sheer weight of the darkness of the present.
Similarly, The Golden Notebook is about living with calamity: the calamities of World War II, of colonialism and the African colour bar, of global inequity and Communism and Stalinism, of patriarchy and personal dissolution. At the very beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency, it was widely circulated that The Golden Notebook was amongst his favourite books. The New York Times speculated that it was because it was about a woman’s effort to “articulate her own sense of self” (a rather bland evaluation of the novel). At the end of his presidency, as Malia headed off to college, he loaded a Kindle with books for her. One of those selections, he explained to Michiko Kakutani, was The Golden Notebook, a book “that...[is] not on everybody’s reading list these days” and “which might not surface when she goes to college,” but which he remembers being powerful and affecting.
Admittedly, I rarely see it on colleagues’ syllabi, but I’ve taught the book twice, and students are challenged by its length and its nonlinear composition. But they’ve also found it really rewarding, and a touchstone, opening discussions about the vitality of female friendships, the unique challenges of mothering labor and work-life balance, as well as the tension between the individual and the collective.
Sometimes the work of the academic literary critic is far simpler than we’d like to admit: it’s a cry for others to read the things we’re reading, join in a conversation with us, and be affected like we were affected. And in moments of political crisis, we could do little better than harken back to writers like Lessing – or for that matter, Nadine Gordimer and Richard Rive – who represent ways through crisis and suggest paths that permit responsible hope that the forces of nationalism, racism, and xenophobia will once more be suppressed.
James Arnett is an assistant professor of English at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.
A message from Alvin Rosenfeld, director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism here at IU:
Last Tuesday’s New York Times carried a lengthy front-page story entitled “Threats Leave Jews on Edge in Trump Era.” And on the same day, the USA Today ran an equally prominent story with the headline “Jewish Communities Besieged by Vandals.” Both stories and numerous others like them deal with the upsurge in anti-Jewish hostility in multiple locations around the country. Jewish institutions in some 33 cities have been targeted for bomb threats; about 100 of these attacks have occurred over the past several weeks. And, to everyone’s concern here, Indiana has not been exempt from this hatred: Indianapolis’s Jewish Community Center was targeted with a bomb threat, and a synagogue in Evansville, Indiana was shot at just last week. In addition, Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in Philadelphia and near St. Louis; swastika daubings have defaced Jewish properties in several cities; and some of America’s campuses are rife with angry and aggressive anti-Israel and antisemitic activities.
In short, anti-Jewish hostilities in America are on the upsurge and, to date, law enforcement agencies have not been successful in stopping the spread of this hatred or in identifying who is behind it. Just how bad it is likely to get, no one can say for certain, but the signs at the moment are not good and lots of people out there—Jews and non-Jews alike--know it.
At such an ominous time, serious teaching and scholarship on antisemitism have been lacking. Fortunately, Indiana University is an exception. Our Institute for the Study of ContemporaryAntisemitism (ISCA), which I direct, is one of only two university-based centers in this country that focuses systematic, high-level research on contemporary antisemitism. In addition, IU Press is emerging as our country’s leading academic publisher in the field of antisemitism studies with the on-going book series “Studies in Antisemitism” and, launching April 1st, the new journal Antisemitism Studies. Anyone who wants to understand the return of anti-Jewish hatred into the public sphere – what motivates it, how it manifests itself, who its major actors are, how it both resembles and differs from the past – will benefit greatly from the work that ISCA and IU Press are doing.
Now Available:
Deciphering the New Antisemitism
Edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld
European Muslim Antisemitism: Why Young Urban Males Say They Don't Like Jews
by Günther Jikeli
Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives
Edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld
Radical French Thought and the Return of the "Jewish Question"
by Eric Marty
Translated by Alan Astro Foreword by Bruno Chaouat
Dreams Deferred A Concise Guide to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Movement to Boycott Israel
As an embedded journalist in Afghanistan, Douglas A. Wissing wanted to know the ground truth about the war. What he discovered was that in contrast to the victory narrative US officials were trying to spin, America's strategy in Afghanistan was failing. His most recent book Hopeless but Optimistic: Journeying through America’s Endless War in Afghanistandetails the greed, dysfunction, and waste that he witnessed.
Wissing's book concludes that the US should end its involvement in Afghanistan and let the Afghan people run their country as they see fit. But just last Thursday, Army General John Nicholson's told Congress he needed more troops in Afghanistan.
We asked Wissing to share his thoughts about General Nicholson's request for additional troops, what mistakes the US has made in the Afghanistan War, and why he wrote Hopeless but Optimistic:
Why did you choose to embed in Afghanistan, not once, but three times?
I initially embedded in 2009 with an elite team of Indiana National Guard farmer-soldiers, who were on a WHAM (military-speak for “winning hearts and minds”) mission in insurgency-wracked Khost Province, located in the volatile eastern Afghanistan borderlands. Their agricultural development mission intrigued me. Could you actually do development work in an active warzone? And would the US counterinsurgency strategy with its richly funded aid, development and nation-building component prevail against a traditional tribal society that has a storied thousand-year history of defeating foreign invaders?
I already had some experience in central Asia from my research for Pioneer in Tibet, a biography of a famous American missionary-ethnologist who lived in a wild part of Tibet during the Great Game era. A few years before 9/11, I had also traveled through northwest Pakistan’s restive tribal regions, where I garnered some understanding of the obdurate nature of the Pashtuns, who were then fighting the Soviet-backed Afghan proxy government. So I knew the US was facing a tough challenge.
During my first embed, soldiers revealed to me that the US counterinsurgency was grotesquely wasteful and riddled with corruption—so dysfunctional that our money was also financing the Taliban. We’d be out on missions in Taliban country and soldiers would be telling me, “We’re funding both sides of this war.”
I returned home and began digging through a mountain of reports while interviewing hundreds of people, from generals and ambassadors to combat soldiers, government bureaucrats and contractors. After a lot of deep diving, I realized there was a toxic network that connected ambitious American careerists, for-profit US corporations, greedy Afghan insiders—and the Taliban. I went back to Afghanistan, embedding with a number of units to confirm things. One day on an embattled forward operating base in Laghman Province, a smart intelligence officer said to me, “It’s the perfect war. Everyone is making money.”
That research resulted in Funding the Enemy: How US Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban, a meticulously footnoted critique of the counterinsurgency, which came out in 2012. Got media attention and had an impact on DC policymakers. But the war went on. Despite the clear indication that the Afghan insurgents were winning, the US government persisted with troops and goat-choking appropriations. Increasingly cynical soldiers on the ground repeatedly told me, “The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.”
As the US began reducing troop levels, I was struck with the writer’s delirium: I wanted to know how the story turned out. After all the revelations, the congressional inquiries, the damning indictments, I wanted to know if the system had reformed; had there been any lessons learned? And I wanted to know how American soldiers on the ground maintained their honor and cohesiveness fighting in a lost war. I wanted to know the ground truth.
So I went back to Afghanistan for the third time, embedding in the war zones of the east and south, then researching in Kabul, the besieged capital. I wanted to tell a broad audience of Americans what it is like to be in a failed war. What the waste of American blood and treasure looks like. To show the terrible prices of war. To rebut the happy stories told from podiums in Washington and Kabul that bear no relation to the reality on the ground. And I wanted people to know about the courageous and resilient Afghans, who are perfectly capable of making their own way in the world. The result is Hopeless but Optimistic: Journeying through America’s Endless War in Afghanistan.
When you were in Afghanistan, you discovered that the situation was far worse than what US officials were telling the American public. Give us some examples of the contradictions you saw in the official narrative versus what was happening on the ground.
The phrase “truth deficit” describes much of what the US officials promulgate about the Afghanistan War. In some cases, “alternative facts” and “fake news” are also appropriate. One reviewer compared my tales of government untruths in Hopeless but Optimistic to 1984. I can say there were definitely times when it felt Orwellian.
To give an example: Just before I left for my third set of embeds, marine commanders in Helmand directed a public affairs officer to write an article for Foreign Policy entitled “We are Winning the War,” which was quite simply not true. Saying it didn’t make it so. There were clear indicators to the contrary: insurgent attacks had increased year after year; the number of insurgents had grown each year since the US invaded; the Taliban-led insurgency held increasing amounts of territory, including a substantial part of the countryside; the Taliban shadow government operated in virtually all of the provinces, and essentially controlled many. The marines in Helmand had just suffered a Taliban attack on Camp Leatherneck that resulted in the destruction of six fighter jets worth $200 million, the biggest loss of marine aircraft since the Vietnam War. And as I am sure the marine commanders knew the long-promulgated Special Forces dictum: If an insurgency isn’t shrinking, it’s winning.
Despite the US officials’ flack-spin, the US government’s vastly expensive nation-building campaign is close to a total loss. When the US invaded in 2001, Afghanistan was a basket case of a country, at the bottom of virtually every human development indices: life span, infant mortality, electric generation, literacy, etc. Beginning in about 2005, an avalanche of US development money, eventually more than the Marshall Plan, flooded into Afghanistan, a country of about 30 million people with a per capita income of about $400 a year. Most of the money was wasted or stolen. Phantom aid, critics call it. Despite countless (and wildly expensive) rule-of-law and nation-building programs, the US-backed Afghan government ranks among the most corrupt government on the planet—a feckless propped-up proxy government. And fifteen years later, after hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars were spent on development, Afghanistan remains at the bottom of virtually every human development indices.
Your previous reporting on Afghanistan and your book Funding the Enemy criticized the US handling of the war. But ultimately, despite getting the impression that not everyone in the Pentagon was a fan of your work, the US military gave you approval to embed a third time. Why do you think journalists are allowed this kind of access?
Beginning with the invasion of Grenada, the Pentagon recognized they could shape media coverage if reporters were embedded with the troops. Firstly, the same intense small-group dynamics that bond warriors together also anneals reporters to the soldiers they cover. And the military can keep better tabs on journalists if they know where they are. Few people know the Pentagon has one of world’s largest public relations organizations, and the military’s control of information is legendary: the public affairs officers call the press briefings “feeding the chickens.” This skillful media manipulation unfortunately often results in coopted coverage. All too commonly, the Pentagon story becomes the unverified and uncorrected media story.
So why did the military let me back in for my third embeds after my critical coverage? Well, I can only conjecture, as those decisions are pretty opaque. I did get denied for embeds a number of times, and even had approved embeds later rescinded. After a while I let it be known that I was just going to fly to Kabul and try to get embed approvals there. I don’t think the military wanted me running loose, so the embed approvals came not long after. Secondly, I think people in the military knew the critical story I told in Funding the Enemy and other published articles was the truth. I have never had a soldier claim my reporting or analysis was inaccurate. To the contrary, soldiers were most often supportive of my work. I can say that once I was embedded, they were professional, and except for a few naughty (and scary) incidents, were as respectful of me as I was of them.
In your opinion, what are the US's biggest mistakes in Afghanistan?
Changing the mission from defeating the Taliban government to eliminate Al Qaeda safe havens to completely reconstituting the Afghanistan government with the aim of reshaping Afghan culture and society into a Western-modeled one. It was arrogant and doomed to fail.
Also, privatizing the war and its attendant development schemes. The post-9/11 wars became corporate profit centers. The US has never privatized a war to the extent it has in these post-9/11 wars. And the result has been disastrous. The cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is approaching $5 trillion, not including the decades of interest on the immense public debt. And despite the horrific waste of money and lives, the US has failed to accomplish its stated military or diplomatic goals in these countries.
Despite the seriousness of its subject, parts of your book are rather funny. How did you manage to find humor in war?
Black humor is certainly a part of any war, as MASH and Catch-22 can attest. Some of the funniest banter I have ever heard came over the intercom as we rolled through “Indian country” (Taliban-controlled territory) in giant armored MRAPs with machine gunners up in the turrets. Relieves the tension, and highlights the surreal disparities between policy and reality.
There’s a chapter in the book entitled “Shitholes,” which depicts the often-humorous toilet challenges faced by soldiers in a primitive, war-torn country. I confess, the chapter is potty humor. There are tales of poisonous vipers, hyenas and giant jumping camel spiders at the Porto-Potties; the marine ban on audible farting because of the dire political implications; discussions of front-line latrines built extra big so soldiers can defecate wearing their body armor; FUDs (female urinary devices) so female soldiers can use their “artificial weenis” to STP (military speak for “stand to pee”).
One dark morning on a hardscrabble forward operating base in Taliban-dominated Zabul Province, I was in the immaculately clean and brightly lighted latrine, a vivid contrast to the grim reality right outside. There were two young soldiers shaving at the long line of sinks and mirrors. One said, “Man, I had a dream last night I was in the shithole.” His buddy retorted, “What do mean ‘dream?’”
What common experiences do you believe soldiers of all wars go through?
While Hopeless but Optimistic is about the Afghanistan War and America’s 21st-century way of war, it is also about the universal experience of war: humans going to battle, learning to love and hate, keeping it together when all is going wrong, the terrible prices they pay, physically, psychologically, spiritually. It’s about humans in extremis; what we learn about others and ourselves when we go to war.
Why should the American public pay attention to what's going on in Afghanistan even if, as you write in Hopeless but Optimistic, “it's a war that [they] increasingly want to forget”?
Fifteen years after the US invasion, there are still almost 10,000 US troops on the ground, as well as over 26,000 highly paid Department of Defense contractors, and thousands of uncounted contractors working on development contracts. Additionally, there are large contingents of Spec Ops soldiers cycling through that are seldom included in the counts.
And the mission is again expanding. The US is now back to bombing; 300 marines are headed back to Helmand, where they shed so much blood during the surge. The Pentagon is now requesting “a few thousand more troops” to attempt to break the “stalemate,” the PR term that the military is using to describe the failed war. They want to continue the Forever War.
The Pentagon and Dept. of State are requesting about $44 billion for the Afghanistan War for Fiscal 2017, by far the largest part of the war-related budget. In contrast, military operations against ISIS in Syria are only budgeted for $5 billion. The Afghanistan War budget request is bound to go up if the additional troop request is granted. The $44 billion is a lot of money, which will also go to no good end. It is, as the soldiers say, pouring more money into the Afghan sandpit. Americans have far better uses for the money.
Beyond the monetary waste, there are the horrific human costs of the endless war. America’s military sons and daughters are being ravaged by the war. The VA is overwhelmed with record numbers of brain trauma injuries. There were over 1,700 amputees from the wars. PTSD is rampant among vets. And the burden of care most often falls on our military families, who struggle to assist vets wounded in body, mind and soul.
Caught in the crossfires and bombings, Afghan civilians are dying in increasing numbers. The UN recently reported that in 2016 3,498 Afghan civilians died from the conflict, and 7,920 were wounded, including 923 children killed and 2,589 wounded.
So that’s why Americans should pay attention to Afghanistan. A congressman told me that sometimes citizens have to shame their representatives into doing the right thing. This may be one of those times.
What do you think about Army General John Nicholson's recent request for more troops in Afghanistan?
General Nicholson’s recent request for “a few thousand” more troops seems to be the Pentagon’s opening gambit to get the Trump administration to commit to continuing the Afghanistan War. At this stage, President Trump’s plans for Afghanistan are very unclear. As a businessman, Trump certainly understands the dangers of a sunk cost bias. Why throw good money after bad?
What does the future hold for Afghanistan after the US leaves?
Many knowledgeable people, both Afghan and international, tell me they see a period of upheaval as the now-conflicted Afghan interest groups sort out their differences. There is consensus that the Taliban and other allied insurgent groups have to be part of the overall agreements. I find few who speak highly of the current Afghan government leadership. And even fewer who speak positively about the US counterinsurgency, which has so obviously failed.
The title of your book comes from a conversation you had with an Afghan government official. We’ve covered the hopeless part, so what is there to be optimistic about in Afghanistan?
The title, Hopeless but Optimistic, came from a meeting on a cold gray day in Kabul. I was interviewing a suave Afghan official in his gloomy office, which was sequestered behind high-security walls. His life seemed to embody Afghanistan’s turbulent recent history: His family fled in the 1980s to escape the US-supported mujahideen war against the Soviets and the subsequent 1990s civil war. Like so many educated Afghan exiles, he returned to Afghanistan after the Americans invaded with their troops and endless development money. He’d witnessed the corruption and violence that followed. Sitting dapper in his government sinecure, the perky technocrat was weighing his options as the American commitment waned. When I asked him about the future, he looked me in the eye and confidently said, “I am hopeless—but optimistic.” Another government minister wryly told me, “We are optimistic. We’re Afghans. What else can we be?”
Through my experiences with the Afghans, I believe they will work it out in the Afghan way if greater powers don’t continue to use their country as a place to wage proxy wars. This is a valiant people with ancient traditions, a beloved religion and a vibrant culture. They deserve some peace. As I have reported in Hopeless but Optimistic, I have witnessed sustainable, Afghan-appropriate aid and development projects done by relatively low-cost organizations with long experience in Afghanistan. Good work can be done to help Afghans improve their lives. There are alternatives to self-serving phantom aid that mainly benefits the already rich. Like the Afghans, I am hopeless, but optimistic.
Watch Douglas Wissing discuss Hopeless but Optimistic in this book trailer:
A month after the 2016 presidential election, President-elect Donald Trump is setting up his cabinet and preparing to transition his administration into power. But what sort of challenges are coming? We spoke with John D. Graham, the Dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs and author of two books on the presidency: Bush on the Home Front and Obama on the Home Frontfor insight on those quesitons.
Both of these books deal with the challenges presidents can face in domestic policies and local affairs. Graham answered our questions on how the Trump administration could navigate its upcoming move into power.
IU Press: As President-elect Trump looks past the transition into power, what challenges will he face in his first weeks in office?
John D. Graham: He could face a surprise. President Obama did. When his campaign positions were devised, President Obama certainly had no reason to foresee that his initial policy actions in January 2009 would focus on the rescue of failing financial institutions and auto companies. Obama claimed that voters repudiated the economic policies of the Republican Party, but he had no electoral mandate for short-term economic policies. Under the circumstances, his track record enacting short term economic policy should be judged as impressive. Obama’s deployment of executive powers in this period was masterful. He worked the informal collaboration with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke to help forestall a repeat of the Great Depression, to boost confidence on Wall Street, and to lower interest rates enough to help revive car sales and home construction. Trump appears to be inheriting a relatively strong economy but there may be other domestic policy issues lurking that will test him early in his term.
IUP: You’ve covered the “home front” efforts of Presidents Bush and Obama throughout their time in office. What similarities do you see in their experiences in office?
JDG: As President Barack Obama’s two-term presidency comes to a close, I am struck by a disheartening phenomenon that both Bush and Obama experienced. In football there is an infraction called “piling on,” but in politics there is no penalty for this behavior. I refer to the ease with which blame is assigned to whomever is the current president for virtually everything bad that happens in Washington, DC, or even in the country or world at large. That blame comes not simply from the president’s partisan opponents but from members of the president’s party as well. Trump can expect this to an even greater degree because of the divisions in his own party. The honeymoon, if there even is one, will be brief.
IUP: So, if he learns from the examples of presidents Bush and Obama, what should Trump do domestically in his first months in office?
JDG: In the book, I offer a series of lessons learned from the first months of the Obama presidency. Let me summarize two of them. Trump should begin his term with an initiative that appeals to his base. President Obama did this with the Affordable Care Act and the economic stimulus package. He compromised too much on the details to please some of his base but he was attuned to their priorities. Secondly, Trump should offer one or more legislative initiatives that appeal to centrists, especially initiatives that facilitate collaboration between pragmatists from both parties in the Congress. Obama didn’t do this. He was perceived as a transformational liberal because his domestic priorities were overwhelmingly progressive. One result of this was a series of legislative votes that resulted in enormous losses for the Democrats in the first midterm election in Obama’s first term. Obama would have protected his party by pursuing his agenda through executive action. Whether they like it or not, it is crucial—under conditions of polarization—for presidents to see themselves as leader of their political party as well as leader of the country. One of the fascinating aspects of the early days of the Trump presidency will be whether he sees himself as the Republican Party leader and acts accordingly to protect his majorities in Congress or whether he remains the outsider and lets the chips fall where they may.
This year's presidential election may produce an unintended consequence: the jeopardization of the filibuster. In this interview, IU Press author Richard A. Arenberg explains why the filibuster is in trouble, why it's important, and what needs to be done to safeguard this important political tool for future generations. Arenberg's book Defending the Filibusteris available now from IU Press. See the form below for your chance to win one of two copies.
IU Press: How would you describe the state of the filibuster today? What has led to things being this way?
Richard Arenberg: In November of 2013, the then-majority Democrats in the Senate used a controversial parliamentary gimmick to unilaterally reinterpret the filibuster rule by simple majority. By use of the so-called "nuclear option," they established, essentially by fiat, that a simple majority could cut off debate on any executive or juridical branch nomination (with the exception of the Supreme Court).
At the time, I wrote in the New York Times:
"The Senate Republicans, by blatantly and transparently obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominations, have goaded the Democrats into an historic mistake. To reach understandable ends, they have adopted tragically flawed means. By use of the so-called “nuclear option,” Senate Democrats have now established the principle that a simple majority in the Senate can change any rule at any time."
This places the Senate on a slippery slope. I have long argued, for example, that the arbitrary line drawn to exempt the Supreme Court, would last only until the next time that a president saw his/her nominee filibustered by the opposition in the Senate. We may well see this play out in January if the Democrats filibuster President-elect Trump's nominee.
For Democrats, if the current majority Republicans use the nuclear option to confirm Trump's pick, it will be the bitter fruit of the seeds they sowed in 2013.
IUP: Why is the filibuster important to American government?
RA: Because under the Senate rules, it takes a supermajority 60 votes to cut off a filibuster, the existence of the filibuster in the Senate serves to require the majority to work with a least a portion of the minority to get almost anything of consequence done.
In recent years, because of the intense increasingly polarized hyper-partisanship in the Senate, the rule has been frequently abused. As we argued in Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate, the solution is not to rewire the Senate rules. Eliminating the filibuster, in fact, would exacerbate the polarization in the body.
IUP: What needs to be done to restore the filibuster to full strength? Is there any reason that the filibuster shouldn't be strengthened again?
RA: Unfortunately, majorities seldom give back power. However, the rule was not changed. Rule XXII continues to state that it takes 60 votes to cut end debate and cut off a filibuster even for nominations. The interpretation of that rule could be restore by the majority. Currently "3/5 duly elected and sworn" (in other words 60) is interpreted by the Senate precedent to mean "a simple majority (51 or fewer if not all senators vote). You needn't be a math wiz or an English major to see this is ridiculous.
IUP: What would you predict as the immediate and long term future of the filibuster?
RA: In the short run, the future of the filibuster as it applies to the Supreme Court may be sorely tested. President Trump, in his first few days in office, will nominate someone to the Court to fill the Scalia seat.
Democrats are already rightly agitated because the Republicans have denied President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, even a committee hearing. This is totally unprecedented. As a result, many will feel that the seat was stolen away and that the Trump nominee is therefore not legitimate.
If Trump also puts forward someone who is an ideologue, outside of the judicial mainstream, Democrats will filibuster.
Depending on how unified and determined the Democratic filibuster under these circumstances turns out to be, it may unfortunately very well trigger the use of the precedent of the "nuclear option" so misguidedly created by the Democrats.
If this occurs, there is no going back.
Use of the nuclear option would be regrettable because it would signal to future presidents that with a majority in the Senate, they would be free to select partisan and ideologically pure nominees and ignore the views of the minority. This would greatly and permanently politicize the Supreme Court.
In the longer term, there is danger that if the Democrats fight aspects of the Trump agenda using effective filibusters, pressure will build on the GOP leadership to use the nuclear option even more broadly to squash the filibuster entirely, including on all legislative matters. I believe that senior members of the party will be reluctant to go that far, but, as the Albany Herald put it in an editorial this week, "what was once unthinkable has become thinkable, and what is thinkable is doable."
This would undermine the foundations of the Senate and leave it functioning like another House of Representatives. This would be a tragic and historic loss.
For more on the filibuster, enter to win a copy of Arenberg's book Defending the Filibuster below.
Earlier this month, Independent Publisher named the medal winners in its 20th annual IPPY Awards. These awards were established to bring more attention to the important work published by independent authors and publishers. We're pleased to announce that four IU Press books won IPPY Awards, including:
The medal-winning books will be celebrated May 10 during the annual BookExpo America publishing convention in Chicago.
Independent Publisher prides itself on "Recognizing Excellence in Independent Publishing," and we think these titles are excellent as well! Congratulations to our authors and their great books!
Kirkus Reviews calls Hamilton's book "a solid look at the thinking, actions, and failures from the Lyndon Johnson years to the present. . . . Hamilton's views on politicians might just renew some readers' faith in our elected officials. At once encouraging and enlightening, his writings stir hope, and what he says is still important all these years later. . . . The book—essentially an encapsulation of the author's philosophy of politics and politicians—is a good choice for those who want to believe in government again."
Happily Ever After The Romance Story in Popular Culture Catherine M. Roach
"Roach's attempt to do emotional justice to the genre should satisfy academics and fans alike." —Publishers Weekly
Catherine M. Roach, alongside her romance-writer alter-ego, Catherine LaRoche, guides the reader deep into "Romancelandia": the land of the romance fiction, a women-centered multi-million dollar publishing phenomenon that creates national and international societies of enthusiasts, practitioners, and scholars.
Congress, Presidents, and American Politics Fifty Years of Writings and Reflections Lee H. Hamilton
"Hamilton provides a solid look at the thinking, actions, and failures from the Lyndon Johnson years to the present. . . . Hamilton's views on politicians might just renew some readers' faith in our elected officials. At once encouraging and enlightening, his writings stir hope, and what he says is still important all these years later. . . . The book—essentially an encapsulation of the author's philosophy of politics and politicians—is a good choice for those who want to believe in government again." —Kirkus Reviews
The Dead Sea and the Jordan River Barbara Kreiger
"A rare natural, political, and human history . . . Remarkable and timely." —Booklist
"Students of the Middle East will doubtless find this exhaustive report on the history and geopolitical details of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River indispensable." —Foreword Reviews
The natural and human history of these storied bodies of water, drawn on accounts by travelers, pilgrims, and explorers from ancient times to the present.
Kaveena Boubacar Boris Diop Translated by Bhakti Shringarpure and Sara C. Hanaburgh Foreword by Ayo A. Coly
"A dark, ferocious novel that you won't put down unscathed, and certainly not any more confident in the goodness in the hearts of humankind." —Maurice Mourier, La Quinzaine Litteraire
In a civil-war torn nation where powerful men use others as pawns in a real-life violent chess match, the murder of six-year-old Kaveena and her mother’s quest for vengeance that brings about a surprise reckoning.
Utter Chaos Sammy Gronemann Translated by Penny Milbouer Foreword by Joachim Schlör
"First published in 1920 and set 17 years earlier, Gronemann's newly translated novel blends satiric humor and an eerie sense of foreboding in relating the efforts of European Jews to assimilate at a wildly contentious and confusing time. . .A free-wheeling Jewish comic novel before its time, this artfully contained commentary on Jewish life in Europe in the early 1900s makes a welcome reappearance." —Kirkus Reviews
The Tortoise in Asia Tony Grey
Based on a popular legend in Gansu, the far western province of China, The Tortoise in Asia recounts the exploits of Marcus, a young Roman centurion schooled in the Greek classics who, after a devastating loss in a battle with the Parthians, is taken prisoner, marched along the Silk Road, and pressed into service as a border guard on the eastern frontier.
1915 Diary of S. An-sky A Russian Jewish Writer at the Eastern Front S. A. An-sky Translated from the Russian and with an Introduction by Polly Zavadivker
In 1915, An-sky took on the assignment of providing aid and relief to Jewish civilians trapped under Russian military occupation in Galicia. The diary fragments within are vivid firsthand descriptions of civilian and military life in wartime.
Comrade Huppert A Poet in Stalin's World George Huppert
"Of interest to scholars of Austrian literature and history." —Kirkus Reviews
A historian details the life and work of Austrian communist and writer Hugo Huppert, a Jew, perhaps a relative, who embodies a distinctly central European experience of his time, of people trapped between Hitler and Stalin. Huppert tells a story of displacement and exile, the price of party loyalty, and the toll of war and terror on the mind of this emblematic figure.
Little Indiana Small Town Destinations Jessica Nunemaker
"Jessica Nunemaker has a gift for uncovering hidden gems in small towns across Indiana and bringing each community to life. The amazing stories and photographs in Little Indiana: Small Town Destinations will entice you to explore the Hoosier state and ensure you know the best places to stay, play, eat and shop in each town." —Ken Kosky, Indiana Dunes Tourism Promotions Director
Riley Child-Rhymes with Hoosier Pictures Indiana Bicentennial Edition James Whitcomb Riley Illustrated by Will Vawter Introduction by Norbert Krapf, former Indiana Poet Laureate
A must-have for Riley enthusiasts everywhere, this classic book has been faithfully reproduced for Indiana’s state bicentennial. Now with an introduction by lifelong Riley enthusiast and former Indiana Poet Laureate Norbert Krapf, this charming book contains 39 of James Whitcomb Riley's signature poems.
American Shame Stigma and the Body Politic Edited by Myra Mendible
Examining shame through a prism of race, sexuality, ethnicity, and gender, these provocative essays offer a broader understanding of how America’s discourse of shame helps to define its people as citizens, spectators, consumers, and moral actors.
The Well-Dressed Hobo The Many Wondrous Adventures of a Man Who Loves Trains Rush Loving, Jr.
"Loving’s sweeping and grand epic on the renaissance of American railroading during the last 40 years and the characters, both wise and foolish, who helped make it a reality should be on the bookshelf of anyone who loves railroading as much as its author." —Frederick N. Rasmussen, The Baltimore Sun
Now in paperback In the Shadow of the Shtetl Small-Town Jewish Life in Soviet Ukraine Jeffrey Veidlinger
Winner, 2014 Canadian Jewish Book Awards, history category
"Hitherto the story of the Holocaust in the Eastern European shtetl has been told by those who left—on behalf of those who did not survive. What do we learn from these stories told from the shtetl itself? In the Shadow of the Shtetl restores horror to the setting in which it occurred: at home, among familiar people and places. . . . In their accounts the everyday and the extraordinary, the innocuous and the gruesome are continually intertwined" —New York Review of Books
Zionists in Interwar Czechoslovakia Minority Nationalism and the Politics of Belonging Tatjana Lichtenstein
"It has long been known that unlike elsewhere in East Central Europe, for census purposes, Jews in Czechoslovakia were recognized as a separate nationality as well as a religious group. Tatjana Lichtenstein explores the ramification of this distinction for Zionists and their interactions with this state in important study of Jewish nationalism." —Harriet Pass Freidenreich, Temple University
Now in paperback Oscar Micheaux and His Circle African-American Filmmaking and Race Cinema of the Silent Era Pearl Bowser, Jane Gaines, and Charles Musser, Editors and Curators
"The 14 essays cover a range of topics, from overviews of black American performance and cinemas, to detailed analyses of Micheaux films, to thoughtful discussion of the work and impact of other groups of African American performers and filmmakers. The essays are lively and readable, casting light on an underrepresented fact of American film history.” —Library Journal
Expressionism and Film Rudolf Kurtz Edited with an afterword by Christian Kiening and Ulrich Johannes Beil Translated by Brenda Benthien
Expressionism and Film, originally published in German in 1926, is not only a classic of film history, but also an important work from the early phase of modern media history. Written with analytical brilliance and historical vision by a well-known contemporary of the expressionist movement, it captures Expressionism at the time of its impending conclusion—as an intersection of world view, resoluteness of form, and medial transition.
Speaking Pictures Neuropsychoanalysis and Authorship in Film and Literature Alistair Fox
"Very rich argumentation that progressively constructs its object, shifting with much skill from the conceptual elaboration of its global perspective to the various concrete examples of works approached so to give it flesh and blood." —Raymond Bellour, film critic, theorist, and author of The Analysis of Film
Music of Azerbaijan From Mugham to Opera Aida Huseynova
"In each chapter Huseynova combines historical context, cultural insights, and musicological analysis to create a study of musical and cultural fusion that is as compelling as it is informative. She rounds off the work with the re-staging of the Uzeyir Hajibeyli’s first mugham opera, played on the world stage with Alim Gasimov and Yo Yo Ma’s Silk Road Ensemble—a triumphant testimony to the power of cultural fusion." —Anna Oldfield, Coastal Carolina University
Accompanying audio-visual materials available here
A History of the Harpsichord Edward L. Kottick
A History of the Harpsichord brings together for the first time more than 200 photographs, illustrations, and drawings of harpsichords in public museums and private collections throughout Europe the United States. Edward L. Kottick draws on his extensive technical knowledge and experience as a harpsichord builder to detail the changing design, structure, and acoustics of the instrument over six centuries.
Writing Jewish Culture Paradoxes in Ethnography Edited by Andreas Kilcher and Gabriella Safran
"With its diverse chorus of academic voices, this anthology of new work on the cultural and literary history of Jewish ethnography is an extraordinarily rich, thoughtful, and engrossing text." —James Loeffler, author of The Most Musical Nation: Jews and Culture in the Late Russian Empire
Power and Change in Iran Politics of Contention and Conciliation Edited by Daniel Brumberg and Farideh Farhi
"By a wide margin, this book is the most sophisticated treatment of the internal dynamics and paradoxes of Iranian politics that I know of. The nuance, precision, insight, and details of the ebb and flow of the Iranian public sphere are what make this book truly unique. . . . The introduction is magisterial in terms of its depth, scope and objectivity. . . . The chapters flow well together and they are organized in an effective manner." —Nader Hashemi, co-author of The Syria Dilemma
“Are you a Eurosceptic?” is a question that is frequently asked by my students and clients. Of course, it all depends on your definition of Eurosceptic. It is in the nature of my job—whether as a teacher or as a consultant—to highlight the shortcomings, challenges and pitfalls of the European integration project, just like an American scholar or journalist might highlight certain inadequacies in the political system of the US. But does that turn those people into a “DC sceptics?” From this perspective, practically every citizen in Europe could be classified as a Eurosceptic. If your understanding of Euroscepticism, however, involves the belief that the interests of your country are best served by leaving the EU, then not everyone might subscribe to such a definition.
This is the choice facing the British electorate on June 23. What type of a Eurosceptic are you? The one who thinks that sovereignty is a zero-sum game and the more Brussels is organizing and controlling our lives, the less we are in control of our own destiny? The one who believes that European integration and the institutions and policies that it has created over the last 75 years have failed and that being a member in the EU no longer serves the national interest? Or the one who feels that despite the many shortcomings of the EU, 21st-century challenges can only be met through multilateral cooperation? The one who thinks that European integration does not imply a loss of sovereignty but the sharing of it with your neighbours? The one who believes that relinquishing a degree of national autonomy might still serve the national interest best?
Ever since Prime Minister David Cameron announced the date of the referendum, there have been feverish discussions in parliament, in the media, and among voters. The government, with the exception of a handful of cabinet members, is arguing in favor of staying. However, the ruling Conservative Party is very much split on the issue ever since the European Union moved onto a higher level of political integration with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. An outcome is very hard to predict, given the large number of undecided voters.
It seems odd that the concessions which Cameron secured from his European partners in the run-up to the campaign are almost immaterial. Some changes to welfare claims of EU migrants, an assurance that countries who opted out of the continent’s single currency—the Euro—will not be discriminated against, and a commitment towards a more competitive European single market have not made a significant impact on voters’ perception. What is at stake is more an overall assessment of the country’s relationship towards Europe. And here the battlelines are in the process of being drawn. The “remain” camp stresses economics: the fact that the UK can influence the regulation of Europe’s single market and can freely trade with its 500 million consumers. Leaving this market would result in job losses and a massive fall in prosperity levels. Every now and then the pro-camp also highlights security concerns from Islamic State terrorism to migration waves from the Middle East and Africa, which can only properly be addressed through a pan-European approach. In short, the EU might not be perfect, but it is certainly preferential to the uncertainties of a Brexit—Britian leaving the EU.
No wonder the “leave” campaign is mocking its counterpart by referring to it as “Project Fear.” Not at all, comes the response. Staying in the EU is more about “Project Fact.” And indeed, the Brexiters so far have failed to paint a concrete picture of what an independent UK would look like. Some would prefer the “Norwegian” option; being a part of the EU’s single market without being a member of the EU. While such an approach might free a country from the political subordination to Brussels, meeting single market regulations that are only set by EU members would result not in an increase, but most certainly a loss of economic sovereignty. Hence, the “Canada” option has frequently been mentioned: being outside and negotiating trade deals with the EU on an ad-hoc basis, as a quasi, free trader guided by the rulebook of the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, while trading inside the EU’s Single Market comes tariff free, the same does not apply to free traders and other WTO members where, depending on the type of product or service and the volume of trade, tariffs and customs duties apply. Not a problem, say the Brexiters: These increased costs will be more than compensated by the fact that the UK would now be free to negotiate its own trade deals and does not have to collaborate with EU countries on reaching agreements with the likes of China, India, and other emerging economies. As a result, new trade deals will be more in line with the UK’s economic strengths and independent from the trade agenda of the likes of France and Germany. There is, however, a significant level of doubt whether such a calculation would result in a net gain. After all, the EU is a powerhouse when it comes to world trade and thus has a significant negotiation leverage—something that the UK will struggle or even fail to achieve when going it alone.
Given the difficulties in establishing an economic case for Brexit, it is of little surprise that political arguments relating to national sovereignty feature prominently. And here the Brexiters might have a case. After all, while new EU treaties (as well as the accession of new members) have to be agreed unanimously by all member states, the large majority of EU legislation now only requires the majority of states (55 percent that represent at least 65 percent of the total EU population) as well as a majority of EU parliamentarians. This means that countries no longer have a veto, and on occasion, have to accept what others have decided. By being part of the EU, a country has given up a great degree of national sovereignty. On the other hand, leaving the EU would also mean a loss of shared sovereignty. On occasion, you will be overruled, but in other instances, your own view, once it has the support by most of EU countries, might be superimposed on others. Furthermore, the question of national sovereignty is greatly compromised by the way the world works in the 21st century. The Empire is no longer, and the days when Britain was a global power have long faded into a distant memory. Moreover, there isn’t a single European country that could call the shots when dealing with Russia, China, or the US. Collaboratively though, the EU might still have a voice in international affairs. Any notion of a perceived increase in national sovereignty outside the EU ought to take these matters into account.
Looking at the cultural issues, there have been waves of citizens from other EU countries who have settled in Britain during the last ten years, taking advantage of one of the founding principles of the European Union: the free movement of people. The UK’s population is growing fast: from a current 65 million to a predicted 75 million by 2050, with around two-thirds of the population increase attributed to EU migration. As a small island, Britain simply cannot absorb and integrate that many people. Overcrowded schools and hospitals and a continued housing shortage are cited, as are concerns about the national cultural character, where in the words of Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, in some parts of a number of British cities, English is no longer spoken. These sentiments are not new. In fact, they go back to a debate that the UK had in the late 1960s when leading conservative politician Enoch Powell called for compulsory expatriation. These issues also find resonance in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. But as far as numbers are concerned, only one-eighth of UK residents were born abroad, which doesn’t even make the country the most multi-cultural place in Europe (that prize goes to Sweden). Mainstream politicians often ridicule this perceived xenophobia and racism, which does not foster a productive debate about a cultural sense of belonging. Lamenting the rapid pace of change, the influx of new cultural, social and political norms is not necessarily racism. It could also simply be a concern about fundamental changes to one’s way of life.
But what is the alternative? Leaving the EU, regaining control over your borders, and thus controlling migration numbers? Unfortunately for Brexiters, migrants (whether from within or outside the EU) make a hugely positive economic contribution. They have a higher employment rate and thus place less strain on public services than “natives.” They fill skills shortages and quite often do jobs that Brits are reluctant to do. In short, continued economic prosperity without migration is utopian. But what about the cultural argument then? The world has moved on, and we no longer live in the 1950s. Life is now global, diverse, and multi-faceted, and even outside the EU, Brits will continue to embrace diverse cultural norms, whether it be through travelling, work, or personal relationships. Yes, migration has to be managed—if that is at all possible—in a fashion where people will not feel threatened and crushed. But migrants are here to stay and the sooner people accept this fact, the better.
On the other hand, despite what the “remain” campaign will tell voters, little might actually change with a Brexit. Migrants will continue to come. The EU will continue to influence UK politics, as it is simply too big a neighbor to ignore. Brits will continue to engage with Europe: the great British tradition of vacationing for two weeks on the Spanish coast will not disappear and neither will the consumption of Italian wine. And after a couple of years, even trade in whatever “Canadian” or “Norwegian” form will normalize. This to me does not seem to be the issue. It is the potential attitude of a population that turns its back on European collaboration, that reverts to national reflexes through which modern-day challenges such as climate change, migration, terrorism, but also, continued prosperity ought to be addressed. In an interdependent and constantly interacting world this seems a counterintuitive approach. The outcome of this referendum is difficult to predict, but one thing is for sure: Britons (just like other peoples) have changed with the times: Europe is a now a geographical and mental space that is occupied by these islanders. It is no surprise that particularly younger generations find it difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. Yes, the EU might on occasion be dysfunctional, but so is the Westminster system of government, so is Washington, and so is any other political system. The EU does not affect people’s lives in a manner that is negative enough to embark on such a fundamental departure—a change that above all cannot be spelled out in sufficient detail.
Andreas Staab is author of The European Union Explained and managing director of EPIC—the European Policy Information Centre, a UK-based consultancy on the European Union.
The Pakistan Journal of Historical Studies invites submissions for its second issue (volume 1, number 2, July–December 2016) which has as its theme, "Emotions, Humans and Animals."
Sponsored by the Khaldunia Centre for Historical Research in Lahore, Pakistan and published semiannually by Indiana University Press, the Pakistan Journal of Historical Studies is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that aims to develop critical ideas on less explored and innovative themes in social, cultural, art, architectural, political, and economic histories. For this special issue, the editors are interested in articles that explore the emotional relationships between humans and animals in any region and period. The issue is concerned with, but not limited to:
the study of emotions reflected in social and cultural construction of animals in human societies;
the use of animal signs for characterizing human experiences and metaphysical and religious ideas;
the association and disassociation of humans with animals in agrarian and industrialized societies; and
innovative theoretical and methodological approaches for studying the emotions involved in human-animal relationships.
The editors also interested in works exploring the post-humanist approaches which historicize the emotional behaviour among animals by moving beyond constructionism.
@iupress
Like us on Facebook
Read book excerpts
YouTube channel 
Podcasts